>> 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 it.

i just don't. >> you are only as good as your word. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> good morning. we do have breaking news on the investigation into russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. >> jim sciutto along with pamela brown and dana bash broke this story and jim joins us now with the breaking news. >> here's what we know. two former intelligence officials and a congressional source tell myself that russian government officials discussed having potentially derogatory information about then presidential candidate trump as well as his top aids. one source described the information as financial in nature and said the discussion centered around whether the russians have leverage with trump's inner circle.

the intercepted communications suggested the u.s. intelligence that russians believed, quote, they had the ability to influence the administration through this derogatory information. now, the sources privy to the descriptions caution the russian claims to each other could have been exaggerated or even made up. the details in communication do shed new light on information u.s. received. the content of the conversations made clear to u.s. officials that russia was considering ways to innuance the election even if those claims turned out to be false. as you may remember, cnn first reported the u.s. intercepted discussions about officials b g bragging. all this to influence trump himself. following cnn's report new york times said trump's campaign chairman paul manafort was also discussed. >> all right.

so any sense in talking to these officials about the who, jim? are there any new names into deuced to this? >> beyond the president himself, none of the sources would say which specific aids were discussed. but it was still clear the conversations resolved around the trump campaign team. another source could not get more specific citing the classified nature of the information. now, we went to the white house and overnight we did get the following statement to cnn. this is another ground of false and unverified claims from the president. the reality is a review of the president's income from the last ten years showed he had virtually no financial ties at all. there appears to be no limit to which the president's political opponents will go to perpetuate this. all this does play into the hands of our adversaries and put our country at risk.

the director of the national intelligence and the fbi would not comment to us. the president himself has insisted on multiple occasions in public that he has no financial dealings with russia. >> is all of this new to investigators, or is this part of their current investigation? >> it is part of their big picture. the fbi investigation into russian meddling taken over by robert mueller does include speaking answers as to whether there was any coordination with associates of trump. the fbi would not comment to us on whether the claims discussed in those have been verified. by the time trump took office, questions about some of his aids dealings were already under investigation. it is a big picture here, guys. there are lots of threads. but the newest information here is that russians were telling each other in intercepted conversations they believed they

had derogatory information on the new president, donald trump. >> okay, jim. thank you for helping us sort through all of it. we have some more breaking news to tell you about. a top staffer at the white house announcing his resignation this morning. cnn joe johnson is live at the white house with breaking news. >> good morning, alison. mike is the communications director here at the white house. he submitted his resignation we're told on may 18th and confirming to cnn and a pool reporter this morning that he is leaving. not clear what his final day will be. he says his reasons for leaving are personal. nonetheless, his resignation comes at a time when there is a lot of talk as to whether there will be a shake up at the white house because the president is concerned his message is not getting made public. so this also comes at a time, though, there are also concerns about the white house and its ability to contain the message

on the russia investigation. the president this morning himself tweeting that russian officials must be laughing at the u.s. at our lame excuse for by democrats lost the election has taken over the fake news. i have said the controversy over russia right now centering on the president's son-in-law with among others a russian banker. now, those discussions getting closer scrutiny, we're told, from investigators. today we are expecting to see the white house press secretary, sean spicer, deliver a briefing. it will be his first briefing since the news broke about the communications between his son-in-law, jared kushner, and the russians over perhaps setting up a back channel with the russians. back to you. >> joe johnson, we see the president once again trying to

tap down the significance of the russian investigation. but i'll tell you who isn't laughing about these questions, the former director of national intelligence, james clapper. he says russian interference is real. there is no question it was russia and that these questions, which we called them clouds over the administration about who talked to the russians and why, they matter, and we need to get to the bottom of them. here is a taste. >> are you 100% sure that russia was behind the election meddling that you describe? >> absolutely. the evidence which unfortunately we could not detail was in my view overwhelming. and that is why the assessment that we did enjoyed such a high confidence level and there is no doubt in my mind. one other point, chris, that i need to respond to is we could

not make a call as to whether or not this interference actually affected the outcome of the election. we did not see any evidence of voter tallying. that is a mechanical process of tallying votes in any of the 50 states. we didn't have either the authority or expertise, nor the capability to assess whether or not this interference affected the outcome of the election. >> 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. >> right. >> capabilities, that's correct. >> the idea that the democrats are just front running this to explain what happened in the election. you are saying, no, there are legitimate questions. so from the -- if you are an american citizen, what do you want to know from this

investigation? 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 discussions? and 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. and, 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. >> all right. now you're talking about the second head of this beast, which is the questions that go to communications and any potential collaboration or collusion with the trump administration.

the president, you know his position on this. and the reflection of that in the citizenry is this. where is the proof? it is all unnamed sources. it is 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. but i also have to say that with specific respect to the issue of collusion, as i have said before, testified to this effect, i saw no direct evidence of political collusion between the campaign and -- the trump campaign and the russians. >> now, clarify that point. >> that's not to say there wasn't any. but i just didn't see evidence of it before i left. >> now, the clarification matters because this is a big point. he went on to say the fbi had

intel and that they were doing that assembly. so he's saying i didn't see it on the intel side and i wasn't running that part of the case. >> right. >> i don't know what they have. >> as we've learned, that those are distinct. >> what he said was that the questions are real and matter to what he's seen are very different to what the president of the united states is saying. let's bring back jim sciutto and bring back april ryan and alex burns. april ryan, what do you take from that interview? >> i take a lot. i remember when that statement came out in october. talking about the fact that russia was trying to tamper in the elections. look at where we've come from october to almost june 2017. i take a lot. and one thing i go back to the

president's tweet this morning saying that russia is smiling or russia is happy. they are happy to be playing such a part in government movement right now. but this is a real issue for former head like clapper to say this, that he doesn't show for sure that there was collusion, but thinks there is still question marks. we need to take it seriously. this is not just someone off the street or an unnamed source. this is someone who was involved in finding out possibilities of what was going on. at the time, it was just starting to perkulate. now there is more coming out and i believe there are more question pamarks and alarm bell. >> that leads us to your new reporting. your breaking news this morning that intel sources tell you there are these intercepted communications between russian officials where they are heard talking about, quote, derogatory information that they may have on donald trump that they could use to leverage the trump

campaign. but that still doesn't correct the dots. correct me if i'm wrong, with collusion between them and the trump campaign. >> it doesn't. i mean, keep in mind, you have so many pieces, so many strands in this web. these are all continuing issues of investigation. one, was there collusion? two, the back channel now is a new line of investigation. three, does russia actually have derogatory information on donald trump? remember the first time this came up was with the dossier, right, which was unconfirmed information, but important enough that both president-elect trump and president obama were briefed on it during the transition period. so these, like many things in this investigation, worthy of investigation. but they haven't reached a conclusion. i do want to get to that point you made, chris, there. james clapper has been quoted

many times by trump and other trump supporters has having eliminated collusion. that's not what he said. he clarified again today. he said this is the fbi's job, particularly because it involved a u.s. person. there may be been new evidence. but, two, he keeps that counter intelligence stuff in the fbi's lane. that was not his job. james clapper never said there was no evidence. that's something that has to be made clear. there is no conclusion on them yet. there are strands and clues. but the fbi, the house and senate intel communities are still investigating these questions. >> it is unsatisfying for people. i get it. clapper is very careful in how he speaks. all these intel guys seem to be. and it sets up a very interesting struggle, alex, because what the president is banking on is you can't prove a crime. that's clearly where he is

putting all his eggs, okay? that's the bar that's being set. is it the right bar? and is that likely to pay off politically for the president? >> chris, it is certainly not the bar that is typically set for investigations of a white house and the conduct of a president and his team. what the president is trying to do, in addition to what you just described, is he is trying to keep this on a very, very narrow question. is there explicit evidence of criminal collusion between president trump and his associates and russians or agents of the russian government? that is not how investigations work. when you have a presspecial prosecutor or a special investigation, they may start with collusion and end up with who knows what. questions of did everybody reports contacts with russian agents at the right time, did everybody disclose their approapriate finances, all of that is in inbounds. the question is a lot more complicated than the president

would like people to believe. >> april, look, i just sat down with these die-hard trump supporters. on election day they would have given him an a. slowly a few of them are starting to question his leadership because in large measure this russia stuff there is a lot of smoke. so even though nobody has connected the dots and there s no smoking gun, it's just enough to clearly knock him off from the agenda that he had set out and to plant the seed of doubt with some people. >> there is a lot of concern, not just for democrats but for republicans and for this president's die-hard base. and you have to remember, when they voted for him they wanted something different. and they didn't necessarily know what that different was going to be. but the difference now is the fact that there are questions about how the democracy is being handled. and many of his die-hard fans or supporters, they talk about the

constitution, and they talk about patriotism. when you bring in the fact that you have another government possibly tampering in one of the most sacred pieces of our process, the election process, that raises some question marks. then to find out that michael flynn had some dealings or was paid from turkey and russia and then jared kushner, the son-in-law of the president, wanted to do a back channel, it makes people wonder. i'm not saying there is collusion, but there are a lot of question marks. for some there are alarm bells. i have talked to a lot of republicans who are saying they are buyer's remorse right now and their conscious is kicking them. we have to find out where everything lies, what's happening. but i understand why people are questioning. >> so, jim, you have james clapper who says by the way, it is not just that they had these discussions, it is the content of the discussions and what they

know about them that's fuelling the investigation. that's important for people to remember. but how do you square that with secretary kelly, the homeland security secretary coming out and saying the back channel stuff with kushner doesn't bother me? >> he works for the president, right? he's a respected man with a long military career. he comes from inside the administration. and listen, you're going to have different views from democrats and republicans, but also within democrats and republicans. you saw john mccain who is a republican. you have a fundamental disagreement as to whether this matters. i suppose it is up to the american people to decide. one thing by tradition and norms, you do have one president at a time and during the transition period, foreign policy is still run by the outgoing president, not the incoming president, and that's particularly germane when it ha difference of opinion here. so it creates the impression

that the incoming president is seeking to undermine the policies of the outgoing president. specific in this case to sanctions against russia. that creates problems for u.s. allies trying to read what the u.s. is going to do. ultimately it is up to the american people to decide. but there is disagreement on it and it is not along party lines because many republicans are uncomfortable with it as well. >> alex, tie this up for us. we know the new york sometimes is reporting where they are trying to figure out in terms of jared kushner, what his motivation was for meeting with a major russian banker. why would he need that? >> well, this is i think the big question of the week that the white house is really going to have to answer. so far they have been trying to take this view they don't need to comment on this. jared can take care of himself, we're going to focus on our policy agenda. the reality is if this were any

other staffer, not a blood relative or a relative by marriage to the president of the united states, it is hard to imagine the administration standing by this person. >> they say we were trying to meet with leaders in russia. what's so bad about that? >> i'm not saying there is not potentially a valid explanation. i'm saying the administration as a whole has not stood squarely with jared kushner with presenting a single consistent rational for this behavior. the administration is in a position where they could disclose all those facts. >> panel, thank you very much for all of thesharing it with u >> thank you. >> so there is no question about the newsworthiness of these russian questions. but how does the white house deal with them. that's become as big a part of this story. tweets like what we saw from the president this morning. they always seem to make the situation worse. we're going to talk bt about it

with a former governor next. you do all this research 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.

first casualty of the trump white house announced this morning in terms of the communications office. the communications director is resigning. how will president trump respond to the growing cloud of russia this week as his son-in-law is now the focus of the russian investigation. good morning, governor. >> good morning. how are you? >> i'm well.

let's dive into these different russian threads because i want to gauge your feelings on these separately. let's talk about what our jim sciutto is breaking this morning in terms of reporting. there were these intercepted communications picked up by our intel agencies that heard russian government officials talking about some kind of what they called derogatory information they had on donald trump. then a candidate and whether or not they could use it to leverage the trump campaign. are you troubled? >> in the 2016 campaign, that's right. i came on your show with derogatory business information on donald trump during the primary. why is it a surprise? why is it a news story that the russians in washington would convey the same material to the russians in moscow? the same story that you're quoting at the bottom of the story noted that the same sources that gave your reporter that information conceded that it was possible that the

russians were exaggerating or even making it up. >> yeah. >> why is this even a story worth talking about? >> it is only a news story, you're right, if, as part of the investigative thread it turns out they were able to leverage the trump campaign and they were able to somehow use the information they had to help get the trump campaign to do something that they wanted them to do. so this is just one more thread down that line where, as you know, congressional committees and the fbi are trying to figure out if they can connect those dots. >> everybody was talking about trump's business problem. why is that news now again? look, let's put this whole thing in context. you have to tell me what you think the reality was that they could have conveyed. >> well, do you think that jared kushner is setting up a back

channel and the trump campaign wanted something out of the russians and there was a dove tailing of agaendaagendas. >> between the election and the inauguration, there was a lot going on on with all kinds of folks. when i was named chief of staff, a lot of ambassadors tried to become good friends in that ten weeks. it is not unusual. you guys have made back channel a derogatory term. back channel is a positive asset. >> is it? >> nixon could not have done china without a back channel. >> yes. >> kennedy used back channels. >> during the cuban missile crisis. you're saying that during the transition when there is another president, that you are comfortable with the incoming administration using a back channel, if the reporting is correct, using russian equipment

so as not to be caught on the u.s. surveillance and int intelligence equipment? you're comfortable with that kind of back channel? >> i don't think it happened that way. but let's speculate on why it might have happened. there might have been concerns that the intelligence community was feeding obama the information that he probably shouldn't have had. and you know what, with what you are reporting now on what has come out from deep sources in the intelligence community, if that was a concern and i doubt it was, but if that was a concern, they were pretty smart to have those feelings, weren't there. >> is there anything about the russian investigation connected to the trump campaign that troubles you? >> yeah. the reporting that's taking place and the kpaguation and suggestion. look, it is now seven months since the election. and to this day no one has cited a single piece of evidence.

in your last session you guys were patting yourselves on the back because you said clapper had passed the responsibility off to the fbi. but you forget that in the last weeks of the administration, obama allowed all his intelligence agencies to share their information and there is no question in my mind that when that happened, since clapper's group had originated this, that anything the fbi had would have gone back to clapper. so it is nice for clapper to try and wash his hands of it by throwing it in the fbi's lap, but he had access in those days to whatever the fbi had. there is nothing there. >> so jared kushner, meeting with a major russian banker of a massive bank that has ties to vladimir putin, nothing to see there? >> well, tell me what you think is to see there rand i'll comment on it. >> what do you think would be the motivation? >> i don't think there is anything there. so you're implying -- you're

implying -- because during the ten weeks everything is trying to meet somebody who is going to be in the administration. everybody who is involved in business. everybody who is involved in politics. i can't tell you how many people tried to meet with me between the time i was named chief of staff. >> did you meet with a russian banker? >> no. but a lot of folks started talking to me. >> would you have carved out time to meet with a russian banker with ties to vladimir putin if he asked? >> i'm not even sure what would have happened. first of all, putin wasn't there. look, you're asking hypotheticals on hypotheticals. >> i'm trying to take your temperature. your comfort level with all of this. >> the only discomfort i have is with folks in the media trying to create a veniality without

having the courage to specifically tell me. i don't have -- i don't have veniality. >> you should be concerned if there was collusion. >> i don't see any evidence of collusion. do you? >> no. >> okay. so that -- >> i understand. but we're at the beginning of the investigation. >> you're soechb moneven months investigation. >> not exactly. robert mueller has just taken over. >> so it is a new investigation? >> that's not exactly fair, governor. >> the obama investigation went on for the last -- >> to do this, to handling this so it gets away from all the partisan bickering. it is just starting in that regard. >> can i ask a question? if mueller comes out and says my version is correct and yours

isn't, how much crow are you going to eat? >> governor, i don't have a version of events. >> of course you do. >> we are asking of the people who know attempting to see where the investigation is. >> without identifying -- without identifying a veniality that should be investigate d. >> governor, we appreciate your perspective there is nothing to see here and that the investigation is, i don't know, silly. >> politically motivated by folks trying to rationalize a horribly run democratic presidential campaign. >> thank you very much. >> nice to be here. >> they're certainly doing a better job coordinating messaging. governor, always a capable mind and a good political debay tor

to be sure. lawmakers down in texas not doing as delicate a job. look at what happened in a texas state house. we will talk to a lawmaker accused of threatening one of his colleagues during this. what triggered the chaos? there is some real concern to be had by this next. 'a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly.

mattress firmness? enter sleep number... she likes the bed soft. he's more hardcore. you can both adjust the bed for the best sleep of your life. save $700 on the temperature balancing i8 bed. ends sunday. go to sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

all right. you had a near brawl in the texas house floor. state lawmakers accusing each other of death threats. there is a heated immigration protest that sparked all this. you had republican lawmakers, one in particular supposedly calling immigration authorities in response to some signs carried by protesters identifying themselves as undocumented. all right. so a texas democrat, who was there and is in fact accused of threatening his colleague is state representative. >> good morning. >> so did you threaten your colleague? >> no. >> so why is he saying it? >> i think it's a little more complex than that.

if you go back and how it started is this gentleman got in the faces of some of my colleagues and i was standing a few feet away from them. he started talking about how he was calling ice on the people that were in the gallery protesting the senate bill on the floor. so a little scuffle broke out and i got in there and when i realized what it was about and what it was doing in saying i got in his face. i put my hands on the guy. these are things that shouldn't happen on the house floor. it is a break in decorum. i said we need to take this outside because it is not -- it shouldn't get resolved in front of all these people. in fact they were removing people from the gallery because they were disorderly. we have rules of conduct. i walked away from the guy. but some of my colleagues heard him say he was going to put a

bullet in my brain. he said he made that comment because he was worried about something i was going to do to him or whatnot. but that's basically the sum of it. we can't get away from the fact that this gentleman sees fit to call ice on anybody who he thinks looks suspicion and in this case it was a gallery full of people chanting against this particular senate bill. >> all right. well, he says the motivation was that the signs said i'm an undocumented person. i'm here illegally and i'm not going anywhere. and, therefore, he called ice. although ice says he didn't kabt them. but that's what he said he was going to do in response. why would that be the wrong thing to do? >> i can't -- i can't speak to his motivation. but i'll just point to the fact that at trump rallies you have folks carrying signs that say black lives matter. in other words, i can't speak to his motivation, but there were

african-american families up there. i mean, you are talking about people that are veterans up there. there is legal residents. i can't imagine the guy has some sort of radar past seeing that sign that will determine who is here illegally or who is here legally. i mean, it's ridiculous. when he looked up into the gallery to see that people that don't look like him and he reacted to that. i can't question the guy oes motivation. >> look, you know reacting to. you guys are supposed to represent the best of us and now you are going into a barroom bral in the middle of the state house there. what's going on? >> it's unfortunate. but i'll say this. it really has more to do with the indignities that him and people like him are piling on these people that were up in the gallery. and frankly, after the session that we had and the types of things we had to deal with, i mean, i just had enough. and, you know, these guys push and push and push, and we just

had enough. this emanates from the senate. you know, our lieutenant governor has this agenda. he's firing these guys up on the west side of the capital, and this is the result of that. that doesn't excuse the behavior. that's why i said my suggestion was we need to take this outside because it does not fit the decorum of the house. but we have been pushed and pushed and pushed, and i pushed back. >> i hear you. i get where you are coming from. but just remember, people are so on edge right now that when they see the people that are supposed to represent the best of us saying let's go outside and see who can beat up the other guy and settle this point, not the best example. >> i'll say this. i don't think necessarily me asking him to go outside was referencing that. it was just a question of getting this away from the chamber. it doesn't belong -- you made a very good point. it doesn't belong in the chamber. and you're exactly right. it doesn't represent the best of us. not to make any excuses, but i will not allow these folks to be

demon niized or victimized. i won't allow this guy and people like to him to point to him and say this is the problem we have in our country. grant it, they were a little unruly and don't know the rules of the chamber, but they were there acting on democracy. but, you know, it is something we need to work on and get past. at the end of the day we're not going to let this to happen. we're not going to allow folks like him to dictate this because it is wrong, evil and pretty low. >> i get you. you are saying it is personal, not just political. i appreciate you coming on the show to make your case. >> thank you. >> all right. be well. >> chris, angela merkel insisting that europe can no longer count on the u.s. now president trump is responding.

president trump taking to twitter this morning to slam germany after angela merkel signalled a deepening rift with the united states, signaling europe can't rely on the usa. live in london with more. what are you hearing? >> reporter: chris, a lot of developments on the story. you have the president coming out very early in the morning tweeting another shot at germany. i want to read you the tweet real quick. he said we have a massive trade deficit with germany. plus they pay far more than they should on military. this will change. that seems to be his take on the whole thing. i think the germans are saying, the stuff about nato is fair. the germans have been paying

less. but on the trade deficit, they say the reason americans are driving german cars these days is because they are actually made in america. they are saying we created jobs in the u.s. building car plants there. and there is another german politician who came out after the trump tweet and said it shows that president trump sees germany as an opponent and that's almost unheard of language coming from a strong ally as germany is to the united states. one of the things we have to point out is there is an election campaign coming out right now. >> thank you very much for all of that. so every country at the g-7 summit reaffirmed its commitment to the paris climate commitment except the u.s. president trump previously threatened to pull out of that deal and he says he will make a decision about it this week. christine joins us from our money center. how is big business reacting?

>> hundreds of companies say the u.s. will suffer. 195 countries signed the landmark plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and companies like nike, apple, they want to keep the deal. they say the u.s. will lose its competitive edge if it withdraws. that's because companies can't cash in on clean technology. even oil giants back the paris climate accord. but their support isn't that surprising because the deal favors coal. the natural gas boom is the primary reason for coal's decline. the president calls this climate treaty is bad deal. ted cruz warned the president to facilitate his promise to throw out this thrreaty. they say unchecked climate change could cost the u.s. $2

trillion per year. >> all right. big implications. so golf legend tiger woods speaking out about his dui suspicious arrest. the key is he says no alcohol involved. what was it? what does it mean to you? next. go, go! [ rock music playing ] have fun with your replaced windows. run away! [ grunts ] leave him! leave him! [ music continues ] brick and mortar, what?! [ music continues ] [ tires screech ] [ laughs ] [ doorbell rings ] when you bundle home and auto insurance with progressive, you get more than a big discount. that's what you get for bundling home and auto! jamie! you get sneaky-good coverage. thanks. we're gonna live forever!

thithis is the new new york.e? think again. thanks. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes. and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov

i decided to see if there was a way for design to play a... ...positive role in what was going on in the world. there's a jacket that's reflective for visibility... ...a sleeping bag jacket, jackets that turn into tents. i usually do my fashion sketches on the computer. i love drawing on the screen. there's no lag time at all. it feels just like my markers. with fashion, you can dress people and help people. it's really cool to see your work come to life.

sglrchlts tiger woods speaking about after he was arrested of driving under the influence. woods says alcohol was not involved. rather he blames a quote unexpected reaction to prescription drugs. and this morning in a rare coincidence, post the new york post and new york daily news published the exact same headlines, dui of the tiger. let's discuss. so christine, i guess he had back surgery recently. he's on pain medication. and does it stand to reason that he didn't know how much he was taking or didn't know that he wasn't supposed to drive on this? >> that's what he's saying. he's saying alcohol was not involved and it was a mix of the prescribed medication. but he has had four back surgeries, not just one. he's had four over the last couple of years and he's been

dealing with this kind of pain for a long time. so a lot of questions yet to be answered. but he interestingly, he said alcohol was not involved. he put that out there in that statement. he also apologized. it was a full apology and a good statement. but by putting that out there, that no alcohol was involved. of course when we get the police report and other things start to happen, we'll be able to find out exactly what the facts are and we'll see how that jives with what he said. >> do we know what happened that led to the stop and do we know if there will be a toxicology test or if he just did a field sobriety test? do we know any of that. >> no, we don't. and it's taking time to find out what happened that night. he spent about four hours in jail before he was released on his own recognizance. the thought of tiger woods, as you know that mug shot, that picture is so jarring when you think of tiger all put together. now you see of course this

sobering imagine, this stunning image of tiger in trouble clearly. and, so, we'll see. but i think there is a lot more questions than answered. but i know we'll get to the bottom of it because tiger is one of the most important figures in the country. people care, are interested in him and what's going to happen in the future. >> we put out a statement and apology. let me read it. i understand the severity of what i did and i take full responsibility for my actions. i want the public to know that alcohol was not involved. what happened was an unexpected reaction to prescribed medications. i didn't realize the mix of medications had affected me so strongly. i would like to apologize with all any heart to my family, friends and the fans, but you know, christine, i don't know. in this era of now we're so much more sophisticated and know so much more about pain medications, particularly since prince's death, public figures, even wealthy ones, even successful ones can become

addicted to painkillers. >> and my question would be, if you have been taking medication for a while, clearly four back surgeries over the past four years in the exact same spot on his back, by the way, if you have been doing this for a while, you must know about the painkillers you are taking and why would you then drive? tiger is one of the richest people on earth in terms of athletes in sports. you can call a cab. you can call a friend. >> yeah. but we don't deal with it that way, christine. i think why i am most interested in this other than that passive interest in hoping tiger woods is okay because he's such a giant in our sports culture is i have a lot of friends on the job. they see this all the time. we are the most medicated society in the world. pain care is all over the case. people are taking pills. very often it has this intoxicating effect as anything else you might drink over a holiday weekend. it will be interesting to see if

woods gets in front of it. >> i think that's true and tiger has the ended to be very private over the 20-some years we have seen him in the public eye. he has not wanted to give out much information. i'm sure this is just a terrible turn of events for him personally. this is the last thing that he wants. but we'll see. there is a lot more we'll see coming out about this, i'm sure. >> thanks so much for all the information. we'll talk again. >> there is a lot of news. cnn has new reporting about the russian investigation. so news room with poppy harlow and john berman is going to pick up right after the break. have a great morning. it's the place where you feel safe to have those little moments that mean everything. at adt, we believe that feeling should always be there. whether it's at your house, or your business, we help keep you safe. so you can have those moments that make you feel at home. ♪you are loved

wherever you are.

when heartburn hits fight back fast with new tums chewy bites. fast relief in every bite. crunchy outside. chewy inside. tum tum tum tum new tums chewy bites. z286oz zwtz

y286oy ywty good morning everyone. i'm poppy harlow. >>ened ie'm john berman. staff changes at the white house. cnn has new exclusive reporting that russian officials discussed having potentially derogatory information about president trump and his top aids during the campaign. >> this morning the white house is pushing back, calling this a quote, another round of false and unverified claims to smear the president. all of this is happening as the president's son-in-law and his senior advisor faces increased scrutiny over his tie to a russian banking executive, someone with a direct line to vladimir putin. let's go to