tv Erin Burnett Out Front CNN September 5, 2018 4:00pm-5:00pm PDT
was when they first started working for him? he has been at least temperamentally the same as he ever was. >> this writer seems to be more conservative than the president. this writer -- >> and is not a conservative. >> and it's clear to me this writer is. >> we're going to continue our special coverage right now. erin burnett "out front" starts. out front next, breaking news. the trump resistance. an unnamed senior administration official revealing that people close to the president are actively working to undermine him. plus, a real witch hunt in the white house. how the president is on a mission to track down aides who spoke to bob woodward. and another major upset in the democratic party. long time congressman unseated the woman who started the trend. good evening, everyone. i'm kate bolduan in for erin ber net. the resistance.
not the resistance from the left but from within. "the new york times" is publishing a shocking anonymous op ed from a senior trump administration official. it is so unusual, it is so biting, it's such ab indictment of the president, the only way to lay out the case this person makes is to read the entire thing to you. so, here it is in full. the opinion piece in "the new york times." president trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern american leader. it's not just the special counsel that looms large or that the country is bitterly divided over mr. trump's leadership or even that his party might well lose the house to an opposition hell bent on his downfall. the dilemma that he does not grasp is that many senior administration officials are working diligently from within.
i would know, i am one of them, he writes. it goes on to say, to be clear, ours is not the popular resistance of the left. we want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made america safer and more prosperous, but we believe our first duty is to this country and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic. that is why many trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting mr. trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office. the root of the problem is the president's a morality. anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making. although he was elected as a republican, the president shows little affinity for ideas long espoused by conservatives, free minds, free markets and free people. at best he has invoked these ideals in scripted setting.
at worst, he has attacked them outright. in addition to his mass marketing of the press as the enemy of the people, he's generally antitrade and antirepublic. don't get me wrong, there are bright spots that the administration fails to capture effective deregulation, historic tax reform, more robust military and more but these successes have come despite not because of the president's leadership style which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective. from the white house to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief's comments and actions. most are working to insulate their operations from his whims. meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails. he engages in repetitive rants and impulsiveness results in
half baked, ill informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back. there is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next a top official complained to me, the writer, of course recently. exas perfect rated by an oval office meeting in which the president flip flopped on a major policy decision he had made only a week earlier. the erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren't for unsung heroes in and around the white house. some of his aides have been cast as villains but in private they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the west wing though they are clearly not always successful. it may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but americans should know there are adults in the room. we fully recognize what is happening and we are trying to do what's right even when donald trump won't. he goes on, the result is a two track presidency. take foreign policy. in public and in private
president trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators such as president vladimir putin of russia and north korea's leader, kim jong-un and shows nothing about the ties that bind us to allied like minded nations. astute observers have noted that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like russia are called out for meddling and punished and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals. on russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of mr. putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former russian spy in brittain. he complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation from russia and he expects frustration that the united states continued to impose sanctions on the country for its maligned behavior but his national security team knew better. such actions had to be taken to hold moscow accountable. this isn't the work of the
so-called deep state, he writes, it's the work of the steady state. given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th amendment which would start a complex process for removing the president but no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis so we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until one way or another it's over. the bigger concern is not what mr. trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. we have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility. senator john mccain put it best in his farewell letter. all-americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation. we may no longer have senator mccain, he writes, but we will always have his example, a lone
star for restoring honor to public life and the national dialogue. mr. trump may fear such honorable men but we should revere them. finally he puts it this way, there is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first, but the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one, americans. again, a current senior trump administration official in his own words in "the new york times" tonight. caitlyn collins is out front for us now live at the white house. caitlyn, the president responding to these words to this opinion piece. what's he saying? >> reporter: in his own words, kate, the president, it didn't take him long to respond to this. in an event with sheriff's at the white house, he was about half an hour late to that event and presumably that's because this op ed, this stunning op ed
written by someone who works here in his own administration. the president came out. he denounced not only the author of this op ed but also "the new york times" for publishing it. he was armed with a diatribe and a list of his accomplishments. here's what he said. >> so if the failing "new york times" has an anonymous editorial, can you believe it, anonymous, meaning gutless. a gutless editorial, we're doing a great job. the poll numbers are through the roof. our poll numbers are great. and guess what, nobody is going to come close to beating me in 2020 because of what we've done. >> so you hear from the president there, kate, and then he's tweeted just a single word. the word treason in all caps with a question mark and his press secretary, sarah sanders put out a statement calling on the coward, in her words, who wrote this op ed to resign. >> this is a rough it up, day. the president is wagging a witch
hunt. >> reporter: that's right. the white house was knee deep in a crisis and the president directing who he believes are loyal aides in this white house to find out who it was that spoke with the veteran reporter for his book, a book that also made stunning allegations, a lot of which seemed to be backed up by this op ed. and now they're scrambling to not only mount the defense to that book but also to figure out who it was that wrote this op ed. kate, there was already this growing sense of pair annoy you in the west wing. staffers often thought any time there was something negative that was published it was someone in the white house that doesn't like them. they're predicting since the paranoia is going to get worse with this op ed, they're trying to figure out who it is as the president's anger only continues to grow here tonight, kate. >> not to a boiling point already. caitlyn, thanks so much. out front now, david gergen, dana bash is here, and patrick
kieley. thank you all so much for being here. patrick, you had read it and you just heard me reread the whole thing for our viewers. i'm not going to ask you the name of who wrote this. you wouldn't tell me even if you knew. what do you make of "the new york times" publishing this? >> yeah, i don't know the name and the op ed pages are managed separately than the news department so it was handled separately. look, it is unprecedented. the editorial board of "the new york times" and the op ed editors at the times look over submissions very carefully, very deliberately and deliberatively and, you know, you can be sure they know exactly who this person is. it was probably vetted very closely. there was a lot of care and just knowing the people up there, probably a lot of discussion went in not only to the content but also to the appropriateness of publishing an anonymous editorial. like you said, it is unprecedented.
the times takes very seriously whether or not to use anonymous information, and i think in the times, they sort of said this, that they believe and we believe, the editorial page believes that the importance of the subject matter, the details, the specificity of the discussions that were going on inside those rooms warranted publication, met a standard of newsworthiness and criticalness to understand what is going on inside of the trump white house. and the degree says it resonates what bob woodward is reporting, what other books, the times, cnn, what others are reporting for a year and a half about this president and this presidency, you know, it's probably why people are talking so much about it. it feels like someone from the inside is just really validating, again, what's been reported. >> and, david, put this in perspective from your perch. would you imagine this happening
in any of the administrations that you've worked for? >> yes, the nixon administration, but no other administration in the past. and i can guarantee you from my work with the times, i think it's virtually certain that whoever the person is who came to them, the times didn't seek out this piece, the person came to them, had to be a member of the cabinet or in the top inner circle of the white house. i just don't think "the new york times" would print something from somebody who's in a secondary agency far removed from the action. and the conversation itself has -- it seemed very centralized and people who actually work in the white house, it could be one of the intelligence agencies. it sounds like it could be national security why you but i can guarantee you it comes from someone with a lot of authority. the times would have had a conversation with that person to check out everything and to try to talk -- understand the larger scope and they published this because they understood it would be a bombshell because they're deeply concerned about what is
going on. and i think that's the larger question here. we now have a fresh portrait. they reinforced each other as we just heard. we have fresh portraits of the chaos and dysfunctionality and the governing force going off the tracks by a person who is considered immoral or amoral by the writer, chaotic, impulsive, off the tracks, need to be guarded like a child in some fashion. i join in the question of where are the republicans? it does seem to me, i can understand why they would not want to consider this and bring it out and hash it over in public before now and the mid term, but after the mid terms there has to be a serious effort by the republican party, by the leadership of the party to come to grips with this. somebody -- this is not good for the country. we've never been through anything like this. even in watergate the country was insteadier hands than what we have right now.
>> wow. dana, another former white house official is weighing in on this, on this person, on who it could be. a. a.m. moamorosa says on page 330f her book and she attached a graph for everyone to see. rest assured there is an army of people who oppose him and his policies. they are working silently, tirelessly to make sure he does not cause problem to the public. many are in his army and his own family. his own family sounds certainly hard to believe as the author of this opinion piece but do you think -- do you think this person's identity will be revealed? >> it's hard to imagine it won't at some point if for no other reason than perhaps this person is going to at some point, depending on how things shake out, come forward and say who he
or she is. i completely agree with david or patrick, i don't remember who said it, that this is -- that the focus of this, so much is on national security, on what really happens in conversations with allies and what really happens in really holding russia's feet to the fire despite what the president says in private and public. it seems as though the senior official is from the national security realm. now that could be, you know, just a way to kind of get us off track, that it's really somebody else, but it really seems to be a focus there. and regardless of who it is, we have to take -- the fact that you read the whole thing, kate, speaks to the extraordinary nature of what this is. >> yeah. >> it really, really is. first, for somebody of this senior level to write it and, second, as patrick said, for the "new york times" to actually publish it. jim dao who's the editor of "the
new york times" op ed page, i actually covered the bradley campaign, i'm aging myself here. i knew him then as an excellent, excellent journalist. obviously he's risen in the ranks for that reason, that he has very good judgment and clearly standards and i'm sure he took a lot of steps in order to make sure that this was done correctly because it is so unusual for the "new york times" to publish something never mind for a senior administration official to present something like this in publication. >> i'm sorry, da snna. patrick, she got to this. the president was already fuming about the woodward book and then this. what does this piece do? >> right. it goes so intensely to his own fears about enemies within, about sort of the deep state around him. you know, so many senior
administration officials have resigned. there are others who he doesn't see as part of his team or loyal to him, particularly jeff sessions and the justice department. and the people who were with him early on. i mean, people like hope hicks or cory lewandowski, people who he felt like sort of had his back. i mean, michael cohen, he did try once to take a bullet for him. he doesn't have those people anymore. he has sort of the families still with him, but it goes stroech, you know, i think caitlyn used the word paranoia, but the sense of like, you know, who is out to get me? >> you both in speaking to that, i mean, the writer, da sn a, writes that this isn't the so-called deep state. the writer says it's the steady state. wondering what that means. well, and also do you think the president sees a difference there? >> no, i don't think he sees a difference, but i think it's good that you pointed that out because it's important to note when people talk about the deep state what they're referring to
and what they're referring to are career government officials, people who work for the government across the board and they serve, for the most part, regardless of who is the president. this person made very clear that he or she is a political appointee, which means he was appointed or she was appointed by the president of the united states and there is a big difference there. >> big difference. we'll definitely almost guarantee to be lost by the president, but there is a difference. thank you so much, guys. "out front" for us next more news on this scathing "new york times" opinion piece. what was happening behind "the new york times" before the times decision to publish the piece and the impact now. plus, the confirmation hearing for president trump's supreme court nominee still underway at this time. what brett kavanaugh says about recusing himself. and a younger woman beating an older male in congress.
nooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. bounty, the quicker picker upper. on a budget? try new bounty essentials. you don't always use your smartphone for directions... are we there yet? hey guys, up there. ...or to laugh out loud. ♪ but when it matters most, you count on tracfone to keep you connected for less. ♪ our smartphone plan gives you talk, text and data with unlimited carryover starting at $15 a month, no contract. all with nationwide 4g lte coverage.
get top smartphones or bring your own phone. tracfone. for moments that matter. our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure. now up to 30 grams of protein for strength and energy! breaking news. the white house calling on the senior trump official, calling on is that person to resign. white house press secretary sarah sanders saying this in a statement, the individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive rather than support the duly elected president of the united states. he is not putting country first
but putting himself and ego ahead of the will of the american people. this coward should do the right thing and resign. out front now dan five jpfeifer amy, what does this op ed tell you about what's happened inside the white house? what's your reaction tonight? >> well, kate, i would like to say i'm surprised, but i'm not surprised. i think the biggest news from this is that the deep state is blatant in our face trying to subvert the will of the people and trying to take down a president from the inside. you can't say it's just democrats that are part of the resistance. there are republicans in there, too. like i said, i'm not surprised. but, look, at the end of the day, this person is complaining about his style. they list the things he's accomplished and they're complaining about his style. they're complaining he's not
ideologue. when we elected him we knew that he was not an ideologue. we knew he was a businessman and he would do things in an unconventional way. that's why 63 million people voted for him. and this is not just an attack on our president, it's an attack on all of us that voted for him and i find it outrageous. >> the writer, and obviously i've read it a bunch of times now, it goes into more than style though, amy. he's talking about two tracks of a government right now. the president doing -- saying and wanting to do one thing and the government getting and boxing him no to do the thing that they think is the right way to go to protect the republic. dan, from your perspective what does this op ed say? >> it reaffirms what we have seen for a year and a half in reporting from cnn, "the new york times," elsewhere, from the woodward book out this week is that donald trump is dangerously unfit to be president. that's not the opinion of democrats. that's the opinion of the
secretary of state rex tillerson who called him a moron. that's the opinion of the secretary of defense, general mattis, who said he was like a fifth or a sixth grader. >> right. >> we have seen this across the board. >> he's denied all of that, dan. >> we have seen this again and again and again. gary cohn has said he was a professional liar. this is not surprising. what i think this person should do. i agree with sarah sanders, a sentence i have never said before, they should resign, put their name to this, and come out to the country because it makes it easy for people to yell -- say this is the deep state or for donald trump to dismiss this when it's a nonany moug nany --. >> this is an area where you and amy should agree. >> they should. anybody who does not believe in this administration and is part of the administration needs to resign immediately. kate, this is the thing. you know, so you want to impeach donald trump, then what? i mean, it's not like hillary clinton's going to become
president if donald trump is impeached and that's what these people want. we're not going back there. >> sounds like the person in this opinion piece does not want hillary clinton to be the president. >> this is the thing. i believe this is a coordinated attack right when bob woodward's book is coming out, all of a sudden this piece comes out. why if bob wood w5rd and this person is suh concerned about all of this stuff, why didn't it come out two months ago? why doesn't it come out at thanksgiving? why right now, right when we kick off the mid term madness when we're about to work on the mid terms? this is political. they are trying to take down a president and subvert the will of the people from within. >> woodward's piece was always going to come out around now. that has been predicted ever since his book was planned. the fact that the white house even acted surprised that it's coming out now is -- that in and of itself is ridiculous because it was coming. it had a release date of september 11th. we don't know why this editorial came out today. we don't know. we don't know the discussions
that went on there, but, i mean -- >> dan, we -- if -- if you -- here's the thing that i hear from republicans though on should this person resign or should they stay in place. this is the conversation republicans have all the time, right? stay in place because they care about the republic. that's what the piece is about. resign and let the ship sink? >> yes. we have seen -- all these people who claim they are doing such good work to save america whether it was gary cohn or this anonymous person or dena powell. they keep telling everyone, all their friends who don't like trump, we're not actually seeing the effects of that. donald trump is still going out and announcing his support for -- his support for neonazis. he's still going out and buddying up to putin in
helsinki. >> no, he's not. >> they're not doing anything other than help themselves sleep at night. let me finish. if you truly think the president is dangerously unfit for the job which everyone in washington believes, everyone who has access to twitter believes then you should put your name to twitter in saying it. there is no courage in doing it through an anonymous "new york times" op ed. you should walk out of the white house and tell people what you see on a daily basis. >> i agree with him. this is coming from somebody that is so concerned about america but they can't stop the president from tweeting but they have all the answers? give me a break. i mean, that's absurd. >> no one can stop the president from tweeting. >> the next thing i would say is where the hell is the vice president? we elected him and the vice president as a team. where is he? we are all his soldiers out here defending this president, supporting him because he has done what we've wanted him to do on the economy and making
america safer, and the vice president is m.i.a. where the hell is he? >> he may be busy writing a "new york times" op ed. who knows. >> you know what, dan, if he is, he needs to resign. >> that would be something if we broke that news here tonight. we'll leave it there. amy, thank you so much. i really appreciate it. dan, thanks again. >> thank you. >> out front next, breaking news. the supreme court hearings of brett kavanaugh still underway and kavanaugh now responding to president trump's tweet that slammed the justice department for slamming two republican lawmakers. also, new details just breaking about "the new york times" decision to post this scathing anonymous opinion piece and who it dock. could be. and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you rewards me basically aeverywhere.om
so why am i sliding into this ski lodge with my mini horse? because hotels.com lets me do me. sorry, the cold makes him a little horse. hotels.com. you do you and get rewarded. the a...is stolen.es... hijacked from dreams. pulled from decades of obsession. taken from the souls of artists. we confess. we stole everything we could. from everything we've ever mastered. and put it here. the all-new lexus es. every curve. every innovation. every feeling. a product of mastery. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla . it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting.
otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. the difference you feel is a night... and day. feel the difference at our labor day sales event, purchase a tempur-pedic luxe, elite, or breeze mattress and enjoy up to $550 off. or get a free adjustable base upgrade. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com.
breaking news. taking a live look at capitol hill. yes, still this evening republican senator mike crepo is questioning president trump's supreme court pick brett kavanaugh in a marathon hearing now approaching the 11th hour. he wouldn't commit to recusing himself from cases involving criminal liability for trump. >> one key facet as i've studied the history of nominees is not to make commitments on particular cases. i'm not asking for a particular commitment and i'm going to take your answer as a no. it's really a yes or no question. you will not commit to recuse yourself? >> senator, i think to be
consistent with the principle of independence of the judiciary, i should not and will not make a commitment how i would handle a case. >> this was far from the only heated exchange that happened throughout today. phil mattingly is "out front." >> no one is above the law in our constitutional system. >> reporter: on day two of president trump's supreme court nominee's supreme court hearings, the president himself taking center stage, brett kavanaugh citing precedent from past nominees declining to weigh in, first on whether presidents must comply with subpoenas. >> can a sitting president be required to respond to a subpoena? >> so that's a hypothetical question about what would be an elaboration or a difference for u.s.v. nixon's precise holding. >> reporter: and again on presidential pardons. >> president trump claims he has an absolute right to pardon himself. does he? >> that's a hypothetical
question that i can't begin to answer in this context as a sitting judge and as a nominee. >> reporter: some democrats attacking kavanaugh's credibility, questioning whether he knew if he had received strategy information stolen from senate democrats in 2003. >> i am concerned because there is evidence that mr. moran provided you with materials that were stolen from me and that would contradict your prior testimony. >> did you ever knowingly participate in stealing anything from senator leahy or any other senator? >> no. >> did you ever know that you were dealing with anything that was stolen property? >> no. >> reporter: and if he was truthful when he testified in 2006 about his role in the bush administration's detention policies. >> i was not read into that program. i told the truth about that. >> reporter: kavanaugh also facing questions on his views of
settled law on abortion rights, both roe versus wade and planned parenthood versus casey. >> as a general proposition i understand the importance of the precedent set forth in roe v. wade. >> reporter: an issue democrats drilled down on repeatedly. >> i don't want to go back to those death tolls in this country, and i truly believe that women should be able to control their own reproductive systems within obviously some concern for a viable fetus. >> i don't live in a bubble. i understand. i live in the real world. i understand the importance of the issue. >> reporter: and, kate, no shortage of frustration from democrats on judge kavanaugh's refusal to cite nominee precedent. frustration exacerbated by the reality on the ground here which is right now kavanaugh's
nomination is on solid ground. one of the interesting exchanges came from a republican, jeff flake asking if judge kavanaugh would weigh in on the president's tweets related to the justice department's prosecutorial discretion. then asking about broadly the president using power to direct agencies to do something? he said no. but then one interesting element happened. he was asked about what about restraint of firing a special counsel? kavanaugh responded, well, hypothetically that case has been tested. >> i don't answer hypotheticals. great to see you, phil. >> out front with me now is joan buscupic. you've seen these hearings before. you've watched these nominees in the hot seat. how is kavanaugh doing? >> no slipups. that's the goal, kate. he doesn't want to backtrack from anything as of july 9th when he was nominated, and he
hasn't. he's remained steady. he's kept to his talking points that he unveiled yesterday when he introduced himself to the audience and to america and he's ree reinforced the idea that he's a moderate, he's not extreme, he's trying to be a team player. he has the slogan, i'm joining a team of nine. and i think the other thing, kate, he's trying to portray himself as independent, independent of the president especially. >> yeah. you saw phil's piece, joan, some of kavanaugh's answers on roe v. wade. this is an issue that democrats and some republicans remain extremely concerned about if you see it on the core, on the bench. what do kavanaugh's answers tell us? it's settled law before he was going into this hearing and now it's what? >> that's a great question because i actually think he revealed a couple things. first of all, at the outset he would not commit to vote against
reversing roe. a couple of democratic senators tried to get him to vow to do that and he said, you know, no nominee should ever vow to vote in any way on any particular case, which is exactly right, frankly. >> yes. >> and then he also did repeat that it's an important precedent, roe v. wade, but he robustly defended a dissending opinion of his from last year when he split from the majority on the d.c. circuit which had allowed a teenage migrant to obtain an abortion over objections from the trump administration. he talked about the importance of the government's interests there and in doing so i think he signaled that he would be open to restrictions on abortion in a way that, you know, frankly isn't new given that he's an a nominee of president donald trump. but i think we saw enough of his view there. >> and more to come.
joan, thank you. "out front" next, democratic candidates winning some as they push for impeachment, but will it be their top priority if elected and if they take over majority in the house? alexandria cortez is my guest. plus, breaking news tonight. we're learning the story behind "the new york times" decision to publish the op ed. details of what went on behind closed doors. and lower oral steroid use. about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. fasenra™ is designed to work with the body to target and remove eosinophils. fasenra™ is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with severe eosinophilic asthma. don't use fasenra™ for sudden breathing problems or other problems caused by eosinophils. fasenra™ may cause headache, sore throat,
and allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens or if you have a parasitic infection. fasenra™ is a targeted treatment for eosinophilic asthma. that's important. ask an asthma specialist about fasenra™.
new tonight. another major upset in the democratic party. another long term male member of congress being unseated by a woman of color. ayanna presley crushing michael capuano in the democratic primary there. many drawing comparisons to another victory. "out front" now, andrea cortez joining me now. thank you for coming in. >> of course. thank you for having me. >> there's a lot of talk tonight about parallels between your win and ayanna presley's win. do you think there are? >> yeah. you know, especially because i have a personal connection to ayanna. even the weekend before my own
primary ayanna presley herself sent her own team of organizers down in the bronx in queens to help support me in my win. right after my election one of the things we did is help support her campaign. there are a lot of parallels. we were out spent, three to one in her case, ten to one in my race. we were both really championing an intersectional message of economic and social dignity. we also rejected corporate funds which i think was extremely important with building the trust with voters. >> i want to ask you about this extraordinary anonymously written piece in "the new york times" tonight. a senior administration official, a senior trump administration official saying so clearly and in print that they are part of the resistance from within. there is a group of them that is part of the resistance and also writing that they are working
diligently within to frustrate parts of his, trump's, agenda and his worst inclinations. do you see this as a good thing? >> well, i think what we are experiencing right now in many ways with this administration is a bipartisan danger. we are experiencing threats to our very basic democratic institutions, and that goes beyond republican or democrat. we are talking about the increased concentration of power, abuse of power and additionally the subversion of some of the most basic rules and laws that we have in our basic decorum. so i think that really where we see injustice we must resist it. >> go along with me on this. what would you do if someone in your staff was working against you from within? >> well, you know, i would hope that i would never nb a position where i am an unindicted co-con
spiritor in a federal crime. i think it's one difference between having a difference of opinion -- a different of policy and subverting a policy agenda or a disagreement of opinion. but there are very serious questions with this current administration. we have everything, questions from the basic violations of the emolomus clause all the way up to the real motivations behind why trump would even nominate kavanaugh to the supreme court. >> i'm sure you think if someone didn't like what you were doing they should resign from your staff, right? if there was a disagreement. that's what the white house is saying about this writer, essentially if they don't like it, they should resign. do you agree? >> well, i think this is beyond disagreements. if we're in the territory where people are seriously talking about a criminal investigation and there's a difference between a crime and a difference of opinion. and i think that we are in a
very dangerous time in our democracy right now. i think that really what we need to be looking towards -- i would certainly say that if someone did not support health care for all people as i do, if someone did not support criminal justice reform as i do, then they could certainly, you know, not probably have a place on our team, but that is very, very different than saying jailing children at our borders and committing international human rights violations. that is very different from what we see maybe, you know, very concerning indictments going all the way up to the campaign manager at least of the president. >> you've already said that you support impeachment of the president. i can only imagine this coming out and even the woodward book adds fuel to your fire. is impeachment your top priority if you get elected? >> well, i think what we need to do is really take a look at what
happens in november. really that is, i think, going to determine a lot about our priorities. we have a really big, bold progressive agenda that we need to push. we need to protect our census. we have a great deal of things that are going to be on the table, and really november is going to be able to inform what is viable and what is most doable and how we are going to deliver results for working class americans the fastest. >> but is it your priority? >> i think it's -- i think it's certainly something that needs to be on the agenda. i absolutely do. but it depends. you know, we are working to win back the house. we're working to gain a few seats in the senate and really 1,000 percent of our efforts need to be focused on that. we can see what the field looks like and move forward to there. >> let me ask you about getting to november. president obama is on the campaign trail on friday
stumping for candidates in california and ohio. this being such a, you ohio. this is such a changed moment. do you welcome his voice? is obama the voice of the democratic party right now? >> i think that really what we -- i think he is a powerful, powerful voice in the party. i am of the belief there is no one voice of the democratic party, that we are a broad-based big tent coalition of americans that want to champion the needs of the working class, of women, of people of color, championing a welcoming immigration system, health care, education for all. and i think there are so many different ways to do that. i think that former president obama's voice is profoundly important in winning back the house, and i think that hopefully primary wins like mine and ayanna pressley's adds to
that tapestry of voices that together make a very strong layered argument for change. >> alexandria ocasio-cortez, thank you very much for coming in. >> thank you so much. >> "outfront" next, the breaking news president trump just moments ago responding to that extraordinary anonymous "new york times" op-ed. this as new details about who may have been behind the opinion piece. this is your wake-up call. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure.
before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. (thomas) nice choices! you see, now verizon lets you mix and match your family unlimited plans like you mix and match your flavors. so you get what you want, without paying for things you don't. number 6. i know.
i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release its own insulin, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within.
ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. breaking news. president trump questioning now if the senior trump administration official behind that stunning opinion piece in "the new york times," wondering aloud if that person even exists, of course in a tweet. does a so-called senior administration official really exist or is it the failing "new york times" with another phony source. if the gutless anonymous person does indeed exist, "the times" must for national security purposes turn him/her over to the government at once. for what? "outfront" for cnn brian stelter. he just wrapped up an interview with the op-ed editor for the new york. and john avlon. he has a opinion piece on cnn,
he is not anonymous and it's called "operation contain the president." i'm the only person that didn't talk to or write something about opinions tonight. give me the back story. >> they say this trump official came through the door a few days ago through an intermediary. a go-between. a few days ago? >> just several days ago. they say they don't believe it was linked to the woodward book, oven though the woodward book has us all talking about the president's fitness and what is going on inside the house. >> trump supporters are already raising that. >> thetimes does not think it was coordinated. only a small number of people inside the paper know who this person was. this person submitted the op-ed. we don't know if it was a man or a woman. "the times" will not talk about any of that. but it is preposterous for the president to be out there saying that "the times" has to hand over the source. that's loony tunes. there is no reason "the times" would ever do that. >> what about the decision to allow them to be anonymous? >> i asked, did you all push him on the record, him or her.
>> him or her. >> did you push him or her on the record? "the times" wouldn't get on that. i think it would be clear this person would lose their job. it does go to the issue if there are people inside the government trying to blow the whistle, why can't they do it with their names attached? this has been a frustration i think for outsiders for some time. >> also just happening, john, our white house correspondent reporting that aides are following leads, aides in the white house following leads within the white house based on the way the piece is actually written, the words of the piece. and they're looking at key words used in the editorial. that stand out. i read the whole thing. i read the whole thing a bunch of times now. lode star is an unusual word for many folks. i don't know what to make of that. another witch-hunt son. what do you make of this? >> this is going to be the mother of all leak investigations, a witch-hunt and a mole hunt all wrapped in one because the calls coming from inside the house, and nothing freaks people out more than that. if they're looking at the text,
there is a smart way to do that. there is a computer software that can help identify the individual. writing is distinctive. as brian's interview suggested, they didn't edit for language to try to obfuscate it. >> to try to hide the person. >> how much editing was done? >> just the usual fixing commas, making points clearer. >> typical editing. >> and the person can write. i think the thing that the president's tweet, for national security purposes. we've seen versions of this fight before. nothing quite like an anonymous source from inside the white house to say it is our constitutional obligation to contain the president's worst impulses. from the pentagon papers on down is cite the espionage act. that's probably what the president is referring to. it would not seem to remotely apply to what with the contents of this op-ed. there were no state secrets divulged with the pentagon papers, pentagon or other papers divulged in the past. >> you say this is a turning point. why is it a turning point? >> i think it solidifies something that we've been
talking about for a while, which is there an effort to contain the president. usually we talk about containment with hostile foreign powers. people who realize this is a dually elected president and they're trying to contain his worst impulses. it's a theme we've seen throughout the woodward book, from gary cohn pulling documents to jim mattis disregarding certain orders and giving him alternatives instead. i think it speaks to we need to confront clearly that the president has irrational irresponsible impulses. that is not a reason to invoke the 25th amendment. it does say that to deny that was to deny the preponderance of evidence. >> i'm sorry to interrupt. did this person give jim dahl they were nervous it was going to come out. >> or are they planning to come out and identify themselves in the future. >> yeah. >> "the times" has no indication of that. but they won't rule out rung
future pieces from this person. >> oh really? >> if that's what they're trying to do. we'll keep talking. and all of it comes back to that same thing we've been talking about for a year and a half. is he fit for office? that's the question. >> same thing in the woodward book. same thing in this opinion piece tonight. let's see if there is more to come. gentlemen, thank you so much. i really appreciate your time. thaw all for joining us. tonight "ac 360" starts now. good evening from washington, d.c. a city that has seen almost everything but nothing in recent history at least like what we saw today. a current senior administration official admitting to being part of the resistance inside the trump administration. just think about that for a moment. a current senior official working in this white house, writing in secret to alert the american people what he or she is witnessing and attempting to prevent the president of the united states from doing. a current senior official working with others inside the administration to frustrate actions by the president that they believe would actually harm the