Skip to main content

tv   New Day  CNN  March 29, 2017 4:00am-5:01am PDT

4:00 am
to a halt. >> they asked you to cancel the hearing. >> nothing has been canceled. >> evidence of a coverup. >> what it says we don't want that testimony. >> the reality is, hold on. at some point, report the facts. >> i have confidence in devin nunes. >> i think senators get their way, this is the first successful filibuster. >> if nominee can't meet the 60 vote standard, you don't change the rule. you change the standard. >> nobody ever told me that politics would be so much fun. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> welcome to "new day." up first, the russia investigation grinding to a halt because of the political infighting. the panel's chairman refusing to step down. devin nunes. the white house deny it is coordinated with nunes.
4:01 am
>> and the senate intel committee begins its first open hearing on russia tomorrow. this as the president revisits the health care battle predicting it will be easy to get a deal. he is also out touting the u.s. mission in iraq is going very well. he never mentioned the air strike that killed 100 in mosul. it is day 69. let's start with sara murray. >> reporter: good morning, alvaren alisyn. it is clear they are struggling with how to move forward with the russia investigation. the house intelligence chairman and white house are on defense. >> are you going to stay as chairman and run this investigation? >> why would i not? >> reporter: devin nunes defiant among calls for him to step aside from the panel's russia investigation. >> will you recuse yourself? >> reporter: the house russia probe put on hold as democrats
4:02 am
accuse the chairman of stalling. >> the investigation certainly has ground to a halt. here is the odd thing. all meetings have been canceled. >> reporter: nunes now saying the investigation will move forward. only after a private briefing with the fbi director and head of the nsa. which is not been scheduled. the chairman under scrutiny for cancelling the hearing which is supposed to feature testimony from sally yates. fired by president trump. >> it is evidence of a coverup. there is no rational explanation for the cancelling of the hearing. >> i hope she testifies. i look forward to it. if they choose to move forward, great. we have no problem with her testifying. >> reporter: that is after the washington post published letters saying yates' testimony
4:03 am
could violate presidential privilege. all on the same day that nunes canceled the hearing. >> should nunes cancel himself from the investigation and do you know the source of the information? >> no and no. >> reporter: republican leadership standing by the investigation despite criticism. with walter jones becoming the first republican to suggest that nunes step aside. >> if the president puts russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that is a russian connection. >> reporter: sean spicer offering a color answer. >> it seems you are hellbent to ensure the image you want about the white house -- please stop shaking your head. >> reporter: and tweeting about hillary clinton and trying to shift the focus back to his legislation priorities after a bruising defeat on repealing obamacare. >> i know we will all make a
4:04 am
deal on obamacare. that is an easy one. >> reporter: the heads of the intel committee are expected to hold a news conference this afternoon. they made it clear they would like to speak with jared kushner and senior adviser with russia officials. he is likely to testify under oath, but priesvately. back to you. >> i appreciate that bit of reporting. sara teased up the discussion perfectly. let's start off with jackie kucinich and we have patrick healey and we have devlin bar t barre barrett. he is part of the team that broke the story extthat tried t block sally yates from testifying. >> a lot of national security stories are sourced. you have to rely on the sourcing. we publish the letters with the
4:05 am
story. anyone can go through the letters and see what they say. they show that there is a back and forth that goes on last week about the degree to which her testimony would be limited by attorney/client privilege or executive privilege. >> devlin, correct me if i'm wrong, that is between the department of justice and sally yates' attorney. the white house is sort of silent. they never weigh in on this. am i right? >> right, exception for the justice department says it is likely the executive privilege applies to these topics that are going to come up in the testimony. you should talk to the white house about it. what happens is sally yates' lawyer sends a letter to the white house. these guys are saying privilege applies here. i need to talk to you. if i don't hear back, we are going forward. we are comfortable with
4:06 am
testifying. what happens after that is set, the hearing is canceled. the deadline becomes moot. there is no need to respond. this growing conflict comes to a dead stop. >> a march 27th deadline. it was moot. there was a tasid understanding that if we don't hear from you, we will go forward. what is he saying about putting off that testimony? >> when he was asked yesterday did the white house ask you to cancel the meeting, he did not answer. the white house denies it asked him to cancel the hearing. when he canceled the hearing, he said they are cancelling it for a private session with comey and rogers. that hearing still hasn't happened. the comey-rogers meeting hasn't happened.
4:07 am
everyone is in the weird holding pattern. the last thing is what the white house did yesterday by saying they want yates to testify, that puts a little more pressure on nunes to make a decision. make announcement to what his next move is. >> jackie, devin nunes needs to explain himself on a few levels. particularly why he canceled this scheduled hearing because otherwise it gives the impression that once again he is doing it at the behest of the white house. >> it doesn't look good. at the end of the day, that is what we are faced with. since he said he seemed also to imply it wasn't cancelled, but delayed. he did not he lelaborate. it raises more questions than it answers. >> you know, there is an ethical standard that we talk about. an semblance of impropriety. this is what it looks like. the second time that devin nunes, minimum, has done
4:08 am
something to favor the white house to the disadvantages of his committee. >> true. right now, what you are seeing is a circling of the wagons under devin nunes instead of answering the questions. look, chris, we saw manu raju talking nunes. he could not answer basic questions that manu was putting to him about why the hearing was postponed and impartiality he had. you have paul ryan come out yesterday saying we support devin nunes running the investigation. that is a circling the wagons. >> why do they want sally yates? people know about her in terms of refusing to enforce the travel ban. that's not even the subject of the hearing.
4:09 am
>> this feel s bungling right now. people feel sally yates will testify under some arrangement. right now, it feels like sand bagging both ways. it looks like the republicans can't get their gist at the white house. they can't get their stories straight. >> devlin, what could sally yates say? >> i have been told that sally yates is obviously key point of interest. what was the conversation with the white house when she warned them about the issue of possible bla blackmail of michael flynn because his statements regarding his contact was the russian ambassador did not match up with what was picked up about the conversations. i'm told that some of the what she would say and as patrick pointed out, what will be said some way.
4:10 am
some of the white house statements of the conversation are not correct. >> that sounds important. that sounds like something would be helpful to hear if it hasn't been cancelled. >> thes white hou white house t frame sally yates, not the white house, but republicans as barack obama holdover. she will be able to go to the hill and say this is what we saw. >> let's think it through. jackie, sally yates comes in and said i went to the white house and there is a mismatch here. they forced flynn to resign. what do they fear in terms of exposure? >> they don't want to talk about nie michael flynn anymore. look at the answers that sean spicer was giving. you saw the frustration are. the idea that new information coming out that makes it look
4:11 am
like the white house is not being straight with the american people because it has nothing to do with the media. it has anything to do what explaining to the american people. one of the biggest issues with the russia debacle is they are not putting everything out there. it is drip, drip, dripping out. it turns out here and there and there are the turns where the white house is not telling the truth. >> they say there is nothing there. they say drip, drip, drip you hear is a dressing. >> russian dressing. >> let's play it. why not. >> april ryan's question was a fair one. about image and how sean spicer is the white house going to deal with the drip, drip, drip. it is a real phenomena in washington. going after april ryan in such a patr patronizing way.
4:12 am
why is he getting off the facts? he can't answer the facts. >> he got angry and did this. >> let's play it. >> you got russia. you got wiretapping. >> we don't have that. -- >> on capitol hill. >> no, no. i get it. i've said it from the day that i got here until whenever. there is no connection. you have russia. if the president puts russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow there is a russian connection. >> the reason i make fun of him and his credibility. this wiretapping thing was birthed by the president. they could get the answer immediately. they wanted a distraction. kudos. you got it. you found a way to distract. did he go too far with dealing with april? people are taking offense.
4:13 am
he has been offensive to a lot of reporters. >> it seems decorum is out the window. >> when he can't handle it. >> when he doesn't like what is going on. we talked about this earlier. he called a reporter an idiot with no resources this week. the lack of professionalism comes from the top. this is something, the putdowns and slams. we have seen that from president trump. it is permeating the administration publicly. >> devlin, is it your impression that sally yates will ever testify in an open hearing? >> i think she probably will. this whole process raised the stakes on this. this is not the end all hearing. when it probably happens, we will treat it as such because of the back and forth of the hearing in the first place. >> irony the white house coming strong the way spicer did will probably make it more likely than ever we will hear from her. >> devlin, thank you. thanks to you guys on the panel.
4:14 am
there are other partisan battles. that over supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. will it go nuclear? will the republicans have to blow up the filibuster? what will that mean? if they can't get 60 votes, what will we see? cnn's suzanne malveaux live on capitol hill with more. what do you know? >> reporter: good morning, chris. it is game on for the supreme court nominee. we heard from mitch mcconnell who is laying down the gauntlet. saying on monday the committee will vote on gorsuch. that will set the stage for next friday for the full house. he not only predicts the votes will happen, but confirmation as well. it has led republicans and democrats to scramble to both sides. the democrats are committing now to the filibuster. there are 27 committed yes. they will filibuster. two say no at this point. republicans very much aware of the numbers. they need 60 to break that filibuster. they have 52 asth majority in t
4:15 am
senate. they have eight they can turn to say no. there are a dozen they can target from red states. they are working on them. at same time, the republican leadership announced they are going to use that nuclear option to change the rules from the 60 vote to 51 to make sure that gorsuch gets that up or down vote. >> it's going to be a real uphill climb for him to get the 60 votes. if a judge can't meet or nominee can't meet the standard, you don't change the rules. >> no supreme court justice has ever been stopped with a filibuster. that is what the democratic leader announced they will do. we are optimistic they will not be successful. >> and the aggressive pr campaign is in full swing at 12:30 you see on the steps of the supreme court. members of the committee making their case for gorsuch.
4:16 am
alisyn. >> suzanne, thank you for all of that. the house intel russia investigation as we have been telling you has been ground to a halt this week. can it restart while devin nunes is still in charge? a democrat on that committee tells us what he wants to see on that committee next. kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin trusted advice for life. kevin, how's your mom? life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you.
4:17 am
4:18 am
4:19 am
4:20 am
house intel chairman devin nunes rejecting calls from democrats and republicans to recuse himself from the investigation. here is what he told cnn's manu raju. >> are you going to stay and run the investigation? >> why would i not? you guys need to ask them why these things are being said. >> so the investigation continue as you as chairman? >> why would it not? aren't i briefing you continuously and keeping you up to speed ? >> they are saying it cannot run with you as chairman. >> that sounds like their problem. my colleagues are fine. they know we are doing the investigation. that will continue. >> can you comment on why the intel committee meeting --
4:21 am
>> there is no -- everything is moving forward as is. i'm not going to get into internal communications with us and the democrats. i would go ask them that question. >> joining us now is democratic congress member jim ims. good morning, congress member. >> good morning, alisyn. >> we interviewed you last week. you were not calling for nunes to step down and chairman. you said you had found working with him effective. how are you feeling today? >> well, i'm feeling more puzzled than ever. we are in day seven of the saga of not understanding why the chairman took the intelligence and went to the white house and did the news conference and talked to the president without briefing the republican or the democratic members of the committee. you know, not only has that resulted in the cancellation of an open hearing which we were to
4:22 am
have heard from the deputy attorney general and former cia director and former director of national intelligence, but rememb regular business has been canceled as well. we conduct oversight. we were to have a meeting. we have been frozen. a lot of us without information from the chairman are wondering why the investigation and committee been put on ice. >> have you asked devin nunes? >> you know, oddly enough, he has not communicated with us or frankly with his staff and republicans on the committee to give us a sense of where we are going forward. we are hanging on to the fact he continues to say or at least he continues to say he will explain the behavior of last week. this is not a partisan criticism. you have lindsey graham and john mccain saying i have never seen anything like this. a lot of us have a lot of
4:23 am
history with chairman nunes and consider him a friend. until we really get read into whatever drove the behavior last week, it is hard for us and the american public not make assumptions about what is driving this behavior. >> understood. when you say he hasn't made himself available. what do you mean? is he present? if you knock on his door, what happens? has he gone dark? what's the deal? >> there's just been no communication. again, when he does something as aggressive and unusual as he did and we heard that story over and over again and when there is a cancellation of an open hearing. i understand the conflict of the white house did or did not want sally yates to testify. the reality is she didn't. when you cancel all of the ordinary business meetings of the committee, it is kind of up to the individual who does that to say here's why i did that. we haven't been offered that explanation. >> as you describe it, business has ground to a halt.
4:24 am
you are in deep freeze mode. you are not doing the work that the intel committee is supposed to be doing. what more do you need to know as to whether or not your chairman can be effective? >> i mean, as i said, we need to understand what happened. we need to be made comfortable. the american people need to be made comfortable that whatever happened last week going to the target of an investigation. don't take it from me. one of the reasons we did not have another open hearing is in the last open hearing on monday, the fbi director confirmed the fbi is doing an investigation of possible connections and links between the trump campaign and the russians. so in that context when the lead investigator on the trump/russia issue goes to the very party that is being investigated, that raises propfound questions that
4:25 am
need to be answered now to get the investigation back on track. the over sight we do is important. there are a handful of representatives of the people doing oversight of an operation that is $80 billion-ish in size that is conducting operations all over the world. this needs oversight. >> you make the most compelling case for why your work is so important. given that, why aren't you calling for the chairman to step down or recuse himself? >> we democrats have called on the chairman to recuse himself. >> are you part of that call? >> two days ago i joined ranking member adam schiff and the other ranking members in making that call. make most mistake. we had a kconstructive working relationship with the chairman. we are open minded if he were to call us into the offices at 9:00
4:26 am
and say i'm sorry it took me a week to get back to you and i'm sorry this was played out in the media. here is what i saw. here is what i did. we would be open minded to that explai explanation. without transparency and without the facts, rumor and speculation runs to fill the vacuum. >> are you ever going to interview sally yates? >> i will take sean spicer at his word. i her him clearly say he looks forward to her testifying. and chairman nunes said the open hearing that was canceled yesterday would be rescheduled. i'll take them at their word. >> if james comey comes back, what other burning question do you have for him? >> apparently, again, remember the open hearing got canceled yesterday. apparently it was urgent that we hear in closed session from james comey and mike rogers.
4:27 am
oddly, the proposed meeting time was the exact time as the open hearing. for whatever reasons, rogers and comey did not come yesterday. lo and behold, the open hearing was not rescheduled. again, i'm going to take chairman nunes at his word that it is important for us to sit down with those two. i don't know why chairman nunes has not told us why it is important. i hope that happens. >> do you think there is any possibility that chairman nunes is acting at the behest of the white house? >> you asked about possibilities. let's look at the circumstantial evidence. i want to start from until last week, he was constructive part of the investigation. you know, he is close to the president. he was a member of the transition team on a couple of occasions he has concerned us. he along with senator burr, was part of trying to knock down the
4:28 am
new york times story that the administration did not like. when somebody takes information in the middle of the investigation to the very people who are being investigated, you have to -- again, you hate if you are trying to be calm and balanced. you hate to jump to conclusions. that looks suspicious. >> congress member jim himes, thank you. >> you can look at the direct evidence with what is going on. you have to brace yourself for a showdown. digging their heels over the supreme court nominee. this is not how democrats or republicans feel about gorsuch, but it is about the process. the big question is if the democrats filibuster, will the gop go nuclear? we discuss next. you can't predict the market. but through good times and bad... ...at t. rowe price... ...we've helped our investors stay confident for over 75 years. call us or your advisor.
4:29 am
t. rowe price. invest with confidence. 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. introducing intuitive, one touch video calling from vonage. call now and get amazon chime at no additional cost.
4:30 am
on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™.
4:31 am
liberty mutual insurance.
4:32 am
a nuclear showdown. sounds so dramatic, but could be a very real thing in the senate in the coming week or so. democrats more confident they can filibuster supreme court nominee neil gorsuch and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell
4:33 am
is setting a vote for next friday. he says they could invoke the nuclear option to get gorsuch through. let's discuss. we have jack kingston and jennifer sokey. jen, you said good morning first. you win. i will start with you. how does the process of the filibuster work? what do the democrats need? >> the democrats need to keep the caucus together. you have seen senator schumer convey strongly and clearly he has every plan to do that. a lot of senators have come out to filibuster. this is a moment where i think democrats are sending the message to people in the country they will continue to fight for them. they will represent the interests across the country.
4:34 am
i expect they will hold the caucus together and there will be a filibuster. >> the x-factor is -- put up the graphic again. 27 will filibuster. 20 unknown. that is the space are you loyou are looking at. this whole issue goes away and they get an up or down vote on gorsuch. do you think that happens and if not, do you endorse mcconnell going nuclear? >> i think the democrats are going to drive up to the edge of the cliff and have to decide do we really want to filibuster? there have been three full busters of the supreme court justice in the last 50 years. one was alito and obama participated in that and regretted the vowte. i think the democrats will drive the car up to the cliff and say we proved our point f. they don't, it is a different time. i think mcconnell has to take a
4:35 am
page from harry reid and say we will have the nuclear option. we are tired of this. >> jen, reid carved out nominees when he breached protocol. i guess it was nuclear-lite what he did. democrats say you did it to us with merrick garland. we will do to you what you did to us. >> part of it is that, chris. that is not an effective message that will resonate with people across the country. i was there in the obama administration where we dealt with weeks and months of supreme court nominee not getting a hearing. it is frustrating. the public was frustrated by that. democrats have come out and made substantive arguments of why they are not comfortable with the nominee moving forward. it is true, jack said we don't know if schumer is bluffing on the numbers he has here. he will keep fighting for it.
4:36 am
we will see what happens. ultimately maybe they will go with the nuclear option in the case. i think people in the country will have to make a judgment as to whether or not they are comfortable. >> a lot of this is the decorum of the left and right. i want to play something that is an extreme example of the lack of decency of the political dialogue. jack, give me your take on this. play this. >> fighting for the democracy. we are fighting for america. we are saying to those who say they're patriotic, but they turn a blind eye to the destruction it is about to cause this country. you are not nearly as patriotic as we are. >> what does that mean, bill? we have been listening. >> i didn't hear a word she said. i was looking at the james brown wig. if we have a picture of james. it's the same one. >> okay. i have to defend her on that. >> you are all wrong. >> i have to defend her on that. you can't go after a woman's looks. i think she is very attractive.
4:37 am
>> i didn't say she wasn't attractive. i love james brown. >> let's put to the side our brothers and sisters on fox mocking her about her. it was a targeted comment about her hair. o' o'reilly called it dumb or silly. what do you make of that comment? does it have a place in our political dialogue? >> i think yes and no. i think you have to be careful when you have the stature of somebody like bill o'reilly. there is a degree of silly and humor that we in washington have earned. people make fun of donald trump all the time. they call him carrot top. they say his skin is orange. they accuse him of all kinds of things. a female comedianne made snide remarks of melania. the measure of what we do to
4:38 am
both parties, there are ad homynin attacks. i think it is too far. >> jen, do you think this was the adhomynin at play? >> i think sexism is alive and well. so is racism. we saw that last year in some places around the country. we certainly seen it exist today. i think we need to all be aware of. that hillary clinton made interesting comments yesterday where she pointed out the fact it can't happen to them. it can. i experienced it. i don't think you can find a woman in washington or women in businesses who have not experienced it. it is irresponsible to talk about this as a sense of humor. it is not funny to joke about women of color or gender. nobody finds it funny.
4:39 am
>> jen, you are a tough person. of aniy race or sex. i don't like the left who runs and clutches. i'm a woman. don't say anything bad about me. or belong to a certain race. seems it is always the card that is played. it is okay to call the president of the united states orange and red head and all kinds of derogatory things and make fun of his wife right and left. it always seems to me there is a double standard when somebody from the right is being criticized. oh, it's funny. make fun of him. all day long on "saturday night live" run the clips all day long. from somebody on the left, i can't believe he said that about him. >> jack, i don't think sexism is a partisan thing. in fact, i have many friends who are republicans. i have many women who are republican operatives who have
4:40 am
been incredibly kind and supportive over the years. i don't think this is a partisan thing. i don't think anybody thinks what happened to melania is acceptable. i don't think making fun of donald trump's hair is the same as making fun of women or woman of color and her hair. it is different in our society. i think we have to treat it that way. >> you get that, jack? you get a difference? >> i say the difference is one conservative and one is liberal. when a conservative is attacked, it is fun and humorous and clips run over and over. >> there is no difference with "saturday night live" making fun of the president or making fun of a woman? >> and bill o'reilly is a funny guy. >> why did he apologize? >> i think he wanted to be on the safe side of being cauckaca. >> since when does bill o'reilly
4:41 am
want to be cautious? why did he apologize? >> i would say in politics, we all throw elbows from time to time. if we are going to get upset, we have that right as well. i will say this. it always seems like it is okay to make fun of a conservative, but liberals are -- you can't touch them. they are off limits. to me, you know, making fun of maxine waters hair, i don't know the difference. it was a hair comment. it wasn't anything else. it had nothing to do with sex. it had nothing to do withes race. when people say oh, donald trump or ronald reagan, they dye their hair. i never thought they are made fun of because they are a man. why when you say something about a woman's hair you are sexist. >> you are objectifying them.
4:42 am
let's agree on one thing, o'reilly did something he thought was wrong and he apologized. that is rare in today's political dialogue. jack and jen, i appreciate it. alisyn. chris, i have a lot to say about the hair debate. i'll move on. president trump says things are going very well in iraq. no mention of the u.s. air strike that went horribly wrong killing scores of civilians. we have a live report from the ground in iraq next. what makes this simple salad the best simple salad ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so simple. get the recipes at walnuts.org.
4:43 am
4:44 am
4:45 am
president trump says the u.s. military is doing very well in iraq and soldiers are quote fighting like never before, end
4:46 am
quote. it comes as the top commander in iraq speaks out about the strike from mosul that left hundreds dead. we have arwa damon joining us now from irbil, iraq. arwa. >> reporter: that particular area where the strike took place still difficult to access. we did manage to get into a neighborhood that was nearby. even there, you are really struck by how much more significant the destruction in american mosul is when you compare it to the east. that is for a number of reasons. perhaps at the top of which is the reality that isis was entrenched in western mosul. you have alley ways the troops had to navigate on foot. you have a civilian population that is stuck there. a lot of fire power being rained down on western mosul along with the various different suicide
4:47 am
car bombs and truck bombs that isis is detonating. all of this, of course, de devastating for the civil population. there are a number of investigations undergoing now. the high commissioner for human rights saying in a five-daytime span at least 300 people were killed. that gives you a little bit of an idea of what it means to try to launch this kind of warfare against an enemy like isis in this environment. it has to be said this is unlike any battle u.s. troops ever faced during occupation of iraq. when it comes to how america is doing here and the president's comments, it is all about perspective. this is a very complicated battle field to say that it is going well may perhaps be an oversimplification. the american role here is from the air and rear.
4:48 am
it is a different battle than the one u.s. faced when it had hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground. >> we will see what the future holds in terms of more american boots on the ground. a whole political conversation about that. a little bit of a question right now. i want your take on, arwa, about whether or not we know for sure that those civilians bodies are picked out of the rubble in mosul were the result of the u.s.-led coalition air strike. on the ground, with the officials, do they have an answer of how those people died? >> reporter: of course, they do. they are trying to look into it. at the end of the day, when it comes to the iraqi side, they need to be able to justify these deaths to their population. they are very aware that the higher the civilian death toll, the higher the population in mosul will turn against them. we heard from the commander on the ground that there is a
4:49 am
chance the deaths were caused by the air strike. was it due to a secondary cause? one strike or another strike or impact of a strike caused a truck bomb to detonate? that is one thing we heard from the iraqi commander on the ground. all of these are possibilities. the bottom line is people are dying in mosul every single day. >> arwa, we are grateful to have you on the ground and your reporting to tell us what is happening. thank you. well, he promised to be the job delivering president. our economic experts and what's going on with the stock market. that's next.
4:50 am
4:51 am
when heartburn hits, fight back fast with tums smoothies. it starts dissolving the instant it touches your tongue. and neutralizes stomach acid at the source. ♪ tum -tum -tum -tum smoothies! only from tums
4:52 am
the whole process of buying awe didn't know if it was even something that we could plausibly do. but having the zestimate in which they kinda calculate out what the approximate value of that house, maybe, should be. it took all of that kinda scary risk away. i can't tell you how much happier we are having a place of our own. whatever home means to you, we'll help you find it. zillow.
4:53 am
that is what this is all about, bringing back our jobs, bringing bag our dreams and making america wealthy again. >> that was president trump after he signed an executive order rolling back u.s. climate change commitments, saying for him it is all about jobs. is the president living up to his job creation claims? let's discuss with steven moore
4:54 am
and dr. mark zandy. okay, steve. let me start with you. in terms of president trump's claims, let's look at what he's claimed versus some reality checks. he's claimed since being president he has only -- sorry. perhaps no single regulation threatens our miners, energy workers and companies more than this crushing attack on american industry. coal mining jobs have been declining since 1980s. obviously he's facing an uphill battle there because there is a r lot of factors. how do you rate that claim? >> i don't think there is any question that the entire purpose of the clean power plant bill was to destroy the coal industry. in fact, copes like the sierra club and so forth have made that point. i have to tell you, i traveled
4:55 am
with donald trump. i went to a lot of these coal towns and what's happened has been devastating. it's true that coal has been on a decline in large part not because of renewable energy but because we have had such a huge increase in natural gas, which is a fantastic thing. but, look, this country was built on coal, alison, we have 500 years worth of coal, the idea we are just going to destroy our coal industry, no. >> what about his idea, steve, that he's going to bring it back. >> he will. there's two things about coal. the class of production -- mark thoughs this. the cost is falling just as it is for oil and gas. and the other thing i think is important to realize because i know people are concerned about the environmental consequences, the amount of emissions vz been reduced, 50, 60, 70, 80%, so we have clean coal in this country. >> part of the reason you have better factory put out is
4:56 am
because of the innovation. but the whole idea that that's going to be the key to getting jobs back, a lot of people doubt that authenticity of that. what's your take? >> no. that's not the solution. just to give you a number, there is 50,000 coal miners across the country, 50,000. there are over 100,000 people who work at gm in the united states. there is over 300,000 ups workers. walmart employees over a million employees in the united states. there's 150 million jobs across the united states. so the thought that we're going to create a lot of coal jobs, and that's going to help in terms of overall job creation i think is just folly. it is not going to happen. >> just one quick thing on that, mark. you're right about the number of coal jobs. by the way, there used to be 100,000 when obama came in. now they're down to about 60,000. here's the thing.
4:57 am
the left as it were on coal and all fossil fuels, there is an industry, there's ten million people, mark, ten million people in the oil and gas industry and the left wants to destroy that industry as well. >> but steve you make a good point. the point you made earlier is a good one. the problem that the coal industry faces is the natural gas industry. >> true. >> and the problem that fossil fuel in general has is low global prices for oil, natural gas, coal and other energy. so you can change the clean power plan. you can get rid of all environmental regulations. prices are determined globally. as a result, we're just not going to get jobs there. i'm not saying it is a good idea to be energy independent. it's a great thing and the fact we're producing all this energy is wonderful. but if we're looking to the energy sector and fossil fuels to create jobs, that's a
4:58 am
mistake. it's not going to happen. >> it is also true, though, because natural gas is so cheep, you are right about that, that the industry that's being destroyed by low national gas prices is the wind and solar energies. why would we dump all this money into this when we have cheap and abundant natural gas that's three and four times cheaper than wind and solar power. that's the mistake we're making. >> i'm interested in our answer. >> yeah. well, and there are subsidies and that's true. steve is right. it is also true that the cost of producing wind, solar power, is rapidly declining. just look at the trend lines. it is pretty clear that they are going to be very competitive sources of energy and they are already 10% of the total base to electric utilities at this point. so it is quite significant and rising quickly. i wouldn't count renewables out. i think they're very available
4:59 am
and of course they're clean. that's what we want. >> it is ignored in this, though, steve. >> they are only viable because we massively subsidize it. if you take away our government subsidie subsidies, there is no wind industry. >> there is no question. the reason it's trying to get a foothold is because it's cleanerment it's better for the environment. >> wait, wait, wait. i got a consideration on it. you just said wind industry is an infinite industry. we've had windmills since the middle age. >> they're trying to build out the infrastructure. they still don't have the power grid to support the energy. >> it's just not true. >> you can respond to this. the idea of saying a windmill is the same as what's trying to get going today and what we're trying to do to have the infrastructure to support is mislead sglg misleading. >> no, that doesn't work, no. and there that has been subsidies to get the solar and the wind going. but they're declining and they
5:00 am
are going to go away in a few years. and that the point the technology is going to be there, and these renewables are going to be price competitive. so to talk away from these renewable sources of energy at this point would be a greater -- again, going back to jobs, this isn't where the jobs are going to be. in fact, the other policies from the administration are putting forward are going to hurt jobs. take manufacturing. if you want to create jobs in manufacturing, we should become a more global economy. this isn't really where you should be focussed. >> this sounds like a segment we need to follow up on and do more of tomorrow so we can hear both of your great debates tomorrow before we get to donkey hoety. thank you very much for following along. let's get

50 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on