disclosure issues. so i would say that this is a big problem, because if it goes forward, and trump has to disclose all these statements, he's going to be paralyzed because you know you all in the media are going to obsess on this night after night. >> that's all the time we have. thanks for joining us. "ac 360" starts right now. good evening. tonight, a new story just out, as the russian ambassador told his kremlin bosses that he did talk about campaign matters with then senator jeff sessions. current and former u.s. officials telling "the washington post" they know from american intelligence intercepts. if true, it's also possible that the russian ambassador was boasting to his bosses. but if it wasn't a boast, and the information bears out, it casts serious doubt on the credibility of jeff sessions, the highest law enforcement official in the land, who denied having any contacts with the russians during the campaign about the campaign. this is what attorney general

sessions said during his confirmation hearing back in january. >> if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? >> senator franken, i'm not aware of any of those activities. i have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and i did not have communications with the russians. >> so that was january. when asked in a written question whether he had by in contact with anyone in the russian government about the 2016 election before or after election day, he responded no. you here's what he said when he recused himself back in march concerning the russian probe. >> let me be clear, i never had meetings with russian operatives or russian immediate rare russt

the russian campaign and that i was part of anything with the russian government is totally false. >> so there he said never had meetings with russian surrogates about the trump campaign. now here's the -- or about russians about the trump campaign. here's the attorney general's senate testimony back in june. >> i have never met with or had any conversation with any russians or any foreign official concern any type of interference with any campaign or election in the united states. >> so there he's changed it somewhat, he's saying about interference in the election or campaign. cnn contributor adam entis joins us tonight. adam, this is just another bombshell report coming out on a friday evening. just explain what you and the others at "the washington post" have learned. >> we knew about the meetings. we knew about them in march,

that sessions did not disclose them when he appeared for his confirmation hearing. we were trying to figure out what was the nature of those contacts? what was being discussed? what we learned is basically what kislyak sent back to moscow. this is his account of these two conversations, one in april, a second in july, of his contact with sessions. >> while sessions didn't seem to remember any specifics about these meetings, kislyak sent back specifics? >> yeah, at the end of his conversations i assume he gets into his car and goes back to his residence and writes a report. that's the way most ambassadors operate. >> what did he tell his russian bosses? >> what he thought they discussed, which was campaign issues. in other words, what their relationship would be like between a future trump presidency and the russian government. the kind of thing that the russian ambassador was under orders by his boss, putin, to try to get information about.

he was doing his job, which is basically meeting with people in the trump campaign, trying to get information about how that campaign would deliver on some of its rhetoric during that campaign, if it was elected. so that way putin can make a decision about what he thinks of this relationship. >> so the meetings that you know about between sessions and kislyak, how many meetings are there and when were they? >> there was a meeting -- i don't know how to characterize the first encounter. so there's a vip reception before trump gives his first foreign policy speech in april. >> that was at the mayflower hotel. >> in washington. so there's an encounter there that kislyak reports on, which they discussed campaign matters. there's a second encounter in july on the sidelines of the republican national convention in a hotel outside the convention area. again, sessions gives a speech and at the end, kislyak has a

pull aside if you will, described by officials as a substantive conversation. it wasn't, at least in the russian ambassador's view, something superficial or cursory. and then there was a meeting, a third meeting, which took place in sessions' senate office, which occurred in september. >> which sessions said in the past that was in his capacity as a senator. but you don't have information about what kislyak said about that? >> sessions did provide a readout of that meeting which ukraine was discussed. sessions initially said, and as far as i know still argues that all of these meetings were about his role on the senate armed services committee, not because of his advisory role he was playing on the trump campaign. >> right. and clearly what kislyak is saying they discussed the goings on of the trump campaign and future trump policies. >> right. it's unclear what he would be interested when it comes to

talking about senate armed service committee business. why would he go out of his way that turned up at that april event -- >> and at the republican convention, it seems odd to not be discussing donald trump as a candidate and what he would need. >> correct. i think it's important for people to keep in mind this is kislyak's version of events. sessions has sort of changed his accounts as we've gone through the months from saying there were no meetings initially to the meetings weren't about the campaign to the meetings were not about collusion or coordination. so, again, either he doesn't recall clearly what they are and maybe shouldn't have said what he said initially. or he is not telling us the full account. >> and you hinted at this, but it's important to point out, it's possible that kislyak is bragging to his russian bosses making himself more important, adding substance to discussions, and sort of trying to build his

credentials. >> yeah, he could be trying to impress his superiors, or trying to plant false information into communications to deceive the american intelligence services, or maybe actually plant derogatory information that could be designed to embarrass people down the road. >> in your article in "the washington post" tonight, you have -- i believe you have quotes about kislyak's past conversations and whether he's prone to bragging. >> by most accounts of the officials i deal with, they tell me that his reporting to moscow is accurate. so they see it, they'll meet with him, deliver a message, and then be able to read whether kislyak reported that message accurately. sometimes if they think that message is not correctly reported, they will go back to him and tell him, without revealing that they were reading his report, that they had a chance to say, you know, just

want to underline again the way we're thinking about this or that issue. so that's the way diplomacy actually happens. it's not just russia, it happens in pakistan, you name it. that's the way we have these conversations. >> we just got a statement from a justice department spokeswoman. i'm going to read it to you. obviously, i cannot comment on the reliability of an intelligence intercept that "the washington post" has not seen or provided to me. but the attorney general stands by his testimony from last month when he addressed this and said he "never met with or had any conversations with any russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election." interesting that what they're specifying is he stands by that he didn't have any conversations about interference in the election. they're not saying he stands by his march statement that he had no contact about the campaign. >> right. they said that same statement before we published our story.

so they're addressing an issue that isn't the subject of the story, which is i have no information to suggest that kislyak spoke to him about interference in the election. >> this could not come at a worse time for jeff sessions. >> right. his relationship obviously with the president, based on the president's interview with "the new york times," is on the rocks. and the president, in that interview, criticized the way sessions handled his answers to questions during his confirmation hearing. so again, he seems to -- sessions seems to be a moving target when it comes to explaining those interactions. >> the president just in "the new york times" interview two days ago or maybe yesterday, it all blends together now, expressing his anger that sessions did recuse himself. i also want to bring in some other voices for reaction. carl bernstein, john dean, matthew whittaker, dana bash is

here, and david axelrod. david, this is just one more -- again, i had to use that cliche term, drip in the russian story, but how big is this? >> it's obviously big for jeff sessions if it impugns him in a way at a time, as you point out, that is very, very inconvenient, because he seems to be on the rocks as it is. i think he will argue what he has, which is these are uncorroborated, and there's no verification of them other than the representation of kislyak in these cables. it is interesting that he has moved the goal posts, so he's now saying we can't talk about interference in the campaign. but if he was having conversations with him as a representative of the trump campaign, giving him a sense oh of what trump would do as president and indicating he would take a different approach to issues like sanctions, that

seems like a big thumbs up to moscow if they were considering how deeply they wanted to invest in this campaign. so it could give him a short run, the president with the means to rock sessions out of that job. but in the long run, it's one more piece in a puzzle that's becoming more and more troubling, anderson, for the white house. >> dana, the timing of this comes two days after the president criticized attorney general sessions. could this give the president a reason to fire sessions and then appoint a loyalist as attorney general during the upcoming congressional recess, who, by the way, if there was a new attorney general, they would not have to recuse themself i assume from the russia probe. >> that's right. look, that is all possible. i don't want to get too far into sort of the weeds of the senate and how their recesses work. but over the past, i don't know, eight years or so, and david can

probably remember this more than i, because it happened mostly when president obama was in the white house, sort of the senators, particularly those of the opposing party of the person in the white house, they kind of -- they're onto the notion of recess appointments. so they tried to stop the senate from formally going into recess, which deprives the president of recess appointments. so that is possible that happens, but i think perhaps, and you know, i don't want to sound overly conspiratorial here, anderson, but you mentioned that "new york times" article where the president already sort of rhetorically threw jeff sessions under the bus. this almost seems like somebody is putting the bus reverse, backing up, going forward, and backing up. this doesn't seem to be an accident. >> you're saying -- >> this comes at a time jeff

sessions is vulnerable. >> it's a theory that it plays into what the president wants, which is to get rid of jeff sessions. >> totally. >> carl, do you think that's possible? >> it's possible, but we need to look at a couple of other things. jeff sessions had been named the head of national security policy for the trump campaign. very important. we need to find out from sessions, probably the congress needs to call him back very soon, and get a full eczema nati -- full explanation of all of his conversations with the russians. but what's interesting is what might have sessions said to donald trump about these and any other discussions he had with russians? because now we're playing with the word "collusion" and the word "interference," but now we're beginning to see why these investigations are moving so close and why the president of the united states is so concerned that they're closing in on him, his family, his

dealings with russians. pieces are starting to fall together. there will be some innocent explanations for all kinds of things. but we need to know a lot more about how it is that all of these discussions took place. >> what does it say that the attorney general of the united states, the highest law enforcement official in the land, has to be called back a third time to testify under oath to try to explain what you would think a panel of senators or folks on capitol hill could have gotten out of him in two appearances. >> clearly that he has not been forthcoming, that he has very carefully chosen his words to give only as much as he wants to give without giving a full version of what occurred. trying to perhaps avoid a perjury charge as he continues to go through these motions. we don't know where this is going to go. but it's cheer tlear he's not b

forth coming with the congress of the united states. unless, by some chance, these intercepts turn out to be braggi bragging. but we'll find out. mueller will find out what the intercepts are. the congress and the intelligence committees will find out what the intercepts are. but there is the question what did jeff sessions and the candidate, donald trump, discuss about russia and these conversations? >> the same question of what did donald trump, jr. and his father discuss, if anything. the justice department is going after unnamed sources. it is accurate to say you have not heard these intercepts? >> i have not heard them. we've talked to multiple current and former officials who described it, and we can all understand why we use anonymous sources. if we did not provide anonymity, we would not be getting the information that we're able to

provide to basically fact check these officials, right? and there's been a pattern in dealing with this russia story, where initially we're told the meetings never happened. then they're about something else. then we find out there's intelligence showing that they were about something completely different. if exact same thing kind of happened with mike flynn. we found out about the conversations. they tell us it's about something. it turns out it's not about that. and then officials basically revealed elements of intelligence which showed what actually was discussed. >> the truth is, only once it becomes public, once you, "the new york times" or cnn uncovers it that then something changes. mike flynn was only fired after the story went public. >> right. >> john, just yesterday attorney general sessions said he would stay on the job "as long as that is appropriate." do you think it's appropriate for him to say on the job?

john dean? we lost his audio. dana, i mean, what are the chances that he will not stay on the job? >> i mean, look, who would have thought that after the president of the united states says the kind of things that he said about his attorney general to "the new york times" trashing him, that he would decide to stay? but he did. at that point, you know, he might feel dug in and feel that he wants to stay just to spite president trump, that he feels like he can do things that he wanted to do for some time in the justice department, no matter what his going on and swirling around him with russia that. is a very real possibility that he'll dig in and say you want me to leave, you fire me. >> matt, are there any restrictions for the president and who he could appoint as attorney general in a recess appointment? and is there any legal reason

why under a new attorney general robert mueller couldn't be fired? would it make it easier to get rid of robert mueller if there's a new attorney general? >> it would be very interesting to see a new attorney general run the traps of getting confirmed in this senate. chuck grassly would have a lot of influence who the next attorney general would be. i think that because of the recusal that sessions currently faces, i think the ownership of the russia investigation would fall on the new attorney general. it would be a very interesting issue. but this story comes out of, again, another intelligence community leak trying to undermine this president, his administration. and ultimately it boils down to a he said, he said situation, where i'm going to always defer to the american citizen, the man that's served honorably in various states, including a u.s. attorney like myself, versus a russian spy/diplomat.

>> john dean, i think we have your audio fixed. is it appropriate for jeff decisions to remain as attorney general? >> i was speechless there for a moment. it's because i'm really struck by the timing of the leak. i don't know who the source was, but given the fact that it follows on "the new york times" story, as well as "the washington post" story, saying how senior aides were shocked that sessions had agreed or wanted to stay on his job. this certainly makes it much more difficult. the question of how appropriate it is is something he's going to have to address. he clearly wants the job, anderson. i think he's going to put up a good fight before he walks away. >> adam, i know you may not be able to know this, but is this information that the president of the united states would already have known based on his access to intelligence? or because it's part of the russian investigation?

>> i don't know the answer to that. i would be surprised if that -- if this information is -- it wouldn't be widely shared. again, i think as president, i'm sure he could have access to this. but i'm not sure how far it's distributed and to whom. >> carl? >> let me say two things. one, the president can ask for this intelligence and it would not surprise me if he did. particularly if he's intent on getting rid of sessions. but the real thing, and i've been talking to people around the white house that he's intent on is getting rid of mueller. that is his objective. he wants mueller out. he's doing everything he can to undermine him. he would like to fire him. and there is a possibility that this disclosure could give him the mechanism, as we're talking about, as dana is talking about, to do that through a combination of recess appointments and other mechanisms. but that's his ultimate goal.

he wants this investigation stopped. yes, he's talking about pardons. but he doesn't want to go there. he would like to end the investigation. >> adam, just so i'm clear, if there is a new attorney general appointed, then does he or she oversee robert mueller's investigation? >> i believe so. >> because robert mueller's investigation is completely independent and you believed the offi -- and is under the justice department. everyone, i want to bring in congressman eric swallow. your reaction to the reporting of "the washington post" which contradicts jeff sessions' past statements, based on the ambassador of russia and the words he said to his bosses and if they're accurate. >> good evening, anderson. attorney general sessions should no longer serve. i believe for other reasons he's already lost the trust of the american people. he wasn't forthcoming about his contacts with russia as they were interfering in our campaign. he participated in the firing of

james comey, which was improper. and so we now cannot trust his word. and so with respect to this report, i will just say as far as anything jeff sessions has said about his contacts with russia, we should be able to corroborate or contradict those statements and review that. but for now, you need your top law enforcement official to be trusted and he simply is not trusted. this is a time for congress to thoughtfully and aggressively put a check on this president. >> so you're saying he should step down? >> yes. >> are you concerned at all -- as a democrat, are you concerned at all about whomever might replace him and what impact that might have on the mueller investigation? >> anderson, that's why i say we're not helpless in congress, from a presidency that is careening into a constitutional crisis. the senate and the house can both check the abuses of power that we're seeing.

the senate should not do anything that would allow a recess appointment to take place. they should ensure that whoever would be appointed next if he does step down, is somebody who is going to allow the russian investigation to proceed unimpeded as we've seen the white house try to keep it from moving forward. so we have to step up for the sake of this country to get our democracy back in order. >> you see the attorney general should step down. if, in fact, ambassador kislyak was just bragging, just making this up, whether for nefarious purposes to confuse u.s. intelligence or to affect investigations or the operation of the trump administration, if he does step down and the ambassador was lying, isn't that playing into their hands, or taking action based on a lie? >> anderson, i'm not speaking with respect to the report today in "the washington post." i can't comment on that one way

or the other. he's already been found to not be fully forthcoming about his contacts with russia, while they were meddling in our elections. he participated in the firing of comey, which again was improper considering he had told the americancused himself. now he doesn't have the confidence of the president. so the justice department can function, i don't think he should be the attorney general. and congress should step up and make sure whoever is there next can lead it in a way that it can conduct the russian investigation and other business we need the justice department to do. >> in march, he said very strongly, i had no contact with russians, you know, during the campaign about the campaign. and then he amends that, i had no contact with russians about any interference in any election or campaign. do you believe the attorney general needs to be called back a third time to testify under

oath just to clear this matter up? >> yes, i also served on the house judiciary committee. we should have access to all the evidence to see just what is the truth. but also, anderson, this is the pattern that we've seen in this investigation, which has put more into focus the ties that the trump team has had. they deny ever had having contacts with russia. only when confronted, and because of dogged media reporting, did they acknowledge it. now we have gotten to the point where the president is saying so what? the alternative would have been hillary. he is putting that out there now. so i think we have to tell the country that the so what is, our democracy has been undermined by a foreign adversary, and we have to do everything now to never put our country in a position like that again. >> congressman, thank you. i'm joined now by evan perez. you've been covering the justice department for a while.

what do you make of this reporting by "the washington post" and the impact it's going to have? >> reporter: i think it comes at a tricky time for the attorney general, as a lot of our guests have talked about, given the fact that the president has essentially said he doesn't exactly want him there. if he had nope he wknown he was recuse himself he would have never appointed him. that also raises the question whether the president has some expectation that the attorney general essentially doesn't have any independence from him. so that's going to be -- it adds the pressure of the attorney general over the next few weeks to see whether or not he stays on this job, anderson. >> this white house can be very unpredictable how it staffs its top positions. how would it work if the president no longer has confidence in sessions if congress is in recess? >> that's one scenario. if you fire the attorney general

and the congress is not in session, they could do a recess appointment. the fact is, he has a republican senate and republican house. they can gavel out, because traditionally for the last few years they have not done that as a way to prevent barack obama from doing recess appointments. so they could cooperate with the president to do that. but the more likely thing would be the senate would take this very seriously and find an attorney general. here's the thing, a couple of folks have pointed out. if you appoint an attorney general who doesn't have the recusal issues that sessions does, then you have someone with a clean slate who can come in and pull the levers to control this investigation. that's what the president may indeed want. >> so evan, just to be clear, a new attorney general without any need to recuse himself or herself, they would be overseeing robert mueller? >> reporter: right, exactly. right now he's overseen by rod

rosenstein, the acting attorney general for the purposes of this investigation, anderson. so what would happen is then his new boss, the new attorney general, who doesn't have this issue, would then be the most senior person at the justice department who has oversight of what mueller does. keep in mind, when mueller does find anything, if he wants to refer this to congress or perhaps impeachment, it fends on rod rosenstein or whoever is in that position, to make the official referral to congress. >> i've got to get a quick break in. later, the president's son, his former campaign chairman reach a deal on their senate hearing next week. each year sarah climbs 58,007 steps. that's the height of mount everest. because each day she chooses to take the stairs.

at work, at home... even on the escalator. that can be hard on her lower body, so now she does it with dr. scholl's orthotics. clinically proven to relieve and prevent foot, knee or lower back pain, by reducing the shock and stress that travel up her body with every step she takes. so keep on climbing, sarah. you're killing it. dr. scholl's. born to move. where are mom and dad? 'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico! goin' up the country. love mom and dad' i'm takin' a nap. dude, you just woke up! ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides.

pcountries thatk mewe traveled,t what is your nationality and i would always answer hispanic. so when i got my ancestry dna

results it was a shocker. i'm everything. i'm from all nations. i would look at forms now and wonder what do i mark? because i'm everything. and i marked other. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com. what twisted ankle?ask what muscle strain? advil makes pain a distant memory nothing works faster stronger or longer what pain? advil. the lincoln summer invitation is on. it's time for a getaway. now get our best offers of the season. on the agile mkc. on the versatile midsize lincoln mkx. or go where summer takes you in the exhilarating mkz. the lincoln summer invitation sales event. ask about complimentary pick up & delivery servicing.

right now get zero percent apr plus 1,000 dollars summer savings on the lincoln mkx, mkc and mkz and it's also a story mail aabout people and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you you heard the congressman before the break saying he thinks jeff sessions should step down, given tonight's breaking new news. back now with the panel. you and i were talking during the break, and i want to have everyone else hear what you said. i've seen it online, a lot of people have a, i don't know if it's conspiracy theory, but the idea that given what president trump said about his anger

toward attorney general sessions and this story breaks that it gives him a reason to get rid of sessions. you've been working on this story for quite some time. >> we had the initial story back in march, which is that sessions had two encounters with kislyak. basically since then, we were trying to figure out what was the nature of those discussions, what was the content of those communications. so we've been working on it for weeks before this. and when "the new york times" had that excellent interview with trump in which trump commented about sessions, particularly talked about specifically how he didn't appreciate the way he answered the questions in the confirmation hearing, we realized we may not have as much time as we thought, and we should basically try to push the story out as soon as we could. >> may not have as much time, because other reporters are going to be hunting it down? >> correct, correct. it's a competitive environment.

and obviously sometimes we can work on stories for months and not worry about the competition. but when we saw "the new york times" story, we realized we needed to finish up. >> you know better than anybody what to say or not to say, but the information about what kislyak said to his boss, is that information -- >> that's information we had since basically early june. >> so you've had it for a while. so for those that believe this fell into your lap 24 hours ago, that is not the case. >> that's correct. >> you made the point during the break, and i think it's an important one and fair one to make, there's nothing necessarily nefarious about jeff sessions working for the trump campaign, having a conversation with kislyak about the trump campaign. >> i personally don't see any problem with that. i don't know why that would be an issue. certainly kislyak is doing his job, and it would seem like it would be sessions' role as a

foreign policy adviser to engage, whether it's the british ambassador or the russian ambassador. there shouldn't be an issue with him engaging. the issue is, did he accurately characterize or even disclose when asked about that contact. and when he was asked about it, did he give an honest answer about the nature of it? and so i think as you showed at the top of the hour, you know, we have an evolving story line here. january, it didn't happen. march, it happened but it wasn't about the campaign. june, it was yes, maybe it did happen, i can't recall. but at no point did i discuss interference. >> but it does raise the essential question of, again, if there's nothing nefarious about it, why not just be honest about having meetings like, yeah, i met with the guy, i was a surrogate for the campaign. carl, anything wrong with that? >> the same question to the president of the united states, why won't he disclose all of his

conversations and tell us, i am ordering everybody in my white house to disclose publicly all of their dealings with russians during the campaign and since. unless it involves secret diplomacy in a nature that can't be disclosed. this is a coverup. it doesn't mean the law has been necessarily broken, but we have seen for months and months, there is a coverup going on, that various people are part of it. that the president of the united states has not been honest or forthcoming. that he's tried to demean, undermine, and obstruct all of these investigations and is how talking about throughout the white house, to many people in the white house, who are now aware that he is trying to get rid of robert mueller. so he doesn't want this investigation. he wants all of this to go away rather than deal with it in a forthright way. the same way that the attorney general in the united states did

not want to deal with this in a forthright way. >> you're saying it's a coverup, but it doesn't mean illegality. >> not yet. just lies and on fe and unlessn people around the business to say let's tell him what we did. let's say we wanted to have a broader relationship with the russians based on x, y, or z, we had these conversations or meetings. this is how we dealt with it in the campaign. that's a way to do it. they have done the opposite. they have sought to cover it up. and this is including mr. sessions' system. >> another element of the investigation, donald trump, jr. and paul manafort have avoided subpoenas by cutting a deal, they will talk in private on wednesday. it's unclear if they'll be under oath. typically they're not.

here is what trump junior promised last week. >> you said you would fully cooperate with any investigation. >> of course. >> turn over everything they want. >> yeah. >> and you'll testify under oath, all of that? >> all of it. >> first of all, manu, when donald trump, jr. said he thinks he's already turned over everything, he revealed some e-mails, we don't know if there are other e-mails, there could be a whole host of e-mails about this meeting or the results of it or subsequent phone conversations. what are you learning about what's going to happen next week? s there was a lot of talk they were going to testify publicly on wednesday. >> reporter: that's not going to happen because of this deal that was cut behind the scenes after a series of active negotiations. the deal entails providing more documents that you were just referring to, donald trump, jr.,

his contacts that may have occurred, including the trump tower meeting he had to get dirt on the clintons, as well as paul manafort. those two have agreed to have a private interview with the senate judiciary committee and the staff. there's no date set for that private interview. at this point, it's unclear if they with appear publicly, but the committee did issue a subpoena for another witness expected to come on wednesday, glenn simpson co-founder of fusion gps, behind that russian dossier. saying this hearing is a pretext to throw cold water on the issue of collusion with russian and trump officials. that is why he is not appearing next wednesday. but this deal cut with paul manafort and donald trump, jr., has avoided the notion of

subpoenas for now. >> a lot to discuss. i want to bring back in my panel. dana, the negotiations the senators are having with donald trump, jr. and manafort, what would they be negotiating exactly? could it include the scope of the questions or just the scope of the information they're expected to turn over? >> probably more likely the information. it's hard to imagine, you know, journalists, maybe even more importantly when you're talking about investigators that they would agree to limit the scope of questions, particularly because they're following the investigation and their questions will be based on what they learned. what they, manafort and don, jr. clearly want to avoid, is a spectacle. and they understand how red hot this issue is politically. and how incredibly rare, maybe

even unprecedented and somebody will probably correct me if i'm wrong, for the son of a president to be called to congress to testify about alleged conversations that he may or may not have had to further his father's campaign, and those conversations being with a russian national. so that would be absolutely unprecedented. not saying it won't happen, but they're trying to slow walk it, and even though there is bipartisan agreement and they're working in a bipartisan way in the judiciary committee, to make these conversations happen, it is still a republican led congress. and these are still people that members of the congress and senators want to show a bit of deference and understanding to as they get their information together. >> this behind closed doors

discussion, if it's not under oath, do they still have to tell the truth? if they don't tell the truth and it's revealed later, is that perjury? >> it's not. i would expect they will be sworn in, but that's probably part of the discussions and negotiations they had. there's still a lying to congress statute that is very broad that could be applied in this situation. you know, i say along with what dana is saying, dianne feinste n feinstein, who is a ranking remember, they did a good job of minimizing the political circus that would have happened on wednesday. but at the same time, getting the important information to the committee to conduct their investigation, because these are two key people in that meeting that happened last year that will know details that are important to the judiciary committee and their investigation. >> it is interesting, carl, donald trump, jr. is willing to go public on hannity's program

when this story is broke to give his side of the story in an interview which was pretty limited in scope. and yet when it comes to actually answering questions in public, it seems, or at least his attorneys don't want him to. >> i'm going to come to their defense here. first of all, the congress of the united states, they reserve the right to call these people into public sessions and into a further hearing. normal investigative practice often dictates that you do want to preinterview them. >> is it smarter to have a preinterview? >> yes. you can learn some things, there also is an oath involved probably. you can also be in contempt of congress if you don't cooperate. there are all kinds of ways, there are repercussions that can be brought upon the witnesses. more important, they too have rights. they have fifth amendment rights.

it's understandable they might want to avoid a public glare, at least until they've had an opportunity to say to members of congress -- they ought to eventually publicly testify. but first, let's see what they have to offer. i think that their rights need to be respected. when we come back, the big shakeup in the white house staffing. find out who's in, who's out, and what it means, next. for my constipation, my doctor recommended i switch laxatives. stimulant laxatives make your body go

by forcefully stimulating the nerves in your colon. miralax is different. it works with the water in your body to hydrate and soften. unblocking your system naturally. miralax. ii need my blood osugar to stay iin control.. i need to cut my a1c. weekends are my time. i need an insulin that fits my schedule. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue, or throat,

dizziness, or confusion. ask your health care provider if you're tresiba® ready. covered by most insurance and medicare plans. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪

breaking news tonight which eclipsed another big story. the big news, just a few hours ago and it continuing to be is

the departure of press secretary sean spicer and naming of anthony scaramucci as white house communications director. one thing is clear, scaramucci does say a lot of positive stuff about president trump. >> the president is a winner. and what we're going to do is a lot of winning. i love the mission that the president has. i love the president. i obviously love the country. he's genuinely a wonderful human being. i love the president. i'm very, very loyal to the president. i love these guys. i respect these guys. the president is always going to be the president. i think he's got some of the best political instincts in the world. he's done a phenomenal job for the american people. he's the most competitive person i've ever met. i have seen this guy throw a spiral through the center. he's hitting foul shots and swishing them. he sinks three-foot putts. >> he tried to answer as many

questions as possible, which is something we don't see a lot in that briefing room. and it was televised. also, sarah huckabee sanders has been named the press spokesperson. details from sarah murray who joins us. a dramatic end to the week to say the least. what more are you learning? >> reporter: yeah, not just a dramatic end to the week but months of speculation that a staff shakeup was coming. that all came to play out in a relatively short time frame. we started hearing about this last night. it became clear this is what the president wanted, and he was doing this in many ways of his own accord without the advice of some of his top advisers. this is the president who feels very much like he's jumunder si in this white house between the russian investigation, at the justice department and capitol hill. he felt like he wanted this job filled by someone he sees as a killer, someone who is going to go out and depend him. that is how he sees anthony scaramucci. it's not scaramucci's job to be

at the podium in front of us every day. he's the communications director. it is his job to develop strategy. this is something like a close personal relationship with president trump, different from what we saw with sean spicer who adopted this role. it will be fascinating to see scaramu . >> and with spicer's departure, scaramucci's appointment, how did it go over in some sectors of the west wing? some were reporting some folks were unhappy. is that true, do we know? >> reporter: there's no doubt that this is something everyone in the white house was not on board with. people are not hiding their feelings about it. this is something the president decided with the guidance of his family members. ivanka trump is supportive of this, jared kushner is supportive of this. they've worked alongside anthony scaramucci, known him a while, and they trust him to be out there being the voice for the president and defending him. but reince priebus, the chief of

straf, was not supportive of this. steve bannon, the president's chief strategist, was not supportive of this. sean spicer was still opposed to it. we saw him resign today. this was really the president's decision in many ways over very serious objections from people in the white house. it is worth pointing out, anderson, now in this role anthony scaramucci reports directly to the president. >> the briefing room seemed a little less combative with scaramucci at the podium. do you expect it will last? obviously he will not be at the podium every day. i think he had a commanding presence while he was there, but it will be sarah huckabee sanders back. >> that's right. it was a different vibe with him. he brought his new york swagger. he seemed at ease when taking questions from reporters, and he was gentler in paring responses. there were no cries of fake news and that kind of thing. it will be fascinating to see if it changes the tone from the top on. sean spicer set the tone the first time he ever gave a

briefing when he was talking about inauguration crowd sizes, he relied on faulty information and mailed it clear he was going to battle with the press. i think he and sarah huckabee sanders kept it up in a lot of ways, day in and day out. that's not been scaramucci's relationship with different media outlets. he has a lot of close relationships with news outlets. we'll see. this is the kind of job that's difficult to do. it wears on you. today scaramucci didn't have to answer for anything the president tweeted, he didn't have to answer for many things the president said that were not rooted in fact. that will change in the months ahead and we'll see how he deals with it and how his relationship with the president fares. >> thank you very much. people that have spoken to, written award winning news copy about president, including this one. david axelrod, mike an dantonio and jason miller. david, why quit now? was this a culmination of events for sean spiceer or do you think it had to do with the hiring of scaramucci?

>> well, anderson, i would say of all of the pools that develop in washington, all of the betting that goes on, i think one of the most prominent was exactly how long sean spicer would last. some people had, you know, easter, some people had july 4th, some people had labor day. i don't know anybody who had christmas, because this has been a very, very difficult relationship from the beginning. it is hard to speak for this president because you make representations presumably with his approval, and then he will take it in a completely different direction, often cutting you off at the knees, costing you your credibility. so i don't think that spicer was terribly comfortable over time in that role. and then, you know, scaramucci ostensibly will be the communications director in the white house. now, his whole background is in finance. he has no background in white house communications. jen sake is sitting there. jen was a white house communications director.

it is a very complex job and it is a planning job. apparently he was hired to be kind of a perining peacock on tv and defend the president, but, you know, the thing that stunned me more than anything was that he said, "i told the president that we need to let him be himself, we need to let him express his full identity." was the president feeling restrained? i didn't get that sense. it seems to me that he has spoken his mind time and time and time again, and that often is what gets him in trouble and it makes planning impossible. so if that is the philosophy of the new communications director, i don't think it bodes well for the white house in the long term. >> jen, what is the job much a communications director compared to the person doing the briefings in the room, and how difficult is it for anybody, to david's point, in this white house where, you know, they say one thing during the day and then oftentimes the president, you know, seems to contradict it within 24 hours online?

>> well, incredibly difficult for anybody who is speaking on behalf of this president sitting in the white house. the job, as david referenced, of the communications director -- you know, the press secretary is the fireman dealing with the incoming press inquiries and things blowing up on a daily basis. the communications director's job is to see around the corner and think about the strategy and how you're going to position the white house policy and president six months, a year from now. that takes a lot of work with the president working hand in hand. scaramucci reportedly has a close relationship, so that's good, but it is far more than being comfortable at the podium. you are a key partner with the policy teams, working with them on policy rollouts and announcements, approaching things that are terrible that are going to happen, and there is a lot of deep policy work and thinking and strategy that happens. he doesn't have experience doing that, and i think that's probably going to be a big challenge for him. >> jason, how big -- i mean to me -- how big -- i guess that's

one challenge, he's obviously got a very impressive business record. but just the challenge of if it's a planning job and planning a month out or six months out, i mean you can plan all the made-in-america weeks you want, but if the president starts the week off by tweeting about something else, that's going to dominate the news cycle, you know, the best laid plans will be tossed out the window. >> here is why i think anthony is going to be so good in this job, is he gets the president. they clearly click. i think they get each other. anthony proved himself on the campaign trail. he proved himself on the transition team, and there is -- i think at a different level than we have seen other folks, he's been able to really relate to the president. >> he has a more personal relationship, sean spicy really didn't have that relationship. >> he understands how the president wants to communicate his message. that will look different from the previous administration, it will look different from other administrations before that. i think it is important to point out we saw sarah huckabee

sanders appointed to press secretary, which is an important part of this. look, anthony scaramucci has the strategic vision to look down the road and plan it out. as far as the nuts and bolts where he doesn't have the background in traditional politics, there's good deputies and folks in the communications department to work with him on that. what they needed was a leader. keep in mind the communications director's spot had been open for a couple of months. it is not a shake up but a bit of a new direction. the quick thing to say on sean, a lot of folks have been piling on him, but hes ha not gotten enough credit for the things he brought in, including bringing in regional reporters with skype interviews, opening up to more ideological press from the left and ridght. i think he should get credit for that. >> what do you make of these changes, carl? >> let's not get caught up in atmospherics, which is what it is about to some extent. what we are talking about throughout all of this is the conduct of the president of the

united states and how the white house is trying to explain the conduct of the president of the united states. that conduct, especially of late, is aimed at undermining the judicial system and integrity of the united states. it is a job that nobody should have to do, because it is by its very nature and by the nature of what the president is allowing to happen, by trying to undermine our judicial system and the special prosecutor, we don't need to pay too much attention to the atmospherics. we need to pay attention to the president, his words and what the investigators are finding and our own investigation. >> michael, i think one of the things that's so fascinating about this president is, you know, he clearly has a long relationship with the press, very different obviously when he was a businessman in new york than it is now. but, you know, that new york times interview which came right after lunch with the senators about health care, apparently the only other person in the room was hope hicks. i wonder if under -- with

scaramucci that there will be that sort of free-wheeling kind of interviews without anybody else in the room. i'm not sure if somebody else in the room would have made any difference or not. >> i think you might see anthony in the room. you know, when i saw him speak today i thought that if the president could have an all billionaire team with uniforms by brioni, this would be the guy, you know. you want -- he wants the atmospherics to fit a certain template. carl is right, that no one should have to explain a coverup if it is under way, no one should have to back and fill. but this is the reality with donald trump. he is a guy who is going to go his own way, and he'll go three different ways sometimes before lunch. i think scaramucci is saying, i love this man many times, him saying, "i'm here to serve him." he made a funny equip about sean spicer where he said, well, maybe now he will go make some money. that could have come out of

donald trump's mouth. so there's a real affinity here i think for these two fellows. >> yeah, it certainly came off that way. for all of our viewers joining us, we are at the tom of the hour, a busy one at the end of a very busy week. a new story out in "the washington post" saying that russia's ambassador, ambassador kiss lee yak, told his kremlin bosses he did in fact talk about campaign matters with then senator jeff sessions. current and former u.s. officials telling "the washington post" they know from american intelligence intercepts. if true, it is also possible the russian ambassador was boasting to his bosses. if it was not a boast, it casts serious doubt on the credibility of jeff sessions, the highest law enforcement official in the land, who denied having contacts with russians during the campaign about the campaign. this is what attorney general sessions said during his confirmation hearing back in january. >> if there is any evidence that anyone afill y