so why did the white house wait weeks to do anything about we learned that president obama warned trump about flynn. why did it take trump 18 days to fire flip as his national security adviser? let's begin. jessica? >> reporter: former acting attorney general sally yates laid it all out for lawmakers saying she talked to the white house three times about michael flynn's misstatements and filled in the chain of events that led to his ouster as national security adviser. >> we felt it was critical, that he was compromised with respect to the russians. >> reporter: sally yates said she warned the white house on three separate occasions that michael flynn misled vice president pence about his conversations with the russian ambassador. >> not only did we believe the russians knew this but they likely had proof of this
information. and that created a compromise situation, a situation where the national security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the shrussians. >> reporter: her testimony directly contradicting the white house's muted account in mid-february. >> the acting attorney general informed the white house counsel that they wanted to give, quote, a heads-up to us. >> reporter: yates explaining that she stressed to the white house counsel flynn had engaged in problematic conduct two days after president trump's inauguration. >> we told them we were giving them all of this mfgs this information so they could take action. >> reporter: trump waited 18 days to fire flynn. >> michael flynn might still be there but for "the washington post" report that, in effect, chained them to getting rid of him. >> reporter: pointing to former director of national intelligence james clapper's testimony that he has seen no
evidence of collusion between the trump campaign and russia before he row tired in january. >> is that still accurate? >> reporter: but clapper noted he was unaware of the fbi's investigation until it was announced publicly by jamcomey march. the two men met in the oval office. >> president obama made it known he wasn't a fan of general flynn's which, frankly, shouldn't come as a surprise given general flynn had worked for president obama, was an outspoken critic of president obama's shortcomings. >> reporter: press secretary sean spicer continuing to blame obama for the trump administration's failure to properly vet flynn. >> if president obama was concerned, why didn't he suspend general flynn's security clearance? >> reporter: flynn's high-profile position would typically require extensive
vettinging. >> the vetting process for either a political appointee or someone working in the white house is far, far more invasive and far more thorough than a standard clearance process. >> reporter: and one question not answered in the hearing, whether sally yates' warning made it from the white house counsel all the way to president trump. sally yates says she doesn't know if the white house reviewed the information requested from the justice department since sally yates was fired just days later for refusing to defend the president's first travel ban executive order. >> jessica, thank you very much. we have a lot to discuss, so let's bring in cnn political analyst david drucker and jeffrey toobin. how remarkable was it to hear of sally yates' conversation with the white house counsel when she tried to warn him? >> think about this whole scene. it was like a cold war spy novel. this woman, the attorney general of the united states, she gets
this information that the national security adviser, perhaps the single most important national security figure in the whole government, may be compromised by the russians. it really is. she goes to the white house, has two meetings, and nothing happens. nothing happens. they just sort of continue with business as usual until "the washington post" runs the story that shows definitively that flynn lied. then they essentially have to fire him. but, i mean, the white house clearly just didn't want to hear what sally yates was saying. >> so you don't have a huge surprise in what yates said. this was suspected that she would come out. she put more meat on the bones. but the shock has to be the reaction from the white house. you have the president and his frenzied tweeting which screams do it doth protest too much. for sean spicer to say this is
on obama. how damning to hear sean spicer say, really, this should have been on obama's watch. they should have figured this out. he didn't disclose the money before then. obama fired the guy and they made him the most important white house intelligence official apparently with no background check. >> they never vetted him. they never properly looked into his background. >> meaning the trump people. just to clarify for everyone at home. >> let's step back a minute and take a look at this from a political standpoint. here you have basically the premiere foreign policy voice in the president's ear throughout the course of the campaign that's not just a policy adviser and usually for national security and foreign policy advisers will be mostly policy. they'll start to do more politics and in front of the camera stuff as you get closer to election day to show what the president's thinking piety be if
he's elected and things like that. you have a guy on the campaign trail screaming lock her up. future president trump's political show, okay, fine, but through this whole process flynn was up to things they had no idea what was going on. so president trump wins. he installs flynn as national security adviser. and michael flynn continues to operate the way he had always operated. some are so focused on the leaks understandably in some ways that brought flynn down. >> imagine if you didn't have the leaks. >> sally yates did the administration a favor. yes, she was doing her job for the country but politically she brought to the president's attention something that could have been very embarrassing and very damaging and enabled him to make a change. and what we have seen since that change is a big change in the president's posture towards russia, towards his administration's posture towards
russia, which has gotten a big headache off his plate and enabled him to put into that office h.r. mcmaster who there are now reports the president isn't happy, really helped reset national security strategy and the impression that trump actually knows what he's doing when it comes to national security. so this runs deeper. it comes to how he hires and fires people who do not need senate confirmation. he should send sally yates a thank you note for helping him get here. >> don't hold your breath. >> i know. don't worry. >> they want to talk about the leaks as a distraction but if it weren't for the leaks in "the washington post" report there's a good chance michael flynn would be right where he was. >> i think there's a virtual certainty he would have been because they didn't want to hear about more contacts between the trump campaign, which flynn was an integral part of, and russia. it all keeps coming back to russia. why why so many people in the trump campaign with contacts
with russia? and why later did so many of them not tell the truth? >> mcgann saying what does the doj care if one of our officials lies to another one. >> that's what his response was when she tried to tell him. what does it matter it if one lies to another. >> that is indicative -- yes, it is true that the department of justice does not police internal lying within the administration, but that's not a crime for two bureaucrats to lie to each other, but it seems to be, again, indicative of not wanting to hear the truth about what was going on with flynn. >> hear no evil or was it just loyalty that dug the president in? that's the question this morning why the 18-day lag. >> that was always my default, trump is loyal to the people there to him in the beginning. in his business career he has shown extraordinary loyalty to people close to him. but after watching his relationship with bannon go up
and down. >> when you say that proposition, because we keep hearing it such as where do you see the loyalty demonstrated? >> and that's my point. i think this is more about the president not wanting to concede fault or mistake even though he's actually quite good at making adjustments here and there when things don't go well. he just doesn't like to admit that he made a mistake. flynn, look, this is the national security adviser. this wasn't the white house usher or some low-level position. this was a major faux pas. he wasn't proepd to run, equipped to run the national security council. he could actually use this to his benefit to say base d on wht we've uncovered by this investigation, i'm going to get to the bottom of russia meddling and it happened under my predecessor's watch. it's not going to happen under my watch. because he's so stubborn about this, apparently, he hasn't been able to do that. >> that leads us to what we don't know. many questions and revelations from yesterday from sally yates.
here is what we still don't know this morning. was there collusion between the trump team and russia in terms of trying to affect the election? >> she said she couldn't talk about it but not to take the fact she can't talk about classified information to mean yes is her answer that, yes, there is collusion. clapper said, once again, there wasn't. he also said i didn't know anything about the investigation. i may not know the facts. >> so we still don't know the answer. there are all sorts of congressional probes. >> right. but the president tweeted these assumptions that clapper had once again proved there is no collaboration. if anything the former head of the dni went further to create doubt about what the situation may be. he said he didn't know not that there is no proof and we don't know the distinction. >> we don't know the extent. we don't know how classified information got out. lots of republican lawmakers are
focused on that. >> yates and clapper said they didn't know how it got out because the questioning was to them a little bit of a nod, does this have anything to do with you. >> they also said, no, we do not share classified information with journalists. why the white house waited 18 days to act on flynn. we've been discussing that. and did the white house set up flynn's meeting? >> and if i can add, another thing we don't know is what was the nature of flynn's contact with the russians? because that, too, is classified information. that apparently comes from national security intercepts which is highly secret and both yates and clapper couldn't talk about that. the underlying substance is still very mysterious and very important. what exactly was palestinian's relation shship with the russia ambassador and perhaps other russian officials. >> do you think the white house may have been working on the information that was reported from the piefy that when flynn talked to them they asked him
about discussing sanctions. he said he didn't. he said, are you sure? and he said, i can't remember. and on the basis of that they said we think he was giving truthful answers. do you think the white house may have been relying on that saying it can't be that bad? >> it's possible. we have that one story about the fbi interview of flynn. i'm not sure a leaked story about an interview from who knows what the source -- a source who may have an agenda. i think there's a lot we don't know. >> because after that interview yates did still think enough to have a meeting. >> that wasn't the last story about flynn. we're not just operating on the one conversation with the russian ambassador that was leaked. we're dealing with disclosures that he received payments from turkey and other foreign sources that he didn't disclose and so he has added to this himself since then. which makes it look like there's
something there. >> stick around. we have much more questions. coming up on "new day" we will have the ranking democrat in that senate inquiry who questioned yates and clapper. what did he learn? >> president trump's own words about muslims are putting his revised travel ban in jeopardy once again, at least legal jeopardy. a feed appeals court is going to have to decide whether the words matter when it comes to national security. it's a complicated question. it's even hard to say. we'll take you through it next. [vo] the grille is distinctive. but it's usually seen from the rear. the all-new audi q5 is here.
whoa,i just had to push one button to join. it's like i'm in the office with you, even though i'm here. it's almost like the virtual reality of business communications. no, it's reality. intuitive one touch video conferencing is a reality. and now it's included at no additional cost with vonage business. call now and see why 3,000 companies a month are switching to vonage. business grade. people friendly. what if we could bring you by having better values? at blue apron, we work directly with more than a hundred family farms. so instead of spending on costly middlemen and supermarkets, we can invest in the things that matter most: making farmland healthier.
a federal appeals court in virginia appears divided over president trump's revised travel ban. the 13 judge panel wrestling with how much weight to give the president's campaign comments over a, quote, muslim ban, as they assess whether this ban is constitutional. cnn's joe johns will explain it all live at the white house with more. hi, joe. >> reporter: good morning, alisyn. this boils down to a common sense question aimed directly at the white house. the 13 judges of the fourth circuit testing whether president donald trump meant what he said on the campaign trail when he called for a ban on muslims coming into the country.
president trump's inflammatory rhetoric about muslims putting his revised travel ban in jeopardy again. >> donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states. >> reporter: several judges pointing to the president's own words as evidence the executive order was intended to target muslims. >> the exec it tiff order was signed, sean spicer said the principles remain the same. >> reporter: the white house countering the court should not question the president's national security decisions based on past statements. >> this is not a muslim ban. it has nothing to do with religion. its operation has nothing to do with religion. >> reporter: one judge expressing concerns about future implications of using the previous comments to evaluate future policies. >> can we look at his college speeches? how about his speeches to businessmen about 20 years ago. are we going to look at those,
too? >> reporter: another noting president trump has never walked back his muslim ban promise. >> he's never repudiated what he said about the muslims, and it's still on his website. >> reporter: they removed that after the media briefing. >> i'm not aware of what's on the campaign's website. >> reporter: president trump's travel ban also a contentious topic on capitol hill. >> i believed that any argument we would have to make in its defense would not be grounded in the truth. >> reporter: former acting attorney general sally yates defending her decision not to enforce the first version of the president's travel ban saying it was not based on politics. >> i made a determination that i believed it was unlawful. i also thought it was inconsistent with the principle s of the department of justice. >> reporter: yates insisting she did her job by looking at the intent of the order. >> are you aware of any instance in which the department of justice has formally approved the legality and three days later the attorney general
directed the department not to follow that policy and to defy that policy? >> i'm not but i'm not aware of a situation where the office of legal counsel was advised not to tell the attorney general about it until it was over. >> reporter: there's no clear timetable right now for a decision by the fourth circuit. the ninth circuit on the west coast is expected to take up arguments on the travel ban next week. no public event on the president's schedule today. chris and alisyn? >> some interesting moments going on between senator ted cruz and sally yates. jeffrey toobin and david druc r drucker, the heart of the matter before the court seems to be, look, the president said it was a muslim ban. that's what it is. it doesn't matter what's in the executive order. unusual basis for evaluating an action. how do you think it sizes up? >> unprecedented. as far as i'm aware the united states supreme court has never considered the campaign statements of a president or a
candidate in deciding whether something is unconstitutional. we've never had a president like donald trump who talks that way about minority groups. but it is significant, i think, that it's never been done before. also, you have an executive order in the area of national security where courts traditionally give a lot of deference to the executive branch. so i think this is a very hard case. i think there are very good arguments on both sides and there are 13 judges on the fourth circuit. ten are now democratic appointees so i think things look very good in that court for the challengers but i think the supreme court where this case is very likely to be destined may be another story. >> okay. so that's the legal view. for the political view, i mean, sally yates admitted that donald trump's campaign words were the predicate for her decision on whether or not to enforce the travel ban but, you know, obviously people in his camp and on the right say, well, she's
partisan about all of this. >> i think conservatives who support the president and are frustrated with how this went have a point in this regard, or at least this is their thinking which is the previous president used his pen all the time for executive orders we found unconstitutional. and even though the courts ended up blocking some of them because republicans sued, his justice department didn't do anything about it. and so you now we have a justice department stopping our guy just because of a political disagreement. i think, though, the problem with this actually gets back to how harried and rushed the trump administration was in pushing this it through. >> they didn't even alert her. she admitted she department know about it. >> when you say she said his words were the -- that's not what she said. she said they were a part of it. that what he had said were a part of it. the fact this office was not informed was also a part of it. and an aspect of whether it was legal or not based on what the
basis was for the threat was also part of it. it wasn't just a political feeling. >> right. but imagine -- imagine they have just waited for jeff sessions to get into place. imagine that they had run this through normal channels, and then you put together an executive order that had a better basis and constitutionality to withstand judicial pressure because of what trump had said during the campaign trail, they would have been in a very different place. i also think the president undermined his case from the very beginning by going to war against the judiciary with claims of urgency which clearly he wasn't that interested in or he would have done something different other than let this wind its way through the courts just like anything else. you would have gone to congress said we have an urgent national security need. we need to pass a law that then can withstand further scrutiny from the courts. he didn't do any of that. i think even though jeffrey is right here, it's unprecedented for campaign trail statements to be used in court proceedings
against you, the fact is what you say actually matters. judges and prosecutors and lawyers are all human beings, and they're going to be impacted this way. this is when juries can be sequestered. they don't want people to know things that they will have to compartmentalize and the president could have handled this differently had he focused on the national security implications of refugee influx rather than muslim bans, quote, from muslim nations. >> but it's your feeling, jeffrey, this will ultimately become a reality. the travel ban in some form will pass muster. >> yes. in some form. certainly the second go-around has a better chance of being upheld than the first one which they have now given up on. this is an area, immigration, where the constitution and the laws of the united states give the exec it tiff br executive branch almost autonomy. you can't discriminate against
people in any part of the government. when it comes to immigration the courts traditionally give deference to the president. >> he has a better legal case than a political case here? >> i'm not sure about that. political ly you think the muslm immigration is very popular? >> i don't know it's popular. in the terms of making a case here is a perfe here is a threat, they say, hey, look at this guy. he's an illegal and he killed somebody and these two guys raped somebody. oh, wait, that didn't happen. they're cherry picking cases. the statistics aren't there. >> i think you're right as a factual matter. muslim immigrants are not a great threat to the american people, but politically i think it's a lot more complicated. >> politically inside the republican party it obviously
worked. the truth is it made him stronger with the republican electorate. >> there is something to demagoguery, also. >> yes, yes. >> he had on his website donald j. trump's statement on preventing muslim immigration. he was pandering to a base. now that he's the president of a very mixed country in terms of ethnic and religious backgrounds you can't just call all muslims bad people. >> i think if he approached this from a holistic manner where if he looked at the domestic terror attacks and tried to attack the problems that led to those individuals either becoming radicalized because they were u.s. citizens or they emigrated here, were naturalized or became legal immigrants, and what did we miss in the vetting to let them in, there would be support if he focused there. >> non-muslim terror threats the government is looking at are
much larger in number and degree than you have of muslims. >> right. i'm just saying rhetorically. >> it's a bs basis, that's what i'm saying. >> i'm not arguing that. the point here is you never lose points if you're a political candidate by saying we have a problem with radical islamic terror but you do if you target muslims and say they specifically are the problem without dealing with the larger aspect of the national security part of this. >> gentlemen, thank you very much for all of the analysis. we have another airline fiasco to tell you about. hundreds of passengers stranded at the gates. several hauled off in handcuffs. what caused this chaos? we'll show you next.
if you want to stay on top of your health, i won't. one simple thing to do -- is take the pledge to go and get screened for the cancers that might affect you. so stand up to cancer and take the pledge at getscreenednow.org it only takes a minute to take care of yourself, and nothing rhymes with "org"...
president trump considering a plan to bolster the u.s. presence in afghanistan. the move would add 3,000 to 5,000 troops -- more troops. this is part of a larger shift that calls for fighting the taliban with the same intensity the u.s. is fighting isis. >> say they have the man they believe went on a year long shooting spree killing nine people at close range. a tip leading them to 23-year-old aaron soseto.
they say they were able to link him by analyzing surveillance video and ballistics evidence including a gun he had pawned. another airline confrontation to tell you but between spirit airline passengers and the deputy after they canceled nine flights at ft. lauderdale-hollywood international airport. several people were led away in handcuffs. spirit has canceled more than 300 flights in the last week. they blame it on a legal dispute with the pilots association. >> look, now because of what happened on united, people are sensitized to being abused potentially in these situations. >> yes. >> and then on the other side innocent actors where they're overbooked, they're in a jam, they have to do their job. >> that's true. passengers, you're right, do feel mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore. >> and sometimes things are
cumulative. you feel you've been getting kicked around by the airlines fair or unfair. now this is what we have. president obama personally warned president trump not to hire michael flynn. that's what we have heard from multiple officials. the white house is responding by blaming the obama administration for the michael flynn mess. do they have a case? let's debate. you decide next. jewelry that tells her she's the best thing that's ever happened to you. in a way... ...that goes beyond words. it could be a piece jewelry designers created just for jared. or a piece we custom made... ...just for you. because we're more than a store that sells beautiful jewelry. we are jewelers. the one, unique gift... ...that tells her exactly how you feel. that's why he went to jared.
the question that you have to ask yourself if president obama was truly concerned about general flynn why didn't he spend general flynn's security clearance they had just reapproved a month earlier? additionally why did the obama administration let flynn go to russia to a speaking engagement and receive a fee? if that was a concern more than just a person that had bad blood. >> that's the answer from the white house press secretary sean spicer about everything that was learned in the yates testimony, blame it on the obama administration for renewing the security clearance for michael flynn. this defense coming after these
revelations that the white house and president trump received multiple warnings that flynn could be a liability and did nothing for 18 days. the former white house communications director for president obama, jason is the former senior communications adviser for donald trump's campaign. jen, this is your fault. just own it and let's have an early breakfast. >> thanks, chris. i'm ready for some coffee. sounds good. we're all done. i think the situation here has been distort ed at best about te confidence and preparedness of general flynn to do the job. not only had he been fired but he didn't show a master of management. he created chaos. and that's the information he was providing to president trump. it was not partisan. it was the right thing to convey.
it's reached this level of discourse. the fact is he was right and the concerns for the national security community were right because just a few months later he was somebody lying to the vice president of the united states and misleading people about his conversations with the russians. >> he was not in the administration at this point so these were not something that went on. would you have handled this the way the white house is handling it? >> it's tough to say how i would have handled it. we didn't see exactly the same thing they were seeinging. unpack what it is we're seeing here when president obama made his recommendation to president trump, keep in mind, only three days after president obama was out there campaigning against president trump. and so then to pivot and say here is who you should and shouldn't bring into the administration i think is a bit far-fetched to go and make such
a pivot. i think it's important to remember we had an obama appointee in sally yates who was then coming forward saying here is this information. i think the white house at this stage of the presidency had to take a step back and go through all the information and really analyze it themselves. they rushed out to an immediate judgment without going through it would have been reckless. the other thing, chris, to keep in mind the early reports at the time -- and keep in mind we haven't seen the full transcript, the early reports at the time said it was a gray area, that it wasn't crystal clear as to what had transpired. i think the administration was right and they came to the right decision. >> how is it gray when you had sally yates come with a senior official privy to the intel and tell you twice this guy lied to you about what was said with this ambassador. we're afraid they know he lied and he could be blackmailed.
he could be vulnerable. what's gray about that? >> it's important to point out to folks when they talk about how general flynn could have been compromised they were talking specifically about whether or not he had misled vice president pence and the information he passed on, important to point out this had nothing to do with allegations of so-called coordination between the campaign and some foreign entity. when we talk about what was actually in the transcript, again, i'm relying on public reporting from the time says it wasn't entirely clear what was said in that conversation and the white house was smart to do their homework on this. >> do you know how vetted flynn was? do you know if they ever had discussions with him about the work he did for turkey, about the $45,000, about the paid speech? as you know, he never acknowled acknowledged the payment of the speech that sean spicer is pointing to here.
do you know what was done to vet flynn? >> that wasn't a role i was a part of, here is what we do know. general flynn served his country for 33 years. in 2015 before he made a trip overseas he informed the dia and his folks in the national security world that he was going to make this trip. he gave them a briefing upon his return in early 2016 and then in april his top security clearance was renewed. if there was a big problem at the time red flags certainly didn't go up and his clearance was restored. from president trump's perspective a retired army general who had been a loyal xorer on the campaign, a vocal critic of the previous a administration's mishandling of the war on terrorism. the fact he department think they did a good enough job on it. it came as no comprise they
would be critical of general flynn. >> well, they fired him. jen, we heard from james clapper, former head of the dni, that the vetting for a security clearance by an agency is nothing compared to what you you would get as a senior intel official and that scrutiny would have been much higher. you could have done more to stop him with his security clearance if you had such concerns. >> well, chris, i think it's important for people to know there are 4 million people who have security clearances. it doesn't mean they meet the high bar. that's the president's closest adviser. he is somebody, michael flynn is, who president trump was putting in meetings during the transition. there needs to be a great deal of vetting for anybody at that level. that clearly didn't happen which was a mistake and, hence, why he was fired. >> all right. jason, thank you.
jen, appreciate it. alisyn? >> great to be here. chris, there was a scary moment on ice for a pittsburgh penguins star a week after suffering a concussion. we have the details in the bleacher report next. ings than rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz is right for you. xeljanz is a small pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. xeljanz can reduce joint pain and swelling in as little as two weeks, and help stop further joint damage. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz can reduce the symptoms of ra,
did you watch the games? don't worry about it. steph curry and the golden state warriors looking invincible right now sweeping the utah jazz. now just four wins away from a possible rematch. with lebron. coy wire has more. >> what action we've been seeing from the warriors and the cavs. >> both teams a perfect 8-0 in
the playoffs thus far. they have been so good and commentators are saying they're winning too easily. after the 121-95 win over utah draymond green and kevin durant showed they are bored of all this boring talk. >> basketball playoffs are boringing and these two dominant teams on a collision course, what do you think about that? >> blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. >> nhl playoff action, a scary moment in game six between the capitals and penguins. sidney crosby crashed into the boards. many questions why the league spotters in the club didn't force him to be removed from the game. crosby tough as nails. you have to protect them from themselves. tying up that series at three games apiece. game seven is tomorrow night. >> coy, thanks so much.
>> you're welcome. >> great to see you. jimmy kimmel fires back at any critics of his monologue over his newborn son. listen to this. >> i 30 like to apologize for saying children in america should have health care. it was insensitive. it was offensive and i hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. >> our media mavens discuss what will become of the kimmel test next. two become one.
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 save $900 - $1200 on select final clearance beds during our spring clearance event. only at a sleep number store or sleepnumber.com intelligent technology can help protect it. the all-new audi q5 is here.
no, it's reality. intuitive one touch video conferencing is a reality. and now it's included at no additional cost with vonage business. call now and see why 3,000 companies a month are switching to vonage. business grade. people friendly. 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 including depreciation. switch and you could save $509 on auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
jimmy kimmel is back and is firing back at critics of his emotional monologue about his newborn son's health scare. >> there was so much kindness and compassion, it was hard to even process. but, i know this will shock you, there were not so nice things people said online about me including members of the media. now this is from -- a real headline from "the new york post." jimmy kimmel's obscene lies about kids and medical care this is from something called "the washington times." i don't think it's a real newspaper. shut up, jimmy kimmel, you elitist creep. i want to apologize for saying kids in america should have health care. it was offensive and i hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. >> let's discuss with senior media correspondent and host of reliable sources, cnn media
analyst bill carter. newt gingrich was on a sunday show saying in america no baby is turned away from an emergency room if you show up at an emergency room doctors operate on that baby and they don't ask for a check first. here is how jimmy kimmel responded to newt gingrich's claim. >> yes, it is true that if you have an emergency they will do an operation and that's terrific. that never, ever happens. we've had a done. you have a cardiologist, a pediatrician, surgeons, some kids need an ambulance to transport them. those details forgot to mention. i don't know if the double layers of spanx are restricting the blood flow. >> jimmy kimmel has become the voice of this health care battle
somehow. >> and i think he's saying that emergency care is not the same as comprehensive health care. kimmel is a natural storyteller already. he's using his personal experience. his son is doing very well. that's the best news out of this. he's using his personal experience to ask basic questions about health care that got glossed over and skipped over. he hadded senator on who coined the term and cassidy started many years ago a health care clinical for uninsured working class americans. kimmel is on air saying why are there uninsured, it's really worthwhile. >> ordinarily you want to be careful as a comedian in these situations because you don't have a handle on facts. kimmel is blessed that he has fallen into a talking point that is a particularly weak one on
the side of people who are trying to abridge health care. newt gingrich is a smart man. he knows if you don't have an emergent situation an e.r. will send you back home. this is a talking point. who is leading the charge to take care of people in this country now on the democrats' side? i guess bernie sanders but they haven't filled in this moment. >> and kimmel has a talking point no one should be able to dispute. it's amazing that people were trying to dispute it as though he didn't have a valid point. i happen it to know jimmy really well. he's an incredibly sincere guy. the idea of him being an elitist creep is off base. he's a blue collar guy. >> that's a narrative, also. >> he is an honest guy. this hit him in a place that was
so deep and emotional he has thrown himself into it. >> that authenticity everybody loves particularly on television, that leads us to stephen colbert who had his obscene rant or whatever -- crude rant -- but it seems to have worked. when he began criticizing president trump, his ratings spiked and he, in fact, leap flogged jimmy fallon who had taken over "the tonight show." and is there a feeling stephen colbert and jimmy kimmel are being their true authentic selves. >> no boundaries in comedy. kimmel is doing something different right now. he certainly wasn't hoping for this experience, that his sond would end up in the nic-u going
through all of this. kimmel is finding something unique talking to his audience in a different way. >> he will have to decide, his motivation is his personal pain and at some point the situation stabilizes. colbert is a different animal. i was wondering if he would fill that void of who is the political satirist, who will make the hard arguments because fallon is a brilliant entertainer but he is comic relief. he is not going to come hard at somebody. that's not what he is. >> and when he tries, it's off tone. this is colbert's meat. newt's response, it's not funny anymore. they're just angry. these comics are angry. >> people are laughing big time at this. they're finding a lot of great humor. it's interesting that's the response.
>> there's an opportunity. we talk about the 45% all the time. we have panels with them and trump people and understanding trump and why trump won. stephen colbert is speaking to them. >> and kimmel, this health care law is unpopular. >> bill, brian, thank you very much. thanks to our international viewers for watching. for our u.s. viewers up next, did it take -- why did it take president trump 18 days to fire flynn. we believe general flynn was compromised with respect to the russians. >> vulnerable to blackmail. >> we told them this information so they could take action.
>> the security clearance was reapproved by the obama administration. >> what was going on in those 18 days. >> continue such activities and to do so. >> it's still on his website. >> i made a determination i believed it was unlawful. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. sally yates said she repeatedly warned the administration saying flynn had lied about his contacts with russia opening the door to possible blackmail. >> add this to your time line. we're learning former president obama warned president trump on november 10th against hiring flynn so just days after the