that will do it for this hour of msnbc live. my colleague, katy tur, picking things up now. >> craig, thank you very much. it is the top of the hour here on msnbc live. we are waiting on the white house briefing. it is running about 30 minutes late, but it is expected to begin at any moment. this as senator lindsey graham opens a new line of questioning when it comes to president trump's ties to moscow. >> i have no evidence that the trump business organization did anything illegal with the russians. i have no evidence of collusion. do i want to know about business ties? yes. plus, fresh questions and new finger pointing at the white house. why did it take 18 days to fire michael flynn after warnings

from sally yates? and boots on the ground. is the united states about to up the ante in afghanistan. we'll see if sean spicer comments on that, too, at today's briefing. our team is here. nbc's peter alexander is at the white house. peter, i know you are standing by waiting for that briefing to begin. what do we expect sean spicer to address? >> well, we think among topics addressed today is the issue of michael flynn following the former acting attorney general sally yates after testimony before the subcommittee yesterday. what's notable is 18 days passed between the warning from sally yates to the whi hse council and president actually firing his national security advisor. yesterdabefore the testimony began, sean spicer, press secretary here said simply he was not going to relitigate that issue, one he addressed many weeks ago. now with new information from the former department of justice official we'll certainly be

peppering him with more questions about that. also, more importantly, this white house considering the addition of as many as $3,000 american troops heading to the middle east. the question is what is the threat to national security's threat at stake there in afghanistan. general mattis says isis has pushed back but the taliban has proven itself resurgent. finally the topic of health care. the is that senate now takes over the reins trying to cobble together its own bill. working group with 13 older white republicans, the white house now may add a female senator. we'll ask that question as well as there is yet no indication from the senators in that group that that's occur just yet. >> no shortage of headlines coming out of the white house. peter, there is also the exchange that senator lindsey graham had yesterday during the

committee hearing asking former dni james clapper about whether there was concern about donald trump's business ties to russia. he didn't answer that question, said it would impede the investigation, which for some seemed to imply that there was an ongoing investigation into donald trump's business ties to russia. lindsey graham who asked that question was asked again about it today a moment ago on capitol hill. peter, take a listen. >> why are you interested in launching a probe in terms of business ties? >> i have no evidence that the trump business organization did anything illegal with the russians. i have no evidence of collusion. would i want to know about business ties? yes. this is nothing new here. i'm not a prosecutor. but if you ask me do i want to know, are there any trump business ties to russia? yes. i have no evidence of any, but i want to know anything about

collusion. >> the trump administration and trump himself has repeatedly said he's got nothing to do with russia when it comes to his businesses. that's not what don junior told a real estate conference years ago when he said a large portion of their money comes from russian investors. how much of a thorn in the side is senator sigdlindsey graham? >> i think we heard from the president after sally yates' testimony where he tweeted multiple times about this idea of collusion between trump team members and russian operatives describing it as a total hoax. they have tried to distance themself from that issue. we're getting our two-minute warning, katy. we should see sean in a moment. but they have distanced themself from this idea that president trump had any improper relations, any improper contacts with russia. it is a point that i expect he'll try to punctuate again here today. >> nbc's peter alexander.

we'll let you sit down and monitor. as soon as sean spicer does come out, we'll bring it to you live. but for the moment, former under secretary of defense for intelligence, and former ambassador to the u.s. russian confederation and an msnbc contributor. gentlemen, with the warning i might have to interrucpt you to go to sean spicer, first, ambassador mcfaul, can you tell our audience why it would be relevant to find out more about president trump's potential business ties to russia? >> well, just generally as an american. not an a russia expert. i think the american people should have the right to know what kind of financial and business ties our president of the united states has with foreign entities. there is a simple way to do that. he should just release his taxes and in the spiritf transparency expose that. with respect to russia in particular, it is important to note that a lot of russian

businesses have deep ties to the kremlin. the separation between the government and private sector which we hold dear and we enforce here in our country is not the same in russia. so there are russian companies, multi-billion dollar companies that are either controlled by the kremlin or closely coordinated with the kremlin, and in my opinion some of those, like the big gas company, they work on behalf of russian foreign policy. so we need to know what those ties are before trying to adjudicate them. >> just the real estate dealing might not be so cut and dry for donald trump. a real estate dealing with a russian oligarch could, in essence, be a real estate dealing with the russian federation? >> that's right. both because of the actual transaction, but then there is the legality of the transaction. let's just be clear. the russian government uses corruption in other countries, and in russia corrupt deals to create leverage.

>> ambassador, i'm very sorry to interrupt you, but sean spicer has just taken the podium. we'll get you on the other side, guys. stick with us. >> as you know, general mcmaster is helping lead the team that's organizing the president's upcoming foreign trip. this week the president has been focused on meeting with the team, getting ready for the various stops that he'll be making in meetings that he's going to be having. during his many conversations with world lieaders the presidet has seen a great desire for america to engage and be a great leader once again in helping solve the world's complex problems. he's already made moves both behind the scenes with leaders and in his public statements to show them that america's reasserting its leadership on the world stage. the viss are another important part of this american resurgence while on the trip, the president will further our strategic 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 aspects of this trip and we'll

try and have further briefing throughout the week 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 announce that the president has invited the crown prince of the united ash emirates to visit the white house on may 15th. the crown prince has accepted. we look forward to welcoming the crown prince and see the visit as an opportunity to deepen cooperation with a key partner in the middle east. moving on to domestic matters, the vice president spent his morning today on capitol hill. he met privately with majority leader mcconnell and also had individual meetings with other senators. discussions focused primarily on 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 the 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, general mcmaster, and ivanka trump to welcome more than 150 military families of all branches of service 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 stakeholders. secretary of health & human services dr. tom price is in michigan and west virginia today where he will hear from those on front lines in the fight against the opioid epidemic. also today the justice department announced that the attorney general will speak on open yoiioids on thursday at a enforcent adminisation 360 summit and response in charleston, south carolina. the dea's 360 strategy is to help regions deal with the prescription drug and heroin

epidemic. this is sponsored by the dea, anti- drug coalitions of america and will bring together law enforcement, education, treatment, recovery, health care, 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. also at the state department this morning, secretary tillerson participated in a signing ceremony for the united states georgia general security of information 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 branstad

was approved to be ambassador to china and is moving on for a vote on the floor of the senate. president also looks forward to see dr. scott godly approved by the null senate to serve as commissioner of the fda later today. finally with regard to the paris climate agreement, the president has been meeting with his team for quite a while on this matter and he will not be making announcement regarding that agreement until after he returns from the g7. with that, be glad to take your questions. caitlyn. >> thank you, sean. we got two questions for you today. first one is, why did the president wait 18 days to fire mike flynn when 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 lot of people think that he wouldn't have been fired if the story had not come out in the media. >> well, first of all, 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, is an element of due process. they informed the president right away after they were informed of her giving us a heads-up and ultimately the president made the right decision. i guess the question or the point that i would put back on you is, 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 materials. underwant a p underwent a process of reviewing the situation and ultimately the pred ma president made the decision and it was the right one. >> you're saying the president stands by that decision and he made the right decision but why does he continue to defend mike flynn? >> i don't think -- it is not a question of defending mike flynn or not. >> he says this is a witch hunt

and he should seek immunity. >> i think mike flynn is somebody who honorably 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. he served with distinction in uniform for over 30 years and the president does not want to smear a good man. >> what was his role at the white house in those 18 dayses? was he still fulfilling his normal security advisor duties? >> we're not going to talk -- >> aren't you concerned -- one thi thas important to note. let's look again 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's who is not exactly someone that was excited about president trump

taking office or his agenda. hold on -- caitlyn, let me answer the question. she had come here, giving a heads-up, told us there were materials. just because someone comes in and gives you a heads-up about something, says i want to share some information, doesn't mean that you immediately jump the gun and go take action. i think if you flip the scenario and said what if we just dismissed somebody because a political opoept of the president had made an utterance. you would argue that it was prettyish rational to act in that manner. we did what we were supposed to do. president ultimately made the right decision and i think it was proven -- >> how is she a political opponent of the president? the acting attorney general. >> appointed by the obama administration and strong supporter of clintonpy that. that's i think number one. >> thank you, sean. are the canceled meetings a sign the president is vacillating on the paris accord and undecided to remain in the agreement or

withdraw from it? >> i think it is simply a sign that the president wants to continue to be with his team, develop -- meet with not just the economic piece but his environmental team and come to a decision on what's the best interest of the united states using the expertise that surrounds him. >>. [ inaudible question ]. >> yes. >> 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. we want -- major, i'm going to answer mara's question i think the answer is we want to eliminate the threats that are against our national security and pose a threat to our citizens, our allies. so we need to fully eliminate any threat around the globe, frankly, not just in afghanistan that poses a threat to our people and our allies.

>> i just have a question. as he considers 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 spen more, thr throw more people doesn't mean you are doing it the most effective way. one of the things he's asked his national security team to do is to actually rethink the strategy, what are we doing to achieve the goals that you are asking about, how do we actually -- how do we win? how do we eliminate the threat? 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 wholistically, not just in afghanistan. but beyond afghanistan, it is also the way that he's asked them to look at the threat -- i don't know how he's going to do

that. we'll wait and see and go from there. >> first a question about the president's policy concerning syria. this morning we learned from the pentagon that the president approved a plan 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 raqqa, syria. yes, the sdf partnered with enabling support from u.s. and coalition forces are the only force o the ground t successful seize raqqa in the ar future. we're keenly aware of the serity conrns of our coalition partners in turkey. we want to reassure the people in the government of turkey that the u.s. is committed to preventing additional security risks and protecting our nato ally. the u.s. continues to prioritize support for arab elements of the sdf, raqqa and all liberated

territory should return to the governance of local syrian arabs. the fight for raqqa will be long and difficult, but ultimately yet another defeat for isis. and another step towards eliminating the isis threat that threatens peace and security in the region and the world. >> the secretary of state is meeting today with his counterpart from russia today, the foreign minister of russia, sergey lavrov. are you expecting any deliver rabbles fr deliverables from that meeting? >> i think we'll have a read-out when that's done. >> sean, do you expect the afghan review, isis review, to be done by the time the president heads to saudi arabia? >> i don't want to -- that's a question that i'm going to leave up to the national security team. i'm not going to -- the president's not putting a deadline on that. we are making sure that -- obviously this is what we announced today as part of that. it is not entirely it and we will have more as we go forward. i just don't want to pin down a timeline. >> in this briefing you've talked about the president's

desire to "fully eliminate any threat around the globe to u.s. interests." you talked about the united states wanting to "reengage and be 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 man bad omen about the president changing his mind. being more interventionist. what would you tell them now about, is he going to deepen american conflicts in syria, afghanistan and elsewhere? >> no, i appreciate that. i think thatis priorities remain the same but he is going to do what he can to make sure that he protects the country and the people and threats directly affect being the united states. >> just following up, correct me if i'm wrong -- i know you will -- but the day after it was announced that he was under investigation, flynn, he met with, if i'm correct, with pence

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

>> and secondly, as it relates to the g7, you said the decision about the paris climate agreement will be made after the g7. so does the president feel that he can extract any concessions while he's there, and does he feel like he can renegotiate it? or does he just want more time? why until after the g7? >> i think the president wants to make sure that he has an opportunity to continue to meet with his team to create the best strategy for this country going forward. sara murray, welcome back. miss -- mrs. -- just mrs. sara murray. congratulations. >> thank you very much. i just want to get back to olivier's point. why shouldn preside trump's supporters, if he does decide to add more troops in afghanistan, see that as running counter to what he campaigned on for so long, the notion of america first, the notion of the fact that we're too involved in foreign entanglements abroad. he campaigned on that and the way he's governed -- from what we've seen in syria and what he is considering in afghanistan,

seems to accepted a very different message. >> i just want to be clear. one thing, there is 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 -- and as president that he is going to do everything he can to fight radical islamic terrorism, and root out and destroy isis. they are not always the same if they go into afghanistan. goal is always going to be defeat isis which is something he's been very clear on with the american people from the get-go. but that all being said, let's be clear, with the exception of the piece that we announced today, that the president authorized yesterday, no decision has been made. so let's not get ahead of what that ultimate policy will be. >> one other question. can you just give us a better sense of what the president has been doing with his time the last few days? we haven't had very detailed schedules. we haven't been seeing him publicly.

he's only had one or two -- what's he actually do all day long? >> as i said at the top, the president is going on a nine day, eight day trip. going to saudi arabia, israel, rome, g7, nato. this is an opportunity next week, as i mentioned, he's going to have the crown prince here. he's got a commencement speech at the coast guard academy. part of the use of this week is to be meeting with the principles and head of their directorates of the countries that we're going to ahead of the meetings where he's receiving extensive briefings throughout the week with his team. he's had several meetings with general mcmaster over the week whs one of the leaders of the effort for this trip. his ledge slagislative team wasg with part of his economic team. so this is an opportunity to get ahead of this first really long foreign trip to make sure he's on a whole host of issues, whether isis, economic or trade issues, to make sure we go in there, strengthen our relationships, but also make

sure that 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. >> and so -- and if that is the case, so what was -- 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'd seen of collusion, he said no. i think that at some point -- i said before in this briefing room, but we have to take "no" for an answer. he said that the director of national intelligence asked, has there been anything you've seen additionally that shows collusion. he answered very clearly. the answer is no, and it continues to be no. i think there is a point at which all of the things that the president is doing economically

and national security wise to move the country forward is this needs to -- we need to take no for an answer and move on to the 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 then also following up on that, senator lindsey graham has said that 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 connections to russia so he welcomes that. in fact, he is already charged a leading law firm in washington, d.c. to send a certified letter to senator graham to that point, that he has no connections to russia. that should be a really easy look. >> two questions on two different topics. first, you said that sally yates was a strong supporter of

hillary clinton. what is that based on? >> i think she's made some -- i think it was widely rumored to play a large role in the justice department if hillary clinton had won. >> so on a different topic, i have a question about that firing of angela reid. it was reported she received a substantial severance package. how do you give a severance package to a federal employee zp. >> i don't know. i'll have to get back on you. >> yesterday sally yates said she learned of the first immigration travel ban in the paper and i wonder why the acting attorney general wasn't privy to that? was it because she was a obama appointee, clinton supporter? why was the acting attorney general not notified. she had just met the same day it was signed with donald trump. >> i don't know why she wasn't. again, i think if we want to relitigate the first executive order at the time we talk about

all of the proper individuals that needed to be made aware of were made aware of at the time. >> is it not unusual -- >> again, i also just to be clear, again, remember, this is someone who ultimately didn't even want to enforce it. so to -- to suggest that somehow -- >> she wanted to enforce it until she knew -- >> i understand that. but i think ultimately we were proven right who needed to be in the loop because she -- >> it was on purpose though. >> no, i didn't say that. please, don't say -- i did not say that. we discussed at the time of the ute order being signed back in january the process by which that was followed. the appropriate people then were in the loop on that. >> hey, sean. yesterday in her testimony sally yates said that she arranged for white house counsel to view the evidence against general flynn at the doj but she wasn't around to see if that happened. you said that that took place seven days after her initial meeting. was the evidence against flynn related 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 immediately informed the president and senior white house personnel when she first came here. late on friday the 27th, yates and 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 doj officials at the time who told her this was legal. she overrode them, didn't do this. the white house didn't get access to that underlying evidence surrounding miss yates until a week after miss yates first met with the white house counsel. then that's when i think the full sort of review began. once they had had access to that

information. >> was the president informed at that time? >> i know he was informed at the front end of what she had told him and the counsel had informed them that they were going to then seek the information that she said was available to them. >> here's a new topic for you. i want to follow up on what a couple folks have already mentioned here. you described in this briefing what sally yates did as a heads-up. she has testified she came to the white house twice in person to meet on the 26th and 27th to do more than simply provide materials. she says she encouraged the white house to act and expressed real concern about mike flynn being compromised on the russians. saturday, on the 28th, mike flynn sat in on that oval office phone call with president putin. is that the right call? >> again, i think to -- what you have is somebody who an obama appointee coming in and saying -- i get it. but at that moment, sure, you have someone who you have to wonder why they're telling me something to the point where 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. and so that makes you negate her coming to the -- >> no, i'm not -- again, i guess my point is that somebody who is not -- who cleveland showed by the fact that career doj attorneys told her that the president's lawful order -- that she should sign the president's lawful order, then chose not to do it -- >> afterwards. >> i get it. but that vindicates the president's point, that this was not somebody who was looking out -- my point is that we were correct in the assumptions that we made at the time. >> my second topic is just on health care. is 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. so to the extent i'm not going

to tell leader mcconnell or the white house is not going to tell him how to conduct a panel. but at the same time i think that any voices that can be constructive in getting a more patient centric health care system put together would be welcome. but that's not our call to make. >> there's been a number of conversations in washington this week about the relationship between hr mcmaster and the president. how does president trump characterize his relationship with his national security advisor? >> excellent. >> another followp question very quickly on flynn. he's spoken from the podium before about the president asking michael flynn to resign as a result of him misleading the vice president. we've learned a lot about michael flynn this week, and potential investigations. and we know actual investigations in to his actions before coming here not 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. so he asked for it, he got it. so to go back and relitigate

isn't really something that makes a ton of sense. he got it, he asked for it, he got it the first time. i don't think you go back and continue to say would i have asked for it here and here and here. he did what he did the first time. he was right and he got it. >> thanks, sean. can you just be clear on the 18 days. did the white house put any security restrictions on mike flynn at all during that time? was he limited to access to classified information, national secrets or decision making in any way? >> i'm not aware. the decision that we made was the right one. the president made a decision. he stands by it. jenna. >> he'd like to go over the timeline again. you have yates coming to the white house on january 26th and the 27th. you then have mcgann going to the doj on february 2nd to see those documents. but it is not until february 13th that flynn actually

resigns. tell us what happened between -- you know, you go the this warning, you then saw documents that backed up that warning, and then you have 11 days that pass. what was happening in those 11 days? >> i think if you go back in time and look at what we talked about at the time, there were several conversations that occurred with general flynn between the chief of staff, general counsel, vice president. that all occurred then. look, when you think about the scope of time that actually occurred, those 11 days, to make sure that we did the right thing is important. we ultimately did, and that's what's important when you think of this. when you look at this compared to other instances, the idea that in 11 days a review was conducted. the president acted decisively. i think that actually shows that the system worked properly. john. >> she says she came here with great urgency on the 26th and 27th, that she made clear that he had been compromised, that

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

among them volvo, honeywell and schlumberg schlumberger. all of which are cutting back on jobs and 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. mean theresident is prett clear what he thinks on the iran deal and companies need to abide by the law. >> all right. my other question is this. two weeks ago monday when 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 any time an

announcement on what the administration will do regarding the imf? >> be glad to follow up on that one and get back to you. >> the texas governor on sunday signed a law that essential will i outlaws sanctuary cities in the state of texas. you view this as a positive step? and would you encourage other states to do the same? >> you know, obviously it is a positive step. i think it shows that, as we've discussed here, both from an economic and security standpoint, that makes sense for the citizens of our country. each governor, each mayor has to make their own decisions but i think the president's decision is very clear when it comes to sanctuary cities and how we're going to address them going forward. it is not just an economics issue, it is a jobs issue, but it is a security issue for our country. every elected official from the local level on up to president in needs to feel comfortable with the laws they're passing to protect the people. that's every government's first

responsibility is to its people. >> what's the administration's position that the sanctuary cities should not be existing nationally and will you still take action that denies funding to cities nationwide? >> again, i think it is a positive sign. i hope more follow the governor's lead. but we're going to do exactly what the president said and follow through on the executive orders he's made. major. sean, you mentioned director clapper's testimony yesterday. said no evidence of collusion. then he was also asked if he was aware of the fbi counterintelligence investigation. he said he could not. therefore not being able to give a definitive answer of collusion. >> in the sense i'm not going to question but i think the interesting thing is on all the other issues that he testifies about, everybody takes it as whole cloth that if he says anything he must -- he was the

dni. when you guys want him to speak for the entire 17 agencies you sort of assume that that's what he's doing. in this case when he's been asked similar questions before and said, i can't speak to this case generally speaking, i've seen nothing, the presumption is therefore he's got to be -- in this case he's saying i had not and continued to not see anything that shows an effort of 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 idea that there was no collusion? >> i'm asking you if you accept what he testified to. >> sure. >> that -- equal weight. that, yes, at the time he said and the agency said they found no evidence, that is a representative fact that you take as valid, and it is also a representative fact you take as valid he was not aware of an fbi counterintelligence investigation and therefore at this time cannot say conclusively there was no collusion. you give them equal weight. correct? >> sure. >> okay, fine. on afghanistan, because i think

it is important what the president is thinking about. you've been implying that isis is a part of the afghanistan equation. what i want to ask you about is, as the president looks in afghanistan, as the team presents him options, are those actions primarily about whatever isis component is in afghanistan, or the larger more malignant issue in afghanistan which has always been the taliban? >> right. there is, as you though, multiple missions going on to confront those multiple things. the u.s. currently has 8,400 forces in afghanistan doing a counterterrorism operation which is "operation freedom sentinel." then the nato mission which is to train, advise and assisting under "operation resolute support." the main objective of us being in afghanistan from being used as a safe haven for terrorists who attack our allies. we remain very focused on the defeat of al qaeda and isisk,

which is the isis affiliate in afghanistan. but that's -- that's simply put what the mission is going forward. >> when you suggest that it is a washington question to ask if 15,000 can do a better job than 100,000, are you suggesting that the ideas the president's being presented with are so original and so out of the box 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, what we seek to achieve, what is the exact objective, how far away are we doing it, what's the time level that we have to have, can we grow the afghan force, i mean 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 is looking at these options. he's trying to 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 then what we're going to do with them. i think in the past there's been instances of figuring if we just add more troops, that solves the problem. the president is asking to relook at the entire strategy, then filling out what the footprint is in a variety of ways to get there. that is a different look at wt 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 in bringing forward this evidence about michael flynn. on the other side of that, after don mcgann looked at the evidence on february 2nd, was in fact sally yates' warning vindicated? >> i don't know. i don't know what don saw. >> you told you that led to his firing, so it had to have some legitimacy, right? >> no. what led to his firing was he

misled the vice president. i don't know frankly what was in those materials. i think the bottom line is the president fired him for misleading the vice president -- >> [ inaudible ] >> i just said to you major multiple times and i said it at the time. at the time that it happened, and right now, we continue to say that the vice president was misled by general flynn and the president asked for his resignation. full stop. >> sean, if i can come back to paris. >> you can. let's all go. >> one other one after this. it is my understanding the president's initial inclination was to pull out of the paris agreement. he's suggested as much during the campaign trail. the situation's become a little more complicated. the knock against the paris agreement is it would have a detrimental effect on the u.s. economy. does the president think there is a way to stay in the paris agreement, maybe renegotiate the standards? because he is under a tremendous amount of pressure from many of

his own advisors, other countries, 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's seeking the advice of his team is to get options, and then he'll pursue the best one. i'm not going to tell you which one that he's going to do. that's why he's continuing t me with the team and get advice. that's it, plain and simple. steve. >> hold on, i got one more. >> go ahead. >> in the omnibus spending bill the president signed was a provision to extend the eb-5 visa program. it's been pointed out that the company jared kushner runs has been aggressively reaching tout people in china saying invest in our property in jersey city, people who invest a certain amount in this country get the golden ve en visa. >> i think jared has no interest

in that anymore. that's a question more for the company to ask. >> so the president doesn't see any potential conflicts hear? >> jared did everything to make sure he did everything to recuse himself and take all the steps necessary. >> you put out a statement congratulating -- >> thank you. >> the candidate in south korea actively campaigned on the theory he wants better relations with the north. do you look for him to change his mind? >> i think the president will meet with him and talk about you are o shared interests. >> second question. you did say that the president has an excellent relationship with his national security advisor but there's been widely circulating column that quotes the president, two sources, saying that his national security advisor is the general undermining my policy. the president say that? >> i don't believe he has.

i haven't seen him. when look at the president's schedule this week, as i just noted to sara a limit while ago, 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 extreme pleased with his pick an his performance as national security advisor. he h the utmost confidence in him. >> just a couple more questions on general flynn. you keep saying that the white house has given a heads-up by sally yates about what general flynn had said to the russians. she describes it differently saying that she told the white house that general flynn had been compromised by the russians and was subject to blackmail by the russians. is that the position of the white house now after seeing all the same evidence that sally yates saw that general flynn was compromised potentially -- >> look, we've commented on this, make being the decision based on actions that he took, president asked fornd a accepted his resignation.

we are not looking to relitigate this. >> don't the american people need to know -- >> they need to know the president took decisive action in this instance and made excellent choice for national security advisor. >>. [ inaudible question ] >> she didn't. i think that's -- i don't know that that's -- for her to come to that conclusion without any investigatory method seems a little premature. don't you? what i'm saying is -- >> did the white house investigate whether or not -- >> as i've said multiple times, we looked into the situation. president made a decision and it was the right decision. jonathan. >> sean, a follow-up on that one but first i wanted to ask you about director -- 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 huma abedin had with anthony weiner? >> i think there was classified information inappropriate lly shared to an -- imeaware of the testimony that occurred and inquiries but i have yet to follow up on that. i would be glad to follow up. >> does the president still have confidence -- full confidence in fbi director james comey? >> i have no reason to believe -- i haven't asked him. i have not asked the president since the last time we spoke about this. >> the last time you spoke about it you said he did have confidence but 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. >> the president of course said flynn should ask for immunity before he testified. 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 but that's a decision for him and his counsel. thank you guys, very much, have a great day. >> sean spicer ending the day dali briefitoda daily briefing. let's get a little clarity on what exactly michael flynn was up to in that 18-day period from the time sally yates first alerted the white house to a potential phlegm with flynn and the time he was fired. we pulled read-outs, schedules and press coverage of that time to find out what we knew of what flynn was doing. on january 28th he was listening in on a phone call between vladimir putin and donald trump there in the oval office. there is a photograph of him there in the oval office with donald trump. on january 29th, flynn was in the room as the president called

the king of saudi arabia. on february 1st, flynn was at the white house briefing where he came out and officially put iran on "notice." you remember that briefing. so february 13th, flynn attended a joint press confence with prident trump and the canadian prime minister, justin trudeau. he was fired later that night. initially it came out that he had resigned. the next day the white house clarified to say that he was fired. sean spicer was asked by our own hallie jackson whether or not it was the right call looking back to have general flynn, the nsa, sit in on that phone call between vladimir putin and donald trump. and he said, yes, it was the right call. joining me now, peter alexander who was in that white house press briefing. we also have the former under secretary of defense for intelligence for the obama administration. ambassador michael mcfaul, an

nbc news contributor. peter, start with you because you were in that briefing. any more clarity from the white house about what general flynn was doing beyond what we knew from the public schedules, from the read-outs, and

suggesting that he had proper connections or contacts with russia. that's one piece i think is new on this topic as they try to reinforce that separation between president trump and russia. more broadly what remains unanswered is how this went about. on the 26th of january and 27th of january that sally yates came to the white house council and made it clear not just that flynn had lied, but could be black mailed by the russians and he knew they lie and they waited days before going to the department of justice after sally yates was gone and 11 more days before he was fired. even if it took seven days for the information to be seen and vetted, there were 11 more days

and beyond that one day after the initial meetings took place here. we know that michael flynn took part in that conversation between vladimir putin and donald trump. not sure why the white house thought that was appropriate after sally yates told them he could be black mailed by the russians. >> he was sitting in on the phone call between donald trump and vladimir putin. sean spicer said it was a heads up that sally yates was giving the white house. let's look at how she described her conversations about michael flynn. we don't have that at the moment, but she described it as much more than a heads up. two in person conversations and one conversation over the phone. he asked for the evidence they saw to say that michael flynn was subject to black mail. they were going to get that evidence and she was fired the day she was supposed to hand it

over. we have that sound byte now. >> the first thing we did was expln to mr. mccann that the underlying conduct was problematic. the russians also knew that general flynn had misled the vice president and others. that created a compromised situation. a situation where the national security adviser essentially could be black mailed by the russians. to state the obvious you don't want your adviser compromised with the russians. >> donald trump got a number of warnings about michael flynn during the transition and during the campaign, while he was president. one came from former president obama two days after the election. came from chris christie who was one of donald trump's closest advisers during the transition and of course there was sally yates. he repeatedly ignored the warnings or did he have other evidence or other reasoning beyond -- did he know more

essentially than those closest to him or did he put loyalty over -- could you say he put loyalty over national security? is that a fair question? >> i think that's exact low right. we don't know everything that donald trump knew before the inauguration and after, but based on what we know now, it's fair to say he prized loyalty above all else with michael flynn. this was somebody at his side during the campaign. he was a decorated general willing to get out there on stage at his rallies and attack hillary clinton and defend donald trump. trump felt intense loyalty tow him and wanted to make sure he had a senior role in the administration and as we know didn't do an independent vet of michael flynn, either a political vet or a vet of his background beyond the vetting that the government officials did previously for his security clearance. there were a lot of questions that trump didn't have answers

to at the time. >> we have michael viquiera who was able to ask vic president pence about flynn earlier today. a reminder to the audience, flynn misled the vice president. those are the allegations. that is what led him to being fired by the white house. he told vice president pence that he did not discuss sanctions with the russian ambassador. sally yates said well, in fact he did do so. we have the evidence to prove it. mike viquiera, what did he tell you? >> not much. he walked in and he is a frequent visitor over the last several days. he walked right past me into the senate from what we call the carriage distance. i asked are you concerned, mr. vice president, that michael flynn was able to keep his job for 18 days after it became clear to the white house he lied to you? he gave me a smile and patted me on the shoulder and kept on walking. we heard from the republican

leadership after the luncheon and they were asked about the reaction to this fact. this 18-day interim between the time that sally yates informed him and between the time he was asked to leave his post as national security adviser. as republicans did, many did in that hearing yesterday. they talked about the leaks that led to the disclosures to talk about the unmasking of those who are caught up in the incidental communications and signals and that's the focus of republicans. even though james clapper called them ancillary issues. vice president pence is nothing if not controlled. the white house is trying to say if president obama was so concerned about mike flynn, they should have revoked his security clearance. this is a topic that you know quite a bit about. there is a discrepancy because it was reupped in january 2016 and t phone call between the

ambassador and mike flynn didn't happen until december 2016. what responsibility did the incoming administration, the donald trump administration have to further that michael flynn? >> the incoming administration was hampered by the lack of time they had to really take over and had to rush to put good people in place and so forth. some of the impact of that is an inability of full vetting to be done at a high standard. the most important question around the mike flynn, sally yates discussion over the last couple of days is this: this is an example of the risks we face from a russia under vladimir putin that is going to continue to conduct counter operations against us.

we need to be vigilant against that in the future. >> could there be more michael flynns and more people who were not properly vetted? >> it's certainly possible and one of the investigations on the hill can usefully do for us is to get to the bottom of all of the facts related to russian influence in our elections. if there are examples of contacts that were inappropriate and be able to inform us and the belie public of that. >> the argument has been made that this is being blown out of proportion and this was not a big deal. this lie or this misleading of the vice president, even don asked why they would care if one white house official was lying to another. give us the importance of it, if you can, as quickly as you can.

>> having your national security adviser lie to the vice president is very difficult to run an administration. that's obvious. number two, i think there is a lot more to this story. i know we don't have time to talk about it now, but the question i have, did president trump know what general flynn was talking to him about? i find it hard to believe they never had a conversation about the idea of perhaps living sanctions. there are so many more question that need to be answered and that's why we need a serious investigation. this is not over. >> there are multiple investigations going on right now. i'm sorry to keep it so quick. spicer ran through the entirety of our hour, but that will do it for us. appreciate your time. we have a new show premiering today. we want to tell you about it. nicole wallace will host deadline white house at 4:00 p.m. eastern time.

we will be tuning in and you should too. lester holt has a sit down with president trump this week. his one on one with trump airs on thursday on nightly news. check your local listings. that will do it for me. see you back here tomorrow. same time, same place. ali picks things up right no. >> have a great afternoon. here are the top stories starting with what could be a new chapter in america's longest war. the trump administration would send thousands more troops to afghanistan. a source told us that decision could happen soon. plus, what happened in the 18 days, how long it was between the time former acting attorney general sally yates said she warned the white house about national security adviser mike flynn and when they fired him. three weeks after he killed himself in prison, former nfl star aaron hernandez is legally a free man. a massachusetts judge agreeing to erase his murder