Skip to main content

tv   CNN Newsroom With John Berman and Poppy Harlow  CNN  July 10, 2017 6:00am-7:00am PDT

6:00 am
all right. we're going to keep it going. a lot of news. let's get to it. >> good monday morning to all of you. i'm poppy harlow. >> and i'm john berman. someone stated donald trump has stated clearly, concisely and without any ambiguity that last year he took a meeting with a russian lawyer after being told she might have information helpful to the campaign. this is not an unnamed source. this is the son of the president of the united states. "the new york times" reports that donald trump jr. took this meeting because he was promised damaging information about hillary clinton. >> and it wasn't just trump jr. that showed up. he brought others. significant others, son-in-law jared kushner, son-in-law to the president. and also then campaign chairman, paul manafort. the admission is a full 180-degree turn from a statement hours earlier when donald jr. said the meeting was to discuss the issue of russian adoptions. so there's a lot to unpack here. what does this mean about the trump team's willingness to
6:01 am
accept help from russia? we're covering all angles of the story here in the united states and in moscow. let's begin at the white house with suzanne malveaux. good morning, suzanne. >> reporter: good morning, john and poppy. the white house is in full battle mode, pushing back hard on this story. a full development we saw over the weekend first reported by "the new york times" that donald trump jr., in fact, did have a meeting with a russian national during the campaign, that this happened on june 9th. it occurred at the trump tower, he says, without his father's knowledge of this particular meeting. that the reason why this happened was because this russian could provide some sort of helpful information to the trump campaign. some damaging information on hillary clinton inside of that meeting. also, the president's son-in-law, jared kushner as well as the former campaign manager, paul manafort. various explanations from donald
6:02 am
trump jr. this weekend when krnted with this story. on saturday, this is how he put it. what was behind this, saying we primarily discussed a program about the adoption of russian children that was active and popular with american families years ago and was since ended by the russian government. but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up. then a totally different explanation emerged sunday, just yesterday, about why this occurred. this, the statement from donald trump jr. on sunday. that the woman stated that she had information about individuals connected to russia were funding the democratic national committee and supporting ms. clinton. her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. no details or supporting information was provided or even offered. it quickly became clear she had no meaningful information. and that is what they are really pushing here at the white house, that nothing came of this
6:03 am
meeting. but federal investigators and all the investigations are looking into possible collusion are looking at the intent. why was it in the first place that donald trump jr. met with this individual? well, kellyanne conway, senior adviser to the president as you saw in the last hour of cnn, a robust defense of the administration, of the president and also of donald trump jr. take a listen. >> don jr. has very explicitly stated he didn't even know the name of the person with whom he was meeting. he agreed to the meeting based on a contact from the miss universe pageant. they get into the meeting and it quickly turns into a pretext for russian adoption, according to his statements, that the comments this woman is making about any type of information on hillary clinton were vague, they were meaningless. others exited the meeting very quickly. the meeting itself was very brief. there was no information given. there was no action taken. there was no follow up. let me respectfully say as well
6:04 am
as i can, i don't think anybody had to look very far to find damaging information on hillary clinton. >> that's beside the point. he took a meeting with somebody -- >> she provided a loop. >> it wasn't just let's have lunch. he brought two very important people with him. it's a credibility issue as to whether or not he knew who he was meeting with. i don't know what should be more troubling to you, that he would take a meeting not knowing who it was, but it was important enough to bring jared or manafort or that donald jr. would knowingly meet with someone with kremlin connections on the basis of getting opo research on hillary clinton. there are huge legal and ethical implications, as you know. >> you keep saying -- no, i'm not going to agree with you on that. you keep saying opposition research the way you guys constantly vomit words like collusion and russian interference. we cannot convert wishful thinking into hard evidence. >> we are just getting a tweet
6:05 am
from donald trump jr. regarding this matter. i want to read it to you quickly here. obviously i'm the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent. went nowhere but had to listen. over the weekend, interested from hearing from all those people in the meeting about why they decided to meet with this russian national and what came about afterwards. >> interesting that he said he took that meeting as part of a campaign, on the campaign, something he denied months before. we'll talk much more about that coming up. suzanne malveaux, thank you very much. the kremlin is reacting saying it doesn't know anything about this 2016 meeting between donald trump's son and a russian lawyer. the kremlin says they don't know who the lawyer is at all really. matthew chance is live ins who cow with more. matthew? >> reporter: john, poppy, hi. that's right. the kremlin is trying to put as
6:06 am
much distance as they can between these new allegations of collusion on the part of russian surrogates and the trump candidate and trump team, saying they had no idea who this russian lawyer was. she has represented government businesses in the past and has strong links with government officials in this country, at least government appointees in this country. and she's also been prominent in trying to do two things. first of all, overturn the ban on u.s. adoptions of russian children and, secondly, trying to repeal the magnitsky act. that may have been some of the questions we need to ask. was she going to meet the trump candidate team to advocate the lifting of the magnitsky act? they said the meeting was about adoptions and the ban on that. but that was a russian measure that was imposed following the united states' decision, obama administration decision, to
6:07 am
impose sanctions on government officials in russia for taking part in the magnitsky fraud, $230 million, identified as a tax fraud. the lawyer, magnitsky, who identified it, was killed while in custody. nat tchl she has been an active advocate to get that law lifted. did she go to new york, to trump tower to advocate a new trump administration, potentially, if it were elected, to do just that? >> matthew chance in moscow, thank you for the reporting. that's the word from the kremlin on it. let's talk about the political implications and what it means. senior political analyst. cnn national security analyst and agency attorney and david rhodes, from the new yorker. let's begin with you, susan. what cannot be disputed by
6:08 am
anyone is the fact that this is the first time that we know that someone within the trump campaign was willing to meet with a russian on the premise of accepting help from them. the significance? >> right. so, it's important that this occurs before there's actually public reports of russian hacking. so that makes it hard to make the case this is the first sort of proof of attempt at collusion. it violates campaign finance laws to accept an in-kind donation from a foreign national. so, if he accepted -- if he expected to get information with that kind of value that would be criminal. of course, we know that federal investigators and congressional investigators have been looking into this matter. if anyone were to make misstatements or lie to federal or congressional investigators that's a lie and it's a crime not to make disclosure -- after
6:09 am
reported oversights of not disclosing these meetings. >> you say lie. on the face of it now it looks like donald trump jr.'s story has changed and there are serious honesty questions here. >> did i meet with people that were russian? i'm sure i did but none that i was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form. on a campaign. mark preston, he's basically admitting he lied when he told "the new york times" he never took a meeting with a russian as a representative of the campaign. >> no question about that. you know, in addition to that, john, he held this meeting on june 9th. on july 22nd, that is when wikileaks dumped all the dnc e-mails. in an interview with our own jake tapper, the campaign
6:10 am
manager was on right before him, suggested that the russians were trying to help trump in the campaign. right after that, donald trump jr. was interviewed by jake tapper and in that interview, he described it as what the clinton campaign was trying to do. it just goes to show you, their exact moral compass. this is time and time again, lie after lie. not only do we have those that you just talked about but this other timeline about him further saying he had nothing to do with it. nor did he think russia was trying to interfere with the election. clearly he knew at that time that russia was trying to interfere. >> so, david, people could argue about how important donald trump jr. was to the core of the campaign, right? but it wasn't him alone. it was paul manafort, then campaign chairman, and jared kushner who would go on to be one of the central advisers to the then campaign and now in the
6:11 am
white house. how does that change things? >> it adds to the parade of people who have not disclosed meetings with the russians. i don't think there's evidence of collusion here yet. but flynn had meetings with the russians he didn't disclose. jeff sessions had meetings with the russians he didn't disclose. kushner, donald trump jr. and manafort. that's five. ""the wall street journal"" said a british operative tried to get hillary clinton's e-mails. roger stone, carter page. stone warned about the podesta being released. why don't they disclose these meetings and how many more meetings haven't been disclosed? it's drip, drip, drip. mib they're innocent of collusion but this is a political problem for them. >> you have a fascinating article. david kept using the word
6:12 am
collusion. after that story in "the wall street journal" appeared, the story from white house allies started to appear. even if there was collusion, maybe small c, or there were discussions between russians and people associated with the campaign, it's not illegal. explain to me the shifting argument and where that sits legally. >> yeah. so we've seen this shift over the past few weeks of high-profile surrogates and media changing the story from there's no evidence to collus oichlt. n to collusion is not illegal. it's a term of art in the law and really only applies in the context of anti-trust violations. we're not accusing -- nobody is accusing the trump campaign of price fixing or that kind of activity. people are using the term collusion in a colloquial sense to capture that secret, illegal or improper agreements that might have occurred. now we're seeing as additional stories come out with more and
6:13 am
more specific allegations we'll start shifting that language from the general term of collusion into more specific legal terminology, conspiracy, solicitation, violation of campaign finance laws. this talking point doesn't make much sense. >> one of the most significant parts of "the new york times" reporting on this is their sourcing. something that chris cuom. kept bringing up in that interview with kellyanne conway, five people tleerks of them advisers to the white house. two people with knowledge. the fact that they came out and it appears spoke to "the times" after their saturday story broke, after news of the meeting broke but added a whole lot more detail about why this meeting was accepted by donald trump jr. how do you see it? >> right. well, that sourcing forced donald trump jr. to come out yesterday and once again amend his statement as john had been talking about earlier, saying that this meeting, you know, was about -- was supposed to be with
6:14 am
the idea that he was supposed to get information about hillary clinton and then they talked about adoption. that saturday statement was about adoption. so, clearly, he had been changing his story. it's also worth noting you have two top campaign officials in mall manafort two weeks before. that republican convention was a bit of a mess. they were having trouble getting speakers, putting together programming. it takes an incredible amount of effort. for paul manafort to take time out of his very busy schedule to sit down in this meeting is very bizarre, to say the least. >> david rohde, i don't know if you heard the kelly conway that appeared in the last hour, all 76 minutes of it, appears to be that nothing came of the donald trump jr. meeting. yeah, he took the meeting. you see the tweet. but nothing came of it. long term, will that matter?
6:15 am
>> i think it's -- this is up to viewers and voters to decide. do they trust this white house? i go back to why didn't they disclose these meetings? the interesting nugget is that jared kushner only disclosed recently this meeting. he has still not disclosed all his meetings with russian officials. it's a problem for the white house in terms of credible and makes the mueller investigation critical. the president was attacking james comey again. i think the tweets are all distraction. but if he tries to obstruct this investigation, it raises all kinds of questions. if they're innocent and there was no collusion, the president should let mueller go forward. that's the best way to go forward politically. if they keep with these attacks, impinge on mueller, they're digging a deeper hole for themselves. >> thank you so much. it's not the only news about russia happening this morning, involving the white house. president trump has backtracked
6:16 am
on a cyber security commission he was bragging about having with the russians after republican senators, one of them said it's pretty close to the dumbest idea he has ever heard. and a big milestone overseas. mosul liberated, most of it. what does this mean for the terror group? president trump says congress would not dare leave washington without a health care bill. some republicans say it's already dead. where does mitch mcconnell go from here in their fight to appe repeal obamacare?
6:17 am
6:18 am
[music playing] across the country, we walk. carrying flowers that signify why we want to end alzheimer's disease. but what if, one day, there was a white flower for alzheimer's first survivor? what if there were millions of them? join us for the alzheimer's association walk to end alzheimer's. register today at
6:19 am
theso when i need to book tant to mea hotel room,tion. i want someone that makes it easy. gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. visit booking.yeah! you myour joints...thing for your heart... or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is now the number one selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. chances are, the last time yoyou got, i know-- i got a loan 20 years ago, and i got robbed. that's why i started lendingtree-- the only place you can compare up to 5 real offers side by side, for free.
6:20 am
it's like shopping for hotels online, but our average customer can save twenty thousand dollars. at lendingtree, you know you're getting the best deal. so take the power back and come to, because at lendingtree when banks compete, you win. president trump tweeting after he wrote this, putin and i discuss discussed forming an impenetrable cyber security unit so that election hacking and many other negative things will be guarded. >> i am sure that vladimir putin could be of enormous assistance in that effort since he's doing the hacking. >> it's not the dumbest idea i ever heard but it's pretty close.
6:21 am
the more you do this, the more people are suspicious about you and russia. >> joining us now, mark preston, selena zito. it was 12 hours after the first statement from the president on this chigs that he wrote in the morning that he then wrote this. the fact that president putin and i discussed cyber security unit doesn't mean i think it can happen. it can't. but a cease fire can and it did. this was a remarkable aboutface in the course of just one day here from the president of the united states. and in between, he had his secretary of the treasury and others out defending his cyber security unit. sort of hung them out to dry and then went back on it. what's happening here? >> groundhog day. one of the things that has been consistent about president donald trump is that he has never stopped being donald trump, right? he has always been this person that is willing to throw something out there, see if it sticks, see what happens and if it doesn't he's like, i'll just
6:22 am
try something else. it's part of his business persona. i'm not saying it's right. it's certainly not the type of behavior we have seen from previous presidents. having said that, that's not who people wanted for president. and i think that while it is really difficult for politicians and for reporters to sort of try to wrangle and understand exactly what he's standing for, it is not that difficult for people who supported him because they kind of knew who they were getting when they picked this guy. >> mark preston, to you. it wasn't just lindsey graham and john mccain. republican senator ben sasse tweeted it is inexplicably bizarre, before the reversal from the president. is there more pressure now for the white house to get behind getting that russia sanctions bill to pass the senate 98-2 through the house? we know a lot of house
6:23 am
leadership wants it. but, you know, it's not just democratic senators that are frustrated it's not getting through the house. it's republicans, like john mccain. is there more of an ownness on the white house now after all this to say you met with putin. now get this thing through. >> the white house right now is trying to tinker with that bill before it actually goes through again and gets sent to the president for him to sign. can you imagine if his first veto would be a russian sanction bill? >> right. >> it would be insane for him to do so. so, they're trying to tweak it a little bit that would allow the administration, at least in their mind, to have wiggle room when negotiating with vladimir putin. having said that, you have the likes of john mccain -- and there are a lot of russian hawks, republicans now both in the house and both in the senate that want to see this sanctions bill go through. this could actually become a big defeat for donald trump and his administration. specifically because they are trying to change it right now. they might not be able to. and congress may very well send him that bill.
6:24 am
>> hey, ron, let me tell you "the new york times" reporter from the donald trump, president trump, president putin meeting. i'm going to get this out of the way. did you do this? from president trump to president putin, which some do not see as a strong, leading line there. i feel like since friday when we first got word that president trump confronted president putin about this, the story has changed and diminished about minute by minute by minute by minute politically as he sits here monday and congress gets back to work, where does it stand? what are republicans saying as we sit here about the president's confrontation? >> i felt all weekend that the difference between the russian version of events and american version of events was less than met the eye. president putin is saying that president trump agreed with their assertion they had nothing to do with it. the american version is they agreed to disagree. and you move -- either version takes you to the same place.
6:25 am
they say let's move forward rather than the u.s. president saying, look, i don't care what you say. we know what you did it. here are the consequences and here will be the further consequences if you go forward. that is a very different end point than we got from an administration clearly signaling they want to move forward. can i amend -- salena and i have had this conversation before. there's clearly an element of president trump's base that likes that he is a disruptive force. that is not all of his voters. roughly 20% of the 40% in the exit poll said they did not believe he was qualified or have the temperament to be president. they are more reinforcing than resolving those doubts. it is not cost free for him politically. you can see that in the approval rating to be behaving he so far outside of the boundaries of what a usual president does. there are elements of people who voted for him who clearly in poll rg saying they are unnerved by the way he is executing his job as president.
6:26 am
>> salena, there seems to be confusion amongst the president's closest al esst adv. rudy giuliani, who advises him on cyber security issues was asked at poland why the u.s. has not punished russia for interfering in the election. here is his response. u.s. ambassador to the united nations nikki haley responding when dana bash asked her what is giuliani talking about. listen. >> i do think we have taken action. i just don't think we've announced it. >> i don't know what he's talking about. i don't know what it's in reference to. so, no, i can't talk about a conversation he had in a different form where i just heard a sound bite. >> salena, what do you make of that? giuliani says i think we've taken action. i just don't think we've announced it. >> likely, both things are true.
6:27 am
i'm just saying, i don't know for sure. i think there's probably conversations that not everyone is involved with, right? but with giuliani being a close ally of the president, they've probably had this conversation, you know. we're going to be doing this. we're going to be doing that. has that gotten out to, you know, spread out, outside to nikki haley? it appears it hasn't. if it has, she's not in a position to talk about it and that's why she gave that answer. i mean, this is what happens when you have a of people. some of them have washington experience. some of them don't, who are collaborating and creating this new kind of presidency. and sometimes the message is sort of all over the place. >> we have to leave it there. salena zito, mark preston, ron brownstein, appreciate it.
6:28 am
tax form promising -- >> steve mnuchin says a plan is on the way. christine romans is here before the bell. >> hi. >> is it on the way? >> with something for everyone, according to steven mnuchin. he says it will happen and have all the things they want, corporate tax cut, fewer tax brackets for individuals like you and me and a top tax bracket of about 35%. and this is the timing. >> our plan is to have a full-blown release of the plan in the beginning of september, being able to vote and getting this passed before the end of the year. >> so, it won't be easy. there's a reason it hasn't been done since 1986. it won't be easy and everybody will have to give something up. what am i talking about? 35% of filers, itemize their deductions and white house plan and house republican plan would get rid of all deductions except mortgage interest and charitable deductions. that means no more state and local taxes, being able to write those off your federal return,
6:29 am
student loans, child care, the like. this will not be popular with people who live in new york, new jersey, connecticut. secretary treasury says he has been hearing to people on that subject. they want to be sensitive to that. >> those were all blue states. >> yes, they were. >> thanks so much. after eight months of brutal fighting, trying to retake mosul from isis, iraq's leaders say the victory is finally at hand. the question now becomes what is next? what fills the vacuum? a live report, ahead. (upbeat dance music)
6:30 am
(bell ringing)
6:31 am
6:32 am
6:33 am
or a little internet machine? [ phone ringing ] hi mom. it makes you wonder... shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. [ laughing ] so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. call or go to introducing xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money.
6:34 am
this morning the prime minister of iraq says that victory was at hand in mosul. by far, the biggest city in isis hands and the second largest city in all of iraq. >> battling for a few pockets of isis resistance there. using civilians, we're hearing, as human shields and as many as 100 homes. the question now becomes what happens next? tony blanken is with us, former deputy of state. he has a new op-ed in "the new york times" about this this morning. john mention houd big mosul is, biggest iraqi city behind baghdad, the biggest to be held by isis since they took control in june 2014. the significance of retaking it and what happens next? >> poppy, john is exactly right. this is very significant for three reasons. first, it really means that isis, the islamic state, no longer has significant territory to control in iraq. there's no place for foreign fighters to come to.
6:35 am
there are no resources to exploit like oil. but maybe even more significant, its entire narrative, which is building an actual state, is now in tatters. its brand around the world will start to decline. so, this is significant. but the question is exactly the right one, and the one you pose which is what happens next? how do we make sure that the islamic state, once defeated, stays defeated? that's the question for the trump administration. >> so answer it. what's the right way to traes this situation? what happens with isis now that it has lost its biggest city? >> two things need to be done that are critical. first the immediate challenge. all these cities that are liberated need to be secured, governed. services need to be turned back on so that people can come home. there's a plan in place to do that. funds were raised through the united nations with the 67 or 68 countries that are part of the counter isil coalition. that's on track. it will be hard to do but it is doable. there's a bigger problem, though, john. it comes down to this. it's the politics.
6:36 am
even when the islamic state is defeated militarily, the political and economic conditions that, in effect, created an atmosphere in which it could take root in the first place, they are still there. there are about 25 million disaffected sunni arabs who live between baghdad and ar iraq and damascus and syria. if they can't be convinced that the state is going to look out for them and not persecute them, then the islamic state 2.0 will rise, find plenty of new recruitments. so the trick is the politics. how do you convince these millions of people that the state is looking out for them? one way to do that basically comes down to what we call federalism or decentralization. bring power, authority, resource down to the local level so people in different parts of iraq are basically governing their day-to-day lives. that's the trick. >> tony, the president, as you know -- this say big win for -- look, for the united states, for
6:37 am
those who have been terrorized, of course. it's a big win for the trump administration. but the president called -- the beginning of his administration a new plan to defeat isis from the generals and gave them 30 days to do that. as far as i understand it, this has been a carrying out of the obama administration strategy to defeat isis. is that right or did something change significantly? >> no, poppy. that's exactly right, a culmination of a strategy put in place by president obama to empower local forces to take the fight to the islamic state. with our significant assistance and with the coalition that we built again, now 67, 68 countries strong, they succeeded. they are winning the fight militarily. but back in the old days of the clinton administration they used to talk about it's the economy, stupid. here it's really the politics. we've got to get some kind of political accommodation to make sure that conditions that gave rise to the islamic state in the first place don't stay in place. that's why this federalism,
6:38 am
decentralization, giving people the way to govern their own lives, that's really the way forward. >> tony blinken, great to have you here with us. >> thank you. donald trump jr. says he took a meeting with a russian lawyer because he was told she had information helpful to the trump campaign. "the new york times" says it was information promised damaging to hillary clinton. so, what does this mean for the investigation into alleged collusion between the trump campaign and the russians? we'll speak with a republican representative, next. listen up, heart disease.) you too, unnecessary er visits. and hey, unmanaged depression, don't get too comfortable. we're talking to you, cost inefficiencies and data without insights. and fragmented care-
6:39 am
stop getting in the way of patient recovery and pay attention. every single one of you is on our list. for those who won't rest until the world is healthier, neither will we. optum. how well gets done.
6:40 am
6:41 am
6:42 am
♪sweet, sweet st. thomas nice. ♪ so nice, so nice. ♪st. croix full of pure vibes. ♪ so nice, so nice. ♪ st. john a real paradise. ♪ so nice, so nice. book three nights and receive $300 in spending credits. only at donald trump jr. offering two different statements about a meeting with a russian lawyer. >> your first reaction to reading this story that donald trump jr. flat out admits in a statement that he highway
6:43 am
meeting with this woman who is a russian lawyer because she might have information helpful to the campaign. >> my first reaction was to get all my facts, to make sure that i am not with the wrong judgment on what exactly happened. now we've learned a little bit more about the meeting itself. it appears, just taking from what we've come in contact with as being accurate, that someone had mentioned to donald trump jr. that he should meet with this particular person, who would have this information. it appears that that lawyer didn't actually have any dirt on hillary clinton, and had a different agenda to be able to talk about adoption and some other issues. so, really, honestly, my first reaction for all of us, and myself included, to be able to get all of our facts to be able to form the right judgment as to what exactly it is and what it means. >> so, what's really helpful,
6:44 am
representative, in this, is that we have facts straight from the source. two times in his second statement when he changed it markedly, donald trump jr. said i went into this meeting because i was told by this person that they would have information helpful to the campaign. does this then rise to any level of collusion to you, questions about collusion? does it give you any more pause? >> i'm not sure it's evidence -- it's not evidence of collusion because the person didn't actually have any type of information to provide to help with the campaign. it also doesn't appear to be something that, you know, is being directed from the russian government to have a meeting to provide information, to help the trump campaign. so it's -- perception wise, with everything else going on and being discussed as it relates to last year's election and russia,
6:45 am
from the perception standpoint, it certainly raises eyebrows. but, you know, i think it would mean something entirely different if the person actually had information to provide. >> why? >> why, why, why, why? he took the meeting because he was told she had information. it shouldn't matter. >> on his part, isn't it the intent? >> whether or not she delivers is a totally different issue than if he went there thinking he was going to get dirt from a russian lawyer? >> i'll absolutely take him at his word that that is the reason why he sat down with that lawyer. i'm just saying it's a completely different narrative if that person actually had information to provide and that person was being sent there by the russian government. so, the perception is being taken -- the additional conclusions and assumptions are being made that this is somehow proving that the russian government colluded with the trump campaign and is missing some important links.
6:46 am
even though you establish taking donald trump jr. at his word that that is the reason he sat down with this particular person. >> and it wasn't just him, right? jared kushner, key in the campaign and now key in the white house and paul manafort, then chairman of the campaign. here is what donald trump jr., who has been very vocal in his criticism of anyone who draws any ties between russia and the campaign, here is what he said in march. let me quote. did i meet with people that were russians? i sure did. but none of that were set up, none that i can think of at the moment and certainly none that i was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form. based on what he has now said, was that dishonest? >> no, i don't think so, because he's not meeting with someone with the russian government or someone being sent on behalf of the russian government, as far as we know, of the information we were provided so far. >> but he said he met with her
6:47 am
representing the campaign. he said he never met with russians when he was at all part of the campaign and that is not true. >> well, again, it would be a different assessment if the person he met with was -- other than just being russian, if the person actually had information -- there's no clear evidence that this person wouldn't be sent there on behalf of the russian government to collude with the campaign, provide information. the fact that this person had no information to provide at all. and the whole theory is -- and i believe russia meddled in last year's election and i believe they were involved in the cyber attacks. at that time, the russian government would be in possession of information that would be damaging to the hillary clinton campaign. so if there was a connection between the -- >> congressman? >> yes, sir? >> i didn't mean to interrupt. she was, in fact, russian. we know, in fact, she was russian and that donald trump jr. did meet with her. he said it on twitter this morning he met with her as part
6:48 am
of the dpan. that disproves what he said in march. our last question to you is this. should this now be part of the special counsel's investigation? do you think it's prudent at this point for robert mueller to look into this? >> you know, i would defer to mr. mueller on that one. if there is additional facts availab available, that might add a different angle, insight to that meeting. the fact that there's a theory -- and i believe that the russians meddled in the campaign. the russian government would have had information to provide. so if this person was sent there on behalf of the russian government to collude and provide information, it wouldn't have been that no information to provide as it relates to the campaign. in a way this particular meeting, as far as the evidence we've been provided with of what actually happened at the table is actually evidence that it's not evidence of collusion. if it was, she would have had some information to be provided
6:49 am
on behalf of the russian government. >> congressman, we have to leave it there. it is important to remember the intent. why did he take the meeting and explicitly donald trump jr. said twice why he took the meeting and it was clear to him, part way in, he wasn't getting what he wanted from the meeting. >> no dobt. >> we'll have you back. >> take him at his word there. >> that's an interesting point. i'm sorry. >> that's the key point. >> if he was looking to get information, is it incriminating or not that he left because he was upset he wasn't getting the information? that it was donald trump jr. who was upset that the information from this russian lawyer -- >> was actually about adoption and not something helpful to the campaign? >> congressman? >> yeah. listen, i mean, i think it's entirely significant. i take donald trump jr. at his word and you're recapping what he says he sat there for that purpose. that is why he went to the
6:50 am
meeting. but i'm just pointing out that the rest of the pieces here of the story, of saying that this is evidence of the trump campaign colluding with the russian government, where if they were involved, packed into john podesta's e-mail to obtain information. the additional pieces would be at that meeting, this russian lawyer would be providing that to help the campaign. this whole story line is missing important points. i don't want to take anything away from, you know, taking donald trump jr. at his word as to why he sat down at that table. >> the story line is not collusion, it's the facts. we have the facts from the source, donald trump jr. we appreciate you sticking around for our additional questions. president trump has a question for lawmakers who say health care reform is dead. he says he can't imagine being
6:51 am
in d.c. without a plan for repeal and replace in place, next. [music playing] across the country, we walk. carrying flowers that signify why we want to end alzheimer's disease. but what if, one day, there was a white flower for alzheimer's first survivor? what if there were millions of them? join us for the alzheimer's association walk to end alzheimer's. register today at
6:52 am
6:53 am
the toothpaste that helps new parodontax. prevent bleeding gums. if you spit blood when you brush or floss you may have gum problems and could be on the journey to much worse. help stop the journey of gum disease. try new parodontax toothpaste. ♪ members of congress back on capitol hill this morning and back at work on trying to repeal
6:54 am
and replace obamacare even as some senators, republican senators are casting doubt if their version of this can be saved. >> my view is it's probably going to be dead but i have been wrong -- i thought i would be president of the united states. >> that was a pretty great line, he thought he would be president of the united states. president trump writing, i can imagine congressmen leave washington without a beautifully new health care bill fully approved and ready go. mj lee joins us with the beautiful details here. >> beautiful. >> beautiful. and fully approved, meaning unanimous. >> i don't know what president trump is talking about, but he was putting the pressure on senate republicans as it is getting difficult to get the votes. this is why mitch mcconnell wanted to get this passed because he knew they would go home and face protesters and
6:55 am
attack ads. one attack ad lisa murkowski is facing in alaska. >> senator murkowski promised to support our health care. >> i will not support a reckless process that leaves people hanging. >> now, washington senators are pressing her. >> i should note the same group is adding ads for keller, or against, i should say. this week is going to be critical. we are waiting to get updated scores from the cbo on an amendment from senator cruz. the question is, does mitch mcconnell lose moderates? a lot of pressure from the white house from president trump. he wants a big win before summer. it's not clear he will get that
6:56 am
win. >> mj lee, great to have you here. thank you very, very much. donald trump jr., the son of the president of the united states admits he took a meeting with a russian lawyer because she had information that would be helpful to her father's campaign. "the new york times" says it was dirt on hillary clinton. what does this all mean? new developments this morning. stay with us.
6:57 am
6:58 am
6:59 am
7:00 am
good morning, everyone. i'm john berman. >> i'm poppy harlow. an admission from president trump's son that they were willing to accept russian help. in the summer of 2016, he met with a russian lawyer who claimed to have information close to the campaign. this woman claimed to have dirt on hillary clinton. >> not just donald trump jr. who attended, the president's son-in-law, jared kushner was there as was the campaign chair, paul manafort. all of this coming out as the president is backing away from his idea of a joint task force with the russians to fight russian hacking. it's drawing sharp criticism and sparked a new response from the president himself. the fact that pre


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on