they ve now learned from the cia. that s right, andrea, and i think this is both part of the danger of this disclosure and also frankly the hypocrisy of what julian assange is claiming to do on behalf of privacy and civil liberties. the reality is the disclosure clearly gives the potential targets, the enemies of the united states a road map as to how to defend against the type of collection that the cia wants to do. of course this revelation doesn t suggest mass surveillance. it doesn t suggest any violation with respect to american citizens, and more importantly given your question, it gives the bad guys a road map as to how to actually use these tools against us, and not just against the cia or the nsaor the department of defens but against you and me and american sit stcitizens so this idea tha revelation of these issues are good for civil liberties really does, you know, it s hugely hypocritical given the fact that
turkish company owned by turkish businessman for which his company was paid $530,000, and then in an interview with the associated press, the head of that company said that, yes, flynn did eventually register that he had done this, but only after pressure from the justice department, as you well know, one of the things that the president ran on was cleaning out the swamp, and in fact, flynn was one of the people working in this government who had to sign a paper that said you won t work for a foreign government, so he can t do any more what he did then, but the white house says look, he was a private citizen at the time. he didn t do anything illegal, because this happened before he took office. but it did happen while he was getting access to the presidential daily brief, and while he was briefing candidate transition. once he became the nominee, donald trump did get access to all of that top level national security information. pretty extraordinary. reporter: yes and that s
can pull off. andrea? thanks very much to you, and pete williams, down the newsroom, we ve been looking into what did happen when james comey went to the hill lt night? he had reportedly, you ve confirmed this, wanted the justice department to speak out and defend the fbi and say there was no illegal wiretapping and nothing by the obama white house. at this point, is that likely, what he told as well, told the top leaders on capitol hill, both parties, both houses? sure seems so, andrea with you we don t know. they re not saying, he s not saying. the fbi is not saying, the staff isn t saying but it seems likely. we did confirm he wanted the justice department to put out a statement saying it s not true, you know that james clapper said it wasn t true. everybody current and former government officials that we ve talked to said it s not true. this was the so-called gang of eight, the leaders of the house and senate, the ranking minority
people who are legitimate visa carriers and green cardholders, people who are in transit so they put that ten-day window in, but the objections still from washington state and hwaii now are that it still is a muslim ban. two arenas here. hawaii has filed its own lawsuit, they are starting from scratch here, they make some of the same objections the states did. in washington state, the question is, is the new executive order new enough? yes the justice department said look at all the changes we ve made. we had the waivers, no one can say never. it s not going to happen. we have the ability to grant case by case waivers. so what the justice department says, they ve told the court this week guess what, judge, we re going to start enforcing this on march 16th. washington state joined now by oregon, soon to be joined probably by massachusetts and new york, is saying hold the phone, it s not new enough. the old order issued on february 3rd that blocked the enforcement of the original execu