however, and in the interest of full transparency and to mr. ratcliffe's point, will you authorize the release of all of the other text messages that have not been released to the congress to this point? >> sir, i would authorize the release of any work-related text messages that are out there. >> ah, but the question is what's work related and what is not? >> that's right, sir. i would not accept or agree to the release of non work-related text messages. >> even though your testimony is that you would never let your work interfere with your personal opinion. >> that is exactly my testimony. >> how are we going to know that unless we see those text messages? >> the inspector generally very carefully -- an independent body went exhaustively through that body and found there were no acts of bias, that there was nothing demonstrable. >> the inspector general works for an entirely different entity than the united states congress.
will you authorize release of them to the united states congress? >> no, sir. >> mr. chairman, point of inquiry. i'm trying to understand his answer. my understanding was that the inspector general did not see what he is claiming to be his personal text, that they were requested and he delivered what he said was business related. so if i understand correctly, no one has seen anything that he determined, mr. strzok, determined would not be delivered because in his opinion they were not business related. i have a number of texts in front of me that i would say were very personal that we're looking at that undoubtedly he would have objected to turning over. >> the gentleman makes a good point. he may want to ask questions about that when he's recognized. first, the gentlewoman from texas. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i'm sorry my colleague walked out before mr. strzok gave his
answers. i hate no one. i do not hate the administration, the president, my colleagues. i honor this nation. so i believe it is important that we stand on the force of truth and the constitution. in the oversight of these two committees, it is unfortunate that none of these committees, judiciary or oversight, have decided to pursue more precious or more important issues than asking about hillary clinton's e-mails, which have been well documented that there was no criminal impact, and in essence she was vindicated by the inspector general's report and other reports. unfortunately, this has become a phishing expedition. what we have not done is investigated the children being stolen away from their families. nor have we looked at our president meeting with mr. putin, getting his annual performance review while offending our nato allies. foreign policy scholars are aghast that this president, one who famously refused to read his
briefing materials, will be meeting with mr. putin. in addition, we're wasting time doing the clinton investigation rather than investigating the role that russia played in the 2016 elections. unanimous and unassailable assessment of the intelligence community is that the russians helped trump over hillary and intended to harm her. in the judgment of the republican controlled senate intelligence committee, they agree with that assessment. unfortunately, the president and house republicans do not agree. the leader of russia is known to have sanctioned murder of dissidents, jailed journalists. and this is the president who is described as easy to meet with. neither the judiciary committee or the oversight committee has investigated the president indicating he can pardon himself. so here we are, mr. strzok, to ask you questions. i saw you in the closed session. i think you're a credible witness, and i believe you love america. my questions only require yes or no. did anything you did or say in 2016 change the fact that trump
campaign associate carter page was under counterintelligence surveillance going back to 2013? anything that you did, yes or no. >> no. >> did anything you did or say in 2016 change the fact that in march 2016 the president met with george papadopoulos, who would later plead guilty for lying to the fbi? >> no. >> did anything you did or say in 2016 change the fact that donald trump jr. met with agents of the russian government in trump tower in 2016? >> no. >> did anything you did or say in 2016 change the fact that the president asked russians to hack into hillary clinton's e-mails? >> no. >> did anything you did or say in 2016 change the fact that paul manafort, who has pleaded guilty, in fact, that in july 2016 that paul manafort changed the gop party platform at the 2016 gop convention in order to benefit russia or change the platform? >> ma'am, without saying whether or not that's accurate, no.
>> did anything you did or say in 2016 change the fact that in may 2016, george papadopoulos was drunk in a london bar, bragging about how russians had dirt on hillary clinton? >> without confirming that's accurate or not, no. >> did anything you do or say change the fact that when donald trump was presented with dirt on hillary clinton, he responded, i love it? >> again, ma'am, only commenting on public accounts of that, no. >> did anything in the ig report change the fact that donald trump jr. was communicating with wikileaks' julian assange about the timing of releasing e-mails designed to harm hillary clinton? anything you do no. >> anything i did, no. >> you're well aware that mr. flynn has pleaded guilty, is that not correct? >> that's correct. >> you're well aware he was a national security adviser for the president of the united states. >> that's correct. >> well, in his offense statement that we have right here, mr. flynn indicated that his statements, false statements and omissions, caused impeding
the russian investigation, but more importantly, i believe it's important to take note of the fact that he provided information to the russian ambassador that said, here, calm down, don't bother to get upset about sanctions. and according to a whistleblower, he said the sanctions would be, quote, ripped up to allow money to start flowing to one of flynn's business projects. you had no interference with that, did you not? >> i did not. >> and you had no involvement, if you will, during your june 2018 interview -- i noticed some concern in your voice when recalling the campaign season, specifically october 2016 and specifically at it relates to the state of trump/russia investigation. why were you so concerned about what was happening at that time? >> i'm sorry, ma'am. would you rephrase that question? >> during your june 2018 interview, i noticed some concern in your voice when recalling the 2016 campaign season, specifically october 2016 and specifically as it
relates to the state of the trump/russia investigation. why were you so concerned about what was happening at that time? >> i think trying to keep this at a level not talking about open investigations, the predicating information, the information we had which was alleging a russian offer of assistance to a member of the trump campaign was an extraordinary significance. it was credible. it was from an extraordinarily credible source. as we looked at what that represented, the key time was obviously coming into the election. so for us, there was absolutely a need to, one, this was a serious allegation, two, of extraordina extraordinary gravity, and three, given the election was upon us and that if, in fact, then-candidate trump were elected that he or possibly members of his campaigns were likely working with russians, we needed to get to the bottom of it. it could be that none of them
were. it could be on a worse case. but the urgency for us to understand what was going on in advance of the election and certainly in advance of any inauguration, i can't overstate the importance of that. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. may i put into the record i ask unanimous consent to put into the record articles -- >> without objection. >> i thank you. the patriotism of this witness should indicate -- >> the time of the gentlewoman has expired. >> i yield back. thank you. >> the gentleman just answered questions regarding the substance of the trump/russia collusion investigation. we have many more questions that we are entitled to ask, and the gentleman is responsible for answering with regard to the onset of that investigation. we are not interested in the substance of mr. mueller's investigation. but the manner in which it was created and your involvement in that is very much directly
related to that. so when we return, we will have more questions for you regarding that as we indicated earlier. now the committee will stand in recess for votes. we will reconvene at 2:00 p.m. >> i'm wolf blitzer in washington. we've been following the fire works up on capitol hill here in washington, where we're hearin publicly for the very first time from the fbi agent, former fbi agent, i should say, right at the center of president trump and republicans' ire. we're talking about peter strzok. he was fired from the russia investigation by the special counsel robert mueller after he was caught sending anti-trump texts to an fbi lawyer he was having an affair with. republicans believe the texts prove strzok was biased against trump while investigating possible collusion, but strzok has been defiant. he has been defensive throughout
all of this. i want to get immediate reaction from all of this. gloria borger, you're among our experts. you've been listening to every word said over these past three hours or so. it got really, really tense. >> well, it was really tense and very partisan. you had in mr. strzok a very defiant person who said, look, just because i sent these texts saying we'll stop trump doesn't mean that i conducted any investigation any differently than i would have otherwise. i mean, the charge from the republicans is that they believe it is clear that he was in a rush to clear clinton and then go after donald trump. his response to that is, you know, these were personal texts. in no way would it affect my investigation. and the notion that there might be russians colluding with people in the trump campaign is something that he felt was a
matter of great urgency. and so you had these -- you know, this back and forth over what questions he could answer, whether the fbi had told him he could answer questions about the investigation. he said no. but you know, in every way, in every interrogation from republicans, there was the charge that you were unfair, this whole investigation, to use donald trump's words, could have been a witch hunt because it was started out of a partisan bias. >> the texts between peter strzok and lisa page, they are so damning. >> they are, wolf, which is why what gloria is laying out here, yes, that is strzok's mission today, to try to walk this line of i have personal political views, it didn't impact my work at all. that may be true, but when he says that those texts, quote, not indicative of bias, that's just flat wrong on its face. it is indicative of bias. i understand his point is, well, that bias didn't infiltrate into
my work, into my conduct in the professional capacity, but you can understand why when you look at the language of those texts that it's very easy to point to a bias that this fbi agent was expressing. it sort of goes to the rule that exists. you should put nothing in text or e-mail that you are not comfortable seeing on the front page of "the new york times" or on cnn's banner across the bottom of the screen there. he didn't follow that rule. now he's in this position. gloria is right to note that he remains defiant. he has in the apologized in any way for this behavior for expressing these things. i think it's a tough case for him to make because of the simple nature of those texts. >> it's a very tough case, jim sciutto, to make when we know that robert mueller, the special counsel, fired him after learning about all these texts. >> that's right. i think in this hearing you have america and the mueller investigation in a nutshell. you have on the one side some
republicans, not all republicans, because many republicans say let robert mueller continue to do his work, he's not biased. but some republicans, and certainly the president, argue that the investigation has been biased from the beginning and that these messages between strzok and the woman he was having an affair with are proof of that bias. on the other side, you have democrats but also crucially the fbi. even fbi officials this president has appointed say that the bias expressed in those text messages do not reflect the broader institution and that as peter strzok made the point in his testimony today, he had many people above him and many people below him who were different. essentially making the argument if you don't believe -- it's a big organization. >> that was the conclusion the inspector general had. >> that's the thing. so it is a political divide, but it's not purely political. you also have the fbi itself, which is an organization led by republican appointees, which has
republicans and democrats among its ranks saying that, yes, there's evidence of bias here, but that the institution as a whole has many folks at senior levels, many appointed by trump, et cetera, who do their job without letting that bias get in the way. now, the trouble is, as david and gloria were saying, these texts are on the face very damning evidence. they give ammunition to the president and those who make this claim that, look, it's right here in clear text form from the beginning there were folks here who had it in for the president. >> laura, you're our legal analyst. i want to get our legal perspective because potentially there could be charges filed. >> there could be. you know, on the one hand, as you're all saying, peter strzok is asking the nation to compartmentalize or allow him to compartmentalize. on the other hand, the republicans who are his adversaries in this hearing are asking american people to conflate these issues. at the same time he's talking
about what happened with the clinton investigation, the focus of the witch hunt statement is about the mueller probe. as you said yourself, it was mueller had to the foresight to say this will be a problem, you cannot be a part of my probe and my team any longer. going forward, we look at this issue in two different chunks of time. one about whether he violated fbi policy by, one, using the professional phone as a device to talk about personal issues and bias and call into question the objectivity of the fbi, which is a very big problem going forward. on the other hand, it's the idea of how does this impact the mueller probe. because of mueller's decision not to interview him extensively, not to talk to him about why he made the at the same times, what his thought process was behind it, give him an opportunity or lifeline to continue, you see a clear delineation between when bias could have occurred and when bias was not allowed to enter the equation. so legally speaking in terms of the mueller probe, we're still in the objectivity land. when it comes to peter strzok and lisa page, their own statements were the most damning among them, but it doesn't
actually tread into the mueller probe yet. that has to be distinguished. >> just to laura's point, it is clear from what the chairman was saying right before the break that he wants to get into the mueller probe to start bringing it to there to see if he can inject the allegation of the strzok bias into the mueller probe. he said when we come back from break, you do need to answer our questions about the formation of the probe, the beginning stages of that. not about the ongoing investigation but how it came to be. that's what republicans are going to try to focus on to connect the two. >> it was not surprising, but the questions and the statements from the republicans were totally different than the questions and statements from the democrats. >> the democrats were trying to separate it and make sure that everybody knows that there are lots of checks and balances at the fbi. that peter strzok, as he himself said, was not the one making all the decisions. he was involved in the case, but he wasn't the person at the top making the decisions.
and the republicans were saying, look, you were. you were making these decisions. you were deciding that it was more important to go after donald trump and the trump campaign than it was for you to go after hillary clinton. what i found sort of stunning, actually, is when strzok was asked to explain the "we'll stop" texts, he talked about trump's attacks on a gold-star family and talked about how personally abhorrent he felt that was. so in a way, he gave a little more fuel to the folks who said you really hated donald trump. i mean, it was very clear from his answer that he did not like donald trump. but he'ller didnmueller didn't . knowing what i know about bob mueller, i think he probably just called him in his office and said, you're gone. >> you know, also on that point, peter strzok poured lighter fluid on a lot of the ammunition
that people are going to have. at the end when he was asked, can you give us clearance to release the personal messaging you had, he said, well, no. it was very titillating for a lot of republicans. well, there must be so much more you don't actually want us to see that confirms the innuendo that not only do you not like trump because of the gold star family attack, but there's something more you're trying to hide. and that's a problem. >> and that point is somewhat undermined by the fact that the republican-led committee will not release the transcript of his private testimony. lo and behold, there's a little bit of sanctimony coming out in this hearing. imagine that. >> a little bit of politics as well. our legal and national security analyst is with us. what was your analysis from what you heard? >> well, that was quite a spectacle. i don't know that we necessarily learned anything new. these are all things that the ig report had gone over. it's interesting that before the
ig report was released, there was a lot of hyping up that this was going to blow everything wide open. that was a pretty objective assessment. so i think that this was a lot of performance. i think it's unfortunate that strzok can't speak to how they opened the investigation. i think i understand the fbi not wanting him to, but i think it would clarify a lot about how bias couldn't even really make it into an investigation when it's opened because of the way you have to articulate your factual basis for opening an investigation. you can't just say, hey, i have a hunch or i feel this way, you have to point to things you've observed or seen. so we can't get that information, but i think that would be clarifying and take us out of the realm of just talking about his texts. >> josh, you're a former supervisory fbi agent. i assume you worked at some point or crossed paths with peter strzok.
what was your reaction? >> hey, wolf. so we all know the congressional oversight is messy, it's complex, sometimes it's contentious, but i think that this is hard to watch because, you know, what we're seeing here is essentially three ships that are passing in the night. they're not only moving in different directions but operating on completely different dimensions. if you think about the purposes they have, they're blowing off steam. you have republicans really tired of not getting answers to their questions. so they're letting that be known. you have democrats who are tired of all the nonsense and the charades, trying to call that out. then you have peter strzok, who is now finally having an opportunity to explain for himself what happened because he's tired of his personal opinions or personal reputation being besmirched. you have all that happening at one time, but i don't think that serves the american public because they're not learning anything new. what we should be seeing is really taking a lot of this time to extract that important information from a very important witness, wolf. >> good point.
we're going to have a lot more on this coming up. but there's other important news we're following, including major protests set to erupt in the uk as the british prime minister gets ready to greet trump. we'll go there live. also, the north koreans failing to show up for a scheduled very important meeting with u.s. officials. it's fueling deep skepticism right now about their intentions in the nuclear talks. also, the president releases a letter from kim jong-un. and just in, charges have just been dismissed against stormy daniels after her arrest overnight. we have details. [phone ringing]
need a change of scenery? the kayak price forecast tool tells you whether to wait or book your flight now. so you can be confident you're getting the best price. giddyup! kayak. search one and done. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan,
insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel - and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans
endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now - and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is. your testimony is bob mueller did not kick you off because of the content of your text. he kicked you off because of
some appearance that he was worried about it. >> my testimony, what you asked and what i responded to, was that he kicked me off because of my bias. i'm stating to you, it is not my understanding that he kicked me off because of any bias, that it was done based on the appearance. if you want to represent what you said accurately, i'm happy to answer that question, but i don't appreciate what was originally said being changed. >> i don't give a damn what you appreciate, agent strzok. i don't appreciate having an fbi agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations. >> i can assure you, mr. chairman, at no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action i took. furthermore, this isn't just me sitting here telling you. you don't have to take my word for it. at every step, at every investigative decision, there are multiple layers of people love me and multiple layers of people below me. section chiefs, supervisors,
unit chiefs, case agents, and analysts. all of whom were involved in all of these decision. they would not tolerate any improper behavior in me any more than i would tolerate it in them. that is who we are as the fbi. the suggestion that i in some dark chamber somewhere in the fbi would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safeguards and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. it simply couldn't happen. the proposition that that is going on, that it might occur anywhere in the fbi deeply corrodes what the fbi is in american society, the effectiveness of their mission, and it is deeply destructive. >> just one example of a rather testy exchange. that was trey gowdy, the south carolina republican congressman, and peter strzok, the former fbi agent who was fired as part of this investigation. let's get some analysis on this and other issues. republican congressman chris stewart of utah is joining us. he's a key member of the house intelligence committee. congressman, what's your reaction to this hearing so far?
i don't know how much of it you've seen, but it's very, very tense. >> yeah, it is. testy is a good description. i haven't been able to watch all of it, obviously. i've been able to see parts of it. i actually cleared my schedule a little bit so i could have some time to look at it. i think that peter strzok has got a problem. that is you can't say the things he said in what he thought was a private e-mail where he could express himself honestly. you can't say you smell trump voters. you can't call them backward red neck hill billies. you can't express that kind of animus and hatred and then stand before the american people and say, well, that isn't really how i felt. if it is how i felt, it didn't impact my work. if this was a juror and you were a defense attorney, would you allow this juror to sit on a panel when they've expressed this kind of animosity towards someone they were supposed to investigate? >> he did make the point, congressman, that he could have exposed the entire investigation into then-republican
presidential candidate donald trump in the summer of 2016, and he didn't expose that that investigation was under way for alleged collusion as they say. he says that was proof that maybe his personal opinions did not affect his work. does he have a point? >> if it's a point, it's a very dull one. the fact he didn't commit crimes doesn't mean he wasn't influenced by his own prejudice and his own bias. i also think, wolf, to be fair, when you look at not just what he said -- i'm talking about the outcome of these two investigations. i think he could certainly create a case that this individual and maybe a few others around him were very sympathetic towards hillary clinton, and that was reflected, and were very antagonistic toward the president. i think you could argue that, but i guess time will tell as time goes on. >> yeah, this hearing is going to be continuing. we'll continue to have coverage of it. let me get to the nato summit
that is just wrapped up, congressman, while i have you. as you know, president trump lashed out at some of america's closest allies, accusing germany specifically of being a, quote, captive of russia. is talk like that towards u.s. allies and friends really beneficial? >> well, it probably -- on the surface, i understand why people are questioning that and frankly, i do as well. it's one of those circumstances where were i president, i wouldn't have said it probably in that way. but the outcome of this is what i'm more interested in. my heavens, for years i and others and the president more recently, as he's begun to campaign and act as president, we pointed out something that's just very obvious. that is nato has not carried their share of the weight. when i was a pilot flying in the air force, i loved my nato brothers and sisters. but they were not capable of going to war with us the way that we hoped they would be. just because they simply didn't fund their own self-defense the way we needed them to. i think it's perfectly
appropriate for the president to point that out. though he does it again in ways perhaps you and i wouldn't, if we get a better outcome, if they're willing to take that burden and say we'll take responsibility for defending europe, i think that's a positive thing. >> but wouldn't it be more effective to have these kinds of serious discussions with nato allies behind closed doors, quietly, privately as opposed to a public rift developing, which only plays into the hands of the russians and putin, who want to see the u.s. break away from nato? >> well, i think two things, wolf. one is we've had to have those private conversations. as my role on the intel committee and other positions in congress, i've been to europe many, many times and have had these krvegss. it didn't have any effect. of course, they're not going to listen to a little old congressman from utah, but there have been many others who tried to persuade them. again, they didn't respond to that. in this case, they did. maybe that public pressure made a difference. the second thing is the last thing vladimir putin wants is
for the united states and for nato to increase their defense spending. that's going to be the outcome here. even though some may say it stressed the alliance a little bit, once again i think we understand nato is a foundation for defending democracy in europe. i don't think that goes away because of some of the things president trump has said. and in fact, at the end of the day, it's probably strengthened if we better fund nato's military expenditures. >> congressman, i know you got a vote. thanks so much for joining us. >> always a pleasure, wolf. thank you. all right. from blasting nato allies to taking a softer tone when it comes to the russian president, governor john kasich standing by to weigh in on the the latest diplomacy from the president of the united states. senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you, today's senior-living communities are better than ever.
these days, there are amazing amenities, like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars, and bistros, even pet-care services. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care, whether that's just a helping hand or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. a place for mom -- you know your family, we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.
you know your family, we know senior living. does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number.
them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month. call or go on line today. right now, president trump is in the united kingdom, moments away from meeting with his british counterpart, the prime minister theresa may, and just hours removed from an eye-opening appearance at the nato summit in brussels. the president declaring victory over american allies with his demand for greater spending, defense spending. here are some of the highlights from the president's rather lengthy news conference wrapping up the nato summit. listen. >> tremendous progress has been made. everyone's agreed to substantially up hair commitment. they're going to up it at levels
they've never thought of before. we have a very, very powerful, very strong nato, much stronger than it was two days ago. if you asked secretary general, he gives us total credit, meaning me, i guess, in this case. total credit. he thanked me, actually. he actually thanked me. and everybody in the room tha thanked me. germany is coming along. we still have to figure out what's going on with the pipeline. nobody brought it up but me, and we all are talking about it now. i think i probably can, but that's unnecessary. in a sense, we're competitors. not a question of friend or enemy. too he's not my enemy. that was on barack obama's watch. that was not on trump's watch. i said i'm going to a few hot spots. we have nato. we have the uk. and then we have putin. i said, putin may be the easiest of them all. brexit is brexit. i think that's why you have brexit in the first place, because of immigration. i have property in ireland.
i have property all over. there have been no rocket launches. there have been no missile tests. there's been no nuclear tests. no explosions. no nothing. president xi spent two days there, was among the most magical two days i've ever lived. we had 306 lectelectoral votes. i'm very consistent. i'm a very stable genius. >> a 40-minute news conference in 90 seconds. some of the highlights. there you see some video from the president and the first lady walking down the stairs of air force one, now in london. getting ready for the next round of talks that the president is having. let's bring in governor john kasich, republican of ohio, who's been watching all these things unfold. what's your reaction to what the president said this morning about nato, in effect gloating he got exactly what he wanted? >> i think, wolf, it's undeniable that our relations with our nato countries is
fraying. this has been a relationship since world war ii where we've invested a lot and worked a lot with our allies that share our values. it's kept the peace for 70 years. i think at times the president has engaged in a wrecking ball diplomacy, which you go in, you wreck everything up, then at the end you declare great things. pushing them on burden sharing is good. there's no increase about what was agreed to a few years ago. maybe accelerating it, give the president credit for that. if you take the withdrawal from the paris accord, the unilateral effort around iran, when you look at the tariffs that have been imposed on our allies based on national security grounds, our withdrawal from the ptt trade agreement, it's just one thing after another. and the g7 summit where they couldn't even reach a communique. i'm not here to personally attack the president, but i'm here to disagree with what i think is a foreign policy
initiative that i think are undermining the strength of something that's kept the peace for 70 years. >> diplomats from the nato allies are calling the president's performance at the nato summit disgraceful, destructive, an embarrassment to the united states. do you agree? >> i don't want to use that kind of harsh rhetoric, but what i am saying is when you are doing these things unilaterally, when you are raising questions about, for example, germany under angela merkel, who grew up in east zbrgermany, when you go ind rock the boat in a wrecking ball style and can't reach agreement at a g7 summit, then it begins to weaken our ability to be together. nato is not stronger. it's more frayed. now, can it change? can the president change direction? can we repair this relationship? it's vital because if it is not repaired, it weakens us. we need our allies. we worked together as a team. we have since world war ii. >> the president was asked by a reporter at that 40-minute news
conference if the u.s. could abandon, could walk away from nato without congressional action. as you know, you were a member of the house of representatives for a long time. the president said probably. he thinks he could. what do you think? >> well, i don't know about that. but what i will tell you is we finally are hearing some peeps out of republicans in the congress of the united states. the united states senate reaffirmed u.s. commitment to nato, not any hesitation whatsoever ping it passed the house as well. they also have registered -- >> 97-2 vote in the house. >> that means unanimously. also, the senate took action on tariffs, these unilateral actions against our friends -- >> 88-11. >> okay. so they're finally beginning to say something. the bottom line on all this is i think that -- look, my purpose is to say the president's got his foreign policy views, i as a leader in my party and in the
country and in my state have an ability to express my foreign policy views. it's not personal. it's based on what i think advances america, our allies. wolf, i have relatives, my father, my uncle, that fought. why? freedom of the press. freedom of religion. these are the values that people are willing to die on a battlefield for. and there are allies over there who joined us and work with us. we have allies in afghanistan. they've been in iraq. they stand with us. and frankly, we're going to need their support as we confront a china that is becoming much more aggressive, including stealing our intellectual property. we need friends. we don't need to have divisions. >> we have a lot more to discuss, governor. stick around. we're going to continue our conversation, including the north koreans. a dramatically failing to show up for a scheduled meeting with u.s. officials. it's fueling skepticism about their intentions in the nuclear talks. also, the president releases a letter he just received from kim jong-un.
we'll have details. and get netflix included for the whole family. so you can get lost in space in your own backyard... or get pumped up for your grand entrance. only t-mobile lets you watch your favorite movies and shows in more places, without paying more. get an unlimited family plan with netflix on us. and right now at t-mobile, buy one samsung galaxy s9 and get one free.
i'm trying to manage my a1c, then i learn type 2 diabetes puts me at greater risk for heart attack or stroke. can one medicine help treat both blood sugar and cardiovascular risk? i asked my doctor. she told me about non-insulin victoza®. victoza® is not only proven to lower a1c and blood sugar, but for people with type 2 diabetes treating their cardiovascular disease, victoza® is also approved to lower the risk of major cv events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. while not for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (announcer) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer,
multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing, or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. change the course of your treatment. ask your doctor about victoza®.
anif you've got a lifee. you gotta swiffer the trump administration says most of the youngest children separated from their parents at the border have now been reunited. the administration says as of today, 57 children under the age of 5 had been reunited. 46 have not been reunited. they say because of issues involving the parents. a federal judge had ordered that all the children under 5 be reconnected with their mothers
and fathers two days ago. earlier this week, president trump said there's a simple way to prevent this problem. >> well, i have a solution. tell people not to come to our country illegally. that's the solution. don't come to our country illegally. come like other people do. come legally. >> republican governor john kasich of ohio still with us. what's your reaction to that? about 100 kids under the age of 5 were separated. maybe half have been reunited. another 3,000 under the age of 17, in the next two weeks they're supposed to be reunited. it's a problem. >> wolf, i mean, in america, we find this hard to believe. people of all stripes. republicans, democrats, and even the faith people who have been so with the president have spoken
out. so i'm a mom down in guatemala. i have drug lords, gangs. they're threatening to kill my son or rape my daughter. i'm going to apply for asylum. i'm not going to stay in guatemala. my life is at risk. so i come to the united states and seek asylum. what we need are more asylum judges. we have to have facilities. when parents come here with their kids, when people are refugees, they need to be housed. we need to find out if they're at risk. in addition to that, yes, we need to do things at the border. but we need a bigger strategy than that. we got to get to the root of the problem, like we did in colombia. not that it's perfect there. we need to invest militarily and economically with our neighborhoo neighborhood. we need to help mexico get on its feet. we need to stop all this crime, these drug cartels which are flooding our country. we need to go to the root of the problem, not with another big, big federal program, a targeted program that relies on their leaders to get on their feet. and we have to do something to
make sure we protect our border. >> you have confidence in this administration? >> i haven't seen any administration really talk about this. this gets to the root of the problem. for people that come here, if they're seeking asylum because their family is being threatened -- if i have a legitimate complaint, in the process of that being determined, you don't to take people's kids away. we're all humans. think about what it would be like if your family got put into this kind of a position or if your children were separated from you. so the administration had this policy. now guess what, they're back to the old policy that they said was not acceptable. that's basically what they're doing, catch and release. so deal with the problem in the whole neighborhood. make sure you strengthen the
borders. stop the drugs because the drugs are a big problem. but you got to get to the root cause of this. >> quick question before i let you go, governor. congressman jim jordan, he was an assistant wrestling coach at ohio state university a couple decades or so ago. now some are accusing him of knowing about sexual abuse by someone else on that wrestling team. i know this is a big issue in ohio. what's your analysis? >> first of all, there's a law firm, reputable, that's doing an investigation. when we looked at michigan state or penn state, we feel terrible for the athletes. for jim yjordan, he's always ben pleasant with me. i'm not a close friend, but we are friends. when i heard this, i was sad. in fact, i said a prayer that this would pass, that this would all be resolved. but you also have an investigation, and what i hope will happen is the athletes will be taken care of and jordan will be cleared. i hope. we'll see how it all unfolds. >> he's not -- just to be
precise, he hasn't been accused of sexual abuse himself. he's just been accused of knowing about this and not doing anything. >> in this business of politics now, we tend to be -- because you're on different sides or whatever, we tend to demonize. we stopped doing it. we all have to be thinking for the best outcome for all of our friends and neighbors. this whole business of rooting against people and tearing people down, it's not a good way to build a stronger country. >> governor, thanks so much for coming in. >> wolf, always a pleasure. >> you want to be president of the united states? >> well, i don't. i have my own job now, governor of ohio. >> this is not a difficult question. do you want to be president of the united states? >> would i like to be? yeah, but you have to earn that. i didn't get elected. i tried to run. but ed koch ran for governor of new york and didn't win. on election night he said, you know, i'm not governor of new york, but i'm mayor of new york and that ain't bad. >> i think you said yeah when i
asked you if you wanted to be president. >> i would love to be in a position to help our country, but so what. there's a long distance between that and how you get there. i also, by the way, would like to play on the pga tour. i don't think that's in my future. >> i have no idea how good you are. governor, thanks so much for coming in. >> thanks, wolf. right now, we're getting live pictures coming in from london where protesters are gathering ahead of president trump's visit with the british prime minister theresa may. we'll have a live report. and fireworks here in washington up on capitol hill as lawmakers grill the fbi agent who sent anti-trump text messages during the campaign. the hearing about to begin -- to resume, i should say, any minute. we'll have live coverage. stay with us. hi, i'm joan lunden with a place for mom
a new home. we especially appreciate the information about the va aid and attendance program. i feel i found the right place. a perfect fit. you were my angel and helped guide me every step of the way thank you. the senior living advisors at a place for mom partner with thousands of families every month, listening and offering local knowledge and advice to help find the best senior living communities across the country and it won't cost you a cent. this is a free service. call today. a place for mom. you know your family. we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. right now protests are getting underway. let's go to our u.s. correspondent talking to people in the crowd. nick, will the president actually see the demonstrations?
>> reporter: not necessarily because they are about 300 or 400 yards away from where we saw his vehicle and two helicopters land. 60 miles north-northwest where he'll meet prime minister theresa may. this is the part of the city where he'll see and it is fenced off behind this intensive security apparatus of a fence where we have about two or three protests around. the size here and it is noisy. this is not threatening by in means but slogan are quite clear. orange is the new nazi is what i have seen behind me. trump for prison is another use of trump's sign that we see.
this is just the beginning. it is tomorrow at the capital, you would expect to see a lockdown because of security measures to assist around the capital. the protest is about trump. this behind me i am sure he'll wear some of it whether he'll care of what they have to say but it is really the message from london. how they feel about the u.s. president, wolf. >> nick peyton walsh on the scene for us. we'll standby with you. another important news that we are following today, of north korea. the meeting was to discuss repatriation of the u.s. soldiers. the north was a no show. let's bring in jim sciutto. it is a big deal, they scheduled a meeting and all of a sudden
they did not show up. >> when mike pompeo went to pyongyang he was supposed to meet with kim jong-un and he did not show up. they're supposed to discuss the repatriation today of u.s. soldiers remain of the korean war which something the president claimed a couple of weeks ago to have achieved from these talks. again, still stumbling blocks here and the letter kim jong-un except to him and we should note six days ago, one, in this letter the word denuclearization was not mentioned once and no commitment here. since then -- >> july 6th letter that they released today and since july 6th a lot of stuff has happened and not good in terms of u.s./korea relations. >> bottom line is there is nothing hard that's conceded by the north koreans since the
summit in singapore. >> kim jong-un refused to receive directly of mike pompeo on his third visit and now they did not show up of standard talks. significant development. >> thank you. we'll continue to stay on all of these news. we'll be back at 5:00 p.m. eastern in "the situation room." >> in the meantime the news continues right now. thank you for being with us, i am ana cabrera in for brooke baldwin. john berman, first visit to the united kingdom. >> reporter: ana, the president is here at the united kingdom. he's on his way to the palace which is not in london. it is about two hours away from here, he'll attend his black tie dinner at the sir winston churchill. he'll be