going to be asking for, so it's not built in the fy 18 budget, is that right? >> that's correct. >> it will be higher than 4 billion, right? >> i would love to do it for less, but i think that would be unrealistic. >> you don't have a ballpark, right? >> yes. >> is that going to hamper the appropriations if you want a three to six-month time frame to initiate what you're doing? >> we've already begun to engage starting today with the appropriations leadership in both the senate and the house. and i will tell you that this is something that congress has been asking for. i believe that they will support this. of course, this has to be a dialogue between us. they have to make sure that we're making the decision at the benefit of the taxpayers as well as veterans and active service members. but i do believe we will have the leadership and the partnership to get us there. >> and just to clarify, if this is an off-the-shelf system, this is not a low bid process. that's why you're going at this

speed, right? you're not putting this out to bid. you have selected the vendor. >> we have not agreed upon any pricing. but i can assure you that before we were to sign off on a contract, we are going to make sure that this is the best value for taxpayers. yes. >> you've had a couple questions around this. what type of fights do you anticipate in congress when by selecting this vendor, not having a competitive bid, there will be some pushback, right? >> well, this wouldn't be washington if there wasn't pushback, but i don't expect -- i do not expect any major fights on this. i think that the one thing that i feel extremely proud about about the way that congress has acted when it comes to veterans' issues is the bipartisan support when it's the right thing to do for this country's veterans. and i do expect that to essentially carry through on this. that does not mean that it is not appropriate to ask hard questions, to make sure that the due diligence is there, to make

sure, as we said, this is a risky process that we've thought about everything and that we've considered people who have different options. but in the end, i do believe this is something that we will see strong bipartisan support for. >> another version of one of my colleague's questions. ehr has been promised before. why is it going to happen -- it was promised during the previous administration. why is it going to happen now? you say bipartisan support. we haven't seen much of that in washington, so what makes you hopeful this time? >> i have not seen the department of veteran affairs come out with this type of decision before, so i think this is new. we now know what's in the best interest of veterans and we're moving ahead with an accelerated process so we can get this done. i do believe this is exactly what congress has asked us to do. i can count four times when they've asked d.o.d. and va to get in the same room, and i can count four times when d.o.d. and

va left doing separate things. this one will be different. the department of defense and the department of veteran affairs are together in lock step on this and the president is behind this. and we need congress to support it and i believe that support will be there. yes, all the way in the back. >> thank you. you mentioned how suicide prevention is one of your priorities. >> yes. >> are you really needing to seek out the d.o.d. and encourage the active duty officers to put on record about their mental problems and issues while they are still in active duty so it shows up after they leave the service? >> we are doing exactly that. we are in discussions with the department of defense. secretary mattis and i have talked about this. we know that what we're doing is not enough, and we have to look at exactly the issues that start in the department of defense and make sure that we're addressing them. the transition time and that gap

between when you leave active service to when you enter as a civilian and you get health care, we have to -- that's an area that we have to pay particular concern about. that's why this ehr is going to be helpful. but we have to look all the way back into the process just as you're suggesting. so we are doing that, yes. yes, sir. >> you mentioned seven blue ribbon commissions have recommended something along these lines. >> yes. >> what's been the opposition to the main reason it hasn't happened? >> i think one of the things that we're doing differently in this administration is that we're essentially eliminating some of the silos and turf battles. frankly, i think that if you put the veteran and the service member first, you would come to the conclusion that we've come to today. but nobody likes to give up power and control over their system. in the department of veteran affairs, we are very, very proud of our history of being the first major system to develop

electronic medical record. this was done over 30 years ago by brave clinicians who went on their own and developed this. so giving this up, i do not want to underestimate how difficult that will be for people in the department of veteran affairs. change is not easy, but when you've had that for 30 years, it's going to be really hard. so this is a major decision for the department of veteran affairs. and as i've said previously, i wish the department of defense had joined us years and years ago so that we could be working together. but that isn't the situation i face as secretary. they've moved forward and it's time we move forward and work on together. i'll take one more question. >> the office of acquisition is one of the groups you spoke with. can you speak about what kind of actions you had with them to develop this? >> when i became secretary and

the office was stood up, they indicated a strong interest in helping the department of veteran affairs, which i welcomed. and when we sat down and they said, talk about the pain points. what do you really need to do to make a quantum leap in where you are? i identified the electronic record. and what we talked about is best practices about how industries make quantum changes, how you go out and solicit information from leaders in the field to make sure that you get the right stakeholders and opinions, and so they were advisory in this process. this decision, though, was fully my decision to make, and there was no influence ever put on this, but they were very helpful in helping us keep and move the process along. and in facilitating discussions with the department of defense as well. thank you very much, everyone. appreciate it.

>> thank you very much, mr. secretary. as the vice president noted this morning, the american people elected a builder to be the 45th president of the united states, a builder who has a vision for modernizing the entire federal government. secretary shulkin just spoke about how that vision is being carried out in the va and this morning the president launched a great new era in american aviation starting with the modernization of our outdated air traffic control system. today everything from the cars on the road to the cell phones in our pockets use gps technology. but washington has been unable to upgrade the air traffic control system from ground base radio and radar systems despite 14 years of attempts by the faa. this delay has left us stuck with a system that just can't keep up with an industry that has grown exponentially since it was designed. our current air traffic control system costs our economy as much as $25 billion a year in delays, inefficiency and unreliability. this is a problem that nearly

everyone agrees needs to be solved. joining the president today were representatives from the air traffic controllers union, passive advocates, leaders in the airline and every krerksceo leaders of the faa. those are groups who typically don't agree on everything. it was still stuck in the washington political machine. the president is continuing to work with congress on getting these principles turned into legislation and getting that legislation to the president's desk. to accompany the president's announcement, the department of transportation today launched a new microsite. that's smarterskies.gov which will continually be updated with fact sheets, q and a and other reform. it's only one of the action items on the president's agenda. the health care team is engaging with congress daily on the american health care act which we hope to see the senate take

up soon. new stories of skyrocketing premiums and fleeing providers are coming almost every day. just last friday blue cross and blue shield in nebraska announced they are cancelling their obamacare catastrophic and bronze plans, which were the only remaining plans they currently sell on the exchange. that leaves entirety state with only one choice for insurance on the exchanges, and that insurer raised rates by 51% last year and is threatening to pull out of iowa completely. with our health care system breaking down around us, this administration is committed to finding a solution. this afternoon vice president mike pence, secretary of hhs schs services, dr. tom price, leader of the small business administration linda mcmann and medicare services sena verma are holding meetings with small business owners to talk about replacing the health plan with

something that pleases all americans. we will welcome people to the white house in talking about repealing and replacing obamacare and a tax reform that will relieve taxpayers. next week the president will go to ohio where he will talk about a wide range of rebuilding our country with a special focus on the 12,000-mile waterway system which bills $2 billion in congress annually and they can't perform the critical repairs they need. the president will present his solution to this sustainable problem in ohio on wednesday. and because i know all of you are very deeply concerned about the births of each of my children, i want to carry on with tradition and announce that my son george will be two on thursday, so happy early birthday to george. and with that i'll take your questions. john roberts.

>> sarah, as you know, also on wednesday as the president heads to ohio, james comey is scheduled to testify before the senate intelligence committee. there is question as to whether or not the white house will allow him to testify -- >> thursday. >> did i say wednesday? i'm still jet lagged. on thursday. >> if only i had that same flight and you were the one correcting us, huh? >> he's scheduled to testify on thursday. there is a question as to whether or not you will invoke executive privilege or if you will allow him to testify. then i have a second question. >> the president's power to exert executive privilege is very well established. however, in order to facilitate a swift and thorough examination of the facts sought by the intelligence committee, president trump will not assert executive privilege regarding james comey's scheduled testimony. >> i have a follow-up on that question. on the president's tweets regarding the travel ban, kelly

ann conley's husband pointed out such tweets are not helpful when it comes to soliciting the attorney general's ability to make an effective argument for the supreme court. is the president concerned he may be tainting the waters of the legal system by emitting such tweets? >> not at auchll. the president is very much focused on what that order spells out, and that's protecting national security, and he has all authority to do that through that executive order, and he maintains that and that position hasn't changed in the slightest. john? >> thank you, sarah. why isn't the president picking a fight with the mayor of london after their city was hit with a terrorist attack? >> i don't think the president is picking a fight with the london mayor at all. the president's point is something he said, frankly, back -- it's been almost two years now, a year and a half ago, when the president talked

about how we have to be more committed to national security. one of the reasons we have the travel ban here through that executive order and a focus on national security. that was the point he was trying to make. >> but the president is saying that the mayor said there is no reason to be alarmed by the terrorist attack. that is not what the mayor said. the mayor, in fact, said that the threat level remains severe, the chances of another attack are highly likely. he was saying don't be alarmed by the armed police presence on the street, and the president directly misrepresented what the mayor of london said. >> i don't think that's actually true. i think the media wants to spin it that way, but i think the president -- >> the mayor was saying there was no reason to be alarmed by attack on the city? you think that's what he was saying? >> there is reason to be alarmed. we have constant attacks going on not just there but across the globe, and we have to start putting national security and global security at an all-time high. president trump has been very clear that's his priority and he's not backing away from that.

steve? >> sarah, what was the president's reaction to the move by several middle eastern allies to sever ties? >> the president is continuing to have conversations with all those people involved, with all those countries. we want to deescalate that and we're continuing to work with each of these partners. >> did the president get any word this was going to happen when he was in saudi arabia a couple weeks ago? >> i'm not aware of that, but the state department would probably be best suited to answer that question. jim? >> you just mentioned the word "the president said earlier today i am calling it what it is, a travel ban. when he was trying to qualify an executive order on extreme vetting and travel restrictions, the president was adamant these are travel restrictions, not a travel ban.

sean spicer from that podium said it was not a travel ban. is it a travel ban? >> look, i don't think the president cares what you call it, whether you call it a ban, whether you call it a restriction. he cares that we call it national security and that we take steps to protect the people of this country. it's real simple. everybody wants to get into the labels and the semantics of it, but the bottom line is he's trying to protect the citizens of this country. the danger is extremely clear. the law is very clear. and a need for this executive order is very clear and the president's priority in protecting the people is very clear. >> let me ask you a follow-up on what john was asking about with respect to the mayor of london. there are going to be folks who are going to ask the question, was the president attacking the mayor of london because he's muslim? >> not at all. and i think to suggest something like that is utterly ridiculous. matthew? >> given the subject of twitter -- >> i'm sorry, i said matthew. >> given the subject of twitter

and the president's communication strategy, can you tell us whether his tweets are being vetd byted by a lawyer or other aide, and if so, when did that start? >> not that i'm aware of, but i think it gives the president the ability to speak directly to the people without the media filtering those communications. at this point he's had a million-plus contacts through social media and all those platforms. i think it's an important tool for him to be able to utilize. matthew? >> i have a question about the executive order comments the president made this morning. he said that he wishes his justice department had stopped with the original executive order. doj, of course, is part of the executive branch. if he wanted to stick with the original order, why didn't he order the department of justice to stick with that? why did he even sign withe revid one if he wanted to stick to the original? >> they were trying to meet the demands of the ninth circuit.

the president has been very clear he wants to go as far and as strong as possible under the constitution to protect the people of this country. that's what he felt the first executive order did. the second one was another version of that. but look, let's be really clear about what this is. these are six countries that were identified not just by this administration but by the obama administration and by congress that are dangerous, they're unstable, they're volatile, and frankly, they're not capable or willing to even vet people coming in or out. that's what this is about. somebody wants to make it something different than a national security issue, and that's exactly what it is and that's why the president is so focused on pushing it forward in the strongest form possible. >> it is important as national security and if he believed the first one was safer and constitutional, why did he sign the second one if he's coming out today and saying, we shouldn't have done the second one. >> he's looking to meet the demands laid out by the ninth circuit and looking at the best

way to move that process forward. >> as it is currently written, does the president support his own travel ban as it is currently written? >> absolutely. again, he supports steps moving in the direction of all levels and forms possible. he wants the strongest executive order out there and he wanted to move as quickly as possible and that was the reason for that purpose. >> two questions, then. the original intent of the travel ban was to provide a temporary pause in order to review immigration policies and procedures of those coming into the united states. that was january 21,22. it's been nearly five months since then. what process has the administration made in looking and doing something like that since then? >> extreme vetting is taking place and that was importantly laid out in the memo. >> specifically, though, what is the administration working on when it comes to extreme vetting? >> look, i think if you want to get down into the details, i

would refer you to the department of justice on some of those points. but one of the things i can tell you is that there are over 300 people that are under investigation that are part of this process, under investigation for terrorist-related activity in our system, and that's a large part of the vetting process that the president has stepped up. >> you mentioned the president's tweets are -- >> four questions. >> essentially a way to get around the filter of the biassed media that he sees it as an important way to get his message out. it was said before that the media was obsessed with his tweets and they don't matter. which is it, do his tweets matter or is it a way to get his feelings out? >> i think that he matter in the sense that it gives haim a communication tool. that isn't media bias, but again, i do think the media obsesses over every media.

if someone from our administration had done the same, all hell would have broken loose and it would have been like it was total chaos and conundrum here at the white house. i think it's just the obsession over every detail of the president's tweets. >> do you disagree with the president's statements? >> that come direct from his twitter account? no. >> has he asked the doj for an expedited process? >> he has, i can say that. >> secondly, can you say why we don't have a u.s. ambassador yet? >> i'm not aware of that and i'll have to get back to you on that. major? >> following up on that last question. in addition to seeking the expedited process, the president said so we can seek a much tougher version.

is a third version of the travel ban in the works? >> not that i'm aware of, but i know that, again -- >> what did you take from that presidential statement? >> that the president is going to continue taking aggressive steps every single day to protect the people in this country. >> has he asked to contemplate a tougher version? >> i think he's asked the entire administration for ways we can defeat isis and protect the american people, and if that's part of the process, it could be, but i don't know specifically if that's part of it. >> sarah, from your vantage point, based on the questions jonathan and jim asked, what is the origin of this confusion or misunderstanding of what the president said about the mayor of london? is it the mayor of london's fault? >> i'm sorry, i'm not following what you're asking. >> the mayor of london and many there feel that the president not only took the comments the mayor of london made out of context but compounded an emotionally difficult experience for londoners. who is to blame for that? are they misinterpreting the president or is the president

making a mistake? >> the president has been extremely clear that we stand in complete solidarity with the united kingdom in protecting that relationship and that partnership. we're fully committed to doing f everything we can to help him in this process. >> how is the president not contradicting this administration when he tweets out "travel ban" in caps when you're talking about extreme vetting. how does he not contradict himself when he's trying to get this thing to go through the supreme court? >> again, i don't know how many times i have to answer this question today, but i'll try to do it one more time. >> i'm not getting it. >> i think the president is not concerned what you call it. he's concerned with national security and protecting people in this country. whether you call it a travel ban -- >> in court he goes from one extreme to the next and goes back to the first --

>> he's being politically correct. he's concerned with protecting the american people. that's the bottom line here. you know, he's going to take whatever step he can to move that agenda forward. >> but does he believe this could be a loss for him in this administration with this extreme vetting or travel ban, going from travel ban to extreme vetting back to travel ban on twitter in all caps? >> i don't think any steps he takes toward moving the ball forward in protecting the american people and implementing the executive order is ever going to be a mistake. >> last question, where is sean? >> i'm sorry? >> where is sean? >> he's here today. >> why didn't he come out? >> this is part of my job as well. did you guys ever ask any of the other deputy press secretaries when they were here? >> is he in a new position now? >> he is taking on a little bit of extra duty at this point, so i think it's -- >> is it a position change, then? >> it's probably upgraded that the point give wen don't have a communications director.

there are a lot of demands on his schedule particularly given the fact there is not a communications director. this is part of my job as well and when needed i will step in. >> one of the major things from washington suggest that, in fact, in brussels the president was given a draft of his speech to the nato partners suggesting that eldhe would invoke or at lt respect the article 5 commitments. the senior official told us flatly that the president himself did not take the article of that reference out of the speech. sarah, who did? >> i'm not aware of that and i would have to check back and let you know. thanks, guys. >> you can stay longer. >> that was deputy press secretary sarah huckabee sanders holding the white house press briefing today. it started out with va secretary david shulkin talking about updating records for the va and

then it moved on to the question and answer session. and most of those questions centered around the president's own tweets, the tweets he sent out right after the london terror attack, the tweets he sent out fighting with the london mayor and taking him out of context. specifically when it comes, though, to whether or not this is a travel pause, as the administration had wanted to put it, that extraordinary, or whether or not it is a travel ban. we got that answer pretty definitively today when donald trump himself, on his twitter, called it a ban. that's what he would like to call it. we've got a number of reporters and analysts here to talk about this. we're going to go to the white house press briefing as soon as we have a reporter up. but when we're talking specifically about whether or not donald trump wants to call this a ban, this morning on the "today" show, one of his senior advise advisers, kelly anne conway, said we, the public, shouldn't

take his twitters so seriously. take a listen. >> the obsession with covering everything he says on twitter and not what he does as president -- >> that's his preferred method of communication with the american people. >> that's not true. >> sarah huckabee sanders, right there in her briefing, you heard it, said it is his preferred way of communicating with the public because he's able to get around what he calls media bias. hallie jackson was in that briefing room, you saw her ask questions of sarah huckabee sanders. hallie, we're focusing on this ban and whether the president is contradicting his own administration, and whether or not his own tweets are going to hamper the argument this administration is going to be putting forward to the supreme court. >> reporter: so, katy, and let me just kind of run through the highlights here, because i think when you speak with legal authorities, they have one perspective, including, as was brought up here in this briefing, the husband of

kellyanne conway, a noted attorney, conservative lawyer, who said essentially that, yes, that would undercut the argument the administration is making. the white house doesn't see it that way. you heard huckabee sand erers, was briefing today in lieu of sean spicer, said that the president wanted to focus on, bottom line, national security. we have seen in court decisions before, in the lower courts, the citation of the president's own words when it comes to the arguments being made about the what is now obviously being called the travel ban, in addition to the comments and the words said by the white house's aides and the president's advisers during the campaign as well, katy. so it is certainly notable the travel ban discussion that was had today. that said, the white house says the president, despite calling it a watered down politically correct version of what he originally wanted to do, still stands by the travel ban as it is currently written, as it is making its way through the courts right now.

the other highlight, and i'm sure you touched on it because it was obviously the big news coming out of the briefing, is the fact the president is not going to invoke executive privilege when it comes to james comey's testimony later on in the week. that was a question that had been lingering for a while now. now we have a definitive response from the white house. it teed up thursday with all eyes on james comey, the fired ex-kpib dire ex-fbi director. >> the other big news out of that briefing was what exactly the president intended to do when he essentially picked a fight with the mayor of london on twitter. sarah huckabee sanders saying it's not a fight, it's all about national security. for that i want to our own lucy kavanof who is in london.

first give us a picture of what the president said and how he was taking the mayor out of context. >> reporter: hey there, katy. well, obviously there's been quite an outrageous response here to the president's tweets. he basically misinformed the public with some of his comments. the london mayor saying that he is incredibly busy being focused on the attack that took place here on saturday, in which seven people died. there were dozens of injuries. he said basically, and i will quote you, his focus has been on dealing with as a result's horrific attack. i simply haven't gotten the time to respond to the, quote, ill-informed tweets from the president of the united states. now, where i am standing right now is the scene of the vigil that took place in the last hour for those seven victims. we've also had some breaking news in the past hour. the london's met counterterrorism authorities releasing the names and photographs of two of the three attackers, one of them 27-year-old british citizen born

in pakistan, the other believed to be 30 years old. i believe my colleague will have more details for you shortly. but this, katy, is still an ongoing investigation. we have seen more raids, more detentions today. authorities basically trying to figure out who else may have known about this attack ahead of time, who may have helped those three attackers, and more importantly, were they, as isis claimed, a detachment of isis fighters or were they simply a local loose group of friends, perhaps neighbors, who had been radicalized here in the u.k. but we heard some very strong words of defiance from the london mayor saying he was sending a clear message to the, quote, evil and sick extremists who carried out this attack. you will not win. katy? >> lucy, thank you, and let's go to rohit from our sister station in the u.k. rohit, what are we learning about these attackers? >> reporter: well, katy, we learned in the last few hours, actually, that scotland yard

investigators have made a great deal of progress. they believe that they know who these three attackers are and they confirmed that they have now formally identified two of them. one is a 30-year-old who claims to be a moroccan libya man. the other is a 27-year-old. he was born in pakistan but who is a british citizen. this information came with an admission from scotland yard investigators, an admission that probably isn't going to go down very well in this city. that in 2015, an investigation was launched, a terrorism investigation was launched into one of these three attackers. subsequently there were phone calls that were made by concerned friends, members of the public who were concerned about this suspect. you can see him there on the left of the screen. they were concerned that he might be planning something. now, there was further investigation from scotland yard

investigators who concluded that he was not preparing an attack, but he was certainly, as they say, on the radar. and that's about -- that's why it creates a huge amount of concern here, and political concern, too. this is election week in the u.k., katy. >> thank you very much. let's turn now to our panel and, of course, the political news of the day and how the president of the united states is both reacting to these attacks using his twitter and also the news that he's not going to exert executive privilege. bill crystal, when you found out, when sarah huckabee sanders said definitively that they are not going to be invoking executive privilege, what do you make of that? is that an admission that they wouldn't be able to get executive privilege through, are they worried about what's going to be happening with his testimony? >> yeah, i never thought they would invoke it. no one i know who is a lawyer and has studied this thing think it could stand up. he's a private citizen now. if he comes on this show, he can

talk. if he wants to speak before congress, he can speak as long as he doesn't reveal classified information. the executive order is a fairly complicated doctrine but this would not be a good one for the president to argue. he's taking good advice from his lawyers. he's not fighting a foolish fight. take the last few days. no tweets from trump except a polite and appropriate expression of solidarity with the citizens of london and shock at tehe terror attack. trump would have announced this morning, the trump administration would have announced this morning, what seems to be some progress on the va. he's a va administrator, he's not a partisan. he says they're doing things better there in terms of the records. reasonable investigation into the air traffic control. it may be that we need to improve air traffic control and modernize it and maybe this is a good way to do it. and the terror attack is probably something that politically helps trump's

general attitude that we need to be tough around this. the manchester attacker came from libya. maybe one of these attackers came in from libya. maybe he's tnot a libya citizen. but if you step back and say, how have the last 72 hours affected the trump administration, you might say, you know, things seem to be coming together a little bit and world events are maybe vindicating the fact we need to be tougher on islamic extremism. the sprays islamic extremism or islamic terrorism is a phrase the president has used. it is a problem with the trump policies, obviously, but it is amazing how much his own words are getting in the way of his administration being able to get credit for anything. >> i think you're talking about what a traditional president would do, and we'll get to that with phil rucker because that was the start of a great article he wrote in the "washington

post" today. first i want to go to matt miller. matt, as former chief spokesman for the justice department, what do you expect that we're going to hear from james comey on thursday? >> i think there are three big questions, or three big areas of questions that he's going to be asked. one, how many conversations did he have with president trump about the russia investigation? two, what were the substance of those conversations? did, in fact, the president ask him to end the investigation into mike flynn. and three, who else did jim comey tell about his concerns? the first two questions will go to whether he committed obstruction of justice or an abuse of his power. they knew about it while they were constructing james comey's firing, and should comey explain that he aired those concerns to other people in the justice department? they make it very difficult for jeff sessions and for rohad to

leave their positions as well. the first one was poorly vetted, poorly written and it went down because of those problems and the things the president said in the campaign and continued to say. if the second one goes down, it's going to be not by any fault of the justice department but because the president has used language that the courts have found to show a discriminatory intent. so we're now going to kind of pull back and say it was the justice department's fault. what a boss to have if you're over the justice department. >> and that segues pretty nicely into phil rucker and the piece you did today about what kind of president donald trump is. i think it's pretty clear that he's never going to be the traditional president, that he's going to tweet what he thinks before he may really think about what he wants to say. we saw that over the weekend. but let's read a portion of your article. a traditional president would have reacted carefully to the london paris attack by instilling calm, being judicious

about facts, but president trump is no typical president. he reacted impulsively and capitalized on one of his polarizing policies and to advance a personal feud. you're talking about the travel ban. you're talking about his fighting with sadiq khan, the mayor of london, and you're talking about him tweeting out a reaction to the drug report without waiting for the national security advisers who have all the information before he is tweeting it out. instead linking to unverified reports that would be in his own self-interest to promote this travel ban. >> you're exactly right. president trump has no ability to really control his emotions and his impulses when he's dealing with a crisis like this. and he's creating many problems for himself and for his administration's agenda. and katy, you're no stranger to

this characteristic in donald trump. this is how he reacted to terrorist attacks throughout the campaign as a candidate. he would just sort of throw gasoline into the fire and try to get everybody's attention and capitalize on it as best he can to advance his own agenda and his own feuds, but that's not exactly traditional presidential behavior and it's not really serving his administration very well right now. >> susan, i want to get your take on the news we're getting from politico and how donald trump struck out article 5 language from his nato speech. but hold on a second because we have congressman jim heims from the intelligence committee. i know you only have a few minutes with us, but i do want to get your reaction to today's news, to the president tweeting out about this ban. >> you could spend hours and hours sort of getting into the carnival that is the communications out of the white house where the president said

one thing on twitter and someone says you shouldn't pay attention to what he says on twitter. the bottom line is that the fundamental premise that the spokeswoman just pointed out, that this president is hard-cored focused on american national security, that underlying premise is dead wrong. don't take it from me. the department of homeland security issued a report when the original travel ban came out which said the country of origin -- let me say it again -- country of origin is really not a good predictor of whether or not somebody is going to undertake an attack. though details are still sketchy, it appears at least one of the individuals in london was a british citizen, and this is consistent with the attacks that we've seen all over europe. so if the president were, in fact, serious about national security, and if we could keep our eye on the ball, we would know that we should continue -- by the way, our intelligence community which the president has been brutal on, would continue their work against terrorists and we would be on the way to creating stronger bridges with the british and nato and our allies against twi

fight on terrorism. a travel ban is not serious and a distraction from true national security. >> congressman, what do you know, if anything, about the extreme vetting that is going on? have you seen any changes in vetting? you're on the intel committee. >> well, you know, and this is obviously something that's more in the purview of the committee on homeland security. changing the way you sort of look at people at airports or examine documents, that's actually a fairly difficult thing to do. you've got thousands of border patrol agents and immigration agents out there. so i think what's happening, as with so much else with the trump administration, is that he is just using words in tweets that make him feel good. but again, you know, it's a little hard for me to know exactly what is being told to ice immigration officials and border control people. >> congressman, the main event is on thursday. that's when jim comey will be testifying. the white house says it will not stop him from doing that. what do you expect to hear from him? >> i was pleased that the white

house took that approach. i've been saying now for weeks that this could be over a lot more rapidly, and i think give everybody a lot more comfort if the white house would take the approach of saying, hey, we want this to be over, too. let's put the witnesses in front of the committees and the investigators, let's get to the truth and let's move on. that, i think, would be in everybody's interest. obviously the comey testimony, the big question around the comey testimony and one of your panelists, i think, put it exactly right, which is we really need to understand exactly what the president said to jim comey about the investigation. did he, in fact, pressure him as has been alleged to bring this investigation to an end? again, i don't want to speculate, but the underlying question here is, did the individual who was being investigated put pressure on the individual who was doing that investigation? if that was severe and detailed and explicit enough, some very real questions are raised, and i'm using language very deliberately here, some very

real questions are raised about the possibility that it might look like an attempt to obstruct the process of justice. >> congressman, house oversight chair jason chaffetz says it's going to be very difficult for james comey to prove there was any obstruction, because there was no indication that anything tangible actually happened from the administration trying to stop or impede this investigation. >> well, i think it's always unwise to speculate on what mayor may not come out or what may be seen wihen jim comey speaks. i've been in two hearings with jim comey back to march where he disclosed information and i've been pretty astounded by what jim comey said. i'm not sure i would go where jason said and say here's what's likely to occur with his testimony. hopefully he's willing to be very honest and open, and perhaps he even kept contemporaneous memorandum that memorialized those discussions. without prejudging what mayor

may not have happened, he's at the center of what may have slowed down this investigation. >> and the top democrat on the senate intel committee said so far they have not seen a smoking gun. have you seen a smoking gun in your investigation on the house? >> yeah, i've been more hesitant than senator werner was to characterize where this could go. again, i'm not sure it's helpful for us who are doing the investigation to start handicapping or speculating. i will say what i have been saying for many weeks, though, which is that even as somebody who has access to the inside formation, there are dozens and dozens of unanswered and serious questions, and that's why these investigations, including the fbi investigatio must proceed as rapidly and as objective and as non-partisan way as possible. >> congressman jim himes, we're getting you out in five minutes. thank you for jumping in.

susan, thank you for being so patient. i want to talk to you about the new reporting from politico about nato. let me read a quote from it. the president appears to have deleted it himself, talking about article 5. according to one version making the rounds inside the government, reflecting his personal skepticism about nato and insistence on lecturing nato allies about spending more on defense rather than offering reassurances of any sort. we're talking about the speech that he gave to nato allies last week. it was widely expected that he would reconfirm america's commitment to article 5, to the mutual defense of nato countries. he did not do that. his national security council had believed he was going to do it. it was in the speech that they saw, according to this politico article. but then somehow it was gone. susan, what do you make of that? >> well, you know, so what my reporting found was not only were they expecting it, but, in fact, the national security adviser to president trump, his

defense secretary and his secretary of state had all argued and successfully, they believed, to put in a version of the speech that would have him explicitly reaffirming this commitment. i was a maze to do find out from multiple different sources in various parts of the government not only did trump or someone else working with him take it out, he didn't even tell his entire top national security team before he gave this speech. and he just went ahead and shocked his own defense secretary, national security adviser and secretary of state by overruling them essentially in public. never even telling them before he made this big decision. >> is it fair to ask whether or not he trusts his own advisers? does he not trust them? >> well, you know, who is to say what's going on inside his head, but this obviously makes it a very difficult environment for his staff to operate in. they've been, after the fact, trying to give these very awkward and unconvincing

arguments that somehow the president supports the thing that they themselves know he doesn't support because, in fact, it wasn't in the speech that they had agreed to. so i think it's put his senior national security team in almost an unbearable position where they are essentially forced to defend something that they know not to be the case. it's undermined their credibility. as you've seen already, our nato allies in western europe have been openly criticizing and breaking with the president in a way that is extremely unusual in a 70-year history of this military alliance, and i think i was just stunned in doing this reporting to find out just how much -- it wasn't just that the president overruled his national security team, but, in fact, that he did so in the maximally embarrassing way. they didn't even know until he gave this speech. >> exactly, he didn't notify them. thank you for wonderful reporting. phil rucker, good reporting as

always, matt and susan, same to you guys. appreciate it. prime minister vladimir putin refuses to say they hacked the u.s. election. who can we trust? i'll go to ambassador michael mcfall. anyone can dream. making it a reality is the hard part. northrop grumman command and control systems always let you see the complete picture. and we're looking for a few dreamers to join us. lwho's the lucky lady? i'm going to the bank, to discuss a mortgage. ugh, see, you need a loan, you put on a suit, you go crawling to the bank. this is how i dress to get a mortgage. i just go to lendingtree. i calculate how much home i can afford.

i get multiple offers to compare side by side. and the best part is... the banks come crawling to me. everything you need to get a better mortgage. clothing optional. lendingtree, when banks compete, you win. okay! ...awkward. there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. now i can start relaxing even before the vacation begins. your vacation is very important. that's why booking.com makes finding the right hotel for the right price easy. visit booking.com now to find out why we're booking.yeah!

we're not professional athletes. but that doesn't mean we're giving up. i'm in this for me. for me. along with diet and exercise, farxiga helps lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. lowering a1c by up to 1.2 points. do not take if allergic to farxiga. if you experience symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking and seek medical help right away. do not take farxiga if you have severe kidney problems, are on dialysis, or have bladder cancer. tell your doctor right away if you have blood or red color in your urine or pain while you urinate. farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast infections in women and men, serious urinary tract infections, low blood sugar, and kidney problems. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have signs of ketoacidosis, which is serious and may lead to death. i'm in this for my family. i'm in this for me. ask your doctor about farxiga and learn how you can get it for free. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

you on a perfect car,rch then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates... maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. liberty mutual insurance.

redouane. all about the hack. megyn kelly grilled vladimir putin into what he knew about the election. she tried to get to the bottom of his relationship with president trump but putin's answers seem to directly contradict what donald trump himself said about their relationship to msnbc in 2013. here is what vladimir putin told megyn kelly, followed by what donald trump told us. >> translator: there was a time when he used to come to mosque but i never met with him. >> i do have a relationship. i can tell that you he is very interested in what we're doing here today. he is probably very interested in what you and i are saying today and i'm sure he'll be seeing it in some form. >> joining us now to take a closer look at megyn kelly's

interview. let's start with what he said, and specifically about going on the offensive. he was going on the offensive against u.s. allegations of russian meddling. >> translator: the united states, everywhere, all over the world, actively interfered in the electoral campaigns of other countries. put your finger anywhere on the map of the world and everywhere you will hear complaints that american officials are interfering in internal electoral processes. >> obviously he is going to deny it but explain to us how he operates. >> well, i thought that clip was very revealing. right before it, he said we had nothing to do with it. we didn't do anything. it was cia that actually disguised it. there he's doing the what aboutism. if you did it in this country

and that country, why can't we do it in other countries? and i took it as a bit of an omission. suddenly he was saying, you know, maybe we had something to do with it. >> megyn kelly said is it a justification and he said no, it's not a justification. when i was listening to him, i was struck by how much at times he sounded in some ways like our own president saying he didn't know about a meeting, he doesn't know about any meeting, then saying i'll not in charge of that and i wouldn't have heard about it. when you were listening to him talk about michael flynn, what did you make of the relationship that he tried to paint? this noncommittal interaction? >> generally, i share your vow that he said many, many times, i'm not aware of that. i didn't know about that. that can't be true. he has a really bad staff if

that's true. number two, there's no way that he would sit down at a gala event like that. he's the president of russia. just like our president, they don't just have random people sitting next to the president of russia. he was dressed in a tuxedo. he was an american. it is inconceivable to me that he didn't know who he was and they didn't have some conversation. maybe the substance was short and sweet but of course he knew that was general flynn. >> what about the meeting, he seemed not to know anything about those either. >> again, he was just denying everything, right? i want to be clear, maybe he didn't know the specifics. but i find it hard to believe. mr. gorkov is someone he knows well. i would suspect that if he had a meeting with the new president-elect's son-in-law, that would be something president putin would hear about. >> and megyn kelly asked, what

vladimir putin would tell americans who think this country is full of corruption, kills journalists -- excuse me, that his country kills journalists and is full of corruption. take a listen. >> translator: there's a theory that kennedy's assassination was arranged by the united states intelligence services. if this theory is correct is that it can't be ruled out, twhaen could be easier in this day and age than using all the technical means at the disposal of the intelligence services and using those means the organize attacks and then pointing the finger at russia? >> he is also talking about in addition to that quote about, how they're trying to move russia toward a democratic path. and he mention told at one point what happened with jfk in this country and pointed the finger at our intelligence service. our intelligence community for

assassinating jfk. is he just a master of obfuscation? is that what you would call it, ambassador? >> two things. number one, yes. he is a master of not telling the truth and leading into these conspiracy theories for some kind of instrumental purpose, but second, he does have a view of the cia, of having these extraordinary powers. i've listened to him speak with president obama about that. with secretary kerry. where he assigns agency to the cia that others of us don't. and i found it just shocking that he would on national television, american national television, blame the cia for the assassination of president kennedy. that was truly something i did not expect. >> ambassador michael mcfall, thank you. always appreciate your expertise. we'll be right back.

will your business be ready when growth presents itself? american express open cards can help you take on a new job, or fill a big order or expand your office and take on whatever comes next. find out how american express cards and services can help prepare you for growth at open.com. parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply.

that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long.

that will do it for me. a lot to do today, ali. >> a busy one. just in the last hour, developments in the investigation into that terror attack in london as police continue to make raids and arrests. for the first time, we're getting a look at two of the men behind the assault. police identified them and released these two photos a short time ago. plus a new chapter this afternoon in the one sided feud between london's