Return to Transcripts main page


Podesta: Something "Deeply Broken" At FBI; FBI Attempted To Warn DNC 11 Times about Hack; Trump Taps Hard-Liner as Israel Envoy; Cashing In On the Campaign; Trump Businesses Get Millions in Campaign Cash; Obama Blames Putin for DNC Podesta Hacks. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired December 16, 2016 - 20:00   ET


[20:00:06] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. John Berman here, in for Anderson.

The message tonight, "Putin did it." President Obama didn't use those exact words, but he all but directly blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for waging a cyber war on the United States, with the DNC campaign hack.

Now, think about that. It's not often that the president of one nuclear super power gets up in front of the cameras and points the finger at the president of another. And given how carefully President Obama weighs every word, sometimes agonizingly so, it is exceedingly rare for him to go as far as he did today at his final scheduled news conference of the year. Listen.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What we simple said is the facts, which are that based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC. And that as a consequence, it is important for us to review all elements of that and make sure that we are preventing that kind of interference through cyber attacks in the future. And so, in early September, when I saw President Putin in China, I felt that the most effective way to insure that that didn't happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out or there were going to be some serious consequences if he didn't. And, in fact, we did not see further tampering of the election process.

Not much happens in Russian without Vladimir Putin. I mean, this is a pretty hierarchal operation. Last I checked, there is not a lot of debate and democratic deliberation, particularly when it comes to policies directed at the United States. We have said, and I will confirm that this happened at the highest levels of the Russian government.

And I will let you make that determination as to whether there are high level Russian officials who go off rogue and decide to tamper with the U.S. election process without Vladimir Putin knowing about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BERMAN: President Obama's party words for the year, sounding a lot like the opening shot in a new conflict that President-elect Trump will face when he takes office.

More now on the shape it is taking from CNN's Jim Sciutto.


OBAMA: I told Russia to stop it.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tonight, President Obama, for the first time, publicly blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin for the hacking the 2016 U.S. election.

OBAMA: The intelligence that I've seen gives me great confidence in their assessment that the Russians carried out this hack -- the hack of the DNC and the hack of the John Podesta. Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin.

SCIUTTO: And the CIA and FBI agree as to why.

Director John Brennan telling the CIA workforce in internal message that, quote, "There is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election." U.S. intelligence in law enforcement assessed that Moscow had multiple possible motives, undermine confidence in the vote, weaken Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump.

Today, the president said he delivered a stern warning to Putin at the G20 Summit in China in September.

OBAMA: When I saw President Putin in China I felt that the most effect away to ensure that that didn't happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out and there are going to be some serious consequences if he didn't.

SCIUTTO: Still, tonight, U.S. officials say that Russia's hacking of U.S. political organizations continues unabated. Since the election one attempted breach targeted the Clinton campaign, though unsuccessfully. President-elect Trump however continues to dismiss the U.S. assessment that Russian is responsible. Despite the fact that he's being provided the intelligence behind that assessment in his classified briefings.

And today, he sought to divert attention back to one of the revelations gleaned from the e-mails stolen by Russia, tweeting, "Are we talking about the same cyberattack where it was revealed that the head of the DNC illegally gave Hillary the questions to the debate?"


BERMAN: So, Jim, there is the text of this letter and then there is the subtext really. Why did the CIA Director Brennan send this to his staff today?

SCIUTTO: Well, I'm told there is deep frustration, even anger inside the CIA building of being accused by some GOP lawmakers, even the president-elect at times, of somehow politicizing the intelligence on Russian hacking of the U.S. election.

[20:05:05] So, you have the CIA director feeling the need to write to the entire CIA workforce, I'm told this is not the first time he's done it this week. He's done it even earlier in the week.

But to make clear that the U.S. intelligence community, including the CIA and law enforcement, namely the FBI, agree, one, on the seriousness of the attack, two, that Russia was behind it. And this is really important, John -- on the intent of it. That there is not this disagreement between the CIA and the FBI on Russia or on the intelligence community assessing that Russia was trying to weaken Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump with these cyber intrusions, which of course had a lot of politics attached.

So, that's a very key message today and I'm told that a lot of it is coming from real frustration inside those agency buildings.

BERMAN: Yes, they don't want to be considered political. Not at all.

Jim Sciutto, thanks so much.

SCIUTTO: Thank you.

BERMAN: And Donald Trump is speaking shortly. We're going to keep on eye on whether he says anything further on the subject.

As for President Obama, he covered far more than just hacking today. He touched on his working relationship with the president-elect, gave some very carefully measured advice on China. He spoke of regrets on Syria without really conceding mistakes. He spoke volumes and we're going to try to hit all the major points.

Joining us now for that, political strategist, Angela Rye, former Georgia Republican Congressman Jack Kingston, CNN political analyst and "New York Times" presidential campaign correspondent Maggie Haberman. Also, Trump supporter, Kayleigh McEnany, former Obama White House adviser, Van Jones, and "Politico's" Eliana Johnson.

Maggie, I want to start with you, because President Obama in pretty stark language said that Vladimir Putin hacked the U.S. election or at least knew about the U.S. election, ordered the hack. The CIA and the FBI now say they are in agreement that this happened and that the intent was at least partially, probably to help Donald Trump. This is a significant moment.

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: There -- in a year of many significant moments, this is a very significant one. I don't know how much it will do to quell the concerns from people, including Democrats, as to why the president didn't address this more forcefully before the election. And the White House answered that, and said they didn't want to look like they were meddling. I don't know how much it will quell the concerns from people about how the Obama administration has dealt with Russia in general. It also sets up a point of conflict between Obama and Trump with whom he's gotten along pretty well. I think he was asked about when they had last spoken, he said not for a couple of days. It will be interesting to see what happens and what Trump says about this after the Electoral College votes. There's been an enormous hunkering down within his orbit about this not saying anything different.

He genuinely believes based on everybody I know who spoken to him that this is an effort to delegitimize him in some way. There are people around him who don't think that is going to be sustainable position past Monday when the Electoral College meets.

BERMAN: Jack Kingston, you are in this orbit. Say it is past Monday, what does Donald Trump say about this now that President Obama has said that Putin did it? Or at least --

JACK KINGSTON, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: First of all, as I listen to President Obama tonight and he's very, very careful in his words. He said that there was hacking into the DNC and John Podesta's e-mails rather than a broad brush that it was all over the campaign.

BERMAN: I'm not sure that I understand why that matters. The president --

KINGSTON: Well, it matters --

BERMAN: Hang on a second, Congressman. He stood up, the president, said, I can't confirm that there was this hack that ordered at the senior levels of the Russian government. He confirmed those words exactly. Then, he said not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin knowing about it.

KINGSTON: If I was a lawyer you said Mr. President, you said DNC and John Podesta specifically. Yet, you sort of made it sound like they were interfering with the election in general and there's a big difference.

BERMAN: He's a campaign chair for Hillary Clinton. He's pretty intimately involved with the election --

KINGSTON: My question would be though, is if it were such an issue, let's say not a misdemeanor but a felony level. Why would you just grab Mr. Putin at a G20 conference in September and say cut that out? It would have been far more forceful to say listen, meet me in Geneva. We're going to do have an international investigation. Get out of our election and don't interfere with anybody else's.

But, instead, to say, yes, I pulled Putin aside and said to him, cut it out. He must have not thought it was that serious.

BERMAN: I want to talk about the cut out moment in just a second. But, first, Donald Trump, he is the president elect. Does he need to say something on this subject?

KINGSTON: I think he's going to let the house intelligence communities, Devin Nunes, Richard Burr. He's going let the process go through like that. And I think right now, he really does have to focus on getting his team in position.

There is a narrative about delegitimizing his election. And it was the recount. It was the Electoral College -- the targeting after the Electoral College so they won't vote. The electors won't go. It was -- he didn't win the popular vote.

So, there is politics in this thing. The CIA did not go to the House Intelligence which I find to be outrageous --

BERMAN: John McCain, Richard Burr, Lindsey Graham, they are not trying to delegitimize the election right now.

[20:10:04] They all say they want hearings.

Let me get to the "cut it out" comments we hear from President Obama, Angela. I have two 9-year-old boys. "Cut it out" is what I say to them in the back of the car when I want them to stop fighting. It doesn't sound like the thing you say when a foreign entity is trying to hack into your election system.

ANGELA RYE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: John, I have to agree with you. If the president did in fact say cut it out it is not anywhere near as forcefully said as it should have been.

I have to address this delegitimizing point. Donald Trump's election in my mind is far from legitimate at this point. I have ever issue with the world that the fact that Hillary Clinton gets closer and closer every day to a 3 million vote lead against Donald Trump. I have every issue in the world with the fact that electors feel like they can't in some instance in good conscience support this man as president. I have every issue with the world that the intelligence community is questioning the legacy o legitimacy of this election.

If someone can hack into not just our process --


RYE: Hold on. OK, I am questioning the legitimacy of it. I don't care what they are saying.


RYE: I am -- I am questioning it because there are a variety of factors at this point now that have severely impacted our democracy. And I care about people's participation beyond this election. And the fact that we have -- it has been so compromised it is a tremendous challenge. I don't know how we --

BERMAN: Just to be clear President Obama was asked directly if he believed the Russians hacked into the vote counting.

RYE: I understand that.

BERMAN: He flat out said no.


BERMAN: I understand that. But that -- the president made a point of saying that.


JONES: I was just saying that nobody is saying that the Russians hacked into every voting machine, changed the vote totals, et cetera.

I do think this is a concern here and I know you probably want to speak to this. I just am surprised to hear Republicans minimizing it.

Listen, here is the deal. Democrats might want to make hay out of this, might want to jump up and down. That shouldn't be your concern. You are the governing party. You have both the House, the Senate and the White House.

So, you have to be above all that. And say I don't care if Democrats or smurfs or anybody else wants to make a big deal about it. It is a big deal to me and my country. And we're not hearing that.

BERMAN: Kayleigh?


Number one, the Russians hacked the United States. It doesn't matter if it was the Democrat or Republican. It's inexcusable and should be encountered.

BERMAN: Do you know who hasn't said, Kayleigh? President-elect Donald Trump.


MCENANY: When he holds the conference, press conference, he will be asked about it.


MCENANY: I fully expect that to be his response. I think he's going to let it play out. Let the investigation take place with Congress, who still has not been briefed by the intelligence community after multiple requests. So, that's number one.

What happened was inexcusable. What is equally inexcusable is for my colleague to question the legitimacy of the election, when President Obama, when Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson has come out and said no vote was tampered with, the people had their say, not every vote that was cast was counted and counted accurately, is what the president said.

This was a legitimate election. If you have a problems with the Electoral College which has existed for all of time, you can take that up on a separate day and a separate place. But this is a legitimate question and no one should question the fact that Donald Trump is the president-elect because he's there fairly.

BERMAN: Angela --

RYE: I will do whatever I want to do and what I'm saying is that I do believe this is legitimate for a lot of reasons, including the fact that the intelligence communities says that our electoral process was tampered with. I have ever right to say --


RYE: I'm not finished. I'm just responding as John is allowing me too. I have every issue with the Electoral College and I have since before this election. It does not speak for me. I am not supporting a system that was built on the backs of my ancestors who were slaves. I'm not here for it.

And I can say I don't like it, and I can say I'm going to fight against this system. That is my right. And no that guy is not my president.

MCENANY: It is not your right to say the intelligence agrees with you because they don't --


KINGSTON: And the intelligence community always said -- listen to it tonight. E only said that there was interference on DNC e-mails and John Podesta. Now too much. Too far. But that --

BERMAN: You guys are both creating these straw men on the sides here. You know, John Podesta is part of this election. If they hacked into John Podesta's e-mails, they hacked into the elections.

Angela, on the other side, the straw man you are creating is the idea that somehow it delegitimizes the whole thing, which is something that President Obama has said, no, no, no. This election, you know, was fair and square at least in terms of the vote counting here.

JONES: Let me say a couple of things here. Just bear with me.

BERMAN: Or she's happy not to.


JONES: Here is the thing.

[20:15:02] It is going to be a very, very difficult couple of years if we don't see some signals that the president-elect is listening to all Americans. You do have Americans who say -- who are not saying what you are saying, sir. Who say, listen, if you hack into the chair of a campaign for the purpose of disrupting it, that isn't a small deal. That is a big deal --


JONES: Don't go over there. You don't like this president anyway, President Obama. So don't go hiding behind him --


KINGSTON: White House in October.

JONES: You guys are not acting like a governing party and this is going to be a big concern. You shouldn't be worried about what Obama did or whatever. You have to have the confidence of all Americans and I'm telling you this is going to be an issue for you.


BERMAN: Hang on, Kayleigh.

Wait, plan on what you are going to say. Did the president go far enough? What more could he have done? There's a lot more to discuss.

We're going to take a quick break.

The president-elect, Donald Trump, he is about to speak. Will he address this as Kayleigh McEnany wants him to on the latest developments? Will he says the Russians should not hack into our system?

And next, his supporters and President Obama's complaint that some trust President Putin than America's own intelligence officials. But he's also got a warning for Democrats as well, the president does.

And later, Donald Trump's election effort turned campaign dollars into revenue for his businesses. The question is, was it legal? Was it right?

We're going to investigate when 360 continues.


BERMAN: President Obama made it plain today Russian hacking cannot defeat this country.

[20:20:00] He said in so many words only we can do that to ourselves, in part he said by putting partisanship above the national interest. As you know, this has been the refrain throughout his presidency. But the cyberattack seems to have sharpened the president's focus on this. Some of that intensity came out today directed at times at both parties.


OBAMA: There was a survey some of you saw -- now this is just one poll but a pretty credible source -- 37 percent of Republican voters approve of Putin. Over a third of Republican voters approve of Vladimir Putin, the former head of the KGB. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave.

And where Democrats are characterized as coastal, liberal, latte- sipping, you know, politically correct, out of touch folks, we have to be in those communities. And I've seen that when we are in those communities. And I've seen that when we are in those communities, it makes a difference. That's how I became president.


BERMAN: All right. We should note that the poll President Obama was citing there is not one that CNN considers to be a high quality poll. Needless to say, his point there, Eliana, let me bring you back into this discussion, was that -- you know, where are the Republicans who are so outraged so often at every little thing Russia does? He says, now, all of a sudden, they don't seem to care so much.

ELIANA JOHNSON, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, I think if you take the poll, you know, if you think it's accurate you do start to see Donald Trump's tremendous influence on some conservative Republican voters. This poll is the first I think evidence of it, and we'll see if it continues through his presidency.

There were a couple of problematic things I think with the president said. First, you know, the Russians certainly meddled in the campaign, but there's no evidence they meddled in the election.

The other is he said he didn't act before the election because it would have been perceived as political. I don't think it's perceived as any less political now that it's being played out after the election. And so, I don't buy that really as an excuse for why there was no action beforehand.

And the final thing is that, he now has to hand this over to Donald Trump. And I do think it's tremendously important, he said there's one president at a time, but it's going to be tremendously important what Donald Trump says about this and what his posture is towards it. And it could tremendously impact whether some of his nominees are confirmed or not, first and foremost, Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.

BERMAN: Van, what about the cut it out phrase? What about the not getting upset earlier on? You work in the administration, no drama Obama. But aren't there times where you should be drama? Aren't there times where, you know, Mr. Cool should get angry?

JONES: Yes, and that whole Spock thing. You know, when you love it, you love it a lot. And when you don't, you don't. He does have that, you know, just undisturbably cool and that was actually a big source of comfort and appeal in 2008, after you had what felt to some people like too much emotion in the White House. And so, you always, as Axe about this, you get the anecdote and not the same thing over again.

I don't understand why the president didn't make a bigger deal about this. But I do think if he had made a big deal about it, some of the Republican whose now are saying he should have might have found it unwelcome. So, I just think we have to be honest here. Hey, Putin is trying to steal the election and give to it Hillary Clinton, I don't know if the Republicans who are now saying he should have done that wouldn't have felt that that was an incredibly shocking, possibly even an abuse of his office. I think he gets put in those situations too often.

BERMAN: Kayleigh, you were a giant fan of Ronald Reagan. What about the criticism the president lobbying on the Republicans who are choosing to believe in some cases, again, Vladimir Putin, instead of America's own intelligence officials.

MCENANY: Look, I think it's entirely hypocritical because Trump 2016 sounds a lot like Obama 2009. In fact, I have a quote, Obama 2009 at a breakfast at Putin's residence said, "I'm aware of the extraordinary work you have done on behalf of the Russian people" and goes on to talk about how there's an excellent opportunity to work together.


MCENANY: This was just after -- let's keep in mind, Putin invaded Georgia. And yet, these are Obama's words.

Obama is an academic. I think he is sometimes averse to facts because he believes in his academic theory. And his theory was, I'm going to work with Putin at all cost. He tried for eight years and it failed.

Trump has the same disposition. Now, is it naive? Is it not? We'll see.

But I can promise this, where Obama is an academic, Trump is a realist. And the first time Russia crosses the line with Trump, you are going to have behind the scenes of a very tough negotiations --

BERMAN: Can I ask you a question?


BERMAN: Is hacking into the U.S. campaign crossing the line?

[20:25:03] MCENANY: Yes, that is an act of force.


BERMAN: If it happens --

MCENANY: It did happen.

BERMAN: -- then the president-elect, you're saying --

MCENANY: It should be redressed and I think the Trump administration needs to be very careful of the first words they have on this because they'll be asked on day, at the White House press briefing, what do you think of this? And they need to be very measured and careful on how they respond.

BERMAN: Maggie Haberman, you have been covering Donald Trump for a long time. And have been weighing in consistently whether we will see a different or a new Donald Trump.

HABERMAN: You know my answer on this one. There have been many repeated promise of pivots or he's going to change, and we heard this at many points and there was a window during the -- I guess when he basically captured the nomination in May when it seemed as if he was poised to run a different -- potentially somewhat different type of campaign and more traditional. That did not happen.

Trump is very clear on Twitter what he actually thinks. I don't think we need to wait for a press conference. To be clear, he has not held a press conference since July when he talked about -- he says jokingly Russia hacking into the Hillary Clinton's server. He said on Twitter either today or yesterday I've lost track, why wasn't this raised before the election. It was raised before the election.

BERMAN: October 7th.

HABERMAN: There is a difference between whether the president said what he said today and to Van's point, there are people who wish he had done more sooner, although there are clearly reasons why he did. But it was wrong to say this is not before that. It was.

And he's now at the point where he is the president elect, and he -- this is pretty unprecedented where he's openly just rejecting the vast majority of the intelligence community's view. You could say it was just DNC and it was John Podesta. That is who was hacked. The information was disseminated in as wide a way and as long a way and leaked out in as deliberate a way as day by day as possible.


BERMAN: Hold your fire. We got a lot more show ahead of us. We will get to these guys. I really appreciate it.

Coming up next for us, strong words from Hillary Clinton's campaign chief about the FBI. John Podesta says their big response to her email scandal compared to the way they handled Russia's hack of the DNC shows something is deeply broken at the bureau. We have the latest, next.


[20:30:36] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Hillary Clinton's campaign chair says the FBI failed to adequately respond to Russia's plot to hack the DNC. An extensive investigation by the "New York Times" laid out the timeline of events starting in September of 2015 when the bureau first discovered the Russian attack. In an op-ed in the "Washington Post", John Podesta writes that he was surprised to read that the FBI didn't physically send an agent to warn DNC officials, especially given the amount of man power to voter to investigating Hillary Clinton's e- mails.

He writes, "Comparing the FBI's massive response to the overblown e- mail scandal with a seemingly lackadaisical response to the very real Russian plot to subvert a national election shows that something is deeply broken at the FBI." Joining me is CNN justice correspondent Evan Perez. Evan, you first broke your reporting on the FBI respond to the DNC hack as far back as this summer. So is John Podesta right that the FBI didn't respond seriously?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: You know, I think it is not as simple as that. I think the FBI could have done some things better for instance, they could have gone just down the street and knocked on the door and try to talk to some of the leadership there. What they did do over a period of months is reached out 11 times untold. We were told that they did reach out to the DNC's general counsel. They offered to do what they called a table top exercise, it's basically a briefing, to show the DNC how this type of thing works. The DNC declined. You have to remember that at this point the FBI is also doing an investigation of the Hillary Clinton e-mail server.

And I think the context here is that the DNC didn't really want the FBI inside looking at their computers, raising some serious concerns about that. So I think that's also is what caused some of the misunderstanding between the two sides.

BERMAN: But it was more than just reaching out to the IT people which is ...

PEREZ: It was definitely more than that.

BERMAN: However, you know, Podesta and others point out the FBI had people in Denver ...

PEREZ: Yeah.

BERMAN: ... in person investigating the Hillary Clinton server situation. So why if you have people in Denver yet not down the street the DNC, and knock it on the door.

PEREZ: Right. And again I think they could have done some things better in this case, but I mean there two different types of cases. In one, the Clinton e-mail investigation, that she was the target of a criminal probe, and her staff were also the targets of those investigations to concern in those types of cases, is that they're going to -- there's might be somebody who might destroy evidence. So, of course you send agents in person to try get the evidence in their hands.

In this case, your talking with the DNC is a victim of a crime, and you're knocking on the door, your telling them what they should be looking for and they seem to be rejecting you and that's the message to the FBI was getting was that we got this, we're not seeing what you guys are seeing, we don't know what your talking, you know. And it took until April before they finally invited and brought in a -- an outside security company and they found what was actually behind the scenes.

BERMAN: All right, Evan Perez, thank so much.

Plenty more to talk about with former CIA Director James Woolsey and CNN counterterrorism analyst and former FBI and CIA senior official, Phil Mudd.

Director Woolsey, let me start with you. You heard Evans reporting there saying that John Podesta's letter about the FBI or op-ed is a little overblown. That the FBI did reach out to the Clinton campaign Evan reports, you know, several times, albeit not in person. But should the FBI in your mind have done more?

JAMES WOOLSEY, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Well I think they're overall conduct of what they did is not that bad. I mean they made some mistakes. But we you will do that. I think -- what I can't really understand is why they talk so much about it. Those three letters from Comey and so forth, those really puzzled me and I think that weaken the bureau's position in all of the debates and discussion. But if you look back at what they actually did and tried to investigate they may have slipped up a bit here and there but it was -- I think generally responsible.

BERMAN: Phil how should they play out?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: Let me give you a clear picture on this. Surface John, this looks simple, of course. And I would agree with this, the FBI should have been gone down the street in Washington D.C. and had a face-to-face conversation with the DNC. But as Evan points out, these are two different cases. You have it investigation into criminal activity by Secretary Clinton and hell of the e-mails. In this case you have a warning to the DNC essentially to tell a private entity in the United States "be careful."

There's one other thing you got to think about here. Think about CNN, John you and I work here. If you got multiple calls in the IT department, the information technology department at CNN from the FBI being concerned. One would hope that you would ranch it that up in this way and say we've got a respond the FBI, so I think there's answers on both sides. Why did the DNC respond and why was that the FBI more aggressive, but I agree with Director Woolsey. I think this is being over played and simplified a bit.

[20:35:19] BERMAN: All right Director let me shift gears now back to the issue of the hacking, at this bit, there have been a number of developments and releases today, do you believe it was Russia behind the hack of the DNC and John Podesta?

WOOLSEY: Like the Russians have a doctrine called "Eta Informatsiya", this information, essentially lying and they have thousands of people and their government that work on photoshopping things and fiddling with data and they go after all sorts of institutions. They go after the Catholic Church. They go after Jews, or anti-Semitic tones to what they do. They -- they go after Democratic political parties in Europe. And there are just lots of behavior patterns on the Russians on things like this that are extremely troubling.

Did they go further and use the computers to do something effective this last time around? It looks like they may have tried but not succeed. And what we have to worry about is what our weaknesses are in that dimension. So one of the things we've absolutely got to do is get a way from having a quarter of our voting machines be touch screen only and not have paper backup. Those changes were made after the craziness of year 2000 and the change of some of them were made in the wrong direction ...

BERMAN: Director?

WOOLSEY: Without a paper backup, you can't have a voting count that means a damn thing.

BERMAN: Director, to be clear what the FBI and CIA are saying is that the Russians did more than try than hack into the campaign. They hacked into the DNC, they hacked into John Podesta's e-mail. President Obama made clear they didn't hack into the voting machines, they didn't hack to the actual votes ...


BERMAN: ... voter counted. But, you know, is that a minimum they hacked into the DNC and John Podesta. That's getting into this campaign. That something the FBI agree on, the CIA agrees on ...

MUDD: Sure.

BERMAN: ... president of United States agrees on, but the one person who hasn't said he agrees with it yet is President elect Donald Trump. Isn't it important for him to address this head on?

WOOLSEY: Well, he can address it as he sees fit. What you don't want is for that to occur. But the way to stop it is not to remonstrate with some that not to go back and say cut it out or anything like that. The way to do it is to go after their weakness. And their weakness is oil and gas. The fact that that's really all their economy does.

So if we come up with substitutes for petroleum products, say gasoline at the pump, so they drive -- he went can drive on something else like say methanol with him (ph) or electricity or both. Then you've got a real opportunity to make the Russian government sit up and take notice and you don't have to say damn god thing about what you're doing. You can do it and smile at them.

BERMAN: But, Phil what about the president-elect silence at a minimum on this alleged Russian hack into the campaign. And at worst he says that maybe the intelligence officers are talking about this, all though they're not talking about it out loud, have political motivations here. What's the effect of the president-elect not at least at a minimum accepting some of the reporting from the intelligence officers?

MUDD: This is not acceptable. This is not about reviewing the election. It's not about a controversy about who won the election. That was President-elect Donald Trump. Looking forward as a president-elect he has the responsibility of representing American voters, going to the presidential election in 2020. Look at what's happened in Eastern Europe. Look at what the Baltic States about Russian intervention in their own affairs via the digital sphere, and they will tell you the same thing that we saw during this election. The Russians are aggressive in intervening in their own elections. Looking forward the president elect should not be focused on what happened in November. He should be saying how do we work with the White House now, and how when we go into office in January, do we protect Americans in four years?

WOOLSEY: Exactly.

MUDD: His joke about the White House and the president the past month is just painful. Move forward.

BERMAN: James Woolsey, Phil Mudd, it seems you have agreement on subject. Thanks so much for being with us.

WOOLSEY: Good day.

BERMAN: President-elect Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel a bankruptcy lawyer with hard line views on Israel. So what does this domination mean for decades of U.S. policy in the Middle East?


[20:43:16] BERMAN: President-elect Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel is writing some questions about the signal it sense for U.S. policy in the Middle East. David Friedman, is a lawyer who served as a Trump advisor during the campaign. His ties to Trump go back years and his views on the region to some were quite hard line. Elise Labott, reports.


ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's having his long time friend and bankruptcy lawyer, David Friedman, as his ambassador to Israel, Donald Trump moved to make good on a campaign promise.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF UNITED STATES: We will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel.

LABOTT: By appointing the hard-line Friedman as ambassador, Trump could be signaling plans to reverse decades of U.S. policy towards Israel. Freedman an orthodox Jew has no experience in diplomacy. He strongly supports legalizing settlements and Israel annex in the west bank. And his question the need for a Palestinians state, writing that a two state solution appears, "Impossible as long as Palestinians are unwilling to renounce violence against Israel or recognize Israel's right to exist as the Jewish state."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm reminded the line from Wizard of Oz when Dorothy lands and sister of little dog, dog Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

The issue is issues that have been attributed to him, on issues like two state solution, settlement activity that clearly contradict decades of U.S. foreign policy.

TRUMP: We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.

LABOTT: In a statement Friedman said he looked forward to doing his job, "For the U.S. embassy in Israel's eternal capital Jerusalem." Echoing his promise to Israeli's in Jerusalem in October.

[20:45:06] DAVID FRIEDMAN, AMBASSADOR TO ISRAELI NOMINEE: The law provides that the obligation to move the embassy to Jerusalem cam be waved at to desire of the State Department.

The reaction from Donald Trump is going to be, do you know what guys? You're all fired.

LABOTT: For decades U.S. president have argued the status of Jerusalem which both Israelis and Palestinians see as their rightful capital can only be settled this part of a piece deal.


The current and former diplomats say that by picking Friedman as ambassador and promising to move U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, Donald Trump is running counter to his professed desire making what he called the ultimate deal between Israelis and Palestinians. Because it raises serious doubt about whether the U.S. can continue to be a broker in mid east peace talks in the future. John.

BERMAN: All right, Elise Labott, thanks so much. Lots to discussed, joining us Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS", also Michael Doran, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former Middle East adviser for President George W. Bush. His new book "Ike's Gamble: Americas Rise to Dominants in the Middle East."

Fareed, David Friedman's positions on Israel, he stated very publicly, very strongly. They're very different since dates U.S. policy for the last several administrations, will you expect the ramifications to be?

ZAREED FAKARIA, CNN ZAREED FAKARIA GPS HOST: His policy is stated positions are different from every U.S. administration, Republican or Democrat, certainly for example on the annexation of the West Bank, since the West Bank was annexed in 1967. The United States under Republican and Democratic administrations has never recognized the legitimacy of that.

What it means is a more interesting question, because honestly the two state solution was going nowhere. Israel holds all the cards. Right now there is no appetite. The Palestinians are divided weak without any leverage. So I don't know that on the ground, it makes that much difference. It is true however that it sends a rather strange signal. Because the views are pretty extreme.

I mean it's not just the issue of the two-state solution and the annexations of the West Bank. Friedman has referred to all left leaning Jews as capos that is compared them to Jews who assisted the Nazis in the camps, in the death camps, which is a very -- really quite grotesque comparison. He's called Barack Obama an anti-Semite. This is really and this is really, you know, this is tough stuff and I can't imagine that it would go down well for example with America's Arab allies who have always look to the United States to play some kind of an even handed row.

BERMAN: Mike, let's break that data apart. First, the policy here, what do you make of David Friedman's policy positions? You know, not speaking out in favor of the two state solution. Wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Do you think this will have an impact?

MICHAEL DORAN, HUDSON INSTITUTE FELLOW: Let's -- I break that down into two different issues. I think the moving the embassy to Jerusalem is long overdue. It's been Congress called for it in 1995 and every presidential candidate it says they are going to do it and then they don't. So this is just a breath of fresh air. There maybe some momentary upset about that but I guarantee in a year -- in a year from now nobody will be talking about moving the embassy away from Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is the capital. It just makes sense that our embassy and one of our closest allies would be in their capital. So, I don't see any issue there. On his views, I wouldn't worry about that either, because the policy is going to be set by the president. It's going to be set by the Secretary of State. And I'm sure that Friedman will carry out the policy ...

BERMAN: But doesn't -- But Mike, doesn't it send a message though when your appointing as ambassador to Israel. And Israel isn't just any country, when your appointing at the ambassador to Israel who says that certain American Jews aren't Jews at all, because they don't share his views. I mean what kind of message does he send?

DORAN: I think the best message here is the one of close friendship with Israel, because Friedman is very, very close to the president. So -- or to the president-elect. So he's going to have Donald Trump's ear. And they are sending a message to Israel that we care about them. We're not going to have any of this needless friction that we had between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government.

And I disagreed with Fareed about the effect in the Arabs. There's going to be some discomfort with it for sure, but the Saudis just like the Israelis are really concerned about one thing and one thing only and that's the rise of Iran in the region. And so the Saudis are going to read this as a little bit disturbing on one level. But on another level they're going to see the United States is back supporting its traditional allies and they are going to understand that that's going to be good for them.

BERMAN: Fareed Zakaria and Mike Doran, thanks so much for your time.

DORAN: Pleasure. Thank you.

BERMAN: All right, just ahead. How much money did Donald Trump's business empire rake in from the Trump campaign?

[20:50:02] Was it all legal.


BERMAN: Now look at the one political aspect of the Trump business empire, and name we how much money have pulled in from the Trump campaign unlike any candidate before him, Donald Trump was in a unique position of being able to take millions of campaign dollars and turn them into corporate revenue. One question, how is that possible leads to the second namely, is it legal. Answers now from senior CNN investigative correspondent Drew Griffin who breaks it all down dollar by dollar.


DREW GRIFFIN, CNN INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Donald Trump's airplane company got $8.7 million. His hotels and golf courses got $1.4 million. More than $200,000 went to Trump restaurants and food services all that money came from Donald Trump's own campaign. A CNN analysis have reports filed with the federal election commission shows during his 18 month presidential campaign Donald Trump paid nearly $12.5 million to Donald Trump's own businesses. Who else got the money? Well Trump corporation, Trump Tower and pay roll $2.2 million.

LARRY NOBLE, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER: I don't think we've ever seen another campaign like this where someone has run so much of their campaign through their own businesses. And in a way that's really hard to tell exactly what the money was spent on.

[20:55:08] GRIFFIN: Like many other things about the Trump campaign, Larry Noble with the Campaign Legal Center calls the expenditures unique. Who else can charter their own 757, houses campaign staff in his own 5th avenue office building and even run up $32,000 tab to his son Eric's wine company and essentially pay himself back through his own campaign. Legal, yes? Ethical, sort of.

NOBLE: You know, if he did it legally, it's not wrong. If he did it legally and was the ordinary course of business, then, you know, you have to say, you know, that he's allowed to do that. If he was doing it to make a profit off of it and he charged more than he was supposed to have charge then there's a problem.

GRIFFIN: And that's hard to tell, congressional laws on campaign financing are not regularly enforced. So who's going to find out for instance? If that $94 tab at Trump Cafe was extreme profiting, or just an average cup of coffee or a $607 tab at the Trump Grill. One expensive BLT or 30 sandwiches, we will never know. Don't blame Trump, Congress sets the rules and when it comes to campaign spending, those rules require little if any details.

Drew Griffin, CNN Atlanta.


BERMAN: Much more ahead in the next hour of "360", including president-elect Trump message in Orlando and the key moments from President Obama final press conference of the year. Russia's hacking a big focus and the president did mean his words.