more chagrinned and you could embarrass them into retracting statements. now they just double down. >> keep on going. thanks for joining us today on "inside politics." hope to see you back here this time tomorrow. jim sciutto is in for wolf. he starts right now. have a great day. hello. i'm jim sciutto in for wolf blitzer. it is 1:00 p.m. here in washington, 8:00 p.m. in moscow. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us. up first today, facing the fallout. the white house in severe damage control mode as president trump faces a strong backlash from his summit with vladimir putin. the president will make remarks on the putin summit at the top of the next hour. we're going to bring that to you live. the president came under blistering criticism for siding with putin over u.s. intelligence agencies about russia's attack on the 2016 election. critics called his comments

disgraceful, shameful, and embarrassing. and that was just from the republicans. even the conservative "wall street journal" said the president projected weakness. the editorial board writing, quote, monday's joint press conference was a personal and national embarrassment. on stage with a dictator whose election meddling has done so much harm to his presidency, mr. trump could not even bring himself to say he believed his own intelligence advisers like dan coats over the russian strongman. let's bring in cnn white house reporter sara westward. she's at the white house. president trump initially apparently pleased with the news conference, with the summit, even though there was no mention, for instance, of many of russia's crimes, including the shootdown of a malaysian flight. it was shot down two years ago today. what is the president tweeting about this morning? >> reporter: well, president trump showing no signs of

backi backing down from his performance in helsinki yesterday despite the fierce bipartisan backlash that's been building over the past 24 hours. trump defending his summit with putin this morning tweeting, while i had a great meeting with nato raising vast amounts of money, i had an even better meeting with vladimir putin of russia. sadly, it is not being reported that way. the fake news is going crazy. of course, setting aside the fact that trump's nato meeting was also itself controversial, it was the president's comments in a press conference after that summit with putin that's caused even some of his top supporters to describe his treatment of the u.s. intelligence community as a serious mistake. now, republican criticism has ranged from describing this as a missed opportunity for trump to calling his comments disgraceful and even suggesting that the president was potentially manipulated by russian intelligence. trump so far not offering any clarity to his remarks, but like you mentioned, we'll be seeing him at the top of the next hour and perhaps he will explain the thinking mind his press conference strategy.

>> sarah westwood there at the white house. if you're tempted to think it's purely partisan, those were republicans sitting in the house who were criticizing the president, raising those hard questions. house speaker paul ryan spoke out against the president's comments as well. he had a very different characterization of putin and russia. listen to what he said a short time ago. >> vladimir putin does not share our interests. vladimir putin does not share our values. we just conducted a year-long investigation into russia's interference in our elections. they did interfere in our elections. it's really clear. >> that was speaker ryan there. manu raju, our capitol hill senior congressional correspondent is up there in capitol hill. so ryan certainly did not pull punches when it came to the russian president vladimir putin, but he did not take a shot at the president himself. why is that? >> reporter: yeah, this is the line that republicans have been trying to draw. they want to be tough on russia, but they don't want to get cross

wise with the president. one thing i tried to ask paul ryan about was the finding that was in the house intelligence committee's report that disputed what the intelligence community concluded, that vladimir putin wanted donald trump to become president. well, vladimir putin himself said at that press conference yesterday he did want trump to become president. i asked paul ryan if that was a mistake at all by the house republicans to assert otherwise. he would not go there. he said the republicans found fault with the methodology used by the intelligence dmucommunitn making that conclusion. similarly, other republicans are weighing a wide range of options to respond. some say there should be no response. some say there should be more sanctions. some say there should be a symbolic response. nevertheless, there are some republican, even trump allies like congressman pete king of new york, who said the president made a mistake. >> the president was wrong on that. i agree with the president there's no evidence of collusion, but there's overwhelming evidence of meddling by the russians.

everyone i've spoken to in the administration, both administrations, accept that view. i think the president feels if he makes any concession on that, somehow that gives credence to collusion. but these are two separate issues. he's got to realize that. it's also definitely wrong to ain any way be suggesting any moral equivalence between the u.s. and russia. to me, it's a terrible mistake and he's got to correct it. >> reporter: king also stood by that house intelligence committee finding. he said he absolutely stands by the finding, questioning whether or not putin wanted trump to win, despite putin's own words yesterday. he said he doesn't believe anything putin has to say. also, we're hearing a lot of calls from democrats for these national security officials in the trump administration to testify publicly and explain exactly what was agreed to behind closed doors. some republicans like bob corker of tennessee do want to bring in people like mike pompeo. so we'll see if that plays out in the coming days. >> manu raju on capitol hill.

thanks very much. let's get more insight from our panel. we have jeff mason, white house correspondent for reuters. cnn global affairs analyst kimber kimberly dosher, nia malika henderson, and gloria borger. gloria, we've sat together countless times after shocking moments. i think it's fair to say this moment was different in that the president has taken shots at a whole host of american institutions before, but to stand next to the man who orchestrated this attack on the election and say the same thing, that is substantively different. the question is will the reaction be different? >> well, it remains to be seen. we've heard the words. we've heard the democrats call for stronger sanctions, for testimony from the national security officials. i think they want some kind of transcripts or notes from the translator. they would like to see what was there. you have marco rubio and dick durbin calling for more sanctions, democrats saying

we've got to protect mueller, we've got to do that, figure out ways to do that. but the democrats are ham strung. they don't control the congress. republican leader mitch mcconnell, while coming out and saying, yeah, the russians are not our friend -- >> through a spokesman. >> yeah, he hasn't come out and said, this is what we need to do. republicans are mortified, and they're embarrassed and want to find a way to limit the president's running room, but they haven't had the guts to go out there yet and say we're going to do this and we're going to tie the president's hands through legislation. they haven't done it. >> and it's clear why they haven't done it. it's because the president enjoys 90% approval rating among republicans. that was the last gallup poll. he's essentially the most popular republican president we've seen in many years. so it's difficult for republicans to move against him, to damage him because they need him. they need his voters.

>> let me ask a question on that. some of that phenomenon is the echo chambers. when you have those voters in an election year hear from unusual sources criticism, whether it be some sitting republicans, and frankly not that many but some, fox news anchors, and i'm not talking about sean hannity, but you did hear from neil cavuto, "the wall street journal" editorial board, et cetera. does that seep into the base in my measurable way sf? >> we will see. even a better question, does that seep into donald trump's speech? we'll hear from him later today. he's an avid viewer of fox. it must have been quite surprising and mortifying for him to see what some people call state tv, for them to be quite critical of the president. some more critical than others. sean hannity, of course, was not critical at all.

we'll see what he says today. >> jeff, if i just can, you returned from helsinki. you were there. you speak to a lot of folks in the white house on the president's team. do they feel that this was a particular mistake, that it's something that the president has to correct? i suppose the next question s if they do, does that matter? would the president listen to that kind of criticism? >> well, two things. one, i flew back on on air force one last night because i was in the pool. we did not see really any white house advisers. a couple came back briefly to the press cabin but didn't have much to say. i think that was a sign that they were already sort of getting into bunker mode and fixing -- how do we fix this mentality. they've scheduled these remarks this afternoon at 2:00. we'll see if the president decides to roll back anything that he said or double down or if he'll take the model he used after charlottesville, where he sort of tries to roll it back and then gets irritated about that and goes back to where he was in the first place.

in general, they all watch tv. he certainly watches tv. he's stung or will be stung by some of this criticism. that's going to affect them in the west wing. >> kimberly, president obama, he was speaking yesterday in south africa, actually today, i should say, about the rise of strongman politics. president obama has been somewhat measured when he's spoken out publicly, critically against this president. let's have a listen to his words. >> given the strange and uncertain times that we are in, and they are strange and they are uncertain, with each day's news cycles bringing more head spinning and disturbing headlines, we now see much of the world threatening to return to an older, a more dangerous, a

more brutal way of doing business. >> kimberly, is that something you're hearing from foreign diplomats, leaders, et cetera that you've been speaking to? >> very much so. a combination of the stages of grief, you know. anger to denial. some of them have said to me, now it's all down the mueller investigation. we don't trust this president. others are more in the middle of the road. you know, his national security team keeps telling us trust us. still others saying, hey, we woke up this morning, everything was the same in terms of intelligence sharing and national security cooperation. this is going to be another blip that just shows you how donald trump personally feels towards vladimir putin. his team will take control of this. >> the difference on that point, though, is that it's not just talk. the president has made substantive decisions, policy changes while ignoring or

overruling the intelligence community. for instance, on the iran nuclear deal. they told him, this is working, it's keeping them under wraps, he killed the deal. on north korea, said the military exercises are necessary, important, he pulled that rug out from under our south korean allies without even telling them. it's not just talk. you know, regardless of what assurances our allies are getting from the mattises of the world, the president is shifting, he driving the ship in a different direction. >> in a totally different direction. for the first time, and after your great question yesterday which i was to commend you on, for the first time yesterday, republicans and democrats started asking the second question, which is, okay, we know the president can't get past his nose on the so-called collusion and the russia investigation. the second question that was openly asked yesterday was, what does putin have on donald trump?

period. and that now is the difference. >> have republicans raised that? >> you hear it. john mccain almost went there, but he didn't quite. i do believe that question now is being asked privately, and i believe the democrats -- chuck schumer said it publicly yesterday. they're going to push that narrative, i think, because it is a question people now want the answer to. i just think something changed. >> yeah, it was the juxtaposition of him being there with putin and seeming to surrender to putin essentially and completely co-sign everything. >> that word in "the wall street journal" editorial struck me. and you heard it from some fox news commentators. i only say that because we know the president listens to fox. weakness is not a word this president likes to hear in the same sentence with his own name.

>> i think what we'll hear from the president this afternoon is part of his pushback, something i heard from a former administration official who was in the room for early talks on russia. a view being put to trump is that russia is a power broker who has behaved defectively in a number of situation where is we need their cooperation. russia is cozying up to china. we need to edge china out and make sure it's us and russia against china. this is a sort of nixon in reverse strategy. i don't know, jeff, if you've heard anything similar. >> i haven't heard anything similar to that, but a point i would like to make that ties in with what you're saying reveals the divide between him and his own advisers. in the run-up to this trip, you had ambassador jon huntsman, the u.s. ambassador to russia, kay bailey hutchinson, the ambassador to nato, talking

about russia's maligned activities, saying that's the focus of the nato meeting as well as the russia summit. they were saying -- advisers were saying the night before, we've had tough meetings with russia going into this. it's been very difficult. it's going to be tricky tomorrow. he didn't do it. >> it's an important counterpoint. the president will say it's just the left and the media who disagrees with me. when in fact, it's people he's chosen for these jobs himself and has appointed to them. dan cotes and evats and even fo white house. we're going to have to leave it there, but thank you, as always. there are countless republicans now who told us they were troubled, even disgusted by the president's remarks in helsinki. up next, we'll get the thoughts of a retiring republican congressman. he's ryan costello of pennsylvania. and in just under an hour, a reminder the president himself will speak about his meeting with vladimir putin. will he take back anything he said, or will he double down?

we'll take you to those comments live. stay with us. we'll be right back after this break. eligible for medicare? that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any of these types of plans, they could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today to request a free... ...[decision guide.] with these types of plans... you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp...

and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan any time you want. so don't wait. call unitedhealthcare now to request your free [decision guide.]

booking a flight doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline.

welcome back. i'm jim sciutto. we're continuing our coverage of the fallout from president trump's comments yesterday at the helsinki summit alongside the russian president vladimir putin. i want to get right back to capitol hill. joining me now is congressman ryan costello. he's a republican from the great state of pennsylvania. congressman, thank you very much for joining us. so our viewers know, we reached out to dozens of republican lawmakers today to speak, to react to the president's comments. i want to thank you for being the only one who said yes. so if i could ask you first, what is your reaction to president trump's comments alongside the russian president yesterday? >> well, i was embarrassed.

i think that i was outraged because i think that in all my years of having a tremendous respect for the institution of the presidency and its role around our globe, i'd never seen a more pathetic and weak display of american leadership as a president. and it's not explainable. it's not defensible. and it's something we should view, i think, with outrage and ask serious questions as to why our president would somehow cast doubt or create some equivalency between vladimir putin's denial and the very substantive investigative powers of our law enforcement and intelligence communities, which made a determination and issued an indictment that russia did interfere in the 2016 election. >> why do you believe the president was willing to do that, to give that false

equivalency? >> i think the question over why the president treats russia the way that he does is something that is -- curious is too innocent of a word in the sense that it just doesn't make sense. i don't know why. i was listening to your panel a moment ago. does putin have something on the president? i don't know. what did they talk about for two hours? i don't know. but all these things come to life, and more substance getting put behind them when he acts this way. but even more to the point, i do hope senator corker does bring forth administration officials next week to ask about if any deal was made with putin. i do think that we should protect the mueller investigation. but i would also highlight that in our congress, we have put more sanctions on russia in the past few years than the previous several administrations.

we have provided vital weaponry to the ukraine in the past year. so congress is doing some good things to provide a check and balance on russian aggression, but when the president does this, he undermines our ability to even say that to the american public because they're too worried about what the president may or may not be doing in a two-hour meeting where no one is allowed in the meeting with him. >> it's a fair question. now, you're aware that the president this morning continued to falsely claim that all the criticism is coming from, as he often says, the fake news media. i just want to remind our viewers that some of the people, including yourself, who have broken ranks with this president, republican president, a president from their own party, and rebuked his comments. this, of course, includes the speaker of the house, the senate majority leader, though through a spokesman. the two previous republican nominees for president in very strong terms, a senior gop member of the senate, et cetera. you see that list there. i just wonder this -- and excuse

my skepticism, congressman, because we as a country have been in moments like this before where the president has done and said things that shocked both parties, lawmakers of both parties. and yet, attempts to either corral him, check him somehow, have fallen away. i know that congress has passed sanctions. for instance, the president dragged his feet on implementing some of those sanctions. >> we pushed him on that. what's different about this is this is about american sovereignty. this is about the fact that we are a democracy that relies on free and fair elections. that underpins our entire system of government. then we elect officials to protect our civil liberties in accordance with the constitution. when you go and speak with a foreign leader who sought to undermine our free and fair elections and instead take an opportunity to say that you kind of believe him or that he was strong in his denial, that

itself undermines the integrity of our democracy and the protection of our free and fair elections, which is more sacred than being a republican or a democrat. >> congressman costello, i want to thank you for taking the hard questions and for speaking honestly. >> appreciate you having me on, jim. >> best luck to you. coming up next, she's a russian national now charged by the justice department with being a foreign agent who conspired against the united states. so what do we really know about her, her role in russia's election interference, and how she operated? that's coming up. your paycheck.

your family depends on it. but if something happened to you... you need life insurance! and chances are selectquote

can get it for you for under a dollar a day! selectquote found michael, 38, a $500,000 policy for under $23 a month. selectquote found anna, 37, a $750,000 policy for under $22 a month. selectquote's secret? they comparison shop select group of great companies like these for your best rate. give your family the security they need... at a price you can afford. since 1985, selectquote has saved over a million families millions of dollars on life insurance. call the number on your screen. or go to selectquote.com. discover what over a million families know. we shop. you save.

does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number. them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network

and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month. call or go on line today. we're learning a larming ne details from the justice department on russia's interference in the u.s. politics. a 29-year-old russian woman accused of being an agent for the russian government. the u.s. charged mariia butina with conspireing against the u.s. as a foreign agent. the fbi says she took steps to create a back channel into the u.s. government. her mentor told her, quote, have patience and cold blood. cnn political correspondent sarah murray joins us now. what have we learned about her and her role? >> jim t does feel like it's straight out of a spy novel. as you pointed out, she's a 29-year-old russian national. she attended a graduate program at american university.

she founded a gun rights group in russia, which is of course notable because russia doesn't really have gun rights. she used this gun rights group to try to foster connections here in the united states, particularly through the national rifle association. she was trying to create this back channel to the u.s. government. she did that through trying to reach out to gop politicians, to reaching out through the nra, and she was even able through these various connections to get in touch with political candidates in 2015. that included candidate trump. she asked him a very interesting question early on in the campaign at an event in las vegas. >> i'm visiting from russia. >> ah, putin. good friend of obama putin. he likes obama a lot. go ahead. >> if you would be elected president, what would be your foreign politics in the relationships with my country, and do you want to continue the politics of sanctions that are

damaging both economy? or you have any other ideas. >> okay. obama gets along with nobody. the whole world hates us. i know putin, and i'll tell you what, we get along with putin. i believe i would get along very nicely with putin. okay? >> so you hear her feeling out then-candidate trump's views on putin very early on in the campaign. now, what she was trying to do ultimately according to cnn's reporting and these documents that prosecutors have filed, is she was trying to bolster russia's interests in the united states by creating these relationships with politicians, with business leaders, and with republican party leaders. according to the fbi, that's pretty dangerous. here's what they said in their affidavit in this case. moscow seeks to create wujs that degrades democratization efforts, weaken u.s. partnerships with european allies, encourage anti-u.s. political views, and counter efforts to bring ukraine and other former soviet states into

european institutions. so essentially russia was looking to sow chaos. according to the fbi, she was here to help. >> it's been part of a pattern. sara murray, thanks very much. now that president trump blatantly took russia's side over his country's own intelligence community, what does this mean for u.s. intelligence leaders, u.s. intelligence agencies moving forward? here to discuss now, cnn law enforcement analyst josh campbell. he was a special assistant to the former fbi director james comey. and cnn contributor garrett graft. he's director of -- sorry. i know what you do. you write books and you're a smart guy. let's talk about what happened yesterday. for dan coats, the sitting director of national intelligence, the senior most intelligence official in the u.s., a former gop senator appointed by this republican president, for him to contradict president trump very soon after those comments connect to putin, josh campbell, you advised a former senior u.s. intelligence official in james comey.

how rare is that? and how consequential is that? >> so it's rare. we haven't seen a lot of our national leaders actually stand up to this president. all they can do is speak for themselves. each leader at every juncture has to determine, am i representing my agency to the best of my ability? am i really backing the men and women that go to work every day protecting national security in this instance? in this case, it looks like director coats did that and said, look, what the president said is not correct. i'm going to go on record and indicate that these are the facts. the issue we've seen here is that -- and this is the cold, hard truth. in the united states of america, the intelligence community can't really check the president because the president is the boss. he's the commander in chief. these agencies, whether it's cia, nsa, the 17 agents of the u.s. intelligence community, they're not policymakers, nor would we want them to be. their job is to advise policymakers, in this case the president, and provide that information. the issue -- the big problem we see here is that implicit in that relationship has long been a norm from the president that he will both protect their

information and that he will trust their assessments. now, he doesn't have to agree or make decisions that actually, you know, square with whatever certain policy recommendations say or a piece of intelligence. that's up to him. but the fact that he's now diminishing and disparaging those intelligence assessments on the global stage makes it very difficult for them to do their job. >> garrett graft, josh brings up a good point. there's been this from early on in the trump administration, this sense of this firewall that the president will be checked by the adults around him, as some folks sometimes say, whether it's mattis at the pentagon, coats at the dni, or advisers in the white house. the fact is over the last several weeks and months, we've seen the president overrule and whether it's on the iran deal, on north korean nuclear negotiations, military moves like cancelling the south korean and u.s. exercises, this president has ignored those officials. what does that say? is this a president acting

alone, and are there substantive checks from the intel and defense community on this president? >> we're getting a sort of terrible lesson in the frailties of american democracy with this president, in that what we are sort of coming to understand is the number of things that we have long treated as traditions and norms don't have any constitutional or sort of statutory authority behind them. and so a president is in many ways an unchecked power in the executive branch in ways that i think a lot of people didn't realize until we're watching this president sort of trample over long-held norms and standards. traditionally, the intelligence community and the defense community, the law enforcement community have not had to be checks on the president, as josh was saying, because normally for a normal president having the men and women of the intelligence community behind you is one of the most awesome

parts of being president. you have all of these people who wake up every morning to try to make sure that you are the best informed, smartest person on the face of the planet. today donald trump with his relationship to truth just doesn't care about any of that. >> josh, you of course worked a long time at the fbi. i know you've stayed in touch with folks who are still in the business. what's their state of mind now? do they feel relevant? do they feel they have a role? are some of them, many of them considering resigning, or do they feel sticking around is the better thing to do, the more helpful thing to do? >> so at the ground level, i don't think there's serious talk of resignation because these people know they have a mission, they have a job. now, when you talk about agency leadership, that's a whole different story. in order for someone to be effective, you know, and stand on principle, they have to sometimes have that conversation. when you're at a senior level, do i stay or go? for the men and women i've talked to today and yesterday at the ground level, i've seen a

little bit of a shift yesterday. it was pure anger. today it's essentially disappointment. the fact is, you know, someone described it today that for the u.s. intelligence community, their currency is credibility. they must be believed. as they stand in front of a policymaker, as they stand in front of a foreign intelligence service, as they sit before congress, they have to be believed. if the president of the united states, their chief, number one customer, can pick and choose which information he agrees with based on how it impacts him personally, that impacts their mission. that affects their work. it's not a good day for the u.s. intelligence community. >> and affects their credibility with the public. many of the president's supporters buy his attacks on them as somehow partisan, deep state folks. listen, josh campbell, garrett graft, thanks for walking us through it. coming up, world reaction to the president's remarks on russia. we'll take a live look at what people and governments are saying around the world about president trump and vladimir putin. jhis familyted with a $500,000 life insurance policy. how much do you think it cost him?

$100 a month? $75? $50? actually, duncan got his $500,000 for under $28 a month. less than a dollar a day. his secret? selectquote. in just minutes, a selectquote agent will comparison shop nearly a dozen highly-rated life insurance companies, and give you a choice of your five best rates. duncan's wife cassie got a $750,000 policy for under $22 a month. give your family the security it needs at a price you can afford.

welcome back. well, you've heard it here from democrats and republicans. at home, president trump faces a growing backlash after siding with russian president vladimir putin over his country's own intelligence community. as for the international reaction, it's been mixed. for more, we go to cnn international correspondent fred pleitgen. he remains in helsinki.

we also have ai ttika schubert berlin. fred, what are you hearing? >> reporter: hi, jim. well, the finnish press is pretty clear on who they believe came out on top. what we see is a little bit of a soccer an j soccer analogy in the finnish press. they're saying trump, 0, putin, 1. if you look at russia, they seem to think exactly the same thing. russian officials essentially taking a victory lap, calling the summit magnificent and saying it went better than good for vladimir putin. it's interesting because on russian tv, we're already seeing analysts saying that now moscow needs to foster and help president trump as he tries to push through a pro-clem lkremli agenda against what they call the american establish >> whiestablishment. now to atika suchubert in berli. >> well, fred, germany and others were similarly unimpressed. "the daily mirror" in britain

called him putin's poodle. and a spanish newspaper had the headline "trump caves in." it's not a good look for a president who is really trying to project strength by threatening and attacking his own nato allies in brussels, only to be humiliated in helsinki. now, as president trump was preparing for his meeting with president putin, grermany's foreign minister tried to brace the country by saying we can no longer rely on the white house after the fallout from this trip. that certainly seems to be the case, at least in europe. ian? >> thanks, atika. jim, in israel, netanyahu is seen as one of the winners of this summit. it's summed up by this headline here that says "trump stresses israel security in talks with putin." for most of the western security

establishment, they see russia as a major threat. for israel, they see russia as a strategic partner in syria, especially when it comes to iran. moscow has spent so much blood and treasure propping up the assad regime and really stabilizing syria. israeli officials believe that moscow would loathe to see iran come in and undo those gains they made by destabilizing the region with some sort of conflict with israel. so israeli officials think that moscow will keep iran in check in syria. we heard that from president putin, when he said he wants to see this cease-fire continue. >> you might say by backing assad, russia has done its part to destabilize syria. but there you have it. thanks very much. still to come, california congressman will join me live from capitol hill, weighing in on president trump's controversial comments on russia as well as his attacking

america's own intelligence community. only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol® tap one little bumper and up go your rates. what good is your insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way.

we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number. them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month. call or go on line today. president trump is vehemently defending his meeting with russian president putin saying it was even more of a success than his meeting with america's closest allies, those who lead the nato nations. the president is facing fierce criticism for siding with putin over u.s. intelligence agencies investigating russian interference in the u.s. election. i should make it clear that that criticism is coming from both democrats and republicans. i'm joined by democratic congressman john garamandi from

california. he's a member of the house armed services committee. if i can, i'd like to get you to respond to what house speaker paul ryan said earlier today. have a quick listen. >> vladimir putin does not share our interests. vladimir putin does not share our values. i understand the desire and the need to have good relations. that's perfectly reasonable, but russia is a menacing government that does not share our interests, it does not share our values. let's be very clear just so everybody knows. russia did medal with our elections. not only did russia meddle with our elections, they're doing it around the world. they did it to france, to maldova, they did it to the baltics. russia is trying to delegitimize democracy. >> you notice there as i did that speaker ryan, very strong words for putin and russia but did not mention the president. was that a failure of leadership? >> failure of leadership by the speaker, absolutely. by the president an astounding

failure of leadership. the fundamental task of both of these gentlemen is to protect the american democracy and in a larger sense the security of this nation. president trump absolutely abdicated, abdicated everything he swore to do. our democracy was seriously undermined by russia. there's no doubt about what they did. they hacked in. they stole the information. they weaponized that. they had a serious impact on the 2016 election as well as on elections in other countries. that is a theft, that is a crime. the president refused three times given the opportunity in the press conference, refused to stand up and honor his commitment, his oath of office to protect this nation. it was despicable. strong words have been used by former cia director brennan. i'm not going to go there right now, but this requires a full blowback by the congress and the

speaker of the house should have named names. this is the president who failed us. the speaker failed us by not naming the president here and hanging it directly on the president. >> we've heard some critical comments from sitting lawmakers, republican lawmakers i should say. certainly a number of democratic lawmakers. when you speak to your republican colleagues privately, do they tell you that they're willing to act now legislatively to react to the president's comments, for instance bypassing further economic sanctions against russia, sanctions that the president cannot stand in the way of? >> absolutely we should do that. we'll see if they have the courage to come up with these additional sanctions. there also ought to be a censure motion. this action by president trump is not repeated anywhere in the history of the 44 previous presidents. none of them have so abandoned their oath of office as to literally turn over to russia the investigation, to turn over

to russia and putin, former kgb agent, the future of this country. keep in mind that it was the military who put out -- the department of defense put out a document not more than seven months ago that said russia is the principle adversary of the united states and here's the president standing next to that adversary who is documented, not only by the intelligence agency but by the mueller investigation in what the president calls a witch hunt and mueller found 25 russian witches who have involved themselves in the american election process illegally. so what did the president do? he simply abandoned the field and gave putin everything he could possibly want. no wonder the russians are crowing about the success. they have an american president in the palm of their hand. >> congressman john garamandi, thanks very much for those direct thoughts. any moment now president trump

is going to address his controversial summit with the russian president vladimir putin. his first time speaking out. we'll take it live. that's next. friends, colleagues,

gathered here are the world's finest insurance experts. rodney -- mastermind of discounts like safe driver, paperless. the list goes on. how about a discount for long lists? gold. mara, you save our customers hundreds for switching almost effortlessly. it's a gift. and jamie. -present. -together we are unstoppable. so, what are we gonna do? ♪ insurance. that's kind of what we do here.

hi there, i'm brooke baldwin. you are watching cnn on this tuesday afternoon. heads up. we are waiting for a critical moment in the trump presidency. the president will be speaking on camera any moment now amid the fierce fallout from his own party over his summit with russian president vladimir putin. for a full 24 hours now he has heard many republicans, including most of his ardent supporters, you see a ton of them on your screen here, condemning him for not backing american intelligence agencies when they say