house grounds the day before making his big acknowledgement that there may have been surveillance that caught up donald trump and other members of the white house. he says he will not stand down from the investigation. more democrats demanding devin nunes step aside from that probe. president trump responded to the firestorm in a series of tweets dismissing the russia story as a hoax and railing against clintons. all of this as a meeting between jared kushner and a russian banker. let's begin our coverage. suzanne malveaux from the hill. what's the latest? >> a growing chorus into continuing investigation into trump's ties with russia. this as we learn day by day, more about the behavior of the intelligence house committee. there's very little appetite for the house speaker paul ryan to
replace him. >> the chairman ought to recuse himself. >> leading democrats calling for embattled chairman of the km the to step down arguing devin nunes, a former member of the trump team is too close to conduct an investigation into the potential ties to russia. >> we've reached a point after the events of this week where it would be very difficult to maintain the investigation if the chairman did not recuse himself. >> after nunes acknowledged monday he made a secret visit to the white house grounds to meet an intelligence source in a secure location. >> nobody was sneaking around. all it was was just a place i had to go to be able to review the information. >> nunes denying any wrongdoing and defending his position to brief president trump and the press about incidental collection of the trump transition team's communications before informing his colleagues
on the intelligence committee. >> i wasn't planning on going to the white house the next day. after i was able to read what i read, i realized it had nothing to do with russia but everything to do with individuals whose names were included into intelligence reports. i was very concerned and thought the president of the united states should know and that's why i told him. >> devin nunes has gone rogue. >> growing chorus of democrats piling on. >> compromised the investigation. >> calling on paul ryan to appoint a new chair. >> his actions looked like those of someone who was interested in protecting the president and his party and that doesn't work. >> both speaker ryan and the white house standing by the chairman. >> i think he's been fairly open with the press as far as what he was doing, who he spoke to and why. >> amid ongoing questions about who granted nunes access to white house grounds, who led him to the secure room at the eisenhower executive office building and who accessed the computer to view the files.
>> democrats are now demanding the release of white house visitor logs to the public so far. the trump administration has refused to do so. in the meantime president trump tweeting last night calling the russia story a hoax and also suggesting to members of congress they investigate the clintons' connection to russia. >> thank you for that. meanwhile president trump's son-in-law and top adviser jared kushner growing scrutiny over a meeting he had with a russian banker who had ties to vladimir putin. this was after trump was elected. this comes as kushner offers to talk to the senate intel committee about his contacts with russia. sara murray live at the white house with more on this angle. sara. >> good morning, alisyn. as much as the trump administration would like to move on, it just cannot shed controversy over russia. now it's caught up the president's own son-in-law.
president trump's son-in-law and one of his closest advisers jared kushner under scrutiny for previously undisclosed meeting. kushner offering to be interviewed by senate intelligence committee, both about this interaction and his role engaging meetings between trump campaign advisers and ambassador sergey kislyak. >> made contacts, glad to explain them. >> white house insisting he was acting as liaison when he met with him. >> jared did a job during the transition when he was a conduit for leaders before we had a state department and people to go. >> russian bank giving a conflicting amount, describing as a business meeting. during 2016 the bank's
management repeatedly met with representatives of the world's leading financial institutions including the head of kushner companies, jared kushner. appointed to the bank by vladimir putin, a bank under u.s. sanctions for three years since russia took over crimea. kushner met with him one month after trump was elected at the insist answer of ambassador kislyak, who kushner met with. the head of the intelligence committee confirming they want to talk to kushner saying in a joint statement the timing is still being determined but will only come after the committee dealers that it has received any documents or information necessary to ensure the meeting is productive for all sides if it happens kushner would become the first person currently serving in the white house to speak to a congressional committee investigating russian ties. this is now the third time a trump adviser has caused a
firestorm with previously undisclosed meeting with russian official. remember attorney general jeff sessions was in hot water not too long ago for this as was michael flynn who was ousted from his role as national security adviser for misleading senior administration officials for his contacts with the russians. back to you guys. >> sara murray, thank you very much. maggie hagerman, senior analyst and correspondent for washington examiner david trucker and cnn political analyst for "daily beast" jackie. did they tell you everything they needed to tell you about the meetings when first asked? secondly, this little bone that the russians threw out there, yes, we head with mr. kushner as head of kushner development, not using his title from the white house. >> that was striking to me when we got the statement yesterday.
we reported on this as you know yesterday morning, that the senate intel committee wants to speak to kushner. in the white house is saying he offered to speak. our understanding is they reached out to him. he is appearing voluntarily as you know well that means he's appearing without a subpoena. it doesn't mean this is an offer, as we understand it. the banker statement certainly puts this in a different context than how the white house has. maintained even after that statement that, you know, this was basically in the context of doing his transition role. this was nothing about the kushner companies but it did come at the same time that kushner companies was looking for new financing for a major midtown manhattan building, one of the jewels in their company. kushner said they didn't discuss this. the white house said they didn't discuss this. this is one of a number of questions swirling around that are not accurate. that it was essentially a quick meeting and it was in the context of being a liaison to
all sorts of people. there are still a number of unanswered questions about this. i think this is going to play out over some time. >> david, connect the dots for us. if jared kushner met in his capacity as a businessman before the inauguration, after the election, before the inauguration, where is the deal there? >> well, i think part of the problem is that the trump campaign and the trump transition team and trump white house doesn't disclose. i think a lot of these things would look different if they would just voluntarily disclose. part of what i keep trying to figure out is, is it just a lack of being organized and knowing what the heck they are doing. yes, you've had an extensive business career that's all been legal and aboveboard, that's fine, but now you're in the white house working for the president of the united states
and different rules apply? or do they have things that want to hide. it still gets me back to the root of the poisonous fruit, the president of the united states coddles vladimir putin in a way he won't coddle our allies. that casts a cloud over everything we keep finding out in this drip drip fashion. the white house is going to have to get their arms around this because eventually the american people are going to get exhaustive by it especially if there's no legislative work product. >> donald trump, president of the united states, no tweet about the protests in russia. the state department put out a statement but nothing from trump. point of clarification for you to make here. maggie is right, jared kushner made an offer. not to testify, though, he made an offer to coin and talk. he did not say whether or not manafort said, some of the others, i'll come in and raise my hand. >> meaning not under oath. >> that could be i don't want to make more of this than it deserves or it could be i want
to insulate myself. the point of clarification i want to make, if he meant after the inauguration, after the election with a business person at a russian bank while also working for the white house you have an immediate problem on your hands. that's not okay. >> that is not order. i would argue i don't think you can separate the two going in meaning legally it's different. i don't know it's a difference going into the white house because of the proximity of power. paper covers rock. he's going into the white house. that was going to happen. would sheriff meeting with him had they not known he was going into the white house and had that proximity of power? we don't know the answer to that question. >> maggie, the man trying to get the answers, oextensively, is devin nunes. devin nunes house intel committee we now know was on the white house grounds reading some sort of sensitive or classified
information. where are we with that? there are now a growing demand of democrats asking him to step aside. but he thus far is not willing to? >> democrats don't have much leverage here. remember, congress is controlled by republicans. democrats are afraid if they step away then essentially they will be losing access to a lot of the information that's available and any real hand in this. all they can do is hope they can apply pressure with daily drum beat of focus on this. they are doing that now, though, as that has gone on over several days and more facts have come out about what narm nunes learned and how he learned it, the optics are not great for the white house. you had sean spicer yesterday in the briefing room say nunes has been very open about who he met with and how and where and none of that is true. this has come out through people sourcing. i think jake tapper broke it yesterday. still has not said who he met with and how he accessed the
documents and whisked onto the white house grounds. anybody as any new reporter covering the white house can tell you, you can't just hop onto the white house grounds. it's actually a process to get in and you have to be cleared and somebody has to know you're there. >> he didn't want to give information about that. they are doing their best to make this a nothing burger, right? nunes talked to wolf yesterday. here is how he explained how not sneaky it was. >> i wasn't sneaking on. it wasn't at night will it was in the middle -- the sun was out and i actually stopped and talked to several people along the way. many foreign dignitaries were there. some of recognized, said hello, had conversations with them. so nobody was sneaking around. all it was was just a place i had to go to review this information. >> david druker, put this in a place where it wasn't as incriminating as going to the white house, the he didn't have a mask on, seemingly trying to
paint a picture. >> i'm adam schiff, here to look at documents. >> none of this is helpful showing this is credible investigation. i use that word because ryan is using it. i have every confidence -- how? how can you have every confidence he's doing a credible job when he went around his own committee with information he misdelivered or didn't have in the first place to be putting out that way and now we find out that he was on the grounds, kind of missing, according to jake's reporting. how can you call that credible? >> i think the upshot here is nunes is either going to have to deliver work product or he's not and then he's going to have something to answer to. as he has told me, and i spoke to him again last night, he viewed documents he did not possess. he tried to get these documents into the skiff at the house intelligence committee on capitol hill. he said he couldn't. he needed another skiff. that's why he ended up at oeob.
all of this, it's about, okay, will the nsa deliver documents to you as they said you expect them to, and will the democrats on the committee be able to look at these documents. if they can, it's still a partisan issue with the house of representatives. not quite like the senate where you're going to get more of a modicum of independence from your party. but if democrats can look at this, they can -- and nunes is right, they can spin it. he's had a lot more to go on. keep in mind he did brief house speaker paul ryan before the white house. he kept him in the loop. >> not his fellow committee members. >> some of the republicans on the committee not the democrats. it's all about delivering work product. he's either going to have it or it's not. then it's going to be a problem or not. >> rejecting partisanship in this committee isn't normal. this isn't normally a partisan committee, normally having ranking member saying he should recuse himself from an investigation. that's extraordinary for house
intelligence committee and the fact it's bleeding over into the senate investigation. chairman burke cannot be happy about that. they are trying to keep it on the straight and narrow as far as what they are doing. >> panel, thank you. on that note, stick around. we have many more questions for you. >> all of this is creating a frustration in the white house to get their agenda under way. you've got president trump trying to get back to business. he's going to sign an executive order today. the question is, will it do more good or bad? is he really thinking of throwing a bone to climate change deniers. what environmentalist are calling a hot mess in the making. yes, that's a double entendre. ♪ energy is amazing.
how we use it is only limited by our imagination. and at southern company we're building the future of energy, for you. the newly advanced gle can see in your blind spot. ok let's call his agent. i'm coming over right now. [ dinosaur roar ] onboard cameras and radar detect danger all around you. driver assist systems pull you back
david drucker. this will rescind moratorium on coal mining on u.s. federal lands. this will be music to the ears of people in coal country but will it crank up the coal industry? >> this is the open question. it's certainly the president fulfilling a campaign promise. for now, a white house that feels fairly battered after last week. what we saw between negotiations between white house and congress, i think they would like a win. i think they would like to show they are delivering. the coal industry has always been somewhat more complicated than what the president said. not as sweeping an industry with the number of jobs it provides or can provide in keeping with production and this is going to add to more controversy over questions about a commitment to climate change. there are a lot of people within the administration who would like to see, for instance, the
paris accord disappeared with. there are others urging to keep it. kick off another week of debate. >> goes farther than that. you can coal mine on federal lands. they want to do a whole review of the clean power plant initiative, which is seen as key to keeping the united states from looking like shanghai in terms of blowing all kinds of black smoke into the air. federal agencies will identify obstacles to energy independence, which is another way of saying let's get rid of more environmental restrictions so we can do more oil work the way we want to. >> part of this has to do with republican orthodoxy. part of this is elections have consequences. i don't know that the -- it would have been a lot different if, say, mitt romney had won. he had talked about bringing back, not to the same extent. >> he was a lot more progressive about climate change. >> he was. >> he didn't say the chinese made it up. >> which mitt romney? >> always a fair point.
>> he didn't say climate change was a hoax. >> neither did trump when he was applying relief for golf courses from the effects of global warming. >> stop. >> such a thorn in the side. stop. >> i don't know that it would have been going this far, but it's not like republicans generally have been embracing climate change, to be fair. >> first of all, so refreshing to talk policy for a minute. look, this is a big test for trump in one way and maggie touched on this. can he deliver the goods to his voters? he's promised voters he's going to bring back manufacturing, bring back energy industry jobs. there's a lot of people that want that to happen. so can he put in place job growth, sectors that have faith in trump that voted for him. aside from that, and jackie is right on this, any other
republican elected president from the field that we saw have been doing a lot of what trump has been doing in that regard. republicans don't think they are climate deniers. they do look at it that way. they have a different view of environmental policy, effects of fossil fuels on the economy. when they look at the tradeoffs, to them it's a very easy answer, the economy trumps the environment. >> maggie, let's talk about something else president trump campaigned on, and that was building the wall on the mexican border. now they have made a request for money to begin this wall. the request is $999 million. we're going to round that up to $1 billion. >> it's like every other sale price, 9999. >> get it while it's hot. >> while supplies last. >> while supplies last because this actually only covers 62 miles of wall. i think the promise was for like something like 2,000 miles. that is a pretty penny.
>> it's also less likely to give you sticker shock at $999, so you can look at it that way. the next major challenge in addition to getting a supreme court nominee approved for the white house is the next resolution to keep the budget going and keep funding the government. that's going to be a major fight. this as i understand it is going to be part of that. democrats have already said this is something of a poison pill if you attach this to the next continuing resolution for funding the government. i think this is going to be very challenging for the white house to push this through. right now, again, elections have consequences but so does how you spend your early capital. the white house, which really wasn't going to have a honey moon to begin with have spent the first moneys in very controversial negotiations and discussions and lawsuits and you're now potentially seeing the results of that. >> david, is this just a naked attempt to do what he said he would do?
this isn't just bad for democrat negotiations, it's bad for republican negotiations. you're asking me as a republican lawmaker to eat a billion dollars for 62 miles of wall when no really rational thinking person believes the wall is the difference between perfect immigration policy and imperfect immigration policy. >> yeah, but i would say, look, i've talked to republicans about immigration policies for years. even republicans who believe in guest worker program and do not share trump's view on immigration broadly, a lot of these republicans are in favor of building a wall across the southern border. >> do they expect it to be this much morning? >> yes, they do. >> but -- >> they think that's the biggest joke of all time. the issue after the health care divide, can you get republicans to agree on spending money. there's actually nothing that should lead any of taos believe the freedom caucus together with moderates and leadership and the white house are going to agree to spend a ton of money without doing something to tackle the debt. >> i don't get how you want to
see your self in that debate when they say -- somebody is going to hold you a big graph and showing illegal entry is going down. then you're going to ask for this big chunk of money for a wall addressing that issue that is already going down when your real concern is the people already here, how you deal with them, who you kick out, quotas for coming in. i don't see lawmakers defending the wall. >> they don't have the answer to the other problem. there is no good answer. no one has baseball able to come up with a good answer to deport millions and millions of people who are already here. this other thing is an easy fix. frankly, it's an easier thing to sell than going in and ripping people out of their homes they have been in for 25 years. >> panel, thank you very much. we have another top story we need to give you a development on. that carnage and blood shed in mosul where more than 100 civilians killed by u.s.-led air transcribing against isis.
k cnn with the latest. whoa, this thing is crazy. i just had to push one button to join. it's like i'm in the office with you, even though i'm here. it's almost like the virtual reality of business communications. no, it's reality. introducing intuitive, one touch video calling from vonage. call now and get amazon chime at no additional cost.
so you'rhow nice.a party? i'll be right there. and the butchery begins. what am i gonna wear? this party is super fancy. let's go. i'm ready. are you my uber? [ horn honks ] hold on. the biggest week in tv is back. [ doorbell rings ] par-tay! xfinity watchathon week starts april 3. get unlimited access to all of netflix and more, free with xfinity on demand.
the bodies of at least 112. >> it bears repeating, you heard about the u.s.-led airstrike in mosul. the problem is an obvious one. there were a lot of noncombatants killed. at the last count it's well over 100 people. why did this happen? cnn's arwa damon is live in mosul where it happened. what are you understanding about the whole situation now, arwa? >> reporter: of course, we're actually a few neighborhoods away from where that incident took place. it gives you an idea of the intensity of the battle that took place here. that crater right there, it's massive. presumably caused by an airstrike, possibly suicide car bomb or truck bomb. you have to remember as iraqi security forces were pushing through these neighborhoods, the civilian population didn't even have a chance to flee if it had chosen to do so because isis, based on what everything everyone is telling us, would
stop people from being able to leave. as a result, families try to shelter oftentimes many in one home. it seems as if one of these instances this home collapsed. we have a statement from u.n. human rights chief, in a span of five days, 17th of february to 22nd of march, 307 killed, 273 wounded in this effort to take back western mosul. that's just what we're aware of at these stages. you can hear the sounds of the battle in the distance. there have been all sorts of attack helicopters overhead. the iraquis are trying to modify their tactics to prevent more civilian casualties from taking place. that alisyn is just the ugly, ugly reality of this battlefield. >> still obviously active. we hear the sound of gunfire in the background. please stay safe. we'll check back with you later in the show. >> aria, thank you for all that reporting. more news to tell you about. there's been another round of
severe storms bearing down on the south. let's get to meteorologist chad myers with the forecast. what are you seeing, chad? >> almost 100 reports of hail damage. only one tornado but again today the tornado threat is higher than yesterday. rain in the northeast but this is not the system. we're worried about texas. amarillo back to oklahoma city down to even dallas. this weather is brought to you by purina, your pet, our passion. we will see severe weather every day for the next seven days in a row. pay attention to where it is on the map for today and then for tomorrow and even all the way through the weekend. we will see rain begin to develop in texas. by afternoon, we get what's called supercells. supercells from oklahoma all way down to texas. any of those can rotate and any of those can have a tornado. memphis little rock to shreveport tomorrow, a little farther to the east for thursday, a little farther to the east for friday and another round saturday and sunday, chris. a severe weather event for sure. it's spring and mother nature knows it.
>> all right, chad. thank you for letting us know it. >> all right. so how do we see the last 60 days as reflected in the polls on president trump? the approval rating has sunk to a new low. what is motivating it? what can turn it around? our panel tackles that next. to do the best for your pet, you should know more about the food you choose. with beyond, you have a natural pet food that goes beyond telling ingredients to showing where they come from. beyond assuming the source is safe... to knowing it is. beyond asking for trust... to earning it. because, honestly, our pets deserve it. beyond. natural pet food.
energy is amazing. how we use it is only limited by our imagination. and at southern company we're building the future of energy, for you. i just had to push one button wto join.s thing is crazy. it's like i'm in the office with you, even though i'm here. it's almost like the virtual reality of business communications. no, it's reality.
all right. the president's approval rating is hitting a new low after the defeat on health care. here is your latest gallup daily tracking poll. very sensitive, goes up and down but give over time. 57 disprove of his performance, 36 approve. how can he turn the thumbs around with the understanding he's doing better with republicans than democrats. let's bring back jackie kucinich. he deserves the qualifications. can you look at him, twit, as a partisan president or overall president. overall president he's getting a
beatdown. heart zan wise they are holding out hope. fair assessment? >> it is a fair assessment. that's why you haven't seen republicans abandon him on capitol hill. you look at 36% and they should, you look at states and he's still doing just fine with their voters. i talk to a lot of strategists in the state. not everybody is as exercised about the story, important and concerning but more important taos than they are a lot of voters out there. i think the thing with trump is this. there has been a lot of buy in built into the price of admission that he's just a little unusual let's say. he's going to have to bring deliverables, so republican voters will stick with him. yeah, he tweets. yeah, it's not always true, but look at this great tax reform bill, great health care bill. wait, we don't have health care bill. that's why health care is so important. that's why there's so much pressure on them to produce a tax reform bill.
it's unclear he can get it done. >> he needs a win, something in the win column. before we get to what it should be let's look at context for approval numbers. it's not the lowest by any stretch. well, actually it is. but in context clinton was 38% at his lowest -- sorry, obama 38, clinton 37, gerald ford 37. certainly the lowest we've seen at this point in a presidency. so today you can already see president trump tweeting out other things about jobs, doing these climate change executive order things to bring back jobs he says. so what's the fastest way to a win? >> to put some points on the board. what drucker said, they have a problem with managing expectations in the white house, talking how tax reform is going to be the easiest, so much easier than health care. it's not. you talk to 10 republicans, you might get 10 different ideas for tax reform at this point. at the beginning of this, they are not on the same page.
perhaps they will learn from health care how to start doing this. he's talking about reaching out to democrats to get bipartisan consensus to maybe make up for some of the republicans he'll eventually lose in that debate. they probably should start doing that yesterday. that will help him. that will help poost confidence. right now while republicans are standing up, you're seeing on wall street, business, they have lost a little bit of the confidence they had. >> wall street bump is now the longest slide we've had since 2011. >> exactly. >> not a delivery, as david is saying. their biggest problem is credibility. if we're going to discuss what will turn this out, they have to start telling the truth and delivering what they say more. let's take it from the mouth of the president him self. big announcement by ford. most recent tweet, jobs, jobs, jobs, invest in three different plans. when you look into that, it's true in a qualified way but it wasn't at his urging. it's not something he's going to get a signature on. the tweet before it, democrats make a deal on health care as soon as obamacare folds, not long. that is a false premise.
the idea that obamacare is cratering. it needs fixes, even democrats will tell you that. it's a false premise, no democrat says they are looking to make a deal with him. before that, republican house freedom caucus snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. after so many bad years they were ready for a win. sean spicer, captain credibility said it was a bad deal. the president chose no deal over a bad deal. if that's true, how can this be true. that's their problem. >> they are talking abo ing out sides of their mouth. the president wanted this deal. that's why he's angry with the freedom caucus for sinking it. if the president wants a lasting effect on the country he's going to have to pass legislation. executive orders, we can give him credit for keeping more jobs in the u.s., fine. but if he really wants to change the country and have it stick, he needs legislation. >> let's talk about that why can't he do it with the executive order, in four or
eight years it goes away. >> because the next president -- >> effective through the midterms. >> look at all -- yes, fine. for two to four years. look at executive orders president obama implemented he's undoing. wait, but obamacare they can't get rid of because it's in law. look, they are never going to make a deal with democrats because democrats will not help donald trump govern. that bridge has been ir repliab -- irreparably burned. >> we just touched on this but president trump and the truth, why facts don't seem to matter that much. our media experts have some theories about what's going on next. full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than
vegas. whose nfl commissioner said in october very much opposed to gambling on sports pops one of its teams in the heart of the gambling capital of the world. league personnel including players, coaches and refs aren't allowed to bet on games, aren't allowed to enter a sports book during the season, now their team will be based there. fans in oakland understandably upset. the city refused to use taxpayers dollars to fund a new stadium for owner mark davis while vegas offered $170 million in public fund. raiders planning $1.9 billion stadium to open in vegas in 2020. until then they will have to play in front of their fans in oakland for at least next year and for at least those who remain fans. head to nba, scary moment for cavs fans playing spurs. lebron takes an elbow to the back of his neck. lebron has a growing pain, writhing on the floor for a few minutes before heading to the locker room. lebron did say he was fine after
the game talking to reporters. the entire city of cleveland holding collective breath. spurs blow out cavs 103-74. now let's go back to everyone's favorite pain in the neck, chris. >> why you have to do that to me, coy. i was just going to compliment you buffed your head. good luck in vegas. i know you'll take it deep what this means for raiders. >> good reporter. >> good looks, too. best looking bald man. president's gauge for what is good and fake news. media experts going to discuss the influence of the president on the media, but maybe even more so the media's influence on the president. there's a denture adhesive that holds strong until evening.
pe blood clots in my lung. it was really scary. a dvt in my leg. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. my doctor and i choose xarelto® xarelto®... to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner... ...that's proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt and pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. here's how xarelto works. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least six blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective... ...targeting just one critical factor, interacting with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain
or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures and before starting xarelto® about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. you've got to learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from dvt and pe blood clots. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. there's more to know. i have tremendous energy, tremendous, to a point where it's almost ridiculous when you think about it. but we need somebody with great energy, with great passion, with great deal making skills. we will have so much winning if i get elected that you may get board with winning. i am going to take care of everybody. i don't care if it costs me votes or not. we have to take care of people who can't take care of themselves. i will do that through a different system.
>> president trump campaigned on that winning feeling, and it worked. but facts and feelings are two very different things. as we've seen truth is difficult to gauge with the trump white house. let's bring in media experts, our truth tellers, cnn analyst bill carter and commentator. >> never been called that, ben. >> good morning. not by you anyway, right? >> well, ben, let's get to that. i am curious with conservative media, which you are representing this morning, what is your comfort level with the truth or lack thereof that comes out of the white house? do you want to see them be more adherent to facts? >> look, i think any time you can have the truth come out it's vitally important. i don't think anybody in the media should be a water boy for any perspective or to come out there knowingly or willingly putting out information that is incorrect or wrong. i do think there's a separation,
however, between that and emotion. some of the clips you played of the president are absolutely no different than what president barack obama did when he was running on feelings and emotions or hope and change. >> in terms of what you just said about your premise and you think everybody should make a real disciplined effort to stick to the facts, is that what you see coming out of sean spicer at the press briefing when they talk about 3 million illegals voting, et cetera, et cetera. >> look, i've always said this. if you're going to come out with a claim like this, andiver been critical of sean on this issue before, if you're going to come out and say something, you have to actually back it up in facts. otherwise long-term effects are negative towards you, the white house and the president. if you're going to come out with anything, you've got to back it up in facts. i think that's important for people to realize moving forward in this white house. when you have the approval numbers where they are this morning, there's one underlying issue here. there's some people starting to believe this has gotten too far, this is my opinion instead of
factual. let's also be clear. there have been many much harder on this white house and pushing the fact they cannot stand donald trump by attacking him every chance they get. that's a double standard. there's a lot of people who didn't push near as hard as they are pushing every day on donald trump as they did on the president. i just remember one issue you had come out and say in benghazi a youtube video that caused an attack. there wasn't near this kind of pushback. that was an international incident on 9/11. you have a double standard. >> months and months and months of coverage on that. you had multiple hearings. >> the media was covering it instead of asking questions about it when the republicans were investigating it. >> that is your perspective and a spin that motivates a partisan agenda. in fair point, i joke with ben because we are not an example of the hate parade that's going on in reporting versus partisan politics right now. he and i can have an exchange,
alisyn, can have exchange of facts, isn't fake, toxic, ben says you don't cover trump the way you covered obama. i would argue true. you've never had a flood of statements and actions and inactions like you've dealt with during this compressed period with a president before but it works for a partisan perspective on things. there's been something added to the mix. the facts are loose at best. 3 million illegal people. didn't happen. birtherism, didn't happen. wiretapping, didn't happen. when you say it didn't happen. you're unfair, biased, fake. that's the new twist we're seeing with trump. he can't be wrong, he can om be wronged. >> he's always defensive. he never admits he's wrong. people can say i made a mistake and move on. he doesn't, he just goes to the next one. the measure of what he did during the campaign, 70% of what he said was false in politifact.
factual statements are not his strong suit. he doesn't care about them. he doesn't have a relationship with the truth, it's sort of casual. i think it's partly because he's always been able to do that as a performer, like a performer. now he's president. he's not just speaking to ben and the base. everybody in the country is affected by what he says and it really matters if it's the trust or not. >> there's a larger issue. i do think it has a ripple effect. to me, one of the quintessential moments, are we going with facts or feelings, when newt gingrich sat down with us on "new day" and said this. >> america does not think crime is down, does not think we are safer. >> we are safer and it is down. >> that's your view. >> these are facts. >> what i say is also a fact. the current view is liberals have a whole set of statistics which theoretically may be right but not where human beings are. people are frightened.
people feel their government has abandoned them. >> they feel it but the facts don't support it. >> as a political candidate, i'll go with how people feel and i'll let you go the statisticians. >> that's a way to get elected. perfect example of just how powerful it is, an entire campaign slowingon based on feelings, hope and change. that's how president obama got elected. >> in the white house why aren't they changeing to facts over feelings? >> i think there are both in politics. i think it's unrealistic to imply that somehow politics aren't driven by emotions of the public and feelings. if you feel like the economy is not doing well, you're going to talk about the economy and how it needs to do better. if you feel like the roads are not safe, you're going to come out as a politician and say we need more.
if you feel like isis is a bigger threat than gun crime in chicago, even though gun crime in chicago is much bigger threat than isis in chicago -- >> part of leadership is actually telling people what the facts are so you're not fear mongering. >> right. but let's also be clear, part of being a politician is listening to your constituents and fears and concerns. if they are telling to you focus on x you need to focus on the issue. >> the reason they had those fears, ginned up by partisan media. they are telling them. they are not paying attention to the facts. they are attacking by saying crime is up. you should be afraid. be afraid. even though there is no evidence for that. that's part of the reason they have that feeling. it's been created in bipartisan media. >> to your constituents and fear and assuaging it rather than ginning it up. we leave it there. thank you. >> ben, always a pressure, thank you,