until later in the afternoon. it won't be a joint briefing, as had been originally planned. this was supposed to be a discussion about the foreign trip the president is leaving for on friday. instead, it is all but certain this conversation with general mcmaster will be dominated by questions about this "washington post" reporting that came out last night that the president revealed classified information. there will be a discussion almost certainly of the tweets the president sent this morning, seeming to confirm that he did discuss common threats with russia. these aviation threats, something that the white house has acknowledged. it does raise questions about the denial that the president ever revealed sources and methods, given that that was something that had not been originally reported. more questions than answers here coming out of the white house. i want to remind you, too, of where the story is going. to capitol hill. we're already seeing reaction and fallout. not just from top republicans. mitch mcconnell talking about the drama in this white house. but from top democrats, as well, like chuck schumer, who is now calling on the whitetranscripts.

and some republicans say, hey, they'd be happy to take a look at that information, as well, regarding the meeting between president trump, the russian foreign minister and the russian ambassador, as well. we have a lot to follow. that is not an understatement for sure. to pick it up is my colleague, chris jansing, taking over. i have to run over to the white house for the briefing. >> just to make clear, have you ever seen this white house respond as quickly or as aggressively as they have, not only last night, about two hours after the story posted, they had mcmaster come out. now he's back out at 11:30, half hour from now. >> there was a question, would they put him out, given everything that had developed since this briefing had been planned prior to the newsbreaking. he is coming out and speaking publicly. we'll have it on the network. >> i will let you go. right now, on msnbc, crisis mode. president trump and his senior staffers fighting back this morning against that bomb shell of a story, saying the president revealed highly classified

information to russian officials. i'll speak with the "washington post" reporter who first broke the story. did the president compromise national security? >> this president is a loose cannon. president of the united states cannot just do, say or speak whatever the hell he wants. backlash on the hill. democrats calling the president reckle reckless. not even prominent republicans are worried. >> if it is accurate, it is very concerning. >> i think we could do with a little less drama from the white house on a lot of things. so we can focus on our agenda. in just over an hour, trump set to greet the turkish president. how trump's relationship with russia could change the game in the fight against isis. good morning, everyone. i'm chris jansing on this very busy and very important day in washington. we continue to follow the story that is exploding right now here in the nation's capital and,

without hyperbole, around the globe. president trump firing back this morning in the wake of that bomb shell "washington post" report, accusing him of divulging classified information to the russians during their oval office meeting last wednesday. here's the president's tweet this morning. as president, i wanted to share with russia at an openly scheduled white house meeting, which i have absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety. humanitarian reasons. plus, i want russia to greatly step up their fight against isis and terrorism. as first reported by the "washington post," sources tell them the president revealed classified secrets about the isis terror threat. details that came from an unnamed u.s. ally. passed along to russia's foreign minister and to the ambassador to washington without that ally's permission. the white house in crisis mode last night and again this morning. just about two hours after the story posted, they sent out national security adviser h.r. mcmaster to issue a carefully

worded denial. >> the story that came out tonight as reported is false. at no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed, and the president did not disclose military operations that were not already known. i was in the room. it did not happen. >> once again, we are expecting to hear from h.r. mcmaster less than half an hour from now. the briefing w ining was just a. greg miller broke the story. i thank you for being with us. this was, as i pointed out to hallie jackson a few minutes ago, a quick turn around for the white house. they clearly realize very quickly how damaging this could be. i want to know, first off, what do you make of hr mcmaster's response? >> well, i mean, i think as you ipd kndicated there, this was a

carefully worded statement that didn't really address the fundamental points of our story. our story did not say that trump had discussed sources and methods with his russian guests. it said that he had reveal eed information that came from highly sensitive sources and methods, in particular, from a critical ally of the united states who had provided this information. and that the united states didn't have permission to pass along to any third party, let alone russia. >> in fact, part of your reporting is that mcmaster's own staff came out of that meeting, immediately called the cia director, the director of the national security agency. what does that indicate to you? >> that's right. none of the statements from the white house last night address thad poin ed that point. that if there was no problem in what trump told the russian foreign ambassador, why was it necessary for his staff, the white house staff, to place calls to the cia director, the

director of the na arknsa? those are the agencies that will deal in damage control mode. they were the ones dealing most directly with the ally here. >> speaking of dealing directly, your paper, as i understand it, also withholding critical pieces of information. tell us about that decision making and how it supports your story. >> well, i mean, it was really important from some of the sources we talked to, did not want to compound what trump had done here, and didn't want to -- us to write about some of the details that trump disclosed, which would only make the problem worse. that wasn't the focus of our story. the focus of our story was trump had shared these details. our knowledge of those details, understanding what they were, made us feel very confident in proceeding with this article. >> and this morning, the president tweeting, suggesting he had every right to do what he did. but do you take that as confirmation of your story, which would be a direct contradiction from what we heard from mcmaster last night. >> that's how i take it.

i think that it is a very -- it is not consistent with the story the white house was telling last night. story is false, didn't happen. all of a sudden, trump today is tweeting, i have every right to do what i did. >> let me ask you what you want to hear from mcmaster today. what are the questions you have for him as he's made this decision to come out, whatever, 12, 18 hours later, and address the press once again? >> i think i'd love to -- i spoke with h.r. mcmaster twice yesterday on the phone before our story was posted. he couldn't answer in those conversations why his own staff had called the cia director and tried to do this sort of damage control after this meeting. so i think that's one of the most important questions he has to address. >> the "washington post"'s dpgr miller, congratulations on a well sourced, provocative and disturbing story. especially, i thank you, because i know how busy you've been.

i within the to go to kristen welker, who was there late into the night last night, back at the white house early this morning. we have been talking about the different fallouts, the different kinds of damage, political damage, but what, if anything, is the white house doing this morning to address damage that may have been done with our allies and others in other parts of the world? >> well, chris, president trump had a conversation with the president of egypt overnight. he will be reaching out to the king of jordan later on today. then he's going to have a pre-planned meeting with the president of turkey this afternoon. now, we haven't been given readouts of these conversations yet, so i want to stress that point. our sense is that he would likely address this controversy that he's dealing with here, but we don't have confirmation of that just yet, chris. of course, the timing of this is all critical. it comes just days before the president is about to set off on his first foreign trip. he's going to be visiting saudi

arabia, israel and, of course, italy, as well. he'll be meeting with the pope at the vatican. this raises serious questions for our allies, chris, and undoubtedly, this will be at the forefront when the president goes on the overseas trip. he is also attending a nato summit. we also know there is an attempt to deal with the fallout on capitol hill. my understanding is that officials here at the white house will be reaching out to lawmakers on capitol hill to answer their questions about this, but the question revolves around that point that you were just making. will the white house actually release transcripts of that conversation with the president to lawmakers on capitol hill? that is what they are demanding, chris, as they demand answers to all of this. that's one of the questions that we're going to try to ask h.r. mcmaster when he has that briefing in less than a half hour from now, chris. >> i'll let you get to that. kristen, thanks so much. >> thanks. joining me live, an incredible panel to decipher this. former cia director under president bill clinton.

he also had roles in the carter, reagan and george h.w. bush administrations and served for a time as an adviser to president-elect donald trump during the transition. also with us, evelyn, who served in the obama administration as secretary of defense for ukraine and yur ray s ukraine. and also a double-agent, author of "how to catch a double spy." admiral, if what the "washington post" reports is true, did the president potentially compromise our national security? >> i'm sorry. who is this directed to? >> to you, admiral. >> yeah, thanks for the promotion. i never got above army captain. in any case, i don't know how to categorize this set of leaks. it's really a stunning development, and it is cascading. it could, really badly to the

disadvantage of the country, if people keep demanding more and more material come out publicly. this is not a good thing. >> well, it involves something called code word information. help us put all of this into context and tell us what that is and, as a result, how seriously this could potentially be. >> most information that is particularly sensitive has a code word attached to it, as in a special compartment. and it is known by that code word. it's also essentially an informal way of saying material that has to be handled more than carefully than ordinary top secret. it has its own special category of holding and transmitting and so forth. >> this intelligence is allegedly about an isis plot. it involves laptops, involves planes. the russians, of course, are

supposed to be in the fight against isis with us. what are your concerns here? >> well, the russians are in the fight a little bit against isis. a tiny bit with us because they're mainly trying to preserve the position of syria, i think, and the syrian leadership and assad. and so we and they have some interests that coincide in this business in the mideast today, and a number of interests that do not. >> already there were questions, evelyn, of why the president had lavrov and the ambassador, kick l -- kislyak, in there, and this ambassador was linked to flynn, all things russia. how does something like this happen? you've been in the room where it happens. how does this happen? >> i mean, i think it happens, first of all, because the president made a bad decision to have this meeting. this is a country, let's not forget the fact that russia hasn't stopped meddling in our democracy. we had the elections.

they continue to be involved, in funding all kinds of networks and pushing propaganda through the internet to us. also, the germans are on tv almost every day complaining about interference in their upcoming elections. we know they interfered in the french elections. these are not our friends. in syria, they're on the side. the russians are on the side with syria, iran and the hezbollah. this information was allegedly gleaned from syria. the syria theater of operations, from the defense department perspective, okay? this is an area where we're not on the same side as russia. if we give this information, whatever it was the president said, was enough for the russians to try to track down how we got the information. that could lead to somebody dying potentially. i mean, it could be that bad. certainly, it would mean that the intelligence is cut off from that source, but many other sources. >> so let me ask you then, if obviously, this story is completely true and the people who were in the room rushed out to inform other people, this is what has just happened --

>> right. >> -- what would you have done in that situation if you're standing there and the president of the united states is giving away information that you know to be classified? is there really anything in that situation you can do about it? >> i think if you have courage, yes. everyone in that room took an oath to the constitution, not to the president. the president also took an oath to the constitution. so everyone in that room would have been within their rights and actually it would have been the right thing to do, to say, oh, mr. president, let's not forget also this, and distract him. find some way to get off the topic. he gave enough information that he must have been speaking for enough minutes. maybe somebody did try to do that. but you're giving foreign intelligence to a foreign adversa adversary. when i was in government, i relied on -- i know we relied on foreign governments to warn us of things. certainly about terrorism. not just terrorism, but anything another country might be doing vis-a-vis the united states, where it would harm our objectives. like moving troops or making a

political decision. we rely on our foreign friends and allies and partners to give us intelligence. if they turn off that intel j , intelligen intelligence, if they don't trust us, we're going partially blind. >> we're in a situation with the white house where there seems to be a critical situation one after another after another. when you talk to the folks on capitol hill, and i'm saying democrats as well as republicans, the one, for lack of a better phrase, bright spot that they would point to would be the national security team. there was a lot of confidence on the hill, a lot of confidence in many circles here in washington, d.c., that they would be able to steer this very important ship in a time of great uncertainty in the world. what do you make of what happened and the implications here? >> well, all i heard so far are denials and, more specifically, this sort of legalese answer, that classified information or the syntax of what was said matters. frankly, chris, it doesn't. whether classified information

or sourced and meth loods, the , what and how was disclosed to the russians is inconsequential. if you're isis, which the "washington post" said was the aim, if you're isis and heard now that there was a -- we had sources collecting on their plot to put bombs on laptops, you know the people that were involved in the operation. simply put, if we had an asset in place or a foreign intelligence agency had an asset collecting that, which is hard to get someone to infiltrate isis, they've rolled up the cell and most likely killed them. when you think of the ramification -- again, code word, as jim explained, when you think of the ramification it has to a collection agent, an operations officer, whether it be in our service or a foreign service, entrusting the united states with that information, they're now questioning it. that is unbelievably damaging, especially since we rely on these sources. these are the crown jewels of any intelligence service.

if there is an attack in the future, this is something they'll wonder about sharing information with us. >> we're hearing that from republicans on the republican side on capitol hill, the reaction has been bipartisan concern. i want to play a little bit of what some republicans have had to say about this. >> i think we could do with a little less drama from the white house on a lot of things. so we can focus on our agenda. >> obviously, they're, you know, downward spiral right now and have got to figure out a way to come to grips with all that's happening. >> when i look at mcmaster's quote, it is a technical quote. i think it is actually something different from a full rebuttal of the story. >> mr.woolse yy, what can be doe to fix this? >> it's hard to tell how much of this is press generated and generated by the story and how much of it is a substantive bad

judgment by the president. we can't really sort that out without having access to the information, and i hope none of us has access to the information. then the public would have it. that means, quite possibly, as was pointed out a minute ago, someone might die from disclosing sources and methods. so it is a dilemma. and it's a serious dilemma that's come to be so, in part, because of the very substantial amount of press attention that it is getting. >> and it comes after an election on which, in many ways, one of the key tenants of what donald trump ran on was keeping america safe, making america great again, and criticizing hillary clinton through the e-mail scandal. let me play, just to remind people what he had to say on the campaign trail. >> the secretary of state was

extremely careless and negligent in handling our classified secrets. she lied about passing on classified information, right? we can't have someone in the oval office who doesn't understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified. in my administration, i'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. >> when he says you can't have someone who doesn't understand the meaning of classified, i mean, you do wonder what they might be thinking at the kremlin today. >> you know, look, we know that, again, the semantics and the specifics aside, we know that president trump gave the russians intelligence. what we don't know is what we left with. did we leave with an agreement on isis with the rugssians? an agreement on assad? an agreement not to meddle in our elections going forward?

the answer is no. we gave them information and got nothing in return. to spin this is just the absolute worst thing that the white house can do. they messed up, and they need to own this. >> former cia director james woolsey, all of you, very much appreciated. we'll talk about the democrats reacting to the wild week at the white house. what they're saying this morning about president trump's meeting with russian officials and what they're demanding from the administration. i'll be talking with a congresswoman who is on a key committee committee. at any moment at the white house, we're expecting to hear from h.r. mcmaster and we'll have that for you live. i like that. [ music stops suddenly ] ah. when your pain reliever stops working, your whole day stops. awww. try this. for minor arthritis pain, only aleve can stop pain for up to 12 straight hours with just one pill.

thank you. ♪ come on everybody. you can't quit, neither should your pain reliever. stay all day strong with 12 hour aleve. i don't know why i didn't get screened a long time ago. i kept putting it off... what was i thinking? ok, mr. jones... we're all done. i told you it was easy. with life line screening, getting screened for unknown health conditions is so quick, painless and affordable, you'll wonder why you hadn't done it before. so if you're over age 50, call now and schedule an appointment near you. for just $149- a savings of over 50%- you'll receive a package of five screenings that go beyond your doctor's annual check-up. ultrasound technology looks inside your arteries for plaque that builds up as you age and increases your risk of stroke and heart disease. after all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke. so call today and start with a free health assessment

to understand your best plan of action. so why didn't we do this earlier? life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more. have you any wool?eep, no sir, no sir, some nincompoop stole all my wool sweaters, smart tv and gaming system. luckily, the geico insurance agency recently helped baa baa with renters insurance. everything stolen was replaced. and the hooligan who lives down the lane was caught selling the stolen goods online. visit geico.com and see how easy it is to switch and save on renters insurance.

breaking news from the white house. any moment now, hr mcmaster will hold a press briefing, expected to respond to the report on president trump's possibly classified revelations to the russians. of course, we will have that for you live. right now, there is real concern about the real world implications of the report. it's shaken a city already on edge by the unpredictable nature of the white house. >> the handling of classified information is a critical thing, is and so -- but, again, i don't want to rely on a press article. i'm not disputing it or admitting it. i need to know more. we'll speak to the white house today and go from there. >> the president has got to

change his behavior so that he becomes disciplined. >> we have the saying in the navy, loose lips sink ships. >> congresswoman from washington state, serving on the judiciary committee. good morning. >> good morning. >> what was your gut reaction when you first heard this news? >> well, i think, like so many people, i felt like this is dangerous and reckless behavior on the part of this president. it endangers our national security. it is of deep, serious concern for every single american because we need a president who actually understand s the consequences of sharing information, classified information. a president who understands what this will do to our relationships with allies, who are critical in our fight for national security. i think it's an extremely disturbing development, and i think all of washington is, as you said, on edge about what this means for our future and

for our national security. >> president trump, as you know, early this morning was defending his actions on twitter. he said he wanted to share facts about terrorism and airline safety with russia, which he said he has the absolute right to do. this information was obviously very sensitive. the u.s., according to the report, hadn't shared it with our allies. but is it the president's right to do that, number one, and number two, should perhaps a lot of members of congress do what marco rubio suggested, not jump to conclusions, find out more, get briefed on it at the appropriate time and place? >> first of all, i think the fact that the president took to twitter to defend these actions is a problem in and of itself. i mean, this is a president who should understand the nature of classified information and all of the things that accrue to dispersing that kind of classified information. he should know that or he should get briefed on it if he doesn't know it. that, to me, is a massive

problem. number two, we have been calling for an independent investigation into the ties between the trump administration and russia. the russian government's influence on our democracy. these actions, you know, starting with everything that happened before the firing of james comey to the firing of james comey, right as he was about to ask for more resources for that investigation, to now the sharing of classified information with russia, really making every -- should make every american think about what is it that russia has over this president, that he is so afraid to actually conclude an independent investigation? that is what we're looking for now. a bipartisan commission that will really take on this issue and set it to rest. if the president has nothing to worry about the, he should welcome that investigation. the fact that he is running in the opposite direction and doing things that really endanger the trust of the american people with our government, i think, should be a bipartisan concern. i hope that republicans continue

to step up and say, yes, we're going to push for that bipartisan nvestigation, so we can get to the bottom of this. >> you are in the minority, that you've been making this call. you and other democrats have been making this call for an independent investigation into russian meddling for, what, months now. does this feel different to you? i ask that acknowledging a lot of people are still making their way back to washington this morning. >> it does feel different. and i think that, you know, one of the challenges has been there have been so many breaches of conduct, i would say, and judgment from the very beginning. so it becomes difficult to continue to show the escalation that we have seen in this administration. but i think the firing of the fbi director, you know, somebody who has a ten-year term, specifically because we don't want to impede investigations into the president of the united states and the sort of -- the

way it takes us back to some history in this country, i think shows us we're getting to a different point now. it does take time for the american people to understand exactly what's going on. our job in the minority but also in the majority is to protect our democracy. i really hope that these latest events from the firing of james comey to now the sharing of classified information, that shows a tremendous lack of judgment and understanding on the part of this president about what national security is really about, i hope that causes more republicans to really step up and do what's right for the country and not play politics with this. >> one of your democratic colleagues was on "morning joe" this morning talking about what should happen next. let me play for you what he said. >> what we want now is for the people who were in that room to come to congress and tell us just exactly what was exchanged with the russians. what programs that the u.s. have

right now are affected and compromised. and what we're going to do to protect intelligence officers and american troops who are in the tbattlefield and could be affected by this. >> as we sit here, or as you stand there, congresswoman, how confident are you that those of you who are in the halls of power, in congress, will get to the bottom of this? >> we have to get to the bottom of it. our country depends on it. our democracy depends on it. >> that's a big statement. i want to interrupt you, to say our democracy and country depends on it? that's a pretty powerful statement, congresswoman. >> it is. and i think it is really true. i think that's why you see the attention to this. if we do not understand what the connections are between a foreign government, russia, and the united states, if we are not confident that the president of the united states and this administration is protecting ultimately the interests of the american people, that is our democracy at stake.

it is a big issue. i think it is important that the media and the american people understand how big of an issue it is and the representative is right. this has implications for national security, not only on the large, global level, but in terms of what it means for our troops, our strategy going forward. i mean, this is -- this is not just -- this is not just a made up thing. this is something that has had time after time roadblocks thrown into place by the very person who should be stepping up to lead an investigation. >> congresswoman, we thank you so much for your time this morning. much appreciated. >> thank you so much. as we're waiting for national security adviser h.r. mcmaster to brief the press, this could start any moment now, i want to go back to our nbc news white house correspondent, kristen welker, who moved from the north lawn to inside the briefing room. set the stage for us.

what is the mood there? what are we expecting from the national security adviser? >> chris, this is a white house that is in full damage control mode. i was here late into the night as we were discussing earlier. i can tell you top officials here in the white house were meeting late into the night, trying to determine what their next steps would be. and now, the national security adviser, h.r. mcmaster, has become really the front person in terms of dealing with this crisis. so we expect we're going to hear from him momentarilmomentarily. he will likely reiterate the comments we heard from him last night, in which he said the president didn't compromise sources or methods during that meeting with the russians last week. but, of course, the key question remains, did the president leak classified information? what we have heard from h.r. mcmaster hasn't yet directly disputed anything that was in that original "washington post" report. they are concerned here at the white house about the reaction that they're hearing from capitol hill. the fact that you have a number

of republicans, senator bob c b corker, for example, saying this ultimately represents a downward spiral for this administration. and they're concerned about that backlash. i have been told that officials here are going to be reaching out to top officials on capitol hill to try to answer some of those very difficult questions that they're facing right now. to try to put some of that criticism they're getting, particularly from members of their own party, to rest. chris, really what is at stake here, the republican agenda. in talking to people here within the administration and on capitol hill, they say they want to be working on things like health care, tax reform. remember, that's how we started the conversation last week. the new push within the senate to try to get a bill on health care reform. now, that has been really overtaken by this crisis, the controversy over the firing of former fbi director james comey. republicans really feel frustrated that their agenda has been stalled payoff these various crises that are coming out of the white house. h.r. mcmaster, the national

security adviser will be answering questions about all of that when he comes to the podium in a few minutes from now, chris. >> i know you'll be standing by for us and asking the tough questions. i want to bring in andrea mitchell. andrea, we've been talking a lot about the potential impact here politically, the steps forward, but what you hearing from your diplomatic sources about reaction to everything that's transpired in the last 12 or 18 hours or so. >> there's a lot of reaction but it is all quiet because no one wants to say publicly what people are thinking. that if they cannot trust the president of the united states with classified information, and everyone is accepting that at face value, that even if what general mcmaster has said and also the secretary of state, rex tillerson as said, that sources and methods were not involved, there is no question, even from the president's own tweet today, that classified information was involved. that is a contradiction. that potentially does hurt the credibility of the national security adviser, who until now had been the most credible person in the white house.

outside of possibly a couple of the other foreign policy advisers. he is the person that has the most credibility, as the most grown-up person. his first name is general. that's his title. and still is active duty. all of this is extremely troubling to allies and certainly reassuring to adversaries. the russians are the only foreign power that have spoken out. vladimir putin's spokesman today saying of course this didn't happen. he's validated by moscow but not anyone else. publicly, they're simply not commenting. >> in the meantime, one of the problems for the white house, andrea, is the reaction from some of the republicans. people like bob corker and mitch mcconnell. >> absolutely. >> you were in touch with mcconnell? >> mitch mcconnell, for one thing, has been completely focused on trying to get things back on to the domestic agenda, where they think they have

leverage on health care and potentially tax cut cuts, whichy call tax reform. all of this obscured by the controversies. mitch mcconnell said they have to get away from the distractions. even criticizing the white house for not being well organize and had having these issues. the other thing is time loss, opportunities lost. these two weeks were supposed to be spent preparing for the foreign trip for the president. saudi arabia, visiting the pope, nato and a g 7 meeting. there are a lot of missteps potentially there for any president, envelo president. even experienced presidents get into difficulties overseas. for this president who hasn't done this thing before, it's been well planned by his team, but they were planning to have, as you saw, henry kissinger came

in last week, almost a graduate senator for him in the two weeks. instead, they've been dominated by the firing of comey. all of this self-up flikself-in. you heard the rumblings of turnover in the white house and changes. potentially down the road. there is no way that this communications team or even the chief of staff can explain what the president has been up to. >> andrea, aino you'i know you' by. andrea will be anchoring the next hour of this as we wait for h.r. mcmaster. my apologies in advance, i might have to interrupt you. i want to bring in another distinguished panel we have, as we have so many questions here. hagar, the former spokesperson for the u.s. mission to the united nations. kelly, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for asian pacific affairs. joshua walker, expert on turkey,

who served in the state department under secretaries kerry and clinton. also returning is evelyn, the former assistant secretary of defense for russia, ukraine and eurasia. since we have this meeting with turkey coming up, joshua, let me start with you. and the key question here, it seems to me, is does this, what's happening now, the questions being raised, and you have h.r. mcmaster coming out to the briefing room, overshadow and complicate everything that's happening? >> i do think this makes a big difference. he is about to go from this press conference directly into a meeting at 12:30 with the president of turkey. there is so much at stake between the u.s. and turkey. because of the domestic politics in washington, the meeting might be overshadowed. what the president and erdogan do will have implications for the refugees. >> what's your question for mcmaster as he comes out here? >> if i'm an al lie, the largest

and most important nato ally, and you told me the president didn't compromise factual information but shared information he didn't share with his allies, how can we trust you? how can we trust you? how can we rebuild this relationship? we're already on a rocky place. >> hagar, tell me how you think this is going to play out as the president not only has this meeting later today but he's heading to his first major foreign trip. >> turkey has always been a complicated relationship for the united states. regarding all of our efforts. in particular, syria or really anything in the middle east. turkey has always felt that it had a very large role to play and has always been obviously an ally of the united states. but i think, you know, they're coming to washington, hoping for improvement in the relationship with the trump administration. they're obviously angry about the administration arming the

kurds, as well as the previous administration. but i think that the current administration obviously has no plans to tell -- to appease turkey into a position where u.s. national security interests are at risk. and i think that that will be the point of discussion on president trump's trips. >> people may not all understand, kelly, how much goes into a trip like the president is supposed to embark on. it is not just preparations for the president. we have heard from this white house over the last couple of weeks they'll ramp down his schedule so he can have more time to prepare. but the people from the administration who are already there, who are already laying the groundwork, who are already having the conversations prior to these meetings, what does this mean for them, and what do they say? >> yeah. there's a lot of planning and preparation that goes into the presidential travel. it is like the super bowl.

hr mcmaster, instead of ensuring the president has a good trip and the outcomes are what the president desires is now focused on this turmoil. >> is there anything he can say -- any of you can jump in -- is there anything he can say to sort of turn this ship in a direction that calls a lot of people's fears, makes it easier for the president to go on this trip? >> i think this issue -- i mean, this whole turmoil raises three things for me. one, a question of the president's competence. it is a question of his judgment. and it is a question of his trustworthiness. it also is a question for the team around president trump. are they able to navigate him through this kind of national security space? if they can't, that's a real problem. so my question for h.r. mcmaster right now is how you going to get this back on the rails? >> evelyn, one of the things we learned from this reporting was that -- and we had seen some reporting on this before -- the staff, the national security staff, whenever the president met with a foreign leader, there have been a lot of those meetings in the oval office, they gave him a two to five page

briefing that says, here's what you need to know about the person you're meeting with, about the geopolitics of the region, what you should know. what's the important background. he apparently asked that to be distilled to less than one page. essentially bullet points. what do you think about that? >> first of all, i'm an intelligence officer or member of his staff, i think, he is not valuing what i can bring to the table. he's not bringing in new information. but the other problem, i think the bigger problem is we don't know what his foreign policy is vis-a-vis the middle east or turkey. what hr mcmaster can do is stand up there and tell us, what is our policy toward russia and syria? what are we going to do with turkey? there are a lot of demands that all these governments are making on us. we should have our own proactive agenda. i don't see us advancing it. we're stuck in the mud. we're stuck in the mire of this weird relationship with russia. >> what's -- and what is president's responsibility, for

example, when you look at the release that was put out by the white house when he had the meeting with the russians? it said nothing about him having brought up the possibility of meddling into the election, which every piece of our intelligence suggests actually happened. is he going to raise the tough questions with turkey? >> this is the million dollar question. all of us that served in government are terrified when our principle goes off of skr script. this president goes off script. we don't know about the president of turkey. he is a populist, nationalist. they might get along well in terms of the personal relationship but bigger issues are at stake. this is about two countries with national interests that are divergent. what the president said that sounds good or what he tweets is national policy overnight. what didn't happen in the oval office or happened with the pri foreign minister of russia -- remember, a year ago, the turks

shot down a plane. if they see domestic policy going to russia, they'll be scared and will act in a different way, given that turkey is critical in terms of western security in this region. >> do you think it is a fair concern for people to be worried that president trump is going to go into this meeting and not understand the turn that turkey and erdogan have taken? >> i think it is fair. if you take all the information, trying to distill what's happened in turkey over the last the, 13, 15 years, it is impossible. i could write a memo on what's happening the last five minutes. in the broader sense, president trump was the first western leader to congratulate erdogan on a victory that was narrow and has been called fraudulent by people inside and outside of turkey. that is troubling. if he decides to brush over traditional american values and focus on the strategic, that's fine but he needs to explain that. to evelyn's point, what is our policy on turkey? it is too important. we need to know what the policy looks like. >> so kelly, when you look at this in the big picture and you see that everything that is

royali inout there, what is the responsibility of a national security team? we talked about being in the room. would you interrupt, for example? that's passed. now looking forward and understanding that this is a national security team, and i said this before, that had bipartisan -- largely bipartisan support, one of the few things about this administration that had bipartisan support, you often heard democrats say publicly and privately, at least they're there. what is their responsibility now? >> the first responsibility of the national security adviser is to be an honest broker and to be somebody that can walk into the oval office and tell the president of the united states both good news and bad news. and tell the president when he has made a mistake. this whole thing pains me. i respect general mcmaster a great deal. i do have to question while general mcmaster even put the president in the position to have a meeting with the russian foreign minister the day after the firing of the fbi director. so there are basic questions i have about how -- >> that's not just a political decision. there's a diplomatic and larger

decision that was made there. >> correct. the russians had just meddled in the french elections not more than a week prior to that. i have real questions about the decisions being made in the national security apparatus. you have to have a national security team that is functioning, that is agile, that is lawful and plays close attention to how this kind of national security crisis unfolds. >> we are expecting any minute h.r. mcmaster to come in. if i can, can i go quickly to kristen welker? just give us a little idea of context again because the president is going on this major foreign trip. tell us about it. >> there's a big focus on foreign policy this week, chris. the president spoke with kingofn jordan earlier today. he's meeting with the president of turkey. at the end of this week, he goes on his first foreign policy trip. travels to saudi arabia, to israel and to italy, where he is expected to meet with the pope at the vatican. the focus, particularly in those early stops, the fight against

isis, trying to get back on a path of peace in the middle east and, of course, the questions will be for the united states allies in the region. does this revelation, this bombshell, threaten the president's relations with u.s. allies abroad? he will undoubtedly get tough questions with the meetings he is going to have with foreign leaders. ty icaltypically, chris, as you know, because you traveled with former president obama, presidents typically hold press availabilities when they are abroad. we anticipate we will get to ask him some questions during the foreign trip. and likely, a lot of them, particularly in the early part, will resolve around this latest controversy. we're waiting for h.r. mcmaster, national security adviser, to come to the podium to brief us on the latest developments here. i've been talking to senior administration officials throughout the night and early morn skpg they're not only concerned about the fallout with allies but with lawmakers on capitol hill, as well. obviously, there has been a

sharp backlash from democrats and some republicans. here is general h.r. mcmaster coming to the podium right now, chris. >> you see him there with sean spicer. let's listen in. >> -- prior to his arrival, as i promised, general mcmaster will give an update on the president's trip that starts this friday. i know there are additional questions regarding some news of the day. without further adio, general mississip mcmaster. >> good morning, everybody. we discussed the president's upcoming trip. i promised to go through the schedule in detail. i'm happy to do that today. sean tells me there is another topic you might want to talk about, as well. i'm happy to answer any questions about that after we go through the schedule here. first of all, just secretary tillerson will accompany the president for most of the trip, breaking off just before the g7 meeting. as you know, the trip will begin in saudi arabia. historic trip. after the arrival ceremony in

riyadh, the president will have coffee with the king. attend a royal banquet and hold bilateral meetings with the king, the crown prince and the deputy crown prince. he will also participate in a signing ceremony of several agreements that will further solidify u.s./saudi security and economic cooperation. that evening, the president and the first lady will join members of the saudi royal family for an official dinner. the next day, the president will hold bilateral meetings with gulf cooperation council leaders as well as broader meetings with all of the gulf state leaders. in the afternoon, he will meet and have lunch with leaders of more than 50 muslim countries where he will deliver an inspiring yet direct speech on the need to confront radical ideology and his hopes, the president's hopes, for a peaceful vision of islam to dominate across the world.

the speech is intended to unite the broader muslim world against common enemies of all civilization and to demonstrate america's commitment to our muslim partners. the president will then participate in the inauguration of a new center intended to fight radical terrorism and promote moderation. by establishing and operating this center, our muslim friends, including saudi arabia are taking a firm stand against extremism and those that use a perverted interpretation of religion to advance their political agendas. the president also looks forward to participating in a twitter forum with young people who can live tweet his remarks all over the world. he will continue on to jerusalem. the president will deliver remarks at the israel museum, and celebrate the unique history

of israel and of the jewish people while reaffirming america's unshakable bond with our closest ally in the middle east. later that day he will meet with prime minister netanyahu. that night the president and the first lady will join them for a private dinner. the following morning he will meet president abbas in bethlehem where he will convey the eagerness for an agreement to end the conflict and urge palestinian leaders to take steps to peace. he will visit a church and say a prayer at the western wall. in rome the next day, the president will have an audience with the pope at that vatican. he looks forward to celebrating the rich count contributions.

before leaving the vatican, the president will meet the cardinal secretary of state and will tour st. peter's. later that afternoon, the president will meet with the king and the prime minister of belgium and the heads of state, and government of the host country to the n.a.t.o. alliance. he will also meet president monterella. the next morning he will travel to the eu headquarters to meet with the presidents of the european council. he will hold a working lunch with the newly elected president of france. that afternoon the president will deliver remarks at the unveiling of the n.a.t.o. struggle, at the berlin wall,

and a segment of the world trade center. he will confirm his alliance and repeat that all members must share responsibility and share burden. joined by secretary mattis, he will participate in the meeting before then traveling to sicily. he will meet bilaterally with leaders including the italian prime minister. in the meetings, he will call for greater security cooperation. on the first night of the summit, he will attend a concert performed by the philharmonic orchestra followed by a leaders dinner hosted by italy. before leaving for home, the allied servicemen and women and their families. he will thank them for their sacrifices they make to keep us safe and cap the highlights and

accomplishments of the trip. >> sean, general mcmaster -- >> you came to the area yesterday and coming from the area, you said the washington post story that came out late yesterday afternoon was false. do you stick by that assertion? do you think that every element of that story is false and do you have anything to correct in terms of what he said at the podium yesterday afternoon. >> no, i stand by my statement, the premise of the article is false that in any way the president had an conversation that was inappropriate or that resulted in any kind of lapse in nati national security. first, our national security has been put at risk by those violating confidentiality and by those releasing information to the press that could be used and connected with other information available to make american

citizens and others more vulnerable. >> general, was classified information leaked? >> can you tell us if prime minister netanyahu will join president trump at the western wall and does he believe the western wall is part of his -- >> i don't know that leaders will join him, he is going mainly in connection with the theme to connect with three of the world's great religions and to pay homage at each of these sites, and to highlight the theme that we have to be united against the enemies of all civil sides people. >> i just want to get into some details of the reporting. are you denying that you

revealed information given to the u.s. by an intelligence partner? >> we don't discuss what is and what isn't classified, but in the context of that discussion, what the president discussed was wholly appropriate to that conversation and is consistent with the routine sharing of information between the president and any leaders with whom he is engaged. >> i'm not going to be the one to confirm that because that sort of information could jeopardize our security. >> are you concerned they will stop providing that information? >> no, that conversation was appropriate, and wholly i appropriate with what the expectations are of our intelligence partners. >> have you reached out to partners that might have reached out to the u.s. and talked about and tried to reassure --

>> i have not, and i'm not sure what conversations have been held about that. >> if there was nothing that the president shared that should not have shared, why did they contact them about what was said? >> i would say maybe from an over abundance of caution, but i'm not sure. i have not talked to him about that, about why he reached out. >> so what -- presumably you would understand why there was a need need to reach out. >> i was in the room, the deputy advisor for national security, dina was in the room, and none of us felt in any way that that conversation was inappropriate. >> general, when was the decision made to share that information with the russians? did the president, spontaneously on the spot decide?

or was there a formal decision making process? >> as you know, the president, it is appropriate for him to share any information that he feels is necessary to advance the security of the people. that is what he did, had it been shared previously, i'm not sure about that. >> when did he make the decision? >> he did in the context of the kpichgs which was holy appropriate. i think it is worth recapping one thing here. he was meeting about the terrorist threat. he also raised other issues. like you train and syria. he said we have common interests here. we have cooperation with transnational organizations,

isis in particular. this was the context in which it was wholly appropriate to share what the threat was as a basis for common action and coordination. and cooperation. >> in the moment then, in the context of that situation? >> i want to follow up on jennifer's question about the western wall being part of israel. >> that sounds like a policy decision and that is the president's intention, and i did answer the question in terms of what his intention is. the president's intention is to visit these religious sights to highlight the need for unity among three of the world's great religiouses. unity in embracing an agenda of

tolerance. >> how about the question that i had, please. did the president reveal a city? the spin was that he would reveal a city that gave away information that undermined an ally. >> okay, so -- all of you are familiar with the threat of isis. if you said where do you think a threat would come from, you could name a few cities i would think. it was nothing you would not know from open source reporting. >> sorry, back to my question, sir, was this information shared with the russians also shared