thank you. >> we have breaking news tonight from the new york times about "the new york times" and the panic "the new york times" has created within the white house. the times is reporting that the white house has discussed senator rand paul's idea to use polygraph tests on senior officials of the trump administration. here is the times report tonight. senator rand paul of kentucky recommended that the president force members of his administration to take polygraph examinations, and there was at least briefly some discussion of that among advisers to the president. another option mentioned by people close to mr. trump was asking senior officials to sign sworn affidavits that could be used in court if necessary. one outside adviser said the white house had a list of about 12 suspects. and joining us now by phone is new york times chief white house correspondent peter baker, who is one of the reporters on this article. and, peter, this is an extensive look at what "the new york times" has created, the crisis atmosphere it has created inside the trump white house. what more have you learn

remember this also about "the new york times." when i won they were forced to apologize to their subscribers. they wrote a letter of apology. it was the first time anybody's ever done it because they covered the election incorrectly. so if the failing "the new york times" has an anonymous editorial -- can you believe it? anonymous. meaning gutless. gutless editorial. we are doing a great job. the poll numbers are through the roof. our poll numbers are great. guess what. nobody's going to come close to beating me in 2020 because of what we have done. we have done more than anybody ever thought possible. it's not even two years. thank you very much. appreciate it. [ applause ] [ cheering ] >> all right. the president had a meeting with sheriffs from around the country in the east room of the white house and then of course he was reacting to the extraordinary op-ed in "the new york times." blasting him and an op-ed entitled, quote, i am part of the resistance inside the trump administration. an anonymous person wrote this article, the

now he wonders who's writing about him in "the new york times." new signs tonight of a war within president trump's white house. an anonymous op-ed in "the new york times" written by a senior trump official offers a blistering look at how people inside the government are trying to protect the nation from the president. "we believe our first duty is to this country and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic," the person writes. that is why many trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions, while thwarting mr. trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office. an extraordinary claim, and tonight the president is blasting the newspaper. >> if the failing "new york times" has an anonymous editorial -- can you believe it? anonymous. meaning gutless. a gutless editorial, we're doing a great job. >> reporter: yet it rocked the white house, amplifying and echoing the same overarching theme of a bombshell new book by bob woodward. >> the book means nothing

as far as we know he hasn't issued any statement in the after math of this op-ed in the "new york timessee what happens. we will keep our eyes on president trump's montana trip as well as the white house hunt for the writer of the anonymous up-ed in the "new york times." . little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla . it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have  a history of depression or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. timeit should be measuredsured byby how long steak & lobster is back at outback. ba

and why did "the new york times" publish it anonymously? look at "the new york times" and their standard, we have that handy somewhere, i was reading it somewhere, in order for someone to use in their publication to use anonymous sourcing, it really had to merit the news judgment of the editors publishing it. in other words, it had to be newsworthy. if you have read this, and i have several times over, looking for the news, there is really not any news there. it is much of what we heard over and over again people don't like him and that they are trying to, quote, stop him. all right, i guess we can confirm then it is really and truly happening within the halls of the administration because this person just admitted this. but what would be news is if this person was a very big deal, right? i mean suppose it was mike pence, i'm just throwing that out there, don't infer anything, suppose it was him? then it would be newsworthy, perhaps even so much for the new york times to publish it anonymously. but who is deserving? who has a big enough titl

the screen one more time. this is rosenstein's reaction to the "new york times" story. "the new york times" story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. i will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda, but let me be clear about this, based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th amendment. so that doesn't sound like a firm denial, i never recorded anything, i never even raised the possibility of the 25th amendment. this is what they often call a nondenial denial. >> it is. rod is a very good lawyer and he has definitely written a lawyerly answer. it's really the only answer he can give. i think if you contrast -- i think these comments allegedly were made and certainly andy mccabe and others who witnessed them, they heard these in a certain context. again, these are the opening days of rod rosenstein's tenure as a deputy attorney general. you fast forward since then and from what i'm told rod rosenstein and the president ac

the failing "new york times." ns and the validation provided by the no"the new york times" op e, a sense they have not would have granted for an official and the likelihood we will find out who this person is means that trump, whatever the public statements they put out in the white house understands this is a real person and represents a real threat to his presidency. so i think it's a very significant moment especially combined with the reporting in the woodward book. you know, this is not a michael wolff book. this is not a book by omarosa. he has wrote books, probing investigative books, i think this is the eighth president he's written a book about. he gets his facts right and the details are damaging and astonishing and tend to corroborate this notion of resistance inside administration that perceives themselves to be constraining and stopping the president from doing what he wants to do. >> i think you're so right on what you said about the new york times and if you look at the two organizations he criticize

"the new york times" isn't failing. if i weren't here, i probably believe "the new york times" wouldn't exist. >> the white house press secretary sent an official response which reads in part, the individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive rather than support the duly elected president of the united states. he is not putting country first put putting himself and his ego ahead of the american people. this coward should do the right thing and resign. let us bring in our leadoff panel on a busier than average wednesday evening. can we agree on that? ashley parker, pulitzer prize winning reporter for "the washington post." robert costa, national reporter for "the washington post." also happens to be moderator of "washington week" on pbs'. richard painter, former ethics lawyer for the bush 43 white house. good evening to all of you. ashley, i'd like to begin by highlighting a brief portion of the biline you shared tonight from "the washington post." the phrase, the sleeper cells have awoken circulated on text messages

i know a lot of people at the new york times, it isa lot of people at the new york times, it is a seriousrson in order to... grab attention. so i'm prepared to believe the new york times, because i believe it is a fine newspaper. but lots of people won't. lots of people will think it is a cheap trick by them and they won't believe this person is as senior as they say. ok, the white house press spokesperson sarah sanders without out a tweet refuting the story. we wa nt to out a tweet refuting the story. we want to show you that. there is in this tweet and statement the phone number of the opinion desk of what is called the failing new york times and she suggests people who don't like the piece should call the new york times. how unhelpful would shah have been to you. i would not have enjoyed that. it is worse than childish. what the trump 5 administration is trying to do is de—legitimise the press and i can't think of a single mainstream politician who has done that in re ce nt politician who has done that in recent times. it is dangerous and an awful thing to see and for trump to say that

that story was broken in the new york times. and i had not been read into that program. and the one that came in the new york time i remember my exact reaction when i read that story and then the president that saturday, i believe, did a live radio address to explain to the country what that program was about. there was a huge controversy and so everyone was then working on getting the speech together and you asked me if i'd learned about it before then and i said no and that's accurate. >> when were you in the white house, did you ever work with john yu on the constitutional implications of any warrantless surveillance program? >> i can't rule that -- right in the wake of september 11th, it was all hands on deck on all fronts. and then we were farming out assignments and we were all involved. september 12th, let's just back up. on september 12th when we came into the white house, it was we have to, would on everything. and over time people figured out wh they were work on the. the airline bill as president bush spoke as you recall. and afterward we were in that meeting r

what do you make of "the new york times" publishing this? >> yeah, i don't know the name and the op ed pages are managed separately than the news department so it was handled separately. look, it is unprecedented. the editorial board of "the new york times" and the op ed editors at the times look over submissions very carefully, very deliberately and deliberatively and, you know, you can be sure they know exactly who this person is. it was probably vetted very closely. there was a lot of care and just knowing the people up there, probably a lot of discussion went in not only to the content but also to the appropriateness of publishing an anonymous editorial. like you said, it is unprecedented. the times takes very seriously whether or not to use anonymous information, and i think in the times, they sort of said this, that they believe and we believe, the editorial page believes that the importance of the subject matter, the details, the specificity of the discussions that were going on inside those rooms warranted publication, met a standard

donald trump is a nice guy, we never said anything about this, "the new york times" did false reporting. they're fake thuz. and you know what, "the new york times" would not report that their story was fake. these women said great things. not only did they say bad things, but they said great things about me on stage. and i didn't ask them, and they said "the new york times" made

he talked about "the new york times" op-ped. it's interesting, don, before the rally got started he did a staged one-on-one interview with fox & friends where he essentially said that what "the new york times" ran in the form of that op-ped was treason. he called it, quote/unquote, treason. then during this rally a few moments ago, he confessed to the crowd he doesn't know who the hell it is is the way he put it. he seemed to position all this, describe all of this as part of, again, this deep-state conspiracy he believes is conspireing against this administration. here's what he said a few moments ago. >> the latest act of resistance is the op-ped published in the failing "new york times" by an anonymous, really, an anonymous, gutless, coward. you just look. he was -- nobody knows who the hell he is or she, although they put he, but probably that's a little disguise. that means it's she. for the sake of our national security, "the new york times" should publish his name at once. i think their reporters should go and investigate

if i weren't here, i believe "the new york times" probably wouldn't even exist. [laughter] [applause] someday when i'm not president which hopefully will be in about six and a half years from now, "the new york times," cnn, and all these phony media outlets will be out of business, folks. they will be out of business. there will be nothing to write and there will be nothing of interest. nobody has done with this administration has done, and i agree it's different from an agenda which is much different than ours and it's certainly not yours. that i can tell you. it's about open borders. it's about letting people flee into our country. it's about a disaster and crime for our country. so they don't like donald trump. i don't like them because they are very dishonest people. remember this also about the "the new york times." when i won, they were forced to apologize to their subscribers. they wrote a letter of apology. it was the first time anybody has ever done it because they covered the election incorrectl incorrectly. so if the failing "new york times" has an anon

the new york times and this piece believes that it will cause the next financial crisis. i don't think directly that debt well because it's only two hundred three hundred billion dollars compared to the trillions of dollars that was a subprime mortgage debt and that have been packaged up and sold to people all over the world these are debts that won't be able to really repaid clearly but they're held in pension funds and pensioners and america not getting their money anyway everybody knows it's all a sham but i think the knock on effect if these companies do go bust then that oil production that i showed you in the first chart because remember this is how much oil the u.s. produced from the eighty's all the way up to two thousand and eight when it took off when factoring was possible but when oil prices do rise if those debts full you know are unable to roll over then then of course you could have a financial going to have a contagion you know lehman brothers was only seventy or eighty billion dollars but it caused a multi hundred trillion dollar collapse so i also want t

they like to talk down about the "new york times." of raising the "new york times" as journalistic judgment as something to support them. interesting moment. >> trace: it is interesting. we have drawn parallels. as thursday comes about, what do you expect to see? i only have about 30 seconds. what do you expect to see on thursday? what's your take away. >> my take away it is going to be similar in some ways to the clarence thomas and anita hill. learn 27 years ago. i do think in the end they will turn over most of their questioning on the republican side to a woman lawyer. maybe kelly ayotte as one of your reporters said before. strange they have six female republican senators none of them on the judiciary committee. the democrats have four of their female senators on this committee. you know, it's going to be incredibly tense. every word will be parsed with incredible precision. and then in the end, the country is really going to have just a few days, it looks like, to make up their mind who they believe. and unless, jeff flake, one

the fox news channel. good night from new york. kennedy: the president calls the "new york times whether it's treason after the times publishes an explosive anonymous op-ed reportedly written by a senior trump official. author or authoress says he and other white house officials are working behind the scenes to top the president's misguided impulses. he says i'm part of the resistance inside the trump administration and says he and

if i weren't here, i believe the new york times probably wouldn't even exist. applause. d some day when i am not president, which will hopefully be in about six and a half years from now, the new york times and cnn and all of these phoney media outlets will be out of business folks, they will be out of business. because there will be nothing to write and there will be nothing of interest. let's go to washington now and our correspondent chris buckler. we know what he is saying publicly and can only imagine what he is seeing privately. but plenty of ammunition here? and plenty of questions about what is happening inside the white house. when you look at the quote is written by the new york times by an anonymous senior official in the white house, that it senior official in the white house, thatitis senior official in the white house, that it is a president who is in picturesque, petty, and that some are working at great lengths to keep decisions contained to the west wing and that his inner reality and moot any principles to guide his decisions. it gives you a real sense o

the president also called for potential action against "the new york times." "new york times," wolf, they're issuing a statement about the op-ed saying this. take a look. we are confident that the department of justice understands that the first amendment protects all american citizens and not participate in a blatant abuse of government power. the president's threats both underscore why we must safeguard the identity of the writer of the op-ed and serve as a reminder of the importance of free and independent press to the american democracy. it started with the woodward book and now an op-ed. the president coming back here to a stormy night in washington. he's campaigning in south dakota now. spending the weekend here at the white house. wolf? >> jeff, thank you. jeff zeleny at the white house. we also have some new reporting on the attorney general jeff sessions. i want to bring in white house correspondent kaitlan collins. where does the attorney general -- what does he think right now? where does he think he stands as far as the president is concerned? >> re

the anonymous editorial published in the "new york times" represents a new low in american journalism. i think the "new york times" should be ashamed and whoever wrote this should be ashamed as well. >> even the daughter of john huntsman said it wasn't her father. >> full disclosure, my dad works for the administration. >> did you write it? >> i did not and my dad did not as far as i know. >> reporter: sarah sanders tweeted out a statement calling for the speculation over anonymous to stop as she lashed out at the "new york times" posting the paper's phone number. nancy pelosi said she thought it was vice president pence. >> the vice president that was my first thought. by process of elimination it will come down to the butler. >> reporter: officials inside the administration have been carefully reading the op ed for clues. the author suggests there may be more than one resister in the ranks writing the president's appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting mr. trump's misguided impulses until he's out of office. and it's been noted

the anonymous editorial published in "the new york times" represents a new low in american journalismes" should be ashamed. and i think whoever wrote this anonymous editorial should be ashamed as well. anyone who would write an anonymous editorial smearing this president, who has provided extraordinary leadership for this country, should not be working for this administration. they ought to do the honorable thing and resign. >> let's start at the white house. kaitlan collins is there. kate bennett is also standing by on the first lady's response, but kaitlan, first to you, not only are all these people coming out with denials, they're printing out statements and hand hp delivering them to the oval office. >> that's right, brooke. you can see why these denials are rolling in

the new york times is failing. if i weren't here i believe the new york times would probably not even exist. [applause] and someday when i'm not president which hopefully will be about six and a half years from now. the new york times, cnn and all of these phony media outlets will be out of business. they will be out of business because there will be nothing to write and there be nothing of interest. nobody has done what this administration has done. i agree it is different from an agenda which is much different than ours and it's not your agenda. borders, it isn about letting people flee into our country, it is about a disaster and crime for our country. and don't like donald trump i don't like them because they are very sons people. remember this also about the new york times. when i won, they were forced to apologize to the subscribers. ,hey wrote a letter of apology it was the first time anybody has ever done it because they covered the election incorrectly. if the failing new york times has an anonymous editori

the kitchen cabinet on fox news. any day of the week. the president should watch show time's "fourth estate" to see how the washington burro of the "new yorkt takes its business. donald trump is from this tabloid world where they get paid for putting stuff on their platform. all of this -- it the sleazy and bottom feeding and i don't want to say journalism of information in this country. he cannot and a lot of people around him i think cannot conceive of the high end of american journalism and those of us who go out every day with this mission and by his standards make lousy money and were fools and why the hell would we do this anyway but we believe in the role we play in democracy. he doesn't get that. he'll never get that. >> thank you. i like to hear that. i just want to add, yes, people are trying to leak against each other and trying to manipulate reporters in this white house and on brbit, that's true, but have to trust the reporters at the "new york times" are doing their job and making sure they are not being mislead and used as political tools. i certainly trust them but i also, when you look at sean hannity saying i have a messa

howie: the "times" editorial page knows who it is, this person is making serious charges, it's news worthy. sara: we'll find out eventually. if the "new york times" was to publish this knowing it will come out who it is, then they are risking their credibility if it's not a senior official. we heard the "new york times" podcast say the way they use senior officials, it's not directly linked to the president. howie: "times" editors say they are proud they published it. of course, they are, they detest president trump. phillipe: i think any paper would have done it. here is a problem with the deep state. whether it's five minutes for five days from now we'll know who it is. if you want to call him gutless. he's employing gutless people. there are a lot of problems to this that we won't know until we find out who it is. be careful how hunt for because you night find them. this might be someone 10 feet away from his office. it could be someone he knows. howie: the president called the source gutless. and he has a point. even if you buy into the self-righteousview view that we are saving america from a crazy president. didn't he undermine his o

usually it's the president or the president's team that criticizes the "new york times." it's the minority leader in the senate, chuck schumer of new york criticizing his own hometown newspaper. but this brings up exactly the point that i had earlier, this will raise questions about rod rosenstein, precisely at the moment that he decided to name robert mueller to run the special counsel investigation. is the man that set this investigation by the special counsel in motion, is that a guy that was talking about wearing a wire? is that a guy that was talking about trying to survey the cabinet about invoking the 25th amendment. that certainly is going to raise questions. you can be sure however this came to be, that this report that they were going to be supporters of the president that says this raises new questions about the credibility of the russia investigation. >> jon: and as you're sitting there talking to me, you're not able to read the stuff that is flying -- the releases that are flying minute by minute. that's got to be frustrating for a guy like you. let me read yo

contemplate that we are in 25th amendment territory. >> the content of the op-ed will appear in the "new york times" tomorrow. the president lashed out at the times. >> when you tell me about some anonymous source probably who is failing, and probably here for all the wrong reasons. if the failing "new york times" has an anonymous editorial, meaning gutless, a gutless editorial, we are doing a great job. the poll numbers are through the roof. and nobody is going to come close to beating me in 2020 because of what we have done. >> zer lina, your analysis. he looks sweaty and a little bit unhinged to use omarosa's word. this validated what we knew from the previous book. and all the reporting that has been done. we as citizens what we need to decide is what do we do next? is it the 25th amendment. in november, we can perhaps talk seriously about the possibility of starting an impeachment process. which is a two step process. the beginning of that would be talking about it in a serious way. and we are actually in that moment, the president is a national security threat because he doesn't understand fo

" -- >> "new york times," come on. "new york times." therk times," stand up, go ahead. >> i think they're going to endorse me. >> abc, fox. i like fox, i really do. abc, cbs, nbc, "the times," they're all going to endorse me because if they don't, they're going out of business. could you imagine if you didn't have me? >> i know you were pointing to me but i work for pbs' news outlet. >> no, i know that. >> they weren't laughing at me. they were laughing with me. we had fun. the fake news said people laughed. they didn't laugh at me. i've had many false statements against me. sean hannity covered it. >> is it okay if i give it to "the new york times," mr. president? >> can i ask a question since i am from "the new york times" before this gentleman. >> where? >> i'm actually from "the new york times." >> i'll let you do it after he does it. in honor of a paper i once loved. >> "the new york times." >> oh, okay. >> thank you, sir. >> i would have gotten a bad story in "the new york times," but i will anyway, so i guess it doesn't matter. okay,

year and a half of reporting on similar anecdotes that have come from anonymous sources in the "new york times," in the "washington post." on this network as well as in all of the books that have been published. the news here is that this is somebody inside the white house saying we know it, we know the king has no clothes, and telling us this in his own voice. we are all at this moment trying to process what is the end goal here? what does -- what action is this person trying to precipitate? and who is this message to? david and i were discussing this in the break, you know, was this because of the woodward book? but look at who he mentions in the story, he or she mentions in the op-ed, they mention mccain. i think this is a message, actually, to congress potentially because they say in the op-ed this is not about trump, this is about what the american people have allowed to happen, what has -- >> right, and this author thouts as positives the tax reform and deregulation, they seem to be an economic conservative. senator john mccain put it best, americans should heed his words. we may no long

and reaction, that's next. >> if the president believes the piece in the "new york times" and the president is severest critic of "the new york times" in the country, but if he believes it, i'm sure he will fire rod rosenstein. that will create a tremendous amount of turmoil in the justice department. ♪ this is the angel oak. some say the oldest living thing east of the mississippi. it's weathered countless storms. battered, but never broken, it stands for the resilience within us all. ♪ ♪ as moms, we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10-25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most co

if, when richard nixon told the washington post and the new york times not to publish the new york timesh the pentagon papers, they had taken that attitude and said it is not for us that attitude and said it is not for us to query the president of the united states. then we would never have known about the pentagon papers and never have known about the british spies because that's what governments always say. they always say listen to us, we are wise and you arejeopardising. so say listen to us, we are wise and you are jeopardising. so you have to begin by saying that this has to be independent and has to make its own judgement. you can argue that we we re judgement. you can argue that we were irresponsible and should not have published by my problem with that quote was him saying that in any circumstances, if the british state of many to apologise i would not do. so when you are dealing with important national security issues frequently, can you name me one example where you ultimately took the decision not to publish information that your journalists had gathered? we published about 59

time and if that view were suppressed -- >> okay. we'll continue to monitor that hearing but we do have some breaking news to bring in the politics lead. "the new york times" published an anonymous op-ed that editors say was written by a senior official in the trump administration and titled, quote, i'm part of the resistance inside the trump administration" and details the way that the author and his or her colleagues are according to the op-ed working to thwart part of the president's agenda and his worst inclinations. the author writing, quote, to be clear, ours is not the popular resistance of the left. we want the trump administration to succeed and think many of the policies made america safer and prosperous and the first duty to the country and the president, president trump, continues to act in a manner that's detrimental to the health of our republic. that's why many appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions. while she warting mr. trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office. a shocking, shocking op-ed written by an anonymous senior official in the trump administration. cnn's kaitlan collin

the president had a lot to say about "the new york times" and the writer at the billings, montana rallyre. >> reporter: president trump weighed in on the op-ed in the new york times reportedly from the senior official. saying that is part of the resistance in the trump administration. during the rally in front of supporters, the president said he did not know who it was, but reporters at "the new york times" should investigate who the writer of the op-ed is. here's what he had to say. >> unelected deep state operatives who defy the voters to push their secret agendas are truly a threat to democracy itself. and i was so heartened when i looked. seriously, people that don't exactly dig us and don't exactly like me, they're fighting for us. it is a beautiful thing. >> reporter: the process of impeachment appears to be on the president's mind. the democrats are talking to congress and looking to impeach him in january. christine and dave. >> thank you, jim. let's bring in harry enten. our lodestar here. >> that is so nice of you here. >> the president in billings, montana. last night, he tr

, and we are standing up for our national anthem and our flag. >> reporter: the president wasting no time slamming the new yorkegedly written by a senior official within his administration. >> anonymous, gutless coward. nobody knows who he is or she but for the sake of our national security the new york times should publish his name at once. there reporters should investigate who it is. >> reporter: the trip to montana one day after scathing claims calling him adversarial, petty and ineffective. milania trump backing up her husband's demand saying, quote, is a person involved enough to accuse someone of negative actions, they have a responsibility to publicly stand by their words and people have the right to be able to defend themselves. to the writer of the op-ed you are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions. the list of top white house officials denying they are the authors of the opera growing fast, 30 officials including vice president mike pence, secretary of state mike pompeo, secretary of defense james mattis and gina haskell have denied being the mysterious op-ed

times makes what would otherwise be an explosive statement doubtful. that is one of the unfortunate things. you can't trust the new yorkimes but the new york times lies repeatedly. the history of lies, good reason to say this might be true. heather: thanks for joining us, have a great day. it will be a busy one again, 20 minutes after the top of the hour and a true case of teamwork. making the dream work. and this guy found out the hard way what happens when you run away from police, the dramatic canine takedown caught on camera. ♪ bad to the bone ♪ your typical bank. capital one is anything but typical. that's why we designed capital one cafes. you can get savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. and one of america's best savings rates. to top it off, you can open one from anywhere in 5 minutes. this isn't a typical bank. this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet? willy davis, who has alzheimer's. i decided to make shirts for the walk with custom ink. the shirts were so easy to design on the site. the custom ink team was super helpful and they just came out perfect. seeing my family wearing my s

he took on "the new york times." he said this. >> when you tell me about an anonymous source within the administration, probably who is failing. probably here for all the wrong reasons. if the failing "new york times" has an anonymous editorial, meaning gutless editorial. we're doing a great job. >> reporter: he will be traveling today to montana for a campaign rally in billings, montana. then staying on the road and going to north and south dakota for campaign events as well. we know all of this will follow him. clearly the white house pushing back on this. press secretary sarah sanders says the person is a coward and should resign. dave and alison. >> jeff zeleny, thank you. a sources close to the white house aides are following leads to find the author based on the way the op-ed is written. just hours before the opinion piece published, the president asked for aides to help him determine to cooperate with the other portrayal of bob woodward's new book. he spoke about his former adviser h.r. mcmaster was the person

" all the time the president reads it obsessively, he speaks to the reporters of the "new yorkimes" constantly or near constantly he grew up with the "new york times. he views it as a barometer in some way of how he's doing or how a part of the world views how he's doing he values it but he denounces it at every turn. the fact this appears in the new york times is probably not a coinciden coincidence. it feels like a secret this big as to who this person is who wrote this just can't be kept for long in modern washington given the technology and communications we have, the fro forensics. i think this person knows they will be found out and is prepared to go this is a last hurrah for this person >> if you're going to send an op-ed to the "new york times," it's going to be found out eamon javers, thank you very much >> let's bring in david nelson from bell point emerging asset i will ask you to begin with this you're not a political guy, but we now have a -- i don't want to say a crisis but another leg to an intriguing story in the white house. does that impact the markets at all?

times," which i also thought was new york -- >> the failing "new york times." >> right, right. >> saying "the new york times" had the same information but, you know, didn't go with it. so, you know, i mean, we understand what is going on here. we understood it back when anita hill testified. and, you know, little has changed, to be honest. little has changed. >> republicans seem to -- kaitlan, this is for you. republicans seem to be lumping in this new allegation coming out of this "new yorker" piece with christine blasey ford's accusations as an offensive political tactic. lumping it all together. >> yeah. we are seeing the strategy change very quickly in the matter of that allegation with christine blasey ford to this allegation with the latest wok in "the new yorker," deborah ramirez, quite a bit a bit of a big strategy change here, brooke. the white house before were not saying this was a smear neither was mitch mcconnell. they were saying she doesn't remember, she has no evidence to back it up, et cetera, et cetera. now they're saying this is a smear, a

helping "the new york times" with a story on the supposedly top-secret fisa court. is is beyond bad. supposedly he's running the investigation. what does it say about "the new york times"? what does it say about "the washington post"? all you need is one anti-trump official to hand them propaganda and misinformation, distorted lies from a known trump-hater at this point. blow it up, act as though it's gospel truth. where are the corrections? one of the coming? don't hold your breath. we did reach out to the doj, "the new york times," "the washington post" and strzok and page for comment. we have yet to get a response but tonight we have brand-new never before seen text messages. it now appears that on top of -- let's see, the director of national intelligence, the fbi and doj colluding in all this and leaking to the press, it seems like the cia, they too were involved in the same kind of illicit leaking and we are talking about you, mr. sanctimony, john brennan. foxnews.com just obtained brand-new texts showing that some officials were "leaking like mad in the lead u

new york. i'm cheryl casone. lauren: tgif, i'm lauren simonetti. cheryl: it's friday, you have me saying pit. lauren: best day of the week. well, president trump slamming "the new york timesand its anonymous op-ed during rally in montana last night. >> for the sake of our national security, "the new york times" should publish his name at once. i think reporters should go and investigate who it is, that would be good. [cheers and applause] lauren: cheryl: i'm sure their phones are ringing you have off the hook. the president is going to travel the north dakota and sioux falls, south dakota he will be attending fundraisers. lauren: moving on the trade, trade talks between u.s. and canada continue in washington but a canadian official reportedly says a deal is not expected to be reached this week. major issues remain, include canada's protected dairy market and patent protection for . robert lighthizer to travel to the european union. cheryl: the economy is red hot this morning. economists are looking for 191,000 jobs, that's up from 157,000 in july if we get the number, unemployment rate is expected to 3.8% from 3.9%, the key part of this report, though, is going to be wage

the "new york times" does know this. t the president making the pivot to blame all of this, anderson, on the "new york times." >> and as much as the president is trying to dismiss bob woodward's book, he does want to though who talked to woodward, right? i used the term "witch-hunt" earlier obviously kind of ironically. but understandably, he wants to know, and it's from his perspective it's absolutely fair that he would want the know who talked to woodward and what they said. >> no question. we've heard the president throw out the term "witch-hunt" so much this year talking about the russia investigation. but the reality is i was talking to administration officials earlier today long before "the new york times" report came out. and they said in fact the president did want to know who talked to woodward and who didn't talk to woodward. he was keeping a list and keeping a careful eye on who was issuing denials, who was not. and, you know, several people were not issuing denials who were mentioned in this book. but there is

for the president but like minded colleagues and i have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda the new york times describes the oath as a senior official in the government his claims of spock's control of the city and of course damning criticism from the president himself. if the failing new york times has an anonymous editorial anonymous many gutless gutless editorial. really doing a great job the poll numbers are through the roof our poll numbers are great and guess what nobody is going to come close to beating me in twenty twenty because of what we've done trump plates of fun at this up with a tweet. does the so-called senior administration official really exist or is it just the failing new york times with another phony source trump asked if the gutless anonymous person does indeed exist the times must for national security purposes turn him over to government once the times has defended its decision to publish the editorial anonymously and while some are scrambling for clues as to the author's identity others want to focus on the message i think the of the alarming part of all. is that there

the times op-ed and calls out president trump by name. actually, i believe for the first time, at least since the election. we'll have more on his comments ahead. "the new york times" published the column from a senior, unnamed senior administration official on wednesday. the author writes about a resistance inside the administration. a group of trump appointees trying to save the country from what that official calls president trump's misguided impulses. it is far from the first time we've heard of such a thing. dozens of top administration officials have said that they did not write the open said. the first lady, melania trump and the vice president, mike pence, have denied it. "the new york times" reports the white house has a list of 12 possible suspects. republican senator rand paul from kentucky suggested having administration officials take lie detector tests over this. the president said he respected senator paul but didn't say if he's considering such a thing. the chief white house correspondent john roberts is live. hi, john. >> the president was on his way from billings, montana to fargo, north dakota. the rally you just saw. when he came back to

and the "new york times" is failing. w i weren't here, i believe the "new york times" probably wouldn't even exist. ( applause ) and some day-- >> glor: major garrett is at the white house. re we have somebody in what i call the failing "new york times" that's talking about he's part of the resistance within the trump administration. this is what we have to deal with. and, you know, the dishonest media-- because you people deal with it as well as i do. s t it's really a disgrace. >> reporter: president trump reacted defiantly to this opinion piece published today by the "new york times." the paper said the author was a "enior administration official. >> if the failing "new york almes" has an anonymous editorial-- can you believe it? anonymous, meaning gutless. >> the author who wrote many wonior trump officials are, "working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." "the root of the problem," the official continued, "is the "iesident's amorality." the author described meetings in

howard: the president -- it is no secret is not a fan of the new york times, criticized the failing new york times, challenged the credibility of the paper, so in saying this, i know you've had this position before, this latest bombshell story, but it sounds like you believe the new york times story in this instance and should that be the basis for rosenstein getting booted out? >> well, look, i think that there are many journalists over at the new york times, and not all of them are happy to push out fake news and that's true probably with all media outlets. but in this case, this is something extremely explosive because jeff sessions has an employee that now is apparently articulating the exact same thing that was recently outlined the anonymous op-ed just a couple of weeks ago, this is very serious. this is occurring under jeff sessions nose. and he's the one that should address it. howard: when rosenstein says that the story is false, it is inaccurate, you don't believe him? >> i don't believe him at all. as i said before, for months we have been hearing a number of disturbing thing