when you look at the different roles and you're telling me what the cia thinks now, but the cia's traditional function is to think about what foreign leaders overseas are thinking. they're tasked with foreign intelligence collection and assessment. our role when i was at the fbi and working with them at the department of justice was different. we usually collect within the united states. we make intelligence assessments but we also try to prove cases beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. >> the cia's bottom line is circumstantial in part because the information that emerged was all damaging to the democrats and hillary clinton. if they did hack republican institutions or individuals, none of that information was significantly leaked. that's one of the reasons why the cia apparently concluded what they concluded. i guess the bottom line question is this. how vulnerable is the u.s. right now to russian cyber attacks? >> that is the key question and it's not just russia. we are vulnerable to russia, to the pacemakers in our hearts are going to be digitally connected. they already are. the

cia says they were. the fbi says they don't have the facts to come to that conclusion that they're not comfortable saying that they were. on the issue of the rnc being hacked, the cia says that they believe they were. the fbi says they were not. they don't have the evidence that they were. and the rnc says that there's absolutely no evidence they were hacked. so you have these two big stories this weekend split right down the middle. it's fascinating cia on one side and this sounds like water boarding days. the cia on one side. the fbi on the other side. and what's so fascinating is the roles are opposite of where they were with water boarding and suddenly the cia is the democrats best friend and the only agency to trust and suddenly republicans are embracing the fbi's conclusions. >> first of all, the cia didn't say someone at the cia said and we don't know who that is because that was an unnamed source. i think it's perfectly understandable. they have two different missions. you and i can look at the e

cia. through a excellent question with the cia is doing involving itself in a nest forecast airplane crash. we'll get to that in a minute, and we've also gotten some interesting videos. and some it a lot of whistle blowers from inside the investigation have come forward so the state of our knowledge today is much better than what it was 20 years ago. when i say we, i'm gong to give credit to the people who have done a lot of research here like sometimes partnering james sanders, business and some of the other people christina who came here and spoke tomorrow cbs producer. ray lare former -- eastern aret pilot and also investigators attorney john clark good at actress and media -- [inaudible] and hank senior sbn investigators so they deserve credit for digging up the information i'm going to share. i want that to be known. sips since the book has come out i've heard from 100 individuals within military and aviation industry supporting my thesis most of them worked for and at the investigati

russia attacks us and trump tax the cia. man, he ought to -- he ought to be the one, brooke, calling for an investigation like right now. >> well, he's not, so far. on top of all of this, what he is calling for is a potential pick for secretary of state. this is apparently a man who was one of putin's best american buddies, rex tillerson. congressman, does this concern you? >> no, you know, again, i separate the issues. i don't have a problem with getting friendly with russia. i don't have a problem with -- if tillerson is friendly with putin. that's a policy disagreement. i have a problem with any foreign government trying to pick our president. that's a totally separate issue. if donald trump is watching right now, he blocked me on twitter, brooke, so he doesn't follow me any more. man, he's going to use this as an opportunity, i think, to bring the country together and lead an investigation. >> you got blocked by trump on twitter. did that hurt your feelings, congressman? >> hey, brooke, it did. if donald trump blocked yo

thatside on then cia director david petraeus. others are pointing to russia's role in creating fake news stories that may have shifted perceptions against hillary clinton. that of course insults voters who may not have been mindlessly drawn to trump over emails and giving russia more credit than they deserved. if they are so good at changing feeling and beliefs and actions, then defeating isis should be a no-brainer for them. i'm glad you are here to help me sort it out. i'm kennedy. the cia says russia tampered in our election. the democrats, maybe they are being losers. >> i don't believe it. i think the democrats are putting it out because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics in this country. kennedy: ambassador john bolton says it could be a false flag operation. welcome back, ambassador. you say that the intelligence has been politicized. what exactly do you mean with that statement in regard to the cia? >> i think we have seen over 8 years of the obama administration a lot of of politization

so we're not talking about the cia here. we're talking about a few people, apparently, who are leaking information to journalists, maybe to curry favor. and, you know, there's always going to be somebody in there that doesn't support, but i would commend to your viewers to read the "newsweek" article that was posted last night. no friend of donald trump, the president-elect's. they're even showing not too fast, rushing to judgment here, this needs to be done competently and cohesively, that all of these facts have not been knitted together yet sufficiently that would bring us to the conclusion many are making and many want your viewers to assume here which is it was russia, maybe jim comey, sprinkle in a little bernie sanders, how dare he won, russian interference, the alt-right. it's everybody's fault but hillary clinton. i'm not going to allow them to confuse this. >> right. >> you know what, you want to attack me, you want to attack the president-elect, folks, go, but guess what, not going to allow you to undercut 62 mill

he's attacking the cia for discovering the intervention. he's thinking of naming john bolton to the state department. how can he do such things? he ran against iraq where he said it was stupid,

the cia works for -- reports to the president, not vice versa. cia has to adjust the way it interacts with every president to meet the needs of that president. for example, president eisenhower was not much of a reader, he prefers the information in briefings. mr. pompeo and the rest of the agency will have to figure out -- how do we make this enormous asset it is american intelligence and cia available and useful to the president and how do we get to him the information he needs to know in a way that is easy for him to take it in? i think they have to be very flexible in the way they approach that. charlie: what do you think the cia and other intelligence agencies are saying about russians trying to meddle by hacking our computer systems and mettle in american elections? the second question is -- do you believe that the russians hacked in order to promote the candidacy of one person over the other? mr. gates: first of all, i do not have access to classified information, all i know is what i have read in a variety of newspapers and heard outside

obviously, the cia went further. what can you share with us to prove something to reince priebus to say you are wrong on this? >> first of all, i thought that interview was breathtaking. there's no doubt that the russians hacked our institutions. you don't have the director of national intelligence making a public statement the way he did in october without there being a broad consensus of all the intelligence agencies. frankly, i don't know a democrat or republican who has heard the intelligence that would quarrel with those conclusions. i think that's fact one. the russians definitely -- this was not china, this wasn't a 400 pound guy in new jersey or anyone else. this was the russians. second, in terms of what the russians were after, they were after discord and in this they were spectacularly successful. but it wasn't alone. they had a candidate with pro-putin, pro-russian views who belittled nato, who was willing to potentially remove sanctions on russia and by contrast they had in secretary clinton a candidate

. >>> trump versus the cia. let's play "hardball." >>> good evening, i'm chris matthews in washington. i'm not an adviser to president-elect donald trump. if i were, i would look him in the eye right now and tell him how wrong he is on this question of who to trust. donald trump is denying that russia intervened in the presidential campaign. he's attacking the cia for discovering the intervention. he's thinking of naming john bolton to the state department. how can he do such things? he ran against iraq where he said it was stupid, horrible, disastrous. but it wasn't the cia's fault we started that war. the chief briefer for the agency told me on air that no one in the ccia ever told an administration official that iraq had nuclear weapons. >> he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons. is that true or not? >> we were saying -- >> can you answer that question? is that true? >> no, that's not true. >> you're saying you made that case when you didn't. so they're using your credibility for making the case as dish

criticizing the cia. the chinese flew a nuclear equipped bomber over the south china sea because of a phone call that the president-elect made. >> we don't know why. >> you're right. we don't know exactly why the chinese did that. coincidence that one day after president-elect trump says we're going to review the one china policy we have a china bomber flying over the north china sea. >> every state controls what their electors do. you'd have a lot of legal hurdles. that's probably not a practicality. you have a bill you want to put up to have congress reclaim, is the word, its ability to declare war and resolve with the executive its role this is part of a big dispute where congress has been giving the presidents over time more and more power. i would call it, many critics would call it a real mistake. that congress is abdicated giving the executive -- you want to take it back. are you getting support, bipartisan support to take back congressional power over what the united states does militarily abroad?

cia gets most things right. and donald trump is going to need to understand that. >> you briefed george w. bush every day at intelligence briefings. we heard donald trump say yesterday, i don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day. briefings are, just the same thing repeated every day? >> interestingly, i think i understand where the president-elect is coming from. he is seeing the pdb as it's written for president obama and after eight years, these pieces written for president obama are very tactical and they assume a significant amount of knowledge on the part of the reader. so if -- if the briefer is just focusing president trump on those pieces, then i understand where he is coming from. so what the briefer has to do is use those pieces as a launching point to talk about bigger strategic issues. >> interesting. >> michael morrell, thank you. >> you're welcome. >>> in our next half hour, we will talk to senators chuck schumer and john mccain about the cia's evidence of russian har

. >> then why did the cia put out that it was the russians? >> i don't think they put it out. i think the democrats put it out. >> reporter: u.s. intelligence officials are saying they hacked, quote, prioritized democratic institutions and, quote, cia analysts updated their findings on russian hackings saying after november 8 they came to believe russian interference was ultimately designed to help trump win. today former acting director of the cia said, quote, a former government messing around in our elections is an existential threat to our way of life. this is the political equivalent of 9/11. and there was this from white house press secretary josh earnest. >> you didn't need a security clearance to figure out who benefited from malicious russian cyber activity. he called on russia to hack secretary clinton. so he certainly had a pretty good sense of whose side this activity was coming down on. >> the politics of this got interesting today when the top two elected republicans in washington, mitch mcconnell and house speaker paul ryan, came out in favor of an investigation

yesterday on fox news on sunday, trump was asked about the cia report. >> why would the cia put out the story that is the russians wanted you to -- >> i am not sure that they put it out. democrats put it out because they suffered the greatest defeat in politics and they are putting it out. it is ridiculous. we need to get back to make america great again and it is what we needed to do. we started the process. >> boeing announced a $16 billion deal to sell planes to iran. the agreement will support tens of thousands of jobs here in the united states. we are monitoring the latest development from trump tower. president-elect trump is continuing to meet possible cabinet picks like carly fiorina. rick perry, you remember, he ran against him. lets turn to nbc's kristen welker who's covering the latest, she's in washington, d.c. earlier today, mitch mcconnell says he supports senate investigation into the matter. what can you tell us? >> reporter: right, you have this divide. also john mccain and lyndsey graham saying there are an investigation into this matter. they don't necessary believe t

however, even that conclusion, that assessment the cia presented, is not 100%. they're simply loog a little guesswork based on -- it's educated guess based on some circumstantial evidence. also, according to people we've talked to, that the cia developed additional information from their own sources. now, none of this information apparently leads directly back to moscow, from moscow to wikileaks, which is the website that published some of these embarrassing e-mails that hurt the democrats. the fbi is sort of not ready to go there. they just don't -- they don't quite yet see enough evidence to say the motivation the russians had was to get donald trump elected. they simply think right now the russians were trying to undermine the system. it appears that's what they've done. >> evan, thank you very much. >>> let's take a closer look and bring in additional voices. dana bash, cnn chief political correspondent, bucks sectixton,d jill dougherty, fellow at woodrow wilson center and former moscow chief. just to underscore some of this, mike morrell in an interview ove

>> i'm not sure it is cia. i think the democrats put it out because they suffered one of the biggest defeats. >> the president-elect discou discounted the briefings by intelligence office. he said the briefings are repetitive. >> if something should change, immediately call me. i'm available on one minute's notice. i don't have to be told. i'm a smart person. i don't have to be told the same thing every day for the next eight areyears. >> mr. trump has taken briefin s sporadically. it is putting him at odds with senior lawmakers. a by paipartisan group of senat is asking for an investigation. let's get the latest from ryan nobles. >> reporter: this has a potential showdown in the trump administration. a by part sipartisan group of s asking for the investigation into the election meddling. >> they did hack into the campaign. were they hacking the republicans the same way? the republican national committee? there's a lot of issues out there. it requires an investigation. >> the fact that the cia and focia disagre

i want to talk about the cia and its conclusion. the conclusion of analysts that russia wasn't only behind the hacking but was motivated to try to interfere with the election. how could they have reached this kind of conclusion? let's talk about the evidence. donald trump has tweeted very memo rably unless you catch hackers in the act it is hard to determine who was doing the hacking. why wasn't this brought up before the election? how could they know? >> they will do forensic examinations of the various techniques and procedures. they will look at the websites from which it emanated. they will look at repetitive use of particular handles in the cyber world. of course the cia has access to other inside sources and means that are very highly classified. when they put that together and make a judgment and call it high confidence, that frankly carries weight in the intelligence community. >> given that do you think the president-elect should give it more weight himself? he's dismissing it out of hand saying it could be somebody in new

who is the cia? when they say the cia made this conclusion, who? is that brennan? who in the cia has done this? there is no finding and no assessment that we've seen. if they had, they had an obligation to show it to us. maybe there is none. this could be a whole house of cards. i find this disinformation to discredit the incoming president-elect. >> that's quite an accusation. these are spies who risk their lives to protect us, i mean, that that's -- general hayden was out yesterday saying this kind of thing, these guys put their lives on the line. wlae sa what he said, cia director said they are are in harm's way to find out things that would otherwise be unavailable. by what moral authority does a director put his people at risk. that's former head of cia. do you go too far of intentionally -- in a campaign. >> that's their obligation. why tell the house intelligence committee, if something so dramatic happened between november 17th and this week to change their assessment, didn't they have the obligation to come before the congress and tell us that? we're the o

this is cia week at the nixon library. not only do we have these two great gentleman on stage, but tomorrow evening we have david preece who will talk his book "the president's book of secrets" which chronicles the daily briefings from kennedy all the way up to obama. please go online and go ahead and sign up and we hope to see you back here tomorrow night. the first question, i would like to ask. can you tell us about the presidential daily briefings regarding resident nixon's trip to china and the influence it had? mr. clapper: well, actually i cannot say much about it because as i say, i was a young pup at the nsa at the time. i think the pdb in the run-up to the, it is my understanding there were a lot of discussions about interests outside the pdb because it was certainly a tremendously historic event as we were reminded during our tour today. it "reset" the relationship with china, and the legacy continues today. i think pdb treatment in the run-up served as a tutorial, if you will, but i also believe that the presid

first of all, did you speak to the cia director? do you understand the gravity of the situation, russia's interfering in the u.s. election by hacking the dnc, and the hillary clinton campaigns, chairman john podesta? >> i understand of course the gravity and concerns of all countries that try to hit our systems and cyber attacks that are carried out on us every day. they're troubling to me, whether it is an election or it is something that is critical infrastructure, or it is a campaign of misinformation. now, i think as some of that, there needs to be clarity brought to this, wolf. you're not hacking into voting machines and with all the hype that is out there, there are some people who think my goodness, we're voting machines they're hacked into. >> sorry to interrupt but the president himself said after he spoke with putin in early september he said "cut it out" and there was, the president said this today, no hacking of voting machines, anything along those lines. there are other hacks that continue but the voting machines, the

the cia has told u.s. officials and senators secretly that when russia hacked the e-mails of russia's campaign chair and the dnc, when they fed that information to the u.s. public via wikileaks, it wasn't some chaos plan to make americans wonder about the integrity of the election system. they weren't trying to make us feel ughy about voting. they weren't trying to make us feel that our democracy was shaky and vulnerable. they were overtly trying to win the american election for donald trump. okay. so that's one. here's the other part. and i said stick a pin in that sourcing stuff there for a reason. it's always important to pay attention to the sourcing, but particularly on stories like this. obviously the reporters a t "the washington post" aren't going to tell us who their sources are and we would never ask them to, but they do describe them. they describe the officials they're talking to and their sources for the story as, various throughout the story, officials briefed on the the matter or u.s. offici

it's not like the cia has never been wrong about the rise of isis. they were wrong about iraq, but this is remarkable. democrats blaming the fbi for clinton losing, you have trump at war with the cia. this puts, i think, mike pompeo, leading the cia in a difficult spot. his confirmation could be a little interesting during the questioning. so i think it's unprecedented that you have the intel community so politicized. >> i want to look at a tweet donald trump put out. he said, unless you catch hackers in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. why wasn't this brought up before the election? well, it was brought up before the election. i mean, we covered it for months before the election. >> sure. >> rebecca, hackers were caught in the act. especially in the dnc hack. what is he talking about? >> again, i think as dana was noting, donald trump is concerned about these findings potentially delegitimizing his victory. so obviously what he tweeted is not true. because the director of national intelligence and department of homela

yesterday the president-elect called the cia's claim ridiculous. says it's another excuse to undermine his victory. and why wasn't this brought up before the election? in fact, it was brought up before the election, a lot. back in july, we learned that the computer networks and democratic committee has been hacked and brought up in this joint statement by the department of homeland security and director of national intelligence one month before the election. >> and moments ago, the republican senate majority leader mitch mcconnell made very clear he thinks this is a big deal. and said this, the russians are

but the cia and the fbi differ on why. russia did that. let's bring in cnn pentagon correspondent barbara starr to break down this conflicting information. what have you learned, barbara? >> good morning, alisyn. it all goes to the question, really, of russian motivation, russian intent. right now it looks like the cia believes that russia really was trying to steer the election towards donald trump. why do they believe that steer was happening? that's because both democrats and republicans, the cia says, got hacked by the russians, but only democratic data, democratic information, was released. no republican information was released. so they come to the conclusion that's the steer towards donald trump. the fbi not ready to sign up to that intent yet, but by all accounts believing that the russians were trying to at least undermine the u.s. presidential election. one of keet republican -- sean spicer the rnc communications director spoke about all of this over the weekend. >> if the cia is so convinced of this, why won't they go on the rec

especially if you're in the cia or close to the cia you simply cannot speak on the record. but we've got to explain that to people more clearly. think about the consequences of speaking on the record. one of the fears of this administration, as a prior administration, further leak investigations. further prosecutions of whistle-blowers. as "the new york times" said over the weekend the flip side is maybe more sources are going to be motivated to speak out. if they feel their conclusions are not being taken seriously by the president of the united states they need to be more motivated to use the press to communicate. >> unfortunately there could be a tipping point. he's attacked the press so much there could be a tipping point. his people are going to be formed. but at some point if you go all the way overboard you start to lose it and it could go the other way. >> you have a no brainer for the intel community i'm not saying why russia did this. that's going to be fairly tough to ascertain according to my own sources. but that they were involved is a no brainer for them. the

but it wasn't the cia's fault we started that war. the chief briefer for the agency told me on air that no one from the cia ever told an administration official that iraq had nuclear weapons. let's watch. >> we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. >> we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. was that true or not -- >> so we were saying -- >> was that true? >> we were saying -- >> can you answer that question? is that true? >> that's not true. >> they're selling the war, saying you made that stuff when you didn't. they're using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly, as you just admitted. >> look, i'm just telling you -- >> you just admitted it. >> i'm just telling -- >> they're giving a false presentation of what you gave to them? >> on some aspects. >> it was a nest of neocons in the pentagon and the vice president's office who pushed that horrible war from day one and john bolton at the state department pushing the case all the way. and when went learned there were no nuclear weapon

certainly very striking from the cia. rahema ellis, donald trump is clearly trying to paint the russia story as a partisan one meant to delegitimize the election. run it down how donald trump is trying to go out and question what the cia is saying. >> reporter: well, one of the things they are doing is saying this seems to be another in a series of efforts to delegitimize what happened in the election. this morning at 7:18 the president-elect put out a tweet. i think we have the full screen for you there. it said can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and we tried to play the russia/cia card. it would be called conspiracy theory. he says in reference to this that there are off the record, anonymous comments coming out, that they are not to be believed. he says they are, again, attempting to delegitimize the vote. he said it comes after what he called the recount nonsense, the effort by jill stein to have a recount. in addition to that he says the whole question about the popular vote and whether the fac

♪ >>> tonight, trump versus the cia, an unprecedented attack by the president-elect against u.s. intelligence, trump refusing to accept russia was behind election-related hacks. tonight what we learned about the evidence as leaders from both parties back calls for an investigation. >>> winter's wrath, mother nature roars dangerous mix triggers highway crashes and flight delay, another knockout blow on the a. >>> aleppo's last stand, the war-torn syrian city on at brink of falling. families trapped trying to escape before it's too late. fake sales? big named stores accused of making you think you're getting a deal when you're not. >>> photos with santa, our monday inspiring america. the big guy in red going above and beyond. "nightly news" begins right now. >> this "nightly news" with lester holt reporting tonight from washington. >> good evening, washington is spinning tonight over the war of words between donald trump and the cia over russian hacking efforts against the u.s. election. trump has called the cia's assessment of russian interference and reports it was designed to he

>> because the, there have been some problems of politics at the cia, right at top with cia director john brennan? >> with the cia director i believe. and some of these, some of these games that the fbi disagreeing, i tend to favor the fbi. david: that is incredible, coming from a cia guy i think that is incredible. >> like i say ssians are to be watched. you have to deal with them very carefully. i dealt with them for many years. however i also believe they did not throw the election one way or the other. in this case they were not even using propraganda. they were merely, hacking perhaps, hacking in and producing true emails that revealed the failings of one candidate. david: okay. final question. if in fact the cia is playing politics on this, favoring the democrats over the republicans, how does donald trump work with the a cia that he doesn't trust? >> well, the president-elect will be able to appoint people in leadership positions in the cia and, they will have to work at perhaps healing this rift, that could exist. however, bottom line is, if the cia is guilty of producing a p

i bring all different aspects into it, and one of them is the cia agency culture. you drive along 123 and you look through the fence line and you think cia is a singular noun. it's never a singular noun. on a good day it's a collective noun. most days it's plural and you have each of these four elemental directors. not in the book, its it's post writing the book, but john is trying to cut through those four cylinders. >> that's a subject for another day. >> exactly. anyway multiple cultures and you have to learn to deal with each. >> i loved your final quote in one chapter and i'm going to closed with that because it's a nice guide to the way you operate and people in senior positions in government. he said, you're the only superpower in the room, but don't act like it. >> that's right. that was my guidance. >> thanks a lot. >> thank you. >> i am pamela paul editor of the new york times book review and host of inside the new york book review our weekly podcast and you are watching c-span to book tv. you have been listening to michael hayden. his book playing to the

he was saying the fbi disagreed with the cia. he was suggesting that this was all some -- he would not be holding the russians accountable. that's what we should not be doing. we need to be clear that the russians were involved and we should get the information out there. >> but does it in any way call into question donald trump's legitimacy as president? >> no. donald trump will be selected tomorrow, and i will stand by the will of the people, speaking through the constitutional process that we have. the reason i'm here today is to defend that process. until we change the constitution, the electoral college has a meaningful role, and i intend to uphold my oath to the constitution. >> congressman beyer, here's what i don't understand. if they were successful, perhaps not mr. pell, but some of the others who want to see 37 electors defect and either vote for clinton or somebody else, it would just be -- well, not if they went for clinton, but let's say it was a tie, nobody got 270, and it was thrown into the house. each state dele

you might not agree with what the cia said in 2003, the cia missed 9/11 attack, the cia missed the fact that india had nuclear capabilities in '98 so why this? >> why are you attacking the cia? >> why are you picking and choosing the data you want to believe from the cia? >> i'm actually not. i'm asking to get a look at the information myself. >> let's say russia did act alone. let's say russia did act alone. >> let's look at it. we don't know if they acted alone or if they blackmailed republicans or democrats. >> i want an answer that's not political. let's say you found out they did act alone and they were trying to influence the election. not so much to tip the collection in one person's favor or not. the electors are aware of that. are you saying they should just be aware of their influence or should switch the republican one allegiance to donald trump because of it? >> well, i think you have to ask the republican electors what they're going to do. again, to be fair, we're trying to get the information declassified for everyone, number one. lower the classification so that we can ac

the cia said russia did not have, quote, a single purpose. that is to say, the idea that this was all about helping trump. they repeatedly targeted -- the cia said both parties tried to get into their systems. and let me finish. and they said this is about -- an important part of the russian hacking was aimed at undermining confidence in the american electoral system. now this is much -- i agree, there ought to be an investigation about it. i agree there ought to be -- that is why i was -- it wasstonnishing that the -- astonishing that the cia would not give a brief to the house intelligence committee as requesting. >> but -- >> let me finish. i didn't interrupt you. but let's be clear, i love this hyper ventilation that they are responsible for hillary clinton defeat. she was at 48% in the real clear politics average and on election day she got 48.08%. let's be clear what this is about. one, a coup. they are attempting to have 37 electors flip, which isn't going to happen or throw it into the house of representatives and somehow have 26 dele