Arranging this nice weather in this place. Mr. President , im very glad that we had such a good meeting and this is due to your strong leadership and this is also due to our strong partnership. Obviously, the fact that we celebrate 20 years of Strategic Partnership this year, its important for both our nations and it is important to know and this is what i want to underline, that this partnership with the United States of america shaped romania as it is today. Romania, a solid democracy with a solid and economic and sustainable growth. Romania, which stands together with the u. S. Troops in afghanistan, we stand together in iraq. Mr. President , this partnership contributed greatly to what romania is today and this partnership was and is very important and i think this partnership not only has to continue this partnership, this partnership has to become stronger. This partnership has to define our bilateral relation and this partnership has to continue to resolve so many problems. Mr. Trump, you mentioned terrorism. Im very glad that, due to your strong leadership, nato decided to go against terrorism. Your involvement made so many nations conscious of the fact that we have to share the burden inside nato. And this is why romania also decided and if im right, i think this is the first country to step up to 2 of gdp for defense spending. A significant part of this defense spending is going into Strategic Acquisitions and i hope, President Trump, that we find good ways together to make good use of this money. Romania is very conscious of the fact that we stand on the eastern flank and we heavily rely on your partnership, President Trump, because we cannot stand there without the u. S. , we cannot stand there alone. On the other hand, our partnership has huge opportunity to step up, not only in Security Matters but also in commercial and economic matters and this is very important. Romania is a member of the European Union and i think its the best interests of you, mr. President , to have a strong European Union as a partner. This is vital for all of us. Our relationship, the transatlantic link, is vital. Transatlantic link is not about diplomacy or policy, its at the basis of our western civilization and together we will make it stronger together. We will make it better. Nato and the European Union do not have to compete against each other. They have to Work Together they have to work in such a manner as to produce synergetic effects. Make nato stronger, make europe stronger, make the United States of america stronger. And this is what we decided, President Trump and i, to make our partnership stronger, better, more enduring and this will lead very soon to an enhanced Economic Exchange to better commercial and this is what we all decide and what we wish because we are responsible, President Trump and i, not only for the security, we are responsible for the wellbeing of our citizens and this is what we have decided to do. Thank you so much, President Trump. Thank you. Dave boyer, washington times, please . Dave . Thank you. Come on, dave. Thank you, mr. President. Apologies. Thats all right, dave. Mr. President , this morning on twitter, you were referring to the testimony of james comey vindicating you but i wondered if you could tell us in person, sir, why you feel that his testimony vindicated you when its really boiling down to his word against your word and if you could also tell us, sir, do tapes exist of your conversations with him . Well, ill tell you something about that maybe sometime in the very near future. In the meantime, no collusion, no obstruction. Hes a leaker. But we want to get back to running our great country. Jobs, trade deficits. We want them to disappear fast. North korea, big problem. Middle east, a big problem. So thats what i am focused on. Thats what i have been focused on. But yesterday showed no collusion, no obstruction. We are doing very well. Its almost impossible for the democrats to lose the electoral college, as you know. You have to run up the whole east coast and win everything as a republican and thats what we did. So it was just an excuse. But we were very, very happy and, frankly, james comey confirmed a lot of what i said and some of the things that he said just werent true. Thank you very much. Do you have a question . Thank you. And mr. President , if you could tell us a couple weeks ago President Trump was in brussels at the nato meeting and not only was he encouraging nato meetings to pay up the 2 required of gdp for National Defense but he also was saying that countries, including yours, who had not paid 2 in the past, should make up for that difference. Do you think thats fair . I was in brussels and i meet President Trump and i listened to his speech, and i liked it. Because, you see, nato is based on values. But it is ultimately a military alliance. And, you know, military spendings are complicated and you need a lot of money, because nato is the strongest alliance the earth ever saw and we want to keep it that way. So we have to spend money for defense purposes and spending money means if youre in alliance, everybody has to spend money. This is called burden sharing. And i fully agree, mr. President , to that. So, of course, some people liked this better and some didnt like it so much, but its a simple fact that we have to do this, not as a purpose in itself. We have to stay strong, to be strong and to defend our nations. 100 correct. You know, one of the things i was referring to during that speech was the fact that, yes, they havent paid what they should be paying now, but for many years they havent been paying. So i said, do we ever go back and say, how about paying the money from many, many years past . Now, i know no president has ever asked that question, but i do. Were going to make nato very strong. You need the money to make it strong. You cant just be doing what weve been doing in the past. So i did say, yes, you havent paid this year but what about the many past years you havent paid . Perhaps you should pay some or all of that money back. You have a question . [ speaking in Foreign Language ] thank you. I have a question for President Trump. On the matter of security, sir, many of the countries on the eastern side of europe, including romania, see this as a threat to the region. Do you share this vision and do you think that the United States should act under article 5 if any of this country will be under military aggression . Thank you very much. Well, im committing the United States and have committed but im committing the United States to article 5. And certainly we are there to protect and thats one of the reasons that i want people to make sure we have a very, very strong force, by paying the kind of money necessary to have that force. But, yes, absolutely id be committed to article 5. Thank you. Mr. President , was there any discussion about the Visa Waiver Program for romania . Is there a time frame for including our country in this program . Thank you. We didnt discuss it, but there would be something that we will discuss, mr. President. I mentioned this issue and i also mentioned it during other meetings i had because this is important for us, its important for romanians for one to come to the United States. You see, more and more people come, President Trump, from romania to the United States. Sometime as tourists, some come for business and those that come for business should be encouraged. The matter of visa waiver would be probably important to discuss and we all hope that we will advance on this. Look at those hands up there. Do you have this in romania, too . I dont know. Ive got the microphone. If you allow me, mr. President. If i could only sell that. If i could only sell that. Should i take one of the Killer Networks that treat me so badly as fake news . Should i do that . Huh . Go ahead, john. Be fair, john. Oh, absolutely. Remember how nice you used to be before i ran . Such a nice man. Always fair. Mr. President , i want to get back to james comeys testimony. You suggested he didnt tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the flynn you said you hoped the Flynn Investigation i didnt say that. So he lied about that . Well, i didnt say that. I will tell you, i didnt say that. And did he ask you to pledge and there would be nothing wrong if i did say it according to everybody that i read today but i did not say that. And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you . No, he did not. So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of 100 . I hardly know the man. Im not going to say i want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that. Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath. Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesnt make sense. I didnt say that and i didnt say the other. So if Robert Mueller wanted to speak to you id be happy to tell you what i told you. And you seem to hint that there are recordings. Ill tell you about it over a short period of time. Im not hinting at anything. Okay. Do you have a question here . When will you tell us about the recordings . Over a short period of time. Are there tapes, sir . Youre going to be very disappointed when you hear the answer. Dont worry. John, do you have a question for the president . Yes. Thank you. President iohannis, youre no stranger to russian aggression. Vladimir putin recently suggested that romania could be in russias crosshairs. How concerned should the world be about russia aggression in your region and how concerned should the United States be about what russia tried to do in our election, sir . Everybodys concerned. But you see, being concerned should lead you to being prepared. So in my opinion, we have to be very clear, very simple and very straightforward if we talk about russia and with russia. In my opinion, we need dialogue. But on the other hand, we need what we all together decided in nato, a strong deterrence. So this combination, strong deterrence and dialogue should lead towards a solution which is feasible for every part. Hello, mr. President trump. You mentioned earlier the anticorruption fight in romania. It is a matter of high importance in our country but we see now that the anticorruption fight and the air force consolidate the rule of law are sometimes undermined by some politicians. Part of what we call the swamp. Is your administration going to support the anticorruption fight in romania and how can you do it . Thank you. Well, we support very strongly romania. And therefore, obviously we support that fight on anticorruption. We will always fight that. And we support your president. We think hes done an outstanding job. Very popular, very solid, working very hard. We know everything thats going on and, yeah, and hes going to win that fight. But he has our support. Romania as a problem for the u. S. Romania Partnership and for the american investor because we still have corruption in romania despite this anticorruption fight. Well, you do, but i can tell you that there are Many American investors right now going to romania and investing. In fact, i was given a charge just before our meeting and we have people going over to romania and investing and they werent doing that a number of years ago. So that shows very, very big progress and there really are a lot of congratulations in store. But a lot of people are investing from our country to yours and people love from romania the United States and they come here a lot and were very proud of them. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. So a couple of headlines. The whole, mr. President , are there tapes in reference to the he said he said situation between director comey and the president of the United States could be totally put to bed if in fact there are and he authorizes the release and he went back to two different times that will come out in the near future. It wasnt a denial but it was a wait and see. I have my entire panel here. Dana bash, first to you, impressions. First of all, we now really have a he said he said situation. Not just from the president s attorney but from the president himself. Not just saying in the rose garden that comey is lying when he said that the president told him that he hoped that he would make comey would make the michael Flynn Investigation go away. But he said he would even say that under oath to special counsel, which is a pretty big deal. So we really do have kind of have to figure out who is telling the truth here and its unclear, if there arent tapes, we he seemed to suggest that there probably arent because he said youll probably be disappointed in the answer. Which the answer could be no. He knows what the answer is. Why not just say . Hes got to wait for the next episode, brooke. Look, that was a flip and i shouldnt say it like that. He has Legal Counsel and he is working through lawyers the proper way and theres probably some legal reason why he wants to do this in a proper way so we should do that. I want to go back to jim acosta who is there in the rose garden after those couple of questions. Jim, at least he called on john and there was an exchange with john back and forth. What was your takeaway . Reporter yeah, i think that the president is maybe stalling for time here on this question of whether or not there are recordings of his conversations with the former fbi director. He did say and you did hear that exchange with john carl where he basically said, well, ill answer that at another time. Im not sure you picked up on it because you werent here in the rose garden with us but there was a moment where he was looking around after he answered that question the way he did. I then interjected and said, why cant you answer that question about the tapes and that is when he said, well, youre going to be disappointed when you get that answer, something along those lines. So i thought that was interesting. That was an indication, brooke, and it really is something that you can only read here in the rose garden, that he is sort of saying here that there arent any recordings. Until we have a hard and fast answer to that question, i dont think we can answer that definitively at this point although he seemed to say that were going to be disappointed when we find out the answer to that question. Of course, you know, one could answer that one way or the other as to whether were disai disappointed. We would be pleased to have recordings in some sense but in another sense that there are not. The president went on to say in that exchange and said this to the reporter with the washington times, that you believes james comey is a leaker but at the same time he feels that he was totally vindicated, that there was no obstruction of justice or collusion that jim comey testified to during that hearing yesterday. Its very much echoing and i think dana was saying this a few minutes ago, echoing what Marc Kasowitz has been saying over the last 24 hours. I dont think this really resolves a lot of questions that we have here and perhaps the president is saying, well, ill get back to you on these tapes because he plans on doing something in the course of the next few days of a sitdown interview where perhaps he feels more comfortable. I thought it was very fascinating, brooke, that he didnt dodge that question when given that opportunity a couple of times to answer that directly. Michael zelden, is there a legal strategy . I cant think of one. Firstly, if there is official recordings, they must turn that over. If youre mueller and you know from stories in the paper that when President Trump was private businessman trump, there were stories that he would privately tape people with his phone or other things. He would send the subpoena for phones that he may have possessed personally and official tapes. So it will come. If its there, it will come. If they destroy it, he wont be president very long because that will be a destruction of evidence, obstruction case that will take five minutes to prosecute. But what is most interesting to me is his willingness to say, i will say this under oath. So Marc Kasowitz and he are on message and that message is, well take the he said he said thing and may the best man win. Why would i barely knew the guy, this guy jim comey, why would i say that you need to pledge your allegiance and loyalty. Thats right. The one thing that puts comey in a better position perhaps than the president is these contemporaneous memoranda. If the president says this kocoy says that and he says i have documentation contemporaneously made to recite what was said, if theres a tie, i think that tips towards comey. Surely that goes back all the way to why comey made those notes. Hes a smart bureaucrat. Hes been around this town for a long time and knew that these were going to be important conversations that potentially could go badly for him, jim comey. He wanted to make sure that he was documenting them the way he remember remembered them. I was struck by the number of times that comey made reference to his own verbatim memory. I remember exactly what he said. I remember every word. I wrote down every word. Hes communicating there that he left those meetings, left those interactions and made contemporaneous notes, that sdosh so in a way, hes bolstering the case for those to eventually be legal documents. We know of no such contemporaneous notes made by trump or others on his behalf, but that is one thing that surely the special counsel will be asking about. And nobody was in the room. Right. So unless he wrote it in his diary afterwards. I think its worthwhile, just parsing for a moment what the president said. There is no obstruction. Well, that depends on which version you believe. He was leading people to think that there was an effort to try and end the russia investigation as it dealt with flynn. There was no collusion. Well, certainly there was nothing in the testimony yesterday that would have taken you necessarily to collusion. So hes accurate on that. Hes a leaker is an effort to impune jim comey. Its a very debatable point whether handing off your own conversations when youre a private citizen is a leak. It may simply be a revelation and theres a very big difference. Uhhuh. And then he immediately said, this was an excuse by the democrats to explain the election. So this conflates the question of what the president was doing in relation to the investigation and the underlying question of whether russia was messing with the election and thats what he always used to say about the russia thing was, this is an invention of the democrats. Exactly. Hes the only one now that says that. All of the intelligence leaders, comey himself, even many republicans, now all say clearly the and he never asked comey about the investigations. Not once. Russia and out of the gate, your point, sir, when he gave that Opening Statement and said my priority is the safety of the American People and you said what . I said, you know, the mund mental issue, the reason were sitting here discussing this is whether or not the russians got involved in a nefarious way in the fundamental operations of american democracy. And its pretty fascinating that at no point in this investigation have we seen the president ask jim comey, by comeys account, about that. And just to even broaden it out a little bit, who was he standing next to there . The leader from romania. And he got a couple of questions about the very real concern in romania about russia being a threat to romania and one of the romanian journalists, asked unfortunately for her, he smartly answered the one he wanted to about article 5 of nato but i think its very telling that he didnt answer the question about whether or not the president of the United States thinks that russian aggression is a threat to romania. He just dodged that question and its gist anothin the context o president , maybe it wouldnt have been that big of a deal. But this whole thing being a question of russia influencing the election and why is he so nice to russia and reluctant to criticize Vladimir Putin, even next to someone who is a big ally who feels a threat from russia. Secretary of defense and secretary of state have all described russia as that. Well come back to you guys. We have david ripkin and cnn contributor norm eisen, ethics czar under president obama. David, beginning with you, back to the issue on the tapes and we know he knows, hes not saying hes stalling, why, what do you make of that . I dont know if there are tapes but i know were missing the big picture. Lets assume and i think its true, that former director comey is not lying. I certainly assume President Trump is not lying. There is chemistry between the two of them brought by a kree creature of washington and lets assume that whats involved here is not those meetings but how they interpreted this. Comey has been incredibly unkind to the president. The president did, i believe, suggest that it would be best if, given flynns overequities, particularly asked about the Flynn Investigation, would it go away. Its not an obstruction of justice and not even a direct order. Director comey decided to make the worst out of it. The same discussion about loyalty. So this is not a an instance about he said he said. Its a situation of how you construe this. By the way, comey did not make any inferences, the fact that trump wanted the investigation of a salacious dossier. You would think that theres a very ich comey does not get t president and also does not get the fact that even in direct order because any investigation is not obstruction of justice. The president is a chief Law Enforcement officer of the United States. He can order any investigation to be commenced, he can order any investigation to be ceased. This is utterly ridiculous. Mr. Eisen, how do you see it . Well, first of all, we heard today, brooke, that there are no tapes because if trump is willing to swear to what happened, i believe jim comey. And, therefore, there must be no tapes. Its going to be a he said he said situation. Bare knuckle. That does create problems for the special counsel because you dont like to bring in an obstruction case based only on two witnesses. You want some corroboration. However, the comey memos are corroborated and, of course, theres an obstruction case here. In the United States, no man is above the law. The obstruction statute provides that if you act with corruptive intent, you can be prosecuted. That statute must be read to effect the president s decision making. Look, the president couldnt take a bribe from Vladimir Putin to fire jim comey. That would be a violation of the bribery statute. He cant corruptly order comey to cease and desist from an investigation in order to benefit a friend or himself and theres plenty of case law to that effect. So i think were seeing another moment in what is going to be a very long process of but the president says but the president says le testify in front of that special counsel and we just got a preview of what hes going to say. There is a clear dispute over what the president says hes going to say and what we heard from mr. Comey yesterday. And can i just make a point, it is not a he said he said. The president exercises the investigatory and prosecutorial in the United States. He can no more commit obstruction than he can conspire against himself. How is it not a he said he said when jim comey testified under oath one thing and we would have the president testifying under oath saying something totally separate. Listen to me. I am listening to you, sir. Theres no legal cause of action here. Whatever interpretation you have. Even if you assume that President Trump ordered direct for comey to cease this particular investigation, he had full authority to do so. Absolutely true. It cannot be an obstruction of justice. I know youre obsessing about he said he said. Its not about the facts. Its about the law. Mr. Eisen is utter le wroly wro sir, im obsessed with the facts. Thats where i am. This obstruction of justice charge, no matter the interpretation of what was said there. Mr. Ambassador, let me just have you weigh in on that. I must respectfully disagree with david. Good luck. The majority of legal experts agree that the president has the authority to act but not corruptly, not in violation of the criminal law. Those are limits on his behavior. To me, its an extraordinary assertion that the president could behave corruptly in office and could, on davids theory, take a bribe in order to were not talking about the bribe. Dont go there. David, please dont interrupt me. Its the equivalent. Corrupt intend to obstruct or corruptly obstructing a bribe. The criminal law bounds what a president can do and, importantly, the president is like every american. None of us are above the law. Its not about being above the law. This is the typical exaggeration of a proposition. Lets listen again to the exchange. Roll it. I want to get back to james comeys testimony. You suggested he didnt tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to you said you hoped the flynn i didnt say that. So he lied about that . Well, i didnt say that. I will tell you, i didnt say that. And did he ask you to pledge and there would be nothing wrong if i did say it according to everybody that ive read today but i did not say that. And did he ask for a pledge of loyalty from you . No, he did not. So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of the events . 100 . I didnt say under oath i hardly know the man. Im not going to say i want you to pledge allegiance. Who would do that, ask a man to pledge alike jans under oath. Think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesnt make sense. I didnt say that and i didnt say the other. If Robert Mueller wanted to speak with you about that i would be glad to tell you him that. And you seem to be hinting that there are not im not hinting. Ill tell you it over a short period of time. Okay. Do you have a question here . When will you tell us about the tapes . Over a short period of time. Are there tapes, sir . Youre going to be very disappointed when you hear the answer. Dont worry. Michael is sitting here and how do you see it . If the debate between david and norman is can the president of the United States be indicted, that is an open question legally. Some people say he can be. Others say he cannot be. The point is not whether or not hell be indicted in by a grand jury. The president is whether obstructionist behavior, if proven, can be referred to the house of representatives as a high crime and misdemeanor for krrgs in an impeachment proceeding. If he behaves in an obstructionist behavior, just as with nixon and bill clinton lying under oath would deemed to be obstruction of justice, referred charged, sent to the senate, that can follow here with President Trump. He may not be indictable. Thats debatable. But i dont think that is depositive. David, let me give you a chance. I want to hear from you again. None of the statutory provisions apply here. But beyond that, as a constitutional matter im not saying that the president cannot obstruct justice. He can if hes intimidating a witness or impeding a judicial process. But given an order and it was not that to stop an investigation or commence an investigation is entirely within his discretion. It can never, ever, no matter what the facts are, be obstruction of justice. Lets listen to more of this exchange with the white house. But i wondered if you could tell us in person, sir, why you feel that his testimony vindicated you when its really boiling down to his word against your word and if you could also tell us, sir, do tapes exist of your conversations with him . Well, ill tell you about that maybe sometime in the very near future but in the meantime, no collusion, no obstruction, hes a leaker. But we want to get back to running our great country. Jobs, trade deficits, we want them to disappear fast, north korea, big problem, middle east, a big problem. So thats what i am focused on. Thats what i have been focused on. But yesterday, no kcollusion, n obstruction. Were doing very well. That was an excuse by the democrats who feel they shouldnt have lost because its almost impossible for the democrats to lose the electoral college, as you know. You have to win up the whole east coast as a republican and thats just what we did. So it was just an excuse but we were very, very happy and, frankly, james comey confirmed a lot of what i said. And some of the things that he said just werent true. Lets talk tapes with the chair of the president ial recording program. Mark, i read your piece in the atlantic some time ago where you go through president s in our historys past and for reasons x, y or z theyve wired the white house until nixon. Do we have has there been in any one sense . Boy, we dont think theres been any one since. Perhaps the closest that wed have to Something Like that are the Video Conferences that took place in the obama and clinton and bush years and the question is whether they were archived and if they were, theyd be subject to the same jurisdiction as the tapes and perhaps there could be a president ial Video Conference project that we conduct like the recordings program. But, no, we dont think anybody taped like those president s did from Franklin Roosevelt through richard nixon. And quickly, your interpretation of the president saying on the tapes, that that will come out in some time, in the near future. Well, its hard to know what he means by that. In the past, all the president s themselves were involved in the implementation of the taping system. They were knowledgeable of what was going on and they were the ones who said, look, we need to do this. Im going to hardly speculate on where things are now but its perhaps conceivable that the president may say he has no knowledge of the taping system whereas others may. As we know in the nixon case, it wasnt the president himself who acknowledged the existence of a taping system. It was alexander butterfield. So the answer may not come from President Trump himself. It may come from somebody else. Uhhuh. Mark, thank you so much, for this historic perspective. Coming back to the studio here in d. C. , we all noticed and were hanging on the president s every word where he was saying no obstruction, no collusion, middle east is a big problem. It was like not even complete sentences. He was missing a verb or an article or two here and there. But i think that certainly you got the gist of where he was going, which is, i think that this is a you know, a b. S. Investigation. I want to focus on other issues. Remember im trying to, you know, put the context into some of those sentences. But i think the most important thing we shouldnt lose sight of is he said that as president of the United States he is so confident in his version of events that he will go under oath with the special prosecutor and, you know, the legal ramifications aside, hes trying to send a political message to his supporters, dont believe all those people, look how confident i am in my version of the story that im willing to do that. You Better Believe me and not them. Remember, theyre the people trying to put us down and undermine us and all of the things that have worked over the past two plus years with his base but what they want to do is make sure the ceiling doesnt slip any more than it has. It is still in okay shape. Easygoing into the midterm election. Just talking purely political here. Where a lot of these house races, you know, and a lot of these house members are in really, really red states and if there are problems, youre going to start to see it slip more there. June 20th. Georgia. President ial historian Doug Brinkley joining us now to talk more things trump and there is this epic battle right now between the president of the insurance and the former fbi director. Well, theres no question about that. This was marketed as a prek press conference and it was really a pseudo press conference. I mean, it has had very little to do with, you know, countries like romania may for supplements in Foreign Affairs in the wall street journal for information, you know, kind of promotion for tourism this was. When it boils down, donald trump had his line ready. He wanted to be the sound bite. No collusion, no obstruction. Hes a leaker. But the way he said leaker about comey tells you where the white house is moving on this. They are going to tar and feather james comey as being a reality winner number two. This is a white house trying to purge leakers out of it and now they found out comey was one and hes been fired and reality winner has been fired. Thats going to be their defense. If theres a big news making thing that came out of this, i think its that youre seeing donald trump backtrack on the idea that there are tapes of the conversation. He didnt still, he left a bit of a mystery but one can feel him sort of taking that tweet back. Significant, though, that he did say in the exchange with john carl essentially, yes, i will testify, will do so under oath. Yes. And historic perspective, doug, modern president s testifying under oath. How many . Put it in context for me. Well, its i do think that was an important moment. And then he added he said, im going to say exactly to mueller what ive just told you. Meaning, you know, hey, theres nothing there. If he puts that under oath in a private testimony. But remember when bill clinton and the lewinsky scandal, it was a dangerous moment. Bill clinton thought he was going to get out of things. We mock him for saying it all depends on what the definition of is is. In a lot of ways President Trump is saying its the definition of what hope is. I hope theres no problem with flynn essentially. And trump is going to say, hope, of course, hes a good guy, part of my campaign. Im not politically correct. I use the word hope but hes going to try to use that the way clinton did with what is is. In clintons case, it was Monica Lewinskys blue dress and in watergate you have the white house tapes. We dont have that kind of smoking gun evidence at this juncture. On the hope note, michael, quickly to you, the word hope that the president has used, you better hope there are no tapes in the tweet about comey and i hope you see your way to let it go on flynn, the word hope, does that make a difference . How do you interpret that . The way comey interpreted it was, hope was not hope like aspirational. It was i can look, heres my order. Like if im your mother and i say, i hope you brush your teeth. Thats like, brush your teeth. Thats right. Or don carleon says to the movie producer, i hope you see it my way and then ends up with a horse head in his bed. Its interesting to me, from wearing my prosecutors hat, when he said, better hope there are no tapes, thats a threat, as i would read it if i were still a prosecutor. And then when he picks up the same words as, i hope you will drop the investigation, i read those things, i would argue to a jury or anybody else who was trying to be persuaded, those words are not benign but they are directive and that undermines the notion that professor brinkley just said with respect to it being just a passing word of no legal consequence. Here is one more headline from today. Im committing the United States to article 5 and certainly we are there to protect and thats one of the reasons i want people to make sure we have a very, very strong force by paying the kind of money necessary to have that force. But, yes, absolutely id be committed to article 5. David sanger, that was the whole question on do you see russia as a threat to countries like romania, which dana mentioned earlier, that was the artful dodge. Right. So he avoided the question of russia. He inserted here a corrective for the speech that he gave when he was at nato where he had taken out a sentence about article 5, as was reported in politico, where he was supposed to make a commitment and article 5 is the part of the nato treaty that says an attack on one is an attack on all. So rather than refer to russia as a threat, he simply says, im committed to the nato project. He then at another point made the argument that money is pouring into nato. He said because of our actions i know where youre going because of our actions, money is starting to pour into nato. Is that true . All of the financial officials of nato and im sure well be doing this by the end of the day to ask them if money is pouring in. Thats not how the system works. What the countries who are members of nato committed to was to spend upwards of 2 of their gdp over a period of years that ends sometime in the early 2020s and to reach that limit. And thats to build up their own military. These are not dues paid to a country club. These are what you end up spending on your own military. And then he went into a bid about how they owe arrears. The commitment was only made two years ago. So they dont actually the commitment isnt binding. The commitment is an aspirational one. So to make the argument that they owe more money to the institution fundamentally misunderstands this. Hes been through this discussion and correction several times now. Okay. Lets hit pause. When we come back, were going to all have a conversation about a democratic senator who dropped the fbomb not once well be right back. My a1c wasnt were it needed to be. So i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating whats within me with onceweekly trulicity. Trulicity is not insulin. It helps activate my body to do what its suppose to do, release its own insulin. I take it once a week, and it works 24 7. It comes in an easytouse pen and i may even lose a little weight. Trulicity is a onceweekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. Trulicity is not insulin. It should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. Do not take trulicity if you or a Family Member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if youve had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. Stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have a lump or swelling in your neck, severe pain in your stomach, or symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing. Serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. Taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin, increases your risk for low blood sugar. Common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. Some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. Onceweekly trulicity may help me reach my blood sugar goals. With trulicity, i click to activate whats within me. If you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar, activate your within. Ask your doctor about onceweekly trulicity. Any of these promises . No . [ bleep ] no. Even though we as democrats are on the right side of almost all issues, many hard working families just havent felt that weve been frightiighting for t. Fundamentally if we are not helping people, we should go the [ bleep ] home. Okay. So that was new york senator, democrat, kirsten gillibrand, the personal Democracy Forum at nyu. The crowd was students. Dana bash is who gets to talk about this with me. The fbomb. I mean, listen, like we work in a newsroom. Right. Were not pollyanna. But to say that on stage as a sitting u. S. Senator. I know. Is that crossing the line . I was surprised to hear her do it. She clearly first of all, shes a new yorker who kind of knew her audience. As you said, she was speaking to students, and what i would like to know and i havent been able to reach her is whether or not this was just kind of in the moment or whether this was something that she planned. Its hard to imagine she planned it, but, yeah, this is this is weve had a lot of firsts this week, and i think you can put that right on the list. She she shes known to have colorful language, is that the right way to say if . Yes. Again, its just one thing between two gals shooting the sh and to sit on stage. I dont care how old your audience is. I dont think this is a gender thing and ill say that now because you dont usually lather i hear a lot of men in the senate cursing in private, just like women, but they dont do it in public, so i i think that that is why that this is so jarring, not because of the fact that shes a woman, but because shes a United States senator doing that. Look, she wanted to make a point, and guess what, she did. Right or wrong, she got her message out. Were talking about it, and we probably wouldnt be talking about what she said had she not done it in that way. Not making an excuse. We dont have time and we can say bad ass on cnn. What. Your bad ass women series on cnn digital, if people want to learn about all these amazing women here in washington youve been featuring. Where do we find it . Cnn. Com badasswomen. We launched it this week. Up on the website all month, and hopefully well be showing it intermittently on tv, but there are a lot of very, very strong, accomplished, barrierbreaking women in washington right now and we decided to highlight it. Its all inspirational, bipartisan, crossgenerational. Will make you feel good. Hosted by the bad ass woman herself, miss dana bash. Congratulations to you. Back at you, sister. Well be right back. Well continue our special coverage live from washington on what weve just heard from the president of the United States speaking in the rose garden on tapes, on director comey. A lot is happening. Well be right back. If you have moderate to severe Rheumatoid Arthritis like me, and youre talking to your rheumatologist about a medication. This is humira. This is humira helping to relieve my pain. And protect my joints from further damage. Humira has been clinically studied for over 18 years. Humira works by targeting and helping to. Block a specific source. Of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. Its proven to help relieve pain and. Stop further joint damage in many adults. Humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. Serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. Before treatment, get tested for tb. Tell your doctor if youve been to areas. Where certain fungal infections are common and if youve had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flulike symptoms or sores. Dont start humira if you have an infection. Talk to your doctor and visit humira. Com this is humira at work. Wont replace the full value of your totaled new car. The guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. No, i picked the wrong insurance company. With Liberty Mutual new car replacement™, you wont have to worry about replacing your car because youll get the full value back including depreciation. Switch and you could save 509 on auto insurance. Call for a free quote today. Liberty stands with you™. Liberty mutual insurance. The future isnt silver suits anits right now. S, think about it. We can push buttons and make cars appear out of thin air. Find love anywhere. Hes cute. And buy things from, well, everywhere. How . Because our phones have evolved. So isnt it time our networks did too . Introducing americas largest, most reliable 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. Its a new kind of network. Xfinity mobile. President trump says he is 100 willing to testify under oat. The lead starts right now. President trump now accusing the man he fired as fbi director of lying and leaking as he continues to dodge questions about whether he has james comey on tape. After comeys testimony, there are new serious questions about the attorney general and his meetings with the russians as the investigation into russia heats up. Plus, they have lived here just miles from washington and now the last generation that could call this tiny island home before the sea literally swallows it up. Welcome to the lead. Im jim sciutto in for jake tapper. Moments ago President Trump facing hard questions after the man he fired as fbi director basically told congress he believes the president is a liar who cannot be trusted and the president again refused to answer the key question of whether tapes of their conversation exist. Cnns sara murray is live for us at the white house. Sara, hard to parse out. Whats the headline there . A lot of headlines on tapes and basically him calling comey a liar in return. Thats right, jim. We really saw a defiant President Trump in this rose garden event today, disputing what comey said under oath, saying that he lied and trump even saying hed be willing to testify about his own
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.