tv CNN Newsroom With John Berman and Poppy Harlow CNN July 11, 2017 6:00am-7:00am PDT
good tuesday morning. i'm poppy harlow. >> i'm john berman. potently explosive words. and one explosive word that's missing. donald trump jr. was told before the meeting he'd be given compromising information about hillary clinton that was part of a russian government effort to helps his father's campaign. russian government effort. those three crucial words, they are new, and very important, especially given the word that is missing. denial. no one in the white house or donald trump's orbit is denying this happened. >> that e-mail reportedly came
from this man, rob goldstone, a publicist who helped coordinate the meeting. earlier this morning, the russian lawyer in that meet with trump jr. told nbc news this. >> translator: it's quite possible they were looking for such information because they wanted it so badly. >> they wanted it so badly. donald trump jr. has hired a lawyer. he says this is much ado about nothing. all of this is happening at the senate intelligence committee gets ready to begin interviews with trump campaign officials. first, our team of reporters on the ground covering all of the angles. let's begin at the white house with jason carroll. >> reporter: the white house is basically saying there is no there, there. no evidence, they say, of collusion. the deputy press secretary basically saying, look, at this point the only thing that's inappropriate about that meeting is the person or persons who
leaked information about it. having said that, "the new york times" is reporting that that meeting did take place last june of 2016 at trump tower. trump jr. there in attendance. in addition to that, former campaign chairman paul manafort there. the president's son-in-law jared kushner and that russian attorney general who you heard just briefly there in that interview also in attendance who apparently, allegedly, was supposed to have some sort of damaging information about hillary clinton, provided by the russian government. well, trump jr. has hired an attorney to represent him in this matter. he has released a statement that says in part, in my view, this is much ado about nothing. the meeting lasted 20 to 30 minutes and nothing came of it. his father knew nothing about it. the bottom line is don jr. did nothing wrong. don jr., for his part, also coming to his own defense in much the way his father does on twitter.
tweeting out this morning saying, media and dems are extremely invested in the russia story. if this nonsense meeting is all they have after a year, i understand the desperation. and also should be noted that there are now at least seven former or current trump associates who are now facing questions about their contacts with russians, what they said about it, what they did not say about it. the senate intel committee is expected to start those interviews with trump officials some time this week. >> jason, remember what donald jr. calls nonsense, he received an e-mail telling him it was part of a russian government effort to help his campaign. we heard from the lawyer who was in that meeting. this is how she explained her side of it. >> what was the purpose of that meeting? >> translator: i never knew who else would be attending the meeting. all i knew that mr. donald trump
jr. was willing to meet with me. i could recognize the young gentleman who was only present in the meeting for the first 7 to 10 minutes, and then he stood up and left the room. it was mr. jared kushner, and he never came back, by the way. and the other individual who was at the same meeting was always looking at his phone. he was reading something. he never took any active part in the conversation. that was mr. manafort. >> they had the impression, it appears, that they were going to be told some information that you had about the dnc. how did they get that impression? >> translator: it's quite possible that maybe they were looking for such information. they wanted it so badly. >> have you ever worked for the russian government? do you have connections to the russian government? >> translator: no. >> matthew chance is live in moscow with more.
matthew? >> thanks very much. i think it was very interesting in that interview, natalia veselnitskaya who is that russian lawyer we've seen there, she basically denied she had any kind of compromising information from the russian government or from anyone else about the democratic party and about donald trump's then opponent in the race for the white house, hillary clinton. of course, that is what we were told was the basis for that meeting being held. but they wanted to hear information like that. they wanted it badly. it talks to the idea that this was an offer from a russian citizen to come into trump tower and to give, you know, kind of negative information about a political opponent in the united states. and donald trump jr. signed up to that, scheduled a meeting and brought in senior members of the campaign team as well.
and i think that speaks volumes about what was going on in that campaign at the time when this offer was made. from the kremlin's point of view, they tried to distance themselves from this. they haven't commented on this latest allegation of an e-mail. there's an an e-mail saying they've -- they don't know who this lawyer is. they don't monitor the meetings every russian lawyer has at home and abroad. they tried to distance themselves from this latest damaging episode. >> matthew chance for us in moscow, thanks so much. this latest controversy comes at a crucial time. they are set to begin interviewing trump campaign officials this week. with us, a measure that committee, senator joe manch inch. thanks for being with us. the news this morning, "the new york times" reports that donald trump jr. was sent an e-mail that the information he was going to get in this meeting with the lawyer was part of a
russian government effort to help his father's campaign. and as far as we can tell, no one associated with donald trump jr. is denying the existence of this e-mail. your reaction? >> tells you how low we've sunk in politics in the united states when you're taking -- willing to take a meeting to try to help you in the political fight of your life from an adversary who is trying to do us harm and destroy us as a country. how we've sunken this low in the process and think it's acceptable is unbelievable to me. >> richard paint ewhom you know as an attorney and also, you know, formerly led the ethics division of the bush white house, said this is akin to treason. do you think it is? >> i don't know what the criminal ramifications of this action is or this meeting. we're going to find out. even if it has no criminal implications, you just don't do
things. this is not using good common judgment. coming from the private sector to the public sector and the trumps being as successful as they've been, that's a difficult change. but you have campaign managers around, people around you that set the parameter. and to have a campaign manager that was paul manafort who have have never been the campaign manager, thinking this is acceptable behafr and you can sit down and talk to him and paul manafort being a man who has openly said he's for hire. he'll take a dollar from anybody for any reason and any purpose. and he's done that. it's just such a bad, bad scenario for us to get ourselves into. and you know, we are a rule of law. we are a country with a rule of law and basically justice is blind and there's no one at the top of the rung or lowest part of that rung that's going to be immune from this. we'll see where it goes. we'll see where it goes. >> just to be clear. with the white house and allies of donald trump jr. saying, nothing came of this meeting.
they aren't denying they were offered information from the russian government to help the father but nothing came of that meeting. is that the appropriate measurement to gauge whether or not this was something -- >> no. >> go ahead. >> i've been in many campaigns myself. i know when people are trying to peddle their goods to make themselves look important, thinking they've got a scoop. we know when it's credible or not. you do enough due diligence and you have good people around you to make good decisions and a campaign that thinks they're behind the 8 ball thinking we'll do whatever it takes. you may do whatever it takes in the private sector to get a one up on your competitor for the sake of being successful. but in the public sector in a transparent way and the laws we have to work under, this is not acceptable. and no one can defend it as being acceptable behavior. especially with someone like russia. who would think that you would sit down thinking russia is going to be your friend and what's the purpose of them
wanting you to have an advantage? >> senator, you have a race coming up. and the argument has been made by some around the president that this is -- including donald trump jr., by the way, yesterday, this is how opposition research works. just to be very clear for you. no matter how tough your campaigns have been or your races will be, if you were offered information through a source from the russian government knowing from an e-mail that you got that it was part of a russian government effort to help your campaign, is there any scenario under which you would accept that meeting? >> absolutely not. absolutely not. i have been in the private sector all my life and the public sector much of my life and i know right from wrong. they don't have to tell me. and then we have lawyers and campaign advisers and we have managers. and if i felt any of them would
go down that path, they wouldn't be with me the next day. if they would accept something as seedy as this and thinking it's acceptable because we're in a campaign battle and we've got to win at all costs, there's certain things that you've got to be able to go home with your family and go to bed at night thinking, you know, it was a good fight. i fought the good fight. i did it the right way. maybe it didn't work out. but the bottom line is -- excuse me. you don't stoop to those levels. it's not worth it. this process is not designed for this type of winning and thinking you win at all costs. no. i'm sorry. that's not who i am. not what i'm going to do. it's not what i'm going to partake in. i wasn't raised that way. >> senator, it's stronger than we've heard you come out on this investigation for some time. you usually sit back and say, i'm waiting, i'm waiting, i'm waiting. >> i hear you. i want to get one question in about health care. you're in the middle of that discussion as well. you should be because you have
long been seen as the democrat most likely to work with republicans, even republican leadership to get health care reform through. have you heard from republican leadership in the last week? >> not the leadership. report is heard from leadership at all. i have talked to susan collins, lisa murkowski, bill cassidy. we've had moderate democrats. we want to fix, we want to repair the affordable care act and the problems we have in the private market and also different things we can do to make this thing robust and take care of people. also, we want to hold people accountable and responsible of how they're using their health care. in a most, you know, most accurate way but also to enhance the quality of life. to get them in a healthy lifestyle. here's the thing. in west virginia, if you never had health care before, the only health care was you went to the emergency room. you didn't go to the emergency room for preventative care. you went when you were sick or needed help. now you've got the most valuable thing we can give you, the
wealth of a health card and not one word of instructions and no education of how you should use it to have a pbetter quality of life, a healthier life. let's try somecompassionate. have some empathy. for them to think, i can get rid of this with 50 plus 1 vote. the democrats passed it and divided the country with 60 and no republicans. but the process was open. they tried to get republicans involved and even had amendments from republicans. now the republicans have sat down and mitch mccom, tnnell ha said we don't want you involved. no open hearings. no normal process of the open committee. and we're going to do it by ourselves. if we fail, then we'll call you. that's not what we were sent to do. so i'm asking mitch and everybody, we'll bring people to the table. we'll sit down and work with you piece by piece, section by
section. we're just not going to repeal and throw the baby out with the bathwater. we know it needs to be fixed. >> could you just speak to what a full repeal without a replace would mean for the state of west virginia? >> there's not one person, the demographics in my state, every demgr demographic gets hit. whether you are getting opiate addiction treatment, mental health treatment. we need to work with them and educate them. people working and people working that don't have the luxury of health care before have it for the first time. children, they can protection children. and now you're going to take all that away because budget reconciliation. we're going to come back and fix it before we repeal it? when you say repeal, that means you're taking something away. when you say repairing, you're going to fix it and make it better. we're sent here to fix things and make it better. >> senator joe manchin, thank
you for being with us this morning. >> sure thing. >> riled up on a few accounts. >> absolutely. very sad news. this is a military plane that has crashed in mississippi. everyone on board was killed. that is 16 people. this morning, they still don't know the cause. >> pentagon correspondent barbara starr joins us with the latest. >> good morning. the president tweeting his condolences along with the first lady a short time ago. the marines saying that they do not know what happened here. it was a marine corps kc-130. that's an aircraft that normally conducts refueling operations but also can carry cargo, carry troops, crashing yesterday afternoon. you see the aftermath here in mississippi. it came out of cherry point, north carolina. no indication even so far that the pilot was able to make any kind of radio call that the plane was in distress. that's all part of the
investigation. the faa says they called the marine corps instantly, of course, when the plane disappeared from their radar. 16 souls lost on board. all members of the u.s. military. and what the pentagon is telling us at this hour, they are now reaching out to families across the country, next of kin, to notify them. and after that is done, then the nam names of those who perished will be made public. >> barbara starr reporting from the pentagon. thank you for that. ahead for udonald trump jr. reportedly told about a russian government effort to help his father's campaign back in june. this is in an e-mail that no one from the white house is denying exists. but did he break any laws by taking that meeting? senate republicans try for a health care do-over. in just hours, they start wading through changes to their bill to repeal and replace obamacare. is it too late? plus, celebrations in iraq
before donald trump jr. decided to take the meet with the russian lawyer last year, he was told in an e-mail that the damaging information he was promised about hillary clinton was, quote, part of a russian government effort. >> three very important words. so far this morning, no denial from the white house, just deflection. before this new detail came out, our next guests felt the president's son, don jr., having that meeting, quote, bordered on treason. how does he feel now? richard painter, former white house ethics lawyer under president george w. bush is here. let me read your tweet before this latest revelation when they offered dirt on an opponent. a loyal american will call the fbi. does this change that at all for you? >> it's what i suspected all along. you know, this is a tragedy for the united states because we have competsative elections
between democrats and republicans. but we're all americans. and many, many soldiers have gone to die in wars fighting fascism, russian expansionism through the cold war period. and there are democrats, republicans and independents. and we stand together as americans. and the russians have been spying on the united states, seeking to destabilize western democracies since the 1917 russian revolution. this has been going on for 100 years. we know what is going on when we get a call saying the russians have dirt on our opponent. and that call never should have been taken. >> okay. if donald trump jr. did receive an e-mail and he's not denying it. the white house is not denying it, saying this meeting is going to deliver information, a part of a russian government effort in taking the meeting, did he do something illegal? >> well, in times of declared
war, we have the treason statute. in times of undeclared war, and that was throughout the entire cold war period, and today, we have other statutes to address conduct which is essentially treasonous, which is a conduct undermining the american system of democracy. we have statutes that govern computer hacking and computer crimes. we have statutes that govern campaigns, foreign nationals and foreign governments are not supposed to be making contributions in kind or in any way to american political campaigns. we have a wide range of statutes that have been used to address the fundamental problem of people engaged in conduct designed to undermine our democratic system and to assist a foreign power. and that is what that e-mail said, that there was a russian government objective to influence our election. that should have been reported
to the fbi. that is criminal conduct by the russians and nobody in the united states should have anything to do with it. >> some are always, richard, pointing to federal campaign law that stipulates no person shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs b through d of this section. by admitting that he took this meeting because of the intent which was to help his father's campaign and now it was clear through an, mail donald jr. got that it was a, quote, russian government effort to do so, could he have broken federal campaign laws? >> he could have. if he knew what is recorded in "the new york times" if that version of the story is true, he could have serious exposure under the federal campaign laws and if he knew that the russians had information they had
obtained through espionage and computer hacking, which is the way they generally obtain information, he'd have exposure there as well. we need to know the facts and know which statutes apply. >> in the white house defense that nothing came of this meeting, does this cover him on this? even if nothing came of it, does that matter? >> first of all, you have a meet with the top three people. donald trump jr., kushner and manafort are all there. and they say that nothing happened at the meeting. niet, that's my answer. i don't believe it. and secondly, it doesn't matter. if there was an attempted collaboration with the russians, that would be just as problematic, if it failed, as if it succeeded. and, third, we know that it succeeded in the end. the russians obtained an enormous amount of information through computer hacking, through espionage in the united states and used it to influence our election. so something obviously came to that meeting.
we know full well what it was because it happened in november. >> we now know before that meeting, a little what happened in the meeting -- >> there's no direct connection. we appreciate your comments on this. >> not with donald trump jr., but we know what the russians did. >> we dont know what the connection, if any, was between the campaign and that after that. it got easier to sue your banking credit card company. >> what are you doing after the show? >> christine romans before the bell. how does it work? >> a lot of people didn't know you couldn't sue them. for the first time you can sue your bank and credit card company. the cfpb is issuing this new rule giving you more muscle in disputes with your banks. now allows class action lawsuits. the cfpb is an independent money
police set up after the financial crisis. but today its very existence is questioned by this administration. this is an interesting moment for a new consumer friendly regulation. it's going to cost banks more money and the treasury department accuses the cfpb of imposing too many regulations. they want to scrap many banking rules. president trump putting his first mark on the federal reserve by appointing an industry friendly by as a bank regulator to the fed. >> we hear consistently as you sit down with these bank ceos, they say, we are strapped by all this regulation and can't loan as much. can't earn as much. shareholders can't get as much. do the numbers tell that for? >> when you look at bank stocks, bank earnings and bank payouts to shareholders, these have been soaring. income for the banks, a record $171 billion. they paid out $102 billion in
dividends. on friday, we'll start to hear from the big banks in their corporate earnings season this time around. when you hear how the banks have been held back so much by banking reform after the financial crash, just take a look at the stock prices. take a look at how much investors are making investing in these bank stocks and put that all together. >> there's an important difference between the smaller community banks that are hurt more and the big guys on wall street. >> very good point. >> thank you, as always. today on capitol hill, republicans getting down to work. a really important lunch, working lunch, on their health care bill. is it do or die time? what could they do over? can they get this thing through? we're live on the hill, next.
show epic battles.july. ferocious families. dangerous dragons. experience game of thrones and all the rest of hbo for free from july 10th through the 16th with xfinity on demand. from action, to comedy, to drama. this summer hbo and xfinity have you covered. and catch the game of thrones season 7 premiere on july 16th. winter is coming to xfinity.
big day for the senate health care bill. revisions expected some time today. in just a few hours, the republicans get their first sneak peek at the revisions. >> are they going to be enough to sway those ten republicans in the no column, at least enough of them into the yes column? it's all about the math. our national reporter m.j. lee is with us. and our senior national correspondent suzanne malveaux joins us from capitol hill. m.j., as someone who tracks these numbers, a senior aide closely involved in the process told manu raju the chance this bill passes, better than 1%, not yet in the 2% column. ouch. >> yeah, that's pretty specific, too. poppy, the theme of this week really is part two, let's try this again. mitch mcconnell tried to bring this billup for a vote before the july 4th recess. the votes were simply not there. he's going to try this again.
actually in very much the same way he tried two weeks ago. i'm going to walk you through some of the timeline that we expect the next couple of days offering first this big caveat that, obviously, a lot of things are still fluid. nothing is really set in stone. this is according to sources who have been in touch with leadership. what they expect to see. obviously the lunches today, a very important. we expect leadership to perhaps shed some light into some of the revisions they expect to make to this bill. that will allow leadership to get a sense of whether, as you said, some of the folks in the no column can move to the yes. and then by thursday, is when leadership hopes, an emphasis on hopes, to have a new draft available to circulate to the entire conference. again, that day is thursday. and by next monday, the cbo, they hope, will release a newly updated score from, again, the congressional budget office. now in terms of what kind of revisions we expect to see from
the bill, we've been reporting on this throughout the last few weeks or so. one is the ted cruz amendment. an amendment that would allow insurance companies to offer plans unregulated under obamacare. that's one that's been talked about among the conservatives. unclear if it will be included for sure. some other things, more money for opioid funding. some more money for the stability fund. these are all changes being talked about. unclear yet if these changes will definitely make it into the final bill. >> suzanne malveaux, with such a crucial moment on the republican side, you'd think the republican administration would be all in on trying to get the votes necessary. what is the white house doing? >> well, we're seeing the president kind of take a little back stand here. he's still making calls but not necessarily playing things out on the hill as we had seen previously. we are seeing the vice president who will be here later today for a really critical lunch. this is the weekly lunch that senate republicans have. he's going to be in attendance.
he's been very active in pushing forward, trying to get the moderates and conservatives together. so we're going to take a look at what that looks like. we saw over the weekend that pence was actually -- went horseback riding with a couple people key to the debate. senator roy blunt as well as -- talking about medicaid and medicare and what this means in the debate. just yesterday he was on a conservative talk show and what was notable is how he departed from the repeal and replace obamacare in its entirety, but rather suggesting that an option would be to do it in two parts or piece meal. i had a chance to talk to senator bill casse who does not think that's the way to go just yet. >> do you agree, first of all, with the vice president's approach that now he's looking at the possibility of this two-stage process here, repeal and then replace? is that where you are? >> no because i think that if
you wait to replace, you never replace. and there's going to take the pressure of linking them. remember, president trump ran saying he wanted to repeal and replace. and he had very specific things to replace with. and so i think if we separate the two, the replace never occurs and that will break president trump's campaign promise. >> senator cassidy is pushing his own plan forward, one with moderate senator susan collins. we'll have to see how that goes. how far that goes. and vice president pence continuing his push as well. a trip to kentucky, and then later to the national governors association on friday. a key constituent, a key group in trying to convince them that the republican plan is the way to go. >> suzanne malveaux, m.j. lee, thank you very much. the president's son reported told of a russian government effort to help his father's campaign before accepting a meeting on the subject. is this the missing link in the russia investigation?
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
new this morning, it wasn't just anyone trying to give dirt on hillary clinton to donald trump jr. last year. "the new york times" this morning reporting that trump jr. was told in an e-mail it was part of a russian government effort. what did he do after he got that e-mail? he took the meeting. >> matt lewis, cnn political commentator from the daily beast. david swerdlick, assistant editor at "the washington post" and julianne kayem. am i crazy or is it fairly remarkable there is no one within the white house or within donald trump jr.'s orbit denying he got this e-mail. no, i wasn't told this was part of a russian government effort. >> there is no one denying it, and that leaves one to conclude probably that the e-mail exists and, therefore, by denying it, you'd be denying something that may later be proven to be true.
but, look, i think that you can never know for sure, because of the way that the unorthodox manner the trump administration runs. but that would be my conclusion, i would think, as an observer. >> you made a fascinating point i'd love for you to expand on. the only source through which we have been told that nothing came of this meeting, let's put the intent aside, despite the critical importance of the intent. the only person we know that from is from donald trump jr.'s statement. nothing else tells us nothing else came from this meeting. >> oh, he took the meeting but nothing came of the meeting because it ended up talking about adoptions. we only know that narrative from donald trump jr. it lasted a half hour. and even discussions about adoptions, as all of us know with an understanding of that
debate between russia and the united states is really a political discussion about sanctions and what rules we're going to have against the russians. the only thing that matters to me is not so much the line of, not disclosing the meeting. it's that donald trump jr. took the meeting. and that's all the russians needed to know. they didn't need to be told by him to go ahead and disrupt. they were told it was about going after hillary clinton. that's the tell for the russians. they know now that the trump campaign, at least at that moment, was willing to play. the content of the meeting becomes secondary to that key moment. >> and david swerdlick, even before we learned of the fact that there was this e-mail saying this was part of a russian government effort, sarah huckabee sanders said the only thing i see inappropriate is the people that leaked the information that was voluntarily disclosed. now we know there was this e-mail telling hum it was part of a russian government effort, does that change the calculus, maybe the means by which we
measure that? was it in fact, the fact of the meeting, inappropriate, if it was a russian government effort? >> it's not hard to come to the conclusion this meeting was inappropriate. doesn't mean there was criminality or collusion. we don't know that yet, but the idea that trump jr., as part of a pattern of meetings with people in the trump inner circle taking these meetings with russians at various stages in the campaign and transition is this series of puffs of smoke coming out that, you know, have now created this cloud of smoke around the administration. you had sessions and flynn meeting with kislyak, kushner with gorka, you had -- and now you have trump jr. meet with veselnitskaya. and you know, it's -- it just adds to this discussion about what was the, you know, the whole view of the trump circle about the russian government and about involvement with russians
during the campaign? >> so let's look at the trump circle. these are seven people -- seven people around the president. some of them very close to the president who took meetings with russians during the campaign or during the transition and did not disclose them on the appropriate forms or publicly until they were reported in the meeting. seven people. matt lewis, the white house, at this point, can't possibly use the narrative this is fake news. how does this color statements coming out from the white house on this? >> well, i mean, they are trying to spin right now and say, well, there's no collusion. maybe we didn't tell you we met with them. we met with them but there's no collusion. that's where they are now. the interesting thing to me is why this happened in the first place. why did they meet with these people? why do you take a meeting when you were told that a russian wants to give you oppo research on hillary clinton? the only thing i can come up with is the thing that made donald trump's campaign successful where he rejected
agreed upon assumptions, whether those are sort of moral consensus or campaign consensus, they rejected the paradigm. and i think that sometimes you get the bad with the good. the part of trump that, you know, all the sherpas and the smart political people said you can't run a campaign this way. but the same people would have said you can't take this meeting. he said, of course i can. i think it's baked in the cake. >> i think it's important. i understand matt's sort of political -- the explanation of why campaigns do and don't do this. from the national security perspective, there's a reason why there is this norm. it is because in future campaigns you don't want the chinese and iranians and russians, basically playing campaigns off of each other so that there is actually no consensus of what is american interest. so there actually is a national
security reason, not just the ethics about why this has been a norm in the past because most rational candidates who may win know that if i take this stuff, the iranians are next, the north koreans are after that, and then maybe even our allies are after that. that's why there is nat norm. it's -- and so i want to make clear how from a national security perspective this is a very, very scary door that the trump campaign opened, whether it's collusion or not, let the lawyers decide. but it certainly enables future enemies to play this game with future candidates. >> david swerdlick, to be clear, the president's lawyer says the president was not aware and did not attend the meeting. that's the official response on the president himself. you think that's all we're going to hear from the president on this, and do you think that that will be pressed and people question that notion? >> people will question it, and we'll hear more on this, i'm certain. whether it's from his lawyers or from the president on twitter. but that is sort of going back to what you asked matt a minute
ago. the administration's theory of the case. the president didn't know about it. this meeting was no big deal. nothing came of it. nothing to see here. not inappropriate. move on. but the bigger problem that's illustrated here is the administration's view on russia and whose interests are at stake. not whether we know yet if there's collusion or criminality. >> david swerdlick, matt lewis, jeweliet kayem, thank you. the white house cheering a big win in the fight against isis. this latest victory in mosul does not mean isis is finished, so what is next?
second largest city. nick peyton walsh was just in mosul and joins us from iraq. that is the key question. this does not do away with isis but for the people in mosul rebuilding, the question becomes, what happens? >> reporter: yes, absolutely. you cannot rebuild until you have peace. we have a small pocket of isis down by the river holding out. while victory has been declared, there is a tiny amount of fighting. that makes the city like a surface into the massive destruction that hit it more accessible for those who demolish the remains, clear up the bodies of isis fighters strewn among the wreckage. then go further, curiously, two miles away from fighting, there are signs of normal life occurring. a shop on the street or selling paint, traffic jams, normal signs of life where every street
has a building that's been pancaked or torn apart by the fighting. tens of billions of dollars will be required to put all of iraq back together. the buildings have been heavily damaged fwi fight of isis. the question is, how does the predominantly shia government or military. they have sunni and shia, how do they trust the population of a place like mosul where isis has been? a big, big social challenge ahead. >> terrific reporting. thank you so much, nick. >> we have details about what donald trump jr. knew before meeting with a russian lawyer. what he was told about efforts to help his father's campaign. stay with us.
here ya go. awesome, thank you. thank you. that's... not your car. your car's ready! wrong car... this is not your car? i would love to take it, but no. oh, i'm so sorry about that. you guys wanna check it out? it's someone else's car... this is beautiful. what is this? it's the all-new chevy equinox. this feels like a luxury suv. i love this little 360, how do they even do that? i made a bad decision on my last car purchase. well, your car's here. bummer... bummer. wah-wah. i'm ready for an upgrade. (laughter)
[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 alz.org/walk.
good morning, everyone. i'll john berman. >> i'm poppy harlow. no denial from the white house on an explosive new york times report that donald trump jr. knew before he met with a russian lawyer during the campaign there was a, quote, russian government effort behind that meeting. that effort from the russian government was to help his father's campaign with dirt on hillary clinton. how did donald jr. know that? because of an e-mail from this man, a publicist. >> earlier this morning, the russian lawyer who was in that meeting spoke to nbc news. >> translator: it's quite possible maybe they were looking for such information. they w