>> is that what -- >> what more you gonna give us? yeah, i'm missing out on something here with my ear piece to tell you the truth. >> i think we're -- unfortunately, i think we're having audio tech with walt but thank you, we'll all be watching this documentary. be sure to tune in sunday night for now more than ever the history of chicago. thank you so much for joining me at this hour. our coverage continues next with jake tapper. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com hello, i'm jake tapper. wherever you are watching from around the world, thank you for joining us. we're following several major stories this hour. ready to retaliate. the obama administration gets set to attempt to punish russia for what u.s. intelligence agencies say was meddling in the
2016 u.s. election. the response to russia's hacking could include expanded sanction, diplomatic measures and covert actions. russia warned that it will respond to any hostile new steps. but president-elect trump says it's time to, quote, get on with our lives. the incoming white house press secretary will join us live. war of words. israel fires back after pointed criticism from secretary of state john kerry. a spokesman for israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu says the israeli settlements being built in the west bank are not the main obstacles to the peace process. rather, he says, it's the palestinian refusal to recognize the jewish state. and remembering a hollywood triple threat. dancer, singer, actress debbie reynolds has died.
her death comes just one day after the death of her daughter, writer and screen icon carrie fisher. while we do not know the cause of debbie reynold s death, this raises the question, can a person die of a broken heart? first, payback time. the obama administration says it's getting really to take action against the russian government over its hacking during the 2016 election. we could learn today exactly how the obama administration plans to respond. correspondent athena jones is currently in hawaii where president obama is spending the holidays. senior international correspondent matthew chance is in moscow with russia's reaction. athena, let me start with you. what steps do we think the obama administration will likely take? >> hi, jake. you mentioned some of them, expanded sanction, diplomatic measures, even covert action, actions that they say will be taken at a time of their choosing that won't be announced.
we also expect the government will name the individuals associated with the russian disinformation campaign. that's really what it's all about, jake, russia is known for using these disinformation campaigns to meddle in and influence elections in various countries. u.s. intelligence officials believe they hacked information mostly from the democratic party organizations and officials and used it to attack hillary clinton and her presidential campaign. these moves are coming after months of internal debate over how to respond. the white house has come under fire including from democrats for not responding sooner to this russian cyber activity. but if you speak to white house officials, they say they wanted to make sure that intelligence and law enforcement agencies had the time to do their work. carefully and thoroughly do these investigations to determine that russia was behind these actions. there was also sensitivities about protecting some of the classified sources and methods used to determine that russia was involved. and also the white house not wanting to appear it was trying to put its finger on the scale
and help out its preferred candidate, hillary clinton. we are going to see those announcements as soon as today. it could even be in a matter of hours we'll find out more of what the u.s. plans to do to respond to russia. >> matthew chance in moscow. is russia still denying that it played any role in these hacks? what is their response? >> oh, yeah, well, they've already issued a scathing response to the threat that these new sanctions could be issued. saying this is just misinformation put out by the obama administration, this russian linked attacking, to excuse their own failures in the presidential election. they've also warned about specifics, if there are sanctions, for instance, they say against any russian diplomatic missions in the united states. then diplomats here in russia will face similar sanctions. they said if washington does take new hostile step, they will be outed.
but in general, you get the impression, speaking to other russian officials, as i have, they're not all that worried about new sanctions. because they're holding out that for the new trump administration to enter the white house, because they believe, with donald trump as president and with his choice as secretary of state in max tillerson who has spoken out against sanctions, the sanctions regime against russia by the united states is going to be degraded in the months and in the years ahead. >> all right, matthew chance and athena jones. thank you. russian president putin says a cease-fire between the syrian government and u.s.-backed opposition forces will begin in just a few hours. the deal was brokered with russia and turkey. the u.s. was not involved. the u.s. state department put out a statement that said, in part, news of the cease-fire and the syrian civil war is a positive development. we hope it will be implemented fully and respected by all parties. the international community hopes this cease-fire will hold. so a syrian-led transition
toward a more united and peaceful government can begin. although russia has indicated it may bring the united states back into the fold once president elect trump is sworn in. let's bring in hala gorani, anchor of cnn international. this is not the cease-fire that has recently been brokered. both parties said they'll enter into peace talks. is there anything that might make this cease-fire more effective in the six-year civil war? >> there is. it is potentially more significant because these are two opposing sides in the conflict. turkey and russia who, for many years, were very hostile toward each other. you might remember even that turkey shot down a russian warplane just a few months ago. there's been this discussion between the two. they met in moseco about ten days ago and they were hammering out a deal that was ultimately announced by vladimir putin.
because they're on opposing sides and because the primary military goals by the assad regime supported by russia, iran, hezbollah fighters and others, has been met, and that is taking all of aleppo back from the rebels, the eastern part at least. perhaps now they see an opportunity to come together, hammer out some sort of deal. there's some sort of confusion, though, jake, there, regarding al nusra front, the al qaeda-linked group. it's unclear whether they're part of this agreement. if they are, it will be significant in the sense that an al qaeda-linked group would be allowed to operate and control some portion of syrian territory. if they're not, that means alongside isis, they will continue to be targets of military action by the syrian government. syrian armed forces and other groups associated with bashar al assad, which means ultimately the cease-fire wouldn't cover the entire territory but only parts of the territory not controlled by isis or the nusra front. is this the end of hostilities?
certainly the chapter that involved aerial bombardments of large parts of civilian areas of rebel-held aleppo, that is over. but is it the end of all hostilities? it doesn't appear to be. >> all right, hala gorani, thank you. to u.s. intelligence now, he's enemy number one, abu al baghdadi, the leader of isis. this video purportedly shows him, though cnn cannot verify that. al baghdadi has been often the radar for months but today a u.s. official told cnn, quote, in the last few weeks, we've been aware of some of al baghdadi's movements. that's significant because any sighting could potentially lead to his location. this official declined to say whether intelligence believes he's in iraq or syria. but it is believed, long believed, that he's in the isis strong hold of raqqah, which is in syria. after the break, blowback against secretary of state john kerry for his message for israel, for members of his own party's leadership. later this hour, president-elect trump incoming press secretary
that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. there's a range of plans to choose from, too, and they all travel with you anywhere in the country.
join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. ♪ call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and there are virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan
that's right for you. it's been seen as a parting shot and reaction to secretary of state john kerry's speech rebuking israel and calling for peace has been fast and harsh, even from many of those in the democratic party. democratic senator chuck schumer say the following in a statement, quote, while he may not have intended it, i fear secretary kerry in his speech and action at the united nations has emboldened extremists on both sides. now, despite kerry's harsh words, the obama administration assures it will veto any forthcoming potential u.n.
resolutions calling on the recognition of palestine as a state. here's what deputy national security adviser ben rhoads told me. >> just to be clear here, when secretary kerry says these are not the choices we will make, which is kind of vague, is he saying that the u.s. would veto any resolution in the u.n. which might dictate a peace solution or might recognize a palestinian state? >> yes. >> he would veto that? >> yes. >> the u.s. will veto that? >> yes. >> pretty clear. cnn's oren liebermann is in jerusalem with the latest. what is the reaction in israel? is this assurance that the u.s. will not permit a recognition by the u.n. security council of palestine as a state do anything to assuage netanyahu's feelings? >> prime minister netanyahu hasn't changed his tone. he is still furious not only about the speech but also the
security council resolution and he lumps those together. he sees them as one element. he says it is an anti-israel biased element. the speech in the security council resolution. his spokespeople have reiterated his point. they were disappointed. they thought the focus shouldn't be on settlements. he's reiterating his opinion that the settlements are not a problem. there's a lot of bad blood here. that is why we keep seeing netanyahu calling for a clearer statement from obama, saying he won't make any more moves on the peace process. ben rhodes reassurance may help a little bit. it seems netanyahu wants something explicit. that there won't be any further moves. jake, the concern isn't just on the american side. there are other countries that may take what it is that kerry laid out in that speech and present that at the security council resolution. that is also what netanyahu wants to hear, a veto of anything based on kerry's speech.
no more moves from obama. still has about three weeks to worry, for netanyahu, until he's dealing with the man he wants to deal with, president-elect trump. >> oren liebermann, thank you. a spokesman for the prime minister talking to cnn this morning. here's what he had to say this morning about what the real holdup to peace was in his view. >> what was so disappointing about secretary kerry's speech is it didn't really deal with the core issue of why this conflict continues to rage. and that has precisely nothing to do with the presence of jews in the west bank and everything to do with the palestine leadership's continued refusal to recognize a jewish state. israel's prime minister has called on president abbas literally to meet hundreds of times for peace talk, even invited him to the knesset. president abbas said no to recognizing israel as a jewish state, no to direct negotiations. >> since the disagreement right now seems focused on the kerry
position versus the netanyahu position, i want to bring in two men on either side the negotiating table. michael herzog is with the israeli defense force and fellow of the washington institute for near east policy. he took part in past israeli peace negotiations. david marcosi is corredirector e washington peace middle east project. let me start with michael herzog. i want to ask you, do you agree that the main obstacle to peace is the palestinian refusal to recognize israel and anything else is really secondary? >> it is certainly a major issue. but i think the picture on israeli/palestinian conflict is multidimensional one. and there's not only one cause why we haven't managed to break through to a deal, to a
solution. i think that secretary kerry's concern about the future of two-state solution is being shared by many. i think where he's wrong and where he did not resonate with the israeli people is his contention that the main reason we failed is lack of trust and not guts within the parties, no major guts. as someone who's participated in israeli/palestinian negotiations for over two decades, i'd say there are major guts. and what he said ignored the history of two decades of negotiations. and that's why it did not resonate with the israeli people. even those like myself who share the contention on the settlement activities is fonot helpful to peace. that ignores many years of negotiations. in fact, these very parameters
that secretary kerry presented yesterday were presented through a person later, mahmoud abbas, on march 2014, in march 2014, at the white house, and he promised an answer in eight days, and never came back. >> so david, let me ask you, because right now it seems as though secretary kerry and others in the u.s. government, in the obama administration, are concerned that netanyahu and other israeli leaders are essentially abandoning a two-state solution. do you see any evidence that the palestinian leadership, whether the pol or hamas, or any other palestinian leadership group believed that there should be a two-state solution? it seems as though their charters, whether it's hamas or the plo, call for a one-state solution, a palestinian state. >> okay, i would draw a distinction, jake, between hamas
and the pa. because hamas is not the size of a telephone booth. the pa changed their charter when the president came to gaza in 2008. i think the p.a. would like peace but on their terms and those terms are not attainable. when kerry was involved in 2013, '14, and i was part of the effort, there were five core issues, and we were close on i think two of the five. but, you know, we didn't get -- mike is right, we didn't get a response from abbas. and it was unclear to me we could close the gap on the five for five. in this ven diagram, there's not an overlap between, you know, abbas and netanyahu. that's part of the problem. each wants peace. i think i believe them. but each wants peace on their terms and it's terms that do not overlap.
>> so general herzog, let me ask you, is there any possible way that the settlements that are being built not within the area that might become part of greater israel in a peace deal, but the part -- the settlements that are way beyond any security barrier deep into the west bank near the border with jordan, is there any way that those can be viewed as anything other than essentially a policy against the two-state solution? >> well, i personally support the policy of not doing settlement activities beyond the settlement blocks. i think that israel's policies should be in line with the statement, stated policy of supporting a two-state solution so we don't built in areas where we don't have claims to, and i would certainly hope that our
policy will distinguish between construction in the blocks and outside the blocks. i believe that that policy would send a clear message of israel's adherence to a two-state solution. i would hope that this would be our policy. if you look at the israeli -- the israeli political scene today, you see that the far right in israel is pressurizing the government away from a two-state solution and towards annexationist policies. and i certainly hope that the decisionmakers on our part will resist that temptation with an incoming u.s. administration and adhere to clear policy also on the ground that keeps the window open to a two-state solution. >> david, let me ask you, given that your description of having tried to broker a peace negotiation between abbas and netanyahu, you describe them as a ven diagram where there's no
overlap, were you surprise the that secretary kerry yesterday was so focused on criticizing the israeli government as opposed to the israelis and the palestinians with any sort of equity? >> i think you raise an important point. first of all, having worked for the secretary, i think he's devoted to brokering peace. he genuinely sees his role as trying to preserve israel as a jewish and democratic state. i think that's his motives. i think he could have apportioned the blame a bit differently. given that there is a history here. that there were times, you know, the u.s. has tried to hit what we call the home run ball, solve this conflict three big times. clinton in 2000, conde rise in 2007/''08 and the secretary's effort 2013/'14. it's clear certainly in those first two efforts. also there was a pullout from gaza that we didn't have on the palestinian side anything that was ready for a grand deal. i was hoping the secretary would
say we've tried to hit the home run ball three times and solve this conflict. maybe we should do a single. along the lines that you are suggesting in your last question with mike. namely don't settle beyond the barrier. the palestinians also could do steps like don't support families of suicide bombers. you know, that kill israelis. something that would convince the other side they have a partner. there's no grand deal to be had. despite i think the genuine nus of the secretary. but i think what was missing and maybe some self-reflection on the american side is, you know, we were so focused on trying to keep the two-state solution, why didn't we try the singles and doubles approach of trying to achieve less, convince publics on both sides that we're moving incrementally? three times we tried the grand deal and the leaders can't do it. >> okay, michael herzog and david macasci, thank you.
president-elect trump is considering something significant, some changes to the va. you do all this research on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
president-elect trump is considering at least some aspects of privatization to try to solve issues at the trouble plagued department of veterans affairs. a transition team official says trump is considering letting some veterans bypass the va health system completely to seek private care. some well-known veterans groups oppose any move that seem to pave the way towards any sort of privatization. let's talk about this with the vice president of policy and communication for the group
concerned veterans for america. dan, thanks for being here. we really appreciate it. happy new year to you. >> thank you for having me on. >> you say this is not privatization but an expansion of choices for veterans. many obviously, many prominent veterans groups disagree and are concerned about money going to ultimately private hospitals and private insurance as opposed to the va. why are they wrong? >> well, privatization is basically a wholesale selling off of a government function to a private industry. that is not what president-elect trump is proposing. that's not what others have proposed. both republicans and democrats in terms of expanding choice. and that's not what we had cva have proposed. many are mischaracterizing what we and others are proposing as privatization because it's a political tact. they see it's unpopular. it's an unpopular term. so they're trying to mischaracterize and create these strong-man arguments and say what we and president obama trump are proposing is privatization has a way to
undermine it and maintain the status quo at the va. >> we should point out that the leader of your group is being talked about as being considered for the position. >> right, former leader. >> former leader. director of the department of veterans affairs. are you surprised given how much president-elect trump talked about veterans during the campaign, are you surprised he has not met yet with the head of the american legion or vfw, veterans of foreign wars, the paralyzed veterans of america, on and on and on, disabled veterans of america. he hasn't met with any of them. he has of course met with other people and other leaders including formerly of your group. doesn't that kind of surprise you? >> it doesn't. his transition team has met with the heads of these groups. it's also important to point out that president trump has a tremendous number of veterans in his cabinet. people who served as officers, enlisted members in the military. people in his inner circle from steve bannon to jeff sessions to
rick perry. all these people have served in the military. he's getting a lot of veteran perspectives. he has met with people like pete hegseth who has really great ideas on va reform. he's met with a veteran who is head of the cleveland clinic. he served on the va commission on care. so he's really studied these issues. president-elect trump is taking his time and getting perspectives himself from different individuals who have been involved in these issues, whether it's on the health care side or benefits side or has a veteran themselves. yes, the veterans group heads hasn't met with the president-elect but the transition team has spent a lot of time meeting with them. so their perspective is getting heard. i can grn guarantee you if it's pete or dr. cosgrove or jeff miller, the organizations are going to be heard in this debate. >> one of the concerns people have about any money going from
the va system to private insurance companies or hospitals, whatever you want to call it, privatization or more choices, whatever you want to call it, is that, a, a lot of people, as you know, who are in the va system are happy with the va system. >> yes. >> not everybody but a greet deal according to the polling. >> the majority are, yes. >> and also that the doctors in the va system know veterans issues much better than a private doctor. and all this research being done that would not be done in the private world if it weren't for the va hospital research into post traumatic stress, research into traumatic brain injury, amputations of limbs. certainly you recognize that. >> yes, absolutely. but it's also important to note that majority of care that the va provides is not related to service connected disabilities like the ones you describe. a lot of these injuries, amputations, tbi, other mental health issues, are also actually handled in the private sector and the va has been contracting with the private sector for
years to help manage these issues. here's the thing, is that in the next 15 years, you're probably going to have 8 million fewer veterans in the united states because of world war ii, korean, and vietnam era. that going to lead to a large number of veterans leaving the va system unfortunately as a result of just natural life cycles. so you are going to have a much smaller patient pool for the va anyways. you have patients leaving the system. so what do you have to do? you have to reform the system and get it ready for the veteran population of future and with a much more dispersed and less dense veteran population, you're going to have to really change the current structure of the va which is set up to serve a world war ii population. we think this expanded choice which the president-elect is proposing, is always part of that solution. >> it's great to have you here. thank you as always for your service. dan caldwell. new york city's mayor had a message for those who will party it up in times square this new
year's eve. >> the rule's real simple. if you think something's happening that makes you worried, go tell an officer. when we come back, a live report on the extraordinary steps being taken to make saturday night in the city safe. ♪ ♪ get up to $2500 customer cash on select 2016 and 2017 models for these terms. see your lexus dealer.
trucks. >> dozens of them, jake are going to be around this whole entire perimeter of times square. and in addition to that, 100 what they call blocker vehicles. and those are department vehicles that are just going to be parked in the street. lessons learned from what authorities saw in berlin and also in nice. these are new additions to the security measures but it is multilayers of security. i mean, it took an hour for police to go through exactly what they're doing. of course not even giving us all the information. but we've been talking about them and they said within just the last week they've been visiting parking garages. they've been securing manholes around this area. they've also been visiting truck rental places. so these are all, again, multilayers to keep more than 2 million people safe when they come here to have a good time in times square, jake. >> all right, thank you. just 22 days until donald trump is inaugurated the 45th president of the united states. what does team trump think of
won't 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 won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
we could learn today what steps the obama administration will take against russia for its hacking during the u.s. presidential election. but president-elect trump says it's time to move beyond the concerns about russian hacking. >> i think we ought to get on with our lives. i think the computers have complicated lives very greatly. the whole, you know, age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what's going on. we have speed, we have a lot of other things. i'm not sure you have the kind of security that you need. i have not spoken with the senators. i certainly will be over a period of time. >> ah, those computers. joining us now is sean spicer,
senior communications adviser to the presidential transition team and chief strategist for the rnc, also the incoming white house press secretary. first of all, congratulations on the new job. that looks very exciting for you. >> thank you, jake, i appreciate it, it's quite an honest. >> so why is the president-elect so quick to dismiss concerns about russian hacking? 17 u.s. intelligence agencies agree that this happened. these disagree as to what the not imlikely was. they all agree it happened. is the president-elect still not convinced that russia was behind the attacks? >> well, jake, there's two aspects to this. one is the political nature of this. i think there's been an effort by some on the left in particular to undermine the legitimacy of his enormous win on election day. i think we've got to separate that out. he won, he won big. he carried 304 electoral votes. he won in states no one thought he had a chance carrying it. the folks on the left prior to the election questioned his
commitment to results. it seems they've gone out of their way to question the legitimacy of the election. that's the political aspect of this. the intelligence aspect of this is the following. the intelligence community, if we're going to make such broad-sweeping claims about the involvement of anybody and the legitimacy of the election, then i think we need to have the intelligence community come forward publicly and on the record and make it clear exactly how this happened and who is responsible for it. right now, we continue to get unsourced media accounts for what the activity is. i think that's not -- that's not accessible. if truly there is someone to blame, i think we should have congress notified, go through the appropriate congressional hearings. get the intelligence community to come out publicly with the findings they have. >> senators john mccain and lindsey graham, two republicans, say that there is almost unanimous consensus among their senate colleagues that russia was behind the hacking. they plan to put together
sanctions against vladimir putin. will president trump veto a measure put forward by the u.s. senate calling for sanctions because of this hacking? >> well, it's not a question of veto and i'm not going to presuppose what the president-elect may or may not do. not to dredge up old things, but we've had issues in the past. we had the benghazi video that was the cause of all the eruption in benghazi and that proved to be false. we need to get to the bottom of what the intelligence is. i think the intelligence community has in the past gone out and laid out the case for what's going on and who's behind certain activities. it's incumbent upon them for something as serious as this to do the same. >> you're demanding it be public? because, i mean, obviously sources be s and methods for intelligence are one of the reasons -- >> correct, understood, jake, but they've done nothing -- in october, they had no problem coming out and issuing a
statement about what their beliefs were vis-a-vis russia. right now if they believe so strongly that they want the united states to act, i think to some degree without necessarily receiving all the sources and methods, that there is a degree of public on the record statement that the intelligence community should make. >> i guess i don't understand why it needs to be public. president-elect trump gets these intelligence briefings presumably he's being told why the intelligence community feels the way it does. >> but i guess the question i would have for you, jake, is why do we take all these unnamed media sources and say that we must react in a certain way when the intelligence community has in the past come out very publicly and made it clear what the conclusions are. why in this case when it's donald trump who's the person who should -- the presumption should be on him to conclude something that the intelligence community isn't willing to come out publicly and say? i think the burden of proof right now is on them to come out and state publicly. this is a big deal. we're talk about the integrity
of our election system. something the government prior to the election briefed us at the rnc and the various campaigns was people vote in different ways throughout this country. there's over 200 ways to vote. and nobody can infiltrate the voting system. now suddenly we're talking about all of this -- >> nobody's talking about -- nobody's talking about the election systems being hacked. they're talking about the dnc being hacked and all sorts of information about these private conversations being made public. >> at what point is it incumbent upon you guys in the media to ask the dnc what measures do they take to protect this? because it seems to me there's a lot of talk about the dnc not doing what they should have done to protect their own network servers. i'm not saying in any way shape or form, to be clear, any attempt to hack or to do anything nefarious is wrong and illegal. at some point, the question hasn't even been asked of the
dnc, did you take basic measures to protect the data that was on there? no one wrote those e-mails. no one put a private server on there. no one seems to have done the due diligence at the dnc to protect their own systems. >> i don't think there's any question they did a horrible job -- >> but have you ever asked that question of anyone at the dnc? where's the responsibility of them to protect their systems? the outcome is not acceptable. i agree with that. nobody is by any way suggesting that's acceptable behavior. but i don't believe once i've ever seen an interview where anyone at the dnc was asked the question whether they take any responsibility for what is clearly a lax effort to protect their own networks. >> when they come out from under their desks, i'll be sure to ask them. i have not interviewed anybody from the dnc since the election. sean, one last question before i let you go and enjoy the beautiful vista behind you, it has been more than 150 days -- i think actually it was july 27th that president-elect trump, then
just candidate trump, had a full-fledged press conference. is he planning on having one before the inauguration? >> yes, absolutely. he stated that very clearly. look, let's also not kid ourselves. he sat for an hour and a half at "the new york times." he came out yesterday and spoke to the media several times. we have a daily press call every day at 10:30 that folks from cnn are on. let's not act like we're hiding anything. the president has been engaged in building one of the most successful cabinets in history. he's gone out and talked to the media several times, took numerous questions. i get the media wants to harp on how many times how many people have to be in a room and how questions he has to take. to answer your question, yes, in mid-january, we will do a press conference. we look forward to having you there. >> i know you're not inviting me to roll the clips of donald trump making fun of hillary clinton for not holding press conferences so i won't do it. sean spicer, happy new year. >> no, no, the difference was, jake, it wasn't just the title press conference, she was actually not talking to the press. as i said, yesterday, he sat twice and went out and engaged
with the press on the issues of the day. >> okay. i'm not sure i'd call that engaging. sean, always good to see you. congratulations again. >> thanks, jake. >> i want to bring in my panel to weigh in. with me, the senior politics writer for u.s. world and news report. molly hemingway, senior editor for the federalist. i mean, come on. he hasn't held a press conference. i don't know what this whole thing is about. >> there has been a lack of press conferences. at the same time, the media need to focus on making sure they're getting information from the incoming administration. there are many ways you can get information. one of them is press conferences. the reason why press conferences are important is because reporters can work together to pursue a line of questioning that's different from the agenda that the politician wants to set. and currently the trump, incoming trump administration is very good about deciding what they want to talk about and when they want to talk about and of course reporters want to find a way around that. >> what do you think about this whole thing that the trump team is arguing that the intelligence
community needs to come forward and publicly and make their case about the russian hacking. >> they're saying prove it, put it out there which people in the intelligence community would have problems doing but the trump administration, the officials think the media is hammering on this story, picking up on a democratic line of attack to delegitimize donald trump's victory. they feel like they're all spending so much time on this hacking story and that it wasn't a hacking of the election, it was a hacking of a political party and information, giving voters more information and their argument is saying there's a lot of other reasons you can point to why hillary clinton lost this election. michigan, not spending enough advertising, not spending enough time. they originally remember -- the original excuse was the comey letter which we don't hear about as much anymore and originally jen palmieri said it was trump incited a white nationalist movement. not to defend the trump campaign here but they feel like the media is trying to delegitimize
his victory in the electoral college and it's clinton campaign aides and democrats who are out there poking at this. >> i don't -- i understand that point of view. there are 500 reasons why donald trump is the president-elect and hillary clinton is not. the russian hacking is one of them. but it's probably the one that is most important in terms of future national security. >> it's an important story. at the same time the way the media have handled this story relative to the way they handled the fbi story, for instance, there's no comparison. in the fbi case, when they're investigating hillary clinton, they're being untoward, they shouldn't be so involved in the political process and what not. >> who said that? >> that has been an overarching theme -- >> i've heard that from liberal writers. >> and many people in the media as well. >> and now with the cia we're supposed to trust them unquestioningly. it would be nice for the american people to have more understanding of precisely the extent of what is being alleged here because it sounded at first like it was some massive operation. later it sounds like it's
similarly john podesta clicking on a link he should haven't clicked on. and other things which is different. >> although the dnc thing was a hack. podesta was a fish. >> but people want to know the extent and how serious of a problem it is. to know how much we should be sanctioning russia in response and we don't have good information right now. >> i think we should -- i think congress's job is to get to the bottom of this why russia did it if they did it but i don't know if we know that podesta's e-mails, like we read them in d.c., like they're being read by voters in wisconsin and michigan and that was the reason. i think that is the central focus now of why this election came to be and i think the trump campaign is a little frustrated by that. but when you have john mccain and lindsey graham and a lot of republican senators saying we need to investigate it, we should because they're afraid next time it could be republicans. >> next time it will. molly, david, thank you so much. really appreciate it. coming up, two icons gone in two days, debbie reynolds dies one day after her daughter carrie fisher. we'll talk about that and what
. >> look at the date, it's three years old. >> well, it's been in the freezer. >> but how cheap was it that you wanted to buy this much of it? >> this is wonderful cheese, it comes from switzerland. very hard to get. >> how could bit hard to get? it's all here. >> that was albert brooks and the now late debbie reynolds in the 1996 film "mother." reynolds died one day after her daughter actress carrie fisher died from a cardiac event. her son todd fisher told cnn that "she said she missed carrie, she's with carrie now." it's a heartbreaking story. perhaps literally heartbreaking and while we don't know the cause of death for the 84-year-old hollywood star, this does raise the same question you've read about when you see in the paper about some elderly
couple dying just hours apart. can the cause of death be in any way a broken heart? let's bring in dr. kevin campbell to lay out possible explanations. he's a cardiologist and joins us from north carolina. dr. campbell, thanks for joining us. let's cut to it. can someone die from a broken heart? is that possible? >> believe it or not, there is something called broken heart syndrome, it's called induced cardiomyopathy. it's related to the stress of a life changing event like an earthquake or death of a relative. it can mimic the signs and symptoms of a heart attack and look like a real live heart attack. >> what happens physically to the body when this incredibly stressful event happens? >> first of all, we know this seems to be related to the release of a lot of hormones in the body like adrenaline or epinephrine and cortisol. this can raise blood pressure, increase heart rate, make blood
vessels stiffer and it can make everything for all the world look just like a real heart attack. in some cases it can cause real biologic problems. >> so when somebody reads about an elderly couple, he's 95 and passes away and then his 94-year-old wife dies hours later, it's not just fiction, she might have died of a broken heart. it's possible. >> absolutely. because when we release all of these stress hormones, they can have negative impacts on our body, especially if you have underlying heart disease or you may have underlying brain disease in the case of maybe a stroke in miss reynolds that that could precipitate that event. this happens 90% of the time in women who are post-menopausal, in type of cardiomyopathy. >> so there is a cause of death that says -- in whatever language -- broken heart syndrome? >> well, we don't necessarily list causes of death that way, we may say, you know, cardiac
death or something of that sort, or cardiac arrest. but tachysubo is what we see and when you image these hearts they look like failing hearts in the midst of a heart attack. the difference is most are self-limited and get better in a matter of weeks to days. >> how common is it? >> 90% of the time we see it in women, all populations all together it's relatively uncommon but it's common enough that it was described in 1990. we don't understand the disease but we treat it like a real heart attack until proven otherwise. >> dr. kevin campbell, thank you so much, happy new year to you, sir. >> happy new year, thanks for having me. >> i'll be back at 4:00 eastern. for our international viewers "newsroom" with jonathan mann is next and for our viewers in the united states "newsroom" with fredricka whitfield starts right now.
hello, everyone, i'm fredricka whitfield in for brooke baldwin today. the obama administration is preparing for payback against russia as soon as today for meddling in the u.s. election. the u.s. is expected to retaliate with expanded sanctions, diplomatic measures and later covert actions. the upcoming announcement is already putting the kremlin on defense. russia warning it will respond to any hostile new steps. but president-elect trump, who takes office in just 22 days, doesn't seem too worried about the idea of a foreign adversary hacking into the election, instead writing it off as sour grapes. standing next to boxing promoter