>> reporter: good morning, poppy. the damage to u.s. intelligence is incaculalable. he was coughing up at the white house. the story that came out tonight as reported is false. at no time -- at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed. and the president did not disclose military operations that were not already publicly known. >> reporter: national security adviser h.r. mcmaster in a statement refuted the story from the "washington post."

while falling shot of denying the president revealed classified information to russian diplomats. >> the white house is playing word games to that effect to try to plunt tblunt the exact of th. >> intelligence officials tell cnn the president did reveal information that could expose intelligence sources jeopardizing information on isis as the terror groups hopes to use laptop computers as bombs on planes. the white house insists the president only discussed common threats with the russian leaders. the shocking revelation opening up the president and republican party to accusations of a double standard after repeated criticism of hillary clinton's handling of classified e-mails. >> we can't hand over our government to someone whose deepest darkest secrets may be in the hands of our enemies. i don't think it's safe to have hillary clinton briefed on

national security because the word will get out. >> the report setting off a firestorm on capitol hill. >> if it's true, it's disturbing. i think we have to find out more before i can comment. >> a trump supporter telling the white house is in a downward spiral. chaos created by lack of discipline creates worrisome environment. democrats calling for bipartisan investigation spot latest russia firestorm. >> i hope we'll be able to proceed in a very nonpartisan way. this is as serious as it gets. >> this kind of serious and grave threat really requires a national response putting country above politics. >> this report comes as the white house fends off tough questions on the firing of james comey which was one day before meeting with the russians. white house secretary sean spicer repeatedly dodging

questions about whether tapes exist with their conversations. >> i think i made it clear what the president's position is. the president's position is clear. the president is clear on what his position in. i've answered the question over and over again the same way. >> reporter: today the president holds a meeting at the white house that could be critical to multiple in the middle east, president erdogan of turkey pays a visit around midday. poppy. >> indeed. joe johns at the whouns thank you very much. this classified information revealed to the russians inside the oval office involves isis bomb. u.s. intelligence agencies believe the terror group has developed new ways to plant explosives inside laptops and other electronic devices that can evade airport security. our justice correspondent who broke the news in washington has more. this ties all the strings together here. >> it really does, poppy.

the intelligence we're talking about considered so classified back in march when we reported the story u.s. government told cnn the disclosure would cause problems with security. on the sensitive intelligence behind restrictions on carrying laptop and other large electronics from flights from ten airports in the middle east. this is some of the same information that president trump reportedly shared with the russian foreign minister and ambassador there during his meeting at the white house last week. the concern u.s. officials told cnn back in march publishing certain information including a city where some of the intelligence was detected could tip off adversaries about the sources and methods used to gather that intelligence. just mentioning it was a concern about an isis bomb technology that was behind the laptop ban is also considered classified. so the president mentioned that fact. he was doing something we were told back in march would be highly damaging to intelligence sources and methods.

in a narrowly worded denial, national security adviser h.r. mcmaster told reporters the story was false. that denial doesn't cover damage u.s. intelligence agencies told us could come from that information. >> appreciate it. look, it's good to draw on your own experience and what you were told to reveal and what not to reveal and why especially now. we'll check back with you in a little bit. let's bring in panel. ron brownstein, national security correspondent for "new york times," david sanger. let's deal with this two differ ways. david sanger. we have what hotline r. mcmaster said relatively quickly coming out as a denial. then we have this overarching source of concern about what this would mean if true. the report from "washington post" and cnn now as well. let's take the first part.

did you feel satisfied by what h.r. mcmaster said in defending what happened in the oval office? >> general mcmaster worded this pretty carefully. he said as reported by "the washington post." then he went on to describe what the president didn't do, discuss sources and methods. the original story in the post, the "times" is reporting, you're reporting don't indicate that he did that. instead they indicate by naming the city that was involved and by describing in greater depth what the technology was that the russians would be quickly able to figure out who the source was. in this case the source appears to have been an allied intelligence service in the region that was being very careful to try to keep its sources quiet. so what was the offense here? it's not that the president can't reveal intelligence information.

he's an original classification authority which means he can declassify and discuss anything he wants to. the question is, in doing so did he so burn an allied intelligence service that they would be unlikely to share future information at a moment when that is particularly critical. that's why your own reporters, we all frequently go into this, get into a discussion with administration when you're getting ready to break a story to say, look, is the revolution of the news here damaging? are there ways to word this to avoid pointing to a source or method. that's the conversation we frequently have, presumably the president should be having the same conversation when he's meeting foreign leaders. >> let's bring in phil mudd for the intelligence side of all of this. phil mudd, what this reporting is according to u.s. official familiar with it according to "the washington post" was this was code worded information. talk about why that matters. and also there's two options

here. either the president did know he was doing something that jeopardizes the safety of the united states and u.s. allies, et cetera, and seems to boast about it, breaking about it, got great intel, he said, or he didn't know it was problematic what he was sharing. aren't those both really big problems. >> you've got two issues. let's cover intelligence issue. there's typically three tiers, confidential, top secret, code level is above top secret. it's super secret intercepted communications that tell you whoever is reading that, whoever is cleared for that information is reading something that if it's compromised could be highly damaging to u.s. intelligence. on the issue of what the president revealed, there's two different elements to that. one is should the russians know there are different threats to civilian aviation out there. remember, they lost an aircraft in october 2015 over sinai in egypt. that was, i think, the biggest

loss of life in russian aviation history. i think russia should know information like this. the question is not whether the president told them, but whether we tell the service that gave it to us that we're going to tell the russians. in my world that is a huge oversight. you cannot give information away that's given to the united states as a courtesy by another government and not bother to tell them first. that is simply reckless. >> ron brownstein. it does not seem there's a constructive legal case to make he here. it's not illegal if the president does it. poppy does it, secretary of state does it, it would be illegal. so you get into what kind of wrong is it. alan dershowitz, attorney and legal scholar says this is the worst charge ever leveled against a sitting president. do you agree and why? >> i don't know if it's the

worst charge leveled against a sitting president, i think some of the things president nixon was accused of are of comparable gravity here. we're talking significant gravity. i'm not going to quibble with phil whose knowledge of how intelligence is handled is far superior to mine. i think there's an additional debate here beyond the question of the source, the level of granularity the president discussed it as david sanger said would allow you to reverse, engineer and figure out sources and methods even if he didn't disclose them. look, this is extremely serious. it goes to, i think, a core question that has been there throughout the campaign. the principle doubt that president trump has faced from the beginning, during the campaign, and certainly since his election among the public and certainly among leadership in congress is not so much ideology but confidence. it's whether by temperament, by experience, by judgment he is

fit to do this job. what you're seeing is he's baiting congressional republicans to see how far they will go defending actions they unequivocally wouldn't defend. think about hillary clinton, firing comey, private meeting with russians, candidate trump, congressional republicans like paul ryan condemned her for during the campaign. now the question is whether they will be more forceful in kind of putting any kinds of limits on him as we saw the beginning of which ebb bob corker and his comments you reported. >> you teed it up perfectly for us. paul ryan's tweet in 2016 about clinton and classified information is making the rounds. let's pull it up. tweeted in july, individuals extremely careless with classified information should be denied further access to such information. this was during the campaign. here is all they said in the

wake of this, the statement. we have no way what was said, the speaker hopes for a full explanation of the facts from the administration. david sanger, that's not exactly standing behind the president right now either. >> not exactly true either. >> first of all, we don't know what was said. this is knowable when they have these meetings there are note takers. there's sometimes a transcript. it's not clear whether this was taped or not, but that goes back to the broader question of last week raised by the president's tweet whether he's taping encounters in the oval office. a question shawn spafr is determined not to answer. i think it is knowable what he said. there are indications the white house scrambled later on to make sure the transcript or the notes taken from the conversations were highly restricted.

whatever the president revealed wasn't widely disseminated in the u.s. government as other officials looked at the conversations with foreign minister lavrov. i think the key word here that we've heard this morning and actually came from senator corker is one of discipline. the question is when the president encounters foreign leaders, is he so determined to describe how cool the intelligence is that he gets each day, something he apparently boasted about, that he goes too far in allowing them to intuit where it came from. discipline has so far not been the hall mark of this administration. >> the column this morning, when the world is led by a child. >> look, you have a whole separate debate about what happened when you insult the president, galvanizing his base or critical light, that's pure

politics. now you have this, what are you going to do about it. phil mudd you have this one question ron framed for us hanging over the president's head of baseline competence. is he up to the job. that dove tails with what are you going to do about it. we saw with ryan, comey, ryan is going to stay on the sidelines. he's not going to go against president of the united states. hypocrisy or not. what can be done about something like this from other leaders. >> there's not much you can do here. cia, national security agency, fbi, they are trained to say if the president wants to know something, we're going to tell them. this is going to put pressure on white house advisers, particularly security adviser mcmaster to figure how to filter stuff that goes into the oval office. you've got a couple of problems with that filter, chris. we saw one this week and one last week.

the one last week with jim comey, if you have something negative to say to the president, something you don't like, you speak truth to him, he's going to take your head off. that's the billinger issue, are people going to hide something from him because he doesn't want to hear it. in this issue i fear what's going to happen, agency guys i know, cia, are going to want to tell the president everything. people like mcmaster is going to say what's in the president's briefing package and how do i filter stuff out. >> gentlemen, appreciate it. we have a lot more to talk about it. we have a very big show to get to. we want to fold in all the different elements. we're going to talk to two former cia directors, general michael hayden and leon panetta. we also have congressman jim himes and senator ben sasse, so we're going to get a lot of expertise about what this means and what needs to change. >> also up next, only something you'll see here cnn exclusive former acting attorney general sally yates sat down one-on-one with anderson cooper.

this is her ferstl vision interview since being fired by president trump and since that testimony last week. you will hear it right here. >> actually asked you at that first meeting whether you thought the national security adviser should be fired. what did you say?

i joined the army in july of '98. our 18 year old was in an accident. when i call usaa it was that voice asking me, "is your daughter ok?" that's where i felt relief. we're the rivera family, and we will be with usaa for life.

only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol®

so former acting attorney general sally yates has given her first tv interview to cnn, anderson cooper.

this is obviously since being fired by president trump and more importantly since giving that important testimony. the full interview is going to air tonight on ac 360. yates answers tough questions from coop about former national security adviser michael flynn, about the chain of events, about her tone and intentions and how the white house took her message. so all of this is relevant especially now. here is a preview. >> the underlying conduct itself was potentially a fireable offense. >> i can't speak to a fireable offense. it was up to the president to make that decision about what he was doing to do but we certainly felt like he needed to act. >> asked you at that first meeting whether or not the national security adviser should be fired. what did you say? >> i told him it wasn't our call. >> was the underlying conduct illegal? was it illegality involved? >> there's certainly a criminal

statute implicated by his conduct. >> you wanted the white house to act? >> absolutely yes. >> to do something. >> we expected the white house to act. >> do you expect them to act quickly? >> yes. >> there was urgency to the information. >> yes. >> i'm wondering on a personal level, i don't know if you can answer this or not, but, you know, you're in government one week. you get fired. now you're out and you're watching day after day after day go by and nothing seems to have happened to the national security adviser that you have informed the white house pout. just as a private citizen at that point, did it concern you? >> well, sure i was concerned about it. but i didn't know if perhaps something else had been done that maybe i just wasn't aware of. >> maybe they were keeping him away from certain classified information while they investigated, something like this. >> maybe. i just didn't have any way of knowing what was doing on at that point. >> we were aware he sat in on --

media reports he sat in on a phone call with russia's president. >> just from media reports. >> did you find that surprising? >> sure. absolutely that was surprising. >> sean spicer said on the day after michael flynn resigned that it was a trust issue that led to his resignation, no the a legal issue. do you agree there was no legal issue with flynn's underlying behavior. >> i don't know how the white house reached the conclusion there was no legal issue. it certainly wasn't from my discussion with them. >> do you think michael flynn should have been fired? >> i think this was a serious compromise situation that the russians had real leverage. he also had lied to the vice president of the united states. you know, whether he's fired or not is a decision for the president of the united states to make. but it doesn't seem like that's a person who should be sitting in the national security adviser position. >> michael flynn was let go after "the washington post" report add story. some republicans have accused

you of leaking it. did you leak to the "washington post"? >> absolutely not. >> did you authorize somebody to leak to the "washington post"? >> absolutely not. i did not and i would not leak classified information. >> have you ever leaked information to them? >> no. >> the president seems to suggest that you were behind this "washington post" article. the morning before testified, tweeted ask sally yates under oath if she knows how classified information got into newspapers soon after she explained it to white house counsel. 's it does sound like -- he seems to believe you're the leaker. when you heard that, what did you think? >> there have been a number of tweets that have given me pause. >> do you want to elaborate on that? >> no. >> all right. let's bring our panel back. ron brownstein, david sanger and philip mudd. ron brownstein, reaction. >> yeah, the last one especially. that's very powerful testimony.

the question the white house has never sufficiently answered is why it took so long to act after the warning that the acting attorney general provided. of course the action only came after the underlying question was revealed in the "washington post." it really goes back, chris, to this core issue. we've talked about this before. on election day, between a fifth and a quarter of the people who voted for donald trump said they were uncertain he had the temperament or the qualifications to serve as president. they want to change, they were willing to take a changes. certainly what happened over these three and a half, four months has tended more to reconfirm than dissolve those doubts. it sharpens the question on the place where there's the most leverage, congressional republicans who have by and large chosen to lock arms around him, emphasize areas of their agenda when they agree and not exercise oversight or outside pressure to clean up this act. i think that question will loom larger as they go forward.

is that ultimately in their political interest to remain lock step behind him or do they need to prove to a country who is at best ambivalent to a president they are providing some check, balance, limits on aspects of his behavior that concern many americans. >> poppy, take your signal from the top. mcconnell, ryan. >> totally. >> when they come out, they seem to be accommodative. >> it is different this time. you look at our reporter chris cillizza's comment, the headline, "is this the straw that broke the camel's back?" is this going to be different. i just want to circle back to the breaking story this morning obviously out of the "washington post" and cnn is reporting on all of this. the fact h.r. mcmaster, the national security adviser used the words at no time were intelligence methods discussed. wrote this story, said i think the white house is playing word games. you see it in much more stark terms. you see mcmaster as playing us.

>> he is. he knows what he's doing. i think he's lost credibility in the last 24 hours. any sbl person taken intel 101 can figure out what general mcmaster is doing. two elements of intel, what you collect and how you collect it. how you collect it is the most sensitive, potential part of this. that is how you intercept someone's communications, whether you have an informant within isis or al qaeda. what mcmaster said the president debate reveal anything about sources, how anything was collected. excuse me, of course. the question isn't whether he revealed anything about sources and methods, he probably doesn't know. the question is whether he talked about top secret intelligence. general mcmaster artfully avoided that. i assume what happened here is the president talked about intel and didn't tell the russians how we captured it. why didn't mcmaster tell us that. i didn't care for what he said. i think he lost credibility. he played us for fools, pretended we didn't know.

>> obviously more details come out about what was said. it is true intel different agencies were communicating in the aftermath about this because there was concern. if there are transcripts it will thicken out our understanding. david sanger, while i have you, i'd like to double dip, if you might allow. this cyber attack that we're all talking about with the ransomware and request for bitcoin, 150 different countries, you have some good reporting on this that may advance understanding. what do we know now about the source of this massive cyber attack. >> chris, if it wasn't for the president talking about these issues with the president, i suspect we would be more fixated on this. you saw the attack spread around the world starting on friday. what we learned yesterday is security researchers and government investigators who are looking into the sourcing here are beginning to see clues that suggest a pattern with past attacks that have been launched

by north korea. this would make sense if you're the north koreans and surrounded by, you know, a small armada, as the president referred to it, of american ships and looking for a way to strike out at the u.s. without triggering some kind of conflict using your cyber core again would make sense. remember, the code here looks a lot like the code that was used against sony in 2014, against bangladeshi central bank which lost $81 million. this is not definitive yet. what we're seeing is a series of patterns we have seen only in north korean attacks but it's going to take more work to definitively pin this on north korean hackers. >> david, appreciate the new information. gentlemen, thank you for advancing our understanding of these important headlines. so remember, saw a little taste of sally yates testimony, the interview with coop. there's a lot more.

you can watch anderson cooper's exclusive interview tonight on ac 360. 8:00 p.m. eastern, of course, om on cnn. what was anderson's take? what does he think is still there? he's going to join us this morning in the 8:00 hour. >> at 9:00 after the scruff with sally yates, stick around for this. live debate between senator bernie sanders and governor i don't know kasich moderated by jake tapper and dana bash. they will undoubtedly have a lot to say about recent developments. >> know into the future, who knows? this could be a face-off. >> one self-inflicted crisis after another. the key word, self-inflicted. nobody is doing this to the president. what does this mean for the white house? the downward spiral that a gop senator just talked about. is the president competent to do the job? harsh question but must be asked. we debate next.

♪ how do you become america's best-selling brand? you make it detect what they don't. stop, stop, stop! sorry. you make it sense what's coming. watch, watch, watch! mom. relax! i'm relaxed. you make it for 16-year olds... whoa-whoa-whoa!!! and the parents who worry about them. you saw him, right? going further to help make drivers, better drivers. don't freak out on me. that's ford. and that's how you become america's best-selling brand.

only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol® but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how.

all right. this latest self-imposed and perhaps most egregious error by the president is sparking all kinds of questions about competence. was his inability to protect highly classified information with russian diplomats a sign that he's not up to the job. there's a "new yrk times" op-ed you should read for your self from david brooks. the headline is this, when the world is led by a child. it says, quote, from all we know so far trump didn't do it, talking about the classified information, because he's a russian agent or from any malevolent intent, he did it because he is sloppy, because he lacks impulse control. and above all, because he is a 7-year-old boy desperate for the approval of those he admires.

let's discuss. jeffrey lord, former commentator and white house official and david from senior editor at the atlantic. jeffrey, i'm sure you have a robust defense for why this is a nonstory and this criticism of the president is unwarranted so give it to us. >> okay. the only thing i would say here, chris is perspective. perspective is all. i'm holding two headlines from "washington post," one may 25th, 2014, white house mistakenly identifies cia chief in afghanistan. the obama administration put the name of the cia on the press release, exposed him and endangered his life. second one june 30, 2016, u.s. offers to share syrian intelligence on terrorist with russia, which is to say the obama administration wanted to give their intelligence to the russians. all i'm saying here is there's perspective. we need to find out the facts and let's have perspective.

with all respect to david brooks he's a never trumper. that's fine. but from that perspective, donald trump isn't going to do anything david brooks like. as i remember famously with david brooks, he was certain senator obama would be a great president because of the crease in his slacks. i mean, with all due respect -- >> that was a rhetorical flourish from brooks but let's put that to the side, you've made your point. david, are any points mollified by what was said. >> the president is not a child or loveable. the president was not just making a mistake. this particular mistake could not have been made with the ambassador from any country other than russia. donald trump was unusually in grashiating and sur vile with russians as he always is, for reasons we can only surmise but cannot be good. in a parliamentary system we would be discussing expected today of that prime minister who

betrayed a national secret through inaddvertence. mistakes are not more forgivable in this context. the president won't resign. the fact is he smashds legitimacy and authority and consequences will be severe. >> david, quick follow-up on that. you have tweeted the president should resign. why such an extreme conclusion? >> as i said, in any other fellow democracy right now, the fellow government would be on his or her way by making such a mistake. this is happening with cabinet secretaries, parliamentary systems when they inadvertently betray secrets they resign. that is the penalty. they have forfeited their right it have access to national secrets. the president should resign, through incompetence, servility to the russians, he should. he has proved himself unworthy of the position he's in. >> take on the competency

suggestion. just in the last week we've seen now the president didn't know or didn't care how he was handling very sensitive, classified information, and that he didn't know or didn't care about what it meant that he exposed that he was pushing the then director of the fbi for information about an investigation and that it was okay that there was this kinard about why comey was fired and undone about the president right after. these are things that point to the ability to do the job. but you don't see it that way because? >> no, i don't see it that way. i really do believe -- with all due respect to david he, too, are never trumper. these are folks, god bless them, they hate the idea donald trump is president. they don't like it. they want to do everything to get him out. the other thing that concerns me here is whatever transpired in

the oval office on this particular meeting we're discussing, somehow that was leaked. millions of us have bosses. if we think the boss made a mistake and we have access to the boss, we tell it directly to the boss. or if there's somebody between us in the line of authority, we go to the next person up and tell them. what happened here if somebody thought the president made a mistake, they want to the "washington post." that, chris, is sabotage. that is the american government sabotaged. >> no, as jeffrey said, they went to the boss. the boss was the problem. so they went to the boss's boss, us. the people who told that story told it to the american people. look, if the "washington post" had not told that story right now donald trump would be open to russian black mail. it's true. the russians would know the president had betrayed a deadly national secret, whether he did it on purpose or by accident, alger hiss or a fool. the people in the room would be

covering it up and that would a secret they could use it for them. one other thing. jeffrey has dismissed from david brooks and me saying we were never trumpers. the fact we were right about him in the beginning doesn't prove us wrong. >> you weren't right, david. >> we warned the country, this man by character and intellect cannot do this job. and there'sover hanging a persistent suspicion of disloyalty to this country and attachment to a hostile power that must be taken seriously. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. appreciate it jeffrey and david. poppy. >> thank you very much. sort of lost in all of this chaos of the last 12 hours, the fate of the president's halted travel ban. will the president's own words come back to haunt him once k n again? that's next. i get back to business. ♪

♪ on mattress firmness? fortunately there's a bed where you both get what you want every night. enter sleep number and the semi-annual sale going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. she likes the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store. oh, and right now it's our lowest price ever on our temperature balancing i8 bed. save $700. go to sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

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. switch and you could save $509 on auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

. the ninth circuit court of appeals is once again considering the fate of the presidents now halted revised travel ban and factoring in the

president's words which is legally controversial. you have a three-judge panel pressing both sides in legal arguments on legality of blocking the ban. cnn's justice reporter laura jarrett live in washington with mo more. and as is often the case the the latest drama winds up fogging what we were focusing on. this matters. >> three clinton appointees on the court spent more than an hour grilling attorneys on both sides. the only thing everyone can agree on, well, the fact tropical storm never been a case quite like this. the federal hearing over the future of president trump's revised travel ban, once again focusing on trump's own inflammatory rhetoric about muslims. >> how is a court to know if, in fact, it's a muslim ban in the guise of national security justification? >> three judges from the ninth circuit zeroing in on the president's past statements both

as a candidate -- >> total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states. >> reporter: and as president. >> the protection of the nation from foreign terrorist into the united states. we all know what that means. >> has the president ever disavowed his campaign statements? has he ever stood up and said, i said before i wanted to ban all members of the islamic faith from entering the united states of america. i was wrong. >> the yuz department urging the judges to look at how the president's words have evolved arguing the ban has nothing to do with religion. >> over time the president clarified that what he was talking about were islamic terrorist groups and the countries that shelter or sponsor them. we shouldn't start down the road of psychoanalyzing what people meant on the campaign trail. >> press secretary sean spicer facing similar grilling from

reporters. >> he never said it? never has? >> the point is that the ban -- that the measures that he took in that executive order are fully lawful, fully compliant, make it clear they seek to keep this country safe. >> poppy, the fourth circuit also heard arguments in a different travel ban appeal last week. no word yet on when either court will rule but the travel ban will not do into effect as long as one court's nationwide injunction remains in effect. to reinstate, the justice department would have to win in both the fourth and ninth circuits or bring the legal battle to the supreme court. >> which they have said they are willing to do. we'll be following it. thank you very much for the reporting. up next for us, the president's disclosure of highly classified information to the russians. how damaging could this be? the former director of the cia and nsa general michael hayden gives us his take live here next. sica) i love beneful healthy weight because the first ingredient is chicken.

(riley) man, this chicken is spectacular! (jessica) i feel like when he eats beneful, he turns into a puppy again. you love it, don't you? you love it so much! (vo) and now try new beneful grain free, simply made with wholesome ingredients, and no grain. ♪ experience the first-ever 471-horsepower lexus lc 500 or the multistage hybrid lc 500h. experience amazing. can we at least analyze customer can we push the offer online? legacy technology can handcuff any company. but "yes" is here. you're saying the new app will go live monday? yeah. with help from hpe, we can finally work the way we want to. with the right mix of hybrid it, everything computes.

whfight back fastts, with tums smoothies. it starts dissolving the instant it touches your tongue. and neutralizes stomach acid at the source. ♪ tum -tum -tum -tum smoothies! only from tums tired of paying hundreds more a year in taxes and fees for your unlimited plan? only t-mobile gives you unlimited data with taxes and fees included. that'll save you hundreds. get two lines for a hundred dollars. that's right. two lines of unlimited data. a hundred bucks. all in. and right now, we're giving you even more. for a limited time,

get a free samsung galaxy s8 when you buy one. that's two galaxy s8s for the price one! plus, two lines of unlimited data for a hundred bucks. taxes and fees included. only at t-mobile. fmy doctor recommended ibgard. abdominal pain and bloating. now i'm in control of my ibs. nonprescription ibgard - calms the angry gut. sources tell cnn president trump revealed highly classified intelligence during meeting in oval office last week. this is a bombshell, far

reaching implications that are more than just political. joining us now general michael hayden, cnn national security analyst and former director of the cia and nsa. general, this notion that is a window into competence or lack thereof, whether or not the president is studied and measured in a way that the job demands. your take. >> chris,ening you've hit the issue squarely here. it's not about the power of the presidency. he's got the power to do these kinds of things. we give him a lot of space when he's meeting with foreign leaders to do what he thinks are in the strategic interests of the united states. this is more about the person and the performance of the president. here is a president who does not seem to prepare in detail, is a bit disdainful, even contemptuous of the normal processes of government, the institutions of government in order to get him ready, who kind of flies by the seat of his

pants, is spontaneous in these conversations. and that's just an approach that's triggered to create the kind of events we saw last week. it doesn't require anyone to be malevolent. it's just a by-product of the approach the president seems to have to these kinds of meetings. >> to your point "washington post" reporting talks about how national security council continues to prepare multi-page briefs for the president before these meetings like he had with kislyak and sergey lavrov in the oval office but the president is sort of dismissing those and insisting on single pages, bullet points and often not even looking at those. is this the price of inexperience? if it is, what is the cost to the nation? >> so, poppy, i can live with the inexperience. we're all inexperienced in one way or another when we go to a new job. what i'm focused on is the seeming lack of humility in the face of obvious inexperience.

here is a president who seems to go into these encounters with frankly an unjustified self-confidence in theable of his person to make these things come out right. he throws away, pushes to the side, doesn't pay attention to what the institutions of the government have set up for him to be successful. >> what's the danger of that hubris, then, to the country? >> the danger is we do the kinds of things we did last week. we saw the kinds of things that shouldn't be said. actually another great danger, since the president seems to live only in the moment, the eternal now with no history in front of it and no concern for consequences after it, we are in a period to our friends and adversaries as inconsistent. >> general, you're working for a president. he or one of his staffers comes and says, look, you know what the allegation is out there. go out there and say what

general mcmaster said last night. would you do it? >> look, h.r. mcmaster and dina powell are friends of mine. i have the highest regard for them. i think they were put in a very difficult situation and did the best that they could. without any specific comment on what they did, because i know they told the truth as they saw it. one of the great concerns i have, chris, is with the president acting the way he does, those in concentric circles as you go out from the president himself are forced to do things to protect the president, to cover for the president, that i don't think they would want to do in normal circumstances. i don't know that happened here. >> i hear you. >> highest regard. >> i hear you. they have very good pedigrees, and i'm not asking you to pinch a pal. but general, look at the situation we're dealing with. they are never forced. spicer isn't forced. nobody is forced. you choose to serve the president but as what?

a proxy for the american people. so let's take the spotlight off them for a second to elected officials. paul ryan, puts out a statement benign at best. we don't really have any way to know what was said in there. we know that's not true. we know paul ryan during the campaign was a man who eagerly tweeted, it's simple, individuals who are extremely careless with classified info should be denied further access to it. he was talking about clinton at the time, now consistently mum about trump, an elected official. is there a time ryan has to get it right if not speak up about what's going on in the white house? >> chris, it's my personal belief, and not because of what happened with sergey lavrov but the whole thing with the fbi and alleged wiretapping of trump tower and a whole bunch of things that the political leadership in this country has got to go out of its way to say

that isn't so. right now what the president is getting from his own party is silence. i fear that's leading us to a bad spot. >> silence can be deafening. thank you very much, general. we appreciate you being here. >> always. you were in these spots. he understands the policy. that's why we bring him on. there's much more to come on this top story. the white house is clearly doing damage control, clearly another self-inflicted wound at the hands of president trump. is there going to be a change of narrative from them today to try to shift emphasis. maybe. what it could be, what it means to you next.

at crowne plaza we know business travel isn't just business. there's this. 'a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly. whoa,i just had to push one button to join. it's like i'm in the office with you,

even though i'm here. it's almost like the virtual reality of business communications. no, it's reality. intuitive one touch video conferencing is a reality. and now it's included at no additional cost with vonage business. call now and see why 3,000 companies a month are switching to vonage. business grade. people friendly. 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.

all right. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. this is "new day." alisyn is off. poppy harlow is with me. once again, we have big breaking news.

is this the most serious charge ever leveled against a sitting president. sources tell cnn president trump revealed highly classified information to russian diplomats during an already controversial oval office meeting. >> the white house is calling this story false, reveal sources or methods with the russians. our reporting says otherwise. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are expressing shock and concern about the president's oval office disclosure. this comes days before he heads overseas on his first major trip. he's also got key meetings with foreign leaders at the white house today. let's go to the white house. joe johns is there with more. good morning. >> poppy, serious information question here at the white house. the president accused of coughing up highly classified information to the foreign power at the center of a federal investigation into interference in the last election.