tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN March 24, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
president trump warns the gop if they don't fall in line, they're stuck with obamacare. this is cnn tonight. i'm don lemon. house republicans work into the night, desperate to save their health care bill. but after all the bluster, after all the deal-making and arm-twisting, it all comes down to the vote tomorrow afternoon. it was supposed to be tonight. is repeal and replace down for the count? we'll see. plus new information on the russia connection. the top democrat in the house intelligence committee says he has new evidence of possible collusion between trump associates and russia. there's a lot to get to tonight. i've got my political dream team here with me. there they are. you can show them. but first i want to get to cnn's phil mattingly live for us on capitol hill. phil, good evening to you. burning the midnight oil. we've been following every congressman you have, i should say, on capitol hill today for
us, finding out how everyone is planning to vote. the white house says negotiations are over. so what's going to happen? what's the latest? >> reporter: yeah, and don it was a message delivered abruptly and without any subtle tones whatsoever by one of the president's top advisers in a closed-door meeting after it appeared at multiple points throughout the day that everything else had fallen apart. it's time to vote, and negotiations are over. here's the raelteality, though. they are blind right now as to whether or not they actually have the votes. i can tell you going into that very consequential meeting, they didn't have the votes. coming out of that meeting, they're still unsure if they will get the votes. that's what we're going into tomorrow, a very high stakes game of chicken. but the hope when you talk to house leadership sources, when you talk to some of these members of congress is that that meeting, a meeting that involved a lot of emotion, more than 30 members coming to the microphones to speak in support of this bill, that they can ride that into a vote that at least five, six, seven hours ago they never thought they would actually be able to get to. i can tell you, don, i just
learned the president and the speaker spoke by phone after that meeting. it was described to me as a good call going forward. again, we know that there's kind of a lot of kind of positioning right now about who might actually end up taking the blame as it's being described to me. the president, the speaker and house leadership, whether anything is going on behind the scenes, at least publicly they are trying to show a united front. they're trying to get this to the finish line. but they still don't have a very clear pathway yet, don. >> good call. when people grin through they're teeth, yes, i'm going to get this done. so do you have any indication, phil, on whether the freedom caucus is going to stick together through this entire thing? >> reporter: it's the big open question right now. i can tell you a couple members that i've spoken to after the conference meeting said they were coming around, said that they would come on board. but the big question is how many of those members of freedom caucus do they actually need? now, they got concessions in this bill. the proposal that was put out, the deal that was put out for them to accept actually moved closer to their side than it did kind of the opposite side of the
ideological spectrum. but will that be enough? i can tell you right now the chairman of the freedom caucus told his members tonight not to have a meet, not to sit down and talk about it, but to go home and pray on what they wanted to do tomorrow. i will tell you, don, there's another big question here. the concessions that were made to bring conservatives on board throughout the course of the last 24 hours have really unsettled a lot of moderates as well as leadership and the white house have tried to thread this needle to get just as many people as they possibly can in line here. they risk very real. if you push it one wide, you lose one side. if you push it the other way, you lose the other. the question is not do you have enough freedom caucus members. it's did you keep enough moderates in line as well. that's a question they simply don't have an answer to, but we will get one tomorrow. >> oh, yeah. gloria calls it political whack-a-mole. thank you, phil. i appreciate it. i want to bring in congresswoman claudia tinny. thank you for coming on. i can't wait to get your
perspective on this. you heard our report there, and you heard phil say the president and the speaker of the house spoke this evening. i'm sure you saw the speaker very terse, saying the president wants a vote tomorrow. that's it. we're going to do it. did not answer questions. what do you think? do you have the votes? >> i don't know, but i know we had a very lively, very impassioned conference this evening, which was really great to hear all my colleagues speak on the issue. i consider myself a conservative republican from new york. i've in fact been the conservative of the year in new york, and we've been fighting to get what we can for our taxpayers and to help our constituents, especially the truly needy, the people in our communities who have special needs, senior citizens, everyone who is -- especially, again, our small business community. we're struggling to get something, but we also want to make sure we phase this in. and i think that everybody acts like the sky is falling, and this is all going to be down to this vote, and it's do or die. i mean we debated obamacare for
years, even after it was passed. we weren't able to get anywhere. now here we are. we've got the president. we have the house. we have an opportunity in the senate to compromise and -- >> this is your moment, you believe. >> yes. >> you mentioned seniors, but if you look at what is estimated here, what it shows, is that seniors -- many seniors are going to pay much more money. >> actually, that's not true in new york at all. in fact, new york has a one to one ratio in determining whether you can discriminate against someone based on age. so that's not even going to be a factor in new york. and in my district where donald trump won by a 60% margin, this isn't even a factor in new york state. so i'm from new york, and it's going to be not even a factor in new york. we've actually advocated for more for our constituents. we've put in a very unique amendment in new york which should actually remove the county's share that new york is one of the very few states left that imposes this county share. it will save my district $167 million a year in unfunded
mandates from the state. and this is something that can easily be taken care of through governor andrew cuomo and his budget where he has almost $15 billion as it was reported recently in local news acts in his budget. he has plenty of room to take care of this. as i said, new york state has already got many regulations in place that are going to protect our seniors, and i'm confident we're going to be having the votes in new york. >> i want to bring steve israel in here because i can see him. he's disagree with you. >> well, i agree with claudia's assessment that she doesn't know whether the bill is going to pass tomorrow. i think that's the most accurate thing we've heard. but i fundamentally disagree with her assessment with respect to the cost increases, particularly for seniors. what the congresswoman is referring to a special deal that was made for new york members of congress to get their votes that says that counties no longer pay their share of medicaid, but that it's shifted to all of the other taxpayers of new york state. so this is the quintessential robbing peter to pay paul. there is nothing that is free in
washington. this is just shifting the burden to new york state, which is going to have to increase the income tax and property taxes are going to go up. >> absolutely not. >> go ahead, congresswoman. >> i respectfully disagree. that's completely untrue. i was a new york state assembly member, and the governor has what i call an unconstitutional slush fund to the tune of billions of dollars. hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by this governor against the interest of the taxpayers to meet his needs and to leverage his interests against those of the taxpayers and to buy off basically other members in the house and also in the senate. there is so much more room in the state budget. right now medicaid consumes about $65 billion of the state taxpayers budget, and out of a $152 billion budget, there are 19 million people in new york, 38 million people in california, and our budget is coming close to what the california budget is for a fraction of the
population. >> these are the conversations that you have been having and have had this evening, correct? >> absolutely. i think, you know, we've been fighting for a deal. look, in a free market system that we don't really have in new york, we would have -- this bill is really not a full repeal. it's the best we can do in light of what's happening with the senate. but i'm pleased that we're getting somewhere, that we're actually going to provide some relief. i own a small business. i've had to look at people and say, we provided great insurance for you, my employees. and now, guess what, we have to comply with obamacare mandates. so we've had to lose employees. we've had to go to self-insurance. there's a lot of people hurt by this terrible bill, especially in new york. >> i appreciate you joining us. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> again, you guys see the kind of thing that's happening. robbing peter to pay paul. i disagree with you, whatever. health care is complicated. so we're going to move on now.
i want to bring in now new york times columnist nicholas kristof. burning the mid night oil. you heard the conversation with the congresswoman. they're trying to salvage the bill here. the president wants a vote tomorrow and let the chips fall where they may. how are you calling it? you think this is going to pass the house? >> well, look, i mean i think journalists should be kind of chasing given our performance last year in making predictions. so, you know, i'd be kind of wary of betting on my predictions. you know, at one level you look at there was a quinnipiac poll today that said that the gop plan had only 17% support. it's kind of hard to see that being parlayed into a victory in the house. on the other hand, trump has shown a lot more resilience than we had expected and, you know, his bluff may indeed work. if you really push me, i'd say
it's sure going to be an uphill struggle. but i don't have a lot of confidence in my own predictions, don. >> mm-hmm. some folks are saying, you know, i'll say this for my panel because i have some inside information of what's happening inside the white house. i'll say this for the panel but i want to talk to you about something else. there's another cloud over this white house. many investigations into possible collusion between the trump team and russia in the presidential election, and here's what you wrote in "the new york times" just today. you said there is a smell of treason in the air. that's an allegation, a strong allegation. do you believe that? treason, nicholas? >> well, i don't know, but i think it needs to be investigated. look, we have the intelligence community agreeing that there was a concerted attack on the integrity of our election system by russia to benefit one candidate. now we have an investigation by the fbi to investigate whether there was collusion between the trump campaign and russia to
accomplish that attack. if that happened -- i mean it seems to me that what is at stake is a question of treason. if you did have people in the trump campaign who were colluding with russia to defeat the electoral process, yeah, then to me i don't know what else you would call that but treason. you know, one other point i would make is that this, i think, aligns with the health care issue. it's a question of competence in the health care plan. you can agree or disagree with the health care system. one can agree or disagree with how trump has managed things, but there is a fundamental question of competence that i think undermines the president's ability to win votes for health care and, more broadly, is going to undermine his ability to win votes for his tax plan and for his infrastructure plan. and i think that that in turn is ramifications for the financial markets. >> yeah. david gergen making a similar
point about competency earlier, not the same point but a very similar point. also in your piece, you said, i am told not by a democrat that there is a persuasive piece of intelligence on ties between russia and a member of the trump team that isn't yet public. i mean obviously i'm not going to ask you about your source, but do you believe that this piece of intelligence is going to come to light, and what more can you tell us about it? >> um, well, i can't say more about it. but it was very persuasive to my source, and, you know, as far as i can tell, the fbi is holding the investigation, the material quite closely. it has a lot of people working on this investigation. i think it's very serious about it, and one of the things that i don't think is fully investigated yet is the question of financial ties. one the things that we've seen in western europe is that russia tended to pour a lot of money into campaigns that it supported, and i think that there is going to be a similar
but so far incomplete investigation about whether something similar may have happened in this country and whether it's not only a question of political collusion but whether there are issues of financial interference as well. >> i don't know that you are loathe to make a prediction about what's going to happen. you said, you know, since you believe the media got it so wrong. how is this all going to end, you think? you think we're ever going to get to the bottom of exactly what went on during the election? >> you know, i think that -- i mean, again, if you push me, it seems to me the democrats maybe have focused too much on jeff sessi sessions and too p on the idea of a transactional quid pro quo collusion. i suspect we'll get a better idea of what happened and i suspect it will be a soft collusion between some members of the trump team and some people close to the kremlin, that we will get evidence of that, but then the question will
be whether or not that misconduct can be tied to president trump himself and that that may be a much, much harder thing to do. >> okay. thank you. i appreciate it, nicholas kristof. thank you so much. listen, i got to bring the panel back in. panel, let me grab my glasses here. president trump and speaker ryan spoke for 45 minutes tonight. president trump spoke by phone with speaker ryan for nearly 45 minutes tonight following the house republican conference. multiple sources are telling cnn. a source with direct knowledge described it as a good call in the wake of the house officially moving forward on the president's preferred strategy. no more negotiating. time to vote. an aide to ryan called it a great discussion. phil mattingly reported some of this. a third source familiar with the discussion said it was an entirely positive call, noting reports about potential blame. whoever is saying that clearly doesn't know their relationship. >> well, i'll tell you what. let's wait until 6:00 p.m.
eastern time tomorrow when we assume a vote will have occurred and see what the fallout is. let's put aside that it's donald trump right now, and he tends to go after his enemies. in washington, it's all about blame, right? if it doesn't work out, who are we going to blame, right? >> it's not just who does donald trump blame. who does breitbart blame. who does hannity blame? >> paul ryan, paul ryan, paul ryan. >> when i said i was going to save it for a panel, i have someone who says, my insider is telling me that trump aides know this bill is getting trumped tomorrow. they are appreciating to push it back on ryan and weak traitor republican. >> if you listen to sort of a conservative talk radio circuit, they have been talking about this ryancare as rhinocare, and they have wanted trump to get in there and do a deal that looks more like what they want, that is closer to what conservatives want. so it's not surprising that now the white house is sort of
taking that up and saying it's ryan's fault. but i think they'll have a lot of -- an echo chamber for them that's ready made to say this is ryan fault. >> when we come back, the white house trying to save the subject from the russia connection, but will they have to address all the unserranswered questions? ♪
hey allergy muddlers are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec® zyrtec® starts working hard at hour one and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec®. muddle no more®. try rhinocort® allergy spray for powerful nasal allergy relief. democrats and republicans at odds on the house intelligence
committee. what's it going to take for us to get to the bottom of this russian investigation. back with me now, mark preston, david gergen, congressman steve israel and matt lewis. i guess if we figure out what it's going to take for us to get to the bottom of this, you would be a wealthy woman? >> yeah, i think it goes back to what nick kristof was saying. nobody knows what's going to happen. in some ways that's causing panic among some republicans and for democrats they're obviously tossing around the impeachment word. certainly maxine waters has been doing that. i think democrats have to be careful about overplaying their hand in terms of what this investigation might turn out to be. and with the white house, you have them in a very precarious position, basically saying they've never really heard of paul manafort, that mike flynn was a volunteer on -- >> paul who? >> exactly. he's just some gentleman who worked for them for like five or six months. so, yeah, i mean they are in a
difficult position. then you have all of this back and forth between nunes and schiff really leading to the question of whether or not any of these investigations are going to be credible to the public. >> the point is we were watching chairman nunes yesterday. i mean he went over to the white house. then he gave two press conferences instead of going to his own committee. then he said he had, you know, sort of giving the president cover for his claims, but there is no proof. there is no cover for those claims. >> i'll just be very quick on this. what i found most surprising out of what devin nunes said yesterday was in an interview with jake tapper when he said i thought the president -- i'm paraphrasing. the president needed to know so he could make a decision about whether the collection was right or not, which to me made no sense because the investigation was about him or his associates. so how could he himself be judging upon whether the evidence was readily collected? >> does he have any credibility? >> i think schiff did the same thing today, though.
he came out with i thought a non-story. but frankly just old-school thought here, and i think brother israel may agree with me. the intel committee should get out of the press. they should go in the back room, and they should be sequestered where they're seriously looking at documents. the further you get away from the public debate, the closer you can get to bipartisan -- >> you don't think they should hand it over to an independent -- >> they absolutely should. and yesterday, proof why that should be done. >> how can nunes have any credibility? come on. >> the house of representatives is fraught with politics. >> they're all going out and -- >> come on, jack. don't do that. >> don, they're out -- i mean adam did it today. i think the world of both of them. >> then you should support an independent inquiry. that's all the more reason. >> i still have faith in them. if you get an independent -- no, seriously. if you get an independent counsel, it will take them six months to gear up, to staff up. everybody right now, they have a bipartisan group that already has all the security clearances.
they know the issues. they can get to it. a special prosecutor isn't going to quit until he has a head and -- >> nunes was so transparent yesterday. i mean, you know -- >> i mean going over to the white house -- >> this was all partisanship yesterday. >> let me share something. i've talked to folks on both sides of the aisle on that committee. the irony is they started out pretty good. they were bipartisan. there was agreement on witnesses, on scope. yesterday devin nunes crossed the line, and it was unprecedented. there is just not good faith on that committee anymore. the house of representatives, shocking as it may be to people, is fraught with politics. the intel committees are fraught with politics. this is exactly why you need an independent commission. two reasons by the way -- you need a dedicated staff, number one. and number two -- >> did you have anybody doing that for fast and furious or benghazi?
you didn't have people doing what nunes did yesterday, right? >> no, you didn't. >> maybe that's why he's saying it. come on, jack. you cannot sit here and say what he did yesterday did not reek of partisanship and politics. >> i do not think it was helpful, and i agree there was politics in that. i would also say and i hope you would agree with me. the ranking member, who is is a friend of mine, does the same thing to the degree that he'll go out as he did today, make an announcement about new revelations and so forth. >> he's not running over to the subject of the investigation and -- don't you watch "law and order"? if you do that, it -- you get in trouble. >> so far nobody has gotten on an airplane on the tarmac with an attorney general. >> that wasn't an investigation. >> when bill clinton's wife was being investigated by the fbi and he gets on the airplane with loretta lynch. >> and every single democrat in the world came out and said what? he shouldn't have done it, that
he should never have gone on the plane. >> i really believe that right now the intel should say let's stay off the press, see what can get done by ourselves. >> the damage is done, don't you think? >> the damage is done, but i actually have to agree with jack on this. look, i would prefer an independent commission. i'd prefer an independent prosecutor. i think the critical issue is whether the justice department, at the end of the day, is going to interfere with what comey is up to at the fbi. somebody there is going to have to make decisions about how he goes forward and so forth and so on. whoever makes those decisions is reporting to jeff sessions, the attorney general. that's their boss. i think that's the danger of interference. but having said that, as long as you've got the committee, it does seem to me that they ought to leave the investigation to the investigators and not cherry pick and run out with some conclusion based on very incomplete information as a piece of the survey because it does undercut the credibility of the committee. i think nunes went too far, but
i happen to think adam schiff, whom i respect, shouldn't have gone there yesterday or today either. i think you're absolutely right. they ought to just go quiet now and let the investigations proceed. >> all right. there we go. e.f. hutton as spoken. when we come right back, president trump fires off another classic line. i'm president, you're not. but will that silence his critics? were german. we were in a german dance group. i wore lederhosen. so i just started poking around on ancestry. then, i decided to have my dna tested through ancestry dna. it turns out i'm scottish. so, i traded in my lederhosen for a kilt. 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.
"time" magazine's interview with president trump about past untruths is full of new untruths from the president. cnn's brianna keilar fact checks what the president has to say. brianna? >> reporter: don, president trump unveiling a string of untruths as he talked about how he handles the truth in an interview with "time" magazine. ♪ let's start with president trump's explanation of his recent claims that president obama wiretapped him before he entered the white house, a claim that is unfounded and unsupported by almost all democrats and republicans. now, remember this, trump said. when i said wiretapping, it was in quotes because a wiretapping
is, you know, today it is different than wiretapping. it is just a good description. but wiretapping was in quotes. what i'm talking about is surveillance. >> if you look at the president's tweet, he said very clearly, quote, wiretapping in quotes. >> reporter: well, not exactly. wiretapping was in quotes in this tweet, but look at this one. it's not in quotes. and on surveillance, trump pointed to these comments from devin nunes, the republican chair of the house intelligence committee. >> i recently confirmed that on numerous oh caccasions the intelligence community collected information about u.s. citizens involved in the trump transit n transition. none of this surveillance was related to russia or the investigation of russian activities or of the trump team. >> reporter: that communication seemingly picked up by agencies legally looking at foreign targets. nunes's evidence remains secret. even members of his own committee have yet to see it, and he shoots down trump's original claim. >> just to be clear, there's still no evidence that president trump himself was wiretapped.
>> that is correct. that is correct. >> reporter: on trump's false campaign claim that senator ted cruz's fatherer was somehow connected to connected to president kennedy's assassin, trump told time, that was in the newspaper. i didn't say that. the newspaper trump refers to, the "national enquirer." that's right. the supermarket tabloid. and on trump's untrue assertion that millions of people voted fraudulently, explaining why he lost the popular vote to hillary clinton by about 3 million ballots, he said, mostly they register wrong. in other words, for the votes they register incorrectly and/or illegally, and they then vote. you have tremendous numbers of people. in fact, i'm forming a committee on it. it will be interesting to see if that committee includes the folks who oversee voting practices, secretaries of state, many of whom are republicans. >> as i say about voter fraud, it exists. it's rare. >> reporter: or maybe republican senators? >> i've not seen any voter
irregularity in the millions. there's always some on the edges, but i've not seen anything on the millions. i don't know what he was talking about on that one. >> reporter: maybe not. trump also talked about how he was right that he would win on election night even though he has said he thought he would lose. and he's stuck with his false claim that muslims celebrated on 9/11 in new jersey even though that has never been corroborated. and at the end of the interview, he essentially dropped the mike. hey, look, in the meantime i guess i can't be doing so badly, he said, because i'm president and you're not. fact check, true, don. >> brianna, thank you. back now with my panel. so, mark, the first time i saw you, i said i read -- >> stop. the first time you saw me tonight you were sitting in a chair getting makeup. >> just very little. it took two seconds. and i said, i'm rereading this. i can't make heads or tails of it. i mean what did you think when you read it? >> well, my response to you, to recall the conversation, was i
would be concerned if you actually understood what he was trying to explain, right? because, you know, his idea of explaining his way out of some of the pronouncements that he has made that some people call falsehoods, probably more likely better termed as lies, like flat-out lies, causes people to get confused, and it creates chaos, and he seems to thrive on chaos. i mean that's what this time interview seems like. it's very chaotic. >> at a time when he needs to be focused. he needs to be focused on health care, on this big vote. the idea that someone in the white house okayed him doing this and sitting down talking about -- and he knew what it was about. he knew it was about truthfulness and his own record. >> you mean the interview? >> yeah. i mean the fact that -- >> he thought the interview was about how he predicts things, and then the writer says, no. the crux of this interview is not about that. and he says, it's about wiretapping. >> he should be talking about health care at this point. i mean giving this interview, i
think he was -- you know, he wanted to do it probably because he thought he was going to be on the cover, and at some point during that interview he's bragging that he's been on more covers than anybody else. that's not true. nixon has. i thought it was kind of sad reading it. this guy, he's so protective of his ego and so insecure that he makes things up to protect his ego. >> this is why he hovers at 40%. it's not that people necessarily disagree with him. it's the fact he is so consumed with him instead of being consumed with them. >> you know what it reminded me of as i was reading this, seriously, like the high school quarterback that used to drive the camaro, right? then you see them 20, 30 years later, i had the most touchdowns and look at all these trophies back here. you're like, why are you doing that? you're the leader of the free world. it's interesting. when i hear him in person, for the most part you kind of get what he's saying sometimes. but when you read the written word, i mean i wonder do you think he actually believes this? because he says a lie, but
maybe -- >> i'm not saying -- >> they're lies, but maybe he believes it. >> he's sort of a george costanza version of lies. if you believe it, it's not a lie. >> if you talk to some of his friends, they say he actually believes some of these things. >> then that's really sad. >> it is where it is. but i actually think this has a cumulative effect now, and i do think that in the last few days, we passed a threshold on this wiretapping issue, that that has put the public in a whole new place. and you see the evidence of that in the quinnipiac poll. i really did believe he would have gotten -- if he had gotten rid of his tweets and just tried to stick to the truth with a lot of humility, i think his popularity now would be much higher, and i think he would have health care in a breeze tomorrow. but i do think his lack of credibility now is beginning to cut into his capacity to get other things done. >> this quinnipiac poll about
his honesty -- dishonesty, 60%. >> that's an astonishing number. >> jack, did you -- >> yeah. i just want to point out some of the previous presidents, okay, not only can you keep usual own health care plan, which we knew to be a lie. president obama said 90% of the budget deficit due to george w. bush's policies. the day after -- >> which is a lie. >> yeah, it is a lie. this is all pretty pinocchio fact check. the day after benghazi happened, i acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism. he did not do that. i did not call the islamic state the j.v. team. this is barack obama. over the past eight years, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully executed an attack on our homeland that was directed from overseas. >> so that's in the course of eight years. we're talking about in the course of -- >> these are pretty major lies though. >> this is in the course of eight weeks, and i have not fact checked those. you may be right on some of
those. did he believe in conspiracy theories? did he believe that ted cruz's dad had something to do with jfk or that the president wasn't born in the united states? all of these conspiracy theories, did he believe that -- >> i guess this is where -- i think what happens is the republicans are willing to defend their guy, my guy, and democrats are willing to defend their guy. >> hold on, hold on. whoa, whoa, whoa. no, no, no. i want to just -- what you just said. you said the republicans are willing to defend their guy. >> yeah. >> do you believe that he's telling the truth, or you're just defending him? >> combination. it depends on what he's saying. i actually think that on the wiretapping, his word got ahead of him. i think there was surveillance, and i think that's what he intended to say. >> that's not what -- that's what nunes said. he did not say there was surveillance of trump tower. he said there was surveillance of foreign agents that might have been picked up in trump tower. it's not true he said there was surveillance yesterday of trump
himself. >> and he also said there was no wiretapping. >> and he said no wiretapping. so what truth is there to what trump is saying? >> well, i think if the discussion is on is this going on and on, i think that there was a wiretapping lesson that probably was learned by this administration. i think in the last two or three weeks that the tweeting has gone down, and so, you know, i do think we're moving on. >> hold on. on the break. my producer is in my year. i will let you on the other side. we'll be right back. pain used to shut me down during pick-up games. but with odor free blue-emu continuous pain relief spray, i can box out any muscle or joint pain immediately. blue-emu continuous pain relief spray, it works fast and you won't stink.
i'm back now with my panel. the president has a -- we're talking about the president and this "time" magazine interview, but he has a pretty extensive history of calling out others for not telling the truth. watch this. >> lyin' ted. lyin' ted. in the case of lyin' ted cruz, lyin' ted. lies. oh, he lies. >> now, we don't want to say lyin' ted. i'd love to pull it out and just use it on lyin', crooked
hillary. >> she's a world-class liar. >> she's either a liar or grossly incompetent. >> representative king, don't you think that's a bit hypocritical, though? >> he's a tough guy, and it's a tough world. >> one more, and then -- >> come on, now. i'm outnumbered here. let me say this as plainly as i can. by august 31st, 2010, our combat mission in iraq will end. absolutely absurd, and that involved people's lives. so i think it's a pretty serious lie in itself by our former commander in chief. >> go ahead, matt. >> i'll take over. it wasn't exactly barack obama, but there was also a line about how a video started the benghazi attack. >> susan rice. >> that was made. so we could go on. i would say that i think that quantitatively and qualitatively, donald trump's
lies even transcend that. now, i do think that bill clinton and barack obama helped change norms and that they led us to donald trump, who i think is a bigger liar than even they were. >> donald trump -- >> they get some blame for this. >> donald trump lies and then covers up his lie with a lie, right? in the interview, in the interview -- >> the other thing he does too -- >> there is no proof. there's no evidence. >> he goes, yeah, but, what i was talking about was blah, blah, blah. >> one of his targets, and it's a mutual seem to be disdain, but "the new york times," the reporter who was on tonight was very proud of a headline that said, treason in the air. then in the interview, he really didn't have anything but innuendo of possible treason. in fact, your last question to him, he actually said, i think at the end they'll find there may have been somebody who had some contact. probably it was soft
cooperation, or trump would not have known about it. but the headline was treason. would you say that "the new york times" ever lies? >> he probably didn't write the headline. somebody did. >> let's not say the failed "new york times" as we might in republican circles, but do you think the media on occasion lies? >> no. >> answer my question because the norm of what is the media and the definition wrongly, quite frankly, has changed over time. >> right. >> and folks who consider themselves journalists are really not journalists but, yet, you know, what they are are just partisan hacks quite frankly. >> but i do see a lot of media -- and i don't mean the mainstream media. i mean websites who lie. i see a lot of lies about me. i see a lot of things, people who write about me and don't even ask whether it's true or not. so, yes, but the mainstream media, i think most of the mainstream media, i think you
have to go through certain standards and practices before you put information out. i think most people do. >> there's a system of corrections too. you go to "the new york times," the front page in the paper, you see corrections if they get something wrong. not something that donald trump is familiar with. he doubles down on a lot of these falsehoods, which is why that article was so startling just to see -- >> if you haven't read this article, to me, jack, the article is -- it's bordering on delusional. >> it's like unadulterated donald trump. >> it's like someone will say, but there's absolutely no evidence, and then he goes, no, no, no. you're like, wait a minute. there's no evidence to that, and he goes on to pretend there is. that doesn't concern you? >> it concerns me, but i also think, as david said, i think a lot of things, he does believe. i have dealt with some highly successful people. >> do you have kids? >> i have kids. >> when they believe things that, you know, do you tell them, well, honey, that's just
not true? you can't believe that because it's not true. there's a monster under my bed. do you tell them that there's no truth to that? >> well -- >> that's in your head. >> i think we all should be telling the truth. but i also say this, that i think a lot of people who have that kind of -- and i don't say it negatively, but to run for president of the united states, you have to have a very, very big ego because basically you're going to say out of 320 million people, i'm the one who should lead all of you. so i mean there's an ego that comes with it. >> you have to believe that person. >> i think part of that is that they have in often cases -- >> delusional. >> deluxsions of grandeur. >> it's a belief that that view is the right view. >> he's eccentric. they're probably going to get neil gorsuch confirmed to the united states supreme court, which is a huge deal that nobody is even talking about because it's overshadowed by -- >> do you think, when you say he has a big ego, it's his way or
the highway? you think so? do you guys know where i'm going with this? >> i believe that he's -- >> when we come back. keep on truckin'. there it is. >> nice. hey allergy muddlers are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec® zyrtec® starts working hard at hour one and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec®. muddle no more®. try rhinocort® allergy spray for powerful nasal allergy relief.
back now with my panel. i want you all to check out these pictures. this is president trump sitting behind a mac truck, the wheel of a mack truck supporting truck drivers of america. you got to admit these photos are hilarious. steve? >> well, it's not michael dukakis in -- >> and it's kind of charming. i mean it's part of, i think, why people like him because he's fully in that moment. he's enjoying this. >> he's like a child. >> this is why he wanted to be president. >> yeah, i think that's right. >> you know, he invited the truckers into the oval office or the cabinet room outside of the oval office and sat down and kind of, you know, had a good discussion with them. he's not an awkward guy.
he's like bill clinton. he can talk to anybody. >> give me a caption for this photo, mark. >> um, i have to pass a gall stone or something. look at his face. i don't know what it is. i don't know. what do you want me to say? >> this is how "the new york post" said it. this is tomorrow's new york post. >> my way or the highway. >> my way or the highway. is this your car? >> very similar to it. >> this is jack kingston's car. let's put it right here. a 1993 buick roadmaster wagon. >> does anybody want one? >> when you don't build trump tower, that's what you drive. >> it is interesting, though, that he's meeting with truckers today in the middle of all this. there's a lot going on and he's meeting and having fun with truckers. does that say anything good? >> when he spoke to them, he
said the vote was happening tonight. >> he didn't know. >> it had already been canceled. everybody else knew for -- >> if he had been on twitter, he would have known that the vote wasn't happening. but, yeah, it goes to white house staffing. no one slipped him a note to say this wasn't happening. he was just reading from a text. >> i think he wanted the break to get away from capitol hill and, hey, let's go meet with some -- >> there was a point where he was reading something that was written by a very good speechwriter and then he stopped and said, i wouldn't say that. did peggy noonan sneak in here? >> again why we love him. >> let me put the truck back up. i think he said today after the last 60-some-odd days, i want to take this big rig and drive rite on o -- right on out of here. >> not a gall stone. it would be a kidney stone. >> i was trying to figure out what that was. >> i got it. i was thinking more of a circular pillow that, you
know -- anyway, he's having fun. that's it for us. thanks, everybody. i'll see you right back here tomorrow. . . . anyone with type 2 diabetes knows how it feels to see your numbers go up, despite your best efforts. but what if you could turn things around? what if you could love your numbers? discover once-daily invokana®. it's the #1 prescribed sglt2 inhibitor that works to lower a1c. invokana® is a pill used along with diet and exercise to significantly lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. and in most clinical trials, the majority reached an a1c goal of 7 percent or lower. invokana® works around the clock by sending some sugar out of your body through the process of urination. it's not for lowering systolic blood pressure or weight,
but it may help with both. invokana® can cause important side effects, including dehydration, which may cause you to feel dizzy, faint,lightheaded,or weak, upon standing. other side effects may include kidney problems, genital yeast infections,changes in urination, high potassium, increases in cholesterol, risk of bone fracture, or urinary tract infections, possibly serious. serious side effects may include ketoacidosis, which can be life threatening. stop taking and call your doctor right away if you experience symptoms or if you experience symptoms of allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, or difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take invokana® if you have severe liver or kidney problems or are on dialysis. tell your doctor about any medical conditions and medications you take. using invokana® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. it's time to turn things around. lower your blood sugar with invokana®.
the ultimatum from president trump. get the health care deal done today or else. he tells house republicans he will move on if they don't. the ways of washington grind the deal to a halt. here it is. this is the day. good morning. thanks for getting an "early start" with us. i'm dave briggs. >> it is friday, march 24th. i'm christine romans. it is win or go home. laying down the ultimatuultimat. pass