and that's it for us. thanks for watching. time to hand things over to chris cuomo, who is filling in for don lemon tonight. "cnn tonight" is starting right "cnn tonight" is starting right now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com all right, thank you, anderson. we have much more major developments in the russia investigation. this is "cnn tonight." i'm chris cuomo in for don lemon and here's what's happening right now. cnn has learned special counsel robert mueller is crossing the president's red line. remember when the president said it was going too far if the special counsel looked into his finances. well, that's where the russia investigation is headed. the fbi reviewing financial records related to president trump, his family and the trump organization. cnn also learning that mueller has issued grand jury subpoenas

for documents and testimony from people involved in that trump junior meeting at trump tower. the president's white house attorney, ty cobb, issuing a statement saying, quote, the white house is fully committed to cooperating with mr. mueller. tonight, we're going to ask presidential counselor, kellyanne conway about all of this. but first, president trump weighs in on it all from his rally in west virginia. take a listen. >> the russia story is a total fabrication. it's just an excuse for the greatest loss in the history of american politics. that's all it is. [ cheers and applause ] >> interesting. are we seeing a presidential pivot making it more about the election? and the democrats not just about the media. let's get to cnn's athena jones in west virginia. athena? >> reporter: hi, chris. that's right.

new details and new developments are out tonight that aren't likely to make the president very happy since he has spent months railing against this russia investigation. he did so again tonight, coming out on stage here in huntington, west virginia, swinging in the wake of this latest news. just out today that robert mueller has issued subpoenas related to don junior's meeting last summer with the russian lawyer at trump tower. the president spending five minutes blasting this russia story as a total fabrication and a hoax. listen. >> the russia story is a total fabrication. it's just an excuse for the greatest loss in the history of american politics. that's all it is. [ cheers and applause ] it just makes them feel better when they have nothing else to talk about.

what the prosecutors should be looking at are hillary clinton's 33,000 deleted e-mails. [ cheers and applause ] most people know there were no russians in our campaign. there never were. we didn't win because of russia. we won because of you. that i can tell you. [ cheers and applause ] >> reporter: the president went on to jokingly ask the crowd, are there any russians here? then he went on the say that democrats can't beat republicans at the voting booth, and what they are trying to do is they are trying to cheat his supporters out of the future they want, and out of the leadership they want, and chris, i can tell you, this crowd really ate up those words. there are people who were here who waited hours to get into the building, and this latest tirade signals to us that the president is not planning to change this

approach of constantly talking about this russia story, and investigation that he has repeatedly called a witch hunt. chris? >> well, being out there with his people is in the president's wheelhouse. athena jones, thank you very much. all right. joining us now is kellyanne conway, counselor to the president. kellyanne, thank you for joining us. i appreciate it. >> it's my pleasure, chris. hi. >> kellyanne, let's talk news of day, and we can dive into deeper policy discussion. the two bits of news coming out of the special counsel's office, the first is that the special counsel is using a grand jury that subpoenas have gone out to people and related to documents with respect to that don junior meeting. what's your response to those actions by the special counsel? >> grand jury proceedings are supposed to remain private, so it's unfortunate that's not the case here. i would refer you to the statement put out by the special

lawyer for donald trump, ty cobb. he said today he was unaware, and we were unaware of this, but anything that accelerates the process is agreed to by us, and that the white house will continue to fully comply. that's all we know at this moment. >> and the reason it becomes more intriguing is on the heels of this reporting, there's a second layer, which is that the special counsel is looking and asking for financial documents related to the president's holdings, and to people who may have had business dealings with the president who may be relevant to the investigation. the president had said, looking at his finances may be a red line not to cross for the special counsel. >> look. the president has said that jim comey, the former fbi director, assured him on three separate occasions that he is not personally a target of any investigation. we know that these types of endeavors end up being fishing

expeditions. they are a very broadly cast net. and i would remind everybody that in terms of president trump he has saad that he has no financial dealings with russia whatsoever. the miss universe penalty whi which -- the miss universe pageant happened to make its way to russia eight or nine years ago. he was there for that, and he just -- his sons have also repeated that the business has no financial dealings with russia. they do business all over the world, and in this case, you know, again, i think people are just talking about an investigation that exists, but looking for collusion and conclusions that don't exist. and i like the fact that cnn took about almost a full week off, slinking away from covering the russian so-called investigation. the polls say that 6% of americans say it's the most important issue to them, and i think americans are owed full coverage of all issues. economy, jobs, health care,

certainly national security and the like. and i hope your network will continue to do that. >> we try to cover everything that matters and sometimes -- >> eh. >> sometimes you have to cover things even when they are not popular. these are issues of potential national security. you have to cover them especially in light -- >> how is that though? how is it an issue of potential national security? what is the basis for saying that? >> the efforts by and on behalf of russia to interfere in the election and whom they may have tried to cultivate in furtherance of their efforts. they have to be investigated and from the president's perspective, he should want them investigated because if he is clear by the special counsel, that's the best validation he could hope for. is it not? >> so far, he is clear. let's make that very clear, but secondly, the president and his counsel said repeatedly anything that accelerates this investigation to its conclusion, we're all for, and also everybody has agreed to comply. jared kushner shared the

information he had with the house and senate officials and then gave a statement right here steps away at the white house. obviously everybody -- but look again -- let's look at the meeting that you are talking about and people like to focus on. what became of that meeting? i became the campaign manager two months later. nobody said to me, we have the silver bullet, and secret weapon on how to beat hillary clinton. here it is. the only dossier we know about is the phony baloney thing, and was meant to damage candidate trump. and look at what donald trump has done as president. he is building up the military. and we took decisive and swift action in syria when assad was gassing his own people. none of that was pro-russia. it's all pro-america, and pro-freedom and democracy. i appreciate you're saying you try to cover all the issues. i do respectfully disagree. i think there are so many issues. yesterday here at the white house, we had a round table discussion with military

spouses. ivanka trump, and secretary acosta. that's a real issue impacting real americans. it's not hypothetical. it's not circumspect. it's not illusory. it's real. these military spouses, 92% of whom are female, and have dependent children, have a difficult time finding full employment because they move every two or three years. they are highly educated, highly motivated and they should be highly valued by a work force. and we're doing something about that. >> we know the issue well. i have covered it. that's one of the things you dealt with, was about the problems with certification, and when you move from state to state very often, your professional status winds up being undetermined and that's something that military spouses need help with. it's very important, but it's not an either/or. these questions surrounding russian interference also matter, and all we know really for sure about the meeting with don junior is who was there and why don junior was interested in

going in the first place, which was at the invitation of a potential chance to get bad information from the russian government about hillary clinton. >> we actually know more than that. we know what don junior has said, and what jared kushner has said. nothing calm of the meeting. that jared kushner had texted an associate to get him out of the meeting because it was a waste of time. >> that's true. those are a couple of sources of information about the meeting, but that -- >> why are you ascribing negative motives to my colleagues and relatives of the president. but we're not -- >> how am i doing that? >> the evidence we have -- you're saying that's what they said. >> yes. >> what is leading us to believe it is not true? i never had to go as far as moscow the find anything negative about hillary clinton. i just listen to hillary clinton. >> i understand. >> she was a walking treasure box. >> i understand. >> she had no uplifting message, no optimism and she didn't even run a good campaign. even van jones, your colleague said she lit a billion dollars on fire. i agree with him.

>> regardless of who won the election and how hillary clinton handled herself and handled her campaign, it's all irrelevant -- >> that's not true. >> of course it is. >> if you want to talk about the election. >> we're not talking about the election. i don't think it came out of my mouth. >> this is not about russian interference. you know that, right? >> it is exactly about that. i think one of the reasons that this meeting is so troubling is because what the president had called a hoax, and a witch hunt is now demonstrably not that because russian people reached out, and not, like, citizens. not just, like, good people from russia -- but a lawyer of very specific contacts reached out to his son with a solicitation of negative information about his political opponent -- >> we had this conversation. >> and duped him and whatever happened in the meeting happened. it shows it's not a witch hunt. >> what happened in the meeting? what do we know? >> we know why he went to the

meeting. it's hard to know what happened in the meeting. >> you want to relitigate, and not cover the honor recipient this week. >> not true. it's not an either/or. >> it is at your network. >> one, unfair assumption. i'm not saying i disbelieve anyone, but you must give a nod to the existence of this fact as well. the initial statement that don junior put out with apparently, the help of his father, was misleading at best about what that meeting was about. so when somebody is misleading, it hurts their credibility on that issue. fair point. >> well, chris -- chris, he has corrected that statement or added to it weeks ago, so i do have to respectfully disagree that somehow cnn is covering all types of issues and not just this one where we're having the same conversation we had a few weeks ago because you're not -- you're not pushing it forward at all. you're relitigating something

that's already the subject of an investigation. >> i hear you. but actually i am. i did advance it. you brought me back. i advanced it by what mueller said he is doing. >> what came of that meeting? that meeting was -- >> we don't know. >> it was completely nothing, and the president himself in warsaw, i believe at a press conference, made strong statements against interference of any type. but you want your viewers somehow to believe interference equals impact, and that's not true. >> i think that's unfair. >> excuse me. no one with any type of credibility has said that a single thing that happened affected the election outcome, and that's why the election and how the campaigns were run is irrelevant. 70,000 votes in pennsylvania and wisconsin and michigan were not procured in moscow. >> no tablations were affected. i have never said reported or suggested otherwise. that doesn't mean these questions don't matter, and what

i asked you about initially was not what do you think of that meeting don junior had. but it was about the special counsel suggesting that the reporting about the special counsel that's latest, suggests that he is looking into the financial information of people who may have had dealings with the president. the president had said that's too far. so now that we know that the special counsel wants to expand the investigation that way, what's the president going to do about that? >> chris, the reason the president said that his financials should not be looked into is because of what i repeated to you. he said he has no financial dealings. >> understood. >> the miss universe pageant happened to go there. his boys have said, his sons have said, they don't do any business in russia. but look. i have to respectfully disagree. i think you want to cover the story with the exclusion of dow

hitting 22,000 for the first time ever. and the fact that just today the president made it easier for veterans to access good care. through his health initiative. probably the fifth or sixth initiative to help veterans in this country. the 24/7 hot line at the white house. the veterans choice act where you cannot access quality, timely care through the v.a. which most veterans tell us they can, you can do it in the private medical world. that you have the whistle blower and accountability protection act. so many things that impact real americans happening here at the white house, that you don't hear about on your network. i beseech you to cover all the above. you keep insisting you are. but there's not going to be a single show on cnn tonight, tomorrow, or the next day unless you count the parts unknown shows that doesn't feature this russia, russia, russia. >> the point that matters.

not everything is equal. it's not either/or. >> it doesn't matter to the public. 6% said it's an issue to them. >> even if that were true, popularity doesn't always equate with news worthiness. >> you're a responsible person. aren't you just the least bit reluctant? don't you agree with alison cammarata? in the lightest bit that there is some fatigue. >> i agree with her. my definition whenever she says anything. i'll agree with it. >> she said on a radio show that you wonder what other news you're missing or what are we not covering today? because we're covering this. you've got to feel a little bit of trepidation. >> no. >> that you are covering an issue that 6% of americans tell pollsters --. >> i don't. i cover it because i think it's right. i want to know what the russians did to try to get to the president's son. i want to know. and i want to know that we now understand those tactics and techniques so that we can stop it the next time. >> i don't think that is the

motive, respectfully. >> and i want to know what financial dealings may have been used, if any, to try to compromise people around the president, and i want to know to the question i just asked you, will the president do anything with respect to the special counsel if he continues to probe finances connected to the president because he has suggested. >> what do you mean -- what does that mean? >> he suggested that's too far. >> right. because he knows that there is no connection. because he knows there's no nexus between the two. let's back up a second. >> now that the special counsel is looking at the exactly the area the president told him not to. >> you are spouting out two words for every one i'm giving. but anyway. >> go ahead. >> i'll say this. thank you. if you are so concerned about what family members of presidential candidates are involved in russia, please explain to your viewers why you're not or never were as a network incensed about bill clinton getting a half million

speaking fee in russia and his wife turning around and giving 20% of the iranian rights that went to russia interests. >> we looked at it at the time. neither of them is president of the united states. >> you have evidence of that. if don junior had taken a nickel let alone $500,000 for interest for giving a speech you would have a fancy graphics with neon lights and a hologram of him. >> one of the early indications was one of the president's sons saying they got a ton of money recently from russia in their businesses. >> you're throwing things out now. >> i'm saying that trying to -- >> are there any other issues that you think might be worth discussing? >> yes. i want to talk about something else while i have you as well. the policy that the white house got behind the proposal to change the criteria to get into this country legally.

not illegal immigration. legal immigration. this merit-based standard they are thinking about. a single question of just looking at it, who are we here? i don't think you or i are here right now in this country if this criteria set existed when our ancestors came here, kellyanne. they wouldn't have made it under these standards. of having a good income, being able to pay their own health care, being highly skilled, speaking english. we wouldn't have been here. and yet our people who came from nothing, scraped their way to a better life and look at us, we're doing okay. >> yes, we are. this is because you're equating things that don't belong equated for the following reason. this is a 2017 look at our immigration policy and the effect it has had. congress will need to take this up, and we're happy that tom cotton and david purdue were standing shoulder to shoulder with president trump as they made the case that when we depress wages for americans, we are hurting low wage americans

we're hurting those who are trying to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs and low-skilled workers for jobs. you see that and couple that with what the president is trying to do with his apprenticeship program, and he is saying we want to dignify and respect all types of jobs in this nation, and we want people to acquire the skills that they need. what you see happening in this country, you can't deny that we're allowing people into this country who are not filling the criteria that you just said about your ancestors or my ancestors. some of the italians in my family were years separated from your families. they had to come here, learn the language, have a family responsible for them. have a job, a way to support themselves. the men lived in the rooming houses where they lived together for a long time. all they did was work and work and save so that their family members could come here.

and for us to not admit that the immigration system is not broken, the president ran on and is governing on for american workers, trying to help those who do want a job to compete. you can't compete with somebody who is willing to take $6 under the table. it's not fair to the american workers. >> okay. the suggestion in response is one, there's a reason there are only two senators. many believe this bill doesn't have a shot because republicans and democrats in the senate are against it and one of the reasons -- there are two big reasons they're against it. one, the economists and the economic data do not suggest that immigrants are taking jobs that americans want. you go to your growers and farmers and service industry and go to donald trump and ask them why they're looking for foreign workers. it's because americans don't do those jobs. >> i find that an obnoxious, and elite way of looking at things. >> criticize it the way you want. the data backs it up. >> republicans and democrats

have both said what you just said, and it's offensive. >> republicans and democrats are both saying it, maybe you should listen to them. >> no, no, no. they are saying that immigrants are here to do the jobs americans don't want to do. illegal immigrants are here to do the jobs. that's troubling for a very simple reason. go back to our ancestors. they did jobs that maybe no one else wanted to do. americans who want to support themselves and their families, who are we to say what jobs they would and would not do? that's incredibly unfair to a swath of americans who are looking for work. >> it's supply and demand. if the americans were doing those jobs, the immigrants wouldn't come. they wouldn't be needed. they come here for a better way of life. if it's not available, they wouldn't come. that's one reason. the second reason is -- >> they come for a better way of life. that's true for many of them. >> the second reason is, that it goes to our core values. when we talk about our ancestors, and i know how proud you are of your family, and how

proud they are of you, and they broke their backs to provide for you and for me. that promise at the pedestal of the statue of liberty, aren't words just added later as stephen miller suggested at the press conference. they matter. those were the solemn promise of this country to the world. not that we just take the best of the best. we take those yearning to be free. you know the words better than i do from the poem. it seems like we're changing that message. >> look. you're giving some sweeping statement about america and patriotism and i totally agree with american patriotism. that's why i'm here frankly, serving in the white house, but let's be honest. did you ever get this exo

president were saying yesterday is a merit-based immigration system should be considered as a way to make sure we aren't keeping wages higher, and remaining competitive as american, and in the american work force. people who are looking for work with others. another senator really caught my ear. senator mark warner. he is a democrat of virginia, and he said that it was, quote, disgraceful. disgraceful that conversations between president trump and world leaders are being leaked. i hope you agree with me, as an american, chris, that we can't have leaks of conversations between a president and other world leaders, and feel good about that, and cover the content of those conservations. it should be a chilling effect to everyone today that a president, as senator warner said, a democrat from virginia said, senators have to know they are having confidential

conversations and if not, our national security is imperiled. >> nobody likes the fact they would take their lives. whether they are here legally or illegally. this standard is about legal immigration, not illegal. if people are here illegally there are laws and that must be enforced. that's up to our leadership, but the standards that we set for who is -- >> sanctuary cities, is that a good idea? >> i'm not for our against anything. i'm a journalist and not an elected leader. >> you're not for the rule of law. >> of course, i'm for the rule of the law. i'm an officer of the court. i'm an officer of the court. of course we're for the rule of law. but how you enforce the law is a subjective question. that's not what we're talking about here. >> sanctuary cities should not get grants. >> that's fine, but we should not talk about that. you brought it up, but who gets into this country?

who are we? what are we about? >> let's talk about mark warner. >> to your issue. you brought it up. leaks are something that is always of a concern who somebody who is damaged by them. the president of the united states when he was running, he loved leaks. he literally shouted out he loves wikileaks. he wanted them to go find hillary clinton's e-mails. he was not a defender of confidentiality then. now he is because he has been aggrieved by it. >> i want to state for the record who mentioned hillary clinton again. >> what's in the transcript. his signature promise to his base about the wall he seems to dismiss as just a political device to the president of mexico. that's what's in this leaked transcript. he says that the wall is the least important thing we're talking about. it only matters politically. >> senator warner is saying today, is absolutely correct, and he probably reflects the views of millions of americans

where you cannot have national security imperiled because they are cute. by leaking confidential conversations between a head of state here and a head of state abroad. >> the substance of the leak is another, and you know this conversation that you brought up between the mexican president and the american president is troubling to those who voted for him on the base of his signature promises like the wall. >> no, it's not. >> he dismisses it. >> you would discover who the trump voters are? we know very well who they were and their support as waned in recent supporters. what is that supposed to mean? >> you're telling me that the trump voters are troubled by elite -- >> i said the wall was a signature promise that resonated with his base, and led to many votes. >> and the president is very committed to it. >> that's not what he said to

the mexican president. do you want me to read the transcript? >> he got $1.6 billion for that wall as part of a security package. he thinks that a sovereign nation has to have borders that matter. with mexico he has been very tough. he is renegotiating nafta. we have a trade deficit with them that is not to be believed. he has warned them that the flow, the never-ending flow of people and drugs over our border are hurting our nation and poisoning our communities. and he is very serious about the wall. he got funding for it just last week. so you know that. you know he is going to stick to that campaign promise. >> there's no question there are problems with what comes across the border illegally. >> why doesn't it matter enough to you? >> it matters. >> let me ask you a question. >> you hit me with a lot of sticks that are often unfair. you said, why doesn't it matter? i spent my weekends, my time off shooting a documentary about what's going on in new hampshire, and you know this.

i was with the same firefighters that the president took pictures with saying, i'll be there for you, and get you more treatment centers and i'll get you more of this and that, which hasn't happened. don't say i don't care. i care deeply. >> it is happening. i was in new hampshire for years. i know it better than most. >> good. let's talk about it. >> opioids matter. the president is saying he won new hampshire it's a drug den, wasn't actually well received by the governor or the people of that state, and that's another thing that came out in these transcripts. what do you make of that? >> what the president is saying is this is a crisis. he has been to new hampshire before saying this is a crisis of epidemic proportions and he is absolutely right. opioids, something i work on here at the white house every day, and it's part of why i'm here, and no state has been spared or demographic group has been untouched. i'm sure you saw this. it's an epidemic we have to try to solve. talking about a nonpartisan issue, and i hope we can -- and

secretary of health and human services, tom price and i traveled to new hampshire together. we met with the governor, and we have met here with the two senators from new hampshire. both democrats. they came here to the white house to have a meeting with governor christie who heads the bipartisan commission and i were. we feel this is an area where we can all feel we can work together. we have to cut down on the supply and the demand. there has to be interdiction, intervention, and prevention. we are learning from their families and they are so courageous, and they have suffered so grievously. and i can't relate. but we are learning from them how to avoid this happening to other families in the future. we are talking to first responders. i went to the manchester fire department in new hampshire and saw the amazing model they have there, and they tell us you have other fire stations and first responders trying to learn their practices. >> they are doing god's work out

there, but they are understaffed and underresourced and they are waiting for help. >> we met with the health care professionals. we met with the faith-based employees, and we met with those in treatment and recovery. and that senate bill -- where no democrats would even come to the table to talk about the senate bill had $25 million. in addition to the grants for the state, and in addition to the private grants that people apply for. so much can be don't be on the opioid crisis, but people have to take off their partisan gear. we have heard from 25 governors, lieutenant governors and state health commissioners. they say that a couple of things are going on. you have a restriction on the number of beds after which you can get medicaid reimbursement on that piece of the regulation, and they tell us that in many, the medical schools the curriculum does not include overprescribing. in other words, how to prescribe, and making sure our smart physicians and pharmacists who are being trained in

arenas also understand -- >> the medicine cabinet becomes the first drug for a lot of kids in this instance. the criminalization of addiction is a problem. >> the fentanyl coming in. the postal service. coming from china. >> the parody within insurance. they are all issues. we're studying them very closely. i don't know anyone coming out with a documentary like this news organization is doing. >> thank you for the time to talk about. >> you are always welcome to talk about what matters. let's end on an up note. there was positive change as perceived in the white house in the form of general john kelly as chief of staff. we here he is quickly insinuating himself into all matters of importance. what is your perspective on the influence the general has had so far? >> i'm pleased to have him as the chief of staff and i'm pleased to report to him. i like the protocol, that there's a paper trail, there's a

pecking order, and i do believe that general kelly is a very accessible individual even as he commands respect and he shows respect, and that's important for any leader and manager. we've had a very good busy week here. there have been many activities here at the white house. the president is on the road tonight as you know, and i believe that general kelly focuses on both the chief part and the "of staff" part, and that's not a comment whatsoever on any other leaders or managers we have had here. you ask me about general kelly and what it's like and i'm answering your question. i also think that general kelly is a great asset to this president. he is a generational peer, and he comes from president trump's cabinet so he knows full well how important our agencies are and how active this cabinet is. we often don't get the coverage for the men and women who serve in our cabinet and the things they are doing every day on behalf of the american people. >> positive change is good news.

kellyanne conway, it's always a pleasure to have you, discussing what matters to the american people. >> i heard that general kelly is a little bit italian too. i have to verify that. i don't want you to say i'm lacking credibility if, in fact, he is 100% irish. i heard from one of his staffers he is part italian. i'm going to verify that for you. >> that explains it all then, doesn't it? be well. thank you for being with us. >> take care. god bless. you just got a good and fulsome sample of the presidential strategy on a number of pressing issues. what are the strengths and the vulnerabilities? we'll break it all down next. stay with cnn.

we asked people to just go about their day to try a new feature from match. so sara, what did you do today? i grabbed a coffee... yes, you have to do that.. and then i checked out a new art exhibit. so now, you have the match app up open up the missed connections tab for me. okay. it shows you people you've crossed paths with in real life. oo, i crossed paths with josh near pine street. maybe he was at the gallery? maybe he loves art? imagine what else you have in common. he's cute. i'd like to find out! i'm on the edge of my seat. match. better ways to make a real connection. start for free today. what's critical thinking like? a basketball costs $14. what's team spirit worth? (cheers) what's it worth to talk to your mom? what's the value of a walk in the woods?

the value of capital is to create, not just wealth, but things that matter. morgan stanley we have breaking news tonight. sources telling cnn that special counsel robert mueller is looking into potential financial ties between president trump and his associates and russia. that was one topic of discuss in an energetic interview with kellyanne conway. we have our cnn politics reporter and editor at large, and rick sanatorium, our former senator and republican presidential candidate. you two are even more handsome at night. what did you hear? what pops out and why?

>> the second half of the interview, i thought was really interesting and enlightening. the first half of the interview, i just think when it comes to kellyanne and the trump white house more broadly in relation to the russia investigation, i think the facts don't comport with what the argument was. the idea the investigation is not about russia and russia's meddling in the election, that's exactly what it's about. you can believe it's a hoax, but it is -- no one questions that. the other thing is she said to you, chris, tell me how it affects national security. i mean, again, i don't think it's a partisan statement in any way, shape or form to say if a foreign government is actively meddling in our election, which is a fact that the fbi, the cia, the nsa, and the director of the national intelligence agree on, with the goal of helping one candidate and hurting another

which is again, all of those agencies agree on, that that is something that we as citizens would accept is having to do with our national security. so one other quick thing. kellyanne repeatedly said that we here at cnn don't cover -- 6% of people care about the russia story can we devote a lot of time to it. my pushback on that would be, donald trump thinks about that a lot and how do i know that? look at his twitter feed. that's the direct line into what he is thinking and doing at any one moment. and you go through that twitter feed and you got a ton of stuff about russia, a ton of stuff about the media and how bad we are. you don't get much on opioids. you will occasionally get something about the economy and immigration. anyone who supports donald trump, go look at his twitter feed. i'm not fooling you. russia and the media are what he spends his mind share on. >> rick? >> yeah, i couldn't disagree more with chris on this fact

that he makes the comment -- you made the comment, chris, this is all about russia and interference in the election. okay. that's great, but most of the media is not talking about russia, and its interference in the election. what they are talking about is any role the president or any of his people around him may have had in that. that's a piece of it. i would agree with it. there's a piece of the story, is how much or if at all, did donald trump or any of his network of people have with what the russians were doing? but very little is about actually what the russians did, and how it impacted the election. so -- you can make the case, oh, this is all about the russians' interference with the election, but no. really. it's about what did trump have to do with the russian interference with the election and that's where the administration gets a little hair on fire. >> i get why they are upset about it, but here's the problem with the suggestion. there is a reason. the why matters here.

why? because that's what's coming out of the committees. that is what is generating the reporting. >> it's leaked by people who want to continue to keep the story. >> it's not always leaked. it's often work product of good reporting as well. in fact i might give even a little nod to the cillizza and the people who really muck rake and pick this stuff out. they have been producing it. >> what are they muck raking that has to do with russia? as opposed to donald trump having anything to do with this? >> i'll answer your question. you asked me a question. >> i haven't seen any stories of any note about what russia did. i have seen lots of leaks about whether trump or some people -- >> any time we get information about how it was done, it comes out immediately. and it's okay to say, boy, there's a lot of attention on the collusion part. that's fine. but i wonder -- >> is it true?

>> i wonder if it's okay, is the idea of blaming us for caring about this, it sounds absurd when i hear it, rick. kellyanne, who is smarter than everybody on television right now questioned whether or not it's even a national security issue. >> it's the preoccupation with the fact to the exclusion of everything else. >> it's not to the exclusion of everything else. that's bogus on two levels. you go back and watch my show, and you look at it in the morning, and you tell me that this is all we cover. and i'll buy you dinner wherever you want. the second thing is, cilizza's point. the president focuses on this. more than anybody else. so obviously -- >> because he watches you. >> he does and we respect the viewership and find it to be very important. he is always welcome to come on the show as well as watch it. chris? >> i mean, i actually think the senator, it's a fair point that this -- i do think -- look.

what we -- what do we know? if you believe the intelligence agencies, which i do, because i have no reason not to. what we know is they unanimously agree that russia meddled in this election, to aid donald trump and to hurt hillary clinton. what we don't know broadly speaking -- we don't have the full picture of how they did that. now, i would argue, and i would take the senator's word for it, but what we're trying to do from a journalistic perspective is we're trying to unveil as much of that picture as we can. do we know more about it as it relates to the donald trump jr. meeting in 2016? we do. do we know if that's 20% of it? 5% of it? 80% of it? we don't. we're looking at the -- we see one little piece. go ahead. i'm sorry. >> you mention that you know there is a donald trump meeting.

and other things have been reported -- >> don junior. but yeah. >> don junior meeting. what has been reported and you said you would answer this, and you didn't. what has been reported in the last three months about russian collusion that may have had nothing to do with trump? >> russian muddling in the election that had nothing to do with trump? >> right. >> you're right. but i'm not disagreeing with you. i'm saying we know much more that has been reported there. >> which was my point. that's what's come out. >> i don't get why that -- we don't know how big the picture is. i think it's uniquely possible it's a much bigger picture and the trump don junior meetings and those sorts of things, mike flynn, whatever that is, is 10% of it. but my point is we don't know because we don't have the full picture. >> nothing's being leaked. >> we're trying to find out the full picture. >> if the trump piece is 10% of

the story, of what the russian, you know, interference with the election was, and 90% is everything else, we're not hearing anything about the 90% is my point. >> we don't know. we could be 90% the other way. my point is we're trying to unearth as much as we can. you may not accept that, and that's okay. i don't know if it's 90% or 10%, and we're taking the facts as they come to us, and report on them. it's hard for me to say, this is 80% of it. you have to pay attention to it 80%. and this is 20%. frankly, candidly, we don't know. >> 0% on the other side. that's the point. >> this is more cleverness than it is clarifying. we're dealing with an unknown. to ask us how do you define the unknown, we don't know. but you have to cover it when it is relevant, and that's what the job is. these are the important questions. >> in is the extent. >> but i want to ask you about something else. >> one final point and you can ask me whatever you want. this is the extent of the russian collusion, what has been

reported of a few meetings -- >> we have no reason to know that. >> if this is the extent, we don't have much of a story here. >> again, you want to qualify the unknown, and we can't do that. we'll cover it when we get information. that's the job. i want to ask you something quickly though. once again, i'm blessed with a field of ethnics in front of me. and this immigration policy. i have to ask you this, senator. if these criteria were in place, and this was the promise to the world that got you through the golden door. we wouldn't be here right now. you know your people wouldn't have made it on the basis of this criteria, of being able to speak english, having a high-paying job, being high-skilled. >> first up, you're talking to the son of an immigrant. my dad and grandfather came into this country. i'm sensitive to the idea to making sure that we have a country that is bringing, as you said, quoting the poem that's at

the statue of liberty island, the reality is we have a system right now that is out of control. i'm talking legal immigration. it's done by chain migration. in other words, you get into this country because your uncle or your aunt or niece or nephew got into this country before you. that is not a rational way to bring people into this country. the idea behind the cotton/perdue ideas, is people should get into this country not because you have a relative here. that's not a good basis to bring somebody in. it should be because you want to come into this country, and as you know when you come into this country you have to sign a document that says you will not be a ward of the state. that's usually not -- many times that doesn't come to fruition, but the reality is you have to prove you're capable of coming here on your own merits and enter into this country and can be an addition to this country. that has always been the way.

we changed over the last 20 years and as a result of that, immigration has exploded. we have had more legal immigration in the last 20 years than any 20-year period in american history. we're reaching the peak of highest immigrations born in this country. more that the great wave in the 1800s. the idea that we want to take a pause on this and we change the way we structure immigration and make it more merit-based in the sense that each person on their own, in respect to whether you have a relative or not gets into this country, i think, to a lot of people makes sense. >> to a lot of people, there are only two senators up there for a reason. right? >> the truth is -- >> you have to be careful with your definitions. i don't have the time to get into this now, but i wanted to get the senator on record about it. this will be a continuing conversation. how we define who we are matters not just domestically but to the message to the world. that's what the lady liberty represented.

she was a welcome sign for the world. i don't think it's about how many. it's about who. that matters just as much. you have to figure out the right level. >> how do you define who gets in? >> thank you very much. i owe you. rick sanatorium, always a pleasure. when we come back, h.r. mcmaster told susan rice she has maintained full security clearance. what does that mean? she has full access to classified information. so what does this mean to the president who expressed concerns that she was unmasking americans? we have answers for you ahead. (woman) when you have type 2 diabetes, there's a moment of truth. and now with victoza®, a better moment of proof. victoza® lowers my a1c and blood sugar better than the leading branded pill, which didn't get me to my goal. lowers my a1c better than the leading branded injectable. the one i used to take. victoza® lowers blood sugar in three ways.

and while it isn't for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. non-insulin victoza® comes in a pen and is taken once a day. (announcer) victoza® is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes and is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or if you develop any allergic symptoms including itching, rash, or difficulty breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis, so stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. the most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. now's the time for a better moment of proof. ask your doctor about victoza®.

v . . . who knew that phones would start doing everything? entertaining us, getting us back on track and finding us dates. phones really have changed. so why hasn't the way we pay for them? introducing xfinity mobile. you only pay for data

and can easily switch between pay per gig and unlimited. no one else lets you do that. see how much you can save when you choose by the gig or unlimited. call or go to xfinitymobile.com. xfinity mobile. it's a new kind of network, designed to save you money. all right. we got some new information that's raising some very important questions, and we're lucky we have people with us tonight to answer them. what's the information? president trump's national security adviser h.r. mcmaster is telling hess predecessor susan rice she will have full, permanent clearance to classified information. why? what does it mean to any unmasking colonels. cnn national security analyst steve hall and jewuliette kayye join us. you understand this stuff well.

try to talk people through why it happened and what it means. why would h.r. mcmaster say this to susan rice, juliette? >> this would be actually he's sort of saying the normal thing, which would be that the preld sesor at such a high level would continue to have their security clearance because of legacy issues, potential to write a memoire, assisting the new team even if the new team is of a different party. the natural transitions of national security occur amongst personnel because our threats do not end on inauguration day. in some ways this letter is more significant -- or is not significant because it is telling her she gets to keep the security clearance. it is significant because it undermines everything that donald trump -- h.r. mcmaster's boss -- has been saying about susan rice. >> steve, let's speak to that part. if h.r. mcmaster is saying, you keep it, it means you didn't do anything wrong, it means this

unmasking talk must not be substantiated? >> well, that's exactly the interesting point and i would agree with juliette here. it is sort of a breath of fresh air in the sense this is how government usually works, but you're absolutely right, chris. by implication what is mcmaster saying in if he is believing what his boss, the president of the united states, donald trump, is saying about susan rice, that there's some sort of horrible problem with unmasking and so forth, then, you know, you would think they would think twice before they extend the privilege of maintaining these clearances. so the more interesting part of the story actually is how does mcmaster go back and explain this or, you know, was there a quiet conversation where trump said, yeah, okay, whatever, if that's the way you guys normally do it that's fine. that's the part of the story that's more curious to me. >> yeah. >> let's scratch at it a little bit, jewel yet. what happened to nunes's investigation? he went rogue with his own committee and said i'm going to do it and the rest of the committee wasn't sign on to it.

it's been bizarre with what's going on there, but what does it mean for his probe of all of this alleged wrongful unmasking. why would h.r. mcmaster move to redeem the credibility of susan rice if she is part of the probe going on with a friendly of the white house, devin nunes? >> i think it is safe to say that devin nunes is insignificant, irrelevant and is being ignored by everyone who is acting like an adult in this story line. >> but how do you really feel about nunes's significance? >> well, look, it is not me. it is the republican senator burr who is leading the senate intelligence investigation, who said, oh, that was sort of nunes's thing and we're not really caring about it. they had susan rice come testify and burr said, the republican senator said we didn't even ask her about that, that's nunes's thing. in other words there's no thing there. nunes was told information about an nfc staffer. that staffer was fired or dismissed in the last two days.

it is clear h.r. mcmaster, with the help of john kelly, the new chief of staff, is getting the national security agency to act like the national security agency, that it is not an apendage of bannon or anyone else. it is people committed to our safety and security, whose politics we don't even know most of the time and who are trying to protect you and me from the dangers that we face. so this is -- this is refreshing in so many ways. >> all right. so let's take one more layer down then, steve, which is if any of it is true, that there was so much unmask canning that went on during the obama era, first of all, do you agree with that notion? and, two, explain to us why it shouldn't be the red flag that many are making it out to be? >> well, to go after the second question first, i think if it were a serious red flag, if there were some significant issues -- look, i'm not brushing off the idea that unmasking is

not a serious topic, especially if it is unauthorize it or done improperly. it is difficult to did that because there's a lot of layers of review that go into that. but if it were that red flag i think you are right, the implication mcmaster would say, okay, whatever, rice, you can have it, that's an indication right there it is not such a big deal. you know, unmasking, if it were not done properly, could be a big issue. i have yet to see anything serious that indicates that there was some sort of problem either with rice or with anybody else who had access and who had the ability to say, "i would like this piece of information, that name unmasked." i have yet to see it. it is much more likely, it would seem to me, the administration want to draw our attention to a potentially serious topic if unmasking was done as opposed to looking at the real problem, which is what was the relationship between the trump campaign and the russians before the election. >> philip mudd, a cia and fbi former official whom we all know

and love, every time unmasking comes up he sends me a nasty message that i wasn't strong enough in making the point, juliette, that it happens all the time. that it is a bogey man and a red herring, that's what you dochlt what you do with the information is a separate issue and subject to review. the idea someone unmasked a lot is from someone who does not know what they're talking about. >> i always agree with phil mudd. >> i do not. tell me why you do. >> at least two instances. the law is clear and allows for unmasking. it allows unmasking, recognizes it may be unnecessary because a crime is being committed or to understand the totality of the intelligence, you need to know who the person is, right? this has to do with what steve

was saying about the investigation into russia. so the law recognizes it as a right and as an important authority for national security officials to know. >> all right. >> that's why in this instance i will agree with phil mudd. >> juliette kayyem, steve hall, thank you for helping us understand it better. appreciate it. we will take a quick break. when we come back, more on tonight's big developments in the russia investigation. a grand jury is impanelled. subpoenas have been issued over donald trump jr.'s now infamous meeting at trump tower. investigators are also examining financial documents related to the president, his family and the trump organization. we're going to show you how the president is responding. remember, he said, messing with his money is going too far. his response tonight.

we have major developments in the russia investigation. this is "cnn tonight." i'm chris cuomo in for don lemon. here is what is happening tonight. chn has learned special counsel robert mueller is crossing the president's red line. you remember when the president said don't mess with his money, it is going too far if the special counsel looks into his finances? well, that's where the russia investigation is headed. the fbi is reviewing financial records related to president trump, his family and the trump organization. cnn also learning that mueller has issued grand jury subpoenas for documents and testimony from people involved in the donald trump jr. meeting at trump tower. the president'