About russian interference in 2016 with republicans and democrats still debating of those investigations were handled properly four years ago and if you do the right conclusions about russian actio action. Your book opens with a scene paid for the delegation and after the election to brave trump entertainment there is a deep partisan divide in congress was the inevitable given the politics of the moment or should something have been done differently . I was asked to brave the gang of eight usually is a members of congress the house and senate who are entrusted with the most sensitive secrets and intelligence the us community has so i went to brave the eight of them. There were is a very strong concern in a curious reaction on of six of those individuals was senator feinstein as well as adam schiff and concerned with they were hearing what the russians were doing and speaker of the house also took the information very very seriously also the cia and to look into this matter to find out exactly what they were doing but unfortunately senator mcconnell and the leader of the republicans in the senate as well as the chairman reacted negatively i write senator mcconnell in fact implied the cia was working with the Obama Administration to undermine donald trump and i shot back pretty quickly to say i take great umbrage that the caa would never do anything of the sort on the nunez who simply came part of the Trump Transition Team and was already showing his partisan instincts was not curious at all about it think the information but then to be very concerned what we were learning about russia. You are critical the president or the president elect in the everything that follows you say his demeanor and questions reveal he was uninterested what the russians had done during the election you think he is seeking to know when you are troubled by that was talk about that because what our president supposed to know about the sources of the cia information and how it gets its intelligence . What made you think mr. Trumps relations were not pure . I personally briefed for all of those were interested in learning the information the cia had collected and never heard anyone of them asked me about the specific details and always try to give them a sense of the track record of that Collection System that they would always to ask questions in order with their understanding but with donald trump at trump tower briefing him early january he would continue to deflect and talk about china so he demonstrated no intellectual curiosity what the russians were doing or what we knew. He was more seeking to understand how we knew this. I said we were concerned what he might do with this information if he truly was concerned the Intelligence Community had information on russian interference in contact with the Trump Campaign that could be damaging to him personally. I was worried about what he might do. Host of course now it is four years later and politicians are still trying to find out about your sources focusing on the january 27 Intelligence Community assessment and the conclusions of russia try to influence the vote. The Justice Department appointed a prosecutor to examine the investigation and that process in the book you describe part of reaching that conclusion the now controversial assessment that putin favored trump in the most news part of your book you talk to officials raised questions about the conclusion could you describe about the process of reaching that key conclusion . The cia with counterintelligence on this project cia has the best enlist in the community and then try to undermine the bureaucracy on the democracy so i had select individuals and they came up with the assessment for the question of trying to interfere in the election trying to denigrate Hillary Clinton this was done under the direction approach and to enhance the prospects of donald trump. Now all of those findings were attached to apply these agencies the fbi the nsa and the director of National Intelligence nsa downgrade the level of confidence from high to medium and that is his russian efforts to promote donald trump as the candidate to win the election. Cia analyst were at the height so in that assessment there were two Senior Officers who were aligned is really not much difference in the assessment but there was with that decision so they came to talk to me about it and i listened i wanted to make sure exactly i understood their concerns i told them to determine whether or not it should be high confidence i encourage them to do it again and explain their concerns. I word not overrule the consensus judgment of a cia analyst because to individual officers had a difference of opinion. That would be my interfering in a very arbitrary and unilateral way so ultimately that judgment at that level the caa joined by the fbi and i believe we had integrity of the process to allow the system to recognize the individuals who make this determination were the authors and analyst responsible for this Intelligence Community assessment. Were you disregarding russia experts and fighting with more junior russian experts . What is the dynamic about this quick. So those officers that raise their hands to say that should be lower level of confidence but in a conversation and then to risk all of the intelligence because i was revealing this information for quite some time so my own view the support on is to support. Thats i spent 30 minutes in my office with them to talk them through it so there is no way to disregard it but ultimately it comes down to those that were responsible and whether or not i need to have any judgment or provide Additional Information the topsecret classified version is directors of central and teeten intelligence agencies should do is directors of central and teeten intelligence agencies should do specializes in human intelligence and is the best of that there is Different Levels of confidence or is it more complex than that quick. So to make decisions is the combination of science and art. And they may come away based on their perspective or experience or approach to the subject matter so the nsa analyst and mike rogers at the time and then talk with the analyst and then they made the decision on behalf of an essay to be at that level. I dont know if that was a consensus view. But i know frequently rightly so in the process and drafting that assessment. And thats what happened in this case. We are not talking about a disagreement with fortunes position but that level of certainty behind that. And that those to say it is wrong for those who didnt favor trump. There is unanimity that these were the appropriate judgments that the russians were trying to promote so that distinction and to have high confidence and if you word recall the sessions the Jamaal Khashoggi with the reported cia assessment that the crown prince word is responsible so that is a very significant judgment. And with all of the agencies involved that this is the aim of the russians to promote donald trump in the election. And then to an dispute that they felt the weight was not as great for that one finding as the others. And then look at the extent of the reporting into that finding those responsible from the assessment that they met their standards for high congress. So looking at the origins of the Russian Investigation attorney general barr is looking into this analytic process. So, should he focus on this . Was he asking questions of this very moment . And with that assessment . As you can imagine during that 8inch one eight hour interview and then to ask questions held judgments in the Intelligence Community came about on this assessment and i explained exactly and for the assessment than the principle questioners is a very fair manner there were some concerns and disconcerted and we heard they had moved away from the investigation hoping that john durham and with a very strong reputation to be a professional member and we have to see because he is used his office of the attorney general to continue to allow donald trump to deflect those various charges and concerns. So the media has reported the key russian an informant was extracted and relocated in the early days of trumps term. And that this source was a critical part of the conclusion of the support for trump. I know you cannot talk about sources but well worded ever come to a high confidence conclusion . I agree and in any way to compromise with those are technical collection assistance. And to have this history and then the analyst are exceptionally well trained and that standard is very high. We take a lot into account with those multiple sources and what is the credibility and the track record you can have a lot of sources that may be they are not reliable also single two or three who can access information who has been verified going into the intelligence process to validate those sources and to be in context of reliability. So the fierce defender President Trump has been d classifying a lot of intelligence with the Russian Investigation including some snippets never briefing you gave obama on Hillary Clinton and her plans to criticize trump over his attitude towards russia. And with the russian disinformation i am curious and you can talk about that way it was presented to obama in the summer of 2016 and what do you think of the idea and id classification . Is it helpful . s those that abuse the office of National Intelligence and selectively that he believes and it is clear this was the intention so i limited into terms of what i could say. But when i worked at caa to fulfill my responsibilities about what the russians were up to during this president ial Election Campaign season in which candidate they referred to her wanted to make sure presented information accurately and that was reported in the very selective memo. And if that fabrication of Something Else but that is very much in doubt but even if that was accurate and then to improve the plan there is nothing at all to see in that of us law so and then to associate that phrase about the referral that was made to the fbi with a counterintelligence but there is nothing at all but constitutes a violation of us law. So then Hillary Clinton tries to amplify and then with a connection between the Trump Campaign and russia. This is very serious and by john radcliffes tries to give any shiny object that what they are encountering on a daily basis. Lets step back and im curious of your thoughts and how we got here with the allegations the foreign power and interfering in our democracy or do you think the republicans skepticism over russia and tension are interfering in our ability with a foreign influence . Have to believe the republicans are doing now to defend trump is helping the russians continue their efforts to divide us as a country. It with this partisan battle. Talking about this in the book and from both sides of the aisle so i have seen the democrats pursue partisan agendas and not the truth the way i think they need to. And those that pale in comparison in terms of mr. Trumps continued thighs the republican continued support. So that when i think they are abusing the Office Putting loyalty to the individual ahead of their obligation to the constitution and three. Five plus years i have been appalled that with this team of republicans do and say to misrepresent the facts and i was watching earlier and Lindsey Graham is misrepresenting the facts. And the questions to jim comey. Sometimes they do that with ignorance but sometimes it is willfully and purposely to mislead the american public. You have in the past and one of the sharpest critics of President Trump you have gone quite far in criticism after the helsinki News Conference with Vladimir Putin some have said you have gone too far especially those who have held a nonpartisan post like cia director did they go too far or do you feel its your obligation that at the center of the political debate . Before that as a Us Government official and i worked hard to defend the rights and liberties of american citizenry to express their views openly and freely. And so many take advantage of that opportunity. Its not just a question to have policy differences with President Trump and what they have done with the iranian agreement and paris climate accord, that is fine. Will be speaking out those were just differences. It is exhausting, if it is corruption or abuse of the office of the presidency that just gets to me and i feel responsibility and obligation to call him out for it. Yes, i was hoping when i retired the second time in 2017 i could ride off into the retirement sunset without any controversy or issues. U have known over the years and worked with having a sort of relationship with you but in the book you indicate to a certain extent director haskell has had to keep you at a distance because of your role as a fighter with the president in the political sphere. What is the cost of your political activism and does that stop you offering advice and was that a tradeoff worth making . I know the white house announced they were revoking my clearances. I still have my security clearances because there was no basis whatsoever to revoke them and all directors maintained clearances for the benefit of the government so as you point out whether it is jean haskell or others want to talk to me about my experience when i was director and how i interacted with certain officials or my perspectives on certain issues, they can talk to me to get that information but donald trump issued a directive prohibiting them from discussing or sharing any classified information with me so although i maintain my security clearances, they are prohibited from discussing anything classified with me and so therefore it has certainly inhibited the agency. They havent reached out to me and i try not to put any of my colleagues in harms way by reaching out to them. Im at their disposal if they want to talk to me. I had one meeting with christina haskell and she invited me to the headquarters to thank me for my support for her nomination and that is the last time i ever heard from gina. So, in this book, the cia didnt let you have access to the files as director. How much of a challenge was it to put that together. And there are sometimes in the narrative where a reader would want more detail. How much of that is withheld just because you cant share it or how much is withheld because they wouldnt let you access your notes . Guest i think that its a combination of the two. I have a lifelong obligation to honor my security requirements as far as protecting. Even if i had access to my classified files, i wouldnt have access to the manuscripts to the cia to review it and i did that with this manuscript. There were some areas they would ask me to change things and i agreed with many of them, i disagreed with some. We went back and forth, they relented on some and i relented on some but i had to make sure that it was going to have the classification review. Unfortunately they didnt allow me to have access to my files. All previous directors that have written books fo were granted tt access promptly but again because of Donald Trumps animus towards me, the cia wasnt allowed to do that. I wish i had access to it to remind myself some of the discussions and i wish i was able to review my classified notes. The cia didnt give me access to the unclassified version of my calendar at the official use only level but they had redacted any of my references if a phone call to a foreign official took place. I still think i have some pretty good memory and i try to explain in the book to the best of my recollection what happened at the various meetings and events and i had the opportunity to talk with my former colleagues no longer at the cia so they could help me think through and remember some of these events that took place over the last several decades. Host you mentioned your fights with the democrats during the administration and there isa good portion of the book you talk in detail about your struggle with the Senate Intelligence committee over there report on cia interrogation, torture allegations and you are critical of the Senate Democrats and the media. Is it allegations of torture and spying sometimes this book sounds like a little bit of score settling more than a detached evaluation of how you will for the agency handled that relationship with congressional oversight. What was your purpose when you werare diving into that and tala little bit about that time and your feelings of how the senate and the media handled it. About the events that took place when it embarked on this review of the enhanced Interrogation Program and i was one of the protagonists involved but i do acknowledge in the book i could have handled these congressional relations better but i didnt. Looking back on and there were things i wish i had done differently but what i would say during this time and continue to see is the mischaracterization of what the cia did in the aftermath of 9 11 in terms of the work done by many officers to prevent the attacks. There were mistakes made and they were things that needed to be addressed and individual officers held to account but all of that and the very positive stuff they did seem to be ignored by the Senate Democrats in this report but more fundamentally, the implication and the claim was a allegation. I wanted to but the fact is to the table the computers the senate was using word cia computers and they had an obligation to determine whether it was a vulnerability in the system that allowed the Senate Staffers to access a