hi...doing anything later? ooh, the quiet type. i like that. armor all original protectant. it's easy to look good.

yogig-speed internet.me? you know what's not awesome? when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids. and these guys. him. ah. oh hello- that lady. these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them.

uh huh. sure. still yes! you can get it too. welcome to the party. introducing gig-speed internet from xfinity. finally, gig for your neighborhood too. the house in washington, come from a number of directions. supporters of the senate republican bill to replace the affordable care act. they're angry at the congressional budget office for estimating the proposal would leave 22 million fewer americans with coverage. latching on to parts of it that they like, like the estimated deficit reduction. and from the american medical association, from the aarp, planned parenthood, you name it. just in the past hour and a half or so, two key republicans have broken ranks with their party. dana bash joins us now. on the cbo score, what impact is

that going to have on the support for the health care bill? >> it's already having a big impact. you mentioned a couple of republicans already breaking ranks. susan collins from maine tweeting, explicitly, that it was the report saying that 22 million americans would lose coverage, and a few other things that she saw bad for her constituents in maine, that leads her to the decision to vote no on a motion to even proceed to this bill. and secondly, anderson, just a few moemts ago, walking by my, ron johnson of wisconsin who has been outspoken about the process here, saying that there needs to be more time. i asked him if and when the senate republican leadership moved to this bill this week, if he, too, would vote against a motion to proceed. and he said he would also vote against it. now, this is a really big deal for a lot of reasons. because just historically, the way things tend to work here on

capitol hill is that even when rank and file republicans don't agree with the substance of a bill, they tend to go along with their leadership on procedural measures to at least start debate. the fact that we have already two republicans saying they don't agree with even going to the debate, breaking ranks with the leadership on that, is very bad sign for where this is going to go. and questions whether or not even -- it even can get to the floor of the senate. so that's number one. then, of course, on the whole substance, which is what's driving this, we have other moderate republicans who we're talking to here who are saying that they're very concerned about what this means for their constituents. listen to lisa murkowski who is undecided as well. i spoke to her earlier today. >> i don't think it's asking too much to say give us the time to fairly and critically analyze these numbers. and if you have -- if you're

saying, cbo numbers don't matter, then let's look at the numbers that you do think matter. but it really does -- it does make a difference. >> reporter: so she's concerned about the rural constituents. she has a lot of those in the state of alaska who are -- she's afraid are going to lose coverage and that their premiums will go even higher than they are now in order to get and maintain health care coverage. that's just sort of the left side of the republican spectrum in the senate. anderson, then, of course, you have those on the right, conservatives from rand paul, to mike lee, to ted cruz, who say that this bill doesn't go far enough in reducing obamacare regulations. they want to be louis ent. the leadership said they're okay with some of those changes, it's a question of technically whether they could even do that on this legislation. again, the leadership is being squeezed on both sides. i can tell you that president trump is making calls. i ran into mike lee just a short

while ago who said he got a call from the president today, hearing out mike lee's concerns, saying that he hopes that they're going to be able to address them. unclear if that's possible. >> president working the phones. dana bash, thank you very much. tom foreman joins us now. what do we know, tom? >> anderson, the headline that has the democrats howling and republicans hesitating is this one from the cbo, the notion that simply by slashing the individual mandate, you're going to start a soaring in the number of unemployed people out there. next year alone, they say this alone will put 15 million more people on the uninsured rates. and it will go up from there. let's put this in context a little bit. back when barack obama and the democrats passed obamacare, about 18.2% of the population was uninsured. that is now down to about 10%. if you want raw numbers, we had about 48 million people

uninsured back then. we have it down to about 28 million now. the cbo says if you go through with the senate plan, this is where you're going to wind up, somewhere around 49 million people uninsured. more than what you started out with. by the way, we're talking about older folks, we're not including older folks here, covered under other plans. what about your premiums. one of the promises is it would keep your premiums down. health care premiums are not growing as fast as they were, but they say that's largely because of market forces, the way, for example, that employers are handling this, not so much from what happened with obamacare. nonetheless, the cbo report says if you look at individual, if you look at a benchmark plan out there and say what's going to happen to the individuals under this plan, 2018 it would go up about 20%. the next year it would go up as well. and then they say it would drop

pretty dramatically, about 30% and continue dropping from there. bear in mind, anderson, even if you talk about the drops in individual premiums out there, people are getting something very different for that money than what they're currently getting under the obamacare plan. >> this is not all apples to apples. no matter what it costs, the senate plan would offer something different than obamacare anyway, right? >> exactly. and that's why these numbers are a little hard to follow. look at this. some of the things that would be changing in the equation, under the senate health care bill it would cut back for support of medicaid, eliminate obamacare taxes on wealthy and insurers there, defund planned parenthood for one year, and who gets tax credits. all sorts of this in this. money moving up and down and back and forth. this is the part that has fiscal conservatives happy about all this. when you add all those numbers up, what you come up with $321 billion in deficit reduction

over the next ten years. some people do like that. anderson? >> all right. tom foreman, thanks. two opposing points of view now, robert rice, also steven moore, economics analyst, and adviser to the trump campaign. secretary rice, the president called the house bill mean. does it have heart? >> no. the senate bill as we just said removes 22 million people from health care. the house bill, according to the congressional budget office, removed 33 million. to that extent, the senate bill is better. if you think having hearts, being less mean, means going from 23 million people to 22 million people losing health care, you don't have much heart to begin with. this is a bombshell, anderson. this is the kind of thing that shakes members of congress up, because they have to face voters, many of whom are going

to lose, or have already by the time you have the 2018 midterm elections, have already lost their health care. this is not only immoral, this is also something that is politically very, very damaging for the republicans. >> steve, if this is such a good bill, why isn't it a slam dunk for republicans, if every republican was onboard, the bill would pass? >> well, they do have to get 50 senators, no question about that. so they can only lose two. the math is there. but look, i want to get back to the issue of people losing their insurance. i think the thing that's surreal about this whole discussion is while we're having a discussion, what would happen under the republican plan, as we've talked about many times on your show, in the previous weeks, obamacare is melting down right before our very eyes, where we see insurers moving out of the market, where we had a report that showed that the premiums have doubled for vast numbers of millions of americans. i mean, i would ask my friend

robert risch how is that not mean to make americans pay more and more for health insurance. >> are those the only two options? either no obamacare or this plan? isn't there another way to change obamacare and give some confidence to the market? >> i don't think so, anderson. the democrats say yes, but we can put band-aids on it. no, when you've got one-third of americans living in counties now that don't have any obamacare insurer, when you've got people's insurance premiums doubling, what is this health care bill called? it's called the affordable care act. but the insurance under the affordable care act isn't affordable to millions of americans. let me make one other quick point that i think is important in terms of your viewers understanding this number about 22 million people losing their insurance. the majority of people are going to lose their insurance because the individual mandate goes away. basically what the report is

saying, unless you stick a gun to people's heads and force them to buy insurance that they don't want, and that they can't afford, then they're going to lose their insurance. how are you doing a favor to somebody forcing them to buy insurance they don't want, robert risch? >> steve moore, you are a good friend, but you are absolutely full of baloney with regard to all of this. the major problem here is that you're eliminating taxes. you're appealing taxes on the rich. something on the order of 3$365 billion of taxes that would have gone to subsidizing health care. once you give that big tax cut to the wealthy, and this is really -- this republican bill is not a health care bill, it's a tax cut for the wealthy bill. once you give those taxes, $365 billion that were -- that was supporting health care, back to the wealthiest members of our society, obviously you're not going to have enough to provide

subsidies for the 80% of people on obamacare, on the affordable care act who need subsidies. you know, steve moore -- let me just finish this thought. >> okay. >> you keep on talking about the fact that obamacare, or the affordable care act is unraveling. number one, part of the reason it's unraveling is because the trump administration has not given insurers any reassurance that they are going to be those subsidies there. the other issue is that you can fix it. why not fix what's maybe slightly, slightly broken rather than removing insurance for 22 million people. and also under medicaid, we haven't even talked about medicaid. >> but steve, let me just ask you, though, the 22 million, 23 million, whatever the number is, people who will lose insurance according to the cbo, if they show up in emergency rooms, they were still going to have to get

coverage, or get medical attention. that's going to come out of taxpayers' pockets. >> in some cases it does. but the point is you're forcing the people to buy the insurance packages that are too expensive. one of the real drawbacks of the obamacare bill is forcing people to buy a package that's called the essential health benefits. a lot of people can't afford those benefits that get loaded on, especially young people. people that are victims of young people. without obamacare they could buy an insurance package that would cost half as much. robert risch never really answered my question, why is it, if this is such a good deal for people, that you're going to have something like 10 or 15 million people drop their coverage if you don't force them to buy it? in other words, i don't understand the argument that it's a really great thing for people, but they don't want it, so you have to force them to buy it. >> secretary risch, what about that? >> it's very, very simple. if you want poor and disabled

people and people with preexisting conditions to have affordable insurance, then you've got to have in the same insurance pool with them people who are younger and healthier. you've got to say younger and healthier people, you know, this is part of what it means to be in the same insurance pool, what it means to be part of our health insurance system. that's what we do with social security. that's what we do with medicare. we pool our risks. that's the idea of social insurance. but on top of that, we also have this huge subsidy, this tax shift that the wealthy, that is going to happen if -- >> bob, those tax increases hurt the economy. we increase the capital gains tax, we have less jobs. >> steve moore, you are just blowing smoke. i'm sorry. you don't know what you're talking about. >> to be continued. thanks very much. coming up next, breaking

news in the russia investigation. carter page, you remember him, we interviewed him on this program, he's been interviewed extensively by the fbi. and trying to make sense of the supreme court's decision on the travel ban. what the court actually ruled.

only t-mobile gives you 4 lines of unlimited data for forty dollars. taxes and fees already included. that'll save you hundreds. plus, right now get a free samsung galaxy s8 when you buy one. hurry in to t-mobile today. 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. ...where each drop was formulated to be smarter.... ...even smarter than that... ...so if a color didn't go on evenly, it would balance itself out to reveal its truest, richest state. if a paint could realize the fullest potential of any color... ...you have to wonder... is it still paint? aura interior from benjamin moo®e . only available at independently owned paint and hardware stores.

working my canister off to clean and shine and give proven protection against fading and aging. he won't use those copycat wipes. hi...doing anything later? ooh, the quiet type. i like that. armor all original protectant. it's easy to look good. breaking news, revealing the "washington post" reporting carter page has been repeatedly investigation in the russia probe, totaling ten hours. page was on candidate trump's national security team. unclear, though, they actually ever met. he admits he never did shake hands with the president. page confirms he declined he's spoken to investigators since february. the real story that president obama did nothing after being informed in august about russian meddling with four months looking at russia.

they have zero tapes of people colluding. there's no collusion and no obstruction. i should be given an apology. gloria, how big of a deal is this "washington post" story about page? >> it is a natural progression. as you point out, anderson, you can't find anybody in the campaign who says that carter page had a large, or important role, or ever briefed donald trump on anything relating to russia or foreign policy. the reason i think this is interesting is that it tells you probably a little bit about what the fbi is looking at. and they probably want to find out from carter page what the russians were asking him. and how the russians may have been courting him. and what the russians perhaps thought they could get out of him. if he was somebody who was connected in any way to donald trump.

and so i think this is interesting, because it may tell you a little bit more about what the russians were looking for. and that gives us a hint of what the fbi is looking at. >> jeffrey, you communicated from time to time with carter page. i understand you just heard from him about this new report. what's he saying? >> i have. let me quickly summarize, anderson. first of all, he's been watching your show tonight and he said he's having a good laugh at tony blinken who is on with you right now. he said he believes the obama administration's backs are against the wall, and that members that the obama administration have allegedly done, haven't even been fully exposed yet. it should be interesting, he says, as the real truth continues to come out and he insists he is absolutely innocent, that he is telling the truth and seeks every forum he can to tell the truth. so there you go. >> we should point out part of what his criticism to the obama administration, also hillary

clinton, is that he believes that there was a -- basically hate crimes against him, using his words, because he was -- or that they were anti-catholic, and also because he was a man, that there were hate crimes against him. i think that was in his filing. >> he does use the word crimes in here. >> van, the pushback from the president's supporters, essentially if all the fbi has is carter page, they really don't have much in their investigation. i want to know what your response is. carter page, you know, didn't shake donald trump's hand. trump mentioned his name once. but never was even in a meeting with him other than a giant rally with thousands of other people. >> well, i think a couple of things. first of all, donald trump says he is owed an apology. he is owed an apology. he needs to apologize to himself for making such a big mess of this whole situation. in his tweet he talks about tapes. the only person who ever raised the question of tapes is donald

trump. who said he hoped that there are no tapes. which it turned out there were no tapes. that they were going to be his tapes that he didn't have. he should apologize to himself, and the country, for making such a big mess of everything. if in fact he is correct, that there's nothing to see here but some weirdo named carter page, he should not have fired the fbi director. he should not have tweeted all the time, let the system work the way it was working. i do not know, nor does anyone on this panel or anyone watching, if carter page is the first domino, last domino or just a weirdo. what we know is donald trump has behaved in a way to make this whole thing much worse. >> gloria, the president going on a tweet storm about obstruction of russia. is it helping him in the court of public opinion? >> it may help him with his supporters. it doesn't affect the investigation one way or another. you have a special counsel. the special counsel, i would venture to say, is not paying one wit of attention to donald

trump's tweets. and that is the person who matters right now. and so i think while donald trump feels the need to defend himself, and why not, go have at it, in your tweets, and criticize the obama administration for being lax on the russia investigation, that he wasn't even sure needed to be done himself. so, you know, does it help him? >> jeffrey, one of the things about carter page, it would be interesting to know if the fbi was able to get more details out of him than, myself included, about exactly who he talked about meeting with scholars in moscow when he went there to make a speech. never really talked about who exactly the scholars were. just the actual -- pinning him down on actual deals. i assume in ten hours of interviews with the fbi, that they were able to get a level of detail that he was not giving in any television interviews. >> i think that's right.

i don't know. but anderson, i think you're right. i think the main thing here is his mind-set. he believes completely he's done absolutely nothing wrong. therefore, the business of, for example, showing up to talk to the fbi without a lawyer, i think he really thinks, i have absolutely nothing to hide, nothing to fear and i'll do it. he'll answer any and every question put to him, i really believe that's his mind-set here. i'm sure the fbi, from the fbi's standpoint, had a field day, because he would talk openly. >> and maybe they think he did nothing wrong but they want to find out what the russians were doing. >> right. thanks, everyone, appreciate it. coming up, the russian ambassador who everybody seems to meet with but no one can seem to be recalled is finally being recalled by moscow. we'll talk about why he's going home, next.

how if guests book direct ater, choicehotels.com and stay twice they'll get a $50 gift card? summertime. badda book. badda boom. got you a shirt! ...i kept the receipt... book now at choicehotels.com we traveled across the country to celebrate the success of our online students who couldn't attend graduation. thank you guys for giving me the chance again. it's something that i worked for, for a long time. because we believe student success is success worth celebrating. who did you get this degree for? i got it for me. i did this for my mom. i did for you, bud. congratulations, daddy. find your online graduate or undergraduate program today at snhu.edu

so that's the idea. what do you think? hate to play devil's advocate but... i kind of feel like it's a game changer. i wouldn't go that far. are you there? he's probably on mute. yeah... gary won't like it. why? because he's gary. (phone ringing) what? keep going! yeah... (laughs) (voice on phone) it's not millennial enough. there are a lot of ways to say no. thank you so much. thank you! so we're doing it. yes! start saying yes to your company's best ideas. let us help with money and know-how, so you can get business done. american express open.

in the russia white house, no matter which thread you follow, russian am bors sergey kislyak, his contacts with trump had nothing to do with that, according to the russian foreign ministry, part of a regular rotation. randi kay tonight has more. >> reporter: he trained as an engineer but long thought to have a different skill set, that of a russian spy. russian ambassador sergey kislyak's date of entry dates back to last year. when jeff sessions spoke with him during the republican national convention. a meeting sessions failed to recall during his confirmation hearing for attorney general. >> i did not have communications with the russians.

>> reporter: later after explaining he did meet with kislyak, sessions promised to recuse himself from the russia investigation. >> i should not be involved investigating a campaign i had a role in. >> reporter: months later sessions was also asked about another possible undisclosed meeting with dkislyak at mayflower hotel. they were both there in april of 2016 for donald trump's foreign policy speech. sessions said he did not recall talking to kislyak there, despite the ousted fbi director saying they intercepted russian communications suggesting the two men had talked. kislyak who's been ambassador for nine years also met with trump transition team member general michael flynn. flynn met with kislyak last december. later flynn misrepresented the nature of his conversations with kislyak to the white house, including the vice president. >> i talked to general flynn

yesterday. and the conversations that took place at that time were not in any way related to new u.s. sanctions. >> reporter: that wasn't true. transcripts show flynn did discuss sanctions with kislyak. he was fired for misleading the vice president. joining flynn and ambassador kislyak at the trump tower meeting was the president's son-in-law, jared kushner met with him months after his father-in-law was elected president. a source telling cnn that kushner was asking the russian ambassador for back channel communications with the kremlin. the "washington post" had reported that in december, kislyak told his superiors that kushner wanted to use russian diplomatic facilities for off-the-record communications to evade u.s. intelligence monitoring. even after all of this, not to mention unanimous agreement from intelligence agencies that

russia meddled in the 2016 election, in may president trump welcomed ambassador kislyak, not only to the white house, but actually into the oval office. it was there the president confided in kislyak that firing fbi director james comey who had been heading up the russia investigation had relieved great pressure. kislyak said to claims that the u.s. meddled in the u.s. elections, quote, we have become collateral damage in the fight between the two parties. as he heads out, he may be part of it now. randi kay, cnn, new york. joining me now, two longtime russia hands, jill dougherty, and steve hall. jill, moscow calls what happened to the ambassador routine rotation. is that true? do you buy that? >> well, it is true that it was known in the diplomatic

community that ambassador kislyak would be leaving, probably about a year ago. then it's understood that he extended for another year. so, yeah, i think this has been in the train for quite a long time. and he was in his position for a very long time. the interesting thing to me is, it was also known in the diplomatic community that he was a candidate, possible candidate for a new position at the united nations. anti-terrorism position. which he is not going to be taking. so i think that's an interesting question, why he didn't do that. but as far as washington, yeah, i think, you know, we expected that he would be leaving. >> steve, i've heard conflicting things on whether or not he does have a role in intelligence, or not. how do you see ambassador kislyak? >> anderson, it might be a little bit of a distinction without a difference when you're

talking about whether or not kislyak is an intelligence officer. my personal assessment is, during the course of my career i've rarely seen a case where you have an ambassador who's a formal staff offer of the russian intelligence services. that does not mean that he's not the eyes and ears of vladimir putin on the ground in washington. any diplomat, whether it's russian or western diplomat, part of their job is the collection of information, just like an intelligence officer. of course, an intelligence officer talks to different people and does it under different circumstances. i don't think he was actually a formal spy master as sometimes he has been described. but he certainly was on the ground and his job was to collect information for vladimir putin, or one of his jobs was. >> steve, do you see his recall as just routine? >> i take what the russian ministry foreign affairs says on its face. it's difficult for me to imagine how he has been treated. he must be somewhat radioactive these days in washington. didn't play a role.

that said, jill's right, he's been in washington for a long time. longer than many ambassadors. and this was in the works. so it's probably a little bit of both. >> jill, do we know what he's going to be doing now? >> we don't. and there's no confirmation, it's important to point out, from the foreign ministry officially that he is leaving washington. i mean, what they're saying is, this is a procedure, it usually takes a long time. they have not formally said he is leaving washington. they're not saying what he is going to do. i think, anderson, it's really important to point out that word "recall "pie is being bantied about. you know, recalled is a technical term, a diplomatic term which simply means he is going back, presumably, to moscow. but it doesn't mean that he's being whisked out of there because of some, let's say, you know, russia investigation, et cetera. all i'm saying is, it's

important to be really precise in these things. >> yeah, i mean, there's nothing seemingly untoward or certainly in the use of that term. steve, the process for russia gathering information in the u.s., how large is it? obviously it goes well beyond the ambassador, and we often hear about china spying on the u.s. but as the active collection going on. >> absolutely. it's definitely larger than just the standard diplomats in not only the embassy in washington, but we have to remember there's a large number of consulates -- russian consulates throughout the united states, new york, san francisco, places like that. so all of those places have russian diplomats, and one would imagine russian intelligence officers as well. look, the thing is that these closed societies like china, like russia, that are governed by authoritarian regimes like

vladimir putin's, they take advantage of open societies like ours. they try to get as many intelligence officers in the united states as they can, and try to take advantage of the openness of our society to be able to travel. there are some restrictions supposedly that are sometimes enforced on the russians, but they try to take advantage. it's a big operation. they do their best to collect all sorts of different intelligence here in the united states. >> steve hall, appreciate it. jill dougherty as well, thank you very much. the supreme court decision on president trump's travel ban. it's not a full endorsement, not permanent. the details in a moment.

a trip back to the dthe doctor's office, mean just for a shot. but why go back there, when you can stay home... ...with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection, which could lead to hospitalizations. in a key study, neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%... ...a 94% decrease. applied the day of chemo, neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the next day, so you can stay home. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to neulasta or neupogen (filgrastim). ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries, and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache.

so why go back there? if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. working my canister off to clean and shine and give proven protection against fading and aging. he won't use those copycat wipes. hi...doing anything later? ooh, the quiet type. i like that. armor all original protectant. it's easy to look good. the average family's its raised 1 dare devil, 2 dynamic diy duos, and an entrepreneur named sharon. its witnessed 31 crashes, 4 food fights, and the flood of '09. it's your paradise perfected with behr premium plus low odor paint. the best you can buy starting under $25. unbelievable quality. unbeatable prices. right now get incredible savings on behr's top-rated paints and stains. only at the home depot.

yeah, and i can watch thee bgame with directv now.? oh, sorry, most broadcast and sports channels aren't included. and you can only stream on two devices at once. this is fun, we're having fun. yeah, we are. no, you're not jimmy. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. xfinity gives you more to stream to more screens.

part of president trump's travel ban is back in effect with the supreme court partially allowing it to stand until this fall. this is temporary and the court still could rule the ban unconstitutional. it has not stopped the trump administration for celebrating. so talk to me more about the response from the white house tonight. >> anderson, no question, the president responded so differently than we've seen him respond in previous rulings. for one, he won. there was at least, i would say more than a partial victory, a substantial victory, something this white house is not really expecting. because all of those ninth circuit rulings. the white house was certainly taking a more measured tone than

we've seen them take before. the president, though, simply was not reacting in the way he normally does. we could see that in his statement, and simply he did not call it a travel ban as he had before. i think we have that statement here. let's take a look at it. it was a clear victory for national security. it allows travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries, and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. a couple of weeks ago, he called it a travel ban. he said we're not -- >> that sounds like a lawyer wrote that. >> it sounds like a lawyer wrote that, and he stuck to it. we'll have to see how he handles it in social media coming forward here. but he did not specifically respond to this calling it a travel ban. the reason is, the arguments that have to happen this fall to continue to further win this case, if the white house would like to do that, they know that anything the president says now, tweets now, does now, can be used against him.

but no question about it tonight, the president's travel ban, travel suspension, whatever you want to call it, is in far better shape than any other moment of his presidency. >> we should point out the president tweeted, i think he said it was unanimous. what is unanimous is it's moving forward to the fall. but the actual ruling was not unanimous. >> right. the ruling was not unanimous, but it was still the idea that three justices, you know, simply were endorsing this travel ban completely. the others said, let's re-hear it. it is not unanimous, that's true. not 9-0 here. but it was more supportive and more surprising to this white house that has become so used to this ban being assailed. but everything he says about it, the intent of it, spirit of it can still be used against him. you can bet all these old tweets will be once it's reargued this

fall. >> thanks. our legal panel, jeffrey toobin, lauren coats, and mike rogers and leon rodriguez. the white house touting this is a clear victory in their words for national security. does this improve national security? >> well, you know, it's interesting. some notion that this is trump against the democrats or something i think is completely wrong. we have to look at what are the underpinnings to where we got to where we were. i agree with his first ban. i thought it was too broad. i think they made big mistakes. but when you look at countries where our law enforcement intelligence services cannot properly vet people, there is no way to vet people from countries that we know are recruiting. you know, el shabaab in somalia, al qaeda in yemen, a whole host of groups in syria. all of those are realities. what the real debate should be is, is there a proper way to

allow citizens from those countries to come in through a proper vetting process, and i would argue, and i saw this when i was german, absolutely not from these countries. a little bit of it is a wing and a prayer when these folks come in. in this time between when the supreme court hears it and today, if they go through and honestly give this a good scrub about, is there a proper way you can vet people from these countries in which we have intelligence that says they want to send people to the united states and europe, then i think we've done something for national security. if this turns into some political food fight, i think we've lost sight of what's important in this decision by the supreme court. >> jeffrey, president trump has been obviously frustrated with the lower court rulings. jeff zell any saying it's more than a partial victory. >> it is a victory, there is no question that this is a very different result in a very different court. a more important court than any of the ones before. it is not a complete victory.

but the fact is, all nine justices allow some of the plan to remain in effect. the most controversial part is not in effect. the people who have relatives in the country, who have university appointments, who have jobs, they will be able to presumably, according to the supreme court, continue to be allowed in the country. but tourists, refugees will not. and this is a very important part of president trump's goal. and it looks like the supreme court -- this lineup is likely to recur when the court hears the case in the fall. so i think that this is a very good day for the trump administration. >> the supreme court sent a clear message to the lower courts that they overstepped here? >> that's right. when you have unanimously, the court pushing back on these stays, the stays went so far

beyond what the case is saying. most of the time you have a stay that really is limited to the actual litigants of the case. they just didn't say it applies to people similarly situated, admitted to a university, et cetera, they just said we're going to cut it down all together. it's a real rebuke to the ninth circuit, the fourth circuit in this case. >> laura, do you agree it's a big victory? >> i don't. to call it a victory is quite premature. look at the procedures in this case. they have not ruled on the constitutionality of it, or the statutory guidance the fourth circuit put through. they have to wait until october. i think the supreme court is more sophisticated in the analysis of this issue. it never discussed the constitutionality, but it did put in place certain caveats to allow the president and his administration to be able to say, listen, certain bona fide, people with connections to the united states can come in. what does that do?

invites probably more litigation about what that's actually going to look like. what it will probably do is you have the 90-day period which may ultimately show this travel ban is moot before october comes into play, it keeps it right for the court. they're trying to find a way to figure out how they can still navigate this issue, and allow the president in a hat tip to do what they should do. >> we've got to take a quick break. when we come back, i want to hear from leon rodriguez. we'll take a closer look at what jeff zellney spoke about a moment ago. 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, we'll be there for you. hampton by hilton. ...is not just something you can see or touch. home...is a feeling. 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. finding the best hotel price is now a safe bet. because tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites - so you save up to 30% on the hotel you want. lock it in. tripadvisor. with the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your every move and automatically adjusts on both sides. 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.

you wto progress.move. to not just accept what you see, but imagine something new. at invisalign®, we use the most advanced teeth straightening technology to help you find the next amazing version of yourself. it's time to unleash your secret weapon. it's there, right under your nose. get to your best smile up to 50% faster. visit invisalign.com to get started today. i chose soccer over college because the opportunity was to good to pass up. but in the back of my mind, it was always that void, i want to earn a degree. i chose snhu because it gives me an opportunity to go back to school in a life that is chaotic. i want to have a strong foundation to attack that next challenge with. to actually commit to it is always the hardest but you always have to push through that. find out what you can achieve at southern new hampshire university,

the official education partner of major league soccer.

is to always keep track of your employees.r micromanage them. make sure they're producing. woo! employee of the month! you really shouldn't leave their side. vita coco coconut water, hydration comes naturally. again, the supreme court partially upheld president trump's travel ban today. as jeff zeleny mentioned moments ago. previous words on the topic might come back to haunt him. already happened before. back in march, the 9th circuit put the executive order on hold saying there was evidence of, quote, religious animus. one of the pieces of evidence was an interview i conducted with then-candidate trump during the campaign. take a listen zb. >> i think islam hates us. but there is a tremendous hatred, and we have to be very vigilant, we are to be very careful, and we can't allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the

united states. >> i guess the question is -- >> and of people that are not muslim. >> i guess the question is, is there war between the west and radical islam or war between the west -- >> it's radical but it's very hard to define. it's very hard to separate, because you don't know who's who. >> the ninth circuit used that interview to say that trump's intent to specifically target muslims because of their religion, the question is will the supreme court make the same call? back with our panel to break it down. leon, how is this actually going to work? who's going to determine whether somebody wants to come to the u.s. has a valid reason? >> well, that's part of where the challenge is. is this going to be something that consular officers will need to deal with? customs officers will need to deal with? and what that bona fide relationship really means is a quite open question. family relationships are obvious. enrolled students are obvious. employees are obvious. but there's a number of other relationships here that are really going to cause some complications. and if there's one thing that i

share with the dissenters here, i wish there had been a black line, but i wish the black line had been to keep the injunction in place in its totality. >> just from a legal standpoint, the supreme court made no mention of the president's past language during the campaign. that was something that the other courts, the lower courts did. is that something they're going to have to look at when they look at this in the fall? >> i think that's actually the legal standard they were supposed to apply. what we see here is the court is applying the legal standards that they would apply to any executive order. that's not what we saw the courts below. we saw very politicized approach it and the idea of brings in things that a candidate for president said six months or a year beforehand is very outside of how this is normally considered. what the court said in this order is, we look at the national security is an urgent objective of the higher importance own the president ha his peak of authority on that. when there are people who don't even have any link with the united states which are the ones they removed the stay has tas t.

that's carrying out the normal legal standards. if the court continues to do so, i think the president has a very good shot in october. >> there was a lot of confusion when the executive order was originally put in place, people are detained for long periods of time. there was confusion obviously at the airports. do you think that's going to take place as well or because immigration officers have a, you know, oversees have a, you know, can look at whether or not there's a legitimate reason for coming here, or connection to the country? it will be easier? >> yeah, i think they're moving it, anderson, to the right place, which is the people who are trained to do this. just because, by the way, you get a student visa, doesn't necessarily mean you should be here. i don't care what country you're from, remember the 9/11 hijackers, some were students here on student visas. so you want the people who are trained making these decisions. what the supreme court did today was basically say exactly that. all of the rhetoric surrounding the emotion of what the president said 6 months or 12

months ago f y, if you like trur don't like trump should be irrelevant on the ruling. the national security parameters of this will, i think, weight it out. what the court did, they continued to nibble away at it to what you have now is a suspension from countries. remember, this is really the root cause of this, that where our trained professionals cannot properly vet individuals on what their intent is when they come to the united states. and these are places that intelligence says, hey, guess what, they're recruiting there to send them to places -- that's really what i saw the supreme court rule on today. >> and anderson -- >> sorry, go ahead, very quickly. >> a big question here, which is where is this examination of the vetting process that was in the president's order? there were supposed to be reports at 50 days, 100 days. that time is long gone. and if there have been changes, they've been mostly incremental and there's really been no

report as to what examination this administration has conducted. >> something else to follow-up on. i want to thank everybody. late breaking news when we come back. what the white house said it has learned about syria, chemical weapons and another attack. hi, i'm joan lunden with a place for mom

every day we hear from families who partnered with a senior living advisor from a place for mom to help find the perfect place for their mom or dad thank you so much for your assistance in helping us find a place. mom feels safe and comfortable and has met many wonderful residence and staffers.

thank you for helping our family find our father a new home. we especially appreciate the information about the va aid and attendance program. i feel i found the right place. a perfect fit. you were my angel and helped guide me every step of the way thank you. the senior living advisors at a place for mom partner with thousands of families every month, listening and offering local knowledge and advice to help find the best senior living communities across the country and it won't cost you a cent. this is a free service. call today. a place for mom. you know your family. we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. we end tonight with late word from the white house just in to cnn. it's a statement, it reads "the united states identified potential preparations for

another potential chemical weapons attack by the assad regime." it goes on "the activities are similar to preparations the regime made before its april 4th, 2017 chemical weapons attack. previously stated, the united states is in syria to eliminate the islamic state of iraq and syria. if, however, mr. assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price." time to hand things over to don lemon and "cnn tonight." this is cnn breaking news. >> we have some breaking news on the gop health care bill. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. a fourth gop senator says he will vote no on the motion to let his own party's health care bill go forward. so, can mitch mcconnell get trumpcare across the finish line? with the clock ticking, the vote in the next few days. the president said he wants a bill with heart, but with 22 million more americans with no health insurance, is this that bill? plus, ivanka trump