record. >> sharing his side of the story about russian contacts. >> mr. kushner has the most to lose at this moment in the investigation. >> we have a lot of ground to cover. we want to know about several meetings alleged to have taken place. >> the administration is supportive of being tough on russia, particularly in putting these sanctions in place. >> hasn't made a decision yet to sign that bill one way or the other. >> if he vetoes the bill, we will override his veto. >> i'm confident that the russians meddled in the election as is the entire intelligence committee. >> the president said to me, maybe they did it, maybe they didn't do it. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> we begin with breaking news today. jared kushner put out an 11-page statement saying he did not collude with any foreign government. the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, he will be facing tough questions on his contacts with russia in just hours when he meets with the senate intel committee.

>> very well-crafted 11 pages. it certainly outlines all contacts from kushner's perspective with russian officials including what he knew about that meeting with the russian attorney that don junior invited him to. the question this morning is going to be that, what will the impact be of kushner's answers on investigators, especially when you get to the special couns counsel and, of course congress. let's begin with cnn justice correspondent pamela brown live in washington with breaking details. this is unusual circumstance, but 11 pages, what kushner wants investigators to believe. >> he wants it for the public record as well. this is the first time, chris and alisyn, that president trump's senior adviser and son-in-law jared kushner is sharing his side of the story about his russian contacts. he said in this 11-page statement flat out, i did not collude or know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded

with any foreign government. i have not relied on russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector. he insists he had no additional meetings with russians other than the four contacts that had been reported already. he did provide fresh details about these meetings. he says besides a quick meet-and-greet with russian ambassador sergey kislyak last april at a reception at the mayflower hotel, the other other russian contacts during the campaign was the infamous meeting at trump tower with his brother-in-law don junior. kushner claimed he did not read down that e-mail chain whereby don junior is told he would be receiving incriminating information from a russian attorney about hillary clinton. kushner claiming he would get hundreds of e-mails a day during the campaign and he didn't read through each e-mail including this one. he also said how he viewed the meeting as meaningless saying,

quote, reviewing e-mails confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, i actually e-mailed my assistant from the meeting after i had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote, can you please call me on my cell, need excuse to get out of meeting. he says there was no followup he's aware of, no knowledge of documents being offered. he says the only thing he remembers was a discussion about adoption. he then went on to detail what he said was the second meeting with ambassador kislyak saying kislyak wanted to meet with him to discuss u.s. policy in syria. he said during that meeting kislyak asked for a secure line to have conversations with generals in moscow. kushner said there wasn't a secure line at the transition headquarters, so he asked if it was possible to use existing communication channels at the russian embassy. kislyak said that wouldn't be possible. nothing happened after that. kushner is clearly pushing back on any notion that he wanted a

secure back channel to moscow. after that, at kislyak's request, he mate with sergei gorokhov. kushner says that meeting lasted about 20 minutes. he said it was only about relationship building as part of his role in the transition and no personal business was discussed. that contradicts a statement from veb that said this meeting was about kushner's business. clearly in this 11-page statement, jared kushner is painting the picture that the contacts with russians during the campaign and the transition were meaningless and insignificant in his view. back to you, alisyn. >> pamela, so much to parse in this 11-page statement. thank you for diving in and analyzing all that for us. there are mixed messages from the white house on whether the president supports another big story, event that will be happening this week, the bipartisan bill in congress that would punish russia for

interfering in the election. cnn's joe johns is live at the white house with the latest. >> reporter: good morning, alisyn. you know it was recently, not long ago that the white house was lobbying against that bill to punish russia for meddling in the last election. now there's pressure mounting on capitol hill to do something which could mean the president is going to find himself in a no-win situation, all this when the newly retooled communications team here at the white house went out to talk about it over the weekend with more mixed messaging. president trump's new communications team offering muddled messaging about whether the president supports a bill that would limit his ability to unilaterally lift sanctions on moscow. newly appointed press secretary sarah huckabee sanders signaling the president is open to signing the legislation. >> the administration is supportive of being tough on russia, particularly in putting these sanctions in place. we support where the legislation

is now. >> reporter: but incoming white house communications director anthony scaramucci sounding more unzblern is president trump going to sign the russian sanctions bill? >> you've got to ask president trump that. it's my second or third day on the job. my guess is that he's going to make that decision shortly. >> reporter: the new communications director also telling cnn that president trump still does not accept that russia attempted to influence the 2016 election. >> he basically said to me, hey, maybe they did it, maybe they didn't do it. >> reporter: a stark contrast to the unanimous and unwavering beliefs reiterated by president trump's own intelligence officials in the last week. >> there's no dissent. i have stated that publicly. >> i am confident that the russians meddled in this election as is the entire cleanse committee. >> no doubt i stand behind the intelligence community assessment that we produced were with three of his inner circle

scheduled to speak with investigators regarding collusion between the trump campaign and russia, the president unleashing anger at both political parties, once again calling the investigation a phony witch hunt and an excuse for a lost election, while attacking fellow republicans for doing very little to protect their president. the president raising eyebrows a day earlier by asserting he has the complete power to pardon, suggesting that might include his family, his aides, even possibly himself in relation to the russia probe. >> i'm in the oval office in the last week, we talked about that. he said there's no one around him that needs to be pardoned. >> reporter: one of his lawyers offering a contradictory message. >> we have not and i continue to not have conversations with the president of the united states regarding pardons. pardons have not been discussed and pardons are not on the table. >> reporter: the house is expected to take up the sanctions bill as early as

tomorrow. "the new york times" is reporting that, when they reached out to scaramucci to ask about the confusion over the president's position on the bill, he told him he was still new to the information. alisyn and chris? >> joe, thank you very much for all of that. we'll talk about it with our panel. we have cnn political and national security analyst david sanger. bloomberg news white house correspondent margaret tall l e live. if you read this 11-page statement from jared kushner in the first person, in his own words, do you read it as someone who was confronting a steep learning curve, somewhat over his head in his new role as senior adviser, had a lot on his plate, so a lot of what he says were casual meetings with russian officials slip through the cracks and that's all there

is there. >> certainly, alisyn, the way he's trying to portray himself in that 11-page document is somebody who was completely new to foreign affairs, couldn't remember after he had met him the name of sergey kislyak, the long-time russian ambassador to the united states who suggested at one point -- kushner himself said he suggested if they needed to set up a secure communications line to the russians that maybe they should go to the russian embassy in washington and use their phone lines to go do that. i've never been in the foreign service. our fellow panelist has, and i suspect there are people in the foreign service world and counterintelligence world who would have a problem with that. his defense here was i was overwhelmed and a little naive about all this happened. i didn't know who i was meeting. i think the most interesting part, alisyn, was his

description of the donald trump jr. meeting with the russian lawyer and parade of other russians who were there. he maintained the part he was in was mostly about adoptions. as you heard, he wanted to get out of the meeting early. what he's missing is the purpose of that meeting if you talk to people who have done russian counterintelligence was mostly to see if the trump campaign or the transition at that point was -- the campaign at that point was receptive to getting information about hillary clinton, to receiving russian government data about hillary clinton. that's what the meeting was all about. he seemed to have missed that by his own account. >> one of the interesting revelations about don junior's e-mails, is that it shows it's not a hoax, not a witch hunt. the russians were trying to move on people close to the president. jared kushner gives himself some

space on that meeting. he says i showed up late, so whatever was said before the adoption, i don't know, i wasn't there. that's the implication of the statement. as someone who does have profound knowledge, he presents himself as overwhelmed and naive. is that good enough for you? >> i think that's the key question for the senate intelligence committee and for the special counsel. the major thing i would like to relate today, chris, is how strange and bizarre it was how much the trump campaign was thinking about russia. they were running for election in the united states. it's not unusual for campaigns to have incidental contacts with foreign officials to get to know them, to exchange views. to have this reported focus by the campaign chairman, by the president's son, by the president's son-in-law, by the president himself on russia i find strange.

>> jared kushner says he had very little contact with russia. he didn't even remember the ambassador's name. >> but look at the campaign in total. the most important thing here is the statements donald trump made as candidate and now as president. he's rejecting that russia hacked our election. he's been doing that since autumn. he's repeatedly excused what the russians have done in ukraine and crimea. he hasn't been for the sanctions that nearly every other republican has supported on both those issues. he is the weakest president we've had on russia. that's the central story from a policy perspective. >> margaret, you've had a chance to read through this. let me read one of the salient moments. this is jared kushner talking about the russian attorney that don junior set the meeting up. i had not met with the attorney before the meeting nor spoke with her since. i thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to

my attention recently. i did not read or recall this e-mail exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission. >> when you look at it, it attempts to do two things. one is completely distance him from any notion that hillary clinton and her fate in the election entered his calculus. two is to sort of preemptively state his own business interests at the kushner companies were not tied up in his thinking at all about this meeting with the bank chief, the russian bank chief who had connections with vladimir putin. there's so much material in this 11-page statement. these are two parallel points that i think are really important to understand that he is underscoring. the third is, as all statements attempt to do, to set the narrative going into this

interview with this senate panel. as we know, this is sort of an unusual arrangement, not what we think of as typical committee testimony. it's happening behind closed doors, not happening under oath. and it is with staff. they will have a chance to ask him questions. this is his opportunity to try to set the parameters of those questions and to shape the staff's thinking before that meeting actually begins. >> kushner doesn't have to be under oath. >> to tell the truth. >> he can tell the truth no matter what. and you can be punished for not telling the truth before congress. he's the only one with any onus on him. he's a member of the administration. manafort isn't, donald junior isn't. he had disclosure responsibilities, and that will be part of the questioning today. david sanger, what do you make of the president's posturing on the sanctions bill? we get it from scaramucci that when he hears russian

interference, he doesn't like it. the sanctions bill puts him in a little bit of a pickle, but could he not sign this? haven't members of his own party told him, we're going to override your veto on this, it matters to us? >> chris, i don't think he has a choice here. first of all, in this political atmosphere, if he vetoes this bill, first significant piece of legislation to reach his desk, maybe the only piece of significant legislation that will reach him in this session of congress, he will be in position to appear to do vladimir putin's bidding. this bill is what president trump in his interview to us last year at "the times," of what donald trump wanted to avoid. he thought the sanctions that had been imposed after the annexation of crimea and the military action in ukraine were

an impediment to building up a better relationship with russia. he didn't quite go so far as saying he wanted to get rid of it, but that was the implication. now this actually expands the sanctions. it doesn't do it in a very dramatic way. but it certainly puts specific sanctions on individuals for the election hack. so by signing the bill, which i think he's going to have to do, he's acknowledging that russians were responsible for the hack. i don't think that will change in any way his continued effort to muddy that up. as you say, the reason for that is clear. he is not capable in his own mind of saying they tried to interfere in the election and it probably didn't affect the outcome. all he hears is this is a way to attack his legitimacy. >> once and for all we can say, it's not us speculating about it. his own coms director said this is his reckoning of it.

it's not speculation. it comes from the white house. >> panel, thank you very much for all the information and perspective. >> look, just to further the point, the intelligence agencies agree. it doesn't matter which one of them you ask from which administration, they say russia interfered in the election. so what do gop congress members think about the president's continued muddying of those waters? we'll ask a house member next. ng keep you sidelined. that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you. casper makes one perfect supportive and comfortable. premium foam layers. breathable for airflow. perfect rebound, plus perfect lift. pick your size, you get 100 nights to test it out. test the layers, be a layer, casper.

it's your glass of willpower that helps keep cravings... ...far, far away. feel less hungry with the natural fiber in clinically... ...proven meta appetite control. from metamucil. they always refer to me as master sergeant. they really appreciate the military family, and it really shows. we've got auto insurance, homeowners insurance. had an accident with a vehicle, i actually called usaa before we called the police. usaa was there hands-on very quick very prompt. i feel like we're being handled as people that actually have a genuine need.

we're the webber family and we are usaa members for life. usaa, get your insurance quote today. will people know it means they'll get the lowest price guaranteed on our rooms by booking direct on choicehotels.com? hey! badda book. badda boom! mr. badda book. badda boom! book now at choicehotels.com

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.

staying on top of breaking news. jared kushner put out an 11-page statement this morning of course ahead of his private interview with the senate intelligence committee. you keep hearing kushner won't be under oath. that doesn't matter if you're testifying before congress. if you don't tell the truth, there's a penalty for it. don't worry about whether or not he's under oath. he insists in this statement he didn't collude with any foreign government during the campaign, nor does he know anyone else in the campaign doing so. joining us, republican congressman leonard lance of new jersey. good to have you here. >> thank you. >> i know you looked at this statement in general.

but what it says is i didn't meet with anybody under any type of circumstances to suggest any type of undue influence or control. he paints himself as overwhelmed and perhaps naive. do you think that should be good enough for questioners, to explain why he didn't disclose what he was supposed to when he was supposed to? >> i think at first blush it appears to be an open statement. i'm sure there will be questions raised by members of the senate intelligence committee. upon first reading, it appears to me to be an open statement. >> do you have any concerns when it comes to russian efforts to meddle in the election and what they may have tried to do with trump's campaign? >> yes, i think russians were up to no good and i think they did try to be involved, and this is true across the globe, not only hear in the united states. i agree with mike pompeo with whom i served in congress and dan coats, and, yes, i think

they attempted that. >> the president does not agree with the intelligence. he says it is still an open question. it could be other people. maybe it was russia, maybe it was not. why do you think the president doesn't share the certainty? >> i think the president said it may have occurred, i it may not have occurred. i believe it did occur. the president was elected for other reasons. as senator schumer said over the weekend, this was not based on the russians or jim comey. the president was elected for other reasons. i think the president was fairly elected based on the electoral college and we should move forward. >> how do we get to the bottom of what happened and take the actions as a government necessary to stop it from happening again if the president of the united states doesn't accept the premise? >> i think we're going to have that opportunity. we're going to pass a strong sanctions bill this week in the house of representatives, i hope and expect the president will be seening that into law, his press

spokesperson, ms. huckabee, indicated that yesterday. mr. scaramucci deferred to sarah huckabee. so i think the president will be signing that into law and i certainly hope he does so. >> so mixed messaging. politically as his party you're boxing him in on this. he doesn't want to own russian interference as a reality because he believes it hurts his legitimacy as president. we know as much because anthony scaramucci said as much. you can't make the president do anything, but if he does sign the bill with pressure from his party because you guys are in favor of it, then he has to own the reality of russian interference. are you okay putting him in that position? >> we're a separate and end dent branch of government as the president is a separate and independent branch of government. i believe upon reflection he will sign this into law. i certainly urge him to do so. i respect the presidency.

i recognize he's a separate branch of government. we need this tough sanctions bill not only against russia, but also against iran and north korea. >> why is it so important for you to have congressman fest its ability to check the president on sanctions? >> i think it's our independent coequal branch responsibility to indicate to the russians and to the iranians and to the north koreans that we recognize what they are doing and that is why we're going to be imposing this additional sanctions. >> what do you make of paul ryan pulling the aumf language from the appropriations bill? meaning right now it won't get to the floor for debate. the authorization for the use of military force. do you believe as an independent body that congress should step up and debate its constitutional duty when it comes to declarations of war? >> i do. this has been a matter of contention for quite some time. it didn't begin this year.

this has been quite some time. certainly we should examine that in a bipartisan manner. i'm willing to do that, chris. >> why do you think ryan pulled it? >> i don't know. i'm not on the appropriations committee, but i hope we have a legitimate debate on that issue at some point in the future. >> everybody keeps saying that, but it never happens. why? >> i would imagine it's difficult. this is true in the obama administration as well. this is not new. i would like congress to debate this in a timely fashion. >> no president is going to ask you to take back power from them, but it certainly is your constitutional duty to declare war. you know that, sir. thank you for being on "new day." >> thank you. >> the president says he has complete power to pardon. why is he talking about that? we get both sides next. give you. ...backsweat and gordo's everything. i love you, but sometimes you stink.

♪ new febreze fabric refresher with odorclear technology... ...cleans away odors like never before. because the things you love the most can stink. and plug in febreze to keep your whole room fresh for up... ...to 45 days. 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!

because my teeth are yellow. these photos? why don't you use a whitening toothpaste? i'm afraid it's bad for my teeth. try crest 3d white. crest 3d white diamond strong toothpaste and rinse... ...gently whiten... ...and fortify weak spots. use together for two times stronger enamel. crest 3d white.

the president wins again blasting the russia revelations as a, quote, phony witch hunt. for the first time he is tweeting about his power to pardon saying, while all agree

the u.s. president has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is leaks against us. so what are the aurgt thorts of the president? joining us is robert way, former white water independent counsel and matthew axelrod, former senior official for the department of justice. thank you for being with us. robert ray, let's give people a little premmer. a lot about two words, clemency, mercy or reducing the penalty for someone and pardon which is removing them completely, exonerating them from any type of punishment or crime. what can the president do? >> i don't think there's any question that the president has the absolute right to pardon. >> which means even if i were convicted of a crime, he could see, cuomo doesn't go to jail. >> correct. or even before proceedings are instituted. a pardon could be issued before you ever got to a point where an

indictment was returned. >> he could say cuomo is under investigation, i pardon him in advance. >> that's correct. >> matthew axelrod, do you agree? >> i do agree. i think there's an open legal question as to whether he could do that with regard to himself. when it comes to others, i think he has the legal authority to do so, whether doing so would be something that would be in keeping with the expectations of the country is another question. >> pardoning one's self. what's your thought obt that? >> that's never been reviewed before. the better view, consistent with the constitution which is where you would start, is that it wouldn't make a lot of sense if the president were able to pardon himself. the constitution provides if the president were removed from office by impeachment, he is thereafter subject to prosecution. if he hollywood the power to pour done himself he wouldn't be

subject to prosecution and the better view would be that he would not be able to pardon himself. it's never been litigated before. that would be a question i would imagine a court would review. otherwise, the pardon power is unreviewable. it's a non-justiceable which in english means hands off. the courts would not tough that question. >> matthew, even if you found out cuomo was pardoned by the president in exchange for a free lunch, some par gan for ebargai exchange, it was a deal, would that have any legal implication? >> potentially. we're in uncharted territory here. the better view of the legal scholars who look at these issues is that conditioning -- it's changing a pardon for something else, a quid pro quo, if you will, would be improper. what the consequence of that --

again, i don't think we know because to my knowledge it hasn't happened before, but that's contrary to how our system of laws work in all other context, even though you have the legal authority to do something, it doesn't mean you can use that legal authority in exchange for a bribe, for example, or something like that. >> robert, what do you make of this discussion? obviously this got leaked somehow. somehow this was being discussed in the white house. why, the context, we're not really sure. the president wanted to get on top of it as he often does through twitter. what do you make of the discussion? >> i think it's a preliminary discussion. if you were president, wouldn't you want to know what the limits of your authority are. it doesn't seem to strike me as an earth shattering notion as you would in ordinary course of conversation around the dinner famili table with your own family, want to know the president's powers

under the constitution. to suggest that's the same thing as saying he's giving preliminary thought and giving rise to actual action to carry out an intent, to cirque couple describe -- >> you get to why. matthew, one of the questions would be, if the president does believe that this is a situation where someone close to him could get railroaded, in his estimation, that could be another context why he wanted to know why he wanted to do about it, right? >> perhaps, although there's no indication so far that anyone is going to be railroaded. you have the former fbi director and marine robert mueller with an impeccable reputation who is leading the probe and he's hired career prosecutors and doj alumni who have excellent representations. >> the president has been

pecking at that, matthew, to play on the wordimpeccable. he said in this e-mail, this interview, he was like, oh, that mueller, there are conflicts. he sat in that chair right where maggie haberman was, the president was saying, wanting to be the fbi director, there are conflicts. and all those guys he hired, they're all democrats and democrat contributors. what do you make of that? >> i don't make much of those allegations. i'll -- obviously if there were something that came to light about a true legitimate conflict, that would be serious stuff. the fact that the white house called former director mueller in to interview for the fbi director job i think actually can be flipped the other way. director mueller served his country for 12 years as fbi director. the fbi needed a new director after the president fired jim comey. if the white house called him, it's not surprising he would be willing to at least entertain the idea of stepping into the

breach once more, but the notion that that was a job he was agitating for i find hard to believe. i also find it interesting that the white house had such confidence in robert mueller that they were willing to consider him as fbi director one day, why the next day all of a sudden they don't think much of him at all. >> and a man, robert mueller, who is not just a decorated individual in service to the country, but a registered republican, was roundly praised by republicans when he was made special counsel. robert, just in terms of the rules of the game, you were referring earlier to what the constitution lays out with the ability to check the president. of course, we have impeachment proceedings. and if you are impeached, then as president, you are vulnerable to criminal procedures. could a president -- >> that's the mix on process. >> so could a president be indicted? >> well, that's also an unsettled question. we faced that issue during the

white water investigation, at least on two occasions that i'm aware of, the advice of the office of legal counsel at the department of justice was sought on that question i.'s a little bit of a co-kated issue about whether or not a sitting president could be charged or prosecuted. that question remains open and, in part, it comes down to your view about whether or not you believe in a unitary executive branch, whether or not the independent counsel statute is constitutional about which a majority of the supreme court believed it was -- >> we don't even have one now. >> correct. justice scalia was firmly of the view, believing in a unitary executive, it's not possible to imagine a circumstance in which a president could be indicted because he has and maintains the entirety of executive branch power. but, look, it's an open question. i think the better view was that the president, consistent with the constitution, if impeached

would be thereafter subject to prosecution which is the issue that i faced in the clinton investigation, which is the question about whether or not he could be charged after he left office. we sought the views of the office of legal counsel and they agreed with that. >> robert ray, thank you very much. matthew axelrod as well, thank you for your perspective. i appreciate it. alisyn. >> 15 years into the battle, american troops now reveal new challenges in afghanistan. we have a live report from kabul on the concerns of the u.s. marines there next. i make it easy to save $600 on car insurance,

so being cool comes naturally. hmm. i can't decide if this place is swag or bling. it's pretzels. word. ladies, you know when you switch, you get my bomb-diggity discounts automatically. ♪ no duh, right? [ chuckles ] sir, you forgot -- keep it. you're gonna need it when i make it precipitate. what, what? what?

hey you've gotta see this. cno.n. alright, see you down there. mmm, fine. okay, what do we got? okay, watch this. do the thing we talked about. what do we say? it's going to be great. watch. remember what we were just saying? go irish! see that? yes! i'm gonna just go back to doing what i was doing. find your awesome with the xfinity x1 voice remote.

we have breaking news right now. the taliban claiming responsibility for a car bomb in kabul that killed at least 24 people and injured dozens more. the terror group admits targeting a bus carrying afghan intelligence staff. this explosion comes as u.s. marines face discouraging challenges in what has become america's longest war. 15 years in, hundreds of marines fighting the taliban and isis in afghan stand and still coming under attack. cnn's nick paton walsh is live in kabul with more. what have you learned, nick? >> reporter: sal sin, talisyn, violence here unabated. they were mining ministry employees on the way to work.

further south in helmand, a handful, 300 u.s. marines have gone back to try and stop the bleeding, to try and hold the taliban back. they face enormous challenges. we saw what those were from a white house announcement about their next military moves here in afghanistan. here we are again, but it's been going on so long, these guys have left and then come back. afghanistan's helmand and america's marines. when does it end? a year ago, the taliban were at the gates of this key city, now it's not good, but it's better because the marines, even though there's only 300 of them, have brought huge fire power with them. afghan troops just now retook one district. the marines, not on the front but advising on base instead and congratulating them indoors. nothing lasts forever here except maybe the war, but the

triumph soon fades. the rockets just hit, landing about 20 meters outside. a total of three, indiscriminate. an 8-year-old boy wounded in the attack. president trump is now weighing his first move in a war that for men like colonel reid whose birthday is september 11th, it's absolutely nothing new. he was last year seven years ago, but with thousands of marines, fewer now. >> still about 300. >> reporter: now they have to do it all over again. >> discouragindiscouraging. a lot of blood on the ground. >> reporter: do you feel a sense of heaviness when you try to take it on again? >> there is a definite feeling of a sense of obligation to get this right because of those that have gone before us for sure. >> how many friends are you losing? >> i don't think i've ever bothered to count. too many. between here and iraq. >> reporter: some marines near

the front where you can just make out the taliban's white flag. >> this is all taliban country, all of it. there's taliban that come through here on a daily basis. >> reporter: the marines aren't meant to fight them, the afghans are, there aren't as many here as there is supposed to be. listen how these marines double what's meant to be a 500-strong afghan unit here. >> there's only about 200 now. >> reporter: you mean that actually exist. >> that actually exist, right. over those 200, there's about 100 that aren't even here. >> reporter: some on operations or patrol, so 50 to 100 afghans actually here. this marine unit pulls back after a week. the marines are leaving, but this is only supposed to be a short mission. they come, they go, they come back again. each time hoping the afghan security forces they leave behind them to do their job, to

hold the taliban back. the question is with only 300 here, the marines this time, what has changed? >> that is the question. nicking, thank you for going there and getting the story. we are waiting for the white house to give the latest iteration of strategy in afghanistan, a place with good reason known as the graveyard of empires. on the ground do you believe anything has changed that offers new opportunity? >> reporter: sadly, not at this stage. the options ahead of president trump, none of them are particularly new or sparkly. they could send many more troops in. the obama administration tried that. it didn't radically reduce violence and couldn't last forever. they want to talk to the taliban. frankly, the taliban at this point seem to be winning to some degree. the leader is radical enough to claim his son took his own life

in a suicide bombing last week in helmand. they could leave, that isn't a good option. that leaves afghanistan as a haven for extremists of terror. special forces to fight terrorism, trainers to assist the afghan security forces, that's kind of putting your finger in a dam to stop the leaks. there's no broad or long-term strategy here. that's why it's been going on 15 years, chris. >> nick, thank you for the reporting and explaining all the challenges that still kbiexist us. back at home, jared kushner breaking his silence today, facing senate and house investigators. what do lawmakers want to know now having read his 11-page statement? what do they still not understand? we'll speak with a member of congress who is set to interview kushner next. ♪

if you've got a life, you gotta swiffer when heartburn hits fight back fast with new tums chewy bites. fast relief in every bite. crunchy outside. chewy inside. tum tum tum tum new tums chewy bites.

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. on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

president trump's son-in-law, jared kushner, also his top adviser, has just put on an 11-page statement. in it, kushner insists he did not collude with any forn government. he will face tough questions tod today. a member of the house intelligence committee joins me now. >> good morning, alisyn. >> in it, jared kushner basically depicts himself as a political outsider who face ad

steep learning curve, steepled to be juggling a lot of things at once and couldn't remember all the contacts he had not only with russians but other foreign officials as well. what did you make hifs statement? >> it's pretty remarkable. it's about time, at great long last, we're starting to get information out of the trump administration and people associated with them. stepping back, one thing that's amazing reading that thing, as early as this morning, the president was, yet again, accusing the media of being fake news, promulgating stories that are not true. in his statement, kushner confirmed a number of stories out there. "the washington post" reported he sought a secure line of communication with the russians. we didn't know if that was true or not. he krchled it. he confirmed a meeting with a russian intelligence trained businessperson. you know, i think we need to step back and say what the had an president has been calling

fake news has been, not just by jared kushner but by his son confirmed time and time again. >> now that you've read that statement what question do you have when you face jared kushner this week? >> sergey gorkov, the banker train bid the russian intelligence school, known tore very close to putin. we're going to want to understand what was said in that meeting. of course, there's different reports. the bank, veb, a state russian bank, issued a statement after that meeting, saying that they had discussed business. jared kushner said that did not happen. we've got to reconcile that. we're going to want to better understand the process of submitting his form. he discusses this in his 11 pages. the sf-86 where you apply for a security clearance is just like a tax return. you essentially swear that the information you're submitting with a signature may be

electronic, you swear that that's true. i want to understand why we've seen amendment after amendment after amendment to that form. >> as you sit here today, knowing what you know from his 11-page statement this morning, do you think that jared kushner should have security clearance? >> again, we assume that people are innocent in this country until proven otherwise. i will tell you this. if you were just a run-of-the-mill military officer who was looking for a security clearance to work on the national security council, the pattern of facts that jared kushner's process was would have gotten you into a lot of trouble. >> would you have been denied a security clearance? >> i just don't know. there's enough misstatement and problem here that you would certainly be up for review as to whether you should have it or not. >> i want to ask you about something else in the new this is weekend, senator chuck schumer, admitting the mistakes that democrats made in the past election. basically, he said that voters didn't know what democrats stood

for. they basically just thought they were anti-trump. do you agree with that? >> i do. look, maybe it's like a 12-step process. one of the key steps of sort of, you know, improving yourself is taking responsibility for what you didn't do right. in a situation like this, the temptation is out there to blame comey, russia. maybe those things had something to do with it. who knows. what you've really got to do is say what can i do better. the key of what you saw release this had morning and what will be discussed in virginia later on today is really a laser-like focus on the economic well-being, the jobs, the job security, the possibility for opportunity in middle class families all over this country. and i think we need to both make it clear that that's what we stand for, and, of course, really come up and explain the agenda to the american people. >> so, in part, in so doing, you have a new slogan. a better deal.

did you help craft that? >> i participated in this whole process. on the house side three co-chairs of a committee have worked hard to understand what went wrong and how our agenda didn't speak to the american people. we think this one does. >> a better deal, that means better than republicans? is that right? am i interpreting it right? >> that's an easy sell. we've now watched the republicans -- i give donald trump credit. he spoke to people in ohio, michigan, wisconsin and somehow persuaded them that -- i don't think he was honest with them. he was going to bring back the coal mines and manufacturing jobs and i'm not sure our candidate did that nearly as well. here is why it's an easy sell. fake news, no news. whatever you want to say. six months, no major legislative achievements that have done anything for the american. >> hold on a second. the white house would say he signed executive orders and his supporters have liked these,

that have taken off regulations, eased the way for small businesses, what he has done with getting out of paris. in six months the president has done things and his supporters do like them. >> remember the stunning criticism of president barack obama when he said i have a pen and a phone and i'm going to sign executive orders? back then that was a terrible thing. today that's all they've got. the last six months have been devoted, at least with respect to the big, major efforts, have been vodevoted to eliminating health care. this is a congressional budget office number. 22 million americans, to taking away health care for millions of americans in order to provide a tax break to the households that make more than $250,000 a year. how is that, in any way, shape or form, to the benefit of the american middle class? that's a pretty easy story to tell. >> jim himes, thank you for being here in studio. >> thanks, alisyn. we're following a lot of news this morning. let's get right to it. jared kushner has put out an

11-page statement, saying he did not collude with any foreign government. >> he insists no additional meetings with russians other than the four contacts that have been reported. >> i want to hear his side of the story. >> where the legislation is now will continue to put those tough sanctions on russia. >> he is going to make that decision shortly. >> this is a bill that will go to the president's desk and he should sign into law. >> that they interfered in the election, in his mind, what do you suggest? are you going to delegitimize his victory? >> there's nothing to pardon from. >> if he pardons himself or someone close to him under investigation it would be one of the greatest breakings of rule of law. >> announcer: this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. white house adviser jared kushner telling his side of the story hours before he answers questions from the senate intel

committee behind closed doors. president's son-in-law releasing an 11-page statement saying, in no uncertain terms, he did not collude with any foreign government. >> he outlines his viewpoints before the campaign. and his meeting with the russian lawyer. all this comes as the president will sign a new russian sanctions bill where congress actually limits the president's ability to weaken those sanctions. with justice correspondent pamela brown live in washington. she has read through jared's statement. give us the headlines. >> this is the first time, chris and alisyn, that president's senior adviser and son-in-law, jared kushner, is sharing his side of the story about russian contacts and says, point blank, i did not collude nor know of anyone else in the campaign who