Skip to main content

tv   The Lead With Jake Tapper  CNN  December 16, 2016 1:00pm-2:01pm PST

1:00 pm
the president-elect i think has been very explicit about what he cares about and what he believes in, and so it's not in my hands now. it's up to them. >> what about long-term about the electoral college? >> long-term with respect to the electoral college, the electoral college is a vestage, a carryover from an earlier vision of how our federal government was going to work that put a lot of premium on states and used to be that the senate was not elected directly, it was through state legislatures and it's the same type of thinking that gives wyoming two senators and with about half a million people and california with 33 million get the same two, so there are some
1:01 pm
structure structures in our political system, as envisioned by the founders, that sometimes they're going to disadvantage democrats, but the truth of the matter is, is that if we have a strong message, if we're speaking to what the american people care about, typically you know, the popular vote and the electoral college vote will align, and i guess part of my overall message here as i leave for the holidays is that if we looked for one explanation or one silver bullet, or one easy fix for our politics, then we're probably
1:02 pm
going to be disappointed. there are just a lot of factors in what's happened, not just over the last few months, but over the last decade that has made both politics and governance more challenging, and i think everybody's raised legitimate questions and legitimate concerns. i do hope that we all just take some time, take a breath, this is certainly what i'm going to advise democrats, to just reflect a little bit more about how can we, how can we get to a place where people are focused on working together, based on at least some common set of facts, how can we have a conversation about policy that doesn't
1:03 pm
demonize each other? how can we channel what i think is the basic decency and goodness of the american people so it reflects itself in our politics as opposed to it being so polarized and so nasty that in some cases, you have voters and elected officials who have more confidence and faith in a foreign adversary than they have in their neighbors. you know? and those go to some bigger issues. you know, how is it that we have some voters or some elected officials who think that michelle obama's healthy eating
1:04 pm
initiative and school nutrition program is a greater threat to democracy than our government going after the press if they're issuing a story we don't like. i mean that's an issue that i think we've got to wrestle with. and we will. people asked me how do you feel after the election? i say well, look, this is a clarifying moment. it's a useful reminder that voting counts, politics counts, what the president-elect is going to be doing is going to be very different than what i was doing, and i think people will be able to compare and contrast and make judgments about what worked for the american people,
1:05 pm
and i hope that building off the progress we've made that what the president-elect is proposing works. what i can say with confidence is that what we've done works. that i can prove. i can show you where we were in 2008, and i can show you where we are now, and you can't argue that we're not better off. we are. and for that, i thank the american people and more importantly i thank well not more importantly, as importantly i was going to say josh earnest, for doing such a great job. [ laughter ] for that i thank the american people, i thank the men and women in uniform who serve.
1:06 pm
i haven't gotten to the point yet where i've been overly sentimental. i will tell you when i was doing my last christmas party photo line, many of you have participated in these, they're pretty long, rite at tght at thf the line, the president's ma reap corps band comes in, those who have been performing and i take a picture with them, and it was the last time that i was going to take a picture with my marine corps band, after an event, and i got a little choked up. i was in front of marines so i had to like tamp it down, but it was just one small example of all the people who have contributed to our success. i'm responsible for where we've screwed up, the successes are widely shared with all the amazing people who have been part of this administration. okay, thank you everybody. me lekalikimaka.
1:07 pm
>> i'm jake tapper. breaking news president obama leaving the press room right there. he said he told flvladimir puti to cut it out in his final address in 2016. president bobama holding yaush responsible for hacking the democratic committee and chair mon john podesta. michelle, this is the first time the president has spoken so fully about the charge. >> reporter: i think as we expected we didn't say very much about this proportional response, that we know the government has been working on, but he went sort of more into the thinking, and also this warning that he said he gave vladimir putin back when they met face to face when russia was suspected in these hacks, in september.
1:08 pm
listen to some of what he said there. >> in early september, when i saw president putin in china, i felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn't happen was to talk to him directly, and tell him to cut it out, and there were going to be some serious consequences if if he didn't. >> reporter: okay, now that warning and there will be consequences, obviously that didn't stop this process of selective leaks, of continued hacks that we know from intelligence officials still continue to this day. so obviously that warning of consequences was ineffective and the president didn't really address that aspect of it, but i think what he tried to do throughout this press conference was explain his behavior, his choices in great detail, and also defend them, and we saw a defense of how he handled the hacking initially. we saw a defense of the fbi and how they acted, defense of the
1:09 pm
timing of the release of that information, and also an extensive defense on how the u.s. has handled the situation, the absolutely wrenching situation ongoing in aleppo. listen to some of that. >> part of the goal here was to make sure that we did not do the work of the leakers for them by raising more and more questions about the integrity of the election right before the leck was taking place, at a time, by the way, when the president-elect himself was raising questions about the integrity of the election. >> reporter: so there you heard his defense of the timing, of naming russia, of the political forces involved. of course, you know, how that happened, how it all played out ultimately is the open debate that's raging right now. i mean, there has been criticism of how that happened coming not just from republicans, from democrats. so the president wanted to lay
1:10 pm
out why they felt -- in fact he spelled it out in those words. he said that he felt that he did what he should have done, how his administration handled it. he feels that his administration allowed the intelligence community to do their jobs, and he kind of left it at that. he also didn't want to wade too far into other, you know, really difficult issues right now like the electors, who might not vote, cast their votes for donald trump. the criticism of the fbi and coming from democrats that that may have contributed to the outcome of the election, so there are things that, you know, as expected, he didn't want to go into too much detail on but you saw him here wanting to fully take this opportunity at length to explain his decisions and once again maybe for the last time try to make the case to the american public of why he felt he was doing, you know, the
1:11 pm
best under the circumstances, and trying to protect them. jake? >> michelle kosinski at the white house thanks so much. the now to how the u.s. came to point fingers at russia. sources confirming an internal message sent from cia director john brennan that the fbi and u.s. intelligence, the national security director, as well, sorry the director of national intelligence as well as the director of the cia, all of them, including the fbi russia tried to undermine u.s. politics and this is important, this is significant, and that one of their motivations was to try to help donald trump win the election. joining me now cnn chief national security correspondent jim sciutto. jim, there has not been unanimity on what the motivation of russia was. the news that the fbi now agrees with cia director brennan, that seems significant. >> well it is. i think one point to make is that there was less disagreement than some reporting and then some gop lawmakers have been
1:12 pm
saying, speaking to multiple officials both in the intelligence agencies and in law enforceme enforcement, this is what is new today. cia director john brennan feeling the need to write the entire cia staff an internal message that said the following, "there is strong consensus on the scope, nature and zpent" jake noted it was key of russian hacking. let me add this caveat. you never know intent for sure, that's looking into the minds of president vladimir putin and people working for him. their analysis is there were multiple intents, one undermine the political process, sow doubts here in america about the presidential election. in addition to that weaken hillary clinton through the releases of emails and internal communications and thereby help donald trump. my understanding from speaking to multiple intelligence officials is that early on, even russia may not have judged that donald trump was going to win this election, but as he
1:13 pm
continued to improve his chances, there say perception, judgment and assessment inside the cia that they believe russia went, in effect, all-in for donald trump. again, that's their assessment with the necessary caveats that they can't know for sure but another thing here. there have been reports out there, also been charges you might say from lawmakers that the fbi and the cia are disagreeing that the cia is alone in making this assessment, that the intention may very well have been to help donald trump. in fact i'm told by people on both sides of the river that, is from law enforcement and intelligence agencies that that disaxwreegreement is overblown. they find that plausible and the cia believes it has more evidence that was the the case. i've spoken to a lot of people inside the agencies. there is enormous frustration and anger among intelligence agents and analysts and the cia, and a number of things, attacks
1:14 pm
on them, questioning of the work that they do, charges that they are politicizing the intelligence here, going in for hillary clinton, say by making this assessment. enormous frustration there. they're trying to do their job and what you're hearing in this communication from the cia director to them, listen, we're on the same page. don't hear what you say about disagreement between us and the cia. we like what you're doing, we respect what you're doing, up necessary message. >> let's bring in our panel now to talk about the president's press conference, we have "usa today" columnist keirston powers, republican pollster kristen soltis anderson, senior political analyst david gergen, as well as david axelrod. and let me start with you, keirston. the president coming out making a strong defense of himself, of his administration, of the decisions he's made and very
1:15 pm
specifically criticizing not just the russians, but things that donald trump, the president-elect, has said and done regarding russia. >> he also was pretty critical of the media as well, he felt the media didn't do their job covering the issue appropriately, that the media went overboard in covering things that he referred to was in the wikileaks emails basically sort of routine information that was embarrassing but shouldn't be getting the front page coverage that it was getting and basically saying we put the information out there and you guys didn't do enough with it and i actually agree with him on the coverage of the more salacious or silly stuff that wasn't relevant. i don't necessarily agree on the other side. i think it's the job of the people in power to make issues for people for the press to follow them and highlight them for being important, that's how things often get covered, and that's how people often know what's important. >> kristen, president obama citing a poll that suggests that
1:16 pm
37% of republicans in the united states have a favorable impression of vladimir putin. i believe that's a higher favorable rating among republicans than president obama has, and his point being was that donald trump the president-elect has been cozying up for want of a better word, praising putin. >> we have become a very tribal nation so when people are listening to these poll questions they're responding from sort of partisan instincts. you've seen not only improvements in the flafrt toward vladimir putin but wikileaks, where three years ago those numbers flipped p republicans slightly more positive toward wikileaks and a lot of this was in part aided by much of the discussion before the election about the need for this election to be taken seriously and treated as legitimate and now republicans, having won the election are feeling a little bit like well you told us we needed to accept these results. now we're being told this election was illegitimate.
1:17 pm
i think that's some of the emotional response. maybe we like vladimir putin and we like wikileaks. it's not all republicans and you'll see in some of the confirmation hearings for the secretary of state, some republican senators who are opposed to what russia is doing. some of the conflicts between existing republican senators and the new president-elect potentially coming out. >> at one point president obama knew about these hacks and suggested of course he did. take a listen to that. >> the intelligence that i've seen gives me great confidence in their assessment that the russians carried out this hack. not much happens in russia without vladimir putin. >> let me go to david axelrod now and david, did anything president obama say surprise you? it seemed to me that he was very aggressively linking donald trump and the russians and i don't know that that's going to
1:18 pm
help make the case to the country, which some of whom did vote for donald trump, the president-elect that this russian hack should be taken very seriously. >> first of all on the previous point about the poll, i think the point he was trying to make is not that a third of the republicans are soft on putin, but the point that kristen made, which is that we have become so polarized, that even on something like putin, partisan tribal instincts kick in and you see these great shifts and what he was making the case that we shouldn't do that. i actually thought, jake, that he was trying not to be, to done thematory of donald trump, but he was making a point that trump, throughout the campaign, has or throughout this issue has minimized and dismissed this, and there's a danger in that. his overarching point it seemed to me was this was an incursion
1:19 pm
on our national sovereignty. this is not a democratic issue or a republican issue. setting aside of what the intent or motivation was, it was an alarming intrusion on our political process by vladimir putin, and that should be a source of concern to everyone, and on this point, jim sciutto mentioned earlier how dismayed the intelligence community, i assume the fbi is about the characterization of their roles in this. i thought one important part of this press conference was the president's stout defense of those people who do that work. he was talking about the fbi and he said they work hard, they save lives. it's important for the president of the united states to stand up for our institutions, and i think the president was trying very hard to do that in this press conference. >> david gergen let's talk about that last point. obviously the fbi just in the last 4 hours has really been under fire by former secretary of state hillary clinton, who in a room full of donors faulted
1:20 pm
james comey for the letter and her, what she perceives to be his interference in the election, costing her the election, and then john podesta, hillary clinton's campaign chairman, today in "the washington post" laying out in an op-ed how he thinks the fbi is really performing in a subpar manner and its behavior during the election was indefensible in john podesta's view. as david axelrod pointed out president obama a strong defender of the fbi today. >> he was a very strong defender of the fbi, and i think, jake, his whole press conference underscored just how dramatic a change we are having in american government. ever since the end of world war ii, when one president has succeeded another, the two presidents, the old one and new one almost always agree on the nature of the threat we face as americans, but disagree sometimes on the means of dealing with it.
1:21 pm
in this case, president obama has a completely different view of the threat we face from russia than donald trump does. he lay squarely on the russia, at the russian's feet, blamed for what's happening in aleppo we wouldn't have this slaughter were it not for the russians bringing in armaments and saving assad and the question on the election and the hacking. the russians are squarely behind that and here we've got donald trump coming in with a completely different sense of reality in effect going we want to cozy up to the russians. vladimir putin can be our friend. he's the strong man i admire. i admire him and 37% of the american people follow along with trump and say that, too. we're in new territory here on so many different fronts, and i think it makes the trump presidency not just fascinating but it also makes it, you know, very, very, makes people feel very uneasy in washington in
1:22 pm
places like the fein and the cia, where they want to do their jobs and they fear they have a president who comes in, who is coming in, who is hostile toward them, who has a very different sense of reality and they don't know where that goes. >> of course, at home you might be forgiven for wondering if russia did all of this as the u.s. intelligence agencies and president obama allege russian officials did. what is the united states going to do about it? president obama did briefly address that. take a listen. >> i told russia to stop it, and indicated there will be consequences when they do it. our goal continues to be to send a clear message to russia or others not to do this stuff because we can do this stuff to you. >> clarissa ward is live in moscow. president obama saying there will be consequences for russia's actions. has moscow reacted to that
1:23 pm
threat yet and do they worry at all, given the fact that they are so overjoyed, according to your reporting and others, with the election of donald trump? >> reporter: well there's been no official response yet, and i wouldn't hold your breath in terms of any major shift in the russian party line which has been this is ludicrous, this is nonsense, prove it or move on. it's indecent, was the word the kremlin spokesperson used today to describe these constant accusations but i think you also heard president obama during that press conference really illuminating the two main reasons that it is so difficult to respond to russia and to respond to president putin in particular. the first one being that naming and shaming don't work. naming russia doesn't work because russia just denies it, whether it's hacking, whether it's when the little green men first appeared in crimea, you might remember president putin initially denied there was anything going on there. shaming we've seen clearly doesn't work as in aleppo
1:24 pm
particularly, in that example. so there's a sense that you have a tough situation on your hands as a u.s. president, when you're trying to respond to something like this, because you can't name, you can't shame and the second difficulty becomes that because russia is engaging in what is essentially hybrid warfare, you can't really respond in a conventional way and you certainly can't respond in a public way, and unlike president vladimir putin, who doesn't really have to answer to his voters, i think the u.s. president does feel some pressure from the american people to answer to them to explain what is being done to punish russia or to retaliate or ensure something like this never happens again, and what president obama was essentially saying there is you can't really do that in this type of situation. so he then says i can't illuminate for you, i can't tell you exactly how i'm going to respond and i'm sure that's bound to leave some people feeling was that a weak answer, is it a copout? why won't he name president putin directly and say exactly
1:25 pm
what's going to be done in terms of retaliation. it struck me it illustrates some of the ways in which it is so difficult to respond to the unique set of threats that russia and president putin present to the u.s. jake? >> clarissclarissa, let me ask h your senior international correspondent hat, somebody who has covered what's going on in syria, from the front lines, president obama said he feels responsible every time he sees images from syria, whether it's children being killed by sniper fire or anyone being slaughtered but that ultimately, he said i understand the impulse to try to do something, but then ultimately when it came to a decision and finding a decision on what to do about syria and the civil war, finding a solution that was sustainable and realistic and good for the united states, that he ended up where he ended up and he doesn't know that it's successful but he doesn't know that he would arrive at a different decision,
1:26 pm
having covered what's going on in syria, what was your response when you heard him say that? >> i think my response was it's clear that president obama, that this does weigh on him heavily. he has said this a number of times, that it keeps him up at night, that he does feel some sort of responsibility. i think maybe privately he might acknowledge that there was a window at some point where the u.s. probably could have done more, where the u.s. potentially could have saved more lives, but what we've seen the president do over and over again is try to present syria as a situation where there were only two options open to the u.s. do a little bit of not that much, which is what the u.s. ultimately went for, or go full scale boots on the ground, hundreds of thousands of troops invasion. personally, from what i have seen on the ground, from what i have heard from allies who were supporting the rebels, i do believe there was a middle
1:27 pm
ground option, although i do not think anyone would argue that there have ever been any easy answers in syria, but certainly we've seen president obama repeatedly try to present this as it was a choice between what we did or a full scale invasion and i still think i did the right thing by doing what we did. obviously he's interested in preserving his legacy but i think you heard there as he talked about the ways in which he's haunted by quha is happening in syria he is aware history may not be so kind t may be a stain on his legacy. >> david axelrod, there are no easy answers about syria, but do you accept that president obama largely tries to present this as the two choices, either not really do much of anything, which is what's going on right now, or full scale invasion, and he kind of leaves out the fact that there were other options, including more fully arming
1:28 pm
syrian moderate rebels, creating a no fly zone, trying more emphatically to get arab nation troops on the ground there. what is your insight? >> first of all just knowing him as i do, when he says he anguishes over this, i know that to be true. i don't think anything influences him more than children. he said this is the first time i cried in the oval office, and whenever a child is in distress or being wronged, he's also someone who tend to ask the question then what? the question that wasn't asked when the invasion of iraq took place, so you heard him articulate it here. i don't think he was particularly defensive today. he was laying out his reasoning
1:29 pm
and history will judge whether it was right or wrong. his reasoning this would have sucked us into a conflict that would have grown and would have enveloped us in the way the past conflict did and the country could not afford that, couldn't stand that. whether he would disagree i'm sure there was a viable middle ground and that again will be debated by history but i don't think anyone should conclude that he was looking for a way not to solve this problem i think he desperately wanted to find a seclusion. you talk to people around the white house this is something that haunts them. >> david gergen, it does seem as though presidents and historians judge themselves harshly when it comes to inaction in situations such as this, i'm thinking about
1:30 pm
president bill clinton and rwanda. the public doesn't really have much interest getting involved in foreign wars or better or worse, often for worse when it comes to innocent lives being slaughtered. >> that's a very good point, jake. it's certainly true that george w. bush will be remembered far more for going into iraq than president obama remembered for staying out of syria. the syrian situation became a lot more complicated when there was a dramatic turning point when the russians got in. that made it a lot harder to look at any middle ground, and this thing has gone south ever since that happened. the russians have been blocking actions of the u.n. you would think by this time the u.n. would have teams in there to save these poor civilians and when you have the russian blocking thing you can't get anywhere. i just think that's why donald
1:31 pm
trump represents 180-degree turn in how we think about the russians, how to respond to them and how to move ahead in the world. >> kristen, what tuning about president obama's response when it came to talking about aleppo? he said i cannot claim that my strategy has been successful. >> i appreciate that president obama is anguished as we are when we see the horrific footage and photos. anguish doesn't save the children of alep poe. there have been folks all along before russia got involved that have been saying we need to arm moderate rebels there, because now you have situations where you have cities that were first taken by isis, liberated by assad and liberated from isis, because the one good potential side was never fully supported by the u.s. so a feckless half measure led us to where we are and created a vacuum where russia was able to step in and take stronger measures.
1:32 pm
>> president-elect donald trump sounds less interested in getting involved in syria and iraq than president obama was. >> i also think to a certain extent we don't know what would have happened if we armed the rebels. now the people can say if we just would have armed the rebels all of these great things would have happened. it could have easily gone badly. we've armed rebels in the past and it's gone badly. we didn't know who the rebels were so we could be giving arms to potentially isis actually. the president did a painstaking step by step going through all of the different things he had to think through making this decision and it weighs heavily on him and i think he was in a really tough decision in making this call, and in a way we'll never really know whether it would have made a difference or not. >> kristen, kirsten, david, david, thank you so much. our breaking news coverage. congressman sean duffy, republican of wisconsin, when we come back will weigh in on
1:33 pm
president obama's final news conference of the year. stay with us. don't stare at me. see me. see me. see me to know that psoriasis is just something that i have. i'm not contagious. see me to know that... ...i won't stop until i find what works. discover cosentyx, a different kind of medicine for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. proven to help the majority of people find clear or almost clear skin. 8 out of 10 people saw 75% skin clearance at 3 months. while the majority saw 90% clearance. do not use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting, you should be tested for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur... ...tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms... ...such as fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. see me. see me. see me. on my way. find clear skin... and a clearer path forward. for a different kind of medicine, ask your dermatologist about cosentyx.
1:34 pm
so we know how to cover almost almoanything.hing, even a rodent ride-along. [dad] alright, buddy, don't forget anything! [kid] i won't, dad... [captain rod] happy tuesday morning! captain rod here. it's pretty hairy out on the interstate.traffic is literally crawling, but there is some movement on the eastside overpass. getting word of another collision. [burke] it happened. december 14th, 2015. and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ you recommend synthetic and can yover cedar?to me why "super food"? is that a real thing? it's a great school, but is it the right the one for her? is this really any better than the one you got last year? if we consolidate suppliers what's the savings there? so should we go with the 467 horsepower? or is a 423 enough? good question. you ask a lot of good questions... i think we should move you into our new fund. ok. sure. but are you asking enough about how your wealth is managed? wealth management, at charles schwab.
1:35 pm
♪ share the joy of real cream... ...with reddi-wip. my budget used toespecially downer. around the holidays. but thanks to, we can shop over 700,000 items from brands like samsung, kitchenaid and lego. all with low monthly payments. ♪
1:36 pm
welcome back to "the lead." i'm jake tapper. the russians are responsible for hacking the dnc and john podesta and that his administration laid out the facts when it released a joint statement accusing the russians of orchestrating cyber attacks against u.s. political targets. >> i wanted to make sure everybody understood we were playing straight, weren't trying to advantage one side or another. >> joining me to discuss this all republican congressman sean duffy from wisconsin, a member of president-elect trump's transition executive team. congressman thanks so much for joining us. >> great to be with you jake, thanks for having me on. >> you heard the president say russia is directly responsible for the hacks and there was no attempt before the election to spin the fact for the political ben fit of hillary clinton. what's your response?
1:37 pm
>> if you remember in the middle of october trmp trrp was saying this election was going to be rigged. i've come on cnn the election's not going to be requirigged. fair and free. president obama said to donald trump stop whining, mag the case to the american people. never did he say russia was involved in this election and now after the election the president's come out and we see leaks from the intelligence department, media reports have come out as well about russian involvement. the problem that we have is, we haven't seen any reports yet. the intelligence community hasn't come to the hill and briefed deb nunez, nor senator ron johnson, chairman of homeland security in the senate so we have great reservation how this played out and i think a key point is, one, if russia was involved, russia's hacking, i want to know that. i think the american people deserve to know that but the truth is, i agree with barack obama. we had a free and fair election, all votes that were cast were
1:38 pm
counted and the dnc hack or the hack in to clinton clintonhilla email through john podesta, nobody cared about the attacks. this didn't drive the opinion. they looked at the economy, security and strong leadership. they didn't care that the dnc was involved helping hillary clinton over bernie sanders or some of the internal scandals and strive inside the hillary clinton campaign that came out through the podesta emails. those were nonfactors so the hack didn't impact the outcome but that they were trying, we should actually know about that and i support any investigation to find out what involvement they are trying to have. one other point, jake, russia should be pretty good at hacking and if we're going to have some influence, try to have some real influence on the election. they were miserable failures if they just did the dnc and podesta. >> you might be conflating the idea of hacking into voting
1:39 pm
machines to change vote counts. that's one of the things that i think was being debated before the election, whether there would be an attempt to do that and that obviously did not happen and i think that's what president obama talked about before the election in terms of go out and make your case, but then in terms of what effect did the election, i mean i guess we don't know. hillary clinton could have gone to wisconsin after the convention, your home state and the kremlin didn't tell her not to do that. there's any number of factors that could have played a role, we're talking about 80,000 votes in three states and hillary clinton would be president-elect right now, so the idea that maybe this played a role, we'll never know but maybe it did. surely you would want to know what russia did. sounds like that's what you're saying, that congress needs to get to the bottom of it. >> i totally agree with that but i do think -- sometimes i think the media can conflate the two as well and say russia hacked and then therefore had an
1:40 pm
influgs on the election. i can speak for my part of the state of wisconsin, and it had no bearing on the decision that the people made on who they were going to vote for. it was embarrassing stuff but not really things that drove the electorate one way or the other, in my opinion, from the voters that i saw, and again going back to president obama's statements at the beginning in the middle of october, you know, if there was hacks coming in from russia, he should have talked about that with donald trump and said you know what? there is an issue here. this election could be rigged not by the voting machines but because of russian influence and we should have had a whole vetting of that in october but if not why won't the intelligence community come to the hill and vet members of congress? why are we getting this information through leaks instead of in a secure setting on the hill? that's a head scratcher for a lot of us in congress. >> we look forward to them briefing you and open hearings as well. congressman duffy thanks so much, appreciate your time
1:41 pm
>> thanks, jake. hillary clinton's campaign manager says the fbi's handling of the russian hacking shows something is deeply broken at the agency. does the nation's top law enforcement official agree? i'll ask attorney general loretta lynch next. y red tag sa. this thing is a beast. steel or aluminum? steel. why? science. it's gonna hold up over aluminum, big time. you can get special holiday pricing and when you find your red tag, you get thousands more cash back. that's two deals in one. two deals sound better than one. that's a for-sure thing for me. during the red tag sales event, get two deals in one. find your tag for an average total value over ninety-six hundred dollars on chevy silverado all stars. find new roads at your local chevy dealer. what makesheart healthysalad the becalifornia walnuts.r? the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever?
1:42 pm
heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so simple. get the recipes at
1:43 pm
1:44 pm
welcome back. hillary clinton says she can explain why russia launched its
1:45 pm
signer attack on u.s. election systems, blames a long time grudge held by russian president vladimir putin. john podesta also took some time and blame for the sprawling hack that ensnared her candidacy. he faulted failures at the fbi and podesta called out fbi director james comey. now the fbi however is pushing back. evan perez joins me now. evan, you've been reporting on fbi warnings of attempted hacks since the summer. how do you recall officials describing their response? >> jake, i think what's happening right now is members of the clinton campaign are trying to explain to their supporters how they lost this election and hillary clinton met with some of our donors and she described it this way. take a listen. >> we have to recognize that, as the latest reports made clear, vladimir putin himself directed the covert cyber attacks against
1:46 pm
our electoral system, against our democracy, apparently because he has a personal beef against mimi. against me. >> hillary clinton's campaign manager john podesta wrote an op-ed in "the washington post" in addition to the fact that the fbi director sent these letters just before the election that talked about the finding of new emails, he also said that the fbi did not work hard enough to investigate the dnc hacks, certainly not as hard as they did to pursue the email investigation. they left voice mails with an i.t. staffer. jake, we've been reporting on this since the summer and our reporting scholes the fbi one official told me they called the dnc 11 times they reached out to the dnc, they reached out to the dnc's general counsel's office, they went so far as to invite the dnc to an exercise to a briefing where they could get an idea of how these things are
1:47 pm
done. the dnc declined. so the fbi did not do everything perfectly here but there was a little bit morrow bust response than podesta makes it out to be. >> some spinning coming from the dnc why this wasn't their fault. owe des ta suggested the fbi should have investigated the hacks by the russians with the same intensity and manpower that it used to investigate hillary clinton's private email server. is that a fair charge? are the cases too different to compare? >> they're very different. one case we're talking about the clinton and her staff being the targets of an investigation, of a criminal investigation, and then the other the dnc, they were victims of a crime. you could only go so far to encourage a victim to cooperate. if they decline there's not much more they can do. they didn't call the security company that she should have done and look at it from the point of view of the dnc, they don't necessarily want the fbi in their business. we can understand perhaps why this went this way. >> interesting, thank you so much.
1:48 pm
attorney general loretta lynch oversees the entire justice department and this includes of course the fbi. earlier today i sat down with her exclusively and i asked her to respond to what poe des spod said in his op-ed in his case against the fbi. he said he's "surprised to read in the "new york times" when the fbi discovered the russian attack in september of 2015 it failed to even send a single agent to warn senior dnc officials. instead messages were left with the dnc i.t. help desk." is that an accurate description of the outreach to the fbi did to the dnc and if so, is that sufficient? >> so as we've talked about earlier this year, the investigation into the hacks of the dnc and the d triple c is an ongoing investigation,' an active investigation so i'm not able to comment on the specifics of how people were contacted but i can say that the fbi has
1:49 pm
worked closely with those organizations, both to discuss what we've learned about the hacks to gather information about them so that we can continue this investigation. >> whether or not you can get into specifics, is it true that there was this level of calling the dnc that doesn't sound particularly competent or doesn't sound like it had the urgency that one would think? is that basic description that podesta makes, is it accurate? >> i can tell you this investigation was taken seriously from the beginning. this is an incredibly serious issue. i can't comment on mr. podesta's sources or where he gets his information or why he has that view. what i can say is that he's not involved in the ongoing investigation so he wouldn't be privy to everything that would have been done or said to that. but as i said, he's entitled to his opinion, but what i'm -- >> what he's not entitled to is facts. i wonder if his facts are accurate. he finds it "downright infewer
1:50 pm
yaiting nearly the exact same time no one could bother to drive ten minutes from the agency." he is suggesting without question that hillary clintonese email server got more attention from the justice department and the fbi than this hack investigation by russia, which i think it's fair to say seems fairly serious. >> well that's an ongoing investigation so i would say it's been taken very seriously. >> did the clinton email investigation get more attention than the hacks? >> you can't characterize it and i don't think that it is going to be helpful to try and draw equivalencies to any investigation with others to say and therefore it means that one was more or less important. because as i said, one is resolved right now. one is finished and one is very active and very ongoing, so there you see a great deal of activity still continuing. >> i know you can't comment on the active investigation but let me just put it this way. john podesta is out there trashing the fbi.
1:51 pm
and he's saying that the investigation into the hacks of the dnc was substandard. that's clearly what he's saying. do you agree with that characterization? >> i don't. i don't. first of all, the investigation isn't even over, so i think it's impossible to characterize it in any one way or the other. again, i know where mr. podesta is on taking information. >> said the "new york times," a big long "new york times" story which i'm sure you read. >> i know also because of his involvement with the campaign he'll have a certain interest with this and a certain view of that, and so i again i allow him his opinion. everyone has a great deal of respect for him so i allow him that opinion but i disagree with that if that is the characterization he's trying to make. i think you've got to look at every investigation separately. you've got to look at every case separately, and you've got to allow for the fact that the way in which someone may be contacted isn't indicative of the full relationship that they developed or the response that
1:52 pm
they may have gotten initially from that organization as well. >> and you can see my entire interview with outgoing attorney general loretta lynch this sunday. i speak exclusively with former republican presidential nominee senator john mccain. see both on "state of the union" at 9:00 a.m. eastern right here on cnn. coming up, an american hero displaying bravery. you may have never heard his name but you will hear his story next. ( ♪ ) ♪ they tell me i'm wrong ♪ ♪ to want to stand alongside my, my love ♪ ♪ whoa, talkin' 'bout my love ♪
1:53 pm
♪ to want to stand alongside my, my love ♪ imy moderate to severeng crohn's disease. i didn't think there was anything else to talk about. but then i realized there was. so, i finally broke the silence with my doctor about what i was experiencing. he said humira is for people like me who have tried other medications but still experience the symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease. in clinical studies, the majority of patients on humira saw significant symptom relief. and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems,
1:54 pm
serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. if you're still just managing your symptoms, talk with your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.
1:55 pm
welcome back. the national league paying tribute to a hero who acted in the face of a frenzy of death. lawrence colburn helped end the slaughter of 500 unarmed
1:56 pm
vietnamese villagers died yesterday at 67. pilot hugh thompson landed the chopper on a search and destroy mission and had lawrence colburn cover him and convince members of charlie company to stop the shooting. the young men left behind elderly men and women and children who were nearly wiped out. 30 years later colburn would remember the day saying "may we never forget again the heartbreak and brutality of war." rest in peace to that brave veteran. turning to our pop lead, he might have the coolest gig, bill weir travels the world to take a deeper dive into untold stories. he goes to holland generally known for its liberal progressivetal rant views but comes along a man called the dutch donald trump. maybe that's not fair, maybe it is, trying to catch a wave that
1:57 pm
many other populations in the u.s. and europe have ridden to victory. bill, removing donald trump from this at all, tell us about this politician in the netherlands. why is he getting this reputation? >> well he is completely anti-islam, not the people, not muslims in particular but he thinks islam is a religion of death, it is corrosive and he is trying to limit immigration in this famously open-minded society. the dutch created that country out of mud and water and they are famously collegial, they work together but it's neighbor against neighbor as this gentleman rises in the polls. he's a favorite to become the prime minister and it's so, i really can't take trump out of, jake. >> okay. >> i happened to be there while his rise was happening here and it was such an interesting
1:58 pm
parallel. the guys we hired to drive us around blue collar good guys are voting for him and this is part of a trend that's happening across europe, where these populist sort of anti-immigration candidates are on the rise and more and more young people actually in polls are saying living in a democracy is not as eessential as many thought in the past. >> fascinating and populism is rising everywhere in the west. what does it mean for the refugee and immigrant communities in places like the netherlands? >> you know, we met one guy from serious, tried to bribe his way across the borders, from homz, finally went through the system in netherlands, sort of an accepted member of the society trying to ingrashiate himself
1:59 pm
there but that is the exception to the rule. his biggest flag speech we've been too tolerant of intolerant people. if they don't want to fit into our society we don't want them but it's the pressures of assimilati assimilation. the mayor of rotterdam is a muslim from morocco. it took him 15 years to feel dutch so the sheer numbers coming up from the war in syria is creating this pressure point, even if the lowest sort of liberal open-minded societies. >> interesting and having to spoken to policymembers and others in europe what do you think brexit will mean for the future of eu? >> i think we're living through seismic times. i wanted to do a wonder list europe edition after brexit. now i want to do an american version after our election, but yeah, you know, it's the pendulum, liberal democracy seems to be on the wane, if you look at these trend lines and people becoming moreiness la in
2:00 pm
more nationalistic. we hope we continue to watch "game of thrones" on tv and not have to live it. >> watch the third season this sunday at 10:00 p.m. follow me@jaketapper. tune in to "state of the union" this sunday at 9:00 eastern for exclusive interviews with loretta lynch and senator john mccain. here is wolf blitzer in "the situation room." cornered by putin, president obama essentially confirmed that rush's president directly directed the hacking. mr. obama sent a clear message to moscow tonight in his news conference. on the same page, cnn has learned that the fbi now agrees with other intelligence agencies about russia's role in the