podesta's email. >> the government was behind your you look and say eat i know you were saying john podesta's email, i have to him. you're carrying water for the kremlin. >> tucker: your member of the intel committee, >> you're going to have to move your show to our russian television. >> tucker: that's so dumb, you're being duplicitous, did they hacked? >> that's pretty hilarious. >> when your apologist for thehe kremlin. one last time, look into the camera and say they hacked john podesta's emails, we know for the fact you can't, you know you're kent you're hiding behind weasel words. it's a really simple question congressman, do you have evidence that putin's government tax john podesta's emails, he called me a water carrier for the kremlin and tool for vladimir putin, he could notdl answer that question. i'm hardly a water carrier for putin, do you have evidence of the russian government did that? i don't think that you do. >> before you start clutching your pearls, the fact is that the fbi and our intelligence agencies say so, that's good enough for me. it >> tucker: is, when t

hack, the hack of the john podesta emails. they were behind the use of distributing fake news. the way they do this is they have close to 1000 paid

>> they got john podesta to come out at 2:00 in the morning. she didn't come out because they were deciding what to do with her speech. there were certain people who wanted her to go out there and continue to blast trump the way she had done on the campaign trail. they kind of expected her to. the other side of the camp wanted her to be more conciliatory and respectful and talk about big picture and not shattering the glass ceiling but wait meant historically. it was actually one of her better speeches. kennedy: i think she should have given it that night. i heard she was throwing stuff. was she even ghaingd a temper tantrum. >> we didn't finds any evidence of that. i think you agree with the white house on the timing of her concession that it was too late. president trump called her and said you have need to concede iltheyre still having this debate about not just what she would say about the concession. but whether it was time to concede. there were people who thought neighbor wisconsin would turn around. kennedy: and arizona didn't come in f

: of john podesta's email. >> but also in europe. >> tucker: say i know they did john podesta's emails. >> ronald reagan is rolling over in his grave. carrying water for the kremlin. >> tucker: you cannot say they hacked -- >> you are going to have to move your show to russian television. >> tucker: it's so dumb and your you are being complicit. >> these personal insults, talker. >> tucker: carrying water for putin? >> an apologist for the kremlin. that is what you're doing. >> tucker: one last time, congressman. you can't and you know you can't. you are hiding behind weasel words. a really simple question, congressman. do you have evidence that putin's government hacked john podesta's email? instead of answering, he called me a water carrier for the kremlin and a tool of vladimir putin. he could not answer that question. i am hardly a water carrier for putin. that's insane. you have evidence that the russian government did that? that's a basic question. i don't think that you do. >> before you start questioning your pearls, the fbi and our intelligence agencies say so. that's good eno

amy: did russia leak the documents, either the dnc documents or the john podesta emails to wikileaks? >> we understand quite clearly our source is not a member of any state, clearing the russian government. if you look at the statements by james comey, james clapper, going back a couple of months, statements from barack obama, they all harmonious description. what the u.s. investigation by james comey seems to be trying to say, at least in public, is that they perceive there was some russian hacking, or what -- at least some hacking somewhere from the dnc -- the allegations are several thousands of people were hacked in those operations. amy: but how do you know it is not russia? how do you know it is not a state actor since usually say you don't know who gives you documents? >> we look very closely at our publications. we tend to come to a good understanding of them. we are not willing to go into details about our source because it might describe the sort of person they are, the jurisdiction they are in, which could put them at risk. but we have said clearly our sources are not a mem

podesta and michael moore never would. >> i'm not a scientist either about you michael moore and john podesta are about bigger government spending. and by the way, the agreements they strike, china only has to voluntarily comply by 2030. these countries are doing it on their own via the private market. he think the government is helping, but they figure it out. >> david, you don't need to be a scientist to detect b-s on the other side. david: that's the last word. you've got it. and using private sector ideas to cut government bureaucracy. to cut government bureaucracy. some here say it might actually ♪and i ♪i will always love you, i ♪i will always love you ♪i hope life treats you kind ♪and i hope you have all you've dreamed of♪ ♪and i wish you joy and happiness♪ ♪but above all this i wish you love♪ ♪and i will always love you ♪i will always love you, i ♪will always love you ♪i, i will always love you, i...♪ i'm elizabeth prann, now back to forbes on fox. >> draining the swamp by making the government act more like the private sector. the idea behind the

podesta and michael moore never would. >> i'm not a scientist either about you michael moore and john podesta are about bigger government spending. and by the way, the agreements they strike, china only has to voluntarily comply by 2030. these countries are doing it on their own via the private market. he think the government is helping, but they figure it out. >> david, you don't need to be a scientist to detect b-s on the other side. david: that's the last word. you've got it. and using private sector ideas to cut government bureaucracy. some here say it might actually no matter how dusty the room or how high the pollen count, flonase allergy relief keeps your eyes and nose clear. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances that cause nasal congestion and itchy, watery eyes. for relief beyond the nose. flonase. you totanobody's hurt, new car. but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car repl

podesta and michael moore never would. >> i'm not a scientist either about you michael moore and john podesta are about bigger government spending. and by the way, the agreements they strike, china only has to voluntarily comply by 2030. these countries are doing it on their own via the private market. he think the government is helping, but they figure it out. >> david, you don't need to be a scientist to detect b-s on the other side. david: that's the last word. you've got it. and using private sector ideas to cut government bureaucracy. some here say it might actually add more to the swamp instead of draining it. they'll explain coming up next. card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line. what's in your wallet? >> this is a fox news alert. i'm elizabeth prann in washington. good saturday morning, brand new video coming into fox. vice-president mike pence getting on board air force 2 taking him to

of e-mails appearing to come from clinton campaign chair john podesta released -- >> reporter: hacked by the russians months earlier but held back until this pivotal moment. >> clearly someone in the kremlin saw that this very compromising tape had come out and they decided they needed to inject this information into the bloodstream. >> someone in the kremlin? >> you have to believe that. i don't know it as fact but it is my belief that the kremlin was pulling the strings on what wikileaks was able to do. >> reporter: wikileaks denies they were manipulated by the russians but congressional investigators say, looking back at the timeline of key events during last year's political campaign -- especially during the week of the republican convention in july -- proves the point. on monday, the republican platform committee made public a pro-russian plank that would cut back on u.s. help for ukraine if the russians attacked there. on tuesday, the russian ambassador showed up in cleveland, meeting with the future attorney general, then senator jeff sessions. something sessions would later so

he hollered at john podesta large enough to be heard through the walls. he laid claims to on the tenth floor of the savory hotel in downtown iowa. it was the god damn pendants he was watching on tv. they were getting it all wrong again as a result of the iowa caucuses trickled in. hillary was leading but it would be tight. omg walt blitzer said on cnn. it doesn't get closer than that. that assessment invited parallel to her 2008 loss to barack obama. it was, in bill's view, an absurd comparison or that had been a three-way weigh race and she was likely to come out the winner on this night, not the third-place finisher. dÉjÀ vu was a hard storyline to resist. the outcome tonight ensures this race will go on for months and months on the democratic side they reported from sanders headquarters. the perception all night had been hillary was such a prohibitive front runner heading into the democratic nomination that she should have cleaned up easily. bill had a much different perspective. iowa had never been clinton country and hillary had increased her share

why wasn't john podesta's name mentioned in that report. he was the chairman of hillary clinton's campaign and made the most news in terms of his emails. how specifically did russia invade john podesta's emails and disseminate those to the public. thearthel: what is the exact evidence that led the committee to believe that. >> if you are a member of the intelligence committee you can't just be satisfied by the intelligence community coming to you and telling you, these are our conclusions without showing you a roadmap. what are the specific pieces of evidence. a lot of these conversations will happen in a classified the environment. law make percent as approximaties for the american people need to see the specific evidence. let's move on now to michael flynn. why did he request immunity? is it too soon to read into why his request has not been accepted? >> it probably is too soon to read into that. the people investigating anything mike flynn might be involved in as it relates to russia has time to go. maybe we need mike flynn to help give

podesta said we're not giving up. by the time i got in the car to go a few blocks back and rejoin everyone onset, she was conceding. clearly something happened between the time that podesta came out, and that was the call from the president saying you have to. >> i think the only thing worse than a campaign written about a winning campaign is a book about a losing campaign. it's hard to r read about everything you might have done differently. i'm not surprised they would have a strong reaction to the book, but i thought hillary clinton was sympathetic throughout the book that i read this week. her strength and determination not to make the mistakes like she made in 2008, it is hard not to read it and feel an incredible amount of respect for her. >> but the central issue sheer that she had not changed enough. she brought in new people but layered them. in her view it was up to the people that she hired, you write, she paid to find the right message and she was deeply at odds with the way others built their message argu

we know that john podesta's brother, the chairman of the clinton campaign, his brother is a registered agent for a bank that is largely controlled by putin. we know lots of stuff or advising that a national security issue? >> bill: you are dodging the question. how unlike you. susan rice, national security advisor -- let me rephrase it. national security advisor gets information that there is a hack going on against democrats and russian may be doing it. doesn't she have two swing into action? that is going to be her rationale. she will say, look, we were investigating the hack and that is why i had to go in and to see was talking to. >> there is no reason for the national security advisor to know who is talking to who unless the fbi or the cia or the national security agency comes in and says, oh, this person is directly implicated. otherwise, she has no national reason to know that. everybody who has talked about this, the former director of national intelligence, the head of the national security agency, the head of the fbi, have all said there is no evidence of any collusion betwee

russia releases hacked e-mails that go after john podesta a few weeks later. these are either a thousand coincidences and donald trump is the unluck iest person in the world, or it's a pattern. >> i wonder what is secret and what is not. if i were general flynn going to work in the trump campaign, i would brag to trump that i had spent a recent dinner with putin and that we sat and chatted, and i know the guy a little bit, and i'd share that intelligence. you always want to share those experiences, especially when you're running with a guy or working for a campaign that clearly wants to start some kind of bromance internationally putin. so do you think he kept it secret from trump that he had met and gotten that money to go over there and speak on behalf of rt? by the way, jill stein was in the room, and nobody thinks jill stein was on the take. what do you make of this? >> chris, it looks like they didn't care. you know, some people may argue, well, was the white house incompetent in not looking at all this evidence of michael flynn being paid by russia? i th

every member that john podesta, the campaign chairman was sent out decrying people saying were going to fight another day. this isn't over. and in private, president obama was saying and this is over. and her reaction to him was fascinating. according to the book, he says i'm sorry mr. president about your legacy. >> dana: i'm not surprised by that because that must be the first thing i would've said to. >> i'm not surprised but it's interesting to me that her concern at that moment was about his legacy and him. wasn't this about the american people connect >> dana: a president who really pulled out all the stops. they really did. and it is true that whoever succeeds you will temporarily hold your legacy until history is able to deal with it. >> >> that night she probably assumed okay, obamacare is going to be repealed and replaced, but not yet. >> dana: i thought it was interesting that someone on the campaign wanted her to give her campaign, her first speech in wisconsin, in the badger state and she gets overruled and she never goes to wisconsin, lost by less than 2%. >> people and

the top two political advisors, john podesta and robby hook didn't get along. one didn't trust if other. there were other accounts lower down the level where -- lower down the line where people were in fighting and they didn't quite know how to get access to secretary clinton. so and then there's -- there are image problems and e-mail problems and all of this sort of coupled with russia and comey kind of built the big picture of highway she lost. >> i want to read two quotes. number one, in her view, it was up to the people she paid top find the right message for her. a construction deeply add odds with the way sanders and trump built their campaigns around their own gut feelings about where to lead the country. this next quote. around the nevada caucus time she tells a friend, i don't understand what's happening with the country. i can't get my arms around it. how do i get answers to this? jonathan, how could she not have a tactile feel for politics after so many years in politics? a fair question. >> it's a very fair question. and bernie sanders had that tact

in august, trump confidant, roger stone, tweeted about clinton campaign chairman john podesta. "trust me. it will soon be podesta's time in the barrel." then on october 7, wikileaks began publishing podesta's personal e-mails. it was the same day the department of homeland security and director of national intelligence publicly accused russia of carrying out the cyber attacks. today, a year after the russian operation began, sources say the f.b.i.'s investigation is nowhere near over. it involves dozens of agents in washington, new york, and london. the n.s.a. and c.i.a. are also gathering intelligence from inside russia. despite his denials, investigators believe the operation was authorized by russian president vladimir putin himself, and it involved both cyberattacks and information warfare. >> this is actually what happened to us. >> reporter: according to testimony yesterday before the senate intelligence committee, 15,000 operatives worldwide participated in spreading false news stories and conspiracy theories online. those activities are also part of the f.b.i.'s investi

and when john podesta's password is actually password, and it's that way for years and the dnc doesn't have a firewall to protect themselves, well, with all due respect, shame on them. and the fact that they released information about bernie sanders and how they really i think through him under the bus, that is completely, you know, it's sad that it got out there. but in retrospect, i'm glad that it got out, at least we know where their heads were at, so they should have been more protective -- liz: russia has been hacking into yahoo accounts since 2014. news flash, dnc. you didn't have a firewall. instead of using yahoo accounts, 1.5 billion accounts hacked. we have to move on. sorry, sir. they've been hacking. senate democrats say they have the votes to filibuster and block the supreme court nominee neil gorsuch after clearing senate judiciary today. you know, here's the thing, senator. senate majority leader chuck schumer predicted yesterday that gorsuch would not reach the 60 votes needed to overcome a democrat filibuster. listen. >> it looks like gorsuch will not reach the 60 vote

the hearing last week, we learned e-mails from the dnc and the clinton campaign of john podesta that were released to the public were a mere fraction of what the russians possessed. what no one is talking about of information that russia sits on right now. they hacked 3,000 to 4,000 people. any time anyone rises up they choose against whether it is democrats or republicans or state officials, they go t the ability to do the same thing that they did over the past few years. >> that means there are plenty of other politicians and others perhaps some of those helping to d distract from this real story at risk here of the threat of the russian stealing and weaponizing information remains ongoing. real information that was stolen and released to the russians of false information. untrue stories specifically targeted at key parts of the country. >> the last week of the campaign and certain precincts and we wisconsin and pennsylvania, there were so much information talking about hillary clinton's ill nelnesses or stealing from state department. with the russians alone having that level of t

you can't get in here, john podesta! okay? you can't put yogurt on a pizza. my brain is ate thinking. look! i have no idea why i'm doing this because i can't even read my own brain right now, all right! and the thing is, you want to fulfill the vision of founding father'father spuds mckenzie, nt even death will prevent you from visiting brainfight ustore.com, where you can buy several books i have written in a fugue state, because i am a man, a man who takes paypal! who has definitely had sex in a hot tub filled with yogurt because the natural cultures are a natural spermicide. they fight the sperm, all right! mbut my sperm wins! my sperm is a dragon of baby making! ( laughter ) ( applause ) brain fights brought to you by square space, not the web hosting company, it's a portable cube-shaped cage w neighbor. i'm not buying it! i haven't seen my neighbor for years! oh, they're getting in! oh, they're trying to get in! don't let your guard down! >> stephen: stay strong, tuck! we've got a great show for you tonight. john legend is here. but when we return, i'm t

podesta, so again, whether they are unwittingly using the tactics the russians orchestrated, we'll see that play out in the white house. >> thank you. >>> joining us now, david gergen, jason miller, in terms of general flynn's request for immunity, is there a potential strange his legal team may be using? they're not the ones -- we don't know who leaked the story and made it public, they did send out a statement confirming that clearly they were looking for some sort of immunity. is there an alternative strategy for making something public like this? >> that is the bizarre part of this. i have never heard of a case in 50 years of practice where the defense publicly states that it is actively seeking immunity. normally these negotiations occur behind closed doors. there are offers of information, proffers, and then negotiations occur. and then the prosecution decides whether to grant immunity. now, the defendant has no choice, he can't accept or reject immunity, he has to testify if he is given immunity. and the thing that people are forgetting is the oliver north case. the senate and t

not only that, there's a call that came in from david seemus, his political director to john podesta, right after john spoke on the stage. >> to robby mook. then there was an obama call to podesta. there were about four calls between the white house -- >> how many times did the candidates talk? >> two. >> for sure? >> yes. >> you stand by that? >> yes. >> so these people where -- why are they arguing about this one factoid? >> i can't explain their strategy. >> your voice is getting lower by the way. you're not betting it out there, john. you're shurz of this? >> absolutely. two calls. let me say this too. the story that we do here, the tick tock at the end of this campaign on election night, in the peninsula hotel, as she's finding out she's losing the presidency, is the time in this book and in reality where she is the most sympathetic throughout this entire campaign process. you really -- i mean as you read through this, you really get -- you get a fill for what she's going through. >> who's she blame personally. >> comey and russia. >> and a little bit obama. >> not about her own

. >> ended up on wikileaks, someone said, jennifer palmieri and john podesta are both practicing catholics. and this never gets covered and you think, why is the gossip treated as big news when it comes to the clinton campaign. i think it was ari fleischer today that set the press never liked the clintons, but that like obama. the first black guy, i don't know. got to say, that the press, in fact, in order to prove that they are not anti-right goes hard on the left. >> could it be that everybody couldn't stand hillary? left or right? >> as i pointed out about bernie sanders, the status quo candidates. >> unbelievable. nevertheless, seem to protest about about this, feel they are maligned and it is unfair to them. >> who? >> i think the left. >> interesting because the right dominates talk radio. trump got so much free coverage, not only here, but talking about how much coverage cnn gave. i think trump played us all. >> or did we play trump? oh. speak up next on "the five," another segment, trump is the law. okay commit some big developments, our thoughts on some developments within the wes

it is being shared by john podesta who is in the center and joining him -- [applause] >> please. john and henry, please welcome them all. [applause] >> john, your presence here, as to every hour of everyday of your life for other people who are in your presence conjures up the specter or the memory for the muscle memory of the experiences for decades ago with watergate, as we sit here in the week or the beginning of the 11th week of the trump presidency, obviously one of your themes over the last 70 days has been this question of whether the trump presidency is an unprecedented event or whether it evokes uncomfortably evokes the period in which you were a major actor. so do you think that we are in uncharted territory, or is the territory all too charted, shall we say? >> well, we are not at watergate 2.0, yet. i find echoes of what happened in the past. i find tremendous differences in what happened in the past. i find the two presidents are very different personalities. mr. nixon was well schooled in the presidency before he arrived in it. he had been a vice president dick yet

john podesta came out and said she would not be coming out and we'd be handling it in the morning. you can clearly understand the emotional wreck that she was back at the hotel where she was staying and watched all of this continue to unfold but this entire campaign reflected in this book at least details how it's always been a game of catch-up, how she would learn from her mistakes back in 2008 and constantly felt herself having to play the role of defense in this campaign as opposed to being ahead of her opponents, both bernie sanders and then obviously donald trump. >> and we understood her to be -- you can imagine the shock. even just covering it. we were completely shocked by an outcome that was unexpected by practically everyone, including donald trump. the crux of the book really gets to whose fault is it for why she lost. all of the folks supporting her, and even some who weren't, were turned around by her loss. and the authors really seemed to come to the conclusion that despite a lot of finger pointing which happens in a situation like this, that original sin even before

. >> john podesta's e-mails i can assure you did not come from the russians, so this idea that the left and even the administration from the intelligence community are now claiming it's all the russians is entirely too cute and very, very thin on any kind of fact or legitimacy. >> jim? >> well, look, let's listen to the people who disagree with the people who disagree with the intelligence community. democrats certainly but the republican speaker of the house, the republican senate majority leader, the chairman of both the senate and house intelligence committees. that assessment does not measure up the facts. for him to characterize it this way is not accurate. that point of view is one that the president himself held and publicly expressed many times during the campaign, even during the transition, although he has mod rated on that. >> erik prince lives in the uae most of the time. the meeting took place in the seychelles island. remote islands that the arabs have bank rolled. i've been there. you can see the influence physically in that house. the islands pride themselves in operatin

hack, the hack of the john podesta emails. they were behind the use of distributing fake news. the way they do this is they have close to 1000 paid internet trolls in moscow that create bots that can flood search engines like twitter and facebook and others with false news. real fake news, not the kind of president has sometimes referred to. there was complete consensus from the technical experts and the more historical and policy experts that russia was behind was behindat russia tos and they were trying create chaos and want to try to split countries apart and drive as big of social wedges as possible. if you look at the 2016 electorate in terms of some of the tools they used, they did that. a lot of the websites they pushed and promoted would be viewed as far right. the usage of words reinforced those views. what i thought was surprising was to hear some of the witnesses say part of the reason they were successful is then-candidate trump used some of this fake news in his normal comments about fake numbers of people voting, about some of the other outlandish claims trump mad

>> the very last thing that john podesta just said is no individual too big to jail, that should include people like hillary clinton. i mean, five people around her have been given immunity to include her former chief of staff. when you are given immunity, that means you've probably committed a crime. >> the president friday tweeted, mike flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt. excuse for big election loss by media and dems of historic proportion. well, i don't think that it's a witch hunt. i think there are valid questions that need to be asked and answered, but flynn saying he won't testify without a grant of immunity that alone really doesn't tell us anything. for more on this story, joining me now the national correspondent for security for the "new york times" is matthew rosenberg. okay, matthew, it's march 21st and congressman devin nunes is in an uber. and he gets a phone call. and what happens that causes him to divert to the white house? >> so he gets this phone call from a source that he after the fact won't tell anyone who it is. he hops into the uber, he's

saying this is about john podesta and his brother. and the most recent tweet. did clinton apologize for the debate questions? he is creating a story on a week that could have been about good news. >> that's what is odd. he got a lot of credit during the campaign. i think rightly so. he was able to deflect negative stories with the twitter feed. this is not more favorable ground. no question, alisyn, the people you talked to will absolutely 100% rally behind this idea that he just tweeted about hillary clinton. no question. they briefed her. of course, the press are democrats. the issue for him more broadly speaking is can he -- is that enough people to win? it is not enough people to win even in 2016. he won a lot of people on the fence at the last minute who viewed the election of change versus more of the same. he needs to win a decent chunk of these people beyond the people who are going to be for him no matter what to get reelected. >> sure. those fence sitters and we don't know how they are feeling. >> fence sitters. those tend to be people not paying clos

and this is part of that e-mail, massive amounts of e-mail from the clinton campaign and john podesta and jennifer was part of that both of whom were catholic as i remember which is why they had the expertise to deal they could influence. so how much was the week, how much difference did it make? >> if you think back to when george h. w. bush won with a tremendous landslide and he split the catholic vote 50/50 and yet he won a landslide because of the evangelicals he had, trump took the catholic vote substantially over hillary clinton. she could have gotten a portion of that as barack obama said afterwards if she had asked and then bill clinton felt she would have gone after them so she could have had some of those. so i think those e-mails did have a big impact and i think that they have belatedly come to that conclusion. i think the first reaction was this is all james fault and they said that, the fbi director. public statements, it's all james fault and then later as you will hear them, then it became the russians fault. in fairness, the russians gave money to hillary clinton. the

podesta's email emails. for the expressed purpose of -- >> we need a special commission to investigate a neutral, fair commission. why wouldn't you agree with that? don't you believe this is important? i know you don't get happened but -- >> tucker: i am merely saying if we are going to destroy the lives of people and surveilled american citizens, we are going to break the basic bond of trust, watching me without my knowledge. because we need to get to the bottom of this russian thing. i'm asking for one person to give me one piece of evidence that this russia thing actually happened. and nobody will. that's very telling, don't you think? >> the evidence is coming out. >> tucker: the two intel committees haven't come out with any of the stuff. we are still waiting. >> last week that he has reviewed a lot of information, it gives him a great concern, he thinks it's the most important thing he has ever worked on. it >> tucker: i'm he believes that. >> he's a republican. >> tucker: i'm not slacking on the repub

podesta's email account, i don't think the intel community believes that it's just not true, there isn't a consensus. >> the consensus as they interfered in the election to donald trump. what may be true is they colluded. the president facing that scrutiny, that legal scrutiny can't cozy up to putin and can't do all of his business. if >> tucker: the conspiracy continues. to throw the bloodhound's office sent he has in fact taken a positional hostile to russia. >> i'm not even saying it's a conspiracy, i'm saying he may have figured out the right approach, they need to put u.s. interests ahead of russian interests in syria, in north korea, if he's doing that legitimately, i applaud it. >> tucker: he shouldn't go to prison now for subverting american democracy on behalf of vladimir putin? want to be going to admit it was just wrong, it was a silly way to account for a loss you didn't expect, she ran a bad campaign, the middle-class doesn't like democrats anymore when not admit that rather than blaming it on a foreign power? >> this is not about blaming it on a foreign power, the fbi is in

podesta or the dnc and he declined to do that. i just want to know unless you and i have to go on faith, we have to trust politicians in a political system on faith, why don't we get some evidence that any of this actually happened? why do we have to nod and say yeah, where's the evidence? >> i don't know why he would tell you that, maybe because the information he knew was classified but all of our intelligence agencies have reported that russia did hack into the dnc emails. if you talk to dnc officials, they will also tell you that within a few days after theirr emails had been hacked they knew it was russia. agents of the russian government. if you don't care about facts -- >> tucker: i care enough to ask real questions because i have learned in 30 years here don't take it on faith, get the facts. i am waiting for a single fact. just one from any of these fabled 17 intelligence agencies. maybe the coast guard can givewa me this one scintilla of evidence that the russian government of vladimir putin broke into johnn podesta's em

podesta saying bad things about the boss. and i think that what we saw from the cia director, pompeo, was a clear indication that they believed that this is not a first amendment issue, but is, in fact, the question is whether wikileaks was directing its sources to steal -- to steal he information. >> the nearly, i think unanimous conclusion of all the u.s. intelligence agencies and the law enforcement agencies that wikileaks was used by the russian government during the campaign to undermine hillary clinton's presidential ambition. >> the trump administration initially, they didn't really start with a lot of credibility on this issue. they have every incentive to really go hard after this because it will bolster their case that they're in a different place. this isn't the campaign any more and now it's about the security of the united states. >> you served as the state department spokesman and also the pentagon spokesman during your time there. do you remember if there was serious consideration to formally filing charges see

two of the top aides, there was infighting between john podesta, the chairman, and robby mook, the campaign manager. there was -- one didn't trust the other. they both had competing interests. that went down the line. >> campaign press secretary and current clinton spokesman issued a statement that read in part -- >> kelly o., you've covered a number of campaigns before this one. how much campaign infighting contributed to hillary clinton's loss? what do we know about that? and was that infighting any more significant than the infighting which see in any other major presidential campaign? >> reporter: it always takes on a greater perspective if the campaign loses. there's always infighting in a losing campaign, and the infighting that exists inside the winning campaign somehow melts away. certainly the trump campaign had plenty of its own internal disagreement. but for hillary clinton's team, especially running a second time, getting the nomination, the historic nature of her run, and a sense that there was some issues with her as a candidate, not a natural campaigner, something she admitte

podesta and the dnc. >> thank you very much. let's get back to jake sullivan. what's your reaction to what we heard today from the new cia director mike pompeo really describing wikileaks for all practical purposes as an arm of russian intelligence? >> well, my reaction is mike pompeo is right and hillary clinton said so before the election. she made the point that wikileaks was acting as an extension, an arm of russian intelligence and that didn't stop donald trump for going out 164 separate times to praise wikileaks, to cite wikileaks, to tell people to go read wikileaks. vice president moip said to people, tell your friends and neighbors to go on wikileaks. this was given support to what they're cia director is now calling an arm of the russian intelligence service, a non-state hostile intelligence act. >> i assume your plea is a the cia director now is saying wikileaks is for all practical purposes once again an arm of russian intelligence. that's a pretty significant statement. >> i'm pleased put i have to say this was obvi

podesta or the dnc? >> i don't think we can say anything definitively at this point. we are still at the very early stage of the investigation. >> sean: yeah, for the past eight months. we're in the early stages of the investigation. with help of the all left propaganda destroy trump media, they've been trying everything they can do to find proof that president trump and his campaign were cluing with russia. yet there's no evidence after eight long months. the big question is this. did president obama and his administration knowingly surveil on either incoming president or an opposition party candidate? americans tonight are demanding answers to those questions and we here on hannity will demand those as well until we get them. joining us now jay secula, host of justice with janine piro and the host of you are the jury. so, i am trying to lay the history out here. give me any scenario under which susan rice, national security adviser, would specifically request raw intelligence unmasking, let's say the i

. >> but the tweet of john podesta has it coming to him is the link. you're right. there's not direct evidence but to say bits his business. we knew that stuff would come down. >> i'll tell you, i obsess, the part i obsess on the most has 22nd who helped assange. it was well coordinated. somebody, this is very unassange-like and it was something wikileaks hadn't done before. that's the key to the whole thing. who helped had sort these e-mails? they had a lot of bg small details of how washington works. forget american politics of the like the dinners in washington. that took sophistication that julian assange does not have. >> i noticed stone's reaction to that which he said, i don't know what you're talking about. the first i've heard about a possibility of an american helping had wikileaks and curating the e-mails was today spoefl might be an angle. i would like to know your sources. if that's mething the committees areexploring, that would be a crucial part of any investigation. but i think stone and myself as we were looking at the e-mails, simply assumed they w

podesta or any other hackers that -- that relayed that information to the public? you think what happened to you had more of an impact on the election? >> look at what the final impact was or in terms of materiality of information. what did we actually learn from all of these wikileaks e-mail, is that there's some dishonest things going on in the clinton campaign. i think most people would not be very surprised about that. to then have candidate trump, someone who supported him and other people who have worked with him in the past, all these crazy stories ongoing, continuing to dribble out through his campaign, yes, i have a very strong premonition, political scientists can study this some day, but my strong view is that that definitely had had a much bigger impact than these immaterial wikileaks which really didn't prove any major new details other than the fact that the clinton campaign was acting dishonestly which i think if this dodgy dossier is any indication, certainly that is had a much more firm indication of that. >> carter, do you still talk to people in