good evening we begin tonight with breaking news with a striking bottom line according to the "washington post" and "the new york times" the cht of the united states revealed highlily classified beyond top secret information to this country's chief global adversary russia during a meeting last week in the oval office. this meeting with russian ambassador and frmts a day after he fired fbi director james comey obviously leading the investigation to possibly improper contact with russia. now the post broke the sister their reporting suggest when the president revealed the intelligence reportedly gathered by an ally not to be shared with

other countries he was boating to the russians about what he had. as you mate imagine this is touching offer a firestorm in the intelligence community on capitol hill and beyond we have our own new reporting on that what the intelligence covered and late reaction from the white house reporting for us we have a keem of correspondents jim acosta, man ewe rauj, jim acosta joins from us the white house jim explain how the white house is reacting because several people in that office put out statements although in om says they're not really address wlag the actual reporting said. >> that's right. i think it's save to say the anderson is white house is knocking down the story they are saying false as reported but in a carefully worded statement you could hear the national security adviser to the president h.r. mcmaster addressing reporters earlier this evening really tailoring his words to declare this this story is just not accurate. here is what he had to say. >> there is nothing the president takes more seriously than the security of the

american people. the story that came out tonight as reported is false. the president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries including threats to civil aviation. at no time -- at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed. and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. two other senior officials present including the secretary of state remember the meeting the same which and have said so. they're on the record accounts should outweigh knows of aanonymous sources i was in the room it didn't happen. thanks everybody. thank you. >> and that was it anderson. h.r. mcmaster did not take any questions from reporters. there were reporters asking including myself whether there was a recording of this meeting between the president and knows russian officials. he did not answer that question but we should point out you heard h.r. mcmaster say the president did not reveal any sources or methods. he did not specifically say that

the president did not reveal classified information. that's a pretty important distinction there. we should note that sarah huckabee sanders the deputy press secretary went back into the west wing a few moments ago talked to reporters and said no further statements sfr the white house on this later on tonight. >> it's also important that the story that is the first appeared in the "washington post" specifically it did not say that the president revealed sources and methods. >> that's right. >> in what he said to the russians for h.r. mcmaster to be saying the president didn't reveal sources and methods the "washington post" didn't say that's what he did. >> that's right. and there are additional statements provided by the white house tonight from the secretary of state rex tillerson from a deputy national security adviser deanna powell that sort of dance around the distinction. we can put up a statement from rex tillerson the secretary of state that says during president trump's meeting with frnlts lavrov a broad range of subjects

were threat among which threats and common efforts during counterterrorism the nature of specific threats were discussed but did not discuss sources methods or military operations. then deanna powell released a statement through the white house saying the story is fols false. thement only discussed common threats both countries faced. but anderson no where in the statements released by tillerson, powell or that statement delivered by the national security adviser is there any -- any kind of defile that the president released classified information to the russians. of course that's a dope license active topic in that the president during the campaign went after hillary clinton accuseding her of repeatedly leaking classified information releasing classified information through private email server we should note one final thing interesting to pass on. during the briefing today white house press secretary sean spicer said h.r. mcmaster would be briefing the reporters on the upcome foreign frim.

i've asked whether ph can kmofrt would be at the conference. if he does not show up briefing naes a pretty telling sign they are trying to circle the wagons. >> it's not a coincidence most of the statements sound word for word the same and that they are specifically -- the fact that they don't specifically say he didn't reveal classified information that's not an oversight that's not an accident that the white house put out statements that forgot to address that. >> it's a lot of spin anderson it's not a lot of clarity. this is the sort of denial speak you get from attention dmfrgss when there are serious questions raised obviously up on capitol hill they're raising some very serious questions tonight and republicans are tearing their hair out wishing they could get through a day in the town white house the white house doing serious damage. >> jim acosta we got new reporting what the. evan perez joins us more with thatment how does this tie in the reporting you've done on the airline laptop ban. >> well anderson back on march 31st when we were reporting that story, we worked with the

intelligence agencies for a couple of days. specifically to remove any references of the type that the president is allegedly -- allegedly discussed with these top two russian officials there in the oval office. they specifically did not want us to mention the city and they said that specifically if you mention these types of things the terrorist groups will be able to figure out that we -- we have certain collection methods our allies have certain collection methods. this could lead to lives being put in danger not only sources or methods are being put in danger but perhaps people who are inside these islamic state people inside isis might be put at risk as a result of this reporting. so we worked with the intelligence agencies over a couple of days we removed the things that really we didn't have any interest in trying to put people's lives in danger. >> sure. >> we wanted to make sure the public understood the grave danger that this laptop bomb -- that intelligence showed but we didn't really want to put anybody's lives in danger. and so we worked with the

intelligence agencies to remove this. >> evan. >> from the stories. >> evan let me can you when mcmaster says in the statement the president didn't reveal- talk about sources and methods from your report whag it sounds like if there had been any level of detail discusswood the russians just as if there had been a level of detail in the story you first reported weeks ago that -- that could have allowed adverses our enemies in isis and elsewhere to figure out what sources or methods perhaps were being used. >> right. >> it wasn't a question of whether the president actually said, this is how this was collected by just telling the details it's possible the information -- the russians in in case could figure out what the sources and methods were. >> right they could -- they could reverse engineering the information to figure out how it was collected and how the u.s. obtained if. here is the other part, the broader context here is that you know the president i think still

regards russia as not the adversary here. he really believes that the united states and russia should be able to partner in the fight against ice. that obviously is not a controversial issue. the issue is that the russians have other motives as well. other agendas there. they want to prop up the regime of bashar al assad in damascus and if they figure out how the united states is collecting information there then that could put the source us of information at risk. we don't know where that information can go. and that was what was really emphasized to us reporting the story back in march. >> evan thanks very much pch weshlgd know we invited anyone from the white house to join us but have told they have done for the not our information stands throughout the floirt team national and steve hall with retired lieutenant jerlg u-mark hurten john kirby jim skrut p.o. and harvard law professor allen dershowitz. jim i know your communication devices have been blown up with

people you've been talking to what's the reaction you're getting. >> the reaction is exasperation and dep deep concern. on a number of levels. one here because it's classified information. that's obvious. two, that the russians were the ones to receive the classified information. a prime adversary in the view of the u.s. intelligence community today. three, that it appears to relate to a sensitive intelligence sharing relationship which is very difficult to build over time there are countries you share bell with as a matter of i inss uk, france, et cetera that's natural. there are others that you don't want public because of the nature of those relationships. that country doesn't want it public that it's sharing this sensitive information with the u.s. those three things make this particularly serious. a former senior u.s. intelligence official described it to me this which. i have never before seen a senior government official so carelessly share information that endangers a sensitive

relationship. unprecedented. in the view. >> in an allies of ours gathers or sharing intelligence with us believes gnat president cannot be quiet about that information in front of the russians and others they're less likely to share intelligence. >> absolutely it's not the first time we've heard that concern from other allies can be o, dernd what they share with the president what comes out. i would add to something evan said. this relates to the laptop threat, the idea of getting a bomb hidden in a personal electronic on to airplane. there is a debate going on today about extending the laptop ban from thoets eight muslim majority countries to europe, possibly even to the u.s. this is something being talked about right now because this threat is considered right now the greatest most immediate clear and present terror danger to the u.s. here in beyond the obvious sensitive territory you're in with the nature of the information the nature of the relationship, the nature of the threat makes it about the most sensitive territory you can get

into professor dershowitz i heard what you say if what the "washington post" and. "new york times" report. >> this is the most serious ac zapgs ever made against the u.s. president if it's true. i can't think of any other president who has ever put in danger the national security, if it's true. remember that russia gives information to iran that gives it to hezbollah, gives it to syria. we're talking about agencies like jordan, israel, england that may have worked five years to get somebody into isis at a leadership level. he is going to be killed if it's electronic they're going to disclose this information. this is so serious. and now we have to unit. we have to put aside all the stuff comey all the stuff about whether the campaign coordinated. we have to focus on this issue because republicans and democrats alike will not be able to defend the president against this if it's true. now we have to find out if it's

true. the first step is damage control. the second step is doing something to protect us. do we have to ban the laments tomorrow or this week? we have to focus on in do not politicize this issue. that's the greatest risk we face now. >> testify steve hall you certainly know about classified information of that certainly know about russia the white house is saying president didn't share sources or methods poefz is reporting he shared classified information with specifics about a looming tleet that's not the same as sources or methods as the white house characterized but to evans point can you reverse engineer if you get some information and figure out what the sources and methods are that that might endanger who ever gathered that? >> well, anderson if anybody can reverse engineer something it's certainly the russians. my greater concern here is this is going to have a widespread chilling effect on all of the intelligence rice lake was allies the. the ripple effect are incredible regardless whether or not it's

true. having run the relationships myself a number of times years overseas our allies pass in information with the expect assigning that we are going to keep it to ourselves ohs and not share with others certainly not the russians without talking to them first. and we we don't do that and if it's true that the president spread this without the -- without the approval of the leasen service gave it to him they're more conservative going to stop sharing information and that puts the united states of america at significantly greater risk at what we share most with the leasen relationship was than a and that being counterterrorism attentive. >> thatistic risk was created by the "washington post". the "washington post" published this material i don't blame them somebody leaked it we now learn from he had something the editor of "washington post" reporter told us that the leak had to come from within the united states. process it wasn't from russia how do we know this because the reporter said the leaker the source didn't want to compound the problem. russia would want to compound the problem. so we now know that an american

intelligence source leaked this information 37 it's the leaking of the information that creates the compounding problem of intelligence services. it would have been bad enough if this had happened. but nobody knew about it. but now which have two problems one sources and nods now can be found by the russians and two our allies know that this was disclosed. >> although you could make -- i would assume phil that you could make jim sciutto that you could make the argument that the united states would have have to inform allies intelligence services that this information had been disclosed process. >> that's right. that would be part of the daniel control we're not talking about message damage control here we're talking about risk damage control which is obviously far more important. >> general hertling, the information the the information president president revealed not talking about confidential secret not talking about this is code word information. can you explain what that is what kind of dots can you connect with that. >> code word is ultimate in

security clearances, anderson. it means that the programs are so significant that sources and methods are so critically important that any discrimination or any leaks of information about that might give away damage that the pogram cases. i've been read in on code word programs before both in combat and peace time. and you're not only read in you're also read off when you leave the program which means you say i will never disclose that i know anything about in program that i will give any information about it or even say what the code word is that describes the program. and it's because it is so dangerous. and any kind of information that comes out on a code word program could affect the fight for an adversary for that intelligence. when you're trying to connect the dots, any specific item mib might be able to lead you to the source and the methods even though the sources and methods on the military operations as general mcmaster said were not

given, if anything was given up that might lead a very wise intelligence service, the russian intelligence service to find out more things and connect dots, it could destroy the program, ruin the relationship with the other country, generate a lack of trust with all other nations because whatever country this came from others are going to see it as well. it's not just going to affect the one-on-one relationship it's going to affect everybody that shares intelligence with our intelligence community because they're afraid to give it to them because they want to give it the president oh might give it the russia. >> phil you worked with both the fbi and cia. what do you make of the fact that this was a statement according to the "washington post" and "new york times" made by the of the united states to two russian officials who one of them at the center of the ongoing investigations and who were lourd into the oval office the day after the fbi director is fired. i mean you would think of all

the times somebody would careful about what they said and how they said it it would have been that meeting right there photos of which were being provided by the russians because u.s. reporters not lou reporters not allowed in the room at the time. >> anderson i have a mistake. rm self wasn't what the president said in october 2015 the russians lost 220 people in attack by isis on aircraft over the sinai. 220 plus if the president had not warned them about threats to russian aircraft what would we say would we say the american shunned tell the americans about threats interest isis two mistakes made here and they are significant. the first was a minor mistake. it was not a mortal sin. you have got to tell foreign partners if you're the president of the united states i'm going to reveal your information to the russians. i don't believe the russians are going to leak this isis. they're killing isis periodically in syria. the second mistake which i think is significant wasabi general

mcmasterpy respect him but he is playing us for fools. there are two elements of intelligence. what you know and how we know it. what you know about the threats to affect arp and who told you what he told us today the president did not reveal sources and methods who told us he said nothing. about what the president said in terms of the actual threat. don't play us for fools. if the president revealed the actually threat without reefrlg the source of the threat please tell us and don't play us for idiots. general mcmaster really lost credibility today. he should have been honest with us he was not. >> rear admiral kirby what do you expect russia to do with information like this? and also, the reporting from cnn earlier was that rex tillerson's statement sounded like it was coordinated with the white house didn't come from the state department itself because a lot of state department people had no idea that the statement had even been made. >> yeah so on the second part i have talked to colleagues at the

state department. it seems like this was moving -- the statement was moving so fast the white house wanted to present one koort natured set of cabinet officials statements you a all a they wanted to rip the band aid not everybody in the communication shop was red in on what was said. i honestly have never seen that happen before. but it does -- i dough dough do see the logic there moving fast. on the first question anderson it depends on what kind of information it was. i will just say this. the russians are not only not friends particularly in syria they are acting in an innijle way to our interests in syria. directly oppose attention what we're trying to get done in syria. and they have done little to nothing to fight isis in syria. whatever this information was if it was isis related i fail to see the great benefit. on this point i disagree with phil. i don't see the great benefit here in sharing with them sensitive information about the fight against isis in syria. if, however, you know there was -- there was an -- they were

imperiled being in an attack then you might want to share some. you do it in a more deliberate scheduled measured fashion, us discuss it with the intelligence community before you sit down with the russians you lay out the degree to which you share what with them and how much. doesn't sound to me like this was done in any kind of coordinated fashion the the only thing else i'd say you're talking about a president who doesn't get the intel briefing every day when you get it every day and you really absorb it and you take some time with it then you know the nuance. then you now the complexity. then you're more careful when speaking in a public or private meeting. this is a man who is not getting it every day. i worry that because he is not he is lacking that knew andance, lacking that touch of fidelity about what information is too sensitive to put out. >> we have more to talk about this on. this fast moving. especially will you the reaction from capitol hill on a republicans with fews dysfunction. . a commandment of the house intelligence committee will

speak it this comes up tonight with cnn townhall with nancy pelosi. tomorrow 90 exclusive interview with fired acting attorney general sally yates first and only teleadvised interview. stay with us. so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with just part of a day? aleve, live whole not part. you want this color over the whole house? sorry, just getting a quote on motorcycle insurance from progressive. yeah? yeah, they have safe rider discounts, and with total loss coverage, i get a new bike if mine's totaled. but how's their customer service? great. 24/7. just like here. meat loaf! [dings bell] just like here.

anybody got a pack... that needs leadin'? serving all your motorcycle insurance needs. now, that's progressive. when you design custom shirts sometfrom customink.ppens everyone feels like part of the team. you go farther when you go together. your crew looks professional from start to finish. be happy. just be together. customink's design lab has tons of fonts and amazing artwork. you can even upload your own logo. and we're always here to help. to get started with free shipping, visit customink.com today. the breaking news president trump shared more than smiles and hand shakes with russia's ambassador and foreign minister in the oval last week the "washington post" broke the stories "the new york times" followed pup the president revealed highly classified information gathered by a u.s. intelligence partner on isis. the white house is attacking the

story without denying key details of it we should point out deputy national security strategies deanna powell saying quote the story is the false the president only discussed common threats both countries faced democratic and republican lawmakers are expressing concern no one spent if he time covering the president trump. here a tweet from last july from president trump. krooktd hillary clinton and her team were extremely careless in the handling of very sensitive highly classified information not fit. that's not all he said watch. . >> one of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules. and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information. hillary is the one who endangered national security by sending classified information. >> put classified information in the reach of our enemies. sta. >> what happens when i'm dealing with the problems in the middle east? are you folks going to be

reporting all of that very, very confidential information very important? we got to stop that's why 80s criminal penalty. >> she sent vast amounts of classified information and this is where they said that she was extremely careless and, frankly i say grossly incompetent she will be such a lousy president, folks. >> well joining us mat louis kersten powers, professional allen derch wers gloriy borger and matthew rosenberg matthew you continue to report the story out for "the new york times" how does your reporting jieb with ---en a the reporting of colleagueless jieb with the statements made by the white house thus far. >> well, you know the white house, they've carefullily worded denials it looks like and they're saying the president didn't discuss any sources or methods. or military operations that are ongoing and were secret. the thing is nobody saying is he did that. what they're saying he was sit wg the russian ambassador and foreign minister he got excited you won't believer atle

intelligence i see he disclosed incredibly granular detail about some of the intelligence. so this he talked about the city where the plot emanated from. things that -- that could help anybody kind of figure out how this is being collected from whom. and it's a problem because you know the russian interest interest is not the same as our interest in syria. they're working -- they're there mainly to prop up the government of bashar al assad. and you know, allowing the country that is not a clear ally -- that's for sure -- in many whiches adversary in a lot of relevant mts into how the intel is collected is a problem. on top of that this came from a middle east earn ily we're reporting has previously warned the u.s. united states if if this stuff was leaked it would not share information in the future. it is ray incredible breach of espionage etiquette to do this share information from a an ally who who hasn't given perms to share fl professor dershowitz does the intent of the president

in sharing the information matter? i mean if he didn't intend to -- give up classified information he just -- he is inexperienced in the realms. >> if he were a private citizen it would because the espionage statute requires an intent to harm the united states. buts a the president he is exempted from any laws regarding classified material. although there's a process for did he clachgt. the separation of powers prevents congress from really preventing the president from doing what he wants with classified information. so he is probably not guilty of any crime probably hasn't committed an impeachable offense because the stupgs taungs about high crimes and misdemeanors. but he lass put at tremendous risk -- imagine if this -- it sounds more and more like it might be jordanen or israel. i know there were rumors or early onthat israel was having difficulties thinking about sharing information. imagine the information gets to iran israel's most crucial enemy or through iran to hezbollah. this is going to create a

terrible problem particularly for the president and as he is going to the middle east this week. >> yeah kersten, let's talk the political problem for this white house. i want to read something bob corker who chairs the senate foreign releases committee said republican key trump ally baurg during the campaign he says the white house has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and order. it's oscarly in a downward spiral right now and he they got to figure out a way to come to grips with all that's happening. >> speaker ryan's office that obviously very critical come from somebody who is you know eye on pretty good terms with president trump and obviously a republican and speaker ryan's office put out a statement expressing a certain amount of dismay a and wanting more information about it. i think this is something that everybody recognizes is pretty serious. and often rg i think more people watching the news we have different controversies with donald trump and sometimes people will think this is the worst this is the worst that's ever happened. this is the worst. right there right here. by far. >> how many times has that been said.

>> the reason -- i will i'll tell you the reason it's the worst is because he put people's lives in jeopardy. >> this is equal tate live. >> in the immediate and long-term. when you think about this not only has he harmed relationships current you have to wonder what any other ally is going to think about in the future in terms of working with us. >> gloria the fact the white house put out a rebuttal statement from without key people at the state department knowing and basically rebutting facts not in dput different than what was being reported is interesting. >> right. they're scrambling and you know general mcmaster came out and specifically said that the post story as reported which are are two important words was inact if there is one tiny little mistake in it maybe it's inaccurate as reported. but the gist of the story it seems to be nobody has denied. and i think this goes to a larger question, anderson which is the question of the competency of the president. i think you hear a lot of people whispering about it here in washington and i think now they're starting to talk about

it out loud. because if you have a president who doesn't know how to handle or talk about highly classified information to one of our adversaries there is a problem. >> yeah. >> and there is a big line in the "washington post" story that really struck me which said that trump seemed to be boasting about how great his intelligence is. and we all know donald trump by now. and he likes to kind of brag about things. and you can just see that occurring. i've got great intelligence that lavrov hear is what it's telling me. >> jeffrey lord are then candidate trump railed against former secretary clinton careless with wfd classified how do you square that with this. >> a couple of things i wish we would all slow down and take a good long look as what is here none of us clearly at this point knows what's really here. he was talking in terms of hillary clinton about what hundreds or thousands of emails that were put on an unclassified

server. i mean that's a lot. what we're talking about here is one quote one quote mistake we don't even know that that's the case. >> so. >> the but the algts is this was code word level that's highlily classification as it gets and was fwrifen given directly to the russians. >> and anderson what really disturbs me here as it is let's just say for the sake of the argument and i don't noept this let's say for the sake of the argument that's true. the thing to do would be to go -- tharp only three people from the administration as i understand it in that room the secretary of state, the national security adviser and the someone from the nsc staff then we see in this "washington post" story in the very first line is it talks about current and former administration officials knowing this. well how does that happen. >> let me. >> how does that appear. >> the let me ask rosenberg from the times what do you say to what jeffrey is saying. >> first of all, hit hillary clinton's emails there were a small select few that contained information. and there is no evidence that

that was supposed to the public. >> more than one. >> came from an lie i exposed to the public or that it went to the a foreign government never mind an adversarial foreign government number one. number two, there was a note taker in the room. there were notes in this meeting disseminated throughout the government. these things get around. it's never just one or two people in a room when you're sit wg russian frnlts and the russian ambassador. there is naurm a number of sources that get around i'm not getting into furthermore how we know it but to kind of compare this to hillary clinton email which was never publishized and it -- it's like look here the merls in comes up time and time again and the fact is we're talking about mr. trump, president trump and the issue here which was your sharing foreign intelligence, incredible license active intelligence provided by an ally who is already asked and told you if you share this stuff they're going to cut you off. >> professor dershowitz. >> that's the real issue. >> what is the next step. >> i'm worried about your show at 9:00 tonight i'm very worried

that nancy pelosi just the kind of person to politicize this issue. it should not be politicized. we should put assayed all the stuff about comey. we should put aside all the stuff about whether the campaign had any connections. we should as americans republicans and democrats focus on how serious this is is in a nonpolitical way damage control must occur first we must react to it online the assumption that this information has been des disseminated the worst says snore as the source may have been cut off we may have to take drastic measures now to stop any kind of laptops from getting on airplanes this may speed up isis's need to bring this to fruition we have to look forward do not politicize this issue. >> mat louis how do you seize it. >> the well look the fact that this is russia -- he could have done this to another country. he could have reveal this information to a different country it wouldn't have been quite as bad or quite as shocking quite as newsworthy. so russia. >> right and russia to the guy

who. >> yeah. >> has. >> on top of that i think it does seem very clear that donald trump views russia differently than most of us do. i think he sees them as more of an ally in this war on terror. i think gloria and matthew really. >> which does not look at the actual evidence on the ground in syria. >> in terms of what they're actually doing to fight isis in syria. but you know, to be completely speculative -- but this -- the reporting seems to comport with the this speculation -- it seems like donald trump is let type of guy who likes to brag. and i could see in a negotiation if we're talking -- i want to you like me or i want to you reveal something to me if i tell you something secret that's almost like a negotiation employ, a strategy. and i could see it working in business right a little gossip a little something i know fwes what though this is highly classified information and i think that donald trump -- i

think indaerchtly. >> anybody who interviewed you he is dprilt for affirmation from the person he wants you to like him elements -- i want to gate reactions from kploil, some much scathing man ewe raju. >> a lot of questions from republicaning and democrats tonight exactly what happened. there was a vote tonight on the senate floor senators were buzzing about it trying to figure out what exactly the president revealed in the private meeting even republicans raising concerns you noted bob corker the chairman of the senate foreign rice lakes committee. he said it provides a worrisome to provide classified information to the russiass i sought wup senator john mccain who did raise concerns if this report is true this is troubling this is what he said. >> it turns out according to the "washington post" that president trump revealed highlily classified information to the russians last week what's your reaction. >> well if it's true obviously it's disturbing. but injury weaver got to find out more before i could comment.

i just can't comment on every news story. so but obviously if it's -- it's not a good thing. >> should it be part of the investigation here going forward. >> i don't know let's wait and see what -- what this was all about first. >> and anderson the question is also whether or not the senate intelligence committee will get briefed on this matter or will look into it further. senate intelligence committee richard burr saying he was not read in on this issue saying efts just reading about in when i flew into washington early yerl today. let eye of questions from members of both parties even ones getting the sensitive classified briefing. really don't know much about it at this point anderson >> translator: manu raju zbrp a house intelligence committee conducting four congressional accounts, represent every swalwell first off what do you make of this potential release of information by the president to the russians? >> good evening, anderson.

you know, the cost flt president's ties to russia cannot be our national security. and if this is true that is price that we could pay. and if you step back and look at what happened here, the president is alleged to have given classified information to a foreign adversary who i would argue, anderson when you look back atsz a few years from now people will ask why were the russians even in the oval office after the attack they carried out information given to a foreign adversary that could really affect our sourcis and methods and also put american lives at risk. i hope that the administration comes to congress this week, particularly it to our committee and updates just as what was revealed and also tells us is this a change in the position in how ve view russia and how we share information with russia that's something affectsing our replace was other allies. >> there is a lot we don't know based on what kmaugt rosenberg from "the new york times" pan "washington post" reporting it sounds like more of a boast by the president than a

particularly desire to pass along you know specific information to these -- to the russians. >> i want to learn more anderson. i'm not going to jump to conclusions just yet. remember this was somebody who fired the fbi director the day before the meeting because he was too much of a showboater. so if our president was showboating or grand standing with u.s. intelligence in such a reckless way that's something we should all be concerned about. >> congressman swalwell appreciate your time coming up next more on the entire controversy qb the story today became a part of the question of campaign collusion with russia, the house and senate investigations firing of jamgs comey and the congressman mentioned and whether the president recorded conversation with him and who knows were the conversation was the russians recorded? more on that ahead. did you know 90% of couples disagree on mattress firmness?

enter sleep number... she likes the bed soft. he's more hardcore. you can both adjust the bed for the best sleep of your life. save $700 on the temperature balancing i8 bed. go to sleepnumber.com for a store near you. so we know how to cover almost alanything.ything, even a coupe soup. [woman] so beautiful. [man] beautiful just like you. [woman] oh, why thank you. [burke] and we covered it, november sixth, two-thousand-nine. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

it is too soon to tell but it would not be surprising in tonight's breaking news the report that president trump disclosed highly classified intelligence to the russians underscores the doubts that people have about the larger russia collusion probe. new nbc wlg "wall street journal" apology show 78% for independents medication or special prosecutor to investigate only 15% for congress to handle it. as for the president's decision to fire fbi director comey 29% approval for that. 38% disapprove about 1 in 332% tell policers doesn't know enough to say as for the president's tweets suggesting he might have recorded his dinner conversation with director comey the white house again today

seven times by our count afraiding answering questions about it. >> did the president trump record his conversations with form fisher director comey? >> i assume you're referring to the tweet. and i've talked to the president. the president has nothing further to add on that. >> why did he say that? why did he tweet that sfl as i mentioned the president has nothing further to add on that as i've said the third time nothing furtherer to addology. the fweet peeks for it's moving on. >> does anyone else have an audio recording what ufrlded during the january 27th dinner. >> i'm not aware that have the hapt nothing further on that. >> why won't you explain whether or not there are recordings. >> the president made it clear what his position. >> thaesz not my question. >> i understand that that's what the president's position hallie i've answered the question over and over again the same way. >> well, that is certainly true. back with the panel gloria boringer. there is this quote from republican senator susan collins he she said it as an aside can

we have a crisis free day that's all i'm asking. dos does feel like virtually every day there is some new situation arising. the white house is trying to clean up and has to come back out and make new statements. often raising more questions. >> right and it usually by the way a lot of the confusion flows from the top down. >> right. >> i mean this is a president who tweeted about you know comey better hope the conversations aren't taped. and this is a president who sat in the oval office with two russians and apparently said some things you know he shouldn't have said. and this is why i talked to a couple of republicans from the house today who were saying to me, this is why we're worried that our whole agenda is going to be derailed because we're not trying to do tax reform, for example. and this is also why, anderson, you don't see a whole lot of republican surrogates out there

rushing to deferred the president every time he does something like this. because they're not sure they should. and that's why you saw a republican like mcmahon who has been quite critical saying, okay i have to learn more about this. because they're getting hit by this every single day. and they don't know what to think from day to day. >> kersten interesting unlike the reaction on the day comeyy was fired which petition they put out kellyanne conway put out everybody on different new york attention trying to get the message out it turned out what they were selling was not the what the president decided to talk about which contradicted. tonight they sent out mcmaster in a very carefully worded statement didn't address the actual reporting. same statement basically from tillerson. now they're saying we have no more statements tonight. >> yeah. >> truly like in the bunker or somewhere. >> i also think it's interesting you think of powell and mcmaster two respected people who haven't

been tan i should yet in the administration sort of like the last people standing. they've been sent out and probably going to be tarnished by what just went down tonight which was very unorthodox and sort of nondenial, denials this starts at the top with donald trump. and you can try different people giving statements. but ultimately the many pr is with him and he creates this chaos and then sort of sends the people out to try to clean up the messes. but until he stops doing the things causing the messes no communication strategy is going to solve the problem. >> i mean, matt, i guess the question is at what point do capitol hill republicans start to distance themselves from et president? or senators or congressmen. >> i think gloria made a very interesting point, which is that this is like almost a game theory. if you're a republican, if you're a conservative comment tate traitor or writer oh, republican politician you're sort of balancing is he nixon? is he -- is he mccarthy?

is he reagan? right and there were -- tlerp conservatives like george will who attacked -- reagan didn't have -- until late in his administration the scandal part. but there were conservatives like george will who attacked reagan ended up looking silly and stupid because he became in iconic protective placement and sevt conservative figure. is he nixon? it's unclear. and so i think you're having people hedge bets. >> right. >> and i don't know when the tipping point comes but at some point people will abandon in mass sfl if the president did what is the "washington post" says he did and "the new york times" said he did base kwle with h.r. mcmaster has not died more has rex tillerson if the president did that, gave code word level classified information to -- to the two russians in the oval office, that -- that then they could go back and figure out the sources and methods and may put an allies intelligence operatives in danger or whomever it may be

may effect intelligence sharing with allies. would you agree that that is bad? >> well, sure if in fact that's exact what he did. but anderson i think it will also -- it will open up the whole question of leaks and classified information. let's recall the irony here this is a "washington post" story. and while i was waiting to go on i noticed that in march of this year tom hankes and merle streep and steven speaking burg near making a movie of the "washington post" leak of the pentagon papers which were entirely classified. and they're being celebrated for it. so i would just suggest that i think there is some confusion all over washington. >> well it seems like the most. >> what to do with the classifies. >> it doesn't seem like there is a lot of confusion coming from the "washington post" the "washington post" mass a track record as does "the new york times" as does cnnen oh the reporting on the trump administration and the stuff we reported. >> anderson if i could.

>> all fleshld out as true what they've compton tv to deny has turned out to the no to be true. >> let me disagree with you there were two stories from the "washington post", one that the attorney -- the deputy attorney general threatened to resign which i personally denied to a washington news channel and secondly that director comey then director comey had asked for more hours resource resources then the acting director says to the u.s. senate committee, that that's not so that he has no memory of that what so far. those stories right away were have a problem with enemy. not everything that's written in the "washington post" is 100 accurate. >> well did. >> anderson. >> go ahead gloria. >> look at this from the russian point of view. they've got -- you know thaefr got chaos in the united states government. people rg aing about whether they hacked the election or whether the transition team was in collusion with the russians. >> thaefr got the foreign minister and their ambassador. >> exactly. >> in the fryingen oval office meeting with the president and

meet getting according to the reported code word level classified information directly from the president in the oval office you cannot make this up. >> that's my next point they walk into the oval get all the information and get the information and walk out let's reverse engineer all this and figure out who the source is if they didn't figure it out while sitting there. they're -- they're sitting there kind of laughing at all of this saying well this was better than we thought. when we hacked. >> thanks everybody coming up matt louis invocation richard mixon also john dean cnn townhall with house minor league leader nancy pelosi hoefted by chris brom o. i realize that ah, that $100k is not exactly a fortune.

well, a 103 yeah, 103. well, let me ask you guys. how long did it take you two to save that? a long time. then it's a fortune. well, i'm sure you talk to people all the time who think $100k is just pocket change. right now we're just talking to you. i told you we had a fortune. yes, you did. getting closer to your investment goals starts with a conversation. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today.

jim sciutto is back with new reporting. >> two former intelligence officials knowledgeable with the situation tell myself and jake tapper that the main points of the washington post story are accurate. the president shared classified information with the russian foreign minister. the information did not directly reveal the source of the intelligence but intelligence officials tell cnn that there's concern that russia will be able to figure out the highly sensitive source. there's some disagreement, i should note according to one of the sources as to how far the president went in revealing this information. the intelligence relates to what is known as a sensitive access program or sap which covers some of the most highly classified

information and is protected with unique additional access and security protocol. that point is key there, anderson. often with intelligence, you can have two differing opinions about the same thing. did the president go too far? will the russians be able to figure it out based on what the president revealed of this particular information? there is concern that of the adversaries we have that russia is so highly skilled at this kind of thing that their concern is that russia could reengineer the source of the intelligence based on what they any and based on the nature of the intelligence. >> and potentially endangering either an individual or individuals or a collection method? >> exactly. or frankly an intelligence sharing partnership. it's a partner that did not want to know it's sharing this kind of information with the u.s. >> which is obviously -- the u.s. relies on intelligence partners to share information, regionally all around the world.

>> exactly. often you rely on allies. you have an open sharing relationship with. the five is being the most pertinent example. five countries, u.s., canada, great britain, australia, new zealand. if we know it, they know it. you have other relationships, france, germany, japan. then you have relationships where you share in certain situations and not in other situations. this being one of them, particularly sensitive. >> we should point out the u.s. has had difficult relationships at times with our allies in terms of intelligence sharing with the united kingdom when there were soviet spies. there was concern about the infiltration of that secret service. this is another level of concern that the president of the united states might have revealed. >> it is. it's one that i have heard from foreign intelligence officials and foreign diplomats prior to today, the concern is if we share this, might it come out, frankly, of the president's mouth at some point based on the

way he has discussed these issues during the campaign and since his election? here is an example of how that concern could be borne out. >> jim sciutto, appreciate the reporting. i want to welcome former nixon white house counsel john dean. thanks for being with us. you have seen "the washington post" report and "the new york times" reporting. you heard what jim sciutto said. what's your reaction? >> well, having been in government, having had classified status for a number of years, i can tell you it's hard enough for government employees who are experienced to know what line they can go up to and not cross. the answer repeatedly is, anderson, just to say nothing when you get in these areas. a president sometimes has to speak. generally has thought carefully what he is going to talk about when he goes into these areas. mr. trump has no government experience. here again, it's showing. >> the white house tried to shoot down the story in as coordinated a way as they can

saying the president didn't discuss sources ormethods with the russians. we heard that from the secretary of state, from mcmaster. that is not what "the washington post" actually reported. do you see any parallels -- when you hear a statement by that -- like that, someone might call a non-denial denial, what stands out to you? >> well, i think this is just damage control by the white house with our partner, whoever we got the information from. it's not unexpected the white house would deny the stories or give the appearance if they're not hitting all the points. that didn't surprise me. i don't know what else they could do, frankly, other than try to minimize the scope of the story and narrow it down to what they think is appropriate. >> does it -- is there a benefit in coming out and making a statement that doesn't really address the actual story? because then obviously, news programs point out immediately, well, that was an interesting statement but when you actually look at the words, it's actually

not referring to what the actual report said. >> it is conspicuous. i heard it on the radio. i didn't even read it. i read it later. it's very obvious they are not banging away at the story itself. they are playing around it. i don't know if they think this will get confused in translation or what's going to happen. it's not a very strong defense even. >> republican senator bob corker said today that this white house is, quote, in a downward spiral right now and they have to figure out a way to come to grips with all that's happening. do you agree with that? how do you think they could get a handle on this? obviously, critics will say this comes from the top. is it a question of changing staff, trying to get more control over who has access to the president, how information is disseminated? >> frankly, this is my biggest concern in donald trump getting elected is the fact that he didn't know what he was doing and then when he didn't surround himself with a powerful and experienced staff, he was asking

for more problems. to stop the mistakes, to stop this chaos and crisis a day, he has to get somebody in there who he will listen to, somebody who knows their way around washington, knows their way around the government. because the people who are there right now really do not know what they're doing. and it's fairly dangerous. this is a very dangerous situation they have gone into today. >> i know jim sciutto has a question for you. >> mr. dean, thanks very much. to this point with various mistakes in the past, most republicans really the vast majority of republicans have been reluctant to call the president on it, at least in public. to see senator bob corker today, who is often held his fire, talk about the white house being in a downward spiral, certainly a change. i wonder if you in light of your experience have a message to republican lawmakers about the specific instance of the president's here? is there something that you would say to republicans about what the president is believed to have done here?

>> that was certainly a shot across the bow today from corker. and i think he is leading the way in doing so. what historically has happened when republicans have taken on powerful presidents like mr. nixon is they have come out on the good end of history and not the wrong end of history. so when you can just obviously see mistakes and refuse to call them, you are inviting more of those mistakes. republicans need to get their act together and not be so worried about legislation they're not enacting because that's what they want to have happen. this is just distorting and distracting all of washington. >> in the minute we have left, the echos -- i guess i have to reference watergate here. the ranking member of the house oversight committee, also the ranking member of the house judiciary committee saying if there's any recordings, congress needs to obtain them. the idea we are talking about recordings in the oval office

is -- i don't know if it's jada view or -- if it's deja vu or -- it's bizarre. >> the white house as early as 2011 transferred their system into the voip, where they can now have digital packets. they may well be a button on his phone he can press and make a recording. that's not impossible. >> fascinating. john dean, it's great to have you with cnn. it's great to have you on the program tonight. >> thank you. >> all of this is happening as the ninth circuit court of appeals grapples with the president's travel ban. oral arguments took place today. sally yates was fired after she refused to defend that executive action. tomorrow night on 360, tune in for my interview with sally yates. she and i had an extensive conversation this morning. her first and only television interview was fascinating. she talked about the firing of james comey, her own dismissal,

the version of events from the white house and how they jive with her own. that's at 8:00 eastern right here tomorrow night on cnn. time to hand things over to chris cuomo hosting the cnn town hall with fancy pelosi. [ applause ] good evening. we are here in washington, d.c. for a live special cnn town hall event with house minority leader democrat nancy pelosi of california. i'm chris cuomo. and we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. we are continuing to bring you breaking news. "the washington post" reporting that president trump revealed highly classified information to russia in his oval office meeting with russia's foreign minister and ambassador just last week. the classified information involv