if you are in montana, get yourself up out of bed today and go vote and go make your voice heard because if not you are going to be saddled with this guy for a long, long time and you are not going to get a do-over for another 16 months. >> thank you very much. we should let everyone know we will speak to that reporter who had the confrontation with te congressman in just minutes. so let's get right to it. >> i'm sick and tired of you guys. get the hell out of here. >> the republican candidate now facing an assault charge. >> hoping to give a basic statement. next thing i know i'm being body slammed. >> we're living in an environment that donald trump helped create. >> jeff sessions did not list meetings that he had with the russian ambassador. >> it is yet another example of a trump campaign official not
disclosing all of their contacts with the russian government. >> u.k. officials can't quite understand why these informations are being released by u.s. officials. >> the adversary gains an advantage. that's why the british are angry with us today. >> this is new day with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> good morning. welcome to your new day. 8:00 now in the east. the republican candidate for the congressional seat of monotan charged with assault overnight, accused of body slamming the reporter. the confrontation on audio. there were witnesses. this happened on the eve of tonight's important special election. maybe that's why we haven't heard much from that state's republican party or the gop. in just three minutes, the reporter involved in that fight is going to join us with his side of the story. >> also, new developments on
trump/russia front. jeff sessions failed to disclose meetings with the russian ambassador on a security clearance form. a top democrat now demanding an investigation into sessions. we have all of this covered for you. let's go to montana. what is the latest in this crazy story? >> reporter: crazy is exactly right. these polls, the polls in the state of montana open in just one hour. as voters head there, they are going to be walking in with this big talker. it is all over the local news. at this point we do not know if it is going to make a difference here, but the democratic voters we spoke with, they are hoping this will be the game changer when it comes to turnout. republican congressional candidate charged with misdemeanor assault the night before montana's special election after allegedly body slamming a reporter at his campaign headquarters.
>> he's a reporter and he asked greg about his health care plan and he body slammed him. >> the cbo because because you have been waiting to make your decision about health care. >> we'll talk to you about that later. >> there is not going to be time. >> okay. speak with shane, please. i'm sick and tired of you guys. the last time you came in here you did the same thing. get the hell out of here! >> jesus. >> get the hell out of here. the first day did the same thing. the last guy did the same damn thing. >> you just body slammed me and broke my glasses. >> get the hell out of here. >> you'd like me to get the hell out of here. i'd like to call the police. >> reporter: the reporter received x-rays on his elbow. i'm --
>> the campaign offering a different version of events just after the incident, writing jacob's aggressively shoved a recorder in his face and asked badgering questions. jacobs was asked to leave. after asking him to lower the recorder, he declined. greg attempted to grab the phone pushed in his face. jacobs grabbed greg's wrist and spun away from greg pushing them both to the ground. it is unfortunate this behavior created this scene at our campaign barbecue. both the audio recording and eye witness accounts contradicting his defense. a team from fox news in the room recounting that he grabbed jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground. he then began punching the reporter. the eye witnesses also stressing that at no point did they witness jacobs acting aggressively.
his opponent choosing not to address the incidencident on wednesday night. >> is there anything you want to say about the audio? >> i think that's more for law enforcement. >> reporter: now, the sheriffs office in a statement says that he is scheduled to appear in court on those misdemeanor assault charges some time between now and june 7th. what voters will be dividing this morning and throughout the day is whether he'll walk in as a private citizen or their congressman. chris? >> and already 70% voted with early voting, so that won't play a role in all those votes. let us know what happened. joining us is that guardian reporter, ben jacobjacobs. ben can you hear me? >> yes. >> i heard that you had some x-rays done. you okay? >> it's negative. got to keep my arm raised. so hopefully it shouldn't be
anything too -- it will ruin my tennis smack after this for memorial day weekend. >> that's all right. at least you have an excuse now. one, where were you? was it a private room you were supposed to not be in? >> no, it was an open room in the campaign headquarters. it was not marked off in any way. went over to ask the congressman a question as he was making small talk with other reporters, waiting to join in the conversation in a way that characterizes most normal human interaction. >> and there were other media there, so it is not like you were alone or barged into a private discussion. >> no, no. and as the audio makes very clear, i politely asked the congressman about the health care bill that he said he was waiting until the cbo score came in to make up his mind about
health care and wanted the opportunity to ask him about that now that it was less than a day before the election to try to at least ask the question one more time with that information available. >> the right question at the right time. nobody is going to doubt that if they know anything about the job. the suggestion that you touched him first, did you ever lay hands on him? did you grab his wrist? did you do anything? >> no. i mean, his statement, they got my name right and my employer right, but other than that there was not a single correct element there. >> you could not have seen this coming. i can't even detect within the audio how the mood changed so rapidly. what did you perceive? >> i didn't perceive anything. it was a very strange moment that he duddsuddenly grabs my
recorder and things go haywire from there. i have spent a lot of time reporting on capitol hill, a lot of time asking politicians questions about health care, and it is never, never ended in any sort of altercation. you know, i have been covering politic for the better part of a decade. this was unexpected and surreal. >> did it register with him at all. again, tough to tell from the audio. and you kept your cool very well in that situation. i've got to tell you. do you think he realized what a big mistake he had made? >> i'm not entirely sure. it should have all happened -- my initial concerns were making sure i was okay, trying to figure out what happened and also making sure i had had, you know, could figure out my glasses so i could at least see
how i was getting out of the building. >> did he apologize? did the staff apologize? >> no. >> then or since? >> no. i've not had any communication with them. the only communication i had afterwards with the staff insisting i have to leave the building, which i was happy -- happy to get out of at that point. >> are you going to continue with the pressing of charges? >> i'm still trying to -- still trying to figure out what's going on. right now, it's very important, you know, with everything journalists are going through right now to make sure that -- make sure that free press is respected and the first amendment is respected and that's really what's most important, is the fact that so many journalists are facing so much and this is such an important statement that in the united states, you know, reporters can ask policy questions. >> right. and, look, let's talk about that for one second here. i don't want to keep you all morning. i know you are doing a job and
you're good at it. i know you don't want to be a political figure. and a part of a controversy. i get it. we're doing the same job. but let's talk about that. do you believe that what happened with you and john forte is reflective of a dynamic between politicians, specifically those on the right, and the media? >> the interaction i had with that interaction was so unusual. i mean, i report republicans. i have reported on the presidential campaign. i have never encountered that. i have had supportive tweets and e-mails from republican politicians, consultants and operatives. i wouldn't want to tar anybody or anything with this. this was one very unusual and surreal interaction and, you know, i have reported on enough folks, this is the first time and last time i will ever get
body slammed by a politician. >> good willing. just to be clear, you had no history with john forte. i know he had feelings about the guardian. >> i had been to a couple of his events, but i never interacted with him. i stood around in the background watching him talk to voters, but i hadn't dealt with him. i think i had done one or two stories on the race, where it was nothing where i directly dealt with the kind of one-on-one before. >> well, ben jacobs, thank you for coming on to clarify this situation. good luck going forwards. i welcome you back to new day when you have the scoop and you are not the subject of the story hopefully. >> thanks. i hope not to be the subject of any more stories in the foreseeable future. >> you are making strong points on this one, ben jacobs. thank you. be well. >> thanks. >> hard to believe anybody dealing with a situation like
that. >> he doesn't want to blame all politicians. he says he has good interactions with people on the right. he's not grand standing. he's not forwarding an agenda, but he did clarify facts. he was not in a private room. he did not interrupt a private discussion. he did not touch john forte and he didn't see this coming. he didn't even respond once it happened. he didn't even return force. i don't know how the guy escapes the charges except they are misdemeanor charges, which are pretty low level. >> let's discuss this with chris cillizza and david axelrod. david axelrod, what if this candidate with an apparent hair trigger wins today? >> they may have to put rubber tiles in the congress because reporters ask irritating questions all the time. that's their job. what's interesting is the
context of the confrontation because john forte has been dogged for weeks by this health care bill. he had said one thing publically which was to be questioning and he said privately to a republican that he supported it and he was happy that it passed. this has dogs him. it is one of the reasons why a race that shouldn't be close has been close, so he just snapped when he got asked about that cbo report. so, look, he's been working hard to win a term. who knew it might be in the county jail? >> listen, look, there is a comical nature to this because of how absurd it is, chris. and what i'm seizing on is not the event but the response to the event. john forte has been quiet because he wants to win his race. that's fine and self-serving. he'll deal with the courts. but i do think it is a question for the party and other republicans in the gop.
we know what's going on here. we know the environment is ugly. we know there's been a ratch ratcheting up. this is a flash point. it is a time to stand up and say what's right and what it isn't. not to shut up because you want to win a seat in congress. >> agree. look, i'll give him a pass over last night because it happened relatively late and there were a fair number -- i went to bed about 11:30 eastern time. there were a fair number of details still up in the air. he hadn't been charged with misdemeanor assault, by the way, when i went to bed. so i'll give him a pass on last night. but as we move into today, you can't just defer all questions to the john forte campaign. you can't do that. that's what national republicans were doing last night. if you are paul ryan, you need to say something that says, you know, this is not conduct that we condone. now, the issue here, in some ways republicans worst nightmare
yesterday would have been john forte losing. today their worst nightmare might be john forte losing. losing would be a bad thing. this is a state that donald trump won by 20 points and the seat he won by 20 points. this is not a race that should be close. to losing would be bad. that said, what do they do if he wins? he's facing a misdemeanor assault charge. to your point, chris, it is not a felony. but you don't usually want your newest member of congress facing an assault charge heading into congress. they can refuse to seat him. i mean, there is -- him winning actually creates a longer, more difficult story for them than he losing. you say this race had nothing to do with donald trump and the national environment, though it certainly does. he wins, you've got to deal with -- david axelrod knows. dealing with these situations sometimes when you get what you think you wanted, it complicates
things much more for a party than it might if he just disappeared after today. >> let me switch topics for you. the story coming out of the u.k. about the leaks. they believe that u.s. officials or media somehow got information they didn't want out, put it out into the free space. they don't like it. they're not going to share any more information on manchester. but leaks, when are leaks bad? when are leaks good? what do you think the perspective is to have on this story? >> well, you know, look, this was a discussion all throughout the obama administration because the obama administration was tough on national security leakers. look, leaks are bad when they jeopardize the sources and methods of gathering intelligence because oftentimes that endangers people who are in the field. and i'm sure that's what -- or impedes an investigation. and that's what the british are
concerned about. and this has been a concern forever, national security leaks that become more of a concern under this administration, in part because of the president's overt blunders and also because i heard from friends in europe, who are ex-government officials from the beginning that this whole russia cloud gives them some pause as to how much to share because they know it all goes to the president and the people around him. so this is a thing that has to be cleared up or what's going to happen is our allies will not fully share intelligence with us and that jeopardizes safety. that jeopardizes our ability to react to threats. >> that would be a real problem if the u.k. and israel stopped sharing intel with the u.s. but today they're both angry with what's happening. so thank you very much. great to talk to you. >> we're also getting new
details about the terrorist who attacked the manchester arena and the bomb that he used. authorities are carrying out raids in connection with the attack. there could be more arrests. klarissa ward live in manches r manchester. the sophistication of the bomb itself is not matching up with the unsophisticated nature of the bomber. and that raises questions such as? >> reporter: it raises a lot of questions, chris, exactly. we presented these images that have been published by "the new york times" to an explosives expert and they said there is just no way. the bomb quite clearly above a rudimentary level, whereas that doesn't seem to match with the 22-year-old studying business and management. where would he get that know how from. we are learning more details about the investigation. we are learning now that the bomber himself, when he came back to the united kingdom from libya, he did not fly directly
here. he transited through the german city. the police confirming that to cnn just now. possible that he would have transited through germany in order to throw authorities off the scent and obscure his country of origin. the net keeps widening. eight people now arrested. raids ongoing and the focus of these raids and arrests really to find out about the bomb maker. who made that bomb? who taught him how to make the bomb. no one wants to see anything like this happen again. >> thank you very much for that reporting. meanwhile, michael flynn facing multiple subpoenas. are lawmakers getting the answers they want in the russia investigation? a republican on the senate intel committee next. i guess i was born with a crayon in my hand.
i decided to see if there was a way for design to play a... ...positive role in what was going on in the world. there's a jacket that's reflective for visibility... ...a sleeping bag jacket, jackets that turn into tents. i usually do my fashion sketches on the computer. i love drawing on the screen. there's no lag time at all. it feels just like my markers. with fashion, you can dress people and help people. it's really cool to see your work come to life.
try this. for minor arthritis pain, only aleve can stop pain for up to 12 straight hours with just one pill. thank you. ♪ come on everybody. you can't quit, neither should your pain reliever. stay all day strong with 12 hour aleve. michael flynn facing a number of subpoenas this morning concerning his contacts with russian officials. house committee preparing to issue one after the senate committee issued two. flynn has already invoked the fifth amendment in response to a previous subpoena attempt. joining us now is james longford. he's on the intelligence committee. senator, thanks so much for being here. >> good morning. >> obviously it is flynn's prerogative to invoke the fifth.
>> the key thing is we need to have the information period. obviously it is his right as you mentioned before to be able to invoke the fifth and not do self-incrimination. we need to know the facts. we will continue to reach out and continue to work with him. we have obviously subpoenaed business records for him. businesses are not protected by a fifth amendment. individuals are. so we're going to gather as much information as we can to be able to get to the facts. >> what if he doesn't turn over those business records? >> we'll keep pushing. we work with our attorneys to be able to determine what are the per ram arameters of where we c. this is one part of the investigation. >> isn't it your impression that all investigative threads lead through michael flynn? >> no, not all, by any means. this is a thread. this is a part of the investigation. it is an important part of the investigation. we have done a few interviews around the issue. we will continue to do more
after this. we want to sit down and get his side of the story and be able to get the facts. >> is there any irony to you that michael flynn and donald trump, then candidate trump really condemned people who took the fifth? during the campaign they said that basically spelled guilt when they were referring to anybody who wanted to exercise that right as connected to hillary clinton's e-mails. >> right. it is ironic obviously. we had about -- i don't remember the number now, nine or ten individuals during the obama administration that took the fifth amendment. obviously, none of those were compelled to be able to push beyond their testimony. we moved on from there to gather other information. as you mentioned before, it is an american's right to be able to do that, but it is our responsibility to still get to the bottom of the facts. >> jeff sessions did not disclose some of his meetings with russians on his security clearance forms. are you concerned?
>> as a member of the senate i would tell you i interact from a lot of people from around the world and trying to get on a list of everyone i have ever met with on any issue, especially if it is an issue where you bump into someone in a meeting. i want to know what those are before i pass any judgment on whether there was an issue here. >> well, i mean, how are you going to get to that? because there were so many casual encounters like those you are describing that, you know, he couldn't basically fit it on the form and didn't think those needed to be disclosed. how are you going to separate those? >> ultimately, i'm going to pick apart every single one of them. you meet a lot of people in the senate. you atact a lot of folks at a lot of different events out there representing the united states and they are representing their country. we want to be able to ask him the basic question and clear up the record. we'll go from there. >> let's talk about the situation with britain now and
israel. both of these countries, the u.s. two closest allies at the moment are angry with the u.s. because of intelligence leaks. in fact, so much so that britain says that they are not going to share intel about the manchester terrorist attack with the united states. where does this leave us? >> i would actually disagree with the premise on that because i know israel is not necessarily angry with it and the british have already engaged on intelligence sharing with us on manchester. >> just to stop you, because the paragraphs of the crime scene and in fact some of the ingredients of the bomb were displayed, that, as i understand it, is what has upset british intel because they think those have hallmarks on it that they didn't want out in the public. >> we do engage. there are lots of times that allies will challenge each other on issues. this one i am not concerned about. they're a very close ally. we do a lot of intelligence
sharing together because we face a common thread and a common enemy and it is important we continue to cooperate together. >> are you saying that israel is not angry that president trump die vulinged highly classified information to the russians in the oval office? >> i would still say that we're cooperating very intensely with the israelis on a common thread. whether there was someone angry in the process, i'm sure there is someone angry. there is always is. but in the whole, the two entities, we continue to be able to cooperate together. >> does it concern you that president trump shared classified information with the russians in the oval office about isis? >> yeah. i have tried to be very, very careful with what i say and what i do. i assume the president would do the same. the president, as any president would as you're talking to a foreign leader would occasionally be able to poke through some issues. i'll let the president make his own decisions, as i did for president obama on some of those
same issues. there were times that public statements were made that i also disagreed with. we would have private conversations about that and then move on. i'll do the same with the trump administration. it actually makes it a bigger issue to continue to raise it in the media than it was the first time. >> you plan to have a private conversation with the trump administration about this? >> that's how i have typically run issues like that, yes, ma'am. >> thanks so much for being on with us. >> next up, insight from the other side of the aisle on russia developments. house minority whip joins us live next. both sides here on "new day."
all right. so we have a number of revelations in the russia investigations, the top democrat on the house judiciary committee is calling for an investigation now into jeff sessions because sessions failed to disclose contacts with russian officials on his security clearance form. joining us now is house minority whip. it is good to have you on the show, sir. >> good morning, chris. glad to be with you. >> sessions says legal counsel told me i did not have to disclose these meetings with the russian ambassador. they were coincidental. they weren't fundamental. i meet with thousands of people in my capacity as a senator. this was okay. >> if he had it in his mind as
to whether or not he ought to disclose it, certainly he caught to disclose before his testimony in the senate committee. there was nobody advising him then about the question did you have any contacts with russian officials. he should have said yes i did and they were incidental. he could have said that. but what really is so concerning is the pattern that exists here. first of all, you start out with manafort and stone and flynn, page and others who had very close financial relationships with the russians. then you have a candidate who talks very positively about putin, who is i think by most of the world seen as an international lawbreaker and an underminer of human rights and murders both journalists and opponents in his country. you have a candidate who is justifying the feeling he's a pretty good guy.
and then you have this continuing pattern of kov up. it is the pattern that leads one to believe that there is fire where there is so much smoke. and the investigations underway not only by bob mueller, but in the investigations of the intelligence committees and the house and the senate in in my view we ought to appoint a similar commission to look at the broader impact of russian involvement in our elections. not necessarily from a criminal standpoint but undermining our democracy standpoint. all of these continuing small, but meaningful patterns of cover up raise a great deal of concern for the american people and we need to have a thorough investigation to get to the bottom of it. >> smoke maybe, but not a smoking again. what does it mean you haven't had any hard proof of actual
collusion to this point? >> what it means is, obviously, that we don't yet have hard evidence. but you recall in watergate frankly there were a couple of years of smoke with no smoking gun and then ultimately a smoking gun was made available through testimony. john dean and others. and i think that the same thing may well happen here. it may not. and if it doesn't, frankly, the american people will have greater confidence in the president's relationship with russia and others. but if it does, then i think you're going to see substantial adverse action with respect to the trump administration. >> the flynn subpoenas, he has a right to assert his fifth amendment right against self-protection. you can't throw him in contempt once he does that. what is the goal with these secondary subpoenas now with flynn? >> well, they're looking for documents, i suppose, which are certainly discoverable items. and they're looking to have him
come before the committee. and you are absolutely right. of course he has a right to claim his rights under the fifth amendment to not increme nate himself. but the irony is, of course, flynn himself repeatedly asserted that if somebody took the fifth amendment they must be guilty so that flynn is in a somewhat contradictory position himself. but of course he has the right to claim that and it does not imply guilt. but the committee is right to ask him to come before the committee and testify, and he has the right to plan the fifth amendment. so we'll see what happens from there. >> people talk one way when it is not themselves or in jeopardy. we have seen that before. on the intel side, what are you hearing from republican colleagues who are publically quiet about what the president did in divulging classified information to the russians, calling comey a nutjob and
saying firing him got the pressure off him. we had a senator on saying he's given the president a pass. in private he'll talk to him. what are you hearing from the gop? >> what i'm hearing from not a lot of republicans but when they comment, they're very concerned. they're concerned about what the president is doing, the actions that he's taken. yes, the disclosure of information to the russians and now i just saw i think this morning and maybe it was last night that he was on the phone with president trump and he disclosed the whereabouts of a couple of nuclear submarines, which is highly classified information which should not be divulginged to anybody, particularly for the safety of those men and women of the navy who are on those ships but also for the fact that they made that information may be transmitted to others who are not our friends. so that i think this
administration again has been very sloppy in terms of following procedures which would protect our national security. the president in particular. and i think it is of great concern to the members of congress that i talked to, including some of my republican friends who privately as you point out, chris, are expressing great reservations about what this president is doing. >> well, it is an interesting dynamic you see unfolding. you have all these leaks coming out because they are concerned about the president's actions. it's created an interesting dynamic for the american people. congressman, thank you for joining us. you are always welcome on "new day". >> president trump will be attending his first nato summit and he may get an earful from a key u.s. ally. we take you to brussels next. people confuse nice and kind
the republican candidate for an open u.s. house seat in montana now facing an assault charge for body slamming a reporter on the eve of today's special election. a spokesman says the reporter was acting aggressively. ben jacobs denies that. >> the cbo score that passed the out is out. 23 million fewer people would be ensured by 2026 under the gop plan. the cbo also found the bill would reduce deficits by $119 billion, compared with obamacare. >> the british police have stopped sharing intelligence about the bombing in manchester with the u.s. amid intel leaks. >> the justice department says jeff sessions did not disclose his meeting with the russian ambassador last year. a spokesman clarifying sessions did so after consulting with the fbi. >> barack obama discussing hot button u.s. topics in a joint
appearance with the german chancellor in berlin this morning. he did not mention president trump by name but talked about the signature health care law being in danger. >> for more of the five things to know, go to new day cnn.com for the latest. >> president trump attends his first nato summit. give us the latest, sara. >> reporter: good morning. as you mentioned, the british government is growing increasingly frustrated with the american allies for intelligence leaks related to the investigation around the manchester attacks. ter rea may said she plans to make sure president trump is aware that the information shared between those two countries must remain secure. president trump was asked twice today at his earlier meetings before he arrives here in nato whether britain can trust the u.s. with sensitive intelligence. he didn't answer the question.
all this comes against the backdrops of our allies feeling wary about whether the u.s. is a credible intelligence sharing partner. after sharing information that came from israel in the oval office with russian officials. not exactly the background president trump hoped he would be coming into for his nato summit. but trump decried leaks saying they are harmful for diplomacy, so we may see him talk about that a little today. >> okay. thanks so much, sara. >> leaks are going to be the subject for the president as part of the agenda at the nato meeting. not about what the media has leaked or listen lebeen leaked media, but what the president has said about highly classified information in meetings when he probably should not have. political director takes us through the bottom line next. ♪
♪ ♪ i'm dr. kelsey mcneely and some day you might be calling me an energy farmer. ♪ energy lives here. anyone ever have occasional constipation,diarrhea, gas or bloating? she does. she does. help defend against those digestive issues. take phillips' colon health probiotic caps daily with three types of good bacteria. 400 likes? wow! try phillips' colon health.
. president trump may have to answer questions about leaks of sensitive intel by him with nato partners today and leaks from officials to the media about the u.k. terror attacks, specifically when he speaks with theresa may. let's get the bottom line of this impact. what do you make of that? >> well, you said he's going to face questions. we know president trump has already faced a couple questions from reporters on the intel sharing concerns that are being expressed from theresa may and others and he avoided those questions, chris. but he is not going to be able to avoid them in a private
meeting. i thought it was stunning to see theresa may this morning say flat-out that she is going to confront president trump about the concern that sharing intel with the americans got out into the public. this is now a fundamental issue of trust. and is the united states under president trump a trustworthy partner and clearly theresa may wants to take this directly to the president. >> what can the president do? have a contact in the u.k. security service and the. k. security service gave them a photograph. how can president trump stop them from getting out into the press? >> we have no knowledge that donald trump had anything to do with this information being leaked to american reporters, right? unlike learning that we know that donald trump did, in fact, share intel from an israeli source with the russians in the oval office. this is a different kind of
scenario, which is why i think donald trump has this burden now of establishing trust again with some of our closest partners. it is not just this one. there is other reports. you are right about the manchester incident. but i think the question of trump's trust is now for his fellow global leaders to discuss. >> they are two completely different things. what he did in the oval office, did not follow protocol, that's one thing and certainly israel could have an issue with that. but in terms of president trump already does not trust the media. >> that's the issue. >> if ter rea may wants him to crack down -- >> that's not the issue. theresa may is going to say control your intel people. we're giving them to your media. tell them to stop. that's what she's going to say. >> guys, donald trump controlling his intel people is not some of his top skills right
now, obviously. and this is all part of the fall-out. >> that's the issue. she's not going to say control your media. she's going to say control your intel assets. let me ask you something about sean spicer. sit tr is it true he's upset about not meeting the pope? >> our reporter that is traveling has a source saying that sean spicer was fuming about this. how big of a deal? it seems to be a big deal for sean spicer. i'm not sure it is a much bigger than beyond that. but it is impossible not to assess with all that's swirling around this white house and we talk about who's in, who's out and who the president is listening to to look at this and say, well, the white house press secretary seems to feel someoned -- snubbed by it. that seems to be a significant moment in the relationship. >> let's talk about this open house seat where the republican candidate was caught on
audiotape body slamming a reporter from the guardian. we had that reporter on here on "new day" who said he did not do anything aggressive to the candidate. the candidate either has an anger management issue or had a hair trigger question because of a question that was asked and he body slammed the reporter. do you expect any sort of national stage republicans to speak out against this today? >> i don't. i think that you're going to hear more silence than anything else. obviously, i don't think anyone is going to come out and condone the behavior. now the big question that hangs out there is can you be cited for assault on the eve of an election and still be elected as a member of congress and we'll learn that answer tonight when the results come in after the polls close late tonight and into the wee hours of tomorrow morning. but clearly this does sort of speak to just a larger moment in our politics and how tense
things have become. there does seem to need to be some dialing down of this. obviously gianforte from all the witnesses, from ben jacobs account, from the sheriffs citation putting out the facts of what happened clearly is in the wrong here and i would not imagine we're going to hear many republicans come to his defense. >> not coming to defense is one thing. but what you ignore you empower. not a time to be shy. it is a time to be standing up if you are a leader. david, thank you very much. >> sure. >> all right. how about some good stuff? i need it. >> then let's do it. e cancellatn if my plans change. visit booking.com. booking.yeah.
chewy inside. tum tum tum tum new tums chewy bites. all right. this is good, good stuff. you are about to meet a real-life hero from pe pennsylvania. what would you do? >> you see them struggling and couldn't breathe. i did everything i could to try to find something to bust the window. >> that's army staff sergeant. he was driving with his wife and daughter when he saw the car. what he did was sweet. he stops his car on the shoulder of the road. runs over to the couple and
helps them trapped inside. >> i didn't care if i had to bust it with my hand. i just wanted to get them out of there. >> it was just smoke. what's the big deal? here's the big deal. just moments after he freed the couple, that tractor trailer slammed into their car. the couple says they're forever grateful to him and his act of bravely. >> that's incredible. an angel sent at exactly the right time. all right. tt time now for cnn news room. >> sweet as sugar, like alisyn camerota and mike cuomo. >> good morning, everyone. i'm popty harlow. >> and i'm john berman. happening now, polls just opened in montana after one of the most outrageous election twists in history. overnight the republican candidate in a special