interested in this. let's sit down and let's pen something out and let's see how we can go forward. one last question, ma'am. >> can i get you to clarify your answer to julie's question about the budget? there is so much confusion about this. when you're saying the president is interested in outcomes, and you come from an academic environment, is the president saying that the department has looked at all additional problems before cutting grants, work support for young people, seniors, adults who have been displaced? are you saying you evaluated all those programs in recommending they be cut because they're not working, or because the president merely does not want to spend the money? >> as you pointed out, i come from an academic setting, so let me try to answer the question by analogy. it used to be that the question of whether a university is doing

well was a function of how much the university spends. and, you know, in florida, you're now seeing questions like, what is your graduation rate? how many students that are graduating are holding jobs? and so you're seeing a focus on outcome as opposed to spending. and the point that i was trying to make, and i'll reiterate, is that we tend, in washington, to simply say how much more money can we spend on something rather than let's think ougtside the bx and try to solve a problem. i think we owe it to the american taxpayer ultimately footing this bill to focus less on how much we spend and more on whether, in fact, the problems are being solved. so thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. i appreciate you coming by today. as we get back to what's going

on today, i wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the three service members that were killed this weekend in afghanistan. the incident is currently under investigation, but our thoughts and our prayers are with the families of these american heroes who lost their lives in this tragic event. as the secretary said, it's workforce week here at the white house, so that's going to be a major emphasis for the administration. we're also moving ahead on several other items on the president's domestic and foreign policy agenda. today the department of agriculture released guidance for american beef producers who are preparing to ship u.s. beef to chinese markets for the first time since 2003. as we announced last month as part of the u.s.-china 100-day action plan that followed up on the president's meeting with president xi, china greed to reopen this $2.5 billion market to american ranchers and cattle producers. before the market was closed,

the u.s. was china's largest supplier of beef, providing 70% of its imports. the actions by the u.s. department of agriculture today are an important first step in the process of reopening this lucrative market to american businesses. tomorrow the vice president will be speaking at the department of health and human services about the continuing death spiral of obamacare and why we need to keep our promise to the american people and repeal and replace it with a patient-centric alternative as soon as possible. this weekend the president was in wisconsin. the president will be there tomorrow where he met with everyday americans who lost their plans, their doctors and a lot of hope for this failing law. as the vice president said on friday, president trump will never stop fighting for those families who are facing impossible choices every day as their premiums and deductibles continue to skyrocket. he won't rest until he has fixed this. the president's tax reform team are also continuing to hold meetings and discussions at the principal level and staff level

as we work toward a consensus plan that will deliver middle class and tax implication for everyone. secretary mnuchin for the treasury and gary cohn continue to listen to members of congress from both sides of the aisle. and mr. cohn will lead meetings later this week. these meetings are productive and we believe tax reform is on track for the president to sign later this year. infrastructure, tax reform, repeal and replace of obamacare are key to reach the president's goal for a booming and vibrant economy and the administration will continue to work every day to turn the president's promises into policies. the fight of combatting drug and opioid crisis will meet here. the meeting will livestream on

line. he looks forward to discussing the ways to strengthen our ties between the united states and india and advance our priorities. fighting terrorism, promoting economic growth skpand reforms expanding growth in the pacific region. a partnership is worthy of india's 36 billion citizens. i want to wish herbert walker bush a happy 90th birthday. i hope he has a fantastic day in celebration. with that i'll take your questions. >> regarding your announcement of the president in his speech in new jersey said if he was elected he would be the best president ever in the white house. what steps will the president do to keep his promise to the american people? >> we read these out a few times

for the president and the prime minister had a number of positive phone conversations and expect to further that discussion when they meet in person on june 26. as i mentioned a moment ago, whether it's economic growth, reforms, fighting terrorism, expanding our cooperation as major defense partners, u.s.-india trade has grown twofold since 2006. the india economy is growing at over 70%. technologies, including natural gas, are helping to build prime minister vodi's vision and creating thousands of jobs in the process. i think you can expect the two of them to set forth a vision that will expand the u.s.-india partnership in a worthy and ambitious way for both countries' people. two questions on trade. number one, you talked about the beef arrangement. beginning today, can you flush out a little bit more about what -- i understood there would be an announcement from us of a.

>> the announcement is coming from the u.s. department of agriculture, and i think it's coming today. >> the next question is on steal and aluminum. the president said, and it was quoted in one of the reports, saying there is legislation being drafted on anti-dumping. the 232 process goes to congress, anyway. was he referring to additional legislation or the 232 review you had already initiated in support of secretary ross? >> secretary ross should have more on the 232 review later this week, i believe. when that comes out, there are certain recommendations that will be made to congress to address anti-dumping revisions in the steal, aluminum and other markets. when that comes out, i think there will be recommendations to congress to follow up on how to rectify some of the problems. >> a couple questions for you. first, does president trump have audio recordings of his conversations and meetings with former fbi director james comey?

>> the president made clear in the rows garden last week that he would have an announcement shortly. >> any time on when that would be? >> when the president is ready to make it. >> what role did the president play in the firing of james comey? >> i'm not going to discuss conversations between the president and the attorney general. >> when jeff sessions testifies tomorrow, do you believe he should invoke executive privilege of conversations between he and the president? >> i think it depends on the scope of the questions, and it would hard to get into a hypothetical at this point. it would be premature. >> in any way, did jeff sessions, folks at the doj ask for the white house's permission, in essence, for him to testify publicly tomorrow? >> i don't know the answer to that question. i know congress, generally speaking, sets the -- whether a hearing is open or closed based on the sensitivity of the subject. >> is the president, then, okay

with him testifying in the open setting tomorrow? >> i think he's going to testify. we're aware it have aof it and from there. john? >> the presidejeff sessions sai mistake to back out from the accord. what does the president think of him testifying in open session rather than a closed session? >> i think the president was clear last week in the rows garden that he believes the sooner we can get this addressed and dealt with, that there's been no collusion, that he wants this investigated as soon as possible and done with so he can continue with the business of the american people. >> if i can ask you about the other headline of the day, the state of north carolina filing a lawsuit against the president, seeking rulings on two points in

t the emollients clause in the lawsuit? what is the president's position on this. >> the president's actions does not violate the emollients clause and it is enumerated in the friday night filing. this lawsuit today is just another iteration of a case that was filed by that group crew filed, actually, by the same lawyers. so it's not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations behind the suit. the suit was filed by two democratic attorney jegenerals. the lawyers driving the suit have partisan ties. the suit challenges the sort of business transaction that everyone from penny pritzker, who served in the last administration, and others engaged in office, so i think we'll continue to move to dismiss this case in the normal course of business. >> thanks, sean. i just wanted -- two questions.

the first, while we have open this question of whether there were tapes, do the american people deserve to know whether comey was lying to the senate? why leave this question open? >> i think the president made it clear what his intention is on friday. >> it's an open question. >> i understand that, and he said he would answer that question in due time. >> but to follow up, speaking of lawsuits, for the ninth circuit, they just came out and upheld the block of the travel ban. any response to that? >> we're currently reviewing that opinion. i think we can all attest that these are very dangerous times and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the united states and committing acts of bloodshed and violence. we continue to be confident that the president's executive order to protect this country is fully lawful and ultimately will be upheld by the supreme court. >> sean, two questions for you, then. i want to follow up on the tapes issue. if the president does have

evidence that the fbi director lied under oath, what is he waiting for? >> i think the president made it very clear on friday that he would get back as soon as possible on this and his position on that conversation. >> so what is he waiting for? what's the delay? >> he's not waiting for anything. when he's ready to further discuss it, he will, but i think he laid out his position very clearly, very concisely on friday. >> the travel ban is my second question. you mentioned you just reacted to the 92nd ruling day. your statement is the president's tweets are official statements. given the travel ban is a priority for the president, how is it that the president is not putting his own agenda in danger when it comes to his twitter habits? >> bottom line, cases should be decided on the rule of law and on that, and when you look at what the law is in the u.s. code that allows the president to do whatever he has to, that's what we were deciding on, and frankly, i think any lawyer

worth their salt 100% agrees that the president is fully within his rights and his responsibilities to do what is right for the country. >> olivia. olivia. olivia. >> i just want to talk about the twitter issue. i'm sorry. but really -- >> olivia. >> sean, what is the president's reaction to the russian government's crackdown today? >> i just want to be clear we're talking about the same thing. i think the united states strongly condemns the detention of hundreds of peaceful protesters throughout russia that happened on june 12. detaining peaceful protesters, human rights and observers and journalists is an affront to core values. we'll call on the government of russia to remove all peaceful protesters. russia, like everywhere, deserves a government full of an open marketplace of ideas, transparent and counter

governance and the ability to exercise their rights without fear or retribution. >> the president mentioned a press conference in a couple weeks on the isis review. can you say where and when, and has he made a decision about changing the policy? >> when we have an update on your schedule, i'll let you know, but we don't have one at this time. >> you said the president wants to see this russia investigation and all the investigations wrapped up as soon as possible. he said on friday that he would be willing to testify under oath. can you say when he would be willing to do that? would he be willing to do that before congress goes into recess to get this done as soon as possible? >> i think he was actually specifically asked whether or not he would talk to director muleer and he made it very clear what his position was. john? >> sorry, i just want to be very clear about this. so he's not saying he would go before congress? >> i don't know, i've not had further discussion with that. i know exactly what he said on friday in the rows garduar rose is exactly what he said he

believes. >> two questions. does the president have a reaction to the vote in puerto rico yesterday, the non-binding measure calling for statehood as the first choice of the people for their future? >> this matter is something that is going to be determined now that the people have spoken in puerto rico. this is something that congress has to address so the process will have to work its way out through congress. >> my other question was there are widespread stories and speculation that when the president goes to miami this friday, he will undo the executive orders from the obama administration that ease relations with cuba. can you confirm whether he will undo all of them or some of them? >> good try. i will say that when we have an announcement on the president's schedule, we'll let you know. but just stay tuned. we have a very busy week, an ambitious agenda this week. george? >> following on some of the

stories over the weekend in england, when the president signs off on a foreign trip, how much does he factor in his personal popularity in that country? >> none. and so since you brought it up, just so we're clear on that, her majesty extended an invitation to the president. he's accepted that invitation and we look forward to scheduling that trip. but there is nothing that was scheduled, and we look forward to working on a mutually acceptable date with the united kingdom and looking forward to sharing that date with you all when we have it. thank you, have a great monday. take care. i'll see you in wisconsin. >> sean spicer ending the daily briefing today. he started out that briefing with alexander acosta, his new labor secretary. we're going to get a debrief of all of this with reporters at the white house as well as a number of analysts. after he went from alexander

acosta, he quickly went to the briefing, talking about the president's travel ban and the next main event. attorney general jeff sessions' much anticipated testimony in public before the senate intel committee. and that brings us to our word of the day. actually, it's two words once again: under oath. president trump says he's also willing to go on the record with his version of events involving james comey. but will his attorneys allow it? and the tale of the tapes. the president is given a deadline to turn over any recordings he has of his meetings with james comey, a move that could force trump to admit whether or not those tapes actually exist. again, we will debrief with our team of reporters and analysts. we want to begin, though, with peter alexander who is in that briefing room. peter, a number of topics, but let's start with the tapes. sean spicer says, once again, that there will be an announcement shortly about whether or not those tapes exist.

>> reporter: katy, i think you're exactly right. he has yet to communicate exactly why there is any delay in his identifying whether, in fact, there are any tapes that exist here. we heard from the president last week in the rose garden saying he would answer that question in the very near future. but today sean spicer deflected and dodged on multiple locations saying basically the president believes, he said the president has made it clear. one way or another he didn't make clear if there are tapes that exist here. what's striking to some of my colleagues in the briefing room is this question. if the president believes his fired fbi director lied under oath, why would he not be inclined to produce those tapes right away? that's a question still unanswered. >> last week he said he would be willing to testify under oath. have you gotten an indication from his private attorney or anyone in the white house that he's still willing to do that, that they're going to allow him to do that? >> we certainly haven't heard anything otherwise. his private attorney only made

that one comment after jim comey's remarks and testimony last week. obviously it's a question that a lot of legal scholars suggest is one that would not benefit this president. one republican described there is no reason to walk down what is a perjury trap, or all of a sudden he's testifying under oath and puts himself in a more challenging position going forward. but be clear, katy, today they're trying to focus on the agenda. last week it was infrastructure week. this week it's workforce development week. but with jeff sessions expected to testify tomorrow and so many questions still swirling his relationship with russians, still two meetings he didn't initially did i s initially disclose with ambassador kislyak, whatever the president may have done to dissuade them from doing that in

this case. >> we'll explore whether or not the president himself is going to be testifying. we know chuck shumer wouchumer e to see him testify. >> he invited him last week to testify, and i think this will ultimately result in that kind of testimony or a deposition taking place. >> we could see that publicly, or is that going to be behind closed doors? >> it's speculation and at this point we're so far from being able to answer that kind of a question, but i think there are democrats that would like to see it for sure. >> what precedent is there for the president testifying? >> katy, i would have to say, in my lifetime, there isn't, really. we dealt with bill clinton in the 1990s and the investigation that he, of course, had to offer his version of events there. but otherwise, can you recall a spectacle like this one? >> i don't know, but i think we have two gentlemen who might be able to recall a spectacle like that.

we have nick akckerman and paul butler here. nick, have you seen this happen before? >> it's never happened before. presidents have gone up to congress to speak to senators, to speak to the house, but to testify before a hearing, that's just never happened before. >> would there be something behind closed doors, some sort of deposition, as kacey was just alluding to? >> as long as it's not under oath. no attorney would let a president go in there and swear to the truth and then answer questions. >> why not? >> because they would be concerned about what he might say. >> he's president of the united states. they're concerned about him testifying under oath? >> who a former director of the fbi is called a liar, who is not fit to be in the same room with. you have to keep him out of this perjury trap which means don't let him say anything, putting

his hand on the bible, swearing to tell the truth. >> john harwood is with us as well. what do you think of this? >> it happened in 1974 after the resignation of president nixon, and he was called to congress to give testimony which was unsworn about his decision to pardon president nixon. there is a precedent for this. i don't know if president trump will avail himself of that opportunity. everyone has been trying to parse whether or not he meant what he said on friday, and sean spicer, as you just heard in that briefing, didn't shed any light, just said the president said exactly what he said, and we will see what happens after that. >> key word there, unsworn. kacie, back to you. tapes. there is a deadline now for the white house to say whether or not there are tapes. >> yeah, in theory. the white house has set how many of its own deadlines? these tapes have been demanded by both the senate and the house, intelligence committees.

we'll see if they follow through on threats for these subpoenas or not. >> and the other thing that's going to be happening tomorrow, peter just mentioned it a moment ago. jeff sessions testifying at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow. >> yep. >> this is going to be in an open session. an open jeff sessions is the joke people are saying on twitter. he's saying he volunteered to do so. he asked for that to happen. is that fair? >> look, originally he was going to go testify before this appropriations subcommittee in a very routine matter. all these cabinet secretaries have to go up and talk about the budgets for their agencies, and he said, look, this is all russia so i'm going to the intelligence committee instead on tuesday. i'm sending rob rosenstein to the other committee. then there was some concern about exactly how it would play out. it's a little bit twofold here. first, they want people to testify openly for -- either side has their own reasons for wanting that. democrats have a reason why they

would want that to be in the open. obviously this draws attention to the overall russia investigation. republicans might be more open to having it in the open because there is some cover for jeff sessions. there are several reasons why he might say, i can't answer these questions or i don't want to. for a lot of these senators, sometimes what's more valuable comes from behind closed doors because they're privy it more information. now there's flip side consternation from some democrats saying, hey, the nsa chief and the dni didn't testify behind doors the way those members wanted. they're worried sessions won't be held accountable to us and he can basically sit there and dodge all these questions on russia. >> and stonewall, potentially. sean spicer addressed this testimony a little bit a moment ago in that press briefing. let's take a listen. >> what does the president think about the fact that sessions will be testifying tomorrow, and according to the department of justice, wanted to testify in open session rather than closed

classified session? >> i think the president has been clear last week in the rose garden that he believes that the sooner we can get this addressed and dealt with, that there's been no collusion. he wants this to get investigated as soon as possible and be done with this so he can continue with the business of the american people. >> pete williams, our justice correspondent, is here. sean spicer would not say whether or not jeff sessions would try to invoke executive privilege. >> reporter: right, i guess that's the question about whether some of the things that were discussed with the president involve meetings. it's the president's decision to invoke executive privilege, not mr. sessions'. that's the president's privilege, so if he wants to, for example, in that oval office meeting where james comey says the president said, can you hold off on looking into michael jackson flin, if the white house decides to exert executive privilege there, i suppose mr. sessions would have a hard time talking about what he talked

about with the president. the question there was about. there are some areas he won't be able to talk about because he's recused from it. he'll be able to respond to some things comey said, such as the justice department pushed back on this idea when mr. comey said he didn't want to be left alone with the president that there was never a response from mr. sessions. justice says that's not the case. those are the things he'll be talking about. >> can he answer questions with regard to his meetings with the russian ambassador? during the campaign there is a lot of talk about a potential third meeting, there's been rumors that it could have been something that happened at the mayflower hotel in 2014 when there was a foreign policy speech given by donald trump when he was campaigning for president. could he be asked and would he have to answer a question about

how many times he met with the russian ambassador, if there is another bun. >> remember the news conference where he announced his recusal, he said he should have talked about some of the meetings with kislyak, the russian ambassador, that he just wasn't thinking about. but you're right, the justice department has repeatedly and strongly denied there was a third meeting. they may have been in the hotel at the same time but the justice department says they didn't meet. >> and pete, you're outside, which is unusual. usually we see you inside. you're outside the supreme court because the ninth circuit court of appeals has just handed down their decision to put a stay or maintain their block of the president's travel ban. >> right. well, lots of moving parts here. remember, two lawsuits to try to stop the travel ban from going into effect. one in virginia. we've gotten a decision from the

fourth circuit court of appeals. the stay the blood put in effect should remain. today be got the ninth circuit court of appeals, the appeals court today basically gsd the president exceeded the authority he has on the law rather than based on a claim it was unconstitutional and a form of discrimination. so now it's all waiting here before the supreme court. both challengers have filed their responses today which the court ordered last week after the government said, we want you to take our appeal from the two lower court rulings, and whoo you're thinking about whether to grant it, let us enforce the travel ban. what the government has said is make your decision quickly on

this day so we can start enforcing it, and try to say whether you're going to take this case and say so before the end of june so we'll know you're going to hear it later on this year. >> yeah, the end of june is the last -- that's before they go from break, right? we'll hear one way or the other. we should hear one way or the other. >> we may or may not. the government has asked them to, but they get to do whatever they want. >> pete, thank you. we have attorney general chen on the phone. tell us your thoughts. >> thank you, katy. we're very glad about the ninth circuit court ruling. the ruling today says president trump will have to get his ban ruled by the supreme court if he wants to get this executive order. i'll tell you the reason why. the decision that was made by the fourth circuit court of

appeals on the east coast, that caused a block of the travel ban that had been issued under the second executive order. our nooichinth circuit decision puts a block on the refugee ban, and it says it's doing so because it's violating the federal immigration laws that were put forward by congress. so in order to get this case resolved, the u.s. department of justice is not only going to have to get a ruling on the fourth circuit decision, they'll have to get a decision on the ninth circuit ruling as well. >> mr. spicer reacted to this a moment ago in the briefing room. let's take a listen. >> in my opinion, i think we can all attest that these are very dangerous times and be need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the united states and committing bloodshed and violencement we continue to be confident that the president's order to protect this country is

fully lawful and will ultimately be upheld by the supreme court. >> attorney general, do me a favor, react. do you believe your case is going to withstand when it goes up in front of this supreme court? >> and we feel cautiously optimistic, especially now that we've had a decision that's been made by not only the fourth circuit court of appeals or the ninth circuit court of appeals. you have two very different courts making a decision on this issue. and i think the other reaction i have to mr. spicer's comment is that we've never suggested that the president be exercising his powers to protect our national security. of course that's something the president should do. all we're asking is that when the president issues an executive order that he do so in a way that doesn't violate the constitution or violate our federal immigration laws in the same way that every previous president, whether it's president obama or president bush or the ones before him in

our lifetime that have all followed our immigration laws, and so that's been our complaint from the very beginning, and so far the courts are going along with our position. >> and one last thing. in your response, in hawaii's response, you cited the president's own tweets from the other day talking about -- or from a while ago and then from the other day, talking about how it was a terrible decision, the initial ban on the ban or stay on the ban, and how he thinks that they should have gone back to the first ban, not to mention seam's statement from the podium that the president's tweets are presidential statements. >> that's exactly what's happening with president trump -- what's happening is there were many comments made even by judges who were saying, look, we're not supposed to take any space by a candidate

seriously. i think we should take the candidates' statements seriously. now you have the president as the president, and sean spicer even confirmed that the president's tweets are official statements of the president. all of these indicate that he has a discriminatory intent -- or let me just downgrade from that. just to a reasonable observer looking at this travel ban, the logical conclusion is that this is meant to discriminate against a religion and discriminate against an entire class of people. >> hawaii attorney general doug chen, thank you so much for calling in. i appreciate it, sir. >> thanks, katy. >> nick. what's your reaction? >> my reaction is this is going to go to the supreme court and they're going to throw it out on one of two grounds. one, the administration initially said they needed 90 to 120 days to have this travel ban in place in order to put in

place this -- all of this extreme vetting. 120 days have passed. in a way this is moot. there has to be action on the supreme court, that decision that basically upheld the japanese interment. that is probably one of the three worst cases of all time, and i think history is sort of on the side of deciding a case that kind of does away with that and makes a very clear distinction that it is unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of religion and race. >> so we're not going to get an answer on whether the ban gets upheld or the ban gets struck down right now, but we do seem to have an answer on another piece of news we've been talking about, and that is in regard to the tapes. a little bit of breaking news. the secret service according to the wall street journal says they don't have any audio tapes.

eli sokols is at the white house right now of the wall street journal. eli, what do you know? >> we put a request back in may asking the secret service for any information they have that they could produce documenting whether or not they had recordings of any conversations that had taken place in the oval office under this administration. that question came back and they did not. they could not produce any evidence, so it just sort of tells us if there are recordings of conversations inside the white house, they were not done with the secret service's knowledge conducted by them. and if the president has conducted these recorded conversations on his own like he in sin wa insinuated in that one tweet with regard to jim comey, you would think he would have produced them. he is drawing out the public's speculation as to maybe there are tapes, maybe there are not. after comey's testimony last week, any logical person would

conclude that if there were tapes, at least tapes corroborating the president's version of events and underminiundermine ing comey's, they would have been released already. >> sean spicer was asked about that. does this preclude anyone else in the white house to have made tapes? you said the president himself could have theoretically hit record on his iphone. >> right, this is a president we know keeps his phone close at hand. it does not preclude any other recording devices, however crude and sort of under the radar there may be as far as the intelligence community's knowledge of them, but the secret service has no recordings of this white house. >> paul, does it matter one way or the other if the president himself is tweeting -- not tweeting, recording -- or some sort of official recording system. >> what matters is now score 1 in comey versus trump for comey. what the president is saying is

i'm telling the truth and comey is a liar. these tapes were supposed to corroborate trump's story. they obviously don't exist. you have to ask, why is h he bluffing? my money is on the former director of the fbi. >> lordy, hope there are tapes, is what james comey said. i wish there were tapes. >> i wouldn't listen. >> kacie, we know you would listen. great to see you in person, my friend. paul butler, nick ackerman, eli sokols as well. meanwhile, president trump continues to trolley the fbi director. the president's lawyers want action but do they have a legal leg to stand on? last year, he said he was going to dig a hole to china. at&t is working with farmers to improve irrigation techniques.

remote moisture sensors use a reliable network to tell them when and where to water. so that farmers like ray can compete in big ways. china. oh ... he got there. that's the power of and. whuuuuuat?rtgage offer from the bank today. you never just get one offer. go to lendingtree.com and shop multiple loan offers for free! free? yeah. could save thousands.

you should probably buy me dinner. pappa's eatin' steak tonight. no. at lendingtree, shop and compare loan offers from top lenders and in just 5 minutes, you could save thousands. lendingtree, when banks compete, you win. i love date night. somebody's ruining it. yeah. well you could leave if you wanted to? trust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief. suppositories for relief in minutes. and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax. designed for dependable relief.

it's just a burst pipe, i co(laugh) it. no. with claim rateguard your rates won't go up just because of a claim. i totally could've - no! switching to allstate is worth it. james comey called president trump a liar before the senate intelligence committee last week, but that's not the l word the president and his allies are focused on. instead it's leaker. they're jumping on the moment the former fbi director testified he gave a friend a copy of his unclassified memo

detailing his conversations with the president to read to the press. the key part of that is it was unclassified, something comey said last week was intentional. >> my thinking was if i write it in such a way that i don't include anything that would trigger a classification, that would make it easier for us to discuss within the fbi and the government and to hold onto it in a way that makes it accessible to us. nita bakos and the director of national intelligence. he's also a former fbi special agent. nata, let's start with you. do you believe comey crossed the line by handing that memo to a friend so he could read it to the press? >> it gave trump and the administration fodder to go after comey. it didn't have anything to do with divulging classified information. in fact, i think it's exactly what he said.

these were his remarks, the facts as he knew it. this wasn't information that was just privy to the intelligence community, this is just his interactions and his statement with the president. >> is that any different than a former official coming on a news program and talking about their time in the white house or talking about their time at an agency, nata? >> from my perspective, it's not very different than that. i've been in the process of writing a book, and when you have to get information cleared, you know what you can and cannot say in the public domain when it comes to information -- >> and presumably you rely on your notes. >> yes. absolutely you do. >> frank, how are comey's actions being viewed by the intelligence community? >> i think there is some mixed reaction there. i will tell you personally that i think it was something he had to do. jim knows how the game is played in washington, d.c. he doesn't necessarily like to play it. he didn't want to play it, but i think the president ford his hand when he defame his character, when he lied about

him. so he chose this as his course of action. i think there are other folks thinking, why didn't you just say it yourself, why didn't you just do it yourself? those are his reasons and i think as this progresses, we'll find out more about why he did it the way he did it. >> frank, there is also a lot of talk about whether or not trump himself can be accused of the same, if not worse. after all, he told the russians in the oval office about some classified material that was handed over by israel, some classified material that was highly sensitive and highly useful according to a new report out today talking about how cyber intelligence is used to gather information and stop plots, particularly in this case a plot for isis terrorists to try to blow up planes using laptop laptops, hiding bombs in laptops and making that bomb look exactly like a laptop battery. talk to me about the disconnect here. is one worse than the other, is

there a false equivalency, shouldn't equivalency be made? >> sure, there is a difference. in the one sense it's jim comey talking about a conversation he had with the president of the united states. in the other it's about sources of methods. it's about intelligence that could have an impact on protection of war, saving lives. i think what we have to pay attention to is what was jim's intent when he provided that information to his friend to the "new york times"? he said it was a hope to get a special prosecutor assigned. this is, i think, where this is all going. when you look at the president's actions, are these things you're going to be able to bring in a federal court, or is it something -- when you're talking about obstruction of justice, you're talking about abuse of power. there is another venue where this needs to be explored and i think the special prosecutor gets us there. >> nata, just in general, how does the intelligence community feel right now? >> it would be hard to gauge,

but i imagine at this point they're very focused at trying to counter russia's active measures. their influence and propaganda that is continuing here in the united states and across europe, i imagine at this point they're starting to get frustrated. to me it's a little like pre-9/11 when there was written analysis being delivered to lawmakers and they're not really getting any feedback or strategies. >> nata bacos with a dire warning. body slammed by paul gianforte. he pleaded guilty and was sentenced today.

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. find out how american express cards and services i am totally blind. i lost my sight in afghanistan. if you're totally blind, you may also be struggling with non-24. calling 844-844-2424. or visit my24info.com.

the future isn't silver suits anit's right now.s, think about it. we can push buttons and make cars appear out of thin air. find love anywhere. he's cute. and buy things from, well, everywhere. how? because our phones have evolved.

so isn't it time our networks did too? introducing america's largest, most reliable 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. it's a new kind of network. xfinity mobile. london may be calling, but does president trump want to answer? maybe not. a british government official confirmed to nbc news that the president has expressed concerns to prime minister theresa may that he will not be welcomed by the british people during a state visit to the uk, a claim first reported by "the guardian." white house and downing street sources are pushing back, saying a visit this year remains possible. nbc's keir simmons joins us from our london newsroom. are you telling me, keir, that london will not warmly embrace our president?

>> reporter: hard to believe, isn't it? there would be people excited to see the president, there always is, but there are a group who would use it as an opportunity to demonstrate, to protest. you heard sean spicer say that the invitation has been extended by the queen, the president has accepted the invitation, and they look forward to scheduling the visit. the question is, when is it going to be? we thought it might happen in the fall. but then again, the government here is so weak that there may be another election in the fall. >> let's talk about that, keir. we have this dichotomy in france and the uk. in the uk, theresa may embraced president trump. she held a snap election and we all saw how well that turned out, not well at all, a gamble that didn't pay off. and we have france's president emmanuel macron who has pushed back hard against the president.

he's seen his numbers for his new party potentially skyrocket in the french political sphere coming up. what are people making of that out there? is there a worry that maybe theresa may embraced donald trump a little bit too much? >> reporter: it's a really good question. people aren't talking about it, partly because there are so many other things to talk about. keep in mind this is a government here clinging to power. it could be toppled at any time, frankly. so on the list of things to discuss, it's low down. but i think it is something that think about. macron has positioned himself as opposed to donald trump, clearly saying he's going to work with the president. but you can see the optics. whereas the british prime minister has just come from a bruising election. she positioned herself very close to donald trump. presidents intervening in european politics doesn't often go that well. you can see the pictures of the prime minister meeting with the

president, then of course there were those attacks in london in which the president tweeted criticism of the london mayor. that didn't go down particularly well here. look, this isn't a political point. when president obama intervened in the brexit vote, that was not very successful, and some would say contributed to the vote for brexit when of course president obama was arguing that britain should remain in europe. so did it have an effect? it may be part of the mix. certainly, and here's the important thing, certainly britain is one of america's closest allies. and now you have a situation where britain is struggling, and it's not clear that the british are really enthusiastic about president trump coming. and that can't be good for u.s. foreign policy. >> no doubt about that. nbc's keir simmons, great to see you, my friend. >> reporter: you too, my friend. it's not every day you see a congressman-elect in court. but that's just what incoming

montana rep greg gianforte did today, pleading guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge. you probably remember when he body slammed reporter ben jacobs to the ground on the eve of his state's special election. >> we'll talk to you about that later. >> i was just curious if -- >> i'm sick and tired of you guys! the last time you did here, you did the same thing. get the hell out of here. >> gianforte initially received a deferred sentence of four days in jail and a $385 fine. the judge then ruled that 40 hours of community service along with anger management could replace the jail time. joining me now, the one and only ben jacobs of "the guardian." i'm trying not to make you smile because it's a serious topic, my friend.

seriously, 40 hours of community service, 20 hours of anger management, is that an appropriate sentence? >> it's what the judge decided. so it's an appropriate sentence. >> ben, gianforte gave you an apology in a statement, and he donated $50,000 to cpj. do you think that is enough? are you confident that he's going to come to congress and know how to behave among reporters? >> his words so far, his apology, his donation, indicated a willingness that he shows respect for the free press, for what journalists do. and, you know, that everything needs to be backed up by actions, but i'm certainly confident that his behavior on capitol hill will reflect the important words that he said so far. >> ben, the first time that the campaign responded to your allegation, which we just heard on that tape, was to essentially defame you, was to say that you were politically biased and that

you grabbed him. as there been any comment from his flak, from shane, who put out that statement? >> i'm not aware of any comment. certainly in taking full responsibility for his actions, both in the letter and in court today, mr. gianforte made clear that that statement was false, that he admitted in the apology letter that he assaulted me, i had nothing to do with it, it was unprovoked. so i think a lot of that is sort of coming through already, and that's been very important. >> but i know it's hard as a reporter to be somebody in the spotlight, not because of reporting but because of something that happened to them. what was it like to see gianforte in court? >> it's a strange, surreal experience. this story has been unusual.

seeing congressman-elect gianforte is something that i'm going to do quite a bit. i'm going to be on capitol hill, he'll be presumably sworn in later this week. i'll have the opportunity to ask him those questions. it's not something unusual. it's part of -- it's what will be the new normal. >> ben, have you spoken to anybody on capitol hill, lawmakers' side, staffers' side, anybody who has expressed concern about him? do you have any knowledge of any conversations he's had with maybe house leadership, with paul ryan, to say, listen, you can't behave this way when you're in the halls of congress? >> i've tried to keep myself out of that. it's obviously a story that i can't report on for obvious reasons. but i've gotten messages of support from democrats, republicans, from folks across the political spectrum on this, and people have been very kind and supportive, because this is a nonideological issue. >> ben, do you think there's a broader message or broader

takeaway we should have about our society right now where this sort of thing can happen and he can still go to congress? >> i think what's most important to me is that that has been something that's been without precedent. this is something that it's hard for anyone to think of an historical precedent. my biggest concern is making sure this becomes an aberration. from everything i understand, this was an aberration for congressman-elect gianforte behaves. but to make sure that this is an aberration in american history, that the attitude towards the press, that the discord in the united states has gotten increasingly troubled in recent years. i'm trying to do what i can and turn this into a good and something that ends up working out better for the country. >> let's hope it's an aberration. ben, i like your new glasses. >> thank you, katy. >> ben jacobs of "the guardian," good to see you. today marks one year since the deadliest mass shooting in

american history. people poured into orlando to remember the lives lost. the bar's owner, who opened the bar in her brother's honor, said this earlier today. >> i miss pulse. i miss everything it stood for. i miss serving the lgbtq plus community, in the way only a gay bar can. when i see the pictures of the best times of your lives, it breaks my heart that your sanctuary was taken from you. but i know we are resilient and i know we will not let hate win. i know we'll create a new pulse in a new location for all of us so we'll reserve the sacred ground so generations to come will know exactly what was taken from us. >> the theme of today's memorial

service, "we will not let hate win." a vow that the victims, many our ga gay brothers and sisters, will not be forgotten. this time tomorrow, jeff sessions' testimony before the senate intelligence commeittee. a ali velshi picks things up right now. tomorrow afternoon, attorney general jeff sessions will testify publicly before the senate intelligence committee about russian interference before the 2016 election. sessions himself requested to have the hearing open to the public. that's a move that's caught many senators by surprise. we'll break all of that down in just a moment. we're waiting for president trump to honor the 2016 college football national champions, the clemson tigers, at the white house. if the president says anything noteworthy, we'll bring you his