tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN March 16, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
here we go. you're watching cnn i'm brooke baldwin, thank you for be with us on this thursday. we watch, we wait live pictures from the briefing room. waiting to hear from sean spicer on multiple issues on wiretapping, the health care plan, the budget. we do know the chief nick mulvaney will be out to talk about some to have numbers that critics points to as being unrealistic, but first specifically on wiretapping we have heard from the ranking
senate intel committees chairman burr and vice chairman mark warner, let me quote, based on the information available to us we see no indications that trump tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the united states government either before or after election day 2016. let me add to that over on the house side we heard from manu raju in his interview on the rank member adam schiff has had conversations with the fbi chief jim comey and met in closed door sessions and ultimately said he will echo the same sentiments, but quite simply that president trump was not wiretapped by president obama. all of that said, let's go to our man there in the briefing room jim acosta our senior white house correspondence and may i first ask, they're late. where is sean spicer?
>> well, we just got the two-minute warning. >> there you go. >> reporter: in the last couple minutes. we should point out we got a ten-minute warning back at 2:20. i know there's alle i know there's college basketball on right now, not sure if they're running out the clock, but there are the wiretapping questions you raised just before the scheduled 2:00 start time. we did see the statement coming from chairman burr and mark warner, saying they haven't seen any surveillance at trump tower evidence going on. but also expecting mark mulvaney to come out to talk about the budget, a lot baked inside of it presumably there are going to be a lot of questions asked about that as well, but also the
president's second attempt at travel bans was held up in the courts last night. so there are no shortage of questions, what we might have is a shortage of patience now that the briefing is now running an hour late, brooke. >> the president has been uncharacteristically silent. we finally heard with the back and forth with tucker carlson with him trying to wiggle his way out of this allegation he made. how do you think sean spicer responds to that because i know or others will ask? >> reporter: i tried to press sean spicer on this a couple of days and said are we going to see something from the administration to the house intelligence committee of evidence to back up the president's claims still so far baseless and sean spicer said yes, but last night you heard the president say in an interview an article or fox news interview might have been the
basis for that. looks like we're going to get started we have officials coming in the room. >> you got it. >> i don't think we see sean spicer just yet. okay there we go. >> jim, thank you. thank you. well you know we're getting ready for the season. sorry for the delay, guys. it's budget day. i was supposed to kick this off with director mulvaney. he's still on a call with the governors continuing to host a ton of briefings with key stakeholders so my goal as we finish up director mulvaney will walk in the room right on queue and then he will talk to you a little bit about the budget and walk through q&a on that so hopefully this all works. i'm going skip past the part where i say thank you director mulvaney. as the director will say the
president's blueprint promises to keep security, policies that restore and respect for sincitis hard earned tax dollars, there were non-budget event. the president had a meeting with the -- of ireland. there are important economic ties. the president was honored to host him in the oval office and commit to strong social and political economic rielationshis through the united states and ireland. this traditional luncheon committing peace and security in ireland was started in 1983 by president reagan and speaker o'neal. has been attended by every president, speaker of ireland since. right now the vice president is swearing in dan coats in his
ceremonial office. he has clearly demonstrated the subject matter expertise and sound judgment required to lead our intelligence community and the president is finally glad to have him on board as part of his team. later this evening the president along with kenny will attend the st. patricks day reception and participate in the annual shamrock certifica shamrock ceremony. come to the white house where they present a bowl of shamrocks as a symbol of lasting relationship between the two countries, the president and he will make remarks. first i wanted to share with you guys a letter that should be going out shortly if it hasn't already that the president signed this morning wishing ray chavez the oldest living survivor of pearl harbor a happy 150th birthday.
our nation owes mr. chavez a great legacy of gratefulness and thanks. we extend our warm wishes to ray and his family as he celebrates his 105th and wishing he hopes to have several more birthdays to come. the president announced his attempt to keep robert daigle, elai elai elaine mccluster, david nor queques norquest, kenneth conno, patrick shanahan, and david joel
trackenberg as principal secretary of defense. the president is glad to have these men and women on board as secretary mattis under takes the great rebuilding our nation's military. the president ordered federal assistance for the areas affected by severe winter storms, flooding and mudslides this january. announced second lady karen pence will lead the presidential delegation to the 2017 special olympics world winter games in austria. approved the american health care act moving the acha forward. we're working with the house for the movement and confident this will lead to legislation that reforms our health care making it more affordable and accessible to every erk manien.
since we won't have a chance to meet tomorrow, want to walk you through the president's schedule. tomorrow the president will welcome german chancellor merkel to the white house. rescheduling from the snow inclement weather from the other day, the president and the chancellor have a series of meetings and host a roundtable focussing on vocational training on both american and german business leerds, a press conference in the afternoon, details later this afternoon. also tomorrow the president will attend a listening session with veterans affairs and v.a. secreta secretary shulkin. it's incredibly important to the president we reform the v.a. system to fulfill the promises to the men and women who risk lives for our nation. he looks forward to improve the
administration. >> and meeting the co-founder of microsoft. later that afternoon the prt will welcome the prime minister of iraq. on wednesday the president has invited all 49 members of the congressional black caucus for a meeting. the president looks forward to welcoming what he hopes will be a productive discussion and remind via twitter that the lottery for the 139th easter egg roll is open until this coming saturday. everyone interested in attending can go to recreation.gov for details. the president addressed the decision by the federal district court in hawaii to block his lawful -- executive order. the president said last night quote the law and the constitution give the power the president the power to suspend immigration when he deems it to be necessary in the national
interest. the court didn't even bother to quote the relevant statute in its opinion which shows the president clearly has this authority. you have heard it before, let me quote it again, 8 u.s. code -- whether he ever the president finds the entry of any ialiens r class of aliens into the united states would be detrimental into the united states he may by proclamation deem as necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate end quote. the department of justice quote strongly said in a statement they strongly disagree with the federal district courts reasoning which is dplaflawed i reasoning. it fell squarely within his
authority in seeking to defend our nations security. the department is exploring all available options to vigorously defend this executive order. we intend to appeal the flawed rulings. currently the department of justice is determining the timing, expect action time soon to seek clarification of the order prior to appeal in the ninth circuit. the danger is real and the law is clear. he will continue to exercise his constitutional authority and presidential responsibility to protect our nation. before i get to your questions an then introduce director mulvaney, i want to follow-up on a couple of questions, john decker asked multiple times on the president's executive order to restrict lobbying activities which includes a five-year ban on lobbying agassi -- agency,
each head is tasked with working with theet ethics, should a violation be determined the executive order authorizes the department of justice to enforce the order through several mechanisms, these would restrict an individual or his or her entities, seeking a injunction for lobbying for ten years, the five years plus an additional five years, or civil penalties commensurate with the violation. the president fully expects the department of justice to vigorously enforce this executive order. yesterday several asked where the house is with regard to additional legislation as outlined in the third prong of the acha. and the president's plan to reform health care.
i'm pleased to note last night leader mccarthy and the house introduced pieces of legislations that will lower costs and increase access. the representative hr 372 which eliminates antitrust insurance provider so americans are not left with just one choice for health care coverage, hr 1101 allo allows small businesses to band together and lower prices, hr 1215 unnecessary lawsuits and hr 1304 which protects workers to get coverage by providing a backdrop on catastrophic losses. and in terms of following up yesterday in regard to the d.o.j.'s indictment of russian hackers on yahoo data this
demonstrates the commitment to identifying criminals, no matter where they are and look i said yesterday, this is a lawful enforcement action, anything beyond that i would direct you to the department of justice and the fbi for further details. before i continue let me turn it over to director mulvaney to talk a little bit about the budget. director. >> thanks very much. good afternoon and happy day before saint t. patricks day al known as budget day. we will remind you what we are calling the america first budget. america first candidate now america first president and shouldn't surprise anybody we have a america first budget. you have seen the details, last week $54 billion of additional defense spending. we have details where that money is going. seeing increases at the v.a.
increases within the department of justice invisas within the department of homeland security. including border security, immigration controls. increases within the department of energy to deal with nuclear triad and corresponding reductions in similar amounts off-setting dollar for dollar in other programs. the largest reduction if you have seen the budget all right is 31% reduction within the environmental protection agency, the next largest on a percentage basis is with the department of state and other are reduced in lesser amounts. i think the smallest reduction is nasa just less than 1% and with many agencies you will see certain line items. this is the message the president wanted to send to the public, the press. capitol hill, he wants more money for law enforcement, more money generally, more for the
vets, more money for school choice and offset that elsewhere so all isn't done with an additional dollar added to the deficit. this does not balance the budget. it simply reallocates and spending as any family or business would do. this budget does not, does not address the big picture item such as policy changes, revenue flows, tax policy, this is simply the top line spending budget. it's why we call it the budget blueprint. the full budget which will contain the rest of the pieces and parts will be released in may. before i take questions i'm going to do something i don't ordinarily do, call on "the new york times" because they're in trouble. apparently is there a -- where's my "the new york times" guy,
matt flavor and -- >> they printed this morning that i am the father of 17-year-old triplett girls. my 17-year-old daughter really wishes that had happened but my two 17 year old sons are really upset, so if you could clarify that, that would be great and i'll give you the first question if you have got one. >> not great at math obviously at "the new york times." >> it was actually the gender that was wrong. >> candidate trump talked about the national debt which reached around $20 trillion you mentioned in your budget message this morning. is there a plan as the president talked about last year's campaign to actually eliminate the debt in eight years. he said it would be actually ee ea easy to eliminate the debt in eight years. is this something he is doing?
>> it's not the right time for the question. the blueprint does not deal with the debt or even the deficit. it is simply the first part of the appropriations process. we'll sends this up to the hill, the appropriations of the house, the senate, congress controls the power of the purse and this will be the first step in that process. we will start to dra es the issues of the longer term deficit. and deal with mandatory spending, tax policy, revenue flows. it's a fair question just not the time. >> i know you're leaving a lot of discretion to people in charge for implementing these cuts but how much is allocated to come out of the foreign aid? >> a lot of it. as i said before one of the reasons you're seeing such a dramatic reduction on a percentage basis is not that the
president done think diplomacy is important, nothing could be fath farther from the truth. the president believe ifs diplomacy and we believe this protects that core function of the state department. it just so happens that much of the foreign aid that the president talked about in campaign. much of the money that goes to climate research, green energy are in the state department budget if those line items had been in the department of commerce you would have seen the department of commerce gone down by a similarly large percentage so the answer to your question is most of the cuts within the state department try to focus directly on foreign aid. >> the budget showed a .8% decrease in nasa but also talked about the administration using private companies such as spacex for more of that. is some of this going to be shifted over to the private
sector and show a commitment on the administration's part towards science and nasa. >> it does, if you go back to the speeches the president made and talking about his prioritiespriorities and he said i'm still interested in the united states being involved in space exploration, but individual line items that deal with specifically space exploration is -- up. and part of it is to promote what you just talked about. >> experience in the house tells you that a lot of these cuts haven't been voted for before, do you consider this budget an opening bid and do you expect a lot of pushback from republicans on the specificity and the size of these cuts secondly to take your word on the president's words said he didn't want to
touch social security, medicare, the fact it's not in the budget is that a signal that those are going to remain untouched and ignores 70% of spending an 90% of growth? >> the president is absolutely going to keep the promises made on the campaign trail. you will see no reference to medicare, medicaid here or any of the mandatory programs what some people call entitlement. the alphabet soup of government. you would never see in blueprint social security, medicare and medicaid. the other question about not being popular on the hill. i can recognize that. i've been on the hill to know some of these are very unpopular. i've been a member of congress, represented 700,000 people in
south carolina, senators represent an entire state. we're always dealing with special interests from back home. dealing with lobbyist back home. the president is beholden to none of that. the president drafted a budget for the entire nation because that's who he sees himself representing. he did not ask lobbyists for special input and didn't focus on how these programs might impact a specific congressional district but we know that going into it and the message we are sending to the hill is we want more money for the things the president talked about national security at the top and don't want to add to the deficit. if congress has another way, we're happy to talk about it. >> the united nations says the world is facing the largest humanitarian crisis, 20 million people in just four countries facing starvation or famine and yet you're cutting funding to
the u.n. foreign aid budget. are you worried that some of the most vulnerable people on earth will suffer as a result? >> we are absolutely reducing to the foreign aid and u.n., that should come to no surprise, the president said hundreds of times, i'm going spend less money overseas and more money on people back home and exactly what we're doing with this budget. >> given your focus on dollar for dollar offsets in fisc fiscal '18, in '17 you didn't. why are you not adding for fiscal 2017? >> the question deals with the 2017 request which is a $30 billion -- i think it's billion and a half in there for the wall and not entirely
offset. a couple reasons for that. one is time, the other is that some of that is what they call overseas contingency operations. i have a somewhat colored history with the overseas contingency operation. we made sure that the money is being requested is true oco, truly focused on iraq, syria, afghanistan, so we have proposed but not all offset. >> the president has called for eliminating funding for the corporation for public broadcasting and national endowment for the arts, but yet appropriations bills that funds, cdp and -- will he -- that defend those things? >> i think the president is sending we want to defund those and completely defendable reasons for doing that.
it's a simple message, i put myself in the shoes of that steal worker in ohio. the coal mining family in west virginia the mother of two in detroit and say i have to ask these folks for mauoney and i he to tell them where i have to spend it and can i really say i'm going to take money from you and give it to the broadcast funding. you and i both know it doesn't come over one by one, they come over in large appropriations bills and we'll work with congress to make determinations whether or not to sign appropriations bills or veto them at the appropriate time. >> there are several places in the budget where you're talking about eliminating funding for unauthorized programs are you laying down a marker and do you think spending discipline will be improved if congress
authorized everything? >> we hope. we actually spend a lot of money on programs that aren't authorized at all. to break it down it's sort of a three-step process, you have to budget for it first, then authorize it then you have to appropriate it. but a lot of program we spent money on for years have been unauthorized. most used to be authorized and simply lapse and some were never authorized but were simply never appropriated. and yeah, that's not the right way to do it. in fact that's the wrong way to do it. you heard the president talk specifically on the campaign trail with at least 5% reductions and that's what generated this budget. >> you talk about this budget keeping the promise that is the president made during the course of the campaign, the housing and urban development this budget blueprint calls for a 13% reduction, during the campaign
specifically the urban black voters he said what do you have to lose, turns out at least $6 billion what do you say? >> nobody is going to get kicked out of their houses. when we looked at the hud but jet -- budget and i talked to dr. carson about it today. it's actually infrastructure and what secretary carson and i talked about is figuring out a way to do that bet around we realized we are working on a large infrastructure this summer. he wants to take the money in the infrastructure in hud right now and not very well run and move it into the larger fund. you will see the similar line items for the department of transportation for the same reason. this does not mean he's changes his commitment to
infrastructure, he is saying for years an years we have built infrastructure like this and doesn't work well and so what we are doing now is taking out of the discretionary budget and move it into the larger infrastructure budget plan this summer. >> the block grant includes meals on wheels, and in texas, one says they will no longer be providing it so what do you say to the americans will ultimately will be losing out. >> i think you know that meals on wheels is not a federal program. many states make the decision to use that money on meals and wheels, here is cdgbs, these have been identified as programs since i believe the fist --
actually the second bush administration just not showing any results. we can't do that anymore. we can't spend money on programs just because they sound good and great. meals on wheels sound great. again that's a great state decision but to take the federal money and give it to state and say we want to give you money to programs that don't work, we can't defend that anymore. we're $20 trillion in debt. we can't spend money on programs that cannot show they actually deliver promises to people. >> there's a program called the shine in pennsylvania. rural counties in pennsylvania that provides after school educational programs for individuals in those areas which just so happens to be the state that helped propel president to the white house. i'm curious what you say to those americans where they tell me 800 children will no longer be provided the educational care they need. >> y'all are at an advantage over me because i have to
memorize all 4,000 linites. let's talk about after school programs, they're supposed to help kids who don't get fed at home get fed so they get better in school. guess what? there's no demonstrable evidence they're actually doing that. that they're helping kids do better in school. when we took your money from you, the way we justified it was these programs are going to help these kids do better in school and get better jobs. >> to be clear this administration is saying that no after school programs are working to help educate these kids. >> no, i don't believe we cut the funding for all those types of things. >> just to follow-up on that you were talking about the steel worker in ohio, coal worker in pennsylvania, but they may have an elderly mother who depends on the meals on wheels program or
who may have kids in head start. is it also hard hearted budget? >> no. i think it's one of the most compassionate things we can do. >> not focussing on elderly and kids? >> we're trying to focus on both recipients of the money and folks who give us the money in the first place and i think it's fairly compassionate to say we're not going to ask you for your hard earned money anymore. single mom of two in detroit give us your money -- >> but the head stard -- >> please let me finish, that that money be used a proper function. i think that's about as compassionate as you can get. >> a question on the border wall. the budget as i understand it asked for 4.1 billion so 1.5
this year and 2.6 the following year, there's no mention whether or not mexico is going to help pay for it or reimburse as the president pledged so where is the money coming from? >> it's 1.5 for 2016 and 2.6 for 2018, people asked does that get the wall built? no. we increase funding in 2018, but the wall will take longer than two years the build. the funds that's up to the treasury and the state department. we're the guys and gals at omb and allocate it on a budgetary process. so up to somebody else to figure out where the money comes from. >> the doj zeros out reimbursements for jails -- some goes to sanctuary cities is that
promise to with hold from sanctuary cities and are there others of the president to carry that out? >> i'm not that particular with this, also homeland and increases in homeland that deal with this, you're going to see an increase in homeland for increase in detention facilities. it's significant because the president has said he wants the stop catch and release and he signed an executive order to do that and increased the amount of money for detention facilities. >> a follow-up to the questions about the cuts you're making to things like transportation and housing. you said those will be paid for later with other appropriations but said this would be balanced and it sounds like a bit of a shell game where you're saying now this is a balanced budget but now saying you're not stopping to pay for other
things, but where are you going to pay for the other things? >> just to clarify it's not a balanced budget. there will still be a offset. moving projects out of the base agency and into is it infrastructure, the infrastructure program is something just recently started probably won't come until summer or early fall we have to do obamacare repeal and replace, tax reform and then may come after the recess in august. you're making an assumption i'm not willing the make. you're saying that's going to the deficit and i'm not willing to make that assumption. >> robust funding for embassy securities, does that mean there will be an increase considering all the criticism that the
president and republicans against president obama for supposedly cutting u.s. embassy? >> that's up to secretary tillerson. he talked about the state department budget and how he decides to allocate that. there are some embassies that don't need as much security and some that do. >> the gentleman in the back. >> president trump -- will cut the corner because many getting u.s. aid -- how does president trump feel about. [ inaudible ] u.s. taxpayers to be asking that we don't have to spend on those countries who are against the u.s.? >> again, i come back to what the president said on the campaign which is he is going to
spend less money overseas. this came up the other day, hard power versus soft power. there's a very deliberate attempt to send a message to allies, india and other countries that this is a hard power budget, this administration intends to change course from a soft power budget to a hard power budget. one more. yes, ma'am. >> can you explain more about what message the president is trying to send by eliminating a lot of funding for science and climate change research and just a follow-up later. >> sure. a couple different messages when we talk about science and climate change. let's deal with them separately. on science we're going to focus on the core function. there's reductions for example i think in the nih, national
institutes for health. why? thank you. why? because we think there's been mission creep we think they do things outside their fund. there's tremendous opportunity for savings, a couple of facilities we recommend be combined and this comes back to the president's business view. if you look at this on a spreadsheet and say why do we have seven when we can do the same job with three and the answer is yes, so part is focussing on efficiency and doing what we do better and with regard to climate change, the president was fairly clear we're not spending money on that anymore. that's a specific tie to his campaign. >> quick on meals on wheels you mentioned it's one of those programs determined not have been doing its job effectively what evidence are you using to
make that statement. is not feeding seniors in and of itself the fulfillment? >> my understanding from having been in the state government. i've been wrong several times today but my understanding is that that is a state determination. federal government doesn't directly fund that. it funds the central block grants and some states choose to take the money and do meals on wheels. other states in localities might choose to do something else. we look at the cgdbs, we look at $140 billion without the showing of that type of expenditure. >> how sean does this every day for an hour and a half i have no idea. i've been up since 4:00 a.m. this morning so i'm going to turn it back other the sean.
>> thanks, guys. any way, so kick it off. jonathan karl. >> so, sean, day before yesterday you said you were extremely confident that the house and senate intelligence committees would ultimately vindicate the president's allegation that trump tower was wiretapped. as i'm sure you have now seen the intelligence committee have said they see no indication that trump tower was the subject of surveillance. that seems to be a pretty blanket statement. what's your reaction? >> several things. it's interesting to me that you know just as a point of interest that when one entity says one thing that claims one thing you guys cover it ad nauseam, when devin nunes came out and said i think it's very possible, there was crickets, when devin nunes said there was no connection to russia, there was crickets, when tom cotton --
>> he said no evidence of wiretapping at trump tower, now the house intelligence committee -- >> here is the direct quote i think it's very possible, end quote that's what he said when he said the president's communications could have been swept up in collection. >> he said no indication of wiretapping. >> and i think the president has been very clear when he talked about this and talked about it last night talked about wiretapping he meant surveillance and there have been incidents that occurred devin nunes couldn't have stated it more beautifully but you chose not to cover that part, refused when tom cotton, chairman nunes. >> where was your passion and where was your concern when they all said there was no connection to russia? where was it then? crickets from you guys. >> but -- >> hold on hold on i'm making a point number one, evidence comes
out and people briefed on the russian connection say they have seen nothing, you choose not to cover that, you continue to perpetuate a false narrative, when he said quote, i see no evidence, quote i think it's possible, should know later -- you only cover -- >> and -- >> if you look at what "the new york times" reported, quote in its final days the bam administration has expanded the power with the government's 16 other intelligence agents before applying the -- long standing limits on what the nsa may do gathered by the powerful legislation unregulated by
the -- separately the obama administration amended a long standing executive order allowing information intercepted through fisa warrants or through the national security agent to be shared by a wider audience as obama was leaving offices. intelligence normally reserved for a handful of intelligence leader was spread throughout briefings to scores of workers and soon leaks, often in stores lacking context of how national security investigations are actually concluded. march 3rd fox bret baier said june 2016, a fisa request to monitor communications involving donald trump and several other campaign officials then turned down then in october then they were renewed and -- trump tower and bear continues a june fisa
requests -- jonathan, you can ask, you can follow-up. a judge says no go to trump tower, go back in october, this is wiretapped going on in a monitoring of computers tied to russian accounts. they don't come up with anything in the investigation but the investigation continues. november 11 days after the election, heat street reported two leaks confirmed that the fbi sought and was granted a fisa permission to examine u.s. persons in donald trump's campaign with ties to russia. the first request which sources say named trump was denied back in june but second drawn more narrowly after evidence was presented of a severer possibly tied to the trump campaign, sources suggest that a fisa warrant was suggested to a full
context of related documents. two separate sources linked confirmed that the fbi confirmed and was granted a warrant to examine the activity of u.s. persons and donald trump's ties to russia. the warn was granted in connection with the suspected activities between the server and two banks however it is thought in the intelligence community that the warrant covers any u.s. person connected to this investigation and thus cor three further men who acted as surrogates. june 19, american law enforcement and intelligence agencies are investigating en r intercepted possible leaks between russian associates and president-elect donald j. trump. base on some of the wiretapped communications have been provide today white house, it is unclear russian officials what
particular conversations taught the attention of american eavesdroppers is low, andy mccarthy, quote from three reports it's appear it is fbi has concerns about the private server in trump tower connected to one or two russian banks, heat street describes these as sa centering on the banks. we go on, sara carter reporting, intelligence professionals. it was leaked to a much larger audience then back in february. when it expanded executive order 12333 which loallows employees unfettered access by raw nsa,
they allowed to share raw general intelligence communications including those involved in phone calls an e-mails frankly it allows too many people access to the raw data. the u.s. officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity and was not granted to speak on the authority. numerous out lets including "the new york times" reported into mr. trump's advisors, bbc and a multi-agassi working group. on february 14th "the new york times" again refers to phone records and intercepted calls quote them american law enforcement intersection agency intercepted the communications around the same time that russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the democratic committee. the intersection agencies then thought to learn whether the trump campaign was colluding on
hacking other efforts, they have seen in recent weeks so far they have seen such cooperations. they were not limited to trump campaign officials, the call logs and entintercepted communications are part of a larger trove the fbi is sifting through. days later "the new york times" reports, some white house officials scramble russian efforts to under mine the presidential election of donald trump and elections across the government. but increasingly hard escaping conclusion that individuals in our government were instead trying to under mine the new president saying quote this is "the new york times" again intelligence agencies there was a push to process as much raw intelligence into possible analysis to keep the report at relatively low classification levels to ensure a widespread readership across the government
and in some cases quote among them european allies this allowed upload of as much intelligence as possible to a secret wiki analysis to share information. shawn henty went on fox to say procedures have been put in place to protect americans not under warrant american citizens caught up in surveillance and quote by the way their identities are protected their constitutional rights are to be protected. this was not the case with lieutenant general flynn, a transcript was created an given to intelligence officials who then leaked this information which is a felony to the press that printed it end quote. last month judge -- three sources informed fox news, he didn't use the nsa, the fbi and the department of justice, he
used ghq, the initials for the russian intelligent agency, the president needs transcripts involving trump's conversations, he's able to get it and there's no american fingerprints on this. putting the published counts and common sense together this leads to a lot. >> despite the findings the bipartisan findings of the senate intelligence committee -- >> they're not findings. there's a statement out today they have not gbegun this. two days ago the department of justice asked for a additional week. the statement clearly says at this time they don't believe i just read off to you, it's interesting. when "the new york times" reports -- >> so, are you saying that the president still stands by his
allegation that president obama ordered wiretapping or surveillance of trump tower despite the fact that the senate intelligence committee says they see no indication that it happened? does the president still stand by the allegation? >> he stands by it but you're mischaracterizing what happened today. no, no -- >> exactly from their statement. >> i understand that. at the same time they acknowledge that they have not been in contact with the department of justice. so, again, i go back to what i said at the beginning. it's interesting -- hold on. hold on. it's interesting how at the same time where were you coming to the defense of that same intelligence committee and those members when they said there was no connection to russia. you didn't steam to report it then. there was no -- no, no. hold on. you want to comment and you want to perpetuate a false narrative -- >> clapper said that. >> when those individuals have gone out time and time again, when chairman nunez said number one there is no information he's aware of that existed, there was zero reporting. when he said it's very possible, you don't include that in the question mark. the bottom line is the president
said last night that he will be providing -- there would be additional information coming forward. there is a ton of media reports out there that indicate that something was going on during the 26 election. i believe he will. jim. >> were you just quoting sean hannity there. the house and senate intelligence committees are -- >> i get you're going to -- >> the fbi director, you're citing sean hannity. >> you also look over -- you tend to overlook all the other sources because i know you want to cherry pick it. no, no, but you do. but where was your concern about "the new york times" reporter? you didn't seem to have a concern with that. >> we have done plenty of reporting on all of this, sean. >> you want to cherry pick one piece of commentary. >> the president to the russians that has all been looked at. >> how do you know all this? how do you seem to be such an expert in this? >> i'm saying that this has been looked at, sean -- >> how do you know it's been looked at? hold on, where is -- i'm sorry,
i'm afraid -- can you tell me how you know that all of this has, quote, been looked at? >> you're asking me whether or not i looked at -- >> you made a statement and said, quote, all of this has been looked at. >> all other outlets -- >> so when your outlet says it's all been looked at -- >> the russians during the 2016 campaign, it sounds like during the context of that investigation there might have been some intercepted communications, the house intelligence committee chairman did mention that, and we have reported that. others have reported that. on air and various publications. but, sean, what you are refusing to answer, the question that you are refusing to we are is whether or not the president still -- >> no, i'm not, i said to johnathan -- >> you have a senate and house intelligence committee both leaders from both parties on both of those panels saying that they don't see any evidence of any wiretapping. so, how can the president go on and continue -- >> because that's not -- you're mischaracterizing what chairman nunez said. he said, quote, i think it's possible -- egs following up on
this. to suggest that -- you're stating unequivocally you somehow -- right, and sing we've already cleared that up. and he said exactly that. but the president has already said clearly when he referred to wiretapping he was referring to surveillance. so -- >> but it sounds like, sean, you and the president are saying now, well, we don't mean wiretapping any more. that's not true any more. so now we're going to entertain other forms of surveillance. what's it going to be next? >> jim, i think that's cute but at the end of the day we've talked about this for three or four days. what the president had to quote wiretapping in quotes, he was referring to broad surveillance. and now you're basically going back. we talked about this several days ago. the bottom line is that the investigation by the house and the senate has not been provided all of the information and when it does -- hold on. >> news reports, not evidence -- >> i'm saying the president addressed that last night and said there is more to come. these are merely pointing out there is widespread reporting that throughout the 2016 election there was surveillance that was done on ava right var
people. >> i find it interesting you somehow believe -- >> of course they're going to be looking at these various -- >> i get it somehow you seem to believe that you have all of this information. you've been read in on all of these things which i find very interesting. >> i haven't been read in by the fbi. the house and intelligence committees have -- >> a guy that has zero intelligence class -- [ laughter ] >> give me some credit. a little intelligence maybe. >> clearance. i wasn't done. clearance. >> those two panels -- >> maybe both. >> come on. those two panels have spoken with the fbi director and they're told there is no evidence of this. >> i think this question has been asked and answered, jim. >> the president saying he's wrong. >> you jump to all these conclusions about what they have and don't have, and you seem to know all the answers. but at the end of the day there was clearly a ton of reporting -- hold on, jim, let me answer -- i think that there has been a vast amount of reporting which i just detailed about activity that was going on in the 2016 election. there is no question that there
were surveillance techniques used throughout this. i think by a variety of outlets concluded. when you ask those two people whether or not as chairman nunez said yesterday, when you say wiretapping, the president is clear he didn't mean wiretapping, he had it in quotes. to fall back on that is a false premise. that's not what he said. he was clear about that when he talked about it yesterday, major. >> sean, just to be clear, you're good and the president's good with stories that have anonymous sources? >> no, it's interesting. i think when it comes to the russia story and the on the record sources who have been briefed by the fbi, continue to conclude that there is nothing there, you guys continue to fall back on these anonymous sources and perpetuate a false narrative. and yet when it comes to us talking about all these reports in there, you then criticize anonymous sources. no, it's just interesting that this sort of the double standard that exists when it comes to us citing stories when it comes to -- and then how you intend to
use them. >> let me ask you about what the president said last night. he was asked by tucker carlson, you're in charge of the various intelligen intelligence apparatus that report to you -- you can ask them -- >> he did. >> he said he was reluctant to do that. you just put two things together. earlier this week he told us when asked has the president directed the justice department to collect and distribute information to the various relevant congressional committees? if i remember your answer, he hadn't given that specific direction. has it changed, has he directed the justice department? >> no. >> is he asking himself, the intelligence agencies that report to him to provide specific answers to these underlying questions that are -- >> no. >> what you're citing why not? >> because i think we covered this before. that gets into interfering and i think the appropriate process is to allow the house and the senate to do this so it doesn't appear as though we're enter firing -- i understand that. as i mentioned this to you the other day, major, if we go at them, you're going to turn around and say you guys interfered in something, you pressured them. it's a catch 22 for us. the bomb only line i think the
president made it clear two sundays ago he wanted the house and senate intelligence committee to work with the agencies to collection the information and make a report. that's what we're doing. in order to make sure that there is a separation from us so that you can't turn around and then accuse us of forcing or pressuring an agency to produce a document. we're asking them to go through the process -- >> what process? >> of the separation of powers and actually going to those different entities, the department of justice said yesterday they want an additional week. we're allowing that process to play through. got it? >> sean, is the president making these statements based on classified information? >> i'm not going to get into how the president makes a decision. i think that what i think is clear, though, is through the reporting that i just read is there is clearly widespread open source material pointing to surveillance that was conducted during the 2016 election. >> that information is available to members of the house and senate, it's public as you noted, they are looking at that same information and making conclusions --
>> that's not true. >> they did not see any evidence to back up the president's claims. so, if there is other information, why won't the president release it? >> i'm not going to get into na yet. i think the president discussed that last night on his interview and we'll let the process play out. i understand what he discussed. they have -- they have clearances in the house and the senate intelligence committees. they are able to conduct this. alexis. >> sean, i'd like to ask you about two topics. can you help us [ inaudible ]? >> no, i'm going to -- i actually call the questions. alexis, if you don't want to answer the question, i can call on somebody else. thank you. gabby. >> thanks, sean. in the case that judge issued the restraining order against trump's -- sorry, the president's second travel ban, he included one of the president's tweets and this is also included in the washington state case. so, i'm wondering, does it give the president any pause that this virtual paper trail is creating -- is having an impact on advancing his agenda? >> well, i mean, i think that
the department of justice statement speaks for itself when it comes to that last night. the federal law that i read out clearly gives the president the authority. this is what we argued during the first one. i think for a judge to ignore that statute and talk about tweets or interpreting something that happened during the campaign trail is not in keeping with what -- how they're supposed to interpret the law. i'm not going to continue to comment. we tailored that second order to comply with the judge's order. i think to go back now and say, based on how the first order was conceived, it makes absolutely no sense but i'm going to let the department of justice litigate that how they do it. the second order literally was tailored to the concerns that were rendered by the 9th circuit in the first executive order. so, for them to then turn around and make arguments that are nonjermaine seems kind of odd, but i'll let the department of justice make that. zeke.