in the other case you're talking about john podesta saying bad things about the boss. if john podesta said that about me and he was working for me, i would have fired him so fast his head would have spun. he said terrible things about her. regardless, if you look at the rnc, at my suggestion, and i give reince priebus credit about this. at my suggestion i said i want a very strong, defensive mechanism. i don't want to be hacked. and we did that. and you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed. the dnc did not do that. and if they did that, they could not have been hacked. they were hacked and terrible things came in.

what john podesta didn't do. he can't do. is provide evidence to back up his speculation that there was some plot afoot in the f.b.i. and for democrats broadly, nationally. this kind of whining doesn't do them any good at this point. it is backward looking at a time when their party would like to be forward-looking. >> bill: i remember john podesta wrote this back in december on screen for viewers, the more we learn about the russian plot, the sabotage hillary clinton's campaign and elect donald trump and the failure of the f.b.i. to adequately respond the more shocking it gets, end quote. the same article he suggested a number of things including a 9/11 commission to investigate the ties between russia and trump team. is that where this began? or was it prior? where is po december take getting this? where is the evidence now? >> i agree there should be a deeper investigation into trump's ties with russia, into the leaks that have exposed some of this stuff, the leaks that have led to more speculation, irresponsible speculati

did you know at that point that podesta had been hacked? >> no, i referred specifically to a piece based on my own research regarding podesta and money laundering by the russian mob for the clinton foundation which is posted at my web site stone cold truth. none of that information, by the way, is reflected in the subsequent wikileaks disclosures. >> so that was not a reference to you having advanced knowledge that wikileaks had acquired the entirety of the inbox of john podesta. >> that is correct. i had no knowledge of that. i learned it when they disclosed it like everyone else. >> then this other tweet which was october 2 you said "wednesday hillary clinton is done" #wikileaks. now that was a little far in advance of what ended up happening. i believe the disclosures start on october 8, if i'm not mistaken. was that because you knew the documents were about to be released? >> on october 5 julian assange held a press event in which he announced he would begin disclosures for ten weeks at the beginning of every week and the following week

so while john podesta would not trust the u.s. government, i'm in complete agreement, he probably that wishes he entrusted google a little more by using the services that you make the point were provided for free. the combination of cloud computing and big data capability poses a new set of risks to us. when you think about the obm hack, 10 years ago getting the records of 22 million americans probably would not even all that useful to the chinese because somebody would've had to go through the records of 22 million americans or an army of people would've had to go through. with a big data capability they can sort through very quickly so that when someone shows up at the airport in beijing, a a fingerprint them on the way in and they've done an immediate comparison to what's in opm database, they may conclude probably by evans senate intelligence committee doesn't use opm, should been an early warning sign, they would say gee, this didn't show up. i wonder what this person is going in to be the second attachÉ in the embassy when

while john podesta would not trust the u.s. government, he probably now wishes that he had trusted google a little more, by using the services that were provided for free. the combination of cloud computing and big data capability poses a new set of risks to us. when you think about the opm hack, 10 years ago, getting the records of 22 million americans probably would not have and all that useful to the chinese, because somebody would have had to go through the records, or an army of people would have had to go through them. with the big data capability, they can sort through very quickly, so that when somebody shows up at the airport in beijing, and a fingerprint them on the way in, and they have done an immediate comparison to what is in the opm database, they may conclude, possibly by absence of evidence since the intelligence community doesn't use opm, an early warning sign, they would say, jeez, this did not show up, i wonder why this person is going into the embassy when his fingerprints don't exist in our database. i wou

while john podesta would not trust the u.s. government on the complete agreement, he probably now wishes he had trusted google a little more. using the services that he provided. you made the point they were provided for free. the combination of cloud computing and big data capabilities poses a new set of risks to us. when you think about the opm add , 10 years ago, getting the record from 22 million americans probably wouldn't have been all that useful to the chinese because somebody would have had to go through the record of 22 million americans or a few people would have had to go through them. with the data capability, they can sort through very quickly so that when somebody chose up at the airport in beijing and they fingerprint them on the way in and they have done a comparison to what is in the opm database then they conclude by an absence of evidence that the intelligence community doesn't use opm, they would say this show up. i wonder why this person is going in to be the second cash a in the embassy when his thinker p

. , a video, at web site, podesta said there are forces within the fbi that wanted her to lose, i am not sure they really understood the alternative, but they wanted her to lose. there is good news for more podesta and all there are hillary clinton supporters, they can see their dilution dill ago you -- dillusion by visiting the fake web site. it is funny. party panel is back. stom with you, it is really funny, and instead of demo demonizing fake news, there are ways to embrace. >> they don't think it is fake, that is frightening, they think hillary won, they say, let's jt proceed as if she did. kennedy: headlines like approval ratings for president clinton hit 89%. >> that is how you know it is fake. >> one article dropped it on 79%. kennedy: that is 10 point -- steep drop. >> there are a few funny ones. aanthony weiner switches to rotary phone, i thought that was good. is it sad, john podesta, they tried blaming the russians and james comey, now it is forces, the dark and evil forces within the fbi. >> i wonder if there are any washington post or new york time articles that are rea

take a listen to john podesta talking about you. >> diplomats said post election they were talking to the trump campaign roger stone in august, foreshadowed the fact they were hacked by e-mails and those would be forthcoming, carter paige one of trump's foreign policy advisors went to russia before the republican convention and met with the person in the russian hierarchy responsible for collecting intelligence. >> the view is you have some inkling? >> at the time podesta and his m m minions were savaging of -- being aware of the activities in that part of the world and podesta the russian mob and the clinton foundation which you can still see it stone cold truth. >> that may be true, but -- >> that does not mean that i knew in advance that julian assange was going to hack his e-mail account. >> you just put your finger on it. you're talking about whether there's a large of set of allegations, but on assange's part that's a question about what you knew how you knew it. >> yes. >> with regard to the october surprise what would be your forecast given what julian assange has intimated he

so while john podesta would note trust the u.s. government, he probably wishes he had trusted google more by using the services, you make the point, were provided for free. the combination of the cloud computing and big daggeta capability poses a new set of risks to us and you think about the o.p.m. attack, getting the records of 2 million americans probably wouldn't have been all that useful to the chinese because somebody would have had to go through those records or an army of people who you have. with the big data capability, they can sort through them very quickly so that when somebody shows up at the airport in beijing and they fingerprint them on the way in and do an immediate comparison of what's in the o.p.m. database, they can conclude, gee, this didn't show up. i wonder why this person is going in to be the second at shea in the ambassador when his fingerprints don't exist in our at thea base. >> when you steal 2 million records of federal government employees, everybody exaggerates their job titles. it turns out you're

the podesta emails, again, wasn't full, had no classified information. you got a sense of what hillary clinton's speeches to goldman sachs were like. they were a lot like speeches i heard her give when she was secretary of state. there wasn't in there a whole lot that was terribly remarkable. what was remarkable was the fact that there was a channel from russian intelligence to wikileaks, and russian intelligence distributing this first, through some other channels, that weren't as successful, weren't as widely read as wikileaks that told us a lot about the russian operatio., >> but we didn't know that that early. >> we learned it pretty fast, bob, because by july we were writing stories -- remember the first revelations, the first publication was fairly early july, and by the third week of july, we wrote a story that said that u.s. intelligence had concluded with high confidence that it was the russians who were behind all of this. the intelligence community came out with that assessment on october 7th, so within a matter of weeks, we pretty well put it

in the other case you're talking about john podesta saying bad things. i will say this, if john podesta said that about me and he was working for me, i would have fired him so fast your head would have spun. he said terrible thins about her. but it wasn't classified information. >> reporter: so what he was dealing with there, we recall wikileaks effectively published the entire e-mail account of john podesta, chairman of hillary clinton's campaign, the contents of that e-mail treasure trove was really stolen information. that was published through the campaign. there were some very personal and sort of behind-the-scenes business dealings about then-hillary clinton the candidate. so, today we again saw the president reaching back to the campaign atmosphere, the campaign circumstances, recounting his electoral college win and previewing this saturday he will be holding a campaign event in orlando. when i say campaign event, i mean that specifically. that it will be paid for by campaign not white house. some way his airing of concerns, grievances, his list

as far as we know, everything in wikileaks was true about podesta's emails. as far as we know now everything and he to be in this transcripts is true about flynn. we should confirm that. so when donald trump says it's outrageous about the illegal leaks. wicky leak was full of illegal stuff, too. i'm sort of -- i believe in consistencies of my position on all of these things. kennedy: you are going to come around and snowden, too, i can feel it. >> it may take a while. kennedy: let's go to the party panel. kat timpf, joe devito and pete hegseth. welcome, you guys. so much stuff to talk about. general flynn is no longer in legal jeopardy. he's out of the white house for lying and not for breaking the law. but according to the "new york times" the feds are investigating a number of other trump aides for repeat contacts with russian intelligence officials. president trump and the russians dismissed the idea that any such phone calls took place. but is this a full-flown crisis? >> the media will want to tell us it's a scandal. if you read the "new york times" piec

john podesta's emails. how do you guys feel in terms of legality in terms of trusting of the source between wikileaks and say someone leaking from within a government organization or within a campaign? do you guys feel that wikileaks is needed to get the information that sources won't reveal? host: anybody want -- david: i'll take a first shot at that. to my mind, the material that was released by wikileaks this summer, first about the d.n.c. and then the second trauverage was the john podesta emails, those were the two high points, were more fascinatinging to me for what it said about who was trying to act and disrupt an american election than the contents. the contents of the d.n.c. material was largely in-fighting within the d.n.c. about support for bernie sanders versus hillary clinton. i didn't find that to be quite as fascinating as many of the political insiders inside the democratic committee did. the podesta emails, again, wasn't full -- had no classified information. you got a sense of what hillar

we ask the question in the movie to john podesta and others. all three of them said the seam thing. the moment for them was really attacked john mccain for having been a prisoner of wall. they looked up and said there's some different physics that apply to this guy. he's not mortal. i think one of the things you see over the course of the movie, there's not one moment. trump in some ways was a runaway train from the very beginning through the very end. there's a sense you get in watching it for almost over two hours. he was certainly through the nomination fight unstoppable. >> you mean that something was going on? >> not that something was going on. he did ten things from the announcement through the votes in iowa. ten things which would have killed any candidate. he got stronger, which is a strange thing. >> i remember him saying i'm running out of holidays, be out by thanksgiving, he'll be out by christmas, and running out of holidays. >> what's striking that contradicts conventional wisdom is throughout the campaign you would have supposedly smart people say, did he really want

and podesta is an idiot that fell for a phishing scheme. tell me where the connection to the russians are, what are we going to get that evidence? >> there's no evidence whatsoever. what is really shocking if you go back and look into the structure of what was said right there, who is the biggest boob in democratic politics. they hate the sky, they're saying, what is wrong with this guy? they say he failed to go out and campaign in key states. it is not important whether the russians actually did it or not? all that is important whether they could have. what's interesting about that statement is that he does not even believe that there is any evidence. because he does not want to talk about that. he just wants to talk about "could have." >> yes to put out something that the left can hold onto, to keep trump is to legitimate. let's go convince the electorates to vote, the only shred they hold onto is this idea that somehow, it could have been rigged, the russians could have played an illegitimate role. >> sean: no evidence that russians impa

we're a month into the president and it's still a case of joe podesta saying would have, should have and could have it would have been president hillary clinton. we have herman cane here. what do you think of that? >> they're still chasing rainbows. they don't have anybody else to blame. they may as well blame the fbi. the election is over. let's move on. that's what the american people are saying, even though members are the hillary campaign are still trying to hold on to something to delegitimize this president. it's notwork. there's nothing there. >> neil: what is weird here, podesta is adding a new wrinkle to this saying there were forces in the fbi that actually wanted her to lose. that despite the talk of infighting, there were forces within the fbi that didn't like the idea of a hillary clinton so there was by extension a plan to get rid of her. >> neil, think about it, in washington d.c., there's probably forces in every agency in washington d.c., forces in every intelligence agency. i don't think that means anything. if he can't identify the specific people involved in this

looking at russian intervention in terms of selective leaking of hacked information from the dnc and john podesta's e-mails and most importantly, we're looking at actions between potential contacts from the trump organization or the trump campaign and russian agents both before the election and after the election as we see in the case of mr. flynn. >> have you actually seen, read the transcript of what flynn told the russian ambassador in washington on that day when the obama administration launched those sanctions against russia and expelled 35 russian diplomats? >> we have not seen the transcripts yet. i know we will see them and frankly we should have seen them by now in terms of normal reporting of counterintelligence. one of the reasons we've not seen them is something i need to get to the bottom of as well. >> were there also, as far as you know, encrypted communications between flynn and the russian ambassador in addition to the phone conversations? >> i'm not going to comment on the type of intelligence we may have, but i would say this, anybody with even a basic security clearance should u

in the other case, you're talking about john podesta saying bad things about the boss. i will say this. if john podesta said that about me, i would have fired him so fast your head would have spun. he said terrible things about her. it wasn't classified information. >> shepard: again, this is from the presidential news conference this afternoon. one of the most damaging reports about russia came last week from "the washington post" newspaper. it reported that former national security advisor michael flynn spoke to russia's ambassador about u.s. financial punishments for the inauguration and lied to the vice president about it. the white house said the president new for weeks that flynn had spoken about the sanctions with the ambassador. it also says that the president himself is the one that asked for flynn's resignation, which he said today. the press secretary sean spicer said it was a trust issue. some legal analysts say that trump may have broken the law. the president blames it on the leaks and the media and cover-up from supports of hillary clinton. he's offered n

i don't want to call john podesta, who was the chairman of her campaign, a sore loser. i think he's calling into question things that, again, americans all over this country have continued to call into question. do i have any evidence of that? no. but i think it's fair for him to raise whatever theories he would like. i certainly have some theories that i've talked about on air, i have gut feelings, i've talked about them on air. i definitely support the members of the house and senate who are calling for an investigation not only into this election but ties that trump has with his business interests and russia. there are all types of issues surrounding this election which would make us i don't think sore losers, but reasonable doubt. >> you get the last word. thank you all. >>> still to come, a lot ahead this hour. borde border-bound, house speaker paul ryan heading south to the u.s./mexico border. >>> voters are mad. how do you channel this anger into action? what are you going to do about it? we'll ask democratic lawmaker adam schiff. >>> also the president's economi

the podesta e-mails had not classified information. you have a sense of what hillary clinton speeches to goldman sack were like. there was not in there a whole lot that was remarkable. what was remarkable was the fact that there's a channel from russian intelligence to wikileaks and russian intelligence distributing this through other channels that told us a lot about the russian operation. but we didn't know that that early. >> we learned it pretty fast. by july we were writing story -- the first publication was early july. by the third week of july we wrote a story that u.s. intelligence conclude that it was russians that were behind all of this. the intelligence community came out on october 7th. so within a matter of weeks, we put it together. >> it had an am beaubiguity abo. in ret trospect that this was pt of an operation to hurt hillary clinton there was not on the summer and the campaign the kind of clarity -- >> as you said earlier, this revealed itself overtime. we had a team that was focus on the russians parts of the operat

reuters reported the fbi is pursuing three separate probes into russia's hacking of the dnc and john podesta's server. now, one, trying to identify the people behind breaches of the democratic national committee's computer system, another who tried to posted e-mails stolen from john podesta's account and a third pursuing leads from informants and foreign communications intercepts. that comes amid mounting questions about whether the justice department can investigate the russia issue independently under the leadership of attorney general jeff sessions who was, of course, the very first senator to endorse donald trump, held a senior role in the campaign alongside michael flynn. in an op-ed for the "washington post" today, chuck schumer calls on sessions to recuse himself. >> i am worried that jeff sessions, the attorney general is so close to trump in so many ways that that investigation certainly won't have the appearance of impartiality and may not be impartial itself so i've called today on jeff sessions to recuse himself and if you agree with that, tv audience, tell your senator or congress

in the other case you're talking about john podesta saying bad things about -- i will say this if john podesta said that about me i would have fired him so fast your head would have spun, but it wasn't classified information, the other case you're talking about classified. if you look to the rnc, at my suction and i give reince great credit for this, i know something about this world, i said i want a very strong defensive mechanism. i don't want to be hacked and we did that and you have seen they tried to hack us and they failed. the dnc, did not that. if they did it they could not have been hacked but they were hacked. the only thing i do think is unfair is some of the things when i heard some of those things i picked up the papers i thought it was going to be in the front page, wasn't even in the papers, again if i had that happen to me it would be the biggest story of history of publishing, i would have been the headline of every newspaper. >> mike, i want to come to you here because all these points on leaks, if it is classified it is illegal, but let me play a sound bite on russia

john podesta, hillary clinton's former campaign chairman, claiming that the fbi may have contributed to clinton losing the election deliberately. >> you have a theory of the case that comey wanted trump to win, that the fbi wanted trump to win. there's got to be some theories here. >> i think there's sort of two possibilities. there are at least forces within the fbi that wanted her to lose. i'm not sure they were prepared -- they really understood the alternative. but they wanted her to lose. i think that's one possibility. i think the other, it's become a cover your ass organization. and there was pressure coming up from underneath him and he succumbed to that pressure. >> let's bring in a senior politics writer for "u.s. news & world report," and molly hemingway, senior editor for "the federalist." is this a conspiracy theory? >> it is a bit of a conspiracy theory but it's one that the clinton campaign has propagated since basically a week after the election. it pointed at comey over and over. but let's say john podesta is correct, let's say there were forces within the fbi that w

we know russia hacked the dnc, hacked job eed john podesta's . and the day that "access hollywood" tape ran, within one hour of that story breaking, wikileaks began leaking john pa d -- podesta's e-mails. >> doesn't an investigation in and of itself raise questions about the white house? are they really the ones -- >> i think there are already questions raised and paul was talking on the fact that the context makes this fishy. the intelligence community, all of the intelligence agencies concluded together that president putin had directed the hacking. there have been multiple reports of contacts from russian sources, from white house sources, all over the place between the trump administration and russia. so in there's really nothing there, why not clear it up? i just want to make one other note. in the press conferences that we saw today, i think we heard them make different conclusions, but not different updates on the status. they haven't reviewed any materials yet or interviewed witnesses yet. so how can you conclude what's happening? >> jeff

second, we've got to look at the amount of hacking that was done into both the podesta e-mails, the dnc e-mails, the selective leaking of those e-mails, again, i don't think most realize the that the first time the podesta e-mails were leaked to the public was literally two hours after so the-called access hollywood tape came out. clearly they were trying to influence against clinton for trump. and then third, the area that includes mr. flynn, what are the cases of contacts between either campaign and we're focussing now on the trump campaign, trump campaign and russian officials before the election, and now even in the aftermath, after the election. >> so what are you investigating? are you investigating the investigators? is this pure oversight or do you have your own team here that might do some of it's own investigative work out in the field? >> we're looking at the raw intelligence that ended up creating the report that president obama put together that was released late in his term. we're also looking and going to be interviewing a number of individuals who may have been involved

. >> the president said the e-mails from john podesta have been authenticated. or have never been refused to be authentic. that's the truth. >> this is the problem, jonathan. blame the victim. the russians stole the podesta e-mails. they put them out to hurt hillary clinton. that's absolutely correct. my point is, and i think the point of the national intelligence community and everybody else is, that's wrong. we cannot have foreign governments interceding in our elections. >> let's get to the larger issue of russia relations. i want to play something else from the press conference. >> does anybody really think that hillary clinton would be tougher on russia than donald trump? does anybody in the room really believe that? okay? >> you weren't in the room. i imagine you think that. >> i absolutely think that. the reason putin did this is because hillary clinton spoke out against him. she spoke out against frankly the same kind of behavior we're starting to hear donald trump hint at. when donald trump is asked about putin, he's praised him. called him a strong lea

surely it wasn't a coincidence that the leaked material from podesta's e-mails came out two hours after the tapes started being played about what trump said on that bus about grabbing women. all of this has to be looked at, and the public has a right to see it. and the double standard, chris, that is going on right now is stunning. keep in mind that jason chaffetz, the chairman of the oversight committee, issued seven subpoenas after the head of the fbi announced there was no criminal activity involved with hillary clinton's e-mail server. that was after, he still issued 70 subpoenas. so the notion that there is no subpoenas, there are no public hearings going on, there are not these questions being asked and certainly the answers aren't being provided in a public forum demands that we have a select committee that looks at all of this and lets the public make up their mind as to whether or not this administration can be trusted. >> well, let me ask you the question lindsey graham raised, the senator from south carolina again. it's a question on everybody's head. if you put all these dot

in the other case you're talking about john podesta saying bad things about the boss. i will say this. if john podesta said this about me and he was working for me, i would have fired him so fast your head would have spun. he said terrible things about her. but it wasn't classified information. in one case you're talking about classified. regardless, if you look at the rnc, we had a very strong -- at my suggestion and i give reince great credit for this. at my suggestion, as i know something about this world, i said i want a very strong defensive mechanism. i don't want to be hacked. and we did that. and you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed. the dnc did not do that. and if they did it, they would f not have been hacked. but they were and terrible things came in. some of the things -- when i heard in of those things, i picked up the papers and said this will be front page. wasn't even in the papers. again, if i had that happen to me, it would be the biggest story in the history of publishing or the head of newspapers. i would have been the headline i

in the other case you're talking about john podesta saying bad things about the boss. if john podesta said that about me and he was working for me, i would have fired him so fast his head would have spun. he said that about her. regardless, if you look at the rnc, at my suggestion, and i give reince priebus credit about this. at my suggestion i said i want a very strong, defensive mechanism. i don't want to be hacked. and we did that. and you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed. the dnc did not do that. and if they did that, they could not have been hacked. they were hacked and terrible things came in. when i heard some of those things, i picked up the papers thinking it would be front page. it wasn't even in the papers. if i had that happen to me, it would be the biggest story in the history of publishing or the head of newspapers. i would have been the headline in every newspaper. thi think of it. they gave her the questions to a debate and she should have reported herself. why didn't hillary clinton announce that, i'm sorry, but i have been given th

in the other case you are talking about john podesta saying bad things about the boss. if john podesta said that about me and working for me i would have fired himself master head would have spun. he said terrible things about her but it wasn't us that information. in one case you are talking about classified. regardless if you look at the rnc we had a very strong, at my suggestion might give us reince great credit for this. at my suggestion because i know something about this world i said i want a very strong defensive mechanism. i don't want to be hacked and we did that and you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed. the dnc did not do that and if they did it they could not have been hacked. they were hacked and terrible things came in. the only thing i do think that was unfair is when i heard some of those things i picked up the paper the next morning and i said oh this is going to be front page but it wasn't even in the papers. again if i had that happen to me it would be the biggest story in the history of publishing or newspapers.headline in every ne

the russians stole the podesta e-mails. they put them out to hurt hillary clinton. we cannot have foreign governments interseeding in our elections. >> let's get to the larger issue of russia relations pip want to play something else from the press conference. >> does anybody really think that hillary clinton would be tougher on russia than donald trump? does anybody in the room really believe that? okay? >> you were not in room. i imagine you think that. >> i absolutely think that. the reason putin did this is because hillary clinton spoke out against him. she spoke out against frankly the same kind of behavior we're starting to hear donald trump hint at. when donald trump is asked about putin, he's praised him. called him a strong leader. gave him an "a" rating. asked on "the o'reilly show" of putin's tactics of locking up and killing his opponents, he said that, you know, he compared that to america. he said we're not that innocent either. >> the intelligence community said it was the russians. >> we don't we want to work with an isis and isil? if we can have a c

in the other case, you're talking about john podesta saying bad things about the boss. i will say this, if john podesta said that about me and he was working for me, i would have fired him so fast your head would have spun. he said terrible things about her. but it was not classified information. in one case you're talking about classified, regardless, if you look at the rnc, we had a very strong -- at my suggestion, and i give reince preibus great credit for this. at my suggestion because i know something about this world, i said, i want a very strong defensive mechanism. i don't want to be hacked. we did that. you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed. the dnc did not do that, and if they did it, they could not have been hacked. they were hacked, and terrible things came along to the only thing i do think is unfair is some of the things -- when i heard some of those things, i picked up the papers the next morning to say this is going to be front page. it was not even in the papers. again, if i had that happen to me, it would be the biggest story and his

what they did was, they had a phishing thing that podesta clicked, and it's not hacking. hacking is a high-level thing. they got the democrats. obama basically put russia in a time-out, and putin was like-- [in russian accent] "well, i like time-out." so now the conversation about cybersecurity in america is left up to this guy. - all right, sorry, let-- let's try this again. trump, how do you know that computers are so dangerous? - "he turned my screen into an aquarium. what dark magic is this?" last night, right about when obama was speaking, buzzfeed leaked an unconfirmed report that claimed that russia has blackmail material on donald trump, which includes damaging financial and personal details about him. now, if it's true, the financial stuff is bad enough. but the personal is what's got the people going, because it claims that donald trump once visited russia, stayed in the ritz-carlton in moscow, and then hired prostitutes to perform a golden shower, and that russia might have the whole thing on tape. now, just to be clear, there is no proof any of this is true, b

in the other case you are talking about john podesta saying bad things about the boss. i will say this, if john podesta said that about me and he was working for me i would have fired hmm so fast his head would have spun. he said terrible things about her. but it wasn't classified information. regardless, if you look at the rnc we had a very strong -- at my suggestion, and i give reince credit. at my suggestion because i know something about this world i said i want a very strong defensive mechanism. i don't want to be hacked. and we did that. and you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed. the dnc did not do that. if they did it they could not have been hacked. they were hacked and terrible things came in. the only thing that i do think is unfair some of the things -- when i heard some of those things i picked up the papers the next morning oh, this is going to be front page, wasn't even in the papers. again, if i had that happen to me, it would be the biggest story in the history of publishing or the head of newspapers. i would have been the headline on

in the other case you're talking about john podesta saying bad things about the boss. if john podesta said that about me and he was working for me, i would have fired him so fast. but it wasn't classified information. in one case you're talking about classified information. if you look at the r.n.c., we had a very strong, at my suggestion and i give them great credit for this, at my suggestion, because i know something about this world, i said, i want a very strong defensive mechanism. i don't want to be hacked. and we did that. and you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed. the d.n.c. did not do that. and if they did it, they could not have been hacked. but they were hacked and terrible things came in. the only thing i do think is unfair is some of the things were so -- when i heard some of those things, i picked up the papers the next morning, i thought, this is going to be front page, it wasn't even in the papers. again, if i had that happen to me it would be the biggest story in the history of publishing or the head of newspapers. i would have been t

in the other case, you're talking about john podesta saying bad things about the boss. if john podesta said that about me and working for me, i would have fired him so fast your head would have spun. he said terrible things about her. but it was not classified information. in one case, you are talking about classified. regardless, if you look at the rnc, we had a very strong, at my suggestion, and i give reince great credit for this. at my suggestion, because i know something about this world, i said i want a very strong defensive mechanism. i don't want to be hacked. and we did that. and you have seen that they tried to hack us and failed. the dnc did not do that. if they did it, they could not have been hacked. they were hacked. terrible things came in. you know, the only thing i think is unfair is some of the things were so - when i heard some of those things, i picked up the papers next morning, and said, "oh, this will be front page," but it was not even in the papers. again, if i had that happen to me, it would be the biggest story in the history of publishing or

meeting behind the scenes with the clintons before theyere wrote an article, they would send it to john podesta. but the press tries to see now like they are honorable. you are not honorable. they drug trump through the ground. if someone did me like that for a year, i would be mad as well. they did not even try to be fair. lot of respect for the points the caller is making. there is no question that mistakes were made in the coverage of the last election. certainly, predictions that projected trump did not have a strong chance of winning were way off. it is important for reporters to get out into the communities of the united states that were part of that support base for trump, who were clearly not heard enough by the media during the 2016 election. important point. i have certainly seen organizations responding to that now. but it is late. the caller has a legitimate point. host: about a minute and a half left. do you ever use of anonymous sources? guest: i think the context of that question is the fact trump has said that news organizations should not be allowed to use anonymous sources, ri