i ve got a job in the united states senate, and i take that job extremely seriously. it overrides any personal believes that i have or loyalties i might have. i have confidence in richard burr, we, together with the members of our committee, are going to get to the bottom of this. reporter: so i think you saw there, pretty public commitment to the two of them standing next to each other, focusing this in a bipartisan way. and i think as this investigation has continued, you ve heard increasingly strong language from members of the senate intelligence committee, they, obviously, are seeing information that the rest of us don t have access to, they ve been going down to the cia, to other intelligence facilities to review this information. they have called several of them today, just this morning, on morning joe, called putin a thug and james langford, republican from oklahoma, talked about the need to make sure that there wasn t any coordination between any trump associates and t
i hope it s swift in come forward. i have never seen this president apologize for anything. it s going to be interesting to see if he does. we heard the ranking democrat, adam schiff, cite circumstantial evidence as far as potential cooperation, collusion, between trump associates and russians. do you have any hard evidence? well first of all, you know, the chair and the ranking member are privy to more information than the other members of the committee. so he may be looking at information that i don t have access to. certainly, we can connect the dots. you know, i refer to it as a spiderweb of relationships. the fact that there appears to be conversations that took place between russian operatives and members of the campaign would suggest that there was a level of aiding and abetting. but that s sell the
acknowled acknowledges privately and what they hope they can do, i may not be the convener or bring them together. and what do you want to do? i want to break down the silos and have a meeting of access to all of the information that all of the researchers have, and one another s researchers as well, and a conduit to get out to the places not just the great cancer hospitals in t, you know, the centers of the study, and to get to oncologists out in the field the information that we have that they don t have access to. and let me ask you as we head into the state of the union, is there a moment that you will remember with the president? well, yeah, there is one. he may be embarrassed. my i remember when beau was having trouble with his speech, and my son, beau biden was the
describe what they do and don t have access to. one thing that i do want to address wolf, though, jeff, i guess in trying to make sure that you are throwing enough stuff up here on the wall said something about a previous time in which they made us aware that there was an opening of that same window. when the analysis was done at that time, and that is also not in dispute, there was a period of time that this occurred one o other time for a different reason, no unlike this time, no one s information was accessed and the window was closed and there was no breach of the integrity of the voter file, and no campaign accessed the ngp van has the ability to analyze each individual users account and see specifically what they access and what actions they have taken and at that time, no actions were taken. in this case, as the sanders campaign has admitted, multiple stuffers have on their campaign
parent plus loans and that has had an impact to the tune of $150 million a year that families don t have access to. the on my campus that s $200 million that we ve lost. we ve lost all of this money the last few years and i m sort of like tlc singing, what about my friends? no one else is coming to our aid. so this is not a small thing. what you have just laid out in the obama administration s parent plus loan policies, and these are both obama administration and the current congress policies, you are saying this has had a negative impact and coke is coming in with money. now that really does sound to me like potentially a political like, in other words, if obama is bad for hbc and coke is good for them, why shouldn t i go vote for the candidates that are supported by the cokes? there will be people who will make that distinction. in the beginning of obama s administration, though, he did add a new program, a title three program, that has provided a great deal of money for our