tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN April 26, 2017 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT
incredibly sobering piece, anybody could be subject to retribution. don't forget, you can watch outfront, any time any where, just go to cnn go. acc 360 with anderson cooper begins right now. good evening, thank you for joining us, a busy day at the white house, the president announcing his tax plan but what will it mean for you and who will pay for it? and about the president's unusual statement that he's looking at options to break up the appeals court where judges have blocked some of his kb executive action. but we begin with a meeting at the white house that was so unusual that not even -- president trump all but summoned them there for a briefing on the increasing tensions with north korea. some said on leaving that they thought it was just a photo op
for the white house. just today north korea conducted an artillery drill, designed to annihilate the u.s. imperialists bases of aggression, their termology. what more are you learning about this briefing at the white house? >> well, anderson, it was important at least at the white house's view for optics that the senators all came over here to in building. i was told by a senior administration official, that optics were indeed a central reason, not just for domestic political reasons, but to send the message abroad to north korea and china and elsewhere that the u.s. government was speaking with one voice here and the level of gravity of this meeting was heightened in view of the white house by having it all over here. i talked to some senators afterwards, including some democrats who were not nearly as
skeptical of having the meeting here after it was over. they said that they learned new information that they found it sobering in the words of one senate democrat, but one senate republican said we have seen all this before, john mccain for example said he's been briefed time and time again so it was nothing new necessarily, but it was designed to send a message that the president is on top of this, but that the u.s. government is potentially speaking with one voice here, and it also gave senators a chance to see the president and ask him about this, he was at the top of this meeting for ten minutes or so, we're not exactly sure if he revealed any information there about what his plans are going forward. it is optics, but we're told not necessarily 100-day optics, but international optics, i would say probably at the end of the day, it was some of both. >> just before air, i spoke with senator tammy duckworth who was at the meeting. senator duckworth what was your
take away from the meeting? >> anderson, i seriously felt like i could have gotten all that information by reading a newspaper, i did not see any new information coming out of that meeting to me, it felt like a dog and pony show more than anything else. >> kwhwhy do you think the whit house would do that? >> it might have to do with his first 100 days in office. but those that kairm there to brief us, came back to the capitol to brief the 400 members of congress and i talked to some of my former colleagues in the house and they said there wasn't anything new in their briefing either. >> was there not a room big enough at the senate? >> there's actually not a room at the white house that's big enough for 100 senators, we have that room here in the senate, here in the capitol complex.
and they in fact had to do a special sweep of an auditorium over there in the old executive building to nit in the 100 senators, so it was the reverse. >> when the president came over from the west wing, did he talk got policy on north korea or was it very broad? >> it was very broad, he said that he had developed a very good relationship with the president of china and he was heaping that would make a difference with north korea and he also talked about just escalating in his rhetoric with north korea. >> when you mentioned the 100 days and this getting you all over there might be part of that, how do you mean? that this is sort of an effort for them to look like they're doing something? >> that's what it feels like to me, anderson, if they really wanted to get something done, their should come to us and talk about authorization for use of military force, they should come to us and talk about what their next steps are.
but they didn't talk about any military action in this briefing. >> essentially you're saying this was a photo-op or something else to put on a list of accomplishments of the first 100 days. >> they successfully got 100 people on three busses and tying up traffic in washington, d.c. to get us over there for a briefing. >> do you think the white house carings more about optics. >> si wish the white house would actually care more about getting stuff done instead of coming out with rhetoric and tweets, let's come out with some real policy that can actually move forward. for a long time i've been talking about the need for infrastructure investments, let's talk about that. >> ted cruz says north korea is one of the most dangerous spots at the moment. >> the white house is ratcheting
up the rhetoric, what happens when north korea does something that they have tested a missile, are we then bound to attack them? i'm just very concerned that the white house is ratcheting up rhetoric but has not come to the house or the senate or the members of congress with a real plan on what they would like to do. >> that's the one place where he seems like he's willing to initiate military action, my concern is that he's moving forward without any real plan and that anything that he does will be much more knee jerk. look, if north korea does anything that will endanger japan or south korea, we have a treaty or alliance with those two nations and of course we will come to their aid, if they try to attack the united states, of course we will come and defend our home land. but i didn't see anything in the briefing today that talked to any real specific plans that the white house had for what they're
going to do to get north korea to actually scale down their nuclear capabilities. coming up after a short break, more big news from the white house, the president's tax plan or outline might be a better word, what is in it and what a lot of people are pointing out is not in it. we're keeping them honest next. and then later, president trump says he absolutely wants to break up the 9th circuit court of appeals, and we'll talk about whether that's something the president can actually do, ahead. when you have allergies, it can seem like triggers pop up everywhere. luckily there's powerful, 24-hour, non-drowsy claritin. it provides relief of symptoms that can be triggered by over 200 different allergens. live claritin clear.
now the presidet's tax plan with steve mnuchin called the largest tax reform in the history of this country. here's what we do know, the tax proposal would reduce the corporate tax rate to 15%, it would do away with the estate tax, wit currently applies to estates worth more than $5.5 million, as for what we don't know, we don't know the income level for the proposed new tax brackets and we don't know how much it would benefit the president himself because he has not released his tax return and
now which learn he has no intention to. >> the president has no intention, the president has released plenty of information and i think has given more financial disclosure than anybody else, i think the american population has plenty of information. >> you can decide for yourself if you have plenty of information, we don't know how the president's bottom line would be affected by this tax plan, and keep in mind, we don't know one really important thing, the price tag, there are cuts and how it would be paid for, bullet points with about 350 words or so. the theory is that it's going to pay for itself by stimulating the economy, there will be new tax revenues, company also hire more workers, that's the idea, that's the cheery. all we got today was the broad details and the cuts. there is real concern about the plan mobile exploding the deficit, which is interesting considering what we heard from then candidate trump during the campaign. >> we owe $19 trillion as a
country, and we're going to knock it down. i will do everything in my power not to touch social security and to bring down our deficits. >> i'm the king of debt, nobody knows debt better than me. i understand debt better than probably anybody. i know about debt than practically anybody, i love debt. i am the king of debt, i love debt, and i love playing with it. i also love reducing debt and i know how to do it better than anybody, it's tricky and it's dangerous and you have to know what you're doing. i have made a fortune by using debt. if things don't work out, i renegotiate the debt. >> how do you renegotiate the debt? >> you go back and say, you know what? the economy just crashed, i'm going to give you back half. >> a lot of big pronouncements from the white house, but again, it really was one page bullet
points, less than 250 words. >> we obviously have to wait for more details. but the sort of big picture stuff, i think we can talk about which is in idea that the tax cuts can pay for themselves through economic growth. i know someone's going to bring up ronald reagan, while the truth is the deficit exploded and reagan did raise them in 1983, bush 1 raised them and then bill clinton raised them and so did the deficit. so you have to balance this out, you have to accept the fact that while the economy may be stimulated, you're still going to end one a deficit. >> does this benefit the people who voted for donald trump? >> of course it does. i mean the reagan tax cut -- >> it's to save taxes, an llc, i mean i have an llc.
it may be good for me, but i'm not sure there's a lot of coal workers or miners that have llc. >> it was the reagan-clinton combination that brought down the deficit, that balanced the budget eventually, that caused about 20 years of economic growth. >> do you really believe these tax cut also pay for themselveses? >> >> you have to have the cuts in spending to go with them. therein when ronald reagan's political problem, because the republicans controlled the house, they didn't control the senate for the first few years, but they did control the house which controls the purse strings and that was tip o'neill and he wasn't going to go down that path. and in the clinton white house, we got there with balanced budgets. >> he doubled the federal
revenue. but he also ended the cold war, so that bill clinton could reduce defense spending, yes? remember that? >> that just seems like a stretch to me, i mean we have to accept the fact that his economic plan did lead to a huge deficit, and ultimately taxes had to be raised to pay for that deficit. >> because democrats would not cut spending. >> i'm not -- >> i'm not even making this a democrat versus republican, i'm just talking about facts that at some point taxes have to be raised, right? >> is it possible this thing is going to pay for itself? >> alexis is laughing. >> i am laughing because i don't want to get in the middle of that conversation. the way i would characterize this in is in two factions, one this is all about stimulant. what they're focused on right now, how do we increase jobs, how do we increase investment and how do we get spending going in the economy?
and what we have witnessed since election day, if you look at the dow and the s&p, they have priced in a real pro growth strategy that they have not yet been able to deliver. so what you saw today, particularly around corporate tax rates is how do we stimulate the economy, how do we create jobs, and what they're talking about, just in terms of repatriating, bringing dollars from overseas back to the united states. if you look at companies like microsoft, oracle, they have hundreds of millions of dollars oversea, if you bring a couple of trillion dollars back into the united states that could be dividends that are in your retirement savings and other things. the other part of this is simplification, that's what they talked about today, so to me it's about stimulant and simplification of the code so that we cannot spend 700 billion hours on filing your taxes.
it's the first step in the right direction, but i like what they said, they were realists, they said we're not going to get it done by august, if we get it done by the end of the year. so to me, i actually like the way they laid out the plan today. >> matt? >> no, i think that it's -- this is a very good start. i don't think that tax cuts pay for themselves, but i do think that it will generate some revenue, i think that this could stimulate the economy, put people back to work, which was one of donald trump's plans, the potential problem that they're going to have, though, is, you know, the devil's in the details, as you said, but in order to do this through reconciliation, which they want to do, it has to be revenue neutral. you can try to score it dynamically, and we could make an argument that using the
curve, these taxes will pay for themselves, but they're going to have to find a way, maybe it's the cbo score, but they're going to have to show that it's revenue neutral, that's not going to be easy to do to get through the senate. >> how does giving an estate tax break to incredibly wealthy people, at this point it's people who are giving more than $5 million in their estates, how does that help somebody who's -- >> they get hired by people who have the money to hire them. poor people don't hire poor people. people who have money hire poor people. >> so kids who inherit large amounts of money, they don't just sit on that money. >> there's a moral aspect to this. i mean if your great grandfather built up a farm and this gets passed down and then you are going to lose the farm because of taxes, that's a lot of buckings right there, because that's not fair.
we know at the other end what happens. all this money go into the federal government and basically it's divvied up by politicians who hand it out to their buds. it's like crony inch, that's bad. >> the estate tax actually does, and i don't know what his plan is, i mean if it would affect where the line is for him. but it currently definitely affects people who are not multimillionaires. it does affect people who, i have a friend who inherited a family home and had to sell it because she woucouldn't afford taxes on it. look, our tax system is broken, there's no question, it needs to be looked at and needs to be fixed. there are some good things in this plan, i think the corporate tax hate should be looked at, and the bigger picture has to be considered about the deficit which actually does matter. so, you're saying like, they're going to have to make it revenue neutral or definite neutral or
just do what bush did and have them expire. >> if you know they're going to expire, you're not going to reinvest it in your business. >> or that gdp is going to go to 3% from 2, that's what they're counting on. the president takes his anger out on the 9th circuit court of appeals, he threatens to break it up. we'll also discuss legal questions with jeffrey toobin and laura coats.
get your ancestrydna kit. spit. mail it in. learn about you and the people and places that led to you. go explore your roots. take a walk through the past. meet new relatives. and see how a place and its people are all a part of you. ancestrydna. save 20% through wednesday at ancestrydna.com red line, 20 minute delay. oh, no. (rhythmic clatter) can't get a signal? so annoying, right? yeah, and i'm late for a job interview. hey, man, can you just nix it, just for like two seconds? thank you. you need verizon. they have the largest, most reliable 4g lte network in america. it's made to work in places like this. with verizon unlimited, we could video chat the interview in hd right here. okay. hey, man, i'll cue you. (vo) when it really, really matters, you need the best network and the best unlimited. just $45 per line for four lines. i'm a people person. (drumming resumes)
president trump is in the happy with the ruling of the temporary halt of his reduced funding of the so-called sanctuary cities. he tweeted this morning, first the 9th circuit court rules against the ban and now on sanctuary cities. the 9th circuit could review the ruling on appeal, and president trump didn't stop there with his outrage over the 9th circuit.
sarah, what did president trump tell you about the future of the 9th circuit? >> reporter: president trump said that he would consider proposals that are now in congress to break up the ninth circuit court, there are republicans who have been trying to achieve this legislatively for years now, this is not a new idea, this is why i asked him about it. there are republicans who want to carve out a 12th circuit from states who are under the jurisdiction of the 9th. this is what trump called it was judge shopping, he said that the concentration of liberal leaning judges on the 9th circuit creates an atmosphere for politically motivated parties to get their preferred outcome. when president trump said he wanted address the overreach of the 9th circuit, how he views it. >> this was based on a question
you asked particularly about breaking up the 9th circuit, sometimes he'll say, oh, yeah, i'm looking into that or did he bring this up on his own? >> reporter: he's actually mentioned his plan to break up the 9th circuit previously. obvio it's not new that they have scene a lot of their signature policies halted by those judges so it's not surprising that president trump would back a preexisting republican plan to break up the 9th circuit, it's supported by republicans like john mccain and dan sullivan in the senate. >> the first 100 days obviously are close to wrapping up. did he time pleased with how things were going? how did he seem? >> i asked him to give himself a
grade and he did give himself an a. he stressed that he did get to sign several pieces of legislation, he said that by saturday, he expects that he will have signed 32 bills, and it seems like where a lot of that is coming from is the republicans congressional review at to redo obama era regulations, but once the congressional review act window closes, they won't be able to use that tool anymore after friday and the pace of legislation will likely slow a bit. >> i want to discuss this now with our cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin and laura coats. the president's proposal to break up the 9th circuit, is this something he can do? >> he can't do it, congress has to do it. but this is not new, this has been proposed for decades to try and break up the 9th circuit and
break what is regarded as a little bit ral bastion in the court of appeals, but that can only be done by congress. congress added an 11th circuit, they split up the 5th, so this is not something that's wildly unprecedented, it's just not something that the congress has decided to do. >> he's argued that it's basically forum shopping, but in order to change and break up the circuit, it would have to be based on bureaucratic backlog or inefficiency, not on ideological progress of the united states. 18 of its 25 tsangs are appointed bier democrats which obviously are going to perhaps infuriate a republican president. but it's not appropriate to break it up if it's based on ideology as opposed to
injustice. >> president obama did it during a "state of the union" address, criticizing citizens united. >> it's about blaming the message versus the messenger, and basically what trump is doing is saying the messenger is the problem. >> how can someone criticize the judge? >> i love how everybody's getting the vapor over these judges. these judges are appointed for life, why shouldn't they where criticized? i don't know why donald trump can't criticize them. one thing he has not done is suggested he won't comply, like president andrew jackson did. but these people are important, they're big boys and girls, they can take some criticism, i don't see anything wrong with donald trump criticizing both the message and the messenger. >> i do, and i think a lot of
people have the same perception, when he criticizes them based on their per sechgs of what their nationality will be, when he complained about the judge who may oversee one of his donald trump university cases, judge cure yel, when you're talking about the ciriticism of the messenger itself, when you criticize a judge on nonlegal grounds, on grounds that have nothing to do with their actual mission and job judiciary. >> demoralizing? are these people so sensitive that they can't take some kroit criticism? >> part of the judge's ruling was based on things that the trump administration has said about sanctuary cities and we have seen this on the ban from seven countries, the temporary
ban, i want to play some quotes that the judge himself cited on this. >> i don't want to defund anybody, i want to give them the money they need to properly operate as a city or state. if they're going to have sanctuary cities, we're going to have to do that. certainly that would be a weapon. >> the department of justice would also take all lawful steps to claw back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that willfully violates 1373. >> and the president is going to do everything he can within the scope of the executive order to make sure that cities that don't comply with it, counties and other institutionses that don't get federal government funding in compliance with this extra order. >> is this appropriate for the president to use somethi president -- judge to do to use things that the president has said- >> there's a famous supreme court court case where the court said it's okay for congress to say if you want federal highway
money you have to raise the drinking age to 21, congress could pass a law about sanctuary cities, that would be permissible. the problem here is that trump did it without congressional authorization. >> we have to leave it there. up next, there's breaking news from capitol hill on the house intelligence committee's investigation on russia and the trump team. sources say some key decisions were made today by committee members on who they want to speak with, including one big name in the white house, i talked with a committee member, our conversation in a moment. a sneak peek at the new episode of sound tracks, songs that define history that airs tomorrow night here on cnn. ♪ i'm in a new york state of mind ♪ >> the music and the artist post-9/11 are reflective of what we feel. >> we played for an audience of police and firemen and rescue workers when they needed a boost. >> i put a fireman's helmet on
the piano, just to help me concentrate, because if i didn't have that, i might have just lost it. this is kind on and an them for new york city, i didn't think of that when i wrote it. >> the events that transpired the music. >> the music reminds us that anything the possible. if you have a garden, you know weeds are low-down little scoundrels. with roundup precision gel®, you can finally banish garden weeds without harming precious plants nearby. so draw the line. just give the stick one click, touch the leaves and the gel stays put killing garden weeds to the root with pinpoint precision. draw the line with roundup precision gel®.
there's breaking news in our russian white house watch, sources say the top leaders on the house intelligence investigation of russia have a witness list with some big names that could testify in two to three weeks, it includ. also with the committee's republican chairman devin nunes recusing himself in the
investigation, intelligence agencies are back sharing documents with the committee, there's no word on whether nunes' t ---the list of witness for your investigation including michael flynn, carter page, roger stone and jared kushner, are you able to confirm that that is the fact in this case. >> anderson i can tell you that the documents are relevant ones and have expanded since mike conaway has taken over. >> the witness list is extensive, can you give us a better idea of exactly what that means, is it ten people, 20 people? >> it's going to be a long summer in washington, so even during recess weeks, members of the intelligence committee will be reviewing evidence and
interviewing witnesses it's very important if we are not conveying to a witness classified information or we are not receiving classified information, i think it should be open, some witnesses will have classified information and that can be done in secret, but i think the american people benefitted when director comey and director rogers came forward, and the more we can do that, the more trust we can engender to the american people. >> to agree to share documents with your committee, that they were reticent to that do. >> my experience during the past few years is that intelligence agencies have expected and just through the custom have seen the intelligence committee work together in a bipartisan fashion so this was unusual to see the chairman do what he did, so i think for us to be back on track with a new leader of the investigation, it's probably restored the faith among all and we just want to get back to work and i can say right now that
that's the case. >> how difficult does it make things for your community that there are now four separate investigations into the same issues and a lot of the same witnesses questioning the same documents? >> no question there are some redundancies, it would have been better if we had a joint house-senate investigation, but that was a decision that speaker ryan and mcconnell made. to debunk a lot of the myths out there is to have an independent commission and i'm pursuing a separate track. >> we all saw the drama obviously with nunes and kind of the trips to the white house, do you believe your committee's investigation is back on track? >> yes, and i also have a lot of faith in mike conaway from texas, i take him at his word and have seen him at work and i think he just wants to follow
the evidence and we all have an interest in finding out what happened, you know, getting to the bottom as to whether any u.s. persons were involved, that's something very important to both sides and then making recommendations so that no country, russia or otherwise is able to pull this off again. >> we saw this first open hearing that you all had, it was a tale of two committees, republicans asking questions about leaks and democrats asking about russia, do you still see that sort of division? >> what we have a response to just follow the evidence. and so the democratic side, we wanted to point out the deep personal, political and financial ties with trump and his team that at the time were interfering with our investigation. we too want to pursue anyone who violated the law if there were leaked violations, but that's not as important as our sovereignty being violated an us doing nothing about it.
>> and michael flynn in terms of getting him to testify is an offer of immunity, is that a possibility? >> i'm not familiar with one and unless he were to proffer to us why we should do that, in other words what he could offer that we could not otherwise obtain, i don't think that would be a good idea. >> appreciate your time, thanks. just ahead tonight, retired coal miners who were promised health care benefit for life are just days away from actually losing coverage. tonight they're waiting to see if president trump who they helped elect will have that back. 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. it's time for you and your boys to get out of town. (laughing) left foot. right foot. left foot. stop. twitch your eyes so they think you're crazy. if you walk the walk you talk the talk. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance you switch to geico. hide the eyes. it's what you do. show 'em real slow.
a loyal group of donald trump supporters is looming. he has repeatedly promised coal miners to bring back their jobs. it became almost a mantra. >> we will cancel the job killing restrictions on the production of shale energy, oil, natural gas and clean coal and we're going to put the miners of ohio back to work. we're going to put our miners back to work. we will also put our miners back to work. our miners are going back to work, folks. we will put our miners back to work. we are going to put our miners back to work. get those shovels ready.
for those miners, get ready because you're going to be working your asses offer, all right? >> tonight, 20,000 retired coal miners are on edge with their health care set to expire just days from now. now say they need president trump to go to bat for them like he said. >> a promise made, a promise broken so far. >> reporter: broken because now retired miners are just stays away from losing their health care benefits and president trump who promised to take care of them has remained silent on the issue. donald trump has said that he would work to protect the miners. do you feel as though the president has your back? >> no. >> absolutely not. >> reporter: retired meaners like joe reynolds and the others say they agreed to work in these mines partly because they were told they would get health care for life, but those government funded benefit also run out at the end of this month for 20,000
retired miners unless congress acts. one option, the miners protection act, would secure lifelong health benefits and pension. last year congress voted to extend health benefits only for four months. back in 1946, might have beners with the federal government. it's also called the promise. miners agreed to work in the mines at least 20 years and in exchange, the federal government promised to provide pension and health care benefits to the miners and they families for live. >> from the cradle to the grave is what the phrase was that they promised for our health care and our pension benefits. >> the fund for health benefits dried up over the years as coal mining companies filed for bankruptcy and stopped paying into it. >> what we need as mine workers is a permanent fix, and now we're at the short end of the fuse, time is running out.
donald, if you're listening, i believe you were being sincere when you made a statement you were for the miners. >> reporter: we shared the complaints with the white house which told us they are working with congress to address this matter. adding, it's the subject of sensitive ongoing negotiations. how much will you have to struggle if you lose your benefits? >> i have health issues. in fact, i have crohn's disease and other maintenance things that i need. and my drug cost would be more than what i bring in a month now. if i lose my health benefits, i'm hurting. i'm one hospital stay away from -- if i have no insurance, from losing a home or wondering where my next meal is coming from. or worried about my loved ones,
how i'm going to take care of them. and i feel like i have worked hard for this. they promised me this. >> reporter: all of the miners have health issues. to a person say they can't afford private insurance if their benefits dry up. some miners have said, this feels like a slap in the face, that nathey're not being taken care of. >> absolutely. it's sticking a dagger in you. >> reporter: still, critics argue if congress bails out coal miners, then congress will have to bail out everyone else facing the loss of benefits like truckers. so be it says this group. >> that promise was in the contract that was made that we were supplying the coal that powered this country. and fuelled this country and through wars and everything else that a lot of us served in. >> reporter: a promise for life that's turned into a lot less. the money for these benefits would come from a fund that's
already been established to clean up abandoned mines. i should point out that there is a competing bill on the floor. although, that does not shore up life long pension benefits, only health benefits. we know the miners want both. it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in washington. the senator from west virginia is a democrat. he has been pushing for years now to get this fixed. he wants them to have the life long health benefits and life long pension benefits. he has a good relationship with the president who has remained silent on this issue. we're going to be watching that drama and see how it all plays out in washington. the clock, of course, is ticking. it's coming down to the wire for these miners. >> we will follow it. the trump presidency barrelling towards day 100. score card coming up.
as we pointed out, day 97 of the trump presidency brought activity from the tax plan blueprint, the administration unveiled, proposing big cuts but short on details to an executive order to control education to the bus trip that brought nearly the entire senate for a briefing on north korea. you heard the bus trip may have been about the 100 day mark suggesting it was an effort to make it look like they're doing things, like they are super busy, which could make sense considering premium then candidate trump put on the 100
day mark back in october. his campaign released donald trump's contract with the american voter, a 100 day action plan to make america great again. back then mr. trump seemed to exbrae embrace the 100 day deadline. now he calls it a ridiculous standard. let me read that for you. no matter how much i accomplished during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, and it has been a lot, including sc media will kill. like it or not, the mile marker is three days away. tom foreman tonight reports on where things stand. >> reporter: almost 100 days of promises colliding with political reality started with a staggering loss. >> on my first day, i'm going to ask congress to send me a bill to immediately repeal and replace -- repeal and replace -- repeal and replace that horror show called obamacare.
>> reporter: that pledge brought applause on the campaign but calamity in office. the president's party even with control of congress found itself bitterly divided. some saying his plan went too far, some not far enough. his first attempt at major legislation was yanked without a vote. >> i will not sugarcoat this. this is a disappointing day for us. >> reporter: despite talk about a pledge to build a border wall and have mexico pay for it -- >> the wall gets built. >> reporter: there's no progress on that either. true, this president has signed more legislation than any of the previous five presidents in the same period. much of it erasing obama era regulations. but none of it produced the public impact typical of major laws. for that, he has turned to executive actions, signing more than any other president in the first 100 days since harry truman. quickly wiping out the trade deal known as the transpacific partnership. >> we just officially terminated tpp.
>> reporter: his most incendiary idea, banning travel from several majority muslim nations, has stalled in the courts over the administration's protests. >> protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the united states is a vital measure for strengthening our national security. >> reporter: the legal branch is where president trump has scored his biggest victory. >> we have to replace judge scalia with a conservative great judge. >> i neil gorsuch -- >> reporter: despite opposition, neil gorsuch was approved and seated on the supreme court. >> and i got it done in the first 100 days. that's even nice. >> reporter: this president has tried to move forward at a break neck pace. perhaps many of his promised will yet come to pass. but faced with the string of protests and a plummeting approval rating, his first 100 days, as he himself has hinted, have turned out to be much more complicated than expected.
>> certainly have. thanks very much. that does it for us. that's all the time we have. thanks for watching 360. time for "the lead" with jake tapper. the first 100 days. thanks. 97 days in and a brand -new pol shows trump has reached a record, though it's probably not one he wants. "the lead" starts right now. new polls out giving a snapshot of how voters really feel about president trump as he approaches his 100th day in office. the news is not all bad for the president. the entire u.s. congress invited to hear president trump's strategy for dealing with one unstable dictator with nukes. does nancy pelosi think a strike against north korea is imminent or necessary? we will ask her live. from slamming judges to steam rolling a court, after another federal court decis