Skip to main content

tv   CNN Tonight With Don Lemon  CNN  June 26, 2017 7:00pm-8:01pm PDT

7:00 pm
another potential chemical weapons attack by the assad regime." it goes on "the activities are similar to preparations the regime made before its april 4th, 2017 chemical weapons attack. previously stated, the united states is in syria to eliminate the islamic state of iraq and syria. if, however, mr. assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price." time to hand things over to don lemon and "cnn tonight." this is cnn breaking news. >> we have some breaking news on the gop health care bill. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. a fourth gop senator says he will vote no on the motion to let his own party's health care bill go forward. so, can mitch mcconnell get trumpcare across the finish line? with the clock ticking, the vote in the next few days. the president said he wants a bill with heart, but with 22 million more americans with no health insurance, is this that bill? plus, ivanka trump says she trieses to stay out of politics
7:01 pm
which seems like a really odd thing. one of the president's top advisers is saying maybe you don't have an office in the west wing, that may make you stay out of politics. let's get right to cnn's senior political analyst, mr. mark preston with our breaking news now. mark, the nonpartisan congressional budget office, cbo, it's out, and the senate gop health care bill, so break it down for us. what does it say? >> well, what it says right now is that it is actually better off when you look at the numbers compared to the house bill, we saw 23 million would be uninsured. and there would only be a savings of about i guess $119 billion. if you look at the democratic, rather, the senate republican bill, they would save $321 billion and would be $1 million -- excuse me, 1 million people less that would be insured. so the senate bill looks better than the house bill, but to your point about it being a mean bill, it is causing a lot of headache right now and a lot of heartache for the senate
7:02 pm
republican leadership as they do try to schedule the vote this week,en to. >> so the first one came out, the cbo score, the house bill, 23 million more uninsured by 2026, reduces the federal deficit. the second one, the senate bill, the c becomes o scobo score, 22 uninsured by 2026. so my question is, that deficit reduction of $321 billion, that's a silver lining for the gop leadership, right, that potentially gives them some room to negotiate. >> well, it is buzz the senate bill would be required to have a savings of about $133 billion over 10 years. if you look at it, the cbo is now saying it's $321 billion. so, you know, you do a little bit of subtraction right there and see there's $188 billion potentially on the table that the senate republican hypocoulep could use to entice no votes tole to back into the fold and vote yes on the motion to
7:03 pm
proceed and eventually onto the bill. ma they would use that money for to fund, we don't know yet, but we do know the medicaid funding, the idea they would sunset it after trhree years, perhaps tha could go toward that to ease a little bit of that pain. again, right now, you know, it goes without saying this bill is on life support here in washington. >> i was going to say, jeffrey, you said life support, you know more than i. the leadership mark, they're hunting for votes to get their bill passed, but they have republican senators who won't vote to move the bill forward with more senators expressing concern. concern about it. senators lindsey graham, senator lindsey graham was asked about that score. watch this. >> at the end of the day, i think if you're on the fence about the bill, the cbo score did not help. it didn't make mitch's situation much easier, i don't think. >> and if it looks like it's not going to pass, do you think leader mcconnell should pull the bill? >> you know, i'll let him consider the politics. it's one thing to talk about reforming health care, it's
7:04 pm
another thing to talk about the politics of health care. one thing i've learned about the politics of health care, the best judge of politics of health care is you as a senator. i'm not going to let senator mcconnell or anybody else tell me what's the best politics at home. i think every senator will take that view. if dean heller needs to vote, vote no, vote no. >> this is where mitch mcconnell has to step it up and figure out what to do. as i understand, he wants a vote before the july 4th recess. does he have the votes? what is he going to do? >> les tat's talk about the sim math. how this would vote. the republicans need 50 votes. the reason being, if they get 50 votes, the vice president mike pence could come up, break the tie, have 51 then you can move forward. the problem is as you've just shown, they have four republican senators who won't vote on the motion to proceed. they have 5 vote 2 sfloets the s
7:05 pm
united states sfwhat. t senate. there haven't been those who said they were against the bill as much as these four. they have grave, grave concerns. i'm not sure what mitch mcconnell can do at this point. he's been backed into the wall. push artificial deadlines on overhauling something so major to our economy, quite frankly, they had seven years to try to get this done, don dand put themselves in a bad situation. >> a good question, why the rush on this? mark presten, thank you, sir. i want to turn to dr. nan hayworth from new york, and member of the trump campaign advisory board. also nira tandon, former policy director for hillary clinton who helped to write obamacare. so, thank you both for joining us. we were, to be honest, having this conversation before the show started. just how complicated this issue is. doctor, i want to skpepeak to y in a moment. what's your reaction to the sne
7:06 pm
cbo score? 22 million uninsured next year because of the individual mandate, it goes away. >> i have to say, quite honestly, i was shocked. for weeks the senate has been telling everyone they're going to have a very different bill from the house and the president, himself, said the house bill was mean and senate needed to be more generous. in some ways this bill, the cbo bill is harsher, next year, just next year, 15 million people lose health care. 14 million in the house. premiums. the president had a bunch of promises. premiums would go down, out of pocket costs would go down. cbo said that's false. everyone would keep their coverage, that's false. he wouldn't touch medicaid, that's false. i have to say, i was genuinely surprised. the president moved sort of right instead of going toward a more generous plan. >> you're disagreeing, why? >> well, don, look, we know that eight years into the affordable care act, or seven years at this
7:07 pm
point, that americans are losing their insurance, they're losing their access to care, including in medicaid, which is a deeply flawed program. states have lost their ability to accommodate the folks who need care the most in medicaid and we need to put -- the president has promised this, he is right, we need to put americans back to work so they can actually afford the kind of health care that they want, we need to make sure that we take care of americans who are suffering under the burdens of mandates that are unreasonable and the bureaucracy that actually is going to cost americans upwards of $300 billion according to the cbo, between 2014 and 2026, that's an enormous number. and we need to protect those most in need. >> okay, standby, neera. i have this from mark preston. this is the latest polling since you mentioned obamacare. this is from the kaiser family foundation. 51 51% of americans now approve of
7:08 pm
obamacare, per an nbc/"wall street journal poll." 34% of republicans view the gop plan positively. it seems like obamacare has a much more positive, at least americans see it much more positive than they do this health care bill. how do you square that? how do you fix that? >> we fix it by bringing forward a plan and the plan isn't -- it isn't complete yet. that's obvious. there is work still to do. we do it by bringing forward a plan and the president is exceedingly good at communica communicating with the american people. we bring forward a plan that makes sense in their live. >> to your point, nan, you said -- >> a better approach. >> the president is saying this needs to be mixed, needs more heart. can you fix that by july 4th? why the rush, then? the president is saying we need to work on this. >> sure. one of the biggest problems and challenges, quite honestly, don, is the senate minority leader,
7:09 pm
senator schumer, has vowed that senate democrats will not be part of this effort. so, that severely constrains the terms of the bill the senate can vote on right now to something called reconciliation. americans have heard of it. it's a process term from the senate. something they shouldn't have to worry about. if democratic members, democratic senators would come into this process, we could have a broader bill that would probably be a lot easier to accept in certain ways. >> if i don't let neera in, she's going to skbrujump there camera and grab me. go ahead, neera. >> i need to clarify a few things. first of all, the reasons why we're in reconciliation in this process, and republicans only need 50 votes is because they made a decision in january to ignore democrats. eight years ago, used a normal process, 60 votes ended up being necessary. that's why what's happening now is republicans have chosen to do a 50-vote process where they only need republicans. you know, it's fascinating you
7:10 pm
say that this is the beginning or in the middle. mitch mcconnell is trying to finish this vote in three days. okay? americans need to know that. he wants to move to a motion to proceed and amend the bill and be done by friday. he introduced the bill to the public thursday, four days ago and wants a vote on friday. so that's a week of public deliberation and so this is it. the senate is going to vote on a bill that will lose coverage for 22 million people, raise people's premiums. people, 4 million americans in employer-sponsored coverage, that means you're not in the exchange, not in medicaid, get it from your employer, 4 million americans will lose coverage. i just need to say, sorry, i'll just finish with this, there is no longer negotiation. republicans have to make a decision. do you care about the insured and the people in medicaid and in the exchanges in your state? >> okay, let her get in. >> or are you deciding about your party and what your party wants for politics?
7:11 pm
this is a political decision they're making. >> go ahead, nan. >> the political decision is very much on the part of the members of the senate who will not participate in this process. don, it's eminently clear and painfully clear that american have lost their access to care and coverage that they can afford. by the millions under the affordable care act. it hasn't worked. it is broken. it needs to be fixed. >> that is just false. >> by the way, the cbo said premiums are going to go down under this bill. >> they said out of pocket costs for vin under this -- >> it's skyrocketing. >> to be crystal clear, the cbo did discuss the affordable care act. it said the affordable care act is stable. it's stable now. it is just false that people -- that there isn't insurance for people. insurers are going into missouri, they're going into states. if president trump would allow this system to be -- if he wasn't trying to sabotage the
7:12 pm
affordable care act, people would have health care. you know, let's listen to senator collins. >> okay. >> senator collins today said let's have democrats and republicans come together. if you didn't destroy the aca, many democrats will come together with republicans to figure out this. >> nan, listens you're a doctor. you say this is mill now. the american medical association says the gop's plan goes against the oath doctors take which says do not harm. >> i know the oath well being a doctor. >> this is their tweet. propublica, the population of kansas, west virginia, idaho, hawaii, new hampshire, maine, rhode island, montana, delaware, south dakota, north dakota, alas alaska, vermont, wyoming, d.c. combined. understand why people are concerned when you put it in those terms. >> we have about 40% of the country at this point, don, that only has one insurance plan to choose from. i think it's 40% of the counties
7:13 pm
in this country. insurers have progress -- some have come back in, yes, some are coming in, but net/net, we've lost insurers, we've lost options. we've increased the cost of insurance and it's in an unsustainable form. people have lost their livelyhoods. they've lost their insurance. they've lost their access. yes, the senate and the president and the congress have to address this and they have made good faith work to do that. >> i got to go. i got to ask you this, again, and just a simple answer, why the are rurush? couldn't they -- can't we, meaning we, the people, take our time and figure out what's best for the american people instead of an artificial deadline? >> there's been -- but the deadline -- you're right, don, that, you know, there's not a fixed deadline but it is true that they do have to proceed with all speed. especially for those who believe that this is an important component of getting to tax
7:14 pm
reform because of budget reasons. now, again -- >> because they need to pass the -- >> right. senator mcconnell does have other options and the president has talked about it and i think he's -- he's wise to mention that there are other ways to pass a more comprehensive bill by breaking the block, the filibuster on bringing legislature to the floor. >> that's got to be the last word. thank you, neera, thank you, doctor, i appreciate it. when we come back, how the white house is reporting on the health care bill. and breaking news out of syria, possible preparations of another chemical attack by the assad regime. we'll be right back. the future of sleep is here.
7:15 pm
with the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your every move and automatically adjusts on both sides. right now save on sleep number 360 smart beds. plus, it's the lowest prices of the season with savings of $500 on our most popular p5 bed.
7:16 pm
7:17 pm
♪ whoa that's amazing... hey, i'm the internet! i know a bunch of people who would love that. the internet loves what you're doing... build a better website in under an hour with... ...gocentral from godaddy. type in your idea. select from designs tailored just for you and publish your site with just a few clicks-even from your...
7:18 pm phone. the internet is waiting start for free today at godaddy. breaking news, it is ominous. the white house identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the assad regime. i want to bring in senior white house correspondent jim acosta, and senior political analyst, april ryan. both of them are at the white house every day. the white house issued a stern warning to the assad regime in s syria. what can you tell us? >> reporter: ominous warning. there's a statement from the press secretary sean spicer. we can put it up on screen. it says "the activities are similar to preparations the regime made before its april 4th, 2017, chemical weapons attack as we previously stated, the wrooits united states is ino eliminate the islamic state of iraq and syria. if mr. assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy
7:19 pm
price." it's a very ominous statement coming from this white house, don, but very much a red line that this white house is drawing here. keep in mind, the president during the campaign criticized president obama time and again for not enforcing a red line when it kocomes to chemical weapons in sere wra. he appears to be drawing one tonight, don. >> the breaking news from jim. i want to turn to something else. this is a key day for the white house between health care, the president's partial travel ban win. it would be nice to play the tape from the white house briefing right now to show the american public exactly what happened. how this administration answered questions, but once again, cameras weren't allowed to record anything. you asked about that. you have this audio. let's listen. >> sean, sean, can you answer whether the president still believes -- >> there's no camera on, jim. >> maybe you should turn the cameras on, sean. why don't we turn the cameras on? why don't we turn the cameras on? >> jen? go ahead. >> why not turn the cameras on, sean? they're in the room. the lights are on. >> why do you want them off?
7:20 pm
>> tell us why you turned the cameras off. why? it's a legitimate question. you are a taxpayer -- spokesman for the united states government, give us an explanation as to why the cameras are off. >> so we get this out of the way, can we address the cameras issues? >> some days, we'll have them, some days we won't. the president is going to speak today in the rose garden. i want the president's voice to carry the day. you know, and i think -- you know, so, look, this is nothing inconsistent with what we said since day one. >> okay. well, that was -- okay, jim. so, my question is, all right, i'm an outsider here. i'm speaking as an american citizen who pays taxes. why aren't the cameras on? why don't you just turn the cameras on? >> reporter: that was a question that i asked during the briefing today, don. we did not get an answer to that question. i think that the only logical answer to the question is that what we're asking is something they just don't want to answer and have the sound bites played on national television. >> so what would happen if you
7:21 pm
turned the cameras on? would they kick you out? what would happen? would they kick eyou out? >> reporter: i think that's a good question, don. our leadership of the board, they've been working behind the scenes with the press secretary trying to get these cameras back on. they are our cameras, and so what is basically happening, agreed with the white houses not to have the cameras on at this briefing. so the question is there, don, would they take our press credentials away? i don't know. would they kick me out of the white house if i were to start rolling with my phone? i don't know. >> well, there's only one way to figure it out, jim. here's what i have to say. i am surprised, quite honestly, that more people aren't outraged and i'm surprised the white house press -- the white house correspondents' press association has not taken a h d harder stance on this. i'm surprised everyone sitting in that room that you're the only one standing out there on a limb saying this is not right. >> reporter: well, my friend, april ryan, did chime in today
7:22 pm
and say -- >> april is going to come in. >> reporter: i think it's a great question. >> here's what i want to say, if i'm a member of the white house press corps and fox news asks a question and sean spicer doesn't answer, i'm going to ask the same question. if they don't answer that question at cnn, i would expect nbc and cbs, abc, the avr.p., everybody else to ask the question, especially the one why aren't the cameras rolling over and over and over again until you get an answer or until they're fedup of not answering. i think someone has to take a stand and turn the cameras on and see what the ramifications are because they can't kick everybody out, and it is the american people's cameras and not the white house cameras. i'm sorry to cut you off. >> reporter: yeah. >> i can't believe that people aren't standing up for this. >> reporter: i agree with wow who you wholeheartedly. let's say during the obama administration during the height of the obamacare debate, said
7:23 pm
we're turning the cameras off in the briefing room. people would lose their minds in this town. what if the cameras were turned off during the benghazi investigation? what would friends at fox news say about this? this is not a partisan issue. >> it's not. >> reporter: this is about access. when you turn the cameras off, you're taking away a layer of accountability. as simple as that. i don't know why this is being caught up in some sort of partisan debate, why we're being cast in a certain way by raising this issue. this is about openness and transparency in government. what are the politicians hiding? why would anybody be afraid to get to the bottom of that? >> yeah. april, go on. i'm sorry to not give you time. april, why is this happening? why are people allowing this to happen? >> don, i talked to a couple people after the briefing. i watched jim. he was alone for a little bit. there are some people on the side and trey even said, while jim kept talking, he said, look, let's deal with this issue. i asked someone who was sitting
7:24 pm
on the front row who has a front-row seat from one of the networks on the front row. sh they said, look, you know, i was concerned, too, i was concerned why people didn't chime in with jim and this person has not been called on since april. and from a major network. i also asked someone from the board and they said, you know, just concluded a meeting with sean spicer and they talked about things about the -- about the briefing room, the layout and talked about gaggles and briefings and it was posed by the association, let's have a morning gaggle to take the steam out of the televised briefings because when you only get one briefing, there's more of a ---a -- more of an intense give or take, you've gotten issues answered or questions answered early in the day. i remember when i came to the white house 20 years ago, mike mccurry used to have a gaggle with reporters, about 70, 80 reporters in his office, then we would have the on-camera briefing later in the day. and that would take down a lot of the temperature except for
7:25 pm
when there were controversies like monica lewinsklewinsky. but the stakes are very high right now and jim is absolutely right, why are the cameras turned off? but you also have to remember this, if we do turn the cameras on, there's a chance that we could lose out of having that prime seat to ask questions for the american public. >> they can't pull everybody's cameras. they can't throw everybody out of the briefing room. at some point -- >> you know, don -- >> it's a tough one for you guys, i know. i'm sitting here looking back as a spectator saying, but at some point, you have to have some -- >> being in that room is different. >> you've got to stand up and got to take a stance. and i think if everybody turns the cameras on, and if everybody has each other's backs, they chan n cannot do it, no way they can do it. that's how i feel. april and i will continue. go ahead, april. >> i give jim many props for this. but you have to remember as well, you know, i was watching twitter and people are talking about you should boycott.
7:26 pm
you know what, boycotting is not the answer. you won't get questions if we boycott. and if we boycott, we walk out, they shut the doors from us. >> no, don't walk out. don't walk out. >> that's what i'm saying. so i am not an advocate of boycotting, but i'm an advocate of a conversation of opening this up. >> yeah. go ahead, jim. >> go ahead, jim. >> reporter: don, i don't have to get off the president's lawn just yet. >> okay, good. >> reporter: i have until 10:30. i think at some point some collective action, excuse me, some collective action will have to be taken. >> yes. >> reporter: i do think we're going to have to ask this hard question inside the white house correspondents' association whether we're going to allow this to become the new normal. are we going to allow it to become the new normal that the president has only had one full news conference since coming into office? that was back in february. are we going to allow it to be the new normal that we're not going to have the cameras on at the press briefings? something a governor wouldn't do in a state. i talked to the australian news media today outside the briefing room. they said the prime minister of
7:27 pm
australia would never do something like this. this is the united states and this is the white house. >> the peoplouepeople's house. >> reporter: i am fired up about this. >> we got to go. quick, april. >> jim and don, i will say this really fast. in one of my conversations, sean spicer is very much concerned with what we considers grandstanding by the media and it's one of the reasons he says the camera are turned off. i don't believe it's grandstanding. i believe it's asking questions and sometimes he's not prepared when he comes to the podium and he does not want to show he's not prepared. >> yeah. >> reporter: sometimes we ask the question more than once. sometimes we follow up and ask the same question as you said earlier, don, because it's not answered the first time. >> many people stood up to presidents, both democrat and republican. my colleague, jake tapper has. we remember helen thomas. you told me a story earlier, april, how helen thomas used to knock on the door and say why is this door closed? we have to demand this. >> why's it locked? yeah. >> why's it locked. the american people deserve to know and transparency, we have to be transparent.
7:28 pm
they have to know what their government officials are doing and have to be held accountable. thank you, both. we'll continue our conversation. i appreciate it. get off the lawn, jim. when we come back, the president finally admitting what intelligence officials have been saying for months. russia probably did interfere in the election. why he's now blaming obama and even accusing him of collusion. (baby crying) ♪ fly
7:29 pm
♪ me to the moon (elegant music) ♪ and let me play (bell rings) [ barks ] radio: scorching heat today, staywalter!ut there! stop suffering with hot ac. cool it yourself with a/c pro. in just 3 easy steps, enjoy the comfort of 2 times the cooling boosters from the #1 selling coldest air. nothing cools like a/c pro.
7:30 pm
7:31 pm
7:32 pm
president trump's top aide, son-in-law jared kushner, hiring a big-time criminal defense lawyer, bringing in abby lowell on his legal team as the russia investigation starts to heat up. the president upping his attacks on his predecessor tweeting president obama did nothing about russia's meddling, accusing him of corruption. i want to bring in philip mudd, former cia counterintelligence official. sergey kislyak heading home after nine years in the post. he's the man at the center of the trump/russia investigation. why would russia reca-call him now? >> it's a smart part on putin, of course, to premooufr the
7:33 pm
person in the center of this. he's not available to talk to. he's not going to make a mistake of talking to the media or talking to anybody in the trump administration who may then talk about what he said. >> yeah. so, phil, russia says this was planned in advance. with all these questions that surround kislyak, himself, and meetings with top members of the trump campaign, do you find the timing suspicious at all? >> i wouldn't say suspicious. it's a rare moment where i have to agree with my former colleague. this makes a lot of sense to me. let's say you're sitting in moscow and you want to move the che chessboard forward with washington. you might have thought six months ago if donald trump bwin, you win, you can move that board forward. what are you thinking now? trump is cornered. he's cornered because of all the allegations obviously about his administration, his campaign's collusion with the russians. if you pull kislyak now who's at the center of the investigation, maybe you offer a glimmer of hope that with the substitution here in washington, you
7:34 pm
eliminate one of the squeaky wheels. that's the ambassador. and offer the potential that what you thought was an opportunity with president trump can actually happen because right now, don, the russians got to be saying, boy, this isn't working as smoothly as we expected. >> the white house post -- the "washington post," i should say, published a revealing report, it's about the obama administration's struggle to respond to this russia affair, this russia efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. "senior obama administration official admits that they choked in their response and the press secretary, sean spicer, had this to say about it today. here it is. >> th >> they've been very clear, blaming trump and russia. they are the ones who knew about it and didn't take any action. the question is, were they -- if they didn't take any action, does that make them complicit? i don't have all the understanding of what they knew, when they knew it, but there does seem to be a pit bit of
7:35 pm
hypocrisy in what they didn't do if they clearly believe all this was happening. >> is the obama administration to blame? >> i think hindsight is 20/20. it's so easy to young these thi things after the fact. i'm sure phil would agree with this point, too. after 9/11 there was lots of second guessing what the agency could and should have done. i'm sure we can parse these going forward and identify areas where the obama administration could have leaned forward. i do think they should have leaned forward a bit more than they did. to say they didn't do anything is disingenuous at best. >> took to twitter to accuse president obama for his response, russia interfering in the election. here's what he said, "president obama did nothing about russia after being notified by the cia of the meddling. he expected clinton would win.
7:36 pm
he didn't want to rock the boat. it did the dems and crooked hillary no good. "what's your reaction to that? >> there's a rare moment, don, where we have humor in the national security business and this qualifies. going back to the summer of last year, as we discussed earlier, obama officials discussed this in open forums. on december 29th, the former president, president obama, announced sanctions and expelled russian diplomats. if i were in the white house press room, i'd have a couple questions for sean spicer. number one, the president of the united states, president trump, took office recently. how long after he took office, and i want that measured in the space of maybe seven to ten days, how long after did he convene secretary of state, secretary of defense, national security adviser, cia director, fbi director, to discuss how they stop russia from meddling in american elections? and if he didn't have that conversation, i have a second question. if the former president on december 29th announced sanctions, what sanctions has or
7:37 pm
has not the trump administration announced? i don't understand how we can't have a conversation about facts. president obama, whether you like it or not, i think some of those actions were pretty limited, announced sanctions. president trump has not. how can the current president then say the previous guy said, did nothing? i don't get it, don. >> i want to ask you, i want to ask you about a piece -- your piece in the "washington post" about how the president's twitter feed is a gold mine for foreign intelligence agencies. i'll put your quote up about what you write. basically you talk about his 32.7 million twitter followers immediately and without much obvious meditation by diplomat strategists or handlers, you say the president's unfiltered thoughts are available night and day, broadcast to his 32.7 million followers without much obvious mediation by diplomats and strategists. how do you think our adversaries are using the president's twitter feed? >> i think it's very easy for them to gauge what the president sees as priorities, what's
7:38 pm
bothering him, what's keeping him up at night. when they're planning events, they can easily use the media as a platform that they know that he watches to flatter him. there's a variety of ways they can go about using that twitter feed to their advantage. >> yeah. thank you, nada, thank you, phil, i appreciate it. when we come back, the supreme court green lights parts of the president's travel ban. how his nominee, justice gorsuch, helped make it happen zblmp. our next hour, americans speaking out against the american health care plan. their real-life stories. y, thats uh trail mix. wow minty. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein. working my canister off to clean and shine and give proven protection against fading and aging. he won't use those copycat wipes.
7:39 pm
hi...doing anything later? ooh, the quiet type. i like that. armor all original protectant. it's easy to look good. thanks for tnorfolk!around and i just wanted to say, geico is proud to have served the military for over 75 years! roger that. captain's waiting to give you a tour of the wisconsin now. could've parked a little bit closer... it's gonna be dark by the time i get there. geico®. proudly serving the military for over 75 years. the only bed smart enough to change sleep as we know it. it senses your every move and automatically adjusts on both sides to keep you comfortable. and snoring ? ... does your bed do that? right now save on sleep number 360 smart beds.
7:40 pm
plus, it's the lowest prices of the season with savings of $500 on our most popular p5 bed.
7:41 pm
7:42 pm
supreme court green lighting parts of the president trump's travel ban. the white house declaring victory, but this is is not the end of it. let's discuss now, michael reagan, son of president reagan. ronald reagan. the author of "lessons my father taught me." good evening, sir. >> good to be with you. >> so let's talk, the supreme court has agreed to hear arguments on the administration's travel ban affecting six muslim majority countries. in the meantime, the justices will allow some parts of that
7:43 pm
ban to go into effect. president called this a clear victory for national security. is that how you see it? >> well, that's how he sees it. he's the president. i think the whole court, what we found out today, is that the president of the united states had the right to put forth that exec tifr ordutive order. it was a 9-0 vote. there was nobody walking away. ruth bader ginsburg was on the side of conservatives at that point in time. that's what we really found out today. i just worry that we're going to end up being complacent thinking this is going to do, this h is going to make us safe, we're all going to feel better, kumbaya, what have you. this is a step in order to try and make america more safe. hopefully it works out. >> let's talk about justice neil gorsuch because we saw again, today, mike, how justice gorsuch is delivering as a strong conservative as president trump promised. how important is gorsuch to the trump administration? >> i think he's very important.
7:44 pm
remember, most of us who voted for donald trump who couldn't stand many of the ways of donald trump, if you will, voted for him for the neil gorsuch. so he would put a conservative on the court and that's exactly what we got. so, conservatives are very happy with their choice for president based on his choice for the supreme court. >> so you said were unhappy with the ways of donald trump meaning some of the way he handled his business, but you were in it for what you thought -- or you think you were going to get out of it, someone like a gorsuch. like neil gorsuch. >> absolutely right. you know, many of us sat back and said why am i going to vote for trump? it came down to, i'm going to vote for trump over hillary because we'll know -- we would know who she would put on based on who donald trump would fit on the court. you might remember, he put out a list of those who, in fact, were on the top of his list to go to the supreme court. we were able to see that list
7:45 pm
and make a choice for donald trump, for the presidency of the united states of america. so if he does nothing else, many of us are very happy. >> it's in spite -- or despite, whatever it is may you feel about him. i want to switch gears now. let's talk about health care. that appears to be imminent. some people are saying they don't want this to go to the floor. or even be -- congressional budget office, cbo says 22 million more people will be lest uninsured if this senate republican bill passes. henry olson, who wrote a book on your father, says republicans need to listen to president reagan on health care. he writes in part, he said "reagan did not oppose national health care plans out of a belief they violated the constitution, or improper roles for government to play or cost too much. rather he opposed them because they weren't necessary to solve the legitimate humanitarian concerns that evoked americans' compassion. reagan's principle was simple. as he told the conservative league of minneapolis in 1961, as one conservative, let me say any person in the united states who requires medical attention
7:46 pm
and cannot provide it for himself should have it provided for him." so president trump says this bill is mean, it needs more heart, it sounds like your father would agree with him. you agree with that assessment? >> listen, my father gave a speech a year later about socialized medicine, medicare, what have you, four square against socialized medicine and worried deeply about that intrusion into our lives of socializing our medicine. he was never for medicare but once you have a government program, you cannot get rid of a government program. so you have to deal with it within the confines. i think the republicans are finding that out now. obamacare has been in place now for quite a few years and they're finding how tough it is to, in fact, change a program that's already in place or, in fact, to get rid of a program that's in place. this is what happens when government intrudes into our lives. you know, i can go out and get fire insurance, car insurance, homeowners insurance, all kinds of insurances are available to
7:47 pm
me without government intrusion into my life. and as soon as government decided to get into the health care system, it really blew it up. now the republicans are trying to fix something and i'll tell you, they're finding out they're going to be knee deep in trouble if they don't get it right the first time. >> yeah. i wish we had more time because it's the last thing that he said, let me say any person in the united states who requires medical attention and cannot provide it for himself should have it provided for him." you know -- >> but it is provided because the supreme court said. anybody can walk into a hospital, any time, day or night, 24 hours a day, and receive medical care. >> yeah. thank you, michael. always a pleasure. >> good to see you. when we come back, the president's daughter and senior adviser announcing this. >> i don't profess to be a political savant so i leave the politics to other people. coming up in our next hour, how the russia investigation is
7:48 pm
mirroring watergate. whoooo.
7:49 pm
looking for a hotel that fits... ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over 200 sites to find you the hotel you want at the lowest price. grazie, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor. ♪ ♪you are loved ♪
7:50 pm
can we at least analyze customer can we push the offer online? legacy technology can handcuff any company. but "yes" is here. you're saying the new app will go live monday? yeah. with help from hpe, we can finally work the way we want to. with the right mix of hybrid it, everything computes. it's easy-drinking... it's refreshing... ♪ if you've got the time ♪ it's what american lager was born to be. ♪ we've got the beer. ♪ welcome to the high life. ♪ miller beer.
7:51 pm
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®. trump has a west wing office and a seat next to her father during meetings with world leaders so why did she say this? >> what do you advise him in regards to his tweeting? >> i try to stay out of politics. his political instincts are phenomenal. he did something no one imagined he could accomplish early on. i feel blessed to have been part
7:52 pm
of the ride from day one an before. i don't pro fes to be a political savant. i leave the politics to other people and lean into the issues that i care deeply about. >> here to discuss now our cnn political come taters. you've been on vacation. she's been climbing rocks and other stuffs. >> water falls. >> i've been internet shopping. >> let's talking about ivanka trump. senior advise or to the president of the united states how is she saying that? >> i get what she's saying. she's not playing the role her brothers are playing. we see her constantly on the attack mode calling democrats -- wondering whether democrats are
7:53 pm
people. ivanka trump does not do that. she is the classy kind of above the fray. she hasn't been political. she wasn't even registered to be able to vote in the new york primary. this is not a political person. it is naive to think she's not political now or to not see herself as political. she works in the white house not at white castle. she is a senior advise or to the president not just signing and purchasing shoes. everything she does, even saying she's not political is viewed as political because of the role she plays. >> you say kaley you understand what she's saying as well? >> that's right. one of the few times anna and i will agree i think there's a difference between politics an governing. there are people who still want country before party.
7:54 pm
ivanka is one of those people. she brought paid family leave into the republican party. she have said this should be a common sense idea. that's what she was getting at. >> so again this is not politics because she was on capitol hill last week and met with marco rubio then tweeted just left a productive meeting on the hill. does that change anything anna? does it make her comments more per plexing? >> first i think i have got to give her some lessons on hispanic hugging 101. after we get through with that of course it's political. it's policy. it's political. it's capitol hill. it's the state department. it's foreign trips. i think what she's not is she's not a strie dent partisan at least not in speech. these people were until two
7:55 pm
minutes ago they were new york liberals. when you see for example ivanka trump tweeting about pride month yet the white house has yet to tweet a come mem ration of pride month on day 26th of the month of course what she's doing is political. now is she out there throwing partisan grenades and throwing partisan bombs? she's not doing that. i think she sees herself more and comes across more of a goodwill ambassador for the president trump administration. that being said she's the senior advise or to the president of the united states and his daughter who works at the white house. she is political. >> kaley he wrote this if ivanka trump wanted to stay out of politic i cans she had a way
7:56 pm
don't take on an official role in her father's white house. here she is -- to paraphrase marco rubios description of obama let's dispel that ivanka trump doesn't know what she is doing. she knows exactly what she's doing. >> he's entirely wrong. ivanka trump cares about the mother at home. she cares about the person who just lost her job at a factory. she's tired of the political games. she's tired of the ongoing russia investigation which 56% of the country thinks we should drop. it's a political game when you have diane feinstein telling wolf blit ser her evidence is rumors and newspapers. ivanka trump was saying yes politics is a means to an end.
7:57 pm
that's not the politics she's talking about. she's talking about the political games democrats want to play. >> when we come back four republican senators threatening to vote no on the health care bill. is the gop health care bill who are these people?
7:58 pm
7:59 pm
the energy conscious people among us say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear. who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing.
8:00 pm
doomed? >> this is cnn breaking news. breaks news a white house official says they're right on the threshold of losing on health care. this is cnn tonight. is the senate gop bill doomed. plus 22 million americans in danger of losing their health insurance. 22 million real life stories. i'll talk to two people whose lives could change if trumpcare


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on