good evening. thanks for joining us. we begin with the president's koishlted misstatements of facts. continuing because there's a pattern which includes making bold claims unsupported by facts or contradicted by them. leveling serious accusations, allegations about individuals with vague atattribution, unles somebody said somehow counts which it doesn't. in paris, for bastille day, he defended the meeting his son, done junior, had last year with a russian lawyer peddling dirt on hillary clinton. a lawyer he was told was a lawyer from the russian government. he's a wonderful young man the president said, making it sound like donald junior is not the same age as the president. >> i think from a practical

standpoint, most people would have taken that meeting. it's called opposition research, or even research into your oppone opponent. i've only been in politics for two years, but i've had many people call up, oh, gee, we have information on this factor or this person, or frankly, hillary. that's very standard in politics. politics is not the nicest business this the world but it's very standard where they have information and you take the information. >> the lawyer, he said, was not a government lawyer. the meeting went, in his words, very quickly. one of the other two people in the room left quickly. the other one tuned out. the intent to frame the meeting as no big deal. but keeping them honest, the facts that the president glosses over is the opposite. the lawyer may not be a private lawyer. naes not what trump junior knew or thought when he agreed to see her. look at the e-mail from the go-between rob goldstone. emin asked that i schedule a

meeting with you for the attorney who is flying over from moscow this thursday. the other two in the room weren't just random guys. as for who left when and who was or wasn't really paying attention, we only have trump junior's account. and that of the russian lawyer. let's take it at face value for a moment. both he and the president said nothing came out of the meeting. the lawyer, they say, did not bring the dirt, which the president suggested makes it no big deal. again, keeping them honest, the big deal is what trump junior thought he was getting, which is information, presumably intelligence from the government, important enough to bring in kushner and manafort. this is obviously very high level and sensitive information, but it's part of russia and government support for mr. trump. trump junior's reply? if it's what you say, i love it. especially later in the summer. russian gathered dirt on a political opponent and news that the kremlin is backing your

father in the election. sounds like a pretty big deal. remember, his son's biggest complaint about the whole thing is that the woman did not deliver. which brings us to the president's auxiliary defense that we heard today that even if she did bring the goods, the president said it's the sort of thing that happens all the time. keeping them honest, it is utterly, totally, completely the opposite. every campaign professional we've spoken to, republicans, democrats alike, say what's matters, what makes the meeting newsworthy is how uncommon this is. for what should be done when approached the way trump junior was, who are you going to believe the president or president's choice for fbi director? >> let me ask you this. if i got a call from somebody saying the russian government wants to help lindsey graham get reelected, they got dirt on my opponent, should i take that meeting? >> senator, i would think you would want to consult with some good legal advisers before you did that. >> the answer is, should i call the fbi? >> i think it would be wise to

the members of this committee, any threat or effort to interfere with our elections from any nation state, or any nonstate actor, is the kind of thing the fbi would want to know. >> the president did more than just minimize what happened after his son decided to schedule the meeting instead of calling the fbi. he also sought to blame others for the russian lawyer even being in the country, including president obama's attorney general, loretta lynch. >> now, the lawyer that went to the meeting, i see she was in the halls of congress also. somebody said that her visa, or her passport to come into the country was approved by attorney general lynch. now, maybe that's wrong. i just heard that a little while ago. a little surprised to hear that. she was here because of lynch. >> maybe that's wrong, i just heard a little while ago. a spokesman said the former attorney general neither has personal knowledge of the lawyer's travel, pointing out that the state department issues

visas, and the department of homeland security oversees entry into the united states at airports. >> somebody said that her vuz visa or passport to come into the country was approved by attorney general lynch. >> this is the most powerful man in the world, a formal press conference standing next to another head of state, president of france, in a foreign capital, leveling an allegation at the top government official backing up that allegation. serious one. unless, of course, the meeting was no big deal as the president also said it was. backing up his allegation with somebody said. frankly, if we attributed the story containing damaging allegation to somebody, we would be facing a libel lawsuit and deservedly so. the president of the united states and before that candidate trump has made a habit of it. mr. trump also defended his son on the flight over and part of another continuing pattern, he cast out the entire notion that russia hacked the election.

aboard air force one saying, i say we have to protect ourselves no matter who it is. china is very good at this. north korea is very good at this. he also suggested individuals might be responsible. he didn't talk about his imagined individuals weighing 400 pounds. we're going to keep repeating the phrase as long as the president keeps muddying the waters. here's what his own intelligence officials have to say. president trump's current intelligence officials. >> do you believe the january 2017 assessment accurately characterized the extent of russian activities in the 2016 election and its conclusion that russian intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information, and using misinformation in order to influence our elections? simple yes or no would suffice. >> yes, senator.

>> yes, i do. >> yes, i do. >> yes. >> yes. >> more now on the president's trip from cnn's jeff zell any joining us from paris. even though the president has traveled all the way to paris, it seems he can't escape questions regarding russian involvement in the election and lengthy answers as well. >> reporter: good evening, anderson. he can't escape questions. that's for a couple of reasons. one, russian meddling is hardly a local u.s. concern. russian meddling is a concern in every democracy, every place there is elections, including here in france. that is one of the reasons, of course it was on the minds of many people here. french reporters as well. but it was clear in that press conference, you played the sound just a few moments ago, the president was speaking like a father today. he said his son is a good man and there's zero evidence anything happened in that meeting. that did little to quell the concern of republicans on capitol hill. senator chuck grassley first and foremost chairman of the

judiciary committee said he wants to see donald trump junior next week. paul manafort is likely to have a date with congress next week as well. as much as the president wants to move on from this or change the subject, even here in paris he cannot do that. it's not just pesky reporters who are asking this question. it's coming up in his meetings, et cetera. it's also perhaps more importantly on his mind. when he was flying over here last evening, he talked with a group of reporters on air force one. no fewer than five times did he call this a witch hunt. he said it's stirred by democrats, stirred by the media. that is a sign he's not yet accepted this. the reality is republicans on capitol hill in both the house and the senate are leading these investigations. the special prosecutor appointed by his own justice department. so that is something clearly it's on everyone else's mind. but clearly on the top of his mind as well. >> both president trump and the

president of france, they seem to be going far out of their way today to emphasize they have a good relationship, including president trump raising the possibility of some movement on the paris climate accord. >> reporter: no question. so much has happened since that early tense handshake at the end of may in brussels when they had their first meeting. there is a lot to be gained for both of them by having this sort of good relationship here. for macron, he puts france front and center here, shows how important france is as he is building his new leadership. for president trump, he, of course, is a little bit concerned about america being as isolated. but it was on the climate change agreement that he seemed to open the door at least a crack today for a possible change of heart. let's listen. >> i mean, something could happen with respect to the paris accord. we'll see what happens. but we will talk about that over the coming period of time.

and if it happens, that will be wonderful. and if it doesn't, that will be okay, too. but we'll see what happens. but we did discuss many things today, including the ceasefire in syria. we discussed ukraine. we discussed a lot of different topics. we briefly hit on the paris accord. we'll see what happens. >> reporter: now, i think the reality check tonight is there's very little chance of the u.s. going back into that climate accord here, anderson. it was striking watching those two leaders, one 71-year-old president from the united states, one 39-year-old new leader here in france. they both have a lot to gain of being together here. tomorrow they will be together again in the morning for the bastille day parade. you got the sense that the president has used paris as a punch line. so often when he was running for office. today he was filled with flattering his host. >> jeff, thanks very much.

lots to discuss. charles, amy, jeffrey lord and scott jennings. charles, first, on the whole idea that something could happen on the paris climate accord. the president has pulled out of the paris climate accord. when he did, he said maybe we can renegotiate something. the idea that he's going to suddenly backtrack seems ludicrous. >> there's no need for us to struggle to try to make this make sense. the president says whatever pleases the audience that he's pandering to. that's what he does. so whether or not it is true, whether or not it holds any weight, i never put any weight into it. i'm kind of judging him by his actions, and his actions do not dictate that he has any opening on this at all. >> it's interesting, scott, to charles' point, the president talks tough about a lot of things. it is true that when he's in front of somebody else, he seems to -- he was asked about comments he made about paris being, according to his friend jim, who nobody can seem to understand who his friend jim

is, paris isn't paris anymore, it's not the same because of terrorism, and immigration, and yet when he's there and asked about it, he talks about how lovely paris is, and a great city, and because the president, he wants to come back to it. >> the president of the united states is not in france to spit in the face of the french president, to make fun of the french people, he's there to build our alliance with france. i think it makes perfect sense we would get the pomp and circumstance and politeness and normal diplomatic speech that you would expect. >> even on the climate accord? >> look, his position on this is well-known. it was the same in the campaign as it was when he made the decision. i don't anticipate that is going to change. i think he probably thought he was giving a polite answer there. i certainly think republicans don't want him to have a change of heart on that. the reality is, he's there to build a strong relationship with an old ally, and i think he had a pretty successful day doing that. it appears they put any aukwardness in their relationship behind them.

that's a good thing. there's one thing for these two countries, and that's to fight terrorism which the president talked a lot about today. frankly, i think the american people cared a lot about what both of them had to say on the topic. >> the idea that it's standard operating procedure to do what donald trump junior did, which is meet with somebody you believe is representing a foreign government. that's just not factually correct. according to every campaign person we've talked to. >> right. i think it's natural for him to be a dad and talk about how his son's a good kid. >> but he's not a kid. >> i think he was sort of trying to sort of create this sense that he must be forgiven because he didn't really know what he was doing. listen, no one in the white house around him thinks this meeting was not consequential, and the e-mail. don junior's response to what was in the e-mail. it wasn't, oh, the russian government? what do you mean is helping my father? all of them know this is consequential. they're very afraid of what this

means. but his reaction is typical donald trump. it's not surprising at all. he turns it around to what he wants it to be. he's defiant about the political ramifications. he finds someone to blame. he's a very skilled blamer, he's done it his whole life. he will never, ever say anyone around him, especially his family or himself, made a mistake. so he's going to barrel through on this kind of defiant response. even though the people around him are trying to help him succeed, are very worried about what the fallout from this meeting means going forward. because it's the first time that someone close to him showed a willingness, it doesn't mean donald junior is exposed in any way legally, but what it means about his willingness to take that meeting and what that e-mail said is very consequential. >> jeff, we talked about this before. donald trump jr. backtracked saying i would do things differently. do you still say that this is normal behavior to meet with a

representative, or alleged representative of a foreign country? >> i do. on my way here, i was reading a column from december of this past year by michael reagan, president reagan's son who pointed out as this controversy was beginning. that president carter sent the intus trious arm and hammer to the russian embassy in washington to talk about getting some russian influence in the 1980 campaign against then former governor reagan by releasing jewish refuse knicks and the soviet union which would help carter in key states. he also pointed out president carter himself, went to debrenan to make the pitch to the soviets for walter mondale. so yeah, it's been done before. >> do you think it's appropriate? >> i honestly don't think it's that big a deal. you know, should it be

publicized? sure. i said this to you the other night, if we're going to have an investigation, let's open up the whole thing, the whole can of worms about russia. the clinton foundation and hillary clinton and john podesta, let's get it all out there so everybody can see what the involvement was or was not. >> you're saying -- but saying that implies that that stuff hasn't been reported, and the fbi has had plenty of opportunity to look into any of that. and i would assume if there was any there, there would be investigations, because that was looked at and litigated a lot during the campaign. >> well, of course, the question is, why -- >> what there is, there is a real fbi investigation into russia now and the trump campaign. there is not one -- >> the decision was political. >> you're saying the fbi back then, it was intentionally not investigating the clinton foundation? >> a clear bill of indictment of secretary clinton.

and at the end said, there's nothing to see here. we don't need to litigate all that. >> do you believe this is just business as usual, meeting with foreign adversaries' attorneys? >> people call campaigns all the time claiming they have information. it happens a lot of times. it's probably more rare for it to come from a foreign national. the e-mail chain is certainly a little unusual. in hindsight, i've heard donald trump jr. say i would have handled this differently. those of us who have been in campaigns, around the block a few times, would have known immediately what to do with it, which is to send it to the campaign's lawyers and tell you what the right answer is here. the fact that he's saying, i acknowledge i would have handled this differently, and i want to answer questions about it, tells us something about his mind-set. >> you want him to turn over all e-mails to the investigators? >> i want them to do what they said they're going to do, which is cooperate with the investigation. he brought up the fact that hillary was investigated -- the trump folks, kushner, donald

trump jr., they're saying, we're going to cooperate. so as a public posturing matter, i like that. that should give the public confidence that we're going to learn what happened. i think it's fine. >> just in terms of confidence and transparency, charles, donald trump jr. has only gone this far because he was forced to multiple times by "the new york times." >> absolutely. these guys are like a barrel of eels soaked in oil. they're twisting and turning and trying to figure out how to make it be not exactly what it is. what it is, is a list of facts that he agreed to take this meeting, he thought that it was, according to that e-mail, a russian government lawyer, that the russian government was supporting his father, and he did not do the right thing. this whole idea that a 39-year-old man is supposed to get some -- that he's so naive, so innocent, he's just a little boy the way trump was talking about him in paris. no, he's not, he's a grown man. people go to jail much younger

than that for doing the wrong things. he did the wrong thing. there's no way around that. it is highly, highly, highly inappropriate, now we have to wait for mueller to figure out if it's also criminal. it is highly inappropriate. it is not normal. it is not right. >> i'm still thinking about a barrel of eels soaked in oil. what an expression. thanks, everybody. next, fareed zakaria on thement's visit. we'll be right back. new cinnamon frosted flakes are finally here. sweet cinnamon and the frosted crunch you love. well? tastes like victory t. tastes like victory. they're great! heri think i might burst..... totally immersed weekenders. whatever kind of weekender you are, there's a hilton for you. book your weekend break direct with hilton.com

and join the summer weekenders.

i wanted to know where i did my ancestrydna. the most shocking result was that i'm 26% native american. i had no idea. it's opened up a whole new world for me.

♪ we're now in the surprising suggestion the president dropped today in paris, a reminder of the moment he said he was elected to represent the people of pittsburgh, not paris. at the time he was making a case for pulling out of the paris climate accord and had nothing good to say about it. but today he hinted in his words that something could happen. joining us now is fareed zakaria. i don't know if it's just the president's lexicon, i'll have

an announcement in two weeks, or something big's going to happen to tease stuff, or just to be polite. but the idea that there's going to be some sort of -- the u.s. isn't going to pull out of the paris accord seems highly unlikely. >> highly unlikely, but mainly because there was no reason to pull out of it. the paris accord is a series of voluntary agreements that the united states has set, for example, the united states has set its own targets. it can adhere to them or not adhere to them. there's no punishment mechanism. there's not even really a reporting mechanism. the united states could have stayed in the paris accord and done whatever donald trump wanted to do on energy or coal or whatever. he did it for symbolic reasons. it is unlikely he would undo it. >> then why have a paris accord at all? >> that's a good point. it created a certain kind of international norm and a standard, where everyone was trying to reach that standard, particularly countries like china and india, which had never taken part in it.

but the chinese can renege on it as can the united states. so trump's reneging on it was just about sending a signal to his base. so it wouldn't make any sense to renegotiate it. to come back in. >> the president did say, to be fair, when he announced that the u.s. was going to pull out of it, that he was going to be looking to renegotiate it in some way. >> it's 174 countries, the chance that you would have a renegotiation is zero. as everybody who was involved in this has said. i think the important thing to remember is, we take presidential rhetoric very seriously. >> words coming out of the -- >> the words coming out of the president's mouth are very important. think about ronald reagan saying to gorbachev, tear down that wall. george bush sr. after the invasion of kuwait, saying, this shall not stand. these are always measured and consequential. with donald trump that is simply not the case. donald trump just says what he feels at the moment -- it's kind

of impresario performance where he's just saying what sounds right at the moment. i don't think anyone thinks he's going to come back into the paris deal. it's not even clear what that would mean. i don't think he does. but at the moment it seemed like the right thing to say. >> he also reiterated this idea that russia, that his belief that russia was maybe not behind this, that it could have been china, and he went on to say that if it was russia, we wouldn't even know about it. because i guess because they're so good at this sort of stuff. >> you know, that does strike me as somewhat interesting. because it's really part of a pattern. donald trump really dislikes almost every country in the world. he has always said nasty things about whether it's china, mexico, the european allies, the saudis, you know, particularly through the campaign. the one country he's always been favorably disposed to, gives them the benefit of the doubt is the russians. and this is consistent. it actually began about ten years ago. it is interesting coincidentally

when russian money started pouring into the west that he went to moscow, the miss universe thing. he was so fond of vladimir putin that he imagined that he met him. and five times claimed that he had met him, even though we know this is completely untrue. >> that he met them and they had a relationship. >> exactly. but more importantly, he's always said nice things about russia, the russians, the russian government. and this is part of that pattern where he doesn't, for some reason as lindsey graham said, he's the one person in washington who doesn't believe the russians interfered in the democratic process. more importantly, who doesn't want a tough response. and i think that's in some ways the real intellectual puzzle here, why is donald trump so soft on the russians. maybe there's some benign explanation. you can't avoid the fact that uniquely among all the countries in the world, he has nice things to say about russia. >> fareed zakaria, thank you. fascinating. coming up, breaking news in the russia-white house watch,

what the senate intelligence committee is now requesting from donald trump jr. and jared kushner. that's next. hi. i'm the one clocking in... when you're clocking out. sensing your every move and automatically adjusting to help you stay effortlessly comfortable. there. i can even warm these to help you fall asleep faster. does your bed do that? oh. i don't actually talk. though i'm smart enough to. i'm the new sleep number 360 smart bed. let's meet at a sleep number store. dale! oh, hey, rob. what's with the minivan? it's not mine. i don't -- dale, honey, is your tummy still hurting, or are you feeling better to ride in the front seat? oh! is this one of your motorcycling friends? hey, chin up there, dale. lots of bikers also drive cars. in fact, you can save big if you bundle them both with progressive. i'd like that. great. whoo. you've got soft hands. he uses my moisturizer.

see you, dale. bye, rob. 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. neulasta helps reduce infection risk by boosting your white blood cell count, which strengthens your immune system. 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. 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.

or a little internet machine? [ phone ringing ] hi mom. it makes you wonder... shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. [ laughing ] so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. call or go to xfinitymobile.com introducing xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. breaking news. the senate intelligence

committee is requesting more documents from jared kushner and donald trump jr., now that we know at least one e-mail chain shows the willingness to cooperate with the russians. when kushner filled out the form to get a security clearance, the sf-86, he did not disclose the meeting. in fact, he listed zero foreign contacts. this saturday kushner's lawyer said the form was prematurely submitted and he's since added more than 100 calls from more than 20 countries. joining us is the former republican attorney general of virginia, and laura coats. ken, how problematic, or is it problematic in your opinion that kushner has had to revise his security clearance form now three times, that he had to add 100 more names to it? would it be tolerated if he was somebody lower down in the government? >> well, it would be tolerated as an ordinary matter. whether the people he works with would tolerate it is another matter. that's the real difference with family, i think.

but, you know, as these things keep going, the damage is really on their side. it creates a drip-drip approach to addressing whatever is revealed rather than just getting it all out there, and addressing it all at once. so i think they're harmed more by it than anybody else is. and obviously, then as it repeats over a number of different people, perhaps in the family or in the close circle, you start to expect it. and so each form that gets filed, only answers some questions, but then the next question is always, well, what did they forget on this one. >> laura, i think ken makes the good point, the drip, drip, drip of it, it steps on and raises questions about credibility. if you have a witness who tells you, oh, yeah, i've told you everything, and days later, and oh, there's more, and then, oh, yeah, i forgot about that, too. >> it's absurd to think that that would somehow make you seem

more credible, if you say, i prematurely gave the information. prematurely completed a form and signed it and handed it in and told you everything on it was truthful and i attested to it, but i forgot to mention over 100 different things from 20 different countries. it's not only undermining your credibility, but there are actual criminal penalties associated with this sort of thing and for very good reason. the purpose of the form is not simply to educate me on where in the world carmen, san diego game is played. it's actually to tell people the information they need to know to assess your security clearance and whether or not it's appropriate to give one to receive top-secret information. it's not a courtesy. it's actually a requirement for a very good reason. >> ken, you heard the president basically saying there's nothing to see here in regards to his son's meeting with the russian attorney. has donald trump jr. opened himself in your opinion up to any kind of legal exposure here at all? >> no. the short answer is no. laura hit the exposure that

normally arises in these situations. when you're filling out forms, if it is believed, or proven that you have intentionally lied on federal forms, then you can get in trouble for something like this meeting. now, donald trump jr. said, you know, i really would do this differently if i had it to do over again. but let's be really clear -- >> he doesn't have a security clearance, he's not applying -- >> he's not in the jared kushner category at all. he's never been going in that direction. >> right. >> so he's not in that category. it just looks ugly. but let's be really clear. there is no law violated by this meeting, or how it came about. none. zero. and from my own senator, tim kaine, the vice presidential candidate in that race, to be throwing words around like

treason, he's a lawyer, he knows these things. that hyperbole, donald trump jr. has opened the door to hyperbole. but there's not a legal consequence to donald trump jr. for this meeting or how it came about. >> laura, there is a federal law that states that a foreign national shall not directly or indirectly make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value in connection with any federal, state or local election. i've heard different opinions. most people i talked to seem to think it's a stretch to try to apply that to this. do you believe it is? >> i don't think it's a stretch. i do think he's exposed to criminal liability. i do disagree with the concept that he has committed treason, because treason is constitutionally defined that you have to be at war with the other nation, not just have a geopolitical rivalry like we have with russia. the idea of the campaign finance laws could be a sufficient hook. i'm not saying you have all the information, evidence you would need to actually convict or perhaps prosecute, but you certainly have the pendulum swinging back in the direction of criminal liability. because you have the elements that you would actually need to pursue an investigation for that reason. you've got the statements by

this man, donald trump jr., saying he would love to have information. he knows the pretext about of what they're receiving will be of value to them. and remember, the campaign finance laws are about getting something that you don't have to otherwise expend your resources on. certainly, opposition research falls into that category. >> ken, briefly, you disagree? >> i do disagree. we at least characterize it as a stretch, i think, is accurate. and my point isn't that no lawyer couldn't creatively come up with offenses here, but the reality is, this just isn't close. now, if something completely different happened in those 20 or 30 minutes, then what we understand now, then maybe that changes. but it doesn't appear anything changed hands. there was no behavior of the campaign -- >> at this stage all we know really is what donald trump jr. has said and what the russian attorney has said. and it's not under oath. >> well, that's true.

but you have to -- in-kind donations do count. you can have information constitute a violation. that could be a possibility. >> i've got to go. laura, ken, thank you. coming up, an awkward moment in paris today. the senate gop leadership releases a new version of the health care bill. the question now is whether the changes are enough to get back the votes they already lost. we'll have the latest from capitol hill. nick was born to move.

not necessarily after 3 toddlers with boundless energy. but lower back pain won't stop him from keeping up. because at a dr. scholl's kiosk he got a recommendation for our best custom fit orthotic to relieve his foot, knee, or lower back pain, from being on his feet. by reducing shock and stress on his body with every step. so look out world, dad's taking charge. dr. scholl's. born to move.

the energy conscious whopeople among usle? say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear. who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians

it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing. after losing too many republican votes last month, gop leaders released a new version today. ryan nobles joins us with the latest on that. so, how does this bill differ from the previous one? >> well, anderson, there are some significant changes to the bill. but this is by no means the dramatic overhaul that many senators were looking for. let's give you a few of the highlights. this is a 172-page bill. this isn't everything by a long shot. one of the top lines, there's going to be an option for people to buy cheaper plans with fewer benefits. you'll be able to use health savings accounts to pay for your premiums without a tax penalty. there is $45 billion set aside for substance abuse and opioid treatment.

this is a key provision for a couple of senators that are wavering. the big problem with this bill, though, for moderates is the fact that it maintains the deep medicaid cuts that the original bill had in place. that's why there are some that are still sitting on the fence. finally, there is no repeal on the taxes for the most wealthy earners. there are tax cuts in this bill, but the investment tax that was a key provision that some moderates did not want to be in this bill is no longer in it. at this point, anderson, there are still many republicans digesting this and trying to figure out if they can support it. >> how is it being received? does it bring the party together as promised today by mcconnell? >> put it this way, anderson, mitch mcconnell needs 50 votes, and he only has 52 republicans available and there are already two who said they can't support the bill, susan collins and rand paul. we're keeping a close eye on the people who are showing lack of support in the past. among them is nevada's dean heller. this is what he said this

afternoon after reading the bill for the first time. >> everything at this point matters. having that discussion does matter. >> senator, what if mcconnell doesn't get the moderate republicans? >> he's been a good -- he's been working pretty hard at this. he's been a really good individual trying to get to "yes" on this particular piece of legislation. some of us have a little bit different ideas. at this point the conversations i've had with the leader have been very, very good. and i would anticipate i'll have continued conversations with him throughout the weekend. thanks, everybody. >> another conversation that dean heller will have is with the governor of nevada, he's taking his cues as to how it will impact his state through the governor. today the governor said he has major concerns about this bill as it's currently written. >> joining me now, former economic adviser to the trump campaign, steven moore, and democratic economist austin goldsby. former chairman of the council of economic advisers under president obama. steven, first of all, what do you make of the latest version of the bill? are the changes enough to get

both conservatives and moderates onboard? >> it's interesting, you guys just mentioned that the two no votes right now, rand paul and susan collins. they're on opposite sides of the etiological perspective. this is a very delicate balancing act for mitch mcconnell. every time you move it to the left you lose a moderate and every time you move it to the left you lose a conservative. i think at the end of the day i think rand paul will be a yes vote. i think they will get to 50 votes. it may take a few more weeks, and may have to cajole somebody and twist some arms. what i like about the new version, i do like the idea that ted cruz has, basically allows people to buy much cheaper plans to kind of opt out of the obamacare regulations. if you do that, especially for young people, they're going to be able to cut their costs by half, or maybe even, you know, more than half, by having that option. what i don't like is the fact that they did retain those taxes, the increases on the investment.

i think that really hurt the economy. we need to get rid of that. >> austin, what do you think of the cruz amendment? >> look, the cruz amendment is atrocious. it's literally going to take us back to the dark ages when insurance companies largely competed by figuring out how to entice the healthy to sign up for insurance, and how to exclude the sick. >> why is it going to do that? >> the cruz plan will allow insurance companies to create policies that are really cheap for people who don't have preexisting conditions. and so that is why the bill had succeeded in unifying some people, not the republicans, but it has unified the doctors, the nurses, the hospitals, the aarp, the emts, and the vast majority of the voters against it. because it's going to send us back to the days where the insurance system wasn't broad based.

>> steven, when people at home hear what austin just said about the opposition to it, seemingly in the medical community from a wide spectrum, should that mean something to them? >> well, no, look, i disagree with austin's analysis here. before obamacare took effect, 90% of americans did have insurance, and the vast majority of them were, as you know, were happy with insurance. the worry was this is why obama said, if you like your plan, you'll be able to keep it. if you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep it. what's happened as a consequence of obamacare is everybody's costs have gone up. what's happened is a lot of people who are healthy can't afford the health insurance under obamacare. you're seeing some families paying $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 more a year than they did previously because of obamacare's mandates. the way i feel about this, this is america. if you want to buy a plan that is stripped down and basically gives you basic coverage if something catastrophic happens to you, you break your leg or get a disease, you should be

able to have that kind of policy. if you want a different policy -- i mean, austin, why should everybody have to have the same policy? >> look, my only observation is the following. if the characteristics of this bill are good, then why are they rushing to try to have health and human services give a score rather than the congressional budget office? >> because we don't trust the cbo anymore. >> the more you hear about this bill, the more you're going to hate it. they don't want people to read it. any republican that votes for this, it is going to stick to them like a bad smell. and a lot of them will lose their job for voting for it. >> you know what, in terms of the politics, austin, the political repercussions of not getting rid of obamacare for republicans in 2018 are much worse than they are if they pass this. look, it will be judged ultimately, anderson, by whether this reduces premiums for americans. because this is a big class of american families that can't

afford it. most people just want a plan they can afford so they can have other money to do other things. look -- >> we've got to go. >> not too many people are saving $2,500 a year as you promised. >> that's the secret to the new plan, never get sick and you'll be fine. >> thanks very much, guys. back to paris, why president trump's greeting to the french first lady is raising some eyebrows overseas. this summer, people are experiencing all the excitement chevy has to offer. ahhhh. oh boy. i'm looking straight up. holy smokes. i can't tell i'm towing anything. wow. that's the jam right there. go for thrilling drives and deals at the chevy summer drive. i want to go to the chevy dealership right when i get home. get the last of the 2017 traverse lt models with 15% below msrp. that's over fifty-six hundred dollars on this chevy traverse. find new roads at your local chevy dealer. what's going on here? um...i'm babysitting. that'll be $50 bucks.

you said $30. yeah, well it was $30 before my fees, like the pizza-ordering fee and the dog-sitting fee... and the rummage through your closet fee. who is she, verizon? are those my heels? yeah! yeah, we're the same size...in shoes. with t-mobile taxes and fees are already included, so you get four lines of unlimited for just $40 bucks each. the price we say is the price you pay. i enjoy the fresher things in life. fresh towels. fresh soaps. and of course, tripadvisor's freshest, lowest prices. so if you're anything like me... ...you'll want to check tripadvisor. we now instantly compare prices from over 200 booking sites... ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. go on, try something fresh. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,...

isn't it time to let the real you shine through? maybe it's time for otezla (apremilast). otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months,... with reduced redness,... thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you're allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts... or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight... and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea,... nausea, upper respiratory tract infection... and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you. tech: when you schedule with safelite autoglass, you get time for more life.

this family wanted to keep the game going. son: hey mom, one more game? tech: with safelite, you get a text when we're on our way. you can see exactly when we'll arrive. mom: sure. bring it! tech: i'm micah with safelite. mom: thanks for coming, it's right over here. tech: giving you a few more minutes for what matters most. take care! family: bye! kids singing: safelite® repair, safelite® replace. when you switch to progressive. as easy as saving $600 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!

sort of an awkward moment today between president trump and french president macron. what he's said has been provoking strong reactions. cnn's kate bennett is here with more. what did he say to the french lady? >> he specifically commented on what good shape she was in but whether it was a gaffe or a an effusive compliment, what he was really doing was commenting on her appearance and saying she was in remarkably good shape. >> you're in such good shape. >> now, we asked the white house for comment on this moment. they didn't get back to us.

it's difficult to hear the audio and understand the context of it but this is something we've seen from the president before when a cowle of weeks ago if you remember he spoke to that irish reporter in the oval office, mentioning the beautiful irish press is here and she has a great smile. so for the president this is likely something that felt complimentary. however, it can also be construed as boundaries where women's appearances are concerned. >> is this the first time the president trump has met the first lady of france? >> no, it's not. they were together just last week in hamburg. the two couples set side by side at the performance of the philharmonic at the g20. and even back in may at the g7 in italy, they met there as well. they have known each other and interacted before. >> all right. kate bennett, thanks very much. with me now is michael d'antonio and gloria borger. gloria, what do you make of this interaction? >> well, at one level, of course, this is a president who is used to performing but not used to any kind of protocol and this would not be the way you would assume that a president of

the united states would greet a first lady of another country. i think if you read between the lines here, honestly, anderson, what he is saying is for a 64-year-old woman, you look pretty good. and she seemed to me -- and again, i'm seeing her from the back, she didn't quite know how to take it and kind of moved on and seemed to be a bit of an awkward moment. >> i don't think we've done a good job of chryoning it. i think he turned to the president of france and repeated it and said that she was in good shape. >> right. and, you know, the president of france is much younger than his wife. in fact, we were doing a little math before. and there is a quarter century difference between both of these couples only in reverse directions. and, you know, i think she seemed a little -- sort of like she wanted to get out of that moment. this is a president, as kate was

saying, who pays an awful lot of attention to appearance. >> i saw an earlier chyron where -- and i'm told that cnn has not confirmed that is what he said. michael, you know donald trump well. you wrote a book about him and spent time with him. does this surprise you? >> not at all. gloria is correct. he does have an entertainer's instinct. i don't know if you've noticed this, but i've seen that he often offers a quip to a foreign leader when they're standing together. he tries to illicit a laugh. i think he wants to be charming and this is an example of that but he obviously has gone astray and this happens i think more often when he's fatigued, his brain says something and it comes out of his mouth when in another moment he would have had the energy to restrain himself. >> gloria, i can't help but wonder if this is the kind of thing that people who like this president see it one way and people who don't like this president see it another way and say look, this is much ado about nothing. he's just giving a compliment.

to what you say what? >> you know, look, i don't think it's a big deal. i think it may not be what protocol demands but this is donald trump. and he likes to compliment women and he likes to make the small talk, as michael was talking about. and if were meeting a spouse of someone in new york city, he might say, gee, you're in great shape. you look terrific. i'm not quite sure -- >> there's also the fascinating sort of handshake protocol that he's not only had with the president of france but sort of the two-handed hug he gave the first lady, which is a gesture we saw before that he used with michelle obama at the inauguration. >> you know, the french embassy actually contacted me about handshaking to discuss donald trump. >> really? >> yes. >> what did they want to know from you? >> they wanted a little bit of insight how you handshake with this guy. because they've seen him wrestle with the prime minister of japan, and macron did quite well. he was prepared for it.

>> i noticed this time he did the one handshake, but macron put the other hand on top. how much do they practice this sort of stuff? >> the other thing that came to mind, as gloria was speaking about the entertainment aspect of this is, president trump also considers himself kind of a hollywood guy and, you know, if you're out in hollywood, everybody talks about how great you look and, boy, have you had some work done? and it's not a bad thing to say. >> i'm not sure have you had some work done is a good thing to say, even in hollywood. >> asking for your surgeon. you recommend me? >> mike dantonio, thank you. gloria, thank you. coming up, the politics of washington are following president trump to paris, meeting with a russian lawyer is not dying down. can we push the offer online? legacy technology can handcuff any company. but "yes" is here. you're saying the new app will go live monday? yeah. with help from hpe, we can finally work the way we want to. with the right mix of hybrid it, everything computes.

yet up 90% fall short in getting key nutrients from food alone. let's do more. add one a day men's complete with key nutrients we may need. plus heart-health support with b vitamins. one a day men's in gummies and tablets. i'm the one clocking in... when you're clocking out. sensing your every move and automatically adjusting to help you stay effortlessly comfortable. there. i can even warm these to help you fall asleep faster. does your bed do that? oh. i don't actually talk. though i'm smart enough to. i'm the new sleep number 360 smart bed. let's meet at a sleep number store.