tv At This Hour With Berman and Bolduan CNN January 6, 2017 8:00am-9:01am PST
a text message alert to dad, to mom, to other people who might be closer to you on campus. they can all call each other or emergency services. the app comes out in april and costs ten bucks a month, carol. >> that's awesome, samuel, thank you so much. thank you for joining me today. i'm carol costello. at this hour, berman and bolduan starts now. hello, everybody, i'm kate bolduan. john berman is off today. a tale of two meetings for president-elect donald trump in new york. right now it's magazine moguls but shortly it's the nation's top intelligence leaders, a meeting which has become the most highly anticipated and talked about of the president-elect's transition. after months of casting doubt on the intelligence community's conclusion that russia was the source of the election hacks, the president is set to get a classified briefing.
in the room will be donald trump, mike pence, incoming national security adviser michael flynn, fbi director james comey, director of national intelligence james clapper and director of the nsa, mike rogers, a whole slew of heavyweights meeting behind closed doors. intel leaders will present a final report of evidence they've gathered pointing the finger at russia. they'll give the evidence that russia did it and why they did it, in their view, at least in part to help donald trump. cnn's evan perez joins me. evan, after all that back and forth and on tv, what's this meeting will be like? >> reporter: to be a fly on the wall at that meeting would be incredible. one of the things we expect he'll final tell him is some of what the intelligence has shown. we're told part of that includes
the identification of intermediaries who the intelligence community believes provided the wikileaks website e-mails stolen by hackers working for russian intelligence. this is part of the information we expect will be presented to the president-elect. the top intelligence officials will be briefing him within the next hour and a half or so in new york. and this is the first time that trump will really see an extensive report that looks at not only the hacks during the election that just passed, but also the cyber hacks going all the way back to 2008, in that election year. we're told by officials that u.s. intelligence agencies have also collected intercepts of russian officials expressing happiness at donald trump's victory on november 8th. the problem is that that information is not necessarily considered a smoking gun evidence against the russians. it's rather part of a broader piece of the picture that they've put together. we know that the director of national intelligence, james
clapper, told senators at a hearing yesterday, kate, that the intelligence agencies believe the evidence points at russia more resolutely than they did back in october when they first made the charge. the question now is whether donald trump changes his tune and accepts the message from the intelligence community. >> evan, that is highly anticipated. a lot more to come on that, thank you so much. i want to make a note for all of you, live pictures of president obama near and around the white house grounds. he could be walking right now to head over to -- say again? walking over to the blair house where he's going to be sitting down for a live interview with reporters from fox. we'll be bringing you parts of that interview when he sits down. much more on that to come. also this, this morning. remember donald trump's number one campaign promise, to build a
wall on the southern border and make mexico pay for it? if you need a refresher, i'm happy to provide. >> we will build a great wall along the southern border. and mexico will pay for the wall. we are going to build the wall. it will be a real wall. who is going to pay for the wall? the top person, the president of mexico, said we will never, ever pay for that wall. you know what i said? i said, the wall just got ten feet higher. >> the president-elect, the transition, they're still promising to build a wall. but the bill for the wall may now be sent to the american people, at least first, at least initially. cnn's senior political reporter manu raju joins me live from capitol hill. manu, what exactly are you picking up right now about this? are republicans considering what
they're hearing right now, are they considering this, the president-elect, going back on a campaign promise? >> reporter: they are. in fact what i've heard from republican sources who have been in meetings with trump transition officials, that the message has been very clear to them that this should be funded in the trump transition team's view through the appropriations process on capitol hill. that means this april, they need to pass a bill to keep the government open. there is a push behind the scenes in order to it some money in there to pay for this wall. now, trump is saying that that is actually the first step. they say that they're going to get reimbursed later down the line by imposing some punitive measures on mexico. and this is what trump tweeted this morning, saying the dishonest media does not report that any money spend on building the great wall for the sake of speed will be paid back by mexico later.
there is a lot of skepticism, i can tell you, on capitol hill. i talked to a lot of house republicans this morning whether they think donald trump can get mexico to reimburse the united states for potentially up to $10 billion to build such a wall. here is one house conservative, mo brooks, who talked tough about the consequences that donald trump could receive from the american voters if he does backtrack from that promise. >> how would voters react if donald trump doesn't keep that promise about mexico? >> i can't speak as to how voters generally will react, if american taxpayers are forced to pay for that wall. i can tell you how i would react. i would be disappointed. >> reporter: the question is where do they go from here. if they insist on including it in that spending package at the beginning of this year and how democrats respond, because the challenge is going to be not just getting it through the house but more importantly, the senate, where democrats could certainly filibuster a spending
bill, potentially threaten a government shutdown, if they can't get a deal with democrats, that means having to take it out, so what happens with the wall? a lot of questions about whether or not donald trump can maintain his central campaign promise, kate. >> absolutely. manu, a lot more to come on that, it appears, thank you so much. let's discuss this with republican congressman from florida dennis ross, also a member of donald trump's transition team. congressman, thanks so much for the time. >> thank you, kate. >> as you just heard from manu, sources are telling manu that it's the president-elect's purchasers now that the money come from congress, not mexico up front. kellyanne conway, you know her very well, counselor to the president-elect, just this morning said it was congress who wants to do it this way because they want it to happen faster. whose idea was this, congressman? >> well, let's go back a little bit. back in 2006, congress appropriated and mandated that the fence or the wall be finished in the southwestern
border, 700 miles. they appropriated $11 billion. directed homeland security to do that. homeland security never did. never finished the fence. even though the money was appropriated. it is a function of congress to do the appropriations. we have to do this. we can't just have mexico send us a check and say, now use that check to pay for it. we have to do it. but most importantly -- >> wait. on that point, congressman, you just said we can't tell mexico to send us the check, right? >> we can tell them, but they -- they will have negotiations to pay for the fence. there is no question about that. i know donald trump's going to do that. he has many tools that he can use to do that. but most importantly, we have to finish the fence. i've even filed a bill, i did last session, i'm doing this session, to direct homeland security to do what we've already appropriated them to do, that's finish the 700 miles of fence. the number one issue in this election was national security. we've got to finish the fence. we can argue over how they're going to pay for it over time. but it has to come through congress. that's the appropriations process.
we control that process. and so yes, it will come through congress. but most importantly, it must be done. that's the top priority. >> so -- but as you well know, the president of mexico has said very clearly they are not going to pay for it. how are you going to force mexico -- and this is the crux of it. this was the crux of the question during the campaign, it did not -- it went unanswered. how do you force mexico to eventually foot the bill for the wall, for the fence? can you 100% guarantee today to taxpayers, to your constituents, that they're not going to be on the hook for this, congressman? >> right now we have to finish the fence. second of all, we have to go through the process of getting mexico to pay for it. that can be done through trade agreements. it can be done through negotiations. there are ways that that can be done. but just -- >> negotiations does not guarantee that you're going to get everything that you want.
>> nobody has seen a president-elect like this man. nobody expected him to be there. and now you see where gm, ford, and carrier -- and the man isn't even sworn in yet. i wouldn't underestimate what donald trump can do as a negotiator just based on his success in what he's been able to do not even being sworn in yet. >> i definitely do not underestimate donald trump, that's absolutely true. i do say, though, but today, congressman, because this was the promise on the trail, mexico's going to pay for it, and this is what people loved about donald trump, that he was standing strong and that mexico was going to pay for it and it was not going to be on the lap of voters. how much time is going to pass? the voters are going to foot the bill for this wall or fence, before mexico is going to pay for it? >> what would be worse is if we never build the wall and continue to have illegal activity going across our board. >> it is a different question,
though, if you would have asked them, congressman, will you pay billions of dollars for a wall. that was never really the question during the campaign. because donald trump promised that it was going to be mexico. >> and in my estimation, and seeing what has happened with this president-elect, it will most likely be mexico. in one way or another it will be mexico. meantime you can't stand idly by and bicker over how we're going to get them to pay for it. we can be to build a fence. national security is a number one issue. we have to make sure we take that very seriously and finish the fence. >> most likely, but can't guarantee, right? >> i don't know if there's any guarantees here other than april 15th, come tax day. >> that is true. or that there's going to be some kind of partisan plot on capitol hill. i'm going to be a betting woman on that one. let's talk about one other topic, congressman. the president-elect is about to be briefed by intel leaders that
russia was behind the hack. you want to see the proof pointing to russia. if he leaves the briefing and is now convinced that it is russia, is that enough for you? >> it will be enough for me. i have not seen the evidence. i have not been priviley to the intelligence reports. i'm time to have this meeting. it's time to have the conversation between the president-elect and the intelligence community. look, this intelligence community, we want to be the best in the world, period. no question about it. we don't want politics involved in it. that's not where we are today. there needs to be a relationship there. he has put together i think a very good team. just yesterday, with senator dan coats being appointed, director of national intelligence, is a tremendous move in the right direction from a bipartisan point of view. yes, i'm hopeful that this meeting today will resolve those issues, and we can go forward. >> you said that the relationship with the intelligence community is necessary, having a good relationship is necessary. during yesterday's hearing, the head of the nsa, admiral rogers,
made clear that he was concerned that the impact of this drawn-out and public back and forth, casting doubt on what the intelligence community has concluded already, coming from the president-elect, he's concerned about the impact on the people in the field. listen to this. >> what we do i think is relevant, and we realize that what we do is in no small part driven in part by the confidence of our leaders in what we do. and without that confidence, i just don't want a situation where our workforce decides to walk. because i think that really is not a good place for us to be. >> no matter what comes out of this briefing, do you think this public back and forth between the president-elect and the intel community, do you think this has hurt those in the field? >> well, i think the past history over the last several years, when this intelligence
community gave a report to the president, obama at the time, that isis was a jv team, that we've seen undersecretary patrick kennedy try to convince the cia to wipe the server clean of the secretary of state after the benghazi affair, we see the attorney general meeting on the tarmac, there has been a history that's taken away the credibility of the intelligence community. >> i'm asking you about the actions of the president-elect so far and what he said towards the community. do you like that? >> these are government agencies. and i think when the american people spoke, they spoke about every government agency being under review, including the intelligence community. and it is important. but he's putting his people, general kelly, he's putting him in there, my good friend mike pompeo as cia director, these are good people he has a strong relationship with that will control the intelligence community. again, kate, i have to tell you, we need to have the best, most capable, most compensatent peop
in the intelligence community and give them the resources necessary so they are correct in what they're doing. >> i think everyone would agree on that. but there's still going to be a lot of people providing the raw data today that are going to be working under the president-elect, essentially, tomorrow. that's the question. congressman, we'll leave it there, thank you for your time, we appreciate it. >> yes, ma'am. coming up, irresponsible. that's what president obama says about the repeal and delay strategy of obamacare. next, a live interview with president obama as he prepares to leave the white house. and just in, the last jobs report of the obama's presidency, more than 11 million new jobs added during his time in office. what does that mean? how does that stack up? and how does donald trump respond and take that on? plus harsh words. vice president joe biden tells president-elect donald trump to grow up, and that it's time to be an adult.
what are the numbers? >> he's handing over basically a strong job market to president-elect donald trump. this is what it looks like for the year now. we can see had a this whole year looks like. 160,000 new jobs in december, and november was stronger than economists thought, 200,000 jobs there. after the first year of the obama presidency, since then it's been going down. the 4.7% you see here, that ticked up just a little bit, for a good reason, because people are coming off of the sidelines and starting to look for jobs again, almost 200,000 people more encouraged about what they're hearing about the labor market, what they're hearing from their friends and family about getting jobs, and they're coming off the sidelines to try to get jobs. 4.7%, economists will tell you that's nearing full employment. ceos tell me they're having trouble matching workers with the jobs available. they're having trouble finding enough workers with the right skills for some of their jobs. that's a big question, i think,
and a challenge for the new administration going forward. here is the job growth under president obama. remember those first months, how terrible it was, every single month, reporting 700, 800,000 jobs lost? 5 million jobs lost in 2009. really a stunning collapse in the american economy in the labor market. but then slowly crawling out of there, year after year. new jobs created under president barack obama after this terrible 2009, more than 15 million jobs, kate. >> when you're looking at new jobs, when you're looking at job growth, how does job growth compare for president obama to past presidents? that's a legacy item. >> it is a legacy item. let's look at the numbers. just jobs created minus jobs lost. so net new jobs, george w. bush, only 1.3 million. that was a very weak recovery from a couple of financial setbacks. barack obama comes in with 11.3 million. ronald reagan had strong job growth of 16 million in his
eight years in office. but nothing compares to bill clinton. think about what was happening in those clinton years. he had almost 23 million new jobs created. why? because a guy named bill gates invented something that all of us put on our desks now. it really transformed how we work, an explosion of innovation and productivity at that time and job growth exploded along with it. that's sort of how it ranks overall here. let me show you where jobs are being created, health care, huge job creation there. this month, 43,000 net new jobs there. food services, these are lower paid jobs. states have been raising their minimum wages. so these are jobs that are paying more, a dollar more in some cases, an hour. manufacturing was interesting, 17,000 net new jobs created there. that has been a weaker spot more recently. that's of course why you had manufacturing jobs and factory jobs, such a big component of this election. >> that will continue to be a huge focus going forward. >> absolutely. >> tail winds for donald trump.
thank you so much. right now president obama is defending his legacy, calling republicans' repeal and delay strategy on obamacare irresponsible. you're taking a look at the live interview happening with the president, with president obama. we'll bring you the big moments just ahead. plus just in, donald trump giving an interview to "the new york times" just before being briefed by the nation's top intelligence leaders on the russian hack. he's calling the criticism against him a witch hunt. details on that, next. you do all this research
very shortly donald trump will be sitting down with the top leaders of the u.s. intelligence apparatus. our spy apparatus, to get a classified briefing on the final report that the intelligence community says helped it reach the conclusion that russia was behind the hacks during the election. that's about to happen. what has already happened, though, before this is donald trump speaking to "the new york times" in a new interview and talking specifically about this, one of the big headlines here is that donald trump is talking about the investigation into the russian hacks, calling it a political witch hunt. let me bring in right now to discuss this moment cnn political commentator alist stuart, paul begala, and gloria borger. gloria, the full quote from "the new york times" says this: china relativity recently hacked 20 million government names, referring to the breach of
computers at the office of personnel management. here is the quote. how come nobody even talks about that? this is a political witch hunt. this all right before he's about to sit down and get it straight from the source. >> i think it's very clear the president-elect looks at this. he looks at this whole russian hacking controversy as a way to delegitimize his presidency, period. and he doesn't see it as a separate issue, which was the russians just intend in one way or another to put their thumb on the scale. and i think that you have to kind of figure out a way, if you're talking to donald trump, to decouple those two things, and to say, look, nobody is trying to delegitimize your presidency, you won, you know, you won in the electoral college, you are going to become president of the united states. but this notion of russia
hacking and trying to interfere with the democratic process is a separate issue that the intelligence community is concerned about, because guess what, the next time russia may be hacking you as president of the united states, and this is an issue that we all need to be concerned about. so separate those two things, and donald trump may decide to take it more seriously rather than feel threatened by it. >> but to this point, even when posed with that, why can't you separate those two things, trump and his transition, they cannot -- kellyanne conway this morning, she cannot separate those two things, because she says you, paul begala, are trying to delegitimize donald trump's presidency when you speak about this, any time you bring it up. >> he's legitimately going to be sworn in. and he is legitimately the beneficiary of a crime, of an act of war according to john
mccain. the russians wanted to tilt the election to trump. we know why. trump has talked about pulling back from our commitment to nato, the most successful military alliance which confronts russia. he's talked about perhaps approving russia's role in syria where there is a slaughter going on with blood on putin's hands. he's the most pro-russian politician in america, that's why intel tell us they celebrated when he won. trump lost the popular vote, we know. he won the three states that put him in. when he signs a law, i will obey it, when he enters the room, i will stand. and that victory is tainted by russian interference. it is simply true. it doesn't make him not president. >> that is not a cause and effect. >> these two things can co-exist, they interfered and he
is president. >> you say he is the beneficiary of this and they tipped their finger on the scale for him to win. we don't know that. we don't know that they tipped their finger on the scale for him to win. we do know for a fact that they did hack. they hacked into the dnc computers because they didn't have appropriate safeguards in place, that's their own fault. >> that's blaming the victim. >> there has been no evidence whatever -- >> according to donald trump, he feels like there's so much talk, like you said, that the hack benefitted him. we have no earthly idea if anyone voted for donald trump based on these hacks. >> i don't think the intelligence community is making that conclusion. that people changed their votes because they tried to tip the scale in favor of donald trump. they're speaking to what they have concluded is the motivation, and that's what's going to come out in this report. guys, we have a little bit of news. let me bring in chief national security correspondent jim sciutto on this. nancy pelosi speaking out,
saying we could learn details of this report sooner than we thought, jim? >> reporter: actually a source tells me, a source with knowledge, that the declassified version of this report will come out as soon as this afternoon. the only question remaining is the president-elect has not been briefed yet as well. i'm told that it will go to congress first, something of a courtesy, a protocol, but that the american public will get their first look at the declassified portion of this report this afternoon, as soon as this afternoon. keep in mind it was meant to be on monday. why is this important? for a couple of reasons. one, it will come out the same day donald trump receives his briefing with donald trump continuing to double and triple down on his doubts about that hacking. last night he was tweeting, calling it "so-called hacking," this morning telling "the new york times" that it's a political witch hunt. the public will see at least something of the evidence behind the intelligence community's high confidence assessment that russia is behind this hacking. we already know a little bit of what we're going to see in this
public report today, based on our own reporting. one is details on the intermediaries that russia used to release this information from the russian government to middle men in effect, then handed on to wikileaks. why is that important? because it will detail how this was not just about accessing this information but about strategically releasing it in the days and weeks leading up to the election. and of course the material targeting one party. i will add one note, that it is our own reporting that russians also accessed republican targets as well. we know that they accessed republican members of congress, some republican party organizations and thought leaders as well, but as we know, the focus of the material that was released principally targeted the democratic party. and it is for that reason that the intelligence community's assessment is they believe that russia with this hacking was trying to give an advantage to donald trump. >> jim, thank you so much for that. jim raises a really important thing i want to bring up, that
gets back to this new interview donald trump gave to "the new york times." when he's saying why he thinks it's a political witch hunt, because when china hacked, we weren't talking about it, and now everyone is talking about it. they made a distinction between these two specific incidents yesterday in the hearing. they said, with china, it was espionage, not great, of course, no one likes it, it was espionage. this was interfering in the u.s. election. that's activism. as jim lays out, it wasn't just that they hacked but that then there was a plan to release it. there was motivation, there was a plan on how they were going to leak it out. james clapper made a big distinction there. why can't donald trump make that distinction? >> i think jim presented some great information about republicans also being hacked but that information wasn't released. i think based on what we're hearing, certainly there was not a shadow of a doubt in that hearing yesterday by republicans and democrats that there was russian hacking that influenced the election, many people feel that way.
but donald trump needs to hear it himself and needs to see it himself. he has been frustrated with the fact that unnamed intel sources are saying this, unnamed reports say this. he wants to see the information himself. in my view, i don't see how he can come out of this hearing not feeling the same way as many republicans in those hearings yesterday. but he needs to see it himself. skepticism is healthy but i think once he sees it for himself -- >> what does that mean for sanctions? how does he not sign on to the sanction that lindsey graham is promising will be on his desk? >> i don't see how he can oppose them, particularly if a majority of the congress is -- and maybe a veto-proof majority of the congress is supporting them. i think that there's a big difference here, and james clapper talked about it yesterday, between the healthy skepticism that every president should have towards intelligence. we know about this because of the failure of the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. we've all been there, we've
relitigated that, we talked about that ad nauseam. and humiliation and disparagement of the people who are trying to protect this country. and these are people who toil in anonymity, most often, who are trying to get the best information and analysis to the president of the united states. and i think clapper tried yesterday to say, we cannot say exactly how this influenced the election because they don't know. they haven't interviewed every voter in the united states of america. so if donald trump could just take his own ego, insecurity, you know, whatever it is, personal sense of why are they trying to delegitimize me, out of this. and that's hard. but separate it from what he's going to hear from nonpartisan intelligence officials. that would be very useful.
>> the control room is going to kill me, i really want to get to this last question. this is on the dnc. the dnc wouldn't let them see the servers, meaning the fbi, that's the reporting we have, the fbi says the dnc would not give them access to the servers that were hacked. how can you be sure about hacking when you can't even get to the servers. why wouldn't the dnc give them access to the servers? >> i have no idea. you have to ask them. but that is blaming the victim. the intelligence leaders at the hearing were asked about that. they said with certainty, high confidence, james clapper, who has been in this game since 1961, for every president since then, from john kennedy to barack obama, he has serveders in kinds of roles. he said, i am more resolute than ever that this is russia. we need a full investigation and a full hearing. and i don't want to blame the victim. the victims here were the
democratic party, my friend john podesta, the chairman of the hillary campaign, in a campaign that the russians waged to try to tilt the election toward trump and in fact he won by the narrowest of margins. he was the beneficiary. i love gloria's analysis, you can tell she raised a 4-year-old. >> stop it right now. >> he does not need a chief of staff. he needs a nanny, a preschoolteacher, to say, calm down, donald. we need to look at what he does. in 14 days it will no longer be about tweets. if he does not sign on to sanctions, a fair comment that lindsey graham made yesterday, that barack obama was too timid, fair point. >> what lindsey graham will say after this, is at least he threw a pebble. that's what he will say to donald trump, because he wants to pressure donald trump to sign on to sanctions. now the control room is definitely going to give me -- this discussion will continue as the day continues. president obama is firing new shots at republicans, you're
looking at live pictures from an interview going on right now with president obama, calling republicans irresponsible for planning to repeal the affordable care act without a clear plan, at least not yet announced, to replace it. we'll get reaction from a republican senator coming up next who will be in the center of this all.
i won this 55 inch tv for less than $30 on dealdash.com. visit dealdash.com for great deals. and start bidding today! and my advice to the president-elect, in fact we talked about this when i met with him for an hour and a half right after he got elected, i said, you know, make your team and make the republican members of congress come up with things that they can show will actually make this work better for
people. and if they're convincing, i think you would find that there are a lot of democrats outs there, including me, who would be prepared to support it. >> right now president obama answering questions about his signature health care law, the one republicans are planning to repeal as quickly as possible, without at least at this moment a replacement plan in place. now, the second most powerful republican in the senate is saying in terms of that replacement, don't expect a comprehensive bill, they're talking about smaller measures. let me bring in senator bill cassidy, republican from louisiana joining me to discuss. senator, thank you so much for coming in. >> thank you for having me. >> this coming from john cornyn, i found important, he's the number two republican in the senate, now saying do not expect a big comprehensive bill to replace obamacare, it's going to be smaller measures. what is the risk there, though,
senator? is there a risk, how much of a risk is there, that through a series of smaller measures, that people could fall through the cracks, and you'll take the blame? as >> first let's say that republicans are committed that people don't fall through the cracks. if you have coverage now, that coverage will be continued. there will be a transition period. i think what senator cornyn is saying is wisdom. you want to, from my perspective, transfer power back to states, back to the patient. if you transfer that power back, inherently it is step by step. first, reconciliation bill. get rid of the mandates and the penalties. people hate them. they're tired of washington telling them what to do. follow up with a bill which would transfer this power back to the states. and perhaps in the last reconciliation bill, redo the way we pay for it, fairer to people who are not treated fairly now, but give the states the resources they need in order to insure those patients.
>> but in terms of the timing on how this all plays out, right now it does not seem clear. you have chris collins who said you're going to see a plan in july and it's going to be in place by 2019. paul ryan isn't committing that timeline other than saying that legislation is going to be happening in the coming year. what's your best guess right now, senator? >> you know, i can't guess. but i can lay out the plan we've advanced. by the way, the president said republicans haven't put forward plans. i've put forward three. i should be offended, he didn't acknowledge any of them. in the plan i would endorse, i had 12 senate co-sponsors when i introduced it last time, and a similar bill in the house by congressman pete sessions, in 2017 the congress enables legislatures in 2018 to make a choice of the sort of headliglt plan that would work best for their state, and by 2020 it is
fully implemented and the transition has been made. the woman who has breast cancer who hates obamacare but my gosh, still needs coverage, she transfers to a more affordable health care plan. that's my goal. >> senator, we're now hearing house republicans, paul ryan, talking about putting a measure into the repeal part of this, a measure to strip federal funding from planned parenthood as they dismantle obamacare. in your view, if you want to get this done, do you think that's smart, to add the planned parenthood provision into this? because couldn't that trip this whole thing up? >> that is a process question and a whip count question, that is, if you will, not where my mind is. my mind is how do we return power to patients, transferring power from washington, dc to state capitals and thence to the patient and her family. how do we get the votes and what are the kind of other things we
need to have involved, that's not what i'm personally thinking about. you can ask paul ryan, john cornyn. i'm about how do we get power to the patients, patient-centered care, and the state capitals running the show instead of washington, dc. >> one of the big criticisms all along, and you know this, senator, when democrats passed obamacare, was that it was jammed through by democrats, it was all one-sided. how is this, what we're seeing right now, not the same thing, republicans jamming through a repeal and it's all one-sided? >> again, i can best speak to the plan we're putting forward. i have co-sponsors in those. under our plan, we would give power back to the states. now, republicans say that you can keep your insurance if you like it but we mean it, unlike obamacare where you end up losing it. under the plan we have, if you're in california, the legislators in sacramento could choose to stay on obamacare. i think it's a bad idea but let
the californians do what they want to do. >> will you get any democrats to sign on? >> in that case you have democrats in the state legislature saying, we like obamacare, or we repudiate it, either way, you have democrats involved making a decision for their state. my point being if the state of california elects a democratic legislature, i think it's a bad decision, but nonetheless those democratic legislators would be on a bipartisan basis, federal government to be making a decision for their state. ours is inherently bipartisan. >> we will be watch stog see how bipartisan -- where the level of bipartisan support is for what you are laying out. it's only just beginning. senator, thanks so much for your time. >> thank you. happening right now, michelle obama, the first lady, giving her final public remarks as first lady. you are taking a live look right now. we're going to take you there live in just a second. when it comes to healthcare, seconds can mean the difference
between life and death. for partners in health, time is life. we have 18,000 people around the world. the microsoft cloud helps our entire staff stay connected and work together in real time to help those that need it. the ability to collaborate changes how we work. what we do together changes how we live.
ambassadors abroad, usually outgoing ambassadors are allowed a grace period in which they can stay in their posts for a brief time following the inauguration, but the "new york times" is reporting that trump transition team is saying all of obama's politically appointed ambassadors need to be out and be out on day one. what does this mean? what's the impact here? joining us right now is michael crowley, senior foreign affairs correspondent at politico and josh groben political analyst and columnist for the washington post. what's the impact here? >> there's a new president, and he is sending hope the old president's diplomats. i guess the idea is that policy is more unforgiving than it has been in the past, but the impact is some people wanted more time to make plans for the transition, but it's actually not that unusual for a new -- i mean, it's not unusual for a new president to change the diplomatic core. i guess they're just offering fewer kpepgs thexceptions than past it seems. >> from what you are seeing, much ado about nothing?
>> the story in the "new york times" didn't offer a ton of historical context, but it's not unusual for a new president to sweep out the prior ambassadors, although it's a little unforgiving not to keep the career diplomats who aren't political appointees. you don't want vacancies during the transition, but trump is not the first person to do this. >> when it comes to political appointees, you serve at the pleasure of the president, as we say. josh, in other transition news, you have really interesting reporting about a major clash right now going on between donald trump's defense secretary nominee james mattis and transition folks over who is going to be working with. what are you reporting? >> it's been over a month since mattis was named as defense secretary, and almost all of the top pentagon positions remain unfilled. it's because all of the people that the trump tower is sending to mattis, he is rejecting, okay, and it's part of their squaring off, right?
will mattis get his own team, or will the white house have their people in there? that sets the stage for what could be turf battles between the pentagon and the white house in the coming administration. >> mattis from what we've been seeing is by and large the most -- there's been the most bipartisan support for him. do you think this clash could get to the point where it could threaten his nomination? >> i think they'll probably work it out, but how they work it out will determine how powerful mattis, and it's also a test for all of the never trump republicans in washington especially who wouldn't normally want to work for trump, but they want to work for mattis. he wants them to work for him, so the trump people don't want that, and that's one of the sources of tension. it's also about intelligence. right? sflool you ha >> you have a national security advisor. mattis outranked him. he is awe four star. he is a three star.
that could be an issue too. zbloob michael, josh, nice to see you guys. coming up, arnold schwarzenegger firing back right now at the president-elect after donald trump hit the governorator over what you ask? television ratings. of course. that's next. [ male announcer ] eligible for medicare? that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you.
with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. there's a range of plans to choose from, too, and they all travel with you anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. ♪ call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and there are virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait.
with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thanks for sharing your day with us. it is judgment day -- judgment hour for president-elect donald trump. in just about 30 minutes he gets a classified briefing on the evidence that russia meddled in our presidential election. the big question is this. will he finally accept the intelligence, or will he continue his war with america's spy agencies? >> i don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere with