tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN January 18, 2017 11:00am-12:01pm PST
good afternoon everyone welcome to our special coverage of presidentba obama's last vie in washington. we're breaking away from our coverage of donald trump's nominees on capitol hill because in just a few minutes we will see president barack obama emerge to take questions from reporters as final time as president of the united states, before this transition at noon on friday. the president will be leaving the white house with an approval rating only a few select
presidents have enjoyed on their way out, a new cnn poll shows 60% of americans approve of him right now. a controversy sparked by a way of pardons including chelsey matty, for stealing thousands of pages of documents and releasing them to wikileaks. >> it was in the press core in 2010 when that leak happened when chelsea manning was tried, court marshalled and the language from national security officials at the time was very strong about the risk that manning had put on the diplomats, allies, and posed the
need for a very, very strong sentence against chelsea manning and now of course a communation aside from what we saw and heard the language at the white house when it came toward their very aggressive use of the espionage act, this of course very different from that. michelle kosinski is standing by for the president's arrival and i'm sure there will be a lot of questions regarding that. >> reporter: it is a zoo in here. they will get a chance to ask the president they have been wanting to for some time. this will be the president's last time to get a statement he
wants out there. we expect that to be the first question out of the gate, so he's going to face that tough kind of discerning -- how does he strike a difference between chelsea manning and say edward snowden who of course didn't apply for clemency, but the statements about what edward snowden did. the crimes were serious that chelsea manning committed and this doesn't diminish that but laid out their points to why they think this was appropriate and the time she served was appropriate so we expect the president to hammer those three points again and probably get into the thinking and probably going to do his president obama look, the way he explains the thought process, what he sees as the difficulties he's going to want to acknowledge those but
also want to be strong to state that stance that we have already heard from his administration. he's probably want to get into legacy as well, i think he's going to want to go out on a positive note. this gives him the chance at the top of the press conference to they those out every time that he's been speaking on the campaign trail. i think he's going to have to be defensive at times about his policy and where that leafs america now and i think he's going to try to avoid being too critical of the incoming administration though some m may necessitate some criticism, but lately it's been less critical and more of a warning tone and probably telling the american people that they have to guard their democracy.
jake. >> we're going to get back to this important final news conference. it could last an hour, could last longer than an hour, but there's other breaking news right now. you're getting new information jamie on the health right now of former president george h.w. bush and his wife barbara bush? >> reporter: right. both former president bush and former first lady barbara bush have been admitted to the hospital. we knew about president bush earlier. he was admitted over the weekend suffering from shortness of breath and a bad cough, they thought it was early pneumonia, the last couple hours we got a report where they thought he was doing better after getting an -
anti-bicanti anti-bick anti anti-antibioti anti-antibiotianti anti-antibiotanti anti-antibiotanti anti-antibiotic -- antibiotics, he is now in icu, doctors cleared his airway and he is resting conf resti resti resting comfortably, and mrs. bush was admitted this morning as a precaution, she was just feeling terrible, she had a bad cough and suffering from fatigue, i'm sure what was happening with her husband didn't help but it sounds like maybe flu symptoms, maybe something else. >> and sanjay, obviously former president h.w. bush is in his 90s and any time anybody that age gets sick it's cause for alarm, give us a reality check here. going into the icu the
treatments you have heard he is undergoing, how serious is this, how worried should we be? i think it's definitely concerning. he's had this diagnose of pneumonia before, the condition they described was that he was intube atate intubeated. when you develop pneumonia that's significant enough it becomes challenging to breathe. >> putting a tube down the mouth into the trachea to give them assistance if not completely take over their breathing. we did hear that he was sedated. certainly when someone is sedated they may have difficulty
breathing on their own anymore. we also know since saturday he's been on i.v. antibiotics as well for presumptive pneumonia and now confirmed pneumonia. >> we already knew that he was not planning on coming to the inauguration, somebody sitting out in that cold, is not a good idea. what about former president bush 43? right now we're told that the other children are on hold that they're going to proceed as plans but you have to remember he's 92 years old. in 2012 he was in the hospital for two months with this kind of thing. and he suffers from a form of parkinson's which i think further complicates it, so i
think it's -- everyone is worried but they're hoping that this procedure will stabilize him and get him through it. >> old age is not for sissies. >> as my grandmother used to say it. >> we wish them only the best. you will keep us updated on the medical conditions. >> we're about to hear from the president of the united states his final news conference as president of the united states. you see reporters standing over in the west wing of the white house. dana the stakes for this news conference he's very concerned about his legacy, i'm sure he's going to be asked about his very controversial decision on chelsea manning but this is a news conference that the president wants to leave with an upbeat feel?
>> this is as you say his final chance to say what he wants to say, say his peace, hopefully thank the fourth estate for doing their due diligence but given the fact that he made such a controversial decision yesterday in chelsea manning's sentence clearly he wants the ability to come out and explain why. he might do it without even getting a question given the current controversy but for the history books. and david axelrod can talk about this more than i, mark rich was a completely different thing. it was a pardon it wasn't the same, but that's the kind of thing that made him crazy and he didn't want to do anything like that but this is something that's not going well -- forget about republicans, but with a lot of democrats.
>> the approval number on these final days on the cnn poll is 60%. the poll was taken before the manning decision. >> think about what that says, what a remarkable example of the confusing and conflicted political times we live in. he is clearly highly popular, the american people have rallied to his side and ten weeks ago these same american people elected the anti-obama. if he's so well-liked why did they choose, but donald trump is about to become president. why did they choose somebody so different? president obama is going to stand at the podium in a few minutes, he is probably going to say i got the country out of the ditch, and -- yes, he goes out
popular personally, what he was never able to do as president except when he was on the ballot was extend that to the party which took a beating. and the final exclamation of that will be the inauguration of donald trump. >> we're going to take a break, much more to talk about, as we await president obama will be walking out to that podium for the final press conference of his presidency. stay with us.
take us behind the scenes as he goes in to make a statement presumably, answer reporters questions for at least an hour, maybe longer, what's going through his mind? >> i think everything is a last. everything he does is the last time he does this as president, so there will be some association we motiith emotion. he will approach it with a mix of enthusiasm and -- but the importance of that interaction between the press corp. and the president is something we have been debating because of the incoming president and reporters and i think he's going to use this opportunity to stress the fact that as presidents do get irritated that news media does play an important role.
>> he would come out and i don't know if you approved of this or disapprove but he would come out with his cabinetappointee, the issues they agreed upon and why he felt this person would be the best, what we have been hearing in these confirmation hearings are issues they have not discussed with the president-elect of which they will have jurisdiction and neither has donald trump come out and explained in any detail why he would choose anybody from a certain position. it's completely opposite although trump was available very much during the beginning of the campaign that has reseatreceded completely. >> if you look at all the public
statements since president-elect trump was elected one is pushing for what he believes in, what he thinks he stands for, tweaking or openly criticizing president-elect trump -- i'm told we're going to go for the senate democratic -- >> you had to come all the way over here to join us, i'm joined by the ranking senator murray and outstanding member senator baldwin. now, these past two weeks we have seen repeated efforts from the trump transition aided and abetted by senate republicans to jam through nominees in a way that hides their views from the american people. my friend, and he's a dear friend of mine, and i'm really surprised at his behavior but my friend senator alexander limited senators to just one round of questions for miss devoss and mr. price for just five minutes
for devoss and seven minutes for price, miss devoss was at 5:00 in the afternoon to a blatant attempt for more americans to watch it and waiting till the end of the second hearing, senatorrasso was keeping -- out making seven seats available in the whole hearing room. senate democrats request for the -- price and mnuchin hearings were denied. he's a billionaire with very complicated paperwork to file. most gulling of all, mrs.
devoss's paperwork hasn't even been completed. that's a direct continradiction this is a swamp cabinet full of bankers and billionaires, a swamp cabinet full of baynkers and billionaires, some have hard right views some contradict that the promises that the president-elect coampaigned on. mr. price has made it his career to privatize, destroy medicare as we know it. president-elect trump said he won't touch medicare. the views contradict each other and many are far far over from the american mainstream. it's no surprise republicans are trying to rush through these hearings, they don't want people to know the true views of their nominees, the potential
conflicts of interest and how many of them come from the top 1 percent and are even billionaires, just look at what congress price's hearing revealed. he was asked if he had purchased stock in imunno therapeuttherai had stated he bought stocks but then followed you have he had no idea what stocks he purchased. both statements can't be true. which is it? the american people deserve to know the truth and to sort through these discrepancies which can't be rushed in hearings the american people and the u.s. senate are entitled to a full, fair and transparent review of these nominees, a few days where they will have power for up to four years?
enormous power over the lives of people? that is wrong. blatantly wrong. the last two weeks have not been good for open and transparent government, if the american people aren't given a chance to consider these nominees then they should be prepared for that debate on the floor, extenttive debate on the floor. security nominees have never been on the list before. senate republicans have not operated in good faith in the last several weeks and now we have a new problem, it has come out this morning that nick mulvaney nominee or omb didn't pay taxes for a household employee for four years. then when he was nominated and looked at his papers he paid them late.
senator tom daschle did the same thing and republicans insisted that that disqualified him from becoming hhs secretary. all right. we are now going to break away and go back to the white house. we are expecting president obama to come into the brady briefing room any second and deliver his very last press conference as president of the united states of america. he's going to want to defend his legacy, what he stood for and questions to answer as well. let's listen in. good afternoon, everybody. let me start off by saying that i was sorely attempted to wear a tan suit today for my last press conference but michelle whose fashion sense is a little better than mine tells me that's not appropriate in january. i covered a lot of ground that i wanted to cover in my farewell
address last week so i'm going to say a couple things before i start taking questions. first, we have been in touch with the bush family after hearing about president george w.h. bush and barbara bush, they have not only dedicated their lives to the country, but they have been a constant support and good counsel for michelle and me, they are as fine a couple as we know so we want to send our prayers and our love to them. really good people. second thing i want to do is to thank all of you. some of you have been covering me for a long time. folks like cristie, and liynn w
did a few singles, a few doubles together. i offered advice that i thought was pretty sound like don't do stupid stuff and even when you complained about my long answers i just want you to know the only reason they were long is because you asked six-part questions. but i have enjoyed working with all of you. that does not of course mean that i've enjoyed every story that you have filed, but that's the point of this relationship. you're not supposed to be sin ka fans you're supposed to be skept tic -- cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power and make sure that we are accountable to the people who sent us here and you have done that. and you have done it for the most part in ways that i could
appreciate for fairness even if i didn't always agree with your conclusions. and having you in this building has made this work place better. it keeps us honest, makes us work harder. you have made us think about how we are doing what we do and whether or not we're able to deliver on what's been requested by our constituents, and for example, every time you asked why haven't you cured ebola yet or why is there still that hole in the gulf it has given me the ability to go back and say will you get this solved before the next press conference. i spent a lot of time in my farewell address talking about the state of our democracy. it goes without saying that essential to that is a free
press. that is part of how this place, this country, this grand experiment of self-government has to work. it doesn't work if we don't have a well-informed citizenry and you are the conduit, we need you to establish a baseline of facts and evidence to use for a starting point for debates that ultimately lead to progress, so my hope is that you will continue with the same tenacity that you showed us to do the hard work of getting to the bottom of stories and getting them right and to push those of us in power to be the best version of ourselves. and to push this country to be
the best version of itself. i have no doubt that you will do so, i'm looking forward to being an active consumer of your work rather than always the subject of it. i want to thank you all for your extraordinary service to our democracy and with that i will take some questions and i will start with jeff mason whose term is apparently not up. i thought we would be going out together brother, but you've been hanging around a while. >> thank you. are you concerned that communting will not -- wikileaks, how do you compare that to last year's election and to that julian assange has now agreed to come to united states and with that would he be arrested or charged if he came
here? >> first of all, let's be clear. chelsea manning has served a tough prison sentence. so the notion that the average person who was thinking about disclosing vital classified information would think that it goes unpunished, i don't think would get that impression from the sentence that chelsea manning has served. it has been my view that given she went to trial, that due process was carried out, that she took responsibility for her crime, that the sentence that she received was very
disproportionate relative to what other leakers had received and that she had served a significant amount of time, that it made sense to commute and not pardon her sentence, and you know i feel very comfortable that justice has been served and that a message has still been sent that when it comes to our national security, that wherever possible, we need folks who may have legitimate concerns about the actions of government or their superiors or the agencies in which they work that they try to work through the established channels and avail themselves to the whistle blower protections that have been put in place. i recognize there are some folks who think they're not enough,
and you know i think all of us when we're working in big institutions may find ourselves at times at odds with policies set but when it comes to national security we're often dealing with people in the field whose lives may be put at risk or the safety and security and the ability of our military or our intelligence teams to function effectively and that has to be kept in mind. so, with respect to wikileaks, i don't see a contradiction. first of all, i haven't commented on wikileaks generally. the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether wikileaks was winning or not in being the conduit e-mails
that were leaked. i don't pay attention to mr. assange's comments. and i refer you to the justice department for any criminal investigations, indictments extradition issues that may come up with him. what i can say broadly is that in this knew cyber age, we're going to have to make sure that we continually work to find the right balance of accountability and openness and transparency that is the hallmark of our democracy but also recognize that there are adversaries and bad actors out there who want to use that same openness in ways that hurt us. whether that's in trying to
commit financial crimes or trying to commit acts of terrorism or folks who want to interfere with our elections. and we're going to have to continually build the kind of architecture to make sure the best of our democracy is preserved, that our national security and intelligence agencies have the ability to carry out policy without advertising what it is that we're doing but in a way that still keeps sicitizens up to spd on what their government is doing on their behalf but with respect to chelsea manning i looked at the particulars in this case the same way i have with the other commutations i have done and pardons i have done and felt in light of all the circumstances that commuting her sentence was entirely
appropriate. margaret brennan. >> mr. president, thank you. the president-elect has said that he would consider lifting sanctions on russia if they substantially -- given your own efforts at arms control, do you think that's an effective str strategy knowing this office and mr. trump how would you help his advisors be effective when he deals with vladimir putin and given your actions recently on russia, do you think those sanctions should be viewed as leverage. >> a couple of things number one, i think it's in america's interest and the world's interest that we have a constructive relationship with russia. that's been my appropriate throughout my presidency. where our interests have overlapped i did what i could to
encourage russia to be a constructive member of the international community and tried to work with the president and the government of russia in helping them diversify their economy, improve their economy, use the incredible talents of the russian people in more constructive ways. i think it's fair to say that after president putin came back into the presidency that an escalating anti-american rhetoric and an approach to global affairs that seem to be premised on the idea that whatever america's trying to do must be bad for russians so we want to try to counter act whatever they do, that returned
to an adversarial spirit that i think existed during the cold war has made the relationship more difficult. and, it was hammered home when russia went into crimea and portions of ukraine. the reason we imposed the sanctions, recall, was not because of nuclear weapons issues, it was because the independence and sovereignty of a country, ukraine, had been encroached upon by force by russia. that wasn't our judgment, that was the judgment of the entire international community. and, russia continues to occupy ukranian territory and med ddlen affairs and support surrogates who violated international laws
and norms, what i said once you stop doing that the sanctions will be removed. and i think it would probably best serve not only american interests but also the interests of preserving international norms if we made sure that we don't confuse why these sanctions have been imposed with a whole set of other issues. on nuclear issues, in my first term we negotiated the start two treaty and that has substantially reduced our nuclear stock piles both russia and the united states. i was prepared to go further, i told president putin i was prepared to go further. they have been unwilling to negotiate. if president trump is willing to start those talks i think
there's a lot of room for the countries to reduce their stock piles and part of the reason we have been unsuccessful is because we were leading by example. i hope that continues. but i think it's important just to remember that the reason sanctions have been put in place against russia has to do with their actions in ukraine and it is important for the united states to stand up for the basic principal that big countries don't go around and invade and bully smaller countries. i've said before, i expect russia and ukraine to have a strong relationship. they are historically bound together in all sorts of cultural and social ways but ukraine is an independent country and this is a good example of the vital role that america has to continue to play presenting basic norms and
values whether it's advocating on behalf of human rights, women's rights, freedom of the press. the united states has not always been perfect in this regard, there are times where we by necessity are dealing with allies or friends or partners who themselves are not meeting the standards that we would like to see met when it comes to international rules and norms, but i can tell you that in every multilateral setting in the united nations and it is important for us to continue to be on the right side of these issues because if we, the largest, strongest country and democracy in the world are not willing to stand up on behalf of
these values, then certainly china, russia, and others will not. >> kevin corke. >> thank you, mr. president. you have been a strong supporter of the idea of a peaceful transfer of power. >> uh-huh. >> demonstrated not terribly far from the rose garden and yet even as you and i speak there are more than five dozen democrats that are going to boycott the inauguration of the incoming president. do you support that? and what message would you send to democrats to better demonstrate the peaceful transfer of power? and if i could follow, i wanted to ask you about your conversations with the president-elect previously and without getting into too much of the personal side of it i'm just curious were you able to use that opportunity to convince him to take a fresh look at some of the important ideas that you will leave this office with?
maintaining some semblance of the affordable care act keeping dreamers here in the country without fear of deportation, were you able to convince him and how successful were you? >> well, i won't go into details of my conversations of president-elect trump. as i said before, they were cordial, at times they have been fairly lengthy and have been substantive. i can't tell you how convincing i've been. i think you would have to ask him whether i've been convincing or not. i have offered my best advice council about certain issues both foreign and domestic. and you know, my working assumption is that having won an election, opposed to a number of my initiatives and certain
aspects of my vision of where the country needs to go, it is appropriate for him to go forward with his vision and his values. and i don't expect that there's going to be you know enormous overlap. it may be that on certain issues once he comes into office and he looks at the complexities of how to in fact provide health care for everybody, something he says he wants to do, or wants to make sure that he is encouraging job creation and wage growth in this country, that may lead him to some of the same conclusions that i arrived at once i got here, but i don't think we'll know until he has an actual chance to get sworn in and sit behind that desk and i think a
lot of his views are going to be shaped by his advisors the people around him, which is why it's important to pay attention to these confirmation hearings. i can tell you that -- this is something i have told him -- that this is a job of such magnitude that you can't do it by yourself. you are enormously reliant on a team. you're cabinet, your senior white house staff, all the way to fairly junior folks in their 20s and 30s but executing on significant responsibilities. and so, how you put a team together to make sure that they are getting you the best information and they are t'it'ip the options is probably the most
useful constructive advice i've been able to give him is that if you find yourself isolated because the process breaks down or only hearing from people who gro agree with you on everything or haven't created a process that isn't fact-checking and probing and asking hard questions about policies or promises that you have made that's when you start making mistakes, and as i indicated in some of my previous remarks, reality has a way of biting back if you're not paying attention to it. with respect to the inauguration, i'm not going comment on those issues. all i know is i'm going to be there. so is michelle. and i have been checking the weather and i'm hardened by the fact that it's not going to be as cold as my inauguration because that was cold.
jenna rodriguez. you have said you would come back -- are you fearful for the status of the young immigrants and all immigrants in this country with the new administration and what did you mean when you said you would come back, would you lobby congress? maybe explore the political arena again? and why did you take action on -- a week ago? >> well, let me be absolutely clear, i did not mean that i was going to be running for anything any time soon, so what i meant is that it's important for me to take some time to process this amazing experience that we've gone through to make sure that my wife with whom i will be celebrating a 25th anniversary this we're is willing to put up with me a little bit longer.
i want do some writing, i want to be quiet a little bit and not hear myself talk so darn much. i want to spend precious time with my girls. so those are my priorities this year, but as i said before, i'm still a citizen. and i think it is important for democrats or progressives who feel that they came out on the wrong side of this election to be able to distinguish between the normal back and forth eb and flow of policy. are we going to raise taxes or lower taxes? are we going to you know expand this program or eliminate this program? how concerned are we about air
pollution or climate change? those are all normal parts of the debate. and, as i've said before, in a democracy sometimes you're going to win on those issues sometimes you're going to lose. i'm confident about the rightness of my position on a lot of these points, but we have a new president and congress that are going to make their same determinations and there will be a back and forth in congress around those issues and you guys will report on all that. but there's a difference between that normal functioning of politics and certain issues or certain moments where i think our core values may be at stake. i put in that category if i saw systematic discrimination being ratified in some fashion, i put
in that category explicit or functional obstacles to people being able to vote, to exercise their franchise. i would put in that category institutional efforts to silence dissent for the press. and for me at least, i would put in that category efforts to round up kids who have grown up here and for all practical purposes are american kids and send them some place else when they love this country, they are our kids' friends and classmates and are now entering into
community colleges or some cases serving in our military, the notion that we would just arbitrarily or because of politics punish those kids when they didn't do anything wrong themselves, i think would be something that would merit me speaking out. it doesn't mean that i would get on the ballot any way. with respect to wet foot, dry foot, we underwent a monumental shift in our policy towards cuba. my view was after 50 years of a policy not working it made sense for us to try to reopen diplomatic relations to engage a cuban government to be honest with them about the strong disagreements we have around you
know political oppression and treatment of decenters and to make progress for the cuban people our best shot was to suddenly have the cuban people interacting with americans, and seeing the incredible success of the cuban-american community. and engaging in commerce and business and trade and that it was through that process of opening up these bilateral relations that you would see overtime serious and significant improvement. given that shift in the relationship, the policy that we had in place with wet foot, dry foot, which treated cuban
immigrants completely different from folks from el salvador or adequa guatemala or any other part of the world, one that made a distinction whether you got here by land or by foot, you know, that was a carryover of a old way of thinking that didn't make sense in this day and age. particularly as we're opening up travel between the two countries. and so, we had very length think consultations with the department of homeland security, we had some tough negotiations with the cuban government but arrived at a policy which we both think is fair and appropriate to the changing nature of the relationship between the two countries.
nadia. >> i appreciate the opportunity and want to wish you and your family the best of luck in the future. >> thank you. >> mr. president you have been criticized and even attacked for the u.n. resolutions, mr. trump promised to move the -- ambassador that doesn't believe in a two-state solution -- the u.s. leadership with this -- protect israel and in that respect do you think you should have held israel more accountable like president bush senior did? thank you. >> i am -- i continue to be significantly worried about the israeli palestinian issue. and i'm worried about it both because i think the status quo
is unsustainable that it is dangerous for israel, that it is bad for palestinians bad for the region and bad for america's national security. and you know, i came into this office wanting to do everything i could to encourage serious peace talks between israelis and palestinians. and we invested a lot of energy, a lot of time, a lot of effort. first year, second year, all the way until last year. ultimately, what has always been clear is that we cannot force the parties to arrive at peace, what we can do is facilitate, provide a platform, encourage, but we can't force them to do it.
but, in light of shifts in israeli politic and palestinian politics, a right waward drift israeli politics weakening of the president's ability to move and take risks on behalf of peace in the palestinian territories in light of all the dangers that have emerged in the region and understandable fears that israelis they have about the chaos of rise of groups like isil and the deterioration of syria, in light of all those things, what we at least wanted to do understanding that the two parties wouldn't actually arrive at a final status agreement is to preserve the possibility of a
two-state solution because we do not see an alternative to it. and i've said this directly to president netten yanyahnetanyah. -- because if you do not have two states, then in some form or fashion you are extending an occupation functionally you end up having one state in which millions of people are disenfranchised and operate a second class residence. you can't even call them citizens necessarily. and, so the goal of the resolution was to simply say that the settlements, the growth of the settlements, are creating
a reality on the ground that increasingly will make a two-state solution impossible. and we believed consistent with the position that had been taken with previous u.s. administrations for decades now, that it was important for us to send a signal, a wakeup call, that this moment may be passing and israeli voters and palestinians need to understand that this moment may be passing. and hopefully that then creates a debate inside both israeli and palestinian communities that won't result immediately in peace but at least will lead to a more sober assessment of what the alternatives are. so we -- the president-elect will have his own policy.
the ambassador or the candidate for the ambassadorship obviously has very different views than i do. that's their prerogative, that's part of what happens after elections. and, i think my views are clear. we'll see how they're approach plays itself out. i don't want to -- i don't want to project today what could end up happening, but obviously it's a volatile environment. what we've seen in the past is when sudden unilateral moves are made that speak to some of the core issues and sensitivities of either side, that can be explosive. and what we have tried to do in the transition is just to provide the context in which the president-elect may want to make some of these decisions.
[ inaudible question ] >> well that's part of what we tried to indicate to the incoming team in our transition process is pay attention to this because this is volatile stuff. people feel deeply and passionately about this. and as i said -- i've said many times, you know, the actions that we take have enormous consequences and ramifications. we're the biggest kid on the block. and, i think it is right and appropriate for a new president to test old assumptions and re-examine the old ways of doing things, but if you're going to make big shifts in policy, just
make sure you have thought it through and understand that there are going to be consequences and actions typically create reactions and so you want to be intentional about it. you don't want to do things off the cuff when it comes to an issue this volatile. chris johnson. >> lgbt rights. >> i'm sorry where's chris? >> we've seen a lot of achievements pertaining to hate crimes, marriage quality nationwide and insuring people -- how do you think lgbt rights will rank in terms of your accomplishments and legacy and how confident are you that progress will endure or continue under the president-elect? >> i could not be