plays games with reality by saying i'll get to you in two weeks or you've got a big surprise coming. >> or comey -- there better not be any tapes. >> that's right. this is what he's always done. what's interesting now is now he's no longer mr. trump. he he's president of the united states. he has people who invest credibility in that position, yet the position is not invested within him any new disposition. that's what's so difficult here, is that we're not dealing with mr. trump anymore where people can laugh off what he says. you're dealing with the president of the united states. and people listen, even if the basis for his assessment is just not. >> the presidency also requires the person think larger than liss self-interest. it's supposed to elevate the better angels of our nature.
instead what we've got is too often a race to the bottom being amplified by an echo chamber which is trying to itself -- when you call critics fake news, let's think about that for a second -- when fake news is a real problem pro live rating on the internet via social media, all of a sudden what you're doing is a constantly orwellian switch to try to muddy the definition of truth versus lies, fact versus fiction. when that's emanating from the hoechl office, that's something real sinister and we have to keep an eye on as a country, as citizens. >> final point to you, brian. >> if you want to see who the real donald trump is, you saw it yesterday. he likes campaigning. he's already campaigning for his second term. when we always thought the best way to campaign for your second term was to actually do the job. >> the irony is, he wants respect more than anything else, and he's got it. he's president of the united states. that's why he can attack us personally if he wants.
he's certainly done it in my case. he's never going to get it in return. he's the president. the respect is there. a lot of this is just a waste of his time. gentlemen, thank you very much for talking to us about this. to all of you, our international viewers, thank you for watching. for you cnn num num is next. for our u.s. viewers, the revised travel ban, the court has spoken. it can go into effect in part. it will do so tonight. what does that mean? let's get after it. >> we must put in place new measures to make it harder for terrorists to succeed. >> president trump's revised travel ban is going to take effect tonight. >> we're a country that open arms to refugees and we're turning away from that. >> we have an election coming up in 18 months. we'll be back with this with a vengeance. >> if this president won't acknowledge what happened in his own election, what hope do we have he'll speak out when they do this again. >> the more pressure we put on north korea, the better. >> the president has directed us
to prepare a range of options. >> i'm not quite sure what the white house's game here is, but i hope they know what they're doing. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn come rata. >> welcome to "new day." alisyn is off. clarissa ward joins me. thank you very much. you brought news with you. we appreciate that here. >> thank you for having me. >> very important news, president trump's revised travel ban has been okayed by the supreme court. it can go into effect and it will in part tonight. 8:00 p.m. eastern is when it starts. what does that mean? what is it? there's new criteria for visa applicants from six muslim majority nations and all refugees. there's a test, you have to show close family or business ties to the united states. we're not exactly sure what that will mean. >> meanwhile sources tell cnn the trump administration are frustrated -- officials within the trump administration and
struggling to convince president trump of the threat russia poses to the united states. why won't the president take action against russian hacks? we have it all covered. let's begin with cnn's laura jarrett live in washington with the breaking details on the travel ban. laura? >> reporter: after months of winding its way through the federal courts, portions of the president's revised travel ban will finally go into effect later tonight. this, of course, after the supreme court ruled to uphold parts of the ban earlier this week finding that people from six muslim majority nations must prove a bona fide connection to a person or entity in the u.s. this morning we're learning more about how exactly the government is defining these relationships. the trump administration issuing new guidelines for visa applicants from six muslim majority countries impacted by president trump's travel ban. a senior administration official telling cnn that applicants must
prove their relationship with a parent, spouse, child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or a sibling already in the u.s. to be eligible. other extended family members including grandparents and even fee on san joses left off the list. any applicant unable to demonstrate this close relationship traveling from those six countries will be band for 90 days. the state department criteria sent to all u.s. embassies and consulates late wednesday, also applies to all refugees currently waiting approval. visas that have already been approved will not be revoked. immigration advocates worry we could see chaos again at airports like these protests in january when the president's first travel ban went into effect. this as the u.s. tightens aviation security for overseas airports with direct flights to the u.s. >> we cannot play international whack-a-mole with each new
threat. >> reporter: homeland secretary john kelly announcing greater scrutiny of passengers, canines that detect explosives and enhanced screening of electronic devices. >> make no mistake, our enemies are constantly working to find new methods tore disguising explosives, recruiting insiders and hijacking aircraft. >> reporter: secretary kelly warning there will be consequences if airlines refuse to comply. >> those who choose not to cooperate could be subject to other restrictions including a ban on electronic devices on aircraft or even a suspension of their flights into the united states. >> reporter: secretary kelly refused to detail all the any requiremention for security reasons, noting that the screening guidelines will be both seen and unseen and phased in over time. the travel ban guidelines, however, will go into effect later tonight.
chris? >> laura, appreciate it. president trump under scrutiny for how he's managing threats posed by other countries. sources tell cnn the president's advisers are struggling to convince him of the threat that russia poses because of its hacking capabilities. there are also questions about why he hasn't taken a harder line against the kremlin in that regard. cnn's joe johns live at the white house with more, and this really gets us right to the heart of the matter about why the president is so resistant to the reality of russia's interference. >> reporter: chris, that's true. trump campaign fund-raiser last night in washington, it paints a real picture. the leader of the free world, once again, five months into his term preparing to participate in american democracy at the highest level while a threat to american democracy remains very present and very real. senior administration officials say they are struggling to
convince president trump to deal with the issue of russian interference in the election. president trump's top administration officials frustrated the president has taken no public steps to punish russia for it's lex interference, as trump chooses instead to fault his predecessor. >> obama knew about russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it. >> reporter: multiple senior administration officials telling cnn there's little evidence that the president is devoting his time or attention to the very real cyber threat despite warnings from his own intelligence officials. >> this is the way of the future. we have an election coming up in 18 months. we have to protect this or we're not a real democracy anymore if we don't watch out. >> reporter: nsa director mike rogers expressing concern in a recent closed door briefing about his inability to convince the president to accept that russia meddled in the election according to a congressional source familiar with the
meeting. >> if this president won't acknowledge what happened in his own election, what hope do we have that he will speak out when they do this again? >> press secretary sean spicer insisting the president is taking the russian cyber threat seriously saying the united states continues to combat on a regular basis malicious cyber activity and will continue to do so without bragging to the media or defending itself against unfair media criticism. u.n. ambassador nikki haley telling a congressional committee wednesday she has not discussed this pressing national security issue with the president or his russian counterparts. >> what would you want me to say to them? i'm at the u.n. we're working on international issues. >> the russians are at the united nations. have you received any instructions at all with respect to them meddling in our elections, like don't talk about that, ms. haley. >> it hasn't come up. >> the collusion investigation
has consumed his attention. >> there's been no collusion, no obstruction. >> there have been public comments that suggest there's been no overwhelming evidence to suggest there was collusion. it's not for me to judge before we end, i can only address it as milestones of what we know as of tod today. >> reporter: new this morning, we're hearing secretary of state rex tillerson is expected to meet next week in germany at the g20 summit with his russian counterpart, sergey lavrov. there's still a question as to how substantive any meeting between president trump and president putin might be at that very same summit. back to you. >> that will be interesting. the kremlin had said there's still time to schedule a meeting. let's see what comes up there. let's discuss this new travel ban that goes into effect and what is going to be done vis-a-vis russian interference if anything with cnn political
analyst david gregory, cnn legal analyst laura coates and cnn counterterrorism analyst phil mudd. let's start with the law. the court said, at least in part the executive has a legal right to do this, this being the ban, and it will go into effect in part. but then they put out a very curious nondescript legal standard to put into effect a bona fide relationship. i can't find it in case precedent as something that stands out as discernible. this is going to come down to interpretation. it seems like grandparents, fiancees, and a lot of other people may be carved out which means they can't get in here for at least 90 days. if they're refugees, they can't get in for 120 days. but the basis of the decision seems to be soft. that smells like litigation and bureaucratic problems to me, laura coates. what is your legal reckoning? >> i absolutely agree, chris. in fact, the dissenters didn't
know this would be the case. this blurred distinction invites future litigation. there may be a nuanced reason for that. number one, the supreme court is not in the business of giving legislative advice. the guidance they did give did give some examples of what would constitute a bona fide relationship. however, the very issue people had back when this was initially tried to be implemented in january was issue of due process, giving fair notice, an opportunity to be heard and consistency over the way it's implied and the way those words are interpreted. right now i think you'll have some chaos at the airports around the globe as individual bureaucrats try to interpret and figure out who meets that particular criteria, even though it seems to be clear-cut from the state department. remember, the supreme court knows that 90 days from now is still not october, chris. that issue may have been moot by
the time it reached them. this virtually guarantees they will have a controversy to try to litigate and rule on in october. >> phil mudd, when you look at the proliferation of terrorist attacks that we have seen this summer alone, we've seen them in manchester, in london, all of them being perpetrated by european nationals or in the case here in the u.s., the pulse nightclub attack by an american national, explain the rationale for banning people from these six countries when it appears the most compelling threat now is coming from within our own countries. >> there is no rationale. this is not a national security conversation, this is a political conversation. the president of the united states talked about a muslim ban when he was campaigning. i assume he wants to get out there via his spokesman or himself saying, look, i took steps towards that. if you look at it from a security optic, number one, when you sit around the threat table
as i did at the fbi, as you're saying, clarissa, the threats we talked about, we managed for years, called home-growns, american citizens radicalized by propaganda online, have tried to go to syria to fight with isis. it's not cltypically people comg from overseas. the second thing is numbers. the numbers of people you're talking about as the president's initial muslim ban, the numbers from these countries are minuscule. if you want to talk about real national security, why are we not talking about saudi arabia, back sta pakistan, afghanistan? >> you know how they play that, phil? they'll say the fact that saudi arabia is not on here, indonesia is not on here, that proves it's not a muslim ban because those are mass populous muslim countries. we would have put them on the we were trying to target muslims. >> i see.
we've only selected other countries whose refugees are largely or almost virtually all muslims. i get it. that doesn't make sense, chris, but that's fine. >> david, it has been saleable politically. what i'm hearing from a lot of the president's guys is this is done. the court gave us the legitimacy we wanted. we can put it into effect. that's what we needed politically here. it's a done deal. we don't care how it comes out down the line. we're going to do what we need to do in these three months. what are you hearing about the raw politics of this play? >> well, i don't think there's any question that this became a fight about presidential power and specifically this president's power to make good on a campaign pledge that was in search of a legal and a national security rationale. i agree with phil. to accept this as a vital, necessary step presuppose z that there are not steps that are being taken by security officials form anybody coming into the united states who might
have certain triggers that raise flags about where you're coming from, traveling alone, fitting a certain profile. that's been in effect since 2001 as appropriate safeguards. as a matter of presidential power, i expect the president ultimately to prevail in the supreme court, but the political piece is, this was a ground he staked out and he'll ultimately be vindicated if that's how it goes in the supreme court in october. the issue may be moot in terms of the temporary ban. look, there's a larger threat at work here. ha is homeland security officials that i've spoken to are incredibly worried about the obsession they say big terror groups have with bringing down an airline and planting bombs on airplanes. this is a threat that any administration would take incredibly seriously and do all kinds of things to crack down in advance on any kind of threat like that. and i think that's the larger
issue that's playing out here. >> phil, i just want to pivot for a second to another threat, which is the threat of russia. we heard yesterday from former u.s. ambassador to nato, nicholas burns, saying he now believes this is the most serious threat to the united states of america. he had harsh words for president obama, but particularly for president trump who he said could be accused of dereliction of duty in his reluctance to kind of take on this issue of russia. do you think that's a fair assessment? do you concur with this idea that russia is the number one threat currently facing the united states? >> i do. i don't believe it's china. i don't believe it's terrorism for a couple of reasons. let's look at facts. one is the fact that russia has unpredictably intervened in europe and threatened some of our allies with whom we have treaty obligations. i think china is more predictable and i think we have at least part of a handle on the threat of global terrorism, a
handle we didn't have after 9/11, 16 years ago. if you look at the way forward, i do believe there's a dereliction of duty. this isn't very complicated. the white house had the easiest talking point ever. the president comes into office, turns over to his national security adviser in a couple days and says convene the cabinet departments and figure out, a, how we send a message to the russians to stop this, b, how we coordinate with the states on preventing this from interfering with the next elections and c, how we coordinate with silicon valley in trying to keep fake news off the internet. i don't see u why it's so hard except that the president seems to believe that if he acknowledges this, it somehow helped him get elected. one quick comment, the comedy of trump saying that obama did nothing after he announced sanctions, when he had the russian foreign ministers in his office this year and didn't raise the issue.
i think that's comical. >> reportedly the obama administration put in effect roadmap that this administration could follow and maybe is following in ways that we don't know about. so i want to leave that option open, that they're not going to share everything that might be being done. i agree with phil. if you're the president who is so obsessed and so insecure about his legitimacy, why not put some of that to rest by saying, look, we know they didn't have an impact on the election, but we have to protect the institution and our democracy and make a big deal about it. he refuses to do so. >> we have a perfect marriage here. you guys are raising having interesting questions and we have a great suggestion of an answer to all of them coming up on this show. while i thank you for your perspective, that answer -- in fact, there are five of them. the five investigations into russia's election interference. this is what lies at the heart of our president's reluctance to acknowledge this situation. these all play in the mind of the president as bad for him.
so let's bring on congressman jim jordan, the man on your screen. he's saying the president is right to smell some stink in these investigations and thinks something should be done about it. what is it? he'll tell you next. lease the 2017 es 350 for $329 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.
won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
sources tell cnn president trump's advisers are struging to convince the president that russia still poses a threat after meddling in the 2016 election. the white house says the president is taking action quietly. do fellow republicans think the president is doing enough here? let's discuss that with republican congressman jim jordan of ohio. good to have you this morning. >> good to be with you, chris. >> so a few different things i want to check with you. the first one is syria is now becoming an urgent situation for this white house. they say, if you do something like this again, you're going to feel it. now, you know the last time they bombed the airport, the white house, there was a suggestion whether or not there was legal authority for that. that looms even larger now. do you think that before the president were to take any
unilateral military action, he should have to come before you guys in congress and make the case to you and the american people and have you vote, because the legal authority, the authorization for use of military force is from 2001. >> i do think it's time to have a deb nate on the aumb, authorization to use military force. he said if you do this, there's going to be consequences. there were, in fact, consequences. anything more than that, it seems to me the constitution is pretty clear and we should have a debate in the united states congress. >> do you have any indication of whether or not the white house and the president agree with you on that? >> we have not talked about that matter in particular with the white house. we've been focused on health care and a number of other issues when we have our conversations with folks at the white house. but my position is the same. i thought what he did was appropriate. it seems to me, if you're going to escalate and do something more, certainly if there's entertainment of troops there, that's a debate that has to happen in congress. >> what happens if the president goes ahead and does a bombing
campaign and doesn't come to you guys about it? >> i think you'll hear people speak out about that, but that hasn't happened yet. i supported what he did before. the thing with this president is, when he says something, he means it. i think in the former president, it was red line and that was crossed. there was a new red line, and that was crossed. i don't think the international community appreciated what former president obama was saying because he never backed it up. i think the president does. i think the constitution is clear and we're going to follow it. >> so that's that issue. another issue here that we have is what's going on with russian interference. the actual known and the continuing concern of russia's desire to mess with our elections. do you believe in the urgency of that situation, and do you think something should be done about it? >> of course. of course. everyone believes in the aurgt see. everyone has said that. i do think that's important. i think there needs to be balance when we think about what
james comey testified weeks ago. we did an op ed where we talked about mr. comey misled the american people when he called the clinton investigation a matter instead of an investigation which it was. he did it willfully, intentionally at the direction of the attorney general. think about that. the attorney general tells the fbi director to mislead the american people and he did it. we know this year he also misled the american people when he furthered the perception that mr. trump was under investigation when he wasnd and had been told three times he wasn't by james comey. we're calling for hearings on mr. comey and mr. lynch. it's not just republicans. dianne feinstein said we should look into this matter as well. sure it's important what the russians tried to do in our election. we need to get to the bottom of it but we need to do it in the right way. >> let's discuss your op ed, you're investigating our guys, so you want to investigate your
guys. russian interference and these ancillary questions somewhat involved and related questions of any collusion are relevant because it's a situation we're dealing with right now with russian interference with a current administration. why would you see that as being equivalent to looking at what happened with non-presidential people before now? >> all i'm saying is let's investigate the investigators, not just me, even democrat senator feinstein said we should look into it. >> she did not suggest the urgency that you are. she didn't say we should put it on equal footing with everything we're doing about russia. >> you don't think it's important to understand why the justice department misled the american people and why that same individual, when he was fired, decided he was going to leak a government memo through a friend to "the new york times" with the stated goal -- he said this under oath, with the stated objective to create momentum for a special counsel, not just any special counsel, but good
friend, mentor and predecessor bob mueller, you don't think it's important to get to the bottom of that sf. >> i smell what you're cooking. we both know it's not up for me to decide what gets investigated. you're implying intent in what he testified to. you say that he intentionally and willfully deceived the american people by calling it a matter instead of an investigation and that he was told by the attorney general then to mislead the american people. he never said that, and there is no indication -- >> chris, did you listen to his testimony? >> every word. >> call it a matter, not an investigation. he said should we really do that i don't think that's appropriate. >> he said he didn't like she asked him to do that. >> he testified he said that, but what did he do? he went out and mislead the american people. >> but he didn't think he was misleading the american people because he got his hands around it -- this is by his own
testimony, own reckoning. you're implying intent he did not reveal in his own testimony. he never said, so i decided i would mislead the american people. he never said that. you're saying that's what he did it. i'm saying you can say that, that's your opinion but not a fact. >> i'm saying he did it. the attorney general told him to call it a matter when it was not an investigation when it was an investigation. what did he call it? he called it a matter. when she told him to do that, he questioned it, yet he went out and did it. then he misled the american people when he furthered the perception that the president was under investigation. >> how did he do that? he never told the american people the president was under investigation. how did he intentionally allow people to believe the president was under investigation? >> because three times he told the president he wasn't under investigation, and yet he won't clear that up and tell the american people that, in fact, was the case. he furthers that perception, then he leaks a memo when he gets fired to protect himself.
>> congressman, hold on a second. why would he go out and tell the american people that the president is not under investigation, just because the president asked him to? >> maybe because it was the truth, chris. all i'm saying is why not just be truthful. he wasn't truthful in either situation. he gets fired and now it's like, oh, because james comey got fired, because someone in the justice department is so critical, we've got to have a special counsel to get to the bottom of this. where was the special counsel targeting the irs investigations. >> republicans praised bob mueller who is a registered republican, by the way, you seem to forget that fact. >> where was the special counsel in the irs investigation. >> they say mueller is the right guy to do this, this is the right move. >> i said, look, i understand he has a great reputation. the one meeting i had with bob mueller, he couldn't answer one question about the irs
investigation. we called for a special counsel and the justice department said no. where was the special counsel when numerous members called for it in the clinton investigation. maybe if there was a special counsel there, they would have called it a special investigation. who were the people that bob mueller has hired? all democrats, all big contributors to presidential candidates on the democrat side. >> they're not all democrats. i get your opinion, but here are the facts. three of eight of the mueller hires made contributions to clinton, okay? three of the eight. you had rosenstein, the doj both say political contributions are not dispositive of bias. none of them ever worked for clinton directly. two who did represent clinton's foundation or an aide, never worked for her and worked at a place which also represented key
members of trump's white house including manafort, kushner and ivanka trump. so i get what you're trying to suggest, but the facts aren't there. >> the facts are there. >> they were seen to not have meaningful conflicts. rosenstein said the same thing. >> no republicans, no independent people can go on this special counsel -- >> who is saying you don't have independents or republicans? you have a republican running it. the special counsel is a republican. >> every news story talks about james quarrels, jeannie ray, all these folks who had strong and long connections with democrat candidates for president, long support for -- >> three of eight. >> duke c >> he supported every democratic candidate from dukakis to clinton. >> the doj had no problems with it, rosenstein who all you guys were celebrating had no problems with it.
you're saying it's fine. >> i wasn't celebrating. all i'm saying is, look -- >> maybe you're the exception, not the rule within your own party. >> maybe that's why we need to have hearings. that's why we called for them, to look at what james comey did, unprecedented what he did, and the idea that the attorney general can tell the fbi director not to be square with the american people, i don't think the american people appreciate that. that's not supposed to be happening -- >> you're assuming an intention lt. >> i'm not assuming anything. she told him to portray it in a certain way and he did that. >> you're saying she wanted him to call it that because she wanted to deceive the american people. that's not known. >> chris, come on. what other reason would there be? >> i have to hear it from her. that's how it works. that's why you ask her the questions. >> the same lady that met with bill clinton on the tarmac tells the fbi director not to call it an investigation and there's no intent there? that's unbelievable.
>> that's suspicious as well. we're dealing with the here and now in russia, you're dealing with the back then. that's your case to make, you make it well in the op ed, people should read it. jim jordan, thank you for coming on the case to make the case as always. >> thank you. >> clarissa. >> we are just hours away from president trump's travel ban going into effect. are the new visa guidelines clear? we'll discuss. that's coming up next. getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10 to 25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site;
muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea; and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines. ask your healthcare professional about the risks and benefits of bexsero and if vaccination with bexsero is right for your teen. moms, we can't wait. at crowne plaza we know business travel isn't just business. there's this. 'a bit of this. why not?
the white house travel ban goes into effect tonight at 8:00 p.m. the new criteria requires people from six muslim majority nations and all refugees to have close business or family ties with someone in the u.s. to apply for a visa. let's take a look at this list of the types of family relationships considered close under the guidelines. it includes parents, spouses, children, notably absent, grandparents, fiances. joining us to discuss this all, democratic senator michael bennett who is opposed to the
order. senator, i want to chat about a few different topics with you. thank you for joining us. let's start out on this issue of the travel ban. five months ago we saw an initial instatement of it, chaos at airports. do you have a sense that it will be a little more seamless, that there's a little more clarity about the visa guidelines? >> no, there's no clarity and unfortunate li so little confidence in this administration that i don't expect they'll be able to implement their travel ban. it's a terribly conceived plan to begin with. it's an absolute attack on american values, and i don't think it's going to keep us safer. we'll seal what the supreme court has to say about it in the fall. >> you mentioned you don't think it will keep the country safer. what's the argument to be made there? president trump has been emphatic, using his own logic, that there is a security component. >> i'm not sure what his own logic is. i will say there are things we
can do to make sure that we're safer, like insuring that people that have visas because they're citizens in the european union but traveling to countries in the middle east and traveling back, we should be much more tight in our enforcement of those visas. but what he's done instead, he's created what he described as a severe ban on refugees coming to this country, and refugees have the tightest security of anybody when it comes to the yalts. the burden of proof of it should be, is not on our country, it's on the refugee. it takes over two years for the refugee to get the u.n. to clear them, and then they have the opportunity to maybe come to the united states and someplace else. i think it's misplaced. it's focused the attention in the wrong place. this is a talking point he had during his presidential campaign and unfortunately he's now
enacting it as president. this is one of the things that i thought he was talking about just to get elected. i never imagined that he'd actually do it. >> another thing he talked about a lot to get elected was health care. do you think there is going to be a deal? he promised, the president, a big surprise? any clues what that might be? >> i have no clue what the big surprise is. i did hear him tell the american people over and over again how terrible obamacare was and how he was going to produce a plan with much better coverage ata much lower price. that so far turns out to have been an abject lie. when i look at it from the perspective of colorado which is a state that's not a democratic state, it's a state that's a third republican, a third independent, a third democratic, the plan that surfaced in the house and the senate on health care is not a plan that the republicans in colorado support much less our democrats or
independents. are we going to get a deal? we would get a deal if we sat in colorado with rational people and had a conversation. i'm not sure what the ideologues in washington, that it's going to be possible to get a deal. >> you mentioned your own state, colorado, and you've talked openly about the opioid crisis going on in your state. president trump has also said the opioid crisis is a priority for his administration. how do you reconcile what you're hearing from the president about his commitment to the opioid crisis and what you're seeing in the details of the bill as it stands? >> when you look at the health care bill, both in the house and the senate -- not the uk thatting points, but the actual bill. when you look at the budget these guys have presented, and when you look at what they're doing with respect to opioids, i view this as an attack on rural colorado and rural america, which is amazing because in many ways that's the part of the country that elected donald
trump. over a quarter of the folks that seek treatment for addiction on opioids -- for opioids, a massive crisis all across the country, are on medicaid. if you cut it by a quarter, a lot of people who now have at least some access to treatment, nowhere near what we need in our state, you're compromising that. and the idea that you're going to throw a few billion dollars here and a few billion dollars here to get the support of midwest senators, i think is a cynical ploy. what we need to do is actually strengthen medicaid so we have treatment beds for people that need to recover from their addictions. this is a terrible crisis that started with the overprescription of pain medicine, and now is an addiction in our country to black tar heroin. it's a serious, serious problem that is destroying lives and families all over the united states.
>> senator, thank you so much for joining us and for sharing your perspective with us. >> thank you for having me. i appreciate it. all right. weather news. heat and humidity coming back for the holiday weekend. what will that mean? it depends on where you are. chad myers has the 411 next. cutting into your day? ways you may have overactive bladder, or oab. that's it! we really need to get with the program and see the doctor. take charge and ask your doctor about myrbetriq (mirabegron) for oab symptoms of urgency, frequency and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions. if you experience swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or difficulty breathing, stop taking myrbetriq and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may affect or be affected by other medications. before taking myrbetriq, tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold symptoms,
urinary tract infection, constipation, diarrhea, dizziness and headache. okay, time to do this! don't let your bladder always take the lead. ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you. and visit myrbetriq.com to learn more. there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. now i can start relaxing even before the vacation begins. your summer vacation is very important. that's why booking.com has great offers up to 40% off now through july 4th. find great deals now at booking.com. booking.yeah!
yeah, and i can watch thee bgame with directv now.? oh, sorry, most broadcast and sports channels aren't included. and you can only stream on two devices at once. this is fun, we're having fun. yeah, we are. no, you're not jimmy. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. xfinity gives you more to stream to more screens.
about to see progressive's new home quote explorer. where you can compare multiple quote options online and choose what's right for you. woah. flo and jamie here to see hqx. flo and jamie request entry. slovakia. triceratops. tapioca. racquetball. staccato. me llamo jamie. pumpernickel. pudding. employee: hey, guys! home quote explorer. it's home insurance made easy. password was "hey guys." heat and humidity returning for the holiday weekend. what does that mean for you?
depends on where you are. cnn meteorologist chad myers has the forecast. what do you see, friend? >> it has been nice. chris, i have a question for you. does 411 even work anymore? >> oh, sure. information. it's information. >> it might be like three bucks a call. >> i didn't say it was cheap. storms across parts of kansas city to st. louis. we did have tornadoes yesterday, 26 of them. we may have more today. they will be closer to chicago, quad cities, down to st. louis and farther south for tomorrow. and even toward the northeast, we may have a storm from ontario back to buffalo, even toward montreal. there's the humidity. there's the rain for saturday, right on time for the weekend because we had a beautiful week when we were working. 92 tomorrow, 85 and 87 for saturday and sunday farther down to the south temperatures remain hot. the heat index is back. haven't had to use the word heat index for a while, clarissa. >> all right. chad, thank you so much. republicans are scrambling to
make changes to their health care plan. many senators want more funding to combat the nation's opioid crisis. up next, we will talk to a governor of a hard-hit state about this troubling epidemic. about this troubling epidemic. that's next. whis what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly. tais really quite simple.est it comes in the mail, you pull out the tube and you spit in it, which is something southern girls are taught you're not supposed to do. you seal it and send it back and then you wait for your results. it's that simple. ...is not just something you can see or touch.
home...is a feeling. it's the place where you feel safe to have those little moments that mean everything. at adt, we believe that feeling should always be there. whether it's at your house, or your business, we help keep you safe. so you can have those moments that make you feel at home. ♪you are loved wherever you are. president trump resuming his fight with amazon and its founder jeff bezos. his latest attack left more than a few people kind of confused.
chief business correspondehrist has more. >> amazon "washington post" sometimes referred to as the guardian of amazon not paying internet taxes, which they should, is fake news. first of all, they're two separate companies. what the president means, sales tax on internet purchases, that was once true of amazon, but not anymore. that hasn't been true for some time. for years amazon fought collecting sales tax. states-only tax retailers with a physical presenence used to giv online stores this. it collects sales taxes in all states that require it to do so. it does. the president recently attacked
bas them. >> he's using the "washington post" for power so that the politicians in washington don't tax amazon like they should be taxed. >> so that was about a year ago or so, but relations seemed to have warmed since the election. the amazon ceo and president, see them there, have met several times. the second person on the right to the president there, chris. >> wow. on that day. >> yes. >> thank you very much. things are called fake often because the president doesn't like what they are about. so gop senators are scram e scrambling to make changes to their health care bill. why? because a lot of people's lives are hanging in the balance. in is nowhere true anymore than new hampshire because they are dealing with a crisis of epic proportions. governor chris sununu is on, the
tip of the spear in fighting the opioid crisis in this country. you see it in a unique way there. you've come up with "operation granite hammer" this adjunct operation. governor, thank you for being there. what are you seeing there? >> thank you for having me this morning. you're right. we are at ground zero, and we talk about the opioid crisis. in ways it's unfortunate and forced us to be innovative. recovery treatment services, intradik intradiction side. we're leading the way in terms of making sure we're aggressive in our approach and providing the best opportunities for folks facing this affliction. >> how bad is the problem in new hampshire? make the case to american people watching this show about why they should care. >> well, you know, it's not
unique to new hampshire. we are at the forefront of it, unfortunately. whether you look at our overdose rates. the death rates we'vehere in prevent years, something we talk about a lot. you have to put resources to it, have accountability, metrics, data, all the things -- and other states in other areas maybe are a little behind. again, we've been aggressive in our approach makes sure we're looking at outcome-based results and keeping people accountable based on what we want the results to be. not just adding numbers into a system. again, putting the best and the brightest in the room together. making sure that the nonprofits have what they have, making sure we have community-driven solutions is a big part for us. our stay safe stations programs, things like that, drug courts helpful and providing people treatment going through this affliction. we've been aggressive, had success and not taking our foot off the gas now. >> what is your concern. you're a republican, but what is
your concern about the bill on the table now and what it would mean for folks up in new hampshire? >> i've expressed my concern a couple days ago in a letter. the reperp cushions are drastic for new hampshire especially looking at resources that come in. at least $1.5 billion of cost to the state of new hampshire. we have no sales tax or income tax. we really control our costs at the local level. that downshifting of cost to a state like ours is unfair and more important, not practical. no practical way to implement the plan as it is. i have a lot of faith in the senate to come together, revise the plan and put something forward that streets states a little more on parity with aone another and not be financially impractical, if i can, on states like new hampshire faces an
opioid crisis. >> you have a number of about 100,000 found access through medicaid. you're lose some $20 million in federal funds in fiscal 2021 alone. what this were means if enacted as-is. what would happen to those people? >> the $20 million you're referring to really effects the expanded medicaid program. one thing people have to realize, one of the problems with the bill, reforming obamacare, which has to happen. obamacare famed, i think that -- those horses are out of the barn. the cost implications. obamacare does not work. it has to be reformed and why what the senate is doing is commendable. the challenges we have, it's looking at traditional medicaid entitlement reform. again, a viable dofrconversatio
have but they're putting the two together and that's compounding the problem, if you will, and trying to force what should be a long and lengthy and involved discussion into a very short time frame. one of our arguments is, separate the two issues. look at -- if you're going to reform obamacare, look at obamacare reform for what it is and what it needs to do and take traditional entitlement as a separate piece. on the best-case scenario, $1.5 billion over ten years. cpi increased by a point or two, looking at yore billion or 2 billion to a small state like new hampshire is not practical and we need to be on the forefront. my job at governor, advocate for the people of new hampshire, that we have services, not putting people off services or pushed into a situation that drives us to taxes. i'll never let that happen as governor and making sure they understand the implications to a small state like new hampshire.
>> a strong poll to posting big numbers of cuts. it shows you're doing nor jobs, yo -- your jobs. shows savings. in this instance, it means a lot to a lot of peoples lives, dealing with opioid addiction. governor sununu, you're a big part of our documentary we're doing about the opioid crisis in the country and your efforts to make it better. there's a lot to be learned. thank you for sharing perspective this morning. >> thank you guys. a lot of news this morning. what do you say? let's get after it. president trump's travel ban will go into effect immediately later tonight. >> a positive step forward. >> the united states should continue to be a world leader. >> i think it's a mistake. >> if there are no consequences, russia will continue to try to med-in-l meddle in our elections. >> we have to protect this. >> you will not accept a nuclear
power in north korea and a threat to target the united states. >> i think by the president calling out assad saved many innocent men, women and children. >> announcer: this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> good morning. welcome to your "new day." it is thursday, june 29th. 8:00 in the east. alisyn is off. clarissa ward by my side. good to have you . >> good to be here. up first, president trump's travel ban set to take effect tonight and it comes with a new series of visas to re-enter the united states. a lot of questions who will get in, who won't and why. this as cnn learns several members of the trump administration are struggling to convince president trump of the threat russia poses to the united states. why won't the president take action against russian hacks? well, we have it all covered. let's begin, though, with cnn's laura jarrett, live in washington. laura, tell us the latest about