better, foreign policy. they have heard him talk about trade, about nato, about the climate. so they have got it from the horse's mouth so to speak. but if you look at american business, they have also written letters to this administration saying do not pull out of the climate accords, because this is actually not bad for american business. there's a lot of business to be made, as you know, in alternative energy and all of that. as for the nato 2%, germany has pledged the 2%, which is not a treaty obligation. it was aspirational after russia invade crimea and ukraine and meant to be delivered over the next 10 years by all nato members. it's fettishized. >> good word. thanks to you and international viewers for watching "new day."

for you "cnn newsroom" is next. u.s. viewers, we have inclusive reporting on a big part of the motivation for the russia investigation. plus we're going to talk live with the former director of national intelligence james clapper. what do you say? let's get after it. >> russian officials discuss potentially derogatory information about then presidential candidate donald trump. >> why is it they thought they were immune from being manipulated diplomatically or worse by russians. >> new interest in a meeting between jared kushner and sergyi gork gorkov. >> what was he trying to accomplish by creating indebtedness to someone like the russians. >> what we should ask for is for jared kushner to be taken away. he's a liability to the u.s. government. >> if you're not honest, your reputation will suffer and what's lost, a good reputation, can never, ever be regained. >> i don't like it. i just don't. >> this is "new day" with chris

cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> welcome to "new day." we begin with breaking news for you. cnn reporting into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. >> jim sciutto along with others joins us now, what's the headline? >> here is the headline. two former intelligence officials and a source say russian government officials discuss having, quote, derogatory information about then presidential candidate donald trump and make of his campaign aides. this in conversations by u.s. intelligence during 2016 election. one source krid the information as financial in nature and said the discussions centered around whether the russians had leverage with trump's inner circle. the source said the intercept, communications suggested to u.s. intelligence that russians believed, quote, they have the ability to influence the information through the derogatory information.

but the sources privy to the descriptions of the communications written by u.s. intelligence caution the russian claims to each other, quote, could have been exaggerated, made up. details of communication do rely on information u.s. intelligence received about russian claims of influence. the contents of the conversations made clear to u.s. officials that russia was considering ways to influence the election even if their claims turned out to be false. as cnn first reported you may remember intercepted u.s. officials bragging about cultivating relationships with campaign aides, including trump's first national security adviser michael jackson flynn to influence trump himself. following that cnn report, "the new york times" said that trump's campaign chairman paul manafort had also been discus d discussed. >> so do we know who the russians were talking about in these intercepted communications. >> beyond the president himself, none of our sources would say which aides were discussed.

one said the intelligence report masked the american names but it was still clear conversations revolved around trump campaign team. another source would not get specific citing classified nature of the intelligence. asked for comment, the white house overnight gave cnn the statement, quote, this is another round of false unverified claims made by anonymous sources to smear the president. reality is a review of the president's income from the last 10 years showed he had virtually no financial ties at all. there appears to be no limit to which the president's pretty cal opponents will go to perpetuate this false narrative including illegally leaking classified material. all this does is play into the hands of our adversaries and put the country at risk, end quote. director of national intelligence and fbi would not comment. the president himself has insisted on multiple occasions that he has no financial dealings with russia. all right, so put from into

context. what does this mean in terms of a window into the investigation. >> here is what we're told. fbi into meddling of the investigation, the target here recently taken over by special counsel robert mueller does include seeking answers whether coordination, collusion with associates of trump and also examining alleged financial dealings of key trump associates. fbi would not comment to us whether these claims discussed in intercepts have been verified by the time trurp took office. you may remember questions about potential financial ties between his aides and russian entities were radar under investigation rainfall ok. >> okay, jim. stick around. we want to talk to you more in a few minutes. trying to move past the investigations. fbi looking into december meeting between jared kushner and russian banker with ties to vladimir putin. joe johns at the white house. what have you learned, joe? >> reporter: good morning.

the white house really wrestling with this russia investigation. the controversy centering on jared kushner, top adviser to the president and conversations with russian banker sergey gorkov. that reported by "new york times." in addition to scrutiny now under way about the conversations between jared kushner and the russian ambassador to the united states, sergey kislyak. the question whether jared kushner was trying to set up a back channel of communications with wrrussia. so far they have been keeping a low profile, jared kushner floating the idea through counsel that he's very willing to sit down to talk to people to explain all of this, one of the possible explanations as reported by cnn's gloria borger,

it was russia wanting to set up back channel in order for the national security adviser to talk to the russian military about syria, though that skprangs serum has explanations certainly has a lot of questions. today expected to take questions in the briefing room for the first time since this news about back channel reporting got out there on television and in the newspapers. back to you. >> that would be interesting. >> always interesting. let's bring in the panel. >> let's do that jim sciutto joins us again with his new reporting, cnn political analyst and washington "daily beast," and daily sanger. a new tweet about russia, the president just put this out. russian officials must be laughing at the u.s. and how a lame excuse for why the dems lost the election has taken over

the fake news. david sanger, it sounds as though he's not paying much creed to all the new reporting on jared kushner and jim sciutto's new reporting about these intercepted communications. >> he's probably not, alisyn. what's interesting about the tweet, he's sent out others in previous weeks and months that were close to word for word the same. we tend to separate out, i think, among all of us who are covering this, my colleagues in the "new york times," and certainly yours at cnn, we separate out two different issues. one is what happened in the election, whether or not the president was lawfully elected. i don't think there are many people -- there are some, i don't think there are many who legitimately disagree that he was legitimately elected. we don't know if the russians had any influence on the actual outcome. then there's the question of what the russians were trying to

do, what they tried to do influencing the campaign and later on whether or not there was any collusion with anybody. in the president's mind, he tends to seem to merge these two and take any discussion of the russian activity or potential collusion as an effort to delegitimatize his election. i don't think that the rest of us who are working on reporting these issues tend to confuse those two. you can believe that he was legitimately elected and also believe there was this effort under way. these tweets tend to say, now the only reason this investigation is going on is to delegitimatize his presidency. >> the problem is every time he tweets something like this, it's in defiance of the fact, creates another cycle. there's more than enough officials willing to line up and say, no, these questions deserve

investigation. the legitimate would be you don't talk about russian interference, always reporting on questions about him and people surrounding him. where is all the information about how they did the hacking and what we do to stop it. is that a fair point? >> you can't separate the fact that it and that the administration was talking to the russians. there are so many questions that haven't been answered. in terms of look at this latest jared kushner issue. why did he want to use russian communication to establish this back channel? we didn't have an answer to that. who truinstructed him to do thi? highly unlikely he was freelancing. but to your point, chris, all of these things are valid questions. it's not that one isn't and one is, it's the president seems to take issue with anything involving the people close to him and this just keeps getting closer. that's just a matter of fact. >> jim, i want to get back to your breaking news and reporting. that is you have these news

sources who confirmed to you there were these intercepted russian communications, you hear russian officials talk about how to leverage the trump campaign and they claimed in these intercepted communications to have some sort of derogatory, probably financial information they might use to be able to leverage the trump campaign. but i want to get the trump's side take on it. basically, is it possible that, you know, the russians were playing three-dimensional chess here while the trump team was just trying to, you know, establish some communications with another major world power and they were basically used as pawns and didn't know that? >> it's possible. i spoke with michael hayden yesterday, former cia, nsa director. he says doesn't have to be nefarious explanation. it could be naivete or hubris. jared kushner, trump team

imagine we can handle this. we're going to do it back channel. we'll go, deal with russians directly. maybe it retlekflects a distrus the intelligence community. they didn't want their conversations listened to, wanted to make this back channel deal. the president tweeted this morning calling it fake news. it's not the first time we've heard i. it's a deliberate attempt to mud y the waters. as you say, chris, it denies the facts. set aside what we in the media reported. it is the senate and house intelligence committees, democrats and republicans on those committees who say this is still an open question, a question of collusion. it's the fbi. james comey before he was fired testified under oath that collusion is still an open question. this is one of the topics that special counsel robert mueller who served both democrats and republicans, said it's still an open question. so it is frankly untrue to call it fake news or the media making

things up because you've got two -- actually more than that because the judiciary committee also involved but more than one hill committee looking at this. you have the fbi and now special counsel. the president here is muddying the waters on what is an open topic of investigation, collusion, back channel communications, et cetera. folks have to remember that no matter how many times he tweets that, these are still open questions being investigated by democrats and republicans and civil servants far from the corridors of the "new york times" and cnn, et cetera. >> also, david sanger, the president discounts incompetence, negligence, ignorance, in terms of things that you need to find out and discover and reveal through the course of investigation. his bar is, well, do you have any proof of a crime, which is an artificially high bar for government action. but to his own point, with kushner, why did he meet with

these bankers? if it was for back channel communication to start a nicer dialogue, fine. you get into incompetence how he did it. if it was for money for his deals, he's got trouble. the question they want to know right now, his reporting, why meet -- if this is true, why meet in a secure russian facility outside ostensibly the intelligence community of the u.s. in their eyes? >> this all goes to the critical question here, which is what's the content of these conversations. back channels have happened before with foreign governments. it happened with kennedy. they happened with nixon. that's not necessarily new. the two issues here are what was discussed. the banker, for example, who had a considerable interest in having sanctions lifted against russia. these are the sanctions that were put in after the annexation of crimea and military activity

that destabilized ukraine. now, if those sanctions were lifted, the bank would benefit some and the bank's clients would. the trump campaign talked about lifting sanctions some during the course of the campaign. they haven't discussed it since. it's hard to imagine it now. if that was part of the content of the conversation, it raises a whole new set of questions. it doesn't necessarily mean, as you say, any of this is a crime, but this is delicate stuff that has to be handle very carefully. at a minimum i think it's fair to say right now they didn't go at it with the care they needed to. >> we have some breaking news we will let all of you and our listeners know. cnn just confirmed white house communications director has resign

resigned. we've heard sean spicer will give the conference but his boss has resigned. >> we know trump has been unhappy with his communications team. dub kewas brought in. he was above several trump loyalists who had been with him for a while. it's a tough team to simulate with. reporting he never really gelled with the team he was supposed to direct. particularly with this russia scandal growing, we remember that trump was very unhappy with the initial response to it. so apparently he is the one who is taking on the chin. what we don't know, if this is the first or one step to try to rectify something the president has been extremely unhappy with. >> jim sciutto, we know that. they have been working as multi-headed animal there.

d dubkewasn't really calling the shots. all this word about shakeups. do you believe this is the first and we may see more. >> gets to the central question, the trump view seems to be this is all about messaging. the issue is his point of view, his achievements, et cetera, are not getting across the american public. that's an open question. is it just about messaging or is there actual opposition, there appears to be, to some of trump's fundamental positions. whether it's the approach to nato, you name it. so it appears now that the shake-up is purely in the messaging group and, in fact, allowing the president himself to message for himself via twitter, occasional news conferences, et cetera. whether that solves the issues here is an open question. >> he's always been his best defender, which is why we invite him on the show all the time. if nothing else, he changes the message to quickly. he has points of emphasis, the president, that others can't echo. he should do more of it. >> panel, thank you very much.

it will be very interesting to watch the white house briefing today at 2:00 p.m. as well as all day long the development. thank you. >> aside from politics, we have a great guest, talked to congress, now the former director of national intelligence james clapper is going to talk to you on "new day." what matters in all this russia investigating and why? what is he concerned about? there is the man, james clapper, on "new day" next. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients.

otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you. it'that can make a worldces, of difference. expedia, everything in one place, so you can travel the world better.

all right. two big headlines for you this morning, senior communications director for the president, mr. dubke is out. the president's dissatisfaction with all things russian investigation. on that front cnn has new information for you. russian government officials are said to have discussed having potentially derogatory information about then presidential candidate donald trump and make of his associates during the campaign. sources warn the information

could have been exaggerated. the russians could have been wrong about what they have or they could have been making it up. but what role does information like this play in the larger investigation? what matters to you in all of this. joining us is a man, james clapper, former director, testified on capitol hill about efforts to meddle in the election. >> thanks for having me, chris. >> what about russian officials saying they might have something on trump? >> rather than commenting on issues i will say there was a series of communications and dial okay we grew -- i say we, members of the intelligence community were aware of this and very concerned about but didn't know the intent, dial ocean.

given the context of all the other things russians were doing to interfere with the election, undermine us, and, of course, my personal experience, their long track record going back to the soviet era of undermining us whenever they can suborning or co co-opting, raised the red flag for us and merited concern. what it reflects airing transparency and play out the investigation. this is something the country badly needs to clear up this cloud that's hanging over us right now. >> it's true. look, many people say the problem is the cloud. the problem is any of these questions. so let's use this time well to inform the skeptics. the skeptics start with one

basic premise. why do i care about russian interference. people like you say they have always done this. it didn't change the outcome of the election. all the votes were counted the right way. they didn't meddle with the machines. why do i care about what russia does, i bet the u.s. does the same stuff. >> there's been a long history of soviet and interference going back to the soviet era in our elections, but never, ever has there been a case of the aggressiveness and direct actions that the russians took and their conduct of a multifaceted campaign to interfere with our election. so in addition to the hacking that got all the attention, very sophisticated, slick propaganda efforts through rt, a government funded -- russian government funded entity, their use of trolls to seed social media with

erroneous information. many outlets wittingly or unwittingly picked this up. across the board, the aggressiveness in this campaign was unprecedented. i think american citizens should be very concerned about a foreign government, particularly our primary adversary, interfering with the most important foundational processes we have in this country, which is free and fair elections. that is a serious, serious affront. if there's ever been a clarion call for vigilence, this is it. as i said before, the russians can only be chort ling about this. they are going to be further emboldened to continue this interference in our political process. this is a serious problem all americans should be concerned about. >> so to put a fine point on it, are you 100% sure that russia

was behind election meddling you described? >> absolutely. the evidence, which unfortunately we could not detail in our intelligence community assessment was, in my view, overwhelming. that is why the assessment we did enjoyed such a high competence level. there's absolutely no doubt in my mind. one other point, chris, i need to respond to. we could not make a call whether or not this interference actually affected the outcome of the election. we did not see any evidence of voter tallying, that is the mechanical process of counting votes in any of the 50 states. but we had neither the authority, the expertise, nor the capability to assess whether or not this interference actually affected the outcome of the election. >> just to be clear, you're saying you didn't look at that

aspect. not that you looked but couldn't determine whether there was or was not an impact. >> that's right. we did not make that -- that's not within our authority or expertise or capabilities, that's correct. >> all right. so the idea that, hey, look, the democrats are just front running this issue about russian interference to explain what happened in the election. you're saying, no, there are legitimate questions. if you're an american citizen, what do you want to know from the fruit of this investigation in what needs to come out of it? >> well, i think what i indicated before is what was the intent of this dialogue? what was the content of the discussion. we didn't know that, or at least i didn't, when i left the government on the 20th of january. and so as long as these questions linger, as long as they hang over us like this,

this is going to be a terrible distraction to getting anything done. so the sooner there is clarity about this and transparency, the better for the country. for this administration, for both parties and for the country at large. >> now, you're talking about the second head of this beast, which is the questions that go to communications and any potential collaboration, collusion with members of the trump administration. the president, you know his position on this. the reflection of that in the citizenry is this. where is the proof? it's all unnamed sources, all leaks. nothing has come out that shows any degree of essential wrongdoing or certainly criminality by anyone involved in the campaign, so there must be nothing there. >> well, i wouldn't go so far as to say that. i also have to say that with

specific respect to the issue of collusion, as i've said before, i've testified to this effect, i saw no direct evidence of political collusion between the campaign, the trump campaign and russians. >> clarify that point. >> not to say there wasn't any but i didn't see evidence of it before i left. >> clarify that, because people use you and those words as an example of this premise, which is there's nothing there. my understanding was that you were saying you weren't clear on what evidence there was because you weren't running that part of the investigation. give usa clear statement on that. what do you mean when you say you didn't see any. >> first, i need to explain the very unique position that the federal bureau of investigation occupies and that they straddle -- fbi straddles both intelligence and law enforcement. it was always my practice during the 6 1/2 years that i was the

dni, that i deferred to the judgment of the director of fbi, either director mueller or director comey when -- whether, when, and what to tell me about a counter-intelligence investigation potentially involving u.s. persons. we're all very sensitive and deferential to u.s. persons and protections and privacy. just given the inherent sensitivity and security of counter-intelligence investigations, i wouldn't necessarily have known about that. but to say that my statement was a flat denial of any collusion, that's not correct. the correct statement is, i wasn't aware of that. that's not to say there might not have been or that there wasn't evidence of it, but i couldn't say that at the time i left the government on the 20th of january. >> so to those who say there would be proof out there. it would be out there right now.

everything is leaking. if there was something to know that was criminal, we would have an indication of that by now. >> i think there's enough doubt that has been cast on this, that it's very important that the investigations either in the congress and especially that of special counsel bob mueller play out and to clear this up once and for all. >> if the president of the united states had come to you and said, mr. clapper, i don't think there's anything to this investigation that's going on. do me a favor, get out there and let people know there's nothing to worry about, how would you have responded to that request? >> i probably would have said i couldn't do that. just as i was asked to go out publicly and completely rebut the contents of the dossier, the infamous dossier, i could not do that and i would not have done that in this case had i been

asked. >> when you say you couldn't rebut the dossier, why not? so much of it was dismissed as propaganda or false hoods, what was your reckoning of the value of the dossier. >> the importance of it at the time and the reason that we wanted at the time president-elect trump to know about it, just to let him know it was out there, without commenting on the veracity of it or parts of it. the challenge we had at times was corroborating second and third order assets that were used to compile that dossier. that's why we did not include it as a formal part of the intelligence community assessment. >> do you believe that the dossier had any value? >> well, the principal importance of it was that it was out there. i really can't comment on its value. >> right.

but when people hear that, that it's out there, that just sounds like its existence was something that was noteworthy but doesn't mean there was necessarily any reason to believe anything that was involved or contained in it. >> well, there are all kinds of possibilities here, one of which is given the russian proclivity for what they call compromising material, which they can either -- which is either valid or contrived. and at the time that we dealt with this and before i left, we didn't sort any of that out. >> now, another raging debate going on about how intelligence was handled and how russia was handled by the current administration goes to this point. people try to do it differently with russia. we saw that with the russian reset. we saw that with president obama early on in his tenure saying

he'd have more flexibility with medvedev after the election. that's what was happening here. they were trying to have back channel communications to do it differently, be more discreet, have it work better than the current situation. what is your concern about back channel communications? >> well, back channel communications, that is a long-standing practice of sitting administrations. i think the concern that i have and others had was whether or not the time honored principle of one president at a time in this country was being adhered to. i think that was the principle concern. >> why should people care beauty that? if it's just done to, hey, we're getting in there, this is fait accompli, we're next, obama is on his way out. let's get an early start. what is the concern?

>> i think it's legitimate to establish contacts, to meet and greet people and all that. but i think if it steps over the line of undermining the policies of the current administration, that's a different matter. >> so it depends on the content of the conversations, not necessarily establish them. >> exactly. >> and to your knowledge, does the intelligence community have any evidence of the content of communications, anything to work off of in an investigation? >> well, i guess the general answer is yes but i'm certainly not going to comment any further than that. there was a basis for an investigation. i think that came out in john brennan's hearing before the house select committee on intelligence on the 23rd. >> that's why i'm asking in a general fashion. i know you don't want to get into particulars but that is a

big question. to your thinking, this investigation isn't just about the fact that communications were established, but it's about the content of those communications as well. >> of course. absolutely. >> so to the american citizen who says, i just don't buy it. yeah, there's a lot of smoke. okay. there are a lot of people around trump talking to russians. they aren't politicians, not experienced, maybe they were getting played by the russians and didn't know it but there was no intent to do anything wrong. there's nothing criminal in this. this is a waste of time. what do you say? >> well, that could well be true. i think that is what needs to come out in the course of independent, objective investigation, which i think the country badly needs so we can clear the air. this could have been innocent. could have been naivete or

hubris as mike hayden has suggested. i don't know. but i think that both the intent and content of any of these engagements is crucial to the country to know what this was about. >> quickly, how long you think it takes? >> i have no idea. i hope it takes -- i hope it's sooner rather than later. >> mr. clapper, this was very helpful. thank you very much for joining us on "new day." you're always welcome here to discuss what matters. >> thanks, chris, for having me. >> alisyn. >> all right, chris, joining us now is former nato supreme allied commander, now the senior fellow at ucla center general wesley clark and cnn political commentator, former senior adviser to the trump campaign and former congressman from georgia. great to have you here. i want you to respond to what general clapper had to say. what's your take, general. >> i think the investigation is needed. i think we need greater

transparency. from a nato perspective, my concern is the president's trip and visit to nato, which should have been a really strong reaffirmation of the principles of nato turned into a lecture for nato members and it was slightly off base. >> i know you think that's connected somehow. >> i think what people in europe are asking themselves is what is -- what is it about this administration that they are trying to make putin so happy. when he sees the disunity in nato and concerns of countries like germany, that the united states is no longer a reliable ally, this has to make people in the kremlin happy. this has been their goal for a long time. >> congressman, what's the answer to that? why does the trump administration seem to be trying to make vladimir putin happier than some of our allies. >> well, i don't agree with it at all. i don't agree with never

trumpers who say this was a disastrous trip when have you 5 out of 28 countries paying their share of their own set guidelines for contributions, including germany, by the way, which pace -- pays 1.2% and greece, a poorer country, germany austerity on, pays over 2%, nato's own set guideline again. i think american taxpayers deserve more than what the nato partners are contributing. i think the other thing -- >> hold on, congressman, for a second. i just want to dive in there. you think that is what's paramount, making sure they are not nickel and diming us somehow is more important than reiterating collective defense and the relationship that the u.s. and germany and france have had together for all these decades? >> no. i don't think there's any dispute about america's standing with nato in terms of russian aggression. i don't think that was ever up for discussion at all. i think the american left has tried to make that an issue

because trump didn't play it up more than he should have in their own opinion. i think trump's basic premise was of course we're there. of course we stand behind nato. you should pay your fair share, however. also we should look at expanding the mission beyond russia to look at terrorism, because the eu really has approached the crisis in syria and middle east as what do we do about refugees rather than what do we do to stop russian aggression or iran. >> okay. >> as you know, the trump administration is the only one who has bombed the russian interest in syria right now. >> general, is that how you heard it? the way he's describing it, do you hear president trump say that to nato? of course we stand with nato and somehow angela merkel is misinterpreting. >> i didn't hear that. i heard rex tillerson say it and mattis would say it but it needs to come from the president of the united states. he needs to reaffirm the basic

foundation of nato, that an attack on one is viewed as an attack on all. >> he wasn't explicit. >> he wasn't explicit on that and was about the feed for country's to pay for their defense. we all agree on that. every commander and president has said that since dwight eisenhower. it's nothing new. the alliance has worked on terrorism since we consider it a threat starting in 1999 at the nato summit. so it's not that we haven't looked at this for a long time. they helped us in afghanistan, nato did. so that's part of the counter-terrorism, antiterrorism mission. so there's nothing new on that. what's important is with russia pushing in ukraine, building up its forces against estonia, cutting off electricity supply through cyber and dozens of other actions that never make the headlines back here but well understood in europe, there is always the need to reaffirm the fundamental foundation of nato. >> congressman, you hear the

general here and hear what angela merkel as well as germany's foreign minister say. they did not think it was implied the way you did, that the u.s. will always have germany and europe's back. how are they getting it wrong? >> well, i think number one angela merkel has her own issues. the eu with brexit germany becomes predominant economic player. she could not even persuade the world community for the ttip, european trade agreement and france had major debate with le pen's candidacy falling out of the eu. i think that's her kiran. as far as the middle east, the general knows as somebody who served on the defense committee i know their contribution on terrorism in the middle east was, in fact, weak because it is not part of their mission. but we have moved troops in the baltic states. we wanted to make a statement

america stands firm on that. america is paying its fair share. i don't think there's any debate about us standing with nato and their issue -- and their original mission, but i think the idea of expanding it, makes them more relevant and the plight of terrorism is a larger discussion. >> congressman, are you comfortable with what seems to be president trump's cozier relationship with saudi arabia and chillier relationship with france and germany? >> i am comfortable, because i don't think it's that chilly. but if you look at what the eu has come, to the left of bernie sanders. i work with one of the companies, work with general clark's good friend david dunn. we're in paris and brussels and we know eu is extremely liberal. the president of the european union said trump was a bigger disaster than china and russia. that's an ir responsible discussion for any country

that's an ally. >> ten seconds, general. >> this is a time now for the president to come out and clarify what he meant on the trip to europe and reaffirm the fundamental commitment to nato. this is the time, perfect time to do it. he's back, give a reprice to the american people. summarize what he believes came out of the trip and say it. >> general, congressman, thank you very much for the debate. chris. >> thank you, alisyn. >> all right. we have some video you need to see. this boy was thrown from a water slide. look, this the time of year. we're all bringing our kids there. why did this happen? >> look, they say he's okay, but is he really? we're going to take you through this next. oh no, looks like somebody needs a new network. when i got this unlimited plan they told me they were all the same. they're not. verizon has the largest, most-reliable 4g lte network in america. it's basically made for places like this. honey, what if it was just us out here? right. so, i ordered you a car. thank you. you don't want to be out here at night 'cause of the, uh, coyotes. ok, thanks, bud. bye. be nice to have your car for some shelter.

bye. when it really, really matters, you need the best network and the best unlimited. just $45 per line for four lines.

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.

breaking news. 14 people injured after severe thunderstorms. this is the scene this morning. you are looking live after the aftermath of scattered debris. national weather service trying to determine if the damage was actually caused by a tornado. >> portland, oregon's mayier is asking the feds to stop his at right rallies. the city is mourning the stabbing deaths of two men that interfered in an alleged hate crime. they were defending two girls. the mayor is hoping that feds will revoke permits for sunday's

trump free speech rally, which does not consider itself associated with them. and there is next week's march against sharia. is suspect is expected to make his first court appearance today. >> so safety inspectors and the maker of a water park slide in california are looking into why a ten-year-old boy was launched off the water slide. he seemed to be okay. he did manage to walk away. park officials say drivers are supposed to cross their arms and legs as they go down. as you can see in the video, the boys legs are not crossed. safety officials are now looking into adding a weight minimum. that's the problem. he was too light. >> i think the problem is going to be, one, you don't have a lot of oversight.

people think they must be regulated. they're not. see the water at the bottom? the issue was going to be was there so much water at the bottom of that slide that the kid was able to hydro plane and leave the surface. that gets to how are these tested? you are not going to like the answer to those questions. >> those are always scary, and that's part of the thrill of going down those. >> that's true. parents want the illusion of thrill, not the real thrill. it has become the most expensive congressional race in history. you know about this one, right? remember this guy that is finally getting married? all the money, john ossof, an important race. tom price held this. a republican is supposed to win it. well, the democrats come from behind with this man.

>> are you going to ask about his proposal? >> that's all we're going to talk about, the newspaper actuals. ♪ ♪ to take advantage of this offer on a volvo s90, visit your local dealer.

to take advantage of this offer on a volvo s90, at bp's cooper river plant, employees take safety personally - down to each piece of equipment, so they can protect their teammates and the surrounding wetlands, too. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.

early voting begins today in the most expensive congressional race in history. democrats are hoping to flip georgia's sixth district, a deep red district once held by tom price and newt gingrich before him. so let's bring in the candidate, democrat jon ossof. why so much money? >> well, there is a lot of enthusiasm here in georgia to make a statement about the need for greater accountability,

about the need for fresh leadership that can work across the aisle to get things done. more than 10,000 volunteers here in georgia. early voting, of course, opens today. i hope you won't mind me plugging the site. it's electjohn.com/vote. >> plug away. let me ask you. money matters, right? because there is a perception. i get that it's part of the process. but the process is what really bothers people, that it is all about money now. do you have any concerns that if you win this race there will be a cloud that, boy, politics is all about money these days. had to buy the race. >> well, there is too much money in politics these days. that's why i'm for campaign reform. the average contribution so my

campaign is less than $50 in stark contrast to my opponent's campaign. >> but you are getting big money also, right? it is just about whether it is directed at campaign or used for the race, right? >> this is truly grass roots fund-raising. the average contributions is less than $50, and that kind of fund-raising gives candidates a independence. because on account of people who have the same concerns as ordinary folks around the country, rather than special interests shelling out pak checks. >> are you just running against handle, or do you see this as a referendum against the president. >> i am running for the ability to work across the aisle to develop the economy to become an economic powerhouse. i think we have too much running

against things in this country. we need to find common ground. i think that's the fresh approach that's exciting people. >> you are in the race. what do you think is working best for you right now with the voters? >> well, there is nothing more effective than neighbors knocking on neighbors doors and there are more than 11,000 people working on the campaign. of course you have to run a complete campaign and be up on the airways. there is no substitute for a strong ground game and the folks out talking to their neighbors are going to make the difference. >> the idea of a democrat taking over a republican district, you got hit with something early on because you don't live there, you live up the road with your now fiance. why are you the best choice for the people down there? >> i've got five years of experience as a congressional

aid. i'm a small business owner. i run a company that specializes in exposing organized crime and corruption and i bring a fresh perspective. making the case we need some fresh leadership in washington, that if we are going to move forward in this country against this backdrop of disarray and gridlock in washington, we need fresh, independent voices that can do that. >> i know you are saying this is a grass roots campaign, but is it true that most of your voters came from outside the state of georgia. >> vastly more folks in georgia have contributed to my campaign than my opponents campaign. when you have these super packs coming in with anonymously raised special interest money, it is necessary to raise special resources to fight back and my campaign has raised those resources in average

contributions of less than $50. >> all right. i appreciate you being on the show. i know you have a busy day ahead of you. early voting starts today, as you said. good luck going forward. >> we are following a lot of news on the russian investigation. let's get after it. >> russian government officials discussed having potentially, quote, derogatory information about then presidential candidate donald trump. >> investigators are looking into a december meeting between jared kushner and a russian banker. >> questions about the relationship with russia are greater than ever. >> the white house claiming kushner's secret back channel request on the kremlin. >> that is not secret. >> i think it should be under review as we speak. >> i don't like