the washington post first. resident trump revealed, according to the washington post, highly classified information to the russian foreign minister and russian am ba ambassador during meeting in the old office the other day. you do all this research on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $509 on auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. on mattress firmness? fortunately there's a bed where you both get what you want every night. enter sleep number and the semi-annual sale going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. she likes the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store. oh, and right now it's our lowest price ever on our

the "new york post," rather the "new york times," "the washington post, they both say that the informationom current and former administration officials. brian: they are feeling they will do some reverse forensics with the russians because they cannot be trust weed know that for sure around figure out how we got that information through a middle east country which name was not expod the middle eastern country who helped us out. however, thhowever the city thet was hatched is the concern. how do we know that in the cia asked "the washington post not to publish the name of the city for national security. ainsley: talking about espionage etiquette, that's -- they are saying it didn't happen. general mcmaster was saying i was in the room. it didn't happen. even if it did, it's not illegal for the president to do this. but, the problem is, if it did happen, if they discussed this city, then if you have a relationship with another country, an ally and they are giving you this information, they don't give you permission to talk to the russians about it. because. brian: even our allies who weren't

that suggests to me the fact the post writes they are urging withholding from officials this is not being overhyped. >> here's the real irony here. the "washington post" in writing that and not publishing the information they have is being more effective at protecting classified information than president trump and his exchanges with the russians. news outlets would come us to all the time both when i was with the cia and white house. sometimes they would be far off in left field with the information they would bring to us but sometimes come to us with very sensitive information and we would have these candid conversations with them not revealing classified information and not appealing to them but minimizing the amount of detail they would present in their stories. sounds like if the detail is accurate, that's what the "washington post" did in this story. the russians would like nothing more than reverse engineer this information and found out how this ally of ours got to this tantalizing fear stream. >> i imagine who ever this partner is who shared the information with the president with the united states disclosed this may be a partner who do

"the washington post" published this material, i don't blame them, somebody leaked it. we now learn from something the editor of the "washington post" reporter told us, that the leak had to have come from within the united states, how do we know this? is that the leaker, quote, did not want to come pound the problem. russia would want to compound the problem. so we now know that the leaking of the information that creates the compounding problem of the intelligence services, it would be bad enough if this happened, but nobody knew about it. now we have two problems, one sources and methods could now where found by russia. >> you can make the argument that the united states would have to informal lied intelligence services that this information had been disclosed. >> that would be part of the damage control, we're not talking about messaged damage control, we're talking about risk damage control, which is obviously far more important. >> the information the president reportedly revealed, we're not talking about confidential, not top secret, this is code word information.

the "washington post" published this material i don't blame them somebody leaked it we now learn from he had something the editor of "washington post" reporter told us that the leak had to come from within the united states. process it wasn't from russia how do we know this because the reporter said the leaker the source didn't want to compound the problem. russia would want to compound the problem. so we now know that an american intelligence source leaked this information 37 it's the leaking of the information that creates the compounding problem of intelligence services. it would have been bad enough if this had happened. but nobody knew about it. but now which have two problems one sources and nods now can be found by the russians and two our allies know that this was disclosed. >> although you could make -- i would assume phil that you could make jim sciutto that you could make the argument that the united states would have have to inform allies intelligence services that this information had been disclosed process. >> that's right. that would be part of the daniel control we're

the washington post, we're being told, the white house saying this isn't true. e washington post reporting that right after the meeting some in the room felt sufficiently concerned about what the president had done that they themselves, people on the president's team called the cia and the national sutter agency to alert them to the fact that the president had done this. >> right. and you could see from the statement that h.r. mcmaster read there from outside the white house, it was a narrowly worded statement. it basically said the story as reported is false. so that tells you a lot. it tells owe that they know that they have a real problem here. and the bigger problem goes back to the russia issue. it goes back to the fact that the president does not see russia as an adversary. he sees russia the way he saw it back during the campaign, as a country that the united states should be friends with, should be cooperating with against isis. and nobody disagrees with that. but the russians have other agendas. they want to prop up the regime in damascus, the assad regi

that is not what was in the washington post report. the washington post report states that president trump relayed classified information that he abtaned frobtained frome allies you didn't hear mcmaster address that specific issue. he talked about information operations that were widely known and widely reported. that doesn't deal with what the washington post reported that there was information that the president conveyed. i thought it was significant. you heard h.r. mcmaster say, i was there, it didn't happen. expect him to get a lot of heat and pressure in the coming hours and coming days to clarify specifically what went down in that meeting. i can't under score this point, enough, this was a meeting that president trump had with ambassador. the russian media was there, the american media wasn't there, that was one of the reasons why that becomes a problem. again, this is explosive headline for this administration related to russia at a moment where they, frankly, can't afford it. president wanted to be focus on this big foreign at

a report from "the washington post." t's get the latest from john roberts, who was already done some reporting earlier. good evening. >> good evening prayer and we are waiting to talk in person with a white house official but sean spicer provided fox news with a statement from rex tillerson, secretary of state. i think it bears repeating prayed he said of the meeting with lavrov and sergey kislyak, russian ambassador to the u.s., "during president trump's meeting with foreign minister lavrov, broad range of subjects were discussed, among which were common efforts and threats regarding counterterrorism. during the exchange, the nature of specific threats were discussed but they do not discuss sources, methods, or military operations. "there is another statement attached. i can't tell if it's an official statement or a quote from somewhere. it is from the deputy national security advisory for strategy saying "this story is false. the president only discussed the common threats both countries faced. "the washington post" is

. >> tonight, the explosive story broken by "the washington post." president trump and last week's oval office meeting with the russians allegedly revealed highly classified information to the russians. among our guests, a former watergate prosecutor, a former u.s. ambassador to russia, and a former kgb spy, along with the journalists working on this still-developing story, as "the 11th hour" gets under way. >>> well, good evening once again from our headquarters here in new york. put it this way, "the washington post" story that came out late today broke their previous record for internet traffic, set on the day the "access hollywood" outtakes were published. today's explosive stories says president trump revealed highly classified information to the russian foreign minister, and the russian ambassador during an oval office meeting last week. u.s. officials tell "the post" the information jeopardized a critical source of intelligence in the fight against isis and that the intelligence was not ours to share. the report says "the information the presid

now, the report goes on to say that the washington post... ligence sharing partner had not authorised the us to share this classified information with the russians ora, indeed, anyone else. it is very sensitive information according to the report, so sensitive that many officials were not party to. only a small select number of officials were partied to this information. the national security adviser hr mcmaster has just been speaking at the white house, denying the reports in the washington post. i will recap what he said, he said that the story is a fault, that the president received information on a range of common threats but at no time with a intelligence threats. two other officials were present. he said i was in the room and it did not happen stop but the report from the washington post says there are us officials concerned of the breach in the way the information was handled and that officials are then had to clear up the damage caused by the information being shared and say they managed to contain what was seen as a potential leak of

>> washington post, one of the people in the memo heard about it, she got a call from the washington ink it goes back to the original point, which is that donald trump -- it's still early enough in the day -- could start tweeting about this today, possibly tomorrow. that is the argument about this adminiration. he's incompetent. that's why i fired him. it will bolsterhe argument even though that's not why james comey got fired. >> james comey says it's classified. he didn't want to tell anything. that made the spin to cover up what he didn't do in the investigation. >>> all right. if you need a crisis manager, it politico is reporting the president is looking for a crisis team manager. in manchester, the killer's brother knew all. richard is live in manchester, england. this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ ♪ i'm dr. kelsey mcneely and some day you might be ca

applause in "the washington post" as a russian leaks broke. the same "washington post" that allegedly broke out in a pause when obama visited in 2009. they were quick to jump on this becky to report. take a look. >> white house reeling from another russia crisis, an unforced error at the hands of president. it's because the damage to u.s. intelligence interest is being viewed as incalculable this morning. >> after this story broke we heard yelling behind closed doors. this is a white house in chaos right now. >> if true, this could be the most significant and dangerous mistake of the presidency. >> trump just gave somebody about there. who will end up that? that's not hyperbole, by the wa way. he and other people, whoever that source was inside of isis, i guarantee you a lot of people are going to get shot in the head today by isis because they are going to embed discriminant lee start killing people that they suspect leaked this information. >> joining us now is a media reporter as well as former u.s. spokesman for the u.n. ambassador. let me

that number came out before tonight's news in "the washington post." 'll speak with a former watergate prosecutor when we come right back. i got a mortgage offer from the bank today. whuuuuuat? you never just get one offer. go to lendingtree.com and shop multiple loan offers for free! free? yeah. could save thousands. you should probably buy me dinner. pappa's eatin' steak tonight. no. at lendingtree, shop and compare loan offers from top lenders and in just 5 minutes, you could save thousands. lendingtree, when banks compete, you win. i love date night. yeah. somebody's ruining it. yeah. well you could leave if you wanted to? test test >>> the reasons for a special prosecutor are compelling. a special prosecutor is not subject to day-to-day supervision by the attorney general or anyone else at the justice department. >> i'm reminded this is day 116 of the new administration. the more that leaks about this white house and its response to the russia investigation, the louder the calls have become from democrats, especially for a special prosecutor or ind

again, in "the washington post" they cite sources at people familiar with the matter. but after the "washington post" published their scoop on this today, nbc news was able to confirm it from reporters pete williams. two u.s. officials say the activities of a current white house officials are now under investigation in the fbi's russia collusion probe. in neither "the washington post" reporting on this nor nbc's reporting do we actually have the name of who the person of interest is. we are told the person is a senior white hsedviserho is close to the president, but put that list up again. this is at least a partial list of who's going on the big foreign trip today. that's a very large chunk of all the people who are known to be senior advisers in this white house. we don't have a name. we don't know if it's one of these senior white house officials who is on the trip who is also the person of interest in the trump russia collusion law enforcement investigation, but somebody apparently is. earlier this week, nbc news was first to report that mike flynn and paul manafort

communications channel through the russian embassy in washington, that's the gist of your bomb shell report, right, ellen? >> you got it. >> ellen, from "the washington post," with us, about her reporting. there are some excellent people here, phil mudd, dana bash, former attorney general of the united states, michael mukasey, phil mud, you worked at the cia, you know about these issues, you have read it now, you heard ellen, what is your reaction? >> you see thing over 30 years in washington, d.c., and you never think you'll be surprised, and history proves you wrong, this is not surprising, stunning, if this is true, let's step through a timeline, in the summer of 2016, somebody receives a presidential nomination, in this case, in the republican party, it's donald trump, he's cleared to receive top secret briefings. in early december, his son-in-law, if this report is correct, decides to go to the russian embassy, which has a primary responsibility of spying on america, and saying i want to subvert the american bureaucracy. >> there was actually a conversation at trump tower, talking about establishing communications, outside the u.s. bureaucracy to tal

listen to the lead of "the washington post" story, and you decide. extremely naive or absolutely crazy. jared kushner and russia's ambassador to washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between trump's transition team and the kremlin, using russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring. according to u.s. officials briefed on intelligence reports. the united states keeps the russian ambassador and the russian embassy under close watch. and it seems to have paid off in this case. "the washington post" reports ambassador sergey kislyak reported to his superiors in moscow that kushner, then president-elect trump's son-in-law and confidante, made the proposal during a meeting on december 1st or 2nd at trump tower, according to intercepts of russian communications that were reviewed by u.s. officials. kislyak said kushner suggested using russian diplomatic facilities in the united states for the communications. the meeting also was attended

"the washington post" made this of "fake news." ump a hideous blender and they are covering it up. those are the only choices you are given when it's likely, and we all know it is probably true, it is probably somewhere in the middle. trump being trump doesn't know the rules. doesn't know what he supposed to say and he probably went a little too far. that to me sounds possible. the other thing that sounds plausible for me is that "the washington post" took a small blender and exaggerated i it. these are two polarities that is something in the middle. >> bob: they didn't exaggerate that they had the name of a city, that they have the name of the country, and they refused to put it in at the request of the cia and nsa. one thing we do know is true, before this meeting, nobody except a very few people knew about this. now everybody knows about it which means it had to come out of that meeting some way. maybe it wasn't trump. maybe it wasn't an aide. the fact that as was discussed was disgusting. >> jesse: if you're a disloyal person, h

first, a new report from "the washington post" claims that president trump may have compromised an intelligenceng washington, true or not. fox news white house correspondent john roberts has more on this. >> just checking my email for the very

new reporting in "the washington post." according to "the post," jared kushner, the son-in-law and senior adviser to the prrkts set up a means of communicate with the kremlin. it reportedly took place at a meet with russia's ambassador, sergey kislyak, back in december at trump tower in new york city. our justice correspondent pamela brown has late word on all of this. so what are you learning? >> well, we've learned, wolf, through "the washington post," that jared kushner asked russia's ambassador sergey kislyak about creating a secret backchannel communication to russia by using russian diplomatic facilities to shield their preinauguration discussions from monitoring from intelligence agencies. as we know, we've reported that the fbi is scrutinizing this meeting along with at least one other one that kushner had with a russian banker as to the larger probe into the investigation. the probe in question was also attended by a man who was fired after a conversation with kislyak. during the december mightin ime kislyak was cau

that was reported by "the washington post" first this evening. and as you pointed out, we have learned that mr. kushner is being looked at. the acts between mr. kushner and the -- >> one of the issues is why did you not disclose all of these contacts? if the defense is i didn't because it was just an oversight, the more contacts he has, the more of these that pile up, the less credible the oversight explanation is. >> let's not forget the white house denied contacts between mr. kushner and the russians and that was changed to acknowledgement there were two contacts, one during a foreign policy speech by candidate trump last april at a reception that took place during the speech and also an acknowledgement of a meeting at trump's house. as far as the other contacts go, there was no acknowledgement. we talked to mr. kushner's attorney this evening who said he had thousands of calls over this period of time and was unable fo recall the calls we reported about. did you ask if he would have taken calls? >> there was no acknowledgement of the calls, of

two days of meetings between emissaries for donald trump and putin in january, now today, "the washington post" breaks this. trump revealed highly classified information to russian foreign minister and ambassador. the story broke this afternoon by "washington post" reporters greg miller and greg jaffe and was confirmed by buzzfeed news and the "new york times" citing not only former u.s. officials, but current u.s. officials which seems important. the post says this, president trump revealed highly classified information to the russian foreign minister and ambassador in a white house meeting last week. the information the president relayed has been provided by a u.s. partner through a sharing arrangement that details have been held from allies and tightly restricted within the u.s. government. quote, this is code word information said a u.s. official familiar with the matter using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification used. by american spy agencies. trump, quote, relieved more information to the russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies. the partner had

listen to the lead of "the washington post" story, and you decide. extremely naive or absolutely crazy. jared kushner and russia's ambassador to washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between trump's transition team and the kremlin, using russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their preinauguration discussions from monitoring. according to u.s. officials briefed on intelligence reports. the united states keeps the russian ambassador and the russian embassy under close watch. and it seems to have paid off in this case. the "washington post" reports ambassador sergey kislyak reported to his superiors in moscow that kushner, then president-elect trump's son-in-law and confidante made the proposal during a meeting on december 1st or 2nd at trump tower, according to intercepts of russian communications that were reviewed by u.s. officials. kislyak said kushner suggested use using russian diplomatic facilities in the united states for the communications. the meeting also was attende

speaking of constitutional scholars, joining me now is opinion piece in the washington post that's titledp must be impeached here is why." professor, there are two things that have happened now in the past week, the firing of james comey and the washington post story tonight about the president sharing highly sensitive classified information. defense of the president in both cases are that what he did was within his powers, within his article power, two powers the president, he can declassify anything he wants and he can fire the fbi director for cause or no cause. what say you to those this is within his authority. you may not like it. but he's acting lawfully. >> the main thing i say with great power comes great responsibility. i think that was aligned from super man or batman. we have a president who exercises his power, not with responsibility, but to cover himself and to make himself more wealthy. take the example of the firing of comey, of course he has the fire to power, i have the power to give $100 to detective investigating me for the police department. but if i say i'll give yo

"the washington post" citing u.s. officials briefed on intelligence reports reporting that jared kushner and russia's ambassador to washington, sergey kislyak, discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between trump's transition team and the kremlin using russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move

the russian embassy in washington. that's the gist of your bomb shell report, right ellen >> you got it. >> from the washington post with us, with the gist of her reporting. i want to bring in the panel some excellent people with us. including former attorney general of the united states. and phil you worked at the cia and know about these issues, i read about this washington post story once, twice, maybe three times you read it, your reaction? >> you see things over 30 years in washington, d.c. and you never think you will be surprised and history proves you wrong. this is not surprising, stunning. this f. this is true let's step through a time line. summer of 2016 somebody receives presidential nomination, donald trump, authorized to receive top secret briefings you got to assume several of those include conversation about russian including the russian intervention in the election. in early december his son-in-law if this report is correct decides to go to russian embassy which has a primary sponl responsibility of spying on america and saying i want to subvert the american burrecra burrecracy -- it was actually a con

let's say it's true what the "washington post" reported. is a crime is what happened with the intel official, if the official got the information to the "washington post." that could be a crime. again, the leaks inside this administration are hurting both their functioning and the security of this country. that's not what was said in the meeting with lavrov and kislyak. that is ridiculous. liz: conservative radio host laura ingraham saying president trump did not do anything illegal giving information on pending terror attacks to russia, and says the person who talked to the "washington post" did break the law and that's making our country less safe in the process. earlier today, trump national security adviser general h.r. mcmaster said the same thing. >> the real issue, and i think what i'd like to see debated more is that our national security has been put at risk by those violating confidentiality, and those releasing information to the press that could be used connected with other information available to make american citizens and oth

we have reporting from the "washington post." i want to go back to the white house where handles nichols has been following the story. you've been taking it in as it is happening. let's start with "the new york times." >> both of these are explosive reports. on the "new york times" one it is alleging that president donald trump was boasting in the oval office to russian counter parts about dismissing james comey, the director of the fbi. he dismissed him on march 9. the meeting with kis lag and sergei lavrov happening may 10. now we are have reached out to the white house. they are not disputing this report. they are providing with us a statement similar to that which they provided to the "new york times," talking about how the president wants to work with russia. how he thinks the real threat is isis in syria and that has always been his goal. i think what this tells us is three important things. number one, it is clear that president trump wants to work russia and will almost trip on himself to try to impress them. number two, h

our top stories: the washington post claims president trump revealed highly—classified information tohe russians and compromised an intelligence source. the white house deny any sources or methods were revealed. the state department accuses syria of installing a crematorium in a military prison to hide mass killings. ian brady, one of britain's most notorious serial killers, has died. he killed five children and teenagers in the 19605 with his partner, myra hindley. france's new president hits the ground running — he meets angela merkel on his first full day in office. he'll appoint a new cabinet on tuesday. and capturing camelot in photos: 100 years since his birth, a new exhibit highlights the life and legacy ofjfk. hello. the washington post has published a report claiming president trump revealed highly classified intelligence to the russian foreign minister and ambassador at their white house meeting last week. quoting current and former officials, the paper alleges mr trump gave information about the so—called islamic state group, supplied to the us by a foreign ally, and consid

would you believe him or the sources that have quoted by the "washington post"? >> i would totally believe general mcmaster. his credibility in washington is almost unparalleled. that's that's why there was bipartisan enthusiasm for his nomination. but night he more secretary tillerson dispute the fact that there was classified information disclosed. we give classified information to the russians about isis reason any frequently. but it was off-hand, then maybe there is a few more national security concerns it wasn't preplanned and well thought out. david: somebody is leaking classified information to the "washington post." that in itself is a crime. but have we gone the point where perhaps the leak is worse than the substance of that leak? >> without knowing exactly what was discussed with the meeting with the russians it's hard to say. it would be nice to think if some intrepid investigative reporter who look into the anonymous sources coming at us. 9 precedent is not new. previous administrations inadvertently have provided classified information that in the pa

the latest bombshell comes from the "washington post" which reported last friday in a secret meeting trump tower, jared kushner and russia's ambassador to washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secur

here is the story from the "washington post." e story that broke this -- the organization that broke the story yesterday. as we said, a quick response from the white house. the white house official that were not to give that response, h.r. mcmaster. >> that is nothing the president takes more serious than the security of the american people. the story that came out is false. the president and foreign minister reviewed a range of threats including civil aviation. at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed. the president did not disclose any military operation that were not already a locally known. two other senior officials were present remember the meeting the same way. i was in the room, it did not happen. host: h.r. mcmaster noting no sources or methods discussed. as several news organizations pointed out, the intelligence is .hat concerned those officials the concern is the knowledge about the information about the islamic state could allow the russians to figure out the details of the sources and those methods.

a short time ago, i spoke to greg jaffe, one to have the "the washington post" reporters who broke thery. we're joined by greg jaffe, one to have the "the washington post" reporters who broke the story. greg jaffe, tell us exactly what happened as you know it. >> so the meeting with the russian foreign minister and the russian ambassador was taking place and the president was sharing information with them with regard to the laptop threat that had been an issue -- the concern -- the threat posed by laptops -- the threat pose bid aviation by laptops which had been an issue and he had been describing the nature of the threat, was that threat, was boasting about the great intel he had and, in doing so, may have overstepped the bounds. >> woodruff: so this is information that had come from a u.s. ally, is that correct? >> yeah, that's exactly right, and it's particularly sensitive, and i think the ally which controls the dissemination of the information would be upset to have learned it landed in the russians' hands. >> woodruff: sounds from your reporting, greg, that the white house recogn

did you leak to the "washington post"? absolutely not. >> did you authorize somebody to leak to the "washington post"? >> absolutely not. i did not and i would not leak classified information. >> have you ever leaked information to them? >> no. >> the president seems to suggest that you were behind this "washington post" article. the morning before testified, tweeted ask sally yates under oath if she knows how classified information got into newspapers soon after she explained it to white house counsel. 's it does sound like -- he seems to believe you're the leaker. when you heard that, what did you think? >> there have been a number of tweets that have given me pause. >> do you want to elaborate on that? >> no. >> all right. let's bring our panel back. ron brownstein, david sanger and philip mudd. ron brownstein, reaction. >> yeah, the last one especially. that's very powerful testimony. the question the white house has never sufficiently answered is why it took so long to act after the warning that the acting attorney ge

nbc has not confirmed the reporting from "the washington post" that was reportedly intercepted from this ball, the russian ambassador, sergey kislyak, made to russia. before i get to a question, i want to play more from national security advisor h.r. mcmaster in that briefing saying he's not concerned about the kushner report. let's listen to that. >> we have back channel communications with a number of countries, so generally speaking, about back channel communications, what that allows you to do is to communicate in a discrete manner so it doesn't predispose you toward any sort of content of that conversation or anything. so no, i would not be concerned about it. >> he says this is about discrete communication. what do you make of mcmaster's response there and what type of red flags does this report in particular raise in the intelligence community? >> yeah, jacob, i think many people are going to find that to be a remarkably incautious statement by a reputable national security expert. people i talked to cannot find any precedent for a transition team trying to not only open a back ch

he's going to join us now from the "washington post." president trump's national security adviser addressed the reporters tonight. and he's pursuing -- is pushing back on your reporting. let's listen and then we'll discuss. >> the story that came out tonight as reported is false. the president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries including threats to civil aviation. at no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed, and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. two other senior officials who are present including the secretary of state remember the meeting the same way and have said so. they're on the record, should outweigh those of anonymous sources. i was in the room, it didn't happen. >> so, greg, interesting that he didn't take questions. what's your response to that? >> well, i actually think the white house is engaging in a pretty significant head fake here. they're basically refuting assertions that were not in our s

we begin with brand-new blockbuster breaking news from the washington post. first a report on the bipartisan expansion of the scope of one of the inquiries into possible trump campaign collusion with the russian attack on our presidential election. the senate intel committee has asked trump's political campaign to gather and produce all documents, e-mails and phone records going all the way back to when the campaign began in june 2015. we want to note for you, this is a bipartisan request from the republican chair and the democrat ranking member of the committee. we're going to tell you a bit more about this news breaking late tonight a little later in this show. in fact i'll be able to talk to a member of the house intel committee about what comes next. but our top story tonight is the even bigger story in "the washington post." the headline, "russian ambassador told moscow that kushner wanted secret communications channel with kremlin." we're just going to read here for you the first few paragraphs of this reporting because it is quite remarkable. "jared kus

this latest news between jared kushner and russian ambassador sergey kislayak, according to "the washington post? >> the first thing i would say, and i'm just hearing this for the first time, i have just read the washington journal post. obviously jared kushner deserves a chance too respond to these allegations, they are allegations but they're not proven facts at this point. we don't indict in the court of public opinion, before all the facts are known, and he has a chance, and this is a fair minded american way to look at and respond to these. secondly, i think that tony blinken's comments are very important here. russia is a dark cloud hanging over the trump administration. so many different allegations, so many different individuals in the trump administration, some of them have now had to recuse themselves, including the attorney general, that i think the donald trump administration needs to make a basic decision. they have to understand that this administration is under siege and will be, in terms of public opinion. and in terms of the law, and to all of these questions are answered, they

washington. the russian foreign ministry spoke this morning, calling the report by "the washington post" mccarthyismsimply internal political squabbles. we followed up with a question on whether the foreign minister was aware jared kushner had made this request for secret communication channel, secure communication channel as reported by the post. we have seen that the ministry was since the original report came from an intercept of communications between the russian ambassador and superiors in moscow, she would not be drown on that. we're seeing increasing rhetoric in moscow as stream of russian related news comes out of washington. the same foreign ministry spokesperson warning that the u.s. media should stop spreading lies about the russian ambassador to the u.s. had from president putin the previous week called allegations that president trump had revealed classified intel to russian officials in the oval office, called that political schizophrenia. and all the while, the russians are closely watching to see any coherent strategy or policy as relates to russia come out of washington. we know pre

the searian situation. >> without the full conn text which we don't have, which of course "the washington postn't provide to make a judgment either way, what was said, anything said was objectionable, we're parsing statements of multiple different people from the information, parsing a report in the "washington post," trying to figure out what the heck is going on. at the end of the day, there are leaks coming out of the white house, whether or not it is right, your question about fern nell, something has to be done to contain this. something really needs to be done. charles: let me bring in fred fleitz, from all of this, washington post, never-ending articles unnamed sources perhaps there is a leak problem within the white house? >> charles, three quick thoughts. first of all, did the president screw up and tell this to the russians, possibly. this people happens when they are not familiar with classified information. even dianne feinstein has done this in the past. the president is the ultimate last filing authority. he if he wants to give something classified as head of our government he is