to the people. >> this proposal is a gift to corporate america. >> under the trump plan, we will have a massive tax cut and massive tax reform. >> they are saying growth in the economy will cover it. the fact it is never has. >> we are not giving up on repealing and replacing obamacare. >> that is moving in the right direction. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and kwaalisyn camerota. >> the first item on the agenda, tax cut wish list. thin on details at the moment. agrees to renegotiate nafta and pushing for a vote on a new gop health care bill. >> recent polls show why the white house is on hop to show new gains. approval ratings show he has the lowest rating of any president in this point in their term.
let's begin with cnn's joe johns at the white house. >> reporter: good morning, chris. for an administration that has tried to downplay the first 100 days as a ridiculous standard, they have also tried to orchestrate and promote the president's successes or what they see as president's successes. going so far as set up a war room in the west wing to track it. now a flurry of activity in the final days. >> we have a once in a generation opportunity to do something really big. >> reporter: after much hype, the white house revealing a one-page summary of the tax wish list which includes slashing tax rates for corporations, reducing the number of tax brackets and doubling the standard deduction for individuals. the skeletal outline would mainly benefit wealthy americans and devoid of any details of what it would cost and how it would be paid for.
>> this will pay for itself with growth and reduced reduction of different deductions and closing loopholes. >> reporter: many economists are challenging this as a magic wand of growth. saying the cuts could increase the national debt by trillions. a reality that would make trump's tax goals a tough sell with fiscal hawkss in congress. it goes against the pledge to reduce the deficit. >> it will simplify the tax code. it will grow the american economy. and all of this does not add to the debt or deficit. >> reporter: democrats immediately calling the administration's bluff. >> they are saying the growth in the economy will cover it. the fact is it never has. >> a plan to help the wealthy in the country. the wealthy corporatiorations i
world at the expense of the nation. >> reporter: one unknown is tho it benefits the president. >> the president released plenty of information. >> reporter: the white house announcing the u.s. will not immediately pull out of the north american free trade agreement after speaking to the leaders of mexico and canada. it comes hours after white house officials told cnn that the president was considering the order to withdraw from the deal. the white house eager to show progress on health care. >> the big block we need to come over is the freedom caucus. certainly some indications are that is moving in the right direction. >> reporter: republicans publicly posting amendment online for the house to review. as it remains unclear if moderates will sign on to the changes for how soon they will take it to a vote. trump's big push to show action on display wednesday when senators were bussed to the white house for a classified
briefing on north korea. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say little was learned. >> it was okay. >> i seriously felt i could have gotten that informs ation by reading the newspaper. it felt like a dog and pony show. >> reporter: one thing that seems likely not to happen is the government shutdown at the end of the first 100 days days. the stop-gap funding will is now under consideration to work out the details. >> it is good they have the extra week. joe, kicking the can down the road. thank you very much. president trump's approval rating at historic low. our cnn poll shows his numbers falling on health care, economy and immigration. the news is not all bad for the president. cnn political director david chalian has the numbers. >> good morning, alisyn. the overall 100-day mark approval rating. 44%. this is holding steady, but it
is a steady historic low. take a look where it falls in context. donald trump all the way at the bottom at this point in his presidency compared to predecessors going back in modern day polling. you mention twod ied two issues. health care and immigration. not good news for president trump. 61% disapprove of the handling of that issue. this is minus 1us 25 gap. and immigration. minus 16-point gap. 41% approval. that is sliding from negative 11-point gap he had last month. we want to take a look, alisyn, where republicans are drifting away. 85% of them still approve of donald trump. he has his base. look here. confidence in appointments in the administration. in november, republicans, 72%
were confident about the people he would appoint. now 59%. similar story when we effectively manage the government. in november, right after the election, republicans, 93% of them, said he would do that. 85% say now. you see sliding there among the core group of republicans. there are a couple of bright spots. it is when trump's name is removed. conditions in the country. are things going well in the united states. 54% say they are. that's a high water watermark g back to october. how do people feel about economic conditions? 59% say they are good. those two things certainly could bode well for donald trump. his numbers are at historic lows. >> david, stay with us. we want to bring in national
security correspondent dafvid sanger and sara westwood. david chalian, are the last two that showed us that people feel better about the direction of the country. is that what matters? you heard from people who said i'm not crazy about him. if you feel good about the country, it's a win? >> it does matter a lot. it gives donald trump an opening to try to grow his own support a little bit. something he has failed to do since taking the ovals office. on the other hand, on health care and immigration, it is trending away from him. so yes. having people have a positive feel about the economy and having americans think good about the way things are going in the country. that's good news for trump.
he hasn't seized on it to benefit. >> david, the message is clear if you are willing to hear it. i voted for trump because i don't like what is happening in washington. the measure is the same for any change agent. one-page tax cut. that sounds good to voters' ears. will they be bestraytrayed by t simplicity? >> over time, you see in the poll numbers, where the president comes in with the details and thought in the process, appointment of justice neil gorsuch, it was laid out well. >> a list of one, by the way. >> that's right. that was easier. when you get to issues of complexity. tax cuts, immigration, certainly all of the appointments to the government. health care for sure is a great example. they came in knowing what they wanted to get rid of and no
alternative to replace. that's where his poll numbers begin to fall away. people quickly come to the conclusion before you toss this out, tell me what i'm getting. if there is a lesson from the first 100 days, it is one that preparation still matters. you can talk about the swamp all you want during the campaign. you can rail against the swamp on twitter. eventually people want to see what they are getting. at 100 days, can't you come up with more than a one-page tax plan? >> let's look at the details of the tax plan. it has been looked at non-partisan groups that reviewed it. three tax brackets as opposed to the complicated. lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. double the standard deduction for children. end the estate tax, amt and most tax breaks. sara, it will help people like
mr. trump a lot. >> right. that's the main criticism of the tax plan. it is significant for the administration that they are finally moving from talking about tax reform conceptually promising the tax cuts and putting hard numbers on the table. the main problem with the blueprint is it doesn't answer the central question. how do you pay for a tax cut this high? that is the question when it comes to tax policies coming from republicans. for the trump administration this seems like an effort to learn from the debacle that was the negotiations. stake holders were not brought in at the front end to shape the polic policy. they were brought in after it was introduced. now the white house is laying down a basic framework for tax reform and bringing in stake
holders and conservative groups and lawmakers to hammer out details to avoid the situation where they put forward sub par plan and demand republicans get on board when that might not be possible. >> let's talk about why it would not be possible. david chalian. you have the committee for responsible federal budget estimating $3 trillion to $7 trillion in increases. you have two objestacles here. can you get the deficit hawks on board? the same group that cut out the legs on health care because they are fiscally responsible. the second is if you can sell as reform. reform means it will be permanent and revenue neutral. this is what sarah calls a cut. temporary. >> i think permanent goes out the window here because to make it permanent, you then have to abide by the rules of that process known as reconciliation in the senate. you wouldn't be able to abide by the rules. he needs democrats to get on
board. i think permanent is out the window. you are looking at something that will be ten years. you know how difficult tax cuts are in place, chris, after ten years, they get renewed. that being said, you said about the deficit hawks. there is less a premium on that right now inside congress and inside the republican conference as there once was. there will be hold outs here because of the understanding of how it is paid for and that will require the administration and the leadership in congress to really bring members on board. i do not think this is a slam dunk auto mat and you see the timeline is once august and now by the end of the year. >> david, a flurry of activity before the 100th day hits. executive orders signed. the president did something interesting. he reversed course yesterday on nafta. let's remind people what he said
during the campaign about what he would do to nafta. watch this. >> nafta has been a catastrophe for hour country. >> it has destroyed the country. destroyed manufacturing in the united states. and i'll do something about it. that will be renegotiated. >> there's never been a deal so bad as nafta. it's a one-way highway out of the country for jobs and money. we're going to renegotiate that one very quickly. >> so now what is happening? >> yesterday, the white house staff said he would threaten to pull out of nafta entirely. end the accord. start from the beginning. he actually got on the telephone with the leaders of canada and mexico, he had a different message. we will renegotiate it. the point -- >> this is good. the president just tweeted. he said, sanger is a handsome
man. i received calls from the president of mechanics cxico an minister of canada and asking to renegotiate. he said they called him. >> this was a pre-planned call with the president setting up the time. that doesn't mean it didn't get. he puts out or floats out we walk away. they call in and say let's not walk away. let's negotiate out the terms that you want. you saw in the clips. he used the phrase renegotiate a few times during the campaign. this is classic donald trump negotiating strategy. >> it appears to be working. it got their attention. he starts from the position that is dramatic. they feel like it is a win. >> similar to the nato stuff where he was saying we may pull out of nato. we may pull back from troops in
japan and south korea. it is not like you heard much, but he has countries on notice they have to contribute more. classic negotiating. in the end, had he tried to eliminate nafta, he would have heard from a huge number of american businesses with enormously complex supply chains that run through products partly made in mexico and partly in canada. roll into the u.s. i don't think it would be possible for him to unwind it. >> sarah, trump says he absolutely wants to break up the ninth circuit. he's angry at a couple of the judges. you have the big interview with him. where did you think his head is on this? how real is this? >> this is a pre-existing republican plan to break up the ninth circuit to create a 12th certi circuit. it is not new. this is not surprising that president trump would have considered those proposals because the ninth circuit has
been criticized for years for leans too far to the left and too big to handle the case load of that large an area of the united states. obviously president trump has suffered most of the high profile setbacks at the hands of judges on the west coast. earlier in the day yesterday, he was attacking the ninth circuit for dealing him another blow on sanctuary cities. he reminded me of that during the conversation. this is something he has cared about for a long time. i don't think it is surprising that he backs a bill that was introduced by john mccain, but republicans have been introducing perennially. it hasn't gained traction. >> thank you, sarah and david. so republicans are hoping to revive the healthcare reform and argument with a new amendment aiming to bring republicans together somehow. the congress member who's name is on the amendment and hard at
work. tom macarthur. he will join us next. stev your testiill save lives. mr. stevens? this is your new name. this is your new house. and a perfectly inconspicuous suv. you must become invisible. [hero] i'll take my chances. knows how it feels to seees your numbers go up, despite your best efforts. but what if you could turn things around? what if you could love your numbers? discover once-daily invokana®. it's the #1 prescribed sglt2 inhibitor that works to lower a1c. invokana® is a pill used along with diet and exercise to significantly lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. and in most clinical trials,
the majority reached an a1c goal of 7 percent or lower. invokana® works around the clock by sending some sugar out of your body through the process of urination. it's not for lowering systolic blood pressure or weight, but it may help with both. invokana® can cause important side effects, including dehydration, which may cause you to feel dizzy, faint,lightheaded,or weak, upon standing. other side effects may include kidney problems, genital yeast infections,changes in urination, high potassium, increases in cholesterol, risk of bone fracture, or urinary tract infections, possibly serious. serious side effects may include ketoacidosis, which can be life threatening. stop taking and call your doctor right away if you experience symptoms or if you experience symptoms of allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, or difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take invokana® if you have severe liver or kidney problems or are on dialysis. tell your doctor about any medical conditions and medications you take. using invokana® with a sulfonylurea or insulin
may cause low blood sugar. it's time to turn things around. lower your blood sugar with invokana®. imagine loving your numbers. there's only one invokana®. ask your doctor about it by name. no one burns on my watch! try alka seltzer heartburn relief chews. they work fast and don't taste chalky. mmmmm...amazing. i have heartburn. alka seltzer heartburn relief chews. enjoy the relief.
new health care plan proposed by house gop members. the freedom caucus is on board with this thanks to the macarthur amendment. joining me now is congress member tom macarthur. a member of the financial services committee and moderate conservative caucus known as tuesday group. hi, congress member. >> good morning, alisyn. >> in a sentence, can you tell us what the macarthur amendment is? >> it tries to do two things. one, we need to protect the most vulnerable people in the current plan. these are people with pre-existing conditions. we want to make sure they are protected. secondly, we have to give the states flexibility to bring premiums down for everyone else. >> sorry to interrupt. that is a tough needle to thread. how are you going to ensure that everybody with pre-existing conditions can still get coverage when one of the tenets of the plan says states can seek
waivers for pre-existing conditions rules? >> limited waivers. what i have done, alisyn, allow states to seek limited waiver, but only if they create a plan, a pool, to cover those very same people. the reason i'm focused on this, i lost my mother when i was a kid. my father had no insurance. i lived through decades of watching him work three jobs to pay medical bills. i lived through the dark side of that. what we have now is a health care system under great strain. the individual health care system. if it collapses, it will hurt millions of people. on top of that, we have 23 million people today that are getting no benefit from the affordable care act. they pay penalties or waivers and they get no insurance. so you are right. it is a difficult needle to thread. we must bring down the cost of
insurance for the great many people who need it. at the same time, we have to provide for those who have pre-existing conditions. that's what my amendment is doing. >> why are you changing the way it works for people with pre-existing conditions. that is one of the elements of obamacare that people seem to really like. >> there's a lot of confusion about what is happening in health care. yes, people like that and i like that too. it is critical. what a lot of people don't see and after a lifetime in the insurance dindustry, i see this system crumbling. one-third of counties have one choice today. my state had six options 18 months ago and now we're down to two. everybody's deductibles and premiums are skyrocketing. we have tens of millions of
people who cannot afford insurance. to make one group to pay unaffordable premiums is not the right answer. >> one thing we heard from lots of president trump's supporters is they are concerned about the opioid crisis. a lot have been touched by it personally. the essential health benefits. you let states seek waivers to get rid of the essential benefits. that covers treatment for substance abuse. where are you on that? >> first, i'm the co- chairman of the heroin task force in congress. that is front and center for me. my state has been devastated by the crisis. we have done a few things. first in the 21st century cures act. we funded 15$500 million this yr and next year to help in that area. secondly, before i considered waivers for the states on anything, i added the essential health benefits back into the bill. they had been taken out.
i thought that was a mistake. >> just to be clear. for anybody listening. if your bill were to pass somehow, people getting treatment for substance abuse would not lose it? >> no. states would have to come. it is not an automatic they get out of it. states have to come and they would have to declare precisely which benefits they are trying to change and how it benefits citizens. that's how we set this up. the protections for pre-existing conditions. my amendment requires that states don't allow gender discrimination. the essential health benefits are restored back to the federal standard in my amendment. states have limited waiver opportunities to achieve specific results. that's the balance, i think, we have to achieve. >> let's talk about the process and what is happening next. you have the freedom caucus, conservatives, on board.
it sounds like members of your group, the moderates are still on the fence. congress member charlie debt of the moderate group. i took everybody at their word when they wanted to reform health care and may it better. what i read, it doesn't make it better. i was a no and remain a no. how do you get the moderates on board? >> my goal is everyone struggling with the bill to get to yes. the only way to do that is to balance these two things. costs down for people and make sure we protect vulnerable people. no bill will satisfy everyone. this is certainly not a perfect bill. for some people, there are elements where they struggle. i respect my colleagues. >> do you think you have the votes? the "washington post's" count 30 republicans are undecided or no.
you can only afford to lose 20. >> i don't know, alisyn. we will find out. i came here to make a difference and i saw and see a problem that needs to be fixed for the sake of the american people. i'm working to get to a solution. you have to get to 216 votes. to do that, in the republican party, you have to have both people from more conservative districts and centrist districts. i will add, i was one of nine republicans in the first place who voted no on saturdtarting t process. i was concerned we left the democrats out of the process. i hope and continue to work to make sure that as we deal with other issues, whether tax reform or financial service we form, we have got to get this house back to working on a bipartisan basis. i'll keep working. >> congress member macarthur, thank you very much for explaining what is in the
macarthur amendment. we will watch closely. thank you. >> thank you, alisyn. >> from one wish list to another, the trump administration unveiling what they like to see for tax cuts. will they get support from the other side of the aisle? we have a democratic senator on the finance committee next. your insurance company won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back
president trump's administrative tax cuts wish list is causing fiery reaction because of the trillions it would likely add to the deficit. senator ben cardin tweeted, this shows how he puts businesses before middle class families. senator cardin joins us now. welcome. let's start with the first obvious political point. when you say i want to cut your taxes. people like it. even though it is one-page and short on he detaidetails. voters will like what the president is telling them. >> chris, voters will see this
will add greatly to the national deficit. overwhelming amount of relief goes to high income taxpayers. what you are talking about is middle income families will not get the help they need. they are stuck with the large deficits. i don't think the people of the country want this type of tax move. >> mnuchin says growth will pay for it. over 3%. i'll double your deductability. as an individual, you are good to go. >> i think people understand that. when you cut taxes, you will add to the deficit. less reach knvenue coming into country. if you use that rationale, get rid of all of the taxes. we have to have a fair tax policy. we need to straighten the tax code and make it fair for all americans. we need to do that. there are serious proposals to come together in a bipartisan way to reform taxes and make it fair for middle income families
and raise revenue we need to not have deficits. that's what we need. the president's proposal is just a pr issue where he is saying we will cut taxes with no real fiscal responsibility. >> let me ask you something. the president tweeted, democrats want to shutdown the government if we don't bailout puerto rico. is that true? are you threatening to shutdown the government? >> not at all. we don't control the congress. we don't have the house or senate or white house. republicans should have passed it last oktctober. democrats will not shutdown government. hopefully we will get this resolved. we should have had a budget before now. we are prepared to work with republicans in order to fund government. >> all right. that's good. people are going to keep their eye on what is happening on friday. we want to know what is driving any type of potential shutdown.
you say it is not coming from the democrats. at least not yet. you have two big items on the table. health care and this tax wish list. to this point, the democrats have adopted a bit it seems the watch it burn mentality. watch the republicans fight themselves and watch the freedom caucus undermine the president. at some point, you have to step up and put out ideas that help people with health care and tax reform or cuts. are you ready? >> we have done that already. frankly, democrats are there. we want to work with republicans. it's the republicans particularly in the house that have chosen not to engage the democrats at all. look, we do have the affordable care act. we think it is working. can it be improved? absolutely. we offered suggestions from more competition. >> they are saying it is dying under its own weight. do you buy that that the aca is
failing because providers are dropping out? >> chris, we reduced the uninsured rate by half. we have benefits for quality coverage. including mental health and addiction services. we have seen we eliminated pre-existing conditions. individuals now have affordable health care that did not have it before. the affordable care act is working. should we go after the high cost the prescription medicine? absolutely. we offered a public option within the exchange. that would give more competition. we suggested looking at different ways to provide health care through integrated and core care models. democrats are interested in improving the system. we think the affordable care act has made a major plus for health care for americans. >> what do you say to the people who had premiums spike and
unreasonable deductibles and one choice of a plan where they live? >> we know the health care costs have grown at a slower growth rate as a result of the affordable care act. for millions of americans, they have seen premiums stabilize which wasn't before the forwaaf care act. we have a challenge in the marketplace. these are individuals there for a short period of time because they are not connected with insurance through employment or changed jobs. that's the group we have to continue to work on to provide more options and more opportunities so we have stable insurance premiums. we have work to do. generally, it is working for millions of americans. we want to see it work for all americans. >> you think democrats should come out with ideas to help those people in the places where the premiums have them upside down and deduct abibles are too high? a democratic plan to physicifix
aca? we have not heard one. >> we offered suggestions for a long period of time. republicans have resisted any effort to try to improve the affordable care act. they have been trying to repeal it. now i think they have given up on repeal. they talk about repeal and replace. now they are giving up on that. we are hopeful we can get to improving. that's what we need to do. democrats are anxious to work to improve the forward abaffordabl. >> why don't i see democrats on the show as you flail. sure maybe they overpromised. i don't see democrats coming out and saying here is how we can address people's needs. can you name the proposal? where is it? >> chris, it's fair enough. understand this. speaker ryan right now is not prepared to move a health care bill on the floor of the house of representatives that has a majority of republicans and democrats supporting it.
he wants to get the votes within his own republican conference. he is not willing to take on the extreme in his party. democrats are anxious and we made suggestions. we have bills we filed to improve the affordable care act. no bill of that magnitude has ever been passed by congress without improving it. we need to improve it. we made suggestions to improve it. at this point, the republicans are solely working within their conference. we need to break through that. we need bipartisan proposals. i'm for that. >> senator ben cardin, i appreciate you making the case on "new day." thank you. >> thank you, chris. alisyn. >> you have seen this video from united airlines. now united says you will see big changes. the airline's plan to make sure this never happens again. ♪ hey, bud. you need some help? no, i'm good. come on, moe. i have to go.
(vo) we always trusted our subaru impreza would be there for him someday. ok. that's it. (vo) we just didn't think someday would come so fast. see ya later, moe. (vo) introducing the all-new subaru impreza. the longest-lasting vehicle in its class. more than a car, it's a subaru. poallergies?reather. stuffy nose? can't sleep? take that. a breathe right nasal strip instantly opens your nose up to 38% more than allergy medicine alone. shut your mouth and say goodnight, mouthbreathers. breathe right.
so treasury secretary steve mnuchin says a growing economy will pay for the tax cuts the white house wants. is that true? chief business correspondent christine romans joins us with the reality check. do tax cuts pay for themselves by lifting the economy? >> the simple answer. sometimes. how is that for going on a limb? if we look at history, it is important. it happened before. in recent history, tax cuts have not grown the economy. these are the last time we saw tax cuts.
bush tax cut here. president bush cut in 2001 and 2003. job growth was slow and gdp was decent. tax cuts, but no real job explosion. now let's look at what happened when you have clinton raising taxes. he was raising taxes. look what happened to jobs. look what happened to gdp. different scenario. gdp surging almost 4%. why a difference? tax policy is a lever in hundreds of factors. you had george bush cut taxes to boost growth. he was engaged in two wars. national debt growing. bill clinton was raising taxes to cut the deficit. a dot-com boom. nafta and wto. two different scenarios. >> that's not satisfying. we need an answer to this. what happened during president reagan. he cut taxes.
>> yes. this is the holy grail. this is like the swimsuit model poster conservatives have on the back of the door. this is what we love. >> i would say more than conservatives like the model. >> budget wonks. you have tax cuts here. he embarked on tax reform. tax reform is different. tax reform means you are not blowing up the deficit for tax cuts. you are changing the way we do business. tax reform resulted in this. years of growth. this is what conservatives want to see. you hear them saying this. can you do this without blowing up the deficit? maybe you get your trumpian tax growth to pay for things. >> i understand it much better now. thank you very much. chris. all right. thank you very much. so major changes coming at united airlines to prevent this from happening again. not the orange shirt. you know what i'm talking about.
the viral video this passenger getting dragged off a flight to make room for crew members on a full flight was a disaster. "early start" anchor dave briggs has more. >> good morning, chris. ten changes made by united ceo oscar munoz vowing to avoid a repeat of what happened to dr. dao. that includes limiting the use of law enforcement personnel on planes and limiting to safety and security. no longer requiring passengers on the plane to give up the seat voluntarily unless there is a security risk. also increasing customer compensation for passengers who voluntarily give up seats. now offering up to $10,000 per person. that's the real eye candy that is up from 1,3$1,350 per passen. dr. dao suffered a concussion and broken nose and two lost
teeth. he plans to sue the airline. some of united's procedures are set to take effect immediately. some will be implemented by the end of the year. one we did not mention, crew members have to be booked 60 minutes before flight which would have prevented this entire fiasco. >> a lot of things could prevent. >> if you have those booked before the passengers on the plane. that $10,000 is what the passengers are thinking about. >> absolutely. sources tell cnn the house intel committee has its witness list for hearing into russia's involvement in the election. is our next guest on the list? we ask carter page. there he is. he's smiling. what does that mean? we will see.
knows how it feels to seees your numbers go up, despite your best efforts. but what if you could turn things around? what if you could love your numbers? discover once-daily invokana®. it's the #1 prescribed sglt2 inhibitor that works to lower a1c. invokana® is a pill used along with diet and exercise to significantly lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. and in most clinical trials, the majority reached an a1c goal of 7 percent or lower. invokana® works around the clock by sending some sugar out of your body through the process of urination. it's not for lowering systolic blood pressure or weight, but it may help with both. invokana® can cause important side effects, including dehydration, which may cause you to feel dizzy,
faint,lightheaded,or weak, upon standing. other side effects may include kidney problems, genital yeast infections,changes in urination, high potassium, increases in cholesterol, risk of bone fracture, or urinary tract infections, possibly serious. serious side effects may include ketoacidosis, which can be life threatening. stop taking and call your doctor right away if you experience symptoms or if you experience symptoms of allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, or difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take invokana® if you have severe liver or kidney problems or are on dialysis. tell your doctor about any medical conditions and medications you take. using invokana® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. it's time to turn things around. lower your blood sugar with invokana®. imagine loving your numbers. there's only one invokana®. ask your doctor about it by name.
time's up, insufficient we're on prenatal care.es. and administrative paperwork... your days of drowning people are numbered. same goes for you, budget overruns. and rising costs, wipe that smile off your face. we're coming for you, too. for those who won't rest until the world is healthier, neither will we. optum. how well gets done.
one of the names mentioned in any story is carter paige. mr. paige joins us now. it is good to have you on "new day." what do you make of his asse assessme assessment? >> it is a glass half full perspective, chris. if you look at it from the opposite viewpoint, consider the complete lack of information and the complete lies that have been out there throughout the first 100 days of this new administration all based on false evidence, complete lies back to the dodgy dossier. >> you like dodgy dossier. that's a catch phrase of yours. you know the history here. cnn talked about the disclosure of the dossier, not the contents thereof. but over time we have seen some
of it has not stood up yet and others have, such that you were a beneficiary of what is true in that dossier, according to a federal judge who found it as probably cause to have you surveilled. so it is not completely dodgedy, right? >> every word in there about me, whether it's me actually dealing with paul manafort, someone who i have never even talked to, every allegation in there, all the people i have met, each of which are individuals i have never said hello to in my life is a joke. the main difference, the term dodgy dossier comes from 2003 in another document from the u. k. the difference here it led to a complete disaster internationally with thousands of american lives lost and trillions of dollars wasted. >> right. but we have already had our
disaster. we had russia involved in our election. we don't know what the far-reaching effects may have been. and you still haven't explained how a federal judge could look at some of this information about you and make a cause in reviewing the evidence that there was probable cause to surveil you. that's a federal court assessing evidence. >> chris, there is no probable cause. that's part of the reason why i am taking legal action now with the privacy act of 1974, legal action which i am taking. and i very much look forward to getting disclosure on that warrant application and seeing what exactly was in there because, again, there has been terrific reporting in various news outlets, including washington post, new york times based on various leaks. and some of them have exactly pointed back to that dodgedy dossier. so it will be interesting to see
what comes out. again, there is no probably cause and there could be no probable cause based on anything i have ever done in russia or with any russian person. so let's see what comes out. >> i've spent a lot of time watching your interviews and sometimes i scratch my head and wonder why you are doing them. you are very slow to want to answer questions about the details of your affiliation with the campaign or who you have talked to in russia and about what. what is your motivation for coming on other than to say you're suing? you don't seem to want to give clarity to the allegations? >> it is interesting. one of the prior questions -- this goes back to the issue of leaking, chris, because in several of the prior discussions, for example, with anderson cooper and others is the constant questions regarding did i ever meet the ambassador. and i said a brief hello to him
in cleveland and maybe a few passing comments never lasting more than a few seconds. and it is interesting. the reason why i wasn't more forthcoming about that with anderson about a month and a half ago. >> right. >> is i never -- it was a confidential meeting. everyone that was in that meeting agreed they would keep the conversation confidential, and i was respecting that. so the reason why i could talk about it now is the kremlin spokesperson has said that, yes, there were discussions or there were various interactions between the supporters of the trump campaign as well as the clinton campaign, i would imagine. >> you know how that plays. it plays as you being deceptive and there is a whole list of them now starting from who brought you into the campaign. you will say i don't want to talk about it, i don't want to get anybody in trouble. isn't the truth that really nobody brought you into the
campaign. you approached the campaign and you then were lightly vetted with some other people. you were invited to a meeting. you went to that meeting, and then the affiliation kind of fell off. isn't that a close reckoning to how you got into the campaign and maintained contact with some of the members? >> again, chris, i don't like to discuss confidential dealings. >> that's not confidential. >> i don't want to create any issues for people. again, there has been such a complete firestorm based on this completely false narrative. >> but you have to disrupt that narrative, carter. i have heard your answers. i have studied it well. i get what your motivations are in terms of leaking and privacy. when you don't give answers to what is bothering people, you just pretend and then fuel that speculation even more. you know, another one of them on this is that you got asked about this in a larger context, russia, what the intelligence
community came to as a conclusion. you say you don't buy it, that you don't buy that russia interfered with our election, that they helped motivate the wikileak hacks. the president of the united states, donald trump, accepts that as reality now. why don't you? >> chris, the main reason is the fact that i have been the victim of one of the most horrendous civil rights violations in recent u.s. election history. and it was interesting watching president obama's speech at a chicago university earlier this week where he was talking about encouraging people to get more involved in the political process. not necessarily being direct politicians and all the dirty things that go along with that, but just as private citizens, which is exactly what i did. and the disclaimer, which should have been on that -- in that speech that he gave was, make sure that you don't say anything
which could be construed as questioning the powers currently in authority because then you'll have a domestic political intelligence operation focused on you. >> so you think that because you say things in russia and elsewhere that are negative about american policy, the united states intel services decided to take you down and invaded your privacy and hurt your civil rights in the process? is that your theory? >> i'm basing it on recent reports, chris, with the fact that the most recent dossier was used as a false basis saying there is probable cause when there is absolutely zero. >> remember, a federal judge -- you want to make this a political thing, you can. but a federal judge looked at the evidence and found probable cause. if you look at the facts, they certainly line up in favor of asking you some questions.
2013 you were talking to a guy who you said you didn't know was a spy, turned out to be a spy. now we have indications that they were working you, whether you were aware or not, trying to get access to the campaign. that's relevant. you think go to russia. we don't know whether or not the trump campaign asked you to go, knew you were going, concerted action with you in going because you won't say so. it fuels speculation enough such that the doj went and got a warrant to surveil you. >> chris, i could talk for hours going through each of the falsehoods that were just outlined. and, again, you talk about being unwitting or not really understanding what's going on. i understand based on all the false evidence and the false narrative that's been out there. the reason why this is the current public perception, just read that book "shattered," about the