well, thanks for joining us. you can watch "outfront" any time anywhere on cnn go. see you back here tomorrow night. it will be a crucial night for president trump tomorrow night. "ac 360" starts right now. good evening from washington, d.c. thank you very much for joining us. we have former presidential candidate senator bernie sanders on the program tonight. there are late details on president trump's plans on the eve of his first speech to congress tomorrow for a double digit boost in defense spending and massive cuts elsewhere. we begin, however, with continuing question of contact during the campaign and later between the trump campaign and russia. friday, a republican congressman said a special prosecutor is needed and appeared to backtrack today. also today, the white house said there's no need for one. the gop chairman of the house intelligence committee essentially threw cold water on the story, denying reports he was enlisted by the white house to pour cold water on the story. there is much we simply do not

know at this point, we should point that out. but our own reporting on this is solid and cnn's jim sciutto has more. >> reporter: on capitol hill today, a tale of two realities. the chairman of the house intelligence committee, a republican, denying evidence of communications between trump advisers and russians during the campaign. >> as of right now, i don't have any evidence that would -- of any phone calls. it doesn't mean they don't exist, but i don't have that. >> reporter: just hours later, the ranking member of the same committee, a democrat, who has seen much of the same intelligence, contradicting that assessment. >> we have, i think, reached no conclusion nor could we in terms of issues of collusion because we haven't reviewed a single document on that issue as of yet. >> reporter: recent reporting from cnn and "the new york times" that investigators are examining communications between trump associations and russians

known to u.s. intelligence. the administration pushing backward as being part of russian intelligence. the bipartisan hill investigation is just beginning its work. gathering documents, and agreeing just this afternoon on the scope of the investigation. it's not yet called any witnesses. still, chairman nunez telling reporters he's been given indications from unidentified officials in the intelligence community that "there's no there there." >> there's no evidence of that or any evidence i've been presented about trump advisers speaking to russians. as of right now, the initial inquiries i've made i don't have any evidence. >> are you saying the fbi has not supplied you with that evidence or the fbi has told you there's no evidence. >> i'm not going to get into which agencies. but the intelligence agencies have not provided me or the committee any information about those three americans communicating with russians. >> but they have not told you

that that evidence does not exist. there's a difference there. >> the way it sounds like to me is it's been looked into, and there's no evidence of anything there. obviously, we would like to know if there is. >> reporter: the comments echoed by white house spokesman sean spicer defending the administration's aggressive effort to refute the story. >> i think chairman nunez this morning over and over and over and over again made it very clear that no evidence that has been brought to his attention suggests that reporting was accurate. >> reporter: congressman schiff cold reporters there's a lot of spade work to be done, not only on possible phone calls between trump advisers and russians tied to the kremlin, but other leaks and communications during the campaign. >> how the russians operate, how they seek to exert their inference covertly, whether they do that through third parties, individuals, business people, directly, electronically, through encryption, there are a whole host of issues that need

to be investigated. >> and jim joins us now. so the disagreement between the two leaders of the house investigation, could that impact the integrity of the investigation? >> i think it's clear that it could. when these bipartisan senate and house investigators were announced last month, there was a lot of hope from both parties that there could be cooperation here. but clearly, it could be bipartisan but still partisan. i mean, you have the chairman of the house committee there basically eliminating one of the major lines of inquiry, these communications between trump team and russia during the campaign. and on the other side, you have the senate intel chairman, senator richard burr, who was one of the people the white house called on to knock down stories about these communications. in cahoots in effect with the white house. some democrats are calling for his participation to be changed. so it raises the question as we go through this, it may take weeks and months.

do you come to a conclusion that both sides accept? it's a real question whether you do. it might just stretch out this conflict we have on so many questions now, not just related to russia, but every issue that comes up in washington today. two different realities. >> jim, just to be clear, in terms of investigations on capitol hill, the idea of investigating russia's involvement in the elections, the hacking, would that be under the same investigation as, you know, investigating any -- if they do exist -- connections between trump campaign and conversations with russia? >> yes, that's one of the threads that the house intel committee will look into. just today they announced the scope of their investigations. it includes the hacking and these communications. that was the point that congressman schiff was making. they're just starting today and haven't interviewed anybody, so how could they reach a conclusion? that was their point. >> jim sciutto, thank you very much. on friday, darrell issa called for a special prosecutor

in the case. he appeared to backtrack today saying "i certainly could see where if there is an allegation of a crime at some point the call for a special prosecutor makes sense," then adding "currently we don't have that." this evening his office put out a statement focusing on the obama administration, "right now we have speculation and assumptions but not clarity and fact, including questions about russia's actions, what the fbi knew of the cyber breaches, what the obama administration did in response, and potential actions of former national security adviser michael flynn." he goes on, "president obama and attorney general lynch allowed obstruction to linger, clouding their work and calling into question the impartiality of the fbi's finding," concluding by saying "any review conducted must have the full confidence of the american people, which is why i recommended an independent review. i want the trump administration to be successful, and that

starts by embracing transparency." nowhere in the statement does he use the two words he used on friday, namely "special prosecutor." joining us, paul begala, jen sake, jeffrey lord, jason miller, gloria borger, ryan lizza joins us, and finally, matt lewis. jason, let's start with you, since you're new on the panel tonight. i mean, why not -- to darrell issa's point about openness and transparency. if the white house has nothing to hide, why not just come forward and say there were these phone calls, this person may have spoke on the this person and say an investigation is fine and dandy? >> first, i have to say this is completely cooked up and there's nothing to this. i was glad to see the chairman say there's no "there there." but between attorney general sessions and chairman nunez and

chairman burr will go through their process, and that's part of the oversight committee that we see from congress -- >> but the white house said there's no there there, but they haven't said paul maniafort may have spoken to this person -- >> anderson, there's been these nameless, faceless sources who still haven't come forward and shown any evidence, and even the four names that they threw out there, two of them have said this is ridiculous. the third had no involvement at all with the campaign. and the fourth we know the only thing that general flynn suffered from is he could have done a better job communicating with the administration. but this whole notion that there was coordination with the campaign and a foreign government is silly. >> you're assuming that general flynn has a faulty memory, which for somebody that was the national security adviser was quite a statement of fact. >> i was being kind. he's no longer with the

administration. i'll leave it with that. but this is completely cooked up. this president is going to come in and turn this town on its head. i think there are a lot of folks, democrats who are upset that they lost this election, and also a lot of folks that are career bureaucrats and inside intel community that are upset that they can't control the president. president trump has never had any dealings with russia. this is -- all this is trying to relitigate the campaign. it's completely made up. >> paul? >> if there's nothing there, there's nothing that president trump needs more than an independent investigation to clear his name. this is what we know. july 27th, donald trump's last press conference in the campaign, he called for the russians to hack his opponent, hillary clinton. he said russia, if you're listening, i hope you can find the 30,000 e-mails. maybe a joke. we know that a few days after the election, the deputy foreign minister of russia said, there were contacts between the russians and the trump campaign. he bragged about the contacts.

this is a high ranks russian government official bragging about them. we know from our reporting as constant contacts. it's extraordinary. we know russia hacked the dnc, hacked job eed john podesta's . and the day that "access hollywood" tape ran, within one hour of that story breaking, wikileaks began leaking john pa d -- podesta's e-mails. >> doesn't an investigation in and of itself raise questions about the white house? are they really the ones -- >> i think there are already questions raised and paul was talking on the fact that the context makes this fishy. the intelligence community, all of the intelligence agencies concluded together that president putin had directed the

hacking. there have been multiple reports of contacts from russian sources, from white house sources, all over the place between the trump administration and russia. so in there's really nothing there, why not clear it up? i just want to make one other note. in the press conferences that we saw today, i think we heard them make different conclusions, but not different updates on the status. they haven't reviewed any materials yet or interviewed witnesses yet. so how can you conclude what's happening? >> jeff? >> i mean, listening to congressman schiff, i kept thinking, and? and? there's no john dean. there's no blue dress. there's no iran-contra, oli north. there's none of this. if you've got something, for heaven's stake, pakes, put it o there. >> didn't all of those things emerge after people started being interviewed? >> i don't think we're even close to that. to me this is --

>> so what happens, gloria? >> that's a really good question to which i don't have an answer. i think part of the context here that jen is talking about is the credibility of the fbi and the cia. because you have the cia director who was brought in to call a reporter and say, this is over with, move on. there's nothing here. and you have the number two person at the fbi pulling aside reince priebus at the white house saying, this is all b.s. and the questions that i have is that should the fbi have done that, given the fact that this is an ongoing investigation. and should the cia director have put himself in a political position like that? people talk on back ground all the time to journalists, sometimes to me. >> sure. >> but, but, the cia director was doing the white house bidding on an investigatioion tt

is not finished yet. >> so if nobody from the trump campaign had any russian contact, there's still the aspect of russia's involvement in hacking and an investigation into that. >> right, an investigation into that, and allegations around that. donald trump obviously hasn't wanted to deal with that. he's said it could have been somebody sitting on a bed somewhere in new jersey. i think the republicans at this point are really trying to make sure that this appears of bipartisanship. after the intelligence committee was briefed, he was like he feels confident that there could be a bipartisan investigation into this. now you have senator collins saying the same thing. so i think that's going to be very important for them to make sure that whatever the result of this is, the public thinks this is a bipartisan investigation. >> the common theme here is,

nobody knows anything. schiff and nunez said the same thing, right? they said we haven't started the investigation, we can't come to any conclusions. this has been reported, the reporters who were put on the phone with pompeo and other senior officials, they didn't write off those conversations because they basically said, they didn't tell me anything. they said "the new york times" article was incorrect but wouldn't give those reporters any information to go out and look at the article. so we have an enormous amount of smoke and anonymous leaks. we need an investigation. >> and we should point out, the difference between "the new york times" reporting and cnn's reporting, "the new york times" said connections between the trump campaign and russian officials. cnn's reporting is connections between trump campaign officials and russians known to the u.s. intelligence community, there's a difference.

>> i would say you're right, we don't know anything. that's why you don't get a special prosecutor. my understanding is that, number one, a special prosecutor would be at least an allegation of a crime being committed. and so look, i totally agree, we should be looking into russia. there's congressional investigations into russia. we need to get to the bottom of that. when it comes to looking into this administration, i don't think there's grounds for that yet. there's not even an allegation of a crime being committed and there's no statutory responsibility for the administration to comply. i think they would be insane right now. look, the game that's being played -- >> we do know that there's an fbi investigation. but we probably don't have enough information to know if that triggers a special counsel being -- >> let me ask jim sciutto. jim, is that the case, that unless there's knowledge of a crime committed, no special prosecutor would be appointed? >> it's partly a political question. if it's decided that the bipartisan committees can't

reach -- can't do the work, to a degree that it inspires confidence in both parties. that seems to be a real question now. because a month ago when these bipartisan investigations were announced, that was cnn's sign of hope by both parties. but you barely started the investigations and both parties are accusing the other of being biased in effect, as they started. eliminating lines of inquiry or keeping lines of inquiry open that the others do not believe is a reasonable line of inquiry. just another point on that distinction between "the times" story and our own reporting. "times" said contact with russian intelligence. our reporting said contact with russian officials and others known to u.s. intelligence. russia uses a network of people to report back, in effect, to the kremlin, including business people and diplomats, itself. i have pressed and i can say this, democratic and republican sources on the hill to say are

you saying to me, you have eliminated that possibility that these people, they were speaking to are in that orbit of reporting back to the kremlin? i pressed them on that issue and i pressed nunez as well. they do not eliminate that, because they haven't answered that question yet. so that has not been answered and that's the reason that distinction is important. >> it is interesting, jim, when we hear from republicans, the white house pushing back, it's always about "the new york times" story, which is that very specific language. >> it is. and listen, it's also, as you said without a lot of -- because i pressed as well so explain why you eliminated that possibility. because again, you know this anderson, i'll just remind our viewers. our reporting a source with multiple officials and intelligence, any agencies in this city that told us the same thing about evidence of those communications. so the reason we had the confidence to go to air with it.

that's something that hasn't been answered yet. >> much more with the payable, -- panel, including the white house war on leaks. later, senator bernie sanders joins us. americans - 83% try to eat healthy. yet up 90% fall short in getting key nutrients from food alone. let's do more. add one a day women's complete with key nutrients we may need. plus it supports bone health with calcium and vitamin d. one a day women's in gummies and tablets.

you're gonna love birds eye steamwait for it.bles. in about five minutes you get delicious, premium veggies, steamed to perfection. now! ♪ ahhhhhhhhhhh... mmmm heavenly, right? birds eye steamfresh. so veggie good. with not food, become food? thankfully at panera, 100% of our food is 100% clean. no artificial preservatives, sweeteners, flavors, or colors. panera. food as it should be. it can seem like triggers pop up everywhere. luckily there's powerful, 24-hour, non-drowsy claritin. it provides relief of symptoms that can be triggered by over 200 different allergens. live claritin clear. with e*trade's powerful trading tools, right at your fingertips, you have access to in-depth analysis, level 2 data,

and a team of experienced traders ready to help you if you need it. ♪ ♪ it's like having the power of a trading floor, wherever you are. ♪ ♪ it's your trade. e*trade ♪ ♪ nobody does unlimited like t-mobile. while the other guys gouge for unlimited data... t-mobile one save you hundreds a year. right now get two lines of data for $100 dollars. with taxes and fees included. that's right 2 unlimited lines for just $100 bucks. all in. and right now, pair up those two lines with two free samsung galaxy s7 when you switch. yup! free. so switch and save hundreds when you go all unlimited with t-mobile.

white house spokesman sean spicer is cracking down on leaks, taking measures to identify white house insiders who may be communicating with reporters and spilling inside details. how do we know this? it leaked. the details now from jeff zeleny. so what is sean spicer doing to crack down on these leaks? >> reporter: first and foremost, sean spicer is trying to get the word out to his staff and others throughout the whole government, throughout the administration, that they are serious about this, the president from the top down is serious about leaks and they want everyone to stay on message. so he had a meeting last week, and he urged, in fact, told people not to use these encrypted apps that you can communicate with people privately in messages that disappear on your phones. and he also checked people's phones to see if they had been sending text messages and other things to reporters. we were told earlier today by multiple sources that the president signed off on this,

that he was so intent on finding -- or putting a stop to this, he signed off on this plan. sean spicer tells me that's not true, he was acting alone here. but the point remains the same. we stand by our reporting on that. they wanted to get the word out that they're trying to crack down on leaks. we'll see if that happened, because word of the meeting leaked. some are sanctioned leaks, some are not. perhaps they wanted it to leak, so everyone is on notice here that they're looking for them. s >> i understand why it's demoralizing for people to have leaks coming out of the office, but we should point out the information about the crackdown on leaks itself is coming from a leak. do we know, were staffers told what would happen if information continued to get out? >> reporter: sean spicer and others throughout the government have said that it simply not acceptable. it's definitely a fireable offense, if people are found out to be leaking things.

but all white houses have leaks. some sanctioned, some are not. but if they are found to be leaking things, particularly national security secrets, that is a fireable offense. >> jeff zeleny, thank you very much. we used to work in the white house. will this work? >> no. it will drive you crazy. the first weeks and months of the clinton administration, there was tons of leaks and it was frustrating. it took a while and we got our act together. for their take, i hope the trump folks do, too. but this is not the way to get your act together. you treat people like they're disloyal, and they will be disloyal. this starts at the top. donald trump would not be president without leaks, wikileaks. the fbi director violated guidelines by blasting hillary clinton, leaking a letter. he's part famous because of

leaks. so they're getting their cues from the boss. they feel like leaking is okay. honestly, i know sean spicer, he's a good guy, he will be a good guy when this is over. but there's something happening right now, and i suspect it's pressure from the boss that's making him act out of character, and it's not good. >> jen, you were in the obama administration, a white house which did not appreciate leaks. >> that's true. there are leaks in every white house, no doubt about it. but what's going on here is they're trying to push the leak story forward. i suspect that they leaked this storey purposefully. donald trump asked them to leak this story. they want to keep the focus on leaks and their investigation to crack down on leaks. they don't want us to be talking about russia and their contacts with the russians or what -- their involvement in the campaign. so this is an effective effort to distract. i think the whole -- [ overlapping speakers ]

>> even jason looks surprised. >> doesn't this undermine two of donald trump's past story lines? one story line being, fake news, anonymous sources that aren't true. well, maybe they are true. they're leaked. so this implies that the leaks are real. and then the other story line was, well, there are leaks. these are coming from obama, you know, holdover bureaucrats. now you have sean spicer going to his own team. so which is it? >> you're all reporters of sources. why do people leak? >> they leak strategically -- >> to make themselves look better. >> there are people who are leaking on behalf of action that they are associated with. or they leak in more of the way that jen was talking, which was common in the obama white house where they're trying to paint a story or they have some strat

jichlt ok -- strategy. and occasionally, you have a relationship with the source. >> it may be different in this white house. i think sometimes people in trump world leak to get the president's attention on certain things. i know that that occurred during the campaign, when there were issues in the campaign that people would tell you things so donald trump might read it and then might take some action on it. [ overlapping speakers ] >> i want to jump in here. i've got to defend sean a little bit here. i think he's doing a very good job behind the podium, one of the toughest jobs on the planet to do. but i think one of the things is, look, i think it's good that the white house is cracking down on leaks. if you were doing this, if you're working in the private sector around the country and you were caught leaking sensitive information or heaven forbid, or if you were caught leaking information out of the cnn newsroom or "the new york

times" new room, they would be calling in sug night to dangle you off the balcony to figure out what was going on. but this continual talk of going back to, you know, who said what and all this, one thing i point out from this story that popped yesterday. there were no sources coming from people identified as being in the room. so a lot of this is coming from outside the white house. maybe people hear part of something and embellish on it. i think a lot of this is outside. i think it's people who maybe have an ax to grind. but all of this talk about leaking, this is not at all connected with what most americans are thinking. let's go pack to the job numbers we saw yesterday -- >> the white house is thinking about it enough and worried about it enough that they're checking people's phones. >> good for them. if you did this in the private sector, you would be fired so quick.

it's like this cull thture thats something to do or something that's accepted here in town. [ overlapping speakers ] >> and donald trump has had a history of, according to reporting, creating alternate personas. >> here's the thing they have to be cautious about. we live in this high tech world. you can leak from a landline at home. then what's the white house going to do? they have to be careful about something. there's a difference saying i want to see who you've been texting on your cell phone. this is about summoning records from a phone company to see if jason over here has been leaking. you want to be careful that you don't go down that road. >> can you imagine how demoralized for them to essentially be marched into a

meeting -- >> if i worked at a job and they said we want to see your cell phone, i would be like, see you later. [ overlapping speakers ] >> what i find unusual about this, they were mostly communication staffers, whose job is literally to talk to us. one quick thing here, we went through a very tough campaign, everyone here would agree with that. i've been involved with house and senate races that leaked more than our campaign. that's where i think there's a lot of this talk coming from the outside with access, and good for them for -- >> but spicer had the meeting. wouldn't he want to see who is leaking? >> you said it was a tightening group. obviously you did lose a couple people along the way. lewandowski, manafort.

>> all right. up next, bernie sanders on the question of contact between the trump campaign and russian officials. also, his take on revamping obamacare and how president trump's doing after one month in office. later, the oscar snafu everyone is talking about. the best picture mixup earns a spot on the "ridicu-list." details ahead. coricidin hbp is the only brand that gives powerful cold symptom relief without raising your blood pressure. coricidin hbp. ♪ (music pla♪ throughout)

♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: get on your feet for the nastiest, most terrifying bull in the state of texas. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ (crowd cheers) ♪

so how old do you want uhh, i was thinking around 70. alright, and before that? you mean after that? no, i'm talking before that. do you have things you want to do before you retire? oh yeah sure... ok, like what? but i thought we were supposed to be talking about investing for retirement? we're absolutely doing that. but there's no law you can't make the most of today. what do you want to do? i'd really like to run with the bulls. wow. yea. hope you're fast. i am. get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change. investment management services from td ameritrade.

again, our breaking news tonight. just days after saying a special prosecutor is needed to investigate reported ties between the trump team during the campaign and russia, the congressman gets vague. another key republican is weighing in. i talked with senator bernie sanders and spoke to him earlier this evening. senator sanders, house intelligence committee chairman nunez says he's seen no evidence of contacts between the trump campaign and russian officials, and that there should not be a special prosecutor appointed to investigate. do you agree with him? >> no, of course i don't agree with him. look, what we have happened is

unprecedented in the history of our country. we have a major government, the washingt russian government interfering in our elections, trying to do everything that they could to make sure that mr. trump won the election. now, there may not yet be any evidence of direct collusion between the russian government and the trump campaign. perhaps today, we do not know. but clearly, this is an issue of enormous consequence. did the trump campaign collude with the russian government in order for mr. trump to be the next president of the united states? that issen issue that has to be investigated. and what mr. nunez knows today or doesn't know is not important. what we need to do is investigate whether or not that is true. >> and how do you want to see that investigation proceed? because sean spicer today said there's nothing there when it comes to collusion with the russians. >> they say -- i mean, anderson,

these are the guys who obviously do not want to pursue this issue. they wish that it would go away. the only problem is, the american people know that the russian government actively participated in our campaign in an unprecedented way. there is a lot of evidence to suggest that trump's financial dealings have been dependent on russian money. what does that mean? and the question of collusion is maybe the most important issue of all. so it doesn't matter to me what the administration says. it doesn't matter to me what congressman nunez says. what matters is that the american people have to learn the truth. that means an independent investigation. it means the intelligence committee here in the senate and in the house do everything they can to get to the truth. >> president trump today talked about his intentions to repeal and replace obamacare. there does not seem to be an agreed upon plan with republicans how to replace obamacare. we haven't heard any real

details. do democrats have an obligation to do more than just not help the republicans in their efforts? >> you mean to say that democrats should work with republicans to repeal this legislation? no, i don't think our job is to work with them to repeal the legislation. what our job is to work with them to improve the legislation. is the affordable care act perfect? far from it. it needs to be improved. we wait eagerly for the republicans to come forward with a proposal that will improve the affordable care act. let's work together. >> i'm wondering when you heard the president trump say "nobody knew that health care could be so complicated," i thought nobody knew that health care would be anything but complicated. were you surprised by that? >> some of us hsitting on the health education meeting who heard from dozens of people who stayed up night after night trying to figure out this thing, yeah, we got a clue. when you provide health care in

a nation of 320 million people, yeah, it is very complicated. and maybe now, maybe the president and some of the republicans understand you can't go beyond the rhetoric, we're going to repeal the affordable care act and everything will be wonderful. a little more complicated than that. we remain today, and let's not forget it, the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all people. we pay the highest prices by far for prescription drugs. let's address those issues. >> i'm wondering, are you more or less optimistic about his presidency now? >> i wouldn't say i'm more optimistic or less optimistic. i am stunned every day. >> stunned? >> stunned, really every day. you just mentioned he said -- i mean, this is the president of the united states. we have been debating health care in this country for 30 years, and he says, gee, who knew how complicated it was? he's maybe the only person in

this country who doesn't know how complicated it is to provide health care for the american people. and i think when he comes forward with priorities to make massive cuts that impact our children and the elderly, impact the sick, impact the poor and significantly increase the military budget at a time when we are spending more than the next ten countries combined, those are not the priorities of the american people. then we have to come forward with massive tax breaks for billionaires like mr. trump himself. so the priorities they are pushing are way out of touch. >> senator sanders, thank you for your time. just ahead, the pentagon budget boost. president trump says the military doesn't win anymore and needs to start winning again. strong words. will military brass take offense or just be glad for the windfall? plus, the mother of all mixup at the oscars takes a bow on the "ridicu-list."

this is not a screensaver. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪ or is it your allergy pills? holding you back break through your allergies. introducing flonase sensimist. more complete allergy relief in a gentle mist you may not even notice. using unique mistpro technology, new flonase sensimist delivers a gentle mist to help block six key inflammatory substances that cause your symptoms. most allergy pills only block one. and six is greater than one. break through your allergies. new flonase sensimist. ♪

for every social occasion. so the the broom said, "sorry i'm late. i over-swept." [ laughter ] yes, even the awkward among us deserve some laughter. and while it's okay to nibble in public, a lady only dines in private. try the name your price tool from progressive. it gives you options based on your budget. uh-oh. discussing finances is a big no-no. what, i'm helping her save money! shh! men are talking. that's it, i'm out. taking the meatballs. that's it, i'm out. anyone ever have occasional constipation,diarrhea, gas or bloating?

she does. she does. help defend against those digestive issues. take phillips' colon health probiotic caps daily with three types of good bacteria. 400 likes? wow! try phillips' colon health.

when president trump aaddresses the joint session of congress tomorrow night, he's

proposing to boost defense spending by $54 billion and cutting other federal spending by the same amount. >> we must ensure that our courageous servicemen and women have the tools they need to deter war and when called upon to fight in our name, only do one thing -- win. we have to win. we have to start winning wars again. when i was young in high school and college, everybody used to say, we never lost a war. now we never win a war. we never win. we don't fight to win. we don't fight to win. so we've either got to win or don't fight it all. >> he's calling his blueprint a public safety and national security budget. congress will have the final say on approving it. joining me now, mark hurtling, carl higby.

general hurtling, what is your reaction from the remarks from the president? >> i tuned in, anderson, to make sure i understood what he was going to say about the budget. i was confident in terms of some of the things. i'm not sure of the details of this 10% increase. but the military certainly needs some additional funding. but i was insulted, i heard him say an untrue statement and really found him once again doing things that good leaders don't do. here's what i mean. i was insulted by the fact he said we don't win anymore. i'm just going through revisionist history and today happens to be the anniversary of the day before the end of the gulf war. but let's look at our wins over the last 25 years. grenada, panama, desert storm, the cold war, the balkans, rwanda, continued protection against north korea. so i don't know what he's talking about when he says those kinds of things and it doesn't

seem necessary when he's rolling out a bum dget to insult the me and women who wear the uniform. >> what is your take, do you find what he says insulting? >> no, i don't -- >> carl, if you don't find it insulting, there's something wrong with you. >> i listened to you, so give me a shot here. the issue here is, general, we have all these people in power and we went into iraq and afghanistan, and i expect donald trump was talking about, that you didn't have a goal. you didn't define a goal. enlighten us on what the desired outcome was in iraq and snafg -- in afghanistan? >> in afghanistan, it was to take down the al qaeda network and in iraq, it was regime changed. that was the strategic objective, by i don't expect you to know because you weren't there at the time. i listened in on the meetings between the military and the political sources, and this is

one of the other things that the president has to understand. the military is sent as an extension of political being. if you go to war, it's because that's what the politicians that want you to do. and it's if politicians that define the end state and they failed to do that correctly in iraq. >> carl, it seems like you're saying it's the generals setting the agenda, not setting what winning means. but isn't that political leaders and they decide -- >> i believe it's both. this is what president donald trump did very well. he said generals, you have 30 days to give me a plan on isis. we should have had a plan a longtime ago on this. we have to get that done. the issue is -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> we did have a plan against isis, and i have repeatedly said this on this program. we had a seven-step -- >> it hasn't worked, general. >> we had a plan against isis and it is working quite well in iraq, and it's more complex than

syria. what you're going to see -- >> let the general finish. >> i'm sorry, general, go ahead. >> it is working quite well in iraq because we finallied a the iraqis fighting under a new government that mr. obama persuaded to take the place of mr. malaki. so i spent a good portion of my life in iraq. i know what happened when it went south. it wasn't because of the military, but it was because of the government influence, both u.s. and iraqi government. >> i think that's what mr. trump has to realize, that when you're the president of the united states, you are the commander in chief. you're the one that actually sets the orders. you just don't say hey, generals, give me a plan and you guys figure it out. he has to set the strategic end state. i'm not sure he's done that other than do it quicker and better and bomb the hell out of them. >> carl, you said we need to take the handcuffs off the military. in practical terms, what does

that mean? >> in large part during the obama administration, we fought this war with our hands tied behind our back. i had a friend killed by rules of engagement. we all but have to be engaged before we need to take the fight to them, and take the hand cuffs off our own troops. >> i'd be interested to know the details of your friend who was killed because of a rules of engagement issue. >> would you like me to explain it to you? >> multiple years, there was never a complaint of problems with rules of engagement. there was some issues in afghanistan concerning the desire by some to go harder against the enemy. and during a time the key commanders and the president said, when you're talking about a counter insurgency operation, you have to win the trust and confidence of the people, and not just go in and kill your way out of things. >> i think that solves the

problem. because i think that when we talk about these rules of engagement, we passed up rules of rights all the time, and there's the problem. it's within the military command structure. so somewhere between you and me on the battlefield, the communication lines were lost. let's get that fixed. that doesn't have anything to do with the president. >> i don't think i was in an ivory fortress the team i was in iraq. i was out doing, i didn't see anything that prevented them from getting the job done and doing the right things on the battlefield. i can't say that for all places on every battlefield, but i know from the fact, working with both general mcchrystal and mcraven that they were very good. >> we got to leave the conversation there, general hurt li hurtling. thank you. remember when we thought the whole adele thing was the

craziest thing to happen at the oscars? allergies with nasal congestion? find fast relief behind the counter with claritin-d. [ upbeat music ] strut past that aisle for the allergy relief that starts working in as little as 30 minutes and contains the best oral decongestant. live claritin clear, with claritin-d.

why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis.

nobody does unlimited like t-mobile. while the other guys gouge for unlimited data... t-mobile one save you hundreds a year. right now get two lines of data for $100 dollars. with taxes and fees included. that's right 2 unlimited lines for just $100 bucks. all in. and right now, pair up those two lines with two free samsung galaxy s7 when you switch. yup! free. so switch and save hundreds when you go all unlimited with t-mobile. time now for the ridiculist. nothing out of the ordinary happened at the oscars, did it? let's review. hollywood's most spectacular night, the cringetastic convenience. >> and the academy award for best picture. >> you're impossible.

come on. la, la land. >> "moonlight", you guys won big picture. this is not a joke. i'm afraid they read the wrong thing. this is not a joke. "moonlight" has won best picture. "moonlight", best picture. >> warren, what did you do? >> i want to tell you what happened. i opened the envelope. and it said emma stone, "la, la land." that's why i took such a long look at faye and at you. i wasn't trying to be funny. >> so one of the accountants, apparently, handed warren beatty the wrong envelope, and he did what anybody would do, he let faye dunaway deal with it.

the independent spirit awards, the host of that show singled out warren beatty in what is now a prophetic moment. >> warren, what a weird name. warren. >> we got a little high before the show. >> a little high in my rav4. >> i bet warren got a little high before the show, too. >> i bet warren has a really expensive silver vape that looks like a pistol. >> i bet warren has one of thosthose altoid boxes. >> all that really matters is that we all got to see some incredible reaction shots of stunned movie stars, including this picture that will forever be known as the gosling smirk. then there were so many tweets, that said bernie would have won, "la, la land" should have

campaigned more in wisconsin. and on that one, i'd be remiss if i didn't mention my assistant joey's favorite joke, "la, la land" spotted on brisk morning walk in chappaqua. we will always have the memories of the biggest f-up in oscar history. that is what i call a win/win on the ridiculist. and just another bit of ridiculistness. the person who was in charge of price waterhous was supposed to on the snow. se weight and keep . contrave is believed to work on two areas of the brain:

your hunger center... (woman) i'm so hungry. (avo) to reduce hunger. and your reward system... (woman) ice cream. french fries. (avo) to help control cravings. across three long-term studies, contrave patients lost approximately 2-4x more weight than with diet and exercise alone. contrave is not for everyone. one ingredient in contrave may increase suicidal thoughts or actions in some children, teens, and young adults within the first few months. other serious side effects include seizures, increase in blood pressure or heart rate, liver damage, manic episodes, glaucoma and allergic reactions. do not take with opioids. reduce hunger, help control cravings. contrave. the #1 prescribed weight-loss brand. go to contrave.com.

i have the worst cold i better take something. . dayquil liquid gels don't treat your runny nose. seriously? alka-seltzer plus cold and cough liquid gels fights your worst cold symptoms plus your runny nose. oh, what a relief it is. whether it's connecting one of or bringing wifi to 65,000 fans. campuses. businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink.

on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.