russian lawyer he was meeting with last summer would offer him dirt on hillary clinton as part of a russian government effort to help his father win the election. we now know of at least seven current or former trump cam. a team members that have lied, change their stories or not been forthcoming about contacts with russia. now what does the white house think about all of this? we have one of the top officials there that's going to come on in just moments and make the case. we are also following breaking news. a u.s. marine corps plane has crashed in rural, mississippi, killing at least 16 service members. this is the biggest loss of life in the military since president trump took office. federal investigators are trying to figure out what went wrong. let's begin with jason carroll live at the white house for us. >> good morning to you. the white house basically saying there's no there, there. the only thing that was inappropriate about that june 16th meeting was the person or persons who leaked information

about it. having said that, the white house now having to deal with report after report about trump jr.'s meeting on june 16th. the latest report giving new insight into what he knew about the meeting before it took place. another potential bombshell report from "the new york times" alleging that donald trump jr. received an e-mail informing him that the russian government was trying to help his father's campaign. before his june 2016 meet with the president's son-in-law, jared kushner, paul manafort, and a russian lawyer thought to have compromising information about hillary clinton. three unnamed sources tell "the times" that the e-mail sent by rob goldstone, a music publicist, who coordinated the meeting, indicated the russian government was the source of the potent yell l potentially damaging information. weeks later they slammed the trump campaign for suggesting the russians were involved in an

effort to help then candidate trump. >> it just goes to show you their exact moral compass. they'll say anything to be able to win this. time and time again, lie after lie. it's disgusting. it's so phony. >> reporter: trump jr.'s newly hired lawyer insisting his client did nothing wrong noting don jr.'s takeaway from this communication was someone had information potentially helpful to the campaign and it was coming from someone he knew. don jr. had no knowledge, as to what specific information, if any, would be discussed. the white house on the defensive. >> don jr. has very explicitly stated he department evidn't ev name of the person he was meeting. there was no action taken, no follow-up. >> the president's campaign did not collude in any way. >> reporter: congressional investigators probing potential collusion between the trump campaign and russia already expressing interest in speaking with trump jr. tweeted monday that he would be happy to pass on what i know.

>> this is the first time that the public has seen clear evidence of senior level members of trump campaign meeting with russians to try to obtain information that might hurt the campaign of hillary clinton. >> reporter: president trump's legal team choosing to reiterate an earlier statement when asked about the new report noting the president was not aware of and did not attend the meeting. and just on a side note, wanted to talk briefly about that plane crash there in mississippi. the vice president did tweet about that this morning. he issued the following statement saying we are praying for the families of the marines who lost their lives. these marines will be in our hearts. the president did tweet this morning about different subjects. still waiting to hear the white house response on that tragic marine plane crash there in mississippi. >> please let us know as soon as you get that. let's bring in our political

panel to discuss all of this. david gregory, karun and michael zelden. he was robert mueller's special assistant at the state department. david gregory, just spell out for us how you see these developments this morning that t"the new york times" is reporting in terms of this meet with don jr. >> it's really significant if you consider the white house defense all along, which is that there was no collusion whatsoever, despite russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 election. and here, this is undermined by the fact that the president's son, then the candidate's son, is meet with someone who comes to him. and other senior advisers with information potentially damaging about hillary clinton. someone that they don't know about, that they don't do due diligence on and who they say in subsequent explanations, although they have moved, didn't even have any worthwhile information.

but who was a russian national. so it undercuts the argument that they were, you know, unwitting participants in any underhanded russian interference. number one. and two, it gets to, you know, the issue of why you would do -- why would you meet with a russian national seeking to pass on any information about the election when the pattern of russian interference, the hacking of the dnc, what the russians had done in ukraine with regard to elections or trying to hack into their critical infrastructure. the understanding that russia was up to no good for a long time and certainly that vladimir putin had it in for hillary clinton. >> counselor zelden, in terms of this pushback on the republican side that this was a nothing, what are the legal issues and questions that are raised by what you know so far? >> well, it's -- that's a good question, and it's not clear. clearly, if this was a solicitation by donald trump jr.

of a foreign national for something of value, it doesn't have to be money. could be information. that's an fec, federal election commission law violation. and there may be, and there have been already complaints filed by common cause and others with respect to that. interesting to me as well is that donald trump jr.'s first statement was this was a meeting about adoptions. well, adoptions as we know and has been reported by "the new york times" is really just another word for sanctions. so if donald trump jr. was going into a meeting with russian cut-outs to talk about sanctions at a time just before the republican convention and the platform debate about ukraine and sanctions and arming opponents, then that becomes a very problematic issue where, like with manafort -- rather, like with flynn, where they are discussing sanctions, that's potentially a crime in and of itself. with respect to the collusion

aspect that david gregory talked about, that's really a political question in some respects because there isn't, except an antitrust law, a crime of collusion. it would have to be conspiracy to do something. i'm not sure what the something yet is. so we have to see how that teases out a little bit from pure legal standpoint. >> i know that it's hard sometimes for people following along at home to keep track of all of these different threads, particularly since there are a lot of people now who were connected to the trump campaign that seem to have forgotten or for whatever reason, did not disclose their meetings with russians. we have a list of seven. michael flynn, paul manafort, skrmpt b. gordon, jeff sessions, now don jr., jerared kushner, donald pag. are they tired of having to talk

about thig and that they wish that there were some sort of better answers coming out of the white house? >> i think that there's probably -- there is that fatigue happening but not really in equal way on both sides of the aisle. democrats are getting tired of the white house coming up with, well, we didn't know. this was just a casual meeting to discuss something that -- it was not that important. wouldn't have violated the law, with somebody who happened to be russian. they're getting sick of that line saying this is a pattern. for some reason you're able to talk about meet with other foreign nationals but when it comes up with whether you met with russians you have this big hole in your memory and it seems to be a collective hole with everyone affiliated with the trump campaign and trump transition team and those still in the white house. it's becoming more difficult to explain these things away. republicans remember, by and large, do not believe that trump actually colluded with the kremlin and they have been

saying, most of them have been saying, let this investigation proceed because it will likely exonerate you, mr. president. situations like this where you have what seems to be the closest thing to evidence pointing towards at least potentially intent or comfort level with collusion, than anything we've seen yet, puts them in a tight spot of sticking to what they believe, which is that the president may have done things that were not common in that -- not typical of a president of the united states but they don't believe it got to the point of bordering on wrong. things like this make it much more difficult to explain. but you do have -- both parties are looking at this as, it's kind of unleashed democrats in a way who have been talking about there being potential evidence there and now that this is public, they are able to point to it and say, see, this is what we were talking about, why we think there's something here and why we don't buy these excuses anymore. >> this is, if anything, david gregory, this has to be a big

blow to the president's "this is a hoax" notion. he's gotten caught up on that with the putin meeting having it both ways put him in a tight spot politically there. the more he embraces the overall russian interference probe, the better it would be for him because all of this could be okay if it were a function of, yeah, look what the russians were doing. they were coming to us. they kept trying to come to us. yeah, they were. we didn't know why at the time, but now we do know. the more he put his hands around that rftigation, the better. do you think there's still a chance he could do that? >> just based on his pattern, i don't see how. there has been a willful denial of what's right in front of them. and that was an attack on the country by the russians that creates a responsibility for any president to protect our elections and to protect the institution of the presidency. instead, donald trump and people around him have at least shown reckless disregard for how

vulnerable they could have been to this kind of interference in the course of the campaign, or worse, because of their relationships in russia or relationship with putin himself. and if you look at the foreign policy team around him during the campaign, whether it's michael flynn, paul manafort, these are people who had relationships in russia, where there are serious questions about what role they played, and they certainly didn't say what they should have said to the candidate, to his son, to any of these other advisers which is back away and be careful who you're dealing with here because they play for keeps in russia. ask any grown-up who has been involved in the united states government. they'll tell you that. you don't play around with this or any foreign national trying to interfere in our election. they still blow it off. the president of the united states in a meeting with vladimir putin apparently accepted his denial that he wasn't involved. he should be talking less and doing more to protect our

elections and to protect the institution. >> michael, phil mudd, our frequent guest often reminds us whatever we're seeing here or talking about here in the press is the tip of the iceberg of what investigators who have lots more, obviously, powers to compel people to give up information, are dealing with. and so while we talk about these sort of dribs and drabs that come out, obviously, bob mueller is continuing the investigation. do you have any sense of where the investigation is? you hear the trump supporters say, nine months to a year and nothing. see, there's nothing there. but, of course, he's just beginning his investigation. >> that's right. he is at month two. he has assembled a dream team if you will, of lawyers, experienced in corruption, in money laundering, and the types

of investigative work streams that will befall him in this investigation. he's got a lot of different work streams. separate and apart from the counterintelligence stuff. he's got an individual work stream for manafort, individual work stream for flynn. carter page. now he's got donald jr. and jared kushner. so he's got a lot to get up and running. i don't know whether he's convened a grand jury yet. we don't know what documents he's received from the hill or elsewhere. really, he's in the early stages of this investigation. and i wouldn't expect to hear much from his operation for another month or two as they get their sea legs and get grounded in what they're going to do and who is going to do it and the prioritization of those tasks. for someone to say we're nine months in is not an accurate reflection of where we are with respect to mueller and the special counsel's office. >> sounds good, though. >> sounds good, but it's not true. >> i just want -- you guys will

be talking to sebastian gorka later. let us just remember to substitute the name hillary clinton here for donald trump. and if the clinton team had had these contacts with the russians, what they would be saying. what would sebastian gorka be saying this morning about those contacts and about their conduct thus far and that should be -- that should always be in people's minds. >> i'll just answer because i already know what sebastian is going to say. they're going to say, the clinton campaign? look what the democrats did with ukraine. they had lots of contacts with ukraine. that's what i believe -- >> the uranium deal. >> and uranium. >> but that's fair enough. so let them explore that further. but that doesn't answer how -- i mean, it makes the point really. they're saying any kind of contact like that is inappropriate. so is the defense, they were doing it, too, so i guess it's

okay. >> the russians call that what about-ism. you are attacked on one level and point out the same error in another. we are following some breaking news. at least 16 marines have been killed after a u.s. military plane crashes in mississippi. the fbi is now on the scene trying to determine what went wrong. cnn's barbara starr is live at the pentagon. what have you learned, barbara? >> well, good morning. president trump just a short time ago tweeting his condolences on this situation. and let me just read that for everyone here. the president saying, marine plane crash in mississippi is heartbreaking. melania and i send our deepest condolences to all. that from president trump a short time ago. what we are learning is this crash occurred about 4:00 yesterday in mississippi. the plane taking off, originating out of cherry point, north carolina. a u.s. marine corps kc-130.

16 souls on board lost. no survivors. you can see the site afterwards. obviously, just utter devastation there. we are told by the marine corps that it was the faa that called them when they realized the plane had disappeared from faa radar. then they contacted the marine corps very quickly. all of it was determined whose plane this was and who was on board. all 16 members of the united states military. now what is happening is they are reaching out across the country to all 16 families trying to notify the next of kin. and when that notification is completed, then the names of the fallen will be made public. chris? >> barbara, thank you very much. please let us know what you get on that story so we can tell everybody the sad news. we now know of at least

seven current or former trump campaign team members who have either not been forthcoming about their contacts or have to redraw the diagram of their meetings with russians. how does the white house explain those developments and the latest ones about don jr.? we're going to ask the deputy to the vice president, sebastian gorka, next.

victory declared in mosul after months of brutal fighting

to retake the city from isis control. the city is now in ruins. they call it a civilian catastrophe. what will the u.s. do next? joining us now is sebastian gorka, deputy assistant to donald trump. >> i know you want to start by talking about this watershed moment in mosul and we do, too. so what does this mean to the white house, and what are the plans for mosul and beyond next in the fight against isis? >> well, what it means for the white house is the defeat isis plan is working. thanks to the great offices of secretary mattis, general h.r. mcmaster. in just 24 weeks, we've managed to crush isis at the heart of its center of gravity. remember, thanks to the obama withdrawal in 2011 there was a so-called caliphate created in mosul in june of 2014. in less than six months, with

the leadership of prime minister aba abaudi, we've destroyed that caliphate. we have to routu sis from all of iraq but it shows you what you can do when you want to win. >> the battle for mosul began nine months ago. and even before that, the iraqi forces were being trained by the u.s.-led operators. so that was three months before president trump even took office. so does he deserve all of the credit for getting rid of isis in mosul? >> i think if you look at how we changed strategic objectives and actually our policies, absolutely. >> and tell us about that. yeah, i am interested in hear -- >> can i finish my sentence? >> yes. >> so under the obama administration, it was deliberately a war of attrition. it was the death of a thousand cuts. we don't do that when you van organization that's as deadly as

isis having slave markets that is burning people alive in cages, we said it's about obliteration. a president stood before congress and said we will obliterate, we will eradicate isis. and that's why secretary mattis went from a policy of attrition to one of annihilation. that's a very, very big difference. >> and just explain that to me. what does that mean? how did the rules of engagement change? >> well, the rules of engagement themselves haven't changed but we're actually enforcing them. under obama administration you had unbelievable amounts of micromanagement. in some cases unclassified reports of people in theater not being allowed to engage unless a senior official back here in d.c. gave them the green light. that's crazy. that's called the 8,000-mile screwdriver. we tried that in vietnam and it was a disaster in vietnam. when we came in january 20th, from the very beginning we said we trust you to our military.

we said you can make local decisions that you are empowered and trained to do, and execute those missions. so it's really having faith in our military, having faith in our field commanders and saying do the job you were trained to do and that we trust you to do. that's a reacertion of original roes, rules of engagement, and no more micromanagement from the white house. >> we talk all the time to military experts here on our program about the fight against isis and what the generals tell us is that there is not just -- there cannot just be a military solution. so what is the white house's plan to fight isis in terms of cyber and in terms of, you know, snapping out the ideology. >> that's a great question. so absolutely. we have a great cyberteam here. the national security counsel. tom bosser, the homeland security adviser to the president has a background especially in cyber. he's pioneering our efforts. we don't talk about what that is on open channels on the tv, but

your second question, massively important. you can only use -- do so much with kinetics, physical force. at the end of the day, our objective is to destroy the evil ideology that drives groups like isis. what we're going to do is have a massive counterpropaganda pushback like we had during the cold war to delegitimize the ideology of jihadism. we're not going to deny what it is. we're not going to say religion is irrelevant and you aren't allowed to use words like jihad. that was the insanity of the last eight years. with our muslim partners in theater, countries like egypt and jordan and local actors in iraq, we're going to push back on the ideology so at the end of the day, the black flag of isis is as disgusting as the swastika of the nazis and people don't want to become jihadis. young men and women around the

world don't want to join groups like isis. that's when we and our muslim partners will have won. >> let's talk about our global partners and what came out of the g20. president trump had that sit-down with president putin. what did president trump get out of vladimir putin in terms of election meddling beyond what they reported, which is putin's denial? >> well, what we got out of it was an opportunity to finally address this issue head of state to head of state to push more than once on the question of meddling. there was nothing -- there was no massive smoking gun that was unveiled there as anyone could rightly expect. what we got out of it, which is far more important than anything to do with accusations of meddling in elections, is a chance to save lives in syria. more than 400,000 people murdered in the last six years. and thanks to that meeting, just days ago, we have managed to put

in place the cease-fire agreement for the first time with israel and jordan. that perhaps with russia's assistance can put an end to the bloodshed in syria. that's the massive takehome from that meeting, and we should thank the god lord that that is something that looks at the moment to be working. >> absolutely. obviously, stopping the bloodshed in syria is vitally important. just in terms, because there's been confusion about this, did president trump accept vladimir putin's denial that he didn't meddle? >> no, of course not. there's no acceptance involved. we pressed. the president pressed. there was a denial. at that point you have to move on because we're there to save lives. >> but did the president say, don't do it again or here's what will happen to you if you do it again or knock it off or anything to that degree? >> look, you can tell that the president is a very forceful

character. and he sent a very clear message. this is not a court of law. we're not there to prosecute another head of state. but the message was sent. and that was the most important thing that you can do at a protocol event. this is the g20. not a court of law. we're not there to create conflict with russia. remember, this is one of the most powerful nuclear nations in the world. we there are to do what secretary tillerson said. he said just before the meeting. the two most powerful nuclear nations in the world really should have better relations than we do. we went there in good faith. we pushed them on the issue of the election. they denied it. we have to move on because there are more pressing issues of life and death, and that's what we did. so that's the priority of this administration. national security comes first. >> mr. gorka, i want to ask you about something in the news for the past two days.

and that's don jr.'s meet with a russian lawyer who seemed to be offering up some sort of damaging information about hillary clinton. was it a good idea for don jr. to meet with this russian lawyer? >> was it a good idea for the dnc to send its operatives to the ukrainian embassy? >> i'm not sure that answers my question. >> no, it's -- if there's a meeting that was wholly appropriate but which led to nothing, let's compare that to the dnc sending its people to the, craukrainian embassy to coordinate opo attacks against our candidate. if you want to see collusion, it's in the dnc. i mean it is up to their necks. >> let me follow your line of logic. you're saying it's inappropriate for the democrats to meet with a foreign country, ukraine. but it's not inappropriate for your campaign, for donald trump, to meet with the russians of hostile -- >> what do you mean the russians? who did this woman work for at the time? she did not work for the russian

government. >> this is what investigators are -- >> i'm answering it. >> what is the answer? what is her connection to the kremlin? >> there was no connection. she was a private lawyer who had an interest with regard to the russian adoption program, and used a pretext to get a meet with the campaign which the campaign representatives almost immediately realized was not done in good faith. that she had another agenda. >> what's funny is that they wanted the original agenda. they wanted the dirt. >> which is what political campaigns do. but we don't meet on the soil of foreign nations at their embassies to get opposition research. if you want to look at a real story, that's the story. oh, my gosh. if you want to look at a real story, the 126 leaks of national security importance in the first 125 days. i saw what you did yesterday with kellyanne. 35 minutes on this one issue.

have you ever at cnn dedicated 35 minutes to the 126 leaks against this administration, seven times the average of the leaks under the obama administration, the bush administration. now that's a story worthy of cnn coverage. >> we, obviously, cover lots of things along the spectrum, but i -- >> yeah, but you -- >> you do what kellyanne also does which is try to deflect back to the hillary clinton campaign. i understand that tactic, but the question is that why then, if this was all so on the up and up, did the president's son, don jr., not only not disclose it, but didn't actually use the right story when first asked about it? he claimed the meeting was about adoption but that wasn't what the real story was. and he's not alone. let me just pull up this graphic for you of the seven people connected to the trump campaign somehow. michael flynn, jeff sessions,

jared kushner, paul manafort, don jr., carter page, j.d. gordon, none of them adequately disclosed their meetings with russians until the press found out about it. what's going on? >> nothing. you heard their statements. you heard don jr.'s statements that told you everything you need to know. he's not even a member of the administration. this is the shocking thing. again, the amount of time you spend in desperation on a topic that has plummeted you to 13th place in viewership ranking across america. more people watch nick at night cartoons than cnn today. >> our ratings are doing just fine. if you want to go there, our ratings are doing just fine. what ratings represent, and our ratings -- >> nick at night is 11. more people are interested in cartoons. >> i'm sure more people are interested in watching "house of cards" than whatever you're doing as well. however, our ratings are just fine, and the american people

say they're quite interested in what's going on with -- >> actually, that's not true. if you look at the polling, most people couldn't care less. more than 65% of -- >> that's not true. we have lots of polling. >> in your bubble. in your bubble, sure. but that's the bubble. that's not the people who elected -- >> it's a cross-section of americans. listen, the -- here's the question, which i don't think you're answering. why didn't they adequately disclose. >> there's no need for private citizens to disclose his meeting in the campaign that happened months before. >> all the people i just put up -- >> he's not a member of the administration. >> they were a member of the trump administration and they did not disclose it on forms where there was a responsibility to disclose it. >> so you have a list of seven people, okay. so what about individuals who got half a million dollars to give speeches when their wife was running for president? why is that not something you dedicate 35 minutes to? >> because you won. your side won. >> and that's why you're attacking us because hillary

clinton didn't win. >> that's why the press is interested in what you're doing now. >> you have to get over it. >> -- deflecting to hillary clinton. you're not getting over it. >> so if somebody doesn't win if they commit a crime it's irrelevant to national security? how does that logic work? how does that work? how does that work? when somebody is involved in putting tssci special access program information onto her private home brew server, in contra vention of every federal law to deal with classified information, the fact she doesn't win means it's irrelevant to cnn. that's fake news. that's when you are selecting what to looka and you are downgrading real crimes and don't look at them and spend nine months looking at something where there's no evidence of anything illegal. nothing illegal. not in don jr.'s meeting. none of those meetings was illegal. none of them. >> as you know, mr. gorka, the investigation continues.

there is no conclusions yet from bob mueller. >> but you behave like the investigator. why don't you investigate hillary clinton? just because she lost? >> i'm asking you about your candidate, donald trump. >> and i'm responding to your lack of prioritizing in the interest of u.s. national security. >> what's your answer? >> nothing inappropriate happened. nothing inappropriate and we've made the requisite statements and in comparison to what other political candidates did, especially hillary clinton, it is very strange that cnn is obsessing on those who did nothing inappropriate and has nothing to say about people who are doing pay for play, who are involved in selling 20% of uranium to russia when their husband is getting a $500,000 speaking fee who are in contravention of -- >> is it possible your team is obsessed with the clintons?

>> no. we'd like you to actually do your job. you aren't in the news business anymore. you used to be. you are in the attacking president trump business. and it's sad. it's really sad. >> it's interesting. look. i know you have to go, and i didn't even want to go down this rabbit hole with you. when you take shots at us and at journalism, at cnn, i do feel -- >> not journalism. cnn. >> okay. when you take shots at cnn, i do feel that i just respond and just point out that you called us yesterday to come on here. so why -- >> that's what we do. >> why do you want to come on? >> to try and redress the balance of what you did yesterday. >> -- your answering us. >> let me answer the question. to redress the absolute absurd alice in wonderland of yesterday. when i got home late at night, i watched a clip of your colleague chris cuomo with kellyanne conway. my colleague. the first woman to run a successful presidential --

>> yes, we've reported that many times. yes, we know that. >> may i finish? may i finish? >> and when i saw your colleague profess that 35 minutes on something that was wholly appropriate, 35 minutes. when is cnn spent 35 minutes on anything. negative to the -- >> it was our decision that we should try and redress the balance. you were very gracious to accept it. but if you don't like the answers, that's not my problem. >> no, i'm looking for answers. but just to be clear, we were trying to be time conscious yesterday. we wrapped kellyanne many times. she wanted to get her/your message out. i think we gave her an opportunity. >> she was marvelous. >> as we have today. so sebastian gorka, we appreciate you wanting to come on cnn. we appreciate having you on and talking about all of the things in the news. >> thank you. me, too. >> just for the record -- >> yes. >> the question was, these seven

people had a duty, an obligation under law to report these meetings. his answer is, okay. you have seven. what about -- and then he moved on to hillary clinton. he had no answer. a good accent, a good delivery. >> he says there's nothing wrong here. >> he said that with donald jr. they had a duty to report. there are seven of them. what was his answer? you just heard it. that is the definition of a nothing burger. that's what you just heard. >> must we keep using that expression? >> sometimes it fits. and even though you put mustard on your burger, which may be the most controversial thing i've heard. that's what he does. does he do as well as kellyanne? you decide. let's get the bottom line from cnn analyst david drubber.

we got an insight into where gorka's head comes from. he is a very good reflection of a lot of the alt-right attacks that i get on my thread. it is eerie how similar the phrasing and language is. so using that as a window, david, do you see that? and what is this strategy that if we attack it as fake, or put it back onto clinton, we'll be in a good position. what is the play here? >> to me, the interview with alisyn. you have -- >> what he wanted to talk about. >> and we did, too. i want to hear hat the plan is for isis, obviously. >> and we also have a further window into their thinking on russia which is to lay off and not press matters. and then as you mentioned, chris, we got the political strategy from day one which was, number one, always attack.

always undermine and in doing so, you cast a shadow on every critical coverage. and by casting a shadow on any critical coverage, the president's base and even a broader republican electorate that has felt for years with some justification that the press is biased toward republicans and so there's a little bit of a lack of trust there never has a reason to doubt any negative coverage about the president. and when you shift matters to hillary clinton, it is like catnip for republicans who, of all the democrats that i've covered, even president obama, i dont think there's anybody that gets the dander of republicans up more than bill and hillary clinton. >> i like that. >> he is sacrificing a very helpful strategic position for the administration. and it's this. i hope you're still watching,

sebastian. this situation with don jr., regardless of any wrongdoing, gives the president of the united states, the white house, to put their arms around this investigation and say, you know what? these russians were trying to get to us. the kremlin. not all russians. there's nothing wrong with being a russian attorney. but they were trying to do this. it's clear they were trying to do this. look what they did to my son. we have to find out how to stop it. >> here's why i believe they won't do it. they say there's nothing wrong with the two nuclear superpowers of the world having a good relationship. their goal is to have a good relationship with russia. so they won't even dignify the questions that come up seemingly every day or every week, about the connection. they won't even go there. they think this is all as you heard him say, sort of this media intervention. and regardless of if they answer our questions there is this investigation continuing by bob mueller. so we can just wait to hear what

the investigation comes up with. it will reach a conclusion. but in the meantime, we take an opportunity when we see the white house folks to say, hey, do you have any response to this? >> right. and i think it's about a -- i mean more so than i've seen with past administrations, you always get within a white house a desire not to second-guess the president and not to undermine the president's agenda and the president's opinion. with president trump, this all gets back to his fascination or desire for whatever reason to coddle vladimir putin in a way that he will not coddle allies of ours like south korea, like the nato alliance. and like he won't coddle other adversaries like iran and north korea, which is good. which is something he shouldn't do. and so what i'm saying here is that a lot of this is the fruit, the poisonous fruit of the president's personal russia policy, which is to not criticize, to try and work

together and move past differences, and that's fine if he's doing it on american terms. and if he was doing that, i think there would be a lot less criticism from the right and the left. >> thank you very much for the bottom line. up next, president trump sending condolences to the families of the marines killed in this military plane crash. we have the latest on this breaking news and the investigation, next. advice. tripadvisor now searches more than 200 booking sites to find the hotel you want and save you up to 30%. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor.

you don't let anything lkeep you sidelined.

come on! that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein, and 26 vitamins and minerals... best one ever! for the strength and energy, to get back to doing what you love. ensure, always be you. time for the five things to know for your new day. "the new york times" reporting donald trump jr. was told in an emale that a russian lawyer he would be meeting with last summer was involved with the kremlin plot to hurt hillary clinton and help his father win the election. lawmakers meet for launch in washington. republicans are tweaking the current health care plan. their hope is to send it to the hill for a vote next week. 16 marines were killed when their plane crashes in a remote

mississippi field. the fbi is on the scene trying to figure out what went wrong. president trump expressing his condolencestwitter to the family. yankees slugger aaron judge is the winner of the all-star home run derby. four of his blasts traveling more than 500 feet. the all-star game will be played tonight in miami. there she goes. >> did you see the wigs? >> what? >> you see the white wigs they are wearing? like a judge from olden days because his name is aaron judge. >> wow. i get it now. >> yankee. for more on the five things to know go to cnn.com/newday for the latest. a tragedy for the u.s. military. john kirby is going to join us next to discuss his very difficult day for our military. as moms, we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b

getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10 to 25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site; muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea; and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines. ask your healthcare professional about the risks and benefits of bexsero and if vaccination with bexsero is right for your teen. moms, we can't wait.

we are following breaking news. at least 16 marines killed after a u.s. military plane crashes in mississippi. the fbi is on scene trying to determine what went wrong. we've heard from the military that there were no survivors.

president trump tweeted this morning, marine plane crash in mississippi is heartbreaking. melania and i send our deepest condolences to all. joining us is cnn military and diplomatic analyst rear admiral john kirby. tough enough to lose our fighting men and women in action. when this happens domestically, we don't know much of the circumstances surrounding this, but what a big blow. 16 lives. >> it's just incredibly tragic, chris. yes, it's a dangerous profession, the military. no question about it. and when these kinds of casualties happen in a peace environment, maybe a training environment, it's all the more dreadful for all those families that have to undergo this. >> why the fbi? >> well, i don't know. that's an interesting point that i've been watching this morning. i'm not quite sure why they're on the scene. that is unusual for a military plane crash. i'm sure that military

investigators are also on scene as well. but i guess we just have to wait and see what they learn and what they're willing to talk about with respect to how this aircraft came to come down. >> and at the same time, the timing of this is never good, obviously. but you have this plane go down. also this other story in the news about someone apparently throwing a backpack with a bomb in it at an air force. it's something that brings into sharp focus who are the good guys and who are the bad guys here. >> well, yeah. let's not jump to conclusions yet on this crash in terms of any sort of -- >> no, there's no suggestion of any wrongdoing. we haven't heard anything. but i'm just saying attacking the military, going after an air force recruiting trip when we see the sacrifice of our men n women before our eyes. >> yeah, there's -- it does speak -- that incident does speak to the incredible disunity in the unit and the way it's being manifested in attitudes

and the vitriolic behavior and rhetoric. i think it is worth note, and worth reminding ourselves that this is an all-volunteer force. every member in uniform will raise their right hand and take a promise to defend the country. they weren't drafted into this. they volunteered to do this. that requires a little bit of a special sacrifice on their part but also requires us as citizens to respect that just all the more. >> you can't say vitriolic rhetoric without saying sebastian gorka on "new day." we know it's artificial. we know this is a tactic or what i call an "attack-tic." you get your direction from the boss about how to conduct yourself and get rewarded with opportunity when you do it well. what do you think we've seen with gorka? this isn't the first time he's come on to play this way. what do you make of that as a window into the approach to

addressing the american people? >> i was a little stunned. obviously he wanted to talk about mosul and the success the coalition has had. it's important that that operation began in october and even months before that under the obama administration. so let's not get into that. but then when he got into the issues they don't want to talk about, things they are defensive about, he spin the news. just spun away from alysyn to deflect it onto other people rather than simply answering the question. i've been saying this for months. if there is nothing there, if they are right about this, if there is nothing to this, then fully embrace these investigations. cooperate with them. just wrap your arms around this whole effort and move on. i don't understand why they are so defensive and get so hyperbollic and shrill when they talk about this. so it's the attitude doesn't comport with the actual words coming out of their mouth.

>> to extend the metaphor, he spins out of bounds. he winds up not moving the ball down the field because every criticism must be fake. there is no legitimate criticism. no question that you can ask if it doesn't support what's going on that is seen as legitimate. so do you really advance the ball when you make it so extreme that way? john kirby, this will be a continuing discussion. as we learn what happened in this story that truly matterses to those 16 military lives. we'll come back to you in get some perspective about how we move forward here. john, always a pleasure. thanks. >> cnn will continue, obviously, to cover that story because cnn newsroom with poppy harlow and john berman picks up after this break. see you tomorrow. winds stirring. too treacherous for a selfie. [ camera shutter clicks ] sure, i've taken discounts to new heights with safe driver and paperless billing. but the prize at the top is worth every last breath.

here we go. [ grunts ] got 'em. ahh. wait a minute. whole wheat waffles? [ crying ] why!

good tuesday morning. i'm poppy harlow. >> i'm john berman. potently explosive words. and one explosive word that's missing. donald trump jr. was told before the meeting he'd be given compromising information about hillary clinton that was part of a russian government effort to helps his father's campaign. russian government effort. those three crucial words, they are new, and very important, especially given the word that is missing. denial. no one in the white house or donald trump's orbit is denying