lecturing the nato countries on their lack of defense spending than he did in confirming article 5. it took him six months to do that. i fear what he set himself up to do, he's almost appearing as the critic of the west of its major institutions, nato in the eu, rather than a uniter. it played well with this crowd in poland, it's not going to play well with emmanuel macron, angela merkel and all the leaders of the g20 summit who want a more pluralistic and more unified vision, an optimistic vision of the west. he's given up that leadership role that most american presidents have played. >> well, he was playing to that audience in specific, right, ambassador, but of course he was being heard by the world. let's bring in the rest of the panel, former congresswoman jayne harman. cnn chief international correspondent christiane amanpour, david sanger and senior fellow in foreign policy at the brookings institution, michael o hanlan.
christiane amanpour, what did you hear? >> well, look, i take a slightly different view than ambassador burns. i think he did give a fulsome praise and confirmation of the great post war liberal democratic order in europe. but as ambassador burns said, he didn't actually -- he did actually say he was going to defend it, but it was short on details. but still, i think it's the most friendly europe speech that the president has given ever since he became a candidate. so we will wait to see how it goes down in europe. i think about russia he said the sort of pat things that people expect. we're going to tell him to stop interfering in ukraine and other places. we're going to tell him to stop supporting hostile regimes, he said like syria and also iran. but he did place valencia this is important because nearly a decade before going down, an electrician in poland started solidarity and with john paul ii
started the collapse of the soviet empire. that's his contribution to history and if he was to meet with president trump, which would be a great thing, tell him a few things about how to deal with the soviet mindset, because that is what putin has, the soviet mindset. and i think that would be really, really important. on kapurnikis, he was the one hundreds of years ago confirmed that planets revolve around the sun, not the earth. well, today donald trump is being criticized in europe and around the world for basically denying climate science, pulling the united states out of the paris accords. there is a huge building there in warsaw which we hear in reports has a huge sign on it today saying trump, no, paris, yes, referring to the paris climate accord. and when he talked about regulation and deregulation and entrepreneurial spirits, you know, the whole idea of donald trump and trade is also very inimical to his allies in
europe. they're worried about his protectionism. they're really worried. and now there are open arms welcoming the japanese prime minister shinzo abe in brussels who is there to sign one of the last bits of paperwork before a major free trade agreement is signed between japan and the eu, going around the united states. and many countries are beginning to do that including canada. >> and you have the german foreign minister, christiane, just within the hour saying the united states is looking like it could spark a trade war noting that would be bad for america as well, yes? >> well, yeah, this whole thing is very, very, very, very major to the world because it's not just about the u.s. economy. it's about the global economy. and the whole post war era has been about liberalizing trade, opening up trade. and that has had effects, but of course you've got this struggle with the effects of globalization on a lot of the middle class. and, you know, he spoke about sort of the same kind of trade issues that the polish party
also believes more protectionist, anti-globalization. and then i think very crucially of course he did not call out the poles for their -- the eu is very upset about their crackdown on the free press, the crackdown on the independent judiciary and their pushback against the very democracy in history that donald trump was praising there. >> yeah, the president of the united states saying during his press conference earlier when he was attacking the united states press and the intel agencies, he said to the polish president, fake news, you have that here too? which is obviously an awkward reference to a regime where they have had their own problems dealing with the democratic and free press. so, jane harmon, the president was back on message. he wasn't fretting on gripes here in the u.s., he seemed to be more positive and unifying. how did you hear it? >> well, i heard it that way. i had a net positive response to the speech.
he was introduced by his eastern european wife, melania. he spoke in a place in warsaw that has enormous significance, and he spelled that out. he could also have mentioned the warsaw ghetto. he could also have mentioned the fact that the poles, mostly catholic, have erected a fabulous museum in warsaw to their jewish history 1,000 years of jewish history and poland was the killing field for half the people who died in the holocaust, including my relatives. he didn't go there, but my point is he did salute polish resilience and polish resistance at a horrible time in our history. and he also said at the end, god bless our allies. and that's significant. mike pence was at the wilson center about a week and a half ago and he said america first does not mean america alone. i think trump's task during this trip, which is going to be very hard, is to persuade our allies that america first does not mean
america alone. and there've been some missteps i thought in the earlier press conference, but this speech mostly was on the right -- was in the right tone on the right path. and he said something i really strongly believe that defense depends on will, confidence, strong values, those are things frankly that need to be restored. and he could help this not just in america but around the world. he's my president too. i want him to succeed representing our country. and that's a crucial part of this. he's not just the president of the republican party or the trump organization. he's the president of the united states of america and our history and our leadership are tested more than ever before. >> david sanger, in this speech he used words like the congresswoman just brought up, community of nations. he for the first time affirmed the u.s. commitment to article 5, right? mutual defense. that was the speech, an hour
plus before it was the press conference which was markedly different. so which is it? >> well, it's a great question, poppy, because the way he sounded in this speech was much more along the lines of the way secretary tillerson, secretary of state or secretary of defense mattis, they are moving around the world. so this is what happens when he is on text and on message. and i think not only was it the best speech he's given probably in an international context since he's been president, but it's a speech many of his aides wished he'd given on his earlier trip to europe when he didn't have that endorsement of article 5. that said, what was missing from this, and i think that ambassador burns may have hinted at this earlier on, was something of a hierarchy of both our values and our threats. so he described quite movingly what the poles did to deter nazi
germany. isis is many things, but it's not the nazis. and it's not necessarily, at least right now and as long as they don't have access to weapons of mass destruction, an existential threat to the united states, so what he didn't lay out here was what does the united states need to worry about most, is it terrorism, is it north korea, is it a res resurgence russia? that mixed altogether, that said he did offer a complete paragraph about what russia has to stop doing. and if he continues on that path tomorrow when he meets president putin, he may begin to dig himself out of the hole he's in. >> that's fair criticism, michael, that there's more of an emphasis on what was done in the past than what must be done in the future in terms of securing these values that the european community should hold dear, according to the u.s. president. and he did create a little bit of his own problem with russia,
because as david sanger just said, yes, he pointed out in this speech that again russia has to cease its destabilizing activities, he used those words. and to stop its support of hostile regimes. he used those words. but earlier in the press conference when he wasn't on message, he attacked his own u.s. intel agencies about russia's meddling in the election. so he's kind of created advantage and disadvantage on his own heading into this meeting with putin. how do you see it? >> yeah, picking up on david's point, i think it's time that president trump now look to develop some strategies on the very hard problems that still confront us. so we spent the first five or six months dealing with does he say article 5 or not, a lot of these invented minicrises that i think sometimes nonetheless they are distractions. they are distractions from thinking about what is a future vision for a new european security order, what is a new strategy for north korea that might work, how are we going to end the syrian civil war, not
just defeat isis in raqqah. and so far this administration hasn't really gotten around to these forward looking strategies. i think it's starting to get its sea legs on some of the big issues, largely thanks to people like jim mattis and h.r. mcmaster and nikki haley, but it's time to start thinking bigger about problems that still confront us for which we have no viable strategies, for which president obama didn't really have viable strategies. again, i'm thinking primarily of russia, syria and north korea. and on those i think it's time the trump administration start to get away from these invented artificial crises of its own making and start looking forward to figure out some big new ideas for the future. >> so christiane, if you are sitting in the kremlin and you are watching all of this, the spokesperson for the kremlin just put out a statement saying that the kremlin still, quote, still has no understanding of what washington wants from moscow in the meeting tomorrow between president trump and president putin. if you're watching this morning and you watch the press
conference where the president seemed to all but somewhat defend russia saying, yeah, could have been russia hacking the election, but also other players, do you believe that is the president who will come into the meeting tomorrow? or do you believe that it is the president we just heard in this speech who called on russia to stop destabilizing activities specifically pointing to ukraine? >> well, firstly, dmitri is astute and clever and statactic as his boss president putin. so that statement is an all encompassing statement from the russians. they want this meeting as badly as trump does. so pay to any sort of footsie he may be playing around this, they want it, they need it. they think they can get what they want out of it because as i say president putin is incredibly astute, very tactical, very sharp, has been playing this game for decades, has been in charge of russia for the last 17 years and before that in charge of intelligence all over eastern europe as well. so he knows what he wants tactically.
he's going to be feeling out president trump. is president trump going to be strong on defending his own intelligence agencies about the meddling? and we know that russia's been meddling and it's not russia and other countries. russia tried it in france, russia tried it in germany. and those countries put a big marker down and said stop it, they called russia out publicly. and he has not had success in france where he was backing macron's opponent le pen. and he has not had success destabilizing angela merkel. so it is possible to call them out and to stop it. on ukraine, they have to remain strong and say, hopefully, president trump will say, look, we want a better relationship with you, but you have to do these kinds of things. in other words stop meddling in eastern ukraine. we want to have better economic relations, we want to boost the market economy and trade and all the rest. but you have to do x, y and z that we've all prescribed and that is acceptable under
international law. get out of eastern ukraine, stop destabilizing eastern ukraine, in syria stop confronting us. let's fight together isis. you haven't really been fighting isis, mr. putin. you've been supporting president assad. who has used weapons of mass destruction on his people. he's defending american and western and united nations values. >> here's one of the challenges, ambassador, is that unlike this speech, unlike the press conference, we really won't have any way of knowing what happens for sure in these meetings, right? specifically with putin or whether it's with xi or merkel. you're going to be somewhat dependent on what each side decides to spin out of the meeting. how do you process that? >> well, that's true. i think therefore the signaling today is very important. and what you saw if you're sitting in the kremlin, you saw two donald trumps. you saw the unscripted donald
trump at the press conference where he gave putin a major gift in not agreeing with the u.s. intelligence community that russia hacked our election. then you saw the formal speech written by the nsc staff, white house staff, steve bannon, that's a different donald trump. i think the russians will take some solace in the unscripted remarks of this morning. i also think, chris, we have to hold our president to a very high standard, particularly when he is overseas. and to spend part of that speech -- it played to the crowd in poland. and this is a right wing anti-democratic government in poland that shipped those people in, but it didn't play well to all of europe in the attacks on immigration and the thinly veiled attacks on the european union, that bannon language that we should really worry about government. government is the problem. it wasn't ronald reagan, it wasn't positive, it wasn't uplifting. i just think it was a missed opportunity because he has to speak to merkel and macron and the german and french people as
well as people in eastern europe. >> so, jane harmon, as he departs for the g20 and all these critical meetings with emmanuel macron, angela merkel, president xi jinping, president putin, what will president trump be remembered for in poland? what is the one thing that will stick out to people? >> i actually think that, you know, again, i hear nick and i really respect nick's views, but i think he will be remembered, one, for coming, and two, for saluting a large swath an important part of polish history. i get it about the right wing government now, but poland has survived a brutal part of our 20th century and built a modern economy. and that's a huge deal. and it is a buffer against russia. and so those things are just visible. and i think that resonates in europe. i do think, however, that it's not just the conversations he has with g20 leaders but what happens after the conversations. if he has a conversation with
putin, which -- and i hope he'll go dark at this point. no more press conferences about what he's going to say. he's so easily goaded into saying the wrong thing in press conferences. but if putin does -- let's just imagine this. i don't think it's likely, but it could happen, withdraws from eastern ukraine, that would be a huge signal that trump has figured something out here. and it would be a huge salute to the views of everybody else in europe. the audience here matters. this is a european audience. it's an audience that has a huge des a pra in the united states. and trump has to pick the issues that resonate with them if he's going to make the sale. and he loves to make the sale. and if he really needs it, god bless our allies. so i'll be listening for what happens, not just for what might be said in closed rooms which often leaks anyway. >> each step is a new opportunity for the president here to gain advantage or disadvantage. jane, nick, christiane, michael
and the other panelists who joined us on and off, thank you very much. and we saw proof of the different fortunes each step can take for the president. the speech was good. the press conference not so much. >> i would say to the congresswoman that we hope he has more press conferences because those are the answers that are not scripted, not in teleprompter. >> it's true. although uniquely when you go abroad, both matter, prepared comments will matter because they set an agenda, however, as poppy's mentioning, in the press conference he took shots at people he did not need to to serve his purpose abroad, standing next to a polish president who is criticized for his treatment of the press, he attacked his own press. he attacked his own intelligence community specifically on the issue of russian meddling right before he meets with vladimir putin. how will that help and hurt, next.
all right. in just moments the president is going to leave poland for germany's g20 summit. there he's going to meet with the russian president vladimir putin tomorrow. moments ago he gave a big speech addressing a crowd in warsaw talking about the polish experience. and he did have some tough talk for russia in there. take a listen. >> we urge russia to cease its
destabilizing activities in ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes including syria and iran. and to instead join the community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization itself. >> language, criticism that we are not used to hearing from the president of the united states when it comes to russia. let's discuss the speech and its impact with republican congressman scott taylor of virginia. always good to have you, congressman. >> good morning, chris. great to be with you. >> so what was your plus/minus on the speech? >> i thought it was pretty good. i mean, i thought he did a great job obviously with the audience there. know your audience, and he -- i think he articulated very well the history and relationship with poland. as he said, you know, we have soldiers who fought very hard from poland and iraq in
afghanistan and they're still there. he did it right on the buffer of russia, if you will, and he had tough talk for russia. i thought he did a great time. >> he spent a lot of time extolling the polish people, he was there in krasinski scare, what do you think his larger message was he was trying to get across? >> i think solidarity with europe. i think there was some legitimate criticism for the president prior in terms of europe and where he was with europe, but i think they showed that we will stand with them, again, given that speech in poland, which is of course a buffer with the soviet union and talking some tough talk quite frankly with russia, i think that was good. that was good for us. it was good for europe to hear. it was good for russia to hear as well, too. >> now, the president with one hand tough on russia, with the other one he gave the russians a big gift in the press conference before. he attacked the findings of the
intelligence committee. he questioned them once again this time on the world stage saying could have been russia, could have been other people, nobody knows for sure. why doubt the u.s. intel on the world stage on the eve of talking face-to-face with putin? >> well, i think your criticism is legitimate. you know, on the world stage perhaps it could have been a better place to say that, but i will say and this is in defense of the intelligence community or the president, which i have many friends in the intelligence community, but you've had this intel has been used sort of as a political weapon. and you have a president who is apprehensive about some of the findings, especially with the political actors in the intel community, not necessarily the career folks on the ground fighting that every single day. and then on the other side you've had some missteps with folk who is are in political positions in the intelligence community as well too. and what both of those things do is lend themselves to bad things
for our country. and i said this months ago that both the president and the higher ups in the intelligence community need to get on the same page for the protection of the american people. as you said, yes, there was some sort of, you know, a dichotomy with what the president said and he will take that into the meeting with vladimir putin for sure. there is an unpredictability there for good or for bad. you guys have spoken, you've had some guests on your program this morning who rightfully said, you know, president putin is very cunning, he's very calculating. but it's hard to calculate someone like president donald trump. so that may be a good thing in the meeting. >> all right. but just to stay focused on what would matter on this issue -- >> we have to stay focused on of course we want him to be successful in that meeting of course. >> i would hope so. i mean, if you're an american, you should certainly want that. and you could argue if you're not an american the more stability we have in the world the better. but just to be clear about your point, you've talked in the past about maybe getting played by the president with some of his
tactics that the media is susceptible to that. i'm wondering if you're falling prey to your own self-described malady. whatever political problems he has with the intelligence community, do you have any reason to question the intelligence community's conclusions about russian interference in the election? >> no, i don't have any reason to. and i think, you know, a couple things there. you know, the president said he admitted that it could have been for russia, it could have been from other countries, it is from other countries too. we know that for a fact. obviously there are briefings that i may get that you don't get, there are other countries certainly meddling as well too in many things in our country. but let me say on a larger point here and for an american point for the future, you know, right now the united states doesn't have a policy. what's the policy if a country meddles in our election? >> right. >> moving forward i think it was ambassador burns that spoke about this, in my office actually we put forth a resolution to call on this.
president monroe historically had the monroe doctrine said european leaders would not have troops in the western hemisphere, but we sort of need a cyber monroe doctrine if you will that says you will not meddle in our elections, you will not hack and there will be proportional responses. america should lead on that and go to nato as well. you're seeing other countries having -- >> but unlike monroe, as you well know, congressman, we do not have a president invested in that type of policy. he wants to stay away from russian meddling. he sees it as a political stick being used against him. so he avoids it. he just started an election integrity commission that does not have as part of its purview looking at the hacking. that tells you everything you need to know. >> that's not the topic, but what i'll say is this. there are two points, yes, i think you're right. he does tend to see it as a political stick because it has been used as a political stick, but that does not negate him or our leaders from having a responsible policy, a doctrine that says people will not hack our elections, not just russia but other ones, north korea,
iran, china, whoever they may be out there that are meddling in our elections. and america should lead on that. and then in turn nato should have the same type of policy as well too because as you guys have talked about on this program today other countries have seen meddling in their elections as well too. >> true. look what just happened in france. it all adds to the urgency of why people implore the president of the united states to take the issue more seriously than he does by all indications. >> this meddling into our elections has now spanned two presidencies, right? president obama and president trump. but the reality is as americans our country regardless of who the president is, we need a doctrine. because this is not going to get better. they were trying, they're going to come back -- >> that's what the intelligence community says. they worry that it's going to get worse and worse. >> true. >> they see the focus of that threat being russia. again, to use your own cautionary language, we can't get played here by the politics. the russian interference mattered. it was real.
our intelligence community's resolute about it. it's not a maybe. we need to figure out how to stop it before the next election gets it even worse. >> well, i will tell you, fortunately for the united states because we have this decentralized state-driven voter stuff, of course they weren't able to really penetrate, but they tried. and they will come back. and they will get more sophisticated. so there's no question that we need a doctrine to prevent that and keep the integrity of our elections moving forward. no question. >> congressman, always a pleasure to have you on "new day" making the case for what matters to the american people. see you again soon. >> absolutely. have a great day. >> poppy. >> some states pushing back on requests from the president's voter integrity panel. we're going to speak with a member of the election integrity commission about that, what the white house is saying. that's ahead.
election integrity and former republican secretary of state of ohio. it's good to have you, sir. >> good morning, chris. >> what do you make of these concerns of various secretaries of state about the information that was being requested? >> well, many secretaries of state are just as i am instinctively a federalist. they protect their turf and they are very, very resistant to federal government control of a process that has found its genius in the fact that we have 50 states that control the elections and election information in their state. what i find interesting is that, you know, only 14 states and the district of columbia have refused to give any of the information to the commission, even that information that has to be made available publicly.
you have others who are resistant to give information that they think goes against the laws and rules and regulations of their states. this is a process where we had to keep our eyes focused on what the objective is. the objective is to protect the oldest democracy in human history, and that is the united states of america's election system. it is not a perfect system. it is a system in constant need of review and constant need of observing and identifying threats to the integrity of the system and taking corrective action. >> right. >> and i think that's the overall general mission of the commission. >> well, that seems to be the suspicion goes down to what the inception and conception of this commission is really all about. i mean there are critics who've said that this is basically the president's squandering resources, putting personal data
at risk to rationalize his statement that everyone knows is false, which is that there were 3 million illegal votes, that that's what started this for president trump. and now it is a commission in search of a problem. >> no, it's not. i think the commission has a very clear understanding. and vice president pence articulated it well. our system is based on a concept of one person, one vote. we must make sure that the ballot box is accessible with not any undue restrictions to access by each and every voter. but at the same time we've concentrated on this in the last 15 years, we must make sure that not one legitimate vote is negated by an illegitimate vote. and i think understanding those twin objectives is very important to understanding the
mission of the system. i just heard you with your previous guest talk about a threat of manipulation of election systems by the russians, i'm sure the chinese, iranians and others with technological capability will try to manipulate our system. i think there are folks who have untoward objectives in the united states that in fact will try to mess with the system. we have to make sure that we are out in front of those attempts to manipulate and corrupt the system. >> but you're not doing that with this commission though. that's not what you're doing with this commission. you're not looking at russian hacking at all. you're trying to get people's personal information. >> come on, chris. >> that's what you're requesting. >> i've been in this -- >> that's what you're requesting is people's social security numbers and their party affiliation. >> there are states that will not release -- and that is
understandable. the question that is before us is how do you protect -- let me just give you an example. in 1976, jimmy carter won ohio by a little under 12,000 votes. that was less than one vote per precinct in ohio. if you had just flipped 6,000 votes, ford would have remained president and carter would have gone back to georgia. that's how important one vote in one precinct is. and therefore this commission is looking at how do we protect the people's right to have their vote counted when it is legitimately and legally cast. and, how do we in fact make sure that there are protections against outside threats and manipulations. chris, let me say -- >> doesn't seem to be conceived in a way to succeed in that objective because you're asking for information arguably you'd
never want public, right? you'd never want -- you said in the letter this may become public when you're asking for social security numbers. and it doesn't seem like the commission is set up to cure a problem that people have looked at and found doesn't really exist. >> chris. >> yes. >> there are those who would want to kill the commission in the crib. that's pure nonsense. there are organizations that understand that our voter rolls across the country are corrupt. and that corruption is a vulnerability and an opening to folks who might want to change the result of an election. what we have to work on is an articulation between the 50 states and the district of columbia and counting ballots. who can be against that? that is what this commission is in place to deal with. >> but how would the commission do it? >> only those --
>> the information that you're going to get from these states is largely public information that's not according to forensic experts who do this, they're saying the information you'll get from the states won't help you in any real way to analyze what roll is legit and what isn't. and the information that you're asking that may become public would be dangerous and expose people to identity theft. >> chris, chris, one, that information won't be made available. i think what's important to understand is that what we need to do is to make sure that we are advancing best practices and enhancing their articulation between the systems. in terms of voter registration, there is technology, the question is is there a will to make sure that we clean up our voter rolls, to take away the opportunity for illegitimate votes to be cast, negating legitimate votes. and that's an example of how one
vote per precinct is important. so we doen't have to chase 5 million, you know, alleged corrupt voters. we in fact have to be concerned about one vote per precinct because that can change the course of history and the well-being of the united states of america. this is a commission with a legitimate objective and mission. and we're going to get it done. and we're going to get it done working in a bipartisan fashion. you know, secretary gardner and i had the pleasure of working in bipartisan effort when we were treasurers, secretaries of state and now as commissioners on the integrity -- election integrity commission. that's going to get done. we have a history, ohio, our elections are managed by a bipartisan systems. two democrats, two republicans in all 88 counties. we have a history of working in bipartisan fashion. and we're going to get it done. >> well, look, i respect the
optimism. everybody wants more accuracy in our elections. i just -- we'll have to hold out hope that with the reluctance of these secretaries of state and the kind of information you're going to get that you can make this kind of progress that you want. but i appreciate you making the case on "new day." >> thank you, sir. we don't want naysayers. we want folks who are optimistic and who say let's get this done because the quality and the integrity of our democracy turns on us getting it done. >> absolutely. but you got to have the right information. it's got to be done the right way. be well. poppy. >> absolutely. and we got to look at all threats including russia, china and what have you when it comes to the vulnerability of our state systems and the inarticulation between state systems. we can make a real contribution. and it falls within the mission statement of this commission. so let's get that done. >> agreed. ken, thank you. poppy. >> all right. new concerns this morning for the republican congressman steve
bounty is more absorbent, so the roll can last 50% longer than the leading ordinary brand. so you get more "life" per roll. bounty, the quicker picker upper manait's a series of is nsmart choices. and when you replace one meal or snack a day with glucerna made with carbsteady to help minimize blood sugar spikes you can really feel it. glucerna. everyday progress.
time now for five things to know for your "new day." number one, president trump on his way to g20 after his speech in poland. calling out russia for what he called destabilizing behavior. tomorrow he meets with putin. >> earlier today though during a press conference with poland's president, president trump slammed president obama, took on the media, questioned the u.s. intelligence community and said that russia was not the only one to interfere in the u.s. election. >> president trump says he's considering, quote, pretty severe things to counter the growing threat from north korea. he's also urging other nations to show kim jong-un there are consequences for his actions. >> hobby lobby agreeing to pay a
$3 million fine to give back thousands of ancient artifacts that will end a justice department lawsuit. the doj says dealers falsely labeled the artifacts to get them into the country. >> congressman steve scalise is back in the icu. his office describes the new concern being about infections. the house majority whip was shot in the hip during practice for a charity baseball game last month. we will continue to monitor his progress. >> of course. for more on the five things you need to know, go to cnn.com/newday for the latest. so president trump appearing to offer contrasting thoughts on russia this morning. how is it going to play into the one-on-one with putin tomorrow? that's the bottom line and we're getting it from david axlerod next. the future of sleep is here with the new sleep number 360™ smart bed. it senses your every move
and automatically adjusts on both sides. right now save on sleep number 360™ smart beds. plus, it's the lowest prices of the season with savings of $500 on our most popular p5 bed. ends sunday. what does life look like during your period? with tampax pearl. you get ultimate protection on your heaviest days and smooth removal for your lightest. tampax pearl and pocket pearl for on the go.
just one application gives you superior hold even at the end of the day fixodent. strong more like natural teeth. so this morning president trump affirming america's commitment to nato, calling on russia to end, quote, destabilizing activity specifically in ukraine. this was all during his speech earlier this morning in poland, but before that he took on the media and also did not take on russia for its meddling in the election in his joint press conference. really different approaches. let's get the bottom line with cnn senior political commentator david axelrod. let's listen to some of the moments that stood out most from the press conference this morning. >> i think it could very well have been russia, but i think it could well have been other countries. and i won't be specific, but i think a lot of people interfere.
i think it's been happening for a long time. it's been happening for many, many years. now, the thing i have to mention is that barack obama when he was president found out about this in terms of if it were russia, found out about it in august. they say he choked. well, i don't think he choked, i think what happened is he thought hillary clinton was going to win the election and he said let's not do anything about it. >> so in the same, you know, few moments he said, you know, i think it was russia but it may have been others as well and he didn't go after russia. but then he went after the president, his predecessor, former president obama, for not going after russia. what do you make of it? >> well, yes, it was inconsistent. i mean, you point out the obvious contradiction there, but what i was thinking is can you imagine what donald trump would have said last fall if the president of the united states had, you know, more than the intelligence community did if he
had stepped forward and said russia hacked our -- hacked into the dnc computers and russia was trying to tip the election to donald trump, can you imagine what donald trump would have said? look how reactive he still is about that suggestion. he would have gone ballistic at that moment. so there's a lot of disingenuousness there, but what was really striking was, you know, he delivers a paragraph of mild chastisement to the russians in the speech a few minutes later, and that also was sort of inconsistent with what he said in that press conference. if i'm putin, i'm watching all this knowing i'm going to meet with him very shortly and i'm thinking i can maybe play this guy, there's room here for me. and one thing i'm thinking of, poppy, is in 1961 john kennedy at about the same time in his administration went to vienna to
meet with krusov and he found he could push kennedy in ways he didn't want to be pushed and what followed was the cuban missile crisis, the destruction of the berlin wall because there was weakness on the part of the american president. so i'm wondering if he's watching this press conference saying i can work with this guy. >> so from the trump perspective, the white house perspective, why on the world stage go after your own media, go after your own intel? you're standing next to duda, you know, the polish president who's criticized for cracking down on this. these situations are supposed to be about putting out american virtues. what was the play there? >> well, look, he went to poland in part because duda is an ally in terms of philosophy and approach. and he promised him a warm welcome in a large crowd which
he delivered to trump. but yes, they're allies in this notion of fighting the press. duda tried to keep the press out from covering the parliament. he was pushed back on that notion. so they share that in common, but the really striking thing is later he spoke to american values. but it's one thing to repans to free speech, to the rule of law off of a teleprompter. it's another thing to live by those tenants when you're governing and the principles in that press conference and the principles he read in that speech were very striking. >> final word here, david, how do you think the president set himself up for his meetings at the g20 particularly with emmanuel macron and the very p populist message he gave in
poland. >> lecturing them again on their contributions to their own defense and also this notion on immigration, which is a very divisive issue in europe, he took the opposite side of the argument for most of the european leaders struggling on this issue and also trade and climate change which got no mention from the president. so there are a lot of issues that separate them. >> all right, ax, appreciate the bottom line. we'll see how it all plays out and come back to you for your take and analysis. always a plus. >> all right. have a great day. >> thanks, david. >> "newsroom" with john berman. ♪
morning. john berman here, breaking news of the morning, big drama, big stakes and in some cases big contradictions for president trump. a strong defense of key nato ally, his clearest statement yet of what he called the destabilizing activities of russia, but also a fairly blistering critique of his own intelligence agencies and a public full throated aggressive ambivalence about the notion of russian meddling in the u.s. election. that's just the beginning today. as we speak, the president is on his way to germany for the g20 summit. he arrives there shortly. we will cover every twist and turn. first though his warning shot to russia while standing in front of thousands cheering in