been won by syria. the context is interesting. as good an operation as it was, it s going to have an effect of stopping chemical attacks. neil: the president seemed to telegraph as much last week before when he hinted just get out of syria. what do you make of that and what our position should be now going forward, especially after in? again, in context, as you know, we helped start this thing during the last administration. with the saudis, intel stuff, we began to try to get assad out of there and it went upsidedown on us, and everybody else fast. this is now, has been won by russia and iran and syria. the russians got a port that they ve always wanted. iran s got influence. this is a bad situation, we cannot get back in the middle of because again, 17 years of war, we re still in. we cannot get into this one. neil: you know, colonel, and the
steve: it s on a 15. new york times got the big interview two reporters. brian: michael and glen. steve: she may have committed a crime in unmasking the new york times then said the president gave no evidence to support the claim but then again, he can t really reveal at love intel stuff. none the less, if they got that big exclusive you would think they would put it on the front page. ainsley: house and senate intel committees are trying to investigate this. trying to get hot leaker is and get to the bottom of it for you and me and give us a truth. they say they are having a tough time because the intel community is stonewalling. brian: is that unbelievable? our own intel community is stonewalling our own president. ainsley: not getting cooperation from the cia, the fbi and nsa they are saying. steve: apparently the fbi says we are working in good faith. the cia says the nasa is the lead agency. and the nasa says none of it is true. nonetheless, the lawmakers are trying to figure
where s this stand? is this going to not get anywhere now? the question is moot? i mean this guy says, i m not telling you where i got all this information. i m not telling you really what it is. i m not sharing it with my fellow republicans on the intelligence committee, but at some point i ll share the information itself. i ll just never give you any history of where it came from. it doesn t make sense. they re not only calling off hearings but regularly scheduled normal meetings. so, yeah, it s kind of ground to a halt there. could it be the comey testimony last week wasn t what they want to be doing? absolutely. that exposed there s an investigation in the first place, and i m sure that the white house is not happy about any of this. but what s happening here, chris, and i can t believe this isn t getting more attention, is why was nunes doing this in the first place? as someone who was a campaign surrogate, who was actually briefing trump during the campaign on intel stuff,
consequential for the country and this president is the his relationship with the intelligence officials. and it s not clear that it seems like after director clapper had called him on wednesday night that they patched things up a little bit but then you have president-elect trump again tweeting this morning, blaming the intelligence for these leaks of this dossier. so, how that relationship goes. but broadly i think usually in transitions you have the chaos of the campaign and it kind of there are walls that get put around things and it comes together a little bit. we haven t seen that in this transition at all. you know what s fascinating in the handling of the intel stuff, they came after us, they came after the press. they told a number of lies, just demonstrable ones, kelyanne conway saying the cnn.com leaked to buzz feed, false, never did, et cetera. i would have thought that if there was any sort of communication strategy on this, it s just go after the intelligence comm