"deadline: white house" starts right now. >> hi, everybody. i'm hallie jackson indeed in for nicolle wallace who is taking time off. i'm taking some time from my usual post at the white house to fill in on "deadline: white hous house". speaking of the white house it's a different donald trump in hot water over potential collusion with russia during the 2016 election. nbc has learned that don jr. has lawyered up in connection to this news. just as we're getting some new reaction from the white house. and sources close to the senate intelligence committee tell income they want some answers from donald trump jr. why? well, it's because of "the new york times" report he was promised damaging information on hillary clinton before he agreed to meet with the russian lawyer who had ties to the kremlin. don jr. getting online, tweeting he's quote happy to work with the committee to pass on what i know. but while the fact that the meeting could be significant, bob mueller investigates potential collusion, it was

don jr.'s response that was raising some eyebrows across washington. "the new york times" writing, quote, when he was first asked about the meeting on thursday, he said it was about adoptions and mentioned nothing about mrs. clinton. then he let say he slightly modified the story. saying after pleasantries were exchanged the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to russia were funding the democratic national committee and supporting mrs. clinton. her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. no details or supporting information was provided or even offered. it quickly became clear she had no meaningful information. this morning on twitter from don jr. a little sarcasm. i'm the first campaign on the -- first person on the campaign to hear info about the person. and then no inconsistency in statements, meeting ended up being primarily about adoptions in response to further questions i simply provided more details. let's get at it on this monday.

we have a team of reporters on the story. peter alexander and ashley parker and white house reporter for the washington post. ken dilanian, national security reporter and jeremy bash, national security analyst and former chief of staff for the cia and department of defense. peter, i want to get you right here. we just heard new reaction from the white house. sarah huckabee sanders in her off camera briefing was asked about this repeatedly. let's walk through the highlights. >> reporter: well, that was the highing -- hiring of alan futerfas, working on behalf of donald trump jr. he's a 25 year veteran of criminal defense cases whose expert east is in ethics investigations. that's the breaking news within the last minutes and specific to your questions about sarah huckabee sanders the deputy press secretary is speaking off camera a short time ago. following the defense we have

heard from other white house officials. first kellyanne conway. among them today saying that donald trump jr. did nothing wrong and remains no evidence and there was no collusion between trump campaign officials and any russian operatives. here's sarah huckabee sanders in her own words a short time ago. >> don jr. took a very short meeting from which there was absolutely no follow-up. frankly, i think sometimes that may make sense just looking at the democratic national committee coordinated opposition research directly with the ukrainian embassy. this is not an accusation, but an on the record action they took. if you're looking for an example of a campaign coordinatoring with -- coordinating with a foreign country or a foreign source look no further than the dnc who actually coordinated opposition research with the ukrainian embassy and nobody had a big problem with that. the only thing i see inappropriate about the meeting was the people that leaked the

information on the meeting after it was voluntarily disclosed. >> one other new detail that came out, we had heard that the president's son and from the president's outside counsel both agree that president trump was not aware of that meeting that he didn't participate in that meeting in june of 2016. but during this briefing sarah huckabee sanders went a little bit further suggesting to reporters that she's under the impression he didn't learn about it until the last couple of days. >> so peter, what we heard from sarah huckabee sanders is essentially that everybody does this. right, this is basically politics as usual. is it? >> well, you know, democratic and republican campaign operatives have made it clear to us, this not standard procedure. this not business as usual. 's normal to meet -- it's normal to meet with individuals to give you research on an opponent in the campaign but more likely that would be a party chair from the opposite party in a state you're competing in that may know something about the principal. in this case about hillary

clinton. but they suggest it's a very different deal when you're dealing with a foreign entity. someone who may represent or simply be a foreign national. there is the fear some suggest the potential that this would be violating federal criminal statutes that preclude anybody, that ban anybody from soliciting or accepting anything of value from a foreign entity. that item of value in this case may have been the opposition information that donald trump jr. says that he was accepting the meeting for that very reason, to get that type of influence. >> let me have ken dilanian pick up. you have new reporting on the potential criminality to any of this. what can you tell us about what you have learned? >> that's right. i have been speaking to lawyers who practice national security law in washington today, they make the point that collusion in and of itself is probably not a crime. not a prosecutable offense. it's not espionage, it's not working as a paid agent of a foreign government. if you're just sharing information.

it may have been politically inadvisable to take this meeting. it certainly raised a lot of eyebrows and raised a host of questions because, you know, senior officials in the trump campaign were willing to take a meeting with a russian lawyer they apparently didn't know very much about. we still don't know to what extent this lawyer if at all is tied to the kremlin or was it a representative of the russian government. but in terms of criminality, my sources are telling me this is not necessarily a crime. now, that may explain why the fbi is looking so hard at financial transactions among trump associates because that's where crimes could potentially occur. where money changed hands. >> how do you think bob mueller is looking at this, this reporting that's come out now from "the times" is doing? we know they're looking to talk to donald trump jr. and how do you see the special counsel moving forward on this? >> even if you take the most innocent explanation that this lawyer was not formally tied to the russian government it raises a host of questions that the

trump campaign was willing to sit down with a foreign national to talk about potentially derogatory information about the opponent. i want raises the question about what else were they willing to do and this goes to the heart of what bob mueller is investigating. did anybody from the trump campaign collude to interfere in the election? this is a piece of information that goes to motive, goes to state of mind. >> richard winter -- he had some pretty strong statements on all of this. i want to play it. and jeremy bash, weigh in after it. >> the bush administration would have never tolerated this. if this story is true we'd have -- the both of them would be in custody by now. we'd be asking a lot of questions because this is unacceptable. it borders on treason. depending on if "the new york times" story is true. >> that's the bush ethics guy there. what's your take away from ghaem. >> well, look the story undermines the trump campaign that there were no meetings with

russians. what i think is significant are a couple of things, halle. first of all the intent -- with the campaign chairman, the son of the presidential campaign and the son-in-law, so basically the high command of the campaign. the other thing i think is relevant is that this lawyer had a document and -- a proven track record of working with the putin government. having a tie to the senior government officials. the other thing that is significant is the one who brokered this, rob gold stone is connected to the business people in moscow who were working with the trump organization to build the trump tower. so this is part of a long standing business relationship between the trump organization and oligarchs in moscow. i think those things are important leads for bob mueller to follow up on. >> so drill down on who was involved in setting up this meeting. ken dilanian, i'm coming to you. because don jr. was asked to

attend by an acquaintance linked to the miss universe pageant and that was gold stone. he was asked by a russian client to arrange that talk. that client is emin agalarov. he performed at the pageant and his father has ties to vladimir putin. ken dilanian, do you see any red flags in the sequencing is there? >> well, sure. it's of great interest to mueller and the senate investigator investigators. ing a ayla rov operates with the permission of vladimir putin and he's boasted -- they have a deal with donald trump to build trump tower in moscow and that didn't come to fruition. he brought the pageant there. and that's interesting. it certainly -- you know, it

raises questions about trump's claim he had no business connections to russia during the campaign. >> you heard jeremy said that the trump administration now has said again and again early on they had no contacts with anybody tied to russia with russian operatives if you will. here's what mike pence had to say back in january. listen. >> was there any contact in any way between trump or his associates and the kremlin or cutouts they had? >> i joined this campaign in the summer and i can tell you that all of the contact by the trump campaign and the associates was with the american people. >> ashley, let me get your reaction there. my conversations with folks close to the vice president point out that he joined the canal -- campaign point out he joined after this meeting. >> sure, that's certainly true. i will say that the vice president -- there have been a couple of high profile incidents where the vice president has

gone out on tv and said something and then he's sort of been proven wrong or undermined by the president himself. he's either looked like a liar or someone out of the loop and one of those involved russia. it was general flynn, who said he had no contact with the russians and that turned out to be incorrect. it's very clear that the vice president was out of the loop, he was being lied to by general flynn. and then later kept in the dark for two weeks by his own administration. he actually didn't find out until a report in "the washington post." so it's a tricky situation for these people to be in. you don't want to be a liar of course, nor do you want to be out of the loop and kept in the dark by your own people. >> put this in perspective here. the meeting that first happened in june at trump tower, was it shady or naive to take the meeting or something else? >> can i choose a combo of both. i think what the white house -- a lot of the liaisons -- when

the meetings come up with donald trump jr. and with jared kushner, the president's son-in-law, it's definitely naivete. we didn't know who we were taking a meeting with. a friend of a friend asked us to take a meeting. that's dangerous way to operate. and it's not necessarily nefarious, although the lying and the misleading after the fact is troubling and raises questions. this campaign did not have the procedures in place that a normal campaign would have, that before a high level campaign official you know who the meeting is with. you know what ties they do or do not have to the kremlin. you sort of have done your diligence. that does not seem to be happening here. >> peter alexander, ken dilanian, thank you. i appreciate you joining us for top of the hour. i'll bring in the rest of the gang. with me on set is associated

press white house correspondent, jason johnson, politics editor for the root.com and an msnbc contributor. with us remote from washington, matt schlapp from the american conservative union. thank you for joining us here. let me pick whereupon the rest of the gang left off. when we ore talking about this. when we look at the political fallout, jonathan, how do you see this playing out for the white house? how do you see this playing out for the president moving forward? as peter points out the line is he didn't know about this meeting. he wasn't there. he wasn't involved. walk me through the next steps. >> well, that's right. the white house has said that the president wasn't there. he was in new york that day. and he had only become the presumption nominee a few weeks prior. it seems like the white house has a good stretch of days the word russia falls on them again. they were feeling good last week. there were questions raised about the meeting with vladimir putin, but they felt the

president was authoritative, came back on a high note and yet this is happening again. they're in damage control. you are seeing donald trump jr. deny it of course on twitter. you are seeing the surrogates being battered around a little bit. they have to assume a defensive crouch. >> walk us down pennsylvania avenue because how do republican lawmakers align with trump? is that a challenge particularly on the hill with everything that jonathan is talking about? >> i agree every time the topic turns to russia and russia talking to somebody in the trump family people see more smoke. and i think it's important to know underneath all of this, we don't have any substantive, you know, facts on the wrongdoing. but i do think it's fair for people to say, hey, you know, what's this meeting all about? who are these people? i think we'll learn interesting things about the folks who are in this meeting. >> you worried about what you might learn? >> sure. i think my advice to the -- to

everybody involved with the trump campaign, at the white house is that the best communication strategy, the best political strategy is to put out all of the information that you have immediately. i think the reason why we're reading about this story today quite frankly is because there were more disclosures. they modified the statements they have to make to the federal government. jared kushner did that. paul manafort did that. so they were able to put together the fact that this meeting occurred. i would say, get it all out. because there's really no wrongdoing here. what there is, as it drips out it makes it look like there's more to the story than there is. >> if there's no there there they should have been honest from the beeg -- beginning. they're then forced to admit it. they look more and more guilty. i don't think that republicans are going to at this phase come out and full-fledged defend that there were no meetings or no

collusion because i don't think they know the answer to that. i don't think any of us know the answer to that. we don't no there was any collusion or not. it doesn't look good you're lying and then forced to admit the truth. >> i see you itching to get in. you get first dibs after the break. i want to talk about your new piece. we'll continue this conversation coming up. ahead, more fallout after this face-to-face with vladimir putin. donald trump tweets about their conversations, drawing some scrutiny from both sides of the aisle. plus, vice president mike pence's out talking about the health care fight suggesting if senate republicans don't pass a bill to repeal and replace, they should just repeal. but will enough republicans agree? >> i think there's still a path. i'm not pollyannaish about this. it's difficult when you can only lose two votes and there may be two that are irretrievable. we have to give this a supreme effort. noo

introducing the easiest way to get gillette blades text "blades" to gillette on demand text to reorder blades with gillette on demand... ...and get $3 off your first order binders, done. super-cool notebooks, done. that's mom taking care of business. but who takes care of mom? office depot/office max. this week, get this ream of paper for just one cent after rewards. ♪ taking care of business.

are made with smarttrack®igners material to precisely move your teeth to your best smile. see how invisalign® treatment can shape your smile up to 50% faster today at invisalign.com

we recognize that russia is a cyber threat but we also recognize the need to have conversations with our adversaries and when our adversaries see strength like they did with the president in the meeting, they can look for other ways to work on shared interests and look for positive places where they can move the ball forward. particularly on things like the cease-fire and that became a greater focus and something the president chose to stay focused on. >> so that's sarah huckabee

sanders just in the last minute here, walking the line on the cyber security working group that the president bailed on. the fact that we discussed this cyber security unit doesn't mean it can happen, it can't. but a cease-fire can and did. so quite a bit different from a what he had said earlier that day which is this. putin and i discussed forming an impenetrable cyber unit, and that came with ridicule from his own party. rubio said this is like akin to going in on a nuclear accord. as promised i'll start with you. how do you see the flip-flop playing out? he heard loud and clear the criticism from people like marco rubio and lindsey graham. >> he's an inveterate liar. >> you think he lied about it in

first place? it sounded like the cyber security issue come up. >> i'm not sure i believe president about the deals he cuts with foreign leaders. he'll say one thing about leaders in poland and contradicted by the own staff. he'll say one thing about the president in mexico and then contradicted a moment late. i'm sure cyber security came up, but we don't know the substance of the conversation. this goes to the health care, but the biggest issue we have with this presidency and this administration in general is we don't know what we can trust them on. because they consistently say things that are contradicted by the actual facts that come out later. i don't know if they have had much of a conversation to begin with. >> what is your stance on the president and russian? >> yeah, with all the information that came out about russia that we have had any evidence that the fundamental question of any kind of

collusion or inappropriate work with the team trump and vladimir putin to kind of rig our elections, there's nothing to that. and so i think the -- as you look at the question of russia generally, yes, i would agree with you that facts come out, statements to the government, you know, reports are amended. we learn more and once again, my advice to everybody involved on team trump is that when you have a special counsel, all of this information is going to be ascertained and it all eventually becomes public. even if it's not anything about criminality and there's no criminality here at all, it's a question of more data and information. you're better just to walk over to the special counsel, show them your calendar. you're going to get them anyway. show them everything you've got. if you didn't do anything wrong and the american people like what you're doing generally as the president i think they do, then i think you're going to be okay. >> let's just be clear. the special counsel is assessing the facts of the case.

so any determination is still a little bit ways off, matt. but you accept the intelligence assessment that russia interfered in the election? >> i think russia tries to interfere in our society every day. i think they've interfered over the last 25 years, probably longer. yeah, they're a nemesis to us and i think that they try to destabilize us and a lot of other countries across the globe. >> do you think, jonathan, that president trump agrees with what matt just said, that president putin is a foe, an adversary? >> he's given us very mixed signals about that. let's remember four years ago when he was celebrity developer donald trump, he believed that putin might be his best friend for the beauty pageant in moscow. there was a question about whether the president would challenge putin. the day before he cast doubt upon that yet again. and we now know certainly the u.s. officials have said and russian officials agree that it came up.

but we had conflicting reports about what the conclusion of that conversation was. we had senior administration officials have who not pushed back on the idea that president trump accepted president putin's denial. even today in the briefing, sarah huckabee sanders was sort of -- she walked passed that and didn't say one way or the other if the president was willing to put putin on the last point. >> see, what matt said is what we're concerned about when it comes to the republican party and the administration. i think they do it to everybody. this is a national security issue. if they do it to everybody and they're doing it to us, it's a problem. and the significance of these reports that just came out we know that senior officials on the trump campaign are open to it. they're open to meeting with people who said i had dirt on hillary clinton so there's a problem with that. we can't say it happens to everybody because i don't care about everybody. i care about the united states of america. >> go ahead, matt.

>> i do too. you see the well sourced reporting done by politico on the fact that actually the government of the ukraine was working with a staffer at the dnc to do exactly that, to help hillary clinton. i think we should be cautionary when we're dealing with foreign nationals. >> i noticed a little bit of a look there. >> russia is our adversary. i think that's the most important point. so they're qualitatively different than any other country. if you look at the national director's report, they list russia as the number one actor. nobody is quite sure if russia was behind this, to put our guard down and dangerously and naively leave the country vulnerable is the issue here. >> the person who left us vulnerable was president obama let's face it. if we were vulnerable -- no. this is during the election, let's be clear. if we're vulnerable from cyber threats from vladimir putin we have no person to look at other than the obama administration. >> what about now?

what about 2018? also ukraine was not trying to rig the election in favor of trump. russia was. that's the difference between the dnc working with the ukraine and the trump campaign working with russia. >> no no. that's wrong. the dnc was working with the ukraine to find dirt -- to try -- yes. they had dirt on donald trump and they tried to peddle it through the dnc. just have outrage on both sides. >> i think that's an equivalency we're going to -- not let happen here. but i would like you to stick around because there's a lot more to discus about what's happening in washington. thank you for jumping in there. we will see you tomorrow i'm sure and the rest of the night here on msnbc. but i want to talk about another big story that's happening. what's going on with senate intel, with health care. we have had a key member joining me next, joe manchin. we want to know what he wants to ask donald trump jr., and when

congress can hear from jared kushner. that's next. there's nothing more important to me than my vacation. 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! i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

(upbeat dance music)

(bell ringing)

we are going live to capitol hill where senator mike warner is speaking now. let's listen. >> and acknowledge those kind of meetings. it is why we've got to continue this investigation. and there's a lot more work to do. we continue to add additional individuals that will now need to be interview and receive documents. but obviously this past weekend revelations move us forward. and we expect much more to come. >> you said this is first time the public has seen information suggesting that there was some discussions between russians and trump officials. is this first time -- >> i'm going to leave my statement where i was. >> are you going to speak to don jr.? >> absolutely. as well as if there are -- i think there are some doubt still

of whether there were other individuals in the meeting beyond this russian leader who has strong ties to the russian government. the individual who was the lawyer or who asked to set up the meeting. the music promoter in russia. again, for a campaign and now a president who continues to say there's no there there, yet virtually every week or two there's more stories of meetings -- indisclosed meetings with russian officials that begs the question, why aren't more of the people coming clean at a more regular fashion. >> senator, as the senator committee, you and burr had known this meeting had taken place -- >> i won't get into what we know or didn't know based on the information we received from individuals that were already scheduled to appear. but again what we do know, i keep coming back to i think about this, at one point i was a campaign manager. if i was a campaign manager, and i had been contacted by what may

be an agent of a foreign power and i was told that that agent might have damaging information about a potential candidate i think i'd remember that meeting. i think it's also a little strange as a candidate if my son or son-in-law met with an official or an agent of a foreign power. i think i'd probably want to hear about that information so again, i'll accept these individuals' words so far. but we have seen this constant pattern as more facts come out. these individuals constantly have to recant. >> is donald trump jr. someone you had reached out to -- >> again, i won't get into the witness list and the individuals that we have talked to or plan on talking to. but rest assured donald trump jr. will be somebody to talk to. >> the meeting gives this appearance of collusion? >> i believe it's remarkable that in meeting, one, was not reported before hand.

that two, this is again the first time the public has seen clear evidence of at least an attempt by the trump campaign to obtain information and again, in this case from a possible foreign agent that would interfere with the hillary clinton campaign efforts. you know, this is again kind of the underlying premise that has been raised throughout this whole investigation. we have got more information to garner. >> do you expect to speak with jared kushner in the coming weeks? >> yes, as indicate before i think the chairman indicated this, that mr. kushner has volunteered to testify. i think it's appropriate that we obtain the appropriate documents first because again we want to make sure that we're able to ask the right questions so that we don't have again this constant pattern of convenient forgetfulness. >> do you plan on talking to

kushner and manafort before the august recess? >> good try. >> from this week, why are you moving into next -- >> that's your inference. but i'm not going -- again, i think that the chairman and i working through a schedule, but i don't think it gains who is coming in when. >> do you have any idea if any others are shopping for opportunities -- >> there are a series of claims that have been made, many of them made in the press. it's our job and the job of this investigation to sort through those claims and find which are true and which are not true. what continues to both her is that -- bother me is this pattern. i think we're up to 20 plus examples of where senior level trump officials and even you can argue the president himself continues to deny that they have had any kind of contacts with russians until the proof comes out that there were contacts.

multiple contacts. and then the senior officials recant or amend their filings. i think a rationale person would ask why didn't they remember these particular meetings? i think many of these meetings are pretty important. >> senator, were you aware of the meeting with -- >> that question was already asked but i'll give you the answer, i won't get into what i knew before or after. this is the first time the public is seeing that senior level officials of the trump campaign met with a foreign government to get information that would discredit hillary clinton. >> does that meeting on its face is it improper and do you want donald trump jr. to come and testify in public, not in a private meeting? >> sorry, those pencils are -- you know, i remember the old days when i used to read the clips. so the question again.

i think -- >> do you think on its face this meeting with a russian lawyer to try to get the information detrimental to hillary clinton and do you want to see donald trump jr. testify in public about it? >> clear collusion or even potential violations, that's for special prosecutor mueller to determine. in terms of donald trump's jr. form of testimony, again, the chairman and i will work that out. but we expect to hear from him. >> senator, this is a report today that james comey's memos may have contained some classified information. do you have any indication that he disclosed classified information and have you seen the memos yet? >> i don't have any indication that he did. but i would say this. that there are very few people that would know better how to

draft a memo so it wouldn't fall in the classified area than james comey. and he testified to that before our committee to a question that i asked him. i have seen these reports that there may have been after the fact classification. we don't know who may have classified those documents if they were classified. i want to get the answer to that. >> have you seen the memos yet? >> i expect to see them very shortly. >> is this meeting going to be part of the mueller investigation or is it already part of the mueller investigation? >> again, in terms of the witness list, the special counsel mueller has you have to ask him. i know this much, our committee intends to ask donald trump jr. as well as if we can find other people who attended that meeting beyond jared kushner and paul manafort who we intend to question some very serious questions about why they'd take this meeting. why they didn't disclose it on the front end. and then the idea that somehow

you would bring in the campaign manager and the president's son-in-law for some meeting that was supposed to be about russian immigration. i believe they may have changed that story from this morning. but again this pattern is information comes out that they constantly would recant and change their stories is i think troubling. >> any significant to the timing of the meeting? that they had at -- right after, what june 10th -- >> june 6th, i think. >> 6th. >> i think it is interesting that it happened so quickly after then candidate trump secured the republican nomination. but again, we'll have more questions on that to answer. >> last question. >> this is the third time that jared kushner has been -- has admitted to a meeting that was previously undisclosed with russia? >> again, i won't get into how many times jared kushner had to

amend his filings about forgotten meeting with us the russians but this is a pattern we have seen since election day. and it doesn't include just jared kushner and paul manafort. it doesn't include just donald trump jr. it includes general flynn and attorney general sessions, it includes a series of other individuals that i find that in itself is a pattern that's troubling. >> have you seen jared kushner -- >> thank you so much. >> sir, can you give me a short summary of what you want in your statement? >> pardon me? >> your first statement. >> this was first time that the public has seen clear evidence that senior level officials of the trump campaign reached out the potentially an agent of a foreign government, clearly a russian. to try to get damaging information about hillary clinton. >> have you seen jared kushner's security clearance forms, the amended ones? >> personally, no. >> have you seen -- >> thank you. thank you. >> that was senator mark warner,

vice chair of the senate intelligence committee, working through some of the headlines coming out over the last 24 hours, specifically that meeting now confirmed by donald trump jr., and a kremlin linked lawyer in the room as well. jared kushner and paul manafort. joining us is senator joe manchin who has been listening in to his colleague speaking with us, so thank you for that. let me ask you this. senator mark warner said he absolutely wants to hear from donald trump jr. do you? >> i think the whole committee does, yes. not a whole lot i can add to mark's comments that he's been making. he's on the forefront of this. we're all working together. it's a bipartisan committee. chairman burr and the republicans and the vice chairman warner and the democrats, i can assure you will put the best interest of the country first. i believe that with all my heart. we want to get the people in here. tell us their side of the story. and then we'll go from there. but i think they -- we owe it to them to come before us.

see what happens. >> senator, do you want to see donald trump jr., come to you in the private or the public setting? >> if we want the answers we need it would be in the private setting because some of the stuff is classified. if it's nonclassified most certainly in a public setting. anything we can do publicly i want to do. but anything that we can't do then we need to get answers to, we have to go into the private setting. >> what's your first question to him? >> you know, he's going to have to explain himself. i'm sure his first answer, his comments are going to be as he addressed the committee is his meetings and what the meetings were -- entailed and what was the purpose of the meetings. i mean, that what's he's going to have to answer to and i'm sure he will. >> when you hear the details about this, senator, do you think this could have been potential collusion? >> you know, i'm not making any of those predictions because i want to hear the facts. i'm hearing everything as it unfolds. i hear the same as everyone else

is hearing right now. we have been not been briefed on the intel committee on that. we have not go into the details of what we heard in the last few days. >> so you didn't know about this before basically the weekend story? >> no. i did not. >> the intel committee has not been briefed. >> and if the chairman and vice chairman and gang of 8 had been then they're looking into its, the staff has been doing its due diligence. >> what was your initial reaction when you read "the new york times" piece? >> every day is a new day. it's an adventure. >> what kind of adventure, senator? >> well, it's hard -- i mean, it's surprising, the whole thing continues to unfold. it's very troubling. but, you know, i don't know whether we're becoming immune to it or whatever. but something -- new revelations are coming on a daily basis. we need to get the facts now. all of this is coming out. let's get to the facts and we'll get to the facts when intel is able to get all the documents we

need. >> why do you think donald jr. hadn't reported this meeting before? >> i don't have an idea. >> is it a concern to you? >> it sure is. it's a concern to anybody who's been following any of this. >> let me -- >> let me just say this. transitioning from the private sector into the public sector is very difficult for the trump family. from the whole -- from the president on down. and it's a complete different operation, how you operate. so with that, they're going have to now deal with it. come forth and answer for its. and tell us what their purposes are. >> i know you have to run in like 45 seconds. i have two very quick questions for you. number one, has anybody on the republican side of the aisle reached out on the health care bill? have you heard from any leadership in the gop? >> not lately. susan collins and i have talked. lisa murkowski and i have talked in the past. whenever they're ready we're ready. >> a new announcement today from the west virginia attorney general announcing he's running as a republican.

are you worried about the reelection -- >> he has to get through the primary. i have my own. so let's see who's the -- who comes out at the end of the primaries and then we'll work to serving the customers and serve the people of west virginia and all the citizens of this great country to the best of our ability. but we have to get through the primary first. >> only two seconds late, joe manchin, thank you very much. after a quick break we're talking with our panel and one one of president trump's biggest is supporters in congress. we want to get his take other don jr.'s meeting with the kremlin attorney and plus much more.

so that's the idea. what do you think? hate to play devil's advocate but... i kind of feel like it's a game changer. i wouldn't go that far. are you there? he's probably on mute. yeah... gary won't like it. why? because he's gary. (phone ringing) what? keep going! yeah... (laughs) (voice on phone) it's not millennial enough. there are a lot of ways to say no. thank you so much. thank you! so we're doing it. yes! start saying yes to your company's best ideas. let us help with money and know-how, so you can get business done. american express open.

so you can get business done. ♪ pressure... so you can get business done. i feel it every day. but at night, it's the last thing on my mind. for 10 years, my tempur-pedic has adapted to my weight and shape, so i sleep deeply... and wake up ready to perform. ♪ nothing performs like a tempur-pedic, and our july 4th event is the perfect time to buy one. save up to $500 on select tempur-pedic

mattress sets. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com

welcome back. you may notice a new face here at the table, congressman mo brooks from alabama, one of the trump's biggest congressional supporter. >> thank you. >> the meeting between donald trump jr. and a kremlin lawyer. do you find anything concerning about that meet? >> well, we need to find out what transpired, the witnesses to the event need to be interviewed an once we have the interviews put it together and get a complete picture. certainly it's cause for attention right now. but until we get the actual details of what transpired it's -- i'm not going to be able to speculate beyond that. >> i see you choosing your words carefully.

>> i'm trying my best. >> is it's not concerning to you that someone is claiming to have dirt on hillary clinton would come to the trump campaign, would be linked to russia and that would go unreported? >> i have been involved in i ha campaign since about is the 80, 82, somewhere in that ballpark, and it is very common place for campaigns to try to reach out and get all the information they can about an opponent regardless of the source. now, when you get the source, you also have to evaluate whether it's a represent reputable one or not, whether it can be trusted or not, whether the information can be verified or not or whether it's even worthwhile. at this point i don't know of anything that transpired in that meeting that suggests that there was information that was actually conveyed to the trump campaign that was useful against hillary clinton. and in fact, so far it seems like sfrg there has been has been a denial of the transfer of that kind of information. >> so because there was no information, no big deal? is that what you're saying. >> i'm not going to say there's no big deal because we don't know enough about what

transpired, but if there was no transmittal of information, it's very common for opposition researchers to go to wherever the leads may be and to track them down. it's much like an investigator in a criminal case. you follow-up every lead that you've got and then the ones that have merit, the ones that can be used in court, in this case in a campaign, then you take it a step further and make a decision on whether it's worthwhile. >> this particular researcher was connected to the kremlin. and so in your campaign experience somebody had come to you and said i have on the part poe on your opponent and they happened to be linked to a foreign nation -- >> well, that's never happened to me before. >> would you take that meeting. >> i don't know. it's speculative. it's never happened to me before, so it's difficult for me to speculate what i might do under the circumstances. >> this legislation in the senate on sanctions against russia and iran, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. this legislation as you know is tied up in the house. if it makes it to the floor and

you vote on it, where do you stand on that? do you want to see that move to the president's desk. >> well, i don't know what's going to be in the actual bill when it reaches the house floor. i think everybody needs to focus on the purpose behind that and a big purpose of it is unrelated to the election. it's because of what happened in the cry mera, what has happened in the ukraine. it's because of concerns that we have in the eastern european countries that are part of nato or wish they were part of nato. and we've got to make sure russia understands that we're want going to tolerate them invading other countries as they did in ukraine and took over parts of eastern ukraine. and to me that is first and for most the message behind these sanctions. >> jonathan, question for the congressman? >> what is the latest you have heard on the current healthcare bill with the senate? we've certainly heard the president's tweets today urging, saying it would have a shame if

we didn't get things done before the recess. >> well, i've probably heard the same thing that you all have and that is that senators coming back are expressing that we're at loggerheads that perhaps there is more disagreement with respect to the senate version of the healthcare bill than was originally thought. but on the other hand, mitch mcconnell has been known to pull a rab bit out of the cat on occasion, and we'll see if he can cobble together a compromise. the bigger issue is going to be if they are able to compromise and it goes to the house, what are we going to do in the house? are we going to reject it out right, send it to a conference committee or accept it. >> if it's just repealed, do you support that? >> oh, absolutely. >> let me ask you this politically before you go. the senate race you will be in this fall says alabama special senate election is all about woulded trump have you asked for his support. >> no, i have not. there are other people who are

communicating with the president on this issue both on my behalf and the behalf of other candidates and we'll see how it all plays out. first and for most my loilts are to the constitution and the american people, but if donald trump were to decide if he wanted to endorse in damn, it would probably have a significant effect. >> and you plan to ask him that? is that fair to say. >> i haven't set up a meeting with the president. the misdemeanor is a busy individual. i'm happy to give my message to the voters of the people of the state of alabama and have them evaluate me based on my merits, based on my spotless ethics record by way of example on the one hand and my long time example as the only keb active in this election. >> congressman mo brooks. >> oh, can i add another thing? . >> mo brooks for senate.com zbloot all right. got a little ad time in there. congressman, thank you. up next, we are moving on from that to talk about dinners,

wealthy donors, one-on-one with wealthy leaders. is mike pence planning on a future that does not include donald trump? that's next. before fibromyalgia, i was a doer. i was active. then the chronic, widespread pain drained my energy. my doctor said moving more helps ease fibromyalgia pain. she also prescribed lyrica. fibromyalgia is thought to be the result of overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. woman: for some, lyrica can significantly relieve fibromyalgia pain and improve function, so i feel better. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worsening depression, or unusual changes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects are dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem

may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain, i can be more active. ask your doctor about lyrica.

we are back now with jonathan swan joining the panel to talk a little bit about health care because the idea now seems to be repeal and then replace. that's something vice president pens is now backing as gop tries to resuscitate the healthcare bill. joining me now along well -- i

will start with you first here. how do you see this playing out? now the vice president is echoing something that we've heard, if you can't repeal and replace, just repeal and we'll worry about replace later? is that going to hold water with some of these separate lawmakers. >> well, i think that's two separate questions. with unis can that pass that senate? and the answer is no. think the current bill is too harsh, there's no universe in which they vote for repeal only bill. that's a separate question to whether mitch mcconnell brings a repeal only bill to the floor. now, there is divided opinion on that. most of the people i've spoken to today who you would regard as close to mcconnell in his orbit say that they think it's trending towards him putting something on the floor, but more likely it's messy compromise, sort of in the direction that it's been heading. i think if he does put a repeal only bill on the floor, it is him speaking the bill. it's him acknowledging that this thing is dead and he wants finality. that's the only context in which

he would put that on the floor. >> jonathan swan, thank you very much. i wanted one last word with our panel, but sadly, we are out of time. so matt slap, joining us from washington, thank you. you guys are awesome. i hope to see you again back in d.c. where i am headed tomorrow. see you in new york tomorrow morning at ten a.m. for meat's show. >> good to see you in person for once. and if it is monday, trump jrn lawyers up. >> tonight, defining collusion. >> i would certainly say done junior did not collude with anybody to influence the election. >> the trump campaign met with a russia lawyer to get dirt on hillary clinton. are there any consequences? >> plus, what happens if the republican healthcare bill isn't revived soon? >> it's very, very difficult when you can only lose two votes, and there may only be two that are irrelevant retrievable. >> and victory in mosul. what it means for the international fight to