tv Bloomberg Markets Trump First 100 Days Bloomberg March 20, 2017 1:00pm-2:01pm EDT
cease of a person -- collection of a order, incidentals that collection or inadvertently, the collection results in the collection of communication of incoming u.s. administration official, the president-elect, or the president-elect transition team -- are you required under the minimization procedures to seek collection? not automatically. >> the reason why this is important is intuitively, we would all know that incoming administration would have conversations with those that mayintelligence community be collecting against, either by making phone calls or receiving phone calls right. it's intended to collect the
privacy rights of americans do include antly prohibition of the intelligence community inherently or inadvertently connecting -- collecting the communication of an incoming and administration. mr. comey, are you aware whether or not the director of national intelligence, director clever, per evertor clap briefed the president of the united states on the possible collection of interception by the u.s. intelligence community of any communication of members of the incoming trump administration? dir. comey: that's not something i can comment on. >> why not? dir. comey: it might involve classified communication with the president of the united states. >> have you previously discussed your conversations with president obama with this committee? dir. comey: i don't remember.
i may have with the chair and ranking. >> we will have to refresh your memory on those conversations. mr. comey, did president obama every knowledge to you of having been briefed concerning possibly inadvertent or incidental collection or interception by the intelligence community of any communications of members of the incoming trump administration? dir. comey: i will have to give you the same answer. >> the first question related to whether mr. clapper had briefed the president of the united states. we will follow up with him next week, and we will direct the question to him also. mr. comey, are you aware of any evidence that general flynn, prior to the inauguration, ever communicated to the russian government or russian government officials of the trump administration in the future
would release, rescinded, reverse u.s. sanctions against russia, or ever made any offer of a quid pro quo for rescinding reversing u.s. sanctions against russian? dir. comey: that's not something i can comment on, mr. turner. >> why is that? dir. comey: i'm trying not to talk about anything that relates to a u.s. person or might rule in or rule out things we are investigating. i'm trying to be studiously integrityrotect the of the investigation. i just can't comments. there are statutes, guidelines, and procedures concerning what does it take for the fbi to open a counterintelligence investigation into a u.s. citizen. it's not just subject to discretion. you can't say let's go look at somebody. you have to have a basis. you informed us that you opened a counterintelligence investigation into the trump members of the trunk
campaign, concerning russia in july 2006. trump trump -- the campaign in concerning russia, in july 2006. arab and individuals who attended a meeting with russian was paid, a member who to attend the conference, a picture that was taken, travel to a foreign place. people, in all of our administrations and sometimes, members who had left congress that would qualify for that. what is the tipping point?/ don't you need some action or information besides attending a meeting or having been paid to attend a conference, that picture was taken? whether you travel to a country before your open to investigation for counterintelligence by the fbi? a credible: allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe that an american may be acting as an
agent of a foreign power. >> the reason why we're struggling with this is we have the statements from mr. clapper says there is no evidence of collusion with russia, and he just left the intelligence community. we now said,, and more rogers, the russians wanted to put a cloud over the system. there is now a cloud that undermines our system. there is a cloud from where we're sitting with mr. clapper, who is an important position to know, who stated there is no evidence of collusion, and you will not give us any substantive evaluation. cloud, andwith this i have a few additional questions. >> will get back to you. recognize repetitive jeffrey spirit. -- jesse spirit.
>> let's go back to this antualula web -- these tar web. mr. tilley started to lobby the united states government, asking them to shift or lift the sanctions. hearing, asrmation he said, i have never lobbied against sanctions personally, to my knowledge. exxon mobil never directly lobbied against sanctions. and yet, there is lobbying reporting that shows that exxon mobil paid over $300,000 to lobbyists in 2014, and that mr. tillerson visited the white house five times in 2014, and treasury with secretary lew seven times. disconcertinghing u.s. ceo attempting to
undermine the sanctions imposed by our government against another country for acts that we find to be disadvantageous to the world order? that's not a question i can answer, for a variety of reasons, i'm not qualified to answer. >> how about this? you, assconcerting to the director of the fbi, that a thatceo would say publicly he is very close friends with president clinton -- president putin, and has had a 17 year relationship? we raise any red flags? dir. comey: that's not a question i can answer.
>> admiral rogers? adm. rogers: lots of american corporations june business in russia. i am not knowledgeable enough to comment on this. elset's move on to someone , michael caputo. use a pr professional, conservative radio talk show host. in 1994, he moved to russia. he was working for the agency for international development. he was fired from that job because he refused to follow a state department position. he opened a pr firm in moscow and married a russian woman. he subsequently divorced her, and in 1999, his business failed. roger stone, a mentor to him, urged him to move to florida and opened his pr firm in miami, which is exactly what mr. caputo did.
and then, in 2000, he worked media to improve putin's image in the united states. do we know gazprom media is? dir. comey: i don't. an oil company. in 2000 seven, he began consulting the ukrainian parliamentary campaign, they are coming at his second wife. what possible reason is there for the trump campaign to hire putin's image consultants. dir. comey: no thoughts. >> admiral rogers? adm. rogers: like ways. >> do either of you know what michael caputo is doing for the effortffort -- trump
today? dir. comey: no idea. >> let's move on to carter page. carter page was the founder of global energies, an investment fund, he has only one partner, executives the former of a russian state-owned gazprom oil company. that, from 2004 to 2007, he worked for merrill lynch in moscow. in march of 2016, then candidate trump referred to carter page as his foreign-policy advisor to the washington post. asserts that page he is an advisor on russia and energy. trumpuently, candidate says he doesn't know him. on september 26, he takes a leave of absence from the then he publicly
supports a relationship with russia, criticizes u.s. sanctions, and nato's approach to russia. subsequently he is investing his stake in gazprom in august. in 2014 condi rice an article sanctions, the u.s. in an article -- he writes an article criticizing the u.s. sanction, and criticizes the annexation of crimea. he gives a speech, denies meeting with the prime minister, he says he met with igor session , offering a 19% interest in rosneft. it becomes the biggest transfer of public property to private ownership.
page is a national security adviser to donald trump. that -- why do we -- again, here's another company that has had sanctions imposed upon it. could you again clarify why we imposed sanctions on companies? rogers did admiral it better than i. adm. rogers: i don't remember the specifics of my answer, but i will stand by my answer. dir. comey: which was excellent. point, i willthat yield back. i now yield to mr. quigley. >> thank you for your service
and thank you for being here. we talked a little about the russian playbook, extortion, bribery, false news, disinformation, they all sound very familiar. as we talk without thinking anybody in the united states, just generally, the russian playbook and how it has worked particularly in eastern europe and central europe, a lot of it involves trying to influence individuals in that country, correct? adm. rogers: yes. but we talked about today seems to be a black-and-white notion of whether there was does a russian active measure attempting to succeed at collusion -- does the person involved have to actually know? does it have to involve knowing collusion for there to be damage? i can answer
generally in the world of intelligence, often times, there are people who are called co-op tees, who don't realize they are doing with a foreign power. they are doing things and not realizing it's for the foreign government. it can happen. it's a frequent technique. >> is that the aunt that to include things where the actor doesn't necessarily know what they are doing is helping that other government? dir. comey: exactly. >> what are examples of what that might include in a generic sense? often times, a researcher here in the united states may think they are peerng with appear -- a researcher in a foreign government, not knowing that that researcher is either knowingly or unwittingly passing information to an enemy of the united states. >> can you elaborate how this
problems with defining what collusion is, the differences that might be involved with explicit or implicit collusion? is not ay: collusion legal term, and it's one i haven't used here today. i asked if we were investigating coordination. >> implicit or explicit coordination. dir. comey: i would think of it as knowing or unknowing. you can do things to help a foreign nationstate without realizing that you are dealing with -- you think you are helping a buddy, was a researcher at university in china, and what you are actually doing is passing information that ends up to the chinese government. that is unwitting. exelis it would be i'm sending would bef -- explicit i'm doing this because i want to help the chinese government. , would yourogers give other examples of what you witnessed in your career? adm. rogers: sometimes you as
individuals will be approached connectedndividuals -- with foreign connections who will misrepresent, they will assume identity, if you will. i want you to think i'm actually working for a business, exploring a commercial interest, those kind of things. create a relationship, and then it turns out there is no commercial interest, they are acting as a direct extension of a foreign government. ar. comey: romance can be feature, dating someone to create a close relationship and the u.s. government person thinks they are in love with this person and vice versa, and the other person is an agent of a foreign power. >> so this is naïve acquiescence? dir. comey: i'm not trying to what that means. >> you are going along with it without really acknowledging or understanding in your mind, you are being naïve about the issue. adm. rogers: i can see that times.
to things you can't comment upon, which is of equal concern, we are at this point very familiar with mr. sessions testimony before the united states senate in which he specifically said he wasn't one who had this contact with the russians. and then there was the amended testimony in which your two such testimonies. first was july during the convention and later in september, afterwards. all the while, that the issues that we're talking about today, the hacking and dumping of materials, were taking place. someone in a position of senator sessions would have been aware of this, perhaps would have remember these conversations, or might have mentioned were asked the russian ambassador to knock it off. apparently, none of those
things happened, or at least didn't remember they happened. unfortunately, what we are reading now is there was a third meeting as early as april of last year, in washington, d.c., a meeting which canada trump was president and the russian ambassador was present. it goes well beyond and innocence of i forgot something. or that doesn't count, when you correct your testimony, you are still under oath. , you are swearing to the american people what you are saying is true. thatrd time as well beyond and is quite simply, perjury. as we look at this as we go forward, i would ask that you take that into consideration. this is far more than what we have talked about just in the general sense.
the did the russians hack or not? and planncerted effort to lie to the american public about what took place and what the motivations were beyond this process. i thank you for your service and i yield back to the ranking member. i yield. >> thank you. , you served time in a courtroom as a prosecutor to my wondering if you are a member of the instruction that is read to juries every day, that if you decided a witness to literally lied about something significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything that witness says. dir. comey: that is familiar to me. question testimony was that president trump's claims that former president obama had wiretapped him is false. dir. comey: i said we have no information that supports them. trump, respect to donald
do you remember the other instruction relating to truthfulness of a witness or defendant? if you defendant makes a false or misleading statements, knowing the statement was false or intending to mislead, that conduct may also show here she were aware of their guilt? dir. comey: familiar to me, for my distant past. >> i want to talk about the kremlin playbook and there are a number of ways that a foreign adversary can seek to influence a person. do you agree? dir. comey: >> yes. romance, compromise, setting up a compromise. dir. comey: to execute on a compromise. >> inadvertently capturing a compromise? meaning they have vast surveillance and you stumble into that surveillance and are caught and compromised. and they take that information and try usage of course you. dir. comey: that is the part of
the playbook. >> i will yield back and continue once the site is back. >> we go back to mr. turner. >> thank you. i want to go back to the issue indicatedral rogers the goal of the russians is to put a cloud on our system and to undermine our system. i would think certainly today, mr. comey, with your announcement of an investigation of the russians would be very happy with that as an outcome, because the cloud of their actions and activities continues and will continue to undermine until you are finished with whatever your investigation is currently in the scope of. i want to go back to the issue of how does one open an investigation. i'm confused by some of the things that we hear as the basis of an investigation. mr. comey, if an individual attends a meeting with a foreign leader, is that enough to open a counterintelligence investigation?
without more? no. >> without more, if they had their picture taken with a foreign leader, is that enough? dir. comey: it would depend on where they were and who took the picture. the foreignin country in the four leaders government offices or facilities , they are having a picture taken with them, is that enough to open a counterintelligence investigation? dir. comey: it would depend. >> on what? is just a saying picture, can tell you there lots of people who have had lots of pictures. is it enough that a person has just had their picture taken with the foreign leader at the four leaders government official offices? dir. comey: it would depend. to the person sneak over to the foreign country and meet them clandestinely? revealingcture something else about the
relationship? >> let's say it's not clandestine, let's say it's open. the person has attended an event and has gone over to meet with the foreign person, foreign government official and is out there for government official facility or official residence and has a picture taken, and has no intention of covertly being present with the foreign person. is that picture enough to open a counterintelligence investigation? dir. comey: tricky to answer hypotheticals, but that doesn't strike me as enough. >> i'm not getting deeper into hypos, these are pretty straightforward. what if you are paid to attend the conference in a foreign country? and you are paid to attend the conference, not directly by the foreign government, but nonetheless, payment does occur for you to attend the conference? president bill clinton attended
many sets conferences and spoke and received payment. is receiving payment -- dir. comey: it's not covert, is open. they received payment for the purposes of speaking. >> is that enough to open a counterintelligence investigation? dir. comey: it would depend on a lot of different things. had no other evidence other than the fact they attended, is that enough for the fbi to open a counterintelligence investigation of a private u.s. citizen? dir. comey: i can't answer the hypothetical, it would depend on a number of other things. >> i limited it. if the only information you had was the attended an event that they were paid, it was not covert, is that only sufficient information to open an investigation against a private u.s. citizen? them, did: who paid they disclose it, what else did they discuss, who else was
there? there lots of circumstances that make that difficult to answer. >> let's say they travel to a foreign country. they openly travel. it wasn't covert. is traveling there enough? dir. comey: just traveling around the world? no. collects and very concerned about the issue of how an investigation is opened. up at the end situation once again, where mr. clapper, literature national intelligence just said that when he left, there was no evidence of collusion. and yet come as admiral rogers said, we're sitting now where the russians goal is being achieved, of causing a cloud or undermining our electoral process. taketainly hope that you an expeditious look at what you have undertaken, because it
affects the heart of our democracy. i have a question considering classified in the stations. if i attended classified briefing and received classified information, and i go tell someone that classified information, he finally get a release it, i've committed a crime. but what if someone goes to a classified briefing, walks out of that briefing and openly lies about the content of that briefing? it's unclear what happens then. it's important because as you know, this committee and both of you gentlemen have handled a lot of classified information, and thently, more recently, purported classified information is put out in the press. information and you know what i know, having handled classified information that some of that information is not true.
thathe sources of classified information, if they live out the content of classified information, have they committed a crime? dir. comey: that's an interesting question. i don't think so. if all they have done is liza reporter, that's not against the law. to herporter -- lie reporter, that's not against the law. i can imagine a circumstance in which it's part of some broader conspiracy, but a false statement to her reporter is not a crime. >> i want underscore this for a second. i agree. i think it is no crime. every reporter who has someone standing in front of them saying i'm taking this great risk of sharing with you u.s. secret, besides them purporting to be a traitor, are committed no crime if they lied to them. so all of these news articles that contain this information that we know is not the case are being done so as damage to the
united states without the risk of a crime. my next aspect of your question mr. comey, it is what is the obligation of the intelligence community to correct such falsehoods? some of the information we read is extremely false. an extremely incendiary. an extremely condemning of individuals that are whole system. what is your obligation to be that source to say i can't release classified information, but i can tell you it's not bad. dir. comey: as a whole lot out there that is false. some of it could be people lying to reporters. that probably happens. more often than not, it's people who act like they know, when they really don't know. they are not the people who actually know the secrets, they are passing on things they think they know. we only have no obligation to correct that, we can't.
if we start calling reporters and saying this thing you said about this we developed, that's inaccurate, it's got two engines, we just can't do that. we will give information to our adversaries that way. it's very frustrating, we can't start down the road. what is unclassified, is a miserable the contents of a bill that being debated in congress, we can call them and say read it more carefully, you missed this or that. we cannot do that with classified information. it's very frustrating. i have read a whole lot of stuff that is just wrong, but i can't say which is wrong and i can't say to those reporters. >> if you could help us, i would appreciate it. what happens is you come into a classified briefing with us, and you tell us perhaps something that is absolutely false. the relation declassified, because you are telling us it's not true. we can't go tell it's not true, because you told us in a classified setting. is there a way to we can at
least have some exchange as to what's not true, so the american people don't listen to false stories in the washington post and new york times? that would be helpful. dir. comey: i would love to invent and machine, but we can't. where you stop on that slope? >> false is false. dir. comey: when i don't: new york times to say they got that wrong, they got it right. it's a complicated endeavor and we have to stay clear of it entirely. that all read in the press vice president pence probably denied the general flynn discussed -- publicly denied that general flynn discussed information. to the fbi take any action in response to the vice president's statements? dir. comey: i can't comment. >> the new york times reported that general flynn was interviewed by fbi personnel. is that correct? dir. comey: i can't comment on that.
>> i do not have any additional questions, i thank you your theicipation and i think chairman of the members for the bipartisan aspect of this investigation. >> thank you, general and for being here. i appreciate your endurance in this effort today. how long has russia and the soviet union been interfering more attention to interfere with our election process? report, we'vehe seen this kind of behavior to some degree, attempting to influence outcomes for decades. >> going back to the soviet union. adm. rogers: the basic trend has been there. >> i'm curious about what triggers a counterintelligence investigation of a government official. in some ways, and asking for myself. last week, i spoke an event on foreign policy with the atlantic
council, unbeknownst to me, the iraqi ambassador of the united states was there. he comes up to me afterwards and introduces himself, and says he would like to meet with me at some time. this isn't a theoretical, this is real. that's why i'm asking. will i be in trouble around her of money with him? i don't think i should be answering hypotheticals. >> is not hypothetical, and asking you in advance. i want to know if i can meet with him and be under investigation or not. i don't think that's an unrealistic question. this is real. as of right now. dir. comey: the fbi does not give advisory opinions. if you are asking about your particular case, i can't do that. >> you will tell me afterwards. dir. comey: i will never tell you. >> somebody might tell the press. that's why i'm going next.
what can i discuss? what am i allowed to discuss? what triggers the investigation is what we're trying to get to. in general, maybe not with the iraqi and bass that are, but what if that was the russian ambassador? do i need to advise someone i'm meeting with them? do i have to discuss the agenda before i meet with them? this is really what is coming down to, is a lot about what we're talking about. i don't think it's unnecessary ridiculous for me to ask that. in intelligence reporting, if the identity of the u.s. official is disseminated to those on as needed basis, or those on a need to know basis, does that generally lead to a counterintelligence investigation of that individual? in general, if the u.s. official it isthis report, and
disseminated, does that lead to an investigation of the individual? dir. comey: not as a rule, no. it would depend on lots of other circumstances. fromto go to the article february 14 from the new york times, you may not be able to answer these. formers four current and american officials. do you know the identity of those officials? dir. comey: i'm not going to comment on an article. necessarily on the article, but ok. do you know that those officials provided information for the story? dir. comey: after give the same answer. without an investigation, has anyone told you they know who leaked the information or any information on russian involvement in the u.s. elections or russian involvement with the trump election team? dir. comey: i'm not going to comment. >> is it possible that the new york times is repetitive sources
this february 14 article. dir. comey: i can't comment on that. >> is it possible that the new york times was misled by individuals claiming to be current or foreign -- former american officials? dir. comey: i have to give you the same answer. >> can i ask why you can't comment? dir. comey: i'm not confirming the information in that article is accurate or inaccurate. i'm not in the business that we talked about earlier. there other reasons. i'm also not going to confirm whether we are investigating things. if i start talking about what i know about a particular article, i run the risk of stepping on both of those landmines. -- >> one more question. is it possible, and nothing to do with this article. is it possible that the so-called source to a media a russian actually be
advocate? nothing to do with the story of a per se. is it possible that a surrogate can actually be the source of the newspaper is relying on? dir. comey: in general, sure. someone can always be pretending they are someone they are not. >> i yield back. >> just a couple of follow-up questions and then i will pass it to mr. quigley for entering something into the record. dir. comey: can i ask you for an estimated time? i'm not made of steel, i would like to take a break. >> would you like to do that now? just a quick rest stop? >> we will break for 10 minutes. dir. comey: that's plenty.
>> the director of the fbi asking for a quick rest stop after four and a half hours. he and the nsa director testifying about russia's involvement in the 2016 election. confirming they are probing the ties between russia and the 2016 campaign. that has been going on since july last year. james comey says there's no evidence to support the allegation that his predecessor, president obama, wiretapped trump tower last year, and adding the federal bureau of investigation is conducting a broad investigation into the election. ,e are joined by bill faries let me ask you first of all about what you heard today and what surprised you were what detail you got today that we haven't had already? mr. faries: people suspected and felt like
we knew that the fbi was conducting some sort of probe into the allegation about russia's involvement in the election, we got confirmation of that today. democrats probably wish that fbi director james comey had announced that prior to the election last year. that investigation has been going on since july, and very publicly, we heard this for members of capitol hill, we heard from comey that there is no evidence at this point to back up president trump's claim that trump tower was wiretapped before the election as well. those are teedo huge things. -- two huge things. this is the first public acknowledgment that that is the case. >> i mentioned this investigation acknowledging it's been going on since july last year. how significant is that? mr. faries: last year, at one point, comey talked quite a bit
about the investigation that had gone into hillary clinton's use of email in the private server and all that. his public comments of the time really upset democrats felt like maybe he was lending some kind of passive support against clinton. they wanted to know is there an investigation into russia and trump ties, and he wouldn't comment on that. the fbi gently does not comment on ongoing or potential investigations. you'rethe kind of things going to have democrats scratching their head about, saying why can we not known about this earlier? >> are they more forthcoming than we thought it would be? talking about rex tillerson's association with the russian government, these guys are dodging a lot of questions and declined to answer a lot of questions. there's been more expansive than i might have anticipated. mr. faries: i think their goal on the hill today is to try to
eliminate some of these looming questions that have been out there, in terms of is there a probe going on, what's the nature of that probe, and on the republican side, we getting a lot of pushback into how much is the fbi and the intelligence community looking into some of these leaks that have come out in the past couple months. in particular, the leaks that ultimately cost michael flynn his job as national security adviser last month. faries,es: -- >> bill stay with us. we bring in kevin cirilli, he's been in the hearing room and is on a capitol hill. what stood out to you from the hearing that's far? david, the fbi director james comey clearly making the case that there is an open investigation into former top trump campaign manager's about whether or not there was any
communication with russian government actors who potentially meddled in the election. i want to play for you what he had to say at the hearing just moments ago. hurtcomey: they wanted to our democracy, hurt her, help him. confident in were at least as early as december. kevin: so democrats on the house --ublicans committee looking house intelligence committee looking to draw the line that there was an kind of collusion between russian officials and trump campaign officials. some names that are coming up frequently including michael pseudo-, paul manafort, -- manafort,puto, paul and i can tell you republicans looking to cast doubt on fbi director james comey, arguing
there is not enough evidence for there to be an investigation. there has been several questions for other republicans as well. either way, this comes as president trump is looking to enact his legislative agenda later this week. there's a vote on thursday on health care. david: we are starting a tweets from the president about the hearing, there were some that featured video from the hearing today. the president indicating it backs of his position. what's the official response from the white house? kevin: i can tell you that a senior white house official said that nothing has changed. senior obama intelligence officials have gone on record to confirm there is no evidence of trump russia collusion and no evidence of a trump russia scandal. obama cia directors and so, obama's director of national intelligence said so. we take them at their word.
the administration looking to distance themselves from any type of investigation or need for investigation. is this theine republican-controlled committee in a republican-controlled house of representatives with republicans calling these witnesses to testify. the investigation, no matter how much people want to make it a partisan issue, clearly, republican concerns as well. david: bill faries, as we await the return of the fbi director and the nsa director on capitol hill, they are testifying before the committee. the issue the memo about the investigation into hillary clinton's email server. how big an issue has that been? mr. faries: i think it is anything that's particularly looming in democratic mines. why are we getting this information now and not before the election? this,not hear anyone ask
but it is something you know is on their minds. does comey think he should have reconsidered how he announced information about the clinton investigation last year, given what we are now finding out about this probe with russia? there are a lot of questions you heard the fbi director and the nsa chief deflect today. congress will be going into a closed classified session this afternoon. they will get answers to questions they have been asking publicly, they are not revealed to discuss those answers publicly. in theyou mentioned conversation about leaks, it's almost a third issue at this hearing. republicans bring up this issue. leaks are a part of our line of work. government officials leaking information. what are republicans most agitated about when it comes to leaks in this context? mr. faries: they're are very strict rules about when a u.s. citizen or u.s. person is caught on tape, perhaps discussing
something with a foreign official or foreign agent who is under surveillance. --t person is supposed to be their names and background in affiliation are supposed remain anonymous, even when that intelligence is shared with other parts of the intelligence community. the fact that information leaked out about michael flynn's contact with the russian ambassador for he was even national security adviser, it all happened last december, that concerned a lot of publicans, and feel like the intelligence community was working against the incoming trump administration. it feeds these fears on the trump administration side, on the republican side, that there state workingdeep against the president and the white house. david: kevin cirilli, our chief washington correspondent. two hearings, taking up a lot of oxygen on the hill.
i got a getting new information about one interface the president might have of the republican caucus tomorrow. with a topst spoke senior aide in house speaker paul ryan's office who told me that president trump will be on capitol hill tomorrow, speaking to members of the house republican conference about health care. you can imagine he is certainly going to make questions about this hearing before the house intelligence committee, which is in a recess of sorts right now and will continue later this afternoon. there willust saw public and sue are pressing this administration for more answers about exactly what happened during that campaign. we are just days away from the house taking of a vote on speaker reince health care plan. president trump endorsed that on thursday. this has political applications, the hearing we're watching unfold.
republicansmore continue to question this administration about the issue of russia, about the issue of russia potential meddling in the election, that takes away some political capital. i heard that from several aides this morning on capitol hill, from republicans who are supportive of president trump. president trump will be on capitol hill tomorrow talking to republicans. david: kevin cirilli, stay with us. we got a check on the markets. the markets are open, trading continues, julie with the latest. julie: trainers may be washing -- watching -- traders may be watching the proceedings with interest, we are seeing a downdraft, but very little change, which has been consistent some months now. i wanted to point out individual movers we are watching, both on the up and the downside. apple trading at a record, only gain.g again -- a
the analyst says that street estimates are too low, there's an agent-based, especially in china, that should lead to a powerful launch of the iphone eight. disney doing well, 100 $70 million in sales for beauty and the beast. on the flip side, we have wells fargo, credit card applications down 55% in february, the biggest monthly decline since that scandal involving fake accounts in september. those shares down 1.4%, and alphabet is down as well. we have some u.k. advertisers pulling their ads from youtube on concerns about what content to their ads are alongside. pivotal's brian weezer cutting the stock to a hold from a buy. againice of oil is once
declining down another .9%, we saw the u.s. ring capital higher than ninth straight week. still concerns about apples apply here in the u.s. is one of the things that's pressuring the oil price. oning a look at what's going in rates in the treasury markets specifically, we are seeing some buying treasuries today. the yield going down two basis points on the 10 year, 2.8%. u.s. rounded out with the dollar, the bloomberg dollar index as a proxy. a little bit of a downward by today, but the dollar not moving much against a basket of currencies. david: julie hyman with that market update. we have the senate judiciary committee across the hill, we have the house intelligence committee. at the white house, sean spicer's daily press briefing is underway. speiser: -- spicer: a
few notes at the end before i take some questions. yesterday, treasury secretary mnuchin stopped in the u.k. for a counselor with the exchequer, and this trip gave the secretary an opportunity to outline the administration's priorities on a number of issues, including macro policy, financial regulation, international tax, and illicit finance. during the meetings, the secretary and his counterparts presented a platform that will strengthen our collective worth and financial stability. tomorrow, the president will sign s 442, the national aeronautics and space administration transition authorization act of 2017, and make remarks at the national republican committee march dinner in the evening. on wednesday, the president will meet with the congressional black caucus, on thursday, the
president will hold an event as truck drivers and representatives from the trucking companies and industry on health care and is negative impact on their industry. it just happens to be the largest employer in 29 states. on friday, the president will hold a brief independence day celebration. further updates on all those events later. the houseaddress intelligence committee hearing that is currently happening in which the fbi director and nsa director are currently testifying and comment to the extent i can't this time. this hearing is the first of several and the president is happy that they are pursuing the facts in this. as has been previously reported, director comey confirmed that the fbi is investigating russia's role interfering with the election and let me just comment briefly on that. following this testimony, it's clear that nothing has changed. senior obama intelligence officials have gone on record to
confirm there is no evidence of a trump russia collusion. so,obama cia director said and we take them at their word. however, there was information that came from the hearing that we believe is newsworthy about the intelligence gathering process. and the unmasking of americans identified in the intelligence report. identified in the intelligence report. and the illegal leaks. [no audio] david: -- julie: on that probe, let's listen in. it's inappropriate for you to be batting down inappropriate stories, is inappropriate for the white house to be asking the fbi to be rebutting stories? dir. comey: i don't want to talk about communications within the executive branch. fbi, that'sfor the
not something the fbi can or should do. >> if you were appearing before the senate for confirmation they asked you, as director of the fbi, if you were asked by the white house to refute or knowledge stories that they liked or didn't like, what would you tell the senate in your confirmation hearing? without the appropriate for your office? dir. comey: i would figure out what was the right thing for the fbi to do and do nothing. would -- collects that would be not confirming or denying stories? dir. comey: correct. of a free andd unrestrained press can expose deception and governments. articleto enter an entitled jeff sessions likely met russian ambassador a third time. you to our director and
admiral rodgers. thed you agree that, when fbi is considering account intelligence investigation, use context between a u.s. person and russia differently than it auld view contact between u.s. person and the u.k., france, or german? dir. comey: absolutely. to land on russia's radar as someone they want to recruit, would you agree that being a prominent businessperson would be something that would be attractive to them? dir. comey: could be. might depend on what industry you are in. chrysler politician be attractive? dir. comey: sure. >> how about some of you does business with russians? dir. comey: could be. it would depend upon other things as well. efforts to recruit include
investing in a u.s. person, is that correct? dir. comey: efforts by russia to invest in their tradecraft? back in the one of the ways in which they cultivate a relationship. could include investing in your business or being a partner in some of your endeavors? dir. comey: lots of different ways someone could try to establish a relationship. back to compromise, can we assume that any prominent u.s. person traveling to russia would probably be covered by russian surveillance? dir. comey: it depends upon how you define prominent, but they have an extensive surveillance operation of foreign visitors, so no matter who you are, you want to assume it. what is true -- whether that is true, it's hard for me to answer. intending tois recruit and persuade individuals because they want to get nothing out of them, is that right? dir. comey: correct.
positionerson is in a of power, they would be in a position to influence policy in the united states. dir. comey: to influence policy were supplied them with information that is useful to them, and maybe other purposes. to yourrespect counterintelligence investigations, would it be important for you, if you are concerned that the u.s. person had financial entanglements with a foreign adversary, to see that person's tax returns? that's ay: hypothetical. i really want to avoid answering. it would depend upon a whole lot of circumstances. >> that would be one of the pieces of evidence you would consider looking at? dir. comey: maybe. you might be able to get the picture you need from other financial records that are readily available. >> you are aware the president trump has refused, breaking with tradition of the past 40 years,
to show the american people his tax returns? dir. comey: not something i want to talk about, but i'm aware of it from the media. corrects russia, in their efforts to recruit individuals and develop individuals preying on or following someone's financial distress is also an avenue they may pursue, is that right? potentially, it offers an avenue for leverage on someone. sixould you consider bankruptcies that an individual may have as being a point of leverage? dir. comey: i can't say. you are aware that president trump has had six prior bankruptcies? dir. comey: that is not something i'm going to comment on. >> when your agents are conducting a counterintelligence organization, and their efforts to recruit or cooperate with u.s. persons, would you look at a u.s. persons travel to that
country? dir. comey: as part of evaluating whether there is an illicit relationship, sure. >> are you aware that president trump traveled at least three times? to russia dir. comey: i will not comment on that. >> are you aware his son has traveled at least six times russia? dir. comey: same answer. >> beltran says that he has nothing to do with russia, i want to ask you if you are familiar with deutsche bank and its $300 million loan to donald trump and his organization? dir. comey: that is not something i'm going to comment on. >> are you aware that deutsche bank has been investigated and find over $400 million for failing to stop the corrupt transferable $10 billion out of russia? dir. comey: generally, from press accounts. >> an individual's association with the bank that has had dealings with russian money-laundering, that would be
a red flag for a counterintelligence investigation, i would assume? dir. comey: that's a hypo i don't want to answer. whohat u.s. businessperson is associated with a foreign adversary having tenants in their office building that do business with that foreign adversary, without the array of flag that a foreign intelligence -- would that be a red flag that a foreign intelligence officer would look at? dir. comey: i can't answer that. >> were you aware that there were two tenants who ran a high-stakes illegal ambling ring it was run-up from tower? -- run from trump tower? dir. comey: same answer. >> are you aware that that u.s. attorney was recently fired? dir. comey: yes. >> by the president of the united states? dir. comey: i don't know who fired him.
aware of a foreign advisor to the trump administration? dir. comey: i'm not going to comment. trump you aware that mr. -- the fbi knew of him because of a $40 million $40 million stk fraud case prosecuted by the federal government? dir. comey: same answer. >> you have been watching coverage of fbi director jim comey testifying about russia cost involvement in the presidential election. we wanted to take it to the white house where sean spicer is holding his daily briefing. >> i will try to have more of a readout. i know they will talk extensively about what they're going to accomplish. japan, south korea. i will let the secretary of statebr