Skip to main content

tv   CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin  CNN  October 17, 2017 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT

12:00 pm
and he's already warned donald trump, hey, i can fight back, you know. so you may be in the next few weeks or months having a tit for tat going on between trump and mccain. and i give mccain already the bronze star for that fight, because i think he will defeat trump if it gets to being who's right about the democratic ideals are all about. >> and john mccain will be a formidable ally, no doubt, in that debate. douglas brinkley, tim notali, thank you so much to both of you. it's the top of the hour. i'm breanna kieler in for brooke baldwin. cnn is learning two bipartisan senators, one democrat, one republican, say they have reached a deal in principle on health care. now this time patty murray, a democrat, and senator lamar alexander, a republican, are reaching across the aisle. and their goal is to stabilize obamacare rather than, as the president has requested, just let it implode.
12:01 pm
during a news conference a short time ago, president trump said he endorses this deal in the short-term. listen. >> apparently, lamar alexander said he made a deal with patty murray to stabilize obamacare. has the white house been involved in those negotiations? and will you support that deal? >> yes, we have been involved. and this is a short-term deal, because we think ultimately block grants going to the states is going to be the answer. that's a very good solution. we think it's going to not only save money, but give people much better health care with a very, very much smaller premium spike. and you look at what has gone on with that. also, much lower deductibles to use it. lamar has been working very, very hard with the democratic, his colleagues on the other side. and patty murray is one of them, in particular. and they are coming up and are fairly close to a short-term solution. the solution will be for about a year or two years. and it will get us over this
12:02 pm
intermediate hump, because we have, as you probably know, we have the votes or we are very close to having the votes. and we will get the votes for having really the potential of having great health care in our country. so they are indeed working, but it is a short-term solution so that we don't have this very dangerous little period. we're going to have more on that about-face on health care from the president in a moment. but we have breaking news to bring you right now. this has to do with a federal judge blocking travel ban 3.0. president trump's new travel ban just one day before it was to go into effect. i want to go to correspondent jessica schneider who has the very latest on this. what has happened here, jessica? >> reporter: brianna, it is travel ban 3.0 that has once again, as we saw in the two previous travel bans, this has been enjoined by a federal district court judge. this time the decision coming out of hawaii. now, it is interesting, it's
12:03 pm
judge derek watson. and judge watson was one of the judges as well back in march who also struck down the travel ban 2.0 executive order as unconstitutional. he stopped it from going into effect. so it's important to note that the president's travel ban was supposed to go into effect tomorrow. now, this was the latest it ration of the travel ban that pertained to six different countries, not all of them muslim majority as the administration pointed out. it also included venezuela, some government officials were banned from that, but at this point, that travel ban that was supposed to take effect tomorrow, it will not go sbeein effect. because of the federal ruling from hawaii. one thing i want to read from the opinion of the judge, he basically said the third try at the executive order, it, quote, suffers from precisely the same l laddies as the predecessor. that the entry of more than 150
12:04 pm
million nationals from six spestied countries, specified countries, would be detrimental to the united states. so the administration has not proven that barring these people would help the situation in the united states. and he also said that the executive order, quote, plainly drim nig discriminates based on nationality that is antithetical. this was the third version to go into effect tomorrow. a judge, a federal district judge in hawaii, has now ruled that this travel ban cannot go into effect, that at this point, he says it appears it is unconstitutional. and he's stopped it from going into effect. so once again, the administration's third try at this struck down by a federal court judge. >> jessica schneider has the very latest on this. if you wouldn't mind standing by for me, i want to bring in jeff
12:05 pm
toobin, the chief legal analyst to talk about this. jeff, what is your reaction? >> reporter: well, this is a continuing saga of the travel ban. what is interesting about this ruling is that travel ban 2.0 was supposed to be addressed by the supreme court this month. but the court dismissed that case because it was moved, the travel ban 2.0 was no longer in effect. but what i think is almost certain now is that this ruling about travel ban 3.0 will be on a rocket ride to the supreme court. and we will get a resolution one way or another. i think each time the trump administration has revised the travel ban, it has become more likely to be upheld. it is more narrowly tailored. there's more explanation for the basis for it. obviously, the federal district judge in hawaii was not persuaded this was constitutional.
12:06 pm
but i think, the trump administration is in better shape depending travel ban 3.0 in the supreme court rather than the two earlier versions. and i expect they'll have the chance sooner rather than later. >> jeff, by the supreme court passing on travel ban 2.0, because 3.0 was going into effect or had been drafted and was going to go into effect, that wasn't the supreme court's way of signaling how it felt about 3.0, right? it's just the point was moot and this has to go back through the process of being potentially challenged, as it now has been by a lower court? >> reporter: i don't think we should draw any conclusions about whether travel ban 3.0 will be upheld based on the dismissal of the case involving travel ban 2.0. that was just a procedural matter. the supreme court had no real reason to address travel ban 2.0 because it was moot, it was not, no longer in effect. i think this is likely to be a
12:07 pm
closed case in the supreme court. but i do think the trump administration probably has a better chance in the supreme court than it has, particularly in these courts in the ninth circuit court of -- in the region covered by the ninth circuit, hawaii and the west coast of the united states were most of these cases have originally come up, which tend to be the more liberal courts in the country. the supreme court is certainly more on the conservative side. >> all right. standby for me, jeff toobin, i'm bringing in tim notali, presidential historian, back with me. okay, this is quite breaking news here as we have learned that a federal judge in hawaii saying that the travel ban, the third attempt that the trump administration has made at it, that it is not constitutional, at least according to him. so jeffrey toobin telling us this will be on the express train to the supreme court now, tim. >> and jeff would have a much
12:08 pm
better sense at what might happen there, but this is just a reminder to the president that there are three branches of government. and that at least the judicial -- >> co-equal branches sfwlc. >> and the judicial branch is healthy. what i'm looking to is how the president reacts. in the past, he's dropped the presidential demeanor and gone right after the courts when he hasn't gotten a response or a decision that he liked. so let's see what he does today. best thing for him would be to say nothing and just appeal it. but we never know with donald trump. >> that seems unlikely that he would do that, right? considering what he has said about the courts in the past. >> it's a shame. it's very important for every member of the triad, constitutional triad, to show respect for the other. it's part of the deal. you play in this game, you play in that sandbox, those are the reduce. if you're in congress, if you're in the judiciary or the executive branch, you have to show respect. it's necessary.
12:09 pm
and let's hope. let's hope against hope that he does. >> we're going to continue to explore this in a moment. tim naftali, thank you for that. i want to go back to health care, though, the president endorsing a deal that has been agreed to, at least on sort of the structure of a deal, you could say, between democrats and republicans, and extending those cautionary subsidize that provide many americans health insurance that help to pay for health insurance. the president endorsing that after just putting out an executive order that would have abolished those subsidize. so let's get to cnn congressional correspondent phil mattingly to help us with this. this is something that the president by eo was going to eradicate, but that was obviously unpalatable to democrats and republicans on the hill, phil. >> reporter: on some level, kind of sparking talks. they have been ongoing for several weeks now between lamar alexander and patty murray, his democratic counterpart from washington. they have been negotiating on
12:10 pm
how to make csrs come from congress to bring down premiums for individuals in the marketplace come from congress and not be subject to the executive branch just for the reason that the president moved a couple days ago, that he could cancel them. so here's what the deal entails right now, what democrats want, they get two years of funding for the subsidize, the cautionary reduction payments. they also get a little north of $10 milli $100 million in obamacare outreach funding, so the ability to more or less get people into the exchanges, let people know enrollment is happening, those sorts of things. what republicans get, this is extremely important if the deal has any future whatsoever, is on the regulatory flexibility side. with eheard a lot about this during the repeal and replace debate. and we heard the reiteration from 1.0 to graham cassidy at the end. states what the ability to apply for waivers and get waivers from obamacare related to tailoring the regulations to better serve kind of their constituents, their state customers. this has been continuous odorous
12:11 pm
by design. they didn't want states to object out of the law that currently stands. what republicans get out of this is two-fold. they get a change of how the measure of whether or not a plan is affordable is actually constructed. that would, in and of itself, grant a lot of flexibility in terms of how the states structure their plans. the other thing it would do is speed up the waiver plan,i righ now a lot of states can mimic many the near-term another waiver that another state has gotten. so say alaska, a reinsurance program, that allows them to take federal money and help pay down premiums for others. the other states could get that if they apply for it. so the regulatory piece is a big deal if this has a future in the republican-controlled senate and house as well. they want the subsidize funded and what the obamacare money as well. that's what they would get out of the deal. the big question is where does the deal go from here?
12:12 pm
it has the president's endorsement, but there are many steps left to go. >> especially as it preserves a key part of obamacare despite the president saying obamacare as he sees it is dead. hang tight for us, phil. we'll be back with you. i want to talk more about the health care deal including reaction from republicans. where are they on this? next. and the recent victory over isis in raqqah the president says is thanks to his change in the military. hear what senator mccain says and the reaction from a lieutenant air force colonel. hi, i'm the internet!
12:13 pm
12:14 pm
12:15 pm
you know what's difficult? adulting... hi, guys. i'm back. time to slay! no,i have a long time girlfriend. you know what's easy? building your website with godaddy. get your domain today and get a free trial of gocentral. build a better website in under an hour.
12:16 pm
a big bipartisan agreement with a potential end to the solution of what the president had planned for health care subsidize. this could lead to saving that for the next couple years, at least, for a number of people. we have senior politics reporter
12:17 pm
m.j. lee, cnn political commentator, mary katherine hamm. she writes for the federalist. this was a discussion already in progress, but it seems like the president saying that he was going to get rid of these subsidize that helped so many people pay for their health insurance spurred a discussion between patty murray, a democrat, and lamar alexander, a republican. >> alexander and murray had been talking about trying to reach some kind of bipartisan deal for months now. but alexander ended up announcing when graham/cassidy was going somewhere a couple weeks ago, he said the bipartisan talks had to go on hold. when the republican bill ended not going anywhere because republicans didn't have the votes, the talks sort of started up again. and, you know, the wave that this played out at the white house was pretty fascinating because literally within minutes the president was bashing the csr payments saying that the payments lined the pockets of
12:18 pm
insurance companies. it was during that time it sort of simultaneously that this deal on capitol hill was announced. and then when the president was asked about this bipartisan deal, he appeared to endorse it saying, well, this is a short-term solution. they have been working really hard. and i think seeing how the president actually talks about this issue going forward is going to be really interesting. and key to weather he is able to rally these republicans, many of whom are skeptical about supporting something like this, whether he ends up really sort of pulling his weight and talking to individual members and saying, we need to vote on this so that it becomes law. already, we have a number of conservative republicans who have said, there's no way that i'm supporting something that basically props up obamacare. >> that's right. this is not a done deal as we heard phil mattingly report, mary katherine, this could require some shepherding by the president. >> yeah, so the upside of this is that it would be a constitutional way to do these payments before there was no
12:19 pm
appropriation, no law, it was not in obamacare and the federal judge was like, you can't do it that way. there was an appeal in place by the obama administration that the trump administration said, we're not going to appeal that. this is not a good way to do this. so this would be a good way to put it into law. whether it succeeds is another issue. i'm not a huge fan of bailing out insurance companies to solve this problem anyway, the payments are to insurance companies, not to people who have trouble paying premiums. but i don't think the president has identiopinions to the debat wants to pay the people who want to get the deal done. he doesn't have an issue with that. >> he calls it short-term, but when i think short-term, i think three months, this is a two-year deal. so if this goes forward, would this be trumpcare? >> i think there's an element of that, although the extent to which trump owns anything is questionable because he's changeable and things don't seem
12:20 pm
to stick to him. as soon as he changes his mind, declare victory and move on. so there's a question as to whether he's politically affect upped by these as other people are, but i don't think he would mind to get a deal done. ironically, the one that keeps this annoying part of to bobama in place. >> a federal judge has now blocked the travel ban 3.0, the third attempt at the travel ban. i want to bring in now jaime metzel at the atlantic council that used to be on during the clinton administration. react to the news that a federal judge in hawaii, jaime, who is saying, no, this isn't constitution constitutional. he said the same thing about the second travel ban, and it seems like this is destined for the supreme court now. >> it will and we have the same problem. we have a president who, as a candidate, was very clear about what he was doing and the intent and the goal.
12:21 pm
who has used all kinds of demagoguery and racism in advancing this agenda. and then they say, we're not going to let north koreans come into the united states and there were no north koreans even coming. so it is not really fooling anybody. and i think that the federal judiciary is doing its job in holding the president to account. >> what do you think, mary katherine? >> look, i think from the beginning of this process, there's something that the trump administration could learn from it, which is that there's value in doing things in a thought-through methodical way and that everybody has the notes on what you're going to do. had they tried this version on the first try, they would be a lot further along in making a policy that might do something. by the way, the american people are okay with more vetting and making sure we don't have folks from failed states coming and not knowing exactly who they are, but we're three times in now, and that's because they didn't do this in a methodical way from the beginning. >> and i think months later there's still talk about this parall
12:22 pm
parallel universe in which the trump version was rolled out, had it been in a more effective way, when it was clear how it would be implemented and what would go into it, a lot of folks wonder if they had done it right or in a more advantageous or strategic way the first time, would the administration be dealing with the situation where they're now on version 3.0 and unclear what will happen to this, you know, goal, this political goal that is very, very important to the president. >> we have been seeing a war of words between president trump and senator john mccain. senator mccain delivered, really, a thinly vailed and scathing speech last night, not just about president trump, but really his world view. and then president trump said that he had better become, he's been nice, so sort of a threat back at senator mccain, and then just moments ago, cnn tracked him down in the hallways of the capitol and here's how he reacted. >> reporter: were you trying to,
12:23 pm
were you addressing the president or bannon or the group in total? >> i think that what is clear is what i was talking about as an environment here of non-productivity of a reversion to the attitude of the '30s, which was one of the major reasons why we fought world war ii. >> so jaime, when you hear that, and clearly, these are two gentlemen who see the world very differently. and they see the role of the united states in the world very differently. when you see john mccain seeing that warning to return to isolationism that could lead to a world war, what do you think? >> i think that we're at an incredibly dangerous moment for our country and the world. president trump is taking a sledgehammer to a global world order that the united states spent 70 years meticulously building. and the entire peace and
12:24 pm
prosperity of the entire world rests upon that foundation. by saying that president trump is going back to the isolationism of the '30s, was this period that led to the miscalculations and all of the problems that eventually left the world in ruins. and right now, what i think senator mccain, who is an incredible american patriot, is trying to do is to make this be equivalent of 1954 when joseph welsh and president eisenhower said to senator mccarthy at the end of four years of witch trials, this madness has to stop. and i think for this country and for the world, the madness of the trump administration needs to be raeined. >> senator mccain, i mean, it's a very -- it is a pretty scary warning what he's giving. he was saying last night, don't dismantle, essentially, the world that you have helped order, that you helped organize.
12:25 pm
but does it have any real effect? >> well, i'm probably between mccain and trump on the idea of the american leadership and isolationism versus interventionism. but there's a part of this that i think, look, mccain is allowed to say because once somebody calls you a bad p.o.w., go for it. fight that until the end of the time. but there's a part where he says this is unpatriotic to sort of be sold on this, he called it half-baked nationalism. but there's a part of this where an an mating part of his party and the cross-over of democrats who voted for trump really are skeptical of interventionism in the mold of the mccain-style for good reason. because there were many, many deaths and treasure and blood lost in the middle east that people are very skeptical of that approach to things and being on the mccain end of that spectrum. so that is a political reality that mccain has to deal with as well. and using that word "unpatriotic" is spreading beyond trump and what he's selling to people thatted a mere
12:26 pm
adheres to something interventional. >> it is in part based on the united states setting standards, whether through international law or international institutions that create a foundation for global peace. and that is as much what president trump and this administration is destroying, is about the failure to intervene or failures of intervention as the climate change agreement or the united nations, all these institution that is have kept the peace for so long are now fundamentally at risk. >> i among the folks who voted for trump argue they haven't kept peace well and this is something that the iran deal gives iran license to become a nuclear power and that is not a great way to keep peace either. the question is, what does the trump doctrine lead to? >> and whether it can be replaced with something better. certainly, you can imagine that this administration can deliver. >> thank you to all of you. next, president trump is thrusting his chief of staff
12:27 pm
into a firestorm over his comments about fallen troops. i'll get reaction from an air force colonel. plus details on the investigation into the mission that led to the death of four u.s. soldiers in nagir. what powers the digital world. communication. that's why a cutting edge university counts on centurylink to keep their global campus connected. and why a pro football team chose us to deliver fiber-enabled broadband to more than 65,000 fans. and why a leading car brand counts on us to keep their dealer network streamlined and nimble. businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink.
12:28 pm
12:29 pm
12:30 pm
12:31 pm
the u.s. military is launching an investigation into the deadly ambush of four u.s. soldiers including two green berets during an operation in the african nation of not to my knowledge -- niger. the president is facing backlash that his predecessors never called the families of fallen
12:32 pm
troops. he is also being criticized why he did not reach out until now to the families of the fallen soldiers. here's how he responded on the radio. >> you can ask general kelly, did he get a call from obama? you can ask other people. i don't know what obama's policy was. i write letters and have called, i believe i have called everybody, but certainly, i will use the word virtually everybody, but i really speak for myself. i'm not speaking for other people. i don't know what bush did, i don't know what obama did. you can find out easily what president obama did. just ask the military people. but i believe his policy was swh somewhat different than my policy. my policy is i have called every one of them. >> he did speak for those presidents yesterday back pedaling there today on the radio. president trump drawing one of america's highest profile gold-star parents, the white house chief of staff, john kelly, into a debate about how presidents deal with the families of the fallen.
12:33 pm
i want to bring in david mackenzie, our cnn international correspondent, david, while the response has been politicized, there are still so many unanswered questions surrounding the deaths of these soldiers. what are you hearing? >> reporter: that's right. there will be an investigation and it is ongoing. what we know is, that this event happened on the border regions of niger in west africa and marley. and it was an ambush of some 50 isis-affiliated soldiers according to u.s. officials that descended upon these u.s. soldiers, the green berets, and the local soldiers from niger. four american soldiers were killed. one, in fact, had to be abandoned, he was lost in the field of battle, and only more than a day later recovered the body with the help of french forces. now, many viewers might not realize that they are, in fact, boots on the ground of the american soldiers in that part of africa. but, in fact, it's a growing presence. at first, it was really an
12:34 pm
advise and assist intelligence operation. but you increasingly are seeing u.s. soldiers, particularly special forces, getting more involved in the fight against these militant groups. now, while i said it was isis-affiliated groups, there's a large presence of al qaeda in the sahara. and it is less important who is affiliated with whom, but rather that the small bands of militants can both strike western interests and, in this case, u.s. soldiers. it will lead to questions both politically and strategically what the u.s. is doing in these regions and how the soldiers can be kept safe and be effective in the counter terrorism operations. >> no doubt, advisers is what the u.s. government would label them as to get past that boots on the ground designation. david mackenzie, thank you so much for that report. meantime, isis has lost control of its self-declared capital in syria.
12:35 pm
the u.s.-backed forced have ended military operations in the city of raqqah, but it comes at a high price. this is what raqqah looks like today in this exclusive drone video obtained by cnn. you can just see the devastation there after a month's long assault. the u.s.-backed forces are clearing out the final pockets of resistance at this point in time. and this is a landmark moment in the decline of isis in the middle east. a map here showing how little territory remains in isis control. and for this decline in territory, president trump is taking credit. he says he was or has, quote, totally changed the military. here's what he said. >> i totally changed rule of engageme engagement. i totally changed our military. i totally changed the attitudes of the military. and they have done a fantastic job. isis is now giving up, they are giving up, they are raising their hands, they are walking off. nobody's ever seen that before.
12:36 pm
>> why has that not happened before? >> because you didn't have trump as your president. >> all right, for more on this, i want to bring in nick payton walsh, cnn's senior international correspondent. so give us some context here, nick, what has changed between these two administrations, the obama administration and now with president trump in power? and can he really claim that everything is different now because of changes he's made? >> reporter: it's so hard, really, to answer that question. in a sort of clear fashion, we don't know exactly how the rules of engagement have been changed for u.s. forces in iraq and syria. and, you know, there's been a lot of changes on the ground, a lot of advances made, but these are the results of a policy that was put in place by the obama administration. and the obama administration plan to kick isis out. all the moves, the strategy on the ground, was in place before trump came to the white house. so yes, it's a bit rich, frankly, to suggest that all this occurred because he became president. it was already underway.
12:37 pm
it may have happened a lot faster because he may have loosened exactly when air strikes or artillery can be used against isis. and i have to say looking at the latter stages of mosul and certainly in the fight for raqqah, there's a hell of a lot of fire power used. we don't know if that's because they loosened up when they are allowed to fire, how close civilians can be, et cetera. there's the hint that may be the case, often denied, but we can't say a new policy has been introduced by the newed a m. that's not true. what we have seen today is isis collapse pretty much in the main stronghold. the only real place they are still held, the self-declared capital of syria in raqqah. in a matter of hours, we have seen them fall out of the hospital in the center, the stadium, the places they plotted attacks against the west for years. they are no longer in control of those. in fact, there were startling images of the kurdish forces
12:38 pm
doing cart wheels and spinning armored vehicles around the squares where isis once held public executions. it is over for them in raqqah, no doubt, but a different threat emerges. they will scatter as a rank target insurgency. some of the fallen fighters try to get home to launch terror attacks in the west. some of them staying in the deserts in iraq and syria looking to see if they can get sympathy in the local population and continue warfare there. and isis will continue as an idea, a virus on the internet, inspiring the lonely, the disenfranchised and deranged in the west to plow a car into innocent civilians on a high street, in an area somewhere. so a lot certainly that would still be concerned about with isis, but today is a landmark moment. those u.s.-backed forces saying they finished major military operations in raqqah. that was really the only major town that isis could claim it had a name to. on the back for months, now it is over and the caliphate as isis once claimed, the stretch of territory between iraq and
12:39 pm
syria, that's gone. and that is an enormous moment here. it's not really donald trump's. much of the work was put in place by barack obama and many of the diplomatic offices that served through both the administrations. maybe the rules of how they fought have changed under donald trump, but a broader moment for the west and the united states to perhaps look at how the concerted efforts have taken isis out as a territorial force in the middle east. a bit of a messy future to come still, brianna. >> beat insight. great insight. nick payton-walsh has been following the assault on isis for years. we appreciate it. a career military officer is going to join me in moments live to discuss the change of the president saying he changed the military and isis is on the run because of him. we'll fact-check that. standby.
12:40 pm
12:41 pm
12:42 pm
12:43 pm
that just tastes better. with more vitamins. and less saturated fat. only eggland's best. better taste. better nutrition. better eggs. isis has just been defeated
12:44 pm
in the self-proclaimed capital of raqqah. and president trump himself is claiming victory, adding that he's responsible for totally changing the military. republican senator john mccain just reacted to that. >> i'm glad to hear that. no, that's oosh that's illuminating to me. i was involved in it throughout. do i believe the last eight years were failed? absolutely. absolutely. there was no rules of engagement, there was no success, there was no strategy, so i certainly agree that the last eight years were a bismol failure of our policies and strategy in iraq and afghanistan. >> all right, lieutenant colonel rick francona is here with me. that was interesting to hear senator mccain say two things, he takes the opportunity to take a swing at the obama administration and didn't feel they had a good strategy, but when asked about president trump
12:45 pm
changing the military, he said, well, that's illuminating to me. i have been involved in it throughout. what did you think? >> yeah, it's interesting, especially the ongoing debate between senator mccain and the president. so it was interesting that mccain took that approach. i have to say, i'm going to give donald trump some credit for changing the rules of engagement. as nick went through quite detailed on what was happening, it's right. because what we had was president obama was a deliberate approach to how we were going to defeat isis. the u.s.-led coalition was going to defeat isis. i think that that was never in question. it was how long it was going to take. when donald trump came into office, and i get my information from the air force pilots who are actually conducting these missions, and they tell me there was an easing of the restrictions that were placed on them by the obama administration. now, it wasn't a complete lifting of the rules of engagement, they still had to
12:46 pm
follow procedures, but they were able to react faster to emerge targets, they were able to drop more orders closer. but let's also remember that the syrian democratic forces, the units we were supporting on the ground in syria, got much better. we had been training them for a long time. so as they became more proficient, of course, it appeared that they were having more success. and we were able to conduct our missions on a much better manner with them. so i'm giving credit to both presidents. >> on the changing of the rules of engagement, is there a concern, because nick paton-walsh said one of the things rumored to happen is the rumor of how far away the civilians could be. is that a concern that it could create problems for the u.s.? there could be blow-back from that, though? >> right, that's a really good point. because what was happening, especially in raqqah, we saw this in mosul and kobani where a lot of the liberated areas were flattened and destroyed.
12:47 pm
there are no buildings in raqqah that don't show signs of the struggle. so as the units got more bottled up into raqqah, we stopped conducting air strikes until the kurds said, no, we still need additional air power. so we developed a coordination protocol where any air strike within a certain distance of a kurdish unit had to be authorized by the kurds. so we did take that into consideration. for civilian casualties, we try and try to not have as many as -- to limit them as much as possible, but you're dropping high explosives in concentrated areas. it is just going to happen. and we took as much precaution as we could, but yes, that is a consideration. excellent point. >> all right, colonel rick francona, thank you so much. you are looking at video there from a drone overlooking raqqah. so you can see the damage that is in effect today. it's really stunning. and this is what is left behind after the defeat of isis in
12:48 pm
raqqah. next, president trump takes a dive on the forbes list of the wealthiest americans. an editor from the magazine is joining me live how trump lost an estimated $600 million in just one year. you do all this research
12:49 pm
on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
12:50 pm
12:51 pm
did you know that america's rich are getting even richer? however, the president is apparently not. you now have to scroll way down this "forbes" list of the 400 richest americans before you find donald j. trump. he dropped 92 slots from the year before to number 248 now after his estimated net worth decreased by $600 million. it's now at $3.1 billion. and joining me now is assistant managing editor of wealth at "forbes" care carry dolan to talk about this. carrie thank for being on. tell us why we're seeing this huge drop. >> sure. yeah, the biggest reason for that $600 million drop you mentioned is the value of trump's real estate assets in new york city.
12:52 pm
about $400 million of the $600 million drop is in the lower value for trump tower. he's got the least for the nike town store, which is right there at the corner of 57th and fifth avenue. that's dropped in value. a number of properties in new york have dropped in value. basically, you know, retailers are suffering even high-end retailers because of the shift to e-commerce. more where amazon's winning and brick and mortar are losing out. that affects real estate values. >> i see how you can look at the physical assets and the real estate values to get a figure, a pretty good figure, but without the president's tax returns, because he still won't release them, does it make it difficult to get the most reliable information or is it more of an estimate? >> oh, we're -- we would love to see president trump's tax returns. that would help us with information on any partnerships
12:53 pm
that he has that we may not know about, the kinds of returns, the profits he's making from various holdings. we are definitely estimating. we talked to tons and tons of real estate brokers who are super familiar with the properties, particularly in manhattan, but at the end of the day, yes, we are estimating. we do know, though, for example, we have been in touch with trump's finance people and one of the assets that has dropped in value since last year is this hotel in washington, d.c., the trump international hotel, which is not so far from the white house. his finance people told us that he's taken on more debt since last year for that hotel. so that value dropped. and that's kind of harder news. harder facts than our estimates than the real estate in new york city. >> why is that -- why has it dropped? you know, we've seen a lot of stories in the past about how it's just booked up by people coming in. >> yeah, i know -- >> i actually checked it out last week. it seemed to be doing pretty well, at least, you know,
12:54 pm
eyeballing it, not that that necessarily means much. what's the reasoning? >> it's definitely the business is doing well. we're not saying that business is weak. it's purely that trump has a $170 million construction loan or a loan that he took out to complete construction. so when we talk to him, him and his finance people, a year ago, so it would have been maybe august of 2016, they had not used that whole loan. they had a credit line but they had only drawn down part of it. when we checked in with them in february, we didn't get anymore information. because, you know, it's a little bit confusing, but we have a list of the world's billionaires that comes out in march. we updated trump's number for that list. we didn't get any information on the drawing down further for the credit line on the hotel there. when our reporters did contact trump's people, they did disclose that this $170 million had all been used. whereas a year ago they did not tell us. they said only $60 million of it
12:55 pm
has been used. that's one of the reasons. even though the hotel is doing well, it's net worth, so we subtract the debt from any assets values. >> we'll see how they make it up with that $39 cocktail they have on the menu. >> oh, really. >> oh, yes. indeed, it was sort of eye-popping. carrie dolan, thank you so much. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> and next, reese witherspoon is joining the chorus of women sharing the me too hashtag on social media. her story of sexual assault in hollywood plus the erie warning that one star gave about harvey weinstein more than a decade ago.
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
12:58 pm
12:59 pm
the scandal involving harvey weinstein and sexual assault in hollywood keeps growing. actress reese witherspoon now coming forward with an allegation of sexual abuse against a different unnamed director. at an award's event, witherspoon revealed she was assaulted at just 16 years old. she said she found it hard to sleep or think since the weinstein scandal broke. also emerging, still more evidence that weinstein's behavior was an open secret in hollywood. listen to courtney love back in 2005. >> do you have any advice for a young girl moving to hollywood? >> harvey weinstein invited me to a private party at the four
1:00 pm
seasons. >> weinstein has denied any allegations of nonconsensual sex. i'm brianna keilar in for brooke baldwin and "the lead" with jake tapper starts right now. thanks, brianna. president trump now says he is a okay with the lifeline for fwau obamacare. "the lead" starts right now. senators come together to reach a potential deal on health care. what could it mean for your plans, your premiums and your well-being? except for falsely accusing president obama of not phoning the families of fallen soldiers, president trump has not had much to say substantively about the u.s. forces killed this month in africa. but now the pentagon wants to find out more and why specifically these four men walk flood a terrorist ambush. plus, the cycle of power of predators and of their protecters, as harvey weinstein faces off against the company he founded, i'll talk to gretchen so