tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN March 27, 2017 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
about strategically how to handle this as well as the members that we thought we would have with us. and we're re-examining that on a number of of basis. . any idea of questions that the media should be referred to -- i want theed to ask a slightly different question. does the white house know what can happen? we have issues that someone from the branch shared information from the white house grounds. or someone on the white house staff to provide the information.
>> so i obviously all of what i know has been available through public comments. >> i know they confirmed he was on the white house grounds tuesday. i have seen the kmnts about who he met with. i would refer you to his comment it is a he's made. i'm not going to get into who he met with or why he met with them. that's something that it he has been very clear and i'll let him answer. he is the one who has discussed what he is reviewing and so i will leave it up to him and not try to get in the middle of that. >> i'm asking a different question. does the white house know what happened beyond public accounts and are you satisfied you don't have a leak in the executive branch? >> we're not concerned about
that. i know he's -- again, everything i know about what he has done is through public reports that he's made on the record. as part of his review of the situation. so all i know and what i'm willing to communicate what has been made available through on the record comments he has made. >> wouldn't the white house want to know? >> again, i think there's a difference. he's doing a e review. it's not something we're going to get in the way of. it's part of it is to let him review and have conversations and look at things he thinks are relevant. >> you said i don't e know the members of congress have to get cleared in. who in the white house signed him in? >> i don't know. i'll be glad to check on that. i'm not sure that's how that works. but i will follow up on that
point. >> it's related to this. i understand you're not going to speak about some of the swirl surround iing this issue. does the white house believe that he can still lead an impartial investigation? or would the money strags support some of the calls for an undependent committee to investigate this? >> first of all, i would question what this is. because as i have mentioned countless times from this podium, there's two issues at hand. there's multiple. number one, there's any action with respect to russia itself and every sung l person that's been briefed by director comey in particular and the fbi has said there's nothing there. what he is looking into are two things. that we are aware of because of the pleas that we have made. one is the leaks of classified information that have come out. and two, is whether or not there's been people that have unmasked and whether or not there's surveillance. i u don't know why we standby the original request that was made. i think director comey in open
testimony talked about what the fbi is looking into. >> the review of the situation, we can address that after he decides to be clear about that. >> why is this leak okay and this not? >> there's a a difference between a leak and review of a situation. there's a difference between a leak so when leaking to reporters for nefarious to take classified information and share it with people who aren't clear. the chairman is cleared. he is the chairman of the intelligence committee. who someone who is cleared to share classified information is not a leak. >> the department statement on the protests, does that e reflect the white house's views? >> it reflects the view of the
united states government. >> back on you mentioned that there was lessons learned off what went down last several days. could you go into specifics on what some of those lessons are in terms of the president talked about lrning about loyalty. is he believe some members of the party are no longer loyal to him? what are some of the lessons? >> i'm not going to detail them. this is ab internal thing that we discussed. we look at things like everything from who we met with and when we met with them to whether or not how the thing was rolled out and what organizations were met with. what commitments were met and when. there's a lot that goes into this. you look at whether or not that's applicable to another situation whether that's unique, but you do look at some of the individuals that you met with both in terms of timing, in terms of commitment, substance, and evaluate just the process
itself. . but also to some degree the individuals and whether or not that it's someone that -- there's several folks. it depends on thes aspect of it. but we all internally talk about what went well, what didn't and not just the bad but the good. i think jonathan asked it at the beginning. but most organizations whether or not you do something really well or not as well, it's usually incumbent upon what did we do well that we sustain those kind of aspects of something because there's always something to improve. even when you don't go do as well. there's parts of things you did that you did well and don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. there's an ongoing piece to this. . >> members of congress may not need to be cleared, but that requires some cooperation from the executive branch.
there are vejs places on capitol hill that are secure that this meeting could have taken place. it creates the impression that the chairman came over here and some degree of cooperation was able to carry out this meeting and then make the announcement that he did, which is perceived by some, most of the democrats, i'll grant you that, was trying to be help fful to this preside and administration. it appears there was some degree of cooperation in this process that the white house granted the chairman making it not just an investigative action, but a cooperative one. >> i refer you to two things. number one, weave asked both of these entities, both the house and senate, to undertake this review. it is partially at our request that they are looking into this. number two, based on the public comments that he made to margaret's organization, he has said from my understanding on the record, that he is not meet with white house staff.
so again, i think you're trying to make something that he is himself from what i have read not actually been the case. >> i asked you about cooperation. something has to be carried out. >> i will be glad to take a look at that and figure out if that's ab accurate statement. >> let me ask you about jared. there's an understanding that's trying to be worked out between jared and the senate intelligence committee. is that testimony? is that something the committee has requested? does he have something to explain about what he did on behalf of the transition with whom e he met with and only of the meetings he took that are raising questions about russia and folks that he met with outside of diplomatic channels, but have other aspects to their russian business deals. >> throughout the campaign and the transition, jared served as the official primary point of contact with foreign governments and officials until we had state
department officials -- that's correct. and so given this role, he volunteered to speak with the committee, but has not received any confirmation regarding a time for a meeting or anything. >> is this going to be a private meeting? >> again, i think based on the questions that surround this, he volunteered to sit down with them and say i'm glad to talk about the role that i played and the individuals i met with. remember, given the role he played both during the campaign and transition, he met with countless individual that was part of his job. >> he owes an explanation. >> for what? doing his job. . >> you're acting there's something nefarious. >> volunteers to talk to the intelligence committee about an investigation dealing with meddling by a foreign power. >> based on the media frenzy
around this, i'm answering it. i'm saying to you based on the media frenzy he volunteered to make sure that he said, hey, we have made contacts. i would be glad to, plain them. let me know if you'd like to talk. >> so the white house does not -- does the white house have knowledge of the information that the chairman received when he came to the white house the first time. and if that's the case or not the case, is your position that the white house is not going to look sbo where he got the information from or who gave him the information until his investigation is complete. >> i'm not aware of where he got it from. i know in his public statements he talked about having multiple sources. i don't know how he derived a conclusion he did. and i think at this point the goal would be to wait until the
review that he's undertaking is completed. >> why would nunez these to brief the? >> that's a big assumption you're making that that's the only thing. as i said, he had multiple sources on multiple topics. we don't know what he briefed him on. to jump to that conclusion is frankly irresponsible. >> when will the white house resume releasing visitor logs. >> we're reviewing that now. >> just to follow up, last week you were advising that the press corps that it didn't make sebs for nu him to come to the white house. can you say factually that it is not possible that chairman nunes
came to brief the president on something he obtained from the white house of the administration? >> i can't say 100% anything. through his public comments, he said he had multiple sources that he came to a cob conclusion on. on what he came to a decision on, i don't know. and that's something that i don't know he discussed with the president. >> the president thought tax reform would blow over into 2018 calendar year. e we know from the 1986 tax reform that took more than two years. does the president anticipate it will take that long going sbo 2018 or beyond? and who is going to write the
tax legislation? who is going to devise the plan that the president wants to put his name on? >> so on the first one, i know that the secretary talked about august as a target date. and i think it depends. as you point out, these are big things. there's a lot of groups that are going to want a ton of input because of the nature that it's been 30 years. i think part of this is going to be dependent on the degree to which we can come to consensus on a lot of big issues. and it will depend on a lot of these issues both on the corporate side and on the individual side how that process evolves. so to predict it, the secretary would like to have it done. he'll play a huge role in this. i u think our legislative affairs team would play a role in it. there's a lot of folks on the team and individuals assembled a world class cabinet that has a lot of interest in helping to grow the economy to track jobs,
create a more favorable tax climate here in the country than provide tax relief for middle class americans. so we're not there yet. >> will it be the president's plan? >> obviously, we're driving the train on this. we're going to work with congress on this, but the president, as you have heard through multiple times the president be very clear r this is a huge priority for him. something he feels very passionately about and so we'll have more on that later. john? >> the documents that are here is is described as being executive branch documents. in the early days after the president sent out the tweet, the white house was digging around to corroborate. why did it take the intelligence committee chairman coming here to the white house to view executive branch documents to uncover this information? why couldn't the white house? >> as i medical examinntioned,
to what the chairman has said publicly. . my understanding from his public comments are that there are certain systems he doesn't have access to. that was his explanation and i think you should follow up with him u. >> did the white house search the same documents that the chairman searched? >> i don't know what he found so it would be hard to make an assessment of what he was briefed on and what we know. that's a really hard question to answer at this point. >> is it possible they were surveillance reports? >> i don't know what he found. i don't know. >> i don't know what he's got on his systems and what the intel community has on theirs. i don't know what he would have had access to already. >> on tax cuts, you got a little
political coverage over the weekend to do this without paying for all of this. that is adding to the deficit. what's the right number to add to the deficit in order to do tax cuts? how high are you willing to go in terms of deficit issues? >> it's a really early question to be asking at this point. the e question is as we construct this on the corporate side and then on the individual side, part of it is going to be an equation that isn't just driven by that, but more by what's going to help us grow the economy. we're potentially growing around 2.6 and the president would like to see that growth right up in the high 3s, 4s and 5s. there's a question about what part of tax reform especially ob on the corporate side will help us spur the economy and grow jobs. that's an ongoing discussion. that's more of the driver of this. as it evolves, we'll have a score and know more. >> are you comfortable adding to
the deficit? >> i think to -- you're asking really early in the process to make that kind of analysis before we have a policy set forth or have any kind of notion of what a score would look like. >> there's been a steady escalation in marines in syria. changes to rules in the engagement. i'm trying to understand that change. has he personally signed off on all the changes in america's posture in the field? is that something that's left up to the kmoonders in the field? >> it depends on which mission you're talking about specifically. >> marines left in october. they went ashore much more recently than that. did he have to sign off on that? >> he speaks with general mattis, his national security team very regularly. i'm not going to get sbo some of the details of what comes up in those settings.
as i have noted in the past, the president has made it very clear that it he wants to give the commanders on the ground much more flexibility to execute their mission. especially when it comes to defeating isis. that's a big change in philosop philosophy. it also depends on the magnitude of the mission and ground troops in particular or this is an ongoing discussion he has with secretary mattis and others. >> on the review, are you waiting physical the review is complete before you announce sort of a new posturing strategy? or as conclusions come in, you're adapting day-to-day? >> i think some of it is an ongoing discussion with chairman of the joint chiefs and secretary mattis. at certain time when is they meet, they will update him on certain things and where they are headed right now. as the review is ongoing, there are certain events that are part
of the review. >> trump has sent out two tweets criticizing for preventing planned parenthood from being defunded by oppose iing the affordable care act. is that something he would want to see tacked on as a writer to next month's funding bill? >> this was an opportunity to defund it. and but i don't want to get ahead of our strategy. we'll look at other opportunities. but this is definitely one that was a way to make that happen. >> on that legislative strategy, there's a school of thought in this town that last week proved that the president is lacking in political capital. so i have two questions. one is what's in it for democrats to work with the president now and two, if fully
pursued and to get things through the house, democrats and republicans work together, wouldn't that tend to undermine the job security of speaker ryan if the freedom caucus is troezen out? >> two things. number wub, the message -- as i mentioned at the beginning, it's a two-way street. you see whether it's judge gorsuch, which they are throwing down decades of senate tradition by saying we're going to filibuster this guy. i don't think there's anyone in america that can honstly lock at his qualifications and suggest he's not qualified a z a jurist on the supreme court. there's nothing anyone has seen in these four days that suggests he's not qualified to serve. and i think again with obamacare, repealing and replacing it, several of the leading democrats came out and said we have no interest in doing that. i think there's a point at which
both parties can look back and figure out whether it's worth engaging. the president is eager to get to 218 on lot of his initiatives. whether it's tax reform, infrastructure, there's a a lot of things that he is going to be willing to listen to other voices ob the other side to figure out if people want to work with him to get these big things done, to ebb hans the lives of the american people, he's going to work with them. he had a great meeting with the cbc where he talked about infrastructure. he talked about loans and small business lending, education, there are things that he is willing to engage individuals with or groups or caucuses to get to 218 and further advance his agenda. so it's not about undermining anybody. it's about moving the agenda forward and getting things done. >> there's still a sense of
doing what's best for this country that still exists. let's make sure we understand. his goal, he came here to get things done. and i think as pointed out, there was a level of disappointment he expressed on friday. he wants to get things done. what this event on friday did was frankly draw more people into the process to saying, okay, let's figure out if we can actually come together with some consensus to get to 218. whether or not they come from one side of the aisle or the other to pass this bill to make a better system. he understands. frankly, i think a lot of democrats do. with obamacare being such a looming disaster, we have an opportunity to do some stuff. if democrats want to join in, that's great. >> you talked about the wide latitude to dismantle obamacare. is that still the case? will he continue to try to
dismantle obamacare while trying to work with democrats on health care reform? and also the health care bill would have repealed almost all those obamacare taxes. you want to see those repealed as part of the tax reform bill? >> i think secretary price is up here today. there's a lot of meetings already taking place with the team. there's a lot of options that are on the table in terms of especially when it comes to phase one and phase two. . trying to get some of that stuff out the door. as we look back on talking about lessons learned. one of them is to get phase one, phase two, pushed out. whether we wait for the revival of legislation before we put up, i think just to we're clear and i mentioned earlier, obamacare had a ton of fits and starts during its process. it was left for dead multiple times. but they pressed forward. i don't think that's necessarily a model to look for it in terms
of how they jammed it down, but we have to recognize we are 17 days sbo this process. i think the president has made clear, it's not over. there are people coming to the table. but he's going to listen to all good dwrods figure out what it takes to get to 218. >> the tax question. >>. >> how we look at both the taxes and some of the phase one stuff, but we're not ready to announce something now. >> as far as the offer to meet with the chairman and talk with the senate intelligence committee, is there any particular reason why the white house would not be opposed to the idea of jared kushner testifying under oath before that committee? >> again, jared volunteered to meet with the committee. they haven't even con if you remembered having a meeting yet. that would be a little silly.
>> a dangerous president having a soon your aid. ordinarily we see the white house invoking executive privilege. why haven't you done this? >> jared did a job during the transition. he was a continue wit to leaders. and that's until we had a state department and place for people to go. remember we had a delay in some of these things. that was his role. he wants to make sure he's very clear about the role he played and who he talked to. that's it. >> it's dying on its own. it will be dead soon. >> democrats say it's not dying.
>> a lot of democrats -- >> money to be made. >> i understand what they want, but i think there's a a difference. i think we recognize that premiums continue to go sky high, deductibles are going sky high, koiss are going down. by pelosi's own metric, this is dying. she's the one that crafted the metric and said there was a three-prong system to determining its success. it's a failure. if they want to come back to the table and recognize how we can do it in a more responsible way to achieve the goals that obamacare set out to do, but do so in a way that's going to do the opposite of what it did which is to increase choice, drive down cost, we're willing to have that discussion. >> repeal has to be put to the side. >> i want to be clear on this. we have to figure out how we get to 216 and depending on where the number is that day. . that doesn't mean we need the
entire caucus. we need responsible democrats that want to sit down and have a discussion. there may be enough to have them that are willing to do that. i understand where the democratic leadership is. that's one thing. they continue to stake out a very, very far left position. that's not where all their members are. i think based on the calls that have come in over the last 50 or 60 hours, i think there might be some room to have a conversation with people who want to engage in a constructive conversation on how to move forward. so let's see how that evolves. i don't know we're ready to jump into this today, but as the calls come forward, the president's view is if you all want to get together and start come ing ing to a way to come t resolution, we're willing to listen. but right now, we have an agenda to continue to pursue.
more and more people will get drawn into the discussion. there's going to be a continued cry. >> by the way, there's this information that's helpful. >> i think the chairman has made clear through his public comments what his goal is. you can't ask someone to do a review of the situation and then sort of create infempbss because they are reviewing a situation that there's something that's not right about this. he is reviewing a situation. he did exactly and has been open with the press as far as what he was doing and why.
>> you heard the question i lobbed at the attorney general about the hate crime that happened in new york. the white su prpremacist that target itted a black male. . hate crimes are on the rise. what do you say? what is the white house saying about this obvious, apparent hate crime. >> you yelled at the attorney general a specific case. >> you talked about issues. >> i'm glad to talk about the issues. i want to be clear i'm not going to reference any specific case before the doj rugt now. i will say that the president has recognized that we need to bring the country together. he want s s to unite this count and bring people together. he ha a long conversation with respect to race itself, which is somewhat clear. . and i think that was one of the
topics he talked about with the cbc. some of the issues with respect to crime and education and some of the solutions that they suggested could be done during the meeting. and i think those are the kind of thing we can continue that conversation. >> unfortunately, there's been a rise in hate crimes when it comes to different groups to include anti-semitic crimes. you commented from that podium this is clear this gentleman in his jailhouse gave a statement to a reporter talking about he wishes the man were younger and he was a thug. so what do you say to this. it's clear racism. >> two issues. one, hate crimes of any nature should be called out in the most reprehensible way. . there's no room for that in our country and the president noted that in the joint address.
there's one issue that despite policy should unite us and that's calling out hate based on the color of one skin's, one's religion and agendaer. the president has been clear and called it out before. with respect to certain particular situations h he made it clear. at the opening of the address, that's what he led with is a call to denounce hate, no matter where we come from politically. he's also talked about it the night that he took the stage on that wednesday morning around 2:40 a.m. about how one of the things he needed to do and wanted to do as president was unite all americans. there's one other piece to this that i want to be clear on. while we ub equivocally no question about it need to call out hate, anti-semitism, where it exists. there's another thing we have to do and in it your case while i don't know all of the details and don't want to reference any specific case, but i think we saw this the other day with some of the anti-se mettic behavior going out with respect to people
of the jewish faith. we saw threats coming into jewish community centers ask there was an immediate to denounce people on the right and condemn them. it turns out it wasn't someone on the right. it was i bet you it's not someone and he was right. >> i understand that. in those cases, there's no question black and white, we need to all instances of this. that being said while we're on the topic, there's been a rush to judgment in a lot of other case when is it comes to in particular the anti-semitic discussion, where people have jumped to the conclusion about e denouncing people on the right and asking for this. in that particular case, we saw the president was right and this rush to judgment by a lot of folks on the left was wrong and none of them have been held to account. when people are charging something of someone that is not true, there has been nothing to
go back to those individuals on the left who came and asked for everyone on the right to denounce something that they weren't guilty of. i think there needs to be an equal go back in time and call out those individuals for rushing to judgment and calling autothose individuals. >> someone in the room. you liked talking about the meet ing that happened last week. someone in the room at that meeting said that the issue came up that's a very sensitive subject right now in the black community and here at the white house. the issue came up and a.m. row is a said she would be the one heading the office at the white house and the president did not make a response or deny will this be the case? >> we don't have any announcements to make. i assume you're referring to the executive order and we don't have anything to announce on that subject at this time.
>> does the president still believe he will work with the freedom caucus? >> that's going to depend on what legislation. it's not a question of we're going to work with anybody who wants to work with us on achieving the goals that the president set out. we're not putting anyone. it's that balance. as he mentioned, he learn ed a lot through the process about loyalty. ask it's not just certain individuals. and one of the things that's interesting is when you look back and i know there's been a lot to make of this sometimes a
bad deal is is worse that be e getting a deal. i think he smartly recognized what was on the table was not going to be keeping with the vision that he had. and so he decided that this was not the time that a dole was not an end. >> let me ask you about the tweet over the weekend. does he regret tweeting to his followers they should tune in only to tune in and have her call? >> he's a fan of the show. he and speaker ryan talked extensively over the weekend. i don't know it if they talked today. they talked saturday and sunday at length. he's a fan of the show. . he tweeted out support of it. that's it. plain and simple. i know what a lot of people think. . >> they can work together.
>> when the president choosing kushner for the office. obviously, jared kushner has 60 some days of experience in washington. never had a priority government job. does the president vow that as an advantage? >> in some cases. when you look at the individuals he's bringing in. one of the things that jared and again they may talk more about this later. one of the thing its he's looking at is the procurement and technology aspects. if you have dealt with the government and recognized how outdated and unmodernized some of this is, it's not serving the american people and the swabts that many departments have. look iing at how we procure different things and procure technology in particular is importa important.
but there's certain things that it may not do as well in terms of how it keeps records and how is serves veterans. . that we can look at and figure out is there a better way. government is not business. we serve all of our people. there are certain prak tuss that we can put in place that can help us deliver a better product and better service to the american people in some of these key areas. i think when you look at the business acumen that jared ask some of the other individuals who he is bringing into this proce process, i think it's a great service. there's so many individuals that have done so well and been so blessed by our nation that it wanted to give back in some way, shape or form and are using this opportunity to help our country and serve our country in ways that they believe they can use
their expertise to do. >> on health care, this review that you talked about what went right and what went wrong. you don't want to name names, but would it be fair to say that the president has written off people? >> i think i answered that question. . . it's not a question of written them off. it's a question of understanding how you deal with certain people and how they dealt with you. it's not a question of writing them off. we'll going to need to get to as time goes on to 218. i won't screw that one up down the line. but if we recognize as we go down this path of a bold agenda that the president has that we're going to need every vote we can. and hopefully grow the vote in some cases to well beyond that. we're not writing off anybody, but we recognize there are some lessons learned from this process. i'll see you tomorrow. enjoy the day.
>> a very happy monday to you. a busy monday here in washington. i'm brianna keilar. a critical day for the trump administration as the fbi is investigating potential ties between donald trump's campaign aids, former aids and russian officials. trying to get to the bottom of it. there was some coordination between political attacks during the 2016 election. e with just saw sean spicer peppered with a lot of questions about something we have been trying to get to the bottom of and that's a visit to the white house last week by devin nunes, the chairman of the house intelligence committee. the committee that's supposed to be investigating this it very matter of russia and the trump campaign. and what we have found out, not tr the briefing, but we're trying to get more details from the briefing, that he went to the white house one night last week. the next day he viewed some classified information. we don't know with whom or what it was. what he did do was the next day said that there was evidence that trump aids, maybe donald
trump himself had been caught up in the surveillance of foreign officials. so that is is to recap where we are. let's take a listen to some of the questions and the answers of sean spicer. >> everything i know about is through public reports he's made on the record to different folks when he has multiple sources. he met with different folks to gather things as part of his review of the situation. so all i know and what i'm willing to communicate is what has been made available through on the record comments he has made. >> you said i don't know the members of congress have to get cleared in. who in the white house signed him in essentially? >> i don't know. i'll be glad to check on that. . i'm not sure how that works. i will follow up on that point. >> we have a great panel with us here today. i want to bring in a former cia officer and also a sewn your fellow at the foundation for the defense of democracy.
can you lend some insight as to why the chairman would need to go to the white house complex? to be clear, he was at the executive office building on white house grounds. why would he he need to go there to view class 32ed information? is it possible he would have done this at the request of a low level white house staffer. it seems unlikely this wouldn't be something that staffers would have knowledge of. >> it's odd. usually when congressman want to have con tir mags, the branch give it is to them on the hill. it's possible that the information were on sop time of digital liezed system that does not allow printouts. that can can happen because of counterintelligence concerns. but with the chairman that would not have happened. so i don't know. it's a bit bizarre. obviously, if he's looking into a classified system on a
computer that require access codes, the set ra, somebody would do that. they would understand that would all be traced. so it's difficult for me to believe that he was not authorized to do that by the parties concerned at the white house. >> it seemed like he was authorized. we're just missing a lot of the facts. >> i think somebody would have to clear him in. and somebody would probably have to shepard him to the room where he needed to go to view these intelligence documents. and sean spicer also said today that nunes said he had multiple sources about this intelligence, which i haven't heard that. i might be missing it, but i really haven't heard that. >> his spokesperson put out a statement today that referred to one source. he met with his source. >> so everybody confused it on
the intelligence committee. republicans and democrats trying to figure out just what occurred. and also mark warner told andrea mitchell today he called nunes' actions suspicious because nobody understands what o occurred. >> two sources say he was with a staff member on tuesday night and then got a message or gets information and gets out of the car and gets in an uber without the staff member. staff did not hear geb from him that night. the next they heard was from nunes the next morning, can which is the day he scheduled this press conference. >> what is clear now from the briefing is that the white house from its perfective clearly is fine with whatever he did.
they want no part of this. whatever information he got, it's up to him to talk about. they are not going to talk about it. but what is also crystal clear from comments today is that he went to the white house. he received information at the white house and then went back to the white house in some dramatic fashion to redeliver that information from where he got it when he he briefed the president. >> i think they just want to make clear we're not facilitators. we are hands off. we have no fingerprints on this whatsoever. >> how is that possible? >> it's a lack of curiosity here. i just don't know. it doesn't seem like maybe he's trying. >> in an interview, e nun, s told him he e had to go over there because he had to get sbo a networked computer. i don't know if it that's right. and he also said he copied down the numbers to request the information to show to the
committee. it seems like he he should have done that before he went to the press. as you lock at intelligence reports and see different things. we need other people to look at it and tell us what it means. >> what do you think about that? >> i suspect that there are members in the white house and even in congress who deal with classified information who are not fully conversant in what america routinely does with intercept. ask that it's not uncommon for americans to be picked up on that intercept. both in the united states and from russian calls, communications that begin in moscow. moscow to pick up a lot. so parties may be making much too much of this. it's possible if you look at it, yourself you're not going to be
surprised. if the intercept is picked up and it's open and not encrypted, that with would know already if it was something really damning. >> we should remind everyone that he said this has nothing to do with russia. >> so your expectation is this is surveillance of a foreign national that's not a russian national. >> had had had his problem is the unrasking of the names of people swept up accidentally in this. some of whom who might have been working in the administration, which goes back to the president's tweet three weeks ago that he was. >> it happens all the time. a all the time u. i think the interesting element here is in talking to folks on capitol hill ask somebody who told the story about what happened to him the night before in it reporting that out is members of his own party who care a lot about the unmasking
issue, try to make a whole hearing about it are perplexed by everything that surrounds what's happening. they had any idea what was going on. if this is legitimate and justified, we'd be all in with you. let us know what's going on right now. the fact that it appears cloak and dagger when talking to congressional staff and lawmakers saying what on earth is going on. that's the biggest issue. it might be legitimate concerns. >> one of the other things that came up during the brief iing w president trump's son-in-law jared kushner who availed himself to speak to the senate intelligence committee chair. let's listen to this. >> based on the questions that surround this, he volunteered to sut down and say i'm glad to talk about the role that i play and the individuals i met with.
but remember given the role he played during the campaign ask during the transition, he met with countless individuals that was part of his job and his role. and e he executed it completely as he was supposed to. you're acting as though there's something nefarious. >>. >> i'm answering it. i'm just say ing ing to you tha based on the media frenzy that existed, he volunteered to make sure that e he said, hey, we made some contacts. i would be glad to explain them. let me know if you want to talk. >> this is something that hits awfully close to home for donald trump, because this is one of his top advisers. when you look at someone like donald trump or any president, you have these circles. .
e he wanted to speak to this committee. then nothing he it was wrong. during the transition period, he was meet iing and the and was a continue wit to foreign leaders. any communication was above board and him just doing his b job. >> the "new york times" is reporting there were previously unreported meetings with russian fushls. but it seems looking by what sean spicer is saying that he certainly isn't nest ly acknowledging that or saying this is no big deal. >> yeah, they are just saying he did this and it was part of his job. there's no reason -- he used the word nefarioushou a lot. that's why he's willing to talk about it. >> the attempt last week by the trump administration to get an obamacare repeal and replace bill through the republican conference. not even through republicans and
democrats. there was a failure at that. we know donald trump has said he has learned something from that, but certainly there's a lot of soul searching going on at the white house. let's hear what sean spicer said about that. >> absolutely. in fact, starting friday afternoon through late yesterday, he's received a number of calls as well as other members of the senior staff that had been working on health care. saying they would like to work together and offer up ideas. >> the president has branded hum a clown. worked entirely with republicans on this bill. would this require a a serious change of course from the president? >> to some degree, sure. i think the president talked about that. we learned a lot through this process. we're obviously looking at ways
we can improve not only how we handled health care, but other things. how we do everything. i mentioned it to sosm of you in the course of things. one of the traits of a a successful sorgs to examine how you do things. i think there's been a lot of outreach from members of both sides. the president is willing to listen to these individuals. if they come to resolution ob a way forward, we're willing to listen and move forward. >> democratic voters do not like donald trump. that is to. put it kindly. can you imagine a situation where house republicans, the white house would have any luck in bringing democrats over? >> i think you're exactly right. because that's the context of these members are going to decide about they would be able to afford outreach to the white house. you have donald trump that everything the democratic base believes in. they want folks in congress to o
oppose him at all terms. you have donald trump at 36% approval right now. and so he has no real political clout. it's a bad number. there's no attempt there. democrats just practice the playbook of a wall of opposition and it work ed for them in term of wounding president trump politically. there's no inisn'tive right now that i can see for the democrats to want to work with the white house. >> i totally agree. there's disincentive to work with the white house. i was talking to a senior white house official who also said about these whispers of returning to health care, now you have a a freedom caucus that is disbanding to a great degree. there's going to be divisions in that freedom caucus. . maybe they can use that to sthar advantage at the white house because they are getting a lot of flak tr pro life groups saying what donald trump tweeted, which is that you have blown your only possibility of
defunding planned parenthood. so you see some of these members of the freedom caucus peeling off. that's very attractive to folks at the white house, divide and conquer could be a strategy. >> can we do a quick fact check. we heard sean spicer say that when he was just describing the process of democrats passing obamacare, he said that they tried to go single payer and were essentially rebuffed. i covered it. it was rejected which happened. it was to cast what happened just happen with trump care in some sort of it's not that big a a a deal. it's pretty spectacular. the public option was floated and negotiated and the white house just said we're not going to be able to include it.
>> can you put a button on the wider picture. the big topics we're talking about, the investigation when it comes to russia. you're looking at how sean spicer handled the questions a about the obamacare repeal attempt. when you look at how things are playing out right now for the white house, what would you say? >> remember neil gorsuch. you have a supreme court nominee who had a fan tatastic week on capitol hill. not just on capitol hill, but more broadly right now. you have a a success story moving through. and nobody can focus on it because of everything that's going on with nunes and health care just imploded upon them. this idea that democrats are going to come to the table. i asked him what are you doing. we hadn't been talking to them. . they are lighting themselves on fire. i find no reason to walk over with a bottle.
>> they didn't text they were heading over to be. helpful. >> they were going to let them light themselves on fire. i'm so struck by the fact we have a supreme court nominee that's rolling through or had a very good week and nobody is talking about it. the white house you feel great about that. there's 15 other things ahead of them. >> the republican in charge of the house intelligence committee revealing he was on the white house grounds just a day before his controversial announcement l about the communications. sean spicer not it ruling out the mysterious source is is from the white house. details, ahead. the following ad is being condensed for your viewing convenience. so i just switched to geico. what took you so long? i know, i saved a ton of money on car insurance. that's what i'm talking about! geico also gives you 24/7 access to licensed agents! booooyah. good game, you really crushed it. no son, geico crushed it. ♪
♪ as after a dvt blood clot,ital i sure had a lot to think about. what about the people i care about? ...including this little girl. and what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i asked my doctor. and he recommended eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. yes, eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. both made me turn around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily ...and it may take longer than usual for 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. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis the right treatment for me. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you. tais really quite simple.est it comes in the mail, you pull out the tube and you spit in it, which is something southern girls are taught you're not supposed to do. you seal it and send it back and then you wait for your results. it's that simple.
businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink. top of the hour now. i'm brianna keilar in the white house is plotting uts way forward after the bitter health care defeat on friday. right now the critical focus for this administration appears to be dealing with the fallout of a surprising revelation. that has left the house intelligence committee chairman with some explaining to do. today we learned that nunes visited the white house a day before his announcement that he saw information suggesting that communications of president-elect donald trump and
his advisers may have been swept up in other foreign nationals. why was he there? how does this fit together? take a listen to what sean spicer said when questioned if the source of the information could have come directly from the white house. >> i can't say 100% i know. what i can can tell you through his public comments is he said he had multiple sources he came to a conclusion on. to a a degree the sources weighed on the ultimate outcome of what e he came to a decision on, i don't know. and that's something that i don't know he discussed with the president. >> so it's possible. >> anything is possible. >> you want to bring many in cnn's senior congressional reporter. it's secretive what happened with nunes going to the white house, not a a lot of light shed today by the white house on that even though it was there at the white house co