i wiwhat are you doingake care oftomorrow - 10am?ut... staff meeting. 3:45? tai chi. 6:30? sam's baseball practice. you are busy. wouldn't it be great if you had investmensts that worked as hard as you do? yeah. essential portfolios. the automated investing solution. wheyou wantve somto protect it.e, at legalzoom, our network of attorneys can help you every step of the way. with an estate plan including wills or a living trust that grows along with you and your family. legalzoom. legal help is here.

but we've got the get tdigital tools to help. now with xfinity's my account, you can figure things out easily, so you won't even have to call us. change your wifi password to something you can actually remember, instantly. add that premium channel, and watch the show everyone's talking about, tonight. and the bill you need to pay? do it in seconds. because we should fit into your life,

not the other way around. go to xfinity.com/myaccount well, tonight's breaking news there's new details how far russia went not just to flood with misinformation but also how to hack. the alleged leaker is facing charges. the intercept website broke the story. jim sciutto joins us now. so the substance of the document, let's talk about that. >> so this is something we knew some hints about before the election, that russia had had probing attacks or at least attacks traced back to russia, voting registration systems, florida, illinois, a contractor

hacked tied to the voting system. but the intel community never found any evidence that russia had actually changed the votes of the election. the nsa report just dated a couple of weeks ago in may, gives more details about these probing attacks of leck toral systems. it does not make a conclusion. it does not say they successfully changed voter tallies, but it does give more details about how many places they were looking to get into these systems. that information in itself is alarming enough because it shows that beyond just stealing e-mails and releasing them, which of course had it's own measured affect on the election, they were looking as to where else they could penetrate these systems. and that's a concern not just looking back to 2016, anderson, but looking forward to 2018 and 20/20. because one thing i hear consistently from intel officials is russia will target the u.s. election system again. >> the leaker which appears to

be a reality winner, what do we know about her? >> a 24-year-old contractor work recollect down in augusta, georgia in facility down there. and reel ahow the authorities found her is interesting. she apparently printed out this classified nsa document, the intercept says shared it anonymously with them. when that intercept reporter got it, that reporter showed it to another contractor and said, hey, is this real? that contractor shared with his bosses who looked at it and drew some clues from it. one being a simple one which appeared to be a crease in it so this gave an indication it appeared to have been printed it out. there were only a half or so people in that unit who it printed it out. we know see faced a court today. she's got a court appointed lawyer. cnn has spoken to her lawyer,

and she's now facing charges. >> this comes just at a pivotal moment. what he says could shape what happens from here on out, perhaps in a very big way. and today the white house said it would not try to stop him. more on that from jessica schneider. >> reporter: a declaration from the white house that james comey's testimony will proceed unimpeded. comey will speak publicly to the senate intelligence committee thursday before moving into a closed session prch for lawmakers the questions about his conversations with the president have been mounting. >> we want to find out what comey was thinking at that time, if it had risen to that level of conobstruction, and if it had, why didn't he say anything about it? >> reporter: lawmakers plan to probe his relationship with

president trump. >> the tone, the exact words that were spoken and the context are so important. and that's what we lack right now. and we can only get that by targeting those directly involved. >> reporter: a source close to comey's thinking said comey felt disturbed by his conversations with the president but believed he had the situation under control. director of national intelligence dan coates and dan rogers will testify on thursday. >> there is a lot of smoke. we have no smoking gun at this point, but there is a lot of smoke. and again, one of the questions we will have not only for director comey on thursday but on wednesday for director of national intelligence coates and

nsa director admiral rogers, i'm going to want to ask them because there have been reports the president also asked them in terms of down-playing the russian investigation. that would be very concerning to me. >> reporter: also rosen stain is also set to testify. in an interview with the associated press last week rosenstein promised to recuse himself from overseeing mueller if rosenstein becomes a focus of that investigation. >> and jessica joins us now. now, senate intelligence officer richard bur said he talked to comey. >> anderson, senator burr says he's spoken to him several times. but also chairman burr said that special counsel mueller has not blocked him from talking about that special russia probe. so the testimony dd be quite

broad. they've asked mccabe to hand over any of the memos comey kept. chairman burr said he does expect to get those before thursday's hearing. anderson. >> joining us now a democratic member of the house intelligence committee. so the fact president trump will not exercise his executive privilege to prevent comey from testifying, does that surprise you at all? because politically the optics would not have looked good. >> no, it doesn't surprise me. the people i know, lawyers who know the ins and outs of executive privilege, tell me it would be very strange to exert executive privilege. and as you pointed out it would have looked very, very bad. this is the first time i've been involve n volved in this investigation for a while now, and this is the first time i see

the white house taking this approach. let's get all the information out, let's not stop anybody from testifying. i'm glad this is taking the turn it has. because of course getting the specifics of what the president said to jim comey, whether jim comey said he wasn't under investigation, all these questions need to get answered and get answered soon. >> what questions do you hope to have answered and what kind of an impact will it have on the investigation, do you think? >> well, i think we need to know the specifics of everything that was said by the president to jim comey, not just what may have been aattempts to slow down, to impede the investigation. again, we have the president imself saying that part of the reason that he fired jim comey was because of the pressure of the investigation. it was odd we got those two or three explanations for the firing, but one of them included the fact he was bothered by the investigation.

we need to know what other pressure may have been put on, what else the president may have said, and of course what jim comey said. because of course the president alleges jim comey said three times he was not under investigation. we'll want to know about that and obviously get those memose. it would not surprise me if in fact jim comely memorized these weird conversations in memorandum, and we need to see those. >> does your committee have anything scheduled? i know last week some were canceled wii ranking member adam schiff. >> that's actually not accurate. i'm not quite sure how that story gained momentum. but the fact of the matter is the the investigation is going very well. mike conway -- there was a little blip there when a subpoena was issued by the chairman. that presumably has nothing to

do with -- or i would hope has nothing to do with the investigation since chairman nunes said he would not involve himself in any way in that investigation. but we are getting documents and reviewing documents. and of course you don't want to interview witnesses until you be the all the documentation so you can ask informed questions and be strategic about the order you interview witnesses. of course we will work closely with senator warner and senator bird and make sure we've got all the information the other committee has. but i think it's going well. >> did you know chairman nunes could still issue subpoenas? because he stipped aside from the leading the russian investigation, but he still has subpoena power. do you think he should continue to have that power? >> well, this is sort of a technical glitch that gepd. and yes, we all knew about it because under the rules of the committee the chairman issues

subpoenas. if you're really observing as a recuseal as he said he would do, you would delegate the authority for russia-related subpoenas to mike conaway, and you'd hope it'd be mike conaway or you could have the committee vote on subpoenas. that's not what haepd. and devon nunes' signed the subpoenas that were russia related, and again that doesn't look right to my eyes. and then you have these other subpoenas for the so-called russia investigations. >> congressman, thanks very much. appreciate it. coming up a string of presidential tweets.

be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as:

fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®.

theto me than my vacation.tant so when i need to book a hotel, i want someone who makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. c'mon, gary! your vacation is very important. that's why booking.com makes finding the right hotel for the right price easy. visit booking.com now to find out why we're booking.yeah! dearthere's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say...if you love something set it free. see you around, giulia

with london's mayor's handling of the attack, the president intensified his twitter attack on the mayor of london. pathetic excuse by london mayor sadiq khan. the president is talking about a statement that he himself, the president of the united states, took out of context in his first tweet slamming the london mayor after london was attacked. that one was part of a tweet storm pushing his travel ban and drawing criticism here and overseas. more on that from jim acosta. >> we will defeat the terrorists.

>> reporter: with london still reeling from a terrorist attack, the president trump is still defending his stinging tweet slamming the mayor. asked about the president's tweet, seven dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and mayor of london says there's no reason to be alarmed. >> the point is there is a reason to be alarmed. >> reporter: sarah sanders insisted the president did not intentionally mischaracterize the mayor's response to the attack. >> i don't think that's actually true. i think the media wants to spin it that way. >> reporter: listen to the context. the mayor was urging londoners not to be alarmed about beefed up security after the attack. >> londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. no reason to be alarmed. >> reporter: in his response to london, the president renewed his pitch for a ban on travellers coming in from six majority muslim countries, the same ban tied up in courts. justice department should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down travel ban before the supreme court and seek a tougher version

the president tweeted adding people the lawyers and courts can call it whatever they want, but i'm calling it what we need and what it is, a travel ban. the president's use of the term travel ban directly contradicts his own aides. >> this is not a muslim ban. it's not a travel ban. it's a vetting system to keep america safe. >> saen spicer from that podium said it's not a travel ban. is it a travel ban? >> i don't think the president cares what you call it. the bottom line is, he is trying to protect the citizens of this country, the danger is extremely clear. >> reporter: top white house officials insist the media are too focused on the president's tweets. >> this obsession with covering everything he said on twitter and little of what he does as president -- >> reporter: kellyanne conway's own husband who is under consideration to become solicitor general, said the tweets may jeopardize the administration's push for the ban. they make some people feel better he tweeted. but they certainly won't help the solicitor general get five votes in the supreme court, which is what actually matters. sad. jim acosta, cnn, the white

house. >> let's get perspective from cnn chief political correspondent dana bash and david gergen. the idea that the american public should discount the president of the united states's own words shared directly on social media in favor of spin from his staffers making the morning show rounds seems ridiculous, particularly in light of the fact that for months they have been extolling the virtues of his direct access to the american people, extolling the virtue of his ability to tweet. >> absolutely. i don't know about you, anderson, but do you have the sense that the president is becoming more iralrational in h tweeting? sort of busting loose whenever he can? >> this was all about infrastructure and he is not tweeting about that. >> exactly. threatening his own case before the supreme court. that's perhaps the most serious part of this by the tweets on the travel ban.

he is disagreeing not only with his aides, representatives from justice department who are arguing the president's case in court. they have been arguing to the courts that this is a pause in order to strengthen the vetting process and not a travel ban. for the president to come in this way only weakens his case. he's already lost doing this once before. we have seen this before. the other thing, anderson, i do think that it's not helping his reputation around the world and not helping america's reputation, frankly. to pick a gratuitous fight with the mayor of london. nobody got into a fight or picked a fight with rudy giuliani, the mayor of new york after 9/11. >> exactly. >> what we should be doing is rallying and unifying the western nations in the fight against terrorism. we have do this together. >> yeah. dana, had the president of pakistan attacked rudy giuliani after 9/11 -- >> or the prime minister of

great britain. >> right, you know, it would be a huge national outrage in the united states. >> as it would have been. no question about it. look, the president made a mistake. he misheard or misunderstood what he was watching on cable television in the morning from the london mayor. the london mayor was very clearly not saying people should not be worried about terrorists. he was saying, virtually the same kind of thing that rudy giuliani said after 9/11, which is we are going to have increased police presence, which we saw here in new york and around the country. it's okay. they are there to protect you. on the tweets about the supreme court, i have to say, of course, his instinct, which he thinks and did sort of follow him down the path to becoming president, is be politically incorrect. it's one thing to be politically incorrect, it's another thing to cross the line when you are president of the united states and clearly jeopardize a supreme

court case which is why george conway came out and did what he did. >> david, the president in one of his tweets about the travel ban is saying, they changed it, they shouldn't have changed it, it should have been the original one. he is the president of the united states. he is the they. >> he signed the order. >> it's like he's a passenger. he's watching this and just -- he is watching it on cable and he just decides to tweet along with the hosts on fox and friends. >> it couldn't be more bizarre. i do think going back to your original point, the white house can't have it both ways. they can't claim this is a very important channel for reaching 30, 40, 50 million americans, the way he communicates. but by the way, don't take it seriously, you shouldn't cover it. that's complete nonsense. >> right.

the thing about it, so many of the arguments is we're idiots for paying attention to the tweets. the american people are obsessed. they have been arguing again for months that we should be obsessed, that it -- that's the agenda, it sets policy. >> can i just say, i think you are on to something when you say that he is acting as if it's not the same administration. because somebody said to me in looking at this, remember what got him so angry back several months ago is when his own attorney general recused himself from russia. that infuriated -- not just russia. recused himself from everything from pretty much everything that had to do with the campaign. that infuriated the president. the fact that he tweeted today and did something that did jeopardize the justice department was part of that fury continuing and clearly trying to send a message to his own

justice department through twitter. >> thank you. >> that's true. there's a difference. that is when he first got angry at sessions, it was because he wasn't told he never checked. >> he didn't think he did the right thing. >> the president signed it. >> we have to -- we are over time. coming up, our legal team weighs in on what they brought up, whether presidential tweets will be the undoing of his travel ban. dale. dale! oh, hey, rob. what's with the minivan? it's not mine. i don't -- dale, honey, is your tummy still hurting, or are you feeling better to ride in the front seat? oh! is this one of your motorcycling friends? hey, chin up there, dale. lots of bikers also drive cars. in fact, you can save big if you bundle them both with progressive. i'd like that. great. whoo. you've got soft hands. he uses my moisturizer. see you, dale. bye, rob.

the president of the united states just tweeted again on his executive order on travel. quote, that's right, we need a travel ban for certain dangerous countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people, exclamation mark. justice department lawyers have avoided calling it a travel ban in court. the president's representatives have constantly pushed back on that phrasing as well. >> this is not a muslim ban. it's not a travel ban. it's a vetting system to keep america safe. >> this is not, i repeat not a ban on muslims. >> travel ban, that misrepresents what it is. >> it wasn't a travel ban. it was a travel pause. >> it's not a muslim ban. >> 325,000 people from another country can't come in.

that is by nature not a ban. >> what about the 46 majority muslim countries that are not included? right there it totally undercuts this nonsense that this is a muslim ban. >> apparently the president forgot it's not a travel ban. this latest tweet came just hours after another quote, people the lawyers and courts can call it whatever they want. i am calling it what we need and and what it is, a travel ban. not only is it a travel ban, it's a travel ban all caps exclamation point. joining us jeffrey toobin and laura coats. jeff, this whole it is a travel ban, it's not a travel ban, back and forth, how much does it matter legally speaking? >> it's not helpful to the trump administration. i don't think it's fatal to their case before the supreme court. remember, the real problem is if he would have said this was a muslim ban. this is not, according to the administration, a muslim ban. a travel ban is a less problematic phrase. but it's still suggestive of the

improper motive that the lower courts found, which raises something that the administration would rather not deal with, as this case comes before the supreme court. >> professor dearthswits, these tweets from the president, do they undermine his justice department's case as it heads to the supreme court? >> i think they do to a substantial degree. there are three issues that the supreme court will confront. is there standing, number one? and on that issue, he says that the first travel ban is as good as the second ban. that's just wrong. the first travel ban really gives standing to green card holders whereas the second travel ban eliminates green card holders. it makes it a much harder case for standing. second, religious discrimination. that's the same essentially in both the old and the new. and third, establishment of religion. that, too, is much better from the trump administration's point of view in the second travel ban than in the first, because it doesn't have this special

exception for discriminated against christians. i think he is wrong if he thinks he has as good a shot on the first ban as the second ban. i also think that will alienate the court. i think the courts actually thought it was a good thing that he tried to amend the ban to make it more constitutional. >> laura, the white house national security aide sebastian gorko was on cnn this morning. and i want to play a clip he said about the president's tweets. >> it's social media. >> it's not social media. it's his words, his thoughts. >> it's not policy. it's not an executive order. it's social media. please understand the difference. >> what about that? is there a difference between a tweet and actual policy? >> that's an absurd statement he made. it suggests we can't take the president's words at face value. we must ignore them unless they are are under official context. the president's statements in his tweet or whatever preferred method of communication he uses can still be used against him in a sense.

here you've got prior to his tweets the real argument was whether or not the candidate trump, the campaign rhetoric would undermine the ability to put forth a travel ban. now you've got the idea of now presidential donald trump making the same statements and undermining the suggestion by the justice department says, listen, do not look behind the curtain. those statements are simply on the campaign trail. look at the actual facially neutral executive order he has put forth. that undermines that almost fatally because it does the very thing that the justice department said it did not do, which is say, listen, this was an attempt very similar to what giuliani said to make it sound pretty and constitutional. it does neither. >> i think it's worth remembering that never in the history of the united states supreme court has the court looked at campaign rhetoric to decide where something is constitutional. here we have an executive order where the attorney general, the

secretary of state, the secretary of homeland security have all said, this is necessary for the national security. it deals with immigration, which is an area that the president has great latitude in. i think the supreme court is going to be very reluctant to overturn that given how much discretion the president had regardless of what he said during the campaign or in these tweets. >> we're not basing it on campaign rhetoric any longer. we're basing it on now post-inauguration, president actually incumbent in the office, we're basing it on what he is saying now. remember it's not -- >> he didn't say anything about muslims. >> if you would, my point was actually not that he said anything about muslims. his statement is that it's about the presidential statement that he's making. the issue was the campaign rhetoric is off the table. now it's about what he said while president. >> professor? >> you are missing the point. you are missing the point. a travel ban is constitutional.

the president has the authority to institute a travel ban. he's being director. he is saying it's a travel ban. if it were a ban on muslims it would start with indonesia. it's a ban -- a travel ban temporary to be sure on islamic terrorists. it may be overbroad because it includes seven of the eight countries that the obama administration itself listed as somewhat risky. but nothing he said in the tweets in any way supports the notion that this is a muslim ban. they do say it's a travel ban. >> jeff, george conway, kellyanne conway's husband, it's interesting, he withdrew his name to a senior justice department position, he tweeted on monday saying these tweets may make some people feel better, but they certainly won't help officer of solicitor general get five votes which is what actually matters. sad. what do you make of the fact that this is coming from a close ally of the president and the husband of kellyanne conway? >> the mind reels at the family

dynamics that might be behind that tweet. i think george conway is right. the administration would have been better off had the president not made these tweets. we're having this disagreement about whether the tweets are really bad for the administration's case or only a little bit bad. i tend to think they're only a little bit bad. but it's true that it would have been better off for administration if the president had never done it. >> jeff, laura, professor, appreciate it. thank you all. coming up, we go to london in the latest of the terror investigation. two of the three killers have been identified. the cities mourn the seven dead. and prays for the 48 wounded. ng. and before that? you mean after that? no, i'm talking before that. do you have things you want to do before you retire? i'd really like to run with the bulls. wow. hope you're fast. i am. get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change with investment management services.

be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®.

radio: scorching heat today folks[ barks ]ol out there! walter! stop suffering with hot ac. cool it yourself with a/c pro. just connect the hose, squeeze the trigger and check the gauge. with 2 times the cooling boosters enjoy the comfort of the #1 selling coldest air. nothing cools like a/c pro.

gathered along the river thames mourning the victims of the terror attack. the mayor said sick and evil extremists will not win. british police have identified two of the three men responsible for the terror attack.

one of the attackers was on the radar of british authorities? >> reporter: he was, anderson. and in quite a significant way. he is a 27-year-old who was born in pakistan but spent most of his life here in the united kingdom. he lived in the east of london. he was part of a group known as al mahajaroon. it was a group of young extremists who fell under the spell of a hate preacher. for many years now they have been very well-known here in the united kingdom. they would stage rallies, burn flags, you know, pray very publically, often unfurling the black flag that's commonly associated with the extremist islamist ideology. he even appeared in a documentary that aired last year called the jihadis next door. certainly, he was well-known to authorities. but what authorities here are saying is, well, he was part of

that group, but he wasn't one of the ones that we thought were trouble makers. he was the quiet one. we didn't know that he was planning an attack. certainly, this is raising some questions, for sure. >> what's known about the other two terrors? >> well, interestingly, very little. this is where it becomes interesting in terms of trying to piece together how these three men knew each other. one man we don't know anything about. the police have identified him but they're not publically identifying him. although, it appears he may have been carrying an irish identity card with him. the second man we know only as rachid redouane. we know very little about him except he potentially identified as libyan or moroccan. he does not necessarily fit into the same profile as the other member. just to give you more clarity on this group, one terror analyst said that 50% of terror plots in

the uk have actually involved of this group in one way or another. so this is a group that is very well-known. for years, they were dismissed by many people as sort of clowns with gowns. they were over the top. they were considered silly almost or posturing. it's clear that they should be taken on one level very seriously. >> stay with us. i want to bring in others. paul, what have you been learning so far? >> one of the other things we have been learning from our colleague who spent time investigating this group in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and met with khuram butt, one of the london attackers, was that he was very, very close in this group to a british extremist. he left the uk in october 2014 and went and joined isis and then started climbing up the ranks of isis. he may have been the ring master

in a january 2016 isis execution video. why is this interesting to investigators? it is because isis have claimed this attack. i think there's a possibility here that this london attacker, butt, could have been in touch with his very close friend who had climbed up the ranks of isis and is still believed to be in and around raqqah, syria. that all raising the possibility if he was in touch that he could have uploaded some kind of video to the group. we have seen that before in these kind of attacks. so far, nothing that the investigation has uncovered is suggesting communication to isis. though i would not be surprised if we see that emerge in the coming days. >> julia, time and time after the wakes of events like these, we learn that they were

somewhere on the radar of intelligence but they frankly just don't have enough personnel to track all the people that are potential suspects. >> that's right. that's often the case. it's the case with one of the three. this investigation is different than the ones that we're used to. the second terrorist identified appears to sort of come out of the blue in some ways to law enforcement agencies. there wasn't a lot of knowledge about him. it doesn't appear like he was under surveillance. then you have this third identified but not disclosed person, which is just rare for law enforcement to come out with just 2 of the three. they know who he is. is he a minor? have they not notified next of kin? is there an investigation in another country? we don't know yet. this is sort of a combined terrorist attack, i guess i would say. the known folks or the known person and then some new people. i think the big question is, how

did the three of these people come together and plan a coordinated attack, this is not a lone wolf attack, planned a coordinated attack on saturday night? >> this is the third terror attack in the united kingdom in three months. the second in london involving vehicles as weapons. do we know if any of them are connected? >> according to the british prime minister, there's no connection between these three attacks. she made the point that in the same amount of time another five attacks have been foiled. she's trying to show that british security services are pulling their weight, they're doing everything they can in the face of a very difficult problem. they are following or investigating some 23,000 people, anderson. a huge amount of people involved with extremist activity. they have been doing this against the backdrop of major spending cuts to the police forces here. it's not without its challenges.

i do think some real questions remain. paul brought up the man who went to join isis in syria and iraq. i interviewed him back in 2014. i also thought he was sort of a clown in a gown. i did not take him seriously. the police had taken away his passport and yet he was able to get to isis territory and went on to become at least in the propaganda videos the next jihadi john. there are real questions about why more action hasn't been taken sooner to prevent this sort of thing from happening. >> appreciate the reporting. thank you very much. president trump's tweets on the london attack, what he did not say about nato and how it all could be making it awkward for the defense secretary and his national security adviser right now.

♪ if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved

just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

does it look like i'm done?yet? shouldn't you be at work? [ mockingly ] "shouldn't you be at work?" todd. hold on. [ engine revs ] arcade game: fist pump! your real bike's all fixed. man, you guys are good! well, we are the number-one motorcycle insurer in the country. -wait. you have a real motorcycle?

and real insurance, with 24-hour customer support. arcade game: wipeout! oh! well... i retire as champion. game hog! champion. president trump's tweets on the london attack, what he did not say about nato and how it all could be making it awkward for the defense secretary and his national security adviser right now. >> we have two day, dozens wounded. what would you say about that? >> i need to confirm everything. i like learning about something before i talk. let me look into it. >> reporter: is this why the united states needs a travel ban? >> i need to look into it. >> around the same time as we

showed you earlier the president took a much different approach. on both topics. he went on a tweet storm. mattis also blindsided by the president's speech in brussels late last month for what he did not say. he made no mention of the u.s. commitment to article five of the nato alliance which says an attack against one member is an attack against all. politico said it was in the speech but president trump did not say it. that surprised mattis along with nshl security adviser h.r. mcmaster and secretary of state tillerson. just moments ago vice president pence spoke at dinner telling the crowd that now is the time for nato to stand united and stand strong in the wake of the terror attacks. david gergen is back with us. you worked for a lot of presidents, seen many national security team come and go. have you ever seen top advisors having to do this much damage control so soon? >> no. and this whole story about

having the speech change at the last minute, the sentence dropped. it's been very disturbing on several levels. first, it has badly hurt u.s. relationships with nato. the administration was trying very hard, mcmaster and mattis and tillerson have been trying very, very hard to repair things to say that we do support article five and very importantly they have been seen as the real adults and a stabilizing force, those three men have enormous credibility and to undercut them really damages the presidency itself. it damages the credibility of the president. nobody knows -- if you listen to mattis or to trump, if they disagree with each other, which one should you believe is u.s. policy. and finally, this underscores as the travel ban story has, this president really does not listen to the people around him. he goes his own way. now some people say that's terrific.

if you talk to the gentleman like mcmaster and mattis and tillerson, i will guarantee you they have some thoughts that are not quite so happy and they're keeping -- trying to keep them to themselves. >> the fact that president took any mention of article five out of his nato speech without notifying his national security advisors, what kind of an impact does that have or does it? >> anderson, we took a great deal of comfort in the fact that the president chose a couple of military guys to be in key positions. they were experienced, savvy, they relied on their values and character. and we all thought he's going to listen to them in areas where he doesn't have as much as experience or savvy. it doesn't appear that that's happening. general mcmaster is one of many people in a room. he's the national security adviser, which means he gives advice along with several other people, on national security.

he's up against the ideologues. he's given common sense solutions or solutions based on his years of experience they're not being taken. we've seen secretary mattis being short changed not only in the nato article five that you just mentioned but in the last week at the singapore security conference, secretary mattis gave an amazing speech to our allies and as soon as he was finished, he was being questioned about, are these the policies of the united states or is what the president's saying the policy of the united states? and what are the differences? and he was put in quite a few spots, not just the one where the reporter said what's your view on the travel ban that he knew nothing about at the time. so all of these things are causing confusion, much like sean spicer or kellyanne conway not getting the word. i think our military folks in the administration are as confused as well and unfortunately we have a president that doesn't seem to be taking responsibility for anything and what concerns me is what might happen when there's a real crisis. we wake up every morning and

there's something new going on but there hasn't been an extreme crisis in national security yet but there will be if past presidents are any indication. >> you've worked in white house -- in white houses before, republican and democrat. it seems like they're organized differently and there's a structure that does not apparently exist so that everybody gets on the same page to -- even the same page of what the president is thinking. or maybe the president changes his mind after they all think they're on the same page. >> that's true. there is no -- maybe there's a structure inside but all indications and everybody inside has been telling us it's chaotic. you don't know from one hour to the next exactly where you're going to careen down the road in one direction or another. and the president gives directions and then changes his mind and that sort of thing. the most successful administrations have been which have been ones in which foreign policy is highly structured. that began under president

eisenhower in the 1950s. coming in as a general he organized in a classic way the fir -- pyramidal structure in the white house and it has worked extremely well for most presidents. once you depart from that and it's a free -- it's just a jump ball on everything, it can be a mess. jimmy carter experienced some of that and it really hurt him. >> thank you very much. we'll be right back.

be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has

recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®.

thanks for watching. time to hand things over to don lemon is cnn tonight. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. breaking news, i federal contractor charged with leaking top secret information. this is cnn tonight. i'm don lemon. 25-year-old reality lee winner accuse of classifying an memo on russian hacking. more on that nia -- in a moment, but is president trump his own worst enemy? twitter rants attacking the mayor of london, shooting himself in the foot in his travel ban, contradicting his own team, and insisting what they say it isn't. let's get right to more breaking news. dana bash is here, jim sciutto and david gergen. all of them join me. good evening to you.