dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! the house judiciary committee chairman wrapping up quite a day to say the least. for it last ten hours almost

without interruption all eyes and no shortage of heat had been focused on that hearing room and one individual, peter struck. pulled from the russia investigation last august from the messages and e-mails he exchanged with then fbi agent lisa page. grilled by two committees all day and into the night. republicans who had seen nefarious s motives on his part and democrats viewing it as low comedy as best because struck has already testified behind closed doors. in a moment some of the lawmakers who took part today but first cnn's manu raju joins u us after what has been quite a long day. >> reporter: something we have not seen on capitol hill, outburst after outburst drowning out the witness himself who pushed back for the first time trying to respond to those

messages but peter struck wasn't having it. fbi agent peter struck took a firm stand from the very beginning of the hearing. >> the suggestion that i in some dark chamber of the fbi would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safe guards and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. and the opposition that is going on, that it might occur anywhere in the fbi deeply corrodes when the fbi is in american society, the effectiveness of their mission. and it is deeply destructive. >> reporter: struck saying he was removed from the mueller probe because of how the texts per perceived not because of bias. >> i'm stating to you it's not my understand he kicked me off because of any bias, that it was done because of appearance. i don't appreciate what was originally said being changed. >> i don't give a damn what you

appreciate, mr. struck. >> republican senator darrell issa even making struck read his texts aloud. >> omg, he's an idiot. hi, how is trump other than a -- trump is a disaster. >> reporter: struck publicly disclosed when he said, quote, we'll stop it, referring to trump as president. >> that was written late at night off-the-cuff and in response to a series of events that included then candidate trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero. and my presumption based on that horrible, disgusting behavior that the american population would not elect someone demonstrating that behavior to be president of the united states. it was in no way unequivocally any suggestion that me, the fbi,

would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process for any candidate. >> reporter: the lawmakers also turned their fire on themselves. at one point erupting over whether or not the full transcript of agent struck's closed door testimonied shouy s released. something democrats have called for and republicans have resisted. >> and i ask the chairman now to order the release of that transcript. would the chairman do so? >> not today. >> would the chairman ever do so? >> you can direct your questions to the witness. that's your time to do that not to discuss this. >> reporter: the hearing grew incredibly personal with one republican spotlighting struck's extra marital affair with page. >> and i talked to fbi agents around the country. you've embarrassed them. you've embarrassed yourself, and i cent help but wonder when i see you looking there with a

little smirk, how many times did you look so innocent into your wife's eye and lie to her about lisa -- >> mr. chairman, it's outrageous. >> mr. chairman, please -- >> mr. chairman, this is intolerable harassment of a witness. >> you need your medication. >> reporter: now, after about ten hours peter struck actually walked by me just now. i tried to ask him, anderson, whether or not he believed republicans treated him fairly in this hearing. he didn't want to answer any reporter questions. he left. and tomorrow they're going to be interviewing lisa page behind closed doors. and they want to bring it to a public hearing. so this is just part one of what could be another contentious hearing involving lisa page. anderson? >> manu, thanks very much. joining now is a congressman

from rhode island who took part today. do you think today's hearing was productive in any sort of way? >> no, i think today was a sad day for the committee. this is a joint hearing where our republican colleagues really had no interest in hearing the answers to these questions. this was promoting a narrative to continue to undermine the investigation of robert mueller and really distract attention from the issues congress is not taking up. it was incredible because they literally wouldn't let the witness answer questions. what he said really confirmed what the i.g. said, that no bias affected any of the decisions made in this, that there were appropriate decisions made and that his personal opinions did not in any way effect the outcome of the investigation. the republicans already know that, but they continue to ask him specifically about the counter intelligence investigation involving the trump campaign and the russian. and they know under department of justice and fbi rules he cannot answer questions about an

ongoing criminal investigation. in fact, that's the i.g. report criticized the fbi for doing. so they know he can't answer them, but they continue to ask that question. we spent 11 hours of a deposition of him and 8 hours in hearings. this is judiciary committee. we should be focused on the family separation policy, focused on driving down the cost of prescription drugs, comprehensive immigration reform, common sense gun safety legislation. but, no, today we spent 8 1/2 hours talking about the clinton e-mails in an ongoing effort to distract from what's an ongoing and serious investigation of the president and his inner circle. >> not only was a chaotic from the start there was a point when congressman louie gomer directly referenced struck's affair saying, quote, how many times did you look innocently into your wife's eye and lie to her about lisa page?

where do you think that was going and was that in your opinion over the line? >> it was very much over the line. but the republicans made it clear they weren't serious in hearing the answer to any of these questions. mr. struck was truthful and very forthcoming. they were not interested in hearing his answers because they have a narrative they're trying to promote. this is the administration trying to do everything they can to undermine the credibility of the mueller investigation, to create some impression that it's not a legitimate investigation. so peter struck was a prop. they brought him in to talk about his text messages to continue with his narrative this is an untrustworthy investigation led by untrustworthy people. they weren't interested in hearing anything. he was used to, and frankly they behaved more like members of the trump team, the members of the judiciary committee who have very important oversight responsibilities. today was a really sad day, when

you see members of the committee that are really abandoning their responsibilities to do real oversight and to take up the important issues facing our country and instead devote hundreds of hours to hillary clinton's e-mails and attacking the character of the fbi and department of justice in order to protect the president. >> you've now initiated the process for releasing the closed door transcript of struck's testimony, which as you said was already given behind closed doors. obviously the doj would have to make redactions. do you expect -- and i know you can't comment on the details of it, but do you think people would be surprised? what makes the closed door transcript so interesting or something that should be released? >> peter struck was consistent with the testimony he had today. >> so there weren't any

inconsistencies? >> no, and the fact is the american people should see that. the chairman said, oh, i haven't decided i should release them. it's not up to him. the republicans have decided to prevent it. i think the american people have a right to know. he sat through 11 hours of testimony, let the american people read the testimony and make their own judgments. i'm working with congressman ras kn, having the fbi look at it to determine if there's any reason not to. so long as there's no prohibition we intend to release it. >> today struck was threatened with contempt because he wouldn't answer as you said certain questions about an ongoing investigation. steve bannon wouldn't answer questions as well. he was not threatened being held in contempt. >> remember when steve bannon refused to answer questions he didn't have any basis to do it. he just said i'm not answering

them. and we had a vote in the committee to try to compel him to come back and answer questions and that went down because all the republicans in the committee opposed it. the fbi rules and the advice of his counsel is he cannot answer questions that involve a criminal or ongoing investigation. the i.g. report criticized director comey for doing just that. republicans know that. they've read that report. they know the fbi have protocols. but this was about fear. this was about asking questions they know mr. struck was not permitted to answer and shouldn't. it would be teenagers to the investigation, endanger our national security if counter intelligence investigations or people talked about it in the middle of it. there's an obvious reason you don't do that. they know it. this was ongoing effort to try to continue to undermine the investigation. >> congressman, appreciate your time. thank you very much.

joining me now is former fbi supervisory special agent josh campbell. gloria, have you ever seen anything like this before? did you see this hearing other than a partisan shouting match? >> no, it was a partisan shouting match. i think i'd have to go back to the benghazi hearing where hillary clinton testified for 11 hours in 2015. i think, you know, you could compare it to that. but the bottom line here is that nobody, none of the republicans were able to prove in any way, shape or form that peter struck influenced the fbi in anyway to go easy on hillary clinton and go hard on donald trump. they didn't even get there. i mean, he gave it to them when they tried to say to him, you know, this is a false

investigation, and he took great umbrage at it. obviously he has done the fbi a lot of damage in the public eye, and that's why he was taken off the mueller investigation. but if the object of this was to prove that the russia investigation is false because it started in a wrong way and should never have begun, i do not think the republicans achieved their goal. >> josh, i mean as a former fbi agent, former special assistant to director comey, i wonder how do you view the hearing and struck's handling of himself? >> i think we have to start with what the purpose of this hearing was. it was an opportunity for them to ask questions. the question was would they allow him the opportunity to actually explain himself? it quickly devolved into this sideshow where you have member of congress meandering from

oversight into overreach. look at the tape you just played where you have yelling, interrupting the witness, badgering the witness. i don't think house republicans came in there with an open mind seeking answers. i think they came looking for opportunities to sling sound bites. >> he said he said it was about the perception, his texts might have created of bias. do you buy that? >> i think it's a footnote. i think you can read it either way and we have to listen to what mueller says about that later on. and what we need is to hear from mr. mueller at the end of a productive, deliberative investigation without the kind of travesty and interference in his investigation that this hearing was intended to be. you'd have to go back to mccarthy to see the kindevene

mccarthy hearings you had republicans who were willing to say we want to get at the truth. mr. mccarthy, you don't want to get at the truth. what we've seen now in this hearing is a total diinterest of the republican party to get to the truth of what happened with the russians. and in the 2016 election. and what we are paying as a price for this travesty today is a total break down of democratic process in the legislative branch, which is supposed to be a check on the executive. instead what we are seeing is a blank check for an executive who may be flouting and may have thwarted completely the rule of law. and so we are now in a kind of place where what is going to ensure the integrity of our democratic institutions, if the congress of the united states and one of two major parties is

totally disinterested in the truth and legitimate inquiry, which is what the mueller investigation is. >> well, i mean, gloria, one of the obviously striking moments which we played of the hearing is when congressman louie gomer brought up struck's extramarital affair saying how many times did you look into your wife's eyes and lie about lisa page? are you surprised he went there? >> i guess i was because it was so disgraceful and odious and ridiculous. and for somebody who wants to get to the truth about the russia investigation, this is not the way to go about it. i think he just wanted to -- to sort of get a rise out of peter

struck. and i was sort of looking all day, and i watched this all day. and i was looking for a republican, one republican to come out and say peter struck what you do was wrong. but we have no proof, as the inspector general had no proof that what you did influenced the russia investigation. we know that mueller took him off the russia investigation. we know they had a short conversation about it. he said maybe 15 minutes. but there was not one republican who would even admit to that being a possibility. and in watching all of this, you know, i found it kind of sad that the middle ground or any kind of middle ground could not be found or even voiced by somebody -- by somebody in the republican party. it was kind of stunning to me as was louie gomer because i guess

in this day and age you have to expect everything. >> carl, it seems like this day in age anybody who seeks the middle ground kind of keeps quiet or leaves congress. >> i think that's true largely in the case of the republicans. and that's not to say the democrats of this committee acquitted themselves so well. there was some posturing and theatering on the democratic side that was really unpleasant to watch. but what we have to keep coming back to here is about the rule of law in this country. what the mueller investigation is intended to do is establish the rule of law by having legitimate inquiry into campaign activities and perhaps the activities of the president of the united states and those around him. we now have a judiciary committee of the house of representatives that have said we will not participate in a legitimate investigation, we

will be shields. we will be shields without looking at the evidence in an open minded manner. once that happens, unlike what happened -- and i hate to go back to watergate in this instance -- the heroes of watergate were republicans. republicans on the watergate committee, republicans on the house judiciary committee who voted articles of impeachment against a criminal president of the united states. is donald trump a criminal president of the united states? we don't know that. we have an investigation that is intended to determine what his relationship was to these russian interference attempts in our election. let the investigation proceed. what we saw today was obstructionism really verging on beyond irresponsible by the republicans. it verges on undermining who we are as a people. >> josh, i just want to replay the gomer thing because, again, that was just kind of an extraordinary moment.

let's play that. >> i can't help but wonder when i see you looking there with a little smirk, how many times did you look so innocent into your wife's eye and lie to her about lisa -- >> josh, i'm wondering what you thought about it? again, it's louie gomer so perhaps not that surprising, but what'd you think? >> it's not surprising, but i think it's no less disgraceful when you have a member of congress sitting there questioning a public servant and bring up his family and making demeaning remarks? people are going to be looking at this hearing today trying to determine who do we believe? if struck is trying to prove a narrative, there's no way people are going to get inside his mind. the only thing the american people can do is listen to what he says and make up their mind based on his credibility. at the end of the day you had someone at the witness who again

made mistakes but sat there trying to explain himself. you had people that were grandstanding and, you know, slinging these insults. again, that would be the calculation the american people have to the decide. who do we believe? >> let's take a break. we'll have more to talk about next. more fiery comments from the hearing. another lawmaker departing as well. and breaking news from the president's trip to the u.k. he talked to a british tabloid. we'll tell you what he said and why it could redefine his relationship with really our strongest ally. ♪ keep it comin' love. if you keep on eating, we'll keep it comin'. all you can eat riblets and tenders at applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

(dnice, candace, but this time bold. did someone say "bold?" (gasping) starkist jalapeo tuna in a pouch! loaded with bold flavor. just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go bold! try all of my bold creations pouches! just for a shot. with neulasta onpro patients get their dayr back to be with family, or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving

strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $25 per dose with copay card. so let's promote our summer travel deal on choicehotels.com like this. surfs up. earn a $50 gift card when you stay just twice this summer. or, badda book. badda boom.

book now at choicehotels.com well, in a day full of loud fr c confrontation trey gowdy once again revisiting. >> i'm asking, look, if you want to have a debate over a two letter word we're going to have to do that some other time. what and who did you mean by it? >> mr. gowdy, as i've stated that text was written in short -- >> i don't care whether it was long hand, cursive. i don't want to quo what it meant. >> it would be his canned danes

for the presidency and that the american people would not vote him into office. >> we invited him to come on the broadcast. he said know. so we have others. joining us now congressman eric swalwell, a democrat from california and a member of the judiciary committee as he questioned peter struck this evening. you had trey gowdy who said back in april congress has quote, proven itself incapable of conducting investigations. do you think the system is broken? >> well, good evening, anderson. i actually right after the 2016 election wrote bipartisan ledge slagds slagz to have an independent commission. i foresaw then this would be too hot for commission. i think this demonstrated today why we needed an independent

commission. >> anyone watching today's hearing saw something that was -- i mean it was certainly contentious, at personal at times. seemed arguably out of control. was anything accomplished today? >> no. actually for the 2,000 children who'd like to be with their parents tonight nothing was accomplished in connecting them. and this is the committee that has the power to connect them and their families. however, i do think you saw director comey, he came to congress, raised his right hand under oath about russia and peter struck did the same. so the question now moves, mr. president, are you willing to go to bob mueller, raise your right hand and go under oath and answer questions as it relates to your involvement with the russians? >> is what we saw today really that much different than what we've seen in past years or even, you know -- yeah, under

past administrations where with all due respect people in public lifelike to get sound bite on their local news and oftentimes it's about them being seen asking a question than necessarily an answer. was that today different? >> we're passionate, though. 12 months ago we may not have seen a hearing that was intense as it was today. but i think there's frustration among americans, among democrats that we have an adversary that attacked us and we're not doing enough to stand up to them and our priorities are in the wrong direction. that we're going backward and still look at hillary clinton's e-mails. >> struck today said his biases did not interfere with the fbi. do you think that's true? he in fact said he wasn't let go -- he wasn't fired from the

investigation because of bias but the perception of it. >> i asked him these question. i asked if he was the sole investigator who closed the hillary clinton investigation. he said, no, there were others involved. i asked him if he was the sole investigator who launched the trump investigation, and he said no. i'll just tell you, anderson, if i was at the fbi he wouldn't be working for me. and i think bob mueller did the right thing by taking him off the team. that's what you would want him to do. >> congressman swalwell, thank you. a few moments ago i referred to lisa page as an former fbi agent. she's in fact a former attorney. did this have an impact on where republicans or democrats stand when it comes to struck and his role of the fbi? >> no, i don't think any role was changed or any light was shed on anything. i mean as the congressman

pointed out, struck was hardly allowed to answer questions. the republicans many times wanted him to respond to questions that the attorneys or the fbi sitting behind him said he could not answer because of an ongoing investigation. i think there was a lot of insinuation here and i think there was a lot of grandstanding as carl pointed out on both side. so i don't think anything was accomplished other than the fact that peter struck got to speak his peace in many ways and say, you know, what, i did some wrong things, but i didn't influence the russia investigation in any way, shape or form. >> i got to get another quick break in. stay with us. we're going to broaden the conversation after this break.

any paint can change the way a room looks. but only one can change how it feels. century, from benjamin moore, is the first-ever soft touch matte finish paint.

its revolutionary texture unlocks 75 unprecedented colors, each with exquisite depth and richness. it's a difference you can see, touch, and feel. that's proudly particular. century. only at select local paint and hardware stores. century. i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. a book that you're ready

to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! want to show you another moment from today's very long hearing. chairman bob goodlat having a discussion back and forth. >> mr. struck, you are under subpoena and are required to answer the question. are you objecting to the question? if so please state your objection. >> mr. chairman, i object. >> the gentleman does not have standing to object. there's no point of order here. >> point of order could be heard. my point of order is intentionally or otherwise this demand puts mr. struck is an impossible position.

the fbi counsel has instructed him not to answer the question. if you have a problem with this you should take it up with the fbi, not badger mr. struck. >> earlier tonight carl bernstein compared the hearings -- does all of this back and forth and partisan bickering and the substance of the hearing or lack of substance, does it cloud mueller's investigation in anyway? because certainly some people would look at this and say it's designed to certainly cloud it or raise in other people's opinions legitimate questions about the investigation? >> this is government for the base, for the republican base instead of government for the people and all the people of the country and a legitimate inquiry. we have one shot in this country at establishing that there is legitimate inquiry into what happened in the last campaign, the role of the russian, the role of the president of the united states and those around him. that is mueller's investigation.

and we have only one entity that of the republicans on the hill and the base that are intent on undermining the investigation. that doesn't mean there might not be problems. we have plenty of time to find out if there were mistakes made in the mueller investigation, in the fbi investigation. and there ought to be hell to pay if there was anything that happened that was really untoward or prejudicial in terms of the conduct and how decisions were made that affected all of the essential decisions. what we heard today actually from peter struck were some nuanced accounts that we have not quite heard about the conduct of the investigation. and of all things despite his personal irresponsibility and his undermining of the investigation or certainly the appearance that he gave by his own actions, what we learned today is there were safe guards in that investigation, that he had the ability, in fact, to

hurt donald trump as did the investigators and the leadership of the fbi. they did not take that shot. what we learned today between the lines is this was an investigation of objectativity, some difficult calls, some not very competent moves made particularly by comey as we know. and at the same time reason to believe there was integrity despite the recklessness of mr. struck. >> so josh, struck said in the testimony that the fbi had information alleging a russian offer of assistance to a member of the trump campaign. why could he answer that question while refusing to answer other questions on the russia probe citing the ongoing investigation in. >> so i think his representative stated he's in an impossible situation. one need only look behind him during that hearing which struck me, he's literally flanked on one side by fbi personnel and on

the other side he's flanked by his own counsel who's looking into ensuring he himself is protected. i've sat in fbi headquarters as these hearings are going on. you have a kind of war room setup. and the primary purms there if a witness doesn't know something and a representative said, hey, can you get back to me on x, y, and z they can immediately start working on what they wanted. i think they said, hey, is it going to impact nothing negatively if we release information and he saw that note go out to the personnel behind him and he said it's okay. so i assume that's what happened here. >> not agreeing to bring steve bannon back in front of the committee, someone who also just refused to answer questions not for any reason about an investigation, just because he refused to answer questions.

>> i don't think we heard the end of it. the democrats don't have any power here because they don't control the committee. i'm sure this was planned on the democratic side if they knew that he was going threaten struck with contempt, that they had something in their back pocket on forcing steve bannon to testify. and one other thing i want to add, anderson, because there is one little thing we did learn today from peter struck because largely we learned nothing new. but one thing we learned is he did testify is that the russia investigation opened in july 2016 not because of the steel dossier. so there's been a lot of, you know, charges saying, you know, this is based on this faulty dossier and this was the reason the fbi opened its investigation because of christopher steele and he was on their payroll, et cete et cetera, et cetera. heed today let it be known that

was not the reason. so one of the unanswered questions but something we learned a little bit about. >> and one other point was the way that hearing ended with a threat to rosenstein by the chairman in saying that we are not through with you, mr. struck. and mr. rosenstein he was implying we might bring you in here and hold you in contempt as well. this is an attempt to undermine legitimate investigation, and somehow there must be somewhere in the republican party, in congress, out of congress, ex-precedents, a way to say we are republicans that stand together for free and open inquiry and with some independence as welt. because otherwise we are going to lose the ability in this country to see the rule of law prevail. and that's what this hearing was about to ensure that the rule of

law was undermined. >> yeah, i want to play an exchange also before congressman gowdy -- another one -- and struck. let's listen. >> mr. gowdy, my understanding of why i was kicked off based on the understanding of those texts and perception they might create -- >> hang on a second, agent struck. you were saying it's the perception. the 13 democrats on the special counsel, for what he hoped was a victory party, that's a perception, too. they weren't kicked off. >> i don't appreciate having an fbi agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016. >> you know, josh at one point one of the things that louie gomer said he'd been talking to fbi agents around the country all of whom felt very embarrassed -- i'm not sure embarrassed was the right word

about peter struck. >> i was listening in the newsroom and i shook my head. there's no way louie gomer is talking to fbi agents around the country. this harkens back to what the press secretary said, that she talks to all the people in the fbi. >> just for a little historical, this is not the first time louie gomer has made comments based on what he said were conversations with former fbi people or fbi people. we did an interview with him with a terror baby story that he was concerned about. >> i set that aside. i don't believe him. on the other side what fbi agents and fbi employees think about peter struck, that's something we can talk about genuinely as an issue that divides them. this is someone who was in a

senior position in the fbi who was entrusted with incredible responsibility and failed the organization through incredibly terrible judgment. that said, it doesn't appear that judgment impacted the investigation for political reasons. so i think, you know, at the hearing today showed these people will be held to account. but at the end of the day i don't think that's something people will look back in hindsight and say this person threw an election because of a political bias because that's not something you do in the fbi. people know that. other news tonight, there's a lot of it, president trump left the nato meetings in belgium touting a big accomplishment with the allies. how the french president and others keeping him honest with that claim. and how some of what he said is bound to make headlines not only tonight but tomorrow as well. ♪ ♪ ♪ raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ♪ ♪ bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ♪ ♪ brown paper packages tied up with strings ♪

♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ ♪ ♪ the new united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. traveling lighter. getting settled. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com

there's breaking news

tonight on the president's visit to u.k. and yes, it was something he said. a front page tabloid interview right in the middle of his black tie dinwer the prime minister, and what he said about her could not have gone over well. but first what he said before leaving the nato summit earlier today in brussels. as you may have heard he took a victory lap on his push on other nations to agree on their defense spending from 2% from 2024 to 4%. >> for years presidents have been coming to these meetings and talked about the expense, the tremendous expense for the united states and tremendous progress has been made. everyone's agreed to substantially up their commitment. they're going to up it at levels that they've never thought of before. prior to last year where i attended my first meeting it was going down, the amount of money being spent by countries was going down and down very substantially. and now it's going up very

substantially. and commitments were made. only five of 29 countries were making their commitment, and that's now changed. the commitment was at 2%. ultimately that'll be going up quite a bit higher than that. so we are -- we made a tremendous amount of progress today. >> now, keeping them honest, the allies did not actually agree to boost their defense spending to 4%, nor did they agree to immediately meet the 2024 target as president trump demanded yesterday. french president emmanuel macron saying, quote, the communique is clear and reaffirms commitment to 2024, that is all. saying merely the president's direct approach, quote, helped allies to really hear his messages. okay, a far cry from the president's suggestion that the allies brought into that message. the one thing it did not accomplish is what the president

took a victory lap over today. in many ways the performance resembled the victory lap after his summit with kim jong-un, only the data came a bit quicker this time. max, i want to read part of the op-ed "the washington post" you wrote. you said president trump likes the north korean template so much he's applying it to nato. ramp up the rhetoric, act buddy-buddy, claim the problem is fixed because you're a master deal maker even though nothing has actually changed. is that what happened here? that's how he left brussels? >> pretty much. it's the same m.o. as you know he went into the singapore summit saying this is little rocket man. and he left singapore saying the problem is solved even though we realized the problem was not solved. same thing in brussels where he was attacking nato on not spending enough on defense, for

germany having the russian pipeline for gas, saying germany is a captive of russia. saying that we're crazy for paying for nato. and lo and behold after two days of meetings he emerged to say everything is great, i believe in nato, they're spending more than before on defense, problem solved. when in fact nothing whatsoever had changed. all they basically did was reiterate their existing commitment to aim for 2% on gdp spending on defense by 2024, which is the exact same commitment they'd made in 2014. but all of a sudden trump claims this a huge vingtctory for his l making. and i guess as he left brussels european leaders thought this was a bizarre performance, i guess they were thinking it could have been worse. at least he wasn't saying he was going to pull out of it or pull u.s. troops out of germany. >> saying that he accuses

germany of being beholden to russia when he himself is being accused of that, obviously. and then he's claiming he pressured them to up their spending, but really there's no new commitments on that. and they reiterated commitments they'd already previously made. >> you know, it's the art of the new york hustle that's being applied to international relations. it's bullshit, it's bravado. claim that the other side is weak, claim that you've one, claim it's the best deal in the history of the world. it's bizarre only because it's being applied by the president of the united states and the most important forum the united states as created over the last 07 years, nato. i guess it's the way this kind of new york real estate deal happens. you can tear your hair out about this because this has been going

on now ever since trump has been president. >> that's why i've gone bald. i've been tearing my hair out about it. >> what's the lasting damage? and the lastic damage is what the united states created after world war ii with nato is really extraordinary. there was a former head of nato who once said the purpose of nato is to keep the russians out, the americans in and the germans down. now, the germans down part is no longer true, but it's still true you're trying to keep the europeans unified, not have them have competing histories. it's very unusual in american history to have all these countries cooperating rather than competing. and trump doesn't seem to see the damage he's doing. >> yeah, and max, i mean some of the president's comments today in this closed door meeting were viewed as a veiled threat to leave the alliance and he did later say in his news conference that he believes in nato and

that the u.s. is committed to their western allies. but the message seems like whiplash. >> it is whiplash, anderson. and this doctor jekyll mr. hyde act, but in particular on article 5. mutual defense provision at heart of the nato alliance this promise if one member attacked other members will come to their defense. to have that kind of confidence, you have to believe that the united states in particular which is the most powerful member of nato is dedicated to the alliance. and whom after this performance can possibly imagine donald trump is dedicated to that alliance? >> fareed, how do you see this playing out in the meeting between president trump and

vladimir putin? >> well, what's most distressing about it is that trump again seems to think that he can freelance this. there's no preparation, no set guidelines, and there doesn't seem to be any consultation from any of the reporting we got with the nato allies. this was always a core part of the way the united states negotiated with russia, even china, which is you first talk to your allies, come up with a kind of common position. the europeans are completely in the dark as to what trump is going to talk to putin about. we are all in the dark about what trump is going to talk to putin about. frankly i think some of his closest national security advisers are in the dark as to what he wants to do. >> well, max, what do you think putin is thinking watching all these shenanigans going on in brussels? >> i suspect that vladimir putin has a big cheshire cat grin on his face as he's watching this, and he thinks he has scored two major goals this week, one with the world cup, the other with the nato summit, where donald trump, the candidate that he backed for the american presidency, is sowing discord.

which is what he would like to see. i'm sure putin was also encouraged by the comments donald trump made where he was asked about putin, when he was asked if putin was an enemy, a threat. he refused to say that. he said putin is a competitor, which is pretty much the way he thinks of germany. >> appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you. now the breaking news that we mentioned a short time ago. there's a lot of it, all from the interview that president trump did with the british tabloid, the sun. front page news as you can see in. in it he slammed the mayor of london, criticized the prime minister of the uk, who was also his host for dinner tonight when the article broke. he endorsed one of her ex-cabinet members who is now perhaps a future rival, and that's not all. details from jeff zeleny who joins us from london. jeff, exactly what did the president say about prime minister theresa may? let's start there. >> reporter: anderson, as you said, extraordinary timing because president trump was standing alongside prime minister may for the last

several days tonight at that dinner at blenheim palace. he says what she she's done on brexit is wrong and has killed any chance, in his words, of a fair tried deal with the u.s. that is her whole point of rolling out the red carpet here for him is to try and get more trade with the u.s. he says that kills it in his view. then he said what he would have done. >> i would have done it much differently. i actually told theresa may how to do it, but she didn't agree -- she didn't listen to me. >> what did you say in. >> she didn't listen. no, i told her how to do it. that will be up to her to say. but i told her how to do it. she wanted to go a different route. >> another remark -- losing its culture. i'm wondering how is that being interpreted tonight? >> reporter: well, anderson, that is one of the reasons that so many protesters are planning on greeting the president tomorrow, simply on his stance

on immigration. he was very harsh on immigration. he said he sees places in europe that do not look the same as they looked ten years ago, 15 years ago, that europe is losing its culture. so very aggressive on that front. but the white house tonight, just a few moments ago, actually, white house press secretary sarah sanders issuing a statement, a bit of a cleanup, if you will. she said the president never said anything negative about theresa may herself. he thinks she's a good person. but she didn't say anything about the policies of brexit. so clearly the president trying to make a mark. and don't forget. he's meeting with her, spending the morning with her here friday at her retreat outside of london. he cannot stay in london, so many protests here expected. those immigration comments very controversial here, anderson. >> yeah, i think we'll be hearing a lot more about that in the next day ahead as well. thanks very much. a new chapter in the stormy daniels saga. she was arrested last night in ohio while performing at a strip club. we'll tell you what happened next.

(door bell rings) it's open! hey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, are you okay? even when i was there, i never knew when my symptoms would keep us apart. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira can help get, and keep uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.

♪ it's so hard to believe ♪ but it's all coming back me. ♪ baby, baby, baby. all you can eat is back, baby. applebee's.

another turn in the stormy daniels saga. in columbus, ohio, she was

arrested after a performance at a local strip club. the charges allegedly touching three undercover detectives. as everyone knows by now. stormy daniels says she had a sexual encounter with president trump back in 2006, which the president has denied. sara sidner joins us with the latest. what do we know about what happened last night? >> reporter: well, there are affidavits that have been filed showing that there were four vice officers inside the siren strip club here where stormy daniels was performing, and they say that she broke local ordinances. she's not supposed to be touching people or letting people touch her. and apparently at some point they say that she was taking patrons and letting them put her heads in their bosoms. fonds fondling some of the female patrons breasts. three of those vice officers say she did the same thing to them. this went on for a while, and apparently she was then arrested along with two other performers at this strip club. but michael avenatti, stormy

daniels' attorney, says, wait a minute. this looks like a setup, that she was set up for this. she was in the club. they knew she was going to be in there. he finds it very odd that these four vice officers were inside at the time, knowing that stormy daniels doesn't come to town that often. that they were there, and he believes this could have been politically motivated on the part of at least one of the officers. the police chief looking into that. anderson? >> but the charges have -- the charges have been dropped, right? >> reporter: they have been dropped. in the afternoon, the charges were dropped. the police chief apologizing, saying that in particular, in this particular case with stormy daniels, the ordinance is for people who are regular performers at these clubs here in columbus, ohio. stormy daniels is certainly not a regular performer here. she was a visiting performer, someone who has come at least once to this establishment. so she didn't qualify under the law. he said it was a mistake and apologized for it.

michael avenatti says he thanks the police chief for the apology, but if this was politically motivated, there will be hell to pay. anderson? >> all right. sara, thanks very much. the news continues. i'm going to hand it over to chris cuomo. "cuomo prime time" starts right now. chris? all right, anderson. thank you very much, my friend. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." so did the republicans make the case? did they show that fbi agent peter strzok did things that tainted the trump probe? that was the bar, and they took ten hours to try. early on, literally there are attacks going in all directions. take a look. >> where is the disgrace? >> you've been out of control since you've been on this committee. >> harassment of the witness. >> what is wrong with that? you need your medication? >> point of order is not well taken. >> it's right on point. >> no, it's not. >> so when lawmakers were actually asking questions of the witness, we saw republicans unlon