but they're declining and they 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 to it.
>> this is what a coverup looks like. our committee has lost its independence, credibility and the progress its made. >> are you going to stay chairman? >> why would i not? >> this makes a good spy novel. it doesn't make a good investigation. >> if the president puts russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that's a russian connection. >> a respected journalist was patron niced trying to ask a question. >> it is going to be an uphill climb for him to get 60 votes. >> we are all going to make a deal on health care. that's such an easy one. >> this is new day with chris cuomo. the health intelligence committees grinding to a halt over political infighting. the chairman saying he is
staying put while the white house denied they tried to stop him from testifying. >> and they will have their first open hearing on russia tomorrow. the president is revisiting the health care battle. he's predicting it will be easy to get a deal. he's also touting the u.s. mission in iraq is going very well and he never mentioned the air strike that just killed over 100 civilians in mosul. let's begin our coverage with sara murray. >> reporter: bipartisanship has hit a breaking point in the house. struggling with how to move forward with their investigation into russia and one thing is clear, the chairman of that committee and this white house are playing defense. >> are you going to stay as chairman and run this investigation? >> why would i not? >> devin nunes defiant amid calls for him to step aside from
the panel's russia investigation. >> are you going to recuse yourself from the investigation? is that a no? >> the house russia probe effectively put on hold as democrats accuse the chairman of stalling. >> the investigation has ground to a halt. but here's the odd things. all meetings have been canceled. we're apparently not going to do anything until this closed door meeting with comey and rogers occurs. >> the investigation will move forward but only after a private meeting with the fbi director and head of the nsa, which has not been scheduled. the chairman under scrutiny. >> it's evidence of a coverup. there is no rational explanation for the cancellation of that meeting. >> the white house fighting back against allegations that it saw to prevent yates from testifying. >> i hope she testifies. if they choose to move forward,
great. we have no problem with her testifying. >> that's after the washington post published letter showing the justice department said yates testimony could violate presidential privilege, all on the same day that nunes canceled the hearing. >> should devin nunes recuse himself? and, two, do you know the source of his investigation? >> no one knows. >> republican leadership standing by the house investigation, despite growing criticism. with walter jones becoming the first republican to suggest that nunes step aside. >> if the president puts russian salad dressing on his sal laid tonight, somehow that's a russian connection. >> shawn spacer on the defensive. >> it seems like you're hell bent on trying to make sure whatever imagine you want to tell about this white house stays. i'm sorry. please stop shaking your head again. >> all as the president continues to deflect, repeatedly
tweeting about hillary clinton and trying to shift the focus back to his legislative priorities after a bruising repeat on repealing obamacare. >> i know we are all going to make a deal on health care. that's such an easy one. >> our leaders in the senate intelligence committee to hold a press conference later this afternoon, they made it clear they would like to speak to jared kushner about his meetings with russian officials. we are told that will likely be testimony held under oath but likely in private. we will get a better sense of the time line and possibly this committee's next steps. >> thanks so much for the reporting there. meanwhile battle lines drawn over supreme court nominee. democrats now to filibuster. republicans are considering using the nuclear option if they cannot get to 60 votes. cnn suzanne mall bow has the latest for us. >> reporter: well, it is game on now for the supreme court nomination. we heard from mitch mcconnell,
who is throwing down the gauntlet. he is saying monday is when the senate judiciary committee will take up the vote and that will set the stage for next friday. not only will the vot happen, but he is suggesting he will be confirmed. the democrats say that they will filibuster. they've got 27 democrats who say they are on board. two who say they are not going to do this. the republicans on their side of course are looking for the 60 votes necessary to break the filibuster. they've got the 52 majority in the senates. nay are looking for eight democrats to join them and about a dozen or so from the trump friendly red states. those are the people they want on their side. they are also willing to now use the nuclear option to change the rule, the thres roeld from 60 to 51. they want to make sure that gorsuch gets an up or down vote. >> it is going to be a real uphill climb for him to get
those 60 votes. if a nominee can't meet the standard, you don't change the rules. >> no supreme court justice has ever been stopped with a partisan filibuster. that is what the democrat leader has announced they will do. we are optimistic they will not be successful. >> the pr campaign on both sides is ramping up. later today 12:30 on the steps of the supreme court, there will be members of the senate judiciary committee as well as former clerks to make the case that he's the one. >> appreciate it. joining us now is the republican c senate. >> so if they filibuster the democrats, should mcconnell exercise the nuclear option? >> yes. >> are you concerned about the precedent that sets? >> no, i'm really not. it's unprecedented that he would change the rules to start with. he did that.
and, you know, i was with gorsuch yesterday. i have never been around a guy that is more qualified. everyone agrees. look, all these guys that are complaining about him right now, they all voted for him to be in the tenth circuit and no one opposed him. and, so, right now it is a political game and whatever this is -- i would say this, chris, he's going to be confirmed. >> you know, just a point of fact on it, you know, merrick garland got an easy pass when he was put up for a judgeship also. she was unopposed. they will tell you and you know this, senate, it is different measuring a man or woman for supreme court versus an appellate or different court. so there is a different appraisal process here, isn't there? >> no. the difference i see is he was put up during the tail end of an administration. right now, this is the very first of an administration and there is a lot of precedent for that, that someone in his last final months should not be making the determination as to who is going to be the confirmed
nominee. >> wasn't it in january that garland first game up? >> no, it was actually at a time frame when it would have been -- it would have actually set a precedent and, so, we are on sound grounds and i didn't have any problem with that particular nominee. but this one is the nominee. he will be confirmed. >> you think garland should have been given a vote or not? >> no. >> harry reid set a precedent, true, so this would be in fact a new manifestation. >> reporter: >> i would argue with that. can you break the rules of the senate? that was the issue, not how far should it go. but they have the power to do that. he did it and i remember when that happened i thought that's going to come back and haunt him
and the time is here. >> that's what mitch mcconnell said at the time, was they will regret they did this and this is the situation they're in. but there are a lot of democrats who do have opposition points to gorsuch. they don't like the way he answered questions or what he failed to answer. they don't like some of his rulings. there is some resistance to him. it is not all political. >> well, i have to say this. the same ones that i have heard making that statement were the ones that didn't make the statement before. so he's already been there. he's already answered the questions, and i thought he did a fabulous job. i watched as much of it as i could. so let's wait and see what happens. as i say, he's going to be confirmed and i will -- america should be rejoicing. >> all right. let's talk about the recent environmental roll back that the administration says will help the coal industry. critics say this is putting short-term economic interests in front of long-term environmental
protection interests and that you are not going to rebuild the coal sector any way by rolling this back. innovation is your problem. pricing around the world is your problem with why you don't have more coal jobs. >> i was listening to your previous gust, and i think he's being a little generous. let's keep in mind this has been a war on fossil fuels. this has been obama's war on fossil fuels which has endured longer than when he was president. it is not just coal. it's coal, oil and gas. he's thrown in there nuclear, too. here's the problem you have. right now our country is dependant upon nuclear, coal, oil and gas for 89% of its ability to run this machine called america. if he's successful in doing away with it, how do you run the machine called america? secondly, you have to keep in point the thing he did in paris. this is very significant.
for some reason people don't know about it or they don't care about it, but he made the statement that every country is going to say what are we going to do with our own reduction of fossil fuels. he said in the united states i will reduce fossil fuels by 27% by 2030. well, three problems with that, chris. first of all, it can't be done. we immediately went to the epa. they agreed it can't be done and secondly if you remember, lisa jackson, who was the first nominee, first confirmed director of the epa under obama, she said well it wouldn't make any difference anyway if you did it because the problem is not in the united states. the problem is china and india and mexico and other places. the third thing is that the united states supreme court has stepped in and they agree with us. and, so, that is just not -- what he did, and i'm glad that the president what he did, but insofar as the commitment that was made. >> right. >> by obama in paris, it's meaningless.
>> but, look, taking all of your points as true for the sake of argument, this was about the ambition of being better, being cleaner, having more sustainable businesses and transitioning away from those that are seen as having negative impacts on the environment. it wasn't simply to kill jobs. obama wanted to replace jobs, a difficult task and you seem to ignore that motivation here that these industries can and do attribute to global warming and to the excesses of human behavior that add to global warming. that's a big part of the motivation. >> well, see, i've argued this over and over again. let's keep in mind the amount that that would contribute to global warming even by their own figures. i'm talking about the epa right now would be 0.2%. it's not even measurable. so people who like to say that this is the major cause for global warming, first of all, this is a debate that's going
on. the bottom line is, even if you're right or if they are right -- i think you're quoting them -- it still doesn't make any difference. 0.2% is not going to make a difference. >> but the science will make an impack. you have an overwhelming majority of scientists. >> i will argue that. >> but it doesn't mean the facts are in your favor. i understand you argue it. it doesn't mean it is a compelling argument. >> i'd be glad to have it with you. right now we have a lot of the really fine scientists. in fact, they're even laughing about it. >> laughing about what? >> no, let me -- i'll tell you what. the ipcc is the united nations. that's the science that has been behind this. we all understand that. we also know that they have been totally discredited with climate change. this happened in 2009. and, you know, i think everyone was understanding of that at the
time. and right now even though they have been totally discredited, they are the sciences behind this, and this is a different discussion altogether because what happened yesterday is something that is a -- is not just a coal thing. it's trying to end the war on fossil fuels. >> right. >> and i think he's done it. >> well, i don't know. those are your words, the war on fossil fuels. but isn't it kind of all related, that this is about moving away from industries that are seen as bad for the environment as far as trying to find new sources of energy and industries that could be safer. you have seen negative impact from these industries maybe affecting your own earthquake content. >> well, no. the president has been talking about this for a long period of time and others have, too. the bottom line, though, is you got to run the machine called america and you can't do it without fossil fuels and nuclear. and this is something that
everyone does understand. although they deny it. the president has been in denial -- i'm talking about obama now -- for a number of years in trying to come up with something that says we can rely on renewable fuels. they're out there. the technology. well, maybe some day it will be out there. today it's not, chris. they don't have the technology right now to run america without fossil fuels and nuclear. >> and the larger question is how do you ever get there if you don't ever start the process. but you're right. there are lots of conversations to have on this issue and you're always welcome here to have them on new day. alison? >> the trump administration targeting undocumented immigrants. our next guest says the wrong people are being demonized. what does he mean? congressman lieu wi gutierrez joins us to explain.
the white house tackling immigration with a threat from jeff sessions to sanctuary cities that they could lose federal funding if they don't enforce the laws. is this the start of a mass deportation force that candidate trump promised? let's discuss with the democrat congressman luis gutierrez of illinois. let's do this differently. my suggestion is this, that the democrats have lost the messaging war when it comes to
immigration. there is a perception, even though it is in defiance of fact, that unabodocuments immigrants are running around the country raining and killing and cherry picked cases, whether it's that terrible murder in california some years ago, they loom large. do you believe you have lost the messaging war? >> well, look, chris. here's what i do. i wake up every morning and try to do the best job i can for the greatest number of people. i don't think we have. i think that in new york, chicago, l.a. and the cities across this country we have mayors and police departments who say we cannot do our job if we lose the confidence of the people we are assigned to protect and to serve. and, so, they don't want to be immigration agents. so i'm happy to be on the program, chris, so that we could clarify some of the mischaracterizations. >> right. >> here's how i see it. they call them sanctuary cities.
what i would say is they're fourth amendment cities. why do i say that? if you supply a warrant in the city of chicago, right, we will absolutely honor that warrant. but you got to get a warrant. so think about it a moment. the dea, the fbi, the atf, they get warrants, right? they go and pick people up. what ice, which is another federal law enforcement agency does, is it wants to have people detained and wants the city of chicago to go after people without any probable cause being submitted before the court and without a warrant. > it's not always that way, though, right? i mean sometimes they will say, if you get chris cuomo in your jail system, we have a warrant for him. he's here illegally or he's wanted for whatever it is that falls under ice law enforcement jurisdiction, give him to us and it doesn't happen and the rational is the one you're
offering. you don't mention the african-american communities. you still enforce the laws. you won't do it here, why? >> it's not that we don't enforce the law. i disagree with you. we will enforce the law if you supply a warrant. i will tell you they will hold that person in cook county jail and release that person to ice. so you need to get a warrant, right? because i think that's the basic thing. don't expect -- here's what they do, chris. what they do is they call and say hold this guy. we've had cases in the city of chicago where somebody is held on friday only to find out monday, after they have been held in jail all weekend, they are a citizen of the united states of america, should never have been held in jail. >> mistakes are made. >> but more importantly is that they're not going after criminals. you have reported extensively in the city of chicago, mrs. leno.
she has three american scitizen children and now under the trump administration they say she's a danger to society and she has to leave in july of this year. that's wrong. >> that's an issue. but it is a separate issue. congressman, can you tell me with all honesty and a straight face that you don't believe that there are cases in this country in major cities that are called sanctuary cities where law enforcement refuses to work with ice because they don't want the pr issues. they don't want the added cost issues of holding people. they don't the extra administrative issues of having to litigate cases that aren't specifically theirs, they're ice's. doesn't that happen? >> we live in blended communities. i'll tell you real quickly. when president obama came to the city of chicago, just to show
you the depth of this, when the president came to the city of chicago back in 2015, i took my grandson with you, and he said to president obama, these were his new executive orders that could give five million people legal status in the country. he said to the president thanks a lot because now my aunts and uncles can stay. so, look, chris, even in the gutierrez household there are obviously extensive family members that my own grandson knows about. why? because we live in a blended community. it would be simple to say we live in a cast society and those without papers live here and those without papers live over there. there are five million who's parents are documented. we have to protect those children and, chris, let's just fix the broken immigration system so we no longer have to have this conversation and lastly, i just want to say those
criminals, those illegal aliens they talk about, their impact is on my community, on my family. i don't want them in my community either. i want the chicago police, the l.a. police to enforce the law, put them in jail, sanction them and if they're here undocumented to deport them from the united states of america. so let's be clear we are for law enforcement protecting our communities against anyone, regardless of their immigration status. because you are undocumented we don't want to say now you're in a special category that the police can't go after you. no. if you are a drug dealer, someone doing harm to a community, the full force of the law should go against you. >> it's a wide ranging debate. it is going to continue. thank you for making the case on new day. alison? >> devin nunes refusing to step down, insisting his russia investigation will go forward. congressman tray dowdy is on
that committee. he's here to tell us what he thinks about this and where the investigation goes next. it's never been easier. except when it comes to your retirement plan. but at fidelity, we're making retirement planning clearer. and it all starts with getting your fidelity retirement score. in 60 seconds, you'll know where you stand. and together, we'll help you make decisions for your plan... to keep you on track. ♪ time to think of your future it's your retirement. know where you stand.
the house intelligence committ committee's russia investigation grinding to a halt over political infights. now for the first time a republican lawmaker is calling on chairman devin nunes to recuse himself from that russian probe. walter jones tells a reporter, quote, how can you be chairman of a major committee and do all
of these things behind the scenes and keep your credibility? if anything has shown we need a commission, this has done it by the way he has acted. the integrity of the committee looking into this has been tainted. nunes says he is not going any where. let's bring in south carolina's trey gowdy. do you agree with your colleague that your committee has been tainted? >> no, ma'am. what i want our committee to start doing is working, which is interviewing witnesses and accessing documents and all of this politics i'm sure is interesting to the viewer, but if you want to find out those investigative trenches with respect to russia, we need to start interviewing witnesses. >> isn't that the problem? because of everything that's going on with chairman nunes, everything has been stalled this week. in fact, one of your democrat
colleagues says you are in deep freeze mode. doesn't that tell you he needs to recuse himself? >> i'm smiling because i don't know when congress not doing something for a week is deep freeze mode. that's not unusual up here. >> but you were scheduled -- hold on one second, congressman. but you were scheduled to do interviewed and to hold hearings. yates was supposed to appear, jim comey. but for whatever reason, chairman nunes indefinitely postponed it or canceled it. so what is going on? >> i think that for whatever reason is really important. you saw the hearing last monday where almost 100 time it is two witnesses said i cannot answer in this forum. so why you would go back to a forum where the witnesses can't answer the question is befuddling to me. i want to talk to sally yates. we are going to talk to her. the fact we didn't do it this tuesday doesn't mean we're not
going to do it next tuesday. we are about a week behind. we are about a week behind, but if we start next week, we could catch up. >> i hear you. but you could have done it in a closed meeting. why not do it this week? >> i think it's important that we talk to comey and rogers again first. they really are, alison, the two most important witnesses at least for three of the four tron chs. when you answer a hundred times, i can tell you, but i can't tell you in this for rom, why would you not bring them back to say, okay, we're in a different forum. answer those 100 questions and then we move on. that is the natural chronology and that's what i hope we do. >> you make a great point. why didn't it happen this week in a closed forum? it was scheduled, and then it was canceled. >> well, you made rogers and com comey. i think it's important we talk to them again. i'm not privy to their calendars. they came last monday. perhaps they could not come this
week, but it is indispensable we talk to them again, see what questions they can ask. that's going to then lead to different questions. there's also a natural chronology in an investigation. i like to start with the seminoll witnesses and they could identify other witnesses. onthai sk i don't know their schedules. the fact they could not back-to-back weeks before congress and spend six hours before us does not surprise me. but i expect them to come and i expect them to come quickly. >> so congressman, if chairman nunes shared sensitive information with the very source of the investigation, meaning the president and the white house, doesn't that compromise him? >> you're making an assumption that i don't think. >> what are you thinking? look, let me be clear. we know he went to the white house and told the president
something. >> right. and we have no idea it has anything to do with russia. in fact, he has said it has nothing to do with russia. so if the new rule is that the chairman of the house intelligence committee cannot share information with the commander in chief, we're in a whole new world, alison. if that's the new rule. he says it had nothing to do with russia. i have no reason to doubt him. the white house is not the target of the investigation. >> have you asked chairman nunes what he was doing? what he did this? >> i have. i had a federal witness killed that i relied on and i'm not overdra matt sizing this, but you do protect your sources. you do it in your line of work. deven has to do it. there are whistle blowers and other people who have relevant critical information and they want to share it. you protect your sources.
deven is protecting his. he's not telling us who it is. i would say this, alison, wouldn't he be more interested in the authenticity and reliability of the underlying information, whether it's the gardener or the cook or someone else is secondarily important. the authenticity and reliability is what is most important to me of the underlying information. >> well, sure. and, so, what is the -- that's what you're trying to get to the bottom of, right? what are the connections? are there these ties between the trump campaign, the trump team and russia? so how are you getting to the bottom of that? >> two separate lines of inqu y inquiry. what deven went to the white house about has nothing to do with russia. so put that in a separate trakt. i was ready yesterday to start interviewing witnesses, all of them. i want to sit down with adam schiff and say adam give me your list of witnesses. let's interview them together.
we're both former federal prosecutors. let's find the facts and the truth together. give me your witness list. i'll give you mine and let's do it in the forrm most conducive with gathers the most amount of information. but the trip to the white house that deven took had nothing to do with russia. so let's don't conflate the trip with the investigation. >> we appreciate your insight and you being here with all that information. thank you. >> yes, ma'am, thank you. >> all right. just ahead, sean spicer, the white house press secretary, did not like the question and the rest is viral history. the one and only april ryan tells us about this fiery exchange in the bottom line.
tomorrow's the day besides video games. every day is a gift. especially for people with heart failure. but today there's entresto... a breakthrough medicine that can help make more tomorrows possible. tomorrow, i want to see teddy bait his first hook. in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto was proven to help more people stay alive and out of the hospital than a leading heart failure medicine. women who are pregnant must not take entresto.
it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high potassium in your blood. tomorrow, i'm gonna step out with my favorite girl. ask your doctor about entresto. and help make the gift of tomorrow possible. time now for the five things to know for your new day. devin nunes refusing to recuse himself in the russia investigation as the committee's probe grinds to a halt because
of political infighting. >> republicans preparing to go nuclear. more democrats announcing their intention to filibuster. >> there is a fair chance a u.s.-led coalition air strike killed scores of americans in mosul this month. >> a federal judge in hawaii blocked president trump's travel ban is expected to decide whether to keep the ban on hold or suspend his order. >> the entire white house staff announcing they will skip next month's white house dinner in solidarity with the president. >> more food for us. >> for more on the five things to know, go to cnn.com for the latest. >> reporter april ryan was on the hot seat yet. she got a bit of a dressing down from sean spicer at the white house press briefing. so we are going to have her here with her reaction to the bottom
line next. >> but first the story of an or fan abandoned in china, using dance to show that beauty has no bounds. here is her story in this week's turning point. >> i'm a professional dancer. i was born in china. i was taken to the orfanage. i was born with a quarter of an arm. i was 13 months of age when i was adopted, coping with staring and rude comments or their doubt in my abilities. i definitely had to like develop a resilience. i was diagnosed with scoliosis when i was eight years old. my mom, she put me into ballet training to build more muscle for my back and also help my posture. i fell in love with dance almost
immediately. >> five, six, seven, eight. >> and that's when i feel like i found my own voice. my dream was to travel and dance. i was accepted into the dance company. we have both disabled and nondisabled dancers. i hope that i'm inspiring others by performing for them. if they've hit an on tackle in their life, i hope to inspire on how to overcome that on tackle. >> turning points, brought to you by cancer treatment centers of america. care that never quits. i had some severe fatigue, some funny rashes. finally, listening to my wife, went to a doctor. and i became diagnosed with hodgkin's lymphoma
...that diagnosis was tough. i had to put my trust in somebody. when i first met steve, we recommended chemotherapy, and then we did high dose therapy and then autologous stem cell transplant. unfortunately, he went on to have progressive disease i thought that he would be a good candidate for immune therapy. it's an intravenous medicine that is going to make his immune system evade the tumor. with chemotherapy, i felt rough, fatigue, nauseous. and with immune therapy we've had such a positive result. i'm back to working hard. i've honestly never felt this great. i believe the future of immunotherapy at ctca is very bright. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com appointments available now.
>> these are the allegations on capitol hill. >> i get it. but i said it from the day that i got here until whatever that there is no connection. you've got russia. if the president puts russian salad dressing on his sal laid tonight, somehow that's a russian connection. but every single person -- no, i -- well, no, i appreciate your agenda here, but the reality is -- no, no, hold on. at some point report the facts. the facts are that every single person who has been briefed on this subject has come away with the same conclusion, republican, democrat. so i'm sure that disgusts you. you're shaking your head. i appreciate it. but understand this, that at some point the facts are what they are. it seems you are hell bent to make sure that whatever you want to tell about this white house stays. >> i'm just reporting -- >> you are asking me a question and i'm going to answer it. which is the president -- i'm sorry. stop shaking your head again. >> he was actually moving his
head while he was telling her not to shake her head, for what it's worth. fair play. >> here now with us white house correspondent and author of the book "at momma's knee" april ryan. what was going through that head of yours when sean spicer was wagging his finger and shaking his head? >> disbelief. i was just asking a question, trying to get an answer and i found myself trying to defend myself. but, you know, i'm a reporter just trying to get answers and it was a simple question. it was a legitimate question. and i just wanted an answer. and i dropped my head. i didn't shake my head at first and i reviewed the tape. i did shake my head towards the end in disbelief. but, you know, at the end of the day, i'm a reporter. he's a press secretary. we both have jobs to do. i'm going back today to do my job and he's going to do his job and i take it for what it is.
and as an administration is calling us the enemy of the people, i guess we saw some of that thought process yesterday. >> i do not think you needed to review the tape to see whether or not you were shaking your head. i think you are allowed to shake your head whenever you want, especially when spicer is doing what he does most often right now, which was giving a bogus response to your question. you know, you said you have wiretapping and russia. he said, no, no, you do. we all know where the wiretapping came from. you asked it. he didn't like it and that was the treatment you got. do you believe what he did to you, april, is different than what he does to other reporters? >> let me say this. there was a young lady from "politico" over the weekend, a white woman, who was called and idiot by sean. it made headlines. we are the press who is under attack. we are under attack by this
administration. it is about discrediting credible media. and, you know, at this point, i happen to be a black woman, but i'm part of the press. so this is -- i guess this is part of a series of two women this week who have been in the news over something with the press secretary. >> and do you think he treats women differently in the press room? >> you know, i just know how he deals with me. i don't -- i'm not sure yet because when he first came out, that was one of the five. i was i think the fifth person he called on the first day of the press briefing. i am going to watch more closely now. i just know there are attacks on the press but i will watch more closely. i just see from the weekend that reporter from "politico" who he called an idiot and then this situation, it's showing a pattern, at least this week. but, yeah, i mean, they have made attacks on the press.
i am saying overarching the attacks on the press have happened but now i'm looking more closely thinking about what you're saying about the issue of women. >> the bad fact for them where you are involved is the president asked you to set up a meeting with the black caucus, which was one of the more awkward meetings we've seen. i don't know if you tried to set up a meeting or not. >> i did not. i'm a reporter. >> i thought that that was more of a, i wonder if this would have happened to somebody who looked like me instead of april in that exchange. do you see that one as different with the president? >> again, when he said that and this is when i just -- nothing else registered after he said set up the meeting because i looked at that as impropriety and i'm like i can't do that. i can't set up a president with government. i will set up a meeting with the president and reporters.
we all look for things like that, off the record meetings to find out what's going on. but i cannot, i will not set up a meeting for government officials in the white house. that is just not right at all for me. >> do you feel as though there is more of a personal attack from sean spicer? when he calls somebody an idiot, when he says stop shaking your head, is that -- look, there's always been an adversarial relationship between the press secretary and the press, but is there something on a deeper, more personal level happening now? >> that's a tough one, and i want to believe that what mike mccurry said, the former press secretary for bill clinton. he said there is a friendly adversarial relationship. i believe the friendly piece is gone now, as you said, alison. it is getting personal, but it should never get personal in that room. it should be about the issues. i have no agenda, you know,
calling people out. if you get personal, it could go back and forth for days and not about the issues. it is about the issues. this is the white house. this is the home, the work space of the president of the united states, the leader of the free world. people want to know what he's thinking, what he's doing. i cover all things presidential. it is not about me. if it becomes about me, it is a sad day. and for any other reporter, it is about the issue for the american people. we cover the president of the united states for the american people. it is not about us. it is about you, the people. it is turning into a different day. >> you get a big amen about that from a lot of people. certainly your brothers and sisters in the media. interesting, what is your take on this. the president tweeted if only people could see how viciously and inaccurately my administration is covered by the media. do you think those adjectives are applying more to the white house secretary than it is no the media in terms of accuracy which spicer has struggled with and that's a generous assessment and the kind of personal attacks
that you, the "politico" reporter, our jim acosta that have a feel of viciousness to it. >> jim is a great reporter. i love jim acosta. first of all, there is a lot of credibility issues when it comes to this administration. but that's where the press comes in and we have to cover the issues and get all sides of the stories. not just two sides, all sides of the story to find out what it is and what is real versus fake. now, when it comes to fake news, oh, yeah, there's some fake news organizations out there reporting on them. also supporting some of the spin that's offered from this white house and maybe other white houses. but i will tell you this, too, as well. in that room that i have been sitting in for 20 years and to see it recently, you just wonder about some of the people that are coming in the room now. are they really journalists or are they spectators posing as
journalists. there is a lot of stuff going on in that room now and in this mosh recall reporting. the dynamic has changed, but there is fake news out there, but i am going to say those who have covered the white house who are covering credible, credential journalists who come there every day are doing their jobs and i'm telling you it's a fight. and it should not be this way. but they -- i'm telling you. i standby the first amendment and those journalists who are in there covering this president and other presidents. >> april ryan, keep up the good work. >> thank you. >> thank you for being with us to talk about all of this. >> cnn news room begins right after the break. stay with cnn. who's stared down the best in her sport. but for both of them, the most challenging opponent was... 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,
y282sy ywty good morning, everyone. 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> so what house intelligence investigation? this morning there is no house intelligence investigation in the possible ties between russian officials and trump associates. at least as far as we could tell. no nothing. unless you are counting controversy, and there is plenty of that. the imbattled house and chair devin nunes is now dogged by a new allegation, that he blocked the testimony of former acting attorney general sally yates because the white house demanded that. the trump adminis