tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN March 23, 2017 10:00pm-11:01pm PDT
do you take credit for pushing the president to the point where you've made it a better bill, or do you look like you've caved after you've said -- >> the answer to that, gloria, is ronald reagan's famous i'll take 80% and then come back for the -- >> it depends. i want to inject this one thing. president obama wanted obamacare. it was a huge victory. it was a giant celebration, and they got pummelled in the next four elections. a victory today is not always a victory tomorrow. and so president trump may get a victory tomorrow with the vote. we'll see what happens in 2018 and 2020. . >> it's just past the top of the hour. republicans emerged from the meeting. obamacare celebrated its 7th anniversary. gop members are split on it. the president is done bargains. it's time to vote.
a lot we're learning at this hour. let's go to phil mattingly at the capitol. >> at the top of this closed door republican meeting, that meeting is over, members are on the floor voting to set up what they expect will be a vote on the final bill tomorrow. here's how this happened. over the course of the last couple of hours leaders both white house officials and gop leadership has been meeting with the house freedom caucus. the people they haven't gotten on board, and they decided over the course of that that they were not making any progress. the president himself informed the budget director it was time to lay down the law. it was time to say negotiations were over. there were no more changes coming to the bill, and it was time far vote. in talking to leadership sources, they don't have the votes. they're short. they did this knowing that they need to put everybody's back against the wall, and hold that vote. i will say as this deal has been moved forward, i'm learning more about what will be in the final
measure. one of the big concerns is how the moderates will react to the stripping of those essential health care benefits in obamacare. they are trying to appease them in three different ways. they're requiring by 2018 that every single state decide and announce what their own individual essential health benefits are for their state insurance plan. they're adding money to a bill designed to address maternity care and separate issues that some of those essential health benefits would have helped out with. these are the major issues they're trying to reach out to the moderates. to underscore the reality, they still don't have the votes. they're going in blind and the hope is the push from president trump, a push that he demanded and he decided he wanted to move forward with will be enough to sway the votes. >> phil, thank you. i want to go to trent france, a member of the house freedom caucus. congressman, thank you for joining us. briefly, at this point are you a
no or yes? >> well, i remain undeclared because there's still other side negotiations taking place. but i am very encouraged that the freedom caucus amendment is going into the bill tonight or tomorrow morning. >> what else are you looking for? what else are you hoping to come in? the white house says there's no more negotiation from the white house. >> in an ideal world we'd love to see insurance be insurance, and that we would see preexisting conditions taken out in a special high risk pool so we could let the rest of insurance be as predictable as possible, because when you have forced insurance and you require people to enroll people that have preexisting conditions without some sort of compensation, or mechanism, then it makes it very difficult for insurance companies to make any predictions. >> do you have a sense of
whether or not the speaker ryan, the white house, has enough votes to pass this? >> i don't know that. i don't know that at all. i don't know what the vote count is. i just suggest to you that the freedom caucus has labored very diligently, and i think they've improved the bill significantly. i think that could make a difference. i don't know. >> congressman, i want to bring in gloria borger and john king. they have come questions. >> do you think the freedom caucus will stick together opposing this bill as it's been opposed to this bill all along, or will it splinter some for, some opposed? >> i don't know the answer to that question. only that i think that their efforts so far have improved the bill significantly. there's still much that could be done, and i'm going to hope all the way up to the deadline that we do everything that we can, either in the bill or through some type of side discussions that will improve it in the long run. >> can you describe a little bit
how intense the negotiations have been with the president an reasonable manner, and i thought that it was amazing to see a president this engaged personally. and i've seen an open process in the house, and this just kind of happy days again in many ways for the process itself. now, ultimately, the real test is going to be what comes out of the final product here. and i think it's so vital instead of ever questioning each other's commitment to america that we try to get together and say okay, our commitment is ubiquitous. we're all together with the same objective now. let's discuss how we can best achieve the objective. that's what we're trying to do.
>> there's a lot that's different in washington these days. but there is a known gravity. let's assume you get this bill through the house. it will go to the senate. they are likely to make it modera moderate. you understand the dynamic. if it comes back to the house and you are told this is the best we can get, do you feel an obligation to repeal and replace or will you say no way, this is not what i signed onto and it will collapse again? >> i don't dodge the question except to say there's no way to know what's going to come back. you have to judge it on the merit when it comes back. the it's the most untold, under reported most significant dynamic in all this negotiation. it is the house efforts that are so complex and so complicated by the senate rules. we're having to put this bill through what's called a bird rule in the senate, because we have to do this through reconciliati reconciliation. the senate has to have 60 votes to bring the bill to the floor.
i don't know if it's like that anywhere else in the world where the majority can't pull a bill to the floor without the help of the minority. and so we're having to do this through reconciliation. it must fit through the bird rule. that's like trying to shove a camel through the key hole. he's a little worse for wear on the other side of the process. this senate rule, this arcane nightmare that no one understands is subordinating the best policy dleliberations here and the tail is wagging the dog. it's unfortunate. >> congressman, thank you for your time. >> thank you all for much. >> i want to go to the white house with sara murray. >> reporter: i think you're seeing a white house that is very much ready to get on with it. they made it clear they are ready for a vote tomorrow. they want to move forward on something the president talks about nearly every day on the campaign trail. something republicans have campaigned upon for years. but also something that's not the sexiest part oh of this
president's agenda. he wants to get health care done and remain true to the promise. he also has big ambitions for what he wants to do in the white house. he wants to do tax reform and infrastructure and so they see this as a hurdle they need to get over. they need this bill to pass. they need it to move forward so they can get on with tax reform and other priorities. i think that's part of the reason we're seeing this sort of gauntlet being thrown, part of the reason they're pushing hard to get this done quickly. >> thank you very much. back with the panel. >> you can see how much the house loves the senate. talk about a time honored tradition. pissing on the senate. >> i'm still visualizing a camel -- >> my trend, franks, you should be thankful that the bird rule is there and that reconciliation is there. without it, you would be going through an exercise of futility
right now. >> how so? >> well, because the senate requires a 60-vote majority to pass anything. with the exception of things that are passed pursuant to the budget control act of 1974. that procedure is called reconciliation. you reconcile the law to the budget that you passed. and that gives you protection in the senate to require only a simple majority vote. they can complain all they want, and they do, about this arcane rule called the bird rule, but the reason it's there is it gives the opportunity for the senate to pass a bill with only 50 votes. david said earlier that we don't have the margin that obama had in 2009 or -- >> 2010 by the time it passed. >> right. we have a better margin, because in the senate they needed all 60 votes. they needed 60 because they weren't going through the reconciliation. they needed the supermajority to do all the policy trent franks wants to do. they had the votes but they couldn't lose one.
we can lose two. >> point of order. i have a piece of news from a republican who said to me that congressman meadows told the freeze m caucus members to vote their conscious and do what they need to do. the source says most are standing firm on no right now. but when someone tells you to vote your conscience, you understand -- >> it's not necessary. they may have to revote their conscience. >> we'll be joined by a gop congressman who says he's voting for the bill. now developments in the russia investigation. details on that ahead.
an unlimited data plan is only as good as the network it's on. and verizon has been ranked number one for the 7th time in a row by rootmetrics. (man) hey, uh, what's rootmetrics? it's the nation's largest independent study and it ranked verizon #1 in call, text, data, speed and reliability. (woman) do they get a trophy? not that i know of. but you get unlimited done right. (man 2) why don't they get a trophy? (man 3) they should get something. (woman 2) how about a plaque? i have to drop this. my arm's getting really tired. unlimited on verizon. 4 lines, just $45 per line. kevin, meet yourkeviner. kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin
kevin trusted advice for life. kevin, how's your mom? life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you. the slopes like i used to. i even accept i have a higher risk of stroke due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. but whatever trail i take, i go for my best. so if there's something better than warfarin, i'll go for that too. eliquis. eliquis reduced the risk of stroke better than warfarin,
plus had less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis had both. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... ...and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. i'm still going for my best. and for eliquis. ask your doctor about eliquis.
breaking news from capitol hill. the white house made it clear it's done negotiating on the obamacare replacement bill. says it wants a bill tomorrow. we have congressman joining us. earlier you indicated you were not in support of this. where do you stand now? >> i am in fully supportive of the bill. when it came out, i thought we could do better. i thought we could put more in the bill that would meet the bird requirements in reconciliation. it was something my dad always told me. he was a world war ii veteran. he said look, if there's something in life you don't like, you can do something to
change the situation or just accept status quo and go on. but don't complain. we started working on it to try to make the bill better. was at the white house last friday meeting with the president. we were able to negotiate what i felt were four key changes to the built. that brought me over to support it. is it a perfect bill? no. is it all i want? no, it isn't, but it's a step in the right direction. this is the beginning of what we believe is fixing america's health care system. >> we've talked about to other congressman. you talked about meeting with the president. he's clearly gone all in on this. he went to capitol hill, had folks in like yourself into the white house. how would you explain the impact he has had on this? what has it been like in those meets? >> i think it's had a significant impact. he was very open. he was a jovial person, very engaging. it was a different person than what some people perceive he is. he's very knowledgeable, but
surrounded himself with the right people, and so we had a good engagement. we were supposed to be there for maybe 15 minutes. i think we were there for 45 minutes. look, he believes that we can do much better than obamacare. he believes it's been a disaster as most of us do. it's hurt a lot of people. but we can fix america's health care system, and he fully believes that and he believes this is our opportunity to do so. but he doesn't want to spend an incredible amount of time going down a path we've had seven years to prepare for. >> finally, do you think it's going to pass tomorrow? >> i think so. i just spent about the most emotional hour and a half meeting that i think i've had since i've been in congress, and since i served in elected office. people pouring their heart out. this is what we're here for. many of us were inspired to promote freedom and ensure we do something better. as ronald reagan said, we've got to promote things that make america more free, that do better. we're not always going to get
perfect, but we can get good, and this is a defining moment for many of us. >> congressman, appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you. back with the panel joining us also is doug hie and dana bash. i want to start with you, doug. you say the only thing worse -- we don't have doug yet. in a second. dana, you rushed back here. i'm not sure how you got back here so quickly, but it seems like they are feeling kind of positive after the meeting. >> more positive. and i think to be fair, i think the positive feeling right now is because of the atmospherics inside the meeting. senator santorum talked about it before. i'm looking back through my texts from a source inside who said part of the reason it was emotional, in fact, a couple of people were in tears, was because the speeches that were given were, many of them, by former members of the military who are now in congress talking about their experience in the
military. which obviously has nothing to do with health care, but the idea was sort of this is what we fight for, so on and so forth. it was to get the patriotic zest going within the rest republican conference which is why it was so emotional inside. now, being emotional inside, the fact that the people who stood up, i think about 30 people stood up and said positive things about the bill, is one thing, and getting the people on the fence or those leaning no to go yes is a different ball game. i could see it on the faces on a lot of members who were torn. they understand that this really is what we're calling it. it's an ultimate imum. and the president made clear you're going to have to go back to your districts and tell people why obamacare is the law of the land if it goes down. >> there's a big divide between democrats and republicans. you were talking about -- governor, you were talking about people losing health insurance,
about the ramifications of this. the folks, the congress people voting for it, i assume they genuinely believe that this is going to help people in their district. no? >> they may. i will say this. the strongest emotion was prevalent emotion on capitol hill is the emotion of survival. survival. and i think that there's no doubt you get into a meeting like that. i saw it on health reform. i mean, obviously president obama was arguing to put more people on health care, not take them off of health care. but there was this sense in there that this is hard, this is tough, but this is what we're here for. i hear these reports and it reminds me of meetings i was in seven years. i'm sure they believe that. but rick was talking before, and we can have a philosophical discussion about how best to go forward on health care, but there are immunable facts. health care inflation is the lowest in 50 years.
out of pocket costs for people with employee health care has grown half as quickly in the last seven years as it did in the decade before, and health care overall, the system itself, is now slated to come in or was before all of this from 2014 to 2019, 11% under what it was estimated to be before the affordable care act. these are facts. >> well, i just -- i quibble with your facts. >> alternative facts. >> there are alternative facts. >> also called the other side. >> there are certain things that aren't the other side. health care inflation is what it is. >> why do you see deductibles going up? premiums going up. this is not a fairy tale. you 17 states with -- 17 % -- >> you're talking about within the health care exchanges. that's a fair discussion to have. there are things that should be done to strengthen the health care exchanges but the vast
majority of americans aren't in those health care exchanges. most of them get their insurance through work. they've got more protections under the affordable care act. >> the point of obama care was to increase access through the health care exchanges and medicaid. >> 21 million people did get health care. >> if you looked at the private insurance markets, the employer market, they were doing pretty well before obama care. >> they were not. >> they were. >> not cost wise. the costs were going through the roof. >> the reason -- >> it bent the cost curve down for all. >> you didn't bend it. you just put boat loads of federal dollars in there. that's what bent the cost -- >> what are you suggesting, though? take away the money and people will be without health care and you go back to a system where people use the emergency room. and that seems to be okay. this freedom caucus, i'm not free if i don't have access to health care. i am enslaved to that. >> i want to bring in doug high, he's joining the panel.
doug, you said the only thing worse than pulling a bill is having it go down in the vote. >> yeah. this may be a brave new world we're in with donald trump as president because it's the only new dynamic of what we've seen. i worked in the house republican leadership for two and a half years. what we saw time and time again, bring up a bill on something controversy or a must pass bill, say the bush tax cuts expiring, shutting down the government, opening the government. the time dana bash calls and you don't answer because you don't have a good answer. this is where republicans are and where we've been for years. we have pendulum politics of where we bring something up that we consider a real requirety for republicans and we have to go to the right to get the freedom caucus. we lose folks in the moderate. so we swing back and forth and our members aren't happy. they don't have a direction forward, and if donald trump can't bring this home as the one dynamic we see that's different from what we've seen over the past six years, it sends
questions of whether or not republicans can govern. >> so you're saying the vote tomorrow, it has -- for the good of the republican party, it has to pass? >> yeah. this is about a lot more than health care. it's about whether or not we can pass tax reform, about whether or not the president can pass an infrastructure bill, a working appropriations process. this is a gut check moment. while it's familiar to me and dan and folks in the capitol. when the food comes -- >> late nights. >> this is a gut check moment for republicans. the bill has to come up, and if it doesn't pass, there are going to be repercussions for republicans moving forward. >> i couldn't agree more. they have to pass this bill. that's why they will. because they have to. and they all know they have to. >> can i talk about -- ask you and jeffrey, maybe, ask you this question about the deficit? you have republicans want to lower the deficit, et cetera,
and you have tax cuts coming, and the aca will reduce federal deficits by this is a cbo. i know you don't like the cbo, but the estimate is it would reduce federal estimates by nearly $4 trillion over the next couple of decades. that if you just left the affordable care act in place. this bill, this cbo says, will increase the deficit and -- >> again, the cbo deals in, correct me if i'm wrong -- >> it reduces even more than the aca would. >> the point is their analysis is always static. they have no more idea what's going to happen tomorrow than the man on the moon. this is where they always fall down. >> why waste government money? >> technically, there's not a man on the moon. >> but there's a chance that this is going to be not cost effective. >> well, i mean, obamacare was not cost effective.
>> in the long time it will be. >> this is about individuals. when you interview somebody as i did who lost their father and blames it on obamacare, when you talk to a small businessman who had to cut his employees off the roll because he couldn't afford it with obamacare. you're talking with real human beings. that's why there is a republican congress and a president trump in the first place. >> you can talk to other people who say they got insurance for the first time. zblsh. >> but that's -- >> there are human beings on all sides with stories. >> that's why we vote, and the vote went in favor of those folks. >> the republicans won three elections on this issue. you can see 2012 was a draw obama won reelection. republicans have the political high ground here. they have the political high ground. they won in 2010 and 2014 and everything in 2016 saying they were going to do this. the point is now they're going to own it. they believe going to this more market based, there is a lot of
government here. they believe this system will essentially get people still have access, not guaranteed coverage but access, most people's prices will go down, and this will be a better world in two or four years. we'll find out. if they pass this bill, they'll find out. >> a quick break. much ahead including new developments in the controversy devin nunez touched off when he rushed to the white house to tell the president things he uncovered in the surveillance controversy. and an interesting interview with president trump. he talked yesterday about 48 hours after james comey shot down his wiretap claim. what the president had to say. you'll hear for yourself.
tax prep to help keep payments low. you can find me on an oil rig, i answer questions small and big. hello, my name is watson. i answer questions small and big. could save money on car insurance.nce you know, the kind of driver who always buckles up... comes to a complete stop... and looks both ways, no matter what. because esurance believes that's the kind of driver who deserves to save money on car insurance. in fact, safe drivers who switch from geico to esurance could save hundreds. so if you switch to esurance, saving is a pretty safe bet. auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.
more breaking news tonight on capitol hill. adam schiff the says he has new information on possible collusion between associates to president trump and russia. this comes a day after the committee's chairman devin nunez did not talk to democrats directly on his committee. he told the public and then the president trump that communications of trump and his soeshl associates may have been collected by intelligence agencies. today he met with people in private and apologized. here's what he said. >> it was a judgment call on my
part. sometimes you make the right decision. you have to stick by the decisions you make. >> did this come from the white house? did this information that you got came from the white house? >> as you know, we have to keep our sources and methods here very quiet. i've told the american public several times that we want people to come to us to bring us information if they have it. >> that answer didn't sit well with many democrats including congressman schiff. beyond this apology, you spoke to both congressman schiff and nunez about the evidence of collusion. what did they tell you? >> reporter: there's a sharp disagreement between the two men who are leading this investigation, anderson, about what this evidence actually shows. mr. schiff telling me that it, quote, paints a more complete picture of what they know now and maybe it's not enough for probable cause to actually bring to trial, but enough for a grand
jury investigation to look at this issue of coronation, look at this issue of collusion, to learn if there's more there, but devin nunez says there's nothing there. he says he has no idea what adam schiff is talking about. take a listen. >> you said that. there's more than just circumstantial evidence of collusion. what did you mean by that? >> i don't feel comfortable talking about the particular evidence the fbi is looking at or we're looking at, but i do think it's appropriate to say it's the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation. >> this new evidence of collusion from schiff, you said you have no idea what he's talking that. >> i don't, no. >> you haven't seen any new evidence of collusion? >> not that i'm familiar of, no. >> the big question is where does this investigation go from here? adam schiff telling me democrats plan to continue to participate in this investigation even as they've been frustrated with how
mr. nunez went to the white house, briefed the white house on this new information before talking to the committee, but schiff believes that if democrats don't participate, this investigation into russia will not happen, but anderson, as you see, a sharp disagreement between the two over a central question about what the evidence that they're looking at is, and raising a question about whether or not the committee can ultimately produce a bipartisan report. >> all right. thank you very much. shortly after the house intelligence chairman said what he said yesterday, the president said he felt somewhat vindicated with respect to his wiretap claim, even tle there was a point of saying there was no evidence the president was drelktly or personally wiretapped. is truth dead, "time" the article is called can president trump handle the truth. it was written after interviewing president trump yesterday. he joins us now, michael. it was a mas nating interview
and an article. i want to get into some of the details of what the president told you. on the timing of this, when did you reach out to the white house about the story and what did you tell them? >> i reached out on monday. i told them i was working on a story about the issue of truth and falsehood in politics and trump. i said this is before the comey hearing i expected to be pegged on what comey said. and had another conversation on tuesday with the white house. i think what led trump to want to do this interview is he felt that he wasn't getting credit for things he had said in the past that had been disputed that later turned out to be true. i had said to them, i also wanted to explore this idea which i talk about in the story, that sometimes falsehood has worked to his benefit. that sometimes he's able to seed the national conversation with claims like the president was possibly born in africa, or mexico is sending rapists across the border, or muslims
celebrated on september 11th. that sort of work like viruses in our news media. everybody else in politics is forced to respond and deliver his message of the day, and that he had been rather savvy about doing this. he called on wednesday afternoon. >> you pushed the president over many of his statement that have turned out to be wrong or flat out untrue. it's fascinating just to read it. he is -- as he often is in interviews, completely unphased. and often pinning it on articles or cable the tv shows saying he was repeating what he read or heard or that people were talking act or he heard it or read it. despite this being a week where the fbi director said there was nothing to back up the claims of wiretap, he feels vindicated in reference to what nunez said at the white house. >> reporter: we think of truth and falsehood as a binary,
you're right or wrong. he says this more as a negotiation. you push him, he'll fall back and change the topic or direct things to a different place. say i was only saying wiretapping in quotes. say i didn't say that, it was a newspaper article i was reading. and i was saying what the newspaper said even if it was the national inquirer and a bonus story. and i think this says a lot about how he has always seen this issue. he came up in real estate. he came up talking about truthful trut truthful hyperbole. he's done it with significant success. i kept asking him about credibility and the credibility of the office of the president. and if he worried that over time if he kept getting called out by his fbi director or other people for saying things that weren't true, if the credibility of the office would be hurt. his answer to that repeatedly was did you see the size of my
crowd in kentucky a couple nights ago, and do you know that i won the election? he's not willing to give any ground on that. he thinks his approach to this has been aif i wered by the american people, and is still being affirmed by at least his supporters. >> it's interesting in the interview and this is something we've seen before. to see it in print the way he was talking to you, he will claim credit for something because he made a statement that was untrue about something that occurred. something that didn't actually occur, but maybe days later or month later it occurred, and then he'll say that he was right because even though he was talking about something that hadn't occurred when he said it, something later occurred that he could then claim credit for saying it. >> that gets to what i was saying before. it's not black and white. it's not true or false. he's not judging himself by the literal words he's said. the example here was about what he said last month at a florida rally about something happening last night in sweden.
referencing some sort of immigration issue in the country. there was no immigration issue the previous night, but a couple night later there was a disturbance in a suburb with a lot of immigrants. and he said that vindicated what he had said before. i said but you were talking in the past tense on saturday. you weren't talking about a future event. and he just didn't see that as relevant. that, for him, and he said this several times, he has great instinct and a feel for what's happening. if he said months earlier in a tweet that tloanthony weiner's sexting was going to get hillary clinton in trouble, and it comes up in a letter, he thinks he deserves credit, and by its extension, he thinks if he says the president wiretapped me, even if the fbi director is saying that's not true, there's no evidence to that, he thinks we should basically suspend our disbelief and wait, because he has a record that pruf proves
he's been right in the past. >> one of the headlines from today, what was the line he said to you about he must be doing something right? >> this is one of the times i was asking him about the credibility of the office. i tried one more time. and he basically said, well, i'm president, and you're not. >> i must be doing something right, i'm president and you're not. >> that's right. he was just repeating basically the same idea he said earlier when he was talking about his crowds in kentucky. if you want to say that i am misleading people, then judge me by my success is what he's saying. >> right. michael, fascinating. i encourage people to read the interview. it's fascinating. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> back with the panel, it's interesting in just in the article. it is kind of a perception of the presidency which is so unlike past presidents. i mean, you talk about the credibility of the office. it doesn't seem -- i'm trying to say this. i don't want to sound snarky,
but it doesn't seem as if he has the same perception of the office as other presidents have had. >> i think the most the telling -- maybe the most telling quote we've heard from donald trump when he said -- when he justified it by saying i'm president and you're not. i think it reflects his governing principle. if you win, that justifies what you've done, and you can do anything in service of that, and the result will justify it. i also found it interesting that his argument seems to be i may not be truthful, but i am present. even if what i said happen didn't happen, it's going to happen. which is really unusual. >> can i get the power ball number in. >> right. he's always been this way, and he's a 70-year-old man. he's not going to change. i remember one story about him in atlantic city when he was opening a casino and the shot machines were shut down by the
gaming commission because they weren't ready to be opened. and he went on larry king. larry king said what about the slot machines? he said they just blew up because so many people were using them. and they blew up from overuse. which, of course, was not true. and he's always done it. >> he knows exactly what he's doing. i think he's an evil marketing genius. he became famous because he was on a television show. >> you say it so lovingly. >> i'm using it not lovingly. he became famous from a television show. he knows what he's doing. he's muddying the waters and creating confusion. what he hasn't confronted and we don't know because we're only 60 days in, what it mean when you're the leader of the free world and the commander in chief and how the rubber may meet the road. others may start to take what you're saying literally. there are real consequences, but he's just confronting that. >> my friend andy cohen, he
tweeted out i must be doing something right because i'm president and you're not. the president's new tag line. >> speaking of "time," i did a column on them the other week. one of the things with never talk about here, i mentioned this in a piece for cnn, is meeting a narrative. the piece i did on "time" come pyr compared the story on obama, eight years later, he looks grim. it says president of a divided united states of america. now, all i'm suggesting to you is that when you are going to say one person is the greatest thing since sliced bread and your media analysis is always this guy is terrible, then that plays a role in all of this and how this is presented. >> forgive me.
i don't want to debate media bias, even if i accept your point, at least 14 things he said in the article were false. >> okay. >> what does that have to do with barack obama versus donald trump? >> a lot. because when i went back and took a look, there were plenty of stories about president obama not telling the truth on a manner of things. not just the famous if you like your doctor, you can keep it. but that was not the narrative. >> when that turned out not to be true, he was hammered for it. >> let's pause. i want to continue this discussion. we'll do it on the other side of the break. what seems to be president trump's go-to response when his claims are proven wrong. we'll be right back. your blind. [ dinosaur roar ] onboard cameras and radar detect danger all around you. driver assist systems pull you back into your lane if drifting. bye chief. bye bobby. and will even help you brake, if necessary.
it makes driving less of a production. lease the gle350 for $579 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. say goodbye to extra taxes and fees on your wireless bill... ...and hello to t-mobile one. right now, get two lines of unlimited data for a hundred bucks. taxes and fees included! two lines, a hundred dollars, all in, all unlimited. switch today. sometimes, the only difference between a moment that fades from memory, and a moment that stays with you forever, is where it happens. that's why we're proud to help families like yours, live a lifetime of memories on beautiful, healthy, lawns. live like it's spring. make life better, with a beautiful, healthy, trugreen lawn.
we're talking about president trump sometimes distant relationship with the tru truth. there was an article about can president trump handle the truth. it's a fair question considering the number of times he's been called out making untrue claims or when that happens he has a go-to move that we've all kind of seen. watch. >> i was given that information. i don't know. i was just given it. we had a very, very big march. >> why should americans trust you when you accuse information of being fake? >> i don't know. i was given that information. i've seen that information around. >> we said nothing. all we did was quote a certain very talented legal mind who was the one responsible for saying that on television. i didn't make an opinion on it.
this was a statement made by a very talented lawyer on fox. and so you shouldn't be talking to me. you should be talking to fox. >> kind of a deflection, pointing the finger at someone else. parents of young kids maybe recognize the behavior. back with the panel. does any of that matter? >> yes. yes. it totally matters. i mean, don't we all want our president to have integrity and honor? >> right, but people saw this during the election, and. >> that is true. now they're seeing it as president. and i think it makes a huge difference. it makes a difference when people see him repeating lies that have been proven to be false. it makes a difference when our allies across the world don't know whether he's telling the truth or not or assumes he's not. it makes a difference when they're negotiating on the floor for deals and those who are getting the deals aren't sure whether he's going to follow through because he is such a liar. i don't want a president who's a
liar. >> but you just had one. >> oh, please. come on, jeffrey. >> it's also going to make a difference -- >> it's also going to make a difference when there's a crisis which they have not had yet. when there's a national crisis, international or god forbid, a shooting, every president has to go and bring people together and soothe them and tell them they're going to be okay. i'm not sure he has the ability to do that. i don't think people are going to look at him and believe what he has to say. >> he never takes the blame for everything. >> in part i agree with them. i don't think the president should be doing this. i don't think he should be putting things out there -- when the president puts something out there, it shouldn't be that i read it somewhere and i'm repeating it. we expect the president to have better information than what he read in the newspaper or saw on fox news. i don't think he should be doing it. i think it -- i'm someone who believes in the president's agenda. i want to see him do something on immigration and trade and
taxes and infrastructure. i believe in all those things. i think we need to get our manufacturing back here. i think the president is the right guy at the right time for america, and i think this is a distraction that hurts his ability to get it done. i'm also going to agree with jeffrey. the previous president had his share of whoppers that havenot been pointed out as much as this president. . >> the problem with this president is the things he says that don't always refer to the truth. >> what are you referring to? >> the healthcare bill he lied repeatedly. >> we're talk about a president lying about his team's contacts with the russian government. >> how about isis and the gb team? >> he didn't lie. >> they may have been mistakes. every president says things misrepresented. >> no president has a batting
average of 100%. >> agreed. >> but fundamentally when you tweet that your predecessor bugged you or ordered your offices wiretapped, that's a very specific charge, and i understand it wasn't true. >> just talking to a senior administration official as this process is going down even before the vote and what this source says is there's increasing concerns about the way the house speaker has handled this process, specifically about the fact that they now believe the speaker didn't work hard enough to bring members of the house freedom caucus in early enough before the president had to really start twisting arms for them. and that the meeting that happened earlier this evening inside the house office and
members of the president senior team, steve bannon, reince preibus and others was, quote, very intense. i'm sure the house speaker -- i actually reached out to see if they have a response. but this is just something that's percolating up. and i would imagine if the vote goes down tomorrow, it would be even more. >> shouldn't the postmortem's follow the vote instead of preceding? >> this is why i thought it was important to report it. because this is the product of a lot of meetings even more so today than we've seen in the past two days that include the house freedom caucus, that include the house republican leadership. and this is a sense by somebody who's representing the president's team on this.
>> look, guys i've been saying for a long time on cnn that the speaker did not handle this that other big leaders handled it. why are they leaking this out now, i think it's a very clear signal to the freedom caucus that we've got your back in the senate. so to me, they know where their votes are coming from to pass this thing. >> over and over and over again the members of the freedom caucus -- >> you myth be right about that, but also this is an arranged marriage and always has been between the president and paul ryan. i mean reince priebus is close to paul ryan but donald trump has never been close to paul ryan. so if he's going to pass the buck there or somewhere else because he's probably heard
complaints from conservatives that they haven't been brought in, paul ryan seems the likely person that they would blame. >> there's also history between steve bannon and speaker ryan. >> yeah, that's a good point. i mean when steve bannon was running brightbart, they did many stories going after paul ryan but one where a reporter went to speaker ryan kid's school to talk about the notion of him being hypocritical because he was against the muslim ban, the idea of refugees not coming in here. and his kid goes to a catholic school where they do ask kids for their religion. so that's pretty deep. >> he's just preparing to do the blame game -- >> i'm not sure.
>> we're going to be with you against ryan. >> more breaking news the death tollicidely climbs higher in the terror attack. today, unlimited gets the network it deserves. verizon. (mic thuds) uh, sorry. it's unlimited without compromising reliability, on the largest, most advanced 4g lte network in america. (thud) uh... sorry, last thing. it's just $45 per line. forty. five. (cheering and applause) and that is all the microphones that i have. (vo) unlimited on verizon. 4 lines, just $45 per line.
it's a message to terrorists around the world that londoners stand strong. isis has claimed responsibility for the carnage last afternoon. as always we believe the focus should be on the people who lost their lives, not interrorist who took those lives. nick robson has a look at three other victims including an american citizen. >> reporter: he and his wife melissa were visiting london to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary. they were walking over westminster bridge on wednesday when they were mowed down in the attack, both slammed in the pavement of the adjoining
parapet. melissa broke her leg and rib during the impact. kurt died from his injuries. the couple ran a recording stoed yo together lanier salt lake city. kurt was passionate about music. they were just one day away from flying home to utah. the family issued a statement calling him a good man and a wonderful husband. our hearts are broken. we love him so much, but we will never forget him. kurt coffman was 54 years old. keith was at the gates of parliament where the attacker broke in and stabbed him. bystanders rushed in to his aid, but he died from his injuries. he was with the metropolitan police. here his team members lay a wreath in memory of the fallen
officer. and he was also remembered today in parliament. >> he was a strong, professional public servant. and it was a delight to meet him here again only a few months after being elected. >> reporter: he leaves behind a wife, a young daughter. keith palmer was 48 years old. iesha friday lived in london with her husband. she was an administrator at the dad college in london. she was reportedly on her way to pick up her two children from schoolmism iesha was a british national but was originally from spain. a flag was lowered to half-mast in her memory in spain where her relatives still live. she was 43 years