tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN June 23, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
>> sean, two questions for you. one, just on the tapes, in an interview this morning, the president said he believes his tweet about the tapes influenced comey to tell the truth in his testimony. so, two-prong question here. is this position now that comey was truthful in that testimony, and is he conceding that he used twitter in a way he believes changed the behavior of a congressional witness? >> i'm not going to comment any further than the comments that he made this morning. >> separately, a separate topic, on the briefings, you said monday about your decision to hold these off-camera briefings, off-audio briefings, there are days that i'll decide if the president's voice should be the one that speaks and it rate his priorities. today the president spoke, so did you this morning. in an interview with fox news. what's the reasoning for not answering questions on camera today? >> president gave lengthy remarks today on camera. spoke about the va bill. i hope you carried it >> you spoke on camera too
earlier. >> i don't. i did. see how much on camera there is. i mean, look, i think as i said, your referenced the comments i made on monday. i've made the same comments, similar comments in december and january. some days we'll do it. i think it's great for us to come out here and have a substantive and discussion about policies. i don't think that the be all and end all is whether it's on television or not. we've made ourselves available a lot of times and we'll continue to do it. but i'd rather sit here and have a very enjoyable conversation with you on issues, on a friday afternoon, and let the president's comments stand on the great things that he's doing on behalf of our nation's veterans. >> a follow-up on the tapes. you were also on fox this morning -- >> i was. thank you for watching. >> yeah. but you indicated that the president's tweet on the tapes successfully influenced comey to tell the truth in his testimony. so, do you believe that he lied about -- is it the white house's position that he still lied about the president pressuring
him to end the flynn investigation? is that still the white house position? >> i believe that the president's remarks on "fox & friends" this morning reflect the president's position. >> so that would mean that he believes that comey told the truth. >> i don't think i need to do any further analysis than what the president himself said the intention was. >> thank you, sean. i have two questions if i may. first is about during yesterday's meeting between president trump and chinese state consulate, president trump expressed his interest in joining belt and road initiative. could you tell us more about their meeting. >> i can't. there's obviously, i think we sent a representative to that conference. but i'm not going to get any further than the discussion that they had. >> also we heard that jared and ivanka have accepted invitations to visit china by the end of this year. could you comment on that as well. >> they have.
>> thank you. i know because he has a visit coming on monday so he gets a question on friday. >> two questions. >> are you excited. >> this will be your first face to face meeting. >> better get ready. >> between president trump and prime minister modi. so is president trump ready to accept him and welcome him, because both have the same dream, prime minister modi saying make in india, president trump saying buy america and make america -- or hire america. so my question is that so much is there on the plate when prime minister modi arrives here, he's saying that he will have a great meeting with the president because we have many things in common as per u.s. and india relations are concerned. so what are you expecting really between the two leaders. >> well, first, i want to wish the people of india happy 70th anniversary on their independence. during the meeting, the president and the prime minister
will discuss ongoing cooperation to including counterterrorism, defense partnership and the indo pacific region, global cooperation, burden sharing, trade, law enforcement and energy. i think it's going to be a very robust discussion. >> and second question, please. thank you. on wednesday, june 21, international day of yoga, which was declared by the united nations three years ago with the -- under the leadership and initiative by prime minister modi. any chance you think president trump will issue or what he had any message as far as yoga is concerned because yoga means less visits to the doctor and hospitals. >> i will -- i don't have anything on yoga at this point. but i appreciate the -- >> it's off camera. >> show us a stance.
>> two questions, one on north korea, one on health care. starting with health care, does the president consider the senate bill a full repeal of obamacare? the four senators you talk about, they cite they don't feel it's a full repeal, which is why they're not supporting the draft. >> obamacare, i think i've said it before, obamacare is dead. so it is -- you have no carriers, the premiums are skyrocketing. so whatever you want to call it, the bottom line is, it is a dead health care system. there isn't a question about whether or not what to do with it. we have to act. i think the president's made clear that we need to actually get a system in place. >> on north korea, the government of north korea said that otto warmbier's death is a mystery to them. how does the white house respond to these comments? >> i don't think it's a mystery. i think we know very well what happened. and i think as the president said, it's a disgrace. >> sean, i have a couple questions. first on health care. the order in which the senate is going to vote will occur after the cbo score. and the white house was very
critical of the congressional budget office back in march during the house process. so my question is, does the president believe that his discussions with lawmakers about what they want and their concern about the legislation, should it be guided by the cbo score and will it influence his thinking as he looks at the bill? >> i think one of the points that i made last time, alexis, which stands, is that the cbo core function is budgetary and fiscal impacts and not on people and they've been wildly off by a huge percentage when they've tried to score people. their track record on doing that is not good. and so, we're going to -- we maintain what we have all along. we want to do the right policy. and the cbo score should be used by members in the senate to decide, you know, to the extent that they think that helps them make a decision but i think we all understand, look, obamacare was -- we promised it was going to drive premiums down $2,500,
it was going to bring down deductibles. it did none of that stuff. i think the way that this bill has been constructed has done so in a way that is actually going to ie chief the goals that the american people were promised. all the way in the back. >> can i just follow up on another topic. hallie was asking you about russia and the interference and i just wanted to ask you because you were just commenting that the president does believe russia is behind the interference last -- in the election, that he is concerned, that the administration is taking steps, so to follow up on her question and steve's question, is it the president's desire to speak directly to putin, if he gets that chance, to say that u.s. officials believe that russia poses a risk to the 2018 and 2020 elections and the united states would like russia to be on notice or on warning that the united states disapproves of this. >> if and when there's a meeting, we will have a readout for you. yes, ma'am. >> thank you, sean. there's a play, a rendition of
julius cesar in new york city where the character portrayed as president trump gets assassinated. is the president aware of this play and if so, what's his reaction. and also, is the secret service investigating it? >> that's a question for the secret service. you can call cathy over there and ask her. look, i think it's troubling whether it's that or johnny depp's comments or -- i mean, we've seen this and frankly as far as i'm concerned, i know that the president and the first lady weighed in on kathy griffin's comments. i don't know that he's aware about the play in particular that's goip going on there but it is frankly my belief a little troubling the lack of jaut rage that we've seen in some of these instances where people have said what they've said with respect to the president and the actions that should be taken. the president's made it clear that we should denounce violence in all of its forms, and i think that if we're going to hold to that standard, then we should all agree that that standard should be universally called out and so when those actions are depicted and i think we saw, you know, a couple folks in the
media and some other places tweet out their support for that show. i'm not sure that that's a smart thing to do. we either all agree that violence should be called out and denounced or not and i think that it's concerning when you see a pattern that these comments get made, these actions get depicted and the lack of attention that they get when it's on our side. >> sean, thank you. yeah, regarding the bill signed this morning, do you see this as a -- because the president talked a lot about draining the swamp. do you see this as maybe larger point of going through civil service reform in which you could look at holding career level federal employees to higher standards and making it easier to fire certain people for certain conduct. >> i think it's a good start, yeah. this is the first step. i think it's important that we
start with our veterans but i think everybody who serves in the public trust has an obligation to serve the public and do what they can, whether it's our veterans or people looking for an education loan or whatever and if you're not doing your job, i think that we should, as a government, have a standard that if you're not doing what the job's supposed to be doing and you're not helping your fellow american achieve what that department or agency is seeking after, that we should make sure that there's a process by which we can have that person removed and put in place somebody who will do it. the president's step this morning was a big step forward, and i think, to your question, the impact of that, the signal that it sends, isn't just about veterans. obviously, but it is -- it should resonate government-wide that we expect people who serve in government to do what they can to serve our country. >> you mentioned veterans would be a good start. what would be the next step?
i mean, would bit the possibly irs? >> i mean, we'll wait and see. i think we've got a fairly robust legislative agenda right now, but if the house or the senate wanted to move forward with something else, i'm sure we could find a way to work with them. kayla. >> thank you, sean. the carrier plant that the president visited right after the election has told employees that it would lay off more than 600 people between now and the end of the year. employment would actually fall below the agreement that it has with the state. would the president reengage in that situation? should the state roll back some of these incentives. >> this was announced last year, so what we're hearing now is nothing new. carrier remains committed to retaining 1,069 hoosier jobs over the years consistent with the deal that was reached after the election. by maintaining these jobs in indiana, carrier is showing confidence in the economy. >> in terms of the deals the white house is making deals with
individual companies, earlier you addressed ford and you said tax reform is what would incentivize companies to operate here but what sort of enforcement mechanisms does the white house have to keep these companies honest. >> that deal that you're talking about with carrier is consistent with the deal that they struck. this is just the manifestation of the deal that was struck back in, i think, november of last year, could have been early december. so you know, this is consistent with what they said they would do back then. but i think both in terms of regulatory policy and tax policy, we need to do what we can to incentivize more companies to not just stay here but to grow here. fr . >> two separate policy topics. first of all, you said that senator joe manchin, a democrat, is going to be looking at potentially getting some democratic votes for the senate health care bill. the president has said repeatedly that no matter how good this bill is, he doesn't
think that he would get any democratic votes for it. it now sounds like you're saying that you do expect potentially to get some democratic votes for it and therefore he might not even need these four republican senators who say they can't support it. >> i didn't say that. what i said and just to be clear is it's obviously, the president believes and for good reason, i don't think, you know, that he doesn't believe that we'll end up getting any. i think it's encouraging that as we vo we vofl through this process, you see someone like senator manchin say i agree the system's broken and we need to fix it. i think it's encouraging that someone like him wants to step forward and engage in a discussion about if there's a potential of getting his vote and obviously, that's a discussion that, whether it's him or someone else, you know, i noted the other day, i think, to hallie that a couple times already, senator schumer's been very clear that there would be no engagement from democrats so to see this progress, i think, is -- i don't want to get too
far from froin front of it but d too see at least one senator publicly say they're willing to have that discussion. >> two policy questions. totally separate subject and i wanted to follow up on what john had asked about the -- >> that's a first. >> follow-up on what john had said about the president's speech on tuesday night and the welfare requirement for immigrants. what specifically would the proposal that the president was talking about do that's different than what is already a part of the federal law? you said he wanted to re-examine it, maybe put in a new law. what was he proposing? how was that different? >> when we have an announcement on that, i'll let you know. when we do, we'll let you know. but at this point, we don't have that. >> jordan. >> the white house is concerned about the message of julius cesar and stuff that's said by johnny depp and why was the man that said that hillary clinton should be shot for treason
invited to the va event today at the white house? >> obviously, as i mentioned, i make it very clear, i don't -- i condemn all acts of violence. i don't believe that any -- and the president has said this as well. anybody who goes out and tries to highlight those kind of actions should not be welcome. i'm not aware of the comments he made but again, i'll say it right now. i don't think that we should be resorting to that kind of language with respect to anybody in our country. >> you do condemn it. >> i do. thank you. we're getting to the second row now. mike. >> let me ask you about russia and health care. russia sanctions bill, talk a little bit about what your goals are for that bill, even a sense of timing. is it helpful to have that bill sooner or later in this white house? >> you mean the one that the senate passed that is got pulled back with the -- i mean, it's right now, it's the senate passed the bill, the parliamenten rule that it had a
revenue component to it and it had to have originated in the house so now the house is looking at it but right now, there's not a -- there's nothing to -- there's nothing to comment on in the sense that the senate parliamentarian rule -- let's see what it looks like. i think obviously the concern that we will have is whether or not the executive maintains the authority and the flexibility with respect to implementing sanctions both going forward and pulling back to effectively achieve a goal. and so >> it's not a timing issue for you guys. >> i think it's a policy. it's how it's crafted, and i think that's something that we're going to look at as it, you know, assuming that the house now takes it -- takes up its legislation and then when it goes to the senate. but i think our main concern overall with sanctions is how they -- how will the congress craft them and any potential erosion of the executive branch's authority to implement them. >> just real quickly, these
contested obamacare payments, the csrs that the administration went through this month, the president has referred to those as ransom. is there any reason to believe those won't be approved every month until there's a change to the health care law? >> i think we committed to making them last month and that's as far as we will go at this time. we're not committing to them this month. >> why is it a month to month thing for you? >> because i think that the question is, if we believe -- again, i'm not going to -- last month, obviously, if we can pass health care overall, then that changes that and part of it's going to be where we are in that process but it is ultimately up to the president to decide. but the reason it's a month to month is because exactly what you said. he doesn't -- the court has ruled very clearly on this instance. >> can you say why he decided to make -- authorize these payments. >> because again, part of it is our goal is to ultimately transition to a health care system that doesn't need them and isn't a bailout to the insurance chaenz. so we want to get to that system
as quick as possible and our hope is that that transition can take place. >> seems like, you know, to threaten these payments on a month to month basis, does this risk the -- >> it's not a threat. there's no threat. it's just a fact. as soon as we can get it done, it's in the best interest of the health care system, it's in the best interest of the american taxpayer and as soon as the president decides that we either have a system or he doesn't want to continue the bailout, then we'll stop. but it wouldn't make -- i mean, i don't think -- look, i'll give you the flip side. if the president were to hypothetically say that he's going to make the payments in perp tu th perpetuity or for a year, that continues to prop up a failed system, continues to do wrong by the american taxpayer and also doesn't lend itself to the expediency that i think we want to help get a new health care system
in place. okay? thank you guys very much. all right. so, that's that. let's parse through this audio-only, no cameras allowed white house briefing today. i know. it's not ideal.
this is how the white house is rolling at the moment. david, let me begin with you. i wrote down headlines on russia, health care, even johnny depp. but david, first, on russia, seems to me that sean spicer was saying the white house is getting a little more comfortable admitting that president trump actually does believe, despite that awful answer earlier in the week from sean spicer, does believe it was russia who meddled in the election and two, you know, despite what president trump had said in that fox interview with regard to the sort of too close for comfort relationship between bob mueller and james comey being bothersome, says even though he has the power to fire him, he has no intention of doing so. >> keep your eyes on that latter point there, brooke. the first point, you're right. sean spicer was able to go back and have the conversation with the president, apparently, and confirm that what he said in january is still operative, that he thinks it's russia. there wasn't much more expansion beyond that about what the administration is doing to make sure that our election system is not attacked again. but on the second point you
made, it seems to me, and sean kept saying i'm going to let the president's comments about mueller stand, he made himself crystal clear. well, if he -- if indeed the president was being crystal clear, it is at least crystal clear to me that the president is looking to define mueller on his terms. he sees him as a political opponent. he highlighted in that interview with fox the too close relationship he sees with comey, he thinks it's an important point to mention that mueller's lawyers that he's hired have made political donations to democrats. he's trying to frame how the country should see mueller and he wants them to see him as a political opponent here. >> let's listen to that. >> not as a hands-off investigator. >> go ahead and roll it, guys. >> he's very, very good friends with comey, which is very bot r bothersome, but he's also -- we're going to have to see. i mean, we're going to have to see in terms -- look, there has been no obstruction. there has been no collusion.
there has been leaking by comey. but there's been no collusion, no obstruction and virtually everybody agrees to that. robert mueller's an honorable man. and hopefully he'll come up with an honorable solution. >> so, michael, to david's point on how clearly the president is framing this relationship, even though sean spicer is saying he has no intention of firing him, although he can, he has the power to do so, you know, bob mueller was your boss. can you just tell us how close these men are and should that, you know -- would that compromise, at all, the special counsel's integrity in this investigation. >> these guys are consummate professionals, and no way is comey's relationship with mueller going to interfere with mueller doing the right thing. full stop. that's the end of that discussion. with respect to the president and his sort of bipolar approach to mueller, it's not clear to me what he's trying to do. on the one hand, yes, he's going after mueller and saying,
perhaps, this guy is compromised and i'm going to keep my options open, whether to retain him or fire him. on the other hand, he said he's an honorable guy and he'll do the right thing. if he goes after mueller and says mueller is a partisan sort of in the way that clinton went after starr, then if mueller does come forward as bob mueller is quite capable of doing, when there's no there there, he'll say it. when mueller says there's no there there, how do they walk back from that and say, well, he is a man of integrity. so i don't think they can play it both ways and i think it's a dangerous course they're following there. >> let's stay on russia. jeff, let me bring your voice in as our senior white house correspondent. it sounded to me, sean spicer was saying it is possible that the president may meet with vladimir putin. >> he did say it's possible but that is something that is sort of always up in the air, particularly with vladimir putin. if we'll remember, he did not acknowledge or confirm a meeting with the secretary of state, rex
tillerson, a month or more ago when he was visiting moscow until really essentially when it was happening. so this is not all that unusual to not necessarily confirm it because frankly, i don't think the white house knows if there will be a meeting or not. but if there is, this would come likely at the g-20. that's the meeting of world leaders that's going to be taking place early next month in germany but that would be an epic meeting, of course, here. but the -- back to something that david and you were talking about earlier. sean spicer still left room in the fact that it could be any country interfering. he said this. he said that, of course he is. he's concerned about any country and any actor that wants to interfere in the election. that simply is not strong enough for what some republicans want to hear. congressman adam kinzinger, a republican of illinois was on cnn's new day this morning saying the president needs to be more forthcoming about this because he said the same thing can happen in the reverse to a republican election here. so i'm still not hearing the
level of acknowledgment of interference in the election here at the white house that you're hearing, really, across this town, across intelligence community, house senate republican, democrat, it doesn't matter. that is still not something the president wants to engage in because he's afraid that it delegitimizes his win, which of course it doesn't. he won the election. it's a separate thing but it's something this white house has struggled to come to grips with. >> astute of you because it mirrors what the president said in that news conference back on january 11. he said, russia and other countries. i hear you loud and clear. let's talk about the briefing now. ryan is with me. just so we're all transparaphernaltransparent, this is the second straight day that the white house has not allowed you to see the briefing. there have only been two on-camera briefings in the past two weeks. we at cnn sent a sketch artist inside to provide you with the visuals the white house won't allow you to see. so you're actually looking at this artist rendering of press secretary sean spicer giving the
answers. they refused to be recorded on camera. brian, this is the only way people can see. it's ridiculous. >> this is cnn getting creative. other television networks will be able to use these images later today as well, brooke. this is by artist bill hennessy, a well-known courtroom artist. he works at the supreme court all the time for cnn and other news outlets. he's covered a lot of trials but i believe it's his first day sketching a white house press briefing. he was in the back of the briefing, didn't have his easel the way he usually has but he was able to draw the briefing. he's working on color versions of these images now. the point here is serious. cnn did not send a cartoonist in order to make fun of the briefing. they sent an actual sketch artist because it's a way to create a picture, paint a picture of these briefings for people because we weren't able to watch on camera. this is an example of the white house rolling back press access. we've seen what is normally on camera daily briefings become a relatively infrequent exercise. you mentioned only twice in the past two weeks. the briefings have been held on
camera. most of the time they have been off camera, audio only and no live audio. it's weird in this age per scope and facebook live that you and i could get our phone out and live stream right now that the white house is being so restrictive and we've seen a number of attempts to change this. there was a meeting yesterday with the head of the white house correspondents association with sean spicer expressing concerns about these restrictions, but i think today, cnn trying something new inside the briefing in order to have people have a sense of what it looks like. >> so the concerns have been expressed. jeff, just back over to you at the white house, i mean, tell me what's the white house's explanation? i'm checking my twitter during the briefing and getting from viewers like i'm not tuning in to listen to a podcast. people deserve to see the briefing. why not? >> reporter: well, sean spicer was asked that directly again today at the audio-only briefing and he said, look, this is something the white house is trying to allow for a more substantive discussion on policy. that's actually, perhaps, some of it. and it was a robust briefing
today with some serious discussions. of course that can happen on camera as well. this would not be all that unusual if this happened to be the anomaly. if there were three or four daily briefings and once a week or so -- i can remember back in the obama days, back in the bush administration, which i was covering as well, the press secretary would have a group of reporters in his office to talk about things in a more substantive way that weren't necessarily in sound bytes but that's not what this white house is doing. this white house is trying to avoid questions about the russia investigation over and over and the president also, i believe, is trying to have the media sort of fight with itself and talk about itself. he relishes the moment when the media is talking about the media. you know, he enjoys this. but seeing this sketch artist there, i was just talking to bill hennessy just before i came out here and i can tell you, he is a very talented artist as we've seen, and he has, you know, a sketching out some more things of the scene in the room there and as brian said, this isn't a cartoon. this is a real depiction of
what's going on there. so certainly like a courtroom, like a murder trial or something elsewhere cameras aren't allowed, they weren't allowed today so we went in with a sketch artist. >> well, let's move on from that. david, back over to you. point taken. on health care, so we have a bit of breaking news as we were listening to that briefing, we know a fifth republican senator, senator dean heller on health care has now said the current senate health care bill is, "not the answer." announcing in this form, i simply will not support it. so we've got these five guys on the screen here. there could be more. more moderates. this is one wing. add that to the news from sean spicer on just the fact that the president does want involvement, you know has had some phone calls with the senate majority leader, vice president's being integral in this process. what do you make of this now. now there are five. >> i want to underscore heller because it's a different scenario than the other four that we heard from yesterday on this, and here's why. dean heller is the most
vulnerable republican up for reelection. so, it is a year where democrats are on defense almost entirely. republicans get to play a ton of offense this cycle in senate races. this is one race where republicans are playing defense, and dean heller is the kind -- in a battleground state, a purplish state that leans blue sometimes, like it did in 2016, in nevada, is exactly the kind of incumbent that mitch mcconnell would say, hey, i understand if you can't vote with me on this as i want everyone else in the conference to vote because you've got to play your politics right. the problem is, mitch mcconnell doesn't have a ton of breathing room here. he can't lose more than two so now when you have some of those other conservatives are out there to try to publicly negotiate, and dean heller certainly left himself room. he said, not in its current form. but it is going to be very tricky for dean heller to now eventually somehow come out in favor of this bill without getting hammered by the democrats in what is going to be
a tough campaign for dean heller this season. >> got it. thank you for that. thank you also very much, bill hennessy, thanks for the sketch as well. coming up next here on cnn, this bomb shell report out of the "washington post" today detailing how the obama administration confronted vladimir putin in 2016 about russia hacking the election. did they do enough? that's next. (dog barking) whoever threw it has to go get it. not me! somebody will get it... ♪ (dog barking) anyone can dream. making it a reality is the hard part. from the b-2 to the upcoming b-21, northrop grumman stealth bombers give america an advantage in a turbulent world. and we're looking for a few dreamers to join us. ♪ ♪
♪ ♪ ♪ on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
just into us here, some great news. republican congressman steve scalise out of intensive care. this is just a week after being shot during that congressional baseball practice in alexandria, virginia. the hospital says he continues to show good progress. remains in fair condition, and is continuing rehab. meantime, matt mika, the
lobbyist is also out of intensive care and in good condition. the hospital tweeted this photo today. so, let's now go to images in the "washington post" report that brings a whole new level to have intrigue to what you are about to see here. "the post" just chronicled the at-times super secretive and strained play by play that led to former president obama confronting vladimir putin in 2016 about russia hacking the election. here is what president obama said about all of this back in december. >> in early september, when i saw president putin in china, i felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn't happen was to talk to him directly. and tell him to cut it out and there were going to be some serious consequences if he didn't. >> well, on those consequences, "the washington post" learned one of the possible consequences would have been the u.s.
releasing, quote, digital bombs that could be inserted into russian networks. and it also followed what happened in the months after the two leaders met, specifically how the obama white house decided to strike back against russia's meddling with sanctions and expulsions, an effort that elicited this quote from a senior obama official, saying, "it is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend. i feel like we sort of choked." joining me now, lindsey moran, a former undercover cia ontive and author of "blowing my cover." also with us, former cia operative mike baker. so, welcome to both of you and lindsey, your reaction, first, just to that quote from that former administration official on the, i feel like we choked. do you feel like the obama administration choked on handling this? >> well, i think it's really troubling, because obviously, whatever the obama
administration did, in terms of repercussions, was too little and too late. and i think what's most frightening about it is it shows exactly how putin had worked the administration and frankly our country into a check mate position. that is, obama was sort of caught between a rock and a hard place, if he was really going to come down publicly on putin for meddling in the election, of course that would be interpreted by the trump administration and by a large part of the american public as him trying to influence the election in favor of hillary clinton. so, what's really -- >> politics. >> what's really scary about this, politics aside, is how the country has been maneuvered into an untenable position by putin in this cyber war. >> i mean, they plan on hacking the next election. that was clear from testimony, you know, we've heard on the hill this past week, and mike, just to you, just drilling down more on this piece, you know, in this -- in this article, it talks about how the president had approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber
weapons in russia's infrastructure, saying this was the digital equivalent of bombs. tell me more about this and what would the -- had they been detonated, the ramifications. >> yeah, i mean, first of all, i'm old enough that when i first signed on with the cia and operations, the soviet union was still the big bogey man out there so i'm very confident in seeing that this is nothing that you wouldn't expect from russian behavior. putin has always been clear about his desire to rebuild the soviet union and his distress over the collapse of the soviet union. and so, now, what we're dealing with, unfortunately, is the same meddling and the same involvement in our politics and our activities here that you've seen for a very long time. but they use cyber space, which obviously creates a variety of concerns. i would say, i think the fact -- the article in the post is fascinating and is well worth the read. i do have the a problem with the number of anonymous officials that don't have a problem of
talking about the -- sort of from the operational perspective. there is no way to go into a discussion about our proportional response or our abilities to respond or the operational efforts involved in that, so i'm going to stay well away from that because it's not appropriate to talk about that sort of activity. however, i would say that i think that we're -- if we're in an untenable situation, it's not because putin put us there and i think it's because, in a sense, the previous administration, as they did with a lot of things, and for good reason, i'm not, you know -- it's way above my pay grade and i don't understand how washington works, but they tend to view everything, including national security issues, through a very political prism and you could see that in that article, when they said, you know, after trump won, we all stood around and looked at each other and thought, well, maybe we mishandled it. well, no kidding we mishandled it because they were looking at it from a point of view that clinton was bound to win so they didn't feel sense of urgency.
>> that was the time in august when hillary clinton was so high in the polls, they assumed they'd be handing over the cabinet to familiar faces and therefore it would be pan issan that they would pass off to friends. >> yes. >> i would argue that the -- >> go ahead, lindsey. >> the administration that we have now is completely looking at this fluthrough a political prism. the failure of this administration to even acknowledge russia's cyber attacks and efforts to meddle, the failure to even say that that's a real thing that is happening, i mean, that puts us in a very defensive and weak position in terms of national security. >> on that failure to recognize, mike, this is what we were wondering, you know, are we in a war with russia and the president just doesn't realize it or doesn't even want to acknowledge it? >> well, look, you know, we're not at war with russia in the classic sense. and i would argue that any administration, not just this one, look, i don't have a dog in the hunt here, in terms of the current administration, but any administration, quite frankly, is staffed up with enough people that it's not as if they missed
something as obvious as what's the -- the level of our involvement or our engagement with a major player out in the world stage. again, pointing out that russia basically, as a gdp the size of a mid-size eu country. but we are in a position where we've been trying for years, the pentagon and the intel community have been tries for years to understand this new world of cyber warfare. the pentagon is still working on developing protocols for proportional response and this is not an easy lift. as we saw from the struggles as described in this article in "the post" this took months for some sort of collective wisdom just simply about were the russians involved and to what degree after the initial cia reports. >> it did. many months. and a lot of people, including, to your point, anonymous folks being quoted saying, too little, too late. mike baker, thank you. lindsey moran, thank you so much. we're going to move on, talk about protesters who are angry over the senate health care bill. they're out and about today,
demonstrating at the offices of several senators. montel williams is fired up as well. he says republicans have created a health care monster by lying to their base. his own personal story, his own health issues that he's sharing and why he's so passionate about this coming up. [ crickets chirping ] [ light music playing ] you've wished upon it all year, and now it's finally here. the mercedes-benz summer event is back, with incredible offers on the mercedes-benz you've always longed for. but hurry, these shooting stars fly by fast. lease the c300 for $399 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.
just moments ago, a fifth republican senator making it known that he is against this senate republican health care bill. nevada's dean heller says he will not support the bill in its current form, so he makes three too many senators for the bill to pass if it comes up for a vote next week, but the bill does have the support of the president, despite his campaign promise to keep medicaid intact. when you talk to critics, they will tell you that this proposal guts the program, which as you know covers poorer and low income families. counselor to the president, kelleyanne conway weighed in on
this this morning. >> only in washington would something like this be called a cut where over time there are protections in place for the disabled, for the elderly, for the poor, for the non-working poor, for children, for pregnant women and it's going to allow states to decide what they need to help those in need. >> my next guest agrees. former talk show host montel williams says the new health care plan is simply a tax cut for the rich, offering billions to pharmaceutical companies, wealthy investors and health insurance companies at the expense of the most vulnerable. montel williams, friend of the show, marine, father, good to see you. you know, reading your piece, you're totally open about your m.s., you know, you say it's been the hardest fight of your life, and you know, deal with it isn't cheap but you have said you are blessed to be able to afford it. but what has this -- what has
your journey with m.s., montel, taught you about people who rely on medicaid? >> i'll start right here, brooke. how about two and a half years ago, my insurance company, one of the top insurance companies in the country, you know, it's sagaftra, they had the audacity to send me a letter after i had been on a medication for 15 years that they know changed my immune system, they sent me a letter because they didn't feel like paying for that medication anymore and they wanted me to reevaluate. the bottom line is, there's no less expensive medication and the amount of money that i pay for insurance to have them have the audacity to even suggest that they were going to try to make me sick by taking me off my medication, i blew up. and that's the reason why i'm so angry about this ridiculously stupid piece of legislation that is honestly nothing more than a tax cut and a political agenda disguised as a health care bill, because if they were really putting together a health care bill, the first thing we would
do is stop talking about this as if it's just a piece of paper. right now, brooke, in america today, anybody watching this can look this up, there are over 125 million of the 312 million americans who right now suffer from a chronic illness. out of that 125 million, 70% of them suffer from two. now, these are real numbers. forget all the garbage that you're hearing about in this debate. these are real numbers. this 125 million people, as of today, will be as high as 140 million by 2020. and in 2020, they're going to be looking for somebody to give them medication and health care. and what this bill does is sends them all to death. so, we can talk about things and use these obscure things. let's talk about the numbers. right now, brooke, i mean, it's ridiculous to think --
>> i know. it's the numbers but it's also the faces and i know you're getting worked up. i know that you're really passionate about this but when we really hammer in on medicaid, for example, and as i said, you know, lower income and a lot of elderly in this country, like totally rely on it and a point you make in your piece, which is a point i think you've made before is when you think about the folks who really believe in donald trump, who helped put him in the oval office, those are the folks who will really be hurt by this. >> here's what i suggest. i've got the easiest fix, brooke, i'm telling you right now for the american health care bill. here's what we ought to do. the senate and the congress and let's also include the president of the united states and also our supreme court justices, any bill that's passed for health care, they must sign on to that. that bill must end the amount of money that the public spends on congress's health care. so, congress should be forced to take the exact same health care that we, the constituents, take.
if they're willing to write a bill that way and put that in there in writing that says, unequivocally that whatever we give to the american people, we will have ourselves, then let's all back that bill. and i guarantee you, you won't see it happen because you know why? because this congress they can afford premium health care. they don't care about their family members, cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces. >> i remember our conversations when you were on the trail. you were loving the ohio governor john kasich. you were like, this is a guy who should be in the white house. earlier this month, even governor kasich said he was warming to this idea of a slow medicaid rollback, albeit a bit more gradual. i think he wanted seven years and this would be something like three. but your response to governor kasich, someone who you really,
really respect? >> i think the governor needs to understand that, again, we talk about numbers three years, seven years. let's look at three years, brooke. it's 2017. 2020 there will be 140 million americans who are going to require advanced forms of health care. and out of that 140 million, 100 million of them will be required for two different illnesses. governor kasich, along with every other member of congress, have family members who are ill. and they need to look those family members in the face and say, darling, i love you, but fend for yourself because we ain't going to help you. >> you have people on all different sides of the spectrum. montel, you find one of these members of congress who agree with you and we'll sign up and have them on tv. >> we'll keep working on it. >> montel williams, always a pleasure. have a wonderful weekend. thank you so much.
>> you, too. coming up next, we're going to talk about one of the jurors in the bill cosby case speaking out about why he doubted the credibility of the two accusers who took the stand. also, what bill cosby is planning to do next. have you heard about this? he wants to host town halls to educate young people about sex assault. we'll be right back. >> anyone c ves a pep rally. i cleared my inbox! holiday inn express, be the readiest.
. here's something new. just days after his mistrial, bill cosby wants to help educate young adults about sexual assault. so he has announced he's going on a town hall tour to give out advice on the do's and don'ts. this decision comes as two jurors in his assault case are now opening up about why they were hopelessly deadlocked.
here's one of the jurors. >> this thing was closed in '05. to the district attorney over there, there wasn't enough evidence that the incident supposedly happened in '04. it took andrea over a year to contact the hometown police in toronto, and no wonder she couldn't remember. and the fact he supposedly gave her pills which she took without asking any questions, an adult woman, 31 years old, it's unbelievable. they were well coached, both of them. and kelly, her problem was when she reported it, she reported it to a press conference, not to the police. and then that blew it right there. i mean, you just don't do that.
she was after fame. >> amazing the voice of one of those jurors. faith jenkins, criminal lawyer, former criminal prosecutor, host of "judge faith." you hear him, and it was not just one but two of these accusers. credibility seems like it was the issue. does that surprise you? why the deadlock? >> well, it was 10-2 to convict. and the defense, all they had to do -- they didn't have to prove anything, right? it was the prosecutor's job to put on a case and prove the case. all the defense wanted to do was create issues, create questions, create some kind of doubt, and it worked. because look what they focused on. the issues that this juror talked about, those are the exact issues the defense hammered home in their closing arguments. look at the timeline, look at when she reported the crime, look at how long ago this
happened. look at -- and it worked. because all it takes is for you to get to one juror, and for that one juror to be so committed to their position that they don't move, and that's exactly what happened in the end. >> how about, even now that we're learning the details of some of the chaos, the tension described in this jury room. another juror said there was crying and yelling. is that normal when you have a sequestered jury who is probably so ready to finish something or what? >> i'm not surprised at all. such a high stakes case, and we've heard other jurors talk about the same thing in the o.j. trial. they know the pressure that's on them to make the right decision. as the defense said, someone's life is hanging in the balance, and then you have the alleged victim on the witness stand giving very emotional testimony. so it is emotional. they're trying to decide and do the right thing, and it's not uncommon for jurors to argue with each other, argue their points, because you're trying to convince people to see it your
way. think about it, 12 people have to come to a unanimous decision. that's not easy to do. >> so we know how that ended. now we hear from this publicist, from bill cosby's publicist, that they want to have these town halls where he goes out and about and sort of teaches people about sex assault. here's how they rolled it out yesterday. >> this is bigger than bill cosby. this issue can affect any young person, especially young athletes of today, and they need to know what they're facing when they're hanging out and partying, when they're doing certain things that they shouldn't be doing. and it also affects, you know, married men. >> is it kind of a do as i say, not as a do situation? >> the laws are changing. the statute of limitations for victims of sexual assault are being extended. this is why people need to be educated on a brush against a shoulder, you know, anything at this point can be considered
sexual assault, and it's a good thing to be educated about the law. >> there has been crazy backlash. ethically, legally, this just seems like a bad idea. >> it's really appalling. because this is not a man who was first of all acquitted. it was a mistrial. there may be another retrial, so everything you do now, obviously you're trying to curry favor with the public by painting yourself as the victim in this case. but who really believes that? there is what you can prove in trial, and then there's what actually happened. and all of us know that almost 60 women have come forward and made accusations against bill cosby. who actually believes that he's innocent? who actually wants to hear his advice about how to avoid charges like this? who actually believes that he has the credibility to talk about these things? it is appalling. he needs to be at home reflecting about how his life turned out the way it did,
because for 50 years he's been abusing power in women. >> faith jenkins. thank you. and thank all of you for being with me. i'm brooke baldwin in new york. don't move a muscle. jim sciutto is sitting in for jake tapper. "the lead" starts right now. >> thank you, brooke. it was a direct shot at the heart of our democracy. "the lead" starts right now. new details on russian cyber attacks. vladimir putin's involvement in them and donald trump's secret struggle between fighting back and what he saw as protecting the integrity of the u.s. election. critical condition. another republican senator is out, putting the gop's health care push into a deeper hole. could the president's promise to repeal and replace obamacare be in trouble? plus, out of line. just a week after an assassination attempt on republicans, the secret service is now looking at actor johnny de