president trump in the face of criticism saying that's what the republican party does. we debate. and i was debated when i was governor of south carolina and she also gave a vigorous defense of the president when it came to issues like charlottesville, the nfl and puerto rico. she said you know, every time he does something, he gets criticized for it. he has flaws like everyone else, but he's a good man and cares about the american people, wolf. >> all right, thank you very much. that's it for me. thanks for watching. erin burnett "outfront" starts right now. >> breaking new, president trump now wants the state department to release hillary clinton e-mails. does he know she's not the president? plus, the white house saying all of the women who have f accused trump och sexual harassment are lying. well, really. i know one of them and mr. president, she isn't the one lying. and new details about the niger ambush. what made the u.s. troops split up when things went so horribly

wrong? let's go "outfront." good evening. "outfront" tonight, the breaking news. president trump wants the rest of hillary clinton's e-mails. trump making it clear to the state department he wants it to release any remaining hillary clinton e-mails in its possession immediately. it is part of a new offensive by the white house to turn the tables on the russia investigation. putting the focus on trump's arch enemy, hillary clinton. trump tweeting today, quote, it is now commonly agreed after many months of costly look iing there was no collusion between russia and trump. was collusion with hc. exclamation point. and a short time ago, the white house doubled down with sarah sanders asked about the mueller investigation into possible russian collusion, she answered with this. >> we are seeing now if there was any collusion it was between the dnc and clins and not our campaign. >> first of all, that dossier

was research which sources confirmed before clinton and the dnc got it. she got it after they lost. so to say clinton colluded with russia doesn't add up to the basic funding of the research. and trump says by the way that the whole dossier itself is made up any way. >> well i think it's very sad what they've done is this fake dossier. it was made up and i understand they made a tremendous amount of money. >> again, that was paid by republicans then by the clinton campaign and the dnc. basically, anyone who ran against trump would have wanted this information. why? well, because some of it is true. trump's other point, calling it a quote, fake dossier, is not true. some parts of the dossier are in fact accurate, specifically the conversations between foreign nationals. other parts uncorroborated at

this time. but parts of it being true is why the former director of national intelligence says james clapper said what mat errs is not who paid for it. it's is is it true. >> doesn't matter who paid for it. it's what the dossier said and the extent to which it's corroborated or not. >> then there's this. trump's allegation of collusion between hillary clinton and russia is absurd on the face of it because you've got to remember one thing that u.s. intelligence has made loud and clear publicly is that putin hates hillary clinton personally and he actively meddled in the election. first and foremost, to bring her down. that was his most important and first goal. >> he did so to demean secretary clinton and third that he sought to advantage mr. trump. >> putin hated secretary clinton so much that coin was he had a clear preference to the person running against the person he hated so much. >> sarah murray is "outfront"

tonight at the white house. first i want to go to gloria borger because you have more on the breaking news about the president demanding the state department release all remaining hillary clinton e-mails. what e-mails is the president talking about, gloria? obviously we're not talking about the private server here, but e-mails that the state department has that we haven't yet seen. >> the president has made it clear to the secretary of state that he wants these e-mails released. he also wants the entire backlog of forward requests finished at the state department. what he's talking about is that the state department still has 40,000 pages of records which may include some e-mails hillary clinton sent to secretary of state. the state department has processed about 32,000 pages of those, but right now, a court has ordered the state department to process 500 pages of records per month. if you did it at that rate, it

would take years. to get the clinton e-mails out. and as we all know, the president doesn't like hillary clinton very much. and was wondering why these things can't be done sooner and he was told, well, mr. presid t president, there's a huge backlog of not only hillary clinton, but everybody else and then the president said, i want it done. >> so he wants it done and it's coming on the heels of another clinton related story come frg the president. as you know, the president is personally pressing the justice department to lift a gag order on an fbi informant who played a crucial role into russian efforts into rue uranium industry. this is important because clinton was secretary of state at the time. it involving the potential, allegations out there all the way back in the campaign of a pay for play involving the clinton foundation. you broke this story. what more do you know tonight? >> look, i think we know that first of all, the president is

still concerned about hillary clinton. for some reason. we also, we also know that the president had gotten a request from chuck grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee, who loves to have whistleblowers before his committee. and chuck grassley had said i would like to have thestify and the president then said to his counsel or directed his white house counsel to talk to folks at the justice department to make this happen. and chuck grassley today seems very pleased by that request. someone like adam schiff has come out and said look, the president should not be directing the justice department. what it should or should not do. the white house has pushed back saying he didn't direct. but he made it very clear that he wanted this gag order lifted. >> all right. thank you very much, gloria borger. and sarah murray is "outfront"

at the white house and on this issue of releasing the clinton e-mails, obviously the president wants that. the white house talking about clinton collusion on the russian dossier. the president weighing in on this uranium deal that's the focus on clinton, clinton, clinton. even though the election ended near ly a year ago and now, thi is a concerted effort to hit her. what is the president trying to do here? >> it's a little perplexing that this is how he's using his time in the oval office. today, sarah sanders was asked about the comments on uranium. she said this is all in the interest of transparency, that is what this white house is pushing for, but obviously, this opens the president up to attacks, the notion he's using the oval office not only to settle old political vendettas, but that he's using it to try to instigate investigations that draw attention away from investigations into allegations of collusion between trump's presidential and russian officials.

i mean, one of the things to remember when you're look ago @ president for instance weighing in on how the justice department should handle this issue of the fbi informant and the uranium case is that president was out here at the white house suggesting this was the next water gate, so in many way, even p if he is pushing for transparency, even if that's his goal, he's put his thumb on the scale of what he thinks the outcome is here. he thinks that is a scandal that took place under the obama administration and hillary clinton was at the state department. >> thank you very much. now, the democratic congressman who's a member of the house judiciary committee. thank you very much for being with me. you heard glory say these e-mails, if they were to release them at pace they are currently doing, it would take years to see them all. is, does the president have a point? why aren't all those e-mails out there? >> the state department has to make priorities as to which e-mails should be there. i don't know whether these are important to go ahead of the cue or other e-mails that should be

done first. a certain amount of manpower to deal with this. and by the way, under the trump administration, the state department has been dluted. they have much less manpower to deal with this. but more to the point, the president ought not to be getting involved in these issues. the president should not be putting his thumb on anything to do with the justice department. as he's gotten involved because he should be with interviewing candidates for the u.s. attorney's offices who could be investigating him as he's gotten involved with firing comby. all of these things take away the independence of the justice department in terms of doing justice and it's all part of a concerted effort to take away from the intention from the only really important issue. which is that russia attacked the united states. they didn't do it by attacking the buildings. they attacked our elections. we are told by the intelligence community they may do it again.

we have to einvestigate to fipd out how they did it. who helped them do it if trump people helped him do it. >> and what to do to prerent it. that's the important issue. all these extraneous things, with the uranium seven years ago, only determined, only for the purpose of taking attention away from the one real issue. >> if you're right, the purpose is to take attention away. that may be the case. when it comes to this uranium situation, there are still questions. if you look at plit fact, they'll say you can't totally grade whether this is a come ploet lie. >> the real issue is that this russian company wanted to buy a company for the right to extract and mine uranium. not the take it out of the united states. not to sell it, get rid of it from the united states, but to deal with it in the united states and this goes before a multiagency committee. none of those agencies, the security agency, the national security counsel, the defense

department, department of homeland security, raise any objections and there's no evidence whatsoever that hillary had anything to do with it. >> there was a state department on the board. it was not her. she said she doesn't know anything about it. then you get into the gray area. >> but none of the agencies, never mind the state department, are attending objections. >> which is a fair point. i'm not saying it isn't. just saying does, is there a point that you know, seven years ago and she's not president isn't really a reason to say we shouldn't look into something pay for play happened. >> except the president's saying she's colluding with the russians. this is a terrible scandal. there's no evidence that a, she had anything to do with it. b, no evidence that anything wrong happened. these kinds of deals are are okay by this committee all the time. this was an absolutely routine thing as far as we know. until someone comes along and says it wasn't routine, look what happened, out of the routine. >> so do you support then taking the gag order off of this

crucial informant? to your point, if there's nothing to hide, why not? >> maybe. i don't know enough about that to say. i'm all in favor of all kinds of transparency et cetera. and certainly, our committee to be investigating, getting into investigating the real question. frankly, i don't care that much about this because it's not a real issue. the real issue is that they are election was attack eattacked. probably be attackeded again next year and the president of the united states is the only one saying it didn't happen. >> so, to this point of there's the issue of the attack itself and as your point doesn't matter who was involved, then there's the issue of collusion. >> oh, does matter. >> yes, but that's a separate issue. you're saying first and foremost, you need to stop it. trump tweeted there was no collusion between russia and trump. >> it's a lie. it was not commonly agreed. it was obviously a lot of

collusion. the question is how high. every day, every so xuan, we get new information about involvement. we know that that lawyer who was at the meeting with trump jr. et cetera, did in fact have information about hillary clinton from the prosecutor general of the soviet union, of russia. so it was, there was involvement, whether there was deliberate collusion. >> and i just wanted, the news we have now as someone's going to correct me if i'm sighing this incorrectly. we have new reporting on the dossier, is that the original funding was from the washington freeby gang to gps who worked with with the british intelligent agent, christopher steel. so the original funding would come from washington free beacon. right wing paper. then to republicans against trump and the primary, whether it was packs or supporters or donors, then to the dnc. what do you make of this new development that the initial

funding came from the washington? >> we knew for a long time, the initial funding was from republican sources then switched after he won the nomination. i would agree with the former head of the cia. james clapper who you had a clip of. it doesn't matter who funded it. the question is, there are various statements of all sorts of allegations about the president and the russians. the question is is it true? some of the allegations have been corroborated. some have not. that's the question. who funded it is irrelevant. campaigns do opposition research all the time. this was opposition research. nothing wrong with the washington free beacon funding it. nothing wrong with the democratic national committee fundi ining it or anybody fundi it. the question is, is it true. >> that's the big question. >> we know some of it's true. none has been debunked. >> right, some is true. at cnn, we've confirmed some of the conversations between

foreign nationals in that dossier did occur as reported in there. i appreciate your time. next, the white house tonight says all 16 women who have publicly accused the president of sexual harassment are liars. >> we've been clear on that in the beginning and the president's spoken on it. plus, new details about the ambush in niger. did a communication breakdown leave four american soldier to their deaths and a stunning new report tonight says the russian lawyer who met with team trump during the campaign shared her plans before the meeting with the kremlin. looking for clear answers for your retirement plan?

start here. at fidelity, we let you know where you stand, so when it comes to your retirement plan, you'll always be absolutely...clear. it's your retirement. know where you stand. you'll always be absolutely...clear. you've probably seen me running all over the country in search of our big idaho potato truck. but not any more. i am done with that. ooh, ooh hot - just gonna stay home on the farm, eat a beautiful idaho potato, and watch tv with my dog... tv anncr: the big idaho potato truck pulled into town today and it's really a sight to see. oh man...let's go.... (distant) you comin', boy? sfx: (dog) gulp! woof.

'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico. goin' up the country. later, gary' i have a motorcycle! wonderful. ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides. before i hadburning,oting, of diabetic nerve pain, these feet... loved every step of fatherhood... and made old cars good as new. but i couldn't bear my diabetic nerve pain any longer. so i talked to my doctor and he prescribed lyrica. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions,

suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs, and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who've had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. now i have less diabetic nerve pain. ask your doctor about lyrica.

new tonight, the white house insisting that each and every woman who has accused president trump of sexual harassment are liars. >> obviously sexual harassment has been in the news. 16 women accused the president of sexually harassing them last week in the press conference in the rose garden. the president called these accusations fake news. is the official white house position that all these women are lying? >> yooe, we've been clear on that from the beginning and the president's spoken on it. >> so here is what the president has spoken about these women. >> i have no idea who these women are. have no idea. the stories are total fiction. they're 100% made up. they never happened. >> i think they want either fame or her campaign. i think it's her campaign. the events never happened.

never. all of these liars will be sued after the election is over. >> trump has yet to sue any of his accusers like he promised to do as you saw right there. second, one of the trump accu r accusers is someone i have known for years and we shared her story with you the day the access hollywood tape came out what she says is true, trump did sexually harass her. kirsten powers and david gergen, former adviser to former presidents. also with us, margaret, thanks call. kirsten, you've been outspoken with your own experiences about harassment. when you hear sarah sanders say sag these women are liars, what do you think? >> i wish i could say i was surprised. obviously this is something donald trump has before and i don't expect sarah sanders to say something different ft this

is sort of the typical response when men are accused of sexual harassmen harassment. if it was one or two people, maybe, but when you have so many people coming forward and telling consistent stories, it's just hard to believe all these women are making it up. and but i you know, the trump people have been more than comfortable obsessing over for example, accusations made against bill clinton, but and accepting them as completely true, but any accusations against him or anybody he likes aren't true. >> just remember that debate, david, where donald trump on st. louis, we were all there. like a press conference with bill clinton's accusers. he brought them all there to do that. he was thrilled to jump on that. believed all of them. when these allegations about harvey weinstein came out, trump in that case sate he wasn't surpriseded. >> i've known harvey weinstein for a long time. i'm not at all surprised to see

it. >> so basically, david, accusers should be believed when they were accusing bill clinton or harvey weinstein, but not when they're accusing donald trump. >> it's all very weary, isn't it, and sad. i wish we weren't talking about things like this, but i think they should be. the kirsten powers of this world need to be listened to. we don't understand as well as we should. the pattern, one case after another. we've had clear patterns of men in power in a variety of industries abusing women. a lot of men are going down. donald trump because he's president can just refuses to play and he's not, i don't think he's ever going to tell us anything more than he said so far. but it is sad. >> margaret, to the point david's making, we are see iing more men called out for harassment. this is growing. women are empowered and we have more names now on this list. mark halperin in the media world

on that list now. is the president going to remain untouchable? is this really in the rear-view mirror for him? >> well, all of the allegations that were being referenced in the question of the rose garden are allegations raised last year. in a sense, the election of president trump after, actually fairly soon after the raising of all those allegations has inoculated him to a large degree against returning to this debate unless either new allegations surface, any new women were to come forward or unless you see the republican power raise questions. if bob corker or john mccain wants to give a speech op the senate floor on this, or take a bigger stretch here, the republican leadership in the house or senate, we'd be having a different conversation right now, but none of that is happening. if you looked at what happened in the briefing room today, not even like there were a surge of reporter's questions following up on this. you got to assume any white house communication shop with

its salt the minute the weinstein allegations broke thought these are questions we could face. how do we want to handle it? but the truth is for president trump, nothing really has changed factually since last year. and i think that's large part of what explains their ability to handle it this way. >> although one thing that would seem interesting and look, this president often says he's going to sue people and doesn't do it. so it's not as if hs the only instance in which that has happened. however, let's take temple tagger, one of trump's accusers. she came on the show. talked about how she felt when trump kissed her. >> i felt awkward and just remembered in my mind going what does he think this is? he's married, this is awkward for me. he's much older. this is not what i came here for. so i just, to me, it was like i hope he knows i'm here for business. not anything other than business. >> to be clear, temple is a person with a face and a name. she's out there. she has said her story, her

name, as have many of these other women. trump has not sue d her. even though he said he would. >> exactly. i would think if somebody accused me of doing something like that and i had the resources, which he does have, i would certainly sue them. i wouldn't want my name slandered that way, so i think it is a little suspect. i don't want to be encouraging donald trump to sue this poor woman, but it is sort of interesting. it's the same way with the bill o'reilly settling for $32 million then saying i have all this information that i can prove my innocence, but i'm just not going to. it's like, yeah, i don't think so. that's just not really the way that it works. people, if they can prove their innocence, they will. >> so basically, david, it sounds like you're all in agreement that unless there is some new development, a new accuser, that for trump, this is over. even though for bill o'reilly, these things happened in the past. for harvey weinstein, they happened in the past. they're still bring iing these people down and ending their

careers. >> yeah. i want to respectfully argue that something has changed since the election. and that is that the curtain has been pulled back and we've now seen a string of men accused by a hugely long string of women of sexual harassment in places of power. men in power. and i think that, i think people will take that into account in thinking about the president and evaluating what values he represents. i don't think we're going to get more evidence. i think this is in the past evidencery terms. but i think people you know, who are thinking about their president and what they want to talk to their children ant aboud how they want to have heroes for their children, this, what we're going through now does bring us back to donald trump. and a lot of people will complete, is it really fair that the person who has the most power has the can just dismiss it and brush it aside? >> i think --

>> sorry. >> i think this is who your stakeholders are. his stakeholders don't care, right? so the voters, his voters, don't care. so they don't feel they have to be accountable for it. a long time, a lot of these other men were able to get away with it then all of a sudden, younger people i think started speaking up and through social media, i think there was a real thet and they had to respond to it. >> thank you all so very much. next, the breaking news this hour. we now know who originally paid for the research that eventually became the infamous trump russia dossier. that's next. and the russian lawyer who met with the trump campaign about dirt on hillary clinton has denied ties to the kremlin. not true. according to a big new report tonight. (vo) do not go gentle into that good night, old age should burn and rave at close of day;

rage, rage against the dying of the light. do not go gentle into that good night. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

breaking news. the conservative website washington free beacon saying tonight they were the ones who first paid the research firm fusion gps for opposition research on president trump. fusion of course is the firm that then produced the infamous trump russia dossier using the former british intelligent agent crihristopher steel. ken vogel brought the story for the "new york times" and he's with me on the phone. so ken, tell me what you're learning. >> yeah, so we just figured it out today because the representatives actually lawyer from the website washington free beacon told the house intelligence committee that in fact, they initially did retain fusion gps to do research into a

number of their candidates including donald trump. this is in october 2015. as the republican primary was just heating up and trump was sort of pulling into the lead. they say that they ended the research in may of 2016 when trump was essentially clinching the republican nomination. they're sensitive to this time frame because paul singer, the hedge fund billionaire who was a major funder of the free beacon, was one of the leading sort of anti trump republican donors and he has since gone to great lengths to make the peace with donald trump, president trump, so it definitely threatens that and they're very careful to say that this time frame does not happen funning the steel research, the research by christopher steel into trump's russia ties, that they got out of this business before fusion brought him in. >> so, so i just want to be

clear. so they initially funded it, but obviously the money to this website would have come from at the time the antitrump republican donor, the billionaire, paul singer. this all makes sense. but this is how it started as a conservative website. from your reporting, ken, i just want to read that free beacon, saying in a statement quote, one of the work product that the free beacon receipt appears in the sealed dossier. okay. so this is crucial. one of the work product the free beacon appears appears in the sealed dossier. the statement continues to say that free beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the steel dossier, did not pay for the dossier and never had contact with knowledge of or provided payment for my work provided by christopher steel. so even though they are adm admitting some of the stuff they paid for, they are taking incredible pains to say they themselves didn't create the dossier or have christopher steel create it.

>> yeah, that's right. because it's such an explosive subject, where trump has sort of alluded to his knowledge saying that he thought he knew who the republican donor was and this was baked up, cooked up by political opponents and therefore, does not have credibility like an intelligent document, which is it is sort of being used as currently in both the mueller investigation and the congressional investigation. there has been an effort to sort of retrace the steps of crist fear steel. that's why the free beacon and paul singer's allies are so careful to assert that it was neither singer nor the free beacon that was funding this research that is now at the center of this white hot controversy that really threatens the very existence of the trump administration. >> all right, ken, thank you very much. ken vogel from "the new york times" just broke this story. joining me on the phone now is jeffrey toobin, michael zeldin is with me and robert mueller,

former special assistant and david gergen is back. what is the significance of this, that it's not traced that the genesis of the dossier itself, whatever se manhattan cal game they're maying. ochbl when it started over time and different funders, whether it was other republicans and other republican campaigns or pacs then to the hillary clinton campaign. it got more and more fleshed out and longer. but the initial funding coming from the conservative website, the free pea cbeacon. what's the significance, lee? >> are you asking me, michael? >> michael, yes. >> lee zeldin from wyoming. >> he's out there, he's laughing. >> distant relative from mins i expect. the bottom line is who funded it doesn't matter as much who funded it doesn't matter as much what's in these memorandum. mueller will focus on the truth of the proposition, not the

funder of the proposition. what's interesting to keep in mind is that the dossier is really not a single piece of work, singular report, but rather, it's a series of reports, series of memos that are put together in a report, so when they say, when the free beacon says one of our work products made it into the dossier, that means one of the lines of work the dossier writer steele was working on was in fact funded by them, so they can call if you will, to use your commercial, they can an apple a banana, but it's an apple. they funded part of steel's work because that's what the free beacon was up to at that time. >> which jeffrey, is important, right? it's also posht, this genesis of the funding because the p president is trying to muddy the waters here and act like this dossier is evidence of collusion between hillary clinton and the russians. here is the president on

wednesday when he was which republican is behind the dossier. here's how he answered it. >> i'd rather not say, but you'll be surprised. you'll be surprised. >> now jeffrey, we don't know whether he knew or didn't know at that time. what's your interpretation? he's obviously smiling and laughing as he says that. >> the first thing to point out is that nothing unlawful or improper about anyone funding research. about whether it's the free beacon, republican candidates, whether it's hillary clinton. there's nothing improper about hiring a private investigation firm like gps to look into the backgrounds of candidates. what makes this interesting i think, what makes "the new york times" scoop important is that the idea that gps was brought in by hillary clinton to invest negative things about trump is obviously untrue.

this investigation began at the ins gags of a republican news operation. they're the ones who paid gps to get involved. to start doing this research. it was later continued under the funding of the hillary clinton campaign and the dnc and that produced this dossier, but the idea that this was from the fwing some hit job against ginned up hit job by hillary clinton is clearly incorrect. it was initially at least a republican effort to defeat donald trump. >> let me just david gergen, to give you u a follow to this, trump tweeted on the 19th of the month, workers of firm involved with the discredited and fake dossier take the fifth. who paid for it? russia, the fbi, or the dems or all. you know u, clearly, he is creating a link here that this is some sort of you know, collusion working together

between the fbi democrats and russia. so, obviously, the significance of the fact that fusion gps was originally hired by conservative website is relevant in terms of what the president is trying create here as an image. >> absolutely is. i think we have to distinguish between the legal questions here and the political questions here. the legal question really is what's in the dossier true or not true. i agree absolutely with that. but the political question is who funded it. the president thought he had a handle on this. he thought he had a way in to go after hillary clinton x to go , to go after the democrats, so muddy the waters, to see what was going on. even a claim that the fbi might be behind it and gin up manufacture allegations that mueller and comey, they've been in bed together on this stuff and then mueller really ought to resign. you've seen some of the conservatives push on that.

now. because after all, it was originally funded by democrats funded by hillary. now we know as jeffrey just said that's not true. it started with the republicans, the conservative funding you know, putting some money in, brought the dossier going. that puts a different political light on this and gives last time i was arguing that the democrats looked really bad if they were funding this alone. now i think we know the republicans are, they all shifts. trump ought to go after his own people and stop going after hillary. >> of course we know there were republicans we don't know at what point it switched hands. this information. and lee, i just want to make an important correction here. the free beacon statement says none of the work product that the free beacon appears in the steel dossier, this goes with what they are saying. they had no knowledge or

connection. they are trying to distance themselves. does the genesis ultimately of this matter? >> as david said, in political terms, it may take some air out of the balloon it was a hit job on the president. but in legal terms, i stand sort of as you will by my original statement that it's the content of the matters that constitute the dossier that in the end will matter to mueller, not who funded it at the outset or over the course of its life. >> right and of course on that front, just to make clear to everybody what we've confirm school district that some of the conversations between foreign nationals as reported in that dossier did in fact happen. other part of the dossier have not yet been corroborated. those conversations between foreign nationals could have been set up to make people think other things were true. there's still a lot of questions, but we know some things in that dossier are true. others are uncorroborated as of

tonight. thanks very much. zblncht next, a new report about the russian attorney who met with donald trump jr. during the campaign. did her marching orders come directly from the kremlin? and deadly bacteria in puerto rico claiming at least three lives, sicken bing scores more. residents forced to wash clothes and bathe in water that can kill them. hi. i'm the one clocking in... when you're clocking out. sensing your every move and automatically adjusting to help you stay effortlessly comfortable. there. i can also help with this. does your bed do that? oh. i don't actually talk. though i'm smart enough to. i'm the new sleep number 360 smart bed.

let's meet at a sleep number store. money managers are pretty much the same. all but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. accused of obstructing justice to theat the fbinuclear war, and of violating the constitution by taking money from foreign governments and threatening to shut down news organizations that report the truth. if that isn't a case for impeaching and removing a dangerous president, then what has our government become? i'm tom steyer, and like you, i'm a citizen who knows it's up to us to do something.

it's why i'm funding this effort to raise our voices together and demand that elected officials take a stand on impeachment. a republican congress once impeached a president for far less. yet today people in congress and his own administration know that this president is a clear and present danger who's mentally unstable and armed with nuclear weapons. and they do nothing. join us and tell your member of congress that they have a moral responsibility to stop doing what's political and start doing what's right. our country depends on it.

new tonight, the russian lawyer who met with donald trump swrr, jarkushner and paul manaf is connected with the russian government. this is a charge he has repeatedly denied, but "the new york times" reporting that the -- shared with the kremlin eight months before and tonight, "the new york times" reports that when she first researched information believed to be damaging to the clinton campaign about democrat donors, quote, she took her findings to russia's top prosecutor. he was highly pleased with her report ard coing to a former

colleague who spoke on condition of -- the top prosecutor coordinated thep on distributing these talking points. reporting quote, the memo she brought with her to trump power closely followed a document that mr. chaika's office had given to an american congressman, with some paragraphs verbatim. while one of the people at the heart is bill browder, an american born financer and central to the act which sanctions wealthy russians. it's the very act putin most wants repealed. bill browder is "outfront" tonight. bill, thank you very much for being with us. you are central to this memo. i want to start by asking you, your reaction to this "new york times" reporting that she shared the talking points, that she eventually used for her meeting at trump tower with russia's top prosecutor. >> it's no surprise from where i

stand. i've known her for a number of years on the other side of the barricade. it's clear, it's also been clear to me and it's now becoming clear to the rest of the world that she was an agent of vladimir putin, that she was closely koocoordinating, being instructed by the russian government and there's one more thing that has come out of the story, which is that in addition to the prosecutor and -- have the same talking points, putin just last week was using the same talking points word for word in a public presentation he was making about me in front of a number of journalists and academics in sochi. this is a kremlin operation top to bottom. it's now got evidence to prove it. >> and you use the word agent. you use that word very purposefully. you're not just using it casually. you' .

>> indeed. natalya was not an independent operator. she was working as part of a kremlin project. she was dispatched to new york to try to repeal the act, which is something putin hates more than anything because it puts his own money at risk of being frozen in the united states and elsewhere. she was working for him. >> and her memo that she gave to trump jr., jared cukushner, pau manafort was about the act and you an tax fraud scheme. if this meeting was the best the russians got on an issue this serious to them, does it lead you to think there was no collusion between russia and the trump campaign? >> i have no idea whether there was collusion or whether there wasn't between two. all i know is that they came with a specific ask and their ask was to repeal the act. now, we don't know what they were offering in return and i think it's probably premature to say it is this is all they were offering. they could have been offering a

lot more. we don't know what and we don't know whether the people in that meeting accepted what they were offering. >> but you're confident there was a real offer. you think there was a more substantial offer. >> of course. 100%. these are not stupid people. these are people operate iing a the highest level on behalf of put uen. they're well traineded. probab they don't go into a meeting with a nonsense offer. they go to get something real in return and that's why we don't know. >> we don't. what we know is that we're told they and didn't really deliver on it, so yes, we don't yet know that full information if there is more. you have been a credit tick of president putin. he charged you with murder. and in this memo to which i said you are essential, it charges

you manager money for two democratic donors and they stole money buy evading -- by evading taxes. what's your response to those charges? >> it's complete and utter none sense. it's no doubt that these charges came from the russian prosecutor who is involved in the killing of my lawyer, sergey. there's no truth to it whatsoever. >> bill browder thank you so much i appreciate your time. >> thank you. up front next, defenders of the first president bush says age and illness explains his behavior towards some women. two people have died in puerto rico. celebrate for water they're washing up in rivers that may breed the bug.

this weekend both

president's bush there throw out the series in houston. it'll be bush's first appears since facing groping accusations. athee that jones at front with more. >> reporter: president george h.w. bush facing three allegations from women saying he touched and groped them. one wanted to remain anonymous. actre actress grolnick met george bush last year during a photograph. >> it was a photo op, he came backstage and meet the girls, he was in a wheelchair. he was hanging around in the group. he said do you know who my favorite magician is. and we said no who. >> reporter: washington spas

wrote that bush touched her inappropriately a few years ago as they were posing for this photograph. while lind did not get into the specifics of the incident she referred to it as a sexual assault. he didn't shake my hand he touched me from behind his child chair with his whief barbara bush by his side and told me a dirty joke and while all the way being photographed, touched me again. a third woman who wished to remain anonymous told me she met him in houston in 2015. he said he squeezed her behind a couple of times it was not just a pat it was a serious squeeze. spokesman gentlewomen mcgraph acknowledged the incident. to try to put people at ease, the president routinely tell it is same joke. on the same occasion he has patted women's rears in kwha he intended to be a good natured

manner. some have seen it as incident, others view it as inappropriate. to anyone he has offended, president bush apologizes most sincerely. mcgraph confirmed he was referring to the david copper field joke mentioned by all three women when he wrote the statement. reaction to the story has been mixed with some coming to the president's offense, including abc's andrea mitchell who tweeted. mrs. bush is was at his side, he was in a wheelchair with parkinson's disease. really, someone should be ashamed and it is not 41. a doctor who doesn't tweet bush says the illness can lead to likely behavior. >> it can also affect the front part of your brain, things like judgment, forethought, impulse control and people who have never acted badly or inappropriately their whole life, all of a sudden they start

to do things that are out of character. >> jordana grolnick thinks that's an excuse. >> do you think his age and medical condition excuses and explains his action? >> no i don't think it excuses it or explains it. in order for us to have progress, then for women to reach the true equality that we deserve to have, i think we need to stop making excuses and letting that be, you know, okay. >> now there's several thing we done know here but these revelations are sparking a debate about whether age or illness excuse touching that left some women feeling violated and uncomfortable. >> athee that thank you very much. another developing story americans facing a growing and deadly health crisis in puerto rico. a killer bacteria found in the urine of rodents are now thriving in the water where people are doing their laundry that don't have waiter. three people have already died

from the the bacteria. and there are cases of numbers of it that's expected to keep rising. martin salve ranch is out front. >> reporter: jorge antonio fails to understand how his father died after the hurricane. nausea, stomach pains, head headache and diarrhea. a doctor acknowledged it as the flu which got worse. the family brought him to this hospital which he died. i asked jorge if he knew about the sclerosis that left him sick. no i have never heard of it before he tells me. the source is bacteria and animal urine making its way to rivers and lakes after flooding. hurricane maria triggered massive flooding while knocking

out many on the island. in desperation puerto rico residence has been turning to rivers to wash even to drink. the cruz family has no water at their home so everieer week they come to the river and do laundry and the children play. i asked jose if he had any fear about the water for his family. his answer was simple. >> no. >> reporter: no. in the town of union kos maria flores is worried. it's why every day her daughter and grandchildren come to town and kill jugs with a plastic well. we're in need of it she says. i live on the second floor and ware jugs with water every day. the government is trying to keep public fear in check describing the situation is neither an epidemic nor confirmed outbreak but they are treating it as a

health emergency. puerto ricans have endured a long list of suffering in the aftermath of maria, now comes another threat lurking in the water, some of it relying on just to survivor. >> martin the live in puerto rico tonight. it's been more than 5 weeks since hurricane maria. why are there still people who don't have fresh water? >> reporter: erin, comes down to the greatest frustration of all which is the lack of electricity. i just got off a flight with a commander he says the assessment is that 80% of power grid in puerto rico has damaged and the numbers are staggering. he said just listen to how many power poles they need. 62,000 power poles, 6100 miles of capable, and that's just to get started. the task is monumental. >> martin thank you very much.

continuing to be on the ground and tell the story. thanks so much to all of you for joining us. doenl forget you can watch out front any time anywhere. go to cnn go. "ac 360" starts right now. good evening we have breaking news ahead, a push by the president himself to speed up the release of unpublished hillary clinton's e-mails. it appears to be the focus into the campaign on the woman they defeated. today the president started with a tweet, it is now commonly agreed after many months of costly looking that there was no collusion between russia and trump, was collusion with hr, hillary clinton. this afternoon sanders picked up on the president's theme. >> i think that our position hasn't changed since day one, and i think we are seeing now that if there was any collusion with russia it was between the dnc and