You can say it, they have no information on trump. But i thought that president putin was very, very strong. At the end of a long period of time it was just the two of us. And interpreters. At the end of this meeting i think we really came to a lot of good conclusions. Harris the president also told sean hannity that the meeting was a success. The world tweeted that the worlds to most Nuclear Powers must all get along. At the summit yesterday was like an xray machine. Revealing that America First is a really just trump first. Our country needs to see the republicans in the senate and the Republican Party to stand up and show through action that, unlike our president , they will not tolerate russian aggression or accept putins allies. Harris Kristin Fisher is live at the white house. Hello harris. So far the only two republicans that have come out and publicly defended President Trump our Vice President mike pence and republican senator rand paul. Most of the republicans on capitol hill are coming out and saying they side with the u. S. Intelligence assessment and not russian president Vladimir Putin. Here is what House Speaker paul ryan said just a few hours ago. Vladimir putin does not share our interest or our values. We just conducted a yearlong investigation into russias interference in our elections. They did interfere in our elections, its really clear. There should be no doubt about that. President trump will have a chance to set the record straight when he speaks in about one hour from now but already today he has been very defiant on twitter. He posted just a few hours ago that while i had a great meeting with annette nato raising vast amount of money, i had an even better meeting with Vladimir Putin of russia. Sadly its not being reported that way. The fake news is going crazy. But its not just the media. They are stunned that President Trump would blame that partly on the u. S. They are also stunned that they would put putins work on par with what his own Intelligence Community was telling him. Donald Trumps Press Conference performance in helsinki rises and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing sort sort of treasonous. Shortly after brennan said that, President Trump was asked about that very tweeted by our own tucker carlson. The full interview will be airing tonight at 8 00 p. M. Heres a clip of what he said directly in response to that tweet from brennan. Watch this. I think brennan is a very bad guy and if you look at it a lot of things happened under his watch to. I think hes a very bad person and i also think that when you watch peter strzok and lisa page, all of those things that happened, what happened with comey and mccabe, who has some pretty big problems i assume, you look at the deception to lies. And in my opinion they are truly bad people. And being exposed for what they are. So far has been fairly quiet at the white house but seven House Republicans are on their way here to the white house to talk about tax reform twopoint oh. As you said, harris, the white house presss secretary will be speaking about what went down in helsinki first. Harris Kristin Fisher, thank you very much. Lets bring in republican senator mike rounds from south dakota, a member of the Senate Armed Services committee and chair of the cyber subcommittee. Some things are happening ahead of the president s expected remarks. First of all, fox news has confirmed that senate g. O. P. Leaders are talking about a major to block intelligence and walk things back as well. What is the talk on capitol hill right now about Going Forward . The discussion so far this morning have been about the News Conference and how to handle the response to it. You have to understand, the president clearly understands that russia did metal in the 2016 election. He understands that. The question is, was the tactic that he used during the News Conference the appropriate tactic to respond . I have suggested that if he wanted to move on, and mr. Pruden was going to stand in front of the entire world, instead of the russian state, it had nothing to do with it. Mr. Trump simply looked at that and said if you can tell Something Like that to the world, i can respond just as benign and say, okay, fine. But the president knows that and he wants to move on. If youve noticed on multiple occasions he has recognized that the president of russia did interfere. He is simply trying to get to the next step and part of that discussion yesterday was, i will look at mr. Putin saying, you can say it and i can let you say it, but the reality is i know that you data metal in the election, lets move on. Im not sure that was necessarily the best tactic to use but i think thats the tactic that the president was trying to employ. The Senate Sitting on that cyber subcommittee i would think that you have taken a very close look at what the russian state and what they are capable of. What are we expecting to happen in november and what are we prepared to do to protect our democracy . I think the best way to explain it, in february of last year the Science Advisory Board for the department of defense put out a very clearly worded message indicating that, until such time as we employ offense of capabilities and until such time as we make it even more expensive for our competitors to interfere with our election process and to interfere in the cyber domain, they will continue to do it until it cost them something. Right now because of our policies we can defend ourselves and make it more expensive but offensively we are limited to what we can do before we make them a reality. And thats part of the Public Policy discussion that we are starting to have. Right now the administration is on top of it and they recognize it as well but we have a lot of work to do with regard to Public Policy so we can actually go in and attack those places that are attacking us and take out those sites that we are launching for lack of a better term cyber missiles into the United States. In policy, and we can talk more specifically with you, but policy with regard its something that president has higher marks on. What we are talking about today are the words he used on the world stage and any legitimacy that Vladimir Putin think she might have caught in the air. Im curious to know what you think the president needs to say because the audience isnt just those people in the in the room coming up with him. Its a world watching now to see what he will say about what happened yesterday. And what would you like to hear . Once again having the president make it very clear that he believes are intelligence officers. He said it in a tweet yesterday again that he has high respect for them and he believes them. The second part was, he never said he believed mr. Putin to the best of my knowledge. Theres a big difference between the two. I think probably he has to delineate that a little bit because just as mr. Putin is prepared to stand up and tell a whopper doesnt mean that the rest of us are going to believe it. I think hes got to make it very clear to mr. Pruden and to china as well that their activity in the cyber domain is serious and that it will impact our ability to have peaceful relations in the future. Its interesting to see democrats jump on board as the opposition, which they often do. But in this one particular instance, we need to be yoked together and have a unified force. In addition, there was a famous president who was a democrat that made a pretty big mistake with the russians, also. That was jack kennedy. He learned from his mistakes and we know that he had a relationship. There is a bit of history to learn from that the democrats are steeped in as well as america. And i think theres Something Else here that we have to remember. Ronald reagan have the right idea, talking about russian activity, trust but verify. And i think that message has to be sent once again that until such time as it can prove that what they are telling us is truthful, we will verify everything they say and everything they say that they are going to do. And you gave us some great information today, also, on what is being done to protect us in november and down the road. We really appreciate your time, senator mike rounds. Thank you. Thank you. Harris id like to bring in caitlin qe burns. Caitlin, as we look at the president about to make his remarks and you see a group of senators that fox news has confirmed, they want to make some sort of resolution that says we do believe the intelligence, the story is moving forward now. What are you seeing western mark the story is moving forward but with the president said yesterday still remains. I think there are questions about what kind of cleanup he could actually do given that the time and moment was yesterday on the stage, next to Vladimir Putin, asked directly whether he believes putin or the Intelligence Community and the United States, he would not say. He kind of try to have it both ways. His critics are bipartisan critics. You have lots of republicans coming out and of course you have lots of democrats so he is certainly under pressure and feeling the heat. The question is, whether that he continues and whether he says today assuages some of those critics. Vladimir putin sat down with our own Chris Wallace and that interview was very revealing. Youve heard senator rand paul and others say, these are circumstances that were going to be tough at best. You are sitting across the table from a former kgb officer. Thats right, but this is a president who campaigned on talking tough and not being politically correct. We saw last week and that kind of rhetoric, that talk tough rhetoric was on display at nato when talking to our closest allies. And again their reaction and the disappointment has been bipartisan. Now we will see how this work progresses and whether critics are satisfied by whatever he says today, but the fact that he does have to come out today and presumably Say Something about it i think speaks to where we are. It also speaks to his willingness to move the ball forward again. These are conversations that had not happened in a very long time. We have a president who has shown that he will lean into those tough moments. I want to show you senator Chuck Schumer. There is a call for a hearing on the summit and how rare that would be, and is it helpful. But lets watch. President trump and president putin met oneonone behind closed doors for nearly two hours. Where are the notes from the meeting . Im calling on leader mcconnell and his team to immediately request a hearing and secretary of state pompeo, and the rest of the president S National Security team from helsinki. And then we can find out what the heck happened there. Harris how normal would it be to check a president on the meetings he or she would have, and im just curious to know the note checking on the factchecking. The argument is of course that while there is a lot of due criticism to the way past administrations have handled this relationship, President Trump is in office now, and his embrace i would say of putin has come after putin and the russian government have proven to metal up in the election, and invaded a sovereign country, plus a litany of things that many republicans, even close allies of the president outlined yesterday. Its also important to note, the president has not quite outlined exactly what he wants from russia, other than to be talking and in communication with that sort of thing. Harris but we know what is important to our nation. We know from our president standing up next to Vladimir Putin in syria and solving that humanitarian crisis for the five plus year civil war thats going on, and we know what kind of player russia has gone on. To make it clear i want it to be heart revealing. He used more tender words about it as well. The solution to the humanitarian crisis in syria. But all the more reason why the president could have and should have taken a tougher stance on putin to apply that kind of pressure if they want to extract that kind of thing from the relationship. The question remains what we are getting out of it, and we know what russia and putin have gotten out of it. Im asking would it be commensurate with the way weve treated other president s, other leaders of our great nation, to then depose and find out what happened in a summit meeting that was private . We are in uncharted territory here, just kind of across the board. An at harris we will see wht happens. Two republican lawmakers demanding the Justice DepartmentInspector General look into whether Deputy Attorney general roger rosenstein threatened staffers on the House Intelligence Committee back in january. As the investigation necessary . What could we learn . One republican lawmaker who sits on that committee will give me his take. And house lawmakers planning to vote tomorrow on a bill supporting and i. C. E. Its all part of a republican led effort to force vulnerable democrats or take a difficult vote ahead of the midterm elections. Will it be effective strategy . Could it backfire . We will debate that, stay close. Calling for the abolishment of i. C. E. Is something that none of these guys calling for whatever actually want to have to vote on no matter who rides point, there are over 10,000 allstate agents riding sweep. Call one today. Are you in good hands . Forlike me, some ofned these dogs have seen many tours of duty. And for the past 15 years ive been a navy federal member. Thanks to their fast approval process, when it came time to buy a new car, we got everything we needed to transport my wifes little bundle of joy. Who i just adore. Navy federal credit union. Our members are the mission. Harris mark meadows, jim jordan, formally requesting the doj Inspector General to investigate whether Deputy Attorney general roger rosenstein threatened to retaliate against congressional staffers. They were investigating the agencys role in the rush investigation. They claimed it rosenstein threatened to subpoena their emails and phone records during our meeting in january. That kind of misconduct is something that has to be looked at, an implied threat or real threat to either one is inappropriate when you have this kind of power. Some of it happens every day and is used as a technique but when its used against congress as intimidation it crosses the lin line. Chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridges live in washington with details. This letter calls on the Justice Department internal watchdog to review allegations by the Deputy Attorney general. The alleged threats investigating congressional staffers. At the staffers memorialize the 2018 incident for the house general counsel. The letter from congressman mark meadows reads in part, the notion mr. Rosenstein site to use his investigative powers to retaliate against rank and file Staff Members renders concerns that he has abused his authority in the context of this investigation. During recent and combative in congressional testimony in exchange with congressman jordan, the Deputy Attorney generals of the claims are false. Who are we supposed to believe, Staff Members who we have worked with that have never misled us or, you guys, who we hiding information from us and tell witnesses not to answer questions . Who are we supposed to believe . Thanks for making clear its not personal. They first reported the allegations, a Justice Department official said that the january incident was making a point after being threatened with contempt of congress over the russia record that he would have the right to defend himsel himself. And calling them as witnesses to demonstrate that the allegations are false. That is why he put them on notice to retain relevant emails and Text Messages and he hopes they did so. Department critics question whether rosensteins public testimony is now in conflict that written statement. Catherine, thank you very much. Republican congressman Chris Stewarts serves on the House Intelligence Committee and a perfect guest to talk with us about. It was wholly inappropriate. If, in fact, rosenstein threatened staffers for all of their materials. Is it just inappropriate . He says it crosses the line. Is it criminally inappropriate . What line is it crossing . Im not an attorney and i cant answer that question but, one thing i can tell you is he absolutely did do this. Hes been inconsistent in his denial. At first he said it, we said that but you misunderstood it. Last week he said he didnt say anything of the sort so we have to reconcile those two things. The third thing is its not just an appropriate but it is outrageous. They forgive the department of justice and the fbi forgets all too often that they were created by congress. They were created at the behest of congress to serve the American People and congress has oversight responsibilities over them. We don