CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN March 20, 2017 11:01am-11:15am PDT
what was discussed in beijing. >> back to the previous comments. helping to square the circle a little bit, you said in the case of the president's tweets on this ongoing investigation more things will come out that may justify that but in the case of the collusion charges you have listed all the people said there is no investigation there. >> right. >> why in one case sit sufficient to say you can rule out collusion now and in the other you say more information still needs to come out. >> i'm not ruling anything out. i'm merely explaining to you that every person, republican, democrat, obama -- certainly obama administration, across a broad section. >> about the tweets. >> in terms of what? >> that there is -- >> but i think that there is -- on the investigation itself, we know from the people who have been briefed. on the other piece of it we know that it's an ongoing thing. and even according to the department of justice in terms of the information that's been provided and chairman nunes that they are still at the begin of
this process. that is a very different thing than a group of people saying there is an ongoing and from we've been briefed there is no evidence to suggest any type of collusion. that's a different -- hunter. >> thanks sean. on a slightly different topic in his first eight weeks in office president trump has made at least ten trips to the golf course. he regularly used to criticize president obama for his time on the develop course. how is his golf game different? >> one of two things, you saw him trying to use lies this time with prime minister abe to help foster deeper relationships in southeast asia. in asia, rather, and have a growing relationship that's going to help u.s. interests. how you use the game of golf is something that he has talked about. secondly, you know, we went to -- down to -- he had a mini cabinet meeting the other day -- two weekends ago, down at his club this virginia. and i remember so many people jumping to the conclusion that he is going down and playing golf. just because you go some where
doesn't mean you have done it. on a couple of conclusions he conducted meetings there, actually had phone calls. just because he heads there doesn't mean that's what is happening. >> i know he did meet with prime minister abe on the course but we are not getting a lot of details on other high level meetings that are taking place. if he is having productive meetings on the course go ynt the president and his aides being more forthcoming about what he is doing. >> the same reason that he can have dinner and lunch with somebody -- i think the president is entitled to a degree of privacy. we bring the collective pool to be there but the president is entitled to bathe of privacy as well. >> does the president believe the fbi will do a fair job of investigating any sort of links to russia during the election? then i have one more? >> there is a variety of institutions look at it, the house and senate intelligence committee, the fbi. but yeah i mean i think when you get to the bottom of it we'll have a much better picture of
what is happening and i think it will continue to vindicate him on that. go ahead. >> the follow-up, the president tweeted this morning a question about a potential dnc connection to russia during the election. >> right. >> is he under the impression that the clinton campaign had inappropriate contact with russia during the election? >> i think that's an interesting aspect of all of this that's not being covered. number one, from everything that had been publicly available on several occasions the dnc was asked by the fbi to allow their servers to be looked at despite all of the claims about their concerns about leaking. yet the question still doesn't come out, why wouldn't the dnc on multiple occasions rebuff the fbi? why were they not wanting did -- if they were so concerned about hacks and leaking, why did the dnc not ask the fbi to come look? not only did they not ask them, they rebuffed them on multiple occasions. why? what were they height hiding? what were they concerned of?
i think there is a serious question. it's not -- they are very clear about the concerns that they have as well as all the leadership in the democratic party yet when it came to hacks and leaks out of the dnc -- and they are quick to jump to the conclusion about who did it, and yet they wouldn't allow the fbi to investigate it. there is a whole second set of concerns here in terms of what was hillary clinton's role? when you look at the obama history -- the obama administration and the clinton -- the clintons' involvement with russia in terms of donations that the clintons received from russian entities, the idea that they sold off tremendous amount of the uranium to the russian government -- and yet where was the concern for that? what are we doing to look into that? it was the obama administration in 2009 that talked about a reset with russia and a desire the reset relationships. hillary clinton signed off on the deal that gave a russian company one fifth of the u.s. uranium supply. where is the question being
that? what did they get? there was discussion the other day about a russian officialet noing both campaigns they sought to do it. where is their certain on that campaign. the democrats are quick to point fingers yet when it comes to discussing their own collusion or questions involving their involvement with russian officials or buy offs to the russians there is no discussion there. you have got to wonder on both sides where is the parity when it comes to these kinds of investigations. margaret? >> sean, when you say there is more to come forward. you have got the fbi director saying there is nothing to back up the president's claims about wiretapping, you have a series of officials. when does this enfor the president? march 28th? >> it is not a question of a date it's a question of where we get answers. you look at someone like michael flynn and you ask the question how does an american citizen who
should be protected by law from having their identity unmasked -- how does that happen? because the fbi and relevant intelligence agencies have access to this document, they can figure out who it was. >> right. who it was. wiretapping of the president -- that. >> i understand that. what i'm getting at is there is a lot of information we have come to learn in terms of what happened in terms offer is valence throughout the 2016 election and throughout the transition. you look at somebody like michael flynn and you realize they might have been looking at somebody else at that time how does somebody's name that's supposed to be protected by law from getting disclosed put out in the public? why was it put out in the public? the people in the intelligence community would have had access to that information, could have found out who it was. you have got ask the question, why was a name that should have been protected been put out there. what were the motives, who was
mind that unmasking. >> are you saying the president has evidence -- >> no, i'm saying there is a lot more questions that need to get asked about what was being done in terms of surveillance, who was being surveilled, what techniques. why are certain people being sort of quote unmasked and having their identity known. what was going on? there is a lot more questions than answers that need to get ask. >> who does the president trust to provide those answers if not the heads of all those agencies? >> we have talked about this ad nauseum. that the house and the senate intelligence committees are looking into this. today the first of several hearings that chairman nunes intends to call. senator burr has already talked about it. there is ways to go. i get you want to know the end of the book right now but we are on the first chapter. >> burr and nunes, he does trust them to provide -- >> sure. we put out a statement saying so much that we asked them to look into it. i don't think it should come as any surprise as to we have noted multiple times that is where the
president believes the proper place and the process for all of these claims to go through. steve. >> the president had meetings with north korea, who were the meetings with, and what was his reaction to north korea's test of this new rocket engine? >> i think we continue to be concerned with north korea's activity. that's why not only have we continued to have conversations with officials in japan and south korea, but continue to urge china to step in and play a larger role in deterring both the ballistic and other nuke missile threats that north korea plays. i'm not -- i will try to have a further read out on some of those conversations. but i think there is a growing concern about north korea. i think that is part of what secretary tillerson is going to be discussing with him during their meeting. >> did tillerson get a promise from china to weigh in more on north korea? >> i think he sent a very clear signal that our pal see of strategic patience is over.
the president and the secretary of state have an expectation that china employ multiple points of pressure on north korea. we know that we don't agree 100% of the time with china. but as the state department noted yesterday, both president xi and secretary tillerson agree there are opportunities for greater cooperation between china and the united states and acknowledge that there are and will be in the future differences between the two countries. but i think that secretary tillerson's trip continued to -- or helped set us down that path. i think the follow on meet that is the leaders intend to have will be helpful in that vein. shannon? >> give the talk last week about the budget, the priorities for the american tax dollars, the need to cut programs like, you know, or make cuts to programs like wheels on meals and the arts, is the president going to consider curbing some of his trips to mar-a-lago, which the jao estimates could cost 3
million per trip? is he willing to cut back on those trips at all given his concerns for the priorities of american tax dollars? >> i think that is a vast reach. presidents always travel. i think the president, wherever he goes, he express the apparatus of the white house with us. that is just something that happens. the president will continue to go and travel around the country and have meetings to solve the nation's problems. again, i think just with -- bus i know you took a little bit of a shot there, i think even the "washington post," which is no friend to conservatives, even they sided with us that these false sort of narratives on meals on wheels -- it is not a federal program. 3% of their total budget comes from a block grant that's passed through there. it is a state run program. they had apparently a phenomenal weekend this week. i get that's a cute program to point at but it is false and misleading to try to make that narrative stick. >> i note to your point that all
presidents travel. no presidents travelled so often and so early to their own private residence. >> president bush went to crawford. >> not that early. >> i get it. but at the same time the president is very clearly working seven days a week. this is where he goes to see his family. he brings people down there. this is part of being president. john? >> thank you sean. turning back to the meeting with chancellor merkel on friday, did the president and the chancellor discuss the economic crisis in greece at all? and given the appointment of two officials to the treasury department who have been critical of the international monetary fund, does the administration see new or different roles for the imf in resolving the grook economic pros he is. >> let me refer to you the treasury department at imf. i think the readout that we provided on the chancellor's visit speaks for it self.
they spoke at length as far as what they discussed and what they meant. i'm not going to step on that. francesca? >> thank you. are you aware of any white house officials that are under investigation by the fbi? >> no. >> okay. and you mentioned the hangers on in the campaign earlier. and carter page. but there was also a question about roger stone. was he also in that category? is he someone that the president is still in frequent contact with? he is also called an informal adviser to the president and a confidant of him? >> mr. stone is somebody the president has known for a long time. he worked briefly on the campaign, i think until august of 2015, from recollection. but they -- they have talked from time to time, but i don't think any time recently. but they had a long relationship going back years where he would provide counsel. again, he played a role early on in his campaign but ended that role in august of 2015. and i don't know at all when the last time they even spoke was.
>> sean, did the -- in the meeting with gates this morning, did the president's cut in nih financeding come up? how does he square meeting with gates and sort of focusing on this whole need to continue medical research, and then at the same time want to cut medical search funding by such a large amount? >> i know they talked about cures and health. i think he applauds a lot of the work that they have done overseas in particular. i don't have a full read on that yet but i'll try to get you more on it. look, we have discussed the nih in particular. i think there is this assumption in washington that if you don't spend more on the on a subject that you are not caring as much. when you will be at some of the agencies and departments and programs that we've seen, you know in many cases they are not meeting their mission. i think there are cost savings that can be achieved so you can focus the dollars that are being allocated towards a more effective use of the mission at hand. but you know, it's