national trump's security strategy declares that economic security is national security. working to safeguard both economic security and economic prosperity for the american people. in addition to the dedicated officers here in washington, the state department has over 1500 economic officers posted in embassies and consulates around the world who explain our foreign governments and enlist their support of our goals. our ambassadors and senior officials meet with foreign leaders to discuss our mutual priorities. they also advocate directly for u.s. companies. the department works in coordination with our colleagues at ustr, commerce, and other agencies to ensure that we are in close contact with our allies to explain the administration's trade and economic policies. we have heard some concerns and questions from our allies and trading partners and we have engaged with them proactively on a regular basis. addressing their concerns about our international trade policy a part of our larger conversation with them. the department is clear with our to havehat we continued shared

the bipartisan national economic security strategy act of 2018. as 2757. it will create a statutory requirement for not just this administration but for a future administration to periodically submit to congress a national economics security strategy. a very sensitive topic, but there's an unclassified version with a classified enx. members of congress respectfully engage back and forth. they pick the strategy and we move forward together as a country. i just ask you, sir, are you aware of the legislation that i just emps ared -- referenced? and if so, what are your general impressions of it? >> senator, we are aware of your legislation. we're taking a look at it, so i don't have an official roundtable for you. but it's a good idea. i served in the administrations where the exercise that the national security council goes through on a regular basis to produce that is beneficial, both to forming priorities within the administration, and then holding yourselves accountable for how are you doing against your priorities. and i'm included to agree with you that

look, security clearances are designed to further the national security of the united states. and so if someone has a reason to have a security clearance for purposes of our national security, then they should have one. and if they don't, then perhaps they shouldn't. and this is a novel question. i heard it for the first time today at 2:00. and so i want to learn more about some of the rationale behind it. but ultimately, security clearances exist for purposes of the national security of the united states. and the only people entitled to them are those who need them in order to do their current jobs. >> the argument in favor, and it's always been the case, and i've covered the intelligence community for a long time. let's say dan coats is the director of national intelligence and he's going to meet with a foreign intelligence chief, and wants to get some perspective. he may call up general clapper, his predecessor, and say you used to meet with this guy, what's he like, give me some background. they can't have a really good conversation unless -- unless clapper still has securi

he doesn't have a fullyormed sense of national security issues. he is p gutyer so he responds in certain ways when a heed about things but he hasn't necessarily thought deeply about them and i think that creates the confusion. margaret: it's a great point. n also think, on syria particular, i was speaking with a former obama administration officialell it and -- about it and i asked him what's then difference the policy and the only thing the obama administration official said to me was, at least we felt bad about it, that we weren't intervening on humanitarian --r the mat two strikes followed through on, pinpoint strikes carried out by president trump in the wake of two wemical weapons attacks but when president tru standing next to vladimir putin, he didn't say, why are youde breaking th you made with me in hamburg last year to have are cease zone in the south of the country, why aren't we talking about humanitarian aid corridors? secretary pompeo said we would ut presidenthat trump was talking about saving lives in russia and syria instead of ru

national security process. it is hundreds of people. it is the kind of job where you work 30 hours a day. she always seemed like an odd fit for that job. they gave merry job. we now know on the recommendation of maria butina's boyfriend. she didn't last long. she left in the back wash after mike flynn was fired and then criminally charged in conjunction with the mueller investigation related to his contacts with the russian government. so this opened a whole new thing now. remember how the flynn disaster unfolded, right? just a few days after the trump inauguration. not even a week into the new inauguration. flynn was enter sbrud contacts we had the russian government. two days after that fbi interview, the acting attorney general of the united states, sally yates, called the white house counsel's office and expressed with some urgency that there was a matter some national security concern. she needed to discuss in person with the white house counsel. she went in person to the white house. she met with the whit

it's a matter of national security. and we have a nation's capital acting like it. am talking about nearly all of the democratic party and far too many of the republicans as if there is no national security issue here and they can blithely go along with the business as usual attitude when it comes to political corruption and outright corruption. >> the same democrats that applauded strzok and one ridiculous member of congress dishonored and insulted every combat wounded veteran in the country's history by suggesting he be given a purple heart. you talk about a moron. how insulting, it be, this guy hop tried to steer an election. that he should be honored. the democrats from the committee applauded him. you talk about a low point in the house of representatives, that was yesterday. lou: sometimes these events, there was also on display great courage and the freedom caucus insisting on getting the truth, and they had moments in which they succeeded. >> a very important point about the penetration by a hostile foreign intelligence service or entity of hillary clinton's

potentially, how much of an impact could this have on national security? >> well, let's keep in mind that the trump administration is already pretty thin in the talent pool. there are a lot of positions they haven't filled. there's a lot of talent that frankly doesn't want to work for trump. so to actually now lose this kadri of former officials and often called in to consult with current officials in the trump administration i think is just a huge loss for america. and just a very unwise and foolish move by very petty and petulent president. >> doesn't appear that the white house did the homework before making the announcement. two of the six officials that were listed by sarah sanders at the white house briefing don't even have current security clearances. we're talking about james comey and andrew mccabe. so what does it tell you about the way the president is approaching this decision? >> it tells you that he's operating out of personal peak not out of a strategy or thought through policy. and, you know, in his case, i guess the consequences be damned.

official at the national security council. as "the new york times" reported when the cyber security czar had his job eliminated by the trump administration in may, "the cyber security expert busy and members of congress said they were mystified by the move." well, if mystified members of congress don't understand why that happened, congress could ask. if congress wants to now do something in the face of documented russian attacks on our election, the intelligence community's hair on fire assertions those attacks are continuing, the president's public explicable denial of those attacks and the president publicly siding with russia against his own government and his own country on these issues specifically, congress koes ask, right? congress has the option to hold hearings if they were all so mystified they could hold hearings where the official was fired months before the midterm elections. his job was eliminated and he was not replaced. congress has options. our elected officials have plenty of practical things they could do ri

national security adviser john bolton called the mueller probe a witch hunt. as the secretary of state is put me he wi me -- pummelled by the senate committee. >> i've listened to your political soliloquy. if you want to talk about politics, if president obama did what president trump did in helsinki, i would be peeling you off the capitol ceiling. please. >>> and race against time. the trump administration has just 12 hours to get 1,600 kids back to their parents as confusion reigns over what rights these parents still have. msnbc's mariana atencio spoke with one father who was lucky enough to be reunited with his daughter. >> reporter: "all we want is to have our kids back. so they sold us you're going to have your kids back in 20 hours. then it was more time." ♪ >>> good day, everyone, i'm andrea mitchell in washington where house speaker paul ryan is answering questions about conservative republican caucus members trying to impeach the deputy attorney general. their beef with trump appointee rod rosenstein, the man overseeing the mueller investigation. the

represent a national security threat? this is an affronts to a long- standing partnership between canada and the united states. it is kind of insulting. canada is the united states longest and largest american --. it buys more goods from the west and china and in the uk combined. canadian companies operate in united states directly employ 500,000 americans. canada and the united states share more than 5500 miles of a peaceful border. close to 400,000 people cross that border each day for business, pleasure, or to maintain family ties. canada has been our partner in the world on terrorism since 2001. more than 400,000 canadian armed forces have served alongside us in afghanistan between 2001 and 2014. canada has been our ally, our partner, and our friend. now they are told that there steel and aluminum exports to us represent a national security threat. that is an abuse of section 232 of the trade act. i am so glad that congress is finally pushing back on this. we have neglected our constitutional role. we gave the preside

agenda that's been followed here it was followed with michael flynn also donald trump's former national security advisor and it seems to me there's a real risk that that might happen and of course in terms of. and the allegations against the idea that the national the the n.r.a. one of the most or apache ot organizations in america could be swung round and brought under the influence of the kremlin why one twenty nine year old russian woman is so far fetched in his complete numbers no no no let that is going on no i'll tell you what is being asked to really know what out there what's pathetic here are kind of you know a sleight of hand here no it's not outrageous because remember liberals used to be very distrustful of the national security state they're not anymore let me go to ray you know the contrast in the last few news cycles you have clapper brennan and komi ok you know heralding the virtues of the secure national security state and then we have this young twenty nine one tract of woman that really just wanted to have better relations and she liked guns and she was a conservative and thou

announcing that president trump is considering stripping six former national security officials of their security clearances. >> they've politicized and in some cases monetized their public as much as and security clearances. >> reporter: these obama officials have been critical of president trump's attack on the intelligence community and the russia investigation. >> i know we're not nazi germany, all right? but there is commonality there. >> when i use the term there is nothing short of trees nis, i equate it to one's nation. >> reporter: the idea for revoking clearances was raised by senator rand paul, who met with the president yesterday. >> i don't think that ex-cia agents of any stripe who are now talking heads should continue to get classified information. i think it's wrong. >> reporter: they routinely maintain their security clearances after they leave office, partly so they can counsel their successors on classified matters. two on the list, former fbi director james comey and former deputy fbi director andrew mccabe no longer have security clearances because they were terminat

because zte is the only issue that anyone in washington has looked at and said there are some national security concerns with that. most of china trade involves absolutely no security concerns whatsoever. and so the trump tariffs are illegal by our own definition because they do not meet the national security standard. they do violate the world trade organization's own definitions of correct use of tariffs. but there has been astonishing support for this seizure, this presidential seizure of congressional power, astonishing support from democrats. chuck schumer actually said in regards to the china tariffs president trump is right on target. that was chuck schumer's reaction to it. and last week when some republicans were trying to get an amendment going on the agriculture bill to restrict the president's power to increase tariffs through this loophole, sherrod brown, democrat, stood up and opposed and blocked that amendment. that was an amendment to limit donald trump's illegal use of presidential power. and that illegal use of presidential power was supported on the senate floor by democrats.

and it is -- really, it's, i believe, the first timeanyone has ever tried tointegrate national security with --and economic security is an essential part of -- if wedon't have a strong economy, you're not prepared fornational security. that's kind of the essence of what it is. that document. so i think we're, you know, in agreement with you. maybe i'm -- an agreement with you. >> maybe i'm faulting the implementation rather than the strategy then. mr. ambassador, to follow up on senatorshaheen's comments. you don't need to respond. i'm happy to stay afterwards, but there's a belief that europe is naturally going to be buying more soybeans. as a result ofour loss of markets inchina, those are being replacedby argentina and brazil and as thosesoybeans in argentina and brazil are movedto china, where europe has currently been buyingfrom argentina and brazil, we'll become a naturalmarket. we want to make certainwherever the market is, it's at a price and in volume thatoffsets or grows the current opportunity we have to exportsoybeans around the globe, particularly tochina. senator alexander

to trump's claim that national security is at risk if tariffs on to impose donal tows on components. this is not good business this is not good for our economy this is not good for the very workers who in fact voted for him so far there's been no word on when washington actually intends to put the threatened tariffs into effect. all right let's got much more on this and bring in kristen starr the professor of strategy management. thank you very much for joining us so americans having me so americans must pay ten percent tariffs while europeans must pay for their acts first to the s. only two and a half percent of course in these numbers the mind one can say trump is right this is not fair or is it. well that's a sort of narrow view on terrorists. it's not as if the individual products iraq. having the same type of carrots for example the u.s. charges higher tariffs on trucks. and it's an overall balance which surely has to be there but i don't see one should do product by product trump also was still not a factor in the european especially the german car exports but at the same time

under the call of national security. that's an abuse of the system, consumers will be hurt, the price of new cars will go up two to $6,000. that will hurt poor people the most. it will hurt the auto sector which is doing quite well, we are exporting a record 2.4 billion cars. the president seems to have a special fixation on german imports, the biggest bmw plant in the world is in spartanburg, south carolina. they employ a thousand americans earning good salaries and export 70% of their vehicles to europe and china. those jobs will be in jeopardy if we start a global trade war over automobiles. host: can you give us an example of recent history where president has used the national security clause to implement a tariff? guest: it's been used in limited circumstances, it was used in 's a couple times for oil. president reagan used in the 1980's on machine tools. very limited, and targeted. no president has ever used it in this scope and with such tenuous connection to national security. back to your comment on the potenti

that decades of this investment and all sharing of you as jobs by multi nation oil companies has weakened you as economic security as a nation but old al gore witnesses i was listening to were quite sure they once did the consequences of such terrorists would be on the floor scene and this stressed that the u.s. car industry is thriving so there is no case here no threat to u.s. national security ok so let's cross over to new york now yes we heard about consumers and employees already but what will be the effect on companies themselves well quite simply the margins in the u.s. car industry are actually that's true for the car industry globally are not very high so meaning if costs increase of it might lead to price increases and therefore eventually lead to fewer sales to take the toyota camry for example that it's built here in the united states about a third of the auto parts are coming from overseas so those will become more expensive than we might see originally and torrie measures from other countries so that could hurt exports of for the you. build cars and so you would could see lower sales some higher cos

if it is necessary and interests of national security john lee warned that he did he decided to ban the party anyone attending meetings or making donations to the group could face up to two years in prison he added however they'd still be given a chance to appeal his decision with hong kong's most powerful politician the city's chief executive kerry lamb. it marks the first time a political party's targeted under the society's ordinance a piece of legislation that has been previously criticized by a un human rights body for unduly restricting freedom of association calls for hong kong's independence have grown louder in hong kong after a wave of pro-democracy protests that brought the city to a standstill twenty four team failed to achieve its goals but was then activists seeking more autonomy or all out independence for the city have been barred from running in elections or even detained but many chinese city that has prided itself on the unique freedoms enjoyed by its citizens alarm bells are already ringing as concern spreads over whose freedom will have to be limited next in the nam

official at the national security council. as "the new york times" reported, when the cyber security zar had his job eliminated, the cyber security experts and members of congress said they were mystified by the move. well, if mystified members of congress don't understand why that happen, congress could ask. if congress wants to do something in the face of documented russian attacks on our election, the intelligence community's hair on fire assertion that's those attacks are continuing, the president's public inexplicable denial is that the president publicly siding with russia against his own government and his own country on these issues specifically, congress could ask, right? congress has the option to hold hearings if they are also mystifi mystified, they could hold hearings on why the top security expert was fired months before the elections. he was fired and there was no replacement. they have plenty of practical things they do do today to pick up the shack on this is a national security matter. to try to protect the co

section 232 of the 1962 trade act was meant for national security. i do not think it applies to steal. it certainly does not apply to automobiles. importing a van from germany does not impact our national security. , article 21ements of the wto allows countries to impose duties. materialsthey involve for national security purposes, instruments of war in times of national emergency. none of that applies now. congress needs to take back its rightful constitutional authority over trade policy. we saw a nine bond -- nonbinding referendum passed in the senate, 88 to 11, strongly bipartisan. there is a bill by senators corker that requires a congressional vote before the president could impose duties under section 232. that is in the spirit of the constitution and would apply retroactively to the still duties. it would repeal them, and less congress endorses them. congress needs to take back -- it would be good for the economy and for constitutional order and congress for to reassert itself. when of the number of republican members expressing their concern

suggesting that what we're seeing now actually is something that could weaken us both in terms of national security and in terms of global security? >> i think over the course of my government career, i saw both sides of the aisle get involved in partisan politics when it came to intelligence in national security matters. unfortunately, we have reached a new low in terms of how the members of congress on the republican side are doing everything possible to support and defend and make excuses for some of the activities that are being uncovered as part of -- as the investigation goes forward. so i do think it has a very detrimental impact on our national security. i think it's something all americans should be concerned about. again, not being a republican or a democrat, i just think it's critically important for the representatives of the american people to pursue these issues with the greatest integrity and honesty. what i saw today was this grandstanding and politicking at the expense of our national security. how it's going to come to an end, i don't know. but unfortunately this polarization is b

council and national security team. so putin says how about that referendum in ukraine. he says yeah, that's something we should talk about. bam, he comes out and putin gets to define that. he gets to say guess what? he agreed to some referendum in ukraine about should russia be there or not. i guarantee you that is on russian terms, not u.s. terms. that's why this kind of an action to me is really soft mark. it's boneheaded. you have great people around you. the president needs to listen to them. and this needs to be a policy. and i think bob was right when he said he's kind of going at it alone. >> yeah. >> he really wants to go at it alone in turkey. he wants to go at it alone in israel, because he thinks he is smarter than everyone else in the room. my mother always said when you're the smartest guy in the room or think you are, time to find a new room. i think the president needs to slow down and think about the consequences of what he's doing. >> i mean, just listening to you talk, i got to say, it's nuts that thi

i don't think we should trade away national security. when we let them off the hook because the the permit of commerce had imposed the denial order it was going to be in effect for eight years. now it is not. now they get to go back to doing business, there is more oversight but i want to know what we got. what did we get for it, mister ambassador? >> i don't know what you mean. >> these are negotiations. we are talking about they are retaliating against us on a range of issues with regard to the steel tariffs. this is something president teasing ping --xi was worried about, the expert denial order. i want to know why we backed up since we backed up what we got for it in this negotiation. >> i would say the question is what is the nature of the remedy? it is enforcement action. was there a trade-off in the connection of what i do? the answer is no, there was no trade-off in anything. >> here is what i am worried about. were you surprised when china retaliated, imposed retaliatory tariffs on agriculture, fisheries, did that surprise you?

thinking there was a national security leaders that any time a chinese investor with the link to the chinese government has a foot in our supply chain as we build product or robotics or artificial intelligence or space technology in the things that power the military and government if they have some insight into that technology, not only they could potentially plant the espionage bug and monitor communications but adopt technology themselves to give them a military edge or the economic edge in the global marketplace. those are the concerns but to be clear while raising what are legitimate issues across the spectrum specifically kneeling with investors we should not issue chinese investment they put billions of dollars into our most cutting-edge technology every year and there is some fear that by demonizing these investments we could overreact and we could phrased in create a chilling effect on the money helping silicon valley flourish and that is the edge we have in the marketplace today with this next-generation technology so certainly his sentiment reflects a legitimate concern do

that he is acts on behalf of another country other than his own. >> you're saying this is a national securitye u.s. presidency is about presidents rising to the occasion or not at times of national emergency as a national security crisis. watergate is the only other time i can think of where the president was part of the crisis. >> right. >> that's why we keep going back to watergate in terms of trying to understand the magnitude here. but when it is a foreign policy matter, when it is an intelligence matter like this and the president is not the one to lead the country out of this problem, do we have anything from history to understand? >> sadly we don't or good thing we don't. nixon did terrible things, but no one ever suspected seriously that he was acting on behalf of return s russia or some other foreign power so we can't look back and say this is the way we did it. on the other hand, this is the time for members of congress to step out, particularly members of donald trump's own party. republicans during richard nixon went to the white house and said you can't stay there anymore. we can

today i do believe that the passage of the ndaa, firma legislation will help improve national security and combat aggressive chinese efforts to secure our technology. i would like to thank all who participated in this process and i commend this bill to our congress to pass. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from washington. >> i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. murphy a member of the armed services committee and served on the conference committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. murphy: i know our forces must be equipped to get the job done. that's why i strongly urge my colleagues to pass the national defense authorization act. i thank chairman thornberry and ranking member smith for their leadership on this bipartisan bill. as a member of the armed services committee and the conference committee that reconciled the house and senate versions of the bill i'm honored to have played a role in crafting this final progra

. >> joining me now, cnn's senior national security analyst, lisa monaco, former homeland security and counterterrorism adviser to president obama, who knows a thing or two about security, let's just say that. lisa, thanks so much for being with us. what makes this comment -- >> good morning, john. >> what makes this comment from sarah sanders about the president considering revoking these security clearances, what makes its important? >> well, look, john. i think -- and i heard alison's lead-in, i think it's a pretty sad commentary when the best thing you can say about this is that it's an effort to distract from the president's political problems. really, this is a dangerous, dangerous set of threats that we're hearing coming out of the white house. because, really, what it is, it's a politicization of the security clearance process and an effort to silence critics. when you look at the people that were mentioned coming out of the white house, both from the president and from sarah sanders, from the podium, virtually every one of the people mentioned is a career national security and

we have tried to coordinate it, and the president's national security strategy, which was published in maybe february goes through this and talks about economic security as part of national security. it's a really good document. i would recommend it to anyone. and it is -- really, it's, i believe, the first time anyone has ever tried to integrate national security with -- and economic security is an essential part of -- if we don't have a strong economy, you're not prepared for national security. that's kind of the essence of what it is. that document. so i think we're, you know, in agreement with you. >> maybe i'm faulting the implementation rather than the strategy then. >> mr. ambassador, to follow up on senator shaheen's comments. you don't need to respond. i'm happy to stay afterwards, but there's a belief that europe is naturally going to be buying more soybeans. as a result of our loss of markets in china, those are being replaced by argentina and brazil and as those soybeans in argentina and brazil are moved to china, where europe has currently been buying from argentina and br

you as jobs multi-nation oil companies has weakened you as economic security as a nation but old al gore witnesses i was listening to were quite sure they wanted the consequences of such terrorists would be on the floor scene and this stressed that the u.s. car industry is thriving so there is no case here no threat to u.s. national security ok so let's cross over to new.

his behavior was so bizarre, so to americaneterious interests and our national security that millions of americans are left wondering if putin indeed has something over the president. that is indeed the most logical explanation of the president's behavior. now the question looms -- what will the senate do in response? republicans seem to be shrugging their shoulders. some of them claiming they have done all they can. statements are not enough. we need action. republicanst unless and join us in bipartisan action. here are a few things that the senate can do immediately in response to the president's disastrous summit. we can ratchet up sanctions on russia and not water them down. in the senate, they have not been even fully implemented. we want to make sure that they are not weakened in any way at all as some on the house republican side may be attempting to do. second and probably most importantly, our republican colleagues need to immediately join us in demanding open and public testimony from the president's national security team that was in helsinki and any others who might be pri

gets the national security briefings from fox news. it is amazing. >> thank you. d, i want to read something, we got a statement from the director of national intelligence, dan coats about his comments at the gathering there. i see, i ask you both to weigh in on this. it says, press coverage m mischaracterized by response, it was in no way meant to be disrespectful or criticize the actions of the president. i and the intel community are provided to prevent russian meddling in upcoming elections, to build strong relationships in order to maintain peace, denuclearize nation, and your reaction from that statement from mr. coats. >> well, it is clearly damage control. trying to stay in the president's good graces. he was blind sided by the fact that president trump instructed, nor, does it change the fact that director coats clearly said that he would have advised against a one-on-one meeting, which he will do when valdimir putin comes to the white house. it doesn't change the substance of what we learned from the director himself. >> and this new statement from direct

these are national security documents.y we to have the power to -- aught to have the power to limit those documents from coming out for those reasons. >> one more point. i think it is a very good question because in the arguments in the supreme court, and one or more of the justices said about the new york times -- you copyrighted your article. you intend to prevent other people from using the stuff that you have copyrighted, see you want to have a priority on other people taking your material under the copyright laws and yet you deny that same right to the united states. a very interesting point. >> next up, stephen and -- in washington, d.c. >> what an honor. so great to talk to you, i admire and respect all three of you very much. i was wondering whether and to what degree the sharing of intelligence information has been institutionalized between the media and various administrations and intelligence communities. >> you want to do that? >> certainly has. we've seen that in the last two years in abundant detail. i mean,

presidency is about presidents rising to the occasion or not at times as a national security crisis. is the only other time i can think of in modern history where there was a national crisis where the president was the crisis or part of the crisis. that's why we keep going back to watergate. trying to understand the magnitude. when it's a foreign policy matter or intelligence matter like that and the president is not the 1 to lead the country out of this problem, do we have anything to understand who we look to leadership? >> sadly we don't. good thing we don't because nixon did terrible things, but no one suspected he was acting on behalf of russia or another foreign power. we can't look back and say this is the way we did it. on the other hand, this is the time for members of congress to step up, particularly members of donald trump's own party. republicans during richard nixon went to the white house and said you can't stay there anymore. this is not what our party stands for and we can no longer accept this. if we see members of republican leaders in the house and senate are sayin

cnn white house correspondent kaitlan collins kept pressing. >> has the president briefed his national security adviser, his secretary of state, the director of national intelligence and the defense secretary on what exactly was said between him and president putin? >> the president has met and spoken with all of those individuals since his meeting with president putin. >> when he briefs them, is he relying solely on his own memory to tell them what happened during that two-hour meeting? >> the president has met and consulted with all of his national security team, and we feel very confident in the process. >> based on what he remembers -- >> kaitlan, i'm not going to go on the specific details on how the president interacts every single time with his national security team. >> but this is a sit-down with the russian president. >> it's actually not a rarity. it's a normal practice for two world leaders to be able to have a conversation with one another. >> but not the president of russia. >> actually, it is kind of a rarity to have a two-hour plus meeting with vladimir putin without other peopl

historic responsibility as do all of us because the red light is flashing as the director of national securityts put it much as it was before 9/11. we are in a 9/11 national emergency because our country is under attack. literally that attack is ongoing and pervasive, verified by objective and verifiable evidence, those words are, again from the director of national security and this 9/11 moment demands that we do come together, issue a subpoena not only for the translator and the notes but also for the national security team that debriefed the president about these supposed agreements in the sphere of international security. again, a direct quote from the russian news agency that says it's ready to enliven contacts, that word is of uncertain meaning, but we need to move forward in the congress not only on this issue but also to impose sanctions, make the russians pay a price and also to expose putin's ill-gotten gains. his assets hidden well around the world to name and shame. >> there is some concern about what might have been said behind closed doors between president trump and vladimir put