media. a lot of it is just dead wrong, which is one of the challenges because we don t correct it, but it does strike me. there s been a lot of people talking or at least reporters saying that people are talking to them in ways that have struck me as unusually active. i fully understand the media s fascination with palace intrigue, with which faction of the white house is trying to outdo the other. that s all to me that s all legitimate. that goes with the game. if you are talking about leaking classified information, if you are talking about leaking investigatio investigations, you are saying that there is an fbi investigation going on. if the new york times can be believed, i would think it would have to be somebody from the fbi who was telling them about these reported meetings, which mr. mccabe said was b.s., with russian intelligence agencies. somebody involved with that investigation spoke to the new york times. i ll use that as an example. also, one where there s a small
i can t. so isn t it i just find it to be really hard to believe that given the emoluments clause does apply to mr. flynn, i can t believe that in flynn, a retired military officer, would take money from the russian government, in violation of the united states constitution, and i believe that such violations worthy of a criminal investigation by the fbi. what level of proof do we need flord f for us to have a criminal investigation by the fbi of mr. flynn? i can t comment on that. shouldn t the american people be concerned? i think that it s really hard for us to fathom that he would know that he should have disclosed that he received $35,000 as a part of a speaking engamement to r.t., the
committee, may in a classified setting know something from you? would we have ongoing updates? i don t know how long the work will take. i can t commit to updates, as you know. i have briefed the committee as a whole on some aspects ofour work. i ve briefed in great detail the chair and the ranking. i don t know i can t predict or commit to updates. as your work goes on, we re in constant touch with you. if you through the fbi investigation come across a circumstance with an individual
institutions. what specifically based on this loudness did the fbi or the nsa do to prevent or counter this russian active measure that we read about in the intelligence community assessment? as loud as they were, what did we do to counter that? among other things, we alerted people who had been victims of intrusions to permit them to tighten their systems to see if they couldn t kick the russian actors out. we also, as a government, supplied information to all the states so they could equip themselves to make sure there was no successful effort to affect the vote, and there was none, as we said earlier, and then the government as a whole in october called it out. i believe it was director clapper and secretary jay johnson issued a statement saying this is what the russians are doing. sort of an inoculation. and the loudness to which you
any indication of when we, the committee, may in a classified setting know something from you? would we have ongoing updates? mr. lobiondo, i don t know how long the work will take. i can t committee to updates, as you know. i have briefed the committee as a whole on some aspects of our work and briefed in great detail the chair and the ranking. i don t know, i can t predict or commit to updates, but as your work goes on we re in constant touch with you and we ll dot best we can but i can t commit to that as i sit here. so as the house intelligence committee and the senate intelligence committee are conducting our bipartisan investigations, and looking wherever it may lead with individuals or circumstances, if you, through the fbi investigation, come across a circumstance with an individual