tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN April 26, 2017 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT
er, instantly. add that premium channel, and watch the show everyone's talking about, tonight. and the bill you need to pay? do it in seconds. because we should fit into your life, not the other way around. go to xfinity.com/myaccount -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com good evening. thanks for joining us. a busy day at the white house. the administration announcing the president's tax plan. what will it mean for you and who is going to pay for it? breaking news on that. and the president's unusual statement he is looking for options to break up the appeals court. we begin tonight with an unusual meeting at the white house, so unusual just about everyone who was either watching it or whats a part of it couldn't remember it ever happening before. senators went on a fleet of buses from the capital on a roughly two-mile ride to the
white house. president trump all but summoned them there for a briefing on the increasingly tense situation with north korea. upon leaving some thought it was a photo op for the white house. we will hear from someone in the meeting to get her thoughts. whatever the intent, it comes at a tenuous time. today north korea conducted an artillery drill which was called the largest ever, designed to annihilate the u.s. bases of aggression. jeff zeleny joins us with the latest. what are you learning about this briefing at the white house? >> reporter: anderson, it was important at least to the white house's vow for optics that the senators all came over here to this building. i was told earlier today by a senior administration official that optics were indeed a central reason, not for domestic political reasons but to send the message abroad to north korea and china a and elsewhere that the u.s. government was speaking with one voice here, and the level of gravity of this meeting was heightened at least
in the view of the white house by having it all over here. now, i talked with some senators afterward 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, you know, found it dis-sobering in the words of one senate democrat. john mccain said, you know, he has been briefed time and time again so there's nothing new necessarily, but it was designed to send a message, a, that the president is on top of this but, b, that the u.s. government is also at least potentially speaking with one voice here. it also gave senators a chance to see the president and briefly ask him about this. he was at the top of this meeting for 10 minutes or so, we're not exactly sure if he revealed any information there about what his plans are going forward. but it was optics, but we're told not necessarily 100-day optics but more international optics, anderson. i would say probably at the end
of the day it was some of both. >> all right. jeff zeleny. thanks. just before air i spoke with senator tami duckworth who was at the meeting. >> senator, whats was your take away at the briefing and to what extent was there new information shared with you and your colleagues you didn't know? >> anderson, i seriously felt i could have gotten the information by reading a newspaper. i did not see any new information out of the briefing at all. it felt like a dog and pony show to me more than anything else. >> why do you think the white house would do that? >> well, i don't know. maybe it is -- i guess it has something to do with this 100 days in office, but it is quite remarkable that they bussed 100 senators over there, and then the very same team that briefed us came back to the capitol to brief the 400-plus members of congress in the house of representativess back here at the capitol. i talked to some of my former colleagues in the house and they said there was nothing new in their briefing either. >> was there a reason it needed to be at the white house? is there not a room big enough at the senate? >> actually, it is the reverse,
anderson. there's actually not a room at the white house that's called a skiff, a secure briefing room big enough for 100 senators. we have that room here in the senator, here in the capitol complex. they in fact had had to do a special sweep of anna to audito in the old executive building to fit in 100 senators so it is the reverse. >> when president trump came from the west wing, did you talk about specific policy on north korea or was it more broad? >> it was very broad. he cave opening remarks. he said he had developed a very good relationship with the president of china and he was hoping that that would make a difference with north korea. he also talked about, you know, just escalating in his rhetoric with north korea. >> you know, when you mentioned the 100 days and that this -- getting you all over there might be part of that, how do you mean? that is 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, they should come
to us and talk about a new authorization for use of military force. they should come to us and talk about exactly what their next steps are, but they didn't talk about any of that about north korea or any other military, potential military action in this briefing. >> essentially you are saying it was a photo-p or basically something else to put on a list of accomplishments in the first 100 days? >> right. i guess they successfully accomplished putting 100 people on three buses and tying up traffic in washington d.c. to get us over there for a briefing. >> do you think this white house caress too much about optics? >> you know, i wish that the white house would care more about actually getting something done instead of just being out there with rhetoric and tweets. let's come up with some real policy decisions and some proposals that can actually move forward. i've been speaking a long time about the need for real infrastructure investments. let's talk about that, but i haven't seen any of that coming out of the white house. >> senator cruz says that north korea is in his opinion the most dangerous spot on the planet right now. do you agree with him? >> well, i think it is one of
the most dangerous spots on the planet right now, that is true. what i'm afraid of, anderson is that the white house is ratcheting up rhetoric in a way that has no off ramp. if you continue to ratchet this up, what happens when north korea does something that -- that, you know, they test the next 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 want to do. >> how likely is it in your view that president trump could determine military force is necessary? >> well, i think that 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 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 homeland. but i didn't see anything in the briefing today that's 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 development of nuclear cape abltds. >> senator duckworth, i appreciate you being with us. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> coming up after a 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 are keeping them honest next. later, president trump says he absolutely wants to break up the ninth circuit court r court of appeals. he has looked into it. we talk about whether that's something the president can do ahead. it's like nothing you've seen. the power of nexium 24hr protection
sorry, just getting a quote on motorcycle insurance from progressive. yeah? yeah, they have safe rider discounts, and with total loss coverage, i get a new bike if mine's totaled. but how's their customer service? great. 24/7. just like here. meat loaf! [dings bell] just like here. anybody got a pack... that needs leadin'? serving all your motorcycle insurance needs. now, that's progressive. nlike @squirrelgirl52, without thwho writes,ootball... "no football on sundays has left me with a lot of free time, so i've constructed a sanctuary for local squirrels." try watching the nfl draft. maybe watch with a friend. or doctor.
. now to the president's tax plan which treasury secretary steve mnuchen called the biggest tax cut and tax reform in the history of the country. there's a lot we don't know about it. here is what we know. the tax proposal would cut the top tax rate for businesses to 15%, reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to individual for individuals, it would end the alternative minimum tax and tax breaks for individuals, it would do away with estate taxes which applies to estates worth more than $1.5 million. we don't know the income levels for the proposed brackets, we don't know what it would mean for the average american family in dollars and cents and how it would benefit the president and himself and his business empire
because he has not released his tax returns, and has no intention to. >> the president has no intention. the president has released plenty of information and i think has given more financial disclosure that anybody else. i think the american population has plenty of information. >> you can stid 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. again, keep in mind we don't know one big important thing, the actual price tag. there are a lot of cuts, very few details on how they will be paid for. it is one page of bullet points, about 250 words or so. the theory as presented on the page today is that it is going to pay for itself by stimulating the economy. there will be new tax revenue, companies will hire more workers, et cetera. that's the idea, that's the theory. all we know for sure had, all we got today are the broad details and the us can. without real detail in how it will be paid for there's real concern about the plan possibly 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 and bring it down big league and quickly. >> i will do everything within my power not to touch social security, to bring back our jobs, to get rid of deficits. >> then again, the president also said this on the campaign trail. >> i'm the king of debtd. i'm great with debt. nobody knows debt better. >> i'm thing can of debt. i understand debt probably better than anybody. >> i know more about debt than practically anybody. i love debt. >> i am thing can of debt. i love debt. i love playing with it. >> i also love refusing debt and i know how to do it better than anybody. >> it is tricky and dangerous and you have to be careful and you have to know what you're doing. >> i made a fortune by using debt. if things don't work out, i renegotiate the debt. that's a smart thing, not a stupid thing. >> how do you renegotiate debt? >> you go back and say, guess what, the economy crashed i'm going to give you back half. >> joining me is kristin powers, matt lord and alexis glik. kirsten, a lot of announcements from the white house, but,
again, bullet points, less than 250 words. >> we obviously need to wait for more details and congress has to actually write this bill. >> details, these are details. >> stop with the details, anderson. no, but sort of the big picture stuff i think we can talk about, which is the idea that, you know, that basically the tax cuts will pay for themselves through economic growth, which is something that hasn't really been borne out that much. now, i know someone will bring up ronald reagan probably, but the truth is while the economy was stimulated the deficit exploded. eventually taxes had to be raised by, you know, reagan did raise them in 1983, bush 1 raised them and bill clinton raised them because of the deficit. so you have to will ba answlancs out. you have to accept the fact that while the economy may be stimulated you still end up with a deficit. >> jeff, does it benefit the people that voted for donald trump? >> of course it does. the reagan tax cut -- >> it is estate taxes, llcs,
it doesn't mean -- . >> good. >> it may be good for me but i'm not sure there's a lot of like coal workers. >> anderson, i want you and every american to prosper. i'm glad kirsten is here because it was the reagan/clinton combination in truth that brought down the deficit, that balanced the budget eventually, that caused about 20 years of economic growth. >> do you really believe these tax cuts will pay for themselves? >> you have to have the cuts in spending to go with them, and therein was ronald reagan's political problem. the democrats controlled both -- well, particularly the house. they controlled the house, they didn't control the senate for the first six years but they controlled the house which controls the purse strings and they weren't going there. that was tip o'neill and they weren't going down that path. that was the problem. when the house finally came under the control of republicans with newt gingrich and bill clinton was in the white house, that is exactly what happened. we finally got there with balanced budgets. >> how did reagan reduce the deficit? >> by -- he doubled the federal revenues, right? i mean from about 500 billion
to -- >> when he left the deficit -- >> right, but he also ended the cold war so bill clinton could reduce defense spending, remember that? >> yes, that just seems a stretch to me. i mean i don't -- idea -- we have to being a september tccep that it led to a deficit. taxes had had to be raised to pay for the deficits. >> because democrats would not cut spending. >> i'm not -- i'm not even making this a democrat versus republican thing. i'm talking about facts of -- that at some point taxes have to be raised, right? >> alexis, is it possible this thing will pay for itself? >> alexis is laughing. >> i am laughing because i don't want to get in the middle of that conversation. look, the way i would characterize this is in two critical, i guess, factions. one is this is all about stimulus. at the end of the day what they're focused on right now is how do we create jobs, how do we increase investment and how do we get spending going in the economy. right now as we've witnessed
since election day, the stock market -- i mean if you look at the dow and the southpointe, they priced in a real pro-growth strategy 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. what they're talking about in terms of repatriating, which is bringing dollars that were overseas back into the united states, if you look at companies like apple, like microsoft, like oracle, they've got hundreds of millions of dollars overseas. if you bring a couple trillion dollars back into the united states, that can help create jobs. that can be can dividends that are in your retirement savings and other things. the other quick thing i just would say, anderson, the other part of this is simplification. that's what they talked about today. so to me it is about stimulus and simplification of the code so we can actually not spend -- what was it, 700 billion hours or something ridiculous -- on filing your taxes. >> right. >> so it is the first step in
the right direction, but what i liked about what they said today is they were realists. we're not going to get it done by august. if we get it done by year-end, that's a victory, and they didn't lay it all out. they said, we're sitting down, we're negotiating, ouimet last night with senators in both sides, of the house and the senate. so to me i like the way they laid out the plan today. >> matt? >> no, i think that it is -- this is a very good start. i don't think that tax cuts payer for themselves, but i do think it will generate some revenue. i think that this could stimulate the economy, get -- put people back to work, which was one of donald trump's plans. the potential problem they're going to have though is, you know, if the devil is in the details as you said, but in order to do this through reckon will si -- reconciliation which they want to do it has to be revenue neutral. you can try to score it
dynamically and you can make the argument these taxes will pay for themselves. but they have to find a way -- maybe it is the cbo score or something, but they have to show it is revenue neutral. that will not be easy to do to get it through the senate. >> how does giving an estate tax break to incredibly wealthy people -- at this point people getting more than $5 million in their estates -- how does that help somebody who is -- >> 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 get -- inherit huge amounts of money, they don't sit on the money and live off it? >> first of all, there's a moral aspect to this. if you are a great-grandfather, builds up a farm and this gets passed down in the generation and then you find out you're going to lose the farm because of all of the taxes -- >> 40 cents on the dollar, that's a lot of money. >> thank you. that's a lot of bucks right there. i mean that's not fair. but the basic thing is --
because we know at the other end what happens. all of this money goes into the federal government and basically it is divvied up by politicians who hand it out to their buds. it is cronyism, if you will. that's bad. >> i think the estate tax actually does -- 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 multi-millionaires. i have a friend who, you know, to sell it because she couldn't afford the taxes on it, for exam will presidential. >> right. >> those kind of things definitely happen. look, our tax system is broken, there's no question. it needs to be looked at and fixed and there's good things in this plan. i think looking at the corporate tax rate is something that should be looked at for all of the reasons alexis talked about. i think the bigger picture has to be considered about the testify sit, which actually does matter. and so, you know, you're saying like they're going to have to make revenue neutral, definite neutral or do what george bush
did and have it expire in ten years. >> the problem with that is that if you know is something is going to expire, then you're not going to reinvest it into your business. you need to be able to count on tax cuts being permanent. >> i think it is a bad idea to do that. >> or the gdp will go from 3% to 2%. >> more breaking news ahead. president trump upset about the temporary halt on the executive order on sanctuary cities. he rereportedly threatens to break up the ninth circuit court of appeals. i will talk to the reporter he said that to. up the ninth circuit court of appeals. i will talk to the reporter he said that to.
simple questions like changing the phone number. sometimes, they want to upgrade, downgrade, but at the end of the day, you want to take care of the customer. one of the great things about comcast, there's always room to move up. of course, it depends on you, how hard you work. ♪ ni president trump is not happy with the ruling that temporarily halts his executive order targeting so-called sanctuary cities. this comes weeks after his executive order on travel banser were blocked. with those fights on his mind, he wrote on twitter, the ninth circuit hits against the ban. both were ridiculous rulings. see you in supreme court. tuesday's ruling was from a strict court ruling, but the ninth circuit could review on appeal. president trump did not stop with his outrage over the ninth
circuit. sarah spoke with the president today. what the he tell you about the future of the ninth circuit? >> reporter: well, president trump said that he would consider proposals that are now in congress to break up the ninth circuit court. there are republicans who on have been trying to achieve this legislatively for years now. it is not a new idea. it is why i asked about it. there are republicans who want to carve out a 12th circuit from states that are currently under the jurisdiction of the ninth. this is -- what trump called it was judge shopping. he said that the concentration of liberal-leaning judges on the ninth circuit creates an incentive for politically motivated litigants to seek out the circuit where they're most likely to get partisan out comes. that's partly where he is coming from when he said he wants to address maybe the overreach of the ninth circuit, how he views it. >> was it something this is
going to be something he will make a priority? this was based on question you asked particularly about breaking up the ninth circuit? sometimes he will say, oh, yeah, i'm looking into it or did he bring it up on his own? >> reporter: he actually mentioned the plan to break up the ninth circuit previously. >> okay. >> reporter: he mentioned that he had heard that this is an idea that republicans have been bandying around for a long time. obviously the administration has been really frustrated with how judges on the west coast have treated their the executive orders. it is not new that they have seen a lot of their signature policies halted by those judges. so it is not surprising that president trump would back a preexisting republican plan to break up the ninth circuit. it is supported by republicans like john mccain, like jeff lake and dan sullivan in the senate. >> let me ask when you were in the oval office with the president, did he seem pleased with how things are going? was he -- you know, how did he seem? >> reporter: you know, i asked him to give himself a grade, and he did give himself an "a." he is proud of what his
administration has managed to accomplish. a lot of that has been done through executive order, but he stressed that he did get to sign several pieces of legislation. he said that by saturday he expects he will have signed 32 bills, and it seems like where a lot of that is coming from is the republican's use of the congressional review act to undo obama era regulations. they pushed through a bunch r bunch of bills in first 100 days to do that. 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. >> yeah. sarah westwood, appreciate your time tonight. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> want to discuss it with cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin and laura coates. >> jeff, the fact president may be looking at proposals to break up the ninth circuit, is that something he can do? >> he can't do it, congress has to do it. this is not something that's new. there have been proposals by mostly conservative senators for decades to try to break up the ninth circuit, and, you know,
break what is regarded as a liberal bastion in the court of appeals. but it is clear that that can only be done by congress. congress added an 11th circuit. they split up the fifth in 1981. so, you know, this is not wildly unprecedented. it is just something that congress hasn't thought necessary to do. >> right. i mean, laura, the president seems to be implying certainly that people go to the ninth circuit because they know it will rule in their favor. >> yeah. i mean his argument is it is basically forum shopping. in order to change and break up the circuit, it would have to be based on bureaucrat backlog or efficiency, not about ideological differences with the president of the united states. remember, this court has nine different states that it oversees. it is 18 of the 25 active judges are actually appointed by democrats, which obviously is going to perhaps infeweriate a republican president. however, it is not the basis to actually break it up if it is based on ideology as opposed to administration of justice. >> laura, is there a difference
you think for the president criticizing a judge's decision and criticizing the judge himself? other presidents have called out decisions they disagreed with. president obama did it during a state of the union address, criticizing citizens united. >> certainly. it is about blaming the message versus the messenger. effectively what trump is doing is saying the messenger is the problem. >> jeff, why shouldn't somebody be able to criticize a judge? >> i find it amazing everyone is getting the vapors over donald trump criticizing judges. these people are powerful, they serve for life. i criticize them this. i don't see why donald trump can't criticize them. you know, the one thing he has not done is suggested that he won't comply, like the way president andrew jackson did. but, you know, 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 passenger. >> well, i do. i think a lot of people have the
same perception when he criticizes them based on his perception of what their nationality might be. i know you agree with that, too, but in terms of when he complained about the judge who may oversee one of his trump university cases -- >> judge curiel. >> judge curiel, certainly when you are talking about the criticism of the messenger himself. my point is that when you criticize a judge based on non- legal grounds or grounds that have nothing to do with the actual mission and job and the judiciary, i think it is offensive. >> well, candidate trump's racist attack on judge curiel was beyond the pale. but, you know, he demoralizing, are these people so sensitive that they can't take some criticism? >> you know, what is interesting about this is part of the judge's ruling on the sanctuary city case was based on things the president and his administration officials have said about sanctuary cities, and we have seen judges doing this before, certainly on the immigration case, on the ban from seven countries, the temporary ban.
i want to play the quotes that the judge himself cited on this. >> i didn't want to defund anybody. i want to give them the money they need to properly operate as a city or a state. if they're going to have sanctuary cities, we may have to do that. certainly that would be a weapon. >> department of justice will also take all lawful steps to claw back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that willfully violates 1373. >> and the president will do everything he can within the scope of the executive order to make sure that cities who don't comply with it, counties and other institutions, that remain sanctuary cities don't get federal government funding in compliance with the executive order. >> is this appropriate, jeff, for this judge to use things the president and his advisors have said publicly against him? >> i do. especially since it is part of what was going on. but, remember, this is an old controversy. there's a famous supreme court case where the court said it is 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 was that trump did it without congressional authorization. >> we got to leave it there. jeffrey toobin, laura coates. thank you both. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> up next to night, breaking news from capitol hill on the house intelligence committee investigation on russia and the trump team. sources 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 congressman erik swell. a sneak peek at "soundtracks" that airs tomorrow night on cnn. ♪ i'm in a new york state of mind ♪ >> the music and the artists post-9/11 are reflective of the emotions we feel. >> we ain't going anywhere. >> we played for an audience of police and firemen and emergency rescue workers, and they needed a boost. ♪ some folks like to get away
>> i put a firemen's helmet on the piano just to help me concentrate. because if i didn't have that, i might have just lost it. ♪ i'm in a new york state of mind ♪ >> it is kind of an anthem for new york city. i didn't think of it when i wrote it. >> the events that transpired defined the music and made it bigger than it was intended to be. >> the music will always remind us that it is possible. >> somebody's got to put this into words and emotions. that is what anthems are made of. >> "soundtracks" sounds that defined history tomorrow at 10:00 on cnn. hey! you know, progressive
is america's number-one motorcycle insurer. yeah, she does purr! best bike i ever owned! no, you're never alone, because our claims reps are available 24/7. we even cover accessories and custom parts. we diget an early start! took the kids to soccer practice. you want me to jump that cactus? all right. aah! that lady's awesome. i don't see a possum!
then you're a couple. think of all you'll share... like snoring. does your bed do that? the dual adjustability of a sleep number bed allows you each to choose the firmness and comfort you want. so every couple can get the best sleep ever. does your bed do that? for a limited time find final clearance prices on the cse bed. save $600. ends saturday. only at a sleep number store or sleepnumber.com
there's breaking news in our russia/white house watch. sources say the top leaders of the house intelligence committee investigation on russia have agreed on a witness list including big names with ties to president trump who could testify in two to three weeks. one source tells us it includes mike an flynn, carter paige, roger stone and trump's son-in-law. committee members have been told to spend more time in washington as the investigation moves into a more labor-intensive phase. with the committee's republican
chairman recusing himself, intelligence agency are back sharing documents with the committee. there's no word on whether nunes froze them out. >> congressman, this new reporting that the list of witnesses for your investigation includes michael flynn, carter page, roger stone, jared kushner, are you able to confirm that is the fact in this case? >> anderson, i can tell you the witnesses are relevant ones and the documents that we are reviewing have expanded since mike conoway has come on to lead the investigation for the republican side. we are back on track and i tink it is a good thing. >> based on our reporter, the witness list is, quote, extensive. can you give us a et abouter idea of what exactly that means? are we talking ten people, 20 people? >> i can tell you, anderson, it will be a long summer here in washington. even during recess weeks i think members of the intelligence committee expect to be here interviewing witnesses, getting to the bottom of this and doing everything we can to make sure we're never in a mess like this again. >> do you expect these hearings
to be open, and to you how important is it that they are? >> to me it is very important that if we are not conveying to a witness classified information or we are not receiving classified information, i think it should be open. now, some witnesses will have classified information and that could be done in secret. but i think the american people benefitted when director comey and director rogers came forward. i think the more we can do that, the more trust we will engender with the american people. >> the notion that the chairman nunes recusal spurred intelligence agencies to agree to share documents with your committee, theyer were reticent to do so while he was committee chair, is that your understanding of what happened here? >> my experience has been over the past three years is that intelligence agencies expected -- and just through the custom have seen the intelligence committee work together in a bipartisan fashion. this was unusual to see the chairman, you know, do what he the. so i think for us to be back on track with a new leader of the investigation, i think it is probably restored the faith among all. again, we just want to get back
to work, and i can say right now that's the case. >> howtive cult does it make things for your committee that there are currently four separate congressional investigations into russian interference, asking, i presume, for a lot of the same wit hadnesses, requesting a lot of the same documents? does it complicate it? >> no question there are a lot of redundancies. i think this would have been better handled if we had a joint senate/house investigation, but that was a decision that leader mcconnell and speaker ryan made to have them separately. but, you know, we will go on. i still think, anderson, the most comprehensive way to get to the bottom of this, to take politics out and to debunk a lot of the myths out there is to have an independent commission. i'm pursuing a separate track to try to make that happen with the bill that elijah cummings and i have. >> we all saw the drama obviously with nunes and 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 conoway from texas. i take him at his word and have
seen him at work, and i think he just wants to follow the evidence. you know, 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. >> you know, when we saw the first open hearing you all had, there was sort of a tale of two committees really. it was republicans asking questions about leaks and democrats asking about russia. do you still see that sort of division? >> well, we have a responsibility to just, you know, follow the evidence. so the democratic side, we wanted to point out the deep personal, political and financial ties between donald trump and his team with russia at the time that rush withdraw was interfering in our investigation. that's what we thought was most relevant. i hope the republicans understand that. we too want to, you know, pursue anyone that violated the law, if there were leak violations, but that is not as important as our sovereignty being violated and
us doing nothing about it. >> michael flynn in terms of getting him to testify is -- 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. >> congressman swallow, appreciate your time. >> my pleasure. >> retired cool minerers promised healthcare benefits for life are days away from actually losing coverage. tonight they're waiting to see if president trump who they helped elect will have their back.
3 staycations, and 1 tiny announcement. behr. number one rated interior paint, exterior paint and stain. protecting and perfecting since 1947. only at the home depot. working on my feet all day gave me pain here. in my knees. so i stepped on this machine and got my number, which matched my dr. scholl's custom fit orthotic inserts. so i get immediate relief from my foot pain. my knee pain. find a machine at drscholls.com.
for a loyal group of trump supporters a crucial deadline is looming this weekend. on the campaign trail he promised to have coal miners back and to bring back jobs. he said it so often it became almost a mantra. >> we will pursue energy under and cancel the job restrictions on the production of shale energy, oil, natural gas and clean coal and we will 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 -- >> three months since the trump presidency, more than 20,000 retired cool miners are on edge with health benefits set to expire days from now. the miners kept their end of the deal made tech aids go a, and now they need trump to go to bat for him like he vowed. randy kate has their promise. >> a promise made and broken so far. >> reporter: broken because now retired miners are days away from losing their healthcare benefits, and president trump who promised to take care of them has remain ed silent on the issue. donald trump has head that he would work to protect the miners. do you feel as though the president has your back? >> no, absolutely not. >> reporter: retired miners like joe reynolds and the others say they agreed to work in these mines partly because they were told they'd get healthcare for life, but those
government-funded benefits will run out at the end of this month for 22,000 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 miners cut a deal with the federal government. it is often 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 healthcare benefits to the miners and their families for life. >> from the cradle to the grave is what -- what the phrase was that they promised for our healthcare and our pension benefits. >> reporter: the fund for health benefits dried up over the years as coal mining companies filed for bankruptcy and stopped paying into it. >> but what we need as united mine workers is a permanent fix, and we need it now. we're at the shortened of the
fuse. time is running out. >> reporter: so -- >> donald, if you're listening, i believe you were being sincere when you made a statement that you are for the miners. so let's get something done. >> reporter: we shared the miner's >> which told us the administration is actively working with the congress to address this matter, adding it is the subject that is sensitive of ongoing investigations. >> reporter: how much do you struggle if you lose your benefits? >> i have health issues. in fact i've got chroaens. disease. and if i lose my benefits now, i'm hurt. i'm one hospital date away from
if i have no health benefits, or worrying 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 these miners have health issues, and say they can't afford health insurance if they their benefits dry up. >> it's absolutely just sticking a dagger in you. >> reporter: still, critics argue if congress bails out miners, they'll have to bail out everyone else, like truckers. so be it says the group. >> we were providing the coal that fueled this country through wars and everything else a lot of us served in.
>> reporter: a promise for life that's turned into a lot loss. the money from these benefits would come from a fund already established to cleanup these mines. there is a competing bill on the floor, although that does not shore up the pension benefits, only the health benefits. of course the miners want both. he wants them to have these lifelong benefits and lifelong pension benefits. he also have a pretty good relationship with the president who has remained silent on this issue. so we're going to be watching that total drama. the clock, of course is ticking, anderson. >> just head the trump pred daens barrelling toward day 100, political reality another. scorecard coming up. of america, e have updated our terms and conditions.
one. from now on, the word "television" will no longer be defined as that thing over there on the wall. we want all our things to be television things. phones. ipads. refrigerators. heart monitors. ok, maybe not heart monitors. two. our shows and movies. we want them when we want them. so they should go with us. anywhere? you got that right, kid show thing. three. nothing beats live. so we want to stream all that sweet live stuff. like football. red carpets and yelling. wait! what are we yelling about, guys? four. we don't just want unlimited data. we want unlimited entertainment. like unlimited hbo. can i stop dying now mark? c'mon man. it's unlimited. last thing. we just want all our stuff... the way we want all our stuff. that's not too much to ask is it? at&t brings you directv, internet and wireless. all on your terms. it's entertainment your way. could save money on car insurance.nce you know, the kind of driver who always buckles up...
comes to a complete stop... and looks both ways, no matter what. because esurance believes that's the kind of driver who deserves to save money on car insurance. in fact, safe drivers who switch from geico to esurance could save hundreds. so if you switch to esurance, saving is a pretty safe bet. auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.
white house to make sure they look like they're doing things, like they're super busy. his campaign release donald trump's contract with the american voter the 100 day action plan to make america great again. back thain mr. trump seemed to embrace the idea of a 17b day deadline. of course, now it seems to dee a ridiculous plan. like it or not, the mile marker is three days away. >> 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 surefire applause on the campaign but calamity in office. the president's party ekrn in control of congress, found itself bitterly guided. some say he plan went too far and some say not far enough. his first plan of legislation was yanked without a vote. despite his plan to talk about a border wall and have mexico pay for it. >> the wall gets built, 100%. >> reporter: there is no concrete progress on that either. the president has signed more sledge slagz than any other of the previous five presidents, but none it reduces the impact typical of major laws. signing more than any other executive actions in the first hundred days than harry truman, quickly wiping out the trade deal known as the trance pisc
partnership. >> we just aofficially terminated tpp. >> reporter: but his other idea has stalled in the courts. >> protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the united states is a vital measure for strengthening our security. >> we have to replace judge scalia with a conservative great judge. >> reporter: despite overwhelming democratic opposition, neil gorsuch was seated on the supreme court. >> and i got it done in the first 100 days. that's even nice. >> reporter: this president husband undiniably tried to move forwardads a break neck pace. his first 100 days as he himself has hinted has turned out to be
much more complicated than expected. that does it for us. that's all the time we have. now time for a special edition of the lead with jake tapper, the first 100 days. thanks, aernld. 97 days in and a brand new poll shows that president trump has reached a modern record, though it is probably not one he wants. "the lead" starts right now. breaking news brand new polls out this minute giving a snapshot of how voters really feel about president trump as he approaches his 100 day in office. but the news is not all bad. the entire congress invited to hear what the nukes does. we will ask her live. from slamming judges to staem rolling an entire court, after another federal court decision doesn't go the way