tv Inside Politics CNN February 5, 2018 9:00am-10:00am PST
welcome to "inside politics." i'm dana bash. john king has the day off. president trump and the first lady are about to board a plane together to go to ohio. but they'll go their separate ways when they hit the ground to sell different parts of the trump agenda. and if you thought the memo drama was over, think again. tonight the house intelligence committee is facing another big vote, this time it's the democrats' memo. and republicans are pushing back on the president's claim that the gop memo undermines the special counsel's republican -- excuse me -- russian probe. but houw far are republicans willing to go to challenge trump? >> i wonder when the republican
leadership in the congress is going to come to their senses. i had a lot of respect for paul ryan. i thought he was taking these matters seriously. but the things i've heard him say and do over the past several months makes me question whether or not if there is going to be removal of rod rosenstein as well as bob mueller. what will the republicans do? will they allow that to happen? it cannot, because to me that clearly would be obstruction of justice. we begin this hour counting down to a vote in the house intelligence committee on another potentially explosive memo, this one from democrats hoping to discredit friday's republican memo. democrats say republicans cherry-picked facts to fit a narrative, that the fbi acted in bad faith when seeking a warrant to spy on a former trump campaign official. democrats are arguing that their memo puts the underlying evidence into better context and knocks down gop talk of a
bias-driven conspiracy at the upper levels of the fbi. test one likely today, a vote inside the house intelligence committee making the democrats' memo public. test two, whether the president will sign off. and that may well be the stickiest of sticking points. and the reason is because the president insists that the republican memo vindicates his argument that the russia investigation is a partisan witch hunt. the only problem he has is republicans on capitol hill spent the entire weekend on tv saying just the opposite. well, here with me to share their reporting and their insights, cnn's manu raju, john mccormick of the weekly standard. hello, everybody. i know you've been doing reporting all morning long on this impending vote. >> we suspect it will get approved tonight.
5:00 they go behind closed doors. they will send the rebutting memo to the president's desk. we expect the republicans to vote in favor of its release. this after last week republicans opposed doing just that because they said they had just been presented with a memo, they needed to digest that. and the republicans didn't like that, saying, why don't we wait and send that memo out at the same time as the schiff memo. the question tonight will be, what does president trump do? he'll have five days to decide what to do about its release, redact whatever he wants to redact, or object to its release. if he objects to it, the republican house could vote to override him. we'll see if it gets to that point, though. >> wouldn't that be unbelievable. jackie, manu is talking about the president and whether he'll say, fine, this .
this is something democrats are already expressing concern over. listen to mike quigley. >> my concern isn't what republicans will do at a business meeting i'll be part of this afternoon, it's what the president will do. this is a president we have seen would do anything to obtain power. i can't imagine why anyone would imagine he won't do anything to retain that power. i'm concerned he won't sign off. i'm concerned that he will try to redact or change the memo. >> what do you hear from your sources, jackie? >> these seem to be valid fears. look what the president was doing today, he was attacking adam schiff, who is the democrat on the panel as someone who isn't telling the truth, who was liki leaking classified information. it seems he's already setting up an adversarial relationship to give himself an excuse, look, this is classified information out there. this is not beyond the realm of possibility when you're talking about this president.
>> so was the republican memo was something that was classified, which is why he personally had to declassify it. >> if we take a step back from it, if the other memo comes out, you do have these two opposing viewpoints, and it muddies the water and it clouds the russia issue even further, particularly when we're talking about the house probe and how they can move past that. it doesn't seem like they're going to be able to. >> you mentioned the president on twitter. here's what the president said. little adam schiff, who is desperate to run for higher office, is one of the biggest liars and leakers in washington, right up there with comey, warner, brennan and clapper. adam leaves closed committee hearings to illegally leak confidential information. must be stopped. mr. president, i see you've had a busy morning of executive time. instead of tall smears, the
american people would appreciate if you turned off the tv and helped solve the funding crisis, protected dreamers or really anything else. this is kind of the 7th grade side show that i say happens with a lot of very important things in washington these days, but it does expose a very real question that jackie and manu are bringing up about what the president is going to do and whether he's going to use adam schiff and the partisan nature of how the democrats are acting in some ways as an excuse not to release this memo. >> i don't know exactly what he'll do. i think we probably will get the democratic memo. we got the republican memo. what you would really like to have is the underlying fisa warrant, because both sides tend to leave out facts sometimes. if it wouldn't compromise sources and methods, let the american people -- >> can you imagine if that happened? already what we saw with the republican memo giving information about a fisa
application was unprecedented. do you think that's even really possible, to get the underlying fisa application? >> in general you want to protect sources and methods, and if that would be compromised, obviously you can't do that. but we're past the point where i think transparency is necessary. the republican memo doesn't even allege wrongdoing, i don't think, because it says the dossier was essential to getting this warrant. we don't know if that's true, but it also doesn't say specific information in the dossier about whether carter page was true or not. is this information true? the fact it comes from a partisan source raises concerns, but if the democratic committee raised up facts about true wrongdoing among democrats, that would be good information, if it was substantiated. we still don't know that. >> there are already obviously processes in place if there are real concerns in congress about the fisa process. as half a dozen or so
republicans now have pointed out, certainly not a majority, but it is an interesting minority because they all have ties either to military service or to having worked in intelligence or having been prosecutors. but as they've all pointed out, this actually has no bearing at all on whether or not the mueller investigation goes forward and how it goes forward. so to a large extent, i'm not sure it makes a difference whether or not this democratic memo is released intact or with some redactions or with a whole preface on twitter, because, really, it seems to be at this point about shaping the way voters perceive all of this and perhaps applying a little bit of pressure or support if president trump decides he wants to make kind of like a hail mary move on justice and fbi officials. for the most part, this is about shaping public opinion. >> i totally agree with you it is about shaping public opinion, but it was really striking this weekend about the way republicans who were on television were at odds about how they wanted to shape public opinion with the president of the united states. and you mentioned it, that
republicans who came on television said, this has no bearing on the mueller investigation. let's listen to some of that. >> do you agree that it vindicates trump? >> i think this is a separate issue. >> does the gop memo vindicate the president? does it end the need for the special prosecutor's investigation? >> no, it doesn't. >> so you don't agree with president trump when it says it vindicates him in the entire russia investigation. >> i don't. >> the memo has no vindication on the russia probe? >> not to me it doesn't, and i was pretty integral on the drafting of it. >> but when you have the president of the united states who has a bigger megaphone than all of those people combined saying the opposite, even again today, does it matter? >> this has been the common theme throughout his presidency, him saying one thing and oftentimes his party on capitol hill saying the opposite. but the members are correct. what the nunes memo does, it
goes after one specific fisa warrant, one specific effort to get -- surveil one trump campaign foreign policy adviser when the russia investigation is much broader, when the obstruction probe is completely separate from how the carter page surveillance warrant was obtained. so it doesn't vindicate him in any way because we know the investigation is much, much broader, and any fair reading of that, even if you agree with the facts of the nunes memo which we know has been disputed by the democrats, if you agree with the facts, it says there is a lot more to this investigation. >> are the democrats going to run into the same buzz saw as republicans did, releasing a memo that is partisan, that was put together just by one party? >> sure. we've seen this pattern, right? and they're going to dispute -- this is what i mean. i think it devolves. i don't think it matters what is in their memo. this is about shaping public debate. there could be facts in them but
partisans will look at that and dismiss them. not that that matters. as things have been going back and forth in congress, it seems like once you go down this path where it's republicans versus democrats, the information sort of gets lost in the shuffle. >> but the democrats' view, i think, has always been that they didn't see the need to release it, anyway. but if it was already going to be released and if the sensitive information was going to be considered declassified, they might as well get a crack at the same information. i'm not aware of entirely different trenches of classified information that would to be declassified in order for the democrats' version to be released. on the merits you're looking at the same fact basis and two different memos. the point is the waters have already been muddied. >> i would like to point out what viewers are looking at on the screen. the president and first lady departing on the south side of the white house to board marine
i. they're heading to hohio today. certainly a standard of the two of them together, which we haven't seen in a month or so. now we're looking at a live picture that they're actually at joint base andrews and the two of them are going from marine i about to board air force i to go onto their trip to ohio. john, you were about to say something and i interrupted you. >> on the memo, i think one important point is the memo itself undermines this claim for the president. the last point is that the investigation began last july with papadopoulos, and we're talking about a potential allegation of fisa abuse that took place in october. so i think that's the biggest point to make. >> everybody stand by as we watch the president and soon to be the first lady going up the stairs. let's take a beat and wait for
him to give the wave before we go to break. the president and first lady getting on air force i about to go to ohio. the president will be making a speech to promote the tax reform legislation, now law, that the republicans have been begging him to go out and tout. meanwhile the first lady is going to go and talk to people at children's hospital in ohio about the opioid crisis. up next, another month, another deadline to fund the government or risk a shutdown. that's just a few days away. stay with us.
a little to the left. 1, 2, 3, push! easy! easy! easy! (horn honking) alright! alright! we've all got places to go! we've all got places to go! washington crossing the delaware turnpike? surprising. what's not surprising? how much money sean saved by switching to geico. big man with a horn. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.
nunes memo diverting lawmakers' attention from the most important issue on their plate or is it actually giving congress some running room to work more quietly than usual on a spending deal to keep the government running? and also to do so, looking at that calendar there, all those red x's and then the big red circle on february 8th. that just means three days from now is the next deadline for the government to be funded or the government will shut down once again. and then there's the critical question of what to do about daca recipients? the deadline for them to stay in the u.s. legally is a month away. the president tweeted this morning that any deal on daca that doesn't include strong border security and the desperately needed wall is a waste of time. and he blasted democrats saying, next month's daca deadline is fast approaching, and they don't seem to care. let's get straight to cnn's phil mattingly from capitol hill. phil, you are watching the ins
and outs. you know what's going on behind the scenes as everybody maybe is talking about intelligence and the work that is or isn't getting done. can you let us in on it? >> yeah. look, i think one of the interesting elements today, and you can kind of sense that this is where the president's tweet came from, is there is a new bipartisan proposal by senator chris coons and senator john mccain which would allow a pathway to citizenship for undocumented children who were brought here by their parents for the end of december 31st, 2013, and in exchange for that, by 2020, there would be a border security in place. there is no money for a wall and no immediate large-scale funding for border security. in fact, a white house official told our colleague kaitlyn collins, quote, that it would be tough to be worse than the grand
durbin proposal, but this is actually worse. dana, the reason why aides in both parties expect the government to remain open beyond thursday because they said if the government is still open, the senate will take up daca on the floor. here's how you need to view this bipartisan proposal. as one of the proposals the senators are trying to put on the table, service either a base bill or some type of amendment to that process on the floor. there are a lot of questions going forward, most notably, no matter what the senate does, what are house republicans going to do and will they bless whatever the senate does? there is also another bipartisan meeting this afternoon behind closed doors on this issue trying to figure out some pathway forward on the senate floor. these are kind of the dynamics that are in play that lawmakers suspect will allow the government to stay open for a couple more weeks starting on thursday, but the big question is will there be any kind of daca resolution?
the president doesn't think the coons proposal is the answer but does set up some debate next week. that right now is the goal, at least what i'm being told, dana. >> phil, before i let you go, isn't the case that part of the deal to reopen the government a couple of weeks ago was that the republican majority leader mitch mcconnell said that no matter what, they would start debate on immigration on february 8th? or is that now being pushed back? >> no, it will be the week after, right. the tentative of the deal was if the government remains open past thursday, that next week would be the week they start immigration on the floor. expect february 12th. that's next week, immigration on the floor, and no holds barred. dana, you and i know this place pretty well. you haven't seen a lot of floor debates where everything is open-ended. you don't really know what the end game will be. it's going to be a pretty interesting week, we just don't know, whatever they do in the senate, if that will actually fly in the white house and fly
in the capitol and the house. >> meeting behind closed doors hasn't worked so far, so why not? do it the old-fashioned way, put it on the senate floor and see what gets the vote. thank you for that update, phil. back to the table here. let's start with this new sort of wrinkle in the senate. chris coons, a democrat, john mccain obviously a republican, coming together to put forward even what senator coons says he understands would be just the base bill, possibly for the debate this is going to start next week. listen to what senator coons said about it this morning. >> it needs more border investment. it lays out a plan, a pathway toward securing control of the border by 2020, and i expect that in order for this to be embraced by republicans as the solution that will get us moving forward toward fully funding domestic and defense spending, we will need to add some border
funding to it. >> so even he is admitting that it's far from perfect. i also, just as a side note, think it's interesting that john mccain, who hasn't been in washington yet this year, my understanding called chris coons last week and said, let's do this together in a bipartisan way. so he's working it on issues he cares about, which is a lot of issues, from home where he's getting treatment for cancer. >> it's fascinating. also remember that john mccain's position on immigration is different starkly from a lot of republicans, particularly republicans in the house. >> very. >> this bill is obviously being met with a pretty cold reception from the white house. i'm not even sure this is going to be the underlying bill that will start the floor debate next week in the senate. that's the ultimate question, what bill are they actually going to put on the floor to use as part of the effort to move this forward? there is, as phil was noting, this separate group that is meeting behind closed doors, a bipartisan group to come to some sort of consensus.
there is talk about a narrow deal dealing with dhaka aac dac border wall. they need to just agree to something with the dreamers. there are a lot of questions on how they deal with it. my expectation is they'll do what they do best, which is punt the issue until much later. >> but they don't have much later. march 5th is the deadline. >> unless the president maybe agree to extend the deadline, which they're not getting any indication that he will -- >> which will fly in the face of everything that even immigration reform, republican supporters in the senate and the house, meaning those who want citizenship for all undocumented immigrants in this country, because they think that the president doesn't have the constitutional right to do that. but that's a different story. >> as you talk abo as you talk about this, i also think it's noteworthy that we went through all this drama last month and the democrats forced the shutdown because of daca. now we're actually getting close
to the actual deadline of march 5th for daca young people, or maybe not even young people anymore, and more importantly a shutdown this week, and it just doesn't seem as dire in terms of the politics from the democrat side. >> the closer we get to this deadline, and frankly, the closer we get to the midterms, the democrats' base is going to get louder and going to pressure them. which is kind of how they got themselves in this position in the first place with this first shutdown. they were listening to the base telling them to fight, fight, fight, and then they realized, oh, gosh, this isn't going to end well for us. on the republican side, as much as they're working on this bipartisan basis in the senate, the house again, the midterms loom large here. particularly republicans have more challengers to the right than democrats have to worry about. so just looking at their primary races. there is a lot at stake, and the closer we get to the summer, the harder it's going to be to get anything done.
immigration is hard, anyway. but in an election year, it's hard to see it get done. >> unfortunately, yes. and before we take a quick break, we need to remind our viewers it's not just immigration and the health care bill, it's disaster relief, debt ceiling increase, budget caps deal and daca. there are a whole host of controversial issues that really matter to people back home that congress is still not dealing with. up next, increased scrutiny, partisan attacks and accusations of bias by the president. why one fbi agent now says enough is enough. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance.
josh campbell resigned amid agency criticism and fallout over the controversial nunes memo alleging surveillance abuses by the intel community. campbell says partisan attacks against the fbi erode trust between the public and the agency. here's what he told cnn. >> if you asked the men and women of the fbi what the last year and a half has been like, i think to a person, they would say either perplexing, sometimes angry, and when you see political attacks on the fbi. i'm not talking about criticism, i want to make that point clear. criticism of the fbi is needed. we have to have oversight. we cannot police ourselves. but what myself and my colleagues have been concerned about are the political attacks. i made the difficult decision to leave a career i love, an organization i still love and will always love, in order to defend it. >> it's worth noting president trump took aim at the intelligence community on friday, accusing the fbi and department of justice of
favoring democrats. let's bring in cnn shimon prokupecz. shimon, you know fbi agents like campbell from all your reporting. what is the context of campbell resigning? meaning, how symbolic is his frustration of others who are not going as far as he is in quitting? >> certainly there is that issue within the fbi. there are plenty of agents who feel that the constant attacks from the president, from members of congress have been difficult. it's been a difficult time for them. i've talked to these folks sometimes on a daily basis who say it's been a pretty tough time. what's different about josh campbell is he's only been an agent for 12 years. it sounds like a long time, but fbi agents usually wait 20, 25 years before leaving and their career spans much longer. he has a very interesting perspective in that he was here in washington, d.c. for some time, he worked directly for the
former fbi director james comey. all of this he explained in the op-ed that he wrote. he really has lived through this last year and a half since the firing of comey, since the president was elected, since these attacks started, and so he felt like enough was enough and that he really wanted to come out and speak and start defending the bureau, the agency that he worked for. and, you know, he is not alone in this. privately you talk to people, there is concern for what this means for the future. you don't get fbi agents who spend their entire life trying to become fbi agents leave. so this is very different. he does have a different perspective, but he's not alone in this. i'm not saying this is widespread, but certainly he's not alone in these feelings, dana. >> shimon, thank you so much for that reporting. what do you think of this? and do you think there is any chance that this will have an impact on the broader discussion that even last friday mike
rogers, who is not only the former house intel chair, but a former fbi agent, was lamenting saying he almost felt sick to his stomach about the way his former agency was being painted. >> i think this former agent in particular, if you read his op-ed, in think there is a risk in trying to defend the bureau, a former cia official spread this vague idea that trump better watch out because the fbi can fight back. that completely undermines the whole idea that the fbi is there to investigate matters impartially, that they're nonpartisan. obviously the fbi is not beyond reproach. i think there are still a lot of questions about how they handled the hillary clinton issue, the e-mail issue, and i think democrats and republicans raised questions about why did they sit on it for a few weeks?
but i think it does help when people like the former agent come out and give you the straightforward thinking of them. >> this happened on the backdrop of us learning more about the reaction inside the fbi when president trump fired james comey. remember at the time the president was convinced, we are told certainly from our reporting, i'm sure yours as well, that james comey was unpopular within the fbi and it would be seen -- it would be greeted with applause. in fact, he was tweeting negative things back in may about james comey. but now the law affair blog got some real action inside the fbi through the rank and file, and here are some examples. the head of the fbi or a senior person in detroit, this is realtime, i have no notification from hq about any such thing about comey being fired. the next, unexpected news such as this is hard to understand. that's from knoxville, tennessee, an agent there.
our mission continues and we'll deal with the unexpected change and event wal trual transition austin, texas. excuse me, boston, massachusetts, thank you. tell me how you think this is going to affect things, particularly in your day-to-day dealings with the white house? >> it's easy to look at the nunes memo and some back and forth on the hill to say, well, this is just business as usual, it's democrats going after republicans and republicans going after democrats. but i think that overlooks a fundamental turning point you have here where you have the executive branch turning against the executive branch and the same party in congress giving the president cover to do it. it's really unusual. and without making a huge sweeping generalization, but i'll make it halfway there, for most of my two-plus decades in journalism, every police officer, prosecutor, law enforcement agent, fbi agent,
intelligence operative you ever met tend to be fairly nonpartisan actors. but if you gave them a truth las lasso, they lean more republican than democratic. this goes to all the norms and rules of law and behavior for the balance of power. everybody stand by. up next we are going to have a super bowl reminder for super bowl viewers in iowa. that happened last night. the caucuses are coming. one potential -- actually one declared presidential candidate used the game to run the very first ad of the 2020 cycle. stay tuned.
so we sent that sample i doff to ancestry. i was from ethnically. my ancestry dna results are that i am 26% nigerian. i am just trying to learn as much as i can about my culture. i put the gele on my head and i looked into the mirror and i was trying not to cry. because it's a hat, but it's like the most important hat i've ever owned. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com.
time now to check some of our other stories on the political radar. the federal reserve is now under new leadership. jerome powell sworn in to replace janet yellen as chair of the fed. he is expected to continue her policy of gradual interest rate hikes but could face the added challenge of inflation and new volatility we've seen in the stock market. super bowl viewers in iowa got a 30-second reminder that the caucuses are only two years away. last night democratic congressman john delaney of maryland ran the very first tv ad of the 2020 election cycle. the spot entitled "dirty words" plays up one quality. >> bipartisanship. >> bipartisanship. >> it might be a dirty word in washington, but it seems to be awfully refreshing right here in
iowa. >> the commercial ran in four iowa media markets, and for what it's worth -- take a breath, everybody -- we are now closer to the 2020 iowa caucuses than the ones held in 2016. the white house will now have to find someone else to lead the counsel on environmental quality. the white house is withdrawing the nomination of kathleen hartnet white in wake of controversial comments that came to light during a cnn investigation. our k-file team dug up a radio interview she gave to a conservative media outlet in 2016 during which she offered a very unusual description of global warming. >> there is a real dark side of the kind of paganism -- the secular elites' religion now being evidently global warming. >> and in addition to that, she had a pretty rough confirmation
hearing. manu, you are up on the hill every day talking to senators about many things, but including one of their fundamental jobs, which is to confirm the president's nominees, and many of them have had a really rough go of it. it's pretty unusual to see the number of nominees that have been withdrawn. i mean, let's just start with the one we're talking about now, kathleen hartnett white, but that comes after katie mcfarland for last week. she was nominated to be ambassador to singapore. she pulled out. tom merino, daniel craig, james donovan, and the list goes on to four or five more. >> it also underscores this is a very narrowly divided senate right now, 54-49. two defections are enough right now to sink the nomination. she did not have the votes.
the republicans were concerned about some of her views, and the question was did they want to try to force a big fight on someone who will not get confirmed. i thought it was interesting that katie mcfarland was news last week. she was did he want any national security adviser. when she testified before the senate relations committee last year, she was asked about conversations she knew flynn had with kislyak. she said she didn't know of any, but it turns out from the mueller investigation, she did know of some, and she's been the second person thwarted by the mueller investigation. the other being sam clovis. >> that's right. that's one bucket, maybe a smaller bucket, but margaret, the bigger bucket seems to be people who weren't ready, who weren't vetted, had bad confirmation hearings. what does that tell you, and what are you hearing about the process by which the white house
is picking these nominees? >> you'll recall this is sort of ancient history, but remember when chris christie was supposed to be involved in the transition stuff? this was like a year and a half ago. and then there were changes to who were going to be the folks who actually were deeply involved in the transition? so this white house kind of, instead of hitting the ground running, hit the ground with a rush of stuff to accomplish and not a lot of time to do it and was sort of plagued in those early months by an unexpected win, some mismanagement and misdirection. some of these are really different cases. in this case, the environmental case, someone with a record that is so on its face challenging of what that role has been in previous administrations that when you have someone who is in terms of their kind of idealogical background polarizing, then it just sort of exacerbates if they made some missteps or said some controversial things. >> and in many ways this is an
election of concentrations, and they get to choose who they want. the president picks people who are polar opposite of what we saw in the obama administration. then there is the fundamental question of ability and whether or not the person is ready for the job, and that's some other questions we've seen. we don't have, really, a comparable list because it just isn't as big, i think, from the bush and obama administrations, but just check out the overall number of nominations that we have. president bush at this time, in the first year, i should say, 741 nominations, 493 confirmed. obama 658, 452 confirmed, trump, 502, 300 confirmed. just that number, only 502 confirmed speaks to the fact they are kind of struggling to get their nominations up and running which maybe has hurt a lot of these agencies, but also maybe the struggle to find somebody who fit the job or want the job? >> i will add to that that
democrats are trying to slow down the rate of confirmations, but i think the president has had a problem. he promised to have the best people put in these jobs. that pool has been limited by the fact that many people spoke out strongly against the president in the primary, in the election. so the best ones have been those who don't get involved in partisan politics. james mattis has been a good one. in other fields, foreign policy, diplomacy, you had a lot of the republican establishment come out strongly against the president. he is now trying to work in a much smaller pool to pick from. >> in that, it's twofold. people won't work for him and he won't take people who have said bad things about him. the more outspoken people, early on, there were people who were bla blackballed. they may have been willing to put their concerns aside for country, and the administration said, yeah, no thanks.
>> i might add this president has what the others didn't, which was the ability to get his nominees through without a filibuster thanks to the democrats changing that rule when they were in charge. everybody, stand by. at last, the eagles fans get their say. they are the super bowl champs. we have a little flashback to sunday we want to show you right here on "inside politics." you don't want to miss it. stay tuned.
♪ ♪ ♪ olly. this final score is going to be 46-10. this is the same score -- eagles over the patriots. this is the same score that my chicago bears, the 1985 bears, beat the patriots in super bowl xx. expect that same margin. >> despite the fact that proves manu raju works every single day of the week -- that was
yesterday -- he did successfully guess the future of the super bowl. the numbers, maybe not so much. we're going to let that slide, manu. score aside, the takeaway is the same. the philadelphia eagles are the super bowl champions for the first time ever, winning 41-33. for philadelphia fans, it's a sweet moment. 52 long years in the making for a patriots fan like the person in this seat, john king. it was very difficult for a man throwing the ball over and over and over. >> i look so much younger yesterday. >> nice philadelphia green you're wearing today. >> the browns aren't playing. we may as well cheer for the eagles because they're not the patriots. >> never bet against bob craft,
bill belichick or tom brady. it was true for a long time until yesterday. and they're always fun wagers in politics with regard to these big games. and we had one yesterday, or leading up to yesterday. senator pat toomey, republican senator from pennsylvania, senator bob casey, who is a democrat, and i made a little wager with patriots fans senator warren and senator markey. when the eagles win, they'll owe us some tastey brews and when the eunthinkable happens, we'll owe them cheesesteaks and yard brews. >> there is one thing you
shouldn't be skeptical of, and that is ed rendell who, this morning on a commercial flight, led the entire flight in a chant to support his fans. >> they can hear us back in philly. >> eagl-a-g-l-e-se-a-g-l-e-s, e! >> and yesterday the person who is normally in this chair was wearing a patriots jersey, very excited for the game. it didn't go so well. let's see if, when he returns right back here tomorrow, he's going to be wearing that same jersey. >> i wonder why he's off today. >> thank you very much for joining us on "inside politics." john king joins us tomorrow. wolf blitzer starts right after a quick break. you do all this research 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.
thisreally passionate about- i really want to help. i was on my way out of this life. there are patients out there that don't have a lot of time. finally, it was like the sun rose again and i was going to start fighting back now. when those patients come to me and say, "you saved my life...." my life was saved by a two week old targeted therapy drug. that's what really drives me to- to save lives.