tv State of the Union With Jake Tapper CNNW July 9, 2017 9:00am-10:00am PDT
face to face. trump and putin meet for the first time. >> it's going very well. >> did trump confront putin about russian meddling in the u.s. election? >> we had some very good talks. >> depends on who you ask. ambassador nikki haley will be here in minutes. plus, spies in our midst? spike of russian agents posing as businessmen to enter the u.s. why now and what are they up to? a top member of the house intelligence committee joins us, live. and first strike? >> have some pretty severe things we're thinking about.
>> trump puts north koreans on notice as they launch fireworks of their own on the fourth of july. how far is trump willing to go to stop them? plus the best political minds will be here with insights on what happens next. hello, i'm dana bash in for jake tapper where the state of our union is deconstructed talks with the russians. news this morning of a previously undisclosed 2016 meeting with the trump team and a high profile russian national. this time, it's donald trump jr. who, according to "the new york times," set up a meeting with the russian lawyer at trump tower two weeks after his father won the republican nomination. the lawyer is best known for fighting a law president obama signed that blacklists russian human rights abusers. putin retaliated by banning american families from adopting russian children.
donald trump jr. says the meeting was also attended by trump's son-in-law and adviser, jared kushner and former campaign chairman, paul manafort, and it was primarily about the adoption of russian children. we have learned from both our investigation and public reports that the participants in the meeting misrepresented who they were and who they worked for. the story comes as president trump touched back down on american soil after his trip to the g20 summit in germany. where he met face to face with the russian president for the first time. let's talk about it with ambassador to the u.n., nikki haley. ambassador haley, there were conflicting reports about what happened inside president trump's much-anticipated meeting with president vladimir putin.
sergey lavrov said trump heard and accepts putin's statements that russia did not interfere in thes election. is that true? >> i think we need to step back and look at what we wanted to have happen. we got two very important leaders together and said okay, it's time for them to meet. this was long time coming. what we know is that when president trump meets with a leader, things do start to move. from my standpoint and a lot of the administration, it was important. what he did was bring up right away the election meddling and he did that for a reason. one, he wanted him to basically look him in the eye, let him know that, yes, we know you meddle in d in our elections. we know you did it and cut it out. i think president putin did exactly what we thought he would do, which is deny it. it is what it is. they're always going to have two different stories on this. they're always going to have two different stances on this at the end of the day what's most important is for president putin to hear from president trump, we know did you this we didn't like it.
don't do it again. >> i want to play what the president himself said about russia interference and casting doubt on the fact that they were really behind the election hack. take a listen. >> okay. >> i think it was russia, but i think it was probably other people and/or countries, and i see nothing wrong with that statement. nobody really knows. nobody really knows for sure. >> now, ambassador haley, that was a couple of days ago. nobody really knows for sure. with statements like that, can you understand why the russians, at least they say that they took what they took from president trump's private statements to vladimir putin? >> you know what i understand is that president trump let him know, look, we know you did this. cut it out. and president putin is never going to admit that they did it. and so they have to come back and defend themselves. this is russia trying to save face. and they can't. they can't. everybody knows they're not just
meddling in the united states elections but across multiple continents and in a way that they're trying to cause chaos within the countries. it's not just going to be us saying this. i think you'll hear other leaders come out and say cut it out. we're not going to put up with it. >> you said everybody knows that the russians meddled in the u.s. election and that the president said so behind closed doors to vladimir putin. if that's the case, why won't the president say this in public? it would put a lot of these questions and, quite frankly, the fact that a lot of your fellow republicans are perplexed, it would put it all to rest. why won't he do it? >> i think you can ask him. that's one of the things. let him say this. we heard a lot of people saying that about article v, why didn't he say it? why didn't he say it? he didn't say it then because he wasn't changing policy. so, you heard this -- when he was in poland, give a fantastic speech and he said that he supported article v and he said he supported our nato allies. i think everybody is trying to nitpick what he says and what he
doesn't. talk is one thing. actions are another. he confronted president putin. he made it the first thing that he talked about. i think we have to now see where it goes from here. >> right. but, you know, as a chief diplomat, that talk is very important because it sends a signal. and i would love for reporters to be able to ask the president but he's not doing any press conferences. let's move on to one thing that you mentioned, cyber security. vladimir putin did say that the u.s. and russia agreed that the two countries would work together on a number of different issues, including cyber security. congressman adam schiff argued that it, quote, adopts the fiction that the russians are a constructive partner on cyber security instead of the worst actor on the world stage. does he have a point? >> i think that we have to talk about cyber security not just with russia, but with everyone. and, look, you're always going to see the democrats are repeatedly criticizing the president. that's unfortunate. republicans are going to
criticize democrats. that's unfortunate. but let's just look at the situation. you now have a russian who is in charge of counterterrorism in the united nations. that was a position that the secretary general gave russia. and you also see that from a cyber standpoint we need to get together with russia. we need to tell them what we think should happen, shouldn't happen and if we talk to them about it, hopefully, we can cut this out and get them to stop. it doesn't mean we ever take our eyes off the ball. it doesn't mean we ever trust russia. we can't trust russia and we won't ever trust russia. but you keep those that you don't trust closer so that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check. that's what we're trying to do with russia right now. >> rudy giuliani is an adviser to the president on cyber security. he was asked in poland this week why the u.s. hasn't punished russia for interfering in the election. listen to how he answered. >> i do think we have taken action.
i just don't think we've announced it. >> so he's suggesting that the u.s. has taken some covert action already to punish russia. can you confirm whether that's true? >> no, i can't. i don't know what the context of his comment was and i can't confirm that. >> you can't confirm that because you're not sure about it or you can't confirm it because it's covert and you don't want to talk about it? >> i don't know what he's talking about. i don't know what it's in reference to. no, i can't talk about a conversation he had in a different forum where i just heard a sound bite. >> ambassador haley, north korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile that could reach the state of alaska. this is how the president responded. take a listen. >> as far as north korea is concerned, i don't know. we'll see what happens.
i don't like to talk about what i have planned but i have some pretty severe things that we're thinking about. >> he also said, just on saturday with the chinese president, something has to be done about it. something has to be done about it. pretty severe things. is he talking about a preemptive strike? >> i think there are a lot of options on the table when it comes to dealing with china. the ball is in their court. they're either going to go along with us and the rest of the international community and say, yes, we think that what north korea did was wrong or they're not. the president knows what all his options are. all the options are on the table, as always with president trump. and i think we'll handle it accordingly. ammunition comes in multiple forms. and i think we always have to look at what those options are ahead of what the actions are going to be by china. >> what if the chinese don't go along with that u.n. resolution? >> i think there will be a response. if they don't go along with that, the president has made it clear that he will start looking at trade relations with china. so, we have to see.
i think that president trump, president xi meeting is extremely important right now and extremely timely. and i think it's going to be telling in the next few days what happens and what that relationship is going to look like. and you'll see how the u.s. responds accordingly. >> ambassador nikki haley, thank you for joining me this morning. >> thanks, deigna. good to be with you. the president's new plan, working with putin to stop election hacking. is it letting the fox guard the hen house? fresh tweets from the president next. david. what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. ♪ everybody two seconds! ♪ "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. ♪
be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has
recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®. for 10 years, my tempur-pedic has adapted to my weight and shape, so i sleep deeply and wake up ready to perform. right now, save up to $500 on select tempur-pedic mattress sets at our july 4th event. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com.
the president tweeting this morning i strongly pressed president putin twice about meddling in our election and vehemently denied. and he gave the opinion. we negotiate aid cease fire in parts of syria which will save lives. now it is time to move forward in working constructively with russia! joining me now is adam schiff, ranking member of the house intelligence committee. congressman, you saw the president's tweet. he wants to move forward in the face of putin's denial. what's your response? >> well, my response is, how can we really believe that he pressed putin hard when only the day before he was denying that we really knew that russia was responsible? what kind of tough negotiator -- and this is the way the president likes to portray himself -- goes into the negotiation, betraying his own position the day before, calling into question the probative
nature of his own intelligence agencies? then saying we need to move on. i don't think we can move on, and i don't think that russia could be a partner in a cyber security unit. i think that would be dangerously naive for this country. if that's our best election defense, we might as well just mail our ballot boxes to moscow. i don't think that's an answer at all. >> i want to talk to cyber security in a minute. are you saying that the president is not telling the truth about what happened in that private meeting? >> i'm saying as much as i like nikki haley, she wasn't in the room any more than i was. and it's just strange credulity that the president took such a different position privately with vladimir putin than he took publicly the day before. why on earth would you do that and so undermine your own position? we're, i guess, meant to believe he's much stronger in private than he's willing to be publicly.
why does that make any rational sense? on the contrary, if he was determined to press putin, he would have gone into that meeting and said unequivocally, this is what russia did, even by an account from the secretary of state, apparently the president asked putin whether he did it. he didn't go in there and confront him and say, as nikki haley would suggest and we all love to believe, we know you did this. you have to stop. it's hard to imagine, given what he said only hours earlier. >> you mentioned cyber security i want to put up what the president tweeted again this morning about this. he said putin and i discussed forming an impenetrable cyber security unit so that election hacking and many other negative things will be guarded. what do you make of that? >> i think we have to remember, the president just went into a meeting with a man who ordered hacking of our democratic institutions. so, putin wasn't a disinterested party. he was one who ordered this orchestrated effort to interfere in our democracy and do so through cyber means and to now suggest or believe that he can count on mr. putin or his
government to be a constructive player ignores not only what he did in our election but what he's doing currently in german elections, what he did in french elections, what he's doing in other parts of the world. the russians want to take down liberal democracy. that is what they're about right now. in a new ideological struggle. to gloss over that, to ignore that, to try to bury that with the idea that we can work in a cyber security group is a dangerously naive view to take of russian intentions and how much we can count on them. look, i think something constructive did come out of this meeting. it was the cease fire in syria. it wasn't a total loss. on the issue of hacking, it was a loss for the country because the president went into that discussion having really undermined our own position. >> the president also tweeted again about the dnc server.
here is what he said again this morning. questions were asked about why the cia and fbi had to ask the dnc 13 times for their server and were rejected. still don't have it. can you clear this up, congressman? did the dnc actually refuse to turn over its server to the fbi during the 2016 election when they were hacked? >> first of all, dana, i'm not sure what the president is saying there. were questions asked at the g20 about the dnc server? i find that hard to believe. on the merits, this is one of the issues we're looking into. was there a request by the fbi for the dnc server? was there a reluctance by the dnc to turn it over? only thing we've seen publicly so far -- again, we still need to probe beyond this -- is director comey's testimony that what they got was essentially the blueprint of the server from a very credible cyber security firm that satisfied the fbi's needs. i still want to test that testimony. this is something we will get to
the bottom of. it doesn't excuse what the russians did. you don't blame the victim for the hack, no matter what kind of security precautions the dnc took or what they did afterwards. this was still an orchestrated effort by an adversary of the united states. >> congressman, i want to ask about something the new york times is reporting this morning, that donald trump jr., paul manafort and jared kushner met at trump tower, during the campaign, with a lawyer who is a high-professional russian national. the president's eldest son told the newspaper that the meeting was primarily about an adoption program. does this story raise questions for you? >> it certainly raises questions for a variety of reasons, of course. the president's son had denied having any kind of meetings like this. they claim that this meeting had nothing to do with the campaign and yet the trump campaign
manager is invited to come to the meeting. and there's no reason for this russian government advocate to be meeting with paul manafort or with mr. kushner or the president's son if it wasn't about the campaign and russia policy. obviously, they were trying to influence one of the candidates, the leading candidate at that time on the republican ticket. so, what we've heard thus far doesn't make much sense. what we just heard from the spokesman for the president's lawyer suggesting this was contrived by hillary clinton also doesn't make sense. yes, we need to get to the bottom of it. >> does getting to the bottom of it mean potentially calling donald trump jr. before your committee which is investigating this? >> i think we'll want to question everyone at that meeting about what was discussed. by trying to frame it's about adoptions it ignores what it sounds like the meeting may really have been about, and that
is the magnitsky act, a very powerful sanctions legislation thats if against russian human rights abusers. if this was an effort to do away with that sanctions policy, that is obviously very significant. if they're talking to the president's team, then candidate trump's team, that contradicts, of course, what the president and his people have said about whether they were meeting with any representatives of the russian government. >> congressman adam schiff, thank you so much for joining me this morning. something has to be done. president trump says north korea's nuclear ambitions must be stopped but what would a preemptive strike really look like?
the union." i'm dana bash. president trump met with his chinese counterpart and said something has to be done about north korea after the hermit kingdom launched a missile capable of reaching alaska. joining me now, ash carter, former defense secretary under president obama. thank you very much for being here with me. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. back in 2006 and you former clinton defense secretary william perry called for a preemptive strike against north korea. do you think that is still viable? >> that was a very different circumstance now. >> sure. >> we do have a very high level of preparation on the korean peninsula. i'm sure the department of defense has options available to the president. this washington -- i see what people are writing about now. there's option a and option b. then they look at diplomacy, war, conclude rightly that war
is -- on the korean peninsula is not something to trifle with. it's a serious, serious matter there. and then decide there are no good options. in the real world of diplomacy and strategic affairs, these are not alternatives that the president of the united states chooses. they're an unfolding pattern of coercive diplomacy. so you do have to begin with diplomacy and with a process that makes the choice not for the american president to choose between starting something on the korean peninsula and giving in to north korea, but make it north korea's choice whether this is going to lead to a coercive outcome for them and china as well. and if you take those paths, if it does come to some kind of altercation in the future, we would be better prepared because we would have had that time to ready our forces, possibly reinforce our forces.
>> is the american -- is america prepared? that's what americans want to know. >> of course. >> they are safe from a -- >> i've personally been at it since 1974. we've consistently improved our nuclear capabilities. south korea's capabilities have improved. we have deployed missile defenses, both short range and long range consistently and in advance of what we anticipate the north koreans will be doing so that we always stay one step ahead of them. so, we're very prepared. but i think it's important not to take the idea of military action on the korean peninsula or war lightly. and this is a situation in which we need to get north korea and china in a corner and not put our president in a corner. >> let's turn to russia. you have known vladimir putin since he was a low-level aide. >> yes, i did. >> do you think he can be a legitimate partner on cyber
security? >> i -- you know, the russians pulled out the old playbook. i've seen all this going back to russian and soviet days. when confronted with something they've done wrong, ask for u.s. intelligence. old trick. propose a working group. in this case on cyber. but this is like the guy who robbed your house proposing a working group on burglary. it's they who did this. and -- >> so was it a mistake for the trump administration to buy it? >> i don't think they can buy or we should -- that can -- it's fine to talk to the russians about lots of things. it's never a problem talking to people. it's a matter of what you say. but in this case, this isn't just a matter of looking backward. this is a matter of looking forward. we're going to have elections in a year and a half. there are state elections,
municipal electrics as well as national elections. there are elections in other countries. it's important that there be consequences for the russians in regard to this. to me, this is just -- getting to your question about putin -- a pattern with putin. in defense, this is why we thought it was so important to stand strong against russia in europe. put new u.s. formations in europe. write a new playbook for nato. why i'm very skeptical about cooperating with russia in syria. why i think it's important that we capitalize our nuclear arsenal. they're doing a nuclear buildup. there are a lot of dimensions. >> so you mentioned things that you did during the obama administration to confront russia. but president trump continues to -- he has a point. we'll talk about this -- fault president obama for not taking action against russia when it comes to meddling in the u.s. election. listen to what he said. >> i was told it was russia by the cia. as i understand it, it was well reported.
and he did nothing about it. they say he choked. that's the real question. why did he do nothing from august all the way till november 8th? >> you were his defense secretary. you were in the situation room when this was discussed. why didn't he act? >> i think he did take some actions. in defense we took a wide range of actions. to me, this was part of a pattern. to me, personally, this was part of a pattern with vladimir putin. but i don't think -- i think it's quite clear that that was not sufficient. that's why it's so important to press the russians now. if it were sufficient, vladimir putin's answer to our president wouldn't have been to say -- cast doubt about it or ask for further intelligence from the united states. and that's why, again, this is not just a matter of looking backward. it's an important question for our future because it's important that americans, when they go to the ballot box and those in other countries as
well, understand and be assured that the russians haven't been there first. >> no question there's a lot to deal with in the future. but because you were there, i have to ask. you said that more could have been done. did president obama make a mistake in not doing more? >> well, he did -- took some steps, no question about it. but i think you see from vladimir putin's answer right now that more needs to be done. putin is not convinced that there are going to be consequences of a magnitude for russia, as a consequence of interfering with the u.s. election that make it unwise for him to do it in the future. that hasn't been accomplished yet. and that's why it is important to stick with this issue and not be reassured by the russian readout, another old trick of theirs is to give a readout of a meeting, which favors them. and so i think going forward, we need to stand strong with russia and not be reassured and not be diverted by them asking for intelligence, trying to muddy the waters.
>> you're understandably loyal to your former boss but it sounds like you are not all that comfortable with the reaction. >> most of all, i'm loyal to the united states. >> absolutely. >> both the current president and the president i served. they both deserve to get from russia on behalf of the american people something better than what vladimir putin offered the other day. and we deserve that, too. president trump deserves that. and i think that he and his administration need to keep pressing for that because the business is not done yet. and it's an issue for the future. not just a matter of looking back but looking forward. >> thank you for your time this morning. >> thank you. good to be with you, dana. >> thank you so much. coming up, is health care on life support? what senators are saying back in their home states this weekend, that's next.
(cat 2) hey, what's in there? (cat 1) *gaspá is that a crunchy kibble?! (cat 2) is that a ring of gravy?! (cat 1) it's gravy... made crunchy! new friskies gravy swirlers! (cat 2) real gravy baked right in! (cat 1) crunchy! gravy! crunchy! gravy! (cat 2) we get it buddy, we get it. (vo) feed their fantasy. friskies. it's so... quiet. is it, too quiet? it's awful. yeah. feel at home, pretty much wherever you are. t-mobile is america's best unlimited network.
i hate the outside. well, i hate it wherever you are. burn. "burn." is that what the kids are saying now? i'm so bored, i'm dead. you can always compare rates on progressive.com. oh, that's nice, dear. but could you compare camping trips? because this one would win. all i want to do is enjoy nature and peace and quiet! it's not about winning. it's about helping people find a great rate even if it's not with progressive. -ugh. insurance. -when i said "peace and quiet," did you hear, "talk more and disappoint me"? ♪ do do do do ♪ skiddly do do ♪ camping with the family ♪ [ flame whooshes ] casper makes one perfect supportive and comfortable. premium foam layers. breathable for airflow. perfect rebound, plus perfect lift. pick your size, you get 100 nights to test it out. test the layers, be a layer, casper. atmore than one flavor, oruch texture, or color.ing. a good clean salad is so much more than green. and with panera catering, more for your event. panera. food as it should be.
if we can't replace and repeal at the same time, then repeal the law and stay and work on replace. instead, what does the republican deciding to send national signals about over the course of the last 48 or 72 hours? if we can't repeal and replace at once, then maybe we should start working with democrats to fix obamacare. that is the exact opposite of what we ran on. it's bad policy. it's bad politics. >> republican senator ben sasse
telling majority leader mitch mcconnell not to work with democrats on health care. we'll find out when they return if the gop can muster the votes to repeal and replace obamacare. as of this morning, the senate bill's chances are looking, well, less than healthy. with me now, rick santorum, nina turner, president of bernie sanders' political organization, our revolution. republican congressman scott taylor of virginia and jen psaki, former white house house communications director. senator, i'll start with you. what do you think that the chances are that this will actually happen? >> i like ben sasse a lot. bad idea. the idea of trying to repeal this thing and not replacing it. we didn't run on repeal. we ran on repeal and replace. we need to repeal and replace. what mitch mcconnell laid out was absolutely proper. we don't get this thing done, we're going to have no choice but to save the system because if we don't save it, then
millions of people are going to go uninsured and we're going to get egg over our face. that means we're going to have to work with democrats. mitch gave a dose of reality. we either work this out and find something we can pass or lots of bad things are going to happen. so it's not a free ride for you guys on the right or the left who say oh, we can't -- you know, we're going to draw our -- put our stake here. if we don't get this, then mitch mcconnell and donald trump have no choice but to save a bad system. and that is a disaster in 2018. that's why they have to get something done. >> you're a sitting member of the house of representatives, a republican. when you hear work with democrats on health care, do you think to yourself, yeah, right? that's not going to pass any kind of political test in the house, or do you think, you know what? this is what we should be doing. >> ideally, it would be nice to have bipartisanship, nice to have democrats work with us. i think that they have made a political calculus not to do so, no matter what policy we bring forth. it would be important to do that
and is important just because it's difficult right now and because we're looking at this miopic miopically. what does ben sasse say? but that's the legislative process. so we have to respect the senate's process, ultimately. i'm optimistic that they'll get something passed, that we'll get something through. the fact that it's tough doesn't alleviate the responsibility. there are a lot of american families who are really hurting right now. >> if this bill ends up not getting the votes in the senate, the republican bill, you're okay with sitting down and doing this in a bipartisan way? >> i think it should be anyway. democrats have been screaming for several years now. senator mark warner up for re-election is talking about the aca has problems. we have to fix it. i haven't seen any plans from that side. i think it's important. they know it's messed up. they know it predates the november election, that there are big fundamental problems with the aca. come to the table. i think it's important that they do. >> jen psaki, do you think it's realistic? even you know and have admitted that obamacare does need help. >> uh-huh.
>> but do you think that the democratic base, which is so riled up right now, and is not really thrilled with the notion of democrats talking to republicans, do you think that the base is going to let democrats work with republicans in a bipartisan way? >> i don't think the base would let democratic leadership work with republicans on this bill that is moving through the senate. if this bill does not get through, there needs to be a fix to the lack of competition in the marketplaces. the base may have problems with democrats working with republicans on that but ultimately, they will lose their health care and they will not have access to the same options that they have had if they don't. i think democrats need to get to the table with republicans. they've been willing to from the beginning. senator schumer said they would be willing to have discussions with republicans. they haven't been part of the
negotiations or discussions. hopefully, this bill fails or doesn't get to the floor and then democrats and republicans can work to address the actual problems. >> there's another problem. >> there is promise in this problem. this is the time for the big girls and big boys to put their clothing on and come to the table together and do what is in the best interest of the american people. this is the moment to do that. i mean, we have almost 30 million people right now underinsured or uninsured under the affordable care act and 22 million more people would lose health care coverage as that bill is presented by the senate. this is an opportunity to put the people over the politics in the senate and hopefully the entire congress by extension. this is the moment. there's promise in this problem. >> what's missing in that, though, is that we look at this -- the republicans are having problems coming together, too. let's talk about the democrats for a second. huge divide in the democratic party right now. they are not aligned in terms of what -- if they had a choice to replace something like that. singer payer option for universal health care, which is sustainable.
and you have other ones that don't want that. they have more of a divide, i would say, than the republicans do. >> it hasn't taken them seven years. for seven years, they've been talking about repealing and replacing obamacare and have not done it to this point. >> there's another alternative. the other alternative is for the president to step forward and provide leadership here. the best way to do that, in my opinion, is to do what we did when we had a similar problem in 1996, in trying to reform welfare. we went to the republican governors. and republican governors came together and said this is a plan that we're willing to put together and that gives us more responsibility to deal with this and washington you work with us. i have no doubt that if republican governors get together, every republican senator from one of those states is going to vote for what their governor wants. that's exactly what happened in 1996. if donald trump wants to change the game here in washington, i would say go out of washington. go into the state capitals. meet with scott walker, the head of the rga, and meet with a whole bunch of other republican governors who are -- want to fix this problem but want the flexibility and the money to do
it. i think if he does that, he will show real leadership here in washington. >> senator santorum makes a good point. one reason that this republican bill is stuck in the senate, republican senators are facing pressure from the republican governors who actually like the way obamacare is working in their states. >> that's not necessarily true. >> maybe they want it to be reformed but like the money they're getting. >> a philosophical difference here. i will say something that i think he said that was good that the senator brought up. we believe and know that health care is assumed at the local level. no one cares more about your health care than you do. we believe it should be more pushed down to the states and local level, for them to be able to address their populations correctly. yeah, there are governors who have a legitimate concern about having flexibility to deal with their own populations and not have a one-size-fit-all solution. >> my governor, john kasich, supported the medicaid expansion that allowed 7,000 additional ohioans have this health care just this past week had to wrestle with his own legislature
that really overturned that expansion and he line item vetoed that. and the governor has been all over -- >> why is that? >> talking about how important it is not to leave anybody behind. the poor and the disabled and our elderly folks, not to leave them behind. that's important. >> that's a great point. >> on the politics of this, the problem you have with what you just said, 20 republican senators from states that have expanded medicaid. >> that's right. >> to your point, they do not feel that they want it to be left to the states to figure out how to spend money. they want the money from the federal government. they want to be able to cover -- excuse me. they want to be able to cover poor people. >> that's not true. >> people just over the poverty level. if you look what's happening recently it's not just concerns about medicaid.
over the recess now it's senators from rural states where they're worried about access for people, about places where health clinics are going to shut down. they're worried about people not having doctors. so, really, the governor's concerns are much different from what you're talking about and a bill would be entirely different than what you said. >> no question. there's no question. i disagree with you very fundamentally. there's no question that the medicaid expansion states, republican governors like your governor. one of the reasons the legislature opposed him is because there's this weird distortion that incentivizes states so the medicaid expansion doesn't necessarily cover pregnant women, disabled folks. it covers childless, abled body adults. in virginia, medicaid was 5% of our budget. it's now going past 22% at an unsustainable rate. if you just expand it -- hold on a second. if you expand it, reimbursement rate for those able bodied childless adults is much higher than the disabled and the poor. there's a pretty bad distortion there. that's why the republican legislature said, look, we have to freeze this because we can't
afford it because it's crowding out police and fire and teaching and all the other fundamental things that the states had to pay for. the answer is not simply just expanding unsustainable. >> that's not what -- the bottom line is this. first of all, they didn't override the governor's veto. they knew better than that. the grass roots rose up and got a clue. the bottom line is that people have to come together. forget the political division here and come together on behalf of the american people. >> this is a discussion that lawmakers and governors should be having as they come together, right? >> yes. >> to actually fix health care. such a great discussion. thank you all for coming in this morning. thanks for having us on. >> want to live in your own trump hotel? getting that gilded look may be easier than you think.
and we covered it, july first, twenty-fifteen. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ you...smells fine, but yourin your passengers smell this bell dinging new febreze car with odorclear technology cleans away odors... ...for up to 30 days smells nice... breathe happy, with new febreze. the whole country booking on choice hotels.com. four words, badda book. badda boom... let it sink in. shouldn't we say we have the lowest price? nope, badda book. badda boom. have you ever stayed with choice hotels? like at a comfort inn? yep. free waffles, can't go wrong. i like it. promote that guy. get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed. when you book direct at choicehotels.com. book now. what's going on? oh hey! ♪
that's it? yeah. ♪ everybody two seconds! ♪ "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. ♪ work up a sweat during the day. not at night. only tempur-breeze® mattresses use an integrated system of technologies to keep you cool while you sleep. so you wake up feeling powerful. save up to $500 on select tempur-breeze® mattress sets. find the breeze that's right for you at tempurpedic.com tech: when you schedule with safelite autoglass, you get a text when we're on our way. you can see exactly when we'll arrive. i'm micah with safelite. customer: thanks for coming, it's right over here. tech: giving you a few more minutes for what matters most. take care. kids singing: safelite® repair, safelite® replace.
ready to of your back pain? new icyhot lidocaine patch. desensitizes aggravated nerves with the max strength lidocaine available. new icyhot lidocaine patch. before the white house, donald trump decorated his hotels to match his lavish lifestyle and though he may have paid full price for some of his furnishings, it doesn't mean that you have to. in 1990, donald trump opened the taj mahal casino, with the rub
of a golden lamp, a real estate wish come true. >> nobody's seen anything like this it, the reviews have been unanimous raves. >> trump sold his stake in the casino in 2009, but he sued to keep his name on it. but trump's trash is another man's treasure. >> we're looking for trump's thrown. we didn't find it. >> a liquidation sale is under way and everything must go, bargain hunters won't find anything with the trump logo, but there was plenty of his signature razzle dazzle. >> found this on the 23rd floor. >> want a hot pink jacuzzi cub, you got it, televisions or a
baby grand piano? naig name your price. a new jersey tv crew found this shopper testing the merchandise. >> i wanted to see how the shower was. >> an entire bedroom package can be yours for just $300. >> i can't see anybody buying the beds with mattresses. >> thinking of buying a piece of the trump treasure? get to atlantic city and get in line. the sale ends when the goods are gone. cnn the original series "the nineties" begins tonight with a look back at the life and politics that defined a decade. >> how you doin'? >> some of my favorite shows aired in that decade. >> i'm out. >> nirvana gave the record industry a wake up call. pressure was building up. >> gangster rap started to take hold.
>> it was a hip-hop tsunami. >> while the '90s represented so much growth and progress, we had a ways to go. >> oj was a guy that felt that he was without race. >> the skies over baghdad have been illuminated. >> the promise of a new world order -- >> george bush took the loss to bill clinton very hard. >> bill clinton was a president who was turning the corner to a different time. there was scandal, scandal, scandal, scandal. >> bill clinton is christened the comeback kid because he was resilient. >> bill gates' game plan was world domination. >> you could see the start of this new culture. >> you've got mail. >> equivalent to the industrial revolution. equivalent of electricity. so profound. how are your teeth whiter than mine?
this is "gps," the global public square, welcome to you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria, coming to you live from new york. today on the show, president trump's second overseas trip, the g20 meeting. the face-to-face one-on-ones with vladimir putin and xi jinping. how did the president do? we'll talk about it with a terrific panel. also 50 billion objects will be connected to the internet in the not-too-distant future.