came on the same day that the obama administration announced sanctions on russia. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camarota. the president blamed vast illegal voting in a meeting with top congressional leaders. he also claimed against the size of the crowd at his inauguration was bigger than reported. >> that's not even what they were there to talk about. the president has been trying to motivate his early agenda. he just delivered on a key campaign promise, signing an executive order to withdraw from the tpp, all while the cia director got confirmed, mike pompeo. there's a lot going on. we have it all covered. let's begin with athena jones live at the white house. what will see today? >> a lot more meetings on the schedule today. this is very interesting, the
fact that yesterday during a jam packed day at the white house, during which the president was making good on several campaign promises as you mentioned, he still took the time to complain to members of congress about losing the popular vote. president trump again falsely claiming he lost the popular vote because of voter fraud. sources tell cnn during a bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders at the white house, the president reiterated the unsubstantiated claim that 3 to 5 million illegal ballots cost him the popular vote. it's a claim mr. trump has made before on twitter. it's been repeatedly debunked. the president also using the meeting to dwell on the size of his inauguration crowds. >> it was from his perspective a very, very large crowd, and we didn't push it beyond that, but it was clear that this was still in his mind. >> in his first official briefing as white house press secretary, sean spicer defending
the president. >> it's about sitting here every time and being told no. the crowds aren't that big. he's not that successful. the narrative and the default narrative is always negative and it's demoralizing. >> spicer on the defensive after falsely claiming the 2017 inauguration had the largest audience of any swearing in. >> i think sometimes we can disagree with the facts. our intention is never to lie to you. >> but beyond his continued obsession with votes and crowd size, trump spent most of his first monday in office on repealing obama's policies. >> great thing for the american worker what we just did. >> the president signing an executive action to withdraw the u.s. from the transpacific partnership. >> we're going to have trade, but we're going to have one on one. >> casting the free trade agreement between 12 nations as bad for american business. >> companies that left are going to come back to our country. they are going to hire a lot of people. >> the president also signing two other executive actions
imposing a hiring freeze on most federal workers and reinstating a ban on funding for international groups who provide or counsel women on abortion. his policy moves coming on the same day he met with corporate and union leaders, warning u.s. companies against manufacturing overseas. >> a company that wants to fire all of its people in the united states and build some factory someplace else and then thinks that that product is going to just flow across the border into the united states, that's not going to happen. they are going to have a tax to pay, a border tax. a substantial border tax. >> and offering an incentive to stay in the u.s. >> we think we can cut regulations by 75%. maybe more. >> another busy day ahead for the president. he has another breakfast and listening session. this time with auto industry leaders. he will be signing more executive orders and then later meeting with senate leaders. one thing not on his public schedule, the presidential daily briefing. that's the intelligence briefing that's gotten so much attention
over the last several months. alisyn. >> thank yous so much for that. vice president mike pence swearing in mike pompeo as the new cia director last night. the president's pick for secretary of state, rex i willer son -- tillerson advances to a full vote next week. and there's more today. we have more from kplil. >> the senate is inching along here. mike pompeo becoming the third cabinet official in place, sworn in by vice president mike pence and things are lining up for trump's fourth cabinet pick to be put in place. rex tillerson approved by the foreign relations committee yesterday with some last-minute support from senator marco rubio. tillerson now heads to the full senate and he's all but guaranteed to pass through easily but that vote will likely not happen immediately. democrats up here on the hill
have already indicated they will likely filibuster this nomination, pushing the final vote into next week. today on capitol hill another slew of contentious confirmation hearings, including tom price, and mick mulvaney. democrats on that committee have already indicated they will delay that vote, pushing sessions into next week, and right now senator sessions is at least at the earliest a final confirmation in early february. back to you guys. >> thank you very much. lots to discuss. let's bring in senator tammy baldwin, democrat from wisconsin. thank you for being on "new day." >> good morning. >> let's start with the criticism coming at your party for not having more nominees voted on and confirmed yet. that this is about delay. fair criticism? >> it's not. what has happened is we've had hearings with nominees who haven't even completed their
paperwork. this is particularly important, especially with the particular nominees that donald trump has put forward because we have seen financial entanglements, conflicts of interest, things that raise concerns among the american people that these nominees are going to be feathering their own nefts rather than working for the american people and if anything the american people need to know that people who join public service are fighting for them, and not for their former bosses or on behalf of investments that they have made, and several of these nominees have presented these conflicts that we have to resolve before we vote. >> okay. i want to talk to you about a couple in particular. price and devos. i know they are specific to you as well. is complexion relevant? that this is too white, too male
this group of nominees? is that relevant or is that p.c.? >> i would say that my duty as a senator and under the constitution, our duty is to advise and consent. we're not reviewing nominees that aren't before us. we are reviewing the nominees that trump has made, and that's the set of facts and the set of issues that we have before us. so betsy devos, tom price both came before the health, labor, and pensions committee in the senate. we will have other nominees come in the future, but i have been looking at their records, and their financial entanglements, frankly. >> let's talk about this specifically. tom price, says hhs nominee, says, what i did with my stocks was above board, transparent, ethical, and legal. and listening to your arguments, you seem to say that he's right at best about two of those. that maybe it was legal, because the laws are not that exacting, and maybe it was transparent
because it did come out in his recording that he has to do every year in congress, but do you believe that his stock trades were ethical and were above board? >> well, he came to our committee. we asked him a lot of questions about particular investments that he directed. i think [ no audio ] when we hear that a nominee for hhs secretary has invested in specific companies and then advanced policies that could advantage those companies, and we have asked for both an office of government ethics review as well as a securities and exchange commission review because i think this raises some red flags that ought to be examined very closely. again, the american people deserve to have cabinet secretaries fighting for them, thinking about them at every turn. not thinking about how they can
advance their own financial interests or those of others in the trump administration. >> his defense, senator, offered in part by fellow congressman chris collins who suppose thely gave him the inclination to want to invest in one of these companies, one, it was all legal. two, he never had legislation that directly affected that company. they are not in the u.s. market. is that about well it could have affected someone but it didn't and if it doesn't affect anything that he was legislating on, is that good enough? >> first of all, chris, there are a number of investments that have raised concerns. s not just the one he got on a tip from his colleague, representative collins. but he is a representative who advances health policy and when you look at the medical device companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and other companies that he's invested in. i think it draws some very
serious questions about his discretion, frankly, as a representative that he's doing that. and we need to have cabinet secretaries who are focused squarely on the well-being of american people. if you look at the policies that he has advanced, being against women's reproductive freedom, charging ahead with an idea to end the guarantee of medicare and increase costs for seniors, refusing under examination in our health committee to agree to what donald trump says he supports medicare negotiating better prices for prescription drugs so our seniors aren't so burdened with those costs. his substantive record also raises concern not just his messy entanglentanglements fina. >> betsy devoss, those who
support her say you guys don't like she's so wealthy and the conflicts questions you have aren't directed at people who have her family's net worth. >> she appeared before the committee not even filed her office of government ethics paperwork, so we were hampered in being able to have a full exchange. knowing nonetheless that she had direct or indirect investments in firms that would be advantaged by certain policies she could pursue as education secretary. again, the president promised to drain the swamp and instead we have these individuals with financial entanglentanglements could be directly benefited by the decisions they would make. now a week after our hearing, we have finally seen some of the paperwork indicating that she needs to disentangle herself in
over 100 investments that have something to do with education. her portfolio. the other thing about betsy devos is how little experience she has with public education. she's never been to a public school. she admits readily. but frankly when you have a potentially incoming education secretary who has such little knowledge about the k-12 system, about public higher education, technical colleges and universities, who couldn't answer some of the simplest questions in the hearing, that gives me pause. >> the aca quickly, two republican senators have brought up a plan for replacement of the aca, obamacare as it is known. a curious component of it, almost an ironic one as well, they say states who want to can opt in or opt out of obamacare. essentially saying you can keep
your plan if you want it, which obviously smacks at one of the biggest republican criticisms of obamacare when he failed to deliver on being able to keep your own doctor. with your understanding of the aca, how can a state opt in if everybody is not in? because what they are going to do with the mandate and the subsidy structure and the pool structure. would that work? >> i don't think it would, and what we see is a proposal and tom price in talking about how he would replace if the affordable care act is ultimately repealed. he would not guarantee that people with preexisting health conditions could even get insurance. i can tell you that the people of wisconsin did not send me to the united states senate to take their health care away, and we have to proceed right now in either strengthening the health reforms that were passed under the affordable care act or resisting this effort to strip
health insurance away from literally tens of millions of americans, which is what they have on the table right now, and i can tell you when i go home, i'm hearing the stories of what people would face if this actually goes through. >> senator, thank you for being on "new day" to make the case. as we get more meat on the bones for these proposals, please come back so we can debate it. u.s. investigators are scrutinizing phone calls between president trump's security adviser, mike flynn and a russian ambassador. these calls causing concerns. i think i should say counterintelligence investigators there, evan. tell us the latest. >> the calls between mike flynn, president trump's national security adviser and russia's ambassador to the united states are being scrutinized as part of a broader counterintelligence
investigation into russian activities in the united states. the calls were captured by routine u.s. eavesdropping targeting russian diplomats. some of the content of conversation drew enough potential concerns that investigators are still looking into the discussions. the officials all stressed that so far there's been no determination of wrongdoing. we know the fbi and intelligence officials briefed the obama white house about the phone discussions before president obama left office and at least one of calls came on the same day that the obama administration announced sanctions on russia and expelled 35 p diplomats. now the white house says it has quote, absolutely no knowledge of any investigation and/or even the basis of such an investigation. sean spicer, the white house spokesman told reporters there were two calls, the men discussed four subjects. that includes setting up a conference on isis and a phone call between president trump and
vladimir putin. >> thank you stay on that for us. repeal and replace obamacare, that was the rallying crying during this election. two gop senators have put forward an alternative. up next, we'll talk to them about their plan and we'll put it to the test. bp engineers use underwater robots, so they can keep watch over operations below the sea, even from thousands of feet above. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. because safety is never being satisfied. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy,
people confuse but they're different... nice tells you what you want to hear. but kind is honest. this bar is made with cranberries and almonds. so, guess what? we call it cranberry almond. give kind a try. of being there for my son's winning shot. that was it for me. that's why i'm quitting with nicorette. only nicorette mini has a patented fast dissolving formula. it starts to relieve sudden cravings fast. every great why needs a great how.
>> republicans in congress beginning the process of repealing obamacare. the party has yet to coalesce around an alternative plan. two senators on monday unveiled their idea for how to replace obamacare and they join us now. good morning, senators. >> good morning. >> senator collins, let me start with you and just see if i can get my mind around your plan, at least the main tenets of your plan without getting too far in the weeds. as i understand it, you would leave it up to the states. the states for which the affordable care act is working well, they get to keep it. the states who want to scrap it can scrap it and at the same time you would do away with the mandate that, you know, forces americans to have to pay for it. just explain to us how if you
make it optional, how do you pay for it? >> well, first of all, it's important to understand that it isn't simply a matter of the states scrapping the aca. we do want to return power to the states to design their health insurance plans because what works in one state may not work well in another state. what we do know, that in states across the country, the obamacare exchanges are on the verge of collapse in many places. so doing nothing is not an option. what we do is set up an alternative choice, a better choice for states where she could use a combination of health savings accounts to expand health insurance to the uninsured.
>> senator cassidcassidy, you a doctor, so you have a very interesting perspective on all of this. explain to us -- the way the math worked as we understood it is that healthy people had to buy into the system through mandates because that supported financially the sick people. if you take away the mandate, how does that math work? >> so i think that's the great thing about our plan. we give states the option of saying those who are eligible that you are enrolled unless you choose not to be, much like when folks turned 65 they are on medicare. it's not a mandate. they are just on medicare. the tax credit someone receives would be adequate to pay for their premium and so what you've just done is restored the law of big numbers. all these young healthy males who aren't going to pay through the nose to sign up for the exchange and are not under obamacare are now enroll unless they call up and say they don't want to be. this by itself according to one
insurance company which has modeled our plan would lower premiums by 20% even while we maintain coverage for those few sick who now have their costs spread out over the many. >> senator chuck schumer doesn't see it your way. let me read what he says. he says under their proposal, millions of americans would be kick off their plans, out of pocket costs and deductibles for consumers would skyrocket, ploir-based coverage for working family would be disrupted and protections for people with preexisting conditions, such as cancer, would be gutted, all while the wealthiest few get a tax cut. what's your take? >> i think that it's unfortunate that senator schumer has read the bill. we have retained vital consumer protections such as protections for people with preexisting
conditions as long as they have paid their premiums. we allow young people to stay on their parents' policies until age 26. we prohibit the imposition of lifetime or annual caps. all of those consumer protections are in place regardless of what plan you choose and the fact is that under the affordable care act, we have nearly 30 million people in this country who still lack insurance. so we hope that our approach will expand the number of people who are covered. >> we think that it's better that someone have their insurance, her insurance governed by their state capital than our nation's capital. i understand that mr. exhumer has not red the bill because we've not introduced it. we're not about partisanship. if albany, new york, wish to
keep obamacare for new york, he can. but we shouldn't impose it on people in montana or west virginia or indiana, why should we? it's not working there. this is not a partisan plan. this is an american plan. this is not a democrat or republican. it's a patient plan and i hope senator schumer moves beyond part i tanship. >> i want to ask you about tom price. are either of you troubled by mr. price's history of trading in medical company stocks around the time or connected to legislation that he then introduced that would affect those medical companies? >> well, it's my understanding that he has complied with all the ethics regulations of the house of representatives. it's something that the committee on which we serve as look at very closely and i believe that having someone who
is a physician, who really understands providing medicare as head of hhs, is a plus. >> but senator cassidy, he didn't break the law but he dismiss that he traded in those stocks. are you comfortable with that? >> his broker made trades for him and his explanation -- at some point in this body, there are so many things that there's no way that there cannot be sometimes an appearance of impropriety. we can use advancible tax credits, give them to americans to allow americans choose the insurance they wish to buy without a washington prescribed solution. we like that. we think it works for everybody. >> thanks so much for coming on "new day" to explain all of this. nice to see you.
digging needs to be done these were very discrete companies that did very specific things that may have played into specific pieces of legislation. president trump dismissing an ethics lawsuit from the moment he took office because of accepting payments from a forei foreign government. will it stand? you might not ever just stand there, looking at it. ♪ i mean you may never even sit in the back seat. mhm that'd be a shame.
be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®.
the president reaction to the lawsuit thing? >> that's it. without merit. totally without merit. >> president trump responding to an ethics lawsuit that claims foreign payments to trump businesses violates the u.s. constitution. the president's lawyer denies it. saying the president has taken measures to avoid conflicts of interest. joining us now ambassador norman izen part of the suit. counsellor, good to have you on the show as always. >> it's always a pleasure to be with you. >> first a couple of big points
and what could be a big gocha for your lawsuit. trump's lawyer says two things, he has divested his financial interests, will give money back to the treasury for hotels. there's that. and this emouluments clause wasn't to be applied to exchanges for business value. >> the clause is written very broadly. not limited to gifts. the founders of our country were so worried about the distorting effect it could have on a president's judgment that they forbade gives or things of value. >> favors. >> of any kind what ever. that's a close from the clause.
it's just not true that it's limited to presents. the president's lawyer has said well, we'll take profits from the hotels, from foreign governments and turn those over. but if they admit that the emoluments clause apply, what about the apartments he sells, the condos, other properties around the world, what about his bank loans and the other benefits he gets from foreign governments, and what's more, even the profits from the hotels doesn't make sense because the government has long held that you have to separate all revenues, not just profits. we don't think it's enough. he needed to make a clean ownership break and he hasn't done that. >> one fair point to be made. all those papers we saw on the stage, nobody got to look at them. a lot of these different businesses in different states require filing of different
paperwork for divesting and changing of corporate status and ownership status. to your knowledge, those changes have not been filed with the states. we're waiting on word. now, here's the gotcha. norman eisen you got a nice head of hair and you are a respectable man. mr. painter, same thing. formidable kounses but neither of you have been aggrieved. you have no standing and you cannot bring a federal lawsuit if you can't show that you have been victimized by the wrong that you are ago -- arguing. >> chris, it's a great question, but the united states supreme court disagrees with you. in the havens realty case, the court found, because somebody has to be able to bring it up when you have a blatant constitutional violation like this, the court found when you have an organization and that organization has to die -- divert resources from its normal
situation. when you have that situation, havens realty found you have standing as an organization. so crew, the nonpartisan group that i chair, mr. painter, co-chairs, i worked for president obama, he worked for president bush, our organization has had to divert resources in order to deal with this unconstitutional conduct, that confers standing and chris, your backyard, the southern district of new york, the second circuit, is one of the strongest jurisdictions in the country in applying havens realty. that's where this action was brought. >> wasn't there some particulars in that case about how they were in the business of what was being deemed unconstitutional so there was a grievance there? where as you are an advocacy group. it would be one thing if you were a competing hotel or something like that. but that's not what you are. >> well, first of all, the cases
on -- we believe the case falls squarely within havens. two organizations, both of our organizations have had to divert, both to respond to unconstitutional conduct, and then -- >> but that was preexisting in havens and you were created to deal with this. make your bigger point. >> no, we preexisted it. crew has existed for almost 20 years. my larger point is of course there are other bases of standing as well and, chris, we've been so heartened myself and the bipartisan legal team that we've put together, by the outpouring. we've heard from people like competitors, also from ordinary people who are being injured, competitors as well as ordinary folks. really an outpouring of calls and emails. we're now sorting through those. i anticipate that you are going to see others step forward as well. of course, there are always concerns about retaliation, when you are taking on the most
powerful man in the world. there are mechanisms to deal with that, like filing john doe plaintiffs, trying to protect identity. you are going to see further developments. other plaintiffs, i believe, are going to step forward. >> any court date coming up? any date for us to look for? >> the judge in the case has set an initial schedule. we're going to confer with our friends at the united states department of justice, defending this case, and we're going to lay out reasonable scheduling for the case, so we're going to try to move briskly. we want to get to discovery because we want to see mr. trump's tax returns in order to substantiate the details of the constitutional violation. >> there will be some sufficiency findings before then. we look forward to it. thank you for making the case as always. >> thank you for having me. >> what do you think? you think the lawsuit is going to stand? what's your take. look up the havens case. google it, read it. tweet us at news day.
are you giving me extra homework? all right. i'll do it. i'll do it. president trump quitting the transpacific partnership with a swipe of his pen. we'll get reaction from around the world with our team of international correspondents next. safety doesn't come in a box. it's not a banner that goes on a wall. it's not something you do now and then. or when it's convenient. it's using state-of-the-art simulators to better prepare for any situation. it's giving offshore teams onshore support. and it's empowering anyone to stop a job if something doesn't seem right. at bp, safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.
at bp, safety is never being satisfied. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back
letter of termination and we'll straighten it out or we're gone. >> pledge campaign fulfilled. president trump withdrawing the united states out of the transpacific partnership. he's also pledging to renegotiate natfa. how do these countries like mexico, and china feel? we have a panel joining us. great for international perspective. matt, you are in beijing for us. so with the united states pulling out of tpp does china sense an opportunity to fill that void? >> yeah, i think absolutely in more ways than one. i think in the near term what you are seeing with the final nail in the coffin if you will for tpp would be china pushing its own free trade agreement in the pacific region. it's called the regional comprehensive economic
partnership. it has 16 companies and many of which were part of the tpp. china sees an opportunity to start leading the way and furthermore exerting its already substantial influence on some of these countries. economic influence, maybe leads down the road to more strategic influence and let's say the military realm or the social realm but it also plays into what you are seeing china do on an international level. president xi just went to davos he gave a big speech about being a leader in free trade. this is something that you are seeing china do as the united states begins to pull back. if you do see that continue, i think what you will see is a more assertive china on the world stage saying hey, we are ready to lead when it comes to free trade and the globalization of different economies around the world. >> paula, we're seeing an exercise of leverage. it can't be a coincidence that right after the united states pulled out of tpp, we see one of
the strongest statements about the south china sea. china says the u.s. isn't even a party to that. they have leverage. when we look at someone like mexico and what may come with natfa, the president has already said he's going to exercise his rights under the existing agreement to renegotiate. where is the leverage there and how might it play out? >> well, in terms of leverage, the leverage that mexico-canned thought they had is because we're at the table together. trade is a blood sport. everyone knows that. when they got to the table, they thought there would be some backing from the united states. it's not there. in canada, it was very funny, the foreign minister, she is the trump friendly now foreign minister and she was asked are you throwing mexico under the bus? well, no, we have a good relationship with mexico, but yes, canadians understand our main concern for our economics is that u.s. trading relationship. here's the up shot, if you are the united states, yes, he's saying one on one. trump is saying this is going to
work. it can work in the short term, perhaps it will work in the long term. the risk is that nations will begin to go it alone without the united states. now, if you are in canada, they have an effective one so far. they are having an offensive with china. they are saying if we have to do our deal, fine, we'll do our own deal with china's well. mexico, as i'm sure you are about to find out, you know, i called it the trump administration has been a threat to economies like the canadian one and the mexican one. >> that brings us to you, leila. you were at the presidential palace yesterday when the president of mexico talked about trade and the effect of natfa, et cetera. what was the feeling there? >> you know, all along this has been sort of a measured response. they say hey, we have a contingency plan and we will respond immediately.
yesterday for the first time, we heard the mexican president say, hey, we have a plan and here it is. it's a ten-point plan and of course you are going to see some of the things that have made headlines, right? the border, specifically the wall, immigration, but then again there came trade and i got to tell you every single government official i have talked to, be it the senators here, consul generals over the u.s., and even the president as well as the new foreign minister, every single time they talk, the first thing that comes up is natfa. so it's clearly a priority. what was in the ten-point plan when it comes to free trade? they talked about their willingness to renegotiate and specifically to go back to the table on energy and then also ecommerce because remember natfa was signed before the internet even existed. so all along it's been sort of this measured response, but also a willingness to go back to the table to discuss natfa yet again
with this new administration. >> leila, is there any talk about putting the wall on the table as a negotiating point from the mexican authority side? >> there's a ten-point plan coming in. the mexican president will be meeting directly with president trump january 31st, on that plan is the border. he said specifically we do not believe in borders. we believe until bridges, and he said he wants this border to unite and not to divide. so i would not be surprise the at all if this is something that comes up in the negotiations, but they have said all along repeatedly they are not willing to pay for that wall. >> leyla, paula, mat, thank you for the international perspective on those issues. president trump made lots of promises on the campaign trail. all politicians do. what's the hard part?
speech which was dominated by words like america, nation and protect. the question now, can he deliver on the promises he made on the campaign trail? well, politifact has undertaken a new project aimed at answering that question. politifact staff writer john rittenberg joins us now. i know it's not new in that you did this same project for president obama but you did just start this to track president trump's campaign promises. let's take a look at some of the biggest promises made on the campaign and how you rate them thus far. number one, the repeal obamacare. on the campaign trail he said real change pegins with immediately repealing and replacing the disaster known as obamacare. do you already have a rating on this one? >> well, we do. we call it in the works because he went ahead and he signed that executive order telling the
federal agencies, if there's some regulation or rule that imposes a cost, basically on anybody or any organization, then you don't really have to enforce it. you can pull it back. the reality, though, is that if you talk to all of the experts, they'll tell you that that particular executive order is more symbolism than substance because it doesn't give agencies any more authority than the already have. so that's a step that shows that the trump administration is very serious, but there's no real action yet. >> okay. let's look at the next one because he's only been in office a couple of days and it's already a promise kept. this is the getting out of tpp. stopping tpp. he had said i'm going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw from the trans-pacific partnership. yesterday he did that. so you rate that how? >> we rate it as promise kept
because this is something that was entirely in trump's control. he said i'm going to pull us out. the president has enormous authority to do that, to yank american participation out of a treaty that has not been approved. so the trans-pacific partnership was not looking good in this congress. it was basically dead on arrival. trump said he would kill it, and let's just say he put the nail in the coffin. >> okay. so the next three i know you're keeping an eye on but it's early days are build a wall, make mexico pay for it. you can't rate that yet. bring back manufacturing. you can't rate that yet. you don't know how long that's going to take. make no cuts to medicare. you can't rate that yet. tell me your process. i'm interested in this. if it's something that, say, congress does, do you give mr. trump credit for it?
>> well, if congress actually delivers on the promise, then we rate it as promise kept. for us, the issue is what are the results. that's the only standard. so if a presidential candidate makes a promise and they have no ability to deliver on it, they still made the promise and that's all that we can judge. if the president pushes for it and fails, then it is a promise that is broken. if the president doesn't push for it and congress actually makes it happen, then it's promise kept. we're only judging results. >> so then what about if something ends up being a compromise say on the wall with mexico. let's say it's not an actual physical wall. let's say it's better digital technology. then where do you rate it? >> then we've got the category compromised. so if at the end of the day some
elements have moved forward, then we say, okay, that's fair game. a fair number of obama's promises ended up in the compromimised category. and that's sort of the give and take of politics and deal with the real world. >> so if president trump builds a wall, separating us from mexico but mexico doesn't pay for it is that a promise kept or broken? >> that would be -- since this is a two-part promise, we would have to end up at compromise, i do believe. but the interesting thing is, and you are getting into this, is it gets pretty complicated. things are easy on the campaign trail. tough in real life. and so we understand we're going to be making different judgment calls. we don't make them entirely on our own. we do a lot of research. talk to a lot of people and try, too rive at what we think is a pretty fair assessment at the end of the day. >> how many promises did president obama keep?
>> oh, i believe that the rough percentage is -- i think in the neighborhood of about 50%. and then about 25% were compromise and the rest were promise broken. >> i didn't mean that to be a trick question. i actually have the graphic here. 48.4% that he kept. this is complicated stuff. >> so i did okay, right? >> you did very well. basically, you've narrowed it down to how many promises are you tracking for president trump? >> so we're looking at 102. and the difference is with president obama was our first time out of the box. we're all about accountability. we think that things that presidential candidates say they're going to do, they should be held accountable to actually deliver on them. with president obama, many of his promises were very, very at the micro level and we said, well, this is a promise.
with trump we've taken a different approach to make it a lot more manageable for the public and, quite frankly, for us to do the research. >> we'll be checking back in with you throughout these weeks and months to come. jon greenberg, thanks for sharing this with us. we're following a lot of news this morning, so let's get to it. our attention is never to lie to you. >> the new president said he would have won the popular vote had it not been for the millions of illegal votes. >> this is something that is just not true. >> it's just remarkable what got done in the first day. >> tpp wasn't the right way. >> mr. trump is serious about moving in that direction, i would be delighted to work with him. >> u.s. investigators are scrutinizing calls to remove mike flynn as russia's ambassador to the united states. >> i asked if there were any questions beyond the ambassador and he said no. >> conversations of mike pompeo to the cia is confirmed. >> this is "new day" with chris
cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> good morning. welcome to your "new day." it's tuesday, january 24th. first, president trump falsely claiming once again that voter fraud cost him the popular vote. he offered no proof, and there is no proof of the same. it came up in a meet with top congressional leaders that weren't there to talk about the election but agenda going forward. still talk about the crowds at the inauguration as well. >> the president signing an executive order to pull the u.s. out of the trans-pacific partnership. owl of this as several of president trump's nominees face more questions in senate hearings. cnn has every angle covered. let's begin with athena jones live at the white house. >> hi, alisyn. this is noteworthy. in the midst of a very busy day, a series of meetings. the president still found the time to complain about the november election. sources at that meeting last night with congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle say
he reiterated the debunked claim that 3 million to 5 million people voted illegally costing him the popular vote. he also continued to talk about the size of his inauguration crowd. a sign that these are still issues that very much continue to bother him. but it wasn't all about the past. the president took several executive actions yesterday. he withdrew the u.s. formally from the trans-pacific partnership trade deal. that's the 12-nation trade deal that was so important to the obama administration, but that trump ran on undoing. here's more of what he had to say about trade. >> we're going to stop the ridiculous trade deals that are taking everybody out of our country and taking companies out of our country. and it's going to be reversed. i think you'll have a lot of companies come back to our country. companies that left are going to come back to our country. they're going to hire a lot of people. >> the president also instituted a hiring freeze on federal workers. it doesn't apply to members of