hello. i'm jim sciutto in for wolf blitzer. 1:00 p.m. here in washington. 7:00 p.m. in paris, 8:00 p.m. in jerusalem. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us. and we begin with breaking news surrounding a secret meeting last summer between trump campaign officials and a russian lawyer. telling cnn other people were there, in fact, besides those who previously had been disclosed. the associated press revealing today a russian lobbyist was also there meeting with donald

trump jr., jared kushner and paul manafort. cnn justice reporter shimon prokupecz is with me here and jessica schneider live at the white house. shimon, tell us what we know about this lobbyist? this was a well-known and fairly influential figure? >> yes. quite influential and quite well-known among a lot of journalists and lawmakers. we've talked to hill. people talked to him. lawmakers talked to him. his name is rinat ak met shihme. doing work for a lawyer, for this woman who sort of scheduled this meeting. kind of was in this meeting with the trump folks as well, and don junior and jared kushner. and so he was hired by her to do some of the lobbying on this magnitsky act. >> a major issue, penalizes russian officials al aguards.

>> something the lawyer is working hard to overturn. that's right. she hired him to do some of this work and he was in this meeting. a couple questions surrounding him. that he's an intelligence official and -- >> do we know that to be true? >> we don't have that independently. just back in, actually, in april, the head of the judiciary committee, on the senate side, sent a letter to the department of homeland security where he was asking questions about him. about rinat, and he wrote "that he's a russian immigrant to the united states, who has been accused of acting as an unregistered agent for russian interests and apparently has ties to russian intelligence. this is senator chuck grassley, just in april wrote this letter. >> the gop committee chairman. >> correct. interesting. now in the news. >> right. >> so the question now is going to be whether or not the fbi was aware of him. we have not indication that the fbi was aware of him. this meeting took place in june.

the fbi investigation doesn't start until july. and, also, you know, if he was of concern to the fbi, you would think they would have been tracking him already and eastern this lawyer, this woman, if she was of concern to the fbi here works as a foreign intelligence officer they would have been tracked by the fbi. so far we have no indication they knew this meeting was taking place. is this something they just missed or was this something they were not concerned about? >> jessica schneider, i'll have difficulty counting the number of stories and descriptions of the meeting in the last just six, seven day, but this is one more change, is it not, to the white house, to donald trump jr.'s account who was at this meeting and what this meeting was about? >> it is, jim. just with donald trump jr. himself, changed his statement twice. the past week, all indications coming from the white house and donald trump jr. himself were that the only people inside this

june 2016 meeting were donald trump jr., then campaign chair paul manafort, jared kushner as well as this russian lawyer, natalya veselnitskaya. all of those ind iications came from donald trump jr. himself who's story fluctuated. saturday night he issued the first statement saying he met with this person lrgly to discuss russian adoption. interesting to know in that statement he referred to it at "the person" indicating only one person. then, of course, we heard from him clay firifying in a stateme sunday he did meet with a russian lawyer. he said he was promised some dirt on hillary clinton. he said he didn't end up getting that dirt, getting that information. instead, the conversation shifted again to russian adoptions, but, of course, there were two different statements, but then donald trump jr. tried to put 0 point on it, going on that interview tuesday night with conservative host john hannity.

take a listen. >> as far as you know as far as this incident is concerned this is all of it? >> this is everything. this is everything. >> so now indication that anyone else was present at that meeting. of course, donald trump jr. has consistently said his father knew nothing of this meeting. that's something the president himself also said. saying he didn't know about it until several days before those e-mails were released. of course, president trump while he was in france referred to his son as a wonderful young man. stressing he didn't know anything about the meeting but now, of course, we do know. a source tells cnn more people were in the meeting and from the associated press a russian-american lobbyist. one thing to note, however. when donald trump jr. released those e-mails tuesday, there were several e-mails in that chain. all of them between him and rob goldstone, the publicist that set up this meeting. interestingly, in that e-mail chain, rob goldstone said this, he said, i will send the names of two people meeting with you for security so that pointed

late to to the fact there may have been someone else. now we know there was someone else, in addition to that russian lawyer. of course, it was the russian-american lobbyist, rinat akhmetshin and we know he was there, confirmed it to the associated press. jim, we're hearing from white house officials, they say that aides are aware of these changing stories, and, of course, are not pleased with it. jim? >> jessica schneider at the white house. shimon prokupecz, thanks very much. immediate reaction to the breaks news. republican congressman adam kinslinger, welcome. you've had a hard time keeping track of this, supposedly transparency but details held tight until revealed by various media outlets. what does this say to you about this lack of clarity coming from the president's son on this meeting? >> it's hard to say exactly what it means, because i'm not in the mind of how they're doing it. what i will tell you is if i was

advising the white house i would say, look, august of this information, juthis -- all this information, get it out there. any contacts. it will come out. the longer the story changes, the more the story changes, the more people begin to wonder. so get all of this information out there. i would advise the white house to talk about some of the anti-russian things you're doing. syria. let's get the sanctions bill done et cetera and i would say all of this information,ut it out there on the table, because it's coming. and so let's just get it done. >> congressman kinzinger, if a contact reached out to you and said, and you're in a campaign, fighting a hard-fought campaign and said they have information that might be helpful to you, damaging to your opponent and its source from the russian government. how would you reacti? >> save the e-mail. right the phone call down. notify the fbi of the contact that just happened, and then they would determine if they want me to take the meeting for counter espionage reasons or not

take the meeting. that is standard practice. even our great friends in canada saying we have information on behalf of the government of canada, i would contact the fbi. this is -- the thing people need to remember. we do intelligence very differently than the russians do. they don't have fsb, former kgb agents walking around with a kgb uniform. they use cutouts. people near association with the government. friends of friends, et cetera to begin to test the waters, to see information. see the, whether or not they can pass information or get clues, et cetera. and it appears that this is the russian government's attempt to try to do this. i don't know what the outcome is. >> was it unethical, un-american if not illegal to not inform the fbi of that meeting and the intention of the meeting? >> i don't know the laws of it. seen law experts saying technically nothing illegal about it. i don't know. i don't know espionage law that

well. i know it's improper and in a position, as an elected official or running for office or in a public, i guess, situation like that, it really is incumbent on you to do it. whether anything came out of this meeting or not, the fact is you need to expose this operation happening, because these people may go from donald trump jr. to somebody in the clinton campaign, or somebody in the sanders campaign or wherever, to try to do this, and we need to know that and stop it which it happens. >> there's been, from the beginning here, this is such a broad investigation into russia. the meddling as well as possible connections and contacts between trump aides and russian s durin the campaign and always a question of collusion hanging out there. we've heard repeatedly for months from the president and from others on down saying there's no evidence of collusion. it's a media hoax, conspiracy, et cetera. you're not on the investigating committees. as a republican congressman and someone with interest in your country, do you see the revelation of this meeting and

the stated intention of this meeting at least as evidence that needs to be tracked down to see if, in fact, there was collusion cooperation? >> absolutely. evidence that needs to be tracked down. i think basically in reading media and media reports and talking in the halls here, i gather certain information about what's going on but not at informed as the committee or as robert mueller. that's where that determination will come out of, either exonerating or making a declaration. what i worry about in the long term is any coordination whatsoever, collusion, not collusion, anything, with a foreign government in an election risk undermining the whole republic and democracy. my tern isn't about 2018. i think republicans need to understand that the russians will turn on republicans quickly. because they don't like republicans or democrats's they hate americans. their goal is to undermain faith in the institution of democracy and elections. and so we have to defend against that in a huge, huge and serious way. >> do you -- you're one of the

few republicans who in public will criticize, for instance, taking this meeting, but also just the larger issue of the administration's lack of attention to the threat from russia. and lack of attention it seems to the importance of russia meddling in the election. for folks at home, have you noticed any change among your republican colleagues in -- in how disappointed, whether that's the word? angry? are they at the administration's handling of this so far? is anything changing in the republican caucus? >> it's hard for me to sense. it's something you have to ask each member individually. i think with every new revolution kind of the feeling is, why don't you just get all the information out there? this kind of steady every two weeks something new is, is tiresome, and we know this information's going to come out. robert mueller at least will put it in his report. i think there is frustration in terms of, that the messages from

the white house, we're trying to do health care, tax reform. we have big-stroke things to do out here, and we need a white house messaging those issues to get it done. and so i think there's frustration there, but a lot of, again, you know, we don't have all the details. let's sit back. let's get all of the results, all the inputs and see what comes out of it. >> does that reluctance to get all of the details out there, that we've seen repeatedly, and we've seen it play out just in the last few days. does that reluctance indicate to you that the administration has something to hide? >> not necessarily. that also -- that could indicate that. it could indicate that, you know, they just simply don't have that kind of plan together. so i don't know, and i think to jump to that conclusion would be too big at this point, but, again, i think -- get your message together. the american people will find out all the details. put them out there. we deserve to know this. but then we can move on out here in washington to our big agenda, which donald trump and us were

september out to do. >> congressman kinzinger, thanks for taking the hard questions. >> you bet. coming up, the president wrapping up another trip abroad. a look at his time in france and what this round's handshake diplomacy means for the two nations ties. and later, look what the president comes home to. the latest on health care, e-mails, rush and more. when heartburn hits fight back fast with new tums chewy bites. fast relief in every bite. crunchy outside. chewy inside. tum tum tum tum new tums chewy bites. our 18 year old wase army in an accident.'98. when i call usaa it was that voice asking me, "is your daughter ok?" that's where i felt relief. we're the rivera family, and we will be with usaa for life.

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. new the city mini shadow palette find your city mini state of mind. ...from maybelline new york. our purest color pigments curated for city inspired looks. maybelline's new city mini shadows. make it happen. maybelline new york.

♪ [ applause ] ♪ those were pictures of the bastille celebrations in france. soldiers spelling at the name nice. the victims of that horrible terror attack on the one-year anniversary. remember covering that very well. french presidentvited president guest of honor of those proceedings. the 100th anniversary of the world first war and the president assigned "friendship through the ages." president and first lady are on

their way back to the u.s. now. and joined by the french ambassador to the united states. mr. ambassador, thanks very much for taking the time. the relationship between trump and macron, perhaps trump and france, you could say, not particularly warm in recent months. you can say that president trump appeared to endorse macron's opponent in the race. so the background, a difficult setup to this meeting's how do you think the meeting went in the end? >> very well, i think. first, the symbolic aspect. the decoration. really, the friendship between our two countries. we are the oldest ally of the united states since 1778. we were together during the two world wars. so it was, i think, a very strong symbolic message to have the american forces actually marching on the champs-elysees on the national day with your president in attendance. >> but the fact is there are real disagreements.

one being global climate change, and america's, in effect, withdrawal. the president hinted at something, president trump, maybe we'll see change there's. any substantive result on that issue coming out of this meet g meeting? >> i'm going to comment on policy. but american president always said he was open to what he calls negotiations of the paris agreement. we have always said that really the agreement is an agreement. we can change it, but we are ready to discuss with our american friends what will help them to remain in the agreement. >> is that a renegotiation, though ask because you need 200 some odd nations to sign on as well. exactly. i think you know, in the climate change issue and the paris agreement, you have the paris agreement itself and also the national decoration which is presented by each member state, and so, for instance, the u.s. may pretty well change its

national decoration. presented by the obama administration. >> there has been a lot of talk, not just by leaders of u.s. allies, but also adversaries as to how world leaders handle, manage, donald trump. and there's been some talk that, well, one way to do is, is you compliment, you give a warm welcome. you make him seem and feel welcome and big, and i wonder if in this reception here, did you send something of that, that macron said, listen, this is the american president. we have to deal. we are allies. so i'm going to be his best friend, in effect? >> actually, we the french, we give a warm welcome to all of our guests. so the president of the united states was our guest, and so we gave him a warm welcome. no. you have to understand that the problem that we are facing in europe right now, we have the russian challenge. we have terrorism. we have migrations. really is leading us to say more

than ever we the europeans and we the americans, we have to be together. and that i think, that's the message of the president. i think the last sentence of president macron was that, nothing will ever separate us, france and the united states, and i think that's what something that we should remember of this really great visit of president trump. >> there was quite a moment in the good-bye, this now famous handshake. and handshakes have become sort of a test in all of president trump's interactions. not just with the french president. i'm going to play the video here for our viewers. it lasted i think we counted something along 30 seconds or so? and it looks to some perhaps as that neither wanted to let go first. what's your read of that handshake? was it a little bit of an arm wrestling match? >> of course, no. really, that's washington, d.c. reading. i think it was very, very warm. very friendly. look with the two wives. i think it's wonderful.

it's really great. it shows that the visit has been quite a success. that the two men and also their wives are getting along well together. >> final question. we know that the french people and i'm not going to ask you to speak for the entire french nation, but when you look at surveys. they do not particularly like president trump. does a trip like this, though, we know that his wife, for instance, got a good reception by the public in france. does a trip like this, do you think, move the needle how the french view president trump? >> first, saying there would be demonstrations against president trump. there was no demonstrations in paris and a poll saying, do you aprive of the invitation of president trump by president macron and the answer was 59%, yes. because, you know, there is donald trump, but he is the president of the united states. and we respect him as the president of the united states. and especially on bastille day. >> a moment to wish you a very happy bastille day. hope you enjoy it.

i'm sure you'll be celebrating tonight. >> thank you. stunning new details about the secretive meeting involving among others the eldest son of the president and a russian lawyer, and a lobbyist and foreign aide present as well. we'll discuss much more with my panel when we come back.

there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time.

now i can start relaxing even before the vacation begins. your vacation is very important. that's why booking.com makes finding the right hotel for the right price easy. visit booking.com now to find out why we're booking.yeah!

we are following breaking news involving that secret meeting between top trump campaign officials and a russian lawyer last summer. cnn learning within the last few hours that other people were in fact at this meeting. other than what was previously disclosed by donald trump jr. and the administration.

russian lobbyist rinat akhmetshin was also there. this lobbyist is known to u.s. government officials. earlier this year in a letter to homeland security, republican senator chuck grassley requested, "all information on akhmetshin" describing aim ae i acting as a russian agent and reportedly with ties to the russian government. i understand you spoke to the ranking democrat on the intelligence committee. strong words from him on this, adam schiff? >> say be absolutely he wants the house intelligence committee to interview them and anybody else at the meeting. questions who else was at the meeting. he himself does not know that. and raising significant concerns about jared kushner's own

security clearance, if he omitted key information, should be disqualifying. as well as mr. schiff responding that the house intelligence committee's investigation is moving frustratingly slow. schiff responding to that and calls for the former trump adviser to testify soon before his committee. >> congressman, what was your reaction to seeing these reports of this russian-american lobbyist being in the meet are at trump tower with donald trump jr. >>? yes. another disturbing set of facts. it's alleged this additional person has backgrounds in russian intelligence. and was involved in litigation in new york where there were allegations that he was involved in illegally hacking a rival company, and publishing the results of that. i think whether this person has an intel background or not, the message was very clear from the trump campaign.

they welcomed the help of the russian government. that message was certainly sent privately by donald trump jr. in those e-mails, where he said he would love to get their help. those were also sent very publicly by the president himself speaking quite openly saying, hey, russians if you're listening, hack hillary clinton's e-mails you'll be richly rewarded and indeed the russians have been rewarded. plainly, this russian attorney, this other third party, if they were present, they were there to both deliver a message as well as receive a message and plainly moscow understood only too well this is conduct the trump campaign would really appreciate. >> reporter: do you know if this individual did, in fact, have ties to russian intelligence? >> i don't know the answer to that. certainly that's something our committee's going to want to find out. exactly who was in that meeting, what their roles were. and we're going to want to know about their travel to the country. and the terms of the russian lawyer, under what auspices, but

one thing is plain even from donald trump jr.'s admissions. they went into that meeting knowing they were receiving help from the russian government wanting to get that help. they did not disclose it and indeed did everything they could to conceal it. conceal the contents of the meeting. only when they were forced to confront the fact that the press had those e-mails, did we get a full sense about the whole purpose behind that meeting. so deeply disturbed me from beginning to end and yet every day we learn more to concern us about the trump campaign's willingness to work hand in hand with the russian government. >> reporter: when did you learn about this meeting? >> well, i can't go into what the committee is aware of and at what point. but there's aspects of this that are very important and add additional -- facts to our

investigation. and are going to need to be fully vetted and investigated. >> reporter: will you want to bring this russian-american lobbyist to the commit and interview him? >> absolutely. absolutely. >> reporter: how many people were in this meeting, do you know? >> i think this is still an unresolved question. one thing we can say with great surety at this point, we can't rely on a single representation coming from donald trump jr. or the trump add mministration abo this. time and time they've had meetings and dissembled about the contents of the meeting and so one of the very basic facts we have to get to the bottom of, just who was at this meeting. >> reporter: do you know if this representative for this russian singer/songwriter was also at the meeting at all? we've heard reports possibly that person might have -- >> i don't know who all was

present. and that's certainly a very important fooct oact to our investigation. >> reporter: you also said you believe jared kushner's security clearance should be perhaps suspended? what's your basis for saying that? >> if he didn't disclose on his sf-86 that he was having knithi meeting and renewed clearance are t forms still didn't disclose it and didn't disclose the true purpose of the meeting, in a absolutely should be disqualifying in terms of a security clearance. those are the allegations. we still want to get to the bottom of them, but whatever agency holds his clearance needs to be doing an investigation. i am confident of this. anybody else applying for a clearance under these facts would be denied that clearance. >> reporter: has this camp were cooperative with the house intelligence committee, the jared kushner, cooperative in providing records and documents so far? >> we are in communication with his counsel. i don't want to comment beyond

that. >> reporter: do you know when you may talk to him? >> i'm not prepared to comment on that. >> reporter: we talked to mike conway today expressing concerns about the pace of this investigation. saying going frustratingly slow. his words. do you share those concerns and why is it going slow? >> i certainly share the concern that we need people to be responsive in terms of our document requests. we want to make sure we have the appropriate documents before we interview witnesses. but an investigation like this i can tell you from experience takes time to do. because you do have to get the documents first. you do have to bring in witnesses that lead you to more witnesses, and this is a -- an investigation global in scope. that will take time and that is at times frustrating. but if we're going to be thorough, do it right, we need to be thorough. >> reporter: going into 2018? >> i don't want to comment how long it will take. we all feel a sense of urgency, we'd all like to get to the

bottom of this as soon as possible. at the is a system time same ti facts privately and publicly and that continues the investigation. >> reporter: last night, cancelled testimony. why did you cancel his testimony? >> i wouldn't rely completely on mr. goldstone's representations but bottom line, the witness interviews are scheduled at the convenience of the investigation not to suit witnesses. we let them speak about it however they want. reality, we have a certain order of investigation in terms of receiving documents. schedules witnesses, of course, coordinate with the senate, with the special council. our decisions on scheduling are made based on what's best for the investigation not for any particular witness. >> reporter: do you know when you'll talk to mr. stone? >> we'll come before the committee. he's a person of interest. i'm not ready to comment on a date. >> reporter: has the special counsel told you not to

interview witnesses involved with the trump tower meeting? >> i won't comment on our discussions september to sexcep coordinating making sure we're not intruding on his equities. not saying that on behalf of mr. stone's case but as a general matter doing our best to coordinate multiple axes with our schedules, documents production, significance of witnesses, preliminary witnesses, coordination with the senate, coordination with bob mueller. that's what's guiding our timing, not any particular witnesses desires. >> reporter: have you talked to special council's office about the donald trump jr. meeting? >> i don't want to get into particulars. >> reporter: but you do want to talk to everybody involved in that donald trump jr. meeting? >> absolutely. >> reporter: thank you, sir. appreciate it. >> thanks. >> reporter: see you. >> jim, a lot of questions for the house intelligence committee

about the meeting who was in the meeting and whether or not this russian-american lobbyist did, in fact, have ties to russian intelligence, and also there, jim, defending the pace of this investigation, the house intelligence committee is conducting. of course, that last night scrapping this testimony that was expected later this month for roger stone, that former trump adviser, making it very clear, adam schiff did just there, they still do plan to talk to roger stone, and also signaling they're in communications with the special counsel's office, not saying whether or not the special counsel in any way waived them off in interviews roger stone or gave information about that trump tower meeting. so a lot of questions for this committee as it tries to probe and learn more about this meeting. looks like it's not going away anytime soon, jim. >> manu raju on the hill. thank you. and bring in shimonprokupecz,

and from new york, retired fbi adversaries james aliano. and shimon a russian lawyer came from russia, actually u.s. citizenship. dual citizenship. were be subpoenaed? absolutely. nothing stopping the committee from subpoenaing him. requesting to talk to him to investigate him. which properly, at this point, will happen. the other thing interesting to see if the fbi will try to talk to him. >> not what's key about that, it's a non-trump ally who was in the meeting and can give his view of what was going on. who can be subpoenaed. of course, the russian lawyer, non-trump ally, can't be subpoenaed because she's russian. >> that's right. he's given his view. spoke to the associated press and said no big deal. this meeting kind of turned into something it wasn't supposed to be's he was expecting it to be more serious, but then it turned into something else. he's kind of already made statements about it, it's out in

the public now. we'll see. >> aboby philip, following the story. changed multiple times in the span of a week. almost every day. any indication of an opening left others were there besides the russian lawyer? >> not much information given. no one said these were the only people in that meeting. it's clear that's because they weren't the only people in that meeting. we still don't know who was all, all of the people who were potentially there. that remains an open question. i think right now you have lawyers for a lot of people who were in that meeting. for jared kushner. for paul manafort. for don junior, all giving different sides of the story, because everyone is trying to protect themselves here. >> right. >> i think there's a recognition in the white house that this meeting is a very serious problem. they don't want to say too much, because many people,

particularly the folks in the white house, don't know what they don't know about this meeting. >> john kirby, in a lot of important meetings in your life with principles. is it acceptable to not mention this additional person? keep in mind, the whole point of the meeting was initially hidden. right? to talk, saying it was about adoption, when in fact it was about damaging information for hillary clinton? is this acceptable? not just a random person, a translator, a friend of a friend but a well-known lobbyist pushing for change in u.s. policy, not to mention reports and questions whether or not he had an intelligence past. >> the short answer to the question, no, it's not. left off when they originally had a chance to disclose. passed on that. a second time to amend your security clearance application to include this lawyer and still not, that given opportunity, not mention another guy who obviously had some concerning ties to russian intelligence. it boggles the mind.

look, i think anybody who loves this country, if you get a call from somebody representing a foreign government saying they want to help you, intervene in our election, it should set off alarm bells. troubling for at least don junior and maybe others, it set off a dinner bill. a chance to get a feast and help themselves along. that's what's really troubling here. >> that's not a partisan point of view. the president's own fbi nominee said exactly that. someone offers you that, call the fbi. gop representative add an kinzinger on, got an offer like that, call the fbi. seems straightforward. you had advantage of being with the fbi as a are rm f former la enforcement official. does it matter, part of the donald trump jr. defense is, came in saying they had damaging information on clinton. didn't bring it. therefore it doesn't matter? does it matter?

>> i agree with you and the admiral. the standard for ethical behavior is not predicated on solely if the activity is illegal. whether or not this fits the narrow statute that collusion or obstruction of justice would fit into. what's unsettling here is i think that donald trump jr. and obviously the president in the defense of his son, they're applying situational ethics. you can't be a good person, trustworthy and honorable? learned that at west point and as an fbi agent. our motto, fidelity, integrity, honesty. when you agree and say, i love it and you're willing to meet with somebody, whether or not there are in fruits to be gathered from that meeting or not, you're guilty of unethical behavior in my estimation. >> i saw you nodding john kirby. >> couldn't agree more. said it far better than i did. absolutely right. this just -- again, you get an e-mail like this. any kind of information like that, coming from a foreign

government. particularly in election season. goodness! you have an obligation to notify, and to let the law enforcement, any intelligence community know about that. i mean, look, i don't know anything about politics or opposition research. i grew up in the navy, but this just is stunning to me that instead of setting off alarms, they raced to this as a chance to gain an advantage. >> amazing it's not a baseline agreement? right? we're all americans. regardless of party. a foreign adversary who -- not just any foreign adversary but one frequently described as one of america's greatest threats, offering help there. >> it's worth noting that, despite what's said publicly, there is widespread belief among people in the white house and former campaign aides this meeting should never have happened. everyone i've talked to has said, no one should have agreed to this meeting, and the person in particular who they felt like should have stopped it was paul manafort. the only one in the room who had

previous political experience, who would have seen the red flags because the entire e-mail chain had been forwarded to him including the information about the fact that the russian government wanted to help donald trump's candidacy. that -- the white house people, trump campaign aides, all agree that the meeting should never have happened. >> why does that matter when the president himself continues to say repeatedly, the meeting's just fine? i would have taken the meeting. everyone would have taken the meeting. have 1,000 saying, shouldn't have taken the meeting but the commander in chief is saying, nothing wrong with that. >> something said before. we were covering the campaign. always a notion just weren't sophisticated. as much as we all sit here and say, russia's an adversaries. in their mind, right? they never viewed it that way and saw the need to alert authorities that someone within the russian government may be coming to try to meet with them. always this argument, and they were really, even during that time would never agree --

>> why do you have to be an experienced politician to know accepting help from a hostile foreign government is a bad thing? >> not just any foreign government, not to mention. >> trump, he was in moscow. the miss universe there. there have been other sort of dealings with them. i don't know that he necessarily views them as an adversaries at all or think we in the government, people in the government, would think that -- >> you're right. a fundamental disagreement. you've heard the president's own questions about that very thing. why can't we be friends? did they really interfere? things the president does despite the fact that the entire national security community concludes with confidence that russia interfeed and is an adversa adversary. final thought, john kirby. >> i keep coming back to what they said when they got this information. we're all talking about a nothing burpger, nothing happened. this guy tells a.p., ah, that doesn't matter at all.

that is not the issue. and i'm stunned that people keep coming back to that. what matters is they got an offer from a foreign government. let alone russia. of interest in intervening in our election and giving opposition information on the opposing candidate and jumped at this opportunity, at a high level by the way, jumped at it. that should concern all of us. >> i think we could safely say nothing burger's off the menu in this story. initial defense hasn't held to do the facts. thank you all very much. coming up, president trump says he's at his desk pen in hand waiting to sign a new gop health care bill, but lawmakers aren't quite there as the fight for votes reconvenes with a new senate plan. a look at what's next, right after the break. lilly. she pretty much lives in her favorite princess dress. but once a week i let her play sheriff so i can wash it. i use tide to get out those week old stains and downy to get it fresh and soft. you are free to go. tide and downy together.

there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses.

the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp.

like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today. ready to of your back pain? new icyhot lidocaine patch. desensitizes aggravated nerves with the max strength lidocaine available. new icyhot lidocaine patch.

the fate of the senate bill to repeal and replace obamacare could hinge on just one vote. the white house official says that plump was working the phones, talking to senators and pushing for yes votes on the health care bill during his trip to paris. right now, senator susan collins of maine and rand paul of kentucky say they plan to vote against the motion to proceed. if just one more senator votes against the motion, the bill can't even be debated. can't move forward. correspondent ryan nobles joins us. update us on the scramble for votes. where does your vote count stand on this? >> reporter: it's as tight as it can possibly be. there's 52 senators. they need 50 republicans to push this big through and so far, they have two that are definite hard no's, but i talked to a lot of republicans senators over the past couple of days, and they are really taking a wait and see approach. they want to check back with their governors in their home states to see how this bill is

going to impact their medicaid costs down the road. they want to talk to their stakeholders and get the real impact of this and of course that congressional budget office score that comes out on monday is going to be crucial as well. so, it doesn't look good for republicans right now, but if they can get those 50 votes, if they can hold on to the remaining senators that they have available to them right now, they may be able to push this through, and they're obviously having now an aggressive push from the white house. you mentioned that the president trump has been making phone calls. vice president mike pence also making a direct push to these senators to try to get this bill through. it is going to be close for sure. but majority leader mitch mcconnell has definitely not given up quite yet. >> ryan, thanks very much. the vote on whether to move the health care bill forward could come as early as tuesday. the revised bill includes a significant concession to conservatives. the challenge now is whether enough moderates will support the bill to get it passed. stephen moore is a senior cnn economics analyst. the new bill, as you know,

includes a version of this cruz amendment, which is basically designed to appeal to conservatives. is it correct to say that essentially it makes cheaper policies with fewer benefits? >> it's almost like an off ramp from obamacare. if you want the obamacare coverage, you can have that, but it basically provides people options where they can get much cheaper coverage if you don't want all the 30 defined benefits, if you want to kind of scale down a plan that's going to cost you less money. and by the way, those plans could cost a lot of middle class family $3,000 or $4,000 less than a an obamacare plan. >> this is complicated,as we know, even for the president. folks at home are going to focus on certain headline numbers and that cbo number, 22 million people who would lose their health insurance under the republican plan. based on your analysis of the current bill, would that number change? >> yeah. it will come down. we don't know how much it will come down. i agree with you. i think that headline of 20

million people losing their health insurance is a big problem for republicans, no question about it but there's really two metrics here. there's one about how many people are going to fwan and lose insurance. the other one is, will this provide affordable plans for people. we know this, that obamacare costs are really running out of control in a lot of states and people are losing their coverage because they can't afford it. if republicans can demonstrate to people that this is something that will actually lower their costs, especially for middle class families, then i think they've got a political winner. i've been doing my own kind of vote count. i met with a bunch of the senators yesterday. and your analysis is pretty correct, that they're very close, but you know, this is almost, for me, like deja vu all over again because remember, when obamacare passed, which was eight years ago, obama had the same thing. he had to buy those last couple votes in the senate to get there. so i think they will get to 50. whether it happens next week or we're going to be here late in august, i don't know. >> how much is this going to cut medicaid? because medicaid is the issue that really, even for republican -- well, certainly

voters but also the governors who accepted it, that's a big deal. it puts a lot of people on health care who frankly would not have health care otherwise. >> i mean, actually, what obamacare was, more than anything else, was a vast expansion of medicaid for all this talk about we're going to bend the cost curve down and all these other things, really, the main way that obamacare extended coverage to people was putting millions and millions of people on medicaid. >> now people have that and they have health insurance because of that. >> that's true, although medicaid -- look, medicaid is one of the worst insurances. most really good hospitals, doctors, treatment centers don't even take medicaid. >> well the choice is between bad and nothing. >> but look, i think republicans probably have to come up with some solution that says people aren't going to lose their insurance. and by the way, people aren't going to lose their coverage in the first five years or so. i think a lot of people are confused about that. that numb aboer about 20 millio people is seven, eight years down the road. >> why does that matter?

>> if the bill works, if insurance premiums come down, jim, significantly, and we think maybe by 30% or 40%, guess what? more people can afford insurance and you're going to have more people covered. >> why doesn't the cbo reflect that. >> we will see. >> that doesn't sound like a fact to me. >> cbo has been wrong on this stuff before. look, i respect cbo, but i think on this one, they're not giving enough credence to what happens to the market if people have more affordable care, and i think the other flaw in the cbo thing is that they're assuming that obamacare is just on a fine track and people will have it. when we see week after week, more and more insurance companies dropping out of the insurance market under obamacare. >> we know there is a story behind that. >> don't blame that one on trump. >> that's it for me. the news will continue right the news will continue right after this. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com

new deep hydrating eye gel with hyaluronic acid born to outperform the #1... prestige eye cream for better hydration. and your best look yet. olay eyes collection. ageless.

hello, with you again this hour with a bombshell revelation about who else was inside that meeting room as president trump's son, donald trump jr., and top aides attempted to get dirt on hillary clinton. it wasn't just the russian lawyer in this room with them. the associated