without further ado, general mcmaster. general mcmaster: good morning, everybody. last week we discussed the president's upcoming trip. i promised i'd come back and go through the schedule in more detail. i'm happy to do that today. sean tells me there is another topic you might want to talk about as well. i'm happy to answer any questions about that after we go through the schedule here. first of all, secretary tillerson will accompany the president for most of the trip breaking off just before the g-7 meeting. as you know the trip will begin in saudi arabia. historic trip. after arrival ceremony the president will have coffee with the king. attend a royal banquet. and hold bilateral meetings with the king, crown prince, and the deputy crown prince. he will also participate in a signing ceremony of several agreements that will further solidify u.s.-saudi security and economic cooperation. that evening, the president and the first lady will join members of the saudi arabia royal family for an official dinner. the next day, the president will hold bilateral meetings

i know there are additional questions, so without further ado, general mcmaster. >> general mcmaster: good morning everybody. last week, we discussed the president's upcoming trip. i promise i come back and go over the schedule for more detail. i'm happy to do that today. sean tells me there's another topic you might want to talk about as well, so i'm happy to answer any questions about that after we go through the schedule here. first of all, secretary tillerson will accompany the president for most of the trip, breaking off just before the g7 meeting. as you know, the trip will begin in saudi arabia, is a historic trip. after an arrival ceremony, the present will have coffee with the king, attend a royal banquet and hold bilateral meetings with the king, the crown prince, and the deputy crown prince. he will also participate in a signing ceremony of several agreements that will further solidify u.s. saudi security and cooperation. that evening, the president and the first lady will join members of the saudi royal family for an official dinner. the next day, the present will hold bil

mcmaster there. he response to the allegations that the president somehow released sensitive information to the russian ambassador and the russian foreign minister during a meeting in the oval office last week. and the words of the national security advisor, the president and no way compromised sources or methods during this conversation. the arguing will go on. please stay tuned to fox news channel and this fox station for continuing coverage of this story. on jon scott in new york. as we continue to cover the words of the national security advisor and the reporting of various papers that broke the story, it first broke in "the washington post" yesterday. other stories and papers picked up on this, our coverage continues and "outnumbered" search right now. >> sandra: firing back, the white house fiercely defensive conversations that president trump had with officials saying that he leads classified information on those talks. h.r. mcmaster saying nothing the president did was inappropriate as he too

i respect general mcmaster a great deal. i do have to question while general mcmaster even put the president in the position to have a meeting with the russian foreign minister the day after the firing of the fbi director. so there are basic questions i have about how -- >> that's not just a political decision. there's a diplomatic and larger decision that was made there. >> correct. the russians had just meddled in the french elections not more than a week prior to that. i have real questions about the decisions being made in the national security apparatus. you have to have a national security team that is functioning, that is agile, that is lawful and plays close attention to how this kind of national security crisis unfolds. >> we are expecting any minute h.r. mcmaster to come in. if i can, can i go quickly to kristen welker? just give us a little idea of context again because the president is going on this major foreign trip. tell us about it. >> there's a big focus on foreign policy this week, chris. the president spok

mcmaster. >> that's absolutely right, john, but i think we have to do a little bit of fact-checking on the president's tweets this morning, starting with the fact that he referred to the meeting last week with the russians as openly scheduled. and it may have been openly scheduled, but it wasn't exactly open, because american journalists were not allowed in to take pictures or record any part of it. and the pictures you see that have been made public are pictures that were taken by a russian photographer, a bit of a public relations problem there for the white house. but in the big picture, john, as you said, there is that issue of the president sort of suggesting or creating the inference that the story as reported last night may very well have been true, but the president didn't go all the way to say that. in fact, he did not suggest that there was sensitive information or top-secret information that may have been shared with the russians in that meeting, and neither did the national security

mcmaster to hold a press briefing at 11:30 eastern. newly organized with this time, we will bring it to you, live. more on the trump disclosure from washington, d.c. this is bloomberg. ♪ vonnie: live from bloomberg world headquarters in new york, i'm vonnie quinn. mark: and i'm mark artan. with the european close about five minutes away, a quick bloomberg business flash. theiran factory show strength last month, boosting up by 1%the most sie february of014. tot indusial productn so rose the most in more than three years. -- possible collusion to rig bond prices. according to a person familiar, the banks includlocal units of nk of america, jp morgan, barclays, citigroup, authorities investigating whether or nothe parties coordinated is a price -- suppressed prices and increase yields. no one is commenting. steps todss taking shore up sagging stock prices and boost profits. its will cut about 10% of global workforce. salaried workers will make up the majority. that is your latest bloomberg business flash. vonnie: once again, we are awa

reporter: what he knew and understand -- general mcmaster: i was in the room. the secretary of state was in the room. the deputy advisor for national security was in the room. and none of us felt in any way that that conversation was inappropriate. reporter: when was the decision made to share that information with the russians? did the president spontaneously on the spot decide to give that information over? or was there an interagency process or decision-making process? general mcmaster: the president -- it is appropriate for the president to share whatever he thinks is necessary to advance the security of the american people. hat's what he did. as to your question on how that information been shared previously, i'm not sure about that. when did he make the ecision?

mcmaster now? is he satisfied with the way mcmaster has handled this so far? they are still putting him ahead as the face of this administration, as they combat this story. sean spicer's briefing today was off-camera, only h.r. mcmaster was out there as the face of the mir administration today. >> and phillip, to you, is "the washington post" standing by all of its reporting, even in the face of the white house's aggressive pushback? >> "the washington post" stands by the reporting. it's a great story by my colleagues, greg miller and greg jaffe. and you know, it's interesting to note that a lot of the defense that you saw from h.r. mcmaster, the national security adviser today, was not over specific facts in this story. rather, it was over the suggestion that the president may have done something wrong. he said, there was nothing wholly inaccurate about what the president was doing in that meeting, but he did not contest the crux of our reporting, which is that the president shared information that was classified, that had been given to the united states from

mcmaster do now? he's coming to cameras. >> yeah, well, he is really in a bind, because the whole point of h.r. mcmaster, the reason he is in the white house now is he is the person who has written the book about the military being honest in speaking with civilian officials. >> he's well respected. >> he is well respected. in his book about vietnam, he talks about the military didn't have the courage to say what needed to be said. but it's not as if there was a big question that was yes or no. it was a bunch of very small moves, very small decisions. and h.r. mcmaster's credibility was put on the line by this statement, and he was very careful. he was mincing words, but it seems increasingly clear that something amiss is going on, not just -- not only with this statement, but in the white house more generally. this is not just a crisis for the white house. this is a crisis for the country, and we need to get to the bottom of what's happening in the white house and we need to fix it. we need to get the

mcmaster go ahead this afternoon. changing their tone a little bit, most notably senator john mccain who put out a statement about the disclosure of this information. now saying that he trusted h.r. mcmaster at his word. another republican from oklahoma saying something similar. i will note there are a lot of republicans who are raising serious concerns and one or two who think it's just overblown. >> accuracy is important and understanding what happened is important. that would be fair. i think it's a the right thing to do for the american people but we need to learn more about it. i have very specific questions. i hope they'll be answered at some point today. >> they claim they haven't and i saw is it mcmaster? yeah, i saw mr. mcmaster. i believe what he said is true. so i think it's something that's way blown out of proportion. >> and wolf, i can tell you over the course of the morning talking to dozens of senators, one-on-one and with groups of reporters, senator orrin hatch said -- he was really the only one who

rather, i have seen trump degrade mcmaster. so i've now come to think that the saving grace of donald trump is his extraordinary incompetence and we should not be having people in there to help him look better. this president is a disaster. that foreign trip undercut nato, which is the organization that has kept peace in europe for 65 years. that's the longest spell of peace that europe has had in the modern era since the french revolution. we should not attack nato lightly. we shouldn't attack nato at all. so i think that mcmaster is not doing any good and in fact all he's doing is putting a little bit of lipstick on the pig of a presidency. >> so what he's done is defend president trump on a couple of his big controversies, right? when trump shared highly classified information with the russian ambassador and foreign minister and then trump's son-in-law, jared kushner, when he sought a secret communications channel with moscow. here is how h.r. mcmaster came out and defended the president. >> the premise of that article is fa

mcmaster. juan, want the president receive a bump when he goes overseas later this week for his first foreign trip, which will take them to saudi arabia, israel, and the vatican? >> a bump in the polls? >> james: a reprieve from the sort of thing. >> no. i think he is going to the source. he is going to the middle east. a lot of this is going to follow him, unfortunately. the question is, how is he handling foreign heads of state and how is he handling the u.s. foreign affairs for the first time? he is going to be on the global stage. by the way, the story indicates that trump, in a very trump style, was boasting about what he knew about the threat, which suggest to me that someone was talking. >> james: brit, an hour it looks unlikely that we will hear from general mcmaster. but what do you think, very quickly, maybe 20 seconds, that he is being told to say right now? >> i don't know. what you have to worry about is that he comes out and reads a statement that was quoted earlier and walks away

mcmaster, general mcmaster, may have walked into the office and said mr. president, have you -- i want to give you your intelligence briefing and he throws a few lines out here and there and the president holds on to that and so then the president uses it. it's not that this man is used to sitting down and disciplining himself to go through a regular intelligence briefing every morning. >> charlie, the president's relationship with the intelligence community, it can be described as contentious to say the least. there was this tweet from last february, here's a tweet from last february, quote, information is being illegally given to the failing "new york times" and "washington post" by the intelligence community. just like russia. one media outlet friendly to the president today attributed this latest kub latest controversy to the, quote, dark state. in december a month before his inauguration this is what he said to fox news. >> you are getting the presidential daily brief. >> yes. >> only once a week? >> well, i get it when i need it. i say if something s

general mcmaster said it so well a few moments ago. we honor your families because your families protect us. and why we are at it -- while and while we're --it >> calm down. a. pence: why don't we give round of applause to all of the servicemen and women are today wearing the unit of arm of the united states -- wearing the uniform of the united states? [applause] mr. pence: but today is about celebrating, while service men and list, families served. i want to give a round of applause to the military spouses who are here today, who keep the home fires burning. they support their spouses as they serve our country. andall of these wonderful energetic children. [laughter] e: who are with us today, some of whom may follow your parents in the uniform, we are honored to have you here today. this coming friday will be military spouse appreciation day. president ronald reagan instituted this celebration in 1984, to recognize the crucial the that spouses play in lives of our armed forces. and president trump is honored to continue this tradition

[applause] lt gen mcmaster: who else is great? >> god. lt gen mcmaster: how about -- god is great. [applause] lt gen mcmaster: how about military children? they are pretty great, too. because of the sport give your mom and dad so they conserve. military killed and other greatest. you know why -- military children are the greatest? you know why? because they give everything. you move lots of places. you make new friends right away. you do good in school right away. and you are good friends to your right?s and sisters, military commissar, what -- military commissar, what? >> awesome. lt gen mcmaster: awesome. military families are awesome. thank you come military children. thank you, military spouses. we are deeply grateful for your service to our nation. and thank you, military families, for the support that sailors,ur soldiers, airmen, marines, coast guardsmen, to serve our nation. thank you. [applause] welcome mrs.p me karen pence. [applause] mrs. pence: you guys did such a great job earlier when all the kids came out to see marlon bundo. you got a picture with him. you know who t

mcmaster. general mcmaster already taking some heat for knocking down claims that were actually not in the initial "washington post" report about the president sharing classified information with the russians, and now the president himself as of this morning, he has a different version of events. want to bring in cnn politics reporter, cnn editor at large chris cillizza. sir, thank you so much for being with us. first off, general mcmaster last night denies reporting that didn't exist. now the president actually confirmed some of the reporting that did exist. so, if you're general mcmaster, what do you say when you go to the podium today? >> welcome to being on staff with donald trump. the second time in a week, by the way, john, that we've seen this happen. obviously, the comey explanation, donald trump's just dismissing out of hand what his staff had built up over 48 hours. here's the problem if you're a staffer for donald trump, particularly if you're h.r. mcmaster -- you knew what you were

mcmaster spent a lot of time in the briefing room. he was running us through the upcoming trip that the president is making to the middle east as well as italy and belgium. but all saying the type of information the president shared with the russians was absolutely appropriate for the commander in chief to do. listen here. >> what the president discussed with the foreign minister was holy appropriate with that conversation and is consistent with the routine sharing of information between the president and any leaders with whom he's engaged. >> reporter: the white house also pointed to some new information that just came out that suggested the intelligence document that the president shared with the russians was actually a product of israel which has incredible intelligence gathering capabilities in the region. the white house pointing to this statement that fox news has obtained from the israeli ambassador to the united states as proof that the president did nothing wrong. ambassador derdom saying, israel has full confidence in our in

general mcmaster: whatever the president wants to do. so the security council tries to keep up with the president. the final plans are not set yet. we can comment more about that next week, but it will be up to the president and those leaders with how he wants to engage with them. against of the campaign transnational terrorist organizations and isis in particular the president has , asked us to do everything we can to defeat isis and to ensure that we defeat isis in the caliphate and the terrain that they are endeavoring to hold onto in syria and iraq and afghanistan and in other areas. and what the president has also told us to set he doesn't want to telegraph what he is doing. tactically, day-to-day. he wants military commanders to keep those campaigns consistent with his guidance and strategies that he has approved. , it will be an opportunity for our military out how they lay are executing the president's guidance. the products they have made in the campaign and what remains to be done. that is the emphasis of the press conference n

mcmaster. welcome to kw"inside politics." he came into the briefing room to brief them on a trip, a nine-day trip, the first of presidency for donald trump. of course the questions dominating the story first broken by "the washington post" yesterday that the russian in a meeting with the russian foreign minister inappropriately sthhar classified information, information that came from a highly sensitive source. general mcmaster using the words wholly appropriate to defend the president's actions i sag tsayi president had the right to do it. let's get into that. cnn jeff zeleny, abby phillip of the "washington post," karen of the "washington post" and knee wra malika henderson. >> kept saying wholly appropriate. he used that terms maybe a dozen times for the president to do what he did. at the end he added a bit of piece of information. when the president was sharing this intelligence with the russians, the president was not aware of the source, that he had not been briefed on the source of the information. that is the most se

general mcmaster artfully avoided that. i assume what happened here is the president talked about intel and didn't tell the russians how we captured it. why didn't mcmaster tell us that. i didn't care for what he said. i think he lost credibility. he played us for fools, pretended we didn't know. >> obviously more details come out about what was said. it is true intel different agencies were communicating in the aftermath about this because there was concern. if there are transcripts it will thicken out our understanding. david sanger, while i have you, i'd like to double dip, if you might allow. this cyber attack that we're all talking about with the ransomware and request for bitcoin, 150 different countries, you have some good reporting on this that may advance understanding. what do we know now about the source of this massive cyber attack. >> chris, if it wasn't for the president talking about these issues with the president, i suspect we would be more fixated on this. you saw the attack spread around the world startin

mcmaster? >> i think so. it is -- i understand what mcmaster is trying -- probably had in his mind when he came there and people like mattis and general kelly at dhs, too, right? let me get in there, they'll be grown-ups, if trump isn't responsible, we can contain the damage and if he is, we can make something of this presidency. but they're not having impact and, in fact, what they're doing is, you know, they say he's going to back article 5 in nato, and then he doesn't do it and it's all been more hurtful to american credibility when he doesn't do it. i think it's -- i grew up in a military family, myself, and i know that's a difficult situation to be in when you feel like you're in a political conflict. they should leave and let the american people -- and not prop this presidency up and let the american people, and let the republican party, see what this presidency really is about and figure out what they want to do about it. >> do you have any reporting on the dynamic, the personal dynamic between general

what do we expect to hear from mcmaster? >> well, i think this is the most significant damage control this white house has had to do so far, because what we have been seeing is an erosion of republican support. it's not an outright jailbreak in terms of people fleeing him but you do hear more serious criticism of him because this does involve national security, not just involving russia, but also involving isis and i would expect that general mcmaster is going to try to explain that what president trump did did not seriously compromise national security. his comments last night said that the president had not discussed sources and methods which is something that the post story that kicked off this frenzy did not allege, and i expect him to go further, especially in commenting on the tweets the president had this morning which seemed to cut against what mcmaster said last night. the president said i had the absolute right to do this and i did it for humanitarian reasons. >> do we expect that to work, john? will that quiet rep

general mcmaster said it was appropriate. i kind of like what congressman schiff suggested, get a classified briefing and find out. certainly the american people elected us to accomplish certain things. our job is to do what we told them what we were going to do when they elected us and they sent us to accomplish that. let's focus on that and keep moving forward. >> you're a member of the oversight committee. do you think this is your job at this point? do you think you guys should be getting -- you hope there are some trance consistent script o. >> i've said all along in this broader russian issue, let the intel agencies do their work. if we need the judiciary committee, the oversight committee or some special select committee, i'm open to those at that time. but right now let's let the intel committees do their work. no accused me of going easy on my party but let's let the intelligence committees handle it. >> are you concerned about whether the president is handling classified information correctly? >> i mean, he's the pr

so, mcmaster lied? >> so, general mcmaster is already hanging out to dry. >> i'm just asking, was he put out there to not tell the truth? >> huh? what did you say? >> was general mcmaster put out there like all the others? >> let's be exact. it was a nondenial denial. and so did he lie? no. did he state something very carefully to put up a smoke screen? yes, he did. >> great. >> does that reflect just as poorly on him? yes, it does. so we see this again, gene. again, you have the vice president of the united states, have you all the president's communication team go out last week, say something. the president made them out to be a liar the next morning. this is what he has done once again. a denial, nondenial denial last night from, i think, a man that probably is one of the most respected people in the white house. and this morning donald trump chops him off at the knees. >> we're just seeing -- what's amazing, we're seeing a repetition one week later of exactly what happened last week on the comey stu

mcmaster will be there. mcmaster is the one that delivered the comments on camera outside the oval -- the west wing last evening. he took no questions and perhaps that will be different today when he is before the reporters. what was the intelligence? what was it all about? what was the conversation? what did the russians know before? did this illuminate the argument about the fight against isis? or did it detract from it? these are things we don't know right now and are waiting to get more as it comes in. democratic senator from west virginia is joe manchin my guest on the hill now. sir, good morning to you and thank you for your time here. now, you will be in that closed-door session later today and part of the intelligence committee there. we were not in the room. how much concern do you have about what was said or what was not said as we try to piece this together as you understand now, senator? >> let me set the stage for you as far as how we operate in the senate intelligence. i was on armed services s

mcmaster to walk out and make a statement. our live coverage continues with erin burnett "outfront" right now. >>> this is cnn breaking news. >> good evening within i'm erin burnett. breaking news. the washington post reporting this evening that the president of the united states has reveal top secret classified information to russia. according rgd to the post trump shared the classified information with the rush hand ambassador and the russian minister last week. this information involved isis. the report states it jeopardized a critical source of intelligence and we're awaiting a briefing from the national security adviser at those cameras. deena powell

mcmaster. it comes as the president is expected to receive proposals to boost troop levels in afghanistan. cnn's barbara starr live at the pentagon with more. this is going to be news that is very sensitive to american ears. what do we know? >> reporter: good morning, chris. after more than 15 years of fighting the taliban back on the upswing in both eastern and southern afghanistan. so the president now getting recommendations from the pentagon about what to do about it. it looks like one of the key options is more u.s. troops on the way to afghanistan. it could be anywhere between 1,500, 3,000, 5,000 troops. what will they do there, train, advise and assist afghan forces. more air strikes are possible. more operations on the ground. all of it does add up to putting u.s. troops at risk but the idea is, according to proponents, if you put more firepower into afghanistan, can you push the taliban back? can you actually push them to a negotiating table and finally end the conflict in afghanistan?

mcmaster downplaying the severity. how did he do? here to discuss former cia analyst fred flight fox news correspondent o judy miller is rejoining us, fred, what do you think of mcmaster and what he said and his credibility after this morning? >> he tried to reflect the fact that president has ultimate declassification authority. i think he is trying to focus on fact that real criminals were committed by former or current u.s. officials who leaked substantial sensitive information to the news media. david: what is the administration going to catch up with the leakers? >> that is the most important thing. the leak to washington post and the leakers inside of the national security council or white house who are doing are causing far more damage than an alleged conversation that took place between president trump and lavrov. having mcmaster vouch for you is like having the pope verify your whereabouts to your wife. this is a guy you have to listen to. i was concerned when i read the article yesterday. until i saw mcmaster's quote. i und

mcmaster: "the story that came out tonight as reported is false. at no time, at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed."national security adviser h.r. mcmaster -- in a carefully worded statement -- árefutingá claims that áwere not iná the story first reported by the washington post --while falling short of denying the president revealed classified information to russian diplomats.intelligence officials -- tell cnn that the president ádidá reveal sensitive information that could expose intelligence sources --potentially jeopardizing ácriticalá u.s. access to intelligence on isis - as the terror group hopes to use laptop computers as bombs on planes.the white house insists the president only discussed common threats with the russian leaders. the áshockingá revelation -- opening up the president and the republican party to accusations of a double standard -- after repeated criticism of hillary clinton's handling of classified emails. president trump:"we can't hand over our government to someone whose deepest, darkest secrets

mcmaster? >> h.r. mcmaster. the washington post story says that the president revealed classified information resulting from a secret source not that he revealed who the secret source is. oftentimes you can make conclusions about what the source is based on where it's coming from, to reverse engineer it. that's the point i would make. second point i would make is if the white house demonstrated credibility on any intelligence issue or any of the other controversy that have come out -- >> in terms of trusting the statements that come out -- >> from the white house podium or senior officials, you might be inclined to give this statement more. i'm stating an obvious fact. you might be incluined to give this statement more credibility than it was. i've been speaking to intelligence officials, current and former as the ripples of this go out. they make three points to me. one, it's classified information. two, revealed to a prime ad r adversary of the united states, russia. and three, it gets to a sensitive relations

and i want to come back to what general mcmaster said, he made an argue. he had no way of knowing that, and i just want to current score what also was said. russia is not our ally in the fight against isis and syria. they have not taken the fight at all to isis in years of trying to make that coordination. why are we sharing this information with them when they're not our ally in the fight against isis and syria. >> he is the most credit person. you did see sean spicer, he is not going to be on camera later today, that is a switch, but he also, if we can play part of what he said, he is also trying to justify what he said last night which is in contradiction to some of the other information, let's play that. >> what i'm saying is the premise is false, the president had a conversation that was private and was not a lapse in national security. i think what i would like to see debated more is that national security has been put at risk by those violating confidentialty. the president wants to focus on risks, but i don't understand how the leaks of information

erin, let's turn to mcmaster,' l lie-- eli at bloomberg is saying a conflict of general hr mcmaster and the president of the united states. is this an overentitled general, who just cannot find his place? what is going on here in your judgment? >> well, i think in part the president should have known, having looked into mcmasters' background and i've talked to a number of nfc officials from the obama administration who actually actually saw this coming based on mcmasters' history in iraq and that he wanted to do some nation building, if you will. some of the different modeling that he came up with while he was in iraq. so, this absolutely clashes with some of the vision that donald trump was talking about on the campaign trail. so, of course, these two men were going to come to blows at some level because they have different visions. lou: figuratively speaking. >> yes. lou: i have to say, matt, the fact that the national security advisor would advise the president not to use the term radical islamist terrorist. >> we've been there. lou: that's so disappointing to me, i just can't even g

is it mattis and mcmaster as suggested? >> i think the national security people in the white house are definitely the intermediaries with those folks in the white house, administration. this administration has a steep learning curve. every one does but this one especially. they are still trying to figure out how to work with hill, whether on messaging or how to move votes on the hill and get something done, they are still learning all of this stuff. what makes it difficult are the mixed messages always coming from this administration when you have a rift on national security issues and you have the nationalist and mcmaster and mattis and those folks and it's always difficult when people try to speak for the president to say this is what we want to do as the white house because the president trump zigs and zags often times in the face of what his advisers -- >> i wanted to say, i was thinking with your question, is there that level of sophistication in the white house? >> pause that thought. i want to hear everyone's theorie

we heard that from the secretary of state, from mcmaster. that is not what "the washington post" actually reported. do you see any parallels -- when you hear a statement by that -- like that, someone might call a non-denial denial, what stands out to you? >> well, i think this is just damage control by the white house with our partner, whoever we got the information from. it's not unexpected the white house would deny the stories or give the appearance if they're not hitting all the points. that didn't surprise me. i don't know what else they could do, frankly, other than try to minimize the scope of the story and narrow it down to what they think is appropriate. >> does it -- is there a benefit in coming out and making a statement that doesn't really address the actual story? because then obviously, news programs point out immediately, well, that was an interesting statement but when you actually look at the words, it's actually not referring to what the actual report said. >> it is conspicuous. i heard it on the radio. i didn't even read i

as general mcmaster said. i thought he said, and i know he feels, that we had actually a great meeting with the foreign minister. so we're going to have a lot of great success over the next coming years. >> did president trump reveal highly classified information to the russians as "the washington post" reported? the article cites a u.s. official who said this is code word information. the president was mum in the oval but not on twitter this morning where he said he had the absolute right to share what he wanted to. sound a little like nixon when the president does it, it's not illegal? we'll get into that later. >>> so who was on clean-up duty this time? it is national security advisor h.r. mcmaster for the second day in a row. >> i stand by my statement that i made yesterday. what i'm saying is really the premise of that article is false. what i'd like to see really debated more, is our national security has been put at risk by those violating confidentiality. as you know, it is whoy appropriate r the presi

i don't want to get anything beyond general mcmaster said today. our goal is to have notice out to you guys at some point what the details of the trip are. >> sean, it may seem like a small matter, but the president mispronounced president erdogan's name a couple of times. we had a report yesterday from politico that the president reading and embracing a report that was pushed in front of him from a fake 1970s "time" magazine story. we've had numerous reports of the way the president consumes information, including, not exclusive to, the events of the last few days. two questions, is the president doing his homework, and are you satisfied or can you tell the american people that the president is getting the best quality information possible to make decisions? >> yes, on both. >> senator cornyn pulled out of the fbi search. does the president still think it is possible to name a new director before he goes on the trip? or is that likely the drag? >> i think it is obviously likely but that's up to both doj and then obviously to the president in terms

there raw two things that general mcmaster said, that we re that general mcmaster said, that were quite amazing. 0ne that general mcmaster said, that were quite amazing. one was that the president wasn't aware of the sources and methods of misinformation and that he made the decision to disclose it on the fly. there had not been a careful process that this would be a useful thing to do, so both those incidents, raises questions about whether the president act on impulse and that that causes him great controversy. i do think his situation now is more troubling than it has been in his first 100 days. i was struck last night as this news broke by how quickly republicans came and criticised. we saw bob corker and john mccain, who has been a critic before, but we also saw paul ryan. you had senior republicans, can see it was concerning. democrats are already inflamed about donald trump but for republicans, you now see them publicly criticising him. we had a local republican member of congress for the virginia suburbs put out a briefing —— request asking for a briefing from the intelligen

mcmaster but he's standing by what was said yesterday that nothing wrong was done. scott: you heard that phrase over and over, wholly appropriate, essentially saying the president has the right to and hese discussions nothing so-called across the line. the problem was this, perhaps initiated by a report or larger narrative. i was speaking to annalist today, the damage has already been done. you have these reports something may have been shared that initiating countries who provided that information might not be happy about and if that's the case, does it prevent other nations and intelligence partners overseas from the future from wa speak freely with the united states and wanting to share information with this white house. whether or not anything wrong occurred, the person i was speaking to today said that was the problem. we heard from a couple legislators on capitol hill this morning, senator nelson of florida and senator ricker of kansas city, a democrat and republican, both expressing concern that intelligence sharing is going to be a problem and as a result, t

mcmaster has had to say? >> i respect the national security adviser and i -- >> do you believe him in this instance? >> in his statement he carefully parsed what was and wasn't said in the white house meeting. and i think it will undermine his credibility here on the hill if it turns out that the initial reporting by the "washington post" now confirmed by several other leading news sources is in fact true. >> the president, though, saying, for example, this morning tweeting that he has an absolute right to share facts pertaining to terrorism and security. the administration's pushback is that the president can reveal information, can share discussions about common threats. why is he not able to do that? why is that wrong in your view? >> he doesn't face legal risk for sharing highly classified information. but historically when presidents have made a decision like this, they only do so after consult withi ing with the most senior levels of the defense community to be given advice on the context and the potent

mcmaster. what's the latest? >> i can tell you that nobody at the white house is happy that this has happened. they will try to get to the bottom of it. i talked with the senior official here at the white house who told me "the fact that someone would leak this is astonishing and it shows both an extraordinary lack of concern for national security." the white house is baffled how all of this got out. you heard h.r. mcmaster say a limited number of people in the oval office -- clearly there were some aids as well present, but the fact is the details of this meeting with such a small circle of people got out was baffling. however, for us as journalists, he did not say what the nature of the information was that the president shared. here's what we get into a little bit of an area that is concerned for people who have been in this business a long time. this was said to meet. an intelligence document that was developed by one of our partners, it may be a partner in the region, and that the president didn't have owner

our fight is against isis as general mcmaster said. i thought he said, and i know he feels, that we had actually a great meeting with the foreign minister. so we're going to have a lot of great success over the next coming years. and we want to get as many to help fight terrorism as possible. >> soprano, cheryl, standing behind this meeting. the national security adviser standing behind what may or may not have been said in it. cheryl. >> all right. a lot happening at the white house, and i'm sure there's going to be more this afternoon. thank you, sir, very much. well, we've got to analyze all that's been happening over the last hour and in particular let's bring in fox news contributor steve cortez and talk radio host chris. and, steve, i mean, i think that this -- there's so many angles to this but in particular, the president and hr mcmaster, again, saying that nothing sensitive was shared. they double down, they triple down today, if you will, steve. does this make the story go away? and does israel now the support for the new yor

type hr mcmaster in the search box. in a few moments we expect remarks from president trump and the turkish president. we showed you the his arrival at the white house just a few moments ago. the to our meeting and discussing u.s. turkey relations and shortly they will read statements to the media. we will have live coverage just after 1:00 p.m. here

again, mcmaster and dina powell know their stuff. they know it backwards and forwards, and they know it well, and they know what to give up and what not to give up. if they were in the room and they acknowledged that it would be a good idea to share this with a partner in the fight against isis and a partner that the president it's fervently trying to develop, then they probably gave him at least a tacit green light to go ahead and do this. in terms of agendas, if you read that article, it says that a current and former u.s. officials, at any time we have seen former u.s. officials quoted, they are not any time, but many times, when we see former u.s. officials quoted in stories that are critical of the trump administration, as they tend to be people who were in the past administration, who don't think of this president has the seriousness to deal with information that they believe needs to be dealt within a certain way. they are only too happy to get it out there to make this white house him as president look bad. >> martha: john, t

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 channel but allegedly attempting to use russian communications to do it. the folks i'm talking to are looking at this and saying the only reasonable explanation for this is mr. kushner wanted to avoid monitoring by the u.s. in