bartoroma. sally yates senate testimony yesterday leaving some unanswered questions for sure. let's get right to john roberts. p >> maria: >> reporter: the white house reaction to what happened yesterday on capitol hill is slightly different than the track of the news today. most of the news reports are about this idea that sally yates warned the white house, specifically the white house council that flynn had been talking with the russians and been talking with them about things perhaps he shouldn't have been talking about. he had been lying to the white house about it, specifically the vice president about it and therefore could be vulnerable to blackmail if the russians ever wanted to try to use that leverage against him. we all learned that two days after the election, president obama warned president elect trump at the time against hiring flynn as the national security

adviser, basically saying, from my experience with him at the defense intelligence agency, you could probably find somebody better to be your national security adviser. but the narrative that the white house is going with today is the fact that the leak should be the story, as to who it was that leaked flynn's name after he was caught up in surveillance. president trump asking in a tweet last night, quote, ask sally yates if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after schecks plained to it the white house counsel. then tweeting biggest story is on surveillance. why doesn't the media report on this, hash tag fake news. we'll get a chance to ask sean spicer about all of that when he comes out. he is half hour late. we expect we will be coming out in the next few minutes. >> maria: we'll circle back when that occurs. right now the senate intel committee is meeting about what its docket lists as quote intelligence matters. this after a morning of

testimony from nsa director michael rodgers. the first we've heard from him since the unmasking of names caught up in foreign surveillance aled of the election last year. katherine herridge joins us live from washington. good to see you. has there been any change in russian behavior since the election? >> reporter: the nsa director testified this morning, because there hadn't been a strong 3ub lick rebuke by the united states against russia, hasn't really cost the russians anything financially. they had taken the lessons they learned through the interference last fall in the election here in the united states and they're now applying those lessons to other democracies. >> we've seen another russian attempt to affect the outcome of the election in france. do you see any slackening reduction in russian/chinese efforts to commit cyber attacks and even affect elections?

>> no, i do not. >> have you seen any reduction in russian behave kwhror? >> no, i have not. >> reporter: the nsa director also testified this morning that he predicts there will be a change in the way that we view cyber activity traditionally. these cyber actors have tried to infiltrate u.s. systems and steal information so they can have an advantage economically or even militarily. but the nsa director predicted that there are more probably damaging changes ahead. >> we see data manipulation on a massive scale. most cyber activity data has been penetration and ex-traction. >> like changing voting rules. >> yes. >> what happens if we change data? that's a very different kind of challenge for us. >> reporter: want to underscore that point. going into a system and manipulating data so the owner of that information no longer has confidence in their computer system, this would be the equivalent of dropping a bomb on

u.s. computer networks. and that is what they think the next iteration of this threat is gonna look like. >> maria: we all learned why the nsa director was a dissenting voice on the russia report, right? >> reporter: that's right. so, the intelligence community put together their final report on russian interference, and it was issued in january. and there were major findings. they called them in the ic key judgments. what was unusual is that almost all of them were in a high level of confidence. that came from the cia director at the time, john brennan, the fbi director james comey and then also the nsa director. except for one of the judgments. and that had to do with russia's intentions and whether their intention was to help then candidate trump win. and this was really the first time publicly the nsa director has explained why he was that dissenting voice. >> when i looked at all the data, i was struck by, for every other key judgment in the report, i had multiple sources,

multiple disciplines. and i was able to remove almost every other alternative rational i could come up with in my mind for, well, could there be another reason to explain this? in a case of that one particular point, it didn't have the same level of sourcing. >> reporter: nsa director said at the end of the day, it was not really a discrepancy but he characterized it as an honest difference of opinion on an issue of tremendous gravity. goes without saying, maria. >> maria: wow. new information there. thank you. lot to talk about here. joining me is is the editor and chief of daily wire.com. a syndicated column lift and marjorie clifton, principle of clifton consulting. ben shapiro, you first. >> i feel like i know less now than i did 48 hours ago. the more you see these hearings the more you realize that everything that's of importance

they're still maintaining is classified. all the conclusions they're drawing, they're not providing any evidence. on the right they're saying the real story is the leaks and unmasking. and then you have clapper and yates saying unmasking is normal, we don't know about the leaks. on the left they're saying we now have new evidence of trump russia collusion and we don't have any evidence of trump russia collusion. i feel like we don't know anything about anything. >> maria: would they do that, marjorie? at this point, a lot of things people wanted to know she answered yesterday with, yes i have the answer but i can't tell you. >> i mean, does it benefit them to reveal? i don't know. the big question is why they're deflecting, especially things related to flynn. why they took 18 days to fire him once they had the information from yates? and i think those are sort of the big questions. the response so far has been odd.

that's why this press briefing will be really important. if we didn't have all of these question, what would we talk about in the media, right? this will keep us going, i'm sure, for weeks to come. definitely a lot of interesting things. in the cyber security front, this has been an on going bill. the question of what defines warfare, what defines collusion and i think that's where a lot of these gray areas have to be newly defined. >> maria: well, we know what sean spicer is likely going to say as far as the response from the president. there are unanswered questions here. let's get to this briefing. it is starting right now. thank you so much ben, marjorie. we will listen in right now. sean spicer. >> these are another important part of this american resurgence. while on the trip, the president will further our objectives in the region, creating new opportunities that will strengthen the united states and our allies while weakening our enemies. i know many of you are interested in the logistical aspect of the trip and we'll be

trying to have further briefings on those aspects of the trip as soon as we can, so stay tuned. also on the subject of foreign visits, i'd like to understand the president invited the crown prince of the united arab emeritz to visit on may 15th and the crown prince accepted. we look forward to welcoming the crown prince and see this as an opportunity to deepen cooperation with a key partner in the middle east. domestic matters, the vice president spent his morning today on cap. he met privately with majority leader mcconnell and also had individual meetings with other senators. the discussions focus on the path forward for the american health care act in the senate and how the administration can work with congress to craft a tax reform bill that follows the president's priorities simplification, providing tax relief to american families and individuals and stimulating the economy. the vice president also attended the weekly senate republican policy lunch. later this afternoon the vice president will be joined by second lady karen pence and

ivanka trump to welcome 150 military families for a reception at the white house. the event recognizes national military appreciation month and national military spouse appreciation day which takes place this friday. the president's cabinet is busy inside and out of the beltway speaking on the administration's agenda with local officials and key stake holder. secretary of health and human services dr. tom price is in michigan and west virginia today where he will hear from those on the front lines of the fight against the opioid epidemic. the attorney general will be speaking at a drug enforcement administration 360 heroin and opioid response summit in charleston, south carolina. the dea's 360 strategy is designed to help cities and surrounding regions deal with the heroin and prescription drug abuse epidemic and the violent crime associated with it. this day long vent sponsored by the dea, anti-drug coalitions of

america and the charleston school of pharmacy will bring together stake holders working in law enforcement, treatment, recovery, healthcare and emergency response. in washington, secretary of commerce ross is speaking this afternoon at the 47th conference of the americas which is taking place at the state department. the event brings together administration officials, distinguished leaders from across the region to focus on major policy issues affecting the hemisphere. at the state department, secretary tillerson participated in a signing ceremony for the georgia general security agreement with the prime minister of georgia, a major milestone in security cooperation between our two countries. the president was also pleased to see several top administration officials recently move through the senate. last night heather wilson was confirmed to be secretary of the air force and governor brandstet was ambassador to china and is moving on for a vote on the

floor of the senate. president also looks forward to seeing doctor scott gottlieb to serve as commissioner of the fda. as far as the paris climate agreement the president has been meeting with his team for quite awhile on this matter and he will not be making an announcement regarding that agreement until after he returns from the g-7. with that, i'd be glad to take your questions. caitlin. >> thank you, sean. we have two questions for you today. first one is, why did the president wait 18 days to fire mike flynn after the white house was informed of his conduct and warned that he was a potential target for russian blackmail? because you realize the timing of this makes a logical thing that he would have been not been fired if the story had not come out in the media. >> let's look at the timeline. sally yates came here on the 26th of january. then she informed the counsel's office that there were materials that were relevant to the

situation. it wasn't until about seven days later that they had access to those documents. after that time, they did what you should do, frankly, as an element of due process, reviewing the situation. they informed the president after they were informed of her giving us a heads up. ultimately the president made the right decision. i guess the question, or the point that i would put back on you, somebody came over, gave us a heads up on a situation, told us there were materials. we were provided those materials seven days later. reviewed those laters. under went a process of reviewing the situation. ultimately the president made a decision and it was the right one. the process worked, frankly, when you think of the time in which we had the information to make the decision that the president made. >> you're saying the president stands by that decision, he made the right decision, but why does he continue to defend mike flynn? >> it's not a question of defending mike flynn or not. hold on. i think mike flynn is somebody

who hopb raably served our country in uniform for over 30 years. i think as he's noted, lieutenant general flynn was asked for his resignation because he misled the vice president. but beyond that, i think he did have an honorable career. shefrbed with distinction in uniform for over 30 years and the president does not want to smear a good man. >> what happened with the white house in those 18 days? was he still fulfilling his national security adviser dutys? >> i will not get back into it. >> do you think it's worrisome that he was doing that if he was the potential target of russian blackmail? >> the important thing to know, let's look at how this came down. someone who is not exactly a supporter of the president's agenda, who a couple days after this first conversation took place, refused to uphold a lawful order of the president, who is not exactly someone that was excited about president trump taking office or his

agenda. hold on. caitlin. caitlin. let me answer the question. she had come here, given a heads up, told us there were materials. at the same time, we did what we should do. just because someone gives you a heads up about something and says, i want to share some information, doesn't mean you immediately take an action. if you flip the scenario and say what if we just dismissed somebody because a political opponent of the president made an utterance, you would argue it was irrational. we did what we were supposed to do. president made, ultimately, the right decision. i think he was proven that -- >> how is he a political opponent of the president? >> appointed by the obama administration and a strong supporter of clinton. that's i think now number four. jim? >> thank you, sean. are the cancelled meetings a sign president is undecided whether to remain in the agreement or withdraw from the agreement? >> i think it's simply a sign

that the president wants to continue to meet with his team, develop a meet with not just the national, the economic piece, but his environmental team and come to a decision on what's the best interest of united states using the expertise that surrounds him. >> sean -- [ inaudible ]. >> what would winning mean to him? >> i think reducing the threat, especially when it comes to isis and the taliban. >> reducing the threat. >> minimizing, eliminating. obviously in the best case scenario -- major, i'm gonna answer mara's question. the answer is we want to eliminate the threats that are against our national security that are both a threat to our citizens, our allies. we need to fully eliminate any threat around the globe, frankly, not just in afghanistan, that pose a threat to our people. >> i have a question. have you considered what to do

next and if he wants to commit more troops. at one point we had 100,000 troops there and we didn't eliminate the threat. why would 15,000 do the trick if 100,000 didn't? >> i think that's a very washington question. meaning just because you spend more, throw more people doesn't mean you're doing it in the most effective way. one of the things he has asked his national security team to do is to actually think, rethink the strategy. what are we doing to achieve the goals that you are asking about? how do we win? how do we eliminate the threat? i think doing that isn't just a question of throwing money or people, but looking at the mission and the strategy. that's what the team has been doing, not just in afghanistan, but the total beyond afghanistan is also the way he asked them to look at the threat that isis poses. >> will he explain this to the american people? >> i don't want to get in front of -- i don't know how he's going to do that. we'll wait and see and go from there.

john? >> question about the president's policy concerning syria. this morning we learned from the pentagon that the president plans to directly arm syrian kurds against isis. has the president discussed this plan with the leader of turkey? and what was the reaction from turkey? >> i don't know if he's addressed this to the president yet. i do know that yesterday the president authorized the department of defense to equip kurdish elements of the syrian democratic forces as necessary to ensure a clear victory over isis in raqa syria. the fdf partnered with enabling forces are the only force on the ground that successfully seized raqa in the near future. we're keenly aware of the security concerns of our partners in turkey. we want to reassure the people and government of turkey that the u.s. is committed to preventing additional security risk and protecting our nato ally. all territories should return to

the governance of local syrian government. the fight will be long but another defeat for isis and another step towards eliminating the isis threat that threatens peace in that region of the world. >> secretary of state is meeting today with his counter part and the foreign minister of russia. are you expecting any deliverables from that particular meeting? >> i think we'll have a readout when that's done. >> thanks, sean. i have two brief. first, do you expect the afghan review to be done by the time the president heads to saudi arabia? >> that's a question that i'm gonna leave up to the national security team. i'm not gonna -- the president's not putting a deadline on that. we're making sure -- this is obviously what we announced is part of that. it is not entirely it. we will have more as we go forward. i don't want to pin down a timeline. >> one more. in his briefing you talked about president's desire to quote

fully eliminate any threat around the globe. u.s. interests. you talked about re-engaging and being a leader once again and reasserting its leadership on the world stage. some of the president's supporters are going to hear in those comments maybe bad omen about the president changing his mind and becoming more interventionist. what would you tell them about, uh-oh, is he going to embark on nation building? is he going to deepen american involvement in conflicts in syria, afghanistan and elsewhere? >> no, i appreciate that. i think his priorities remain the same, but he's going to do what he can to make sure he protects the country and our people and threats directly affecting the united states. >> just following up. correct me if i'm wrong. but the day after it was announced that he was under investigation, flinn, he met with, if i'm correct, with the

russians on a phone call. while he's under investigation, why is he being allowed to participate as the national security adviser? >> i don't recall the schedule from that day. the point is, again, i think this is -- look, i answered the question a moment ago. i think as i went through the timeline, sally yates came over here, gave us a heads up, provided us the opportunity, made it clear that materials were clear for the council to review. but, and we following that process. within 11 days after that, we accepted general flynn's resignation that the president asked for. >> while he's under investigation. >> we're not gonna relitigate the past. we've been very clear as to what happened and why it happened. the president made the right decision. we've moved on. >> can you confirm that the meeting between ivanka trump was still going on? >> i don't know. i would be happy to get back to you on that. i'm not sure.

>> as it relates to the g-7 you said the decision ab the terrorist climate will be made after the g-7. does the president feel he can e extract any concessions? does he feel like he can renegotiate it? why until after the g-7? >> the president wants to make sure he has an opportunity to meet with his team to create the best strategy for this country going forward. welcome back. miss, missus. just mrs. congratulations. >> thank you very much. i want to get back to the point, why shouldn't president trump, if he does decide to add more people in afghanistan, that is against what he campaigned on. america first. he campaigned on that. the way he's governed i think from what we've seen in syria and what he's considering in afghanistan, this is a very different message.

>> i want to be clear. there's a difference between afghanistan proper and our effort to defeat isis. that's one thing that he's also very clear on in the campaign. that he is going to do everything he can to fight radical islamic terrorism to root out and destroy isis. in some case, if isis were to have to go into afghanistan, they might be synonymous at that point but they are not always the same. you can be -- the goal is always going to be defeat isis. that's something he's been very clear on with the american people from the get go. that all being said, let's be clear. with the exception of the peace that we announced today that the president authorized yesterday, no decision has been made. let's not get ahead of what that ultimate policy will be. >> can you give us a better sense of what the president has been doing with his time the last few days? we haven't had any schedules. we've only had one or two meetings.

what is he doing all day long? >> as i said at the top, the president is going on a nine day, eight day trip. saudi arabia, israel, rome, g-7, nato. this is an opportunity next week, as i mentioned, he's going to have the crown speech here. commencement speech at the coast guard academy. part of the use of this week is to be meeting with the principles and the head or directors of the countries that we're going to ahead of the meetings where he is receiving extensive briefings throughout the week. he's had several meetings with general mcmaster who is one of the leaders in the effort for this trip. chief of staff, legislative team. this is an tune for him to get ahead of this first really long foreign trip to make sure that he is on a whole host of issues, whether it's isis, economic issues, trade issue, to make sure that we go in there, strengthen our relationships, but also make sure we put

america's priorities first. >> president trump tweeted yesterday that the story of possible collusion between his campaign and russia is a hoax, and he questioned when this taxpayer funded charade would end. is the administration trying to set parameters on what congress and the fbi should investigate? >> no. >> if that is the case, what did the president mean by when will this charade end? >> i think even director clapper said yesterday when asked if there was any evidence that he had seen of collusion, he said no. i think that at some point, i have said it before in this briefing room, we have to take no for an answer. he said the director of national intelligence asked, has there been anything you've seen that showed collusion? he answered very clearly, the answer is no. and it continues to be no. i think there's a point at which all of the things that the president is doing economically and national security wise to move the country forward, this

needs -- we need to take no for an answer and move on to issues. >> but is it the role of congress and the fbi to say when a matter should be concluded and not the white house? and also following up on that, senator lindsey graham said he wants to look into president trump's business dealings to see if there are any connections to russia. would the white house cooperate with that? >> yeah. so, the president, obviously, was aware of senator graham's suggestion after he made it today. he's fine with that. he has no business in russia. he has no connection to russia. so he welcomes that. in fact, he has already charged a leading law firm in washington, d.c. to send a certified letter to senator graham that he has no connections to russia. that should be an easy look. >> two questions on two different top eubgs. first, you said that sally yates was a strong is up poert of hillary clinton. what is that based on?

>> i think she's made some -- it was widely rumored to play a large role in the justice tkep of hillary clinton if she had won. >> so on a different topic, i have a question about that fired usher angela reed. it was reported that she received a generous severance package. i'm wondering how do you give a severance package to a government employee? >> i don't know. i'd be glad to get back to you on that. anita. >> yesterday we learned sally yates said she learned of the first immigration travel ban by reading the paper. i'm wondering why the acting attorney general wasn't privy to that. was that because she was a clinton/obama supporter? why would the acting attorney general not be notified? she had just met that same day about this. >> i don't know why she wasn't. again, i think we want to relitigate the first executive order at the time we talked about all of the proper

individuals that needed to be made aware of were made aware at the time. again, i also, just to be clear, remember, this is someone who ultimately didn't even want to enforce it. so to suggest that somehow -- >> she didn't want to enforce it until he knew about it. >> i guess we were proven right ab who needed to be in the loop about that because she chose to disregard the president's order. >> you did it on purpose? >> i did not say that. what i'm saying is we discussed at the time of the executive order being signed back in january the process by which that was followed. the appropriate people then were in the loop on that. sara? >> yesterday in her testimony, sally yates said she arraigned for white house counsel to view the evidence but wasn't around to see that happen. you said that took place seven days after her initial meeting. was the evidence against flynn relaid to the president at that time or did the president learn about the allegations against

flynn through the media 18 days later? >> so the following the meeting, the white house counsel informed the president when she first came here late on friday the 27th yates and the white house counsel met again to discuss certain issues that she had left unclear at the time. and then those -- the president, as you know, fired her on the 30th of january after she refused to enforce the president's legal executive order contrary to the advice of the current doj officials at the time, who had told her this was legal. she overrode them, didn't do this. the white house didn't get access to that underlying evidence described by miss yates until thursday, february 2nd, which is a week after miss yates first met with the white house counsel. then that's when i think the full third review began. once they had access to that

information. >> was the president informed at that time? >> i know he was informed at the front enof what she had told him. the counsel informed them she would seek the information available to them. >> i want to follow up on a couple thins you mentioned. you described sally yates didn't get a heads up. she testified she came to the white house twice in person to meet with them again on the 26th and 27th to do more, she says, than simply offer to provide material. she said she encouraged the white house to act and expressed real concern about mike flynn being compromised by the russian. on the 28th, saturday, mike flynn sat in on that oval office phone call with president putin. was that the right call? >> again, i think what you have is somebody who was an obama appointee coming in saying -- i get it. at that po moment, sure. you have to wonder why they're telling you sphrg to the point they had to come back a second time because what they were

saying was unclear. >> you said it was widely rumored that she wanted to be part of the clinton white house potentially. so that makes you negate her coming? >> no, no. my pointed is somebody who clearly showed by the point that doj attorneys told her the president's lawful order, that she should sign the president's lawful order and then chose not to do it. >> that was after. >> that vindicates the president's point. this was not somebody who was looking out -- >> it was before that. >> my point is that we were correct in the assumptions that we made at the time. >> my second topic is on healthcare. the white house asking senate leadership to put more women on the working group? >> i'm not aware of that. >> would the white house like to see that? >> i think the more voices that we can put on a panel to help get this done, the better. to the extent i'm not gonna tell leader mcconnell, or the white

house is not gonna tell him how to conduct a panel. at the same time, i think that any voices that can be constructive in getting a more patient centric healthcare system put together would be welcome. that's not our call to make. tray? >> there's been a number of conversations in washington this week about the relationship between h.r. mcmaster and the president. how does president trump characterize his relationship with his national security adviser? >> excellent. >> another follow-up question on flynn. you spoke from the podium before about the president asking michael flynn to resign as a result of him misleading the vice president. we learned a lot about michael flynn this week and potential investigations. we know actual investigations into his actions before coming here to the white house. was this at all considered in the president's decision to ask him to resign? >> i think you can only accept someone's resignation once. he asked for it. he got it. to go back and relitigate isn't

really something that makes a ton of sense. he asked for it. he got it the first time. i don't think he would go back and say, would i have asked for it here here and here? he got it. >> can you speak on, did the white house put any security restrictions on mike flynn at any time? was he limited to access to classified information, national secrets? >> i'm not aware of any. the decision that we made was the right one. the president made a decision. he stands by it. jenna? >> you have yates coming to the white house on january 26th and the 27th. you then have mcgann going to the doj february 2nd to see those documents. it's not until february 13th that flynn actually resigned. tell us what happened between,

you got this warning. you then saw documents that backed up that warning. then you have 11 days that passed. what was happening in those 11 days? >> if you go back in time and look at what we talked about at that time, there were several conversations that occurred with general flynn between chief of staff, general counsel, the vice president. when you think about the scope of time that actually occurred, those 11 day, to make sure we did the right thing is important. we ultimately did. that's what's important when you think of this. when you look at this compared to other instance, the idea that an 11 day review was conducted the president acted decisively. that shows the system worked properly. >> is it at all how yates described conversation from the 26th and 27th? she saying she came here with great urgency, that she made clear that you had been compromised, there was evidence that he had been compromised.

this was something she felt like the white house was going to take action on. >> look, i'm not going to -- i don't think there's 100% agreement about how she describes everything. but i think generally as far as the timeline goes, we're fine with it. again, i'm not gonna it in pick the fact of what her tone was. i would suggest the reason she was asked to come back the second day but an it clearly wasn't that clear on the first day. i mean, i think logic dictates you don't ask someone to come back a second time if they've done an effective job the first time. but i'm not going to get into needling every little point about what happened. john? >> thank you, sean. i have two questions. first, a citizens group known as united against nuclear iran released a list of 16 american companies a few days ago. among them volvo, honeywell, all

of which are cutting back on jobs employing americans but all of which expressed a desire to do business in iran under the terms of the deal that was made with tehran. my question is this. what is the administration's response to businesses who say they want to do business in iran under a deal the president described as the worst ever? >> i think that speaks for itself. the president's very clear on what he thinks of the iran deal, and companies need to abide by the law. >> all right. my other question is this. two weeks ago monday the president met with some of us. he said, it was on the record, he would have an answer on the administration's policy toward the international monetary fund in a few days. it's been two weeks. can we expect an announcement on what the administration will do regarding that? >> i will be glad to follow up

on that one. dave? >> governor of texas on sunday signed a law that outlaws sanctuary cities in the state of texas. do you view that as a positive step? and would you encourage other states to do the same? >> you know, obviously, it's a positive step. it shows as we discussed here from an economic and security standpoint that makes sense for the citizens of our country. each governor, each mayor is going to have to make their own decisions. president's made it clear on how we'll address them going forward. because it's not just an economic issue. not just a jobs issue. it's a security issue for our country. and so i think ultimately every elected official from the local level all the way up to president needs to feel comfortable with the laws they're passing to make sure they're protecting the people. ultimately that's what every government's first and foremost responsibility is to their

people. >> what is the administration's position then on -- will you still take action that denies funding to cities nationwide? >> i think it's a positive sign. we're gonna do exactly what the president said and follow through on the executive order he's made. major? >> sean, you mentioned director clapper's testimony yesterday. you said no evidence of collusion. he was also asked if he was aware of the fbi counter intelligence investigation and said he was not. therefore, he left the impression before the panel he could not give a definitive answer about the question of collusion. do you accept that as a valid representation of his knowledge and the fact that this remains an open question? >> sure. in the sense i'm not gonna question it. but i think the interesting thing is on all the other things, everybody takes it at full cloth. he was the dni. so when you want him to speak

for the entire 17 agencies, you sort of assume that's what he's doing. in this case when he's been asked similar questions before and said well, i can't speak to this case, generally speaking i have seen nothing the presumption is there. in this case he's saying i have not and continued to not see anything that shows collusion. as the dni, i would ask you the same question which is, at some point, given all that he was seeing and all that he was given access to, when at some point are you guys going to accept this guy that there was no collusion? >> i'm asking you if you accept what he testified to. >> sure. >> does it have equal weight. yes, at the time he said and the agency said they found no evidence, that represented the fact that you take is valid. it's also a representative fact that you take as valid that he was not aware of an fbi counter intelligence investigation and therefore at this time cannot say conclusively that there was no collusion. you give that equal weight, correct? >> sure. >> okay. fine. on afghanistan, because i think this is important what the

president's thinking about. you've been implying that isis is a part of the afghanistan equation. what i want to ask you about, as the president looks in afghanistan, as the team presents him option, are those actions primarily about whatever isis component is in afghanistan or the larger more pha lignan issue in afghanistan which has always been the taliban stphp >> as you know, multiple missions going on to confront those multiple things. the u.s. currently has about 8,400 forces in afghanistan doing koupber terrorism operation and the nato mission which is to train, advise and assist. the main objective of us being in afghanistan from being used as a safe haven for terrorists to attack the u.s. and our ally, that is the main objective. we remain focused on the defeat of al qaeda, the defeat of isis k which is the isis affiliate

there in afghanistan. that is simply put what the mission is going forward. >> when you suggest that it's a washington question to ask if 15,000 can do a better job than 100,000, are you suggesting that the idea the president's being presented with are so original? >> no, no. >> that 15,000 troops can achieve what 100,000 deployed very shortly after 9/11 could not achieve? >> no. i'm just suggesting that i think fully refining the mission. goes back to what mara was saying. what is the kpabg objective? what's the time level we have to have? can we grow the afghan force? there are several things that go into a strategy. i think the idea of just saying can we throw x number at it is not the way that the president's looking at these options. he's trying to figure, walk back from a goal of eliminating this threat. and then tell me how we get there as opposed to tell me how many troops we need and what

you're going to do with them. there's been in the past some instances of just figuring, okay, if we need more troops that will help solve the problem. the president's asking to relook at the entire strategy and then figure out what the footprint is in a variety of ways to get there. that is a different look at what the strategy is versus what it had been. >> one last thing. you suggested that when sally yates refused to enforce the executive order, that vindicated the assumption you had that she might not have been a purely well motivated government servant bringing over this evidence about michael flynn. on the other side of that, after don mcgann looked at that, wasn't sally yates warning vindicateed? >> i don't know what don saw. >> you told us that led to his firing so it had to have some legitimacy, stphraoeugt. >> what led to his firing is he misled the vice president? >> wasn't that information brought forth? >> i don't know what was there?

no. i don't think anyone should assume anything. facts should guide it. bottom line is the president fired him for misleading the vice president. i just said to you, major, multiple times. i said at the time. at the time that it happened and right now, we are continuing to say that the vice president was misled by general flynn and the president asked for his resignation. full stop. john? >> sean, if i could come back to paris. >> you can. >> i understand that the president's initial inquisition was to pull out of the paris agreement. suggested as much on the campaign trail. but the situation has become a little more complicated. the knock against the paris agreement is that it would have a detrimental effect on the u.s. economy if fully implemented. does the president believe there's a way to stay in the paris agreement, maybe renegotiate the standards? he's under a tremendous amount of pressure from many of his own advisers, other country, to stay

in this agreement to some degree. does he think he can make changes and still stay in it? >> i think the reason that he is seeking the advice of his team is to get options and then he'll pursue the best one. but i'm not gonna tell you which one he's gonna do. that's why he's continuing to meet with the team and to get advice. steve? >> also, in the outcome of the spending bill that the president signed was a provision to extend the eb-5 visa program. it's been pointed out that the company that jared kushner was raoepbly in charge of has been aggressively reaching out to people in china to say invest in our property in jersey city, remember the eb-5 program, people invest a certain amount of money get the sort of golden visa program. does the president see any potential conflict of interest there? >> i think jared has no affiliation with that company. he recused himself from it, sold his interest in it. that's a question more for the

company itself to ask. >> the president doesn't see potential conflicts here? >> jared did everything that was required to make sure he recused himself. took all the steps necessary. >> you put out a statement congratulated -- >> thank you for bringing that up. >> he has actively campaigned suggesting that the president's idea that south korea pay its fair share. he wants former relations with the north. do you hope to convince him to change his mind? >> i think the president look force ward to meeting with him and talking about our shared interest, so i'll wait for that conversation. >> second question, you did say that the president has an excellent relationship with the national security adviser, but there's been a widely circulated column that quotes the president saying that his national security adviser is the general underminding my policies. has.he president say that? i haven't seen it. i mean, when you look at the

president's schedule this week, as i just noted to sara, there's probably no one aside from family members that are spending more time with the president this week than general mcmaster. he values his counsel. he continues to be extremely pleased with his pick as national security adviser. he has the utmost confidence in him. >> couple more questions on general flynn. y you keep saying the white house was given a heads up about what general flynn said to the russian. she described it differently, saying she told the white house that general flynn had been compromised by the russian and was blackmailed by the russians. is that the position of the white house now after seeing all the evidence that sally yates said general flynn was compromised and essentially blackmailed by the russians? >> we commented on this. we made a decision based on actions that he took. president asked for and accepted his resignation. we're not looking to relitigate this. they need to know the president

took decisive action in the country's best interest and made an excellent choice for national security adviser. i don't know that -- that's up for -- [ inaudible ] >> i don't know that that's -- for her to come to that conclusion without any investigation seems a little premature, don't you? no, no. what i'm saying -- >> did the white house investigate whether or not he was compromised? >> we looked into the situation. president made a decision. it was the right decision. jonathan? >> sean, follow up on that but first i wanted to ask you about the fbi director james comey's testimony before the senate. which now apparently it looks like the fbi director gave inaccurate testimony to the senate. is the white house concerned that he greatly exaggerated or misstated what kind of contact

abadine had in terms of her e-mails and sending them to anthony weiner? >> i have not asked the president or staff about that. there's one issue, i don't think there's any question by any account that there was classified information inappropriately shared on an unclassified system. that continues to be the take away. >> is the white house concerned that the fbi director gave inaccurate testimony? >> at this point i have not asked. i'm aware of the testimony that occurred and any inquiries but i have yet to follow-up on that. i'd be glad to follow up. >> does the president still have full confidence in the fbi director james comey? >> i have no reason not to believe. i have not asked the president since the last time we spoke ab this. >> last time you spoke about it you said he did have confidence. you're not sure to say that now? >> in light of what you're telling me, i don't want to start speaking on behalf of the

president without speaking to him first. >> president questioned about immunity. does he still believe that? >> i think general flynn should seek the advice of counsel and take their advice with respect to his investigation and the inquiries into his background. that's a decision for him and his counsel. thank you very much. have a great day. >> maria: all right. sean spicer addressing a plan to boost u.s. forces in afghanistan in order to force the taliban back to the bargaining table. proposal call force 3,000 to 5,000 troops on top of 8,400 there. jennifer griffin is at the pentagon. what more do we know about the pentagon's request for these additional troops in afghanistan? >> reporter: it's really interesting listening to sean spicer amidst all of the leaked reports about a troop increase for afghanistan. spicer was asked whether the president wants to win in afghanistan and whether a few thousand more troops would do

the trick. here's his response. >> just because you spend more, throw more people, doesn't mean you're doing it in the most effective way. one of the things he's asked his national security team to do is think, rethink the strategy. what are we doing to achieve the goal that you were asking about? how do we win? i think doing that isn't a question of throwing money or people. but looking at the mission and the strategy. that's what the team has been doing. not just in afghanistan. >> fox news learned the first brigade of the 82nd air borne division stationed at ft. bragg north carolina will provide the additional american troops. 1500 were already slated to deploy to afghanistan in june to replace forces already there. but the commanders want the brigade to deploy as a unit which would mean an additional 3,000 to 5,000 troops. president trump met with his national security adviser hr mcmaster at the white house today to hear the proposed shift

in strategy after 15 years of war in afghanistan. an announcement is not expected we're told before the president attends a nato meeting in brussels may 25th where he will likely demand nato allies also provide forces so the u.s. doesn't shoulder the burden alone. jim mattis, while visiting denmark, was coy when asked about the future plans. >> war sometimes doesn't give you all good options. that's the nature of war. it's not a good situation. >> shorly after the inauguration, president trump stumped his commanders by asking what does winning look like in afghanistan? it's still not clear, maria, militarily, that there is a very good answer. >> maria: sure, jennifer, thank you very much. we want to get more with staff sergeant joe e. jones who served in afghanistan. good to see you, sir. thanks so much for joining us. >> thanks for having me on. >> maria: you have been on the ground, seen this up close and

personal. what's your thoughts on these additional troops? >> i think what we've seen here is a change in our goal. it's a change in our mission. yes, it's a change in strategy, but for sean spicer to discredit the troop surges 2007 or 2009 and 2010, that's not really a fair assessment. those were very effective. we pushed the taliban to the brink of extinction almost in afghanistan in 2010, just to turn around in 2011 and let domestic politics and a presidential campaign change that. so what we're looking at now, surging troops from 8400 to 12,000, that's not the same type of strategy at all. what we've changed is our mission. our mission now is simply to outlast the taliban in afghanistan. hopefully support a central government. ultimately keep a strong goal in afghanistan for foes in that region like iran, pakistan, who's walked both sides of the line, and even china and russia. they're active in the region.

i don't believe our goal any more is to defeat the taliban. i think it's no outlast them with our presence in the region. >> maria: doing that, the troops already on the ground need the backup, isn't that right? >> well, exactly. my.being, 11,400 troops, 12,000 troop, 15,000 troops is not enough to defeat the taliban. so someone that's deployed and is a boot on the ground, has a little bit issue knowing there are 12,000 of my brothers in harms way without any political will to support them and give them a mission to win. 100,000 troops could defeat the taliban. we saw it happening. but politics back home wouldn't let it happen. that's okay if that's the case, we just need to accept that and bring our boys home and girls home, or redefine our mission so that the american people know why their sons and daughters are there and what they will be there doing. >> maria: you make a lot of great points, sergeant. what you're saying though, when you look back to 2007 and 2010, the additional troops worked. >> oh, absolutely.

i mean, the al-abar province was declared unwinnable. we did the same thing just to watch it all fall. when i was in helmond, we were pushing every day. we fought hard for them. some of the deadliest battles for the marine corps in afghanistan, but we won those battles, until we were told to reduce our numbers and then that was a political decision. not even really criticizing president obama. our country made that decision. no one really raised is stink about it. we gave all that back up. it's frustrating for me, but if that's going to be the political strategy, or if politics are going to affect military strategy, so be it, just be honest about it. bring our guys and gals home and let the country to its own devi devices. >> maria: sergeant, thank you

very much for your advice. the ball firmly in the senate's court on healthcare, but the process is already raising eyebrows and threatening to further divide the gop. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has chosen a group of 13 senators to work on this bill. my next guest is part of that working group. chairman of the senate commerce committee. senator, good to see you. thank you very much for joining us. can you give us a sense of where this bill stands right now? >> tell you, it's now in the senate's court. we're having a lot of conversations, as you would expect, trying to build upon the progress made by the house. knowing that the senate is going to have its own views on this and probably approach this in a different perspective than the house did. we eventually want to get a result that we want to put on the president's desk, get it signed into law and rescue americans from a collapsing failed system which is what they have with obamacare today. >> maria: we watch evidence of that every day with obamacare imploding. but educate us on why we need to start from scratch again.

was there nothing in the house bill that could go toward the senate bill? you know, people are scratching their heads saying, we just went on this long fought fight within the house, and now the senate is saying, we're gonna just rip it up and start from scratch. why? >> right. well, actually i think, maria, that the house laid a good foundation. i don't think -- we're not gonna agree with everything they did, but there are a number of features about the house bill we think we can build on. i have an amendment that i will offer that will, i think, improve and strengthen the tax credit that's used by the house to deliver assistance to people currently in the obamacare exchange. we have some ideas about how to strengthen the medicade provisions in the house bill. market stablization reforms. there are a whole range of things that the senate has ideas about, but i do think that the house, the product they produced in the end is what they could get 216 votes for in the senate, we got to figure out what we can get 50 votes for. that's what this is all about.

>> maria: i see. this is the exercise you go through with all legislation. i get that. but let me ask you this because there's a feeling that after the house overturned all of the obamacare taxes, that the senate is saying we need a revenue raise. are you expecting that you will have to redo some of those taxes? >> you know, i would guess not. my view is on taxes, maria, that that was a part of obamacare. those taxes were raised to pay for obamacare. we are repealing obamacare, so we ought to reveal the revenue raises, the taxes included in it. i think it would be hard to get a bill through the senate that doesn't do away with the obamacare taxes. obviously, we're trying to do this within what the cbo has said the parameters are in terms of the budget that we have to work with, and a number of the things that we are doing are going to save significant ams of money. the medicade reforms save almost $1 trillion. we'll work hard with the cbo, come up with a bill that we can put on the president's desk that rescues people from a failing

system and hopefully move us in a different direction that includes more choices, more competition and a better way for the american people to lead to more affordable health care. >> maria: senator cassidy joined me. then he joined jimmy kimmell. i want to get your reaction to this, senator. watch. >> jimmy kimmell test i think should be no family should be denied medical care, emergency or otherwise because they can't afford it. >> you're on the right track. if that's as close as we can get that works good. we have to be able to pay for it. that's the challenge. all the middle income families paying $30,000, $40,000 a year for coverage, we have to make it affordable for them, too. >> i can think of a way to pay for it. don't give a huge tax cut to millionaires like me. instead, leave it how it is. >> maria: what do you make of that? >> bill cassidy has a proposal out there. he's offered a lot. he is a doctor. he offers a lot of input to the discussions we're having. i think in the end we want to make sure that people have

access. today a lot of them don't. they have policies that have huge deductibles, huge co-pays, huge out of pocket costs that prevent them from even using the policies they have. it's like having a bus ticket in a town where there's no discusses. you have to have an insurance program. state of iowa, on carrier announced this week they may leave the market entirely. we want to make sure people have access and that nobody's left out. we want to make sure we have a market based system that gives people more choices. >> maria: we understand the idea of making an environment more attractive for businesses so that they go ahead and create jobs. that's the point there in terms of growth. not to lower taxes for the highest earners. let me ask you about taxes while we're on the subject here. everybody wants to know where tax reform stands. can you give us a realistic timeline in terms of getting that legislation done this year? >> as soon as we can pivot to get through healthcare, we'll pivot to tax reform.

the administration is working on it. we met with a couple members of the president's team, the senate finance committee did. we know how important it is to growth. we got to get to a tack code that is simpler, that reduces rates, hopefully allows businesses to recover their costs more quickly and creates economic growth which will create jobs, better paying jobs and higher wages in this country. we are not competitive in the global market place. we know that. the tax code has to change. it's a question of how we get this done. i think right now, at least with the administration fully engaged, house and senate leadership i think will be working on a timeline trying to complete something on this by the end of the year. obviously it takes time. this is a big complicated tax code. to try and do this right is not going to happen fast. >> maria: we know what the president wants. 15% tax rate a fantasy? >> they put a marker out there. it will be hard to hit that. but i do think we can do substantially significantly better than where we are today.

>> maria: that's the 35%. for sure. >> whether we can get to 15% or not remains to be seen. >> maria: senator, thank you. see you tomorrow morning on fox business network. 6 to 9 a.m. on mornings with maria. >> shepard: it's noon on the west coast, 3:00 in d.c. where republican senators are calling for an investigation into president trump's potential russia ties. the white house says bring it. the press secretary sean spicer again defending how president trump handled the general flynn controversy. you'll hear what he says now. thousands more american troops could soon be headed to afghanistan. president trump's top advisers are putting together proposal for a change in strategy to take on the taliban. look at the new plan of action. inside the hurricane hunters. a look