Skip to main content

tv   CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin  CNN  March 22, 2017 11:00am-12:01pm PDT

11:00 am
>> you said there's more information to come, more information to come, is this -- >> i don't know. for the eighth time, there is no -- we don't know what he is going to come up here and explain and share and to talk about where we think this is head. we're not in the business to say we're trying to get to point that this is what they have. we have asked that people gather up information and what they have to what extent we will know soon. >> the mother of eric garner met with an official at the white house yesterday. she's looking for fairness and justice in her son's case. what should we expect to come out of that meeting with this white house official should there be a push to make sure that there is an indictment of the police officers -- >> that's a department of justice question and -- for us to get involved in a specific
11:01 am
case would be highly inappropriate in terms of trying to guess what the outcome of a case should be. >> along that line, the official according to his -- reached out to the department of justice civil rights division, had the wrong number, called another number had the right number, to include the obama administration an other administrations the department of justice limited the numbers of people to call over to the department of justice. has the attorney general, general sessions changed that? >> it would have to be reissued. in terms of every attorney general issues a memo i think going back to mokasi post water gate but it's been a practice to almost every attorney general to issue a memo spelling out the procedures that the officials in the justice department contact the white house and who they can
11:02 am
contact and the nature of which and what their exceptions are, et cetera, they get crafted by each new attorney general. i would refer you back to the department of justice on the status of that under this attorney general. >> how many officials here have that right to call the department of justice -- >> i don't know. i would refer you to the department of justice. >> but was there wrong doing in this effort? >> i don't know. i don't know the nature of what you're asking but refer you back to the department of justice. >> two quick questions. last november president trump dismissed reports he was trying to obtain security clearances for his children as quote a typically false news story. now there are reports ivanka trump is attempting to obtain clearances. >> at the time it was not true. she wasn't obtaining a skurecur clearance so it was not accurate then. there was no -- i think we
11:03 am
addressed it during the transition, an official had actually inquired there was no actual attempt at the time the official in question was removed from the transition team. they merely made an inquiry to get an fs-86 process forwarded. no account was open and that official was let go. at this time as i mentioned yesterday, ivanka has decided to go above and beyond and act in certain ways she complies with certain rules by maintaining the federal records act, getting a security clearance so that if she is privy to any information she has to abide by the same rules and regulations if she is in a room, et cetera, i released a statement and will stick by ii it. >> a plan to quote unquote
11:04 am
benefit a client of vladimir putin do you still stand by he had a quote unquote limited role, and how spending months as a top official is a limited role? >> i've tried to avoid commenting -- i've talked to a lot of you about the individual stories but i think obviously this one start today cated to c of buzz, briefly on this, i think nothing in this morning's report references any actions by the president, white house administration that's clear from the get go, the report is entirely focused on actions that paul took a decade ago recording a former advisor of the campaign and the actions that came to light this morning are about a client he had last decade. i know i commented on this the other day and clearly should have been more precise with respect to paul's role.
11:05 am
paul was hired to over see the delegate's operation, played a significant role in the convention and delicate operations of four previous republican nominees bob dole, george w. bush, ronald reagan, and to be clear he got the job done on the delegates. after months of speculation after a contested campaign, he was involved in the campaign under five months hired march 28th to oversee delegations. the a.p. focus on his activities in the last decade, to place in context he placed clients public data including the caribbean, africa, it is similar to the
11:06 am
work of tony podesta, last year not last decade tony podesta lobbied against the largest bank and s-- sat on a board of a ban company. it's not even close, what we're talking about isn't even close to her most significant role with respect to rush. hillary clinton along with the obama administration that gave one fifth of america's uranium reserves, bill clinton paid a half a millions by a paid speech connected to the you're ydeal. so a individual who worked less than five months who worked with a russian -- even though the
11:07 am
clintons had mump more extenttive ties. as secretary of state hillary was crafting a policy she said was design today quote strength then russia and to be clear the president has no personal financial dealings with russia, they are dealing with contest in russia once and selling a palm beach home to a businessman in 2005. and for the media members trying to conflate paul's role, numerous individuals, james clapper and mike more rel and intelligence from both parties have said across the board they have seen zero evidence of any collusion between the trump campaign and russian officials and not going to be changed by former business dealings of a campaign staffer from a decade ago. >> do you and other senior administration officials have sought to assure skeptical
11:08 am
republican lawmakers that phase two of these regulatory modifications will address some of their concerns. what is secretary tom -- waiting for? why not phase two now? >> in some cases it's all one package and why you saw some of the stuff he is working on. what the important piece is get phase one part of it done. he has assured them an talked the them and the different administrative actions. part is sequences same as obamacare they didn't have -- go out an start implementing things they passed the bill first through the reconciliation process, and then did the administrative piece, we're doing the same process because of how some of the sequencing has to occur, on the legislative front all of those pieces of legislation have been done,
11:09 am
senator maccarthy has talked about it. part of it is a sequencing aspect that needs to get taken care of but we are moving in the right direction. >> the first question on skype. >> yes, good afternoon, sean. sean, a lot of members of the media [ inaudible ] the president to all the people. what does the president say -- [ inaudible ] yesterday you had -- the white house grand standing at the -- hearing, [ inaudible ] boston globe condemning -- [ inaudible ]
11:10 am
>> i think with respect to judge gorsuch, which i think what you're -- pretty clear where that's where you're headed on this. we've gotten -- when you look at the praise obviously i would love for it to be universal and while we've gotten bipartisan praise from pundits, jurists and legal scholars, members of congress, we're not going to win everybody and i think that democrats have tried to score some points on the committee. they have largely fallen by the wayside and you know we've seen very high praise form, so i would just suggest anybody who has a problem with him i would love to hear it because no one seems to have a problem with his academic credentials, his record
11:11 am
or anything else, so i'm pretty b -- by what we've seen from capitol hill. >> there are at least two dozen or so who are nos, how do you get from this point right now policy wise to tomorrow something, anything that might be might flip that? >> i think we're doing it. piece by piece member by member we're getting there. we're getting much closer. the last couple of days we've continued to do that but then today alone i mentioned a couple other members slowly but surely we're getting that and confident when the vote comes up we'll have the votes. >> -- described the members of congress coming in here to the white house as the closer. do you embrace that >> he is the closer. >> do you embrace that label as it relates to health care? >> absolutely.
11:12 am
>> you just mentioned the health care bill will pass tomorrow. i want to get a sense of how confident you are. i don't know if you want to rate it on a percentage on it like how confident are you that the bill will pass and if it doesn't pass is there a plan b? >> no, there's plan a and plan a and we're going to get this done. >> so if -- >> we're going to get it done. >> you said you didn't know what information you would find out from chairman nunes, but when d did the president know about what came out on capitol hill, he spoke last week we found out more information that relate to these wiretapping claims. >> we don't know what he knows versus what the president had been made aware of and so how that jives i don't know, i hope to have more for you later. >> quick followup on health
11:13 am
care. does the president believe health care bill will pass the house tomorrow? >> yes. >> jonathan. >> did the president know that he had worked to advance p persia's interest? >> he was not aware of paul's client in the last decade. >> all this is coming out -- >> what else is coming out? what else don't we know? who he went to grade school with, who he played with in the sandbox? >>. [ inaudible ] >> no you're not, the answer to your question is to talk about someone having a client ten years ago that had a consulting company with clients around the world. >> but millions of dollars of person's interests -- >> hold on, i'm going to answer your question if you give me a
11:14 am
second. he was a consultant, he had clients around the world. there was no suggestion he did anything improper but to suggest that the president knew who his complian clients were from a decade ago is a bit insane. he wasn't a government employee, there was nothing he did to suggest at this point that anything was nefarious, he was hired to do a job, he did it plain and simple. >> you brought it up just then with hillary clinton that these were corrupt arrangements and clinton foundation was described as a criminal enterprise and all this discussion of russia. >> there's a big difference -- there was dollars -- >> i'm just asking is he disappointed now that he's found out -- >> found out what, jonathan that he had a client in the past decade and you're worried that he held what -- >> the work he was -- >> i don't know what work he was
11:15 am
doing so to suggest that just because he had a client in the past decade. he was hired to count delegates and was success. for it which he had done for bush, and ford and he did a fine job. >> why did the president fire paul manafort? >> issues with his ties to ukraine that were becoming a distraction and secondly i think 16 points down at the time. and he was down 20s in women. and i think the president recognized that he need today ma -- needed to make a change. >> if as confident and optimistic as you are if you don't have the magic number should the speaker pull the bill -- >> this is it. if you want to see obamacare repealed and replaced, this is
11:16 am
the time to vote and time to act, this is what the american people have been told is going to happen. if you are waiting for your chance, this is it. we need to act. >> wall street appears to be getting a little nervous about the possibility of tax reform this year. can you say definitively the president will present a package of tax reforms this year? >> yes. >> what time is the president expected to meet with -- [ inaudible ] >> i was walking out as the chairman was reiterating. i literally heard him on the streaming, like on the -- his comments as he was saying, soist i don't know. >> was there any consideration not given to the chairman? >> i just know what the chairman said he was doing. i walked out before anything had been finalized he was still
11:17 am
wrapping up the call with teresa may. >> you said there's no plan b, tomorrow is it. >> you did a very good job. you better be careful you're doing good work. >> so if tomorrow's outcome doesn't go your way, what should we read into the president's ability to close deals and the white house the -- >> look, i know what you're trying to get me -- we feel good about the trajectory of this. members continue to come with us. the number is going higher and higher, not lower an lower, so the trajectory is great. everybody is out there full-court press on this and this is the opportunity for anybody who wants to see this done, but i just want to be clear, we have a robust agenda ta tax reform, trade immigration, there's a lot of other things that need to get done and
11:18 am
continued to be widespread support in a lat ot of cases b bipartisan support. >> for those who decide not to support the white house, what kind of relationship any change in the relationship would they see going forward, expect to see a primary challenge later on or one of those things they can vote their conscious if they don't really believe this is the bill? >> we obviously believe this is a great opportunity to achieve the principals that we laid out to the american people. we're not looking -- the president made clear yesterday when he visited with the conference, he's not there to threaten them, but to explain the political landscape and to explain i think when you keep your promise no matter what business you're in you tend to be rewarded whether it be by your customers, friends, family,
11:19 am
voters, washington too long has suffered a deficit of trust and we made it very clear to the american people if you gave us this opportunity that we would get certain things done and this was at the top of that list and this bill represents the best chance of repealing an replacing obamacare an replacing a sen trtric health care bill. jonathan. >> sean, would then candidate donald trump have hired paul manafort for such an important and prominent position in his campaign if he had known he had a $10 million contract so close to vladimir putin would he have -- >> i don't know, paul was hired as i said to count delegates. that's why he was brought in as he had been for george w. bush,
11:20 am
gerald ford, bob dole. >> and he ran the came papaign. >> >> but you will admit a very prominent role. >> yes, you're saying the work for a kleclient he did a decade ago, i don't know the answer that if we look back if we knew then what we know now. >> he definitely did not know? >> no, he didn't know. you can think of people in a campaign and in this campaign it was lean an mean, but to suggest that did they pay their tax as -- >> didn't he disclose that? working on behalf of an
11:21 am
adversary of the united states. the president would want to know, wouldn't he? >> maybe, maybe not. i don't know what the circumstances were at the time and so for me to start to infer what he did or did not do wassing in was improper, i know he did what he was hired to do. >> are you saying he wasn't disappointed to learn in the last 24 hours -- >> i don't know, i haven't -- no, no, because again -- the story that came out this morning said he had this client, paul put out a statement that suggests this is what he did how he handled it. we have not spent a ton of time going to investigate what he did for that client a decade ago -- i have really not discussed the president -- i know he made very clear he hired him to do a job, he did the job well, he got him over the finish line, august
11:22 am
19th he was let go of the campaign for the reasons i mentioned. >> paul manafort played any role in the hiring of any people in the federal government -- >> not to my knowledge at all. >> back to the american health care act there was always nervousness that moving too quickly on it would lead to some very dangerous points in the details. several publications including saras reported today as a result of a change of a few words veterans who benefit from the a program called veterans affairs or had the option of getting tax credits would now get neither under the new legislation and that several million veterans would be cost health care, is congress doing anything about
11:23 am
it? >> most veterans get their health care through tri-care or medicare if they're over 65 or a combination there of correct? >> but there's two programs, one is the veterans affairs programs and the other is the option under the current law, to have tax credits. and my understanding again from sara's publication this morning and several others is several million veterans could possibly lose both. >> i would have to follow-up on you, i'm not aware of any modifications with respect to t tri-care. >> -- rushing through the health care law jamming it through when in fact they actually debated it for about a year. this health care law was rolled out about 15 days ago, so don't you run the risk of rushing this through of not giving it enough time for public debate? >> i think republicans have
11:24 am
talked about repealing and replacing obamacare since 2010, we have campaigned on it since, they have been very public a long time -- >> but you just rolled out the specifics. >> two of which had unanimous republican support. we're working through the process, this is something the president campaigned on, told the people it would be a top priority, something talked about for seven years kristen so to suggest we are rushing anything, we have done this very, very deliberately and very responsibly to make sure people could read it so again with all due respect to the people who tackled this in the past we actually put it online let the entire world read it and fo cto quote former pelosi read it after it's passed, we let the
11:25 am
american people read it and watch what occurs and is a much more transparent process. >> the terrorist attack, the president said he spoke with theresa may, can you give us any more information behind it? >> it would be highly irresponsible -- i know the british government is investigating this as an act of terrorism at the moment so for me to get out ahead of -- i know your homeland team an national security team is in contact with them. secretary tillerson has issued a statement as has homeland secretary kellie, so we are in touch with officials in the british government, as i was walking out here the president was finishing up a call with prime minister may and we will have a additional readout to the extent that's possible.
11:26 am
but we are going to provide assistance to the british government at this time but it would be at this time highly irresponsible to get ahead of the british officials. >> if the plan fails, if the bill fails will the president move on to other issues he's concerned about like trade and leaving obamacare in place and if so how long is he comfortable leaving it? >> well, as i mentioned he's not comfortable, it will be voted on and he will sign it. and we can see the enthusiasm moving in our direction. we're not looking at plan b, we have plan a. >> do you have when they will announce the dates of -- [ inaudible ] >> i do not know at this time. >> why not. >> because that's not how it
11:27 am
works. because that's something we continue to work with president shi, but trust me when we're ready we will let you and everyone else know. >> will you talk about the bilateral relationship. >> i imagine there will be a lot to discuss. >> -- to come to the white house an brief him on the information or just the intel chair and if so why not? >> well, jeff, it just happened. so it's a silly question to ask me literally as i'm walking out here when the chairman was wrapping up an event saying that he is announcing that he's coming down here. it's not like we picked up the phone and call everyone else, find out who he has briefed and we'll take the next steps going forward. >> is the first of several meeting -- >> i don't know, it literally
11:28 am
just happened as i was walking out here, so to suggest that other steps have occurred until that briefing occurs, we'll see what this leads to, i don't know. >> what's the state of his credibility? the wall street journal who has been very supportive of his candidacy and agenda simply raised the question that he is not doing very well an said he would be on the verge of being -- what do you believe his state of credibility is as he sit here today? >> i think the president has made several promises to the american people and kept them, appointed neil gorsuch, one of 20 on the list, withdraw a partnership, established a foreign ban, cut regulations said he was going to do that and did that, bring back jobs, he did that, respect taxpayers bringing down costs, he's backed
11:29 am
the plan to repeal and replace obamacare, putting forth a budget, dakota and the keystone pipeline, he did that. i think making promises to the american people and keeping them, he's got a good record. >> michael flynn's name came up not registered as a foreign agent there's a lot of betting -- he has been very commit tod committed to holding high standards is it sufficient to say that there isn't anybody else working this the interest of foreign government working for this government right now. >> it's a good question because there's a big difference working for a campaign or entity where there's no forms to fill out. when you work for the united
11:30 am
states government you fill out a security form, that asks certain questions under the penalty of law -- again, he filled out forms, under the penalty of law. i don't know what was on his forms or whatnot was on his forms. remember what the president let him go for was not being truthful to the vice president, not necessarily for what was on a form which i do not know what he filled out or did not fill out. if somebody fills out an fs-86 or employment document and lies or misleads then they're going to face the penalty of law, that's a big difference of saying when someone was hired on a campaign, if someone presented a résume and it was faulty sure i think if that was -- as you recall there was another person during the transition name today a position that was discussed as not being truthful with some of their works, we let them go.
11:31 am
you -- people write things, they have jobs, they describe themselves in certain ways an every time that i'm aware of we ever had an incident where someone has not been forth wright and truthful we let them go, but when you work for the united states government you work out forms under the penalty of law and none in the past, it's not that paul wasn't truthful, just to be clear you're trying to conflate something, make the acquisition that he was somehow being dishonest. >> i'm not asking about paul manafort. >> then who? >> can you say for certainty there's nobody working for which white house working in the as best of a foreign government? >> i can tell you ever form has been filled out. >> so you trust -- >> you have to -- people are filling out forms so to sit here and ask me if i can vouch for
11:32 am
everybody, that would be ridiculous to suggest i could, i can tell you that every single person filled out a form that's being vetted by whatever level of classification they need by the appropriate law enforcement agencies or h.r. entities, but i can't prevent somebody from fully disclosing everything on their forms but i can tell you if something has been brought to your attention either they will be sent to the appropriate law enforcement agency, but yes there's no tolerance. >> to devin nunes -- on march 4th, tweeted how far president obama gone to wiretap my phone, this is watt gate or all over, bad or sick guy, does the president still stand by the
11:33 am
fact that he believes the president obama is a bad or sick guy. >> i think the president's tweets speak for themselves as for the rest of the tweets let's see what further information we gather up. >> on the executive order on energy independence, that's been delayed several weeks now. can you -- >> hold on, why would it be delayed? >> your office said it was going to be released self-weeks ago and there were reports consequently said it would be release and hasn't been. >> with all due respect i don't believe i ever announced that was scheduled to come out. >> okay can you tell us when it will be released? >> no. >> also, in it it addresses the clean power plan which is the obama era claimant chanimate ch regulation and no replacement in that executive order -- >> i'm going to cut you off, we
11:34 am
discussed executive orders in the past until they're ready to be announced i don't comment on the scheduling -- you're asking me the contents it's not a policy question. >> i haven't been able to finish my question. thank you. so apparently there's no replacement for it. that's the answer to a supreme court ruling in 2007. does the administration feel that it is legally bound to regulate greenhouse gases? >> let's wait and see what the executive order says or doesn't say -- i understand the question i'm not getting hahead of this. >> sean, will the president hold a news conference on the attack and do you have any announcement ons t on rallies? >> he sends his messages out in
11:35 am
a multi different ways. s stay tuned on when the next one is going to be. >> sean, when you learned the members of the president's team may have been in contact with someone in the intelligence community, a federal judge deemed to be a little bit dodgy, does that give you any pause at all? >> who are you referring to? >> the people subject to the fisa order? >> it's in reference to nunes. the president's team are said to have been in contact, picked up by -- when they were in contact with someone the subject of a fisa order, dubs thoes that giv any pause at all given the things you haven't known about manafort? >> to get ahead of what we know -- until we know what the chairman is going to brief him
11:36 am
on what he is going to reveal to him about whom and when and how would be inappropriate to comment on. elizabe elizabeth christ out of baton rouge. >> thanks. last year louisiana suffered one of the worst flood disasters in our nation's history. thousands of people remain displaced and communities are struggling can rebill. with support from the obama administration the state received about $1.6 billion in flood asin assistance, our gove has asked for president trump's support. two-fold, what has the trump administration -- [ inaudible ] in long term disaster recovery efforts and also can louisiana count on this administration's support for additional flood
11:37 am
assistance? >> thanks, elizabeth. i believe the process works such as that the governor makes a request to fema, fema puts it through the process. i'm not aware of what the request is or where it stand in the process and refer you back to fema on that. >> this is actually -- separate from fema. this is long term -- [ inaudible ] >> i know that the budget just presented allows for substantial funding for humanitarian assistance including disaster, refugee program funding in priority areas, i think at this point the budget process has just kicked off and we will now you know begin the process of working with congress on watching them draft a budget and talk about our priorities an where we go forward. the president will have a full budget out in may and would be a appropriate time to do that but i would refer you back to the governor at this point and figure out where that stands in
11:38 am
the process. >> can you say with certainty that paul manafort never encouraged the campaign to take on more pro-russia issues? >> there's nothing to suggest that was the case. >> on nunes from what you know about what he has said so far, is the white house viewing this in any way as vindication on the president's wiretapping tweets? >> i would refer you to his comments specifically. until we know what he's going to brief the president on, i don't want to have to get ahead of this. i think obviously the suggestion that he made that people were what they call unmasked meaning that an american citizen caught up in a surveillance has by rule of law has their name protected, the idea that individuals's names were unmasked and let known suggests -- raises serious
11:39 am
questions. why was that name unmasked, what was the intention of doing that? there's a lot of questions i think his statement raises and i hope we can continue to get to the bottom of but right now we're not there yet. i think there are a series of questions that need to get answered as to what happened, why it happened, and hopefully we will be able to share more with you going forward. todd. >> thanks, sean. on the border the wall the president's budget blueprint calls for a couple dozen lawyers dedicated to -- land and i wonder how aggressive the imminent domain effort is going to be and how that squares with respect to private property rights? >> as i recall during the bush administration, similar efforts were under taken to secure the appropriate property that would be where a fence or a wall in this case would be, so this is nothing new. this is the dwofgovernment doin
11:40 am
what it has to do to protect its borders. there's nobody in america and i dare say the world that didn't believe the president was committed to building a wall and i think we're going to take the steps necessary to fulfill that promise to make sure that we have to. i know that the steps are starting to take in terms of funding and administrative steps to see the president's vision fulfilled pledge to the american people. >> is there any update how the wall will be financed? >> i think the 2017 supplemental has additional funding, the 2018 budget. >> but that's general i'm talk b abo -- talking about where the money will come from. >> the president made very clear using existing resources we go forward, there will be continuing discussions about the financing of the wall both in terms of how we will pay for it and who will be the course.
11:41 am
>> has he given up on mexico? >> not at all. thanks much. we will try to update you on the subjects currently pending. thank you. here we go, you have been watching the daily briefing with white house press secretary sean spicer. >> we can now report with regard to this terror investigation underway in london that four people now have been killed inclupdii including the attack around also a police officer and 20 other people have been injured. we heard sean spicer say that president trump has spoken to the prime minister theresa may and awaiting that phone call but of course he has been brief andand condemned this attack, but let's move on to the huge headline with regard to the republican devin nunes who this morning
11:42 am
spoke to members of the press and quoting him it is possible that donald trump's personal communications were picked up in incidental collection. he went on to clarify this was not related to russia and said quote i am alarmed by it. so let's go first to our senior congressional reporter manu raju, who i have a couple of questions for you, but let's just begin with who exactly was he saying being picked up, the president's personal communications? transitional staff? and for the congressman, how was he able to divulge this kind of information today, manu? >> reporter: the answer to both is it's unclear, brooke. this press conference today devin nunes emerged saying what he considered alarming information, something he's actually briefing the president of the united states on after briefing the house speaker that
11:43 am
some of these chcommunications occurred during the transition period were picked up by the intelligence committee as part of foreign surveillance but not related to russia. he would not get more specific about that but asked him multiple times who specifically are you talking about? he said he would not reveal names. we said which country are you talking about? he would not discuss which cowen t cowen- -- country, i asked were his communications picked up at first he said yes and then asked multiple times by me an others and he walked back saying it's possible the president's conversations may have been picked up incidentally something he was concerned about and this is how he described it on the onset of his remarks. >> i reasonably confirmed on numerous occasions the intelligence community collected
11:44 am
information about u.s. citizens involved in the trump transitions. details about u.s. personsthe i administration, with little or apparent intelligence value were widely disseminated in a intelligence reporting. third i have confirmed that additional names of trump transition members were unmasked and fourth and finally i want to be clear, none of this surveillance was related to russia or the investigation of russian activities or of the trump team. >> reporter: now, when he says the issue of these people being unmasked, that is what was alarmg -- alarming, someone inside the intelligence community has revealed who these trump officials were having communications with other foreign officials as part of what's happening on the intelligence surveillance,
11:45 am
foreign surveillance. now he was asked by me and another reporter does that mean that you believe the president of the united states was spied on? he said he would not actually go there. he said i'm not going to get into the legal definition, but i have concern. but brooke, it's important to point this out. donald trump has been saying now for the last few weeks he had been wiretapped under the orders of president barak obama, does this mean that it backs him, we asked and he says no, that he believes they were picked up legally and he's not certain whether they occurred in trump tower, so there's nothing to back that up at this moment, brooke. >> got it. got it. a lot unclear, but manu raju thank you much. just listening to all of this,
11:46 am
reporting all of this out for the first time today, what's more alarming that this potentiality happened over at trump tower or that we have a house committee intel maybe getting out ahead of himself? >> it's hard to say. and it's really, you know, i was kind of struggling and i don't know about you david, but struggling to parse exactly what chairman nunes meant because he went out of his way to say this wasn't about russia and went out of his way to say these seem to be legal fisa taps so what he seemed to be saying i think was that these names were unmasked and circulated and therefore the content of these conversations were somehow circulated with their names soeshassociated wit for whatever reason. >> which we don't know. >> could it be gossip? could it's be to do harm to the
11:47 am
people in the trump transition, to do harm to the president, i don't even know whether he's part of this or not so we're kind of left reading behind the lines. >> nunes did say yes, the president and then he took it back. >> then he took it back. >> and then he said potentially, and this is my speculation again as gloria is saying parse the words, one of the reasons he may have been so adamant about this not having to do with russia is because there's an investigation going on with russia, if this were somehow tied up in that investigation for the house intel chairman to go down and brief the president when the fbi director two or three days ago said that trump and his associates are under investigation for russian contacts. that may be something that the house intel chair would stay away from. >> yeah, he had to specify that because he might have been doing
11:48 am
something illegal at this point and the question is he's talking about -- i don't know whether he's allowed to do what he even did today. what he even said today. >> that's why i asked manu and that's not clear. >> right. again, we're just kind of -- we have blinders on and we should have blinders on, but now that he's come out with this, and i do not believe. i know i've been in contact with people on the democratic side. i think they were caught very much unaware. >> as i think sean spicer was, right? it sounded like sean spicer was learning of it right before he went into the briefing and would have to wait what he actually briefs the president on. >> and the fact that nunes went directly to the white house in a nanosecond means he had something to say. >> let me add another layer to this paul manafort totally pushing back on the associated press report.
11:49 am
it was pretty explosive saying millions of dollars trying to do work for this russian billionaire and specifically this report says that they pitched him a plan to greatly benefit the putin government and thus paid all this money so sean spicer was asked about this today and if i'm roughly quoting him he said no paul manafort was simply hired as for the campaign to count delegates. did i hear that right? >> yeah. >> well paul manafort was the chairman of the campaign something like four months. and had an important role including delegates, but they didn't have to count delegates. >> so it wasn't an issue. >> it wasn't an issue. and even though sean spicer sort of apologized for saying that manafort had a small role in the campaign, he also made it seem less than it was.
11:50 am
>> this is someone who came in after lewandowski was fired. >> when asked the question which was a hypothetical would the president had hired manafort if he knew ten years ago he tried to help vladimir putin according to this a.p. story, sean deflected that and talked about manafort, and after that he talked about the podestas, clinton and kind of went off. >> big picture, why does this matter david chalian? >> paul manafort is a character to what director comey is talking about even though comey did not want to talk about individuals, we know from our reporting that manafort is central to the nexus of russia and russian associations and
11:51 am
trump world during the year of the campaign. we do not know the details of those, we do not -- but we know that's being looked at. that's why this is so important. why you see sean spicer trying desperately to push manafort away as if he's not part of the white house which is true he's not and move him out of trump universe because he clearly is a central character. >> and i had spoke to people close to the white house and asked does the president still talk to paul manafort and the answer was no, emphatically no. >> when paul manafort left the campaign, eric trump was interior viewed on fox news and said my father done want this distraction, so it wasn't even at the time it wasn't as if this was -- this was the reason. paul manafort was removed from
11:52 am
the campaign. they deemed him as a distraction. >> huge task, this promise from republicans for years and years, now repeal and replace obamacare. we're on the eve on this vote on the house side. this is all about numbers right like the magic number is 216, they need it to be a big resounding yes and what sinks it? 21 republicans? >> that's right. they could afford to lose 21 republicans. that's why we've seen an eormous pressure campaign because they're short. they're not there yet and i think they're willing to acknowledge that, but i think there's interesting dynamic occurring, in fact a fascinating dynamic, terrifying if you're the speaker. i want to first play out from
11:53 am
sean spicer, this is a crucial point what happens if they don't get the vote. >> i know we saw lou barletta who was a knno, steve king was no, now a yes, the count keeps getting stronger for us. >> and if it doesn't pass is there a plan b? >> no, there's plan a and plan a and we're going to get this done. >> so you are confident, 100% confident -- >> we're going to get it done, plain and simple. if you want to see obamacare repealed an replaced this is the vote, this is time to act. this is what people have told the american people is going to happen. this vote needs to happen. >> there is no plan b. brooke, it's not just the white house saying. it's what i hear repeatedly from house too, it is going to the floor tomorrow even if they don't feel like they have the
11:54 am
votes which makes the campaign that more important. we have seen members shuttled over to the white house, the president sitting down with a few himself. you have speaker ryan and his top allies texting, calling, meeting in person with some of the moderate members trying to make sure they're willing to come aboard. the big question without house freedom caucus, the most conservative members, a couple hours ago, they huddled in, there were six boxes of pizza, which they did not give us any, which was a little frustrating, but they were sitting there trying to figure out if they were going to come to a yes, many were not movable. but as they came out and had met with the president, weren't budging yet. what the president is offering, what the speaker is offering is not enough.
11:55 am
they're saying start over, pull the bill, there's a game of chicken, right now there's no real clue who is going to pull? >> the train is leaving the station. thank you phil mattingly for this game of chicken that continues into tomorrow. gloria borger and david chalian, what it's in for these far right republicans? >> votes. >> you mean to flip and support the president? >> yes. >> oh, they may be worried about getting primaried, they may be worried that you promised to repeal obamacare an you didn't. >> they're saying it's not going far enough. >> but they are also still trying to exert leverage. they have something trump and ryan want. they're vote on this, so waiting to till the last minute.
11:56 am
exerting the leverage and one of the things they really want to see is that list of ten essential health benefits that have to be included in any plan that's part of obamacare that's something that's anathema to the conservatives, one of the things they really want to get rid of and there's a big argument why that's not being done in the house version. >> who is the biggest closer, the president? speaker of the house? hss secretary? who has the magic touch? >> i don't think people live in fear of president trump going out and campaigning -- he's at 37% in the polls though still popular with the republicans, but it's not like the president is there with a green eye shade an rolling up his sleeves an
11:57 am
saying what can we do about the provision of the medicaid. i think in a odd way i think maybe paul ryan. i don't know, do you agree? >> it's a great question you're asking brooke, we don't know because we haven't seen it yet, this is the first big legislative push an phil mat sg -- mattingly was making this, this is the first time they're in the majority with the oval office and the first time the trump team is trying to get something like this other the finish line and we just haven't seen who is the close around how they do it. >> magic number 216. >> no lbj not yet. >> do want to talk london now. >> this is cnn breaking news. >> here we go on the breaking news out of london. an attack being treated as a terrorist incident. british parliament is still on
11:58 am
lockdown. at least four people are dead including the attacker. we know 20 others are injured including some with what they're calling catastrophic injuries. here we are getting now video from westminster bridge showing people walking along this car crossing over this bridge just mowed them down according to scotland yard. we have been just told one victim was also pulled out of the river there. nearby video shows this car. it is crashed there smash into the gate. this is the perimeter of u.k.'s parliament and it was here that witnesses say this attacker got out of the car and had a knife, stabbed a police officer before ultimately being shot by police. here is one eyewitness describing the scene. >> i heard rather than saw, what i took to be a collision, like a
11:59 am
car hitting a sheet of metal. and when i know looked at my -- i saw people down on the streets, on the tarmac. first person, second person, people rushing to help them. i saw in all, five people down, mowed down by a car. including one person bleeding heavily from the head. and another person lying unconscious. >> just walking as normal and the first hit, the second people and the third time no one realized it. in and out zigzag and it was quick ten seconds in between. >> i look to to my left and saw a man force his way through a security gate. he went straight for a police officer, wrestled him to the ground. then another police officer approached.
12:00 pm
the attacker walked towards him with an out stretched weapon, i didn't know whether it was a gun or a knife, and then a few seconds gunfire, an that's when it was all panic, i assume it was the armed police who patrol parliament and taking out the attacker. >> people ran for cover of course as the sound of gunfire was erupting as prime minister theresa may was evacuated from parliament. president trump has been informed of the situation, has been on the phone with the prime minister. let's go to christian amanpour and nick, let me go to you, the metropolitan police just held a co