on president trump's side as the underdog. >> interesting stuff. tomorrow, tune in. we play a little word association with them. one word they would use to describe president trump. we're following a lot of news today. president trump's attorney will join us live in a few minutes. let's get right to it. good morning. welcome to your "new day," monday, june 19th, it's 8:00 am in the east. at least one man is dead in london, eight others hurt. british prime minister theresa may is calling the attack a terrorist attack. >> bystanders sprang into action until help arrived. third attack in the uk in the last four months but the first to target muslims. let's begin our coverage with phil black live at the scene in london. what have you learned, phil?
>> alison, good morning. witnesses say this man was responsible for carrying out the attack, who drove a white van, swerving deliberately into a crowd of people that had just emerged from a local mosque. after midnight monday morning local time, they had been attending prayers, observing the holy month of ramadan. some of those bystanders actually intervened, grabbing this guy, pulling him out of the vehicle, pinning him down to the ground. they say he fought the whole time, punching, biting, scratching at them while also saying things like you deserve this. you guys deserve this. an hour ago outside her residence at 10 downing street, prime minister theresa may condemn this had attack, saying it was just as sickening as any other attack this country has experienced. take a listen. >> it was an attack that, once again, targeted the ordinary and the innocent, going about their
daily lives. this time, british muslims, as they left a mosque, having broken their fast and prayed together at this sacred time of year. today, we come together as we have done before, to condemn this act and to state once again that hatred and evil of this kind will never succeed. >> members of the local muslim community we've been speaking to this morning believe they were deliberately targeted. they say this is simply an escalation of the sort of hate and bigotry they have been experiencing increasingly on the streets of this city, following the other islamist terror attacks, the two that have taken place in london and, of course, that terrible bombing in manchester. back to you. >> obviously, phil, terror will have a heavy dependency on motive. we'll have to wait to hear when that suspect is interviewed and
why he did it. a member of president trump's legal team is contradicting the president. the president tweeted his dislike of being investigated by bob mueller. his attorney says he's not being investigated. joe johns live at the white house with more. the latest in the spin cycle. never easy from there. >> reporter: that's for sure, chris. little bit of deja vu here. familiar territory that started on twitter. the president's legal team trying to clear up any confusion about whether the president believes he's the target or subject of any investigation. it's pretty clear right now special counsel is looking into whether there's any evidence or enough evidence to start an obstruction of justice investigation. >> reporter: t>> the president s not under investigation. >> the president is not and has not been under investigation. >> reporter: personal legal team denying he is the target of a probe, despite the president's own tweet. seemingly acknowledging that he
is being investigated for firing fbi director james comey, taking a swipe at deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, who appointed special counsel and characterizing the purported investigation as a witch hunt. >> trump has a compulsion to counterattack. and is very pugnacious. i don't think it serves him well. i don't think that tweet helped him. >> reporter: the president's attorney offering this explanation. >> that was in response to a "washington post" story that ran with five unnamed sources, without identifying the agencies they represented, saying that the special counsel had broadened out his investigation to include the president. >> reporter: before appearing to blame social media for the misunderstanding. >> it was 140 characters. there's a limitation on twitter. the president is a very effective utilize utilization of social media.
>> reporter: that he could not know for sure. >> i can't read people's minds. i can tell you this. we have not been notified that there's an investigation of the president of the united states. >> it is in the best interest of the president and country to have a full investigation. >> reporter: despite the confusion prompted by friday's tweet, the president continues to attack the special counsel's investigation. >> what's happening here is the president wants to take down bob mueller. they're essentially engaging in a scorched earth strategy, beginning with trying to discredit the prosecutor. >> reporter: top democrat on the house intelligence committee insisting sunday that the russia investigation is just beginning. >> i think there is evidence. i'm not prepared to say there's proof you can take to a jury. i can say there is enough that we ought to be investigating. >> reporter: we're just about to find out what jay sekulow is saying today. yesterday he said the president may, may release information about whether there are recordings of the president's conversations with the fired fbi
director james comey. chris and alison? >> joe, thank you very much. let's bring in our political panel, david gregory and john avalon and julie pace. john avalon, it's confusing what jay sekulow was saying, in part because in the same interview he said different things. let me play for you a portion of him talking to jake tapper and then chris wallace, that sounded diametricalily opposed. >> should we take it that the president is under investigation? >> let me be clear. he is not under investigation. now he's being investigated by the department of justice. the special counsel under the special counsel regulations reports still to the department of justice, not an independent counsel. he is being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the termination. >> how do you make sense of
this? >> that doesn't make any sense because it's a complete contradiction. that's what you do when you're out there, spinning, trying to get people to ignore what they've seen with their own eyes. the mueller investigation, what we mow of it, "the washington post" reporting, thateled evolve into this kind of investigation. for sekulow to come out and outright spin and say disregard the tweet. he's not being investigated just isn't rooted in fact or common sense. so he gets tripped up on it. that's what we saw this weekend. >> david gregory, does this play to an advantage of the source of this reporting, saying it's really about leaks. ignore the substance of any of those leaks because leaks are bad. >> that's part of the political war that the president is raging, which is to discredit the leakers, the source of the information, the information itself and the investigators, mueller, his team, comey, all the rest, and include the media
and liberals in that so that this entire investigation, however it plays out, will be through a kind of daily jab by the president will be undermined, whatever conclusion it ultimately reaches. the president doesn't seem to realize at the same time that he is being self destructive and at the same time he's getting in his own way, when he could be trying toies late this and do other things. >> julie, how do you see it? >> david has a great point here. part of what we've seen is that the investigation could be continuing on this separate track but the president himself keeps getting directly involved. the fact that he's tweeting about this, commenting on stories that break about this, commenting on coverage, decisions that the justice department is covering is pretty unprecedented and it hinders his ability to press forward on his agenda, which he claims is his top priority. he continues to tweet about the investigation, you have to wonder if that's the case.
>> look, also who knows it isn't playing, incrementally, to political advantage? you saw this group of voters. they're all mixed up about what to value, what not to value on this. the president has a hand in that. i'll tell you what, none of them answered any of the questions saying i don't care about this because i need to deal with this health care thing that's such a secret that the republicans are doing it in a way that not only did they mock the democrats for, democratic version of obamacare was like truth and light compared to this process going on right now. maybe the distraction is helping him. >> i think you can make a case on two levels. the president has used social media more effectively in terms of distracting the conversation than certainly any major political figure we've ever had before. when you light things on fire, it draws attention. people may talk about it and ignore the substance. the fundamental problem is that when he keeps lighting things on fire, he's driving his own
lawyers crazy and his justice department and folks in the white house counsel and outside counsel because they keep contradicting the message they're carefully trying to craft to minimize the damage to him legally, personally, politically. that distraction may serve to turn the conversation but it hurts him on the fundament al basis of getting your agenda passed. >> history will look on this period and see the silliness of how this russia -- seriousness on which the attack occurred. what happened in 2016 may look tame compared to what the russians may pull off in the future. and this was the moment that america was sleeping because the trump administration was sleeping, never dealing with the underlying offense. >> so, julie, let's talk about
the president's agenda or certainly lawmakers' stated agendas and what voters say they care so much about, health care. what can we expect from this secret process that republicans in the senate have been undergoing? >> it is a secret process, largely happening behind closed doors, which is ironic, given the fact that republicans were so critical of pieces of the obamacare legislation that were done in private. they feel like they have to take a vote on it. the senate feels like even if you don't get a final package, even if you can't resolve something that the senate may pass with what the house passed earlier this year, that these lawmakers have to put down a marker on this simply because they have been promising their constituents for years that there is something that they're going to move forward on. the vote is almost the most important part for them right now. no one should think that this is going to be an easy process,
even if the senate can get something done. what the senate would do and what the house has done will be incredibly different in resolving those two pieces of legislation will be lengthy and, frankly, pretty ugly. >> there's an unanticipated element at play here, which is it's not just this eye popping number about 20-some odd million people who might not have access. it's who they are. a lot of those people are trump folk. a lot of those people are going to be older people, white people, noncollege educated people from the states that made a difference for him. as that becomes more known, this is a real risky proposition, is it not? >> and if they get it passed in the senate and try to reconcile with the house as julie is talking about, you look at 2018 at the start, being a debate about the effect of a new health care plan, a trump health care plan which they will take to voters aace party, as they try to defend congress, which i think could be very difficult.
there are a lot of problems with obamacare as it now exists. there are potential remedies and serious people working on the policy aspects of it. that's not really what we're talking about, because it's got to be about wholesale change. that's what's going to be so disruptive to the market. whatever happens, if they do pass something, understanding that impact would take time beyond 2018. >> this is all predicated upon an important idea, that policy matters. right now one of the whole arguments trump advances, he could shoot someone on fifth avenue, and he wouldn't lose any support, that the heat matters more than the light. but that's a jump ball right now in our democracy. >> even is he said the current bill is mean. >> he did. >> yeah. >> panel, thank you very much. we should let everyone know coming up in minutes we'll speak with president trump's private attorney, jay sekulow. president trump's tweet and
was a heart, twice the size of an average horse. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. president trump, seemingly at odds with his own attorney. the president acknowledged on twitter friday that he is being investigated. at least he said that, for
firing fbi director james comey. he said i am being investigated for firing the fbi director. the president's attorney sent mixed messages about that on sunday. here he is. >> should we take that tweet from the president as confirmation that the president is under investigation? >> let me be clear. the president is not under investigation. now he's being investigated by the department of justice because special counsel under the special counsel, not an independent counsel. he is being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the termination. >> joining us now is former governor of new hampshire, john senunu. good morning, governor. >> good morning, alison. how are you? >> i'm well. is the president under investigation or not? >> mueller is investigating the russian involvement in the election, and probably involved in that is an examination of
what happened with the comey firing. that's a broad investigation. i think from sekulow, you're hearing that the white house hasn't been notified that the president is being personally investigated. i don't think there's an inconsistency between those two points and those are the facts we know on the table. people should understand that's what's going on. >> should the white house know if the president himself is being investigated for obstruction of justice? >> if the president is being investigated for obstruction of justice, the white house should have been officially notified and sekulow is telling you that hasn't happened. i think we have to take that at face value until we hear otherwise. >> you don't think that the reports are accurate that the president is under investigation by bob mueller for obstruction of justice? >> that all came from "the washington post." we remember what ben bradley, the iconic editor of "the washington post" used to say about "the post"? it doesn't print the truth.
it prints what we're told. somebody told them that and they chose to print it. >> are you bothered by any of these possibilities? >> i'm bothered by the fact that -- what bothers me the most, and there must be a reason for it -- is mueller making four of his first hires so blatantly biased lawyers pro-democrat lawyers with a buy as, certainly, against the president. now, mueller must have some idea in mind. and if i put the best gloss on that i could possibly do is that maybe mueller has decided internally that this isn't going anywhere and that the only way he can have credibility on a decision saying that there's nothing there is to have that decision come from a group of lawyers that are so blatantly biased against the president. >> are you talking about the three lawyers, at least that i know of -- maybe there's another one -- who contributed to democratic candidates, one of whom contributed to both
democrats and republicans, but more so to democrats? is that what you're referring to? >> yeah. they're included in there. there's a lawyer there who has a history of a kind of strange perception of what obstruction of justice is and has had some difficulty having that sustained in appeal. those are the kinds of things that i'm surprised that bob mueller would take a chance on. it's a not -- i'm not arguing that these folks can't come to a constructive decision. i'm surprised he didn't take that into account as he built the team. >> are you saying you're losing faith in bob mueller? >> no, i'm not. he was a good choice. the white house is making a mistake, attacking mueller. i think he can come to a constructive conclusion. i don't think they ought to be pushing him into a corner where he might feel defensively that he has to come out with a conclusion he might not otherwise have come out with. i'm just saying we live in a
washington where you don't always get in trouble just for doing something wrong. we live in a washington where you can get in trouble for doing something right in a way that your enemies can make it look as if you did something wrong. and i think that's the fundamental problem with what we've seen over the last three months. >> governor, i've been struck the last few times, you and i have spoken, about the length that you now go to, to not blame donald trump for any of this. since you were such a vocal and colorful critic of donald trump during the campaign, why do you not talk about the fact that his tweets are getting in the way of this investigation? >> i believe there's been a little bit of self destructiveness in the intensity of the tweeting. and i certainly have told this to folks down in washington at the white house. i think the tweeting, if --
you're not going to stop it. i do think there has to be a little bit of filtering or more control and a little bit of understanding of that last point that i made, that he may be completely right in what he's saying but he can't do it in a way that makes it easy for people to twist it around to make it look as if he has done something wrong. >> remember during the campaign when you said this -- this was january 3rd. you said trump is clearly a ma with no philosophy, no plan, no experience and no understanding. we must not drink the trump kool-aid. have you come around to being more -- feeling more sympathetic toward donald trump? >> well, that was before he picked mike pence, for example, as his vice president. i think he has brought a lot of rationality into the system. he brought a number of people into the game that really, i think, put a little bit of direction in the campaign. that was in -- i brought that up
in the campaign when, frankly, they were running aground. i do think that people can begin to have a focus. i certainly hope that the president remains consistent with what i have seen as the leaning towards the conservative side. i certainly hope that he uses his influence with congress to get the legislation through. so, yes, i had a choice between trump -- i had a choice between trump and mrs. clinton. it was not a difficult choice at all. >> i understand but you said he's a man with no philosophy, no plan, no experience, and no understanding. >> that was correct and between then and now he has developed an agenda, a commitment to a republican agenda in congress. he has done things on foreign policy that have been significant and positive. as he continues to do the things that fit what i thut think ought to be done, i'll continue to support him.
>> do you think he now has an understanding of things he didn't use to understand, in your mind? >> i think he has a much better understanding, including how difficult it is to deal in washington with a vindictive and frustrating media. >> is that a swipe, governor? >> yeah, it is a swipe at the media. you guys are fixated on an investigation that still has no clearly defined commitment of something wrong until the process. and you dwell on the fact that mueller has an investigation going without pointing out to people that both of those can still be consistent and that the president's tweets and what sekulow said can have a consistency with them. >> not exactly, governor. if you're not under investigation -- >> you're looking for a problem instead of identifying the facts. i'm sorry. i missed that. >> only that you're saying it's consistent. it really, in particular, this is not consistent.
i am under investigation. the president is not under investigation. that is actually not consistent. >> actually, it is. when sekulow speaks as a lawyer, he's talking about a formal notification of the white house. when the president tweets, he is talking about it in context, of mueller being there, and looking at the campaign that trump and his folks ran. there can be an investigation of the trump activities in the broad term, campaign activities in broad terms and what happened there and sekulow telling you that there's been no official notification to the white house that the president is under investigatio investigation. >> that's a nuance that the president hasn't explained but you have explained. >> that's my job. >> it is. and jay sekulow is coming up right now. >> the governor taking rich benefit of an assumption that is not a fact.
and that is that you're not under investigation unless you are told you are. that is not the case. but that is something that supporters of the president are playing at. we'll have the president's attorney on, jay sekulow. he is the spokesperson for the president on this issue. in addition to being his counsel. how does he answer the questions? next.
all right. president trump and ies legal team are caught in a contradiction about whether he's under investigation. the president says he is, his team says he isn't. why does it matter? let's discuss that and what should matter with the president's lawyer, jay sekulow. why are you engaging in this line of whether or not he's under investigation, like it's some mystery? >> well, i didn't engage in the line of that. there was a tweet from the president of the united states in response to a ""washington post" story. there's been no notification to any of us that the president is under any investigation. james comey has said on three separate occasions that the president was not under investigation. here is where this was
manufactured, if you want to call it manufactured. it was manufactured from "the washington post." all the president did was respond to "the washington post" through social media platforms. >> i take issue with the word manufactured. it's a debate about leaks and not leaks. politicians don't like leaks when they play against them. you're a counsel. i'll keep it to your purview here. comey talking about whether or not the president was under investigation has nothing to do with what we're dealing with now, with mueller, who common sense, if nothing else, would suggest is looking at the circumstances surrounding the firing of comey. you know that. so, to say comey told him he's not under investigation so he can't be, that's il logical. what's being said right now -- >> let's talk about the logic -- >> -- the special counsel is looking at everything, including the circumstances around comey's firing. doesn't that maens make sense? >> two questions, two
statements. number one, the questions that i have been asked over the weekend was, was the president under investigation? those reports in "the washington post" were false. the white house has not been notified. >> there's no duty to inform you. >> listen to what you just said thoerks. >> please. >> you just said before, what would be the aspect of the investigation? here is what it would be. the president of the united states, in this hypothetical investigation -- let me get this straight. the president of the united states, after advice and consultation with his attorney general and his deputy attorney general and with others within his administration, which is what a president does in a deliberative process makes a determination to terminate the fbi director based on the recommendation of his department of justice. now, under your theory, the department of justice, through its special counsel's office, would be investigating the president for taking the action that they recommended him to take. so, that is not obstruction of justice. i want to be very clear on what
that is. go ahead, chris. >> i get the case that you're making. first of all, james comey said at least twice in his testimony, which i should be as obvious to you as it is to anybody. i'm sure the special counsel will work towards to try to understand what the intention was there and whether that's an offense, talking about his firing and that mueller would be looking at it. joe manchin talked to him about it. it's not my decision, whether or not it was obstruction. that's bob mueller's job to sort that out. that's all that's being said here. to say anonymous sources, not only is that a premise that leaks are bad all of a sudden when journalism relies on them. >> what do you think about the leak last night to abc where their sources said the president was not under investigation, is that okay? >> it's all about the strength of the reporting.
my question is this, do you think that bob mueller is looking at the reason for the firing? do you think that's part of his probe? >> i have no idea. >> would you be surprised if he is? >> there's a fundamental threshold question there that the president's authority to terminate the fbi director is based on the constitution. >> that's a conclusion. that's a conclusion. >> no. i'm saying that's actually the predicate. you don't even go to that if -- you don't even go to looking at what the facts are based on if, in fact, the president has that authority to begin with. actually the way it works is you look at the constitution. let me say this. >> hold on a second. no. this matters, jay. i respect you very much as a counsel. i've researched you a lot. i know who you are. you're a good attorney. the president hired well here. what i'm saying is, look, mueller is tasked with looking at all the circumstances surrounding the russia interference probe. right? that's common knowledge. this is something he would look
at. comey said as much in his own testimony. that doesn't mean that the president is a target. you have target, subject, witness. we don't know the extent of what it is or if he will pursue it on any level. to fight the notion that mueller would be looking at this at all seems to be something that only the president wants to be not true. but it makes perfect sense. why fight that notion? >> it's the question to responding to a leak from the washington post that set up a predicate that the president was under investigation. that's all i've addressed. >> you say he can't be under investigation because i haven't been told. and that's a species premise. >> no, no, no. that's incorrect. >> response to the washington post is from five undocumented source. >> okay. >> what i'm talking about here is the constitutional issue of
the president's ability to take actio action. >> how could you make an informed analysis of that if you didn't know what he did? >> who know what who did? >> how can mueller make an informed decision about whether or not what the president did went beyond his power if he doesn't know what he did? >> sure. here is the question. >> if your answer is sure, you are validating the fact that -- >> no, no, no. the hypothetical, that's right. >> chris wallace, have you been notified that the president is under investigation? no, we have not been notified. >> any duty to tell you? >> not sense of an obligation to tell. you know how it works in
washington. if you were a target, being investigated, you would be told quickly into the investigation. >> not necessarily. let's be clear. >> why don't you just ask if your client has any role in the investigation? make a phone call. it's not like this white house is adverse to making inquiries about the russian probe. why not just find out? >> but you're basing your conversation -- you said this earlier. you said that comey said that he is sure special council will look at this. >> why wouldn't he be looking at it? >> james comey didn't bother to do that with with loretta lynch when she was the attorney general when hillary clinton was being investigated. he decided to become judge and jury. >> that's irrelevant here. >> no. >> as to what comey did or didn't do. >> it's very relevant. >> why is that helpful in assessing whether or not mueller would be looking at circumstances surrounding the
firing of jim comey? >> the only reason you're asking this is because of a leak at "the washington post." >> that is absolutely not true. >> you didn't let me finish. and james comey raised it in his testimony. i wouldn't necessarily call him a credible witness on this matter, period. >> that's your opinion. you're welcome to it. what i'm saying is the idea that mueller wouldn't be looking at the circumstances you're asking me to speculate -- >> doesn't mean he's going to give a recommendation but he would look at it. >> of course not. you're asking me to give a speculation as to what the special counsel might do in the futur future. >> you don't know whether or not that's true. you could know.
why you haven't picked up the phone and find out is a little od odd. >> the question is, have you been notified by the president, by the special counsel that the president is under investigation. the question to that is no. >> why not pick up the phone, get the answer and actually say, i asked mueller. he said no, i'm not. >> we have a lot of lawyers on this case. you're asking me to pick up the phone on an investigation that right now we don't know exist. >> no, i'm not. of course you know it's exists and mueller is looking at this. why not pick up the phone and find out if it matters so much to the president whether or not he's being looked at. >> you know there's a difference between investigations, inquiries. there's a whole series of matters you look at before you get to the level of investigation. >> you could get the answer.
>> i don't know what they're doing. i haven't made that call. that's the end of that line of inquiry. that discussion has not happened with us. you made an assumption that is worthy of note also. there can't be any obstruction because the president took the advice of the ag and that's why he fired comey. the president of the united states says that's not true. he said he was going to get rid of him no matter what the ag said because he didn't like what he was doing on the russian prob probe. >> he said he was going to fire him no matter what they
recommended. >> why is that a violation of any law? >> i'm not saying it is. i'm saying it's a violation of what you laid out as a premise, which he can't be investigated because he only followed their advice. >> he said he did not follow their advice. >> chris, do you think the president of the united states has the authority to fire the fbi director for whatever reason he would like? >> i think the circumstances around it could also be something worthy of inquiry and investigatio investigation. >> james comey said the president has the right to fire the fbi director and he serves at the pleasure of the president and he was terminated. >> does that mean you can fire somebody for absolutely any reason? obviously not, right? we saw watergate and in other instances. what you do matter. >> don't conflate bribery, those issues with an issue like this. >> why is bribery more worthy of a standard to uphold than
obstruction? >> the executive is obstructing itself, to take action that they have the authority to do? let me ask you this question. you're a smart guy. does the president have the authority, for whatever reason he chooses, to terminate the fbi director? like james comey said, he serves at the pleasure of the president. does he have that authority? >> he has the authority to get rid of the fbi director. but corrupt intent should be part of the analysis and worthy of looking at. >> where is that in the law? where is that in the law? it's not in the law. >> but that's an interesting legal question. is there a trekt statute on this? >> i deal with interesting legal question questions. >> is there -- this has never been directly litigated and you know that. >> there's been memorandums from the office of legal counsel department of justice going 50 years and going forward on these issues of obstruction that the
president cannot, when doing this kind of activity because it's inherently his constitutional power. that's all i'm saying. >> that doesn't mean there is no check on that power. >> ooh what i'm saying is why would you jump all the way to the end? >> you don't -- i was going to say exactly that. >> no one is looking at these question. >> you should not conflate the issue that has been raised on whether the president can be investigated for obstruction with any kind of political consequences. you're dealing with the legal issue. there's a political issue. those are very different. the president has the authority to engage in exactly what he did. >> why he does what he does -- >> and james comey knew it. >> why he does what he does certainly could be part of a probe. we're going to lose our window. you're welcome back any time. thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me, chris.
>> we also have breaking news to tell everyone about. russia says it will stop cooperating with the u.s. in syria because the u.s. shot down a syrian warplane for reportedly dropping bombs near u.s.-backed fooir fighters. cnn's barbara starr is live at the pentagon with breaking details. sounds like things are escalating, barbara. >> good morning, alison. this word coming from the russian ministry of defense in moscow a short time ago. all of this centering around the shootdown of a syrian su22 aircraft in syria yesterday by a u.s. navy f-18. said to be attacking u.s. backed fighters on the ground. russians putting out a statement saying they will no longer cooperate as they have been with the coalition and the u.s. on what they call -- basically a
phone line that they talk on about where they're flying over syria and how they stay out of each other's way. what does this all mean? >> military to military, u.s. to russian military. they quietly talk and make sure they stay out of each other's way. there seems to be a lot of ire, anger, if you will, on part of the russian ministry of defense, making this very strong statement this morning and saying in the areas where they operate that basically any other objects in the air, if you will, will be treated as potential -- they talk about escorting them as targets the coalition tells us they're still trying to figure it all out.
>> important questions. barbara, let us know what you learn about this and we'll come back to you. it seems to be a message in conflict here. is he under investigation or not? why does it matter so much? the answer is probably because the president cares about it. is this the way to deal with what you don't like? the bottom line, next. usaa gives me the and the security just like the marines did. the process through usaa is so effortless, that you feel like you're a part of the family. i love that i can pass the membership to my children. we're the williams family,
and we're usaa members for life. we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10 to 25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site; muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea; and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines. ask your healthcare professional about the risks and benefits of bexsero and if vaccination with bexsero is right for your teen. moms, we can't wait.
president trump's lawyer was just oon "new day" emphatically saying that the president was not under investigation. the president responded to "the washington post" that he was under investigation. he wrote that. quet becomes, why does he care so much about this? chief political correspondent dana bash. sekulow feels like he's being put up to arguing this point. not only is there no right to be informed of an investigation and if you're not told that means it's not happening, but it would
be surprising if mueller wasn't looking at this as part and parcel of the probe. >> you can almost imagine the conversations going on inside the white house with the president understandably upset about "the washington post" article saying he was under investigation, saying get somebody on television get out there to defend me and say i'm not under investigation. this is something he has been obsessed with since james comey was the head of the fbi. that was the basis of his multiple phone calls. but at end of the day, the notion of the president's legal adviser or anybody associated with the white house, going on television and having to spend time talking about this and not the agenda that is stalled in congre
congress. >> the template that he was supposed to use, the bill clinton ken starr investigation, people in the white house put their heads down and got things done by trying to ignore it and ignore things they couldn't control, meaning independent counsel or special counsel investigation. they're not doing that here. it has to be because of the president of the united states. you can tell by his tweets. >> and that ends up se setting our agenda. we end up following it and talking about it instead of talking about the other things. we had governor sununu on, both of whom suggested let's take a deep breath. there actually aren't any conclusions yet. there may not be for months. >> exactly. >> how do you see it inside the belt way that seems like a
headline. >> of course. absolutely, it is. and, you know, i think at the end of the day -- and, you know, chris, you tried to get sekulow to go at this point and he wouldn't, i guess, understandably, given who his client is. at the end of the day, whether the president is under investigation or not or part of the investigation is almost moot until we get to the end of it, politically speaking, for the president if he wants to get things done. more and more you're seeing absolute frustration, desperate even from his fellow republicans on capitol hill. >> they can't keep focused because the president undermines them every turn when it comes to messaging. >> action and reaction issue as well, media being the reactor
and the president being the actor. he creates the vibe with what he decides is interesting. he thinks being called under investigation is bad so he wants it attacked. he has not put out word about the seven souls lost in the u.s. navy. he has not put out thoughts about what just happened in north london with muslims apparently being targeted by someone and what the authorities are there calling a terror attack. those matter as well, right? >> the tweet we just showed was about the sailors while they were missing. since it has been confirmed that, in fact, they were killed, we've not heard from him. >> yeah. i mean, that's exactly right. the white house said he was monitoring it over the weekend at camp david. the fact that we've not heard from the president of the united states after these members of the united states forces, the
navy, died, is kind of remarkable. not to mention the terror attack in london. the president focuses, when he has his phone in the morning, on what is bothering him at the time. i don't see that changing any time soon. >> deigna thank you. great to have you here for the bottom line. cnn "newsroom" with john berman will begin after this very quick break. it's not where we start, it's where we end up. expedia. everything in one place, so you can travel the world better.
good morning. i'm john berman. poppy is off this morning. outside a mosque as they left late-night prayers. theresa may was just at this sight minutes ago. we have video of that. we'll bring it to you as soon as we turn it around. one man was killed in this apparent attack. another eight people injured. survivors pulled the 48-year-old driver from the vehicle and held him for police as he hurl ed anti-muslim insults. the case is now being investigated as terrorism, as the tensions of a nation already on edge. cnn's frederik pleitgen in london on the scene. what can you tell us? >> reporter: this attack unfolded in the very late night from sunday into