skblienchts hello. i'm jim schudo. we want to welcome our viewers here in the united states and around the world. in just seven days donald trump will be sworn in as the 45th president of the united states right behind us here in front of the capitol. plans are being put in place to repeal and replace obama care. in about two hours the house is voting on a budget resolution that lays the ground work for repealing the affordable care act. president-elect took to twitter
as he does today to applaud the move. he tweeted "the unaffordable care act will soon be history!" mr. trump says the repeal and the replacement will happen almost simultaneously, and paul ryan echoed that in a cnn town hall last night. >> we want to do this at the same time and in some cases in the same bill. we want to advance repealing this law with its replacement at the same time. i don't have a date, but that is something we're working on right now. manu raju joins us on today's vote. explain how this budget resolution that they're voting on today actually paves the way for taking the step of repealing obama care. >> jim, this budget resolution is expected to pass the house
this afternoon, and once it does pass, it will actually instruct the committees of congress to develop legislation that would repeal much of the affordable care act. now, what that repeal legislation actually has special authority where it cannot be blocked by filibuster in the senate. that means it can -- much of the law could be repealed on a party line vote without democratic support, but there are a lot of hang-ups. namely, you can't repeal all the law through this special process, and what do you replace it with? republicans are not in agreement behind any single replacement plan, and that's why some republican moderates are very nervous asking their party leaders to hit the brakes. >> i think the repeal plan needs to be fully developed and better articulated prior to moving forward. i have some reservations about moving as quickly as we are. i'm very concerned specifically on the policy side that the
replacement either for simultaneously or as close to simultaneously as possible if we don't provide a credible replacement plan. my main concern is that there would not be any gaps in coverages for people who are currently subsidyize and how the insurance market might react. >> do you urge leadership to slow down on the rye peepeal? >> i have already had that conversation in trying to chart out the full strategy, you know, from repeal and replace and make sure that we are in full sync with the senate as well as the incoming white house. i don't think we're quite there yet. >> now, jim, if they were to be more deliberate, we'll get some pushback from conservatives who want a very quick timetable so it just gives you a taste of the challenges ahead on the timetable alone, and we're not even debating the policy measures themselves, and that's bound to create more debate within the republican conference and let alone democrats are
going to be opposed to a lot of what republicans want to do here. jim. >> exactly. what does that replacement plan look like? man manu, thank you very much. i want to bring in our panel. we have david gregory, cnn political analyst. he is author of "how is your faith." usa today columnist kiersten powers, and dana bash. i'll start with you, but please feel free to pipe in. do the republicans have a plan to replace obama care? >> yes. they have lots of plans to replace obama care, and they have to streamline it. more importantly, they have to figure out, you know, as manu was saying, right now there's a debate among republicans about the process, about when it's going to happen, how quickly can it happen, and that's a vigorous debate because it's about, you know, the promises that these members feel they made to their
constituents. at the same time it's how quickly should it happen given another promise that they made to their constituents that people are not going to be left in the lurch without health care. that is what -- the thing that fascinates me watching the republican ranker is the freedom caucus, once again, saying we want to do things quickly. this is the caucus that gave john boehner a headache. you know, was the reason he ended up leaving. has been giving paul ryan a headache. the question has been whether or not the fact that there is donald trump in the white house would give the leadership a little bit more breathing room with this caucus and this will be the first test. >> just for folks at home who
have obama care, they might rely on it, should they have confidence that a replacement plan will allow them to keep some form of coverage? >> not at this point, i don't think, because i don't think thief really come up with anything that is the same as obama care, schs basically providing universal coverage for many more people than were originally on obama care, and i think one of the challenges for the republicans is that even though you have republicans come in and now talking about repealing obama care and have all the power to do it, obama successfully changed the conversation in this country to much closer to what most advanced nations believe, which is that health care is a right, not a privilege. now people really believe that. you see polls that have a low number of people basically saying just repeal it without replacing it. don't throw these people off of insurance. it's really incumbent. republicans are in a box because they do want to repeal it, but he did successfully change this conversation, and there is an expectation that these people should have coverage. >> there are so many layers under this because i think republicans have a method but not a real plan.
>> the elements to rebuild obama care in his own image and then have it become trump care. is he going to expend all that political capital or sit back, let the republicans who are in control of congress do it in and then maybe blame them if things go south because they didn't do it in a certain way? also have the poor who are benefitting from expanded medicaid across the country, including in republican-run states who could be left out of this, and you have democrats, very few of whom are really willing to negotiate in good faith. what they're ready to do is stand pat and say you're going to leave people without insurance and it will be on you and how much longer until the midterms? i mean, don't forget the damage done because of obama care in his first midterm. democrats are keeping an eye on it. >> a lot of the talk, including
from the president-elect, is about who ends up owning this, right? who gets blamed for it and talk you from his tweets. donald trump reading into them about, you know, can we manage this in such a way that any problems are the democrats' problems. we'll get all the credit for, you know, the great stuff that follows. is it possible to work that? >> it's very hard -- also, this is such a political calculation. what about the work that has already been done for implementation. it's been hard and unsuccessful in some areas. successful in other areas. with social security and medicare, it was tweaked along the way, but not totally revers reversed. that's a big issue. there are hospital systems, health care systems, insurance companies that have made the adjustment to implement this to just start over again, that could be incredibly disruptive. >> before we go, paul ryan last night talked again about this.
>> i don't think it can be simultaneous. i don't think they can. another problem for them is that the obama care is based on exchanges, and that really was a republican idea originally. to the extent they ever had an idea that involved universal health care, it was the exchanges. the other things they talk about, like selling across state lines or health savings accounts, that helps around the margins, but they won't deal a lot with the number of uninsured that obama has gotten on the roles. >> just i think what they are trying to do process-wise when they say they want to do it simultaneously is to pass the law that says repeal but not to have that go into effect. the repeal doesn't go into effect until the replace takes place. that's what they're trying to do. whether they can do it, who knows? the other thing is just to add to what these guys said, what rahm emanuel, who was then barack obama's chief of staff said as they were really shoving
obama care through trying to get all the democrats on board back at the beginning of the obama -- in the beginning of the obama years was when americans have a benefit, it is going to be very hard to take it away from them. coming up, a programming note. be sure to join us tonight for history made. the legacy of michelle obama. it's a cnn special report chronicling the first lady's journey from chicago. up next, today handling russia. i'm going to speak with two members of congress, a republican and a democrat, who are briefed today by intelligence official on russian meddling in the election, and i'll ask what they are told about that hacking investigation. and about the srussian allegations against president-elect trump first reported by cnn. stay with us.
♪ for millions of baby boomers there's a virus out there. a virus that's serious, like hiv, but it hasn't been talked about much. a virus that's been almost forgotten. it's hepatitis c. one in 30 boomers has hep c, yet most don't even know it. that's because hep c can hide in your body silently for years, even decades, without symptoms and it's not tested for in routine blood work. if left untreated, hep c can cause liver damage, even liver cancer. but there's important information for us: the cdc recommends all baby boomers get tested for hep c. all it takes is a simple one-time blood test. and if you have hep c, it can be cured. be sure to ask your doctor to get tested for hep c.
care law. i want to bring in now two house members, a republican and a democrat. we have massachusetts democrat seth molten and illinois republican adam kingser. both of them are military veterans. thanks very much for taking the time today. i'm going to start with you. representative. you're a republican. >> yes. >> do republicans have a plan to replace obama care? >> i think, you know, when people ask for plans, they want us to come out with this 2,000 page kind of like what obama care was originally. >> i take bullet points. >> the bullet points are this. what we are going to do today is starting the car that's ultimately going to drive the repeal and replace, and that's through this mechanism called reconciliation. we will replace the bill, but then through, you know, tom price's hhs secretary and regulatory things he can do. we can begin to pass pieces of the replace without a big comprehensive 2,000 page bill, but doing it in front of the american people and selling what
we need to do, where. >> the 20 million americans taking advantage of this right now for themselves and their families, give an example of what you are going to replace in the current law that will be in the new republican law. >> i think what's very clear is, you know, we're not going to be ripping health care away from people. we've made that very clear. that's not going to be what happens. we want something that works because it's failing on its own. opening cross-state competition. expanding health savings accounts to allow people to competitively shop not just for health insurance, but also for health care so you drive quality up and cost down. there's a lot of different regulatory things that can come into play and that's going to be the process here. >> i would like your reaction. do you think that's a reasonable replacement? will it work? >> i think with all due respect to my colleague and friend adam, it's an eloquent way to say we don't have a plan. the car that we're starting to drive here, the republicans are starting to drive to borrow your analogy, is going to drive 20 million americans off a cliff with no health care. and that's -- that's frightening. in fact, when you listen to
republicans say what they want to see in the new law, a lot of the things are things that obama care provided, like no discrimination based on preexisting conditions. >> president-elect trump said the same. >> the 26-year -- for 26-year-olds. there are a lot of things about the aca that i think everybody in congress wants to preserve. the bottom line is if republicans would admit it, what we want to do is preserve the aca and be willing to tweak it and fix it. that's always been my position. it's not a perfect health care law, but it needs to be fixed. we don't need to repeal it and put an awful lot of americans out on the street with no health care at all. >> how do you respond? >> i think you're going to be seeing a lot of and, look, on both sides, a lot of scare tactics. this is going to be clear. republicans are not going to rip people off of their health care. you're going to hear people say it. it's not going to happen. what we want to do is, along, i have farmers in my district that call me and said my premium skyrocketed. my deductible is, like, $10,000
or $15,000. in essence i don't have health care because i'm paying that deductible every year. it's failing on its own. let's fix it. let's make this work. i know this goes to classified information. i'm not going to ask you about details. i am going to ask you about your impression. as you left there, are you more convinced of the seriousness of russian meddling in the election? i'll start with you, congressman? >> of course, we can't discuss the details, but i think it's very apparent that this is a very serious situation. the national security threat facing the united states of america. it's clear that vladimir putin's intention is not just to specifically affect the result of this particular election, although that's apparent as well, but to fundamentally undermine the principles of our democracy. he is a national security threat to the united states. i think that's why you see
democrats and many republicans in the senate confirmation process making such a big deal about whether these trump nominees are willing to stand up to russia. russia is not our friend. russia is an enemy of the united states of america, has been for a long time and is even more so under vladimir putin. >> congressman kenzinger, president-elect donald trump has been almost dragged kicking and screaming to, one, to say definitively -- he now says i think russia was behind the hacking, but also just to describe it as a major problem. are you comfortable with how the president-elect views this issue? does he view it seriously enough? >> it's coming along. i have been very critical of how he has viewed it up to this point, and, you know, look, i think what actually happened -- the problem is a lot of people try to throw cold water on trump's presidency because of this. they didn't hack the election totals. people voted for donald trump. they wanted donald trump. they wanted change. the bigger issue is we are sworn as members of congress and members of the military to protect and defend the
constitution and that means you have to protect the underlying thing that makes this work. it's just a piece of paper unless people trust that their vote in their election system works. that was a direct attack on the election system, and that needs to be taken very seriously. i'm glad democrats are joining. there haven't been a lot of them. now they're joining in this understanding of russia's role in the world. i look forward to maintain american strength. >> final thought -- >> i couldn't agree more with adam and the wave that russia is trying to undermine our democracy, but it's important to say this too. donald trump didn't did not win the popular vote. he lost the popular vote. he won by a few hundred thousand votes in key states, and the clear intent of this russian effort was to influence the minds of americans. it wasn't to attack our voting boxes or tallies or what not. it was to undermine the opinions of americans.
i think it's naive to think that the russians had no influence on americans when they went to vote. >> we have the luxury of time. we're going to come back after a short break. much more to discuss. when a cold calls... achoo! ...answer it. with zicam cold remedy. it shortens colds, so you get better, faster. colds are gonna call. answer them with zicam! zicam. get your better back. now in great tasting crystals.
>> if you -- >> senator, i can tell you that in my many years of involvement in if the military, i had a close relationship with the intelligence community. i could evaluate their effectiveness at times on a daily basis. i have very, very high degree of confidence in our intelligence community. >> is it possible for something like this involving the united states elections to have happened without vladimir putin knowing about it and authorizing it. >> i think that's a fair
assumption. >> that he would have? >> yes. >> listen, i was listening to those hearings, and, you know, cabinet pick after cabinet pick, cia director, state, defense, different with t differed with the president-elect on torture, on russia, the seriousness of the problem, on the iran nuclear deal, on the muslim ban. i have to ask you a question. perhaps i'll start with you, congressman molten. who is going to win out? is the president going to overrule them? what does this all mean? >> i hope that the truth wins out here. frankly president-elect trump is wrong on all of these issues. he was wrong during the campaign. he is wrong now. now we see officials, professionals, on his own team saying that he is wrong. what we hope is a truth will win out because if it doesn't, we're in a lot of trouble.
>> congressman at the end of the day it is the president who is the decider, in the words of george w. bush. i know -- remember these positions are ones that you have disagreed with the president-elect on. muslim ban, torture, particularly as a military veteran. do you have confidence that his cabinet officers are going to be able to convince him to change his mind on these issues? >> we don't know. again, ultimately he was elected president and he will be the ones that makes these decisions. this is heartening to me, though, to see people out there not scared to disagree with donald trump. i'm sure they've talked to people in the administration about the testimony and what to say, and the information they were given is, hey, you don't have to fear disgreagreeing wit the president-elect, and if you disagree with russia, say it, and we'll support you. we hear people that know donald trump that says he likes to put competitive positions around himself and learn from them. we'll see when he is president how that plays out. for me as a russia hawk, somebody that's concerned with what russia is doing, i was very
heartened by these hearings, and i think it reflects well on the being inning president. >> congressman molten, you voted against a waiver for general james mattis. this is a law that's been in place for decades. it requires a military officer to be out of uniform for seven years before becoming defense secretary, and historically only -- they've only done it for one. george c. marshall before. it's kind of getting forgotten, i think, in all this debate. tell me why you voted against the waiver? >> well, look, i fully support -- he has been very public about it and saying how important it is to have someone who has the strength and courage to stand up to our president-elect on key issues like torture, like our relationship with russia in the secretary of defense. the reason i voted against this change the way the republicans wrote it in committee is because it totally took the house of representatives out of the process, and this is a serious matter. civilian control of the military is enshrined in our constitution. we need to make sure we have a serious debate and republicans
and democrats on that committee wanted general mattis to come testify, and he would like to as well. he didn't win out. >> we wanted a chance to do our job. i absolutely support general mattis. he was my commander back in 2003. he is a warrior scholar, the kind of person we need this that position, but the process here matters. the law matters, and we have to respect the law. >> i want to talk to you about another issue that -- listen, this big news week, right? any of these issues dominating the week. trust me, i know. personal personally. donald trump and his businesses. he had this big press conference. i'm going to do this and that. we've talked to ethics lawyers from both administrations. we're not talking about democrats. we're talking about democrats and republicans. at the end of the day he is still going to be profiting from his businesses, he and his family. i'll start with you, congressman
kinsinger. has he provided enough separation to make you comfortable that he will not have kwliktsz of interest as president of the united states? >> it's hard for me to -- look, i'm not the guy that determines what that looks like. it's hard for me to say is there enough of a fire wall. i think what he has to be careful of is even the perception of a conflict of interest because it has a tendency then to undermine decisions he is taking. i think he has gone a lot further than what people were fearing back in november that he wasn't even going to recuse himself and i think, you know, look, it would be very smart of him, and i trust that ultimately he will do whatever is necessary to make sure he is not undermining his, in essence, authority as commander in chief with a perception of conflict of interest, but in the reality -- look, this business is going to continue to be named trump. he built a billion dollar business. >> he and his family will make money from it. >> it's a family business. you can't expect him to pull the name off the buildings. putting a fire wall is important. >> are you satisfied? >> absolutely not. trump is a failed businessman. if he had simply put the money his father gave him into the stock market, he would have more money than he does today. he has been -- he has presicede
over countless bankruptcies, and he is tied to those debts. unless he separates them from those interests, we're in trouble because one thing that donald trump has proven throughout his history is that he is out for himself. >> you can call trump a lot, but i think failed businessman -- he is a wealthy guy. >> whether failed or successful, the question is is it right for the highest office in the land to -- to keep, in effect, those businesses while he is leading. i know this is going to be a continuing debate. i want to thank both of you for joining me today. it's great to be able to talk on so many topics. still ahead, the vice president confirmed being briefed on it. the president-elect is still outraged over it, and intelligence officials are trying to get to the bottom of it. unsubstantiated claims that russia may have compromising personal and financial information on donald trump. we're going to discuss that with ambassador john negroponte. he has served many republican administrations. this is just after the break.
it has been an incredibly hectic week full of senate confirmation hearings and donald trump's first press conference as president-elect, amid some other news as well. one thing that seems to have been lost in the whirlwind is that at his press conference trump finally explained how he plans to separate, to some extent, his business empire from his presidential powers. even brought some props. >> what i'm going to be doing is my two sons who are right here, don and eric, are going to be running the company. they are going to be running it in a very professional manner. they're not going to discuss it with me. these papers are just some of the many documents that i've
signed turning over complete and total control to my sons. >> cnn, no other reporters, were allowed to actually open those files or look in them, and there were no markings on the folders to identify what they actually were. let's break down donald trump's plan with cnn's chief business correspondent christine romans. christine, help us understand from the lehman out there exactly what trump's plan is. >> well, really, it's a complex set of businesses, right? over lapping senate businesses. let me give you simple bullet points about what donald trump said he was going to do to divest himself from his business. he said is had sons will take over the trump organization. he is going to put his assets in a trust that he won't touch for the next years of his administration. he won't do any new foreign deals with the trump organization, and any domestic deals, any new domestic hotel deals or any kind of licensing deals or any kind of golf course
deals. they'll go through an ethics advisor that is in house at the trump organization. that's something that people are concerned about there. he is going to receive, he says, overall profit data about his investments, about his stake in the company, but at the end of his tenure, he says if his boys didn't do a good job, he will fire them. he is not selling his business he is going far short of what past presidents and government and private have said which is putting your business in a blind trust. the nature of his business, it has trump all over it. right. there are a lot of people who are concerned that donald trump and the decisions that he makes will affect his businesses. let me just show you quickly how sprawling it is. 564 businesses overall. 144 businesses with ties overseas. 25 countries. 52 different properties. i want you to listen. there is an office of government ethics, and the guy who runs that office of government ethics
was pretty incensed by what went on there and what he thinks is a far, far inferior way of protecting -- you know, protecting the american people from a conflict of interest. let's listen. >> the plan the president has announced doesn't meet the standards that the rest of his nominees are meeting. every president in the past four decades has met. he is going to be asking our men and women in uniform to risk their lives until conflicts around the world. so, no, i don't think divestiture is too high a price to pay to be president of the united states of america. >> as you know, says in a lot of countries around the world, the way you curry favor with a government is by doing business with their family. there's a big concern that there will be foreign government that is may be trying to stay in his hotels for example, or do business with him to curry favor with the american government. he says that any foreign governments that stay in his properties or his hotels, the profit of that, he is going to write a check to the united
states treasury. jim. >> and we should note and you know this well, christine, that loads of government officials going down to low levels, they don't even sell stocks for the perceived conflicts of interest. a different standard here. thanks very much. >> you're welcome. don't run an improvizational presidency. that's some of the advice being offered by president obama to his incoming successor. donald trump will take the oath of office just behind me one week from today in an interview with cbs news, president obama offered his take on some of the challenges ahead for the 40th president of the united states. >> i don't think there's anybody who has run a campaign like his successfully in modern history. not that i can think of. and as a consequence. >> can you run an improvince zplagsal approximate presidency?
>> i don't think so. so now he is in the process of building up an organization, and we will have to see how that works, and it will be a test i think for him and the people that he has designated to be able to execute on his vision. >> that was president obama's advice to president-elect trump. we'll be right back.
by this time next week president-elect trump will be president trump, but as the days tick down, the amount of potentially explosive information on the future commander in chief builds as information about the election hacking further unfolds. earlier today house lawmakers met with top intelligence officials in a closed door briefing on russia. this after vice president joe biden confirmed cnn's reporting earlier this week that the intelligence community briefed him and president obama on unsubstantiated claims that russia may have compromising perhaps even incriminating information on president-elect
donald trump. we also have cnn reporting that the fbi director himself, james comey briefed donald trump on this. in it allegations that there were extensive exchanges of information between the russians and the trump campaign in the months leading up to the election. today the transition team confirmed that trump's choice for national security advisor retired lieutenant general michael flynn did exchange both phone calls and texts with the russian ambassador on december 28th, but only to, they say, exchange holiday wishes as well as coordinate a phone call between russian president putin and trump after the inauguration. this was one day before president obama announced he was expelling 35 russian officials in retaliation for election hacking. i want to discuss this now with my next guest. he is john negropon at the, former director of national intelligence. he was also a former u.s. ambassador to iraq. thank you very much for taking the time. >> u that. >> let me ask you this, in your previous roles, you often took
classified intelligence briefings. what does it say to you that the intelligence community included these and i should say unsubstantiated claims in the briefings to the president and the president-elect? why would they do that? >> i personally is am of mixed mind. i can see where you might make the argument to yourself that, gee, this is so explosive that i just got to show it to somebody because otherwise, i might later on as things develop might be accused of having tried to sweep things under the rug. on the other hand, it's a little bit counter to our trade craft to surface an unsubstantiated report all the way up to the president and president-elect of the united states, so you could also make the argument that it had no business getting into documents that were put before these high ranking officials until there was more to it. it's a little bit like saying, well, would you show them everything that was in the national enquirer?
>> right. let me ask you this, though. this may be a difficult question. the director of national intelligence, the three other heads of the agencies you briefed -- cia, nsa, fbi. they're busy people. the president, vice president, they're busy people, as is the president-elect. you don't want to waste their time. does including it indicate to you -- to be clear, director of national intelligence james clapper says while they have not substantiated, but they have not dismissed this information. does this indicate to you that they're taking it seriously or how seriously they might be taking this possibility? >> well, it seems to me that in this kind of business of collecting and analyzing intelligence, very often you get one lead. you get one report. it's unconfirmed. you don't throw it away. you don't ignore it completely. what you do is you put it to one side, and you say, well, okay. let's just watch that one and see if something else comes up. i don't think it would be ada
dereliction of duty to see if something else comes up. in the meanwhile, maybe it doesn't deserve to be surfaced to the top. i'm just saying you could argue this issue both ways, and i don't think what they did tells you anything about the veracity fair point. other story. the trump transition team confirmed today that lieutenant general michael flynn, he's of course president-elect trump's pick for national security adviser, that he was in touch with russia's ambassador to the united states just three days after christmas, december 28. the timing of this interesting, because it happened around the same time that president obama was announcing that he was expelling russian diplomats and some other steps in reaction to russian meddling in the election. do you find that timing of that communication at all inappropriate or troubling? >> well, i don't know what the content of the conversation was, but it doesn't strike me as unnatural for a national
security adviser designate to reach out to the russian ambassador. after all, that's one of the most important relationships we have where by then we would have been less than one month to the inauguration, and those are two people who are going to have a relationship going forward, so no, i didn't find it particularly unusual and i was very troubled to find somebody suggest that it might be illegal. i think that's patent nonsense. >> big picture here. you have both republicans and democrats. i just had two on the air just now speaking really in unison, uniformly that russia is a major threat, that the meddling in the election, while no indication that it affected the results, but still was a serious attack on american democracy. do you believe, are you troubled by president-elect trump, in his public comments, playing down the importance of this election meddling? >> well, i think the team of the president and his -- president-elect and his team are now in the waiting room, if you
will, and soon, another week from now, they'll be in the situation room, and i think those are two very different sets of circumstances. and they're going to have to come to grips with the issue of developing a coordinated, synchronized policies towards each and every one of these issues. right now, you can see some divergences between them. you can see some public statements by the cabinet members designate to the effect that russia is a through teat, president-elect trump kind of dismissing that. there's going to have to be a real harmonization of those points of view. if not, then i think there could be some discord and trouble ahead. i recall the beginning of the reagan administration, there were quite a few divergences and it took them a number of years to sort them out. the sooner the president and his team can develop harmonized, coordinated policies toward these issues, the better it is
for them and for the country. >> clarity for the company. ambassador john negroponte, thanks so much for taking the time. >> thanks for the opportunity. the justice department has just revealed findings from its yearlong investigation into the chicago police department, a scathing report points to what it calls the rampant use of excessive force and years of civil rights violations. we're going to go live to chicago right after this break. ugh. heartburn.
welcome back. chicago police routinely violated civil rights. they engaged in a pattern of excessive force, a scathing report from the department of justice. here is attorney general loretta lynch. >> the department of justice has concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that the chicago police department engages in a pattern or practice of use of excessive force in violation of the fourth amendment to the constitution.
>> the investigation was launched after a video was released last year showing the shooting death of laquan mcdonald. among the report's findings, incidence where officers shot at fleeing suspects, fired at cars without any justification and used force to retaliate and punish people. cnn's ryan young is in chicago. what else can you tell us about the report? really alarming findings here. >> reporter: alarming findsings and i can tell you that video of mcdonald changed everything when it comes to this city. since we've been reporting about this, black and brown communities in the city of chicago have constantly been talking about the idea that they would make reports against police officers and nothing would happen from there and they believed the video and actually seeing that video of him being shot has changed everything. and one of the things they talked about today was the idea of adding body cameras to every single patrol officer. that is something that's going to happen before the end of 2018 but we should highlight something from that justice
department -- full screen. talked about how cpd officers would get gang information. they would literally take rival gang members to other areas of the city and notify gang members that they were there. and the mayor talked about making changes and he said it's something that he desperately wants to have happen for the city. >> but i want to be clear as the mayor of this city of chicago, we have a set of values and when you take an oath of office to serve the public, you uphold those valls values. that is one city with great diversity but one city and one future where there is no room for bigotry, hatred, or racism. >> reporter: jim, something that we should make clear here is over and over we heard the mayor and the attorney general talk about officers giving the bulk of the suggestions here saying they wanted better training and better equipment so they could do their job better and change their perception of the police department. i should also say they asked a question about jeff sessions and how that would change. the mayor said he is dedicated to making this change in the
city with the police department. >> alarming findings. thank you very much. i'll be back at 5:00 eastern time for the situation room. for our international viewers, amanpour is next. for our viewers in america, noorm starts right now. jim, thank you very much. good to be with you on this friday. this is cnn. let's start with the spy novel atmosphere that is continuing to descend upon capitol hill because we now know that president-elect's choice for national security adviser contacted the russian ambassador to the united states multiple times late last month. apparently, it happened, actually, just right before the obama administration announced that it was imposing new sanctions against the kremlin for its election interference. the backdrop of this news, you have vice president joe biden now confirming cnn's