tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN January 5, 2017 11:00pm-12:01am PST
his ride live on facebook. >> i'm in the cop car. where's my sirens at? [ siren ] >> reporter: after a high-speed chase the man is arrested. among the charges police say he faces, using an electronic device while driving. he was due in court last month. but there's no record of his plea. in baton rouge new year's day an attempted kidnapping live-streamed on facebook. >> [ bleep ]. pull you out your house. stop playing with me. >> reporter: that suspect and another man tried to force the victim out of the home using a slang term for murder to describe their plans on the live feed. >> i guess i got to catch a body or catch a case for these hos to stop playing with me. >> reporter: they were later arrested and charged with, among other things, attempted second-degree murder and attempted kidnapping. it appears they haven't yet entered a plea. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> all of it broadcast live. we'll be right back. i'ts your tv, take it with you. with directv and at&t,
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 cnn american spy agencies know who handed over stolen democratic e-mails to wikileaks and intercepted communications capture top russian officials celebrating donald trump's election victory. all this coming just hours before intelligence chiefs are due to sit down with trump behind closed doors to brief him on russia's actions. meanwhile, sources say president-elect donald trump will ask congress, not mexico, to pay for his promised border wall. and capitol hill republicans promising to take action this year to repeal obamacare despite the lack of any replacement plan. house speaker paul ryan also promising today to defund planned parenthood.
what will that mean for the health of american women? there's a whole lot going on. let's get right to gloria borger. she's our chief political analyst. dave rhode. and pamela anderson. this is part of donald trump's campaign speech we can all remember. listen to this. >> 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? [ crowd responds "mexico" ] >> who? >> mexico. >> by the way, 100%. >> there is some breaking news tonight on this topic. what exactly is going on? >> manu raju and deirdre walsh our reporters on capitol hill have reported that the president-elect's transition team is signaling to republicans in congress that they actually want to start fund iing the wal
through the appropriations process. not the appropriations process in mexico, but the one here. >> which means taxpayers. >> right. which means taxpayers. now the transition team will say that donald trump has always promised that mexico would reimburse us for the wall which implies we would pay for it first. but the question is, how would they get that passed? how many billions of dollars would that cost? and would the democrats shut down the government over this because they didn't want to fund this appropriation? >> did they say that? >> so there are lots of questions that need to be answered. >> there was that nuance about paying back but initially he said mexico i will make pay for the wall. >> he did. and as he went through the campaign, he did -- we looked it up. he said at one point that we would pay for the border wall with the understanding that mexico will reimburse us for it.
and then he said, mexico will pay. but what will be their motive to reimburse us for a wall we already paid billions of dollars for? oh, thank you very much. >> that's after saying something and coming back to correct it. which is often the case on twitter. >> they're clearly struggling with a way to figure this out. >> david. >> it's one of many examples of how is he actually going to govern? this is arguably his most famous promise and he's already moving around on this. what will happen over time, six months from now, if he reverses on other major issues like this. this is such a signature issue for him. >> pamela brown, let's move on. because you have some other breaking news to tell us about. fascinating new details about what the intelligence report on russian hacking is all about. what can you tell us about that? >> that's right, don. we've learned that the u.s. intelligence community has identified the go-between people that the russian government used to leak the documents to wikileaks according to our sources. so the u.s. has essentially identified those people you'll recall this week julian assange,
the founder of wikileaks, said it wasn't a russian government official that handed those documents over but we have learned that the russian government used what's called cutouts so other people to do the dirty work and apparently the u.s. knows who these people are and that information is in that classified comprehensive report that the president -- that was presented to the president today. also, don, in this report is intercepted communications of russian government officials celebrating and congratulating one another in some of these communications after donald trump won the election. we're told there's no smoking gun, where someone outright said we did x, y, z for donald trump to win. but it's just one piece of the puzzle that intelligence officials used to come up with high confidence that russia was behind the hack and in part wanted to help donald trump win. >> and also tonight retired general martin dempsey, pamela, the chairman of the joint chiefs, took to twitter and he said, "intelligence is hard
thankless work. fortunately, we have dedicated, patriotic and courageous men and women on the job. thanks." it's an extraordinary comment that is almost certainly aimed at donald trump. how often do generals weigh in in the middle of a political firestorm like this? >> i wouldn't say it's common for sure, don, especially for someone like dempsey, who has been very adamant up until now to stay apolitical, to stay out of the fray. but as you see there, it seems as though he's sort of breaking for that -- from that and sending this implicit message to donald trump, who has been casting doubt on the intelligence community's assessment. so you're seeing this outward tone from former officials, also current officials. we heard dni chief james clapper today also sending a strong message saying there's a difference between skepticism and disparagement. and he said it's a big concern, don. >> yeah, david, all of this rancor over intelligence puts military leaders in a tough spot. do you think that he felt, specifically on this one, general dempsey, that retired general dempsey, that he had to
come out and defend the intelligence community? >> yeah, i think there's a real sense in the intelligence community in the military, you know, we've been at war for 15 years so, this idea of disparaging them is really deeply disturbing. i've talked to four former cia officials just tonight. they say people are apoplectic about the way he's treating the intelligence community. morale is down. there aren't sort of resignations yet. so most importantly, this is very dangerous for donald trump politically. there was a story last night in the "wall street journal" he was going to revamp the entire intelligence structure. now today they're saying they're not going to do that. if he cuts funding, if he treats them this way and there is a terrorist attack in the united states and there's some kind of intelligence failure, he could be blamed for that. donald trump could be blamed for that. you know, this is a community that protects the united states. so if you're disparaging them, you're changing the system seemingly on a whim. that can come back to haunt you. >> has he backed himself into a corner with this? >> well, look. yes, i think he has. but it's okay.
there's nothing wrong with challenging intelligence. the president does it every day when he gets his daily brief. i mean, this is -- presidents are paid to be skeptical and ask questions. >> but to do it in public? >> well, that's exactly right. you don't do it in public to humiliate people. these are public servants, heroes, people who toil in secrecy on behalf of the united states and they don't always get it right but they are important and we depend on them for our national security. so what the president has done is set up a collision course not only with the intelligence community but also with republicans on capitol hill who support the intelligence community and who believe that their findings on the russian hack are appropriate. if i were going to brief donald trump tomorrow, i think this is what is in his head. what's in his head is don't delegitimize my election. okay?
and i think if i were briefing donald trump i would say mr. president-elect, we are not delegitimizing your election, we do not -- you won the election. but we want to tell you about what russia's intent was when they put the thumb on the scale of your side. and you have to decouple those things for donald trump because this is something he cares very deeply about. which is he legitimately won the election. nobody can challenge that. >> for him it's probably about his ego and about being -- which is very interesting because seemingly he tried to delegitimize the current president of the united states. >> but there were lots of things that influenced this election, and you know, the fake news and all the rest might have been a part of it. but donald trump won. and so you have to separate those two things. there are a lot of people who want to use this and say this delegitimizes his presidency.
i don't think that's what the intelligence community -- >> and they have said as much. >> exactly. >> i want to listen to the current president and then i'll let you respond, david. >> my hope is when the president-elect receives his own briefings and is able to examine the intelligence as his team has put together and they see how professional and effective these agencies are, that some of those current tensions will be reduced. >> so donald trump is standing alone in resisting what the intelligence community found. do you think he's going to change his tune after he's briefed tomorrow? >> he might. i mean, that's a smarter thing to do politically. but it's not clear. it's again these confusing signals. dan coats whoa named today as the directorf national intelligence, a moderate. he's respected. he worked with democrats when he was in the senate. there's a lot of controversy around flynn, the national security adviser. this disparagement of these findings. these accusations that it's politicized intelligence, that sort of echoes flynn's argument.
and more than any other figure in this national security team, flynn is really worrying people in the intelligence community. that's what i've heard from these four former officials today. >> david, gloria, pamela, thank you so much. i appreciate it. when we come right back, the former cia director who says he is no longer a top adviser to donald trump.
breaking news tonight. sources saying that u.s. spy agencies know who passed stole e-mails to wikileaks and they have information that russian officials celebrated donald trump's election victory. let's discuss now with michael chertoff, a former secretary of homeland security. p.j. crowley, former assistant secretary of state and author of "red line: american foreign policy in a time of fractured
politics and failing states." and ambassador r. james woolsey, chairman of the foundation for defense of democracies and the former director of central intelligence. good evening, gentlemen. thank you for coming on. ambassador woolsey, i have to go to you first. no longer associated with the trump campaign. what changed? >> well, it's not that i'm no longer associated. it's that i was letting people know by a statement i put out today that i am not now working on the transition. and i was simply changing a designation to make sure that nobody thought i was doing something that i wasn't. i worked on the campaign a bit as an adviser. and a little bit at the beginning on transition but i haven't been doing anything with the transition. i've been helping on backgrounding press on issues. and i just thought it was
better, sounder and more honest if i took the piece off the table that suggested that i was working on the transition because i'm really not. >> i want to play something you said in 2010, in a 2010 interview about julian assange. here it is. >> assange and the people who have done this definitely have blood on their hands. if you were someone who was trying to help the united states and our allies in afghanistan learn where the taliban were strong or if you were helping the united states in other parts of the world fight terrorism, you could well be put not just at risk but in serious risk of being killed by the enemies of the united states and freedom around the world. i consider mr. assange a handmaiden of terror and he definitely has blood on his hands as far as i'm concerned. >> so those are pretty strong words.
is donald trump giving credibility to assange, was that a turning point for you? >> no, not particularly. i mean, i think one can sometimes pull a quote out of what is shade by a really bad person and still find it useful. i've always been particularly fond of trotsky's "you may not be interested in war but war may be interested in you." i use that a lot. but i am not showing some allegiance to trotsky by saying it. >> thank you for responding to that. p.j. crowley to you first, you've been on the front lines of national security issues and political wars in washington. what do you make of the rift that donald trump has created with the intelligence community? >> i think he's painted himself into a corner certainly as we look forward to the confirmation hearings of his national security team, he's done them no favors. we saw this morning in the thoughtful hearing on capitol
hill a very strong sentiment by members of the senate on a bipartisan basis that this is a serious situation, some even called it attack on the united states. i'm not sure i would use that terminology necessarily. and so coming up next week with his team on capitol hill, they're going to have to try to figure out how to get to the middle ground. and senators today basically charted it out for mr. trump, which is there's a difference between interference, which is clear, and influence which is less clear in terms of what impact russia had on the election. but there's no question, particularly given the report that we now see and also the sentiment of capitol hill, that russia has done something that goes beyond a line and there will need to be consequences. >> michael, aside from the hacks, the russians are also spreading fake news. i want you to listen. this is senator tim kaine talking about that today.
>> you know, i had a little role in this election. i was along for the ride for 105 days and was the subject of a couple of fake news stories. and it was interesting. there were at least three that the mainstream media didn't cover because they were so incredible that like why would they. but i looked at one of the stories and it had been shared 800,000 times. and when i see an administration who has put in place as the proposed national security adviser someone who traffics in these fake news stories and retweets them and shares them, who betrays a sense of either gullibility or malice that would kind of be -- these are stories that most fourth-graders would find incredible. that a national security adviser would find them believable enough to share them causes me great concern. >> secretary chertoff, the russians have always spread disinformation that's different -- this is now a time of social media and the internet. but how dangerous has fake news become? >> i think we've seen this in europe over the last couple
years. some of you may remember when that airliner was shot down over the ukraine by forces that were sympathetic to russia, there were russian-sponsored media stories that blamed that on the ukrainian government in order to create a smoke screen and confusion. we've seen other instances. there was one in the last couple years where there was an effort to hack into ukrainian media and present false stories about the outcome of an election there. so this has been a problem the europeans have lived with for a long time. there's a certain element of fake news that's driven by economics. you have these kids in macedonia who are making money by driving clicks to these outrageous stories. but we also have seen for years that as a matter of statecraft and strategy the russians do use social media as well as conventional media to drive a narrative that confuses the west and even winds up drawing sympathy away from the u.s. and toward --
>> how much of an influence do you think it had in this election? >> i don't think what came out in this election was particularly influential. but i think when you look at some of the stories that have appeared in europe and when you look at the elections that are coming up this year i suspect we're going to see a much more concerted effort and one that may find more traction and frankly rather than looking back at the election, which i think was legitimate and i don't think it was affected, i think we need to look forward to what is going to come next because i think as they say you ain't seen nothing yet. >> ambassador woolsey, are you concerned that general flynn, trump's national security adviser, has trafficked in fake news stories? >> i didn't know that he had trafficked in fake news stories. that's news to me. >> there was the incident of him retweeting fake news stories. his son, who was on his team, also trafficked in fake news stories. i think we may have discussed them, i'm not sure, with you
here. >> trafficked in the sense of sending them to a few people you know and saying isn't this weird or -- >> giving them credence by putting them on social media, which everyone in the world has access to, and by retweeting them. >> well, one of the reasons i've stayed away from social media is lack of technical competence to deal with it. so i'm not entirely sure what the implications are of this. i just believe that one ought to, if you send something out that is clearly false, you probably ought to put some kind of indicator on it, look, isn't this weird or whatever. and i don't know that he didn't do that. >> p.j., i'll ask you the same question. does that concern you? >> i think it is a concern. but i think it also just reflects the fact that we've been waiting for this pivot
where you know, the trump team appears to still be in campaign mode and they're now at the cusp of governing and they haven't yet made the shift. as gloria said in the last segment, so much of their inner thought processes has become public and that is new and that's probably something that they'll have to adopt to once, you know, they're in control. i mean, you have the situation where donald trump is still positioning himself as an outsider, as an opponent of government. yet very soon he's going to be the owner and operator of that government and responsible for its functioning and responsible for the welfare of intelligence operatives and military people that go into harm's way every day on our behalf. >> secretary chertoff, we are just 15 days away from the inauguration. what are the security challenges? are they greater than in the past? which ones are greater than in the past? >> well, i would say this. since 9/11, and it was certainly
true when we prepared for the inauguration in 2009, the concern about terrorism at an inauguration has been obviously at the forefront. that's over and above the challenge of dealing with a large crowd, people coming in from other parts of the country who may not be familiar with washington. so i think in light of what we've seen in europe, in light of what i call crowdsourcing of terrorism by isis where they go on social media and encourage people to pick up a gun, a knife or the keys to a car to carry out an attack, i think one of the prime focuses will be to make sure we have a secure experience both for the participants and for the spectators. >> all right. thank you, gentlemen. i appreciate it. up next, has donald trump changed his mind about one of his signature campaign promises, one that got him roaring cheers at his campaign rallies?
bakari sellers. okay. here we go. we heard it so much, build that wall. mexico's going to pay for the wall. you heard what i said kayleigh, house gop officials are now telling cnn that donald trump is going to ask congress to pay for the wall. so what happened to this signature campaign promise? is it changing? are taxpayers going to pay for it now? >> i hope it's not changing. it's one thing to ask congress to pay for the wall and then go about getting some source of funding from mexico. in fact you can look on trump's website, there's a detailed plan using the patriot act, regulations that would allow him to tax remittances. so i think he has to at least pursue this route if he wants to engage congress first, get taxpayers to pay for it first, and then go to mexico, make sure that we get -- tax these remittances and the four streams of income he has listed and how he'll pay for the wall via mexico, fine. but i think he has to make some effort to have pay for it because it was a key promise. >> that was a lot of 'splaining.
>> if you're explaining you're losing. >> well -- >> congressman, are we ever going to see a wall? >> we will see a wall. the overarching message here is immigration security. controlling the borders. and building a wall is more important than paying for the wall. or who's going to pay for the wall. all right bakari, you hang in there. i can tell you, republicans want the wall built. we want the benefits of the wall, the security, keeping the drugs out, keeping the illegals out, keeping potential terrorists who aren't mexicans from coming in. that's all important. and if he wants to get it done quickly, putting it in the april 28th bill and getting this thing started, that's number one sell. >> hillary, that was a lot of 'splaining too. >> she's loving it. >> go ahead, hillary. >> when you're 'splaining, you're losing. this is crazy. he no more is going to get mexico to pay for that wall than
he is going to be able to keep everybody on their own insurance plan once he repeals obamacare. this is just kind of the problem of governing. and donald trump is quickly finding out that all of that stuff he said during the campaign, he just can't keep his promises to the american people. and you know, we're just going to add it up. we're going to add up all the things he said he was going to do that now we're not going to do. and we'll have republicans spinning like tops about why it doesn't matter. >> bakari, do you see a scenario -- imagine this, though. where democrats could end up trying to shut down the government over this, use a tactic that republicans have used before. >> definitely. i think all the tactics are on the table. i think you saw that the president of the united states even when he he was speaking to democrats a few days ago it was about obamacare but it's about just the tone and tenor they need to take is about adopting a lot of the tea party tactics. speaking of tea party, it's kind of ironic that my fellow panelmate here, former tea party
congressman jack kingston is now saying it doesn't matter who's going to pay for it. i just think that's the height of irony. but we can argue about the fact that met migration from mexico is zero. we can talk about the fact that most people don't actually go across a wall or dig tunnels, they actually take planes to come to the united states. and we know that most people actually overstay their visas. those are the majority of the people here illegally. we can talk about all of that. but donald trump was actually right when he was chanting who's going to pay for the wall. he meant new mexico. not just mexico, don. >> bakari, let me say this. good line, number one. but the truth of the matter is, republicans are actually very concerned about immigration security. we don't know who and what has been coming over those borders, so really in all seriousness building the wall is paramount. secondary issue was having mexico pay for it. but i promise if you polled it right now with republican base voters they would still be extremely happy and comfortable having a wall built.
>> even with the taxpayers paying for it? >> no matter who pays for it? i don't think so. >> absolutely. >> but that's the biggest problem. he's not the president of the republican base. he's the president of the united states of america. and if we're going to talk about the fact -- it's really an incorrect headline to say that congress is going to pay for the wall because congress is not going to pay for the wall. the five of us here talking today and all the taxpayers watching are going to pay for this wall. and i can tell with you student loans and everything else i don't feel like paying for this wall. >> hillary, quekly because i want to move on to another subject. go ahead. >> part of the rhetoric around building the wall and making mexico pay for it was really sort of an anti-immigrant -- a racist anti-latino symbolism and i think what's happening is when you see that rhetoric fall apart the whole coalition falls apart. i do think we're going to start to see this divide between donald trump and the republican congress, who are not going to be able to keep the promises that he's made to the american people. >> as this plays out -- sorry kayleigh, we're going to talk
more. you know that. we have lots of time to discuss this. 24 hours a day. but i want to talk in this discussion and get congressman kingston's reaction to this. tidal wave of intelligence news today. you have clapper who's testifying that russia hacked the election. you have intercepts showing that russian officials celebrated donald trump's win. you have the intel report identifying the go-betweens russia used to give stolen e-mails to wikileaks. is all of this putting the president-elect in a tough spot where he's sort of painting himself into a corner? >> i don't think it is, i'll tell you why, i think the democrats have turned this whole thing into politics and people back home watching they're saying i'm a little confused. is this not just this is not my president, the never trump -- >> what do you mean democrats? people in the intelligence community are democrats? >> i think the intelligence community has been used as a political pawn by democrats and by non-trump supporters to say look, this is not how you handle these things and this is what he
said, this is what the fbi said, this is what the cia said. and you keep getting these intelligence community leaks to the press which in my opinion is not called for at all. it's beyond the pale. it's probably unprecedented. i was on the committee that had a lot of classified briefings with the intelligence community. i think there is a shake-up that's needed. but i've never seen the intelligence community talk to the press the way they have -- >> you say democrats -- hold on. hold on. you say it's democrats. but let's put up what general dempsey said if we still have that. he's the chairman of the joint chiefs. he says "intelligence is hard thankless work. fortunately we have dedicated patriotic and courageous men and women on the job. thanks." he's saying this no doubt to defend the intelligence community. he's not saying it as a partisan person. he's saying it as a member of the intelligence community. >> but he's not the foremost voice out there. the foremost voices out there are in many respects and many times the same people who were against trump and who were hillary supporters.
>> sorry. that's not true -- >> that's not true. >> that is not true. >> you have the republican chairman of the senate armed services committee holding these hearings today. let's just remember that. you had a majority of the republicans on the senate armed services committee today expressing their concern about the russians interfering with u.s. elections. denying the fact that it had anything to do with delegitimizing the election, jack. and you know they were saying reblth for the intelligence community is of paramount importance to u.s. national security. and they went out of their way to distance themselves from the president-elect on that very point because they know how damaging it is. >> congressman, stand by. we'll let you respond after the break.
back now with former congressman jack kingston, kayleigh mcenany, hillary rosen and bakari sellers. congressman, you were making a point. >> well, what i will say. and hillary, i have to correct you. immigration security is not about racism at all. and i think it's time democrats get away from that. there are illegal problem, illegal immigrations going on. it displaces american jobs. drugs are being smuggled in. in many cases there's a criminal element that's out there. it's not a matter of racism.
it's a matter of national security. and so -- but when people say well, it's just racism, then that reduces the whole argument back to politics and then it's, you know, trump versus hillary land or red versus blue. it's not conducive to the conversation. and hillary, i have great respect for you. so i'm not lecturing you at all. i would never do that. >> while lecturing her. >> i wouldn't lecture bakari given the chance. but hilary, i'm saying as a reflection of democrats, it's not conducive to say this is all about racism because i have to say, it's not about that at all. >> well, i just don't think you could have been at those rallies. you can't have been at the post-election scenarios and just heard the way people talked about the wall as a symbol of keeping people out of this country, of dividing us, of make us feel less than, and still have that view. but it's an old argument. i don't need to keep going at it. >> let's discuss now. kayleigh, i want to play something. this is director clapper's
testimony on election hacking. look. >> this was a multifaceted campaign. so the hacking was only one part of it. and it also entailed classical propaganda, disinformation, fake news. >> does that continue? >> yes. >> kayleigh, break this down for me. u.s. intelligence certain that russia hacked the election. republicans and democrats agree. lindsey graham, republican. john mccain certainly, you know, marquee republicans. why does donald trump continue to dismiss it yout aoutright? >> two things are going on. donald trump is rightly frustrated that democrats are doing what jack said, they're politicizing that. he's right on that. he can even question the intelligence community. that is fine. but i think at this point you have to conclude where there's smoke there's fire, russia did hack the dnc. that happened. did it influence a single vote but it did happen.
and you have top republicans admitting this. you had just a few -- >> even the intelligence reports say we don't think it would change the election. >> but -- >> right. >> so why would he continue to doubt it if it's not going to change that he is the president-elect? >> exactly. this is where -- i'm a supporter of donald trump. i want to see him succeed. and he could make this go away if he just said this happened, it didn't influence the election, the sanctions should stand, let's move on. >> okay. >> there are a couple of things that are wrong with that. the first is that kayleigh and jack have tried to diminish this to be a partisan fight which it's not. this effort was led by john mccain today. he is the chairman of the armed services committee. that's first. and second, i think it's very disrespectful for kayleigh and jack or anyone else to sit up here and say that the people who go out of their way to serve our country and secure this information, who are part of our intelligence community, are playing politics. that's second. >> i didn't say that, bakari. you're putting words in my mouth. i said democrats are. not intelligence officials. those are different things.
>> the third thing that's incorrect is that you simply cannot dismiss this by saying that i agree that they hacked the dnc. yes, they may not have hacked specific machines in this country. that may be true. but they engaged in propaganda much like we see them engage in russia. so that is true. you simply cannot dismiss this by saying i agree with the intelligence community, now let's move on. >> no, i didn't say that. you missed half my statement. >> what you had -- what you had was you had russia, who actually committed an act of warfare, cyber warfare, on the united states of america. that is a fact. and if donald trump or jack kingston or any other republicans want to believe julian assange -- >> if it was warfare, where was the president of the united states who claims he knew about this october 7th? why did he not declare war if you will then? >> because -- >> he thought hillary was going to win and didn't say anything. >> because the president did not want to put his scales on this election. that's very clear. i think the white house should have stepped up on october 7th
and made everybody's head blow up by coming out and saying that russia was meddling in this election. and yes, i think that would have -- >> they were not meddling -- >> okay. stop. this is also really important and our time is short,hi hilary. and i want to turn to you. i want to talk about other big news. obamacare, the speaker of the house paul ryan says they're going to move to stop funding obamacare, planned parenthood part the repeal as well. elections have consequences. did you see this coming so quickly? >> i think we did see it coming so quickly. that's why elections have such big stakes. but do i think this is a very divided country. i do not think that the majority of people in this country want to see poor women lose access to health care. planned parenthood does not get any money from the government to fund abortions. they get money from the government just like any other health care provider to do cancer screenings and birth control and other sorts of basic fundamental health care for women. and people do not want to see
the republicans in congress go so far to the right that they take away health care for women. they do not want insurance for poor people taken away. if the republicans overplay their hand here, i think it's a problem. they cannot have it both ways and i think that donald trump is going to be on the chopping block on this very issue because he has tried to have it both ways. >> kayleigh, go ahead. >> i agree with you. i don't want any woman to lose health care, access to breast cancer screening. they don't have to. there are 1200 federal facilities that can do the same exact screening mechanisms but they don't have to go to planned parenthood where 300,000 babies a year are slaughtered. they don't have to go there -- >> there is no substitute for those health centers. >> you don't need a shield to cover for abortion. i get that. there are many options where people don't lose health care and they also don't have to be complicit in the killing of babies. >> it is just factually untrue that the federal government is supporting abortion. it is factually untrue. >> they're supporting an organization that's the number one provider of abortion. that is factually true.
>> they are not providing any abortion funding. and there is simply no alternative for so many women in this country in rural health centers across this country. and if the republicans go this far and actually -- >> an argument that prop gates genocide on unborn babies in this country. >> we will find a backlash beyond control. >> when we come back, 15 days to go until donald trump takes the oath of office but as a trump team plans a celebration others are planning protests.
for opponents of president-elect donald trump, is inauguration day the time to hit the streets and protest or to lay low as the nation celebrates a peaceful transfer of power? let's discuss now. cnn political commentator kevin madden, republican strategyist, is here. and also cnn political commentator charles blow, a "new york times" columnist. thank you for joining us. charles blow, you wrote a column today. it's called "the anti-inauguration." and in it you write this about
donald trump. "now is the time to begin making plans to send him the strongest possible signal that your opposition to the presidency will not be pouting and passive but active and animated." what do you mean about it? talk to me about the anti-inauguration. >> well, i just think that, you know, resistance itself is kind of a passive and negative positioning of yourself and your authority and your passions. and so what i want people to do is to turn to positive articulations of their principl principles, to look at all of the things that donald trump and indeed the republican congress and the senate have targeted or said they would target as part of this administration and over the next four years or at least over the next two years while they absolutely still have control and to say if these things matter to me what is it that i can do that is positive
and affirming for me in my beliefs? i learned in sunday school a long time ago as a little boy that they used to say faith without works is dead. i also believe that resistance without action is dead. you have to do something. it cannot just be pouting online, cannot be tweeting people -- >> or hashtags. hashtag it. >> you actually have to donate your time. >> i've got to get kevin in now. charles asks this question in the column today, kevin. he said what is the proper response to a president as polarizing as mr. trump? should the office of the president be honored no matter who fills it or should there be four years of pure rejection and defiance? what do you think? >> well, look, i enjoyed the column. i think it made several good points. i think the big challenge for a lot of folks that are very resistant to the idea of a trump presidency is are they going to be opponents for opposition's sake or did going to be channeled in a way that charles talks about in his column toward
persuasion, which is we recognize that we are in a very hyperpartisan environment right now. there is very little that you can do to change the minds of trump's most ardent supporters. there's probably very little you can do to change the minds of trump's harshest critics. but there is a big very mobile middle still in this country. and when those protests or that opposition is focused on persuading and changing those minds, i think that's always where the most -- >> kevin? >> -- value is. >> do you think it's hyperpartisan or do you think it's people who just don't like the way donald trump conducted business on the campaign trail? because there's a difference. i don't know if i've really seen this when there was a transition between a democrat and a republican, this sort of resistance. don't you think this has more to do with donald trump than it has to do with partisanship? >> for some there is. but i do think there is, what i've witnessed during this particular campaign is a partisan tribalism where there is nothing that you could do, no evidence, no facts, no reason to change somebody's minds if they're a supporter of trump. and the same goes for those who are opponents of donald trump.
no matter what you argued with them with facts or with reason they refused to see an issue through a different lens. let's remember, though, right now i still think as much as those folks get the attention there is still a very mobile big middle in american politics that can be persuaded. >> charles, let's talk about some of the big stories tonight. paul ryan said -- >> can i say this? i don't think i wrote that second passage you read. but go ahead. >> some of the big stories, paul ryan said today that together with dismantling obamacare republicans will also strip the funding from planned parenthood. two republican senators, susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska, pro choice. could defunding planned parenthood kill their obamacare bill? >> you know, it's an interesting question. whether or not -- will it kill the repeal i guess is what you're asking because they don't actually have a bill to introduce yet. and in fact they have said they're going to do that on a
piecemeal basis. so could it kill their chances of killing obamacare? i don't know if they have -- if it's to that level yet. one thing i will say and which i think is really important, which is that lack of health care is a slow creeping death. and it relates to planned parenthood and it also relates to the killing of the affordable care act. you won't necessarily see people dying left and right in the street, but eventually they die because you do not have health care. it's preventative care that keeps people alive. it is treatment of people who have diseases that are situations that are considered to be pre-existing conditions. people literally die. and what we're going to see is people day. that is a real thing. that is not about partisanship. that is a real thing. and women in particular get services from planned parenthood that are not about abortions.
>> kevin, is this too big of a reach for republicans, do you think? >> well, look, i think there's a way -- this is how i look at this. i think a lot of people to this point, the health care debate, the obamacare debate, affordable care act debate, has been had through a different lens and it's been one that's worked for republicans. and i think this could potentially reframe it. up until this point it has been a dollars and cents argument. when obamacare premiums spiked toward the end of the campaign, that had a very negative effect on voters and their views of a potential hillary clinton presidency and how they judged the last eight years. it was also an economic value argument. there were different opinions about how people got access, the affordability of their care. i still think that largely worked to the republicans' favor in this particular election. this debate, this turns it into a bit of a culture war. and that is a much more difficult fight right now, and it's probably not one that many republicans decided that was how they wanted to spend the first
100 days of this presidency. >> kevin, charles, thank you very much. >> great to be with you. >> when we come right back, crime that president obama calls despicable. new developments in the case of a brutal attack on a special needs teen. the whole thing broadcast on facebook live. why is my son having trouble in school? [beep] finding lowest airfare to istanbul. no. i'm tired of fighting with my son over his homework. [beep] home wok restaurant. need a review? no! he's smart but his mind wanders. [beep] seven wonders of the world.