tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN June 12, 2017 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT
secretive unit that killed osama bin laden. >> barbara starr, thank you very much. boots on the ground or not, their lives are on the line. thanks so much to all of you for joining us, "a.c. 360" with anderson cooper begins right now. good evening, thank you for joining us. we begin with what could be the rumblings of another major event. a close friend of the president came out of a meeting at the white house today and went on pbs news hour and said this about special counsel robert mueller. >> i think he's considering perhaps terminating the special counsel. i think he's weighing that option, i think its pretty clear by what one of his lawyers said on television reepcently. even though i don't think there's a justification and even
though -- >> you don't think there's a justification for? >> for special counsel in this case, but robert mueller, he comes from a law firm that represents members of the trump family. he interviewed the day before or a few days before he was appointed special counsel with the president who was looking at him potentially to become the next fbi director. that hasn't been published, but it's true. and i think it would be strange that he would have a confidential conversation and then a few days later, become the prosecutor of the person he may be investigating. i think that mueller should not be under consideration if he had a meeting with the president and were privy to his thoughts. >> that's not the only big breaking item this hour.
but let's go to cnn's jim acosta. what is the white house saying about this incident? >> reporter: it's not surprising given the level of consideration and cooperation we have from this white house, i can tell you that chris rudy was at the white house today, i saw him coming out of the west wing, so it's likely he was talking to high level officials inside the white house, perhaps including the president, but i am told by a source close to the president that the president is receiving advice from the president not to take this drastic step not to fire special prosecutor robert mueller. so we have a special tug of war going on with what the president might decide to do next, with this russia consideration, if the president is indeed considering firing the special prosecutor, this is akin to events we saw during the
watergate era and it is going to be conjure up all kinds of memories, but i know from a white house source that trump is being counseled from all sides not to do this. >> the president has tweeted out raising the possibility that there might be tapes, what did sean spicer, what did the white house say today about the tapes? >> reporter: on friday the president was asked about this a couple of times at the press conference and said you'll all find out shortly. the president said when he was asked when he was meeting with members of his cabinet, he was asked whether or not he has typtype tapes of conversations with people in the white house. they said the president will announce this soon and basically he he'll do it when the time is
right. but this isn't just a yes or no answer. sometimes sean spicer does not know very much in terms of what the president is doing or what he's up to. the press secretary simply couldn't answer the question because he didn't have the information, and we may be in another situation here, but sean spicer did not answer that question today, it was another dodge. >> did the white house have anything to say about jeff sessions testifying tomorrow? >> reporter: that was another question, will the president evoke an executive privilege when it comes to answering these questions on capitol hill. and spicer said it depends on what the question is and he's not going to get into hypotheticals so we may see a scenario like we saw with the director of national
intelligence, when president trump was in the cooperating and not answering these questions, the attorney general may find himself in the same position tomorrow and the white house was not answering that question as well today. we are in a period right now, anderson, either since the white house is not answering questions or the press secretary is claiming he does not have the information to answer those questions. so we're just living through this minute by minute. but if the president were to go through a dramatic move like firing the special prosecutor, that is going to be something unlike we have seen around here in decades. certainly since you and i were a little younger than where we are today. >> jim acosta, few very much, we'll continue checking with you. >> jason miller, and matt lewis as well. jeff, i mean the president does have legal authority to do that, doesn't he? to hire a special prosecutor? >> under the regulation, this is how it works, that if he wants to get rid of the special counsel, it actually has to be a decision by the attorney
general, the attorney general is the one that has to fire him. the attorney general, presuma y presumably, as jeff sessions is recused here, so it would be up to rob rosenstein, who was the person who appointed bob mueller just a couple of weeks ago. so the question is would rosen stein acce rosenstein accept an order to fire mueller, or would he refuse and resign and would the order be followed by someone lower down in the hierarchy in the justice department. that's -- it's technically up to the attorney general. >> matt, do you agree with that legal assessment? >> i do, and the special counsel is just an attorney in the department of justice, it's appointed, there's no statutory construction like we had with the independent counsel law that expired in 2000. let's remember that bob mueller has ethical opportunities to
practice law and so did jim comey. so there are riules and regulations that could raise some situations that i hope he's analyzed before he accepted this position. >> jeff, do you agree with that? i mean is his law firm apparently represented some members of the donald trump family and he had a meeting with the president? >> i would have to know more. i mean certainly it's a big law firm, and there are often theoretical conflicts that are not real conflicts when you have many, many lawyers that one has nothing to do with the other, but certainly they should all be aired out. >> would you advise him to do this? >> it's good to see workforce protection week getting off to good start. but on a serious note here, this would be bad idea genes all the way around. >> referencie ining an old "sat
night live" cast. >> the president iss on his own right now. the r you saw folks like senator rubio, senator mccain, people who aren't necessarily strong supporters of the president, at least not vocally taking a strong position to help him out during that hearing, this would move it the other direction, all those senators i just named would automatically go in a different direction and a lot of the good will the president has built up could go against him. >> i take this seriously, chris rudd, he's a friend of the president. he comes out and starts attacking james comey, it was a harbinger of things to come. it was obviously orchestrated.
there are people elsewhere who were speaking for mueller before. >> we have seen it with newt gingrich as a prime example with his tweets. paraphrasing here, that mueller is beyond approach, highly respected, by partisan, and be thankful he's there. >> let's just put up those, just to give you a sense, the before tweet, we're going to put up first, republicans -- okay, no? this is today. robert mueller is a superb choice to be special counsel, hiss reputation is impekt kl for honesty and integrity, the immediate yes should now calm down. lo look who. >> i think what people like jason is doing is a service right now. keep in mind that donald trump has had a pattern of doing things like that. you had the firing of james comey, those were surprises to
us. they just happened. you know, the tweet, the firing of james comey pretty much happened without any warning, in this case we could have what could serve as a trial balloon, he's going to hear from some of his friends and allies that it's a very bad idea and i think it would be really good for the country if he takes that message. >> maybe it's a direct attempt to intimidate the special counsel. i'm not saying that's doingable. but here you have the president of the united states, we know how he feels about leakers, but leaking stories that are getting put out about what he's thinking about mueller, and which have someone clearly in the party organizing people like newt gingrich to change their position, i think this is, he may end up fine, but we're bringing people together, which i agree would be a terrible idea. but i don't want to under
estimate that he is doing this purposely, because he thinkings he can have an effect. >> i think there are very passionate supporters that will take on this case. i think there's a big difference between director comey and director mueller. director comey was already criticized for things he handled last year. completely separate from someone like mueller who has a sterling reputation. >> it's possible that the president saw people on fox talking bad about mueller. >> it's possible. and i think it's probably more likely that this is some sort of concerted campaign to demonize him. and this would not be a new thing. when we had ken starr going against president clinton, there was an attempt to demonize ken starr. maybe that was fair maybe that was unfair. but i think the trump supporters
realize that they don't want him to look like a fair arbiter in this situation. but if he is the person that newt gingrich said he was, he would have probably disclosed this meeting he had with the president and let them know and decide before he had that meeting. >> to jason's point, it's an incomprehensible idea. >> and what trump is thinking is this may be worse as this investigation goes on. but one major difference between firing comey and firing mueller is there is an evidence of a potential crime since mueller's dismissal. when comey testified, he added some new facts to the record the other day, right? and he said that it is now mueller's job to decide whether obstruction of justice teak place, so if the president is going to fire mueller, he's
firing the person who's looking into whether he committed obstruction of justice. >> what makes anyone think that the republican party base would be upset about this at all? or the republicans in congress? i mean what happens if t-- what have the republicans in congress every on objected to that comey has done. i don't see any real dissent from the republican party. >> i completely agree. and i think that conservatives, that tomorrow, marco rubio and paul ryan and anybody who cares, small r republicans, anybody who cares about the rule of law, separation of powers, the values that conservatives ought to care about should say, if he fires this director, this special counsel, then we are going to go
back to the old rule where we will vote for an independent counsel. >> but they don't say that? >> but they should. >> you just look at how republicans have acted so far and anything he's done has basically got -- their throat cleared, that's too bad. >> where do you go to get your reputation back, if his presidency goes down the drain, and you'res ostensibly someone who cares about -- >> we will have chaos in the department of justice, where you not only remove the special counsel in bob mueller, and rob rosenstein, he has a great reputation, and what happens if -- we have already heard rumz mores on the wind about sessions
tenure. >> could i just add one other wrinkle to that? we know that session s has recused himself from the russian investigation. rosenstein may have to recuse himself because rosenstein was involved with the firing of comey, he met with trump the day before it happened. he's a witness if there is a an on obstruction of justice case. >> the associated general would be next. >> well, the republicans should understand the president should understand is eventually this will put it in the hands of the career professionals at the department of justice, which is not what this president wants for sure. >> jared kushner could take it over. >> middle east peace he's taking care of. >> we're going to take a quick
break, the white house's answer when the president was asked about tapes of the conversations he had with james comey. tonight court proceedings in which then donald trump as a civilian under oath was caught in one false statement after another, we'll show you those records when we continue. and in this simple everyday act, we see. when we give, we receive. ♪ it's easy-drinking... it's refreshing... ♪ if you've got the time ♪ it's what american lager was born to be. ♪ we've got the beer. ♪ welcome to the high life. ♪ miller beer.
that $100k is not exactly a fortune. well, a 103 how long did it take you two to save that? a long time. then it's a fortune. i told you we had a fortune. get closer to your investment goals with a conversation. i was always "tpeople don't stare anymore. i never joined in. that wasn't fair to any of us. i was covered. i tried lots of things over the years. but i didn't give up. i kept on fighting. i found something that worked. that still works. now? see me. see me. i found clear skin that lasts. see if cosentyx could make a difference for you- cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...find clear skin that can last.
don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. see me to know... ...clear skin can last. don't hold back... ...ask your dermatologist if cosentyx can help you find clear skin that lasts.
on top of the breaking news of the president considering firing the special prosecutor robert mueller, there's the issue of the tapes. on friday when asked, the president was coy about when he would reveal them if they in fact exist. he didn't tell us today. but sean spicer gave nonanswers on the subject. why would the president reveal them if they in fact revealed -- back with the panel on that. jason, it's a pretty simple question on whether or not the tapes exist. and the white house, they just went round and round on it today with secretary spicer, basically saying the president said what he said and we'll wait and see what he does. >> i don't have any inside knowledge into this one, i would assume that conversations with foreign leaders would be
recorded, i'm assuming or guessing. >> in the 21st century, you can pick which way. >> the conversations in the oval office are not recorded, but that's what i would assume. the two big things that really came out of last week, was of course the loretta lynch meeting came out. and there are a lot of further questions about what else was leaked. what he's given to, that's probably -- >> is the president of the united states that raised the issue of tapes through one of his sweets that he likes so much before the hearing. so buy not just answer the question whether or not there are tapes, why can't one of the president's spokes people actually just ask him and then answer to the press corps? >> on that particular one i'll defer to the white house. >> that doesn't make any sense to you? >> but the president has been very clear, for the last two
weeks, they were going to tell us whether or not they were taping. i suspect he was like trolling james comey, and said, he better hope that i wasn't taping things, maybe it was to send him a message, but let's remember, the ramifications that that had. probably inadvertently, that caused james comey to leak the memo which caused the special counsel. and so it very well could be that donald trump's tweet sort of i think probably erroneously suggesting that he was taping the conversation could end up causing major problems for donald trump. >> as a citizen in the business world, he certainly had a habit of sort of hinting at things or pretending he had done things and then started kicking the can down the road when asked for actual details. i remember interviewing him long ago when he claimed he had investigators on the ground in hawaii, who were finding out really surprising stuff that he was going to reveal it sometime
about president obama's birth certificate. there's no evidence to this day that he even had investigators on the ground. >> that's a little reality tv, sort of teasing people for the big reveal down the road, maybe the reveal is going to come and maybe the reveal isn't going to come. but it seems pretty strange based on our best-case scenario that the president of the united states is trolling people. he's taping people without letting them know whether they're being taped. he's the one who brought it up. he should just like a grown up answer the question and let us know, i mean i don't know if there's a good explanation of what's going on. >> "the wall street journal" filed the freedom of information act with the -- >> they have no evidence of any recording. which is not the time definitive answer, but it's a pretty good hit. >> he could have used an iphone.
>> i record all our conversations. >> it's probably legal. i believe d.c. -- one party consent. one party concept in d.c. >> but it does show if there are any tapes. >> come on, there are no tapes. this white house can barely put together a senior staff. and everything leaks out of this white house, if there were tapes we would know about it. he's told us he was going to have a health care plan he never produced, a tax plan he never produced, an investigation into vote fraud that he never produced. tax returns that he never produced. questions about obama's birth certificates. there were no tapes. >> if there are, they're on his cell phone, which is like crazy talk, because he's instituting something in the oval office that the secret service doesn't authorize, no one authorizes. but two is that there's not. which is more likely, but it's
just the president entertaining an alternative universe or smoke screen that keeps the press and the country on these -- and not -- >> comey leaked? >> comey leaked, because he felt that the white house and the president was going in a direction that was dangerous and wanted there to be a special counsel. he did nothing illegal and nothing wrong. but the point is, it's all these side shows which pull us away from what is the truth. health care and taxes, stuff that's life and death for americans. >> during the campaign, it was perceived that trump was playing this three dimensional chess, that he was doing this psychological warfare, that he would throw out something and that would cause other people to overreact. i don't know how this scenario helps trump, the fact that he sent that tweet led us to having this special counsel. if trump was trying to sort
of -- it >> we'll tell you who walked into a closed door session of the house intelligence committee tonight. and an on camera cabinet meeting, really like no other. hard to explain, we're just going to have to show it to you and you'll see what we mean. be right back. americans - 83% try to eat healthy.
yet up 90% fall short in getting key nutrients from food alone. let's do more. add one a day men's complete with key nutrients we may need. plus heart-health support with b vitamins. one a day men's in gummies and tablets. i have age-related maculare degeneration, amd, he told me to look at this grid every day. and we came up with a plan to help reduce my risk of progression, including preservision areds 2. my doctor said preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula the national eye institute recommends to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd after 15 years of clinical studies. preservision areds 2. because my eyes are everything.
that's investigating him is having buzzed about in washington. the nsa director admiral mike rogers was spotted going into a closed door session of the senate intelligence committee. rogers is in a closed briefing right now, what do you know about him? >> well, it's happening, he has a message still ongoing, a late evening session, this anderson after last week when rogers testified in the public session, but would not answer a number of questions from lawmakers, specifically a key question, whether or not president trump asked him to tamp down stories about potential collusion between trump associates and russian associates. rogers was asked by president trump to tamp down those stories but he refused to talk about that in an open session, saying he would be more willing to talk about this in a classified session.
members of this intelligence committee saying it's classified. as they left these hearings of unclear, whether or not they have any more answers to that question, they asked last week if there was an effort in any way to interfere. >> do you know if coats is going to be called in as well, because he also didn't answer. >> he also did not answer, he was not at this specific briefing, but we do know he agreed to testify in special session. >> on sessions, what have committee members listen telling you they want to hear from the attorney general tomorrow? >> well, a number of things, talking to both republican and democratic members of this committee, they want to hear about these meetings and interactions that sessions apparently had during the campaign season with russian officials, as well as those two meetings with the russian
ambassador, sergey kislayak, two that he did not disclose during his confirmation meetings, as well as a third meeting last year with the russian ambassador that he also did not disclose. questions about whether or not there was a taping system in the white house, whether or not sessions could confirm that, whether or not sessions, james landford said that he wanted to ask sessions about as well as sessions recusing himself in this russian investigation and the firing of james comey, whether or not that was appropriate. these are all part of a number of issues they want to hear, whether or not sessions could corroborate a number of james session sessions -- did jeff sessions corroborate some of those key aspects of comey's testimony. that is what we'll hear tomorrow. >> back now with the panel.
just in terms of session's syst testimony tomorrow, how important do you think it is? and is it possible that executive privilege will be an issue? >> if he invokes the executive privilege, we obviously aren't going to find out very much. if he's forthcoming, we'll fill in the gaps that we don't know the answers to, what the memory of that, the does it comport with what comey said, where we now have maybe another person who is a witness to what happened, either a corroborating witness or somebody who's actually going to challenge it. >> there was a third meeting with kislayak at the mayflower hotel, is the report. is that a big deal? i mean, matt, do you think that's a big deal, because that's a meeting that sessions has not talked about previously. >> right and when you go back to his original confirmation
hearing, he said he had no interactions with russians and it would be not forgot one time, not forgot twice, but having said that, it would have been with the same guy and he would argue of course that it was done, in his capacity as a senator, not in his capacity as a surrogate for donald trump. ultimately, i think that it would -- for me, it would call into question the voracity of his testimony. but i think that in terms of the political, you know, fallout of it, i don't think it would be that bad, because he's already recused himself from russia, in the scope of all the things we are dealing with right now. >> you would argue in his favor, that he wanted apparently, according to his spokesperson, he wanted to be in a public hearing, he wanted the public hearing not to be behind closed doors. >> and we have to give credit to jeff sessions where he could have gone into this public
relations meeting but he moved that to intel and insisted that it was going to be public. but he needs to set the record straight as soon as tomorrow. the first one that the senator or now attorney general is being accused of, after he finished his speech in cleveland, the rnc convention, he came down and shook hands with a couple of dozen different ambassadors, and foreign emissaries, it wasn't a sit down meeting, the second -- that wasn't really a meeting, the second one was in his senate office, so he wasn't acting as an ambassador of the campaign so to speak, or as a representative of the campaign, there was no third sighting or appearance or anything. that accounts say that he met with ambassador kislayak at the mayflower is false. that just did not happen. i think that's what you'll hear from the attorney general tomorrow.
i think with regards to russia, this is going to be a big nothing burger, and i would really caution people about getting too out on their skis before jeff sessions' testimony tomorrow. >> first of all if he invokes executive privilege, which means he was full of it when he said he wanted to be in a public hearing. and it really tracks with donald trump's hearing, if you have done nothing wrong, so why would comey need executive privilege if he didn't do anything wrong. you are encouraged to overdisclose, anything you remember to put down. so it just seems odd to me in this climate at this moment, that you would have potentially three interactions of a sort with the ambassador of russia and you would not put them down. >> and about executive
privilege, executive privilege does not belong to jeff sessions, executive privilege belongs to donald trump. so sessions cannot on his own just say i invoke executive privilege, he has to say the president has asked me to invoke executive privilege. so the real question is, has the trump administration ordered him to invoke executive privilege. >> or he could do what roberts did, the executive privilege hasn't been invoked by the president, but i just don't feel like giving up contents of a conversation. >> if he doesn't want to answer questions, he won't answer questions, they could get a subpoena and bring him back, but if tomorrow he doesn't want to answer questions, he doesn't have to answer questions. >> tomorrow two attorneys general has violated the constitution. also the cabinet meeting you
got to see to believe. >> every day we have been working very hard together. just like that? wait, uh huh. i switched to t-mobile, kept my phone everything on it oh, they even paid it off! wow! yeah, it's nice that every bad decision doesn't have to be permanent! now you can ditch verizon but keep your phone. we'll even pay it off when you switch to t-mobile.
his other hotels and golf courses where foreign governments are already spending money to curry favor with the president. i spoke with the two attorneys general behind the lawsuit, carl racine of washington, d.c. and ryan frost of maryland. what are the differences between the suits you have filed is that you're arguing that the trump administration hurts people who own license or taxes? how does it do that exactly? >> the trump businesses have an advantage, a very significant advantage, and that is that every single foreign government entity knows that if they want to curry favor with this administration, take their business to the trump hotel. and the evidence shows that that's what they're doing. and that hurts businesses that the government owns or that the state owns in maryland or in the
city in d.c. because people aren't staying, what, at businesses that are owned by maryland? >> the district of columbia has proprietary interests because we do actually support our hotel and hospitality industry and specifically with respect to the d.c. convention center, there is some competition, in regards to meeting space, and rooms. and that competition we allege is going to the trump hotel. >> attorney general frost, the white house is pushing back on your claims, obviously. sean spicer was asked about your claims. i want to show you what he said. >> it's not hard to conclude that partisan politics was behind the suit. the lawyers driving the suit are an advocacy group of partisan ties, it actually started with a press conference and the suit challenges the sort of business transaction that everyone from
pen -- >> first of all our outside counsel is new and they are the former ethics counsel to both george bush and barack obama. it's hardly a partisan effort. this is about presidential corruption, the emoll youments clauses, prevent to the administration from taking gifts from foreign governments. and president trump with his extensive business holdings is tangled up with united states policies and the people of the united states don't know whether his business interests come first or whether the business of the united states comes first. it really is an anti-corruption provision, anti-corruption protection in the constitution that we are seeking to
vindicate. >> if this was a democratic president who was in this situation, would you be filing this lawsuit as well? >> yes, if there were a democratic president who were marketing, who was marketing his business interests to the community, who was taking payments from china, taking payments from saudi arabia, qatar and many other countries, it would give me very serious concerns about his or her ethics. >> there's belief that this suit is basically an exercise to force the release of the president's tax returns. is it? >> i think the tax returns are relevant to the lawsuit, but the lawsuit is not purposed in order to get the tax returns. we need financial information to get a sense of the entirety of the president's businesses. that's the only way we're going to be able to know the full scope of foreign countries
contributing moneys to the president. >> so you do plan to seek the president's tax returns as part of the lawsuit? >> the department of justice attorney stated that presidents from the very beginning of the republic, including george washington would have received prohibitive emollments. >> they are completely wrong on that. if you read the department of justice papers very carefully, you'll see nowhere in their papers do they allege that george washington or president jefferson receives moneys from foreign governments. nowhere in their documents is that alleged. allege that receiving moneys from foreign governments for private business is inconsistent with being president of the
united states, the constitution foresaw this, and that's why the constitution bars it. >> attorney general racine, attorney general frost, i appreciate your time. up next, a cabinet meeting really like no other we have seen, simply called a love fest? we'll explain it as best we can next. and get real-time notifications that could help save you money. use cars.com and save. a cockroach can survive submergede guy. underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah, wow. not getting in today. not on my watch. pests never stop trying to get in. we never stop working to keep them out.
terminix. defenders of home. so, if anyone has a reason that these two should not be wed, speak now. (coughs) so sorry. oh no... it's just that your friend daryl here is supposed to be live streaming the wedding and he's not getting any service. i missed, like, the whole thing. what? and i just got an unlimited plan. it's the right plan, wrong network. you see, verizon has the largest, most reliable 4g lte network in america. it's built to work better in cities. tell you what, just use mine. thanks. no problem. all right, let's go live. say hi to everybody who wasn't invited! (vo) when it really, really matters, you need the best network and the best unlimited.
when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz.
president trump vowed to do things different. he lived up to that today. he began with a typical opening statement. then things changed. nearly every cabinet member spoke and seemed to praise the boss quite strongly. >> greatest privilege of my life. to serve as vice-president to a president who is keeping his word to the american people. >> it's an honor to serve you in that regard. you sent the right message. >> what an honor it is to lead the department of health and human services at this time under your leadership. i can't thank you enough for the privilege that you have given me. >> i want to thank you for getting this country moving again. also working again. >> a great honor traveling with you around the country for the last year. an even greater honor to be here
serving in your cabinet. >> on behalf of the staff around you, we thank you for the opportunity and the blessing that you have given us to serve your agenda and the american people. >> joining us now are david axelrod and mike rogers who was chairman of the house intelligence committee. it's a blessing to have you both here. david, how unusual is that? is that -- is it normal to have -- >> it's not unusual if you live in north korea. here in the u.s., that is very unusual. i attended cabinet meetings. i've never seen anything like that. usually, the president gives a short statement. they leave. then there's business. you go through the cabinet and the cabinet reports on the business that they're doing. look, you have an embattled
president who wants to change the narrative. he enlisted his cabinet to do that. i think at some expense to them, because they look so servile that it was absurd. >> chairman rogers, did it strike you as odd? >> odd and a bit clumsy. it reminds me of that old will rogers saying. it's like that feeling you get when a baby gets ahold of a hammer. it just feels really, really odd. you are not supposed to laugh at my jokes. >> it's really funny. i hadn't heard that. >> i will tell you the one thing that bothered me about it is that the adulation -- this was the first big formal cabinet meeting which is normally a substantive meeting that you would hope gets on to a more substantive conversation. but this whole -- it seemed so clumsy.
adulation is a big part of american politics. you see it on the house floor. they say, mr. speaker, and my great and good friend on the other side of the aisle who i will proceed to rip their face off here in a few minutes, this has all been part of politics. what was a little odd about this today was it was -- it was clearly scripted. and it was a very clumsy way about saying, no problems here, we're doing great things. i just -- it just didn't rise to the level of a presidential appearance not only for the cabinet but for the president himself. >> it's interesting, david, particularly that we have now had director comey testimony under oath that he was asked for personal loyalty to the president, allegations that similar things have been made to others as well. no one pledged loyalty here directly to president trump. but it came close to that, honor and -- >> it was a competition to see who could be more obsequious.
when the president says i wouldn't think of asking people for loyalty pledges, but this was, in a sense, asking for a loyalty pledge and asking them to parade in front of the cameras and offer testimonials. it was an embarrassing thing. the thing that interests me the most was the one cabinet member who was most muted in his comments was general mattis, the defense secretary, who i think has a real sense of propriety and institutional -- >> he praised service members but not the president. >> yes. which was a departure from everyone else. i think he was the only one who emerged with his dignity. >> chairman rogers, i want to play a clip of something chuck schumer tweeted out shortly after the meeting. >> i want to thank everybody for coming. i thought we would go around the room -- how did we do on the sunday show? >> you were right on message. >> michelle, how did my hair look coming out of the gym this morning? >> you have great hair. nobody has better hair. >> before we go further, i want to say thank you for the
opportunity and blessing to serve your agenda. >> when chuck schumer is scoring laughs putting out videos, that's not what you want to have happen after the first cabinet meeting, i guess. >> it's not a great thing. but i'm not convinced that that hasn't happened in a chuck schumer -- again, it is -- the whole thing is just so -- it wouldn't be necessarily odd. i think if you are going to be a change agent, you have to mix things up. it's always going to be hard. but this was so misplaced and the timing of it so poor. as i said, it's almost sophomoric in the way we're going to show the world we're getting along and we love our president, we can't wait to get every day and work for him. you would expect them for them taking the oath of office to do those important jobs. it came -- it didn't look that serious. it looked so odd. i thought, this is a terrible way to try to correct your
problem. why don't you have a staff meeting and then come out with some great proposals and work with congress to get something done in a meaningful way? that will go so much further than these kind of -- i don't know what you call them. >> thank you very much. coming up next, more repercussions from the breaking news, word from a friend of the president he may be thinking about firing the russia special counsel. reaction from the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee. more on that and a comment from the white house as well ahead. i wish i had time to take care of my portfolio, but... what are you doing tomorrow - 10am? staff meeting. 3:45? tai chi. 6:30? sam's baseball practice. you are busy. wouldn't it be great if you had investmensts that worked as hard as you do? yeah. essential portfolios. the automated investing solution. itthe power of nexium 24hr protection from frequent heartburn. all day, and all night. now packed into a pill so small, we call it mini. new clearminis from nexium 24hr. see heartburn differently.