they also report that they believe that some of the russian whoz participat russians who participated in the attack were here on american soil. does that make sense, that the russians need to physically be here when we think about an attack that appears on the cloud, on the internet? >> to me it does, rachel, and the uptick in visas, it's a reminder, perhaps in some ways, spies are just like us. in order to apply for work overseas, they have to apply for visas. in this case they probably applied for a usage of cover that intelligence services around the world use. not always do intelligence officers travel under official cover. sometimes they go under what's called non-official cover and the russians are pretty adept at this. you may recall in 2010, the fbi rounded up 10 so-called russian illegals, that is to say, russians who had illegally assumed american identities and had been living here, in some cases, for decades, collecting intelligence in an effort to send it back to moscow. in this case, though, it sounds like the individuals came here under official cover requesting diploma

and the russians are pretty adept at this. you may recall in 2010 the fbi rounded up ten so-called russian illegals. that is to say russians who had illegally assumed american identities and had been living here in some cases for decades collecting intelligence in an effort to send it back to moscow. in this case it sounds like the individuals came here under official cover requesting diplomatic visas. of course they're not going to say i'm a russian intelligence officer. they may say, for example, i did with the ministry of defense or ministry of foreign affairs, but in doing so it made it much easier for the fbi to spot this uptick and deny the visas, at least until the election was over. >> and this is reported as something that is concerning to both the fbi and the state department in terms of the way these things normally work. are you surprised to hear or unsurprised to hear that the fbi would have noticed this uptick, the state department might have recognized there's some strange surge in those kind of applications? is

we remember back in our lifetime we never known the russians to be the russian government or the russian military to ever be our friend. and wanting the same things we wanted out of life. the seriousness of this russian hacking is very serious to me and concerning. you said you were not briefed on. that i think october 9th, the one known that the odni at that time i think mr. clapper and also mr. jay johnson, homeland security, made that public what was going on. then on december 29th, president obama at that time expelled 35 russian diplomats and denied access to kpounld and brooned the existing sanctions. have you had any discussions at all or set in on any type of meetings or recommendations were made to remove the sanctions? >> i don't recall any such meeting. >> and during the time not from the president being inaugurated on january 20th, prior to that in the campaign up until through the transition, was there ever any meetings he showed any concern or consideration or just in quiztive of what the russians were really doing and if they really done sfwlit. >> i don't recall any such

serilic or russian alphabet. he and his team did not let down their guard for new intrusions and by the summer of 2016, they detected fancy bear sniffing out more prey. >> it's really exciting to catch these guys in the act. >> the russian hackers had infiltrated act blue, democratic fund-raising website. >> they were diverting people who went to the act blue system, the donations system, to a server that they owned. >> his team showed us exactly what they found. >> this is the website of the dccc, the democratic congressional campaign committee. on july 19th, 2016. if you right click and go to view page source, it will bring you the html source. so the code that's behind what you see. in this case, what was interesting was that normally here, this is the hyperlink, normally this would go to secure.actblue.com, but in this case, it goes to secure.actblues.com, with an "s." >> act blues with an "s" had nothing to do with the democrats and appeared to be a russian cover. >> the second i saw we were sending -- there

it wasn't russians. again, the development of it technologies is extreme, extreme important, you know, and valuable feature of contemporary world but it is not that simple. it's backfired. whatever the russian intent was, and you can argue about whether it's right to put it at russia's door, but the fact is, if you were hoping, and it seems you were, because there were warm words, a direct quote from you, welcoming donald trump, saying he was a man to be admired, picked himself up twice from being knocked down in business. me? yes, this is a quote from you. trump, you said, is a smart guy, he lost two times everything and he raised himself up again. he is addressing some internal failings of the american people. where is the word of "admiring"? ineversaid admiring. that is a hugely admiring comment, is it not? no, no, no. the truth is, i never admired trump, even since i was in new york city. i did not like the guy. but my assumption was don't oversimplify the character of this person. and the fact of th

we're also not used to watching russian tv or reading newspapers said russian we don't hear those russian communities so they have decided to establish those in the region into have forced to news but then they trust that local media over the russian media. and of those religious court it's between those nations effectively two years church and fake. of traditional society they trust church. and also '02 propagate and to have those people and the citizens of my country and it is about dignity to be fundamentally different in and then if we join nato or the you so if they use these different channels and that since that to ruin schleicher the hearts of the people. >> fakes to the four of you this has been a valuable panel. i focus on following the money issue about the moscow funding two years ago directing that intelligence assessment so looking its european democracy to help us understand what has happened because of those pro russian political figures so had you been able to determine if putin employs various strategies to curry favor and what would those strategies me?. >> first, ed th

we knew much more about the russian side. and they knew more about our practices and a lot of that is gone. >> so i think it's important to talk about positive examples of our operation where it does exist but i also think, i think the other issue here is that if you look at in terms of bureaucracies, on the inside and just the rhetoric, the new generation of people who are now becoming sort of bureaucrats. >> the rhetoric was sort of people who are not part of the cooperative activity and so i think that's a different total change when it comes to nuclear issues to generally sort of much more nationalist so there's this other aspect of this, that's much more troubling than is positive. >> so first of all, there is

ambassador or any other russian official. if any brief interaction occurred in passing with the russian ambassador during that reception, i do not remember it. after the speech i was interviewed by the news media. there was an area for that, in a different room. then i left the hotel. but whether i ever attended a reception where the russian ambassador was also present is entirely beside the point of this investigation into russian interference in the 2016 campaign. let me state this clearly, colleagues: i have never met with or had any conversations with any russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the united states. further, i have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the trump campaign. i was your colleague in this body for 20 years, at least some of you, and i participated -- and the suggestion that i participated in any collusion that i was aware of any collusion with the russian government to hurt this country, which i have served wit

ambassador or any russian official or any russian head of a bank, something like that, at any other location beyond just the mayflower hotel which is what, so far, everyone has been focused on? >> let's hear from our friend, jeremy bash, who is out in the bay area today. jeremy, former chief of staff at dod and cia and former counsel to the house intelligence committee. jeremy, first off, just given your history with house intel, i'm going to be bedelvilled by this question. for mr. cohen, the trump lawyer, why a september 5 testimony date, do you think? >> it sounds way too out in the future. i think they got to reel that back and put him in the witness chair in july. i agree with you, brian. building on nicolle's point, it is strange that all of these meetings with russians seem to induce contagious amnesia from all of the witnesses in this matter. i think it is very strange. i think the committee has to look at that very carefully. but the most important question that i'm interested in today is why did the trump campaign take this exceedingly bizarre position on russia? mr. sessi

[inaudible] >> guest: i am not aware of any other attempt to use russian facility and russian communications in order to create such a back channel one t so, as far as you talk about michael flynn to being a subpoenaed now to appear before the house intelligence committee and there's another man mentioned michael, his personal attorney.t. >> guest: right. were not exactly sure what he's been called about but he's appeared in various stages of this investigation, someone with a strong connections to the region and at one point he proposed a peace treaty dealing with the eastern ukraine crisis that he put forward. i think we have to wait and see what it is that mr. cohen is being asked about. whether he's a person allegedlya may have had communications with and other people during campai campaign. izzy's personal lawyer but he's more than a lawyer he's also a businessman and a person with significant contacts with region. >> host: our guest has studied and researched extensively on russia and related activities in the issues regarding russia. also, at the wilkinson center he serves as their de

-russian relationship. i think we can disagree on whether deep nuclear cuts are practical or desirable. i personally think the russians aren't quite interested in that, but i think we all need to agree on the importance of extending new start and preserving our intrusive transparency, predictability and verification regime with russia and i think that's something that needs to be clear and the administration needs a clear statement, make a clear statement with regard to that. now, a great piece in survival last month where he talked about the idea, idea of leashing through process. so he talked about the importance of the arms control process and clarifying soviet position and contribute to go russian understanding about deterrence and what americans understand as deterrence. so this kind of acceptance eventually of the american deterrence logic. he also called for a statement of the principal that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought and i strongly endorse that. i think if we think about su

manafort forced to step down over ties to russian backed entities. the national security advisor, general flynn had to resign over his lies about engagements with the russians. and we saw the candidate himself express an odd and unexplained affection for the russian dictator, while calling for the hacking of his opponent. there's a lot to investigate. enough, in fact, then director comey publicly acknowledged he was leading an investigation into those links between mr. trump's campaign and the russian government. as the director of the fbi, mr. comey was ultimately responsible for conducting that investigation. which might explain why you're sitting now as a private citizen. what we didn't know was that the same time this investigation was proceeding, the president himself appears to have been engaged in an effort to influence, or at least co-opthe director of the fbi. the testimony mr. comey has submitted for today's hearing is very disturbing. on january 27th after summoning director comey to dinner. the president appears to have threatened the dir

i do not have any recollection meeting or talking to the russian ambassador or any other russian officials. if any brief interaction occurred in passing with the russian ambassador during that reception, i do not remember it. after the speech, i was interviewed by the news media. there was an area for that in a different room, and then i left the hotel, but whether i ever attended a reception where the russian ambassador was also present is entirely beside the point. concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the united states. further, i have no knowledgech any such discussions by anyone connected to the trump campaign. i was your colleague in this body for 20 years, at least some of you, and the suggestion that i participated in any collusion or that i was aware of any collusion with the russian government to hurt this country, which i have served with honor for years. it is an appalling testament. detestable lie. relatedly, there is the assertion that i did not answer senator franken's question honestly at my confirmation hearing. colleagues, that is false. i c

russian-owned compound. and he broadened the existing. do you have any -- have you had any discussions or set in on any type of meetings or recommendations were made to remove those sapnctions? >> i don't recall any such meeting. >> and during the time, not from the president being inaugurated on january 20th, prior to that in the campaign up until the transition, was there ever any meetings he showed concern or consideration or just inquisitive of what the russians were really doing and if they'd really done it? >> i don't recall any such conversations. i'm not sure i understood your question. maybe i better listen again. >> you were part of the national security team. >> yeah. >> if he would have heard something about russia and capabilities and concern about what they could do to our election process, was there ever any conversations concerning that whatsoever? >> i don't recall it, senator manchin. >> i know it's been askied of you, the executive privileges and i understand that. but also when we had mr.

i think now, russians are -- well, not a lot of this is being reported on russian state media. i think they're bored with it acally. and they see thiss hysteria in the united states and they kind of political civil war that has nothing to do with them. i know of course it has a lot to do with the kremlin but right now all of the kremlin are sitting back and don't have to do very much, they may drop the odd piece of poison into the ear of the american body politic but they're watching the united states not self-destruct, but look, if you want to undermine the west wing american values, western values, look, for example, what happened yesterday with sean spicer saying, no more questions about russia. we'll refer to a lawyer. so freedom of the press is being limited. it would seem. cracks in nato. divisions in the united states. you know, the very office of the presidency being -- i mean the russians are loving this. >> this is everything they could have wanted and more? >> but not what they expected. so what they expected was that they would get a guy who would maybe roll back sa

from a russian state run news service. that is how we found out they did let a photographer in there, just not an american one. that is how we found out that the russian ambassador was in on that meeting, too. this is the same russian ambassador who michael flynn concealed his meetings with and who jared kushner concealed his meetings with. i'm not sure we would know the president was meeting with him but the russian state run news agency photographer let loose in the oval office, that guy ended up confurchliirming the news. the white house explained the presence of that russian photographer in the oval office by saying this. quote, they tricked us. we didn't know they were bringing a photographer. former national security council official followed up with this, quote, deadly serious question, was it a good idea to let a russian government photographer and all of their equipment into the oval office? former deputy director of the cia responded with this. no. no it was not a good idea. but they did it anyway for some reason

the connection with the russians? do those contacts go beyond meetings in september of 2016, and what is his role, as center langford asked, and was or any kind of connection with the russian investigation? the most noticeably today on the hill, we have a lot of questions about media reports concerning the special counsel, and whether the president could fire robert muller at will, and here is critical exchange between the senders and the deputy attorney general? >> president trump ordered you to fire the special counsel, what would you do? >> cedric, i will not follow any orders unless i believe those are lost on appropriate orders. under regulation, robert mueller might only be five for good cause. >> there is no cause. >> that's great. >> is it fair to put that to rest? >> as far as i'm concerned, yes senator. i appointed him. i stand by that decision. i think was the right thing to do under that circumstance. i'm going to defend the integrity of that investigation. speed it were to go back to the breaking news of

we remember back in our lifetime we've never known the russians to be, russian government or the russian military to ever be our friend, wanting same things we wanted out of life. with that being said the seriousness of this russian hacking is very serious to me and concerning and, you're saying that you had not been briefed on that. october, i think it was october 9th, the one that was known the odni at the time, mr. clapper and mr. jeh johnson, homeland security, made that public what was going on. then on the december 29thth, president obama at that time expelled 35 russian diplomats, denied access to a russian-owned compound and broadened existing sanctions. did you have any discussions at all, have you had any discussions or on any type of meetings or recommendations were made to remove those sanctions? >> i don't recall any such meeting. >> during the time not, from the president being inaugurated on january 20th, prior to that, in the campaign, up until through the transition, was there ever any meetings that he ever showed any concern or consideration or just inquisitive of what

they expelled russian spies and closed facilities used by the russians for espionage against america. i hope, secretary johnson, that you will be able to share a sense of the debate that was ongoing in the executive branch as evidence of the russian involvement and hacked emails piled up through the late summer and early fall. what led to such a long delay of making attribution and why was the most significant step of imposing costs on russia for its interference come only after the election and what are the lessons learned? at its heart, our democracy relies on the trust of the american people and their institutions. the events of last year and the potential for worse in the future are a stark warning to all of us that we must guard our democracy jealously and there are powerful adversaries that wish to tear down america's role as its champion. we have our work cut out for us, but the world is counting on us to be up to the challenge. i thank you for your extraordinary service once again and your testimony today. i yield back. >> secretary johnson, would you like to make an opening s

so, word of warning with anything coming out of russian state media. >> absolutely. >>> in the russian investigation, the special counsel goes on i hiring spree as the president goes off and the vice president lawyers up. ready to take control of your back pain? new icyhot lidocaine patch. desensitizes aggravated nerves with the max strength lidocaine available. new icyhot lidocaine patch. >>> all right, new developments in the russia investigation. special counsel robert mueller bringing 13 lawyers on board to help with the probe, and we're told he's not done hiring. the "washington post" reporting mueller's team is now investigating the finances and dealings of the president's son-in-law and adviser, jared kushner. a lawyer for kushner says they don't know what the report refers to, since it would be standard practice, of course, for the special counsel to examine financial records to look for anything related to russia. >>> cnn has already reported the fbi is looking into kushner's role with the campaign. the report, which cited u.s. officials, also appeared to prompt an unusual sta

russian intelligence agencies. one is the influence operation, to change the narrative around the campaign. they did that by hacking the dnc and clinton aides and releasing the emails to wikileaks, according to u.s. intelligence agencies. but they were doing something else, where they were hacking into the voting infrastructure of u.s. elections. it doesn't look like what they were trained to do is change the vote. but the obama administration was pretty convinced and very worried that what they were trying to do was undercut the election by creating a lot of chaos. they were attacking voter registration rolls, databases, they were attacking local election officials who run systems where the votes are counted and transferred up to the state. if you can imagine, if you showed up at the polls and suddenly your information to be able to vote was gone or changed and your address was different, you would feel pretty disenfranchised, that was the real fear, that there was going to be some major effort to do that on elect

how did the russians influence the election? from what i understood from the news and all of the stuff, all of the voting was off-line. there was no way that they were able to get into the voting booths or the voting machines. and also, on the clinton situation there, which one is it that the democrats are saying they lost? they either lose by the investigation on clinton, or is it the russian influence? personally i feel that really exist. other than the fact that they may have got into the dnc. and put out what was basically the emails in the dnc. host: sir, i tend to agree with you on the election apparatus. i have seen questions about the integrity of the vote counts for the voting machines, but i'm not one of those people. i think we lost the numbers in the states that came the electoral victory. but i think that the russian interference affected the mood of the public and a lot of people on the edge that made a difference. it wouldn't have done that if the fact that she was being investigated, which was the comey angle, no

they are looking for evidence of russian trump collusion. he says i wouldn't go so far to say that but with respect to the issue of collusion, as i have said before, i have testified and i saw no evidence. i saw no direct evidence of political collusion between the campaign in the trunk campaign and the russians. como's follow-up question? now clarify that point. this point has been clarified for seven doggone months. >> sean: this just happened last week, we showed our audience. these were all hillary's excuses in the last week alone. there's one thing missing on that list. how about blaming herself? >> she did miss the opportunity to throw in tim kane's name which i think really should get some prominence in that list. >> sean: he was not good enough debate. >> and then the nonsensical answer on his on the collusion. then he sucks the truth out of that moment as well. i don't know what's left? >> sean: are you worried to the extent that the media's groupthink one voice and a narrative with no evidence that has consumed thousands of hours?

kushner's omitted meetings with russian officials. subsequent news report news tell the story of clandestine calls and meetings between mr. kushner and russian officials during the campaign and transition, attempts to conceal those meets from u.s. intelligence and law enforcement, and mr. kushner's subsequent support for attempts to obstruct the investigation of trump russia contacts. the letter concludes the white house should take all possible steps to protect national security, including immediately revoking mr. kushner's security clearance. congressman ted lieu was one of the lawmakers who signed that letter. tonight congressman lieu told chris hayes he believes jared kushner committed a felony. that's next. [ eerie music ] [ guitar plays ] [ music abruptly ends ] [ alarm beeping ] [ guitar plays again ] [ music abruptly ends ] [ alarm beeping ] [ guitar plays again ] [ drum beats ] [ upbeat music ] she is real. the mummy. rated pg-13. hey, need fast try cool mint zantac. it releases a cooling sensation in your mouth and throat. z

information and he also used the russians. he went on television and said if the russians are listening, find those emails. he placed everything right on his sleeve and he knew the russians were listening. i think he gave himself away just like when he had -- i said to myself, trump this investigation is not going so well, let's get rid of comey. it is disparaging to the russians. that to me is un-american. no matter what you think of that james comey, he is a fine upstanding decent, honest american patriot. alan is a democrat in brooklyn, new york. courts --e reason the the election immediately was the state of vote count they felt would eat irreparable harm to the president the of the apparent winner george w. bush. compared to the situation we have now it's eames that we have a far greater likelihood of irreparable harm being done to the country's from permanent or lasting actions of a president whose legitimacy may be determined to be void after the facts. lower court judges changes in the paris climate treaty. irreversibl

the russian attack on the u.s. election to try to help hillary clinton, help donald trump, that was well underway by the time of the conventions when the first of jeff sessions' first meetings took place with a russian official. by the time of his second meeting with that russian official, not only had the russian attack been going on for months, by that point it was very big news. "washington post" says that second meeting between sessions and the russian official, the one that happened one-on-one in private in his office, they say that happened on september 8th, that was a thursdays. the start of that same week, monday, "the washington post" had run this screaming headline. u.s. investigating potential covert russian plan to disrupt november elections. that same day, president obama had met directly with vladimir putin and told -- look at the look on his face. that is the week that obama met with putin and told him to knock off these russian government attempts to affect our elections. cut it out. and then just a

the russian government was not involved. putin went on to say that hackers are free people, just like artists who wake up in the morning in a good mood and start painting. amid growing anticipation for comey's appearance next week, we're learning for the first time about a possible meeting during the campaign between the russian ambassador to the u.s. and the president himself. five current and former u.s. officials told nbc news they are aware of classified intelligence suggesting there was some sort of private encounter between trump and his aides and the russian envoy. on the sidelines of a foreign policy speech last year at the mayflower hotel. it's been reported previously that then candidate trump greeted the ambassador sergey kislyak during a vip reception before the speech where jared kushner and jeff sessions were also in attendance. but this is the first indication there interaction may have been more significant. if such a meeting did take place, it would be the third meeting with the russian ambassador that jeff

retracted the story of on the lead senate investigation into links between a russian investment fund and a confidant of donald trump and in january c.n.n. broke a story claiming russia compromising personal information about president trump based on a dossier written by a former british spy it was later admitted that the report was flawed filled with on verified allegations the group behind the latest undercover video say c.n.n. is not the only outlet landing itself in hot water not just c.n.n. i want to make it clear you are going to make in america you know you are telling a lie you are defaming people you are keeping stories you're keeping them in public for not going through you're on our list and we may be right now we are watching you and if you're one of those organizations probably we sleep well at night because it might be. smart. meanwhile russian media helping single valued during a senate hearing devoted to alleged meddling in the u.s. presidential election of course. made their effort to have a a an effect on the election. so just the fact that maybe r t and nick had a n

by the russians for espionage against america. i hope secretary johnson that you'll be able to share with us and the american people a sense of the debate that was ongoing in the executive branch as evidence of the russian involvement and hacked e-mails piled up through the late summer and early fall. what led to such a long day in making attribution and why would the most significant step of imposing costs on russia for its interference come only after the election, and what are the lessons learned. at its heart, our democracy relies on the trust of the american people in their institutions. the events of last year and the potential for worse in the future are stark warning to all of us that we must guard our democracy jealously and there are powerful adversaries that wish to tear down liberal democracy and america's role as its champion. we have our work cut out for us but the world is counting on us to be up to the challenge. i thank you for your extraordinary service once again and your testimony today and i yield back. >> tha

it was going to the russians. about 91%, my understanding is, about 1% of the hacks that come into different systems, start with a spearphish attack that looks just like this. first for you, mr. perstaff, how does russia identify a potential target? because this is not just a random email that came to him this was targeted directly at him to his address, it looked very real. because they knew who he was, and where he works. so how are the russians that savvy to be able to track that person? and how does this work in the future for an elections system for a state? >> so i can't go into great detail in this forum, but i would say what intelligence services do, not just russia there is they're looking for vulnerabilities. and that would begin in the cyber sense, with computer vulnerabilities. as far as targeting specific individuals, i don't know all of the facts surrounding that email and all the emails that were sent. but my guess is they didn't just send it to one person. sent an email like that to a whole variety

the russian ambassador. we've seen those pictures, but what we need to remember about those pictures, those photos, those photos that ran on front pages around this country and all over the world, those photos weren't taken by american journalists. the president of the united states threw them out of the office. those photos were taken by the russian state media. the russian state media was allowed to be in the room with the president of the united states in the oval office, hallowed ground in our democracy, while the american press was thrown out. the russian state media, the old soviet news media, "tass," the remnants of the soviet propaganda machine. the american press was barred. when you hide from the press, you hide from the american people. on november 16 a group representing more than a dozen journalism organizations sent a letter to the president elect and wrote this isn't about access for the press itself. it's about access for americans in guesser communities around the country. having a strong in

, intelligence officers, other officials or close associates with the russian government? >> that's one i can't answer sitting here. >> in classified setting then. i want to turn attention now to mr. flynn and the allegations of his underlying conduct, to be specific, his alleged interactions with the russian ambassador on the telephone and what he said to seen your trump officials and department of justice officials. i understand there is issues with mr. fin and activity on behalf of foreign governments, those are allegations that will be pursued, but i want to speak specifically about his interactions with the russian ambassador. there was a story on january 23 in "the washington post" that says "f.b.i. reviewed flynn's calls with russian ambassador but found nothing elicit." is this story accurate? >> i don't want to comment on that, senator, because i'm pretty sure the bureau has not confirmed any interception of communications and, so, i don't want to talk about that in an open setting. >> would bit improper for an incoming national security advisor to have a conversa

specifically about his interactions with the russian ambassador. there was a story on january 23rd in "the washington post" that says fbi reviewed flynn's calls with russian ambassador but found nothing illicit. is this story accurate? >> i don't want to comment on that senator because i'm pretty sure the bureau has not confirmed any interception of communications. i don't want to talk about that in an open set. >> would it be improper for an incoming national security adviser to have a conversation with a foreign ambassador? >> in my experience, no. >> but you can't confirm or deny that the conversation happened and we would need to know the contents of that conversation to know if it was improper? >> i don't think i could talk about that in open setting. i also don't want to talk about things what is now somebody else's responsibility but maybe in the classified setting we can talk. >> you stated earlier there wasn't an open investigation of mr. flynn and the fbi. did you or any fbi agent ever sense that mr. flynn attempted to deceive you or made

what is the russian strategic interests. why are they doing that even though they know it's pretty dangerous. we have seen the buzzing. you're right. this is actually pretty serious. i think the russians have several objectives. one of the objectives is to make clear to nato we are here, we are ready, we are armed and just don't come too close. in a sense, it's not to move too close, not to engage in too many military maneuvers, not to spend too much hardware and so on. the other objective is what i tried to point out in my remark remarks, to create a sense of unpredictability. a sense where the opponent in that regard, nato, does not know how far othe are the russians going. what do they want to achieve. that kind of creates the image of an adversary that is very dangerous, one that you cannot calculate what would be his next move. i think the larger picture behind all of that is that russia is trying to get back to a quote, the russians are trying to keep the american out in the russians in and oppose soviet states. they a

russian government. what the americans did in the obama administration was to ban the russians from having access to them. they told them they all had the leave in 24 hours and they couldn't come back, and then the f.b.i. and others went in and proved to their own satisfaction that what they thought was happening was actually happening. the trump administration in a meeting between secretary tillerson, secretary of state tillerson and the russian foreign minister sergei lavrov last month said that they would drop what had been a linkage between the two, what the trump administration had said was linkage between letting the russians go back into the buildings and have access to them again and the russians giving up a situation that had been going on for several years in st. petersburg where in response the previous u.s. sanctions against russia over ukraine, the russians had refused to allow the americans to build a new consulate in st. petersburg. and so the administration had said, well, you give us our

is a propaganda arm of the russian government? >> all i know is that the information they were putting out was -- >> you're a russian expert. what do you mean you don't know whether they're a propaganda arm? >> it's infinitely more accurate -- >> is it propaganda? >> it's equally propaganda -- less prop began is tick than radio europe, radio for liberty which in september and november was repeating the dossier. >> i'm getting the opinion that vladimir putin believes and maybe you do too that the bad relations between the united states and moscow right now are caused by american media. >> no. that's -- >> he seemed to be saying that. >> no. i think that's one symptom of a larger illness which goes back many, many decades. >> do you think we should have better relations with russia? >> absolutely. >> is that why you went to work for trump? >> i believe in a lot of -- >> you like what trump was saying? >> more broadly in terms of his foreign policy. i think he's really trying to make some significant steps forward. what he was saying

we did say it was coming from a russian-based platform at that point. at that point, we told the public everything we believed we could dell them. i'm glad we did. the priority of informing the american people public -- >> mr. secretary, you mentioned that the statement you issued didn't get much attention because of the timing of "access hollywood." when it didn't get attention, why didn't the administration go further? why didn't the president speak about this? it was left to yourself and director clapper to issue a written statement without any further elaboration. there were no steps taken, for example, to impose sanctions on russia. why weren't those additional steps taken when they first noticed this? >> well, you shouldn't view the october 7 statement in isolation. i had been engaging state election officials since august. i had issued a public statement on august 15. i issued a public statement on september 16. informing the public and state officials what we knew at the time. i issued another public statement on october 1. there is the october

the russian ambassador kislyak and several other russian ambassadors. we regularly invite ambassadors. we regularly invite ambassadors to arrogance to facilitate dialogue. we seated or formica in the front row during the speech in deference to their diplomatic status. the trump campaign had nothing to do with seating arrangement. equal footing was extended to the foreign ambassadors. initial short reception before the speech. any conversations with mr trump where brief and could not be private. my recollection is the direction between mr trump and ambassador kislyak was limited to polite pleasantries ambassador kislyak was limited to polite pleasa ntries appropriate ambassador kislyak was limited to polite pleasantries appropriate on such occasions. we are not aware of any conversations between kislyak and senator sessions. in a small setting like this one it is unlikely they could have engaged in a meaningful private conversation without drawing attention from others present. you have any reason to disagree? i think that is a very fair description of t

i do not have any recollection of meeting or talking to the russian ambassador or any other russian officials. if any interaction occurred with the russian ambassador, i do not remember. after the speech, i was interviewed by the news media in a different room and then i left the hotel. but i attended a reception where the russian ambassador was present is entirely beside the point of this investigation into russian interference in the 2016 campaign. let me state this clearly, colleagues, i have never met with or had any conversation with any russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the united states. further, i have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the trump campaign. i was your colleague in this body for 20 years, at least some of you. and the suggestion that i participated in any collusion, that i was aware of any collusion with the russian government to hurt this country, which i have served with honor for 35 years or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process is an appalling and did he te

that's a russian su-27 fighter. that's the same kind of russian fighter that got to within five feet of that big american surveillance plane just a couple of days ago, also over the baltic sea. so this is this remarkable scene. you can see shot from the window of the larger russian aircraft. the russian fighter jet pulls up in that tiny space between the f-16 and wing tip of this larger russian plane. the russian jet squeezes in between the two of them. the reason the russian fighter jet, you can see it at one point in this tape tilting its wings, that's apparently to show the f-16 that it is armed with air-to-air missiles. see that tilt right there? that's him showing off his missiles underneath his left wing. that su-27 is apparently armed with the kind of missiles that fighter jets use to shoot down other fighter jets. that's what that showing off is. the nato f-16 hangs in there for a few more seconds and ultimately moves away. so this is not an abstract thing. right? relations between russia and the west, relat

russian -- darkness, russian acts exploit democratic institutions toput influence using corruption. russia has done this in the former soviet union and in europe for decades. and we should be prepared in the united states, miss connolly says, for them to keep doing it here. the kremlin playbook warns that to fight the corruption that gives russia this channel of influence, enhancing transparency and the effect r effectiveness of the western democratic tools, instruments, and institutions is critical to resilience against russian influence. miss connolly echoed the widespread warnings that the united states is particularly susceptible to russian influence via dark money channels in our politics. that is widely agreed. but she and others have warned of a second vulnerability. lax in corporation laws that hide the true owners of shell corporations. in the same way that dark money channels can hide the hand of foreign influence, so can shell corporations which obscure the hand of the entity behind the corporate screen. interestingly, "u.s.a. today" just reported, and i quote them, since

the russians are pretty adept at this. you may recall that in 2010 the fbi rounded up ten so-called russian illegals where, that is to say russians who had illegally assumed american identities and had been living here for decades collecting intelligence in an effort to send it back to moscow. in this case, though, it unds so like the individuals came here under official cover requesting diplomatic visas. of course, they're not going to say i'm a russian intelligence officer. they may say, for example, i'm with the ministry of defense or ministry of foreign affairs, but in doing so it made it much easier for the fbi to spot this uptick and to deny the visas, at least until the election was over. >> and this is reported as being something that was concerning to both the fbi and the state department in terms of the way these things normally work. are you surprised to hear or unsurprised to hear that the fbi would have noticed this uptick. the state department might have recognized there's some strange surge in those kind of

back in our lifetime we had never known the russian government or the russian military to ever be our friend, and wanting the same things we wanted out of life. with that being said, the seriousness of this russian hacking is very serious to me and concerning. you were saying that you had not been briefed on that. i think it was october 9 when it was known that dod and mr. mr. jeh johnson, homeland security, made that public, what was going on. then on december 29, president obama at that time expelled 35 russian diplomats and denied access to a russian compound and broadened existing sanctions. i would ask, did you have any discussions at all or sat in on any type of meetings or recommendations made to remove those sanctions? atty gen. sessions: i don't recall any such meetings. to the president being inaugurated until through the transition, were there any meetings that he showed any can learn federation or just inquisitive of what the russians were really doing? atty gen. sessions: i don't recall any such conversation. i'm not sure i understood your question, maybe a better listen

people with websites that found those stories spread around with the russian web bots. were those website owners colluding online or just get ensnared. you talk about people implicated, there is the clinton campaign itself the target of hacking and so much disinformation, if the fbi ultimately determines those things were crimes the clinton campaign was the legal victim. it is a remarkable stroke of news timing that jim comey really really will testify under oath on what may be the most watched debated and parsed testimony since election night and we heard more from the potential legal victim of any crimes that could have occurred in 2016's election. we heard from hillary clinton. while clinton has spoken a few times since the election, she's always been very measured in your depiction of the russian case. that may be from her legal training knowing it has many more chapters to come. could be her political training, the lectures losers get about accepting their own responsibility. today, she went further than she has before in sharing her own theory of the case. you'll

so he is the first non-russian person of interest. and the current bureau chief in london of breitbart, and the former chief of staff to farage said the whole think is ridiculous. the same response from the trump camp. he said that at this point the fbi is considering everyone a peon of terest, and that he was appealing to the media to discern what he concerned widely inaccurate quotes, and he was the man that introdosed him to roger stone, and they they never met before and never participated in any collusion between russia, trump, and wi wikileaks. >>> the senate intel committee, the chairman has announced that james comey will testify next thursday, june 8th. june 8th will be the day that james comey. 10:00 a.m., open session, and matt miller, back to you for a moment, what it seems to be cleared by mueller is that he will be able to talk about communications with the president regarding the fbi probe, but not the russia probe itself. >> that's right. i think we'll have to see in this hearing are there anything about those conversa

in the film, he clarified the russian position. juan: let's turn to another clip from "the putin interviews" were you ask about edward s snowden o was given asylum nearly two years ago in russia. ani am sure you m must come as ex-kgb agent, you must hhave hated whatat snowden did with every fiber of y your b being. >> the only thing snowden does, he does publicly. did you agree with what he did? >> no. the nationalink security agency had gone too far in its eavesdropping? >> yes, certainly. and that matter, snowden was right. but you ask and i gave you a direct answer will stop i think you should not have done it. if you did not like anything in his work, he should have simply resigned. but he went further. that is his right. but since you are asking whether it is right or wrong, i think it is wrong. >> so he is saying he should not have whistleblown anand should have resigned on the principle,, like mr. putin did when he resigned from the kgb. >>>> yes, i thihink so. i had not given it a thought, but i thihink, yes. i resigned bec

montenegro first of all we're not used to watching russian tv, reading russian newspapers in russian. we're not like people in ukraine, for example. we don't hear russian communities living there. they therefore decided to open, establish, a number of ussia media in the region. they brought news in the local language and use local networks to republish those news. publish kate news make either fake, then those news will be broadcasted or republished by local news. then people will trust local news, local media, not russian media. constitute nick and russia today can -- spute nick and russia today can -- sputnik and russia and russia can become popular today. they effectively use church and faith. my society, traditional society, people trust church. since we're also population. o they use church to propagate orthodox style or eastern orthodox style of life and present to the people, citizens of my country, that it's about our vanity and roots and it's about dignity. and that if in christianity is fundamentally different than western world. if we join nato, or the e.u., at the end of t

we talked about meetings with the russian ambassador. the russian ambassador -- this man and his predecessors have been around for years and meet with all kinds of people. last time i was in the senate dining room the russian ambassador was there having lunch with diane feinstein. these meetings mean nothing. a previous guest referred to him as the chief spy master. >> tucker: what i object to is the criminalization of balance differences. if you are against sanctions on russia, then you are doing the bidding of vladimir putin. can't you have a dispute without accusing someone of treason? >> of course you can, but that's not what this is about. the people raising these accusations don't think anybody committed treon. -- treason. they are looking for ways to bring down donald trump and the people around him. to them his election is unthinkable. and this can't be allowed to proceed. they are trying everything they k. the idea that the russian colluded and helped to arrange the election of donald trump has been a piece of it for a long time