Putin weighed in on other important matters in his country, but not this. Though we have heard from a kremlin spokesperson, we heard from the russia ambassador to the u. S. , and warning the u. S. That there is going to come a time when it is going to realize that it made a grave mistake. Although for its part, the Trump Administration has warned right back that if russia does retalia retaliate, which we expect it to do by expelling u. S. Diplomats, then this Administration May well take additional actions. And yesterday President Trump had a phone call with Justin Trudeau of canada, and in the readout the white house said that this behavior is the latest in its ongoing pattern of destabilizing activities around the world. So we have heard from the white house through the press secretary. They put out this strong statement, not signed by the president or in the president s name t was, like i said, from the press secretary, we heard from other administration officials, using very strong terms in strikie i describing r behavior. The question remains will we see trump weigh in on this action that he was the final decider on, and if he does weigh in, what exactly will he say . How aligned will he be with those around him . The reason we even have to ask this question is because it was only days ago that the same National Security team around him told him in all capital letters not to congratulate Vladimir Putin on his election win, but trump did just that. And he also didnt even bring up the poisonings in the uk on a phone call with putin. So how bought in is he on this action . Supposedly he was the one who decided to do this. Again, at the recommendation of his National Security team. But i think there are plenty of people out there wanting to hear from him on this directly. And thats the thing, there is a lot of bipartisan support for these recent moves by the administration. But youre still seeing this difference. One that seems to be more of a new development, at least in terms of the intensity and the significance of what were seeing. But there is quite a difference between the rhetoric that we have seen coming from the president as it pertains to russia and Vladimir Putin from the very beginning of the time he came into the white house. Yeah, there has been this difference among even certain members of his administration, and him. Nothing wrong with that. People are always going to differ in their thoughts on something, how it should be handled, and in the way they present themselves, but at times with this administration, it has been quite stark. Remember, only recently secretary of state Rex Tillerson when he was secretary of state put out a statement in his name excoriating russia over this poisoning attack. The next day, we saw him fired and that raised questions because of prior things that trump and members of his administration said, was he fired because of that statement . So it is strange to even have these questions. But they exist for a reason. And so when you see his National Security team recommend something and then he do just the opposite, it makes sense that the next time they make a recommendation for this action to punish russia over this poisoning attack we see the story leak out to us as if somebody who has a stake in these discussions wants the world to know that this was recommended to the president , perhaps just in case he decided not to take action, brianna. Michelle, thank you so much for that. Lets bring in our guest, michael anton, joining us from outside of the white house. Thanks so much for being with us, michael. Youre welcome. Thank you for beihaving me. The readout has some tough words for russia for sure. Why cant the president say that directly to vladimir pewtealadi the president used tough rhetoric before, in speeches in poland and europe, he used it in a widely mocked tweet that was 100 accurate when he tweeted several weeks ago his administration has been much tougher on russia than the past administration. I think the record bears that out. The record doesnt bear that out, michael. The record does bear it out. We have tightened all the existing sanctions, taken a bunch of new actions, the start of this administration, the russians had four consulates active in the United States, we closed two of them, thats a 50 reduction, we set we reduced the cap of diplomatic personnel in this country by more than 200 people, we just pngd by name 60 operatives yesterday, diplomatic perm for persona non grata, largest action ever taken. This is also a coordinated action with as of last night, 23 countries with more countries continually joining. The russians really have never faced a coordinated multinational diplomatic rebuke like this that they have faced and that is not 100 owing to this president s action, but certainly owing to his leadership in marshaling the countries together to all act in concert. That tweet was a while ago. And what youre talking about are some recent actions. No doubt there have been this has been welcomed by democrats and republicans. These recent actions. There does remain this disconnect, though, between these more recent policy decisions of the administration and the words of the president. Why doesnt the president just articulate the criticisms and concerns about russian aggression that his administration is taking action on in. The tweet was about three weeks ago, maybe a month, wasnt particularly long ago. The closure of the San Francisco consulate and the reduction of the personnel cap by 200, a very big number, that took place in september. The approval of were talking about his rhetorical michael. Thats not what i asked you about, michael. You said why have the actions only gotten tough recently . Im taking you back through thats not what i asked. Im saying why is he using michael, michael, thats not what im asking. The rhetorical restraint, as you know, thats not his style, thats completely counter to his style. Why is that his style when it comes to russia . This administration is actually rhetorically tough on russia in a number of different venues. The actions are what matter more than the rhetoric. What youre referring to is the phone call and other interactions with president putin which have been cordial. The president values the leader to leader relationship. He wants to see relations improve if the russian government chooses to take another path and he thinks maintaining cordial relations at the top is the one viable way to see the relations improve if the russians choose another path. As yet they havent chosen another path. Were hoping that showing a tough face and remaining tough in action will bring about a change of heart on the part of the russian government. So far that hasnt happened, but the door is still open for them to have that change of heart and act differently. So go easier rhetorically on a foe like russia, but rhetorically be tougher talking about allies like mexico or australia . I dont know exactly what youre referring to. You might be referring to some leaked transcripts of private phone calls where the president did deliver tough messages to allies. But the president this president delivered a combination of tough and positive messages to allies, adversaries and countries in the middle alike. The United States has interest that we have to defend. We have unbalanced trade relationships with some allies. Hes been willing to call this out in a way that hasnt been called out in decades. Thats an were seeing results because of that. Were getting nafta renegotiated, making progress on renegotiating the u. S. Korea free trade agreement. These things are positive steps that require a little tough language to get going. And also requires an acknowledgement of truth that has been denied or ignored for far too long. It is a mistake to focus on the fact the president had two face to face interactions, one in hamburg and not a meeting, a hallway conversation at the apec summit in vietnam and a few phone calls. He kept the interactions cordial, tried to keep them positive, but hes also been willing to bring up with Vladimir Putin serious concerns, so the call from last week, they talked about strategic stability in the Nuclear Realm and the president was pointed in his criticism of some of putins recent Nuclear Saber rat ling and what he thought was unhelpful rhetoric about the potential arms race, he was pointed about that. I think it is inaccurate to say his rhetoric toward Vladimir Putin or personal conversations is always positive. He brings up u. S. Concerns. He did not bring up russian interference in the election. He didnt bring up the uk poisonings. I want to ask you, michael come on, now, they had a 45 minute out of 2 1 2 hour meeting in hamburg, 45 to 50 minutes spent on meddling in the elections. The president felt that putin said all he was going to say, denied it several times and the reason he didnt bring up the poisoning in the conversation with putin is because this u. S. Action was in motion at the time they had the conversation. As President Trump often has said, he doesnt telegraph his moves or punches when hes about to make a move. He let the process play itself out, knowing he was getting close to taking this action, rather than warn the rugs or gi russians or give them advance notice. Th there was a white house statement, there was a white house statement that came out days ago. I will say that. I want to ask you about Something Else. Jim acosta had this question for your colleague raj shah after this announcement was made. Lets listen. Would this president consider sanctioning Vladimir Putin or his cronies to punish him and the russian government for what happened in the uk and for meddling in the 2016 election . Well, the United States has issued sanctions on key russian oligarchs in response to the meddling in the 2016 election. So i wouldnt close any doors or i wouldnt preclude any potential action, but the president doesnt telegraph his moves. The sanctions that were announced on march 15th by the administration were against people who were listed or entities listed in the mueller indictment. Russian internet trolls, folks involved in that online operation, the man who bankrolled that. And a few Intelligence Officers as well. Thats not a crackdown on russian oligarchs. So why did raj shah say that there was. He was referring to one of the provisions of a congressional law that requires us to submit a two reports really, one unclassified report and a classified annex to capitol hill that outlines the activities of russian oligarchs and russian both government and private sector figures, suspected of or known to interfere in that was a list of oligarchs that treasury put out. Those werent sanctions. It is a list that is a precursor to further action. These actions take a while to develop. We cant just sanction people spontaneously. Congress passed you guys passed on imposing those sanctions that congress i think youre misunderstanding what happened. Thats a different provision. One of the other provisions, what it does youre not talking about the list of oligarchs put out by the administration. Youre confusing the two. Im trying to explain it to you. One of the other provisions of the law says that the United States will be required to sanction third countries if they do business with certain russian entities. It leaves it to the executive branch to define which of those russian entities. We did that. We published that list. As a result of publishing that list, countries that were contemplating doing business with these russian entities backed off. So it is true that the deadline to sanction those countries or the certainly not the deadline but the first Effective Date passed. The reason no sanctions were issued on that date and they would not have been sanctions against russia, would have been sanctions against third party countries, those countries did not engage in any transactions with the russian entities. The law acted as a deterrent with the way it was intended to. Countries backed away from doing business with the russian entities that the executive branch identified. You said it may be a precursor to further action. So it may be. Now, what the administration chose to do, not in line with what congress was certainly supporting, are you saying that perhaps thats not accurate either. Look at the statements that how is that not accurate . Look at the statements that the author of the senator bob corker put out saying that hes satisfied that the administration has complied with the law thus far. If other countries do business with russian entities, we will sanction those countries. So far they havent done it. In part because they have been deterred from doing it by the law, one of the things the law was intended to do. Michael anton, thank you very much for joining us. Youre welcome. Thank you. And breaking news, officials in Louisiana Holding a News Conference on whether or not there will be charges against two Police Officers in the 2016 shooting death of an unarmed africanamerican man, alton sterling. Stay with us for that. Im leaving the track behind, but im not standing still. And with godaddy, ive made my ideas real. I made my own way, now its time to make yours. Everything is working, just like it should searching for answers may feel overwhelming. So start your search with our teams of specialists at Cancer Treatment centers of america. The evolution of cancer care is here. Learn more at cancercenter. Com experts if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Little Things can be a big deal. Thats why theres otezla. Otezla is not an injection or a cream. Its a pill that treats psoriasis differently. With otezla, 75 clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months,. With reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. And the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. Dont use if youre allergic to otezla. Otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Tell your doctor if these occur. Otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. Tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. Some people taking otezla reported weight loss. Your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. Other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. Tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if youre pregnant or planning to be. Otezla. Show more of you. No one burns heon my watch try alka seltzer. Ultra strength heartburn relief chews. With more acidfighting power than tums chewy bites. Mmmmm. Amazing. I have heartburn. Heartburn relief from alkaseltzer. Enjoy the relief. Nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea heres pepto bismol ah. Nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea breaking news, the Louisiana Attorney general holding a News Conference on whether or not there will be charges against two Police Officers in the 2016 shooting death of unarmed africanamerican man alton sterling. You may recall in 2016 there were two white officers who shot and killed the 37yearold man. Alton sterling, during a struggle outside of a Convenience Store in baton rouge. He was shot at close range while officers pinned him down. He didnt display a gun during the struggle. Police say he was reaching for one and a gun was recovered after he was killed. Sterlings death was caught on camera. I need to warn you this is disturbing video. [ bleep ]. [ bleep ]. [ bleep ]. And joining me now to discuss is cnn legal analyst joey jackson and Cedric Alexander, deputy mayor of rochester, new york, also served as the citys police chief. So, cedric, alton sterling shot by police in july of 2016. The Louisiana Attorney general has had this case since last may. For months, elected officials have called on landry to finish his investigation to make this announcement. Did this investigation take the appropriate amount of time in your opinion . Well, two years is a long time since the time of this shooting. And when you have that long period of time that takes place, all it really does, quite frankly, is leave citizens feeling as if nothing is being done. When in fact everything could be completed as part of this investigation. But to your question, it is lengthy, but, of course this is a very sensitive case that has been watched locally and across the country, but considering the fact and the circumstances around this, it certainly creates some question having to wait two years to find out whats going on here. Joey, the Louisiana Attorney general only got this case because the Justice Department gave it to him. They found they didnt have enough evidence to move forward. Does that tell you anything about what state prosecutors are announcing . Well, lets talk about this. Good to see you, good morning. Good morning, doctor. You know, there are different standards of proof in a federal case than there would be a state case. Under the federal governments theory, in the event you were going to show a civil rights violation, you are to show willfulness, you have to show that with regard to the killing. Some would argue the tape shows exactly that. The federal government disagreed with that. However, when it goes to the state, the state has so many more tools available to them in the event they wanted to pursue charges. Like what . Take out the element of intent for one minute. And say, for example, there was a conclusion reached by the state that there was no intent to kill at this point. They were merely attempting to protect themselves. Clearly the state could pr