>> i am editor of "the new york times" book review and oversee book coverage at the new york times which extends from reviews in the sunday book review to our daily critics to reporting on the industry to profiles and features. we are trying to cover not only what the latest is in books but also to cover the way in which books intersect with the larger cultural and use in general. >> if somebody gets the sunday new york times or subscribes to the book review separately can you read just one or do they come in a series? if you pick up one is that like a short story of its own? >> a book review? yes. i think a book review serves multiple purposes. ideally it is to tell you what is in the book and give you a sense of writing and offer some kind of judgment. but i also think a book review in and of itself is a kind of art form. there is a certain writing that takes place you would not get in the rest of the news report or feature about the book because criticism is an art form. my hope is that people around just looking for a book review to decide whether or not to review the book but also a

we visited "the new york times" a couple years back and we did a profile piece on "the new york times" book review. if you would like to see that, go to the website booktv.org and you will be able to watch the entire thing.

>> guest: i'm editor of the new york time book review and a oversee book coverage at the new york times which extends from reviews in the sunday book review tour daily critic to reporting on the industry, to profiles and features. we try to cover really not only what the latest is in books, but also to cover the way in which books intersect with the largest culture and the news in general. >> if someone gets the new york times separately can you read just one or do they come in a series? or if you pick up one is it like -- street. >> i think of the book review serves multiple purposes. ideally it's to tell you what is in the book had to give you a sense of the writing and to offer some kind of judgment. i also think a book review is an art form. there is a certain writing that takes place in literary criticism that you would not get in the rest of the news report or even in feature of a book. criticism is an art form. so often my hope is people are not just looking at a book review to decide whether not to read the book but also appreciating that piece of writing in its own right. frank

. >> this is a fox news alert, earlier this evening cia director mike pompeo slammed "the new york times" for outing an undercover cia officer. let's bring in fox news' ed henry for more on this story. >> good to see you, a dramatic development tonight. this is happening at the aspen security forum, this is an annual event out in colorado where these various security officials get together and talk about the top issues of the day. russian interference in the last presidential election was also a major topic, we'll get into that because rick pompeo got frustrated by a series of questions by reporters and panelists about that. what he was particularly angry about is the fact that "the new york times" back in early june published an account of the new chief of iran operations at the central intelligence agency. they named this official even though he's a clandestine official. his identity is supposed to be secret. the cia director teed off ons "the new york times" for publishing his name. >> we had a publication yous" worked for that published the name of an undercover officer at the centra

>> guest: i hated of the new york times book review and oversee books covered at the "new york times" which extends from reviews in the sunday book review to our daily critics, to reporting on the industry to profiles and features, sort of trying to cover really natalie with the latest is in books but also to cover the way which books intersect with the larger culture and with the news in general. >> host: if somebody gets the sunday new times or the book review separately, can you read just one or do they come in a series? if you pick a point is a like a short story of its own? >> guest: a book review? i think a book review serves multiple purposes. ideally it steatite what's in the book, to get a sense of the writing and offer some kind of judgment. i also think a book review in and of itself is a kind of art form. there is a certain writing that takes place in literary criticism that you wouldn't get in the rest of the new support or even in a feature about a book. because criticism is an art form. often my hope is that people are not dislike for book review to decide whether or no

i want to read from "the new york times." he said, "we were interviewing" -- talking to maggie haberman and mr. schmidt of "the new york times." he said, "we're interviewing replacements at the fbi. did you know mueller was one of the people that was being interviewed?" haberman, "i did, actually." trump, "he was sitting in that chair. we had a wonderful meeting." haberman, "the day before, right?" schmidt said, "did he want the job?" then trump says, "the day before, of course. he was up here and he wanted -- he wanted the job." haberman, "he made that clear to you?" "he would have." trump says, "now what happens is he leaves the office, rosenstein leaves the office. the next day he's appointed special counsel. i said what the hell is this all about? talk about conflicts. but he was interviewing for the job. there were many other conflicts that i haven't said but i will at some point." chris, is he laying the groundwork there? >> oh, yeah. and, frankly, has been, don, for a long time. i remember talking to you a month or two

shares of "the new york times" hit a fresh multiyear low just days before the election last november r the company reported a less than stellar quarter. however, when the guy who coined the failing "new york times" moniker got elected for president, everything changed. the stock rallied nearly 10% after the vote it's been off to the races since. the reason investors assume that for whatever reason, the trump white house would send a lot of eyeballs to "the new york times," and they nailed it say what you will about the trump administration, it knows how to make headlines. just in the seven days following the election, "the times" saw a net increase of 41,000 new subscriptions. that was the largest one-week gain since the digital payroll in 2011. since then, we have gotten three strong quarters in a low and advertising losses still offsets subscription gains, but the company is closing the gap in may, we to the another out and out beat but the subscriptions finally outpaced the losses from advertising. circulation revenue increased by 11.2%. plus, circulation is a much larger piece of

but as soon as this interview posted tonight at "the new york times," "the new york times" also posted in their business section a big news story about deutsche bank, which is the president's biggest lender. deutsche bank has an unusual financial relationship to donald trump. as david k. johnston and other financial reporters have documented, when other banks, when almost every other major bank would no longer do business with donald trump and the trump organization, deutsche bank continued to, and he -- they remain his largest lender. deutsche bank is also on the hook to tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for their role in russian money laundering schemes in recent years. but according to the "times" tonight, banking regulators are reviewing hundreds of millions of dollars in loans made to mr. trump's businesses through deutsche bank's private wealth management unit. which caters to an ultra-rich clientele. the "times" is citing three people on the review not authorized to speak publicly. the regulators want to know if the loan might have exposed the rank to heightened r

." >> you're presuming he reads "the new york times." sume that he has it read to him or perhaps has the chirons on fox read to him that are about what's in "the new york times." he doesn't read his daily briefings. he definitely doesn't read "the new york times." i suspect that maybe they hoped this would somehow fly under the radar for him. so many things do. like, you know, certain facts about the global economy for instance. you know, whether or not health care is complicated. he's not a curious man. i think perhaps the only reason -- again, the only reason he's finding out about this now is because there's been reaction to it. and he definitely like monitors his twitter feed, i think more than he reads any particular newspaper or briefing book or classified intelligence. and i find actually the idea that he didn't know about this meeting to be the single most plausible detail of this entire story, that his campaign principals were out having high-level meetings with him not knowing about it. i mean he ran for president as basically a

"the new york times" reporting this weekend follows that initial "wall street journal" report. it is now the second documented confirmed report of americans participating knowingly in the russian effort to affect our election. this time the incident occurs two months earlier than that effort convened by republican operative peter smith that was reported in "the wall street journal." this time it is not someone who was acting as a trump supporter. it's not somebody who was acting in, you know, adjunct to the trump campaign and in support of trump campaign. it's no longer someone who says he knows people and is maybe working with people on the trump campaign. no. this time it's the trump campaign itself at the highest level. it's the president's campaign manager. it's his son-in-law and senior adviser. they're not denying they were in the room for this meeting. and his eldest son, his name sake not only admits attending this meeting he's explained that the reason he took the meeting, the whole reason he went was because he thought he might be able to obtain some new dirt on hillar

attorney general jeff sessions gave "the new york times" no comment, absolutely no comment. when he was told what the president said to him and "the new york times" asked for comment. the president told "the new york times" he regrets ainterest poing jeff sessions. when a president expresses no confidence in a cabinet member, then that cabinet member owes the president his resignation. when a president does it publicly, which is something we just have never seen before, then that cabinet matter really has no choice from that minute forward, absolutely no choice. here is some of "the new york times'" audio recording of what the president said. >> sessions gets the job. right after he gets the job, he recuses himself. >> was that a mistake? >> well, sessions should have never recused himself. and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job, and i would have picked somebody else. >> had you -- >> zero. so jeff sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himse himself. i then have -- which frankly i think is very unfair to the president

new york. welcome into our viewers in the united states and around the world. we are following breaking news right now. information emerging just a short time ago with potentially serious consequences for the trump white house. details uncovered by reporters from the "new york times." it seems to confirm a private meeting between people closest to then gop nominee, donald trump, and figures connected to the russian government. those people are his then campaign manager paul manafort, his close policy advisor and son-in-law jared kushner and his own son, donald trump jr. there's more. at least five sources tell the "new york times" that the reason for this private meeting was the promise of election dirt. that would hurt the campaign of hillary clinton. cnn global affairs correspondent, elise labbot is here and we are joined as well. elise, to you first, what part of this is potentially damaging to the administration in the context of the federal investigation into election meddling? >> well, ana, this is an early indication that russians were seeking out members of the trump campaign. donald trump jr. says he didn't know he was meeting with

>> it was the president and his people who decided to sit him down with "the new york times." times" loved it, but if they had a purpose, he had a purpose to sit down with them. when you talk about he is out there, open, and what's on his mind, what was on his mind wasn't health care, it was russia and mueller and sessions. the sessions was his only supporter in the u.s. who was with him every step of the way until he started to get traction, it was sessions to help him get there and he's no longer senator because he's the attorney general and when you're trying to get 52 senators in the republican party to agree on something, they have to look at this and say, can we count on him to stand with us if he won't stand with jeff sessions? >> melissa: i'm really going to throw you under the bus if you don't do what i want, maybe that was the message behind this. he sang here as well do. >> hill through jeff sessions under the bus, who won't he throw under the bus? if you worry g.o.p. senator right now, you have to wonder about that. look at -- >> melissa: i think you know. it can g

he was being a diligent attorney. >> we are going to get more into the new york times in a moment. on health care and heard the news as we all did that senator john mccain was diagnosed with brain cancer. from what i heard at the meeting, you all stopped, took a moment, prayed together. tell me about that. >> yeah, very moving. john mccain has served our country so diligently with such incredible sacrifice that even those who disagree with him politically acknowledge and respect the man's life and dedication to our country. and the mood there was not just a colleague, not just a human being, a fellow american, but the life of someone whose given so much. that touches us all very deeply. >> given so much to this country in so, so many ways. back to the new york times interview and your reaction to key parts of it. let me read this. talking about the fbi director and to whom the fbi director reports and frankly should be loyal to, here is what the president said. the fbi person reports directly to the president of the united states, which is interesting. the thing is, senator, he does

consider this package in "the new york times." mr. kushner supplemented the list of foreign contacts three times, adding more than 100 names, people close to him said. so people close to jared kushner are telling "the new york times" about jared kushner updating his security clearance application. team kushner is obviously an invaluable set of sources for "the new york times." but people in the white house presumably on team trump continue in the giant battle of the secret sources with "the new york times" to try to make the president look better than jared kushner. here's how "the new york times" describes what jared kushner told his father-in-law about his meeting with natalia veselnitskaya. mr. kushner played down the significance of the meeting and omitted significant details according to two people who were briefed on the exchange. they said mr. kushner informed the president that he had met with a russian foreign national and that while he had to report the name, it would not cause a problem for the administration. now, there's o

distraction with that news cycle but at the same time they're looking for counter programming but a really good book whether a history book or novel from the rapid news cycle. >> editor of the new york times book review my life with bob. booktv visited the new york times and we did a profile of the book review. go to the web site you can see the entire interview. in the morning show. this is an hour long event. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> good evening and welcome to the strand bookstore. i'm nancy. i am the owner of the store along with my dad. my dad worked in history, my grandfather found at the store and

more media than any president before him and he understands the power that someone like the "new york timesber, in an interview with the "new york times," exactly two weeks after he won the 2016 election, he called it a major cru jewel, a crown jewel in the world when he was interviewing with them. so that's more what he really believes. the other stuff is him doing political posturing. >> thank you so much. >>> we have breaking news. the white house says president trump does not intend to fire special counsel robert mueller at this time. that's a quote. a day after the president warned mueller not to investigate his family finance. and after the president slams his attorney general, the white house insists he still has confidence in jeff sessions. ♪ casper's truly changed our lives. ♪ a mattress of unparalleled value. love at first night. ♪ (grunts) i'm a softer, happier, friendlier version of myself. (surps drink) perfect sleep changes people. (kisses baby) transform your life at casper.com try their mattress for 100 nights with free shipping and returns. casper. finding the best hotel pr

maggie haberman from "the new york times" with our breaking news. i want to bring in cnn senior political analyst mike preston. michael isikof for yahoo! news. and cnn political analyst, april ryan. thanks, everyone. mark, what's your reaction to this breaking story from maggie h haberman in "the new york times"? >> wow, again, this a story, don, that's just broken in the last 60 minutes or so. again, another shoe has dropped and really the story that the trump administration can't shake. now, we have to be very careful and not use words such as "collusion" yet or "illegal" because we don't know necessarily. >> this is from three sources from "the new york times" and they were read these. so i don't think -- i don't think maggie has seen it or whatever. i think they were read this information. but go on. >> well, correct, but, again, we don't know where the investigation is going to go, but where there is smoke, and in this case, it's billowing smoke, you have to look for fire. so just for the opponents of donald trump should be careful about how th

i'm ana cabrera in new york, we begin with this breaking news. "the new york timeseaking this hour that donald trump junior met with a russian lawyer after being promised damaging information on hillary clinton. this is the first public indication that at least some in the trump campaign were willing to accept russian help. donald trump junior has provided cnn with the following statement. quote, i was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance i knew from the 20

against special counsel robert mueller's legal team, citing conflicts with an interview with "the new york times. >> reporter: "the new york times" and "washington post" reporting that the president's lawyers and aides are lacking to undermine the special counsel's investigation. "the times" says trump's team is skewering the professional and political backgrounds of robert mueller and other investigators, looking for conflicts of interest they can use to discredit the investigation. "the post" also reporting that the president has been asking about his authority to pardon aides, family members, and even himself, in connection with the probe. attorney general jeff sessions refusing to answer questions about whether he's discussed pardons with the president in testimony before congress last month. >> i'm not able to comment on conversations with high officials within the white house. >> reporter: all this as the russia investigation appears to be widening. bloomberg reporting that mueller is expanding his probe to include a broad range of financial transactions involving trump businesses and asso

"the new york times" told him so. when the times first broke the story over the weekend, trump jr. called it a short introductory meeting that primarily involved a program about the adoption of russian children. that was the first statement. the next day, donald trump admitted an acquaintance told him the individual he was meeting with people that might have information for the campaign. trump jr. said, i love it. what a tangled web we weave. john roberts live in paris where the president earlier marked bastille day with his french counterpart. anything we're learning about the new revelations, john?

i guess, why would you care with "the new york times" thinks? "the new york times" hates him.the drudge" report, an aggregator, one of the biggest on the internet, an early champion of trump. now in the last couple of weeks, it seemed hostile to trump. that would be a real concern for me if i was running a political operation. losing people who supported me as a sign that things are going in the wrong direction. to think they know that? >> certainly the white house was not happy that this was reported in the last day. being blindsided by this interview and then trying to have damage control. he took the 52 senators to task and reminded them what their responsibility and promises were to the american people. that was all destroyed in a matter of hours by this interview. when you give an interview like that to the enemy? "the new york times"? no friend of yours? that's what they were doing, the president took the bait. he has received the brunt of terrible, terrible article. it will now take some time frame to get back on track. the president has to realize that you can be frust

howie: the president is constantly attacking the failing "new york times" and fake media. why would he say this to the "new york times"? erin: marie and i were talking about that this morning. i agree with that. however, in general i think the interview was fantastic and we need more of them. why wouldn't every president go talk and pill their innermost thoughts. one good thing about this is i think so many other politicians in washington who have a filter and don't want to talk to the press that often are getting more fearless in talking to the media more, and that's a good thing. marie: i like that he gives interviews. i don't like what he says often. howie: i think a lot of people think the president is his own communications director. he also takes questions with foreign leaders. he's his own best messenger. sessions must resign, is that the place of commentators to try to push out the attorney general? marie: we have commentators on our network, every network does. i worked for a secretary, several of them in the obama administration. if the press said that about my bo

new york. i'm joy reid in for chris hayes. we have some pretty big news to start with. in an interview with the new york times, president trump said that he never would have appointed jeff sessions as attorney general had he known that sessions would recuse himself. quote, how do you take a job and then recuse yourself if he would have recused himself before the job. i would have said, thanks, jeff, but i'm not going to take you. it is extremely unfair. he spoke about when the investigation would go too far. asked if the investigation would cross a red line if it expands to look into his family finances beyond any relationship would russia, trump said, i would say yes. he would not say what he would do about it, however. he added, i think that's a violation. this is about russia. also today, the eldest son of the president. his name sake, donald trump jr., and paul manafort, have been invited to testify before the senate judiciary committee one week from today. this follows more than ten days of rolling disclosures and revelations about donald trump jr.'s revelation about a meeting. paul manafort who was in t

after the break, the remarkable interview that donald trump gave to the "new york times" issuing a warning to special counsel robert mueller and talking about the second discussion with vladimir putin. >>> returning to the breaking news tonight, in a wide ranging interview with "the new york times," donald trump said he never would have appointed jeff sessions as attorney general had he known that jeff sessions would have recused himself. >> sessions gets the job. right after he gets the job, he recuses himself. on well, sessions should have never recused himself. if he was going to, he should have told me before he took job and i would have picked somebody else. >> he gave you no heads up at all. >> zero. so he takes the job. gets into the job. recuses himself. which frankly, i think is very unfair to the president. how do you take a job and then recuse yourself? if he would have recused himself before the job, i would have said, thank you. it is extremely unfair. that's a mild word to the president. he recuses himself. i then end up with a second man who is a deputy. >> there's a lot mor

let's start with tonight's "new york times" story as opposed to today's "new york times" story. much does this read like a game-changer to you? >> i think it's really serious. and when you think about what president trump has done for the last year which is basically deny that anything was going on with russia, there is no russian involvement in the hacks, and in an attitude that was very, very strange. his seeming coziness to the russian bear was a great concern. now we're getting more and more details. there are a lot of threads here. this thing is coming unraveling very fast. >> talk to me about the danger of putin suggesting and trump even considering, let alone mentioning in public, this joint cyber security task force. you're on armed services. it always struck me that if it had been kinetic warfare, if someone had fired so much as one shot by way of the cyber warfare that had been committed, we'd maybe treat it with more urgency and be better at our defenses, at countering it. so what do you make of that? >> what i make of it is an -- a president that really doesn't under

new york. john, great to see crow. >> so much news, we had to be in two cities at once. >> that's right. so let's get right to it. up first, "the new york times" and "washington post" with new reporting that president trump's legal team is trying to undercut special counsel, robert mueller. the president's lawyers are investigating the investigators in hopes of discrediting the russia investigation. >> "the washington post" also reports that the president is asking advisers about his ability to pardon his aides with, family members, and possibly even himself. this as the president has re-shuffled his legal team. we have it all covered for you. let's begin with cnn's senior washington correspondent, joe johns, live at the white house. good morning, joe. >> john, i think reshuffling is the word. the president has already signalled that he is geari inin for a fight against the special counsel investigators, citing conflicts. and it appears now that the president's team is looking to the past for information to discredit the investigators. "the new york times" and "washington post" reporting that the president's lawyers and aides are looking to u

we'll start with that interview between president trump and "the new york times."eter baker, joining us in one minute, sat with us for almost an hour. we want you to listen for yourselves what the president had to say. roll the

matthew, i'm just wondering what you make of this reporting by "the new york times." does it change anything? >> well, i read the article very carefully, and it's based on three people with knowledge of the e-mail and i think david is right. i think it's very dangerous to speculate as to what the facts are or are not. but it is concerning heading into that meeting if he did know this was regarding information that had been created, you know, allegedly by the russian government, i think that's concerning. but at the same time, you know, david points out a really key piece, which it still is not evidence that there was any crime committed and i still don't think it's enough to suggest there's some conspiracy or otherwise to violate either election laws or espionage laws. >> matthew, is there some obligation that a member of a campaign -- i mean if you are approached by an entity from a foreign government, which, you know, obviously we all know the history between the united states and russia, is there some legal obligation to report that to others? if a foreign actor --

i'm joined now by new york times white house correspondent and msnbc drint tore glen flesh whose colleagues conducted that blockbuster interview. as well as tonight's panel. glen, i want to start with you, because it's "the new york times" reporting that was just an incredible interview by your colleagues. but talking about this red line and whether or not donald trump thinks that bob mueller would be in violation of something if he went into donald trump's finances, listen, michael submit, who pressed him on that, is not a -- he's a savvy guy. he's a savvy reporter. can we take that to mean that maybe this investigation is already headed in that direction, as ken dell leanian is reporting? >> i have to say, i'm a little upset that i was literally the only member of the new york times washington bureau that was not allowed in on this interview. >> why was that? >> i think we've seen reports over the last couple of days indicating that things might move in that direction which i think is why michael asked the question. that is a really dangerous area for the president. but, look, we've had j

back to the new york times interview president did yesterday. on the front page.fter molars investigation, the special counsel to cross a hisine if it looked at finances related to russia. he did not say what he would do about it. below that is a story in the new york times about regulators review german bank at the center of trump's finances. during the presidential campaign donald trump pointed to his with deutsche bank to counter reports that take banks were skeptical of doing business with him. now that two decades long relationship is coming under scrutiny. deutsche bank has been in contact with federal investigators about the trump account. the bank is expecting to eventually have to provide information to robert mueller. this story in the washington post. trump and cia program in syria. president trump has decided to end the program charm and train syrian rebels battling the government of bashar al-assad. the move long sought by russia. a central plank of a policy begun by the obama administration in 2013 to put pressure on assad to step aside. backers have

post" is reporting on "the new york times" on their cover. "new york times" report? how does it change the argument? >> it's a big story because we have an instance here of a tangible piece of evidence that points in the direction of what this entire narrative has been about all along, right? trying to demonstrate some sort of link, some piece of evidence between the trump campaign and russian actors, be they state actors themselves or people doing their bidding in an effort to influence the election. this "times" story has a lot of delimiting information. we have to be careful about that. there are gaps we have to fill. there are things we can take away based on the story that we know. one of those things is that donald trump jr. supposedly entered the meeting not under the pretext that it would be about kremlin-linked information to help his father in the campaign, but that was the actual point of it. it didn't seem terribly ambiguous. we heard that donald trump jr. said that we talked a lot about the russian adoption issue and blow back fro

the "the new york times." "fox & friends" said that it with on-screen headline saying they foil attempt to take out the leader. this was a leader the failing "new york times" with that feeling his credibility but also the country. the president then tweeting. the failing "new york times" boiled to catch the terrace. there agenda over national security. his letter, "the new york times" effort an apology over a malicious and inaccurate segment. no apology. here's what "fox & friends" peter doocy said today. >> "the new york times" and fox news sent a lengthy a statement that they describe their reporting to the pentagon before publication, and here is no objections, then they have never complained publicly until now. if you read the entire statement it, is on foxnews.com. >> the "the new york times" sas that it was included in a pressure relief. at the time of a 2016 rate in syria, before the story. it was covered by numeral media outlets. that says it would've tipped off a big daddy who knew, his communication m

his top aides, some of whom were unaware that he had been in such a lengthy interview with "the new york times." you're an expert over this. what happens when they find out, apparently the white house press people had to get a transcript from the "new york times" to find out what their guy, the president, had said. >> let me put out a couple things. i've had it pointed out to me faye only one person from the communications shop was with me. they were pointing tom saying that's raising some eyebrows, i will say that i've had conversations today. i don't want to say spin but the angle here, sure. but he's being candid is the bottom line. you heard that a little bit from sarah huckabee sanders. the president is speaking his mind. he is being honest. he is talking about his disappointment in jeff sessions and how he feels with bob mueller. but they say these aren't threats and they shouldn't be read into as a sign the president is he in fact trying to imply he is going to be firing mueller soon. remember, when you look at the president's framing for this, the white house has made the argument, pub

there is breaking news, glenn thrush, "the new york times," reporting and this has not been confirmed by nbc, but there -- is this major report in the "new york times" that sean spicer who has been clearly not happy about the advent of a new communications director, would be his immediate boss, that perhaps sean spicer is resigning. let's discuss what we know about the new communications director, which could be the precipter during this troubled tenure of the white house press secretary. >> reporter: we know that our reporters have gone up to try to get an answer. i've reached out to all of my sources. so far, no response from the white house about whether or not press secretary sean spicer has in fact resigned. what we know is that anthony scaramucci who is a hedge fund manager we believe is being tapped for communications director. i'm told in my ear that our ali batali has confirmed that sean spicer has resigned after learning that anthony scaramucci has been named. sean spicer was doing two jobs. he was doing the job of communications director as well as press secretary. both of

steve, i want to pick up on the president in the interview with "the new york times." he had had a good day yesterday. he brought almost all of the republican senators into the white house to make an impassioned plea for health care and taking one more swing at it. you can argue whether that's going to happen or not. then he goes straight from there to the oval office to talk to "the new york times" reporters for 15 minutes in talking about russia. >> i'm sure the white house communicators would have preferred he stayed on health care and made his case brit hume moved his case a little bit over the previous days from "we are going to let it fail" to repeal only tow going back to the drawing board. he had a meeting with senators. from the people i've talked to who were in the meeting, there wasn't a ton of progress made pray they were talking past one another. rob portman was asking for more money. other senators saying we need to cut the spending in the bill. they didn't come out with much of a real resolution. then republicans met last night, seeming to sort of talk p

howie: the "new york times" headlines.nce come nantd the united states finds itself isolated at the g-20. he's pushing europeans on nato, and trade, on climate change. that word isolation has been like a dirty world as opposed to he's challenging these other countries. ed: if you look at the presume it covering. angela merkel will have to try to make sense of donald trump. she will have to lead the way. she is the lead dog. since when did a german chancellor lead foreign policy in the u.s. her views are important but she shouldn't have to drive it. howie: do you think particularly since the putin meeting was not a train wreck, and the media which had low expectations from the president moved on to other geopolitical issues. mo: i think the meeting was a train wreck for american foreign policy. howie: didn't they get a ceasefire? ed: it's not like the russians and the united states have the same objectives in syria. mo: but to the point about the isolationism that we were talking about, the president was the only leader the

pick up "the new york times." >> i did read "the new york times." i read all three articles. there's three articles which is where i got the other statement i had. i did read it. there's no evidence. if there was evidence of collusion, thin we would have a different story here. this would be something about a legal case. >> there is something called an investigation right. person in question. >> bob mueller was appointed about two months ago. >> the watergate investigation took over a year. >> we shouldn't have the bob mueller because of people like you decided what was guilty. >> i'm reacting to the evidence, sir. i don't know what you're reacting except you're biased in favor of donald trump. >> you just saided you had bias against donald trump. >> i spent 30 years as a republican and i quit the party in disgust when donald trump got elected because i knew the republicans had become morally complicit in the outrageous conduct of donald trump and you're an example of that complicit right now. >> look, the fact of the matter is donald trump jr. said he would cooperate. he's g