tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN July 26, 2017 10:00pm-11:00pm PDT
as is so often the case in the trump presidency, today's story was told in tweets. there were some similarities in this morning's tweet storm and another attack on attorney general jeff sessions, for instance. we'll talk about that throughout the hour. but there was one big difference. a policy announcement that transgender people would be banned from serving in the military. no public announcement, no explanation as to how it will affect currently serving troops. just three tweets and nothing but the tweets. jeff zeleny is at the white house with the latest. what do we know about this ban other than what was tweeted?
>> anderson, that's about all we know about the ban this evening. the president sent out those urgent messages early this morning saying, look, you know, the military service will not be allowed any transgendered member of the service will not be allowed to be an active member of the military. but beyond that, it was left at that. just to give you a window into how things work here at the white house, there were background briefings today on what's going on in venezuela. there was a background meeting on what is going on with the job in wisconsin. anderson, for a major policy change like this, there was not a single background briefing. administration officials we talked to were, quite frankly, caught off guard by this. they could not answer basic questions of what happens to those active members of the military who are transgendered individuals who may be serving in afghanistan or elsewhere. so just in perspective, it was
clear this was an announcement that happened abruptly. it took people here on surprise, on capitol hill by surprise, and certainly at the pentagon by surprise. >> do we know which generals if any the president actually consulted about this? because he says in one of his tweets this came about after consultation with his generals. >> the president says "his generals" a lot. some people in the military bristle by the words "his generals." they're the military's generals. but anderson, we do not know which generals he's talking about. this has been discussed in meetings and other things with the national security adviser as part of the military readiness. but it was not on anyone's radar necessarily until this morning. so again, it took people by surprise. there was -- at the white house briefing today, incoming new press secretary sarah huckabee sanders simply didn't have answers to the questions about what the next steps of these policies are or who these generals were. anderson, for such a big policy
decision, such a big announcement, it was very small in the details. >> if you're transgender and currently serving in the military, obviously you're wondering what does this mean for your position. are you going to get fired, are you going to get removed? what's going to happen? >> it's a great question. it's a question that went unanswered today. imagine if you're a transgendered marine or soldier or airman, you know, in kabul or irbil. there is no specific answer as to what happens. but there is an interesting reaction i think on capitol hill. senator john mccain, of course back in washington, battling brain cancer, chairman of the armed services committee. he said, look, an announcement of this magnitude should not be done by twitter. he also said any able-bodied legal american who wants to serve their country should be able to do so. so anderson, as this goes forward here, i expect considerable pushback on capitol hill, as this is decided. this may be president trump's version of don't ask, don't tell, but it's a slightly
different time from, you know, more than two decades ago here. so this is not the end of this today. i think it's the beginning of a long discussion here. >> jeff zeleny, thanks a lot. to talk about, dana bash, and christine quinn. is this just about politics, diversion from the russian investigation or jeff sessions or red meat to the base, because he's been criticized by folks from the base about sessions? >> it seems like it could be all of that, we don't know. he didn't make a public statement about this. but in any case, look at it both ways, either this is just something that he felt really passionate about and he wanted to do, which is an incredible thing to do to those servicemen, or if it is in fact a diversion, he's willing to play with those people's lives. there are right now thousands of transgender people putting their life on the line for this country. even the explanations that he offers in the tweets about you being a burden, that we can't
pay for the medical -- those thousands of people are already receiving medical attention that they need and require, already. it's already baked in, right? this idea of bathrooms that people keep bringing up, they're already going to the bathroom. all of this is a canard. the rand corporation has studied this, found that it would have a minimal impact both in readiness and in cost. they're already there. we sometimes think about military deployment as people just thinking, i'm going to go for two years and i'm going to leave, i'll go to four years and leave and go to college. a lot of people make the military their career. that is all they do. that is what they wanted to do. lgbt people are just like everybody else. they're patriotic just like anybody else. some of them want to serve in the military, just like anybody else. to tell them -- and particularly this president, who received
five draft deferments, to tell somebody else who volunteers to go, sir, you can't do it, it's just outrageous to me. >> scott? >> well, i'm not a military strategist. i did talk to an old friend of mine today who has been in the military for 21 years. he did say there are some legitimate people on the ground who would say there are readiness issue. but i look at the world through the issue of politics, i'm a political strategist. these issues around transgender rights, the transgender bathroom issue from the last election, this is at the core of what i think is the defining moment in our politics right now, the massive chasm that has opened up between rural and urban america. today on this decision, the outrage from urban america is what we're hearing. and what you're hearing privately from rural america is, i think the president was right about this. and i think this is all wrapped up in what we're seeing in the two parties. one party in the last election identified with nonurban america and one party identified almost exclusively inside urban america.
and issues like this help explain it. and i think issues like this really help explain pennsylvania, wisconsin, ohio. >> given the fact that the president is from urban america and during the campaign talked a lot about, you know, equal rights for all citizens and talked about the lgbt community, is this then just about politics? i mean, it sounds like you're saying this is -- i mean, one way to look at what you're saying is it's a play to the base. >> it's about politics if you consider that even though the president is from urban america, the reason he's in the white house is not urban america. >> right, sure. >> if you went to that rally last night in ohio, and there were a lot of democrats there, and you asked any one of them about this decision today, i bet you wouldn't find too many objections. >> we can't start believing that lgbt people don't exist in the south. >> exactly. >> that they don't exist in rural america. i'm from rural america in the south. the majority of parents, of gay parents, of children, do not live in san francisco.
do not live in new york. they live in the south. part of that reason is they delay coming out, they get married first or have relationships first and end up having kids, but they stay there. they don't try to escape. the raging hiv epidemic right now is not happening in new york. it's not happening in san francisco. it's happening in the south. >> can i just say -- >> the idea that they don't exist there is just not true. >> i might be the only one at this table maybe besides you who has been at the trump rally and went to lots of them during the campaign. and i think that your point is dead on about when wisconsin and michigan and pennsylvania changed from blue to red, some of it was just they couldn't -- people couldn't articulate it. but the country was moving and changing way too fast, and faster than -- and it was a country that they didn't recognize. and that whether it was gay rights or other things that contributed to it.
however, having said that, on the flip side, you have a lot of public servants who, like john mccain seven years ago was against the don't ask, don't tell repeal, and he's for this. >> scott's point is accurate about the divide. but isn't this just a wedge issue -- >> yes. >> -- that's being used to stoke that divide? >> by the president of the united states. i mean, it is bad when any politician does that, or any quote/unquote leader in america. that's bad. and it's dangerous. i used to run the crime victims agency. after hate like this comes out, we see hate crimes rise against the lgbt community, you can track it. this is the president. he should never be throwing entire groups of americans under the bus and saying they're less than other people. he should be or she should be the one who is bridging the divide, closing the -- bringing us together. this is the opposite. for pure political gain. leadership in elected officials
is being defined by being a leader. all the president here is doing is playing, you know, to the cheap seats, and doesn't care at all who he hurts. and maybe no mistake, transgender children are one of the highest suicide groups in the country, so to speak. this will make transgendered children go to sleep feeling less than. and god knows what will happen. and let me just say lastly, god forbid there is some type of military tragedy today or the next few days. one of the last things transgender service members might have heard from their commander in chief is that they are unworthy. that is un-american and a goddamned disgrace. >> here's the thing. the cheap seats as you refer to them are ooh conservative voices that have been silenced for the last eight years. president obama and his transgendered policies are no longer in effect. we have a new president and he is changing those policies. how we got to this point is, we have conservatives that have
represented these states, that helped elect the president, to scott's point. vickie hartzler in missouri, and we have others. mark meadows in north carolina, members of the values action team, conservatives who are representing and listening to the voices of the people in their state. they are saying we don't want to pay for this type of procedure for our military. >> but -- >> the appropriations bill that uses money that way, this is not going to pass. and -- >> there was reporting, there was axios reporting today that this originated, this argument in the house over paying for transition surgery for transgendered service members among some republicans, and they approached the president about it. the president has gone far beyond the idea of should surgeries be paid for. >> and our deirdra walsh reported that as well. on capitol hill, it was about -- in the short-term, it was about the money for the taxpayer money that could be or couldn't be used for surgeries and for
transitioning. and then all of the sudden they looked up and saw the president tweeting about a complete reversal. >> regardless of what you think about the policy, there's the the procedural way the president went about doing it. is this the most effective way? we have to take a break, let's talk about that when we come back. we'll continue the organization and hear what senator tammy duckworth told me tonight about her military service and the president's lack thereof. later, just what is the president's strategy when it comes to his attorney general? another day, another tweet. is there another shoe about to drop? we'll talk about that ahead. the lincoln summer invitation is on. it's time for a getaway. now get our best offers of the season. on the agile mkc. on the versatile midsize lincoln mkx. or go where summer takes you in the exhilarating mkz. the lincoln summer invitation sales event. ask about complimentary pick up & delivery servicing. right now get zero percent apr plus 1,000 dollars summer savings on the lincoln mkx, mkc and mkz
iso being cool comes naturally. on car insurance, hmm. i can't decide if this place is swag or bling. it's pretzels. word. ladies, you know when you switch, you get my bomb-diggity discounts automatically. ♪ no duh, right? [ chuckles ] sir, you forgot -- keep it. you're gonna need it when i make it precipitate. what, what? what? what are all these different topped & loaded meals? it's an american favorite on top of an american favorite, alice. it's like labor day weekend on top of the fourth of july. hotdogs. get your favorites on top of your favorites. only at applebee's.
get your favorites on top of your favorites. take 5, guys. tired of your bladder always cutting into your day? 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. president trump's surprise ban on transgender military service members got a swift reaction from some veterans, some of whom now serve in congress. earlier tonight i spoke with democratic senator tammy duckworth who was a lieutenant colonel in the army and whose black hawk helicopter was shot down in iraq. she earned a purple heart.
she noted the president had never served in the military and had this to say. >> when i was bleeding to death my helicopter after that rpg ripped through the cockpit of that aircraft, an american came to save my life. it didn't matter to me if they were straight, if they were gay, if they were transgendered. it only mattered that they wore the uniform of the united states military. and i will always remember that. if you're willing to serve this country in unform and you're willing to lay down your life to protect it, you deserve to be able to do that. and so many more americans, including our president, has never worn the uniform. he needs to back off, because i will fight for our transgendered and all military men and women. >> the ban came as a surprise to many in washington including the conservatives who lobbied the president on transgendered policy. they say they were pushing to prevent the pentagon from paying from transgendered related surgery, not an outright ban on transgend erred people in the military. back now with the panel. scott, putting aside whether or not you agree with the idea of a ban, just how the president went about it. it is a major policy change from the previous administration. the previous administration
basically encouraged by allowing this, encouraged transgender in the military who were hidden to come forward and identify themselves. now people have done that, and it seems like they're going to be fired. is three tweets the way this should have been handled? >> probably not. and i think at this point the white house needs to bring forward a cabinet officer, a military adviser, or advisers, to give a briefing to the press on, a, how it's going to be handled right now and b, how it's going to be handled in the future, c, what does this mean, is there a time period under which we're going to enact this, and finally, how they arrived at the decisions, what were the policy discussions that went on to get to the decision. back to the politics for just one moment, one thing we didn't discuss in the first segment but i think is important, there's really only one transgendered soldier anybody in america knows, and that's the traitor, chelsea manning. you wonder how this conversation would have unfolded today if chelsea manning had not done what she did, leaking all the information, putting american soldiers and allies at risk. if that hadn't happened, we might not be having this
a different conversation today. >> that's what happens to all minority groups, you transfer the sin of one to the sin of all. that's wrong to do. in addition to that, there is no hierarchy of humanity. this idea that we're somehow assigning these people a lesser way of being and therefore we can now decide as a political matter or as a vote or, you know, that we have the ability to govern their bodies, govern the way that they articulate themselves in the world, is just outright wrong. and in addition to that, i just have to bring up this point. this is the 69th anniversary of president harry truman signing an executive order to desegregate the military. on that day, this president would make these tweets basically moving backward, away from more integration, more openness, more honesty in the military. and in the other direction. he stands in stark contrast in historical terms to other
presidents. for him to stand up last night and say i deserve to be on mt. rushmore, you may deserve to be behind bars somewhere but you do not deserve to be on mt. rushmore. >> but what's interesting about that, beyond the irony that this is done on the same day of that anniversary, but some of those arguments, the same arguments about unit cohesion, this is going to be upsetting, by allowing african americans to serve -- >> we heard it with african-americans. we heard it with women in the military, you know, in combat, et cetera. we heard it with lgbt, lesbian and gay people, around don't ask, don't tell. we hear it every time there is an attempt to move the military forward to be fully embracing of who americans are. and it's the same arguments at their core, you know, characterizations, groups, et cetera change, but they're the same. i just want to add, on top of all of the other things that were wrong about these tweets and this decision, it's yet another issue where president trump is just a complete hypocrite.
he said during the campaign that he stood with the lgbt community. as we saw earlier on your show, he literally just about wrapped himself in a rainbow flag, saying that gays and lesbians loved him. >> that he was holding upside down, by the way. >> correct. >> just for the record. >> that's a whole other level that we won't go into. you're so political, you'll bring people in by lying to them and then wake up, and you're saying they're basically less than other human americans. >> i will be the first one to say from a communications standpoint that this roll-out from a major this rollout for such a major policy initiative was not done properly. all these questions we're still talking about and were brought up in the press briefing today --
>> they had no answers. >> there are no answers. they should have had some military people on the podium. but there was a background. they see lgbt and using our tax dollars for services that they need, conservatives in the religious right and people across the country in mainstream america take issue with that. that was the impetus for them even bringing this up with him. and why he made this decision. >> it's interesting, though, the degree to which things have changed. as i came of age during the don't ask, don't tell time, and even before that, during the ban, back to scott's point, we haven't seen many transgendered service members publicly except chelsea manning, it was the same thing with gay service members when i was a kid. you didn't see many gay service members. there were a few during the '70s whose names we knew and it wasn't until people started coming forward that that started to change. >> are there people who supported racial desegregation in the military who opposed this? i'm sure there are some. but i think it's very careful, we want to be very clear that
people shouldn't misinterpret what you said, i don't think it's what you meant, but to in any way say the leadership of the african-american and caribbean-american and latino-american community does not stand squarely with the lgbt community and the transgendered community. we have seen those communities come together in the most powerful ways. leaders of the '60s civil rights movement who stood with king, standing at the gay marriage rally at the mall speaking out. so there may be one or two. i'm not saying you can't find an example, but in reality, we are together in a fight for human rights for all. >> because i've done research on this, language is exactly the same, literally exactly the same. that black people were genetically inferior, that they would not fight, right, that you could not expend the same amount of energy and money on them as you would other soldiers, so they didn't train them the same way. my grandfather fought in world war ii, the first person to receive a medal from his group.
but that racist commander of that group refused to approve any of those people who got injured on that trip. it was the same language. i'm just saying, they may resist the comparison, but the comparison is legitimate. >> i totally get that. let me just say this one quick thing. from a conservative standpoint, the religious right, they view this completely different. everyone has a different opinion. they view this as you're born black, that's how you were born and raised. but they view transgender and lgbtq, a lot of these issues, as a choice. i'm not saying i agree with it. i'm saying that's how christian conservatives view that issue. >> just a postscript to a discussion we had last year when jeffrey lord said the military shouldn't pay for viagra. studies show that sexual dysfunction is actually a major problem for soldiers who suffer from ptsd and there's other medical reasons people could be issued viagra in the military.
much more to discuss ahead, including the president's later attack on his attorney general jeff sessions. he is not backing down. the question is why. what happens next? i talk it over with angus king. i also want to get the panel's take as well. last year, he said he was going to dig a hole to china. at&t is working with farmers to improve irrigation techniques. remote moisture sensors use a reliable network to tell them when and where to water. so that farmers like ray can compete in big ways. china. oh ... he got there. that's the power of and.
afi sure had a lot on my mind. my 30-year marriage... ...my 3-month old business... plus...what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i made a point to talk to my doctor. he told me about eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. not only does eliquis treat dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis had both...
...and that turned around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis right for me. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you.
the president is not back do you think from his one-sided feud with his attorney general jeff sessions. he attacked him earlier on twitter again today. i'll talk it over with maine senator angus king. we started out speaking about the transgender ban and how the military branches were caught off guard by the decision. we learned that secretary of defense mattis learned about the decision before trump went public with it. here is my conversation with senator king. senator king, i want to start by asking about breaking news tonight. the service chiefs who represent the four branches of our military were caught off guard by the president's announcement today on transgend erred service members. you're on the armed services committee. how concerning is that to you? >> well, it's concerning because he mentioned in his tweets some reference to the generals. i think it's a fair question who he was consulting with. there is an ongoing study on this issue, and everybody was
surprised including john mccain, joni ernst, members of the armed services committee along with me. yeah, i think the white house should be asked, who did he consult with? >> do you believe that transgendered service members cause disruption, that it hurts military readiness, that it's an undo you burden or expense? >> number one, that's exactly what's now being studied. number two, there was a study on this subject a couple of years ago by the rand corporation. they found there wasn't substantial either disruption or additional expense. my reaction immediately when i saw the tweets was, if we've got brave people that want to defend this country, they should be allowed to do so. >> so the white house wouldn't say what happens to service members who are transgendered who are currently serving. do you have any idea? is there anything that your committee would do to try to review this or prevent a ban, if possible, from going into effect? >> i'm sure the committee is going to follow up on this, no question of that.
again, the problem here is policy by tweet. there was no detail, there was no explanation. there was no background, no sources. and i just think it's not a very good way to make public policy. and yes, we are going to look into it, but to simply announce something like this with no consultation with the committee, i can assure you of that, and apparently -- well, i won't say apparently no consultation with the military. but i understand today the pentagon was referring questions to the white house. >> as far as your former colleague attorney general sessions is concerned, the president continued to publicly criticize him today. what do you think he is trying to accomplish by doing that? >> well, first let me say the nub of this seems to be the attorney general's recusing himself early on in his tenure. there is absolutely no question, anderson, under the regulations
of the justice department, that he had to do so. if you're investigating a political campaign of which you are a staff member or otherwise involved, you have to recuse yourself. if you read it, you say, oh, this sounds like it was written for this situation. so he had to recuse himself. i don't know the motivation, it doesn't make sense to me, because this is a guy who was one of president trump's most loyal supporters. the supposition is that this is an effort to somehow line up the ducks in such a way that bob mueller can be fired. boy, i think that would be a terrible mistake both for the country and the president. >> if the president did end up firing mueller, what would actually happen? could you see a special prosecutor statute being passed? >> i could. >> what would that mean, exactly? >> well, i think the congress would have to pass a statute authorizing a special prosecutor and some kind of special appointment process by veto-proof majorities.
then we would be exactly where we are now, without the president having the power to make this kind of decision. nobody in our country is above the law. i mean, that's been established for, you know, since the very beginning. that includes the president of the united states. but i think you would have a pretty strong consensus around here that firing of robert mueller is not something that could be just said, okay, we're going to move on from here. >> angus king, senator king, appreciate it. >> yes, sir. >> back now with the panel. i mean, dana, again, this continues. obviously the president believes there is some benefit for him to do this. it's not a complete lack of impulse control. >> i honestly don't know if that's true. >> really? >> i don't know. but i think it's entirely possible and plausible that it is his impulse, that he is so mad at this guy that he wants him to go. and he doesn't want to fire him.
which is a whole different question. there's a lot of criticism of the president among his fellow republicans on capitol hill for, you know, the way that he's basically trying to bully jeff sessions into quitting instead of just, if he wants him to go, just firing him. i'm not sure if there really is a strategy behind this. you know, we have been reporting for the past day or so about a concerted effort among those who are closest to jeff sessions, who are inside the white house. steve bannon and others among them, desperately trying to get the president to stop, not only because they are allies of jeff sessions, but because they realize that this is bad politics and policy for the president. and just tonight, chuck grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee in the senate who would be in charge of a confirmation hearing if there were to be one for another attorney general, specifically said, without prompting, specifically in a tweet, the agenda for the judiciary
committee is set for the rest of the year including no ag. so that just kind of shows you the pushback from republicans. >> i want to play something that lindsey graham told manu raju earlier about the president's attacks on sessions. >> i think anybody who is strong would use the power they have and be confident in their decision. so strong people say, i've decided that this man or woman can't serve me well and i'm going to act accordingly and take the consequence. to me, weakness is when you play around the edges and you don't use the power you have. >> it sounds like he's calling the president weak. >> mm-hmm. >> and i think what jeff sessions has been saying through his actions and public communications is, look, you can fire me if you want to, otherwise, i'm going to be at the office enacting your agenda and doing a pretty darn good job of it. i've been asking these guys to clear the air on behalf of all republicans for days now. i hope jeff sessions and the president do clear the air, because i think sessions was one of the best cabinet choices he
made, conservatives love jeff sessions, they love what he's doing in office. for this to drag on and on is detrimental to enacting the president's agenda, which ultimately is what all republicans in washington want the see happen. >> of all the people enacting jeff sessions, whether you agree and like what he is doing is not, is doing a good job enacting the president's agenda in the justice department. >> he is doing ooh phenomenal job. one of the reasons why bannon put him on the radar for ag is his strong position on immigration. he's working night and day to execute those policies. certainly recently with taking away funding for sanctuary cities and civil asset forfeiture programs. these are key issues that he continues to execute even as being trashed by the president. in addition to lindsey graham, other strong conservatives out there have spoken on behalf of sessions. we have mike lee, ted cruz, and others saying he is man of dignity and honor. people wonder how in the world can sessions still stay with all the constant berating by the president. he's got the support of his
peers. and will keep him where he is. >> the other thing i don't understand is the president has basically said if i knew he was going to recuse himself on russia, i wouldn't have appointed him. but it's the same president who said there's nothing going on with russia, there's nothing to worry about. so if there's nothing to worry about and there's nothing there, why does he care that the ag had to recuse himself? it really opens up more questions. >> you also have to look at timing. since we've been on the air, "the new york times" published an argue about this by peter baker. it is kind of visceral agitation. his aides are telling him to cut this out and he won't do it. part of the agitation is the family members who are now being dragged into the investigation. but he recused himself months ago. if trump really had a problem with it, he would have been making a fuss months ago. but it is since trump jr., since kushner have had to kind of be
called up to the senate, that's when he's really gotten upset about it. >> dana? >> i think that's right. he has been saying privately, since sessions recused himself, that he's upset about it. there's no question, as it's gotten closer, he's been more public about wanting jeff sessions to recuse himself. one thing i do want to add, another thing that is happening behind the scenes in the white house, is people, ted barrett and i reporting today people are urging the president to consider what's known as a recess appointment, trying to wait until the senate goes into recess, and put somebody in there which could last until the next congress. the only problem with that is that the senate, the past ten years, hasn't gone to recess for this exact reason. and democrats are on to this, and they are already strategizing about ways to make sure the senate stays in session. >> got to take another quick break. when we come back, breaking news on the health care front. senate democrats trying some political maneuvering, more on the new tactic, next. it's an american favorite on top of an american favorite, alice.
[ mockingly ] "shouldn't you be at work?" todd. hold on. [ engine revs ] arcade game: fist pump! your real bike's all fixed. man, you guys are good! well, we are the number-one motorcycle insurer in the country. -wait. you have a real motorcycle? and real insurance, with 24-hour customer support. arcade game: wipeout! oh! well... i retire as champion. game hog! champion. they call him the whisperer. the whisperer? why do they call him the whisperer? he talks to planes. he talks to planes. watch this. hey watson, what's avionics telling you? maintenance records and performance data suggest replacing capacitor c4. not bad. what's with the coffee maker? sorry. we are not on speaking terms.
the bill after offering any more amendments. seven republicans defected to vote against a straight repeal plan this afternoon. ryan nobles joins us from capitol hill. what are we learning about the new strategy from democrats? >> well, as late as this afternoon, anderson, we were getting reports from a number of different senators that they had hundreds of amendments lined up to put on the floor to be offered up for an up or down vote as soon as the 20 hours of debate concludes tomorrow afternoon. but then late tonight, chuck schumer, the minority leader of the senate, went to the senate floor and said that they planned to not offer up any amendments until they see the specifics behind the republican plan to offer up this so-called skinny repeal. now, it's important to keep in mind, anderson, we've heard about this skinny repeal, but at this point it's really just theory, it's a conceptual plan that republicans have talked about, but they haven't offered up any specific language. so democrats say they're not going to play this game, they want to see exactly what is in this bill before they move forward. and at this point, we could end up in somewhat of a staring contest tomorrow evening after that 20 hours of debate finishes
up. >> and republicans couldn't pass a straight repeal of obamacare today. was that any surprise? >> it wasn't really a surprise that they didn't have the votes to pass the straight repeal. but it was a bit of a surprise that so many republicans voted against it. seven republicans in total, including some surprises like lamar alexander of tennessee, rob portman of ohio, and john mccain of arizona. so when you have seven republicans right now that say they can't support a straight repeal, that means that mitch mcconnell needs to pull back at least five of them for this skinny repeal, whatever it turns out to be, if they hope to get the 50 votes necessary to get this bill to a conference. the senate republicans still feel that they is possible. but right now, we don't know exactly how they're going to pull it off. >> ryan nobles, thanks very much. i want to bring back in the panel. for a lot of people the details of this get in the weeds and mind-boggling, your head starts to swim. do you have a sense for what's going to happen? >> that so-called skinny plan to
repeal and replace obamacare is probably the only that has a snowball's chance in you-know-where to actually pass. that's why the democrats are doing this tactic, because we do only have concepts, it's really basic, to get rid of the mandate and get rid of the medical device tax. which has not been that popular with democrats. >> so what's the tactic by democrats? what's the benefit of the tactic? >> to force republicans to actually -- >> come up with something. >> come up with something, but to actually put it in legislative language so they can have a real debate on it and not just surprise everybody at the end of the debate. >> you can't blame them for that. certainly they should see what they're voting on, unlike what we did with obamacare. i think dana is right, the skinny version will be the one that is going to be on the table. talk is that it will include the consumer freedom aspect which is ted cruz's version, whether you're shopping or selling insurance, you can have more choices.
portman's amendment will be included. >> on opioids? >> yes, exactly. they want to make sure they also protect the medicaid funding, which the states want, that's critical, because the senators are going to do what their governors want to do, a lot of them are up for reelection. >> the cbo came out with scoring on the skinny repeal, and it could, according to the congressional budget office, raise premiums by 20%, and 13 million americans, which is certainly less than 31 or 22 but a lot of americans, 16 million americans, could lose insurance. so i think it is very smart of minority leader schumer and the other democrats to force the facts out there. because going from a total repeal to the skinny repeal sounds like, oh, it's not so significant, who doesn't want to lose a few pounds? but by doing this we're getting the real facts out there. 16 million americans. 20% increase in premiums. those are all things americans, we know from polling throughout this process, don't want. >> except that before we
actually have legislative language, the cbo is just guessing based on reports. we don't actually have the hard numbers. that's the standard state of affairs. >> regardless of where you stand on the ideological spectrum, that's the thing that irritates people about washington, the idea you're going to be dealing with a sixth of the economy and nobody knows at this point, you're going to vote tomorrow but nobody knows at this point what the language is? how is it even possible? this concept of like, you were referring to, trying to rebrand things to euphemism, it's like trying to rebrand neo-nazis as alt-right. no. neo-nazis, no. taking away insurance from 16 million people. that's what it is. stop trying to make it feel like it's nicer, kinder, gentler. it's not. it may be skinny to somebody, but to somebody who needs help, it's not skinny. >> here is what republicans hate. they hate the taxes. they hate the individual mandate. they hate the premium spikes. they hate the lies that this bill was sold on all these years ago.
they hate the concept that failure to act here is leaving all of that stuff that they hate in place. and so getting over the motion to proceed was a huge deal, because had they not done that, that would have been an epic political failure. and now they can actually address some of these things republicans have been screaming about for all these years. i don't know what the perfect solution is but getting to the place where they can debate any solutions is a huge win this week. >> if they didn't have something to show for all this talk over so many years, that would be worse than having something that's bad? >> absolutely. if you go out and promise people for seven years, we're going to repeal obamacare. it's terrible. you know it. i know it. and you show up and you have full control of the government and you fail on the core campaign promise that gave you the majorities in congress and the white house? oh, my gosh, that would be -- >> part of the reason they're failing is because they were lying. they kept saying that they can give it better, cheaper, it would be easy to do, president trump said this over and over again. he was just lying. he had no plan for it.
he could not do it more cheaply. he could not ensure the same amount of people, or even more people which is what he said. he couldn't do it. he was just lying. the reason they're failing is because they were lying in the first place. >> we got to take a break. we're going to take a quick break. when we come back, president trump announcing a new jobs deal in wisconsin. that's next. totally immersed weekenders. whatever kind of weekender you are, there's a hilton for you. book your weekend break direct with hilton.com and join the summer weekenders. ♪ it's happening, it's happening! test test g with an app. your son is turning on all the lights again! and with the esurance mobile app, you can do the same thing with your car insurance. like access your id card, file a claim, or manage your policy. it's so easy it's almost scary. let's get outta here!
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.
. president trump is proclaiming a win on jobs today. the white house announced a new technology plan will come to wisconsin. >> there's a great day for american workers and manufacturing, and for everyone who believes in the concept and the label made in the usa. >> back now with the panel. the president is clearly touting this as a big picture. >> and you know what he should. this is what he accompanied among other things but in terms of the economy, the main thing he accompanied on and the biggest applause lines all over
america was i'm going to bring the jobs back. the notion of having the very first plant in america to make these led screens, to do it in wisconsin which he wouldn't suppose to win and he did win, probably not accident, that's in the health speaker district in wisconsin. paul ryan i'm told is very instrumental in this, and it's a big deal. he got a lot of well deserved flak for this things he does wrong and fact that he was apart of something that could be very good for american jobs should be applauded. >> a lot of democrats are appointing to a lot of tax incentives to get this where it was there. they're not complaining at all because it's going to bring jobs to their area. >> this is exactly right. that's why the people in the midwest has previously voted for
obama. we need jobs, and i'll guarantee you tonight if you're sitting at the white house, most the applicable washington is talking about the transgender ban and everybody out in the midwest is talking about the thousands of jobs going to wisconsin. >> in right lane that's how it works. item worked in the governor's office, you go and import businesses and provide tax ensentives and reasons for them co-come build in your state. the company investigating billions of dollars in the country. how someone can find fault in a company creating up to 13,000 jobs. this is a great day for administration that's what he accompanied on. >> but the -- i think any time somebody gets more jobs is great. but it is legitimate concern to know that the sweeteners are up front and the milwaukee journal
said it could be at many as $3 billion in an unprecedented amount of number for any company. that's not an american company, it might be in american but that's not an american company. i think one of the thing that getz lost in the framing about when we do the taxing centers is conservators are always upset about welfare. right? this is another form of that. and we do it all the time and is a trans ferchs of tax collected de los, this is federal money in addition to state and local money, that's a trans ephesians for all of americans where someone where they want to score political gains. the people will get jobs but don't mistake the fact this is a form of welfare and we're doing it for them to have political zbans. >> and let me also add, if a lot of jobs come out and you weigh that against the benefits, i don't know if this is a way to
have club access so the jobs don't come, in any deal you get the money back. what i've heard from manufacturing leaders is that this country has a very bad track record, i hope it doesn't do so in this case. making promises, promising jobs and not deliver. i'd have to go back to what you said, you're probably right. people in the white house probably sitting up with their feet up having a cup of beer and go oh this is a great day. it's a sad day. any time the president put people against the transgender american it's a sad day for the fundamentals of our country. >> we'll be right back. it's like rodeos on top of rollercoasters. get your favorites on top of your favorites. only at applebee's. get your favorites on top of your favorites. choicehotels.com. badda book. that's it?. he means book direct at choicehotels.com for the lowest price on our rooms guaranteed.
plus earn free nights and instant rewards at check-in. yeah. like i said. book now at choicehotels.com whuuuuuat?rtgage offer from the bank today. you never just get one offer. go to lendingtree.com and shop multiple loan offers for free! free? yeah. could save thousands. you should probably buy me dinner. no. go to lendingtree.com for a new home loan or refinance. receive up to five free offers and choose the loan that's right for you. our average customer could lower their
monthly bills by over three hundred dollars. go to lendingtree.com right now. america's small business owners. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes, who use their expertise to keep those businesses covered. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes behind the heroes, who brought us delicious gyros. actually, the gyro hero owns vero's gyros, so he should have been with those first heroes. ha ha! that's better. so, to recap -- small business owners are heroes, and our heroes help heroes be heroes when they're not eating gyros delivered by -- ah, you know what i mean.
welcome to out viewers of the united states around the world i'm john value. >> and i'm isa. tweets coming from the white house has been raising questions about president trump's chief of staff, reince priebus. >> it started from this sweet coming from anthony scaramucci. in light of the week of my disclosure information which is a felony i'll be contacting the fbi and the justice department #swamp at ranks