tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN June 26, 2017 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
remember what we were just saying? go irish! see that? yes! i'm gonna just go back to doing what i was doing. find your awesome with the xfinity x1 voice remote. good afternoon, i'm ana cabrera in today for brooke baldwin. under way the white house holding yet another press briefing you are not allowed to see our hear live. the white house has banned live on-camera coverage off sean spicer answering questions for a third day in a row. we will take the audio as soon as it wraps up, when we can release it, but first a victory of shorts for president donald trump. the supreme court ruled today it
would hear the travel ban case. that won't happen until october, but in the meantime the justices lifted certain parts of the revised travel ban. that means dismiss his controversial executive order will go into effect. roughly according to a white house memo obtained by cnn, 72 hours, that's thursday. there were three justices who did issue dissets -- gorsuch, alito and thomas, all feeling the supreme court didn't go far enough. the president called today's ruling a clear victory for national security, and he released a statement that said, in part -- my number one responsibility as commander in chief is to keep the american people safe. today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our nation's homeland. laura jaret is joining us with more on today's ruling. laura, who is and who is not affected by this decision?
give us a sense of how many people are affected? >> the bottom line of today's decision all comes down to an individual travelers' connection to the u.s. the court has now fashioned a rule, if you will, that says if you have a bona fide relationship with a person or an entity in the u.s., then you can come into the country. the supreme court tried to give some examples of what this might look like. if you have a family member here in the u.s. or you've been admitted to a university here in the u.s., then you can come into the country, but many questions still remain, ana, about how this would be interpreted on the ground and who is going to decide the close calls, if there are questions about what really counts as bona fide. in terms of how many people this actually affects, it depends on who you talk to. the president is claiming a clear victory saying the court's decision allows the executive order to become largely effective, but the immigrant rights group sat on a call with reporters earlier this afternoon, actually a pretty small slice of the pies that has
zero connection to the u.s. and will now by banned, ana. >> explain what parts remain on hold? >> so the core parts of the executive off, the ban on those travels from the six predominantly muslim countries and ban on all refugees, those parts of the competent ectiff order will not go into effect at least for now while the court is deciding what to do with it until october, as long as you have a connection to the u.s. if you don't, if you have no connection, no family here whatsoever, then you are not allowed to come into the country. now it's just a matter of time until this implementation plan officially begins. >> laura, stand by with us. the department of homeland security is saying today's ruling restores to the executive branch long-held constitutional authority to defend our national border. let's bring in the rest of our panel, david hallian, constitutional attorney paige pate, and david drugger, who is also senior congressional
correspondent for "the washington examiner." president trump put out a statement claiming victory. how big a political win? >> certainly it's a political win for him. it's a policy issue that's thwarted him from the earliest days of his administration, now he gets to claim a victory here. obvious lip, as laura was just telling you, it is not a ruling that's says completely exactly the ban that president trump wanted to put into place can go into place. that's not happening, but you saw his statement. he is now able to say the supreme court is agrees with me in part and is giving me back the tools i need to keep the country safe. it gives him after several lower courts were saying you're out of bounds, maybe even acting unconstitutionally, that kind of clear we're knot putting any of this in place is no longer valid, now that the supreme court has this ruling.
so after stumbling out of the gate on this issue, revising t. being thwarted by the courts, donald trump on the issue of the travel ban how has good news to tout. >> paige, the courts say people who have, quote, bona fide relationships with people here in the u.s. can still travel here. is it clear to you what that means? >> should yabsolutely not. the court gave a couple examples. if you're situated like the plaintiffs in the individual cases that have come before the court, if you have an immediate family member, certainly that will qualify. if you have a guarantee of admission to a united states college, university, that will qualify. if you have a firm job offer from a u.s. company, that will qualify, but beyond that, we don't know. the easy cases will still be the easy cases. people who have absolutely no connection to the united states, they're going to be covered by the travel ban, they will not be allowed to come in. but it's the close cases i think
will cause the problems here. you may have judges across the country weighing those interests differently and a bona fide relationship in california may not be one in maryland, so i think it remains to be seen how it's going to play out e. >> that's the bigger question is, who is going to decide what qualifies as a bona fide relationship. how is that process going to work? >> right. i think we're waiting to hear from the admissiministration on they will make this determination. perhaps agents will make the initial determination. if that happens and it goes against the person that's trying to gain admission, you know it will be challenged in court. i think that's why the lower courts did what they did. they issued their injunctions broadly to cover everyone, so you can put the entire ban on hold while you litigate the merits of the case. that's not what the supreme court chose to do. >> david drugger, the full ban is not going into effect.
we won't know the fate of the full travel ban under october. that's at least when the arguments will be heard. do you think the president should be taking a victory lap? >> yeah, i think he should. he got pummeled when it didn't go his way. it's only natural if it's a policy he cares about, he now seize it moving forward, so i think it's understandable that he take a victory lap and feels good about it. i do think, however, he would be in a much better position, and i think the country would be in a better position if he explained further what is behind the policy itself. not just that he would -- it's understandable that he would want to curtail entry from certains parts of the world. syria is one where they talk to experts and say it's hard to vet people in a country that's immersed in civil war. but the countries seem happen hazard and random. when questioned, the admission
has fallen back saying simply we're doing just what they're doing, but after the initial 90 days has long passed and i think the question arises, what have theying don't some of the interim to put a claim doump, which they were worried about i think all of that would put this policy heading into the fall when the court is going to hear it and there will vemplgually be a decision, give the president a chance to have a much broader sense of support and maybe put to rest concerns that this was all the fruit of his originals muslim ban. >> the issues that you just brought up will -- so paige, how does approving this portion of the ban impact whether the rest of the ban goes into effect when they do hear those arguments in october? >> ana, i think it will be incredibly important. i do agree that the supreme court is going to get into the nuts and bolts of how the trump
administration is justifying the ban. i think they're focused right now on the fact that it is temporary. i think that's why we hear a reframing of this executive order already by the white house, not calling it a bad as the president had, but making it sound more temporary. i think since it appears we have three justices that will likely side with the administration, it will come down to one or two, perhaps the chief justice, so they're going to want to see the nuts and bolts. account administration justify such a very complete ban, or will they try to scale it down a bit? what was their reasoning? >> they have balancing the equities on both sides, saying look, the trump administration is saying we need this for national security. when you look at the balance, we have to side with national
security. because the people we think are being blocked have no constitutional right to be here in the first. as page.out that was only three members of the court. they will he says -- with the task of deciding on peril of contem contempt so david hallian, it would be crucial, remember when the initial travel ban was ordered, that was version one that caused chaos that was not
playing to the trump administration's fair at all. it gets to -- in the close cases, this is going to be difficult to implement, so those three justices, looking at thomas' words there that were and likely will be in the future, one of the arguments they'll be making to their fellow justices in the fall is that you have to have some kind of uniformity here. they side on the side of uniform -- but nonetheless it gets exactly what paige was describing, the very close case says what will make implementation so tricky. >> david drugger, the president has to be happen to see his judge rule in his favor. >> knowing trump, he probably does, but i think you look at neil gorsuch, and i don't think this prison is surprising.
so you think this is the ruling we always expected would happen when this thing window is way to the supreme court. i wouldn't be surprised in in the fall to see the court end of siding with the president. the courts have never determined other than constitutional issues, that the president needs a rational reason that the american people approve of our understand. i have recommended political that the president would enjoy broader support for his policy that it would be better as a matter of foreign and domestic policy for these things to make sense and be sxlapd, but he is granted the power under the constitution on make these decisions. so where gore suv came out is where i think we always expected himming to. in today's ruling, even though part of this will be argued. you still had a right and left agreement that only part of this should be stayed and the rest of
it should go into effect. david drugger, david ha. thank you to all of you. a cbo score is due out this afternoon. will republicans have the votes? also, a pro-trump group threatening to pour big money into the health care fight to influence holdouts. their first target, a republican senator up for reelection. we're back in a moment.
where are mom and dad? 'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico! goin' up the country. love mom and dad' i'm takin' a nap. dude, you just woke up! ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides. that goes beyond assuming beingredients are safe...ood to knowing they are. going beyond expectations... because our pets deserve it. beyond. natural pet food.
megan's smile is getting a lot because she uses act® mouthwash. act® strengthens enamel, protects teeth from harmful acids, and helps prevent cavities. go beyond brushing with act®. welcome back, you're in the "cnn newsroom." i'm ana cabrera. time is dwindling for the powerful republican in the senate. this is the final full week for mitch mcconnell to get the 50 senators he needs to pass the senate's version of the plan to replace obamacare. moments allege it was just updated. before congress recesses. one quote -- i say this doesn't get better with time. it just doesn't.
every extra day we spend on this is 24 hours for someone to get further from yet. right now they five senators continue to be far from yes. that's three more senators that republicans can't afford to pace the health care bill. we just learned the cbo score is coming out at some point this afternoon. of course, we will bring it to you as it happens. phil mattingly is joining us on capitol hill, tracking every twist and turn on this, phil, what is in the updated version of the senate proposal? >> reporter: really just one change. the interesting element is you talk about the senators who are already opposed to -- this change specifically isn't going to address a lot of concerns, but it is an important change for the bill, and as you noted. the cbo score coming out today. essentially what it means is if somebody loses their insurance or stops paying their insurance
for more than 63 days, they would have to wait six months before they could get back into the market. the rationale is not unlike the individual man dade that obama care has, something that would be repeal. you're trying to incentivize younger, healthier individuals to make sure they get into the marketplace. that should expand the risk pool p. so they're trying to get add a mandate without actually calling it a man dade, but it's an important piece. when you look at coverage numbers. the house bill shod 23 billion would be fewer would have coverage based on that house bill. republicans obviously quibble with how that modeling was conducted, but when -- that should help the coverage numbers. it is something that senate staff have been working on for a number of week, working on it with the counter. bo, so the expectation is this could be factored into the score this evening, a very important cbo score, several have pointed
to as the key they want to see before they make decisions. that will be a next step forward as we try to figure out what bigger changes will be butt in there to try to bring some of authorities wary senators from either side to try and -- bridges them on board. >> who is that latest addition appealing to? more of the conservatives or the moderates? >> it wasn't put in to try to bring people on board. it was more or less to try to make markets work more effectively, a different format of it, a different iteration of it. that would penalize people on their premiums if they decide to do drop. this is about making the marketplace work, an important provision, but one that wasn't finalized when the discussion draft came out last week. the way they're doing this through the budget rules, they had to make sure it will be compliant with those budget
rules. that's what allows this to pass on a simple majority. they feel like they're there no. >> phil mattingly, keep us posted. thank you. let's talk about this further. joining us to discuss, lonnie chen for mitt romney's presidential campaign and former adviser to marco rubio's 2016 presidential campaign, and mr. roy, one of the no votes, he's now the director of the center for the tenth amendment action. lonnie, let me start with you. which side do you think is going to have to give in if this bill is going to get passed? >> you actually have some problems from both sides, some conservatives expressing a point of view, and then you also have moderate that are -- the really -- as delicate of a
balance as you can find. for that reason it will be different to move in one direction or the other without upsetting one side or the other. >> chip, do you agree? we know that in the house it was the freedom caucus who eventually got a few more things thrown in to get the house bill passed. do you think ted cruz and those people who support his reasoning to not vote right now, do you think he's going to get what he wants? but i find it interesting that the greatest -- so-called greatest deliberative body in the world, the u.s. senate introduces a bill and now the leaders are saying they're going to vote to it. i think that's why a lot of american people are raising questions and why a number of senators at all ends of the spectrum, but some conservative raising concerns, because they don't believe the bill does nearly enough to lower costs,
lower premiums. i think the issue you have just raised gives away the entire game. i mean the fact that they are now adding in a provision to force there to be a penalty for not having coverage really underscores the fact if you don't free up the market with a preexisting conditions requirement, it doesn't work. the math just simply doesn't add up -- >> so you think insurers should not have to cover people with preexisting conditions? >> insurance doesn't work if there's a forced requirement to have coverage. i say that as i think i've noted to you before as a cancer survivor and understands very much what a preexisting condition looks like, but you can't have ash if if you force the mark to take people in after they're sick. you can fix that through high-risk pools, through better medicaid provision -- but high-risk pools was exactly the problem before obamacare came around. people weren't getting the
coverage they needed to afford health care. >> i think -- >> go ahead, lonny. >> on high-risk pools i think the challenge has always been frankly they haven't been properly funded. one of the things they try to do is create a mechanism to help to kiefer there are moving it -- the to chip's point, i think the regulatory reform is absolutely crucial. the senate built does include in my mind a important observation that would get greater create activity to. even though there are a lot of things in there i think as conservatives we would love to see more regulatory reform, but the reality is this is what we have in front of us. >> guys, let's look at the latest poll on obamacare, and then i'll let you respond, chip. i want to throw it up there. they were recently polled, this is the first poll of 79 that the kaiser family foundation has
done since 2010 which shows a majority approve of obamacare, or see it favorably. the popularity continues to rise while the gop plan is hovering at about 30% support. why would republicans vote on a bill that is widely unpopular. >> i think it's inexplicable why they are pushing a -- we agree that some of the -- the problem is a lot of that is on the essential health benefits, doesn't get to the root problems. the high-risk pools weren't working before, because they weren't structured properly, but if you set them up the right way, you can have a market that works. we're talking about 330 million odd americans, 170 million covered by employer-provided care, 60 million by medicaid. we have a group of americans who need coverage. we've got maybe 2 to 4 million in that preexisting condition camp. we're the greatest country on the face of the earth.
we can solve that problem for them without turning the entire market on its head. >> chip and lonny, thank to both of you. the white house press
briefing just wrapped up. let's listen in. >> glad to take a few questions. kristin? >> reporter: over the weekend in an interview on fox, prompt seemed to acknowledge that he does believe that russia interfered in the u.s. election. is that how that statement should be interpreted? does he believe that russia interfered in the -- >> the statement he made in january is consistent with what he said the other day, he believes that russia probably was involved, potentially some other countries as well, could have been equally been involved -- or could have been involved, not equally, and he stands by the statement from january. >> over the past 48 hours, he's been hitting his press saysor hard for not doing enough to respond to that. so what is he doing?
or what is he intend intending to do different? >> there's two aspects. one is if you believe the story that was written, that means from august through november 8th, two things -- one, if you believe that, then they did know about this, and they -- there's some serious questions about what they did or did not do in terms of acting. the second i think is pretty clear they knew all along there was no collusion he signed arch executive order on cybersecurity to strengthen or ability to com bat anybody from interfering, not just in other election, about you cyberinfrastructure, and second le he has a commission that will continue to have more activities this month, looking holiically at the election process to make sure we're taking all the steps to protect our voting systems. steve? >> reporter: the president tweeted his predecessor did
nothing in response to the russian meddling. i'm curious what you think barack obama should have done. i don't -- it's not just the president. i think congressman adam schiff, ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee expressed very similar concern with what wasn't done. obviously i don't have all the understanding of what they knew and when they knew it, but there does seem to be hypocrisy in terms of what 24th clearly didn't do if they truly believed all of this was happened. i mentioned a second ago. if they did know all of this, then they clearly do know there was no collusion. >> reporter: i'm sure a lot of us remember in august, september and october of last year, the president was saying -- mr. trump was saying, i'm afraid the election is going to be rigged, i have to be honest, we're running against a rigged system. on october 19th, at the debate he was cried by chris wallace, will you absolutely accept the
result of this election? and he refused to say. is there any reason to think that barack obama, given all that, and should have done move? does the president believe that given what mr. trump was saying at the time, that barack obama didn't do enough and may have choked, i guess is a way to put it? >> the president addressed that in the tweet. obviously he does think he should have done more if he knew all this. >> reporter: what should have been done. >> i have not asked him additional steps. his tweet, if you believe the story, he believes he should have. blake? >> reporter: i want to ask about the supreme court decision today. they had that anybody that has a relationship with another person or another entity is still permitted. so in a way, is it limited the initial -- or the second executive order. i'm curious if the administration feels that what is now permitted by the supreme court does instead protect the homeland? >> well, against, i think it's a
positive step forward. as i mentioned at the outset, the -- they're reviewing this in terms of implementation and impact. so i don't want to get too far ahead of all these brilliant legal minds, as they review the impact, but i think, as i noted, i think the president feels he's very, very pleased with the 9-0 decision. >> reporter: john cornyn said over the weekend august 1st is the real drop-dead deadline. does the white house feel that way? >> for final passage? whenever they leave for their august recess done by then. i don't have at the tip of my fingertips when they plan to leave town, but whenever that days date is, whether it's august 1st, ii or 3rd. >> reporter: what was the president's involvement over the weekend? how could you characterize that? >> they made several calls to multiple senators to hear that are concerns and get their ideas, and understand where
they're at and what needs to get done. 'emmen? >> reporter: does the president still see this version of the travel ban watered down as politically correct? >> again -- well, remember they look -- they're looking at the total yesterday of it. i think part of it will be dependent on what the lawyers believe its impact will be in terms of how it goes forward and what we can do. i'm going to punt on that for a moment and let the lawyers take a look at that and give an update. >> reporter: critical of the way the department of justice hag handled the roll-out? >> right now we're pleased with what the supreme court has done. one we have an idea of the full impact, we'll have a full analysis. >> reporter: can you characterize how the president things the meetings went in israel, and specifically there any truth to reports out of the israel that relations of strained between the u.s. and the palestinians due to these
demands that they stop sending payments to terrorists? >> well, first, i think the meetings were extremely productive. they're going to make incremental movements forward, but it's going to be a process. it's not going to get solved in a night. i think they made good progress overall and also continuing to build trust. it's no secret, i know, that when president abbas was here we discussed the payments as an sure then, so it should be no surprise it came up, but i would argument the relationship continues to be very strong and move forward in a positive way. mara? >> reporter: thank you, several things the president has suggested he wanted the senate bill to include, he was looking forward to making it special, and put more money into it, make it more generous. does he believe that the senate has done that? or is he looking for more improvements in the bill?
>> hi's very pleased with the developments that have come. he's been impressed with the work. he obviously, as you mentioned, he wants a bill that has heart. he wants a big that does what it's supposed to do. when you look at what happened with obama care, he doesn't -- he wants to make sure we think through it. as i mentioned to blake, he had several calls over the weekend hearing ideas and opinions about how to strengthen it, and will continue to support ways to make the bill stronger. >> reporter: but are these criterias cover everyone with lower premiums and lower deductibles? >> sure. >> reporter: that's his bard? >> there's a lot -- obviously he wants to make sure people have access and it's affordable. coverage is obviously key, but as i have mentioned multiple times here before, when you have a card and no coverage, that's not good.
it doesn't get you the care you need, and it didn't do so within the means you can afford. we're going to continue to figure out a way to make that work. jen. >> reporter: sean, can you answer whether the -- >> there's no camera on, jim. >> reporter: why don't we turn the cameras on, jim? >> jen -- i'm sorry you have to. >> reporter: there is a room, the lights are on. >> reporter: is it not true there were tensions and some strain between the u.s. negotiators with jared kushner and jason greenblatt. is it not true there were not tensions? >> i'm not aware of any, no. when i talked to them about the trip, i know there was one story, i believe that story has updated out of -- that came out of there, but i know that's been updated. >> reporter: the president said two weeks ago he would have a press conference in two weeks -- >> as soon as i have an update on that, i will let you know.
>> reporter: and they're levies a fine against google, do you have an. >> reporter: do we have cameras on the president's press conference, sean? >> reporter: to block the sales to saudi and qatar until that crisis is resolved. is that a constructive step in your view? >> i think we share senator corker's goal on two fronts. one, obviously we want to resolve the situation. i know that the states that are involved are viewing this as a family matter and secretary tillerson is helping to facilitate some of the that. we share that concern. we also share the concern about terror financing that senator corker has, and i think we can work together on both those goals. >> reporter: in one of your answers on the russia meddling, you said other countrying were equally involved or involved -- >> the statement the president
gave -- i didn't have it off the top of my head said, i believe. that russia was probably involved and there could be others as well. whatever that statement was. >> reporter: is president an intelligence find snowing i don't understand the reference -- >> the same statement since january. alex. >> reporter: -- rely on the previous list of -- >> what's that? >> reporter: will president trump rely on the previous list of 21 potential supreme court justices -- >> i'm sure that will definitely be a strong part of it. i can't say there won't be someone added on or not, but that proved to be a helpful list the first time. so he feels very comfortable, but i can't say for certain there's no one who could get added to a future list. >> reporter: you used the -- whether or not the president -- whether or not the president --
inaccurate statement -- on what president obama knew -- and briefed in the same timetable and then separately on that -- does the president have a response for retaliatory measures if he believes russia is behind it. >> i'm sorry. eye trying to figure out which part. >> reporter: does the president believed he was involved in an attempt to influence the election. ? and if so, what is he going to do in response? >> i think i mentioned this to kristin and i'll say it again, he's answered this question since january. >> he's taken steps to ensure our cyber-security -- [ inaudible ] -- >> i'm not going to get into specific details -- >> reporter: and a separate questi
question. >> i don't have anything for you on that. i would probably refer you to the state department. oimplgts i don't understand the practicality of it. i understand they'll take it up in the fall, but do you still need a 90-days review? and secondly in the fall when they take it up, won't the point be moot by then? what's the point? >> again, i'm going to let the department of justice fully and this. but certainly -- when both of fourth and ninth circuit issued their opinions, and i think --
what they have to -- >> do you know when they'll get back to us? they'll be giving statements, i wonder why that ended up being statements. for whatever reason. president obama and the prime minister did not have statements. today you have statements, no questions. did the prime minister not want questions? >> i'm going to say obviously on each on visit there are discussions about what will go into that visit, all those things get work out. i'll leave it at that.
>> reporter: to put a finer point on it, again hillary clinton. does the president sxet -- >> honestly i've never asked him that specific question. i would be glad to follow up. >> just to dig the hole deeper on his comments in january, have you ever discussed with him. he's said this in debate, talked about 400-pound kids sitting on edges of bets. can you give up some sense. look, to the extent thatti nots classified, i can ask the intelligence community for an update on that. john? >> reporter: do you know if the white house has made any progress with those five republican senators who have already stated they're opposed to the senate health care bill. >> i can tell you that the
president talked extensively with several republican members over the weekend, and he felt very positive about those discussions, but they're ongoing. >> i know he's spoke with -- and several others as well. >> reporter: at the top of your statement, and the president tweeted, that the supreme court ruling, which came out today, as it relates to the travel ban was unanimous 9-0. where are you getting that particular number from? it was a ruling from the supreme court, meaning we don't know the actual breakdown of the court in voting for this particular decision. >> i would have to -- i'm going to get back with counsel. that was on them. i'll find out where they got that from.
s. >> they'll coordinate with the federal departments and agencies to figure out how to implement that going forward charlie. >> reporter: -- for the -- is that true? >> i'm not aware that that's true. i would contact dhs on that one. they're the lead on that. >> reporter: so it's going ahead at scheduled? >> i know -- dhs has been actively involved in repairing, working on new sections. you can check with dhs, but my understanding is it's been -- the work to repair sections that needed to be repaired is being done, and then there's new sections they're starting on. so i'm not aware of any delays that may or may not exist.
>> reporter: prototype -- >> all of that could be a dhs issue. kristin? >> reporter: when asked about what access trump might take against russia, you said cyber-security order -- can you be more specific? does he support a new bill for a fresh round of sanctions against russia? >> the new bill that the senate parliamentary ruled didn't follow proper procedures, so there is no new bill. the house is looking at taking up -- >> let's see what the bill looks like imi'm not going to comment on a hypothetical. >> reporter: does he support punitive -- >> you know when it comes to how the president works. he doesn't telegraph what he's going to do on a lot of things. he does a lot of quiet diplomacy, so until we're ready to anounce something, we're not going to telegraph it through here. >> reporter: can you tell us
what he meant by obama colluding or obstructing? what evidence does he have? >> i will leave it at, according to this report, new back in august if they were so concerned, why didn't they stop it? what did they do. >> reporter: the point is there's they go into all those details. they were blocked in a number of measures. they were concerned that they were looking like -- >> they seem to throw -- >> reporter: what evidence does he have that president obama was olewding or obstructing? >> i think it comes back to this idea that they've been very clear, playing this card about blaming trump and russia, yet at the same time that they were the ones, according to this report, knew about it and didn't take any action. if they didn't take any action does that make them explicit? i think there's a lot of questions about who did know what and when. >> reporter: is there an element of hypocrisy -- russia, if you're listening, you hope you
can find the 30,000 e-mails that you are listening, i think he you will be rewarded mightily. >> he was joking at the time. we know that. >> reporter: he was joking? he said that as a candidate and pressed during the press conference over and over again. >> i understand. the idea was that you had hibbard hibbard with a secret server that was very clear what she had done to evade it. i think that's probably a bigger concern in terms of what they were doing and the lack of po -- >> thank you. >> reporter: an account to the members of the white house correspondents association about the future of the press briefings, would you say his account was -- >> i was not provided with that. >> reporter: could you give us an account from your perspective? >> we've had two since then, another one since then. jeff has stated the position of the board and he believes, and i have shared with him where we
are on that, that we have been consistent since december and january when we addressed this issue with them specifically and publicly and we'll continue to have a mix of opportunities to stay in touch with the media. >> reporter: this seems to have been a drastic shift. is that a new normal? >> would el see. >> reporter: why are the cameras off? can you just give you an answer to that? why are they off, sean? >> it's a legitimate question. >> reporter: you are a taxpayer-funded spokesman for the united states. can you give us an explanation. >> so we can get this out of the way? can we address the cameras? >> yes. some days we'll have them and some days we won't. i want the president's voice to carry the day today, and i think -- so -- look, this is nothing inconsistent from what we had since day one?
>> reporter: where does the responsibility lie in this success or failure of the senate health care bit obviously they have been directly involved. there's a chance that it may go to the senate floor and not pass he understands he he tweeted earlier, if we -- the democrats own obama care. they're the ones who gave it to us, and they own that result. the president has been the one trying to fix it, trying to give people accessible and affordable health care, but the reality, as i mentioned last week, is when you look at the majority of house democrats, they support a single pair 32 trillion $bill backed by bernie sanders. that's the alternative. it's not -- it's a question between we need to accept that obama care is dead, we need to understand that the reality is
the choices between putting in a system that is affordable and accessible or a single pair $32 trillion health care plan that the majority of house democrats support. >> when the score is released, do you envision the president going back to the drawing board? there's a high number of people expected to be uninsured as a result. what steps will the president takes once he has toss numb bess bers? >> i think we have addressed cbo scores in the past. we feel very confident with where the bill is, he will continue to lynn to senators who have ideas about how to strengthen it, but it's going to follow the same plan that we have. >> reporter: sean if i could ask you -- >> no, john in the back. >> reporter: can i ask you, sean, about the goal of the u.s. energy dominance. how is that defined in the persian golf and middle east. >> in terms of what?
>> what does energy dominance mean? >> we'll continue to talk about that through the week, but you take lng, for example, our ability to export it is a big issue, the yesterday of using additional power supplies and be able to find ways to not only be self-sufficient, but how to grow businesses from it, use our natural resources. you'll hear more and more about what the president is doing. as i mentioned. he east have more action. to move forward, our dominance, our independence, our ability to maximize our natural resources and create jobs. >> reporter: does that mean trying to put downward pressure on world oil prices to impact persian gulf suppliers? >> i think it means a lot of thing. your ability to be an exporters
helps us in economic ways, but obviously there's a political aspect to it. john? >> reporter: thank you, sean. it was widely reported on sunday that the president is the first in the white house since jefferson to not have the dinner around ramadan. was there a reason? >> i don't know, john. >> reporter: on may 3rd, i asked sarah if the president would stick to the list of 21 he had in the campaign from which judge gorsuch came, and she said that was her understanding, he would stay with it, and that there was no reason to expand it. has there been any discussion or change of policy between her statement and what you just said. my only point is that, you know,
as we fill a lot of vacancies at the circuit court level, there may be people that come into contact that are highly qualified for one reason or another, and that the president may choose at some point down the road if there's a vacancy to consider someone else. i think obviously the list that the president put down initially of 21, now that justice gorsuch is off that list, he may want to put one on, but he always has the flexibility as he encountered potential members of the bench. >> reporter: do you approve of the attacks on senator heller by allies of the president? and is there any danger of putting a republican senate seat at risk? >> i think we're going to work with all of the senators to try to get their support on the american health care act, something that, as i mentioned, the president has been reaches out to all of them who have concerns and issues, and we'll continue to do that.
>> reporter: do you have a message to those attacking heller? >> i have not seen the ad you're talking about, but i would suggest that obviously we want to do what we can, from a white house perspective to reach out. francesca. >> reporter: you mentioned that the president had been in touch with some of the senators who had concerns about this health care bill. i didn't hear you mention any democrats. joe manchsing said yesterday he had not been called by the president yet. has he reached out to any democrats. >> i don't know the answer to that. >> a follow-up to joe martialing, who you brought up on friday as to someone you could potentially work with, he said in his interview he would be willing to sit down with the white house if you guys were willing to call it a repair bill versus a repeal effort. is that something the president would be willing to do in order to get in democrats on board on a working group? >> i think what we need to do is we're going to continue to have a team to reach out.
i'll check with our legislative team to see what they have done. that being said, you know, we have made it clear for seven-plus years we're going to repeal and replace it. >> reporter: this afternoon at the white house on two powerful leaders prime minister modi and president trump, two democracies log meeting and greeting with a number of discussion, but modi said that india will join -- the fight against terrorism. at the same time yesterday addressing the indian-american community senior -- said that india had been -- for the last 30 years and telling the world that -- now time has come that the entire world to join in the effort to fight against terrorism before taliban, and now isis. was going to happen at --
>> ought you mentioned, they're going to have a long opportunity today to meet and have dinner together. they'll talk about the ongoing cooperation includes areas like counter-terrorism, our defense partnership in the region, global cooperation, et cetera. but i think that energy -- there's a lot of things they'll have an opportunity to discuss. that will be one that they have plenty of time to discuss, and after they're done, wee have a readout and make sure that you know what --
what areas they covered. thank you, guys. see you later. you've been listening into the white house press briefing. we'll start with jim acosta. and we'll get to those throughout the hour. let's focus on some news the white house was happy to talk about today. they seemed to be taking a victory lap on the travel ban. >> reporter: that's right, and sean spicer emphasized that the
administration is looking at what the supreme court set to understand the implications and what they do do moving forward. he did not have any hard answers as to what the justice department, what the department of homeland security will be doing to enforce this ban, which apparently will partly go into effect, so at this point, they're analyzing it, but they certainlier feeling good about that decision today. >> you had a couple heat the exchanging to do on-camera briefings. this again was off camera, we couldn't use the audio until the briefings was over. we did hear you try to ask decisional questions. >> reporter: well, a couple issues, and let's separate them. one is shaunl spicer has refused to take questions from cnn for weeks now. it has been going on for some time. you know, he may have taken a question here or there, but we've largely been just blackbald during these briefings.
we're just not getting questioned to the press secretary. that would not have happened. fox news always got a question every day at the briefing until president obama, so let's make sure that's perfectly clear to everybody watching out there. fox news alternates got questions. msnbc always got questions -- the previous administrations. this is a new thing this white house is doing to us at cnn and to a couple other news outlets as well. but as for the camera issue, as you know, that briefings was off camera, so i asked a couple times during the briefing, why can't we turn the cameras on? people not accustomed to being in that briefing ream, it is set up like a tv studio. you can turn the cameras on. they can be on at any moment. there are tv lights on all the time, because the cameras can be turned on at any moment, and let's make this clear. this is not a trump campaign
event. this is the united states government saying we can't have cameras on inside the white house briefing room for an event typically covered with cameras. i'll let the viewers decide why they're being kept off, but i tried a couple times during the briefings to get a question to sean spicer and ask why these cameras are not being turned on. trey engst, at a -- to his cried, he did ask the question and said, hey, let's get this out of the way, why are in the being kept off, and spicer basically punted -- there will be times they're off and times they're on, but make no mistake, this is the gradual erosion of the expectations of the traditions that have been in this city for about a quarter of a century, that these briefings be held on camera. further this openness and transparency point, the president will be making a statement this afternoon with prime minister modi from india.
those head of state press conferences or statements are typically press conferences, where the american press gets two questions and the foreign press will get two questions. that is not happening today. the president is using the setting of the rose guarding to talk about whatever he wants to talk about and presumably he may talk about the travel ban, but he's not going to be taking questions from the news media. once again, he's getting the coverage without the accountability. i think that we just need to recognize what's happening here. that is what we are typically accustomed to in this in terms of covering the white house, that is being eroded away right in front of our eyes. >> let me bring in brian staller. you hear jim acosta there, and the frustration you heard in his voice when he was trying to ask questions, specifically about why isn't this on cameras? what are your thoughts? >> i think the word "erosion" jim uses is spot on. it's gradual, kind of
degradation inaccess to the white house, not only to the white house, but access to information. we live in this world where in i reach over it takes me three buttons to go live on my phone. so to see the white house rolling back on access is strange, it's kind of like they want to go back in time to the pre-cable news, pre-tv news days, but that's not possibility, but this is not the behavior of a confident administration. a white house doesn't do this because they believe they have all the answers and they're proud of what is going on, they think they're winning every day. no, this is the behavior of an administration that's struggling to answer basic questions. a couple conviction examples from this briefings, spicer was asked -- why didn't the white house hold the traditional dinner to end ramadan. spicer said, i don't know. what about the promise from trump for a press conference
about fighting isis, and does trump believe the intel conclusion that -- the answer was, i've never asked him that specific question. we can talk about whether the briefings are on life, on tape or accessible. more importantly spicer doesn't have answer to the questions the journalists are trying to get answers to. >> abby phillips is or cnn analyst, also a reporter -- a white house reporter with "the washington post." abby, when you hear they don't want to have this on camera briefings, because they want to talk about more substantive issues and they think people are trying to ask gotcha questions to have a good video clip later, that's been some of the explanation, and we've heard from the press team. it seems like today would be a perfect day toe do an on-camera briefings, because they have something so great like the travel ban to talk about in which the president said this was a major visibility torrie for his team. >> yeah, i