priority is clear. to get cities into compliance and to make sure that we understand there s not just a financial impact of this, but also a very clear security aspect of this. glenn? first, just a follow-up on something you said before. you said hillary clinton had personal con tack with vladamir putin. you elaborate? i m not saying that context of it in itself is not as a private citizen? i think what i m saying is when you talk about connections to russia, the only connection that anyone s made with president trump is multiple years ago he hosted a pageant there. some of the owns condos around the world. some were sold to some russians. i think he sold a house to one several years back. that s his connection. when you talk about the other side you look at what the obama administration s connections were. you have a secretary of state selling a fifth of our country s
committee. which comment are you referring to? witch hunt. as i just said to alexis, there s a difference between the investigations that have been discussed about russia that we have been very clear about and a discussion about whether something as devin nunes has said, the information he had with respect to surveillance during the 2016 election cycle had nothing to do with russia. so there s this seeming assumption that what the president s talking about is very clear. there is an on going pattern and more and more revelations that what we have seen is that something potentially was very very bad happening and people were using classified information. not with respect to russia, but to surveil people during that cycle. that is different. there is no, as far as i know, we asked the house and senate intelligence committees to look into this matter. there is no investigation that i m aware of. you take issue with jason
jason shaffitz of utah, said he does not believe the russian investigation conducted by the fbi, by the senate intelligence committee, by the house intelligence committee is a witch hunt. why does the president believe it s a witch hunt? he also said, before i ll get your answer to that. he also said he doesn t think it s proper for the president to sort of tweet out or comment on ongoing investigations. can you also touch on that as well? i think part of this sometimes comes down to who has access to what information and what they re looking at. i don t know what he has seen or not seen or whether it s appropriate, but again, i think there is a whole the reason that we ve asked the house and senate intelligence committees to look into this is to make sure that we get to the bottom of it in an appropriate, proper manner. commending on an ongoing investigation, is that proper for the president? what ongoing? there is an investigation ongoing by the fbi right now, there s ong
to the federal agency investigating crimes. that s not i think first of all, i don t know what we will or will not do going forward. what i do know the house and senate intelligence agency committees are both the committees that we, the president has asked on that sunday a few weeks ago, to look into this. that s who was conducting and asked to look into it. i m not aware anyone else was asking for that information. one final one. early in the briefing you said we don t track every president on the 18 acres. he asked about whether the chief of staff knew everyone that was on the 18 acres. that s what he asked. when it comes to that, do you have any information ab how the chairman did get onto the campus? as i said the last two days, we re not gonna discuss it. all of that will happen soon as their lead discussion about a lot of that in the briefing
level determines all those things. materials the president has wanted to share with the house and senate committee, has it already been shared with the fbi, or does the fbi already have the materials? i don t know the answer to that. some of it i don t know. nsc polled materials from various agencies, so where that all came from. is it a single source? is it a combination of i don t know the answer to that. i can ask. part of it is, there s a question of whether or not we have the ability or the right to release it. again, as much as i appreciate where it came from, i think again, i go back to, does it really matter? does it really matter if it came from the cia or the nsa or another three letter agency? or is the issue, alexis, whether or not, as i said before, whether or not there is a concern about what that information is doing, who used it improperly, what possibly could have happened. again, it s where it came from. what i m asking, the