tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN January 5, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm PST
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.
what's true is we see visuals of racial tensions, violence, and so forth, because of smartphones and the media. what we've seen is surfacing, a lot of the problems that have been there a long time. tensions between police and communities, hate crimes of the despicable support has recently surfaced on facebook. i take these things very seriously. >> president obama, that was him late today. so charges against the four people in this sickening crime. what more do we know? >> they are facing a number of different charges including aggravated kidnapping, battery with a deadly weapon, and hate crime charges. the hate crime charge stems from the racial epithets we can hear in the video. and police say the victim has a
mental disability and they believe that played a role in the assault. we've learned three of the suspects are 18 years old. two are african-american men work the african-american women. the victim is white. and we're learning more about exactly what unfolded. police say the victim was hanging out for a couple days before this attack with one of the suspects who is also a friend from school. jordan hill. and then on tuesday, they went to this residence where the attack occurred and met one the larger group. now, you see in the video, he is tied up. they hit him. they kick him. at one point they even made him drink out of the toilet. you see in the video, they're using a knife to cut his hair all the way down to his scalp, to the point where they make his scalp bleed. police stay video is obviously a key piece of the evidence in this case. they also say that the suspects confessed to the assault as well. >> and how did this end? how did police find the victim?
i understand they found him on the street. >> right. the victim apparently escaped. they found him wandering on the street about a block away from where they stay assault occurred. this was on tuesday. they say he was bloody, battered, he was wearing a tank top and shorts. keep in mind it is freezing here. they say he was incredibly distraught. so traumatized he could hardly speak. they did learn that apparently he managed to escape when a neighbor near residence where the happened complained of noise. went and apparently interrupted the assault and called police. >> and the motive, what had police said about it? as you mentioned, hate crimes, there is a racial component and perhaps because he has special needs. >> they don't believe this attack was premeditated. in fact, police say based on their interviews with the victim and the suspects, they initially
got into a playful fight that then escalated out of control. they tell us it was the women who allegedly tied up the victim and then you see what happened after that on the video with the following assault. we are told the victim was likely held for four to five hours before he escaped. >> and the video itself, i've watched a couple minutes of it. it goes on for quite a long time, doesn't it? >> we know it was at least about 30 minutes. our understanding is there could be other videos, other people also recording and streaming, up to three videos. the main video which we are showing you some of those clips that are so hard to watch. that was 30 minutes long. when you watch the video, the woman who is recording it, one of the suspects in custody, an 18-year-old. she is commenting. she is laughing. she is talking about some of the comments she's giving in her facebook live streaming. some people saying somebody is going to jail. it is all really disturbing.
and again, you hear a lot of expletives. a lot of racial undertones in there. at one point they mention president-elect donald trump. police say they don't believe this attack was politically motivated at all. in fact they say some of the things you hear in the video may have been the suspects trying to make a headline. >> with the racial undertones, it sounds like overtones. legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, and joey jackson, cnn legal analyst and defense attorney. joey, let's start with you. just a horrific videotape. sickening to see. how likely do you think the videotape will be successful? >> where is humanity? what are we doing to serve as legitimate examples to our young
people they believe this is not only acceptable behavior but behavior that should be funny. and everybody should look at. i think when you look at the statute itself that talks about hate, it is predicated on two things. number one, prosecutors would have to establish this was motivated by racial components, maybe because the victim was white. but also because of the mental impairment and disability. it doesn't take a rocket scientist. think about who is evaluating this. people who can use their common sxenls good judgment, and they'll have to make a decision as to whether this was something motivated by race or mental impairment. i don't think it is a stretch by any stretch for those hate crime charges to stick. >> i know when you first saw, this i think up it was sickening. do you think the prosecutors are charging that? >> i think we need to, i think the prosecutors have done the right thing.
they found all the reasonable cause they needed to find. i think it is dangerous for folks that aren't legal experts like myself to have this really in depth conversation about the legalities of something. i think it waters it down and takes away from the disgusting, the sickening acts of what happened and i think that's what transpired on the air last night. people were angry on social media saying how could you not say this is wrong? so perhaps we should, i should be looking at it more so -- >> to use the term hate crime. if this was for skin heads doing this to an african-american teenage we are a disability, wouldn't it be fair to call it a hate crime? >> i think yesterday, today it is a hate crime. yesterday on air when it all brokering with didn't have all the details. we were speculating. >> you see it as a hate crime. >> do i. i've seen all the details. regardless, if i think it is a hate crime or not.
i think we're having the wrong conversation. i think the conversation needs to be about what was that young man feeling that was being assaulted? how did we get here as a community where these kids think it is okay to go out and do this? why are we so polarized? and i think that's a separate conversation from is this wrong? absolutely it is wrong. and i think a lot of times in the heat of the moment. things are happening and we have our initial reactions. i think taking a step back, you know, it's more so about yes, this is wrong, this is disgusting. these young people should be prosecuted. justice should be served. but we need to have some additional conversations, i think, about our society. >> it is extraordinary that these four who are doing this had no qualms about streaming this live for 30 plus minutes. >> we live in an amazing era for law enforcement. i've seen this in court first hand. social media, criminals wallow
in posts on social media about what they're going to do in xass would otherwise be no case for the prosecution. a defendant single handily makes the case against himself by posting images or video of him essentially committing the crime. we're in a new era. dash cam video, social media. it is capturing it and that's called evidence in court. >> do they not even realize, and i'm not just talking about these four, people who are broadcasting this. do they not realize this will be used against them in. >> this is a different generation. from what i can see, the allure of potential viral fame. of instant celebrity, if you can call it celebrity on social media. that allure is too much for people and they end up posting these things that are just damaging to them for a lifetime. >> i'm going on say, i don't think they even thought about the ramifications of what they were doing. clearly there was something wrong for them to even engage in
the act of torture and assault that happened. so young people across the country. they're not thinking. they're posting on twitter on, facebook on, instagram. and we talk about words matter. but our actions online matter. and they can get us, quote/unquote caught up and in this instance charge us with crimes. >> one of them was a friend of this young man. >> you've heard the expression. if that's a friend, who needs an enemy? you treat a friend like this? >> from the perspective of society, where have we gone that young people feel this is appropriate? it's funny by the way. we should weigh this in and have everybody talk about it. the aggravated kidnapping charges, six to 30 years. will they get that? i don't know. i'm sure the defense attorneys will argue age is mitigation. not that that excuses it.
when you're younger, the defense attorney will say the focus is on rehabilitation so that's what we'll see. it is very disturbing to have this happen. i think there will be a legislative response. filming and streaming these, i think there will be a look at making that criminal. >> they should encourage it. it is fantastic for law enforcement. detectives will tell you, facebook is often the first place they go on look for evidence. and they will find it. because some criminals just aren't that discriminating when it comes to posting wise go things online. this case, we're talking about hate crimes. number one, the hate crime charged in this case isn't the worst crime. it is the kidnapping. and illinois and federal law covers not only based on race but also mental and physical disability. that's a possibility here in this case. under both state law and federal law. >> appreciate the discussion. thank you.
we'll have a lot more. we just had more breaking news on the election hacking story. what is in the classified report that president obama got and donald trump's take on it all. we'll be right back. who's he? he's the green money you can spend now. what's up? gonna pay some bills, maybe buy a new tennis racket. he's got a killer backhand. when it's time to get organized for retirement, it's time to get voya. there's a more enjoyable way to get your fiber. hey, it's the phillips' lady! try these delicious phillips' fiber gogummies ,
a good source of fiber to help support regularity. mmm...these are great! my work here is done. phillips', the tasty side of fiber. boy: this is the story of a boy who was very sensitive to lights and sounds. so he built secret hiding places where nothing could get in. the boy didn't like looking people in the eye. it made him feel uncomfortable. one day, he found out he had something called autism. his family got him help. and slowly he learned how to live with it better.
announcer: early intervention can make a lifetime of difference. learn the signs at autismspeaks.org. a lot more happening tonight. russia hacked the democratic computers and meddled in the democratic election. they beat president obama today and tomorrow heads of the cia and the fbi ask the director of national intelligence will be briefing president-elect trump will tonight's breaking news has
to do with how the intelligence community believes the stolen data got to wikileaks and it is not the only late development. pamela brown is back with more on what she's been learning. the confidential intelligence report. what have we learned? >> that it includes the foifgss of the go between people that the russian government relied on to provide those stolen e-mails to wikileaks. the sources tell us these are third party people known as cutouts of the russian government used essentially to give russia plausible deniability in the election hacks. in addition, we've learned it includes intercepted communications of russian government officials, expressing happiness at trump's win. just one factor bolstering this view that russia was behind the hacks. >> and these intercepted messages that we talked about earlier from russia, according to u.s. officials. some were allegedly congratulatory over trump's win. >> that's what we're told from
our sources that essentially, these intercepted conversations have these officials be congratulatory with one another. we're told that there was no single intercepted communication that qualifies as a smoking gun on russia's intention to benefit trump's candidacy or to take credit for doing so. but sources say it is one small piece of the pus people officials have relies on for russia's involvement and motive. >> and donald trump is set to receive that briefing tomorrow. >> that's right. we expect to it happen in new york at trump tower. mike rogers, cia, james comey, and as we know, this is the first time they meet in the same room six trump cast doubt. this seems to not sit well with retired general martin dempsey who is the chairman of joint
chiefs of staff. it was a significant slam at trump. he tweeted, intelligence is hard, thankless work. fortunately we have dedicated, patriotic, courageous men and women on the job. thanks. so barbara starr said until now, dempsey has been adamant about staying apolitical. but clear tonight, he is breaking from that and this comes on the heels of james clapper who aimed at trump saying there is a difference between scepticism and disparaging. trump tweeted, as he big fan of the intelligence community and his team said he is only questioning the conclusions reached. not the actual intelligence. >> thank you. terrorism analyst phillip mudd and chairman mike rogers, and the former director of the national cyber security center. let's start with you. the latest news has identified go betweens the russians used to
provide stolen e-mails to wikileaks. that would be how it goes. it is not like russian officers will be in direct contact with wikileaks, correct? >> that's right. let's be careful. there is a couple questions we have to ask. what happened? who acquired the information in this case, intermediary who's may have passed to it wikileaks. i think the real question that will happen, i presume at trump towers, who was responsible for authorizing that? how close can we get on vladimir putin? and that's where i think donald trump has a legitimate question. do you know what happened? were the russians or russian entities responsible for receiving information or acquiring information about the american elections? and did vladimir putin know? i think the second half of that question is up in the air. and i think the president-elect has the right to ask how confident are you that putin actually knew? i don't think the intelligence guys know that answer.
>> to that specific point, clapper today did talk about that. the public briefing on capitol hill saying that something at this level, he doesn't believe that it goes to the highest reaches, and then the question about who the highest power in russia was, he said it would be vladimir putin and he doesn't believe a lot goes on without his knowing something that would influence politics in another country. >> these are covert operations. the soviets did them a long time and they were very successful at them. they used other techniques. now they have another tool in their tool kit which is cyber and all of that goes to the higher echelons of now the russian government. so no doubt in my mind that vladimir putin knows. they've been actively seeking access into the state department. they've had success in the department of defense. they've had success to members of congress. they've had success, i can tell you that a nation state got into
my private unclassified e-mail when i was chairman. it was notified by a third nation state that the russians had likely penetrated the nonclassified version of all of that. this happens. so there shouldn't be a shock to us. what should be a shock is the level to which they went. no doubt that they took this information, put it on the deep and dark web and it appears to me that somebody went in and they notified somebody where to find and it get to it wikileaks. this would not be unusual for any russian intelligence operation. that part shouldn't be in doubt for us. how it influenced the election. all the politics. even from obama, by the way, for trying on make this all political is terrible for the collection efforts of the united states intelligence community. >> you ran the national cyber security center. do the pieces coming together make sense? >> cheerily the russians have
world class trade craft in cyber security so they could have gotten to the systems, many others. clearly wikileaks published a lot of e-mails that no one has denied the accuracy of. the question is how did they get from point a to point b. that's what's being discussed and explored. even if you go to the dark web and make the connections, make sure you know who the parties are. i think there will be a lot of questions attribution for a long time. yes, clearly russia had a part in this. there is a long time vendetta between putin and hillary clinton. she said it was a rigged election in 2011 and the russians at the zparmt u.s. intelligence agencies were interfering in their election. so all these issues will come
out in this discussion and debate. it is an important review. we're not going to get to simple certainty. >> you bring questions and sort of caution about understanding the trade craft is one thing but understanding motive is something different entirely. >> that's right. we have to distinguish here between what we think and what we know. we know that somebody stole information and those individuals were connected to the russian security services. when you hear american intelligence professionals today saying we believe this could not have happened without vladimir putin's consent, that's a judgment. that's not a fact. we are stepping into a zone where we're determining whether to impose sanctions on the russians based on a judgment. i do not agree with the president-elect, with his tone in terms of addressing the
intelligence community. completely inappropriate. it is, however, appropriate to question whether the intelligence professionals know whether vladimir putin was complicit or whether they think. and my answer is they think he was complicit. they don't know. >> and chairman rogers, the concern, it seems like the major concern for donald trump has been that this somehow would be used to delegitimize him in some people's minds. maybe some democrats trying to do that. but there is no evidence that, or you can't say 100% what impact the release of the dnc e-mails had. we're not talking about hacking a voting terminal, voting booths on election day. >> if you're a democrat on the losing end of this, you think the russians stole election here. that's not what happened here. i think what happened here, this
whole notion that they hacked the election creates absolutely the wrong narrative on what happened. and candidly, it is a little bit dangerous and i think the president fed into this. the president-elect should not have disparaged the community which he will rely on in many very dangerous circumstances around the world. i think this whole notion that it rose to this political level is bad enough. they did not hack the election. they didn't change a vote from a yes to a no. they didn't change a vote from hillary clinton to donald trump. none of that happened. >> they could have but they didn't. >> i'm going to dispute that a little bit. they could have done it in a very few places because of the dispersion of our election system and the way it is run, it would be nearly impossible to do it today. if we all went to completely electronic voting systems, they couldn't do it today. that's never what the russians intended. as a matter of fact, again,
they've been doing this a long time. what they want to do is cast doubt on the system. if they used only these e-mails, these congratulatory e-mails, if that's the basis of fact, i'm a little worried that the analysts. what you will find in those is very deep sensitive, classified briefing. you'll get a very different picture of what they know and what they don't know and what they think they know. they have a higher degree of confidence based on better forensic information on that cyber stuff versus these little, i would be shocked if they based it on that. i'm going on guess what happened in that classified session might be a little bit different. i hope the president-elect gets that full picture. he needs to understand what the russians are doing not just here but all over the world.
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 on propose to the legislation. we're going to debate it. let the public decide. let them vote in congress. let's see what happens. it will be much clearer what he's for and against and what we're for and against, now that it will get down to actually discussing in detail these issues that affect people's lives. >> i don't think he will take advice. as we mentioned, donald trump tweeted a series of complaints. >> donald trump is doing some hacking backtracking. one day after the president-elect cited wikileaks founder julian assange that he interfered in the election, a tweet retreat.
the dishonest media likes to say i'm in agreement with julian assange. wrong. it is for the people's the decision to decide. trump is referring to this leak yesterday when he seemed to be advocating the latest comments saying julian assange said a 14-year-old could have hacked podesta. and his support for wikileaks is nothing new. especially when it was dumping damaging information on hillary clinton. >> this just came out. wikileaks, i love wikileaks. >> contrast, jump shifting on assange with top republicans with john mccain. >> this is really a person who is put the lives of americans in danger. he cannot be trusted for anything. >> to his old campaign rival, ted cruz. >> i think assange has done
enormous damage to our national security. i would not be praising him under any circumstances. >> trump is also battling against a growing bipartisan consensus around the view that kremlin backed hackers were meddling in the election herself to gop leaders support trump's complaint that democrats are using the scandal to damage the president-elect. >> russia clearly tried meddle in our political system. no two ways about it. first of all, and i think this is what the president-elect is upset about. there are attempts on delegitimize this election. that's just bogus. he won fair and square. he won clearly and convincingly. >> democrats argue it is more about trump's grasp of reality. >> this is not healthy scepticism. this is very unhealthy avoidance of the facts because they don't institute president-elect's interests.
>> trump says they would reveal new information and then failed on deliver. >> i know things other people don't know. so they cannot be sure of this situation. >> what do you know other people don't know? >> you'll find out. >> the president-elect supports the intelligence community and they are pushing back on reports that trump wants to pare back the role of intelligence in the new administration. >> there is no truth to the idea of restructuring the intelligence community infrastructure. it is 100% false. >> so president-elect tweeting out some new comments tonight. what did he have to say? >> that's right. he is spreading more doubts about the intelligence community's findings. we'll put them on the screen saying they would not allow the fbi to study or see the computer info after it was supposedly hacked by russia. so why are they so sure about
hacking if they never did an examination of the computer servers? the go-betweens, the russian hackers and wikileaks stoffel president-elect appears to be behind the news cycle a little bit. but it does set up an interesting confrontation that we'll see or not see. it will happen behind closed doors between the president-elect and the intelligence community when he goes after their findings on russian hacking in the november election. it is interesting to note that in that room will be the outgoing director of national intelligence, james clapper, and the incoming national security adviser for the president-elect, mike flynn. flynn was fired by clapper in 2014. >> there is a report that we just ghot about donald trump's transition team signalling to congressional leaders that the president-elect's preference is to fund the border wall through
appropriations process as soon as april. that would seemingly be a break from the idea of having mexico pay for it as he said over and over again on the campaign trail. what do you make of this? you went to something like 100,000 trump rallies over the last 18 months or so. >> approximately. >> a little exaggeration. >> i think it was 99,000, but yes. everyone of those rallies, the big applause line was we'll build a wall and mexico will pay for it. apparently the fine print is a bit more complicated than that. our team is finding out that yes, the president-elect's transition team is telling congressional leaders that what he wants to see is an appropriations process that will pay for the construction of a wall on the u.s./mexico border. yes, that is a massive departure from what he said on the campaign trail. we should point out in octoberering began to talk about this shift in his position. he talked about having mexico reimburse the united states government for the wall of not exactly the same thing as
sending over a big check across the border. >> thanks very much. more on the political and policy implications on a range of issues. security rice, if donald trump in fact, if the transition team is talking to folks on capitol hill about funding the wall through an appropriations process, i guess donald trump could say, mexico will reimburse us down the road. do you see that as a flip-flop? >> anderson, when talking about flip-flops, and donald trump, it is difficult. because he campaigned in a fact-free universe. i mean, they told so many lies. bald face lies. if he were going to revert and start telling the truth, that in
itself would be a flip-flop. it is hard to get your hands around all this. donald trump manipulates the truth. he manipulates his audiences. he will find a way of wiggling out of all this. he said he would jail hillary clinton. he said an awful lot of things. obviously, he is not going to do much of what he said he was going to do. particularly things that seemed at the time and are even now, obviously, nonsensical. my real concern is that two weeks from tomorrow, we are going to have a new president, not only who has told his followers one thing on the campaign trail and is likely to do something else now. but also, who has a very careless regard for the truth, does not even want intelligence agencies or scientists or the media or anybody who disagrees with him to have any kind of a say at all. doesn't want to take any criticism. doesn't want to hear facts are
at odds with his prior points of view. this is not necessarily a good thing for the country. >> jeffrey lord, would this be a major change or is a reimbursement, if that is in fact what donald trump was signaling months ago, as jim acosta was reporting, would that be fulfilling his campaign pledge? >> anderson, having worked capitol hill in both the house and senate in the budget committee and that sort of thing, i always assumed we were talking about reimbursement. to build the wall right away, you have to get the appropriations bill. there was no doubt in my mind, he would make an attempt to get money from mexico to pay for it at some point. i think that's the logical fact of the matter, the way the united states government works. >> this is completely absurd. come on. mexico is not going to reimburse the united states for it. how are we going to force mexico to reimburse the united states?
this is an absurd conversation. this is an absurd position. this man, this is the problem. we are all trying to normalize something that is not essentially normal. you don't have somebody campaigning on the base of one set of ideas and coming out and actually once he is two weeks away from becoming president, coming out with a completely different position. >> mr. secretary, with all due respect, you didn't think he would be elected and you weren't alone. a lot of people didn't he think he would be elected president in the first place and he is. let me talk about normalizing, to slide to the russian situation. what i saw today on capitol hill was i thought disgraceful. this is one of the reasons donald trump was elected. president obama has been in the white house for eight years. on the committee, they've been on the senate for all those eight years. and now they're saying something needs to be done about julian
assange? where were they? how come this wasn't stopped before? the real story was yes, wikileaks exists. why was not it stopped? why didn't they do something? >> didn't an awful lot of folks on capitol hill go after julian assange, talk about he should be prosecuted? i think secretary clinton, there was a lot of outrage for many years. >> but outrage doesn't stop cyber warfare. they had to do something. they had on act. and they had eight years. i've been looking through it. all kinds of assaults on the u.s., the white house, the irs, two noaa, for heaven's sakes, the post office. sean hannity was talking about this on his show today. this is disgraceful. this is a bipartisan shame. and they ran a classic of why people are so upentity washington, d.c. >> can i -- i really need to be
able to help zero in on what is going on in this conversation. i mean, donald trump has said that he disagrees with the intelligence agencies, the fbi, the cia, the nsa. he has disparaged them publicly. he has also disparaged other sources of facts such as the media and science. scientists who talk about global climate change. donald trump doesn't want to hear anything he doesn't want to hear. and to disparage the intelligence community when he is going to have to rely on the intelligence community, it seems to me is the height of arrogance and very dangerous. where is donald trump getting his facts from if he is not getting them from the intelligence community? does a separate root of facts? a separate source of facts? >> if i may ask you, when secretary clinton and her campaign blamed the fbi director
for her loss, you are upset and offended by that? >> i don't think any candidate or any politician should be blaming the fbi, the cia, or denigrating public officials. i would say that that is wrong and it is wrong of donald trump who is going to be president in two weeks. wait a minute. donald trump will be president in two weeks. he is going to need government scientists, intelligence. he is going to need the fed. all of these independent sources of fact finding and independent sources in power. donald trump says he disagrees with him and he disparages them. how can you run a government if you're going to be disparaging all your sources of information? >> do you think donald trump has disparaged them? he did tweet out saying intelligence in quotes. >> i think he is a fan of the community. let's face it. >> what makes you -- he says
he's fan of the community but has he actually acted like a fan of the community? it seems like, we heard from clapper today who used the word disparaging. >> yeah. i totally disagree with that. i don't think he is disparaging the men and women who put their lives on the line to do this. that's not donald trump at all. but i think he is right to question the leadership. to be perfectly candid. >> wait a minute. who -- >> all over washington. they are going to have a very bureaucratic way of doing business that he will disagree with and they're going to attack him. they're going to attack him anonymously in the press. they'll attack through their allies on capitol hill. >> who is going to attack whom? the cia and nsa are going to attack donald trump? is that what you're alleging? >> why are all these stories, anonymously being leaked by various intelligence officials? who is doing that?
>> so -- wait a minute, wait a minute. i want to understand something. you're saying that there is a conspiracy of some sort, that you have all the intelligence agencies congress spiring and they'll try to bring donald trump down? is this the assumption here? >> you both know, certainfully washington, d.c., if there is dissatisfaction in a lot of government agencies, people do leak information. >> but why is it appropriate for somebody who is president-elect to undercut, disparage, demean the intelligence agencies, just as he does the media, just as he does independent scientists and government scientists. >> i hear you. >> the department of energy and elsewhere. why is it appropriate to do that because you disagree their conclusions? >> a great discussion. we have to leave it there. just ahead, the battle over obamacare including the confrontation over planned parenthood. pressure
i'm at higher risktwice as likfor depression.troke. i'm 26% more likely to develop an irregular heartbeat. i have a 65% higher chance of developing diabetes. no matter who we are, these diseases can be managed or prevented when caught early on. because with better research, the right medicine, and with doctors who help keep me healthy to begin with, we will thrive.
a lot of breaking news, this time related to obamacare. they said republicans will strip planned parenthood. they will take a step-by-step approach with replacing obamacare. who is leading the push to defund planned parenthood? and what happens to it if they're successful? >> speaker paul ryan is one of the leaders leading this charge. it is something that they have long wanted to do. in 2015, they did defund it. president trump has spoken in favor of this but he has had various points of view as he was campaigning for president.
we're talking about some $400 million that planned parenthood receives for health care services and other things so it would be up to them to come up with the extra money. there are two key republican senators who have been opposed to this. republicans have a majority but not that large a majority that they can lose the support. >> and republicans have been getting a lot of heat for not having a plan to replace obamacare if they repeal it. it looks like there might be a plan emerging but it won't be a comprehensive replacement. >> republicans have many ideas to replace obamacare. they've been voting again and again over the last eight years and more to replace this with a different type of idea.
but there is no consensus over what to do. john cornyn said the senate does not plan to pass a big comprehensive bill. he said it is a far wiser idea to do a series of smaller bills along the way so it doesn't collapse under its own weight as he says the affordable care act the. so many ideas here. and president trump has yet to weigh in. he says republicans and democrats must work together. there are few signs of that in the opening week. >> this is the question. tom foreman has more. >> on the campaign trail the trump plan to replace obamacare was for many months a study in generalities. it would be cheaper, better? beautiful thing to see. >> but now more details are
emerging and looks very much like a work in progress, some cornerstone ideas have been around a while such as call to modify existing law that inhibits sale of health insurance across state lines. >> instead of one company taking care of new york or texas, have many and compete, beautiful thing. >> skeptics fear lead to regulatory gaps once again leaving folks with chronic illnesses uninsured. >> obama lie. remember this. >> till his online plan for health care reform makes no mention of these people. >> insurance companies say the only way they can cover spem have a mandate requiring everybody purchase health insurance. are they wrong? >> i think they're wrong 100%. >> but not clear yet how his plan will answer the industry concerns or address the cost of
trashing obamacare which nonpartisan analysis puts at $350 billion over ten years. team says maybe not all has to go. >> so committed to retaining the pieces that advisers say are working. >> under the trump proposal insurance premiums would be tax deductible and those using spebding accounts get cuts too and right to carry over unused balances year to year. >> it works, it's proven. >> what about the poor? he suggests he's committed to the idea of universal health care. everyone being covered. >> take care of them maybe through medicare. >> and in that environment figuring out who to hold accountable can require good gathering of intelligence. >> coming up. looking at chicago story and how
it's part of trend of streaming video crimes. a tens device with high intensity power that uses technology once only available in doctors' offices. its wireless remote lets you control the intensity, and helps you get back to things like this... this... or this. and back to being yourself. aleve direct therapy. find yours in the pain relief aisle.
we have more on breaking news from the top of the hour. four african-americans facing hate crime and kidnaps charges for kidnapping and beating of white special needs teenager. it was shown on facebook live. >> do you have insight why they stream this or motivation to publicize this as they did? >> i can't understand why anybody puts anything on facebook. >> well millions use facebook
and significant number seen crimes committed on facebook. warning, some of this is tough to watch. >> reporter: june last year in chicago. antonio perkins on facebook live drinking tequila, last thing he does before he's shot dead. perkins falls to the ground. camera does too but keeps recording. >> oh, my god. oh, my god. >> police look into whether perkin's killer used facebook live to pinpoint his location but a suspect is never identified. in norfolk, virginia, a month after that, three men hanging out in car singing along with music. all streaming with facebook live, music interrupted by gun fire, the camera falls but keeps
streaming. more than two dozen shots fired in just about 20 seconds. man who comes to their record is heard off camera. >> stay relaxed. look at me. >> victims ask for medical attention. the men all survived. weeks later u.s. marshals arrested tony angelo roundtree charged with using firearm during a felony and says he's innocent. grand jury could indict him. october 2013, this man uses facebook live to boast about shooting five people and fatally stabbing two others. >> this ain't a joke. this ain't a brank. >> michael vance is on the run using facebook live to taunt the
police. >> this is more intense than what i thought it would be to say the least. >> but ends in shootout, vance killed at scene. that same month this man steals police cruiser in tulsa and using officer's ipad streams ride live on facebook. >> i'm in the cop car. where's my sirens at? hear them. >> after a high speed chase arrested, among the charges police say he faces, using electronics while driving. due in court but no word on his plea. >> kidnapping live streamed on facebook. that suspect and another man tried to force the victim out of the home, using a slang term for murder describing it. >> i guess catch a case when -- >> later arrested and charged
with among other things attempted second degree murder and attempted kidnapping. appears haven't yet entered a plea. randi kaye, cnn new york. >> we'll be right back. [bullfighting music] [burke] billy-goat ruffians. seen it. covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
and that's it for us. thanks for watching. "cnn tonight with don lemon" starts now. breaking news, stunning details from the classified intelligence report delivered to president barack obama today. this is "cnn tonight," i'm don lemon, sources tell know who turned offer and intercepted transmissions capture top officials celebrating donald trump's victory. this is just before due to sit down to brief him. and sources