With our allies . And specific to this threat which the president says was in relation to airlines, is this an imminent threat, was there justification for in the moment needing to share it with russians . I dont want to get into specifics into what exact information is shared with what allies, but information of this topic of the threat to aviation was shared with multiple allies and there are already policies being put in place to protect against that threat. And you and many others have reported widely on this. Something our allies did not. Is that what you were saying . In terms of specific, i cant, i cant, i have no basis for comparison on what was shared with what country. It was all our impression with all of us that were in the media, that what was shared was wholly appropriate given the purpose of that conversation and the purpose of what the president was trying to achieve through that meeting. But no imminent threat . General, when you came out after the story broke, you said that the president did not disclose sources or methods. He did not reveal anything about military operations. Why were you denying things that were not even reported . What the report said is that the president revealed classified information that had been shared by one of our allies in the middle east. So, the question is simply a yes or no question here. Did the president share classified information with the russians in that meeting . As i mentioned already, we dont say whats classifieded, whats not. What i will tell you again is that what the president shared was wholly appropriate. The story, the story combined what was leaked with other information and then insinuated about sources and methods, so i wanted to make clear to everybody that the president in no way compromised sources or methods in the course of this conversation. General, if you say the National Security has been put at risk by the leakages, do you have any idea how this got out and what steps are you taking by virtue of discovering this as you did, to try to limit the potential for any more leaks of National Security . I think National Security is put at risk, but by this leak and leaks like this and as you know, there are a number of instances where this has occ occurred and i think its important to investigate these sort of things and to make sure that we have trusted organizations across our government that allows for the free sharing of information and collaboration. I mean, the in terms of nationa security, what is critical is that you can assemble the experts you need. You want a bigger group for these problems because you need their expertise, the tools they bring to bear from different agencies and departments, so what we have to do is make sure we have a high degree of confidence in all of our organizations and all of our systems and processes. So we can do what we need to do for the president. Which is give him our best advice and give him options to deal with these very complex problems. Surely, you cant have that confidence by virtue of what happened yesterday, so do you have an idea of how this got out and how can you tighten up the ship as it were to ensure from your per speck tiff at least, that this stuff doesnt get out. The its incumbent on all of us to bing bring in the people with the right authorities to take a look at how this leak occurred. Thank you, general mcmaster, for the finer point on it. Is there now an active investigation into how this information was leaked and can you tell us about whos running that investigation and i would like to ask you, given that President Trump is is now going to be meeting facetoface with literally dozens of foreign leaders, if there are sensitivities to his discretion in what sort of information he decides to declassify, how is that something you are advising hum ahead of this trip sfl. . There are no sensitivities this terms of me or anybody whos been with the president on many of those these engagements. He shares information in a way that is wholly appropriate. I should maybe make the stam here that the president wasnt even aware of where this information came from. He wasnt briefed on the source or method of the information either. So, im sorry, this is going to have to be the last question. We have the president of turkey coming. Momentarily. General thank you very much. That is the National Security adviser, general h. R. Mcmaster briefing reporters on the exclosive Washington Post story that claimed President Trump shared highly. Clay classified material with the russians in the oval office, a story thats been krocory on rated by other news organizations. That the story in the Washington Post was false. The premise was fault and that what the president did reveal was appropriate for the conversation. John, what did you make of those comments from the general . Well, the it was interesting and like last night, the remarks by h. R. Mcmaster were in the way of a nondenial denial. He said false in the sense that National Security had been harmed, but he declined to say whether or not President Trump had revealed classified information to the russian officials saying we dont say whats classified and whats not. He did not deny that the president had identified a city where gleaned, that he was passing on. He try ied to minimize that by saying well, there arent that many cities in the places were talking about and you could have named a number of cities and there wouldnt be a surprise among them. He did say that as you indicated, that what the president did was wholly appropriate given the purpose of the conversation, so, remember, when you step back, the president of the United States has the authority to declass if fi and share information as he wishes to and what h. R. Mcmaster sort of reflects what President Trump said in his tweets, he envolked the reasons for the president doing this and said therefore, it is appropriate. Its not going to quell the controversy and not going to quell the demands, which im hearing here at a democratic conference by the center for American Progress where a bunch of 2020 president ial prospects are making remark, for transcripts or read out of the meetings and were hearing that from some republicans as well, too, on capitol hill. Saying they want to see read outs of what occurred in this meeting so they can judge for themselves. John, the general and you refer to these words, wholly appropriate. He said those words at least half a dozen times, maybe more than that. Youve already addressed sort of where you think this goes from here. The question is how does this fly with not only the public, but with members of congress . A day after you had strong commentary from even republicans including the senator from tennessee, bob corker, who called the white house in the midst of a downward spiral. Well, this is a moment, scott, when the fact that this president and this white house has very low crede bability is consequenceab consequenceal, in our last poll, only 25 of the American People said they rated President Trump highly for being honest and trustworthy. We have seen over the last few days in the firing of drirector comey, the president himself shred the explanation that was give bin his aides for that firing. When people have a history of not being able to count on your word, it makes it more difficult for them to believe you the next time. Now, h. R. Mcmaster is widely respected. Maybe the most widely respected member along with mattis, of the entire administration. Thats why the white house put him out today, not just because of the subject matter, but because he has high credibility. We will see how people react to this, but there is growing impatience from republicans on capitol hill. Their patience is wearing thin and the public was already skeptical of the president. Well see whether they buy this from general mcmaster. John, appreciate it. Live from washington, d. C. With us for the hour today, joe, stephanie, the brothers, also from washington, d. C. Today, cnbc contributor, ron insana. Joe, i turn to you first. This was an explosive story in the Washington Post and yet the stock market is up today. Has been up in the face of other controversies to come out of the white house. Can anything rattle this stock market . Its incrediblened i think it speaks to the strength of the technologies sector, the growth, the opportunity there. It speaks to the strength of the Housing Market and strength and opportunity there. I do think when you listen to a lot of whats going on in washington, d. C. , across the board and the dysfunction that we thought back in november, maybe we were going to get a little bit better, when are taxes going to be addressed, i think thats a big issue. If you look at the marketplace where we sit now and understand valuations are full and you think for a second, think for yourself for a second, not so much about technology, i think it is warranted, i think it is warranted to take what has been a Growth Strategy an offensive strategy and maybe take that, down shift it, go more value oriented, go more defense i because aing lot of the policy excitement we had hoped for, i just dont see it happening anytime soon because of this dysfunction. Ron, not to date you, but youve seen a lot of markets in your day. Do you remain surprised at how little reaction there seems to be in the stock market to anything that comes out of d. C. That has a negative vent . Yeah f you go back to the process leadinging up to president clintons impeachment and the events surrounding that, certainly, there was more volatility in the stock market. There were other events going on then. If you go as far back as watergate, january of 1974, with the exception of two months, the market was in a down trend. Also in the midst of tensions in the middle east, inflation riding, unemployment rising, that depresseded stock prices, but still, with a vix down around ten at the lowest level since 1993 and the market not at all reacting to what most people including professional politi politicians who have described as a bombshell come frg the Washington Post and now other sources, it is surprising to see this markets remained this resilie resilient. It speaks to the fact earnings are up, the economy looks okay and those thing it is on which we generally price stocks are supportive. The geo political environment dont seem to be. Bottom line, pete, theres a seller strike on wall street. Cant find people who want to sell stocks, may not have people who want to continue to buy them as these levels, but you sure dont have a wave of sellers willing to come into the market. No doubt. Why . I think joe brought up the policy and whats going on there. Thats going to from the best we know now, we were pushing it to august, now, to 2018. Thats a nonfactor though. Now, youre looking at facts. What are the nakts sf financials, they came through with unbloef bly strong numbers. At the beginning of earnings season. Then industrials, weve had some of the transports and now, its been technology, technology, technology. And thats doing well as well. When you look at the fundamental story of whats going on now and yesterday, we talked about this on the desk, are some getting stretched on valuation . Yeah, might be they are except for the fact maybe we ought to start valuing some of these Tech Companies differently than we have been based upon where wer see iing the growth and moving from Old Technology and into the cloud and all the other areas were seeing so much growth right now. Best year over year growth in earnings for the s p 500 and i think its almost 90 of reported so far. Best year over year growth in six years, judge, thats without a single policy. Some regulations rolleded back. True, but not dodd frank. You havent had tax reform and the aca addressed. So, what does that mean . That means a lot of that, like pete said, is pushed off to next year. Do we want to be short stocks going into a potential tax cut as well as reform of the Health Care Act . I dont. Maybe ron, this is a sign that the trump agenda, the market is not hanging on the agenda perhaps as much we thought. It is earnings. It is the economy. All of these other things that help to get stocks to where they are in the first place. I agree with that. I think there might be another possibility. Ive been incorrectly more call your attention caution on the market of late. Getting defensive here would be a good idea. There could be an extraordinary look through, assume for the moment that the president is as some, myself included have suggested, lurching towards a institution aliconstitutional crisis p. If President Trump were not to serve out his full time, mike pence is on the other side, who would pass the trump agenda without the drama, so its possible the market may figure, look, this is put off until 2018. It doesnt matter who sits in the oval office at the moment because if we get to the moment where these agenda items are back on the front burner, theyre going to pass through, assuming it happens before the 2018 midterms. Some folks like charlie cook who suggest the house might be at risk of flipping to democrats and senate could be as well. Absolutely no chance, ron. No chance. Not if in the midst of the kind of rally we will see next year if tax reform is put off till 2018, that market going to hockey stick to the upside. You really think democrats get elected in that environment . I think theres still a backdrop of Political Uncertainty around this president that should there be some event in which republicans go to him worry ied about the midterms, and suggest that or if he is in some way compromise d s investigations might determine, then you have a problem and yes, i think that we could see one of these shifts in composition of government that happens from time to time based on political, but not economic concerns. The economy i would agree looks fine. Profits off a low base are up, 97 of the companys reporting have reported earnings that beat expeck tases. There are a lot of positives and yes, if tax reform went through in tact in a manner that supported economic growth, that makes the republican case stronger, but we dont know this right now and i think theres too much uncertainty. I think the market is somewhat complacent about political and grk eo political risk. At least the president is trying get investors eyes back on the ball of the economy. Hes tweeting production surge ed in april, so stef, youre running the portfolio. If theres a sellers strike and buyers are reluctant, what are you going to buy . Bank america has a new survey of Money Managers talking about tech, which has been a rip roaring success being the most crowded trade in the world. It is. It is the most crowded. That dangerous . Im not adding to tech. I have plenty of exposure and the majority of Portfolio Managers are probably overweight tech already. I think you have to go back to earning. Where Companies Reported good, strong earnings with good guidance, its a stock pickers market. There are plenty of ideas. I was talking yesterday about the names i was buying. Star lux, uri, hds, all of those guys have good earnings and the fundamentals are strong. I think theres a bias towards what joe an ron were saying in terms of more defensive, more large cap versus small cap or mid cap. Thats kind of where ive been doing. But i really do think that were growing about 2. 5 in the economy without fiscal policy. All the trump trades rolled over hard. Maybe some of these tech stocks are viewed as defense. The trump trades . Sure have. Caterpillar, john deere. Did they roll over hard . Can i interject on that . Hold a second. Wait a second. They rally ied from the novembe lows, they rallied huge. You know i was in all of them. Then took a big nose dive then in march so, theyre still up 25 and we expected them top up 50 . I have to tell you, that i dont think these companies are pricing in any kind of fiscal policy at all. Theyre pricing in well, they did not roll over. Yes, they did, they roll jpmorgan, Goldman Sachs, deere, caterpillar, you tell me those financials are one of the worst performing sectors of the year. Energy. Materials. Energy and materials. After being the best. They stalled out. They didnt roll over. You telg me jpmorgan gave back the 25 . Did i miss that . Jon, youre picking one or two stocks. Energy im not picking sectors. Best in financials, which i talked about over and over again and im pick iing my infrastructure stocks, which happen to be your infrastructure stocks, they have not rolled over. So if you want to tell me u. S. Steel and free port rolled over, youd be right, but youre not right about these others. B how about energy . Thats not one of my picks. Were talking about apples and oranges here. Youre talking you said trump stocks have rolled over. A lot of the trump stocks when did that happen, stock . Ron. Okay, yes, in a certain sense, Energy Stocks have become trump stocks in so far as hes been auk tagging about expanding the opportunities for the companies to drip on shore, offshore, but let me make a point in addition to the trump trade, there is an emerging g trade. When you look at this silk road infrastructure plan that china is rolling out, a trillion dollars in infrastructure connecting africa and other partd par parts of the world and spending more, the trump trade might be being replaced in which the caterpillars and deeres are the ultimate beneficiaries of this, so while we may not be doing a trillion in infrastructure, china is is. So we can conflate these issues easily, now, this trump trade is beginning to roll over. Ill agree with stephanie, it has rolled over and for the period of time prior to china making its infrastructure announcement, those stocks that would have benefitted most in the last several weeks from the trump agenda have stalled out and have rolled over, so there is some uncertainty about whether or not any of this will be enacted this year with two budget reconciliation bills possible. One has passed, so we have one left. There was a thought among Market Participants that this would happen with great speed.