is called a non-denial denial. >> i see. so steve bannon, back to him. people, obviously democrats and liberals call him the pupp puppetmaster and thinks he functions as donald trump's brain. what do you think? >> i don't think that. bannon had a lot of ideas and he helped shape trump's politics during his run for president, but what bannon really is is a soldier. i tell different stories in the book, the fight between donald trump and megyn kelly, the fight in the media over the access hollywood tape. at every pivotal moment in the campaign, bannon was the guy fighting on trump's behalf, even when other people like house speaker paul ryan or other republican leaders abandoned trump, when people thought his campaign was headed toward an epic loss. >> there is a particular passage from the book that i want to

read about paul ryan and about steve bannon's take about paul ryan and it's colorful. >> you're going to say this on the air? >> watch how i do this. the possibility, however remote, that paul ryan might steal the nomination from trump sent bannon into a panic of his own. ryan, he fumed, was a limp blank mother blank who was born in a petrie dish at the heritage foundation, a conservative think tank too close to the globalist donor class for bannon's taste. >> when it became obvious donald trump was going to win the nomination, they went into a panic. how can we stop him? one idea was there would be a deadlocked convention and maybe paul ryan could come galloping in the white knight candidate. i happened to be sitting with bannon as all of this went down, because i wanted to write a story about what he was going to

do, so when i sat there with a tape recorder running, he exploded at ryan because he thought he was going to steal the nomination from trump. >> how do these two get along, bannon and ryan? >> from everything i heard, bannon is back in high esteem, partly because trump needs a defender because of russian probe. >> the book is "devil's bargain." it a great read. u.s. newsroom is next for our u.s. viewers. we're talking with lawmakers at the center of this debate. "new day" continues right now. >> there's only three people who really know what was said in that meeting, trump, putin and the russian translator. if every single time something like this happens, the dial gets turned to 11, people just don't buy it. >> ike kaveladze has now been

named as the eighth person in this meeting. >> let obamacare fail, it will be a lot easier. >> the president is playing a dangerous game. >> hopefully with the collapse of the program, they'll be more willing to come to the table and clean up the mess. >> you have a president who says, let me do nothing, let me sabotage the current system and so what if millions of people suffer. >> announcer: this is "new day" with chris cuomo and allison camerato. good morning. president trump slamming the media as dishonest as they slam reports that president trump and vladimir putin had a second undisclosed meeting at the g20 summit. that is 100% true. you remember the scrutiny of their initial meeting. so the question becomes, why didn't we know that the president got up at a g20 dinner and spoke to a russian leader for about an hour without any american officials present, which means there is no

transcript and no understanding of what was discussed. >> and this morning we're also learning more about the eighth person in that trump tower meeting between trump campaign officials and the russians. the eighth person now identified, that man is catching attention of a former senator who is speaking out about this situation. all of this as the president tries to save face on health care, calling all republican senators to the white house today for a lunch. so we have it all covered for you. let's begin with c thinn's joe johns. heez he's at the white house. good morning. >> reporter: president trump's two-hour meeting with vladimir putin was one of the most scrutinized moments of his presidency so far, and now we know there was yet another meeting, the white house confirming of that after reports of it first surfaced in the news media. president trump lashing out, calling coverage of his previously undisclosed second meeting with russian president vladimir putin sick and alleging

it's been made to look sinister. a senior white house official tells cnn the discussion on the sidelines of a g20 dinner lasted nearly an hour, and no other u.s. officials were present. ignoring protocol, the president relied on a russian translator, leaving the u.s. with no official record of their conversation. the white house downplaying the second encounter, asserting the insinuation that the white house tried to hide a second meeting is false, malicious and absurd. this new revelation the latest in a string of undisclosed meetings between trump associates and russians. >> this kind of private meeting is virtually unprecedented in the diplomatic world. there seems to be a pattern of reckless or willful concealment of contacts with the russians. >> reporter: this meeting coming to light as cnn learns new details about the eighth person in attendance at the june 2016

meeting where top trump aides hoped to get damaging information about hillary clinton from the russian government. that man, ike kaveladze, seen behind the president in 2013 in this exclusive video obtained by cnn is the senior vice president at a real estate development company run by russian oligarch alex argalav who has ties to putin. >> there was absolutely no ties that the meeting between the u.s. and the russian campaign ever happened. >> reporter: at first she was acting as a translator for a russian lawyer despite the fact she brought a translator with her. she was linked to u.s. bank accounts that came under investigation for possible money laundering on behalf of russian brokers. he was not charged. >> this individual had a colorful past if not potentially criminal. it is very strange to me that

this meeting that was supposed to be originally related as three or four people about russian adoptions. >> reporter: and some information that is new this morning. reuters reporting that the russian lawyer who met with donald trump is now offering to testify before congress to dispel what she called any hysteria about that encounter. meanwhile, democratic senator diane feinstein of california telling cnn that special counsel robert mueller has given the green light for donald trump jr. as well as paul manafort, the former campaign chairman, to testify before the senate judiciary committee. no word on when that's going to happen. chris and alisyn, back to you. >> appreciate it. let's bring in the panel, david gregory, anna palmer and cnn politics reporter and editor at large, chris saliza. david, the latest piece in the

concern about transparency where russia and the trump administration is involved is a meeting we now know about at a big dinner for the g20 heads of state, the american president leaves his seat and his translator, who was a japanese translator because he was sitting next to the japanese head of state, moves over next to vladimir putin and talks to him for about an hour with no u.s. official, no transcript, no recording of what it was about, just putin and his translator. how does this feed in to the concerns on a larger level? >> supporters of trump and the president himself talk about this hysteria in the media about we want to go to a high decibel level to criticize the president about russia, but this is why. you have russia responsible for intending to influence our election. there is an investigation into the administration's and the campaign's cooperation with russia during that period. we know nothing about how the president is going to respond to the fact that that interference happened.

and what we see is the president coddling putin, going back to the campaign, now deflecting attention about whether they were even involved in hacking the election. so when this kind of meeting happens, you don't have aides, you don't have a translator who can translate russian, then what are they talking about? how about just disclosing it? i just want to know what they talked about. because the president has not been truthful about all their dealings, his son hasn't, other white house officials haven't, i'm suspicious. so tell us more. he spent all that time on air force i just sitting back and talking about all his interactions with putin, but i want to see evidence that the president might actually be responding forcefully to what happened, and instead we just get more silence. he won't even tell us what they talked about. that's what strikes me as not right. >> and there is reporting how other world leaders responded to this latest discovery.

the dinner discussion caught the attention of other leaders around the table, some of whom later remarked privately on the odd spectacle of an american president seeming to single out the russian leader for special attention at a summit meeting that included some of the united states' staunchest, oldest allies. in some cases this is just so outside of the bounds of what any other u.s. president has ever done. >> i think this is also going to be a big issue on capitol hill in terms of his allies here. there is already tense relationships in terms of this whole russia drip, drip, i think there is frustration among a lot of lawmakers. i was up on the hill yesterday talking about this kind of thing. this is just another example of where he's going out of bounds of official procedure and there is no actual accounting of it. so nobody knows exactly what happens and he just goes to the classic trump manner and takes to twitter saying, it's sick the media is even covering this stuff. >> and it was working.

but it is interesting, the reaction to him saying it this morning, it was sick. he has the story wrong. nobody is suggesting, at least not on this show, that put skind trump had a secret dinner. nobody is saying that. it's just what he did at this g20 dinner. and he has to heed the "new york times'" words from his friend who works there. why do we care about a meeting between trump and putin? he is the president. because there is no idea what complications might soften things with russia. what's more, another layer on this lasagne, the eighth person in this donald trump jr. meeting, former representative karl levin says this man was

investigated, gao came across the numerous corporations and bank accounts established by irakly kaveladze on baf of people in russia. as gao reported, kaveladze established some 2000 u.s. corporations and bapg account for a number of them. the owners of those accounts then moved some 1.4 billion there are through those accounts. they wanted to talk about the money that russia may get back. and you have a guy in the room who is expected to move over a billion dollars in russian money -- >> meaning laundering. >> maybe, because he didn't get convicted of anything, but that's what they looked at and it does change the guidelines of how you have change of ownership in corporations. best reading is we don't know what the relationships are or financial obligations to trump to any financial institutions in russia, but we do know that they were looking for a meeting to

talk to his son about how to work on russia money matters. that's relevant, it's not sick. >> why don't we know what his business or financial ties are to russia, chris? the reason is he's the first candidate in modern presidential history not to release his tax returns. it's the longest audit i've heard of in a very long time which is his reason for not releasing them. and it gets to the broader point you're making. context matters. david points this out exactly. what's past is prologue. you don't get to have nearly an hour, according to cnn's reporting, nearly an hour sidebar conversation with vladimir putin after you've already had a two-plus-hour more formal conversation with him with no u.s. translator present when we know for a fact, it's not debatable, that russia actively meddled in the election. we know there is a lot of smoke

around this june 9, 2016 meeting between don trump jr. and the seven other people that we know were there, including two other of the top campaign officials in the trump campaign. when you have the mike flynn story, when you have the manafort stuff, there is just -- this is not an isolated incident. donald trump knows this is a bad story for him. he is trying to make this about the media. as anna points out, it has nothing to do with the media. we at cnn, no credible media outlet has said, oh, this meeting was a secret dinner. it was on tape. that's not the issue here. it's like somebody saying, hey, chris, you're tall and me saying, i have brown eyes. both of those things are true but that's not the same debate. he does this time and time again. he's trying to change the subject. this has nothing to do with the media here. context matters.

he knows that. that's why he's trying to change the story. >> david, i think it comes back to what you said, transparency, right? there are bad signs, bad omens about whether or not there will be more transparency. number one, the press briefing no longer on camera. it hasn't been the past few weeks and now it's audio only. they might even try to get rid of that. i understand not wanting to play your hand. that's what president trump said he doesn't like doing, he doesn't like revealing what he's going to do. but you're not supposed to not play your hand to the american people. you're supposed to not play your hand to putin or other people like that. the one good note before i let you talk about transparency, i mean the one for the press, obviously and the american public, is that bob mueller, special counsel, has apparently given the green light. he's okay with don jr. and paul manafort testifying in front of congress in public. >> right, and i think, as chris was saying earlier, this is some deference on the part of the special prosecutor to congress in the way that they're constructively trying to look

into what all has happened. there's got to be accountability. that's what the senate and house committees are about, and the president has to be accountable to the american people about an enemy of the united states who he happens to be coddling, and this is another evidence. i'm sorry, i'm suspicious. tell us what your view is, what you've done with putin, and don't tell us and expect to get a big hug by the american people to say, well, i told him about the meelddling and he said he didn't do it. what am i going to do, get in a fight? we have to move on. it should be more sophisticated than that. >> panel, thank you for all the insight. so mr. mcconnell's plan to repeal obamacare or president trump's plan to let it fail on its own? we'll speak to one key senator next. 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. but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how. i'm karen, i'm a teacher.olfer. my psoriatic arthritis caused joint pain. just like my moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. and i was worried about joint damage. my doctor said joint pain from ra

can be a sign of existing joint damage that could only get worse. he prescribed enbrel to help relieve pain and help stop further damage. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal, events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common, or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. joint pain and damage... can go side by side. ask how enbrel can help relieve joint pain and help stop joint damage. enbrel, fda approved for 18 years.

yeah, and i can watch thee bgame with directv now.? oh, sorry, most broadcast and sports channels aren't included. and you can only stream on two devices at once. this is fun, we're having fun. yeah, we are. no, you're not jimmy. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. xfinity gives you more to stream to more screens. president trump will host a lunch with senate republicans today to discuss the path forward on health care. four republican senators already say they will oppose a procedural vote to repeal obamacare that is set for early

next week. let's discuss all of this with republican senator mike rounds of south dakota. he was previously the governor of that state. senator, thanks for being here. >> i appreciate the opportunity to visit with you. >> when majority leader mitch mcconnell pushes and holds that vote next week for whether or not just a straight up repeal of obamacare, how will you vote? >> well, the first step will be to get on the bill and that's the procedural vote you're talking about. i would like to proceed to the bill. >> then how would you vote whether or not to repeal it flat out? >> we're not sure that's what it will be, but if that is the vote, i would vote to repeal it with a delayed implementation so we would have a chance to actually make some changes. it won't fix the problems that are coming up between now and the end of the year, but it would be a step in the right direction to get to a final fix for the health care industry. >> explain that to us, senator. if you voted to repeal it now,

where does that leave people? >> the next step would be it would be exactly where they're at today. it would not change anything for a period of two years, which is not good news because this particular system right now is not working the way that it should. there will be a lot of people with increases of between 20 and 40% of their premiums beginning the first of the year. it will not stabilize the markets, but it would give us two years in which to actually find some alternatives, republicans examiand democrats , so we could fix this system in place today. >> that's quite optimistic. you've had seven years, quite frankly. >> we don't have a choice. we have to fix what's currently in place. the system today, regardless of where you're talking with folks across the united states, their premiums have not gone down, they've gone up. but rather than focusing on what's not working today, there is a proposal we've been working on for the last six months. it's getting better. it may not be perfect yet, but it most certainly is better than

what obamacare is today or what it will be next week. >> i'm sorry to interrupt, but you can just work with democrats to fix it rather than repeal it. >> there is a discussion that goes on that says if we could get a group of us to actually sit down side by side, let's get past the question of whether we're repealing, replacing or fixing. the reality is that the concept behind obamacare in the first place does not work. companies are not going to share profits between themselves if they go under 85% in terms of their actual expenses, which is what one of the premises is in obamacare. >> i understand, but there is a difference between repealing it with nothing else and fixing it. there is a difference. and by the way, one more thing, you said there is no other option. that's not what president trump has said. president trump does think that there is another option. let me play for you what his suggestion is. >> we'll just let obamacare fail. we're not going to own it, i'm not going to own it.

i can tell you the republicans are not going to own it. >> so that other option that he's suggesting is do nothing. walk away, let whatever the problems are with obamacare, bring it down and let it fail. >> i respectfully disagree with that approach. that means a lot of people are going to get hurt. it is clear that obamacare is failing under its own weight, there's no question about that, but that doesn't mean we sit back and let it happen. the fix you're talking about can't be done by simply tinkering around the edges. we have to make major change in this health care proposal that's been in place now really since 2014. we know it does not work. there is a better way to do it. i think republicans and democrats probably could get together and fix it, but there is a political divide. next best step is to work through the issues, come up with a proposal that we can get 51 votes on. i think we're getting close. i really don't want to give up on it yet. i think we can begin the process of actually making the changes that are necessary that will slow down the increases in

health care in terms of premiums for people across the country. the real issues that are dividing us is whether or not we've done enough to make those changes work within the republican party. we had a good chance to talk with some of our democratic colleagues yesterday afternoon, former governors. we visited -- you know, we're really not that far apart in terms of what we want for our country and the health care that we want to have for folks that are out there. >> yeah, but -- >> we're not going to get there in the next couple weeks, i'm afraid. >> well, listen, today you are going to lunch at the white house. are you going to share your thoughts with the president? are you going to tell him that his plan sounds irresponsible to you? >> i think -- most certainly i think there is a group of us that has already begun that process. we shared yesterday with the vice president at a noon lunch in a very informal way that we think there is still hope in trying to make the repairs. we would rather work together to find common agreement or to make modifications to what we've been working on for the last several months.

i think there is a lot of good quality in what we proposed already. not perfect but most certainly better than what's currently in place, and i'm not ready to give up yet. i don't think the people in this country sent us here to personally give up and say, we're going to let obamacare fail on its ownme. it's true that it would. that's the fallback if we can't come to an agreement. it doesn't mean we don't make a fight. >> if you're optimistic and you still think there are things could be done, why wasn't something figured out during those seven years? >> there is a lot of different ideas about how to approach it. we're getting closer to a consensus. right now there are 47 out of the 52 that would probably agree. the challenge is we need 51. and to pick up the last few folks with the concerns they've got -- and remember, this isn't so much a divide between the republican party, it's a divide based upon the needs of different states. folks in one state have a different approach based on whether or not they expand

medicaid. other people who didn't expand medicaid have other concerns. it's more trying to make sure these individual members protect their own states. that's really what's driving the changes and what makes it so difficult. we all are from different states with different reasons how it could be resolved. >> do you think mitch mcconnell will be able to do that? >> mitch is doing the best he can. i have a lot of faith in him. i think we're moving in the right direction, though if it was easy, it would have been done a long time ago. this is not easy. it takes a lot of perseverance. we'll have some setbacks, but i don't think we give up. i think we hang in there examine -- and do what we can because the reality is people get hurt if we don't fix things. >> thank you, senator rounds. chris? they are walking away from

capitol hill to try to change things on the outside. the resers of the truverse of t next. whoooo. finding the best hotel price is now a safe bet. because tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites - so you save up to 30% on the hotel you want. lock it in. tripadvisor. about to see progressive's new home quote explorer. where you can compare multiple quote options online and choose what's right for you. woah. flo and jamie here to see hqx.

flo and jamie request entry. slovakia. triceratops. tapioca. racquetball. staccato. me llamo jamie. pumpernickel. pudding. employee: hey, guys! home quote explorer. it's home insurance made easy. password was "hey guys." it's home insurance made easy. whuuuuuat?rtgage offer from the bank today. you never just get one offer. go to lendingtree.com and shop multiple loan offers for free! free? yeah. could save thousands. you should probably buy me dinner. no. go to lendingtree.com for a new home loan or refinance. receive up to five free offers and choose the loan that's right for you. our average customer could lower their monthly bills by over three hundred dollars. go to lendingtree.com right now.

all right. the law is not the only standard for what is right and wrong by our leaders. ethics matter, transparency, how things are done, disclosure, removal of conflicts, addressing of conflicts. all of these things are now circling around the russia investigation, and frankly, a lot of questions about this presidency and how business of state is conducted. one of the american who was concerned about disclosure from the beginning has just left the white house. he is the former director of the u.s. office of government ethics, walter schaub. he is leaving now to go on the outside and work for change on the inside of government. walter, it's good to have you with us. >> thanks for having me. it's my first morning as a private citizen, so this is a new experience. >> how does it feel?

>> you know, it's a relief. it's been a hard eight months. we started working with the new administration right after the election, and pretty much immediately there's been a departure from the ethical norms that have really held our ethics program together for all these years. >> make the case. people will say these are all nonsense questions. trump put out his sec filing. it's all there, there are no conflicts. we hired a businessman, we knew that the family would be making money while they were in office. there are no ethical considerations. >> you know, there is a lot of ethical considerations and there is a lot of conflicts of interest. any time you have vast holdings while you're in a position of public trust, we've got to worry about whether you're making your decisions based on your policy aims or based on your personal financial interests. in this case we can't know that because he's continuing to hold his financial interests despite what every president since the enactment of the ethics and government act in the 1970s did.

you see him giving free advertisements to his properties when he travels there. they double the membership fee down in florida at his resort there. and these things matter because we have to have able to have the american people trust that government decision making is made on their behalf, not on our own behalf as government officials. and conflicts of interest have a real consequence. people get hurt when decisions are made. imagine you had a doctor who is getting paid by the drug company to prescribe for you a drug when some other drug might have been better for you. the reality is these conflicts exist whether they're illegal or not, and presidents have known that. it also sets a tone problem, because you need to set a strong ethical tone from the top. tone is everything in government ethics. and what your appointees do is going to follow what you do.

we've seen a number of incidents that i've tried to highlight over the past several months where they're not following the traditional ethical tone and behaving in a way government officials always behave, and that has really hurt us along the way. >> and it drives your security about all these russia questions as well, does it not, that why has the president postured so apparently sympathetic to russian president putin? why would these russian operative types seek out donald jr. for a meeting to talk about relieving -- at best reading of what that meeting was about. talking about adoption is not really about the magnitsky act, it's about the sanctions, it's about putin's money being tied up by the u.s. government. why would they seek out trump's son and other trump officials? these questions in your mind raise further questions about what we know about the holdings and the lack of transparency. >> well, and that's right, and

you can add to that list foreign governments rescheduling events to appear had the his hotel instead of somewhere else or businesses and charities and politicians going there. it gives the appearance of profiting from the presidency, and as you point out, it leaves us not knowing what is behind these interactions with the russians. now, some of his supporters have said, well, it's just too much to ask to have to give up certain financial interests and maybe be a little bit less rich. but i would give you the example of wilbur ross, the secretary of the department of commerce. this is an equally wealthy man who has given up a great deal of his holdings in order to come into government, and that happens across the top level of government. i spent almost a decade and a half -- actually, i have spent a decade and a half delivering the bad news to cabinet officials and top presidential appointees that they have to sell off their

assets, sometimes at a loss, and that that's the price of public service. it hasn't been easy and it hasn't been fun to tell him that, but their basic patriotism prevails and they always do it. so i don't know why the president would be held to a lower standard than the people who work for him. >> the main reason winds up being when you look at members of congress, at least, they have explicit guidelines they have to follow in terms of their holdings and the executives do not. we haven't had to deal with that in this era because we don't have ridiculous people. you just don't have a president like trump in the presidency before. but in your experience, how would judge the amount of transparency and disclosure by this administration? >> well, i mean, i'll give him credit that he filed his financial disclosure form voluntarily this year as past presidents have done, so at least that's one tradition that he stuck to. i was horrified when i sat across the table from his

attorney and she asked me if he could file it without signing it to certify that it's true. i pointed out to her that millions of financial disclosure reports have been filed in the past four decades and every one of them has been certified as true, and i think we could ask that of our president. >> his lawyer asked you if he didn't have to sign it to certify it as true? under what basis? why did she want that? >> she said the filing is voluntary and he doesn't have to file it if he doesn't want to. i said, that's fine, file it and release it unsigned, but if you want to certify it, which they wanted done, it's going to have to follow the normal rules. >> did he sign it? >> yes, he did sign it. but then you also have the tax forms that are not released. they aren't required to be released, and that's something i would like to see changed. it's like going out and buying anything. people need to be able to evaluate what kind of conflicts of interest their presidential candidate has, and this story people knew what they were

getting, well, they didn't know what they were getting because he didn't release his tax forms the way every other presidential candidate did. >> let me ask you something. do you have any proof that the president is under audit and that's why he can't release his taxes? >> oge, the office of government ethics where i worked, isn't involved in processing tax forms. so i don't have proof, but to be fair, i wouldn't expect to have proof because that's not really our bailiwick. >> that was unusual to have the lawyer come forward to you and say he doesn't want to sign it for purposes of certainty, that he's certifying all of this is true. how did you process that? have you ever been asked that before? by anybody at any level? i'll give you the paperwork but i don't want to sign it just in case it's not accurate? >> no, it was truly the weirdest moment of my entire career. i practically had to pinch myself to make sure i was awake. i thought, this is the embodiment of exactly how far we've departed from the ethical norms that the american people are entitled to expect their

leaders to liver up to. >> how long did it take for you to get the signed paperwork back? >> to be fair, it takes a while because we work with them behind the scenes to make sure the disclosure meets at least, apparently on its face, the disclosure requirements. i didn't have a problem with the back and forth, except for that. >> did you take time to scrutinize the filing? >> yes, we did. the truth is we've dealt with a lot of wealthy people in government before, so my staff, or my former staff, is well experienced in that. although i will say we've been used to dealing with people who have hedge funds or other type of investments that you see wealthy people on wall street holding. the world of real estate is an entirely new thing in that there are all these strange shell companies that don't hold anything, and you feel like you're sifting through a shell game. this was my first encounter with a large number of people -- not a large number of people but a

few people from the real estate world. and i got to be honest with you, i don't think we know 100% for sure that we understand what all of the underlying holdings are at oge, but it met the disclosure requirements and, you know, technically the conflict of interest laws don't apply even though presidents have always followed them. so we had to certify the report because it was good enough from a disclosure standpoint to meet the legal requirements, but i'm not sure that we fully understood everything in it. >> wow. what a proposition, that it meets the standard but you're not sure you know what you're talking about after certifying it. mr. schaub, now you can be on the outside as a private citizen. let's see what change you can promote from that perspective. thank you for being with us. >> thanks a lot. >> good to have you on "new day." alisyn? chris, another story we're following, we're getting our fir details from one of the police

officers involved in that deadly shooting of a bride-to-be in minnesota. why was she shot after calling 911 for help? we have all the latest for you, next. you get used to food odors in your car. you think it... ...smells fine, but your passengers smell this bell dinging new febreze car with odorclear technology cleans away odors... ...for up to 30 days smells nice... breathe happy, with new febreze.

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! it's my decision to make it's nbeauty last.ix. roc® retinol started visibly reducing my fine lines and wrinkles in one week.

and the longer i use it, the better it works. retinol correxion® from roc methods, not miracles.™

yeah, and i can watch thee bgame with directv now.? oh, sorry, most broadcast and sports channels aren't included. and you can only stream on two devices at once. this is fun, we're having fun. yeah, we are. no, you're not jimmy. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. xfinity gives you more to stream to more screens. new details this morning about what happened in the moments before a minneapolis police officer shot and killed a bride-to-be after she called 911

for help. the officer who fired the fatal shot reportedly refuses to talk. but his partner is revealing critical details. cnn's scott mclain is live in minneapolis. what have you learned, scott? >> reporter: good morning, alisyn. three days after justine ru ruczczyk was shot, there was no dash cam video, no body camera video, but we do have new word surrounding that deadly shooting. >> reporter: female screaming behind the building. >> reporter: this was the call that police were responding to saturday night after justine damond called police to report a sex assault in the alley of her home. officer harry who was driving the squad car said they drove up to the alley with their car

lights off. then officer harry indicated he was startled by a loud sound near the squad car. immediately afterward, ruszczyk aechd the driver's side -- approached the driver's side window. harrity indicated that officer noor discharged his weapon, striking ruc sdplrks czyk through the open driver's side window. >> there was no video of the incident because officers did not have their body cameras turned on. right after, officers got out of the car and began life-saving measures but were unable to save her life. the officer who fired the shot refused to be interviewed by investigators. >> it's frustrating to have some of the picture but not all of it. we cannot compel officer noor to make a statement. i wish we could. >> reporter: the deadly shooting coming just weeks after the acquittal of a minneapolis officer in the shooting of

fernando castile. >> when will this end? >> reporter: outrage of this deadly shooting also growing overseas as friends gather to remember justine, who also goes by the name justine damond. a response to the shooting as an american nightmare. >> how can a woman out in the street in her pajamas seeking assistance from the police be shot like that? it is a shocking killing. >> there may be one other witness to this shooting. a younger guy on his bicycle who just happened to be passing by. investigators obviously want to speak to him. that sexual assault that justine ruszczyk was reporting in the alleyway, officers did canvass this alley way but didn't find anything. the chief said last night changes would be coming.

>> the idea of having body cameras and not insisting on them being turned off is just absurd. >> absolutely, after the argument to have them, not to have them, then they don't turn them on. there's still so many questions. that's why that witness scott was telling us about will be key, obviously, because they don't have dash cam, they don't have body cameras, the one officer isn't speaking. we hope there are witnesses that may be able to shed some light on this. so president trump is supposedly taking aim at a top senator in his own party. is he really recruiting someone to run against one of their own? on your screen, republican senator jeff flake. details, next. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor.

there's nothing more important so when i need to book a hotel,

i want someone who makes it easy. booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. visit booking.com. booking.yeah! . president trump's commission on election integrity is set to meet for the first time today. four top democrats are calling on the commission's vice chairman to step down. they wrote a letter to the vice president, mike pence overseeing the commission saying mr. kobach has repeatedly claimed falsely that widespread voter fraud exists and advertises his work on the commission to promote his own campaign for governor of kans kansas. these actions undermine the integrity of the commission and raise significant concerns that the commission will be used as a tool for voter suppression. chris kobach joins us now.

what is your response to the criticism? >> it's ridiculous. first of all, they allege that somehow i'm not qualified because i pointed out widespread voter fraud in my own state of kansas. we're litigating our proof of citizenship requirement when voting, and we presented to a dur u.s. district court 128 cases of people trying to get on voter roles. i'm simply saying in my state we discovered a problem. but no commission looked tat from a nationwide perspective. so the other thing they claim is that somehow a commission studying this issue results in voter suppression. to try to decipher that, i think they're saying if a commission studies the problem in washington, d.c., somebody out in california will decide not to vote some november that doesn't make sense. in the letter they don't explain what is a ludicrous argument. >> they're making their case, there's politics here. the general assertion is that

you are looking for a problem in the name of suppression, and they're targeting you because you tangled on this issue before with the aclu and eventually lost. you said more than that there were issues in your own state. you said i think the president-elect is absolutely correct when he says the number of illegal votes cast exceeds the popular vote margin between him and hillary clinton. there is no basis for that, in fact. >> well, back -- that was back in january or so when the president had made a statement similar to that. my point was that, as i explained, if you took the quote in context and raead what was said before that, i was pointing to a 2008 study that said several million non-citizens voted in that election. i said if the same percentage voted again today in 2016 you could have a similar result. >> the quote is not accurate? i think the president-elect is absolutely correct when he says the number of illegal votes

exceeds the popular vote margin between him and clinton? >> if you put it back in cob te context, i said there was a study that showed and i said if the percent of noncitizens who voted in 2008 voted in 2016 you could have that issue. the commission is not set up to prove or disprove president trump's claim it's to put facts on the table. if as the democrat members of congress who wrote that letter contend there is no voter fraud, we will make their case for them. the xwhigs wicommission will coh nothing. the idea that you should stop the commission from looking at a problem because there's something we don't want the american public to see it's outrageous. >> why is it outrageous? >> let's say there's 1,000 cases of voter fraud -- >> what fact also come out? the information you're asking for is seen as overreaching or you couldn't find out whether or not there's a problem with the information you're asking for.

you need other data. >> let's be specific. the information we asked for is the publicly available voter rolls. >> right. >> you can walk in off the street of new york and ask for that in your state. >> right. >> any person watching can ask for that. it's publicly available. the reason you need that information is to do things like if someone comes before the commission and says 100 people voted in this state in this election year and we believe they were deceased at the time the ballots were cast. we can look at the voter roles and say those people were not actually registered in that state at that time. your claim is false. >> but the secretaries of state are already saying they know that they've done it within their own states. they don't need you to certify their findings. >> as a secretary of state i'm familiar with what other states have done. most states have not done an in-depth investigation of voter fraud in their state. part of the reason we have in kansas is because we're fighting the aclu in multiple cases to keep proof of citizenship in place. >> that's who you are, that's what you want is to change the

requirements to voting to require people to show proof of citizenship, and that there are -- >> at time of registration. >> to advance your agenda of what could be construed as voter suppression. >> you forgot to mention another thing, it's a bipartisan commission. it's 6-5 republican and democrats. >> but you don't have a democrat vice chair alongside you. should you? >> the commission doesn't have two vice chairs. >> should it? >> i only have one vote. it doesn't matter. the total number is what matters. >> it would show it's more bipartisan and it's not unusual to have two different party members at the top of the commission. >> the most senior member is bill gardner, democrat from new hampshire. the commission has some of the most respected experts on this issue and on election administration. the bottom line is all we're doing is looking for facts. we'll put those facts on the table. you can look at them and say that doesn't prove anything. that's not voter fraud. you can say the commission made my case for me.

swrun else c let's put the numbers before the american people. why say no, don't look at that. don't study it? that's ridiculous. wouldn't you agree? >> i think data can be a tricky thing. people can use it to make different suggestions that is a function of what they want as much as what the numbers show. i think that's the concern. especially with the information you're asking for. again, it matters that experts who look at data analysis and voter registration efforts and are behind these studies that you quote -- as we both know the study you're pointing to, the guys who own the data came out and said this study is bogus for legal votes, they should have not drawn these conclusions off my data. the concern is you're not going to have the data to draw conclusions, except the one you want to draw which may feed your suppression efforts. >> you make a good point. there are studies out there that do sampling. so that one study was based on interviewing voters, calling

them on the phone and asking are you a u.s. citizen? yes, no. did you vote in the 2008 election? yes or no. they sample several thousand people and draw a conclusion from a sample. you're right. experts will always dispute whether that sample is good enough to draw conclusions. this commission is going to be looking at real figures, real numbers, real voter roles, real cases, not just doing surveys. that's the difference. there's never been a nationwide commission to look at real cases of voter fraud, look at real instances. the pew sound dags sfoundations colluded there's more than 1.8 deceased people on the voter roles. they acknowledge that's probably a lowest matw estimate. wouldn't it be better to not just have an estimate but present real numbers? we're talking about presenting numbers to the american people so they can decide. we can come back and have a discussion a year from now. you can say i draw different