i don't know if that book was too early because it came after wikileaks and sort of when wikileaks was on the wane. but then, of course, wikileaks became very much news again in 2016. i don't know, i hope this book has better timing. >> i hope you're wrong about that, andy, because this book is terrifying. [laughter] i mean, the things that, i mean, the book really puts the risks of cyber warfare in a context, in a perspective that if you had asked me if these kinds of things could come to pass ten years ago, i would have probably laughed at you. at that time i thought of cyber warfare as really just a fancy term for espionage. this was pre-stuxnet which was this, you know, software created to infect the nuclear enrichment facilities. this was something that it really did seem like science fiction. but the book really captures the whole context of this. and so i wanted to start -- actually, i think the first question i should start with is the name sandworm. tell us about how, how your book came to be called sandworm. >> right. well, in late are 2016 after all of the 2016 election hack

and cryptography and the quest for conversation on the internet and these technologies that allow wikileaks to have them but now i don't know this will catch on but i remember writing i'm not sure this wiki thing might be overblown. like there's no point in the story of leaks and then i forgot everybody forgot that i wrote a book about the leaks lamented just kept coming and now it's part of the culture almost like generational of those millennia is one - - millennial's of post- millennial's this is a wonderful time to be a journalist one of the big stories in the news right now is about a whistleblower. it really took off so a few years later have you connected that if technology really did build a new sentiment of the leaker generation. >> i didn't expect to be talking about this book but it was mega leaks and with that data digitally and anonymously yes that is happening like the paradise papers that followed have dwarfed all of the leaks i wrote about in that book and continue with the exponential trend line that it shows we are in this new era of liquidated information that can be leak

. -- the dnc hack and the dumping through wikipedia -- >> wikileaks? >> yeah, wikileaks, in july. they get information that this somewhat vague statement was made in a bar. and they jumped right into a full-zale investigation before they even went and talked to the foreign officials about exactly what was said. they opened the investigation into the campaign and used very intrusive techniques. they didn't do what normally would be done under those circumstances which is to go to the campaign. and certainly, there were people in the campaign that could be trusted including a member of the senate judiciary committee and the governor of new jersey, former u.s. attorney. there were people to talk to. and what i find particularly inexplicable is that they talked to the russians, but not to the presidential campaign. on august 4th, brennan braced the head of washington intelligence -- he calls the head of washington intelligence and says we know what you're up to, you better stop it. he did it again later in august. and then president obama talked to president putin in september and sai

but the fbi regarded that as a tipping point given what it had seen about the wikileaks publication, what it knew about the dnc hack already. is it not reasonable that they thought given that they knew there was this extensive russian effort to intervene in the election, along comes somebody inside the trump campaign who says, we've got this information, possibly, i've been offered information or dirt on hillary clinton, is that not reasonable for the fbi to go ahead and say, we probably need to investigate this. >> that's why i expounded on this a little bit in the front end. the basic official version is that we thought the russians were hacking into the dnc and on july 23rd wikileaks dumped dnc emails. then a foreign official comes in and says, you know, back in may this guy said something in a bar to me, it was a suggestion, a suggestion. and before they even interviewed that person, they opened the a counter intelligence investigation on the whole campaign on the idea that this must reflect preknowledge of the hack. i'm saying that when you actually look at the surrounding circu

the russians were hacking into the dnc on july 23rd, wikileaks dumped the emails. you think of the a. >>>a.g.'s comments? >> the facts are very briefly we had been watching russian malign cyber activity from the fall of 2014. he knew the russians were coming after us, not just one intelligence agency from russia but two. we saw that activity directed at political institutions and think tanks into the beginning of 2016 and we find them stealing was in from the dnc and we see that information leaked on the eve of the democratic national convention for the purpose of impacting then candidate clinton. >> so it wasn't one guy in a bar? >> no. we don't find out about the guy in the bar until after the information is released and then we learn that the guy in the bar, george papadopoulos, made that statement months before. so he knew long before we did that the russians had made some sort of offer to the campaign to help by releasing derogatory information about clinton. that is undeniabe niebniable pr. >> on the day you're getting impeached from the white house, who do y

like all the rallies, he kept saying don't we love wikileaks? wikileaks is this or that.ll of a sudden the guy got busted for wikileaks and donald trump says i don't know anything about wikileaks. thank you very much. host: coming up at 9:00 eastern or so, the speaker of the house with an update on the impeachment process. we will have that live on c-span, c-span radio. --orting within the hour from politico with the headline, democrats offer clues about articles of impeachment. impeachment crystal ball, house democrats starting to show their cards about the content and timing of the potential impeachment articles. speaker nancy pelosi will deliver an update on the status of the house of representatives impeachment inquiry from the speakers balcony at 9:00 eastern. she will also participate in a cnn town hall tonight. they write this comes after yesterday's first dish year a committee hearing on impeachment were democrats displayed a chart that listed three topics that could form articles of impeachment. abuse of power and bribery, obstruction of congress and obstruction

the second case but i should cover is the indictment of julian, the founder of the wikileaks. this case poses complexities, he was indicted initially under one count of conspiracy to hack into sipper nets, this secret level classified network maintained by the department of defense. that charge is complicated because it included, it's a conspiracy claim and the increments of underlying that is solicitation of classified information. but it requires the government allege and prove an overactive service of that and that was to crack a password. it was a chink in the door. in that case. however, that one charge was then supplemented in an additional indictment last may with 17 charges under the espionage act. the 17 charges are not based on the password cracking allegation, and further three of the charges, and this is really what is relevance, three of the charges are based on what i have called a true publication theory. at the little legal, but what i mean is the government needs to show a guilty act. something that you do that triggers liability under the espionage act. that

and on july 23rd, wikileaks dumped d.n.c.n a foreign official comes in and says, you know, back in may, this guy said something, a suggestion, and before they interviewed that person, opened counter intelligence investigation on the campaign on the idea this must reflect preknowledge of the hack. i'm saying when you look at surrounding circumstances, that was a bridge too far. it wasn't reasonable for them to assume that and the proper response was to talk to the campaign, that is normally what would happen. this happens all the time in campaigns. straw donors and hanky panky going on. usually we don't assume as government the campaign is part of the plot. we say to the campaign, there are foreign people feeding money into your campaign and so forth. the idea that you only talk to the -- some american that involved here, if you are 100% certain that they are not culpable is simply not true. >> very quickly on this, i want to move on to other things. on the fisa application, document 17 emissions or errors of the initial three

the ates testified about president had the about wikileaks and about the nvitation for wikileaks to release information. sondland changed his testimony. we've gone to court. the administration has refused cooperate. the gentleman ignores those facts. they're facts. that are re facts generally accepted across the land. supportersse who are of the president. to have this discussion. they are going to have this senate.on in the but the president chose not to to defend the se allegation -- against the allegations. they weren't id going to participate. they had the opportunity. they did not take it. what happens from there. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the yielding, and i would not discount things like secretary from the of defense who, on october 7 of 2019 - october 7 of received a subpoena, and on 2019 responded. that's not delay. obfuscation. a week later they responded and said, the department is prepared the process consistent with long standing ractice and provide the responsive information should there be a resolution to this matter. later. a week that doesn't sound like somebody ry

is basic official version that we thought the russians and hacking into the dnc, on july 23, wikileaks bumped dnc emails. then, i for official comes in this guy you know, said something in a bar to me, a suggestion, before they even interviewed that person, they open the counterintelligence investigation into the idea that this must reflect pre-knowledge of the hack. i am saying when you actually look at the surrounding a bridgences, that was too far. it was not reasonable for them to assume that. was to talkesponse to the campaign. this happens all the time in campaigns. foreign donors, hanky-panky going on, and usually, we don't assume as a government that the campaign is part of that blood, we go and we say to the -- of that lot, we go inside of the campaign directly. if you are 100% certain they are not culpable, it is simply not true. replication,zer the report is very critical. document 17, emissions are errors -- or errors in the .ubsequent that resulted in applications that made appear the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case. do you thi

[laughter] >> wikileaks released a new batch of e-mails that's the way the day ended the other event that the washington post published an audio recording of donald trump talking about sexually assaulting women all of these occurred in one day perhaps to drown out the announcement by the government. >> have you found efforts by the congress to investigate the 2016 election quex. >> certainly those efforts that have taken place since the house changed hands with the democratic majority control have been more serious and sincere for the first two years they really use their power to obscure the truth and cover things up and discredit us to raise concerns about what was going on things have gotten better from that sense in the last year schiff has been a remarkably able investigator the lost time from the presidency has left a lot of people confused creating an air in conclusiveness. >> that the body of evidence that has emerged leaves question about what happened. there is a concerted effort by the kremlin and he instigated and encouraged it. and if there is enough evidence you cannot

edward snowden and wikileaks revealed the united states was tapping 38 friendly countries that led to a real anger whether the chancellor of germany or the president of brazil. you write about how for six months you spent mopping up that mess. what damage did it do? people look at him as a hero. >> i view him as a traitor. >> what did you have to do during those six months and what was the lasting legacy quick. >> and that was enormous damage to the united state security. it cost us the ability what we used to keep americans safe. and what i did was to help in the repair relationships of their closest partner. with to be complicated and insensitive interagency process and how we were approaching that into know we had the proper safeguards so to issue a whole new set of guidelines so i can't overstate in particular by rushing into russia's arms quite smugly in which he tells his side of the story and from my vantage point if you are loyal american you don't steal secrets and put them out in public. >> you mentioned vladimir putin and the call obama had with him. but no call with him wa

materials stolen by russia had been released online including by wikileaks and the u.s. intelligence community assessed in august of 2016 that, quote, russia was considering further intelligence operations to impact and disrupt elections, end quote. against this backdrop, the fbi was obligated to investigate possible ties to the trump campaign. according to bill prestep, the fbi assistant director who authorized opening the investigations. other officials conveyed a similar obligation and sense of urgency to investigate. david laughminh a national security division chief said, and i quote, a dereliction of duty and responsibility of the highest order not to commit the appropriate resources as urgently as possible to run these facts to the ground and find out what was going on, end quote. the decision to open the investigation was unanimous. not a single official disagreed. as a result, america ultimately learned extensive details about russia's sweeping and systemic attack on the 2016 election including that the trump campaign knew about, welcomed, and quote, expected it

brought russians into the trump tower, papadopoulos was under scrutiny, contacts with wikileaks. if you had a whole lot of other stuff to continue your information and you were confident in your investigation, why wouldn't you go to a dourtd protect your own credibility. >> what it shows is that if you go back and sort of dig into the origins of any of these wiretapping orders may be likely to find similar mistakes, instances where people are mislead, instances where one part of the investigation is moving forward and another part is not aware of what may be new facts that may provide a different set of avenues for information. i think this gives each side something to hang onto. president trump has already said this shows there was immense wrongdoing, people were out to get him. yet the finding of the report overall is that there was reason to go forward on a lot of these ' other things and this set of facts doesn't necessarily blow up all the findings of the russian investigation. >> you're hoping for clarity. listen to the chairman and the ranking member. nope. >> what happene

basic official version is that we thought the russians were hacking into the dnc, and on july 23, wikileaks dumped dnc emails. then, a foreign official comes in and says, you know, this guy back in may said something in a bar to me, a suggestion, and before they even interviewed that person, they open the counterintelligence investigation into the whole campaign, the idea that this must reflect pre-knowledge of the hack. i am saying that when you actually look at the surrounding circumstances, that was a bridge too far. it was not reasonable for them to assume that. and the proper response was to talk to the campaign. this happens all the time in campaigns. foreign donors, this hanky-panky going on, and usually, we don't assume as a government that the campaign is part of that plot, we go inside of the campaign and say hey, they are foreign people feeding money into you campaign and so forth. if you are 100% certain they are not culpable, it is simply not true. jerry: on the pfizer application, the report is very critical. document 17, emissions or errors in the three subsequent application

basic official version is that we thought the russians were hacking into the dnc and on july 23rd, wikileaksc e-mails. then a foreign official comes in and says you know, back in may, this guy said something and it was a suggestion, and a suggestion, and before they even interviewed that person, they opened the counter intelligence investigation on the whole campaign on the idea that this must reflect pre-knowledge of the hack. i'm saying that when you actually look at the surrounding circumstanc circumstances, that was a bridge too far. i mean, it wasn't reasonable for them to assume that and the proper response was to talk to the campaign. that's normally what would happen. you know, this happens all the time in campaigns. foreign donors through straw donors and there's hanky-panky going on and usually we don't assume the government is part of that plot. we go to the government and say foreign people are feeding money into your campaign and so forth. so the idea that you only talk to, you know, some american that is involved here, if you were 100% certain that they are not culpable, is sim

>> wikileaks get the dnc hacked e-mails and release them.the opposition research that the dnc and hillary clinton campaign helped fund then they help get it and it did launch, it was a counterintelligence operation that got launched into trump russia collision probe and they knew it was fake. >> we have to be able to hold people accountable it is not just mistakes being made. people need to be held accountable where they knew information was bad. >> constitutional violation at stake. great to see you. breaking news another demand from the fisa court still really angry, breaking news the fisa court demanding more from answers from fbi over other surveillance warrants that it got, they want answers on that and questioning what the fbi was doing. this is carter page fisa warrant, that's not the only problem, they want more answers and we have more in the footnotes and were finding the fbi knew the steele dossier was paid for by the opposition research that they went ahead and signed up carter page anyway. that story next. ♪ try making it smalle

i think the russians and wikileaks really did a job on me both in terms of the way they weaponized information and then the way. >> and they are going to do it again. >> they are doing it to whoever else is going to be up there and i think ten days before the election killed me. was unbelievably awful. >> juan: so here you have heard talking about two interesting things, one is she thinks the russians and jim comey hurt her. >> shannon: we have heard the exact same conversation from her many times and a lot of people feel like uncle rico from napoleon dynamite, but you said about not going to let her be anointed this time. i remember being on the floor the dnc in 2016 and these people pulling me aside and they were furious about the emails coming out looking like the dnc was coordinating her and they were telling you whether they did or not but telling me on the floor that they were going to vote for trump because they were so mad about her. so she comes back into this, that is going to be a problem. but you said she seems very loosened up and people said she is so warm and so great. if i hurt

wikileaks released a new batch of e-mails that completely offended -- it ended. the other event that occurred on monday when they published an audio recording of trump talking about sexually assaulting women. all of these events occurred in one day. they tended to drown out the most important, which was this announcement by the government. >> have you found effort by the congress to investigate the 2016 election conclusive? >> the same place since the house changed and became the democratic majority control, much more serious and sincere. the first two years of this, they used their power to obscure the truth, cover things up and discredit us and anyone else who dared to raise concerns about what was really going on here. things have gotten better in that sense in the last year. i think shift has been a remarkably able investigator. i think the first two years of the presidency has left a lot of people confused about what really happened and created this air of in conclusiveness around the operation 2016. >> the body of evidence that is emerged, leaves a little q

doing a wikileaks dump of e-mails. this is to deter people from engaging in this type of activity and very effective if done secretly. >> sounds like it's to embarrass or endanger someone's employment. >> threaten. >> threatten to do these types f things. >> tell your boss if you don't stop engaging in it or if you don't back on this, we have stuff we can dump. >> oligarches are a possibility, military officials are a possibility, security officials a possibility, intel officials. >> the services themselves. >> putin is not a target according to this report. why is that? >> according to the reporting, right, that would take the specific approval of the president of the united states and the president has not acknowledged russians were involved in this in 2016. under any circumstances targeting a head of state would be a specific escalation. here you have the added part that the president hasn't admitted they have done anything wrong. >> and you don't expect them to go after the financials of these oligarches because th

his conversations with now convicted felon roger stone about wikileaks, information that would hurt hillarysking russia to interfere more, going after kids, playing on gender and diversity issues, ignoring congressional subpoenas, refusing to release his taxes. all of it maybe not illegal but just dirty. #dirtydonald. and when confronted with this, republicans seem to own that being dirty donald is okay. here's former a.g. michael mukasey. >> he is not somebody with a great deal of knowledge of or high regard for the usual procedures. >> are you one of the integrity mentors in my life creating a low bar for the president of the united states where he usually does shady things, so let's assume that that's just pro forma? >> no, i'm not creating a low bar for the president of the united states. what i'm doing is telling you he is here running true to form. >> true to form. i also argue also means dirty in this case. now, the best you'll get from republican electeds, not what mukasey is, they'll say trump has a unique way of communicating, or, if pressed, i would have said it differently. so t

basic official version is that we thought the russians were hacking into the dnc and on july 23rd wikileaksped dnc mails. then a foreign official comes in and said back in may this guy said something in a bar to me. it was a suggestion. a suggestion. and before they even interviewed that person, they opened the counterintelligence investigation on the whole campaign on the idea that this must reflect pre-knowledge of the hack. i'm saying that when you actually look at the surrounding circumstances that was a bridge too far. i mean it wasn't reasonable for them to assume that. and the proper response was to talk to the campaign. >> you were at the time the fbi general counsel, was that how it happened. >> no, that is not how it happened. what we were worried about was russia. it is not about donald trump or the campaign. it was about the fbi obtaining foreign intelligence information to thwart the activities of the russians to interfere with our elections and to otherwise harm the united statesment the fbi has been focused on russia for decades. that is what this was about all the way throug

president trump willingly invited the help of russia as we all remember, russia, if you're listening, wikileaksou're listening, and then courted ukraine three years later and so he thinks that it's all part of a pattern. >> i think many democrats do including many members of leadership. you heard nancy pelosi a couple of days ago saying essentially the same thing. this is about a two-year life span of russian interference in american elections that she believes has been enabled by president trump. you can make that argument as a rhetorical argument and also as a tool to help you establish the scope and the severity of the problem here. but i think if they do not go forward with the mueller charge, it tells you that they do not believe that from a practical perspective, when you're trying to just get impeachment through, that it's helpful to them to include that in the articles. >> yeah, and i would just say pull the camera back for a second. you've got two major issues. one, the founding fathers did worry about foreign interference in our elections. out of all the others in our history, only th

what the fbi did is later after the dnc hack and the dumping wikipedia -- wikileaks, yeah, is a lie,hey get this information that this somewhat vague statement was made in a bar and they jump right into a full scale investigation before they even talked to the foreign officials about exactly what was said. they opened an investigation of the campaign. it just doesn't hold water because on august 4th, they contacted the head of russian intelligence and said we know what you're up to. you better stop it. they did it again in later august, and president obama did it directly in september, so it doesn't strike me as plausible that you would tell the russians who clearly were guilty of interference that you wouldn't go and talk to the campaign. they were told they didn't have probable cause to get a warrant, and so they took the steele dossier, which they had done nothing to verify, and they used that to get the warrant. it quickly became apparent that it was a travesty, and there were many abuses, and that's by far the most important part of the report. and i think mike horowitz would ag

that's a lot different than hacking a server, distributing emails through wikileaks and a concerted social media campaign that was run out of moscow and st. petersburg. so, yes, there were ukrainians who said they weren't crazy about this guy because he essentially countenanced the dismemberment of their country by russia. but that's a lot different than the campaign that the russians undertook. >> no top-down effort. no systematic effort by the ukrainian government to attack the united states election. such a big difference there, senator. thank you for helping us understand what that difference is. you also have an op-ed in "usa today" which quotes a sherlock holmes story about the dog that didn't bark. explain to me what you mean by that. >> i love -- that's one of my favorite sherlock holmes stories. there was a crime committed at a farm house. sherlock holmes visited. the dog in the barn barked like crazy and then they determined the night of the crime, the dog didn't bark which holmes deduced meant the crime was an inside job. the dog knew who the intruder was. the dog that's not bar

mean george papadopoulos rumor i think came about that he heard that, you know, that there were wikileaksad basically you know the hilary clinton e-mails in may of 2016. how deep and how far back do you think this goes? >> you know, i don't think we know yet. but i think it's important and fortunately mr. durham is taking the right action. we need to uncover everything. again, we have a couple of people that acted inappropriately, but let's go back and make sure we know exactly what happened and when so that way connect ensure it never happens again. god forbid a u.s. president should ever have to deal with such issues. liz: you know, former fbi lawyer, also inserted the words carter page not a source when he was working with the cia, the fbi, was effectively fined, carter page already working with the cia. i want to get to this, your reaction to the media saying, you know, criticizing william barr saying they were spying on the trump campaign. william barr is now saying we've got an irresponsible press, hyping a bogus steele file. by the way, no whistle-blowers about what was going on at

i guess the wikileaks dump, which exposed a lot of this.he fact is, to use a cellphone, i mean, we use burner phones when we go to certain countries to avoid the hacking. >> right, right. >> we're just reporters. >> disinfected every electronic device i had when i went to china and came back. recall, politically, all the people defending or who will defend president trump about this are the same people who were treating, four years ago, hillary clinton's private server like it was the biggest national security threat that the world had ever seen. >> and still are. >> there is a reversal on that because he is the president of the united states, the stakes are so much higher, and certainly higher at a time like this when rudy giuliani as we speak is in ukraine. russian intelligence are all over ukraine. he's collecting information, i think it's almost certain that vladimir putin and russian intelligence officials are payroll feeding him information that is beneficial to them as he continues this, quote unquote, investigation that he's carryin

mueller report of exactly how the russians hacked democratic party e-mails and funneled them to wikileaksor political effect and proep state election systems. the question what are they and other foreign actors, the iranians and incheese ease and north koreans. what might they do in 2020. i think everyone fully expects something. you know, the question will it look like the same srt of cyber attacks or will it be something more clever that we're not fully expecting. it's the latter that keeps people up at night, and the latter is what they would be aping to do, the horsers out of the barn. president trump attacking his own fbi director. what does this mean for chris wray? and bill barr ramping up the attacks. he's the attorney general, and he's now attacking america's top law enforcement agency. >>> these irregluarities and these omissions were not satisfily explained. >> the former fbi deputy director andrew mccabe is out front. up here at the dewar's distillery, all our whiskies are aged, blended and aged again. it's the reason our whisky is so extraordinarily smooth. dewar's. double ag

materials stolen by russia had been released online including by wikileaks, and the u.s.telligence community assessed in august of 2016 that, quote, russia was considering further intelligence operations to impact and disrupt elections, end quote. against this backdrop, the fbi was obligated to investigate possible ties to the trump campaign. according to bill precept, the fbi assistant director who authorized opening the investigation, other officials conveyed a similar obligation and sense of urgency to investiga investigate. david laugh man, a national division security chief said it would have been, quote, a dare ligs licks of duty and responsibility of the highest order not to commit the appropriate resources as urgently as possible to run these facts to the ground and find out what was going on, end quote. the decision to open the investigation was unanimous. not a single official disagreed. as a result america ultimately learned extensive details about russia's sweeping and systemic attack on the 2016 election including that the trump campaign knew about, welcomed

july 22nd, wikileaks publishes hacked dnc e-mails. july 27th, fbi learns about papadopoulos intel. also the same day trump says, russia if you're listening. july 31st, opens investigation into the trump campaign. here's what i'm confused about. did the fbi share the rest of that timeline as part of the predicate? or was it just the papadopoulos thing that was used as the predicate? because i don't understand the attorney general's view given all of this that was taking place into the run-up of the opening of the investigation. >> it's just the papadopoulos statement from the australians. and as -- as the inspector general characterized it in his report, it was conveyed to the fbi as a suggestion of a suggestion that russia was going to be able to offer this. now, of course, it's in the context of the fbi's knowing that the russians are hacking into the democratic computers. so that's the -- that's the two plus two here. i think what the attorney general is saying is -- and by the way, horowitz says in his report. followed the rules. question, he says, are the rules right? is the pr

candidate, russia if you are listening, i hope you are, able to find hillary's emails, to praise wikileaks and also to say that russia might not be responsible. so all of this was while the fbi was trying to protect our democracy. i would have preferred to see our president criticize then the russians who were attacking our elections. but to your reportg if i might. bill prestap approved the opening of the fbi investigation into possible connections. and he told your office that there was a counterintelligence concern that the fbi was obligated to investigate. did you find any evidence at all to suggest his action were motivated by bias, his political views and rather than his sense of obligation to protect the country? >>ioto we did not. >> march 4, president trump tweeted just 4 found out obama d my wires tapped. nothing found. this isd. mccarthyism. did your investigation identify any evidence that the president ordered the fbi to tap donald trump's phone? we did not find evidence that the fbi had tapped any other phones or anything elseha other than the fisa that we addressed. >> but y

wikileaks released a new batch of e-mails that completely upended everything -- against that's, the indy. the other event that occurred that day was the "washington post" published an audio recording of donald trump talking about sexual assaulting women. all three of these events occurred in one day. the second two of these events tended to drought at press the most important, which was this announcement by the government. >> host: have you found efforts by the congress to investigate the 2016 election conclusive? >> guest: certainly the efforts that have taken place since the house changed hands and became a democratic majority control, have been much more serious and sincere. i mean, for the first two years of this the republicans really use the power to try to obscure the truth, cover things up and discredit us and anyone else who would dare to raise concerns about what was really going on here. so things have gotten better from that sense in the last year. i think that adam schiff has been a remarkably able investigator and that they have tried to bring this to light. the lost time f

wikileaks releases the dnc hacks, and the australian goes to his american contacts and said, look, i heard about this in advance. that's what opened the investigation. it was a perfectly legitimate reason. >> there wasn't wiretapping of the trump campaign, there weren't confidential informants inserted into the trump campaign. >> none of that. none of that happened. how many times did we talk about. remember the famous tweet early in his presidency where the president -- where trump said that president obama had been wiretapping him. we went through over and over again trying to move/disprove. all lies, all untrue. >> and yet there's now attorney general barr and john durham put out a statement, which director comey was saying that's highly unusual as somebody who made a statement about an ongoing investigation. >> i've got to say that there was a certain richness in hearing it from james comey. he's exactly right. i mean durham set his own credibility on fire. he does have a good reputation as the u.s. attorney in connecticut. how he was coerced to sacrifice his good reputation by g

first-hand information about claims made by an individual close to the campaign to the contact with wikileaks concerning the release of e-mails obtained when the dnc e-mails were hacked. gates' information alone, says the judge -- gates' information alone warranted indeed demanded further investigation from the standpoint of our national security, the integrity of our elections and the enforcementf our criminal laws. not all witnesses with knowledge did cooperate, and not everyone who corresponded testified truthfully. and many communications were lost to investigators because they were deleted or they were conducted on an encrypted platform and not saved. but rick gates' debriefings, his multiple incriminatory bits of evidence on matters of grave and international importance are a reminder that there was an ample basis for the decision makers at the highest levels of the united states department of justice, the united states department of justice of this administration, she says, to authorize and pursue a law enforcement investigation into whether there was any coordination between the trump

attempted to interfere, and when you asked him about the server, he didn't seem to even remember wikileaksmber the stolen dnc emails, remember the stolen podesta emails. there seems to be a lot of missing information. he used the word nothing after july 1st 2016 and i'm thinking, huh, why do you pick that date, not anything -- not all of the stuff that happened before then? is he cherry picking here? i can't figure this out. >> well, of course, the date that he used for the beginning of the investigation is when the fbi opened the investigation of the trump campaign, so, he's talking about the duration of the fbi's work on the investigation. and then, at the end, on the stuff on ukraine, you know, my take on that was, he was trying to make it clear that he is not chasing around the things that rudy giuliani thinks needs to be pursued. i think he was trying to draw a line that, that's not my thing. >> what does it potentially do for morale in that justice department? he's basically saying he's not taking the word of the inspector general as the final word on fbi bias. he wants another inves

democratic campaign computers, materials stolen by russia had been released on-line, included by wikileaks, and the u.s. intelligence community assessed in august of 2016 that, quote, russia was considering further intelligence operations to impact and disrupt elections, end quote. against this backdrop, the fbi was obligated to investigate possible ties to the trump campaign. according to bill -- the fbi assistant director who authorized opening the investigation, other officials conveyed a similar obligation a sense of urgency to investigate. a national security division chief said it would have been, and i quote, a dereliction of duty and responsibility of the highest order not to commit the appropriate resources as urgently as possible to run these facts to the ground and find out what was going on, end quote. the decision to open the investigation was unanimous. not a single official disagreed. as a result, america ultimately learned extensive details about russia's sweeping and systemic attack on the 2016 election, including that the trump campaign knew about, welcomed, and, quote, e

that's true the reporters committee said it's an ethical and practical distinction between wikileaks and assange and other news organizations that reported on the same vitriol. it's not a legal distinction and there's nothing in the way the government hasle

here we have on this escalation ladder private threats so we know that if you've read any of the wikileakscable you know there were plenty of those when it came to turkey as well as public threats and when you think about the full-scale sanctions imposed on several prominent turkish government ministries recently, that was clearly meant to be quite a significant action, responsive to turkey's incursion into syria and actions there. and there's a whole military history -- or context -- i'm going to ask you to sort of context. i'm going to ask you to speak to it a little be it, susanna, there. the threatening language used by the president about we'll destroy your economy. criminal indictments related to hulc bank and officials. tariffs announced on turkey. and i don't -- to my mind, i think the criminal indictments against the largest state bank, that's systemically significant to the turkish economy as well as the tariffs, i don't think they registered for most defense thinkers. i don't know that sanctions people feel that the particular measures used were particularly well-linked to secur

and it was to praise wikileaks for leaking soil e-mail and it was even to suggest that russia was not responsible as might be someone weighing 400 pounds sitting on a bed in the mothers home. >> all this was happening while the fbi was trying to protect our elections and our democracy. i would've preferred to see our president criticized then, the russians who will attacking our election. let's see report from i. bill was an assistant director newse fbi counterintelligence committee. he approved the opening of the fbi investigation. in a possible connection between the top campaign and russian interference. he told her office there was a counterintelligence concern that the fbi was obligated to investigate.e. did you find any evidence at all, to suggest mr. precepts actions will motivated by bias or his political views, bipartisanship rather than a sense of obligation to protect the country. >> we why not print. >> on march 4th, 2017, president trump treated terrible, just had a obama had my wire stepped in trump tower before my victory. they found, this is mccarthyism. did your inves

we know if you read any of the wikileaks, plenty of those. as well as public threats. when you think about the s full-scale sanctions imposed n several prominent turkish government ministries recently, that was clearly meant to be quite a significant action. responsive to turkeys incursion into syria and actions there. there is a whole military context i will ask you to speak to. the threatening language used by the president about we will destroy your economy. criminal indictments related to official. terrace announced on turkey. i do not, to my mind, the criminal indictment againstme te largest state bank that systemically significant to the turkish economy as well as the terrace, i do not think that they registered. i do not know that sanction people feel the particular measure used were particularly well linked to security or defense concerns. and, what i want to ask all of you is to make a comment. you can grade the u.s. administration, if you will, or you can talk about what should n happening. what kind of signaling or policy taction should be happening and you

. >> wikileaks founder julian assange under arrest this morning. >> hong kong in chaos. >> terror indly attack at a jewish grocery store in new jersey. >> people motivated by anger and hate towards jews. >> a deadly mass shooting at the naval air station in florida. >> authorities are investigating it as an act of terrorism. >> friday's mass shooting at a city building in virginia beach. >> that left 12 people dead. >> active shooter at the garlic festival. >> police killing the suspected gunman. >> back-to-back mass shootings have americans once again mourning the victims. >> dayton, 12 hours, 35 minutes prior, el paso, texas. >> gunfire tore through a local walmart. >> people started running from him, pop, pop, pop. >> ammunition is no longer going to be sold at walmart. >> sexual assault allegations mounting against billionaire jeffrey epstein. >> did jeffrey epstein rape you? >>. >> forcefully raped me, and stole a part of my life. >> jeffrey epstein is dead. >> jeffrey thought we were disposable and look who's still standing. >> has obviously conducted himself in a manner unbeco