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. good evening. we have breaking news tonight. barely a day after the summit in helsinki, cnn has learned that russian spy agencies plan to boost operations against the west. i just want the say that again. cnn has learned that russian spy agencies plan to boost operations against the west. this just one day after the president claimed that the

terrible relations between the u.s. and russia had, in his opinion, changed because of his meeting with vladimir putin. this is happening just 24 hours after president trump chose to believe vladimir putin's account of russia's attack on the 2016 election. he chose to believe the former kgb officer over the u.s. intelligence community. >> my people came to me, dan coats came to me and some others. they said they think it's russia. i have president putin. he just said it's not russia. i will say this. i don't see any reason why it would be. >> "i don't see any reason why it would be russia," he said. despite just yesterday putin admitted on the stage he wanted trump to become president. that's one reason why it would be russia. plus evidence gathered by the intelligence community and indictments by the mueller investigation. today with words about putin still fresh in the air, top officials met in the white house situation room to clean up the mess. "the situation room" where presidents have conducted wars,

where they've responded to attacks on this country. it's where president obama and his team monitored the killing of osama bin laden. the fates of entire nations have been decided in that situation room. today, however, it was used for damage control in a self-made crisis that sprang entirely from the president's own mouth. today, those big brains who gather and labor and considered alternatives, those big brains came up with this. >> i came back and i said what is going on? what's the big deal? so i got a transcript. i reviewed it. i actually went out and reviewed a clip of an answer that i gave, and i realized that there is a need for some clarification. it should have been obvious, i thought it would be obvious, but i would like to clarify just in case it wasn't. in a key sentence in my remarks, i said the word "would" instead of "wouldn't." the sentence should have been i don't see any reason why i wouldn't or it wouldn't be russians. so just to repeat it, i said the word "would" instead of "wouldn't," and the sentence should have been i thought i would be maybe a little bit unclear on the transcript or unclear on the actual video. the sentence should have been "i

don't see any reason why it wouldn't be russia." sort of a double negative. so you can put that in. and i think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself. >> yeah. that clarifies pretty good by itself. he can't even come up with that explanation and say it without making a mistake. if you're asking yourself does that even pass the laugh test, here is at least one answer. it comes from michael hayden, the former nsa and cia director, a retired four-star general, no less, known best perhaps for his service after 9/11. his tweet, i'm not laughing followed by five frownie faces,

and then oh, yes, i am. and wall of laughing emojis. general hayden is a pretty deeply serious man. he is also one of the best informed analysts of national security, intelligence gathering and counterintelligence there is, period, end of paragraph. if it was true that this was a simple mistake of a word and an apostrophe, you would think that someone on the president's own staff would have said that yesterday. they could have slipped the president a note during his press conference saying you said wouldn't and you meant -- or you said would and you meant wouldn't, or vice versa. they could have corrected it immediately after or hours after. instead, there was silence from the white house and the state department. if it was just a slip of the tongue, it wouldn't have required a meeting in "the situation room" and that tortured explanation that you just saw. but it took them all of this time to come up with that statement. the president tried to do even more damage control today as well. listen to the president's prepared remarks, apparently written for him, appearing to acknowledge that he has been so far reluctant to concede.

>> let me be totally clear in saying that -- and i've said this many times. i accept our intelligence community's conclusion that russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place. >> now that's where the white house wishes what he said just stopped right there, because it sounds like he accepts the assessment. but now listen to those same prepared remarks plus what the president himself added apparently as an aside in the very next breath. >> let me be totally clear in saying that -- and i've said this many times -- i accept our intelligence community's conclusion that russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place. it could be other people also. there is a lot of people out there.

>> he undercut the very statement he just made that was written for him, and that's not even a mistaken word choice or an apostrophe. in fact, that, what he said, what he added on, what wasn't written down on the paper is exactly what president trump has been saying as far back as the fall of 2016. >> i mean, it could be russia, but it could also be china. it could also be lots of other people. it could also be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay? maybe there is no hacking, but they always blame russia. and the reason they blame russia, because they think they're trying to tarnish me with russia. i know nothing about russia. >> they have no idea if it's russia or china or somebody. it could be somebody sitting in a bed some place. i mean, they have no idea. >> as far as hacking, i think it was russia. but we also get hacked by other countries and other people. >> knowing something about hacking, if you don't catch a hacker, okay, in the act, it's very hard to say who did the hacking. >> well, i think it was russia,

and i think it could have been other people in other countries. it could have been a lot of people interfered. >> i believe that president putin really feels, and he feels strongly, that he did not meddle in our election. what i said there is i believe that he believes that. and that's very important for somebody to believe. >> that's what he said during the campaign. it's what he said in the transition. it's what he said yesterday in helsinki and what he said today. >> it could be other people also. there is a lot of people out there. >> well, keeping him honest, changing would to wouldn't in one sentence from one moment to on stage in helsinki does not erase these words just moments later. >> i have great confidence in my intelligence people, but i will tell you that president putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. >> and it doesn't change a single word in a single sentence. it doesn't undo his answer to this question from a reporter. >> mr. president, you tweeted

this morning that it's u.s. foolishness, stupidity, and the mueller probe that is responsible for the decline in u.s. relations with russia. do you hold russia at all accountable for anything in particular? and if so, what would you -- what would you consider them, that they are responsible for? >> yes, i do. i hold both countries responsible. i think that the united states has been foolish. i think we've all been foolish. we should have had this dialogue a long time ago, a long time, frankly, before i got to office. and i think we're all to blame. >> but we're not. america is not responsible for the annexation of crimea, georgia. russia is. america is not responsible for the do you think of mh-17. russia is. america is not responsible for the poisoning in syria and the poisoning on british soil of two british citizens. russia is. but president trump didn't address any of that and he again

failed to today. and changing would to wouldn't doesn't change that. reaction from former cia officer, one of many members of congress who expressed reservations. congressman hurd, do you buy that he was misspeaking? >> i think only time is going to tell. ultimately he needs to make surer there is a consistent message in his support for the intelligence community and his understanding that the russians did indeed attempt to manipulate our elections. this also brings up question of was there other times he misspoke in the one-on-one meeting. that's a question, and was there any confusion from there. and this is an indication that when it comes to two important countries like the united states and a global spoiler like russia, language is important, and being precise is important.

>> why do you think he is doing this? because i mean even today, when he is trying to clean up the mess that he made yesterday, he said he accepts the intelligence community's conclusion that russia interfered in the 2016 election, but in the exact same sentence follows it with it could be other people also. there is a lot of people out there. and that's clearly an ad lib. >> the short answer, anderson, i don't know why he is doing that, but it's obviously creating confusion. it's creating confusion with our allies. i've in many of the trips i have taken and work with our allies whether it's in the intelligence committee or the homeland committee, our allies are concerned about what is indeed the u.s.'s role in the rest of the world, what is the u.s.'s role in organizations like nato. i think it's important for us in congress to speak, and we've doubled down on the intelligence community and the intelligence assessment act, making sure the men and women of the cia and nsa

have the tools they need, because they know that russia is indeed a threat and that they tried to manipulate our election, and that the russians are going to continue to manipulate our elections and do things like hack our energy companies. >> in fact there is this new cnn report that russia is actually ramping up its cyberattacks targeting western countries. this president trump yesterday said as of four hours ago, the russia relations were on basically a reset because of his great rapport with -- alluding to his rapport or his meetings with vladimir putin. i guess the tough question really, and it's a tough question to ask of anybody, especially somebody in the republican party, but, i mean, after what you saw yesterday, and even what we saw today, do you trust this president to be able to speak one-on-one with another world leader in a way that accurately represents what the u.s. government believes and what's in the best interests of the united states? do you trust this president on that, that he has -- is able to execute the office in a way that does represent the best

interests of the united states? >> well, it starts with having a clear strategy with the individual countries and the activity that we're talking about. and so if you don't start with a clear strategy of what our chief executive has and the staff around that and that it's in line with the goals that have been set out by congress through our funding of these agencies, then we're going have a disconnect and we're going to have confusion. and it's hard to get that right if it's just you doing it by yourself. and that's something that's -- i also think many u.s. presidents have made the mistake to think that they can reset our relations with russia. russia is interested in one thing and one thing only, and that's reestablishing the

territory integrity of the ussr. >> hate to push you on this, but i didn't hear a clear yes, i do trust the president to represent the best interests of america, that he is able to or no. are you basically saying -- >> i don't think -- you need to have a strategy, and i don't think he should be doing one-on-one meetings with heads of state because too much is at stake. >> congressman hurd, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you, anderson. >> in all the verbal gymnastics today over would and wouldn't, another word really hangs over all of it, same as it always has. congressman hurd said it himself. why? why does the president say what he says? what motives him to focus on certain aspects of the russia story, the ones affecting himself at the expense of others which affect all of us? we saw two examples at the white house today in the form of notes he apparently made to himself on his prepared remarks. take a look. no collusion it reads, and yes, there should be two ls. that's a minor point. the markings on the other page didn't show up, but cnn has gotten a clearer look. it's a passage someone has crossed out anyone involved in

that meddling to justice, as in we will bring anyone involved in that meddling to justice. we only know the president did not want to read that passage and the president is running the show. two officials telling cnn it was the president who led the crafting of the clarification. joining us jeffrey toobin, cnn political analyst and author and investigative reporter carl bernstein and our chief political analyst gloria borger. to hear congressman hurd essentially saying the president shouldn't be in one-on-one meetings. >> that was an astonishing exchange with you. a republican congressman said the president of the united states cannot be trusted to meet alone with a foreign leader, and then we have for the first time a wave of republicans, including mitch mcconnell, including speaker ryan saying in essence that the president of the united states, whether because he is not capable or whether he has colluded in some way or whether he is incoherent in his approach to policy cannot be entrusted with the national security of the united states. that's really what we have heard today.

we've never seen anything like this in our modern history. we are having serious people, both publicly and privately, republicans and democrats questioning the loyalty of the president of the united states to our own country. this is extraordinary. it never happened with richard nixon. no modern president has been put in this position by himself, by his own actions, not by the accusations of others. >> although, jeff, we have heard a number of republicans in congress after the president made his remarks today coming out and saying, well, i have to take the president at his word. this does sort of give them cover to kind of take their foot off the gas pedal or, you know, stop ringing alarm bells. >> the republican party, which is really the trump party now, has trouble criticizing him about anything. and the fact that there were some cautious words of criticism

just shows how extraordinarily bad this statement was. but the question you asked congressman hurd is the one that i think haunts all of us about this, which is why. why is donald trump still doing this? why is he failing to acknowledge russia's role in the 2016 election? why won't he acknowledge that russia is a bad actor? >> full stop, period. >> why? because, you know, is there kompromat on him? do they have something on him? why is he meeting only one-on-one with vladimir putin? why isn't it a normal summit meeting with other people present? you know, i'm not a conspiracy theorist. i'm not someone who generally believes that the world is controlled by shadowy figures, but his behavior is so pervasively bizarre and against the national interests that it certainly raises the possibility that something untoward is going on here. i'm sorry, gloria, go ahead. >> anderson, look, i think that members of congress, not only democrats, but also republicans

are going to want to get to the bottom of this. it's very clear to me the president had no idea he did anything wrong or said anything wrong. i mean, today he said what's the big deal. he didn't know it. he got forced by people to go out out there and do what looked like a hostage video reading from a script, except when the real donald trump came through when he said well, there are lots of others, you know, who could be doing this. and i think you're going to see calls for ratcheted up sanctions which hopefully would be bipartisan, but also an investigation into just what occurred. can they debrief this translator? if they haven't already? if they haven't gotten the translator's notes? now given what he said publicly, don't people need to know what he actually said privately to putin? i mean, could it have been any worse? >> but gloria, do you really think the republican congress is going to do that investigation? >> i -- well, here's the thing. the question is will the democrats now be able to shame them to such a degree because they are so mortified.

>> shame exists anymore? >> you know, you're right. they're so mortified privately, i can tell you this, but at a certain point, this becomes about the future of the country and not about the future of the republican party, and today you heard paul ryan a little bit, mitch mcconnell, you know, these things take some time, but the democrats are going to keep up the drumbeat and the question i have is how does this affect how the mueller investigation is regarded. >> carl, the idea that first of all according to reporting it was the president who came up with this idea of the word change, and -- but the idea, if it is to be believed that that's what the whole problem was, again, i come back to he has an entire staff of smart people who want good for the country, i assume, and who could have said -- if that was the case, who could have said to him immediately, mr. president, you actually used the wrong word. let's just put out a quick

statement saying you used the wrong word. they had, i don't know, i just flew back. it's an eight-hour flight from helsinki to new york. i'm not sure how fast air force one is. >> he doesn't believe he needs to correct anything. that's the point. >> exactly. >> we're talking about a person who twice in the last few weeks has called himself a stable genius. we're not seeing a stable genius. >> who if you remember during the campaign says he uses the best words. >> but we're not watching a stable genius conduct national security policy in the interests of the united states. we are going to have the secretary of state appear before congress, republicans and democrats have called for him to go there to find out what the hell happened in helsinki. imagine, we do not have a straight story from the president of the united states about this negotiation or whatever this meeting was. so for the first time, we now have serious question raised by serious people of whether or not

the president of the united states can be entrusted with foreign policy, with national security policy. this is what mattis, this is what mcmaster, this is what private discussions with tillerson were about, between these people of whether or not the president of the united states can capable. and whether or not there is something going on that they don't know about, that the american people don't know about. it's one of the things that indeed mueller's investigation is intended to find out whether there is something underneath all this, and that's why we watch this stable genius saying what he says about the mueller investigation. >> carl is talking about mcmaster. mcmaster is gone, bolton now in his place. bolton has always been very tough on russia. it's amazing to me that, you know, you talk about shame. nobody seems to resign anymore.

nobody seems to kind of stand up and, you know, raise alarm bells. >> right. and dan coats issued, you know, the dni, issued a statement saying we stand by our intelligence. >> which was an extraordinary statement. >> it was. it was extraordinary. and i guarantee you it wasn't cleared by anybody. i think he just released it. and don't forget, the president went over there armed with these indictments against these dozen russians, and they -- it was very strong and very detailed, and he had actually, according to cnn's reporting, told rod rosenstein, look, i want you to issue this before i go there. that was what he had. he was armed with that, and he could have thrown it at vladimir putin and said we have you. we know what you have done, and instead, in front of the world he caved. >> right.

and it was chris wallace who literally was throwing -- handing the indictments to putin, who didn't take it. >> right. >> but jeff, we're hearing also, jeff zeleny and others reporting that the president plans to turn this against the press. we already heard him talk about well, the fake news was in an uproar. it's important to reiterate, and we talked about this yesterday, it was two journalist, two american journalists who pinned the president down, who asked the right questions that got the president to reveal how he actually believes during that press conference yesterday. so for all the machinations the president is going to try to turn this on the media, it was two reporters who just stood up and asked very basic, simple hard questions that so confounded the president of the united states. >> it was real. it was a great moment. and i apologize. i don't remember their names. >> reuters and a.p.

and it also was such a great example of how great journalists don't have to yell. they don't have to be theatrical. they ask simple questions about do you think russia is responsible? >> will you turn to vladimir putin right now. >> and they got to the heart and soul of donald trump, and that's what's so scary, because every time he speaks off the cuff, including today where he has the opportunity to tell the truth, he goes back to this coddling and affection and weird relationship with russia. and the question we don't know the answer to is why. >> jeff toobin, thank you. carl bernstein, gloria borger as well. up next tom friedman joins us. he's had tough words recently for the words of vladimir putin and the russian threat. does he buy today's presidential, quote/unquote clarification. find out when we return.

her gun advocacy and the campaign appearance she made and the question for candidate trump that is raising eyebrows. yeah! yeah! we hide hotel names, so you can find four star hotels at two star prices. h-o-t-w-i-r-e sfx: [cell phone dialing] at two sno. prices. no, no, no, no, no. cancel. cancel. please. aaagh! being in the know is a good thing. that's why discover will alert you if your social security number is found on any one of thousands of risky sites. -i think it'll look really good without the stripes. behr marquee presents: it's got potential. margo and sam had a vision, brought to life in one coat. whatever your home may hand you, behr through it, in one coat. behr marquee, #1 rated interior paint. guaranteed in 1,000 plus colors.

find it exclusively at the home depot. almost 250 years ago, two lanterns were hung here to warn of the incoming attack on america. today we have to acknowledge what our president won't: our democracy is under attack again. donald trump praises vladimir putin and meets with him on foreign soil, while rejecting our own law enforcement officials who say putin launched a hostile attack on our last election and is planning to do it again this year. why would an american president want to meet with a dictator who's trying to undermine our democracy? is trump again getting played by putin, or is he conspiring with a man who helped put him in office? if paul revere and other patriots had waited to act until it was safe or politically correct, we would never have the country we have today. it's time for congress, republicans and democrats, to put their political interests aside and act on behalf of our country.

oscar mayer deli fresh ham has no added nitrates, nitrites or artificial preservatives. now deli fresh flavor is for everyone. like those who like... sweet. those who prefer heat. and those who just love meat. for those in school. out of school. and old school. those who like their sandwich with pop. and those who like it with soda. for the star of the scene. cut! and the guys behind it. oscar mayer deli fresh.

a fresh way to deli. sweet! we're talking about the presidential clarification of his remarks in helsinki that not only moved a former cia director to online tears of laughter, but also failed to contain much of the uproar surrounding those remarks. in fact, it only raised more questions. question from tom friedman, "new york times" columnist and best-selling author "thank you for being late." tom, this convoluted explanation by the president do, you buy it at all? >> i don't buy it. i think it was some kind of exo facto scrabble game to try to extract themselves from what was clear to anyone watching the press conference that one, there was no clear-cut agenda for this conference, and if there are clear-cut achievements, the two leaders haven't shared them either with the public or it seems with many of their aides. and secondly, the president clearly was standing there, taking the side of the russian president against the

conclusions of his own intelligence agency, and seemed to be trying to ingratiating himself as if it was america's job to be nice to russia after russia has attacked our democracy, been found culpable for shooting down a civilian airliner over ukraine, basically covertly invaded ukraine, seized crimea, as been involved in a genocide in syria. how it is that sure, i want good relations with russia. but how it is our job to be sucking up to them? >> it is fascinating also to hear him talking to hannity about how powerful putin seemed to be, that he powerfully spoke and he is a powerful guy. for the president to claim it was just a mix-up of a word, it doesn't clarify why the president went out of his way to

say putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial of russian interference yesterday, or yesterday why he also attacked the mueller probe which has yielded actual indictments against putin's own military intelligence operatives. >> it didn't come down to one-half sentence of would or wouldn't. he was there clearly i would say in the thrall. he has some kind of dictatorship envy and was clearly in awe of putin, and it was really embarrassing. embarrassing for every american citizen. and obviously, when you see the reaction today, finally embarrassing to his own party. but, you know, we have a very unusual situation, anderson, and it produced this summit. we have a president with no shame and a party with no spine. and when a president with no shame has a party with no spine, he can go a long way without anyone restraining him. it's actually a wonderful place to be if you're a leader because you can actually say anything and its exact opposite and get away with it. you can give an interview with the "sun" newspaper basically

dissing the prime minister of england and then you can deny that you ever said any such thing, even though it's all on tape. you can call for the basically britain to pull out of the european union and to fracture the european union and you can say you love the eu and nato. it's really good work if you can get it. >> the fact the president also claimed to accept the intelligence community's conclusion today, which i guess is the whole point of him coming out and trying to do damage control, but then immediately undercutting it by ad-libbing in well, it could be other people also, which is something he has said time and time again. so that's not just a slip of a tongue. that is his core belief. he cannot say russia attacked the election, russia attacked the united states full stop. >> that is his core belief. and anderson, he has been getting away with saying, again, everything and its opposite from the very beginning of his campaign because his party never

calls him on it. and he is backed by a network that never calls him on it. and so he has been getting away with this basically for the last few years. to me, it all goes back to one thing, his tax returns. when he saw that he could promise to give us tax returns when this supposed audit was over, the world's longest audit, when he saw he could get away with that, you can bet he went back and said to his colleagues and family, can you believe i got away with that? and he has been getting away with stuff ever since then. this is just par for the course for him. >> i want to read from a quote from a column you wrote in "the new york times." you said "there is overwhelming evidence that the president for the first time in our history is either deliberately or through gross negligence or because of his own twisted personality is engaged in treasonous behavior, behavior that violates his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states.

do you truly believe that he meets that bar? >> oh, absolutely. he is either compromised by the russians or he is an even bigger ignoramus than any of us understands or he is such a twisted narcissist that inside his head is a series of mirrors that he constantly is looking into that he cannot see out the front of his eyes what is going on there and see things through the interests of anything other than donald j. trump. >> tom friedman, i appreciate you being with us on this really difficult day. thank you. >> thanks, anderson. >> even with president trump's clarification today, there is still a great deal of fallout in the wake of the helsinki remarks. a former cia director stated the president's comments were treasonous. even paul ryan was asked about it today. just ahead, is that a fair term even to bring up as part of the lexicon as this debate rolls on? we'll take a look at treason, ahead. the day after chemo shouldn't mean going back to the doctor just for a shot. with neulasta onpro patients get their day 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. sharper vision, without limits. days that go from sun up to sun down.

a whole world in all its beauty. three innovative technologies for our ultimate in vision, clarity, and protection. together in a single lens. essilor ultimate lens package. purchase the essilor ultimate lens package and get a second pair of qualifying lenses free. essilor. better sight. better life. hi, kids! i'm carl and i'm a broker. do you offer $4.95 online equity trades? great question. see, for a full service brokerage like ours, that's tough to do. schwab does it. next question. do you offer a satisfaction guarantee? a what now? a satisfaction guarantee. like schwab does. man: (scoffing) what are you teaching these kids? ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs, backed by a satisfaction guarantee. if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab.

if you don't like their answer, 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. the ripple effects of president trump's remarks in helsinki are moving so quickly that the speaker of the house today was asked a question which in normal times would have been close to unthinkable. take a look. >> obama's cia director john brennan said that president trump's press conference in helsinki, quote, rises to and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors, unquote, and, quote, was nothing short of treasonous, unquote. do you agree with brennan that's

trump's actions were treasonous? >> i do not. >> john brennan's tweet is no small thing. here to discuss this is max boot and ian bremmer. max, you wrote if anyone is the enemy of the president which is the line the president uses against the free press, it's trump himself. what about that word treason? is it -- is that a word that should be being used? >> well, it's fascinating to me, anderson, that it is in the conversation and in a very serious way being used by very serious people like john brennan, a career cia professional, who by the way was cia director during the 2016 campaign. so he probably knows things about donald trump that we don't know. and to me, this is just unbelievable that we're having this conversation about an american president and you can have a press conference between the american president and another head of state in which they're asked whether the other head of state has compromising material on the u.s. president. and that is not a wacky conspiracy question. this is a serious question that is being debated by very serious people.

because the way that donald trump behaves as a complete patsy for putin, he raises the question is there something going on here. does putin have something on trump. and we don't know if he does or not. we're looking to mueller for those answer. >> despite the republicans in congress saying they don't believe that putin wanted trump to win the election, putin said -- >> he confessed it. he confessed it on international tv. >> it kind of got lost in everything else, but it's important to bring up. i want to read the definition of treason. again, it is such a strong word and a shocking word to even be discussing out loud. for an act to be treason, you have to give aid and comfort to an enemy of the united states. it's whoever owing allegiance to the united states levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the united states or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the united states.

>> no, i don't think the media should be called enemies of the people either. look, this is a crime you can be executed for in the united states. and i think people need to calm it down. frankly. you just asked tom friedman, who i have a lot of respect for, you used the term treasonous and asked if he really believed that. and he said absolutely, yes. and he said well, it's either about trump behaving in a way that implies high crimes and misdemeanors or he is a complete ignoramus or he is a narcissist with mirrors upon mirrors. neither of the two latter of the three have anything to do with treason. yet we just had him on a prime time media show saying absolutely this is treasonous behavior. i think it systematically undermines the intellectual respectability of a lot of people that are on the media, and it provides an enormous ability, a cudgel which trump and his supporters will use to

attack the media right back. i think it's a real mistake, anderson. >> max, the -- do you agree with that? again, i'm not sure where i stand on this, frankly, but john brennan brought this up. is it too far? >> i mean, i'm not prepared to sit here, anderson, and say that donald trump is guilty of treason, but i think it is something that we have to discuss because of his behavior. and what i am prepared to sit here and say is he is guilty of violating his oath of office to protect and defend the constitution, because that is not what he is doing when he is siding with a despot and an enemy of america against the u.s. intelligence community. and when he is not taking the steps he needs to take to protect us from future russian attacks, even though his own director of national intelligence says that the warning systems are blinking red right now. >> ian, do you -- asked congressman hurd earlier, do you trust the president to meet one-on-one with vladimir putin or anybody one-on-one and accurately represent the best interests of the united states?

>> no, i have serious questions about it. i think the reason why he met one-on-one is because he knew that if he brought in members of his own administration, including people like the secretary of state who i think we have a lot of respect for, that he did not believe that they wouldn't leak. that's extraordinary. it's also use of a double negative, which we can do. and that tells you something very disturbing, that on this russia/putin issue, that literally the entirety of trump's administration stands aside from him. but i do think that's very different from when people start comparing trump to hitler, to the nazis, comparing what he did in helsinki to kristallnacht. i think when people talk about treason, it is incumbent even on you, anderson, to have a view how you feel about that language, that kind of incendiary language being used commonly, because you and i both know so many people that are doing commentary right now who have gotten really angry, and

they've kind of gotten unmoored as a consequence of this over the course of the last year and a half. >> max, the president coming out today to try to clarify things, you could use that word, to try to clean up, however you want to view it, did he -- did he do himself any favors? did he just continue this discussion? >> no, of course not. he actually made himself look worse because yesterday we saw that he was a lackey for putin. today we saw he is a particularly inartful liar in trying to clean up what he did yesterday. and so it doesn't add to his credibility at all. in fact, it further undermines it because he is this sinister figure but also this figure of fun who is seen with fear and loathing around the world but also being laughed at. and that's a horrible combination for the president of the united states to be in because he reflects upon the country as a whole. >> ian, could these comments come back to haunt the president whether it be in regard to the

mueller investigation or something else? >> i think two things. one is he did the absolute minimum that is required to get the majority republicans back on his side and say let bygones be bygones. that was the reason he did what he did. mission accomplished from that perspective. but there is no question he can't stop this mueller investigation, and he has provided in helsinki and in today's comments an awful lot more grist for those that are concerned that there is something serious that we don't know here, some kind of cover-up, something that will come out that really does explain in much more full way why trump seems to be so in the bag for an adversary of the united states, the russian president. there is nothing we've seen in the last 48 hours that should provide us comfort that we've gotten answers to those questions. >> ian is saying, and i agree with him, trump looks like he is in the bag for our adversary, but then ian is resisting the

notion of describing that as treason, and i admit that is a very strong word. but if you're truly in the bag for our adversary, how do you describe that? in terms of whether he really is guilty of this horrible crime, i think we have to wait for robert mueller to make that determination. >> that's correct. >> but in the meantime, again, have i the utmost confidence in saying he is not protecting the united states, he is not upholding his oath of office. that we don't need any further evidence to reach that conclusion. >> max, i appreciate it. ian, as well. a federal grand jury has approved an indictment of a russian woman being a spy. coming up, this fascinating new woman, mariia butina, and new details in how she figures into, or tried to figure into president trump's campaign. e. and get netflix included for the whole family. so you can get lost in space in your own backyard... or get pumped up for your grand entrance. only t-mobile lets you watch your favorite movies and shows in more places, without paying more. get an unlimited family plan with netflix on us.

and right now at t-mobile, buy one samsung galaxy s9 and get one free. can make you feel unstoppable. ♪ but mania, such as unusual changes in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on shaky ground. help take control by talking to your doctor. ask about vraylar. vraylar is approved for the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes of bipolar i disorder in adults. clinical studies showed that vraylar reduced overall manic symptoms. vraylar should not be used in elderly patients with dementia due to increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. high cholesterol and weight gain; high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death; decreased white blood cells, which can be fatal; dizziness upon standing; falls; seizures; impaired judgment; heat sensitivity; and trouble swallowing may occur.

you're more than just your bipolar i. ask about vraylar. with pg&e in the sierras. and i'm an arborist since the onset of the drought, more than 129 million trees have died in california. pg&e prunes and removes over a million trees every year to ensure that hazardous trees can't impact power lines. and since the onset of the drought we've doubled our efforts. i grew up in the forests out in this area and honestly it's heartbreaking to see all these trees dying. what guides me is ensuring that the public is going to be safer

and that these forests can be sustained and enjoyed by the community in the future. a jury has formally indicted a russian woman named maria butina of charges of being a spy who wanted to seek back channels between russia and american politicians. for now she is in a washington jail as she awaits her next court date. back in the summer of 2015, she asked a question of then citizen trump at an event called freedom fest in las vegas. >> my question will be about foreign politics. if you will be elected as the president, what will be your foreign politics, especially in

the relationships with my country and do you want to continue the politics of sanctions that will damage the economy or do you have any other ideas? >> okay, alabama gets along with nobody. the whole world hates us. i know putin, and i'll tell you what, we get along with putin. putin has no respect for president obama. big problem. big problem. i believe i would get along very nicely with putin, okay? and i mean where we have the strength. i don't think you'd need the sanctions. i think we would get along very, very well. i really believe that. >> that exchange has actually been noted in the fascinating book "russian roulette" by david corn and michael isikoff. it was no small thing is surrounding donald trump. michael isikoff joins me now. the book you authored is fascinating. can you just explain why that question in 2015 and that answer with then candidate trump sounded alarm bells for some

people inside the trump campaign? >> well, first of all, it's important to remember when this was. this is very early in trump's campaign. he had just announced a few weeks earlier, and fair to say the issue of russia sanctions was hardly at the front of the american political dialogue. it's not something anybody was talking about. but it was something of very much concern to vladimir putin and his government, and the fact that she, mariia butina, asked that, was there at that event and then asked the question and got trump on the record saying you won't need the sanctions if i'm elected was very important to the kremlin. now months later when the whole russia thing blew up, trump's top advisers, and this is what we lay out in the book, steve bannon, the campaign chairman, we're talking now 2016, and reince priebus are watching that video, and they're puzzling over this. how is this that this -- how is it that this woman happened to be there at that event? how is it that trump happened to

call on her? how is it that trump happened to have a well developed five-minute answer to the question? it was something had concerned them. they didn't have answers, but it seems puzzling. now we learn from the new criminal charges unveiled this week that this was no incidental this was no incidental act by mariia butina. she had been -- there's e-mail correspondence produced in the criminal charges in which she is talking about a well-thought-out strategy of trying to tilt the republican party in a more favorable direction for -- toward russia. she was going to do it. she was working for a very interesting character, alexander torshin, a russian central banker and accused money launderer and a very close ally of vladimir putin. and i think that's the sort of next phase of this.

the connection to torshin and torshin's connections to putin and the ways in which they were using mariia butina. >> did she have further contact with the campaign? i understood she met with -- albeit perhaps briefly with donald trump jr. >> yeah, there was a concerted effort after that incident in which butina and torshin, going through intermediaries who were conservative activists with whom they had forged relationships to set up meetings with the trump campaign, set up broker a summit between trump himself and putin. this is while trump was still running -- still a candidate, not the president. there's an extensive e-mail trail on this in which various conservative activists are

e-mailing top officials of the trump campaign to try to set up a meeting at an nra convention in louisville in 2016. ultimately, they don't get the meeting with trump but they do get a meeting with donald trump jr. >> yeah. just very quickly, do we know if butina's attempts to forge relations with donald trump and/or people in his orbit continued after the election? >> yes. as a matter of fact, and i wrote about this last year, they -- butina was -- volunteered to work in the trump transition. it's not clear she was accepted for that but she did attend the inauguration. and then just weeks after the inauguration they arranged for -- at the national prayer breakfast, torshin is designated the head of a delegation of russians who are going to attend the national prayer breakfast, and then somebody on the national security staff figures out who torshin is. the fact that he'd been wanted in spain. they canceled the meeting at the last minute. for a meeting between torshin

and then president trump. >> the book again "russian roulette," i recommend it. michael isikoff, thank you very much, i appreciate it. here's chris cuomo with a look at what's coming up on "cuomo prime time." >> i'm just looking at one of the big scripts now, anderson, because what we're going to try to do tonight is steel shactual the situation of what was said in helsinki. we're going to examine the words. i've been watching your show tonight. you laid it out so eloquently and you had some great panels on the words versus the meaning and the obvious intention. i believe we can diagram the arguments that were being made tonight, that we can show you what the president actually meant based on what he said in the past and what he said yesterday. so we're going to do that. and also, with the clumsy cover today comes the first wave of those who will defend the president. and we have them on tonight. a lawmaker here who says he believes the president and he wants to make the case to the audience. we're going to test it. >> all right. chris, appreciate it. i look forward to that. a stunning claim also, what one uk lawmaker is saying now about

facebook voter data collect bid cambridge analytica and the potential ties to russia. what will you discover with a lens made by essilor? sharper vision, without limits. days that go from sun up to sun down. a whole world in all its beauty. three innovative technologies for our ultimate in vision, clarity, and protection. together in a single lens. essilor ultimate lens package. purchase the essilor ultimate lens package and get a second pair of qualifying lenses free.

essilor. better sight. better life. -i think it'll look really: good without the stripes. whatever your home may hand you, behr through it, in one coat. behr marquee, #1 rated interior paint. find it exclusively at the home depot.

there's new information tonight about cambridge analytica, the data mining company that helped donald trump get elected. cnn has learn the facebook data gathered by cambridge analytica was actually accessed from

within russia according to the chairman of a committee in the british parliament. this potentially has big implications here in the u.s. in light of russian interference in the last presidential election. here's cnn's senior investigative correspondent drew griffin. >> reporter: it was marketed as a breakthrough in how to motivate, change people's minds, and manipulate them to vote or not vote in an election. using the personal facebook data of tens of millions of americans, cambridge analytica developed a voter-targeting technique aimed at specifically targeting individual voters who would receive messages on their facebook feeds, group chats and even personal communications, and it turns out the russians were paying attention. >> the information commissioner in the uk is saying that she believes that the cambridge analytica facebook data was accessed by people in russia, and we don't yet know -- >> in russia? >> in russia. we don't yet know who they were and what they accessed and whether they took that data or what they did with it. but that link has been established through the investigation. so clearly it will be really important to understand exactly what the level of access was of

people in russia to this facebook data and what they did with it. >> reporter: damian collins is a british member of parliament for the conservative party, whose committee is running an almost identical investigation as his u.s. counterparts looking at russian meddling in the 2016 brexit referendum. it has focused largely on controversial facebook user data. the data analytics firm of cambridge analytica, and a data scientist named alexander kogan. >> who created the tools and the apps that allowed cambridge analytica to receive a large amount of facebook user data. >> reporter: alexander kogan delivered the data to cambridge analytica and now cnn has learned he may have perhaps unwittingly allowed access to that same facebook data to russian actors. kogan began working four years ago on a joint project at russia's st. petersburg university sponsored by the russian government. kogan, who is a u.s. citizen, did not want to do an on-camera

interview but told cnn, "on my side, i'm not aware of any russian entity with access to my data." he questioned anyone's conclusion that someone accessing his data in russia means actual russian agents were involved. it could have nothing to do with the russian authorities, he told us. it could just be someone checking their mailbox. to british investigators, it's just one more unexplained link between the russians, cambridge analytica, and the targeting of voters by russians in both the u.s. and the uk. >> so is it possible indirectly that the russians learned from cambridge analytica and used this knowledge to run ads in america during the presidential election as well? that is something clearly that will be of huge interest, but it's still the subject of ongoing investigation. >> reporter: what we don't know, anderson, is what kind of data was accessed. we know the russians were interested in kogan's work. kogan himself tells us tonight, listen, i didn't bring data over there with personal information after i started working with cambridge analytica. all of this seems to be in the hands of the british

investigators who are intently looking at cambridge analytica. >> fascinating story. drew, thanks very much. appreciate it. the news continues right now. i'm going to hand it over to chris. "cuomo prime time" starts now. chris? thank you, my friend. i am chris cuomo, and welcome to "prime time." from bad to verse. was trump really just a word away from what he meant to say? i know everybody's talking about this, but we believe we can show you the truth of would versus wouldn't. we have it all laid out and then you can judge. so with trump's clumsy cover story comes his staunchest defenders. we have a republican lawmaker here to make the case that trump is on your side. many on the left are saying there's a deeper, darker truth about trump and putin. like what? we vet what's out there and advance the case. maybe a longtime trump loyalist can help us crack the secret code. we have one of his former top campaign aides back with us tonight. what do you say, my friends? let's get after it.