is there a draft in here? i'm telling you, it's so easy to get home insurance on progressive.com. progressive can't save you from becoming your parents. but we can save you money when you bundle home and auto. this is a president who politicized as much of the government as he possibly can. >> i thought that he was going to rape me. and i was begging him to stop. >> i can tell you without hesitation, this is absolutely
false. >> i think he should step aside. i believe the women. >> announcer: this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> three major stories. the first, a bombshell report in "the atlantic," revealing donald trump jr. and wikileaks secretly corresponded during the 2016 campaign. in response, trump junior released the twitter exchanges. the timing of the messages is raising a lot of eyebrows. >> three hours after that report came out, attorney general jeff sessions announced he is considering a special counsel to investigate any ties between the clinton foundation and the sale of a uranium company to the russians when hillary clinton was secretary of state. so, all of this is happening as a fifth accuser comes forward against alabama senate candidate roy moore, alleging he sexually assaulted her decades ago when she was 16 years old. roy moore is denying any wrongdoing but a growing number
of gop senators are calling for him to drop out of the race. michelle kosinski, good morning. >> reporter: he wanted to hammer home the point that his lawyer made, that they don't have exchanges because donald trump jr. has released them. they tell us something significant. first of all, about wikileaks. what they wanted to do for the trump campaign and what they wanted from the trump campaign. and, of course, again, we have yet another person deeply involved with that campaign in communication with what the u.s. intelligence community and even trump's own cia director believe is at the very least a channel for russian influence. the interactions between donald trump jr. and wikileaks happened in private in direct message via twitter, starting as first revealed in "the atlantic" last year.
wikileaks reached out to trump's son. he responded the next day. i don't know who that is but i'll ask around. thanks. the atlantic reports trump jr. then e-mailed a number of senior officials, letting them know that wikileaks had made contact. on october 2nd, president trump's friend announced that it was coming. trump didn't get an answer back but four days later the intelligence community announced it believes russia was behind the dnc hacks. shortly after, wikileaks began releasing hacked e-mails from hillary clinton's campaign manager jon podesta. these infamous remarks from then candidate trump. >> wikileaks. i love wikileaks. >> reporter: wikileaks was back in trump junior's dms, strongly
suggest your dad tweet this is link. if he mentions us, there are many great stories the press is missing. trump senior tweeted how wikileaks wasn't getting enough press coverage. that same day, mike pence denied that the trump campaign was coordinating with wikileaks. >> nothing could be further from the truth. >> reporter: a spokesman says pence wasn't aware. wikileaks made a request, a quote, unusual idea, asking trump junior to leak them his father's tax returns. the reason? quote, if we publish them, it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality. but trump junior didn't respond to any more twitter dms from wikileaks including, according to "the atlantic" on election night, urging the campaign to
reject the results as rigged if rump lost. trump's own cia director said this about wikileaks. >> it's time to call out wikileaks for what it is, nonstate hostile intelligence service often embedded for state actors like russia. >> reporter: responding to the revelations saying we can stay sai with confidence we have no concerns about these documents and any questions raised about them have been easily answered in the appropriate forum. president trump, meanwhile, has been trying to shift attention to democrats, expressing disappointment on twitter 11 days ago that the justice department isn't looking into issues related to his former rival hillary clinton. announcing in a letter yesterday that prosecutors are now examining allegations related to the clinton foundation in the sale of the company uranium one to russian nuclear agency and considering whether a special counsel should be appointed.
a source tells cnn that these trump junior wiki leaks exchanges were already provided to congressional investigators and that, in fact, trump junior answered questions about them when he appeared in a closed session in front of the judiciary committee in september. only now are these interactions with wi can kileaks themselves being leaked which trump junior in a tweet called ironic. the top democrat on the house intelligence committee who themselves would like to ask trump junior more questions about this. alisyn and chris? >> the only question for him is why he waited so long to put this out. michelle sometimes you get a window into the absurdity of the situation you're in. >> sometimes, yeah. >> we have one right now. david gregory and editor at large chris cillizza. david, the juxtaposition of mike pompeo calling wikileaks a hostile, nonstate actor embedded
by russia and the now president of the united states during the campaign saying wikileaks, i love wikileaks. and in that we see why this latest development is so important. wikileaks was not out to help the united states during the campaign. that's clear from trump's own administration and now we have his son communicating/attempting to coordinate/attempting to cooperate. i say it that way because that's what the sc will be looking at, the special counsel. >> the trump campaign opened the door to russia or russian cutouts to do business, to try to dig up dirt on their opponents to otherwise help donald trump win and now you know there's evidence of that kind of interference in the election and you have a president who just simply believes vladimir putin, the former kgb agent, when he says he didn't meddle.
we're getting this picture of a blanket of denials and more disclosures of these contacts. the most innocent explanation, this was complete hackery and amateur hour within a campaign that would look around anywhere for dirt on hillary clinton without regard for consequences or something far worse. that's what mueller is trying to do and put together. >> why doesn't this show coordination between don junior and the campaign and wikileaks? >> it definitely shows communication. candid candidly, alisyn, it's hard for me not to say it shows coordination in that you have wikileaks direct messaging don junior saying hey, you should have your dad send this link out and 15 minutes later the presidential candidate at that point sends the link out. >> bingo. what more -- >> no. >> why not bingo? >> i'll tell you why. >> the argument could be made he just happened to do that. it's mere coincidence. i'm a big believer in there are
no coincidences in politics, based on my years of covering it. so, yeah, i feel like we're there, at least as it relates to coordination. that 15-minute window. and, by the way, we know that when wikileaks initially made contact with don junior he forward it to the sort of top trump campaign officials. >> oh, yeah, kellyanne conway. >> saying i've been in contact with these people. >> here is why his lawyers say i have nothing to fear with these documents. one, they're being paid to say that. two, wikileaks already published these documents. >> saying give us a boost and donald trump sr. does just that. >> the supposition is or what's suspicious is that maybe this was a window into greater cooperation or some kind of exchange of something valuable to the campaign at the behest of
a foreign power. i think that's where you get into -- >> and the question is -- >> but remember before -- >> why is this not enough? it was already in the public domain. you would have to show that donald trump jr. was helping to motivate wikileaks to do something to influence the election. >> that would be collusion. we're not there. >> it's an element of a larger crime where you have to show that you did something to help something illegal happen. that's a much higher bar than people think. certainly, i don't think this alone makes the grade. >> and i'm not going there. i'm just going coordination. >> coordination is different. >> what the special counsel is looking at. it's part of its purview. if you're going to cooperate, coordinate, there is another part of the analysis, which is what did you do that furthered this illegal act. and i don't know that they have it on this. >> let's go back, chris, to what you were saying. you have the cia director.
he's in place. it's april of this year saying this is a nonstate actor, a bad actor. >> hostile. >> enemy of the united states. >> yes. >> and then back in the campaign you had candidate trump at the democratic convention saying rusha i hope you find all of her e-mails, talking about hillary clinton. and as chris pointed out before, you knew in october before the election that there was interference going on. >> those are all bad facts for my position i took. that's why i jumped in early when alisyn said bingo. i was good up to that point. these additional facts create this window effect you are all suggesting. no question about it. >> let's remember, don junior was one of the three attendees of this meeting in june 2016 at trump tower. >> right. >> the thing is, it's a lot of coincidences and a lot of coincidences, as you point out, chris, do not add up to collusion or add up to illegality, but it's a whole lot of coincidences and it'sworthy noting that while also saying
that doesn't mean laws were broken. >> and that leads us to what the attorney general jeff sessions is looking into right now. he is looking into the clinton foundation. he has announced that he may consider appointing a special prosecutor to look at, once again, uranium one deal that was done in 2010, as we pointed out, there have been all sorts of government agencies that signed off on it. it wasn't just hillary clinton deciding this unilaterally. so where is this going to lead, david? >> let's just go back. candidate trump threatened during a presidential debate to put his political opponent in jail. that's what happens in authoritarian regimes. now you have a president who has expressed his anger for the fact that his attorney general recused himself and ultimately led to a special prosecutor in the russian investigation, who tries to distract attention from it and has tried to gin up support for special counsel against his enemy, who he beat,
who he defeated in the election. the real question is whether there are enough people in the justice department who can stand up to this kind of bullying on the part of the president on his -- against his attorney general, with whom he has a terrible relationship, because he has marginalized him. the facts here are stunning. some of these issues are already being investigated. somebody who is actually responsible for the rule of law, separate from the political wins has to step up. >> chris, why is this such a big deal in terms of seeing the president's motivated animous when you have goodlad, sending two different letters about this, i think in july and in september. >> yep. >> also they're not saying they're going to appoint a special counsel. they're saying we're investigating what you put in the letter. >> that's right. >> looking at the -- prosecutors are look at it. if anything is being investig e investigated that's not being investigated already, we'll give it to the attorney general and
they can make a determination if a special counsel is needed. >> that's right. to your first point, congress is already looking into this. republican congress last month launched investigations into the uranium one deal and clinton e-mail handled by the justice department. it's congress' purview. that's why you want to control congress. you get to look into what you want to look into. the justice department, potentially at least, looking into special counsel is a different thing. i was looking at my phone because on november 3rd -- i mention this had last hour. you guys put up that tweet that donald trump put. >> right. >> he also said this. i want to make sure i get it right. the saddest thing is that because i'm the president of the united states i am not supposed to be involved in the justice department. i am not supposed to be involved in the fbi. this is a radio interview, the context of which is why is the justice department not looking into this stuff? today is the 14th. that's less than two weeks
later, we get news that the justice department is at least considering it. you're right, chris, they haven't done it. but 11 days between saying man i wish i could control the justice department and they could look into this to the justice department saying we're thinking about looking into this. >> there's a lot of raised eyebrows you're giving us today, chris cillizza. say no more. the eyebrows speak for themselves. >> i mean -- >> david gregory, chris cillizza, thank you very much. roy moore facing new allegations. our disciplined approach remains. global markets may be uncertain... but you can feel confident in our investment experience around the world. call us or your advisor... t. rowe price. invest with confidence. verizon and google have teamed up on the pixel 2. it's like verizon is the oil and google is the balsamic. it's more like the google pixel 2 is the unlimited storage. and verizon is the best unlimited plan. i like oil and balsamic. (vo) get up to 50% off the pixel 2
on google's exclusive wireless partner, verizon. you feel better. introducing tommie copper's all new shoulder centric posture shirt. they're biggest breakthrough yet. advanced engineering promotes healthy posture and relief for achy shoulders and back. visit tommiecopper.com to see the entire line of wearable wellness compression. they have you covered from head to toe. go to tommiecopper.com right now and find out how you can save 25% on your first purchase, plus first shipping. life hurts, feel better. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today.
it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months,... ...with reduced redness,... ...thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has... ...no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased... ...risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have... ...a history of depression... ...or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla... ...reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper... ...respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take... ...and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you.
feel that tingle of a cold sore only abreva can heal it in as little as two and a half days when used at the first sign. abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. abreva acts on it. so you can too. the more time, the more accusers, the more time roy moore doesn't have supporters. mitch mcconnell telling the candidate to step down. mcconnell now urging the nominee to withdraw from the race
because of these allegations of sexual misconduct and even assault in one case. jason carroll in gadsden, alabama, with more. we've seen these accusations in the past and it not mattering. what's it like on the ground there? >> reporter: it will all come down to the voter. with this recent accuser over the years she said she told her sister, her mother, her husband about roy moore allegedly sexually assaulting her. roy moore says it's all untrue and he has no intention of stepping down. beverly young nelson says roy moore attacked her. she was a 16-year-old high school student and he was in his 30s after offering her a ride home from the restaurant she worked more than 30 years ago. >> he reached over, began groping me, putting his hands on
my breast. i tried fighting him off while yelling at him to stop. but instead of stopping, he began squeezing my neck, attempting to force my head on to his crotch. he was also trying to pull my shirt off. i thought that he was going to rape me. >> reporter: nelson says she began to cry and moore eventually relented. >> he said you're just a child and he said i am the district attorney of ottawa county and if you tell anyone about this, no one will ever believe you. >> reporter: the embattled republican alabama senate candidate denying nelson's account. >> this is absolutely false. i never did what she said i did. i don't even know the woman. i don't know anything about her. >> reporter: but this message in nelson's high school yearbook suggests the pair did know each other. it reads "to a sweeter more beautiful girl i could not say
merry christmas, love roy moore, d.a." >> i think he should step aside. >> the backlash on capitol hill continues to grow. a number of republican senators calling on moore to leave the race outright, removing a key caveat from earlier statements, encouraging him to drop out only if the allegations are true. >> do you believe these allegations to be true? >> i believe the women, yes. >> reporter: senator cory gardner, going further, saying if moore refuses to withdraw and wins, the senate should vote for expel him. others voicing support for a possible write-in candidate. only five senators who back moore's campaign officially withdraw their endorsements. still many voters in his state of alabama rallying around the controversial former judge. >> we make very bad decisions when we're young. >> are we going to take one bad action and discount the good
that he's doing now? >> reporter: others in his hometown telling cnn that the rumors about moore's behavior are well known. >> what we would hear was that he would hang out at the mall to meet young teenagers. >> it was common knowledge. you just steered away from him. >> reporter: an editorial in alabama's largest paper, "the birmingham news" called moore grossly unfit, saying he should step down. moore saying he's not going anywhere. part of his defense is that these accusers are being paid to come forward. leigh corpman family member telling me, quote, no money, endorsement has been paid or promised and none is expected. >> jason thank you for all that have background. joining us now, alabama
secretary of state john merrill. mr. merrill, thank you so much for being here. >> good morning, alisyn. thank you for having me as your guest. >> you said last week you know judge moore to be a man of character and integrity and it was quite possible that these women are making it up. do you stand by those statements? >> i didn't say that it was possible that they were making it up. i never said that. what i said was i thought it was very unusual. i thought it was very odd and, quite interest iing that these claims had come to light at this particular time, especially during the u.s. senate campaign. >> okay. because i have an interview that you did on thursday and you're quoted as saying people make things up all the time. >> oh, they do. >> do i think it's possible they made this up? >> yes, ma'am. >> i do. >> well, of course it's possible. anything is possible. that's one of the things we see in this political climate today. >> so do you think they're making it up? i'm just asking you today. >> well, i didn't do the
investigation. so i have absolutely no idea what level of validity there is. >> you've read their accounts, i'm sure. you've read their accounts in "the washington post" and saw this woman come forward, the fifth accuser yesterday. you could see her with your own eyes. do you believe that these women are making it up? >> i don't know if they're making it up or not. i don't know their intention. and i don't know whether or not there are other things that have happened to them that have caused them to come forward at this time. >> so you do think it's possible that they're making it up? >> well, again, i think anything is possible. i think this is a very, very difficult time for our state. i think it's a very difficult time for our people. i do know that judge moore has got a lot of confidence from a lot of people in the state. one of the things that's very interesting, because of what i've introduced before -- i know you know this, alisyn, from the accounts you've read of the interviews that i've done -- is that judge moore has been on the
ballot eight times, different elections, primaries, run-off, general elections. he has been an office holder for more than three decades in our state and not one time has any of this information ever been introduced publicly until some 30 days prior to the biggest election in his career. i just find that odd and very interesting. that's all i had said before and that's what i continue to say. >> you're not alone in questioning the timing. we've heard other folks say that as well. >> yes, ma'am. >> given what you know today, do you plan to vote for roy moore? >> well, if the allegations are proven to be true, i don't think that there's any way that i or any other alabamaian would continue to support judge moore because of the way these allegations have been produced. there's still questions -- >> how would those allegations before election day be proven true to your mind? >> well, one of the things i
would ask you is if they are true then why would someone have waited this long to have brought this information out at this particular time? >> i'm happy to answer that. >> 30 days before. and i understand that there are a number of situations that have involved people throughout our nation, especially recently with all the information that's been introduced from hollywood -- >> yep. >> -- where people were reluctant to come forth. >> right. so why is it different? >> i think it's odd it's being done at this particular time. >> secretary merrill i want to get you on the record about this. i think you just answered your own question. you recognized that all the flood gates have opened on hollywood, silicon valley and all the other places we've seen women come forward after a period of time with traumatic stories. why do you think it would be different for these five women to come forward now? why are you holding them to a different standard than, say, harvey weinstein's accusers? >> i'm not holding them to a different standard.
what i'm saying is that when someone has been on the ballot eight different elections over three decades and these individuals have had that information all that time and they're just now bringing it forward, it seems very odd and interesting to me. i have not said that they are bringing forth false charges because i don't know whether they are or not. what i do know is that this is a very difficult, very ten uuous time for the state of alabama and our people. >> what happens if roy moore does step down now? the deadline -- october deadline has passed to take his name off the ballot. >> yes, ma'am. >> what happens if he decides not to move forward? >> if judge moore disqualifies himself as a candidate and does that formally by submitting a letter to our office that indicates he no longer wants to continue as a candidate and still receives the most votes, at that point our election would be declared null and void.
likewise, if the state party decides to disassociate themselves from judge moore in their candidacy and judge moore gets the most votes, the election would be null and void. the only way that a write-in candidate or doug jones would be elected to the u.s. senate would be if one of those individuals, either a write-in candidate or doug jones received the most votes in the race. we do not have a majority requirement in our general election. we only have a plurality requirement. if they receive the most votes, they would win. otherwise, if judge moore received the most votes and he had disqualified himself formally or the state party had disqualified him, the election would be null and void and governor ivey would have to call another special election. >> as of today, given the evidence you've heard, you would still vote for roy moore? >> as of today, with the information that's been introduced to me and if these charges are not proven to be true, then i would continue to
support and vote for judge moore. >> secretary john merrill, thank you very much for explaining all of that to us. >> yes, ma'am. >> chris? >> significant development in the russian investigation. donald trump jr. releasing, on his own accord, private exchanges he had with wikileaks. what do they show? do they show an attempt by the campaign in the form of donald junior to coordinate efforts with a known hostile state actor? we have a man at the middle of it all. cory lewandowski next. try parodontax toothpaste. it's clinically proven to remove plaque, the main cause of bleeding gums. for healthy gums and strong teeth. leave bleeding gums behind with parodontax toothpaste.
a new development in the russian investigation. donald trump jr. has released private messages he exchanged with the wikileaks twitter account during the 2016 presidential campaign. it's the second time trump junior has faced scrutiny in this investigation. earlier, it was revealed that he agreed to a june 2016 meeting with a russian attorney who promised dirt on hillary clinton. let's discuss what all of this means in the context of that campaign with former trump campaign manager and newly
minted author, cory lewandowski who now has a book called "let trump be trump." we will talk about the book. we carved out a lot of time for us, cory. don't worry about that. good to see you on the show. >> thanks for having me back. appreciate it. >> let's just start at the beginning. the russian investigation. do you accept the u.s. intelligence community's assessment that russia tried to interfere and did so during the election? do you accept that? >> well, it seems to be that there is uniformity here that russia, through a series of companies, did try to impact the election by buying ads through pacebook, a privately held company, and trying to influence the election, what we now know unequivocally is that the head of the clinton campaign's legal team took a pot of money and paid a former mi6 special agent to get information from russia to create a false dossier. that money also came from the
dnc. unequivocally, the russians did try to impact the election through the clinton campaign. absolutely. >> hold on a second. you are saying that you accept the intelligence community's assessment but you are saying that the dynamic was that the interference was conducted through the clinton campaign? that is a notion that doesn't meet any standard or any piece of proof that we've gotten from the investigators to date. >> let's go through it, just to be clear. we have to be clear. we can look at the federal election commission reports that delineate where the clintons spent their mony and what's been publicly stated and agreed to by the clinton campaign is that their chief legal counsel had his own pot of money and hired an mi6 spy, head of the russian dsk for great britain, to put together a dossier. we also know that the trump campaign never spent one dime for a foreign agent to go and get information from russia. but that's not the case for the
clinton campaign. >> spending money on research is not the standard. >> never, never has a campaign spent money that i'm aware of with a spy before to go and get information. >> you should ask around. you guys are all in a dirty business. >> agreed. >> you spend money who can get dirt on somebody else. that's not our discussion. you said before we had no contacts, nobody from our campaign, nobody, nowhere, no how. you used the word "no" in as many context as you could. we know now that's not true, cory. i'll get back to the clinton stuff. i see it as a distraction. i'll talk to you about why. you said there are no contacts. now there are many contacts and you are part of it in terms of a chain of communication. so, do you have a new recollection of what contacts were made with your campaign that were involved with russian interference? >> let me be as clear as i can be, chris. i've said this many, many, many times.
i have never, to the best of my knowledge, ever communicated with anybody who was a russian, russian agent, russian supporter or somebody who was from the russian government in any way, shape or form. >> how could you know that? >> that's what i said, to the best of my knowledge. maybe you're a russian agent. >> carter page, papadopoulos. >> both of those people are u.s. citizens, to the best of my knowledge. i thought both of those people were american citizensn born in this country. >> both of them were reaching out, wanting to take meetings -- i'm not saying they're dirty or russian agents. you don't know what they are. you said you had no contact and nobody had contact and we now know that's not true. >> what they were doing on their own, i can't control sxwlu knew about it and they were making contacts with russians, trying to help the trump campaign and they were meeting with people who had some odd associations of their own. >> i had no contact, whatsoever, to the best of my knowledge with anybody who was a russian,
russian agent. and that i know of no russian agent tried to contact me. that's not the same standard for the clinton campaign. >> what about what carter page did? what about donald trump jr. do having the meeting. >> i didn't have that meeting. >> you were part on the communication chain. >> i was not. >> i'm talking about with papadopoulos. >> you can't conflat them all. >> i'm not. you're picking one that works for you. i'm asking about all of them. papadopoulos had meetings that you said never happened. carter page took a trip that you said never happened. >> i don't know what carter page did as a private citizen. i have no more ability to tell carter page you can and cannot go somewhere. >> knowing what he did and controlling it are two different things. >> he didn't work for the campaign. >> you said he was an adviser for trump. >> i did not say that.
>> i have your words right in front of my face zblefs named to an advisory committee of which he never participated, is what i said. >> you said he was advising the campaign. you are quoted as saying it. >> quoted by whom? >> at the time at which you left the campaign, you said carter page was still involved as an adviser to the president. >> no. what i said very clearly is if carter page wants to go to russia, he doesn't represent the campaign because he has nothing to do with the campaign. i can't control where he goes, what he does. carter page was asking for an opportunity to go and give a speech at the same exact location barack obama gaev a speech in 2009. >> this has nothing to do with barack obama. >> you have to give the full context. >> you said you don't know anybody about doing anything. don't you see why that seems deceptive? >> no. let me be very clear. the guy didn't work for the campaign. he didn't have a donald trump e-mail address. >> he sat at the table with the president and the president bragged about him as an adviser.
>> carter page never sat at the table. get your facts right. he was not at that meeting. he never sat there. >> he was announced by the president. >> chris, you just said he sat at the same table. >> papadopoulos was at the table. >> don't conflat the people. you just said carter page sat at the table. >> papadopoulos sat at the table. carter page was announced as part of that panel. the president talked about him in positive ways. you spoke about him as an adviser to the president. i get what you're doing. i thought maybe you would want to clean it up now. >> i do. >> have your recollection refreshed to show that you had communications with these people. >> i'll go through it 100% with you. you cannot make a false statement like you just did. >> there is no false statement. >> you just said carter page sat at the table. >> papadopoulos sat at the table and you said no one had any contacts and you were wrong. >> i said i've never had
contacts with a russian. >> you said nobody at the campaign had anything to do with russian interference. and it's not true. >> those two individuals, carter page was a volunteer on an advisory committee of which met one time and he didn't show up for it. if he wants to go and give a speech at the same place barack obama gave a speech, how could i -- >> it has nothing to do with barack obama. >> you have to put it in context. >> that's not the context. >> it is the context. >> you said nobody had any meetings. i wanted to give you a chance to change t you don't want to change it. >> i'm just telling the truth. >> are you? >> i am. >> how is it the truth that nobody from the campaign had any contact with anybody that anything to do with russian interference? >> how would i know if carter page as a private citizen -- >> you talked to him and said make sure you go as a private citizen. don't go in the capacity for the campaign. >> because he didn't work for the campaign. >> clovis had conversations about it. >> i said you can go as a private citizen.
>> either you knew what he was doing or you didn't know. >> i said go there as a citizen not as the campaign. what, do you think he was going to get ice cream? >> he said he wanted to go to the exact same place that barack obama gave a speech. >> so you said that's okay? >> if the president of the united states wanted to give a speech at education of higher learning. >> you said that carter page. >> who did not work for the campaign. >> you can say that now. you also said he was an adviser to the president. >> i didn't say that. he was released as part of an advisory committee of which met one time and he didn't attend. >> he was named by the president. he was relevant. you directed sam clovis to deal with him. did you do that with anybody who was inconsequential to the campaign? >> members of the foreign policy team some of those people are
general, admiral kubic, they were part of the team, showed up for the meeting and had a lengthy discussion about foreign policy. >> you said nobody did anything. that was your basic blanket statement. we don't know if it was criminal or really wrong. the fact that you never heard of anybody doing anything is demonstrably false. donald junior, you were out months before these october communications. but what do you make of donald junior apparently -- let's do it in the best light to him. being baited by people from wikileaks for being involved in what they were up to? >> donald junior should get the credit for releasing his e-mails proactively. he did this on his own to demonstrate what the communication was. we know that there was this
massive uproar, including by e "the new york times," attempting to get donald trump sr.'s tax returns. willing to go to jail to get a copy of the president's tax returns because he thvengs there was some major announcement in there that he wanted to share with the american people. two days or a week before the first general election debate, those tax rurchs were released. this is not a surprise to anybody. what we know is that wikileaks were attempting to get those tax returns probably to make a story. what donald trump jr. did, he released those e-mails and said i'm not going to give them to you. >> i don't know what don junior said to them. it's not part of the release. he was asked to tweelt a link by wikileaks of some e-mails they had hacked. then the president talked about wikileaks and that they deserve more attention. then don junior released that listening, which was publicly available.
but he seemed to accommodate the recognize from wikileaks. you want to go somewhere with the taxes, have fun. it's not central to what i'm asking you about right here. do you think don junior should have been doing that with an organization that mike pompeo, trump's pick for the cia, says is a hostile, nonstate actor embedded by russia? >> don junior is a private citizen, can tweet or retweet anything he wants to and doesn't have an internal effect on the outcome of the campaign. i agree with mike pompeo. to the best of my knowledge, i've never communicated with wikileaks and i can't speak to what someone else is doing, why they tweeted or retweeted something they were asked to do. that's not my job here. i wasn't part that have transaction or history as you clearly indicated at the part of this segment. i had nothing to do with it. everything i would say would be speculation as to why don junior did it.
we doesn't have the full context. let's give him an opportunity to why he tweeted or retweeted. >> do you think he should have done that is what i'm asking. >> it's not for me to say. >> of course it is. you're the campaign manager. you're twisting yourself into all kinds of shapes to defend the president and the campaign on all diven levels. defend him on this one. why was it okay to have that kind of communication with wikileaks, known hostile nonstate actor often, in this case, embedded by russia? >> i don't know when mike pompeo made that statement about wikileaks. my guess is that since he has only been head of the state and this occurred in october, i don't know if we knew in october that wikileaks had that same type of notion behind them. maybe he did. maybe he didn't. i don't think it's fair to say that looking back a year ago that we would have known what wikileaks was about. wikileaks has been widely reported on every major media outlet for their ability to delineate information,
particularly the podesta e-mails. >> delineate? they stole them. what word is that? >> they had them. they gave them out and nobody ever said that the information they gave out was false. >> they stole the guy's e-mails. it's not whether or not they falsified the e-mails. i know there was some political fallout about that. they stole them. not delineate them. did you ever say you delineated my car? they stole the e-mails. >> i have no idea how they got the e-mails. it's not fair for you to say how they got them. we think they stole them. you're not a cyber security expert, neither am i. >> you don't have to be one. read what the intelligence community said. >> which intelligence community said they stole jon podesta's e-mails? >> if you believe that wikileaks had nothing to do with it. >> i give them no cover. mainstream media covering wikileaks throughout the campaign for the release of those e-mails.
you can't say that they're a russian agent, whatever you claim that they are. i have no idea. and then use them when it's convenient for the podesta e-mail chain. >> what are you talking about? we reported on -- >> of course you did. >> wikileaks put out the e-mails, we reported on it, no question about it. there was an issue early on about whether or not they had hacked confidential information, classified information. that gets, as you know as a former law enforcement guy gets fuzzy under the espionage act. that's been a bit of a question. once they came out, we put them out there. the idea that they found them, they were hacked, the e-mails. hacking is a crime. you know that, right, corps sni. >> it is a crime. i have no idea how they got to the poddesta e-mails. cnn and other networks with that information covered it because it was newsworthy. you took information that you say came from a russian agent and you perpetuated it because
it was a news story. >> mike pompeo said they were embedded by we now know the president's son was corresponding with them during the campaign and they were trying to get him to cooperate. >> mike pompeo was not the director of central intelligence -- >> but he's referring to their actions during the russian interference. >> how would an individual know that mike pompeo was going to say that three or four months later? >> this is a rabbit hole. that's what pompeo says wikileaks represents in this current context. i am not saying he's clairvoyant. you are saying we don't know, i am not a cyber expert.
that's all nonsense, cory. >> chris, you can't say that don jr. should have known -- >> i am asking you what you think was the right thing for him to do. >> what i said clearly is i don't know because i was not -- >> so you would have had the same communications, if wikileaks said, hey, put these out for us, you would do it? >> that's not what i said at all. >> i'm asking you, would you have done euit? >> i probably would have took it to the -- i only speak for myself, and i don't know the context -- >> why are you so incurious about all of this, but when the clinton campaign hires somebody with russian contacts to do it you believe it's a smoking gun. >> i never heard of a campaign
hiring a spy to do opposition research. never in your life in 50 years of political campaigns you have ever heard of a political campaign hiring a spy -- >> but candidate trump's connection to russia are true. >> you have or your family hired a spy to do opposition research? >> this campaign is of a different degree than any state campaign. this was talking about russia and its contacts with -- >> are you saying the bush campaign and the obama campaign and the clinton campaign -- >> other than hillary clinton's campaign, the george w. bush campaign, and the ronald reagan campaign hired spies? of course not. >> it's a dirty business. you had your own candidate stand
up and ask wikileaks to -- >> chris, let me answer this. when i was the campaign manager for the trump presidential campaign, we never hired an opposition researcher ever, not to do opposition research on our primary opponents or hillary clinton. hillary clinton can't say the same thing. >> sure she can. she can do it the same way you can, because they were trying to put together a pro trump political action committee, and he was asking for help. it's the same thing that all campaigns do. it's an attorney that works for a firm and the firm hires so-and-so, that's what you do to keep your hands clean. >> alexander nicks is not a former spy -- >> but he's reaching out to wikileaks for help. it's a dirty business. >> the hillary clinton campaign
hired a spy. >> they hired an outfit that hired a guy that said he could find out information that was relevant about trump's contacts with russia. >> they paid a professional spy. >> that doesn't mean it matters. >> yes, it matters. >> because the word spy is involved? >> yes. >> no, cory. this is about what was done if anything at all to help russia or russian state actors to interfere with the election. >> look, the bottom line is hillary clinton didn't go to wisconsin or michigan -- >> so what? was russia behind that, too? >> no. you can blame anybody you want for hillary clinton's loss, which i know fits the narrative, but the bottom line is -- >> who is bringing up why she lost. i am talking about what russia did to interfere with the
election? >> do you believe russia had a material impact on the outcome of this election? >> i have no idea. the way you run around from the questions and distract to hillary clinton or barack obama doesn't help. it makes me suspicious -- it makes me suspicious -- >> we are talking about the 2016 campaign, which was over a year ago. >> we just spent a lot of time talking about the opo research -- which is prau spaus truss. >> you are still talking about something that took place a year ago. >> on the show we talk about all of it. i am talking to you about this because you were there when it mattered. >> i was not there, which is the whole point. >> you were here for plenty of
it. you were there when they were going out and trying to create friendly russians, and you are on communications and you said you knew nothing about it and they showed you an e-mail and now you are recollecting differently. you are relevant -- >> i will be happy to talk about it. >> you don't want to talk about the facts. you want to cherry-pick facts, and then cast shade on hillary clinton. i don't know how that is helpful. >> did the russians have an impact on the outcome -- >> we don't know. give me a line on why people should read your book. >> let trump be trump. it talks about the inside story of how he decided to run for office and took the world and the country by storm, and it will be -- i think you will enjoy, it, chris, because you get a mention in there, too.
the president's own son reaching out in private communications with wikileaks. >> we have sloppiness of the campaign but nothing to the point to be criminal. >> he's gone directly good concern to hiring a special prosecutor. >> this is a president that has shown he's willing to go where other presidents have refused to go. >> he said you are just a child, and if you tell anybody about this nobody will ever believe you. >> i don't even know the woman. i don't know anything about her. >> very disturbing. it's appropriate to with draw my endorsement. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> welcome to your "new day." it's tuesday, 8:00 in the east.
special sessions look into whether he needs to appoint a new special counsel to investigate the clinton deal with the uranium and russia. the announcement comes ten days after trump tweeted the justice department and fbi should look into clinton. >> and donald trump jr. corresponded with wikileaks in the 2016 campaign. the president's son responded by releasing his direct message exchanges with wikileaks last night. >> joining us now is the atlanta reporter who broke the don junior story. this is a bombshell. tell us what your reporting has revealed regarding don jr. and wikileaks and their inter