you'll want to see that. monday memorial day would have been john f. kennedy's 100 birthday. thanks very much for watching. erin burnett "out front" starts right now. >> up next, breaking news. hue a fake russian document influenced james comey's investigation into hillary clinton's e-mails. this is a cnn exclusive. plus trump's close advisor jarld kushner now under fbi scrutiny. flour power. melania trump turning heads with a 51,000 dollar jacket. let's go out front. good evening, i'm pamela fwloun for erin burnett on this friday. out front front tonight new and exclusive details about russia's medaling in the election. russian disinformation at the

highest level of america's government helps explain this. then fbi director james comey deciding to take the reigns and ending the investigation into hillary clinton's e-mails. a decision he made on his own. it generate add fury. now it seems that news conference probably would have not happened without russian intrusion. trump fired comey 17 days ago initially claiming it was domain's handling of the clinton probe that forced him to give the fbi director the boot. dana bash has been following this store. what are you learning? >> then fbi director james comey that the investigation was fake. he felt like he needed to take action anyway because he was concerned that if the information became public, it would undernine the investigation and the bureau

itself. talking to my colleagues. these concerns were a major factor in comey deciding to publicly declare that the clinton probe was over last summer without consulting then attorney general loretta lynch. you may remember the washington post reporting on this intention about the doubts of it and its credibility. the fact that comey felt he had to act a based on russian disinformation is a stark example of how russian interference impact t decisions making at the highest levels of the u.s. government during the 2016 campaign. the russian information at issue claims to show that then doerge lynch has been compromised because of e-mails by then dnc debbie wasserman shultz would make the clinton probe go away. comey said he was afraid the information would "drop" and

undermine the investigation. comey did not say he doubted the accuracy of the information, even in a classified setting. according to sources close comey, the fbi director felt that the validity of the information didn't matter because if it became public, they have no way to discredit it without burning sources and methods. pamela. >> and the reason for break protocol and holding the press conference was bill clinton boarded loretta lynch's plane and talked to her. >> he said so publicly when he testified last time in may but in the last sessions he didn't even mention the plane incident, i'm told. he said the russian information was the priel mayor reason he took the step to announce the end of the clinton probe. >> all of this sounds like russians were successful in sbrfrgs in the election in a way

we didn't realize before now with your reporting. >> that's right. and you and i are hearing this, you probably pretty much every day about the fact that this is something russia hasn't given up on, zpluns books influencing the country. think about the chain of events it helped set off. when comey announced no charges against clinton, he took the extraordinary and many people say oin appropriate step of calling her "extremely carolinas." clinton is convinced it damaged her with voters. talking to many officials on capitol hill and elsewhere, dissemination of fake information is still a major issue. multiple sources say russia is trying to spread sfals information to confuse investigations. >> they think what they did in the past was a success, in their few. dana bash, thank you for that.

tonight congressman elliott engle, great to have you on. >> great to be here. thank you. >> so what did you think when you heard dana's reporting that james comey knew the memo was likely fake but took action anyway fearing it would undermine the investigation if it became public? >> with james comey, seems to me you never know what you're going to get. one time he's saying somethingst days before the election he announced this investigation in hillary clinton. again, hillary clinton is convinced that that cost her the election. i think she's probably right. i don't know. all i know is there's a lot of funny stuff going around and the only way we can get at it is to have an independent commission like the 9/11 commission to find out the truth. find out who knew what and what happened. i think that's the only way we'll get it. i hope congress will move on

that forthwith. we put on more in a bill which people are signing, if you get a majority of members signing you can bypass the committee and we're just hoping that will happen. but the american people have the right to know what's going on, what has gone on, what's still going on, and the only you can do that is with an independent commission appointed by the congress. wouldn't have to answer to the executive branch. i'm very glad there's special counsel but i will tell you the special counsel can be fired by the president. i want an independent commission that the executive cannot such. >> that's your view on that but back to dana's reporting and this russian disinformation campaign in a way that had not been free-throw line revealed. does it make a difference to you, though, whether or not director comey knew this document was fake when he held the press conference last july? >> of course it matters unless --

>> in what way? >> well, if he knew it was fake -- when you're going into a presidential elections, there are in minks things fa factor into people's decisions on who to vote for. they have a right to know what was true and what was not true. that's why this whole thing are russia getting involved in our elections and trying to influence it win way or the other is very disconcerting because any attempt to throw away our democracy or to tackle our democracy as the russians have done should not be tolerated. if mr. comey knew that, going on tv making a report, he has a right to tell the american people everything he knows. otherwise it's half a story and half a story can be a phony story. >> we know he does want to testify but it's complicated with the fact that there's now this mueller investigation. you were critical of comey's

handling of the e-mail situation. you were also critical of president trump's firing of comey. knowing what you know now about the decisions he made and why he made them, have you changed your opinion at all? >> no. because it goes beyond trump and comey. i think that comey had the right to be independent. it certainly seemed like once comey was sniffing by trump's door, trump got rid of him. he didn't get rid of him beforehand. the president said he got rid of him because of what he did to hill ill. i don't think anybody really believes that. the question is, did the president get rid of comey because comey was catching on to things the president didn't want him to catch on. that'swe need a commission to get to the truth in this matter and every matter. >> as we've reported previously robert mueller will be looking into fabel obstruction of justice as part of his

investigation, yesterday erin burnett spoke with the campaign manager and asked him about this fake document. here's what he said. >> it's frightening to me the extent now it seems of russian intervention not just in our election process but now in our government and the execution of justice. >> are you concerned that there could be other fake russian documents floating around washington affecting investigations? >> i believe so. i believe the american people have a right to know the truth. there's all kinds of rumors and innuendo. there's all kind of things moving around. we need to get at the truth. i think mr. mueller is terrific but he serves at the will of the president. i want an investigator -- the russians are still trying to h

influence events in the united states. it's obviously very disconcerting. >> what about looking toward the future, given the fact that if russians believe these tactics were successful, are you concerned that this type of informationinformation will continue? >> yes, i'm very concerned and not only with us, but the applies, the uk, france, and germany. there's all kinds of indication that is the russians tried to interfere with yourtheir elections and things in general. so i think it's important to get to the truth and the american people deserve nothing less. ledand let the chips fall where will they may. >> and should justin kushner's security clearance be revoked? plus one of the president's observers said trump has been a complete disaster. who is slamming him.

and melania trump's coat, is it worth $50,000 really? hi guys. it's great to be here. in the desert. at the mall. on the mountain. at school. at the beach. in the big easy. yeah yeah today i want to show you guys the next-gen chevy equinox. what do you think? that's pretty. pretty sexy. it looks aggressive. but not overbearing. it's not too big. not too small. seems like the perfect car for anybody. i would take it anywhere. she's a bad mama jama. it's the chevy memorial day sales event. current qualified gm lessees can get this all-new 2018 equinox for around 239 a month. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.

will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph.

tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. and get medical help right away. with my moderate to severe crohn's disease,... ...i kept looking for ways to manage my symptoms. i thought i was doing okay... then it hit me... ...managing was all i was doing. when i told my doctor,... ...i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease... ...even after trying other medications. in clinical studies,... the majority of people on humira... saw significant symptom relief... ...and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability... ...to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened;... ...as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems,

serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where... ...certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb,... ...hepatitis b, are prone to infections,... ...or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. just managing your symptoms? ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. is to always keep track of your employees.r micromanage them. make sure they're producing. woo! employee of the month! you really shouldn't leave their side. vita coco coconut water, hydration comes naturally. . breaking news tonight. new calls for the president's son-in-law and key advisor jared kushner to lose his security clearance. the dnc is push iing the statuse

changed. officials say the fbi is scrutinizing minor leagues kushner had with russian officials, including a banker who has questionable ties to vladimir putin. matthew chance is "out front." >> reporter: this is the man jared kushner said he met. sergei gore kof. the state-run bank finances putin's grandest ambitions like the $50 billion sochi olympics but d.b. was placed under sanctions beity obama administration. that pushed the bank to the brink of collapse. in february 2016 president putin appointed him to turn the bank's fortunes around.

gore cough told russian television he was hoping to get some relief from u.s. sanctions. >> translator: well, sanctions definitely are not helping us. we hope that they could be adjusted in a positive way. >> with a new administration coming into power. >> translator: possibly but we're not fam with this strategy. let it be a surprise to us. >> meetings were held with jared curb her. according to the bank the meetings took on the format of a road show on development strategy. the white house maintains there was no improper contact between kushner and the russians. >> he met with countless individuals. that was part of his job, part of his role and he executed it completely as he was supposed to. >> he doesn't believe he owes the american public an

explanation? >> for what? doing its job? >> one russian pleaded guilty in a new york court last year to spying on america while posing as a banker. gorkov graduated from the russian school for agents of the fsb formerly known of course as the k gb. malt u chance, cnn, milwaukee. >> breaking news. tonight the washington post reporting what jarld kushner and sergey kislyak discussed through a secret communication. we should note that the white house declined to comment. we're learning jared curb dmer is now a focus of the investigation into russia. "out front," our panel, tony

blinken, steve hall, former cia, chief of russia operations and jack kingston. he was an advisor to the trump campaign. cnn historian, tim neftali. last but not least, jen sake and congressman engle back with me now. thank you for coming on. lots to discuss on this breaking news from the washington post. i want to go to you first, tony. it unusual or appropriate or whatever the case may be or common for officials in the transition to be working with an ambassador, an ambassador from russia to try to find a back channel to the kremlin. how significant is this? >> it is unusual. contacts in and of themselves may not be but going ahead even before the administration is in place and trying to set up a back channel is something that's

unusual. you usually have one administration at a time and this would seem to cross that line. but the other, i think, challenge we have is this. here's what we know. we know that the russians were working over-the-time to interfere in the election. they try to gain influence with or somability to coerce high officials in administration or in this dice in a campaign. we know that there were many contacts, more than originally acknowledged between the trump campaign and these russian officials. we don't know if there was exclusion but all of that together adds up to a lot of smoke and the smoke is getting thicker and thicker. it needs to be cleared up. that's why what director mueller is doing is so important just a moment congressman kingston the white house ought to acknowledge these meetings that kushner had with the russians until media

reports this past march. now we know one of the kablgts was about the transition. does this raise concerns for you? >> no, it doesn't. i have to disagree with my friend tony that there's smoke. i think there's smoke that the left and critics of trump swrb looking for just isn't gearing. i think after ten months of investigation and the leaks that were going on, swb would have been saying something right now. there's always this inwento, oh, there's something around the corner. i would be concerned if he had not been meeting with sbler national leaders including business home. as someone who went to moscow on bliss in december, the american businesses over there and the russian businesses alike are very concerned about the new administration, what would it mean to our relations, would there be an opportunity to review the sanctions and can we start doing business together again?

normalizing relations i think is the good and responsible thing to do. i don't know of any obligation that he had to disclose and keep logs of everybody who he was meeting with. but i know that he did later amendmeand amend the agreement. the fbi has not asked for any records whatsoever and he has volunteered to talk about any of these meetings to the senate committees and the house committees. so -- and that was a month ago, by the way. i think he's being very transparent about it. i would say it would be very unusual if he hasn't had meetings with these dozens of people from all over the world. >> i just have to ask when you say you disagree with tony that there's smoke. but by not closing meetings like this, particularly when you know there's lots of interest in it, gi not providing it officially

to the fbi, in your view does that create the perception of smoke? >> no, not really. i just think that regardless of what this administration does, there are critics out there who are going to try to delegitimatize them, if that's the right pronunciation, and they're always going to be looking for something nefarious out there. did not the obama, did not the clinton, did not the bush administration meet with dozens of officials from all over the world? and are perhaps some of them had to amend their reports. i don't know. but these routine meetings which the staunchest critics would agree with. >> congressman engle, do you agree? >> well, i have a lot of respect for jack kingston but i disagree with him. i think you were right on the money with this. when you know that there have been all kinds of questions about russian interference in our presidential election and

you know it's a problem, why would you want to have these connections, these back channel connections with did russians and think that it wouldn't look funny or something wouldn't pass the smell test? it seems to me that you wouldn't want to do something like that. again i don't want to keep sounding like a broken record but i think we deserve nothing less than an independent commission that can sblook this and so many things that have come out already and that will come out in the future. >> i have to ask with you who were in the obama administration, were there ever discussions about creating secure communications or did they let you know this was happening? were you involved at all in these discussions? >> not to my recollection. certainly there's a lot we have learned since this period of time that nobody knew in the administration that i worked with. i also was there working for president obama during the transition in 2008 and no we did

not have secret backle channels or try to have secret backchannels with our adversaries. we wouldn't be talking about this has much if it were a backchannel oorn attempted backchannel. it's a discussion of a backchannel with russia who had intervened in our own election. i think this makes it a different circumstance. >> you're an expert on russia. it concerning to you? >> absolutely. i mean, i don't know what congress considers as smoke. there's all sorts of smoke here that can't be doubted. the russians we have determined is a government. we have determined that the russians were trying to influence our elections. we have all sorts of names popping up every day with people who seem to have some sort of contact with russia. i got to say perhaps not from a

legal perspectivesive, but if there's any counterintelligence officer out there worth his salt, he says there's enough here to take a look at. that's what john brennan did the other day. i felt the obligation to send this to the hill. >> what about the security clearance with jared kushner? as we know, democrats are calling on him to hughes his security clearance as this investigation unfolds. now with this latest news, what is your view? >> the ex congressman or the current congressman? >> the current congressman. i'm sorry. >> i'm sorry. >> too many congressmen. >> we're good friends. we disagree on some things but we're good friend. jack's a good man. let me say that i -- you know, it's -- there are two ways to look at it.

one is that he should lose his clearance because of all the things, the questions, the fact that he went to meetings and even the secretary of state was left out of them. now you have all these questions. nothing's been proven and in america you're innocent until proven guilty, so i wouldn't zwroump that conclusion. all i would say again is that we need independent counsel. we need independent commission to look at this. there's too much in the administration, there's too many things that can happen. there's too many people who can be implicated. i want someone with no ax to grind to look and see what went on. if something didn't go on, i'd be delighted. if something did go on, i want to no about it. >> neff tally, i want to know the significance of the meetings with the russian ambassador,ing the meetings with the head of the russian bank and jared curb

her and now we're learning through the we're post that part of the discussion with the ambassador was to create a backdhoonl funlt. what do you make of all this? >> first of all, during the cold war, at least, it was standard operating procedures for the soviets to try to establish some communications with the incoming new administration. in the case of the kennedy administration, for the soviet foreign ministers and the k gb tried to sfaeb communications and talk about the possibility of a summit between kennedy and nikita crew r crew shav. after b kennedy became president indeed robert kennedy on behalf of his brother did establish a secret backchannel to the russians which proved to be crucial right through the cuban

missile crisis. this soviet attempt or russian ataemt to establish back channels took place before the reagan administration, for example. that's not new. what makes this interesting -- and remember, we're all talking about a leak. so we haven't seen the document. the trump people were the initiators that would make it unusual. it's usually the russians who initiate it. that's one. secondly, if the people ask for it to stay secret -- this isn't something that -- the normal relationship between transitions and the russians. they're always pushing for access. americans rarely give it to them, certainly not in a transition. >> plus the added layer of calling them out and these meetings happened in early december. i want to the bring in adwam the washington post what more can

you tell us about the discussion between curb never and the russian ambassador? >> i think it's crucial what you just said, it's important to know the context. it's something that came up during that meeting that there was this swejs reporting that was going on that pointed to russia's role in basic -- in medaling in the election. that's the context. so within that context basically you had a meeting in new york. kislyak comes up to see jared curb her and to see mike flynn. mike flynn -- jared is the one who sets up the meeting and flynn is invited a few days later. during that discussion, according to kislyak's account you basically have jared kushner proposing did idea of having a swur private communications channel and jared proposes doing so at a russian facility, specific the russian embassy.

he was taken aback by that. he thought it was a bizarre suggestion. obviously, the other fact that, you know, that koorgt this -- according to these sources that was discussed was potentially arranging a meeting in a third country. >> i just have to ask you this, adam, because ambassador kislyak is well aware that u.s. intelligence are listening in on his conversations back to russia. so is there any chance that he could have been inflalting this conversation, making some of it up? i just have heard from people i speak to in did intelligence community of that concern about the russian-to-russian communications. what's your perspective? >> that's an incredibly vamd point. kislyak has a good representation in terms of the accuracy of his reporting, according to the officials i've talked to. readings of that report feel he is accurately portraying the

results by for the sides that being said, that's true. adversaries to the united states routinely put false information into their kmiekss. sometimes they do so in order to see if the americans are in that channel. so in other words, if -- the israelis do this often to the americans, by the way, to try to see if the americans are spying on a particular channel. the russians, i'm sure, do the same thing. you can't resume out when it comes to signals intelligence, which is what this is, that people exaggerate. they may lie outright to create a false impression. it's common for ambassadors, i think, after meeting with the principles of the other side, they want moscow to think they're maybe more connectsled to that incoming government than they should be. it's something the fbi deals with a lot when it deals with signals intelligence, so they are to approach it in --

obviously in a cautious way. let me just say -- and it's buried in our story but the washington post received an anonymous letter on december 12th which provided the kpk same details about this meeting. we never reported it at the time, because frankly, we were skeptical. it was only amp officials told us about the meeting that we decided we had the authority to use this letter. we had this left and then we get the information trusting those sources and felt more confident with presenting this information. >> it really strikes me in your reporting that kushner was the one that initiated this qualify. did your sources give you any indication of why he wanted that. >> i don't know. i mean, you know, around this same time, you had ambassadors

from european allies that were in washington nervously wondering if they were ever going to get a call from kushner from anybody else. they have don't get that calluntil later. which was kushner interested in communicating with them? i don't know answer to that. obviously, we have to be cautious in the sense of we don't know what the agenda was here. if as trump said during the campaign, he wanted to improve relations with russia, that is a perfectly reasonable policy for an incoming administration to pursue, especially on counterterrorism policy. the question really is then why was this obscured. yfsz this denied for so long. why wasn't this meeting disclosed until march and then only later are we get this these additional dliels and why are we

told that the conversation was not about anything of substance when clearly it was something of substance at least for the russians who participated in it. those i think are the questions we really don't know the answers to. it could be that they're a secretive group of people coming in. thrp worried about leaks, which you can understand now we're seeing leaks, and they were worries about those. maybe that's why they're being so secretive or could be they're just secretive people and want to keep their meetings to themselves and wanted toed preserve the decision space of the president elect at that phase or maybe there's something hoor. you know, we don't know. >> that of course is something that the fbi is trying to answer in this investigation that's been going on since last july. this new rev legislation, i imagine you're learning through your sources is certainly one of the reasons they're interested in this meeting that kushner had with the russian ambassador? >> yeah. i think -- you know, we reported last night that the fbi's

investigating kushner hand particularly in connection withto meetings he had in december chlt december, so when we had the sources telling us about this -- the details of this exchange on december 1st through december 2ened, obviously i think it should help people better understand where the fbi is coming from on this. imagine if you're fbi agents and you're reading basically a transskriptd, if you will, of crystal back's report to milwaukee about his meeting in december at trump tower, if you read that report it would be natural, i think, if you're an investor to have a lot of questions. >> especially given the broader context. is there any other tid bits from your reporting -- i know you mentioned one thing that will was important. is there anything hels to add? >> you made a very good point which i don't think can be

stressed enough. signals intelligence is not something you want to take to the bank necessarily. there conclude false reporting. i think tonight you guys on cnn are reporting about that piece of intelligence that comey ended up evaluating in decide whether or not to -- how to proceed with the clinton aem case. there could be cases where information is intentionally or unintentionally implanted and that's sucked up by the law. we're basically trying to piece together what happened behind closed doors in a critical moment that is now at the center -- appears to be at the center of the fbi investigation. >> as all of us -- all of us report rers doing. in the broader context when you look at ambassador kifl with back, he was also in close touch with fliechbl. i was told shortly after dplin's

trip to milwaukee in 2016, there was an up tick in their communications, so clearly he was sort of the middleman between the trump transition. fascinating reporting there. adam stay with me. i want to bring back the panel to discuss this. i want do go back to you, tim neftali. before -- you administrationed that it would be significant, if it wasn't the russians asking for this but instead the members of the trump transition, and according to adam's reporting it was jared kushner who asked for this secret communication. what do you make of that? >> well, first of all, anybody watching this, i'm going to speculated for them for a moment, ok? i obviously haven't seen this as signal intelligence information is extremely important this kind of leak is highly significant. after the election, mr. trump,

president trump, president loeks electricity trump was wantsing to see the president al daily brief. that means that president trump was well awire of our intelligence kpap blimts vis-a-vis the russians. so if there were some concern that president obama would hear about conversations between jared curb her and kislyak, it might have been the reason why jared curb her, if indeed this is the case, said to the russians, let's use a different channel. it would be a way of making clear to the russians that they are -- that particular channel was compromised. i hope that's not what happened. but we are trying to figure out why a secret line of communication might have been suggested by jared kushner. again, this is all speculation. we haven't seen the information. i will say that according to the way in which our government proceeds in the transition. the incoming president gets to

see the presidential daily brief from the moment he is elected, so in december, president trump was reading what president obama was reading and that might have included information about kislyak and what he was sending to moscow, if indeed we have that capability. >> all right. paul i want to bring you in as a flesh voice or legal analyst. i want to know from a legal perspective what you make of all of this. >> there are three possibilities here. one is this is just russian disinformation and it didn't happen. the second is that the trump campaign had decided to create a channel to the russians to advise them that there would be a policy change when president trump was sworn in. now, this sounds bizarre and un-american, frankly, but it's happened in american history before. richard nixon, when he was running against humphrey in 1968 opened a back channel to the south vietnamese and told them

they should wait in the negotiations to end the war in veit dpam to wait until he was sponsor in. and nexton was doing that. the third possibility is the one that gets very, very dicey for the trump administration. that is, is this evidence of collusion with the russians to disrupt the american election and elect the president of the united states. those rf the three possibilities. we have to see what the evidence is to see which one of those three it turns out to be. >> right. because frankly there's a lot that we don't know. we're operating in a dark space with all these little facts and details that are coming through. i want to go to jeff zeleny who is with the president in italy. jeff, any comment? >> there's no response yet from the white house on this latest reportsing from the washington post. this is something that the white house has been following very

carefully from here as the president winds up his trip abroad here. he's not been talking about russia. in fact, it's something that they've wanted to avoid, but i can tell you behind the scenes talking to advisors, they are following this. the president himself is following every moment of this, what has been hang when he's been away. and they know that this is waiting for him when he returns to washington on saturday evening, pam. >> all right, jeff zeleny bringing us the latest from sisley. i want to go back to my panelists now. kislyak again is at the center of this. he was at the center of the michael flynn situation that ultimately led to him being fired by the president because of the conversation he had where him about sanctions and not being unfront about that with vice president pence. now kushner and kwifl

backtalking about back channel, what was that? >> i think when people look back they like to say we had a terrible relationship with russia and we never worked with them on anything. that's certainly not true. we had issues from anything but syria and the way they dealt with global affairs. but there are things we worked on. certainly ambassador kislyak was part of that. we had the deal on chemical weapons removal. they were also a part of the iran deal. what's abnormal about this, a lot of things, but one is whether or not trump was reading the president al daily brief, people assume he took that often, they're making an inaccurate assumption, first. but there was an assumption that president obama and the administration would take retaliatory actions for the actions that russia took. it was soon after flynn's trip

and before his phone calls as we've discussed in the past that it was announced that we would be kicking several russian spies out of the country. so i think the reference paul made, we're all guessing here, but the reference paul made to the policy discussions has some backup in terms of other conversations that were taking place at the time. we won't know until he learn more about the story, but that certainly rings a bell with me. >> and let me go to you, tony. as we heard tim neff tally say, it's usual but what seems different here was that jared kushner was asking for this but there could be an innocuous reason for this, right? >> sure. but here's the problem. what's russia trying to do in our elections? it's trying to sew doubt about our communications, about our leaders. with every passing day when all

of this information h information comes out, aldrich, driven, drip, it's like pulling teeth to get it out, that's doing russia's work for them. it's creating doubts. that's why this needs to be cleared up. it may be again that there is no fire there with all the smoke. until we clear the smoke away, we're doing russia's job for them. that's why we need to bring this to a conclusion. >> congressman kingston, when we spoke before, you said there's nothing wrong here. but given everything that's unfolded since the meetings have come to light, do you think if they had to do it all over again, they should have done mor things differently. >> well, not really. i think any new administration's going to have its missteps and i think in this hyper stocks hik

atmosphere that this naturally is going to happen. i think the idea of setting up a backchannel with russia or china or with any of the adversary countries or allies, i think quite frankly it's something i would explore if i was in the administration in this leaky atmosphere. kislyak seems like he's the one-man wrecking ball, but for adam to use him as a witness is a shock. the other thing i disagree with alan on, he said the fbi is investigating him. that's not the case. >> you can be the subject of an investigation -- you can be investigated if you're not a target and either subjects can become targets or they can be charged. >> there is no intention to charge him. i think we need to be careful with what we'ring. here's somebody who said he will cooperate. i was thinking if this is

baseball the krit iksz of trump has yet to get on first base. it's all this that there's something around the horizon. it may be with lynn but -- >> can i jump in on the congressman's statement? >> go ahead. >> there's some more smoke here that i find to be very, very troubling. i don't know where it's going to lead to. you have this stuff going on with the russians and you have the national security advisor lying on a security clearance about contacts with the russians. you have attorney general sessions lying about documents he filled out and in congress testimony and you have kushner when he fills out a security clearance form, also being disingenuous and lying apparently about contacts with the russians no. we hear there's a back channel -- >> it's not illegal.

>> it's not illegal. >> then what's the problem? >> i think anybody's crazy for saying we ought to look carefully at this, this doesn't sound like normal activity for a president just coming into office. >> paul, as you know, i have great respect for you and everybody on this panel. there are a lot of very learned people there. >> and we for you. and we for you. >> when we say the american people getting disturbed about it, look at what happened last knight montana. it was a six or 7% victory. >> i don't think the russians were involved in the montana election, so -- >> but -- no. my point is if americans aren't as concerned about this as the beltway crowd would like americans to be concerned about it -- and the vn after ten months of investigation, there's always smoke but there's nothing there. i'm going to give i flynn but that would -- >> you know something,

congressman? let's hope it is smoke, because if we're talking about backchannels to the russians and people lying on forms to enable collusion with the russians we're in a really bad situation. so i hope you are right and there's nothing to this story. >> i want to bring in steve hall for a per corrective on ambassador kislyak, it's an incredible witness here. could this be a part of the russian misinformation campaign to call back to moscow and know that u.s. intel is listening in and make something up. try to put this into perspective for us, will you. >> there's a lot flying around. let me address the stuff that i'm most fam with. in terms of intercepted communications, the russian ambassador has the plilt to place a call to russia. that's not what he does.

they have secure communications just like the u.s. goth does just like china and any other major power does which protects and makes it extremely difficult for us from the united states government to actually listen in on those conversations. that's the nsa's job. sometimes we have success. sometime we don't. but the idea of him speaking over an open telephone line to somebody right there prima facie calls into question whether he's just talking or whether he's trying to get a message out to those who are listening. the open ones, they know that. they're intelligence analyst. they know if kwifl backis talking on an open line kislyak knows they're listening. i would argument that pretty much what happens on an open line is probably not that critical. it's probably not serious disinformation on the russian's part and it's not sensitive

because the russians have secure systems to do this. let me address one other time. >> uh-huh. >> lot of people say there's allegations. we keep hearing there's going to be more. this, folks s. a counterintelligence investigation. this is not an armed robbery. this is not a kidnapping. this is so much mr complicated. there is so much more sensitive information, classification, secret sovss, there is so and that's how it should be because we do need to get to the bottom of this. we don't want to tar people with allegations that can't be proven. but it just takes a lot longer and isles a lot more complex in my opinion. >> and to that point, steve, i have talked to folks who were in the fbi who say we may never get down to the bottom of this, because intelligence is rarely congress collusive. >> that's absolutely true, and there's another -- if you think

about all of this, there's a lot of time in the counter intelligence investigation, the intelligence officers, cia, nsa, all know what they see and what they have collected, but a lot of time s that does not meet a standard, for counter espionage or counter crime. but it doesn't always meet a legal or criminal criteria. so we just have to see and it's just going to take a along time. >> the situation is classified materials and not wanting to reveal sources and methods. you all stick around because there's more to discuss, but i want to bring in former ambassador to nato, nick barnes, who also served in the clinton administration, so ambassador, what is your reaction to this latest news between jared

kushner and russian ambassador sergey kislayak, according to "the washington post"? >> the first thing i would say, and i'm just hearing this for the first time, i have just read the washington journal post. obviously jared kushner deserves a chance too respond to these allegations, they are allegations but they're not proven facts at this point. we don't indict in the court of public opinion, before all the facts are known, and he has a chance, and this is a fair minded american way to look at and respond to these. secondly, i think that tony blinken's comments are very important here. russia is a dark cloud hanging over the trump administration. so many different allegations, so many different individuals in the trump administration, some of them have now had to recuse themselves, including the attorney general, that i think the donald trump administration needs to make a basic decision. they have to understand that

this administration is under siege and will be, in terms of public opinion. and in terms of the law, and to all of these questions are answered, they ought to begin to cooperate with these investigations. and you have seen this begrudging attitude, the addition avowel that there is a -- if your intelligence community and the fbi had told the american people, as they did in january, in an unclassified letter to the american people, any normal president would have wanted to defend this country, investigate it fully. he should have launched his own investigation. so the trump administration needs to get its arms around this story and fully cooperate. i would just say this in closing. if i had read "the washington post" story, there's a couple of things that don't make any sense

here. i participated in a number of career transitions. this is not complicated. the incoming administration and period between the election in january 20. you do that transparently and openly, you don't do it secretly. and so, i just don't understand why the incoming trump team felt the need for meetings and secret meetings in seshells, to create the channel through our ambassadors and our embassies. it doesn't make sense to me, why if this is true, it may not be true, why the trump team would have wanted to use russian communications. that doesn't make sense at all. so all this amounts to, the american people deserve answers. there's so much slope here, that

there has to be a full bore investigation. >> but given the contacts of then candidate trump saying on the campaign trail, that one of his priorities was to have a better relationship with russia, that was one of his things that he talked about, repeatedly. given the fact that that was clearly a priority for him. does that make you think that perhaps it might make sense for jared kushner to want to reach out and go ahead and get the ball rolling with communication to moscow during the transition. >> in a normal transition, at least in my own experience, the priority in a transition, is to get to know the allies of the united states, the british, the french, the germans, the japanese, the south koreans, the australians. i never understood why candidate trump and i still don't understand why president trump had given russia a pass. he has been the weakness president he have had since well

before the second world war on the issue of russia and here we have a situation where russia has the next crimea, invaded georgia all in the last eight years, russia is under sanctions by the united states and why donald trump can't bring himself to criticize vladimir putin publicly. you saw president donald trump yesterday at nato headquarters, he's not leading the nato alliance in relationship to russia, angela merkel is doing that. russia's been the albatross around the neck of this administration. they have made the wrong calls on russia, they're not doing the right things to contain russian power. and this obsession with secret contacts just. >> all right, ambassador burns, thank you so much for that very important perspective and insight. jeff, you now have an official

response from the white house? >> pamela, we are getting late word tonight. the russian officials will not have a comment on "the washington post" that, we have been discussing here. but talking throughout the gay to a to -- at least for discussing matters here, they say if jar kushner was back channelling with the russian official, if he needed to set up a back channel, doesn't that mean he was colluding? the president's silencen russia has european leaders silent, wondering why he is silent. so as the president leaves, heads back to washington, that is a major question hanging over

this continent. >> i want to bring brack my panel, and jim saki to you, this sort of no comment comment, you once ran the communication shoop at the white house, what do you suggest the white house do right now? >> i also want to add, i have worked quite a bit with adam, and believe me he broke news and he didn't want to be in the public when i was in obama administration, but he was always thorough and fair, i would be shocked if the white house didn't know this story was coming and he didn't give them an opportunity to comment or refute it. that's one point. i think in this case, what is really confusing, as a communications person, is why there's a drip, drip, drip of all of this information. if im were there, if this would have happened in our administration, which wouldn't

have, we would have gotten all in a room and gathered all the information and gotten it out to the public. there is new information that is contradicting what they said a week or two earlier. that's a communications tactic, but i think it could -- >> quickly as we wrap up this show, as you just heard from ambassador burns, he said you dponlt talk to an adversary in the transition, you talk to your allies, but trump made it clear on the campaign trail, he wanted to make russia a priority in building relationships with them. in that context, do you see a good reason perhaps why this meeting took place and why jared kushner wanted this? >> i don't see a good reason for this, i don't see how this could be helpful, given that there was already a cloud over this administration. i have been scratching my head trying to figure out, why this administration keeps doing things that gives the impression it's hiding something.

>> all right, that sums its up right now. thank you -- yeah, quickly. >> lem just say this, donald trump is the only one that has bonded syria, under obama we lost 20% of our uranium, and the leaks that happened and the interference in the election happened under obama. >> got to go. thank you for watching, our breaking news coverage continues right now. new reporting in the "washington post," with potential lyre very serious implications. according to the post, jared kushner, the president's son-in-law, proposed setting up a secret communication with kremlin, not a figurative back channel. according to the washington post, this was a nuts and bolts setup, using russian diplomatic facilities and equipment.