don't wait for the "the new york times" to figure it out. why not be up front and transparent on saturday when he was first approached? >> this story only has legs because the fake news industrial complex is obsessed. nine months of accusations with zero, zero evidence of anything illegal. on the contrary, the dnc sends its operative onto the soil of a foreign nation to the embassy of the ukraine, not to collect dirt, but to actually use it in a coordinated campaign with a foreign government. that's what cnn should be covering. but why aren't you? >> well, two things on that. first of all, you're avoiding answer the question about donald trump's lack of transparency. >> total transparency. >> him saying this meeting was about adoption issue was his concern for orphans? >> it was absolutely misrepresented. the individual who requested the meeting -- >> no, that's what he said the meeting was about on saturday when he knew all along by saturday that's not what the meeting was about. so, that's not being transparent, right? >> when he gave as m

another potential bombshell report from "the new york times." alleging that donald trump received an e-mail that the russian government was frying to help his father's campaign. before the june 2016 meeting with jared kushner and a russian lawyer thought to have compromising information about hillary clinton. three unnamed sources tell the times that the e-mail sent by rob goldstone, the man that coordinated the meeting, indicated the russian government was the source of the potential damaging information. six weeks later, trump junior slammed the clinton campaign for suggesting that the russians were involved in an effort to help then candidate trump. >> that goes to show you their exact moral compass. they will say anything to be able to win this. this is time and time again. noting, don junior's takeaway was that someone had information potentially helpful to the campaign and it was coming from someone he knew. don junior had no knowledge as to what specific information, if any, would be discussed. >> there was no information taken and no fol

howie, has "the new york times" changed in your view? has it always been like this, maybe we have more media sources out there willing to call them out on this stuff we're recognizing it? >> it has always been a liberal newspaper that obviously pushes its agenda on editorial pages. we can debate the news pages. i never seen an example so egregious, so damaging done at moment of such national shock over gun violence, purely to change the subject, blame a republican, it is not something i think we would have seen in years past from the "new york times." trish: howie, thank you so much. always good to see you. check out howie on media buzz 11:00 a.m. eastern on fox news channel. we'll be right back. she's nationally recognized for her compassion and care. he spent decades fighting to give families a second chance. but to help others, they first had to protect themselves. i have afib. even for a nurse, it's complicated... and it puts me at higher risk of stroke. that would be devastating. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. on

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 boss, i would be worried. molworried. mollworrie

yes yes it's drugs strange bedfellows right well it's weird when the new york times literally prints an article after that shooting of steve's belief that blames the progressives and bernie sanders support that literally went in their newspaper and that's their that's their version of look at the equal coverage we're getting a it's totally laughable but it's media bernie i want to i want to ask you you have bernie sanders who still ostensibly is in the democratic party do you think he should you know try and take over reform the democratic party as if that's ever worked before should he started third party should people give up on bernie sanders as a figurehead where do you stand on that. i think bernie sanders should give up on the democratic party how many times you need to be proven wrong about the democratic party they're not capable of reform it doesn't appear to be rightly because what they did after they lost to don first of all they smeared bernie wrecked the primary because as schama so want reset at my show which is true the democratic national committee would rather lose t

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

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. 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's extre

"the new york times" report that donald trump jr. was e-mailed ahead of time about the material a russian lawyer wanted to pass along to him and was told the source was the russian government. don jr. admits he was promised information helpful to the campaign about hillary clinton. in response to this, his attorney says it's much ado about nothing. no one denied the existence of the e-mail. the russian lawyer who met with don jr. at the height of the campaign is now speaking out. listen. >> they had the impression, it appears, that they were going to be told information that you had about the dnc. how did they get that impression? >> translator: it's quite possible maybe they were looking for such information. they wanted it so badly. >> have you ever worked for the russian government? do you have connections to the russian government? >> translator: no. >> the white house denying collusion. the president's lawyers denying he knew about this meeting at all. i do want you to keep this in mind. this makes at least seven current or form

"the new york times" reports that donald trump jr. took this meeting because he was promised damaging information about hillary clinton. >> and it wasn't just trump jr. that showed up. he brought others. significant others, son-in-law jared kushner, son-in-law to the president. and also then campaign chairman, paul manafort. the admission is a full 180-degree turn from a statement hours earlier when donald jr. said the meeting was to discuss the issue of russian adoptions. so there's a lot to unpack here. what does this mean about the trump team's willingness to accept help from russia? we're covering all angles of the story here in the united states and in moscow. let's begin at the white house with suzanne malveaux. good morning, suzanne. >> reporter: good morning, john and poppy. the white house is in full battle mode, pushing back hard on this story. a full development we saw over the weekend first reported by "the new york times" that donald trump jr., in fact, did have a meeting with a russian national during the campaign, that

howie: the "new york times" headlines. once 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 t

york times." when we come back, methods discipline -- message discipline in the white house. you won't see these folks at the post office. they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. >> the day when the president was inaugurated, one of the most miserable six months, unproductive six months of any presidency. >> chris: house democratic leader nancy pelosi with a decidedly negative report card on president trump's for six months in office and we are back with the panel. 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 taki

just ahead, more on the breaking news from donald trump's interview with "the new york times," warning special counsel robert mueller not to delve into his family finance that's he says are not related to russia and said he wouldn't have appointed jeff sessions if he knew sessions would recuse himself. >>> "the new york times" conducting a wide ranging interview with donald trump. he said he would not have hired jeff sessions had he known he would recuse himself. emthat robert mueller's investigation had the leash on it if donald trump feels it goes too far or delves into his family finances. there could be some finances unspecified. and he talked about the extra meeting that he had with vladimir putin. and we want to discuss that aspect of the interview now. joining me, former u.s. ambassador to the russian federation. and author of the plot to hack america. i've seen you on this air over the last few nights talking about the extra pull-aside meeting which isn't tech anybody what i a pull-aside is. in your view, what do you think are the primary damages of having that kind of a meetin

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

"the new york times" tonight has just furthered that reporting. this just came out during our show tonight. they're now saying that in advance of that meeting, the person who set it up, an acquaintance of donald trump jr.'s, who set up that meeting, informed him in writing in an e-mail that this russian lawyer who was coming to visit, who they should take a meeting with, had material that was part of a russian government effort to aide his father's candidacy. this e-mail message described to "the new york times" by three people indicates that the russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information. congressman adam schiff, the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee, raised what i think will be an important question in the investigation about this new reporting. congressman schiff pointing out that when donald trump jr. met with that lawyer, took that meeting, the russians had already hacked into democratic servers and obtained all that dnc information. but at the time of that meeting, they had not yet dumped the

this new report from the "new york times" about donald trump jr. being notified in this e-mail. >> thank very much for having me on. i normally don't watch the news that intendly that late at night. it was mind boggling what evolve in front of my eyes. let me try to take a different path what thor panelist talked about. let me take for a moment i am putin and i'm looking at the newscast and see what's going on and i'm saying, man this is just working beautifully. when looking at this from the point of view of a long-term impact, what we're looking at here now is sort of like bringing the american government to a screeching halt, which is exactly what the soviet union and today, russia wants to destabilize our union of democracy and sow a seed of distrust in our system. i think from that angle this is rally rally scary. >> you think it's straight out of the putin's play book is that what you're saying? >> it could be. this is a speculation i'm not ashamed of making. >> all right. jill, what do you make of this new reporting tonight? >> wow, it's com

i don't know who the source was, but given the fact that it follows on "the new york times" story, as well as "the washington post" story, saying how senior aides were shocked that sessions had agreed or wanted to stay on his job. this certainly makes it much more difficult. the question of how appropriate it is is something he's going to have to address. he clearly wants the job, anderson. i think he's going to put up a good fight before he walks away. >> adam, i know you may not be able to know this, but is this information that the president of the united states would already have known based on his access to intelligence? or because it's part of the russian investigation? >> i don't know the answer to that. i would be surprised if that -- if this information is -- it wouldn't be widely shared. again, i think as president, i'm sure he could have access to this. but i'm not sure how far it's distributed and to whom. >> carl? >> let me say two things. one, the president can ask for this intelligence and it would not surprise me if he did. particularly if he's intent on getting rid of

headquarters here in new york. >> ready, once upon a time a rico lawsuit was filed in new york city. we think of rico lawsuits as relating to the mob usually. but it's actually a broad definition basically rico laws get used against people who are participating in an organization that is engaging in criminal acts. typically that's the mob but it could be other stuff, too. in 2011, a rico lawsuit was filed in the southern district of new york about an alleged financial scheme that involved a whole bunch of ukrainians and russians and one guy who ended up running the donald trump for president campaign in 2016 and he denied having anything to do with it. and the suit ultimately did not succeed, but it has -- the terms of that lawsuit, the scheme that was alleged in that lawsuit has continued to resonate in the news for a few years now. and right now, with tonight's news it is ringing like a loud bell on a cold night. the scheme sketched out by this lawsuit, this rico lawsuit said that vladimir putin's russian state run gas company made a ridiculous deal with a ukrainian oligarch, and t

that came through in the "new york times" interview. without sessions fighting his fight, without his lawyers being out there in an aggressive way, he thinks he has to be the spokesman and the warrior at the same time. >> rose: what happens to jeff sessions as attorney general? >> it is an intrigue drama within the trump administration. i've covered the now attorney general for a long time, back to his senate days and he was the ideological core for what trumpism became in 2015 and 2016, this populist nationalist fusion of conservative politics and activism and anger, it's often credited to steve bannon the chief whitehouse strategist but in fact the attorney general sessions has been cultivating these kind of political themes for a long time. he was the first senator to endorse trump during the campaign. that's why he was first in line to be appointed attorney general. and he was important in the early days of this administration, shaping the executive action on immigration, helping the president think through criminal justice policy.

as promised this from "the new "new york times"" tonight -- president trump's lawyers and aides are scouring the professional and political backgrounds of investigators hired by special counsel robert mueller, looking for conflicts of interest they could use to discredit the investigation or even build a case to fire mr. mueller or get some members of his team recused, according to three people with knowledge of the research effort. also tonight we are learning a lot more about exactly what special counsel -- special counsel mueller has been up to the last 64 days since he's been on the job. multiple u.s. officials tell nbc news that mueller is, to use a baseball metaphor, finding the strike zone. still in the fact finding stage, they say the investigation is not widening but continuing a broad review of information and documents, documents to include the financial records and business dealings of those close to the trump campaign. our sources say as investigators follow the money they're reviewing business the trump associates had with suspicious banks. they're also looking at property deal

back to the new york times interview president did yesterday. on the front page. after 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 ha

"the washington post" and "the new york times" report aides are scouring the backgrounds of mueller and his staff, searching for conflicts of interest they can use to undercut the probe. the paper cites several sources familiar with the research effort. >> "the washington post" also reporting the president has asked about his power to pardon aides, family members, even himself. one adviser told "the post" the president was simply curious about the reach of his pardoning authority. this follows the earlier attacks on mueller and those involved in the investigation. cnn's jeff zeleny has more from the white house. >> reporter: christine and miguel, president trump and the white house increasingly focused on the special counsel's investigation into the election. there are indications that the scope is expanding. president trump talked about special prosecutor robert mueller and the idea he could be looking into the trump family's finances. the president said he thought that would be outside of the purview of that. but this is increase igly dominating much of the conversation here at the wh

in trump's interview with the "new york times" he gay his version how it came to be. trump's wife was sitting beside putin and he walked over to talk to her and boom instant pull aside. he also offered what they discussed. >> she was sitting next to putin, and toward dessert i went to say hello to melania and i went to say hello to putin. really pleasant tris more than anything else. not a long conversation, it could be 15 minutes, you know. actually, it was very interesting, we talked about adoption. russia adoption. i always found that interesting because he ended that years ago, and i actually talked about russian adoption with him, which is interesting because that was part of a conversation that don had in the meeting that i think as i said most of the people -- when they call up and say we have information on your opponent i think most politicians -- i was with a lot of people and said who would wouldn't take a meeting like that. >> if you're talking about russian adoption with vladimir putin then what you're talking about is one thing, the magnitsky act, which

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

of this "the washington post" and the "the new york times" bombshell, too. and i think this could be an administration that is a bit worried about what they could be hearing if they do agree to testify. you hear the president talking about red lines last night, there are warning signs -- >> in fairness, he was asked by "the new york times," they used the term red line, he agreed to it. it was not just -- >> he could have said i'm not going to talk about red lines but he said anything that is related to my business, and therein lies the issue. because a lot of this russia deal does go back to his business interests, his sons boasted about it, in fact talked about the meeting that donald trump jr. had last year that involved russian businessmen that had apparently some inside scoop on hillary clinton. so it does go back to russia, whether or not the president wants to acknowledge it or not. >> one important thing to keep in mind, the white house was adamant that the investigation is on russian meddling. that is true, but you also have to go back and look at th

and with "the new york times" and clarence page with the "chicago tribune." let's take a look at this interesting part of the interview. the president references french emperor from the 19th century, napoleon bonaparte. his one problem is he didn't go to russia that night. because he had extracurricular activities and they froze to death. how many times has russia been saved by the weather? michael, explain. what would he mean by extracurricular activities? is it, napoleon had a jet start that was taking him to moscow. you don't bop over to moscow from paris in 1805, or 1812. casually. and you don't not do it because you have a date that night. what is he talking about? >> this was the first time i'd ever interviewed president trump and what i learned during it is that he goes in many different detours. and they move very, very quickly. right after he talked about that, he moved into the economy and you often don't have a chance to come back and ask him what he's talking about. i have no better idea than you do about what he said. there were other aspects. we

juan: we end today's show with a fascinating new collaboration between frontline and "the new york times" called "life on parole" that airs this evening on pbs. >> tonight on frontline, hundreds of people are put on parole every day and many of them wind up act behind bars. >> it is not unusual for parolees to come back once or twice once they are out. >> they did not commit a new crumb, but there are violating rules of supervision. >> even going into this store, i can end up in jail and i'm only getting coffee. >> many are trying to break the cycle. >> i really did not know it was that serious. >> you're going on gps. >> filmed over a year and a half -- >> my life is pretty much ruined. >> with unprecedented access to parolees and their supervisors. >> i only care about you. >> you don't care about m me. >> i am in charge of your susupervision. >> and the make or break relationships bebetween them. >> you understand what you have done? i'm china a save your ass. >> some people think being on parole is you are free. you are not. >> i have to believe she is going to do good. i believe in

he basically said to the new york times in answer to a question from the new york times that i'm drawing a red line here. >> i want to bring michael in. because we have this warning from the president though he would not say what he would do about it. but this comes as we're getting more details about the don jr. meeting, other russia connections and you said early on investigators will follow the money. >> that's right. i think there's no question but that we are in the midst of a money laundering investigation. with respect to manafort and the purchases of properties in new york for cash in violation of perhaps the geographic targeting order rules, articles in the new york times today about indebtedness and limited liability corporations to make them less transparent to investigators, perhaps violation to the foreign taxability act. we know don jr. has mentioned in 2008 that they are russianed up with their money. they don't need u.s. banks except the one they used is deutschebank which is caught in a money laundering inquiry of its own. there's no question but we crossed the line toda

later dying after the information appeared in "the new york times." the president reading this message after our report, qualcomm and a fairly "new york times" followed u.s. attempt to kill the single most wanted terrorist al-baghdadi. they're sick agenda over national security. thank you so much for that. we start hearing someone with the front lines. what is your general feeling about leaks? >> the biggest thing people miss is their real lives are at stake when these leaks are made in you have to question what the motivation is behind why would someone leak some of this information. we can be transparent about what the military is doing from a strategic perspective. however, when you get down into the tactical techniques and the tactics and procedures that is some in the general public doesn't need to know i'm not so we can actually get the bad guys and protect our soldiers. >> you know very well the media will withhold information before getting the official clearance of our men and women in uniform and what we talk about as reported by catherine h

and "the new york times" has said as much. advisers to the white house. >> that's how the times described it. >> just four days in a row of bombshells to the "new york times." we hear president trump praising his son as being transparent but as y'all have mentioned, it was only because the times called and asked for comment that the son released these e-mails. we've talked about the white house having a credibility crisis. so i'm struck by how many people are taking the president's lawyer at his word when the president's lawyer is saying, no, the president had no knowledge of this meeting and was not invve in this meeting on june of last year. these e-mails started on june 3, and then on june 7, now president trump speaks at a rally saying, what was the quote, david? something to the effect of, i'm going to be having a speech next week talking about clinton and her e-mails, so he's on camera saying this. the meeting's on june 9 and then the same day, president trump tweets about hillary clinton's 3 3,000 missing e-mails. there

confronted by "the new york times" with news of a previously undisclosed meeting with a russian lawyer, donald trump jr. released a statement admitting that that meeting did take place. he described it as short and introductory, saying, quote, we primarily discussed a program about the adoption of russian children. that will call story number two. but by sunday, the story had changed again after "the new york times" reported that trump accepted the meeting after learning that the russian lawyer might have information damaging to hillary clinton, trump jr. issued a second amended statement admitting the reason for the meeting, saying it was with, quote, an individual who i was told might have information helpful to the campaign. story number three. on tuesday, confronted by "the new york times" with details of an e-mail between trump and the british publicist rob goldstone who arranged that meeting, the president's son tweeted out a copy of the e-mail itself. and the e-mail delivered an entirely new account, demonstrating in black and white that the meeting was set up with the understan

to germany when "the new york times" posted. but she said look, there's no evidence of collusion here and tried to simply again say this is a democratic conspiracy, a hoax here. and it's standard practice and procedure to accept opposition research on your rival. but did not draw a distinction at all that the rival may have been a hostile actor. it may have been an adversary. i talked to several campaign practitioners who worked on both sides of the aisle. they say when you do receive something like this, you call the fbi. the white house presented it as business as usual. but the white house thought theyer trying to move beyond this. they wanted to talk about the forward relationship with vladamir putin going forward. they thought they had turned somewhat of a corner. that was a controversial meeting last friday, as well. but now they're stuck again with what happened during the campaign. i think it's important to point out, the reason this is different, this happened during the campaign two days after he clinched the nominatio

report now maggie haberman reporting in the new york times and it is really something that certainly shows intent to collude with the russian government and that is a giant turn in this unfolding story this morning sobered up. everybody still talk about russia. well let's try to get to the heart of this and cross live now to our tease caleb moore pin in new york hi there caleb well the story has been circulating for several days now but child union has just released a new statement what more can you tell us. well it all started over the weekend when the new york times came forward with allegations about a meeting that took place between donald trump jr and gerald cushion or and a russian lawyer now the new york times in their report they alleged that this meeting in taken place because there had been a campaign had been promised dirt on hillary clinton and they furthermore said that this russian lawyer had been working with the kremlin now as we continue to to see the facts come out the only source that was ever cited by the new york times was confidential government records and it t

york times." one said to jake, leaving the door open to the possibility of firing bob mueller is, quote, chilling and congress could figure out how to hire someone on their own. the issue is the independent statute tharks protects them, lapsed in the '90s. what would the powers be of congress? >> ultimately, this shows how awkward it is for the executive branch to pursue the head of the executive branch. the way it's supposed to work, when the president is in the cross hairs, so to speak, is for congress to be impeached in the process and the impeachment process would involve hiring investigators and letting them do their job and seeing what they come up with. that's the way it's supposed to work. they certainly have that power and politically, if they want to do that, that's how it would go. if politically they don't, then nothing will happen. >> right. again, this is coming from, you know, sitting republican senators. so, that is telling. there is another telling thing. that is the numbers we go

washington journal continues host: joining us from new york city is new york times reporter jessica silver-greenberg. she is here to discuss a new consumer financial protection bureau role that would allow consumers to join class-action lawsuit against banks and credit card companies. thank you so much for joining us today. guest: thank you for having me. host: explain to us exactly what this new rule on mandatory arbitration does and why it's happening now. guest: in its most basic form, the rule says financial companies, banks and credit card companies and other kinds of lender's, can't force their customers as a condition of signing up for a product to agree to go not to court but to mandatory arbitration. that is on its face the kind of most basic thing it does. that theeally means is consumer financial protection bureau is shifting power from wall street financial firms to consumers. -- why it's happening now is that the more complicated questioned, but the consumer financial protection bureau has been studying this rule almost since it deception -- its inception since 2010. this is been on tra

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

pay so i wanted to just grab a random new york times and just kind of show you show people how to read it how to see the propaganda in our mainstream media so i just picked up this is this last sunday's new york times i didn't think i'm i'm getting a specific article here that's really crazy just went with the top article here and it says iran dominates in iraq after us open the door ok first of all you have to know some context of where we stand right now right the mainstream media is is ramping up for this war with iran right we can best every day you see news stories about these horrible things iran is doing we're getting. it we're creating you've got to create a lay good basis you know you get a real stable basis to go invade a country so this is this is the the manufacturing of consent it takes a long time got to get ready for it just yesterday i saw fox news ran with a headline or wrong on destabilizing iraq oh wrong on is destabilizing iraq that's funny i can recall us invading iraq and. killing roughly a million people gets an amended but so this title is iran dominates in iraq

new york times" bombshell last night too. because remember what we've got next week. we may or may not have testimony from don trump jr. and paul manafort. their interests are not necessarily aligned. and i think this could be an administration that is a bit worried about what they could be hearing if they do agree to testify. you hear the president talking about red lines last night. there have been warning signs talking about whether or not -- >> he was asked by "the new york times." they use the term red line. he agreed to it. but it wasn't like he -- that just came out of his head. >> he didn't say i'm not going to talk about red lines. but said anything not related to my busy. and therein lies the issue. because a lot of this russia deal does go back to his business interests. his sons have boasted about it. in fact talked about the meeting that don trump jr. had just last year that involved russian businessmen that had apparently some inside scoop on hillary clinton. so it does go back to russia. whether or not the pres

"the washington post" and "the new york times" report aides are scouring the backgrounds of mueller and his staf, searching for conflicts of interest they can use to undercut the probe. >> "the washington post" also reporting the president has asked about his power to pardon aides, family members, even himself. one adviser said the president was curious about the reach of his pardoning authority. this follows the earlier attacks on mueller and those involved in the investigation. >> reporter: christine and miguel, mt. trump and the white house increasingly focused on the investigation into the russian meddling of the 2016 election. there are indications that the scope is expanding. president trump talked about robert mueller and the idea he could be looking into the trump family's finances. the president said he thought that would be outside of the r purview of that. the legal team is look at strategies here. the washington host and new york times are both reporting that the president is also looking into ways to disrupt this investigation. they're looking into the background of the att

was printed in the new york times. it appears to be a new feature of the new york times but it appears to be a common feature of most newspapers today that are printed on mine. >> they often do allow commenting but the requirement in the statute is that they allow someone to go to a profile page and on that profile page they then link to people that they don't know. >> where is that in the statute i don't read the statute to impose that as an environment. tell me where you see that. >> 's room, that is in the three of the statute being stepped out these four requirements to define the commercials that were network. >> these three allow users to create websites or profiles that contain information such as links to other personal webpages. >> you are reading this such as as a requirement but such as is not a requirement. such as is a here is an example but you don't necessarily need this. the other way it can be read in the narrower way is if you had implied: after the word contained so that it read allows users to creat

that's what "the new york times" is reporting. then donald trump jr. said it had nothing to do with the campaign. if it doesn't have to do with the campaign, are they just meeting about russian policy? there's a lot of questions about why he would take this meeting at this moment, bring in such big power players on the campaign to talk about adoption in russia. that seems a little weird. >> i want to go back to what donald trump jr. said. he does acknowledge that he went into this meeting believing that he was meeting with an individual who i was told might have information helpful to the campaign. so he went in not knowing he says he was going to meet with, only that this was arranged by an acquaintance 2013 miss universe pageant. this story breaks shortly after president trump returns from meeting with vladimir putin, vowing to work on a more constructive relationship with russia. how significant could this moment be for the trump presidency? >> well, it is potentially large, we keep finding more information all the time. today, on the sunday show, l

the president made the remarks during a wide range interview with the new york times. trump: takes the job, get into the job, it recuses himself . , i think is very unfair to the president. how do you take a job and then recuse yourself? if you would have recused himself before the job, i uld've said, thanks, jeff, but i'm not going to take you. it is extremely unfair. that is a mild word. amy: president trump left over the possibility he could order the justice department to fire robert mueller, who is been assigned to investigate russia's role in the 2016 election. this is trump speaking in the oval office with "new york times" reporters. >> looking at your finances, your family's finances and related to russia. is that a redline? >> would that be a breach -- i would say -- pres. trump: by the way, it is possible that i saw a lot of condo units. from russia.money in fact, i put out a letter that i don't make -- from one of the highly respected law firms. they say i own buildings in russia. i don't. they said i made money from russia. it is not my thing. i don't do th

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 fru

york times." when we come back, methods discipline -- message discipline in the white house. n our way. you can see exactly when we'll arrive. i'm micah with safelite. customer: thanks for coming, it's right over here. tech: giving you a few more minutes for what matters most. take care. kids singing: safelite® repair, safelite® replace. my bladder leakage was making me feel like i couldn't spend time with my grandson. now depend fit-flex has their fastest absorbing material inside, so it keeps me dry and protected. go to depend.com - get a coupon and try them for yourself. >> the day when the president was inaugurated, one of the most miserable six months, unproductive six months of any presidency. >> chris: house democratic leader nancy pelosi with a decidedly negative report card on president trump's for six months in office and we are back with the panel. 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 a

"the new york times" explained that its sources were all trump people. quote, advisers to the white house. that's how they were identified. as i said when we first discussed the sources on this program, that meant they did not work in the white house but that they had knowledge of all of this and they had seen the e-mails. they had read them. jared kushner's lawyers saw the e-mails. that is howthy became public. jared kushner's lawyers searched jared kushner's e-mails when they were desperately trying to get him out of the criminal trouble of having not told the truth on standard form 86. and jared kushner's lawyers were doing their due diligence. they wanted to make sure that when they updated their clients' form, they would include every contact that jared kushner had with foreign governments and foreign agents. and so they searched jared kushner's e-mails. his lawyers searched his e-mails. that's why we all have that e-mail now. jared kushner's lawyers found it. jared kushner's lawyers then amended his standard form 86 accordingly, and now the world h

is saying in response to the new york times report. he's not denying anything about what the new york times is reporting, is that concerning to you? >> what i'm saying to you is, i've been in presidential campaigns, all kinds of people come out of the woodwork telling you they have information on your opposition. this happens every single day. not just in presidential campaigns, campaigns for the senate. i've been involved in all of them. there is nothing new here, someone lures you into a meeting and then bait and switch, they say, well, we have secret information and you go, well, the information is not secret or not good. this is totally typical. >> well, we have to take a quick break. stay with us, we'll be right back. yeah. could save thousands. you should probably buy me dinner. no. go to lendingtree.com for a new home loan or refinance. receive up to five free offers and choose the loan that's right for you. our average customer could lower their monthly bills by over three hundred dollars. go to lendingtree.com right now. megan