tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN January 5, 2017 5:00pm-6:01pm PST
>> reporter: the daughter peering through the crack, by the way, is named indie. her nickname. >> indie pie. >> reporter: and because she likes to say hi, sometimes they call her indie pie hi. >> hi. >> hi. >> reporter: jeanne moos, cnn. >> hi. >> reporter: new york. >> hi. >> hi. >> thanks for joining us. anderson starts now. good evening. thanks for joining us. federal health care money that millions of women benefit from, and breaking news in the hacking story. top intelligence officials testified on capitol hill today. president obama got briefed as well. president-elect trump gets his briefing tomorrow. there is breaking news tonight on russian officials celebrating his election victory and late today we got another key piece of the puzzle on how investigators believe hacked files from the democratic national committee and clinton campaign chief john podesta got to wikileaks.
a cnn's pamela brown is working the angles. what are you learning? >> reporter: the comprehensive report includes intelligence gathered after the election bolstering the view russia was behind the hacks and did so in part to help donald trump. included in that new information were intercepted conversations of russian officials expressing happiness at trump's win. one official i spoke to described them as congratulatory conversations. this goes beyond the video you may recall after the election where you saw government officials in moscow toasting over champagne. these were actually intercepted conversations, anderson, and this contributed to this assessment but was just one of multimillion indicators to give officials the high confidence about both russia's involvement and intention. you heard today from james clapper who said multiple motivations will be included in the publicly released report on monday and also included in that report that was briefed to the president today, anderson, the
identifications of the go betweens the russians used to provide the stolen e-mails to wikileaks. >> just to be clear on the congratulatory messages, no smoking gun in any of these messages saying oh, our hacking worked or anything. >> we're told from our sources while they took on a congratulatory tone, they were happy and celebrating, there's no smoking gun where someone is definitively saying, yes, here's exactly what we did, here's how we did it. we helped donald trump win. >> and these go-betweens are, in fact, third parties that somehow get information from russia to wikileaks, allegedly? >> right. you'll recall the wikileaks founder julian assange confirming that the russian government never gave him the -- never gave wikileaks the stolen documents. but the way russia works in covert operations like this would be to have people do the work for them, not connected to the government. so these are go-between people, also called cutouts.
that way the russian government can have plausible deniability. they're strongly denying involvement in the hacks. today a capitol hill hearing that at times appeared to be directed at the president-elect. the country's top intelligence officials appearing before the senate armed services committee. tomorrow they'll brief donald trump. today they gave a strongly worded preview. more from manu raju. >> reporter: the nation's top intelligence officials have no doubt that russia interfered with the election. >> i don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case. >> reporter: in the nearly three hours' senate hearing the officials confirmed their october assessment that russia's senior most officials authorized a cyber attack against a
democratic national committee and hillary clinton's campaign. an assessment donald trump has repeatedly dismissed. >> we stand more resolutely on the strength of that statement that we made on the 7th of october. >> reporter: and they made it clear who is to blame. >> you say you think this was approved at the highest level of government in russia. generally speaking, is that right? >> that's what we said. >> who's the highest level of government? >> well, the highest is president putin. >> do you think a lot happens in russia big that he doesn't know about? >> not very many. certainly none that are politically sensitive in another country. >> reporter: the testimony amounted to an implicit rebuke of trump, who has repeatedly slammed the intelligence community, praised putin, and down played russia's role in the election. >> who benefits from a president-elect trashing the intelligence community? who benefits from that, director clapper?
the american people, them losing confidence in the intelligence community and the work of the intelligence community? >> i think there is an important distinction here between healthy skepticism, which policymakers, to include policymaker number one, should always have for intelligence, but i think there's a difference between skepticism and disparagement. >> reporter: and senator john mccain pushed back on trump for rely ong the word of wikileaks leader julian assange, who said russia had no role in his group's public release of thousands of internal democratic e-mails. >> the name mr. assange has popped up, and i believe that he is one who's responsible for publishing names of individuals that work for us that put their lives in direct danger. is that correct? >> yes. he has. >> and do you think that there's
any credibility we should attach to this individual given his record of -- >> not in my view. >> not in your view. >> i second those comments. >> manu raju. >> jon:s us from capitol hill. senator mccain said other things about president-elect trump today. >> i asked him specifically what do you hope president-elect trump took away from these hearings? he said i hope he trusts the intelligence community. while they may not get everything right, and this specific instance, he should listen to them because they are not wrong. he also said, anderson, he wants to push very hard for stiffer sanctions on russia. i said are you confident donald trump will support that? he said i'm not confident about that at all. i have no way of knowing that. he also called the cyber attack an act of war, but in one potentially piece of good news for donald trump, he also signaled an interest and
potential support for rex tillerson, the secretary of state nominee. he expressed rezer vases in the past about tillerson's coziness and relationship with putin. heed a a conversation with him. he was a little better with him. still has some concerns but a little better could potentially vote for him. that was a positive development in his direction. other than that, critical about hoping that donald trump accepts what the intelligence community is saying. >> appreciate that. the president-elect just let loose with several tweets on the hacking. earlier tonight, some reaction to his use of twitter from vice president biden on the pbs news hour. >> the tweets. just today he called the senate minority leader chuck schumer the head clown. last week he said doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory president o statements and roadblocks. thought it was going to be a smooth transition. not in all caps. >> grow up, donald. grow up. time to be an adult.
you're president. you've got to do something. show us what you have. you're going to propose legislation. we'll get to debate it. let the public decide. let them vote in congress. let's see what happens. it's going to be much clearer what he's for and against and what we're for and against now that it's going to get down to actually discussing in detail these issues that affect people's lives. >> whatever he chooses to make of that advice, he's about to get a grown-up briefing from the heads of the cia, fbi, and director of national intelligence. jim acosta has more on that. tweets from to trump tonight, what does he say? >> despite that admonishment from the vice president, more tweets tonight from donald trump going right after this intelligence that is being released by the intelligence community saying that russia was behind that hacking in the election last november. let's put those tweets on
screen. donald trump is tweeting the democratic national committee would not allow the fbi to study or see its computer info after it was supposedly hacked by russia so how and why are they so sure about hacking if they never requested an examination of the computer servers? what is going on? that's actually a little inaccurate. our reporting from evan perez shows that the fbi was actually rebuffed by the democratic national committee when they were seeking to look at those computer servers so it appears that the president-elect is sort of behind the news cycle a little bit in terms of what the intelligence community is sharing with members of the news media. we should also point out that donald trump has also tweet ld his displeasure with some of those leaks from the intelligence community to various news outlets. and he is suggesting once again that members of the intelligence community are behind some kind of political smear to delegitimize his election victory. >> the hearing today, much was
about the hack itself, a lot was a repudiation of donald trump's comments about the hacking. >> reporter: they were. at the start of this hearing, john mccain asked the director of national intelligence on his way out, james clapper, whether he puts any credibility in julian assange. julian assange was cited by donald trump yesterday in a tweet casting doubt on the intelligence community assess thamt russia was behind the hacking. mccain asked jim clapper whether he put any credibility on julian assange and james clapper said very honestly no, he did not. he was backed by other intelligence community leaders at that table. as manu played in that story, the director of national intelligence went as far as to say he doesn't mind a healthy skepticism, you hear that all the time from transition officials, the president-elect is showing a healthy skepticism, he says he has a problem with disparaging intelligence
community officers and professionals who are doing this very hard and sometimes dangerous work. that is an extraordinary comment to come from an loountd leader directed at an incoming president. >> as we reported, tomorrow is day he'll receive his briefing on all this. do we know when and where that happens? >> reporter: it's going to be here at trump tower, and we don't have a specific time yet, but we should also point out donald trump is adding somebody to his national security team. we reported earlier today that the retired indiana senator dan coats is going to be his director of national intelligence. it's an interesting move, anderson, because it's an institutional pick, one that has been greeted by senators like john mccain with some positive comments that could go a long way in easing some of these tensions between the president-elect and the intelligence community. but this is an unprecedented situation where we are where you have the president-elect and the intelligence community really just going after each other and they did it again today. >> jim acosta, appreciate the
afoot and light-hearted i take to the open road. healthy, free, the world before me, the long brown path before me leading wherever i choose. the east and the west are mine. the north and the south are mine. all seems beautiful to me. yet up 90% fall short in getting key nutrients from food alone. let's do more. add one a day women's complete with key nutrients we may need. plus it supports bone health with calcium and vitamin d. one a day women's in gummies and tablets.
joe biden tells donald trump in so many words, grow up. today america's top intelligence officials told him get real. now our panel of grown-ups will get real. paul begala, gloria borger, jack kingston, van jones, also trump sup potter and contributor to the hill, mcnenny and kirstin powers. again in unchartered waters. unprecedented to see the president-elect openly in tweets disparaging the intelligence community, essentially siding with julian assange or at least quoting him, something republicans years ago were calling for julian assange's
head. >> and so was donald trump, actually, himself. it's a bit surreal. we're in a situation where we have a president-elect who's on a collision course with his own intelligence community upon which he's going to have to rely to make decisions about our national security. and on a collision course with senior republicans in congress who believe the hacking was real and who want to establish very serious sanctions against russia. lindsey graham said he wants to throw not a pebble at russia as barack obama did, but a rock. donald trump is saying prove it to me. why should i believe it? i believe his problem is that he believes this is all questioning the legitimacy of his presidency. if i were going in there to brief him tomorrow, i would say to those intelligence folks, put
on your political hat and say, nobody is questioning your legitimacy. we are talking about russian intent to influence this election on your behalf. >> trump supporters in the past couple days have said there's nothing wrong with pushing back on the intelligence community, that skepticism is healthy and, you know, making them scrub the intelligence -- look at it twice and three times and look at it hard. keeps them on their toes. >> there would be nothing wrong with that if that's what president-elect trump were doing. he is not. he is legitimizing this process. he will be our president. but it's not normal and we won't normalize him on my side of the aisle. it's job of the president to defend america against hostile foreign powers that seek to attack us.
this president is defending the hostile foreign powers and attacking those who have devoted their lives to trying to protect us. at the hearing today you had three men combined over 100 years experience trying to protect your country. and being disparaged by the person who in a few days will be the most important client of their intel. it is without precedent. >> congressman kingston, do you see donald trump as disparnling the intelligence community? >> no. i think it's a healthy process. i've sat through classified briefings many times and i have respect for them but they are not the gold standards of purity and the gold standard of -- they're not above politics. in this case for the intelligence community to be talking to the press in my opinion is outrageous, whether they're doing it out the back door or officially. the fbi and the cia has not been on the same page. the fbi has driven the democratic party up the wall and i think we would agree the fbi probably contributed toward hillary clinton's lack of
majority votes as much as anything. now the fbi is being coddled like they're the great nest the world. >> clapper today there was general agreement and he was more sure about their response to this, about what -- >> why is clapper talking to the press? >> he's talking to congress. >> but i mean in general, remember, three weeks ago they would not go to the house intelligence community -- committee because they said we weren't ready to give our report. yet we've heard from the press, from the intelligence community for the last three weeks all kinds of things. >> there are leaks all the time from all sectors of government for decades. >> the level of discussion, the level of public debate being promoted by the intelligence community is unprecedented. >> okay. van, is it unprecedented? is this an intelligence community trying to delegitimize donald trump? >> no, i don't think so.
i think this is a big problem for the president long term. we want a president who is strong for america, not weak for russia. that splits his own base if he continues down this pathway. i think people have forgotten the real danger here of putin. putin is not just a butcher at home. putin is a major force against our interests in the middle east, and he has been stirring the pot. he could create a situation in the middle east where american influence continues to go down, which i think most republicans don't want to happen, and at some point he's got to be called to task by his own party. so this is -- we've -- i love what you said, we don't want to normalize this. the worst thing that could happen is we start adapting to absurdity. it is absurd for a president-elect to talk this much, period, ordinarily you're supposed to be quiet, do your transition, and let's have one president at a time. the fact that we're having this
much discussion about anything is very unusual and dangerous. >> for donald trump, democrats point to and the intelligence community clearly views as a form of disparagement, he tweets out the word intelligence in quotes, russian hacking in quotes, intelligence community in quotes, does that raise questions to you? >> he's toeing a fine line. mike rogers said yesterday i don't feel he's disparaged the intelligence community yet but he is walking a very thin line of doing so. and i think he would be wise to take the approach senator tom cotton, a staunch ally of trump, took today. he began his questioning of the intel community by first saying i respect you guys, you guys are heroes, i want you to know that from the outset. then he proceeded to grill them with tough questions not about whether russia did this. i think it's indisputable that they did. but he pressed them on the motive aspect. i think that is the approach the president-elect should take. he should do what tom cotton did today. >> clapper said they will be
talking about motive in the final report that the president -- >> to me what he's been doing strikes me as disparagement and i think clapper said that today basically. there's a difference between being skeptical and being disparaging. when you're putting intelligence in quotes, suggesting they haven't briefed you yet because they're trying to build a case, you know, that they have some sort of preordained point of view that they can't back up, that seems disparaging. so it's not that there aren't, you know, to your point, there aren't problems that should be addressed. it's just how do you address them. typically you would do that behind-the-scenes. you wouldn't humiliate the people who are giving you the intelligence. you would behind the scenes try to reform it. >> i think humiliate is the right word because i think what there's been from the incoming commander in chief is really a lack of respect for the work that these people do. and we all know they're not always right. we remember wmd. we remember the mistakes. good, ask the questions, be
tough, be probing, get your daily briefs and ask questions during those daily briefs as presidents do. and use that as a kind of a way to challenge intelligence on a daily basis. don't draw conclusions first. >> do you find it odd embracing julian assange, sort of the turnaround in your opinion, some republicans -- >> i do but -- >> even you smile. look at that smile. >> i think this has boiled down to now it's become a political issue. it was an intel issue but now it's become politics. what it looks like to the folks back home is, well, okay, obama says he took care of it in october or knew about it, but he didn't do anything about it. then in the wake of the election you had such controversies and such opportunities that the democrats took to delegitimize the election. and now this just seem seems like one more chapter of he's not my president, we'll have riots and -- >> i understand, but -- [ talking over each other ] >> i don't think and i don't think anybody does.
i agree. keep an eye on russia. the infamous words of ronald reagan, trust but verify, in this case verify absolutely everything going forward and any agreement but still this whole debate has become a political debate. >> but it doesn't have to be. when you're the president-elect you shouldn't let it be. you are correct, there are a bunch of democrats that are throwing marbles on the stairs and banana peels on the sidewalk to stop donald trump and they'll say and do anything. true. but he's the president-elect and he doesn't have to make that be more important than the country. it's starting to feel like he can't make a distinction between supporting these protesters he doesn't like and defending america. >> democrats are politicizing this. the intel community is not. i came on board when the fbi came on board. jim comey to me was very good in this election. he upset democrats, upset republicans, he did his job in the way i think he should have. when he came on board, someone who i don't see as having any sort of political motive, i
think you have to accept that because the 17 branchs in the intelligence community, they're not trying to delegitimize the trump election. democrats are. you have to be able to separate it. >> can't there be a middle road that you can agree or believe that russia was behind the hacking and it went to the highest levels of the government and that they released information selectively and wanted to influence the election and also believe that donald trump won legitimately and is the legitimate president and that it's not -- it wasn't a hacking of the voting machines or anything like that, no evidence of that, democrats early on raised all sorts of the specter of that, that did not occur as far as we know, so isn't there a middle ground? >> i think so but i'm not unsympathetic to donald trump's feeling in making that argument. it can be construed to mean he wouldn't have won had it not been for the involvement of the russians, and i think he doesn't want to believe that. he wants to believe he won this on his own merit and there wasn't any outside interference
that caused it. the fact that i actually don't that was one of the major factors in the election, but perhaps he just doesn't want there to be any question. >> put the country first. how about that. >> this election being politicized, john mccain and lindsey graham and republicans who agree about the russian hack, they're not trying to politicize it. they're trying to get to the bottom of it. they're republicans. >> trump knows comey swung the election. those two issues. he knows that or wouldn't be reacting the way he is. he snows that but for 80,000 votes spread across tree three states, he would be at mar-a-lago playing golf and hillary clinton would be dealing with the crises to come. he's acting like he knows because he does. >> thanks to everyone on the panel. four african-american suspects are charged with hate crimes and kidnapping in the
torture of a white special needs teenager that was live streamed over facebook by the people doing it. how police say it all happened and what president obama is saying about the video. when heartburn hits, fight back fast with tums smoothies. it starts dissolving the instant it touches your tongue. and neutralizes stomach acid at the source. ♪ tum -tum -tum -tum smoothies! only from tums mone hundredts thousand times a day, sending oxygen to my muscles. again! so i can lift even the most demanding weight.
more breaking news tonight in chicago, four african-american suspects facing hate crime and kid nalling charges in the torture of a mentally challenged white teen. as we first reported last night, the bloody beating was streamed on facebook live while it was happening. it went on for a long time. today chicago police called the attack sickening. president obama of course a chicago native has also weighed in on the case. >> you were there during counsel wars.
i promise you retail sales relati -- race relations haven't gotten worse but what is true in part because we see visuals of racial tensions, violence, and so forth because of smartphones and the internet and the media, what we've seen is surfacing i think a lot of the problems that have been there a long time. whether it's tensions between police and community, whether it's hate crimes of the despicable sort that has just now recently surfaced on facebook. the -- i take these things very seriously. >> as for the video we warn you it is tough to watch. anna cabrera has the latest op t the investigation. >> reporter: it's hard to watch. >> tie it up. >> reporter: an 18-year-old with a mental disability tied up and cowering in the corner. his attackers even cut his hair
with a knife until his scalp starts to bleed. >> cut it [ bleep ]. >> a whole patch out of his [ bleep ]. >> reporter: the assault is streamed live on facebook. a woman who's recording laughs. [ laughter ] as the victim is tortured. >> it appears that he was in that physical position tied up in a corner for about four or five hours. >> reporter: two 18-year-old men and two women, one 18, the other 24, are now behind bars. the suspects are all african-american. the victim is white. >> [ bleep ] donald trump. white people, boy. >> reporter: the video is full of racially charged epithets, just part of the reason police are calling this a hate crime. >> his diminished mental capacity, the fact that they tied him up, the obvious racial
quotes on -- that they post live on facebook, i mean, taking the totality of the circumstances, the state's attorney agreed with us. we sought hate crime charges. >> reporter: another tis tushing detail. the victim and one of the suspects, jordan hill, were friends. in fact, the incident began days earlier at this mcdonald's in the suburb of streamwood, illinois. the victim's mom dropped him off to meet up with hill on new year's eve. but his parents called police on monday to file a missing persons report because they couldn't reach their son and he had been without his medication for days. police found the victim wandering this street on tuesday. they say he was bloodied, battered, was tearing a tank top and shorts in freezing weather and he was too distraukt to even speak. investigators say the assault happened about a block away, and the victim managed to escape when a neighbor interrupted the assault and called police. >> thankfully the victim in this incident will recover from his injuries. >> going to put this [ bleep ]
in trump? put a brick on the dash and let that [ bleep ]. >> anna, about motive? what are police saying about why all this happened? >> reporter: well, investigators believe it may have happened as a result of a playful fight that turned serious. they say based on their interviews with the victim and the suspects that they were hanging out for a couple of days, hill and this victim, as friends, but then when they linked up with the group at the residence where the attack happened on tuesday, that's where there was a fight or a confrontation that escalated. investigators say it was the women who then tied up the victim allegedly and then the rest of the four that we witnessed unfolded. but they do not believe assault was premeditated. >> appreciate the update. two of our legal analysts, jeffrey toobin and laura koch.
laura, it's obviously just sickening, unfathomable. and to broadcast it live on facebook and have one of the women talking about why she's not getting enough light while it's actually happening. insane. >> shocking to think somebody would first do this and then try to tell the world they'd done it and almost, you know, glorify their actions. from our human perspective, of course, you're horrified to see this. from a prosecutor's perspective as well, this is great evidence you need to use. it's very difficult often times to prove hate crimes. you have to prove bias and motive and intent here. here it's very clear, it's in front of you, because you have this sort of lack of remorse, you have this very clear mote they've's put before us. >> jeff, hate crimes is not a separate category -- it basically just adds to a criminal act, adds to a potential sen teps, right? >> right. it's an enhancement.
this would be a crime regardless of the racial or disability motive. so it's not like they would get away if they didn't also charge hate crimes. it is basically a judgment by the state legislature that says, look, we think that crimes motivated by bias are even worse than crimes that are motivated by jealousy or just anger or craziness. but it certainly will mean that these four are likely to get longer sentences than if this facebook video did not exist. >> laura, is this a slam dunk? based on what police and prosecutors have said? >> from our own eyes we're looking at it and saying we absolutely see a crime and there's a hate crime element to it. but there's a misconception people have when it comes to hate crimes. there is a misdirection or misbelief that you have to be a racial minority to be a victim of that crime for it to be a true slam dunk and that although the theory behind and the
legislation to protect racial minorities when there is a white victim, people have the misconception it won't be enforced as vigorously. >> but here jurors might view it differently if the victim were african-american and the torturers rr white. >> they might. but we see a case where people should be just as disgusted. just because a legislation or law is meant to protect a particular group it doesn't immunize that group from prosecution if they commit a crime. >> the fact they're using racial terminology, talking about white people, donald trump, row vovie as representing everybody who supported donald trump, is that what is the clearest evidence to the hate crime? otherwise, laura, it could just be an attack on, you know, somebody with mental impairment. >> yes, but, you know, the mental impairment also is a classification in chicago for a hate crime. so the combination of both.
you know, people have to understand, to be a hate crime you need not have one singular motive. it could be also a nonbiased related thing and you also have a hate element as well. it could also be because of what his mental disability may be as well as his race and the combination most assuredly is a hate crime. >> go ahead, jeff. >> i was just going to say, you know, i don't think a jury is ever going to get this case. this case is going to be pled out. it is so horrific. any defense lawyer is going to want to keep this from a jury. i think given the in evidence this case. >> if there's a plea-bargain, what sort of punishment is likely? >> well, it is going to be many -- it is going to be a substantial number of years in prison. i think ten is not out of the question. you know, fortunately the victim here survived and is not going to have permanent injuries, so it appears, so i think that will
limit the punishment to a certain extent. but given the magnitude and the publicity, given how evil this crime is, you know, it could be as long as ten years. >> we'll follow it closely no doubt. thanks so much. just ahead, more braking news. house speaker paul ryan says republican lawmakers will defund planned parenthood, a group they've long targeted because it provides abortion services. it also provides millions of women with other health care services. we'll talk about that.
with advil, you'll ask what twisted ankle? what muscle strain? advil makes pain a distant memory nothing works faster stronger or longer what pain? advil. life. you never really know what's coming. life just... happens. just when you think you know where it's going, sfx: (ambulance sirens) it takes you someplace else.
breaking news, republicans want to defund planned parenthood. they do offer abortion services. certainly republican candidates and lawmakers have made defunding it a priority and they can. that and late developments on the fate of obamacare and a new study suggesting repealing it could jeopardize millions of jobs. jeff zeleny has the latest. start with planned parenthood. who's leading that charge and what's the impact? donald trump actually spoke favorably about some things about planned parenthood during the election, obviously not the abortion services. >> he did, indeed, anderson. that will be a clear test for him once he's president. speaker paul ryan and other republican congressional leaders have wanted to do this for a long time. in 2015 they actually did, but president obama vetoed this funding for planned parenthood,
keeping it alive in the bill. if you'll remember back to that 16-day government shutdown in 2013, it was over funding planned parenthood and other things. but paul ryan, the speaker of the house, said today republicans intend to defund that. we're talking about $400 million or so. this isn't about money. it's about ideology. as you said, planned parenthood of course provides abortion services. federal funding can't be used for that but it is simply a statement they want to make. two key republican senators to keep an eye on, susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska. they are both opposed to this. republicans would need to get ohm them on board. this will be one piece of the obama fight playing out this year. >> democrats have been critical of republicans not having a plan to replace obamacare with if they repeal it. one republican senator said today there won't be a comprehensive replacement. >> he did and that is john cornyn, the number two republican in the senate from texas. he told cnn today that
republicans have no plans to replace the affordable care act with a big health care bill. he said instead they will do small bills piece by piece because they believe a big bill like the affordable care act will collapse under its own weight here. this is just one more piece of the puzzle here of the difficulty republicans have unraveling this big bill. but if he gets his way, it will not be a big bill replacing it but a series of smaller bills which of course will not please many people here on capitol hill. >> all right. thanks very much. back with the panel. first let's talk about planned parenthood. keirsten, how do you think this plays for republican voters and for democratic voters? >> this is something i think that resonates with conservative base voters, not something that resonates with the broader public. so a poll that came out last year after these planned parenthood videos came out about 39% of people wanted to defund planned parenthood. and the thing to understand about the funding is that it goes mostly to reimbursing medicaid so it's not actually going to the day-to-day running of planned parenthood, it
certainly isn't going to abortions and it will affect poor women in terms of, you know, where they want to go and get their health care. republicans will say and they did this in the bill last time when they repealed or tried to, you know, repeal the funding for it is that they want to ship that money to local -- other services, other community health centers that don't provide abortions. >> what do you think donald trump does here? as we said, he spoke favorably, surprised a lot of people i think during the primary season when some of the candidates on the republican side were talking about defunding. >> this is where donald trump can push congressional republicans. they want to defund and i agree with that. however, this is where donald trump can come in and say you want to defund, fine, but defunding has to be paired with a bill that says you can still be reimbursed at one of the 1,200 federally funded health clinics, women seeking not abortions but seeking breast mris or screenings or you can go to a pregnancy center, there are 2,000 pregnancies out there outside of planned parenthood.
he can say i'm with you, i'm on board, i don't like the fact that planned parenthood does 300,000 abortions a year, but ensure these women have another place they can go to get the same sort of health care they currently get. >> to have this happen soon, does this mobilize democrats? >> yeah. it's weird. populists usually like to be popular. planned parenthood is a beloved organization in the united states. i know it's very hard for people to know that in the deep, you know, passions of the conservative movement, but this is a very popular organization and a lot of people have relied on planned parenthood for so many things. and so i don't think this makes a lot of sense. and by the way, you're starting to see a new woman's movement. women who have never been political or involved in anything, who don't even like the word feminist are starting to feel like they have to speak out. i remember 1991 or 1992, the
whole clarence thomas, anita hill thing, one woman got offended, sexually harassed, then you had the year of the woman where women came out by droves. that could happen again. >> is this a smart move by -- >> i think it is. this is a philosophical belief. here's a group that does 300,000 abortions a year. in georgia alone, we have 274 women's health clippic iclinict don't do abortions and they are medicaid eligible. for women who want to get birth-control advice and gynecological advice and anything they need to get from planned parenthood, they can get from one of these 274 clinics and there's no abortion debate. you know, when we say they don't do abortions, if we give them money for building and they build a building which eventually does house abortion operations and procedures, how is that money fungible? you can't make the money
nonfungible i guess is what i'm saying. >> we don't give them money for buildings. there is no line item that says here's money for planned parenthood. we do through medicaid reimburse poor women. a bit of a red herring to say you can go to 200 other clinics in your state of georgia. 21% of the counties planned parenthood operates, they're the only women's health center there. so what happens is just so you know, 97% of what they do is nonabortion. it is stds. it is cancer screening. it's -- >> then why don't they just -- >> it's birth control. you should run for president of planned parenthood. take it over and change the policies. >> then take it out of the budget. >> you're condemning millions of poor women to having unwanted pregnancies or cancer or stds. this is a public health crisis. >> there's no debate about let's make sure women have access to these important services. we can all agree on that. but abortions. taxpayers should not be paying
for abortioabortions. money is fungible. >> that is not what this amendment says and i think this could be the first example of republican overreach because this is now part of the budget which is part of repealing obamacare. and if they lose this. jeff zeleny was talking, if they lose those two women in the senate, they're already losing rand paul because he doesn't like the budget. they are putting in jeopardy their biggest issue. which is repealing obamacare over there. and there might be a move, i would think, to extract it if they know they're going to lose. >> we have to leave it we're just now learn about an about face on donald trump's repeated promise about building a wall and making mexico pay for it. i'm just hearing about this. we'll explain when we come back.
tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis.
more breaking news tonight. campaign appearances across the country, this would come a moment in trump's speech when he would be asked who will pay for thor wall. >> we are going to have a strong border. we are going to build the wall. it will be a real wall. a real wall. who is going to pay for the wall? who? by the way, 100%. >> well, now, house gop officials are telling cnn that the transition team has signaled congressional republican leaders that the president-elect's preference is to fund it through appropriations process as soon as april. in other words the american taxpayers will pay for and it so will the panel if they're staying up late. gloria? again, that's all we know on this. not a lot of details. what do you make of it?
>> well, i think it is astonishing that they're now saying that they want to fund the building of the wall through the appropriations process. and we have mattered mexico will pay for the wall. they want to do night spending bill, according to the great reporting. and the interesting point is, as i play it a few steps forward, i'm almost envisioning in my mind the fact the democrats could filibuster this or try on shut down the government over refusing to fund the wall. we could find ourselves in a situation in which the democrats then want to shut down the government not to fund the wall. >> would this be a complete flip-flop? >> definitely we need more information about it. there was some talk about not to have to pass a whole new bill. that there was some existing legislation that had been passed
under the obama administration who believe it or not was doing quite a bit in terms of the border. so i definitely would want to get more information. if he actually does say, we're going to pay for and it mexico is not paying for it, that would be a monumental flip-flop. >> the middle ground would be we'll pay for it and down the road somehow mexico will reimburse. i'm just throwing that out. >> if you go on donald trump's campaign website, there is a pdf about imposeding a rule. he has put forth a detailed way in which mexico will at least wholly or partially pay for it. so i would expect to see this implemented. it was a major part of the campaign. so i think more details. >> well, look. maybe it's not a flip but it is certainly a flop. this is not what they want to be talking about. this is something that he put his name behind it. and now you've got people kind of coming around saying, guess
what. there's something called reality. there is not a real way to make quote/unquote mexico pay for it. so i just, it may not be a flip-flop but it's a flop. >> let me say this. inside the republican mind, it is a divisible statement. build the wall. let mexico pay for it. 90% of the statement is the first part. build the wall. the icing on the cake is let mexico pay for it. republicans want the wall and they will take the wall if it means paying for it. because the benefits of keeping drugs out and keeping the illegals out and the potential terrorists out. >> so to you the mexico pay for it was only a small percentage of the overall -- >> i can tell you -- >> people who weigh both parts 50/50. i can say this. as she said, there will be a lot of negotiating and a lot of issues with mexico in the eight years ahead, and during that period of time, there will be an opportunity to get money back.
as an appropriate rater, i would rather start construction now. getting the epa permits and everything else will take time. hillary clinton voted for it, by the way. hillary clinton voted for this bill to build the wall back in 2006. >> how will we pay for this? >> how are we not going to pay for it? >> there was a bill to enhance border security. a $10 billion bill didn't go anywhere. >> one way we'll pay for it is the amazing rise we've seen in the stock market and the prosperity that's coming. >> m.i.t. technology, he said a wall this sort would be $38 billion. and the mexicans are not going to pay one peso. i'm getting a big fat tax cut. i'm prosperous. it is the american middle class. that's who will pay for this wall. as you know, net migration is to mexico.
not from it. the wall will slow down their depart you are and perhaps mine. >> and we pay for and it what will mexico say? oh, thank you. >> i've gone and seen the wall in san diego. a 13-mile wall which the democrats supported. and they love that wall. i'm talking about on the san diego side, they're saying it reduced drugs, it will reduce immigration. it's been a did thing. i think the benefits of building a wall are still what republicans want. >> we've got more breaking news out of chicago and the beating puck ises in a hate crime and streaming it online. if you're gonna make an entrance... [car driving upon the water]
gas lines and our electric lines to make sure that you don't hit them when you're digging. 811 is a free service. i'm passionate about it because every time i go on the street i think about my own kids. they're the reason that i want to protect our community and our environment, and if me driving a that truck means that somebody gets to go home safer, then i'll drive it every day of the week. together, we're building a better california. 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.
welcome back. we begin hour with breaking news. chicago police announcing hate crime and kidnapping charges against four african-americans. all while broadcasting it on facebook live. the video you're about to watch is tough to watch. the vmi 18 years old, a young man with special needs. president obama called it despicable. racial tensions in general. >> here's how i think about it. i don't think it is accurate to say race relations have gotten worse. i came to chicago in '85. you were there during council wars.