hello. i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00. here in washington. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us. we begin with breaking news -- from the united states supreme court. president trump gets a partial victory in a legal ballots over e his travel ban. the high court will hear arguments in october on the ban affecting six muslim majority countries. meantime, the court will allow parts of the ban to go into effect. in a statement just a little while ago, the president said, i'm quoting, today's unanimous supreme court decision is a clear vict industry for our national security allowing

travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugees suspension to become largely effective. my number one responsibility as commander in chief is to keep the american people safe. today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our nation's homeland. go to our justice reporter laura jarrett. explain which parts of the ban will be allowed to take effect over these next several months and which ones won't. >> reporter: wolf, the crux of today's decision comes down to an individual traveler's connection to the u.s. the supreme court side steped the challenging constitutional issues the lower courts were having trouble with. a relationship with a person on entity in the u.s., you can come into the country. if you don't, you can't. the court tried to give example what's that bona fide section would look like. for instance, a family member here, a work permit to be in the

united states or have been admitted to school in the united states. all of those would count. but there are still many questions that remain, wolf, about how this is going to be interpreted on the ground, and who is going to decide some of those close calls. >> give us a breakdown, laura, how the individual nine justices ruled on this very, very sensitive issue. >> reporter: well, the president calls this a unanimous ruling but it's a little more nuanced than that. the justices were in agreement that for this limited portion of the population. so this group that has no connection to the u.s. at all. then the travel ban is okay. can go forward, be implemented. three justices, the more conservative members of the court actually wanted to take it a step further saying, wanted to get rid of all the lower court rulings and actually allow full implementation of the travel ban. part of the reasoning appears splitting the baby in the way the majority is doing is going to be unworkable and justice clarence thomas says, the day

the compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding on peril of on contempt, whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the u.s. have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country, wolf. now the ball is in the government's court to figure out how to do this in a way that avoids some of the chaos that we saw last time around, wolf. >> all right. laura jarrett reporting for us. thanks very much. get more insight on this important travel ban decision. what it means. our senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin joining us from new york. here in washington, cnn politics reporter and editor at large chris slis a and laura coates i with us as well. jeffrey what do you make of the decision to let parts of the ban take effect? give us clues, for example, how the arguments might go when the full court takes up the case in october? >> i think this is definitely much more of a win than a loss for the trump administration.

there are three justices. the three most conservative justices. thomas, alito and gorsuch, who say, look, the ban is clearly fine, and they would let the whole ban go into effect today. so the only issue is whether they can get two more votes for, for that position, but all nine justices agree that the president has the power at least for the short term to keep the people who do not have close ties to the united states out of the country. so -- the court seems to have thread a needle actually quite elegantly where they have dealt with the people who have the biggest hardships. the saddest stories. the people who have close relatives, the people admitted to school here who have job offers here. they clearly can continue to come in to the country from the, these six affected country, and the people who are essentially strangers cannot. that's where things stand, but certainly this is more of a win

than a loss for the trump administration. >> and when the president, as laura jarrett pointed out, calls this a unanimous decision. he said today's unanimous supreme court decision, later says i am particularly satisfied that the supreme court's decision was 9-0. what is he referring to if it was really a 6-3 decision? >> well, all nine justices agreed that the people, from the six countries who do not have any immediate ties to the united states, can be prevented from coming here. so in that respect, the decision was unanimous. where it's not unanimous is about the people who do have's ties. six justices think that they should be allowed to come into the country, and, of course, that's more than a majority. so that's the ruling of the court. but there was a significant part of the decision that was unanimous. so i don't think -- the president was -- being misleading. i think he was just emphasizing

the part of the opinion he wanted to emphasize. >> which, of course, he likes to do. a big win? a major win, do you agree for now for the president? >> certainly. the track record of everyone voting against him. back to the constitutional. it tells you one victory, neil gorsuch, not going to automatically side with his mentor kennedy. you saw that happen today. you thought whether this new justice would be somebody to assert himself in a way or go along to get along. you had that not happening here. it is a little deceptive in the sense to say this was a unanimous victory. think about the procedure of this case. they have not ruled on the overall constitutionality of it yet. that will come in october. they have all agreed to hear this case, but to hear this case requiring the briefing and understanding of what happens. what if was a victory on, part of it can, in fact, come into play. parts can be implemented but the ninth circuit already said that. said you can go ahead and revisit your vetting procedures

here and figure out how to give yourself administration, the justification of the supreme court and everyone else will need to show that the pendulum can shift from prerogative as president to a real national security interest as to why this plan should go into effect and why it does not undermine the constitution. that victory is still ahead. >> chris, the decision said, and you point this out in this piece you just posted it means that this revised executive order may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim, a bona fide relationship with a person or entity of the united states. but all other foreign nationals are subjects to the provisions of the executive order, 2.0, the revised version? >> right. look, donald trump has not had a number of clean victories in his 157 days as president. this is not a clean victory, but it is a victory for him. he sirens the first executive

order january 27th. it immediately is blocked. he tries to sign another one i think march 6th. immediately blocked. so theoretically now this will be a way in which it can be implemented, granted for 90 days. this is not, to laura's point, not forever. this is a brief period of time, but it gives him a way to say, i knew i had the power to do this and i do have the power to do it. of course, you know, come october and the court decides differently, although, you know, i always defer to jeff toobin on these things, but if the court decides differently, they say, he still can't do this, we'll look back and say this was a pureic victory of sorts. sure, he won a battle, but lost the war. reminder, donald trump has not won anything legally or politically on this since the day he signed it on january 27th. today is a day in which he did win something politically speaking. legally i think it's a much more up in the air dicey situation.

>> basically, jeffrey toobin, if there are individuals who have relatives here in the united states, let's say they live in syria, or they live in sudan or libya, some of these six muz li muslim majority countries, relationtives here or connection with an entity, like a university student or entity meaning a business, they will be able to -- they will come to the united states, okay, according to supreme court decision? >> right. the rules that applied before the executive order would be in effect for them, and they would have to get visas and have to follow the usual procedures, but there would be no ban involving those people with those relationships. now, as justice thomas pointed out in his partial dissenting opinion, it's not self-evidently ob ya obvious what a bona fide relationship means and there is

likely to be disagreement about what, how much of a relationship counts that will allow you to get into the country, but certainly for most people, for people who are admitted students, for example, it should be pretty clear they have a right to be in the, in the country. but administratively, there will be challenges that will play out over the summer until the supreme court resolves this issue once and for all. >> they're start to hear arguments in october and we'll see. take them a while to come up with a decision. thank you all very, very much. an important ruling by the supreme court at least for the time being. still to come, donald trump goes on a twitter tirade over his predecessor accusing president barack obama of doing nothing to stop russia's meddling in the u.s. presidential election, but how far is president trump willing to go to punish moscow's actions? we've just receive and updated copy of the senate health care bill. what has changed and will it

sway any votes? we'll have a live report from capitol hill. that's coming up. when you've been making delicious natural cheese for over 100 years like kraft has, you learn a lot about people's tastes. honey, what do you want for dinner tonight? oh whatever you're making. triple cheddar stuffed sliders. sold! parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply.

that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long.

we believe in food that's anaturally beautiful,, fresh and nutritious. so there are no artificial colors, no artificial flavors, no artificial preservatives in any of the food we sell. we believe in real food. whole foods market. megan's smile is getting a lot because she uses act® mouthwash. act® strengthens enamel, protects teeth from harmful acids, and helps prevent cavities. go beyond brushing with act®. welcome back. live pictures of the white house briefing scheduled to start in

about 15 minutes. unfortunately not able to see or hear it live. all cameras banned. we'll bring you the audio portion once the briefing is complete. those are the white house rules at least for now. now to the health care debate and republicans, tweaking the bill rolled out last week in the u.s. senate. new language poechted online a few moments ago. remember the first draft left a handful of senators saying they weren't ready to support the bill as written. go to our congressional correspondent phil mattingly up on capitol hill. phil, the congressional budget office score on the republican health care bill, it could come as early as later this afternoon, but tell us about the changes that have just been released. >> reporter: a small but important tweak related to consous coverage. anyone in the marketplace, loses coverage, does not buy new coverage within 60 days is forced to wait a full six months

before getting coverage. this is not like the individual mandate on some level, which is you want young healthier people to be incentivized to get into the marketplace making it work better and spreads out the risk pool in general and hopefully drives costs down a little. what they're trying to do here is essentially incentivize people who would want insurance for long periods of time to get back into the marketplace as quickly as possible to avoid that six-month penalty here. this isn't the individual mandate. it's a watered down version of a mandate but necessary for the health of the marketplace. the big question now is does this sway any votes? that's not what this change was for. this is a change actually that senate staff has been working on a couple weeks trying to make sure it's compliant with the reconciliation with the budget rules in the senate and, again, it would actually put through the lens of the cbo score likely help their coverage numbers. if you look back, woman, at the house version. 23 million over the course of ten years, fewer would vin insurance based on that house measure. the idea, if you include this

provision it incentivizes for people to have coverage likely factored into the cbo score tonight i'm told because this is a provision that senate staffers and the cbo traded back and forth over the past couple weeks. we'll wait and see if that occurs. yew seeing big picturize, a discussion draft. exchanges expected, changes on several fronts, the marketplace, this change today, or what specific senators are looking for. there are openings for the changes. the changes are expected. the big question now is, unlike this newest change, whether these new changes will accomplish the kind of necessity or necessary balancing act to get enough conservatives and moderates in line to actually reach that magic number of 50 votes to be able to pass this bill. again, wolf, senate leaders still want the vote by the end of the week. they are short of votes now, working behind the scenes to try and draft proposals that will thread that needle. those haven't been released yet. the ideas have been kicking back

and forth for the last couple weeks. we'll see when those are released whether or not that's enough to get those wary senators, the senators already opposed to that initial discussion draft in line, wolf. >> phil, thank you. phil mattingly on capitol hill. the new bill's effect on medicaid coverage is one of the biggest sticking points so far, but from the white house, we have heard two very different messages on the issue. >> these are not cuts to medicaid, george. this slows the rate for the future and it allows governors more flexibility with medicaid dollars because they're closest to the people in need. if you are currently in medicaid, if you became a medicaid recipient through the obamacare expansion, you are grandfathered in. we're talking about in the future. medicaid is intended for the poor, the need around the sick. if you're able-bodied and you would like to go and find employment and have employers sponsored benefits, then you should be able to do that. and maybe you belong as secretary price made clear,

maybe you belong in other place, but -- >> assess what we just heard and more. our political director david chalian is with us along with our chief political analyst gloria borger and senior political analyst mark and manu raju as well. >> interesting. you hear kellyanne conway. if i am donald trump sitting back watching, where's the heart i was talking about i want to see in the bill? she didn't seem to be on that message there today. it is -- delays reality to say there aren't medicaid cuts in this bill. it's just not true. i understand washington speak about slowing the growth and cuts -- but there are $800 billion worth of medicaid cuts in the bill. that's quite clear. what tom price was saying yesterday that we shouldn't have individuals lose coverage that they want for themselves and their family.

well, that's part of over selling the way the obama administration did when they said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. i think the administration is in a bit of overselling the details and the results and the impact of this bill in hopes of helping to push it through right now rather than actually spelling out for the american people precisely what the new order would look like. >> if are there no medicaid cutbacks, why are republicans, moderate republicans, opposing it? or at this point opposing it? why is somebody like susan collins saying the medicaid cuts don't sit well with her. why is rob portman? why would republicans be pointing out that there are medicaid cutbacks? this is a republican measure. it just doesn't make any sense, and i think what you may be seeing going on here is an effort to confuse people to a great degree, because if the waters are muddy, that can work on, to their benefit. >> and the president has now

confirmed that he did tell a group of republican senators privately that he considers the house bill that passed "mean." even though the house speaker said, well that was not exactly true. paul ryan and then the white house press secretary sean spicer saying that was just a rumor. the president has confirmed even though he had a big celebration in the rose garden celebrating that house bill? >> yeah. again, another example of mixed messages. right? where you had a rose garden ceremony, unprecedented. a bill that barely passed the house of representatives, hadn't gone through the senate and had not been signed into law. usually when you have a rose garden ceremony. to sit up in the rose garden, make a big deal and a couple weeks later come out and xwha he said about the bill, if you were a senator on the fence you've got to say to yourself, can i trust the president's word? can i trust the president to stand with me if i'm with his vote or not with his vote? we're seeing that play out now.

>> yeah. no question about it. when had has these discussions with senators, some senators say, look what he just said about the house bill? what happens if popularity in this bill sinks further than it is now? the ultimate question for mitch mcconnell, does he move forward on the vote on thursday knowing the votes aren't there? will they get closer by cutting deals behind the scenes. not only put senators through a vote on the bill but there would be scores of amendments politically difficult amendments that members have to cast votes on and, of course, democrats will make it as politically difficult for them as possible. does mitch mcconnell actually want to go through that entire process knowing that this bill is going to fail? that's a key decision he's going to have to make tuesday or wednesday, and whether he goes through it now or at some point in the future. a school of thought, it's not getting better after you go home and visit your constituents over the july 4th break. might as well get it over with

now. >> and at 9:14 tweeted, the president, republican senators are working very hard to get there with no help from the democrats. not easy. perhaps just let o. care, obamacare, crash and burn? >> he made the same argument during the house debate. he said time and again he was disappointed no democrat would come onboard. he thought maybe better to just let it go up into flames and people would feel the pain. the problem with that is, that's politically untenable. right? these members who are sitting there and casting votes on this can't just go home to constituents, wolf and say, i'm going to syd on my hands and let you experience the pain of this -- >> and untenable, too, right, david? politically untenable, and morally untenable just to allow something so big, such an effect on our economy crash and burn? >> eastern the president himself acknowledged that's not -- trying to get, pushing this legislation through and wants to see this passed. he thinks he can blame the

democrats if indeed this goes down, but this is -- he has enough republican votes in the senate to pass this on a party line vote if needed. i don't think party line are necessarily the greatest for country but he has to look at his own party before he starts blaming democrats. >> obamacare, remember, several years ago passed without any republican support. along party lines. >> a mistake, too, you can make the case. >> 8:30 a.m. tweeted democrats have become nothing but on struction. s no policies or ideas. all they do delay and complain. they own obamacare. everyone stand by. a lot more important developments happening right now. president trump demands an apology on the russia investigation at levels, levels a new accusation again former president obama. the latest on that and more when we come back. the future isn't silver suits and houses on mars,

it's right now. think about it. we can push buttons and make cars appear out of thin air. find love anywhere. he's cute. and buy things from, well, everywhere. how? because our phones have evolved. so isn't it time our networks did too? introducing america's largest, most reliable 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. it's a new kind of network.

xfinity mobile. once again, live pictures coming in from the white house briefing room. that briefing scheduled to begin any moment. unfortunately you won't be able to see or hear it live. all cameras banned. we'll be able to bring you the audio portion only once the briefing is deplete. those are the rules put forward by the white house. president trump, meanwhile, not letting up on his criticism of former president obama and how he handled russia's meddling in the 2016 med 116 presidential e. slamming his president in scathing tweets, deasking for an apology over the scandal. tell us exactly what president

trump is now saying? >> reporter: right, wolf. president trump trying to deflect attention from the russia investigation and deflect any responsibility in the russia investigation. now blaming former president obama. somebody he blames a lot of things on, but show you the latest tweets. here's one of the tweets he posted earlier this morning. the real story is that president obama did nothing after being informed in august about russia meddling, four months looking at russia under a magnifiesing glass, zero people of t. people, trump people, colluding. i should be given an apology. wolf, go back and look at first tweet, the real story president obama did nothing amp being informed. that is not accurate factually. he confronted president putin in september of last year. and the ranking democrat on the

house intelligence community adam schiff saying the white house did not do enough. president 's tweet said he did nothing, that is not accurate and also worth noting that the president in these tweets is acknowledging and we noticed this over the weekend, starting to acknowledge on a larger scale that the russians were trying to intervene in the election, and, wolf, a side note. you did mention that this briefing will be off camera. that is correct. we'll have the audio after this is all over. another thing to point out, another thing sort of an erosion of what we've come to expect here at the white house in terms of press coverage, the president of the united states later on this afternoon. the president and the prime minister of india, prime minister modi will be in the rose garden delivering statements to the press about their meetings going on here at the white house today and, wolf that is obviously not in keeping with tradition what we've come to expect over the years covering the president here at the white house.

typically when the president appears with a foreign leader in the rose garden it is expected that president and that foreign leader, head of state, do a two plus two, each answering questions from reporters. that is not happening in the rose garden this afternoon, wolf. it's critical we point it out to viewers. in addition to the briefing being off-camera today, the president is also eroding the expectations, eroding the traditions of covering the president of the united states here in washington, and in that he is holding a statement in the rose garden this afternoon with a foreign head of state and not taking questions from reporters. obviously we would like to ask the question about the travel ban. earlier today, why is it that the white house put out the statement just a little while ago talking about the travel ban, calling it a suspension of travel from those six countries. that is obviously not what the president himself said. three weeks ago the president call it is a ban. why the white house felt the need to sanitize the president's own words in that statement is a

question that needs asked among many other questions, of course, during this briefing, you know, wolf, coming up in a few moments, lights on, cameras on but all going off here in short order when sean spicer, the press secretary, comes to the podium. >> lots of questions you'll have for him, i'm sure. thanks very much, jim acosta, in the briefing room. former president trumpobama's o did not issue a response. a distraction from the republican's attempt to repeal obamacare. on the response of russia's meddling, this official said, "the obama administration interest in making sure the response was bipartisan wasn't for the sake of being bipartisan. it was necessary, because we needed the buy-in from the state and local election administrat r administrators, many of whom were republican partisans, and/or skeptical of federal government. what was profoundly troubling

was senator mick mcconnell's unwillingness to help only making matters worse." let's bring back our panel. let me get david, first, your reaction to all of this, because for one thing, president trump seems to finally be concluding there was russian meddling in the presidential election? >> after calling it a democratic hoax, and fake news, he now is fully onboard with the notion, because he can say it was barack obama's fault, that not enough was done. it is -- in the president's political interests to make barack obama a foil. no doubt about that. use that as a foil. it helps gin up support for his own base and his partisans and that is clearly part of the strategy he's employing here. i do think, though, that if -- if donald trump wants to solely focus on the barack obama administration problems, slowleslo slowness to respond, and obama's own administration official said

he sort of choevged in that "washington post" story, that's fair game. so, too, is the question to this administration, well what are you doing now to prevent it from happening again? now you acknowledge it xifrted, yes, complaints about the way the previous administration did it. so what will you do to ensure our democratic process moves forward unabated in the future? >> and does this mean that the president is actually buying in to the intelligence community now on the seriousness of the problem? i mean, this is a -- this is a problem that the president all along has said, well, either a., it's business as usual, or, b., you know, it's -- i'm not quite sure. could have been china, could have been russia. could have been the fat guy sitting on his bed. right? so now, buying in to the seriousness of the problem, and if he is, to your point. what is he going to do tab? >> mark, he also said, in this tweet, 8:59 this morning. the real story is that president obama did nothing after being informed in august about russia

meddling with four months looking at russia under a magnifying glass. they have zero tapes of t. people colluding -- trump people colluding -- no collusion or obstruction, i should be given an apology. >> let me apologize on behalf of all america for president trump. listen, a couple things of what's important about that. one, he talks about tapes, because he realizes that director comey the former fbi director made to tapes of him, he didn't make tapes of the conversations we had with director comey when it came to the idea of president trump asking him to back off the investigation into general flynn. i think that president trump -- this is disturbing to me, actually. the idea he is now embracing the idea that this is all true because he can put the blame on the doorstep of somebody else, that's troubling. i mean, in the fact of, gloria and david are saying is, what do we do moving forward? when he says that -- that's the most important thing.

what happened with president obama? that's not the most important thing. it's a chapter in the book of what is important of all of these things and president trump is giving it a short -- no answers how to fix it. >> he says that president obama did nothing after he learned in august that russia and putin personally were directly involved in meddling. there was an october 7th statement the director of national intelligence and secretary of homeland security jeh johnson put out, confident that the russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from u.s. personing and institutions including from u.s. political organizations, and president obama did confront president putin at that g-20 summit. you can argue not enough was done, but they did to more than nothing. >> they did more than nothing, probably not as much as a lot of democrats now say they wanted to have been done. yesterday adam schiff said he pushed the administration to be more declarative earlier on.

we've learned about some of the debates that happened on capitol hill with senate republican leaders, mitch mcconnell, others suggesting not to go public with this information, raising concerns that it could be viewed at a partisan move, if they were to do that, that early on, and, remember, harry reid, then senate democratic leader sent a letter to james comey saying that he possesses potentially damaging information about collusion or coordination with a trump campaign and russian officials and urged him to put that public. that didn't happen. a significant debate internally within the obama administration. we saw what they ended up doing. clearly, some folks don't think it was enough. >> interesting in the statement, october 7th, jeh johnson, james clapper put ow, we believe based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts that only russia's senior most officials could have authorized these activities. the president knew it was putin personally, but in the statement they said, senior most

officials, and people wonder, if you knew it was putin, why are you just blaming senior-most officials? >> i don't know if this chapter will make it into barack obama's book when it comes out but i would like to hear from the former fred more about his thinking and probe that, because if your own folks are saying we came up short here, i think there is value in that. i do -- i don't think it's crazy that president trump bring this up. it's a valid point. i don't think it excuses, though what we need to do moving forward. if it distracts from that, it is more problematic. it's important to hear from president obama on that. >> and, wolf, important that october statement did not say they tried to sway the election, to help president trump. it wasn't until the january assessment when the intelligence community made that aserpgs as well nap was left out of the october assess mrcment. >> and alisyn camerota tried to ask kellyanne conway what the add mministration on the russia

situation and he talked about the president starting an initiative on voter integrity and using the bully pulpit. that's not really and answer. >> we'll see. and stand by. tomorrow night, by the way, cnn's jim chute sciutto takes u rush connection" tomorrow night 10:00 p.m. eastern and pacific right here on cnn. live pictures once again coming in from the white house. live cameras are banned from the daily press briefing that hasn't started yet. about to begin. at the statement department and the pentagon, by the way, reporters have few briefings as well. where is all this heading? we're going to ask the president of the white house correspondent's association when we come back. ♪ sorry about the holdup, folks. we have some congestion on the runway and i'm being told it'll be another 15, maybe 20 minutes, and we will have you on your way.

♪ runway models on the runway? surprising. what's not surprising? how much money evan saved by switching to geico. i would not wear that lace. hmm, i don't know? fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

looking live pictures coming in from the white house briefing room once again. we may lose this picture by the way any moment. the white house press secretary sean spicer will hold another off-camera briefing. once finished, media outlets including cnn all the broadcast networks they want, other cable news networks will be able to air the audio portion only of the briefing, no video. let's discuss this and more. we're joined by jeff basin, the white house correspondent for reuters, also the president of the white house correspondents association. jeff, thanks for joining us. >> sure. >> so why -- you met last week, i take it, with sean spicer, sarah huckabee sanders as the president of the white house correspondents association. what's their explanation for this shift? >> well, in fact, the full board

had a meeting with them today as well. what we've didn't doing, advocating again for the press to have fully teltelevised brieg in the the press room. they're thinking about their strategy how to deal with the press, believe there's grandstanding occurring and don't see it as being in their interest to have a briefing televised every day. what we have said to them is that not only is it important for our television colleagues and others to tell the story what the administration is doing but for the transparency and e american public to watch each day. >> and their argument is, if there's live coverage, video, live, that reporters ask tough questions, whereas, if it's just audio, and not live, they don't ask tough questions? is that the argument? i don't want to represent their

argument. they see tough questions happen regardless whether the cameras or running or not. i certainly made that clear. lots is going on in this administration tra require tough questions and it's job to pose them whether the television cameras are running or not. we don't see eye to eye right now how they're doing that. >> i understand they don't want video. we can air the audio and will only after the complete briefing is over. what's the difference if the audio is live as opposed to on tape? >> i don't have an answer for that. i asked the very same question today. it's not clear to me what the difference is. i'm glad we are using audio again. there was a while in the last couple weeks audio was also prohibited. i'm pleased we're able to use audio again and not really sure why that can't be live. >> a difference of 20 minutes to a half hour. we're air the audio. the briefing just started. we're not allowed to show picture, but did show sketch

artists renditions. i thought sean spicer looked pretty good in those sketches. >> i saw that. >> quickly. the briefing, the statements about to be made, prime minister modi of india and the president in the rose garden. making statements but not allow reporters from the india or american news media to ask questions. what's up with that? >> there are times when foreign leaders come they make statements, don't take questions. we prefer they take questions. >> that's in the oval office they don't take questions. i don't remember a time, there may have been a time, they've actually made statements in the rose garden and not allowed two reporters from the indian press, foreign press and two reporters from the american press to ask questions? >> it's standard when foreign leaders come, two and two. or one and one. the point is questions should be able to be asked and we would like for that to have happened today, too. >> thank you. white house correspondent for reuters, we're counting on you

to get this done. >> working on it. >> thank you. appreciate it very much. up next, as isis fighters find themselves battling government forces in the in iraq or syria, but in the philippines. we have new information, when we come back. e football. now you drive 300 miles to watch this. yes, nice pop toss! flag dancing? we've been there. and with free hot breakfast and a warm welcome, ... ... looking for a hotel that fits...

...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over 200 sites to find you the hotel you want at the lowest price. grazie, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor.

as isis loses ground in iraq and syria, it's beginning a foothold in southeast asia, as ivan watson shows us, the siege has come at a very high human cost. >> reporter: isis fighters battling street to street, not in the middle east but for the very first time in southeast asia. on may 23rd, these extremists launched a sudden lightning assault on the city of marawi in the philippine. they captured the city and government weapons. burned a church, and murdered prisoners. for a month, the philippines military has struggled and failed to recapture marawi, even though they boo um it daily from the sky. the government has also declared

martial law here, setting up checkpoints, the security forces are on the hunt. they're looking for dozens of suspected isis militants, also searching for prisoners who escaped from a jail that isis broke open during the first day of their attack. the capture of marawi, a deadly coming-out party for isis in this part of the world. >> this has changed the picture of extremism in southeast asia. we need to be more worried that people with combat experience and leadership skills will be developing close to home, not in syria and iraq. >> reporter: isis in the philippines is a coalition of many islamist insurgent groups that have long plagued this country. but they have united for the very first time under the leadership the this man.

tell me about him, what kind of a man is hapilan. >> a very bold fighter. >> reporter: this man is a former islamist militant before renouncing violence and joining witness protection, he spent years in the jungle fighting alongside the man who now leads isis in the philippines. do you think he enjoying killing people? >> yes. when i spoke to him many years ago. he always think that killing non-muslims satisfy allah, makes allah happy. i was shocked. >> reporter: in the month-long battle isis has killed scores of for soldiers and wounded more. the fighting has also triggered a humanitarian crisis. more than 330,000 people have fled their homes, and hundreds of civilians are still believe

to be trapped in the conflict zone. amid this suffering and destruction, isis have accomplished one clear goal -- announcing their deadly presence in this part of the world. ivan watson, cnn, in the philippines. and the news continues right after this. 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.

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 $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. the only bed smart enough to change sleep as we know it. it senses your every move and automatically adjusts on both sides to keep you comfortable. and snoring ? ... does your bed do that? right now save on sleep number 360 smart beds. plus, it's the lowest prices of the season with savings of $500 on our most popular p5 bed.

hey you've gotta see this. cno.n. alright, see you down there. mmm, fine. okay, what do we got? okay, watch this. do the thing we talked about.

what do we say? it's going to be great. watch. remember what we were just saying? go irish! see that? yes! i'm gonna just go back to doing what i was doing. find your awesome with the xfinity x1 voice remote. good afternoon, i'm ana cabrera in today for brooke baldwin. under way the white house holding yet another press briefing you are not allowed to see our hear live. the white house has banned live on-camera coverage off sean spicer answering questions for a third day in a row. we will take the audio as soon as it wraps up, when we can release it, but first a victory of shorts for president donald trump. the supreme