tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN March 11, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
we're in an election period, which is probably why he did it. it's something he's done before. a well worn strategy, but something a lot of israelis reflected by the post of gal simply don't want to hear, election period or not. >> thank you and that is it for me. news room with brooke baldwin starts right now. thank you so much. hi, everyone. thank you for being with me on this monday afternoon. let's roll into it. the white house will be holding its daily press briefing today and by daily, we mean the first time in 42 days. in moments, the white house is expected to hail the president's new budget, a fight funding for his wall with mexico. president trump is seeking more money than the last time to the tune of $8.6 billion. to build this barrier at the southern border. democrats say this whole thing is a nonstarter, but that is far from the only sticking point in
trump's budget as he also aims to cut $2.7 trillion in spending. he wants to make his trump tax cut permanent for businesses and individuals. reform welfare programs, incl d inclouding a work requirement for people 18 to 65 and call for funding $15 billion school choice initiative. so as we wait for sarah sanders to take to the podium, let' bripg in cnn chief political correspondent dana bash and jim acosta. jim, you are in the room. this is the first briefing -- >> we found it. >> you remember where it was. this is, this is the first press briefing in six weeks. the white house has a lot of questions to answer and sarah sanders will have a guest. >> yeah. that's right, brooke, we're expecting the director of omb. the acting director i suppose because the former director is now the white house chief of staff, but he's going to be
coming out to lay out the president's budget proposal for the upcoming year. this is something we've talked about in the past. not just specific to the trump administration, but the budget recommendations end up being sort of administration wish list and it's not often that you know, we, i should say it is often that we hear the term dead on arrival here in washington with respect to a president's budget. this happened under obama. republicans up on capitol hill greeted president obama's budgets is same way and democrats are greeting these trump budgets the same way and specifically, what you just laid out a few moments ago that $8.6 billion that's been proposed for the president's signature item on his wish list, the wall, that's democrats are not keen on give iing the president. they're still fighting over this national emergency declaration down on the border the president's using to tap into funds administratively. but there will be lots of other questions. it's been 42 days since the last
white house press briefing. only one briefing in the last 80 or so days and so there's just a whole pile of questions for the white house press secretary to answer from the russia investigation to immigration to these budget issues. russ will be answering some of those. at some point, the white house press secretary will come forward and presumably answer some of our questions that have been lingering for some time. it's something that we use d to do a whole lot in this broefing room. it's something we haven't seen in quite some time, but perhaps with the departure of the white house communications director, bill shine, who was not very keen on these white house briefings, he thought they were not productive for the president's news coverage. we saw the briefings almost grind to a complete halt. and instead, we saw administration officials going out to the live cameras primarily to do live shots, exclusive live shots with fox news then we would get these sort of crumbs as they get back
inside the west wing, but hopefully we'll have more of these briefings and we'll get more answers out of the white house press office. something we haven't had in quite some time. >> this is wonderful and we welcome them. jim, thank you. stand by. dana, on the news of this budget that the president has given to congress today, this whole piece about the 8.6 billion for construction of the border wall. my question to you really is why is he bringing this up again? is is it to put up this big 20 fight? does he need the money? is it krrk, all of the above. >> all of the above. does he need the money? he wants the money and he wants to make a point on not just the wall, which obviously is the thing his aides describe as the policy extension of himself at this point even though it started out in the campaign as a rhetorical political tool. it's morphed into something much bigger in the president's eyes. but even more broadly as jim said, it is always a political
and policy, but policy driven by political ideology document. that any president puts forward. even more so in a year like this, where he is heading into the election and the democrats op the other side are already in full swing. he is going to plant his flag on a whole bunch of issues and you laid out a lot of them. the other interesting noteworthy things he's trying to do is say that he's taking care of veterans, increasing spending on that. a little bit more money for infrastructure. potentially an olive branch to democrats. not going to get too far ahead on that wup though. we'll see how that goes. but just more broadly, we're both old enough to remember certainly i am, you know, what ten years ago, when a republican president was, was really vilified by his own party for
spending. >> can i just -- you read my mind. i wanted to, yes. yes. and of course you're not that much older than me, dana bash. i love you. speaking though of that very point, let's jog back not too far from when trump said this. >> i know the inside and i know the outside. and that's why i'm the only one that can fix this mess, folks. when you start cutting, you're going balance the budget. believe me, you're going to balance the budget. but it will take fairly quickly and it can be done. >> so this is the whole promises made, promises kept, right? he's going in the opposite direction now. to your point. to the opposite direction of republican, traditionally. >> right. the beauty of someone running who hasn't been president, going for their first term, is you can say things and not be held accountable. the difficult thing about re-election is that you have a record and yes, he's talking
about the fact that you know, he could do it fast and specifically, he said in 2016 that he could do it in eight years. when i say it, i mean balance the budget and according to this document that he's going to put forward, it would be 15 years. and even that is done with nonpartisan experts. a whole bunch of statistics that are pie in the sky according to a lot of people to even get to that point. >> one more, looking ahead this week, we know the senate will take the resolution, they're going to be voting on that to block trump's emergency declaration. a move that unlocks more money for the wall. what's noteworthy is more and more republicans have been defect frg the side of the white house saying they will vote against this, including rand paul. >> right. and rand paul put this resolution in the yes it's going to pass column. the question is going to be
exactly as you said, how many more republicans will defect and we' will say from their perspective i'm going to vote in favor of the constitution and not in favor of this president and my party. and so, it is going to be interesting to see how many do ultimately go there. still unlikely it will get to the 67 mark, which is the veto proof majority. never mind that you're not likely to get there in the house, so it's probably moot, but it will be symbolic to see how many, especially at a time where some of these republicans are already gearing up for their next election in purple states. some in bluer states and they're trying to position themselves just as we were trying to talk about the position try iing to position himself. zpl yes, thank you. good to see you. watching and waiting for the news conference and for sarah sanders to take questions. meantime, another major story
we're following. investigators have recover ed te flight data and voice recorders from the ethiopian crash that killed all on board. while multiple airlines have grounded the popular boeing plane involved, southwest and american airlines say they will continue flying this aircraft. the pilot report eed technical difficulties on sunday and one witness says the plane was smoking and swerving before the crash. among the victims, eight americans and 21 united nations staffers. this is the second time in five months that a a boeing 737 max 8 model has crashed minutes into the flight. the very same thing happened to a flight back in october. but despite the similarities there, boeing is not planning to issue new guidance on the plane models. so richard guest is our cnn aviation correspondent, so first of all, obviously everyone's wondering my gosh, how many of these types of planes are being flown here in the u.s.
so a, that's my question for you and why is is boeing holding off on grounding them? >> several does b b b are in the u.s. fleet at the moment. southwest has 24. american has a couple dozen of them. there are 5,000 on order and roughly 170 or so have gone to china. and it is china that has led the way in by grounding those particular planes, followed by ethiopia, followed by indonesia. so far, boeing is saying that there is no evidence, there's no information upon which they should off the guidance. that's true as far as it goes. there are no further facts. if you look at the crash scene, they found the flight recorders. they are efforting ways to find out what is they say, but at the moment straktly speaking, we're no better off knowing other than
brooke these coincidences. same plane, brand-new. same phase of flight, first ten minutes and there was quite a bit of volatility in the altitude before this happened. >> but for the american audience, they may not know this airline as well. but it's my understanding this airline has a pretty strong track record. >> this airline is an airline i have flown. i fly without cause or worry. in fact, it is the airline if you're flying somewhere in the world through africa or to africa, you specifically go on this airline. because it's reputation is so good. ethiopian there's, can i say there will be involved, something wrong here, no. but to put ethiopians safety record on the b table in this particular case would be a great miscarriage of justice. there's nothing wrong with
ethiopian. >> how long do you think before they figure this out? >> within the week. within the week, they will have the first data, excuse me, the recorders are not damageded. within the week, they will have the first data from the flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders. ten days max. that will tell them whether it was somehow related to this end class system. this safety protective system that boeing has put in the planes that was the responsible or primary cause of lion air. the really, the you know trk question you haven't asked and that question i can't answer, is the plane safe. if i was flying, if i was in an airport tonight and was expecting to get on a max 8 plane -- >> would you do it? >> the chinese have grounded the fleet.
the u.s. hasn't come out yet and said the airlines have said they have confidence, so yes, i probably would, but it is an intolerable i would say an acceptable position to put the traveling public in. when a major regulator has grounded and the other major regulators have not. it's leave iing the troubling public in the middle. >> thank you so much for the back and forth. we'll be talking next hour to a colleague, one of the lives lost. there was a third year georgetown university law student studying here in the u.s. we'll talk to her next hour about him and his legacy. richard, thank you. coming up next, fox news under fire. one host questions a congresswoman's jab while audio surfaces of another host making vile remarks about women and child rape. we'll play the audio. plus, new details on the former owner of the spa tied to the robert kraft case. who she reportedly brought to trump fundraisers.
and the final assault on an isis stronghold in syria. is the terror group defeated? you're watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. ♪ -it's all about the big picture. with miguel, our certified financial planner™ professional, we looked at business insurance, our mortgage, even our plans to adopt. -it's not about this fund or that fund -- it's about us. -welcome to our complete freedom plan. -it's all possible with a cfp professional. -find your certified financial planner™ professional at letsmakeaplan.org. -find your certified financial planner™ professional from the first loving touch everything that touches your baby should be this comforting pampers swaddlers, the #1 choice of hospitals, is 2x softer and wraps your baby in our most premium protection so every touch is as comforting as the first
pampers the #1 choice of hospitals, nurses & parents has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. i've always been amazed and still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin... i want that too. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next?
reeling in a nice one. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden sign of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.
two fox news star hosts face heat today. one getting a rare rebuke, but neither is apologizing. jeanine said this b about a muslim congresswoman. >> think about it. omar wears a hijab which according to the koran, 33:59 tells women to cover so they won't get molested. is her adherence to the islamic doctrine indicative to sharia
law, which is amp thet cal to the united states constitution? >> fox news condemning her remarks, but taking no other visible action and she's not exactly saying sorry, issuing this response instead. i've seen a lot of comments about my opening statement from saturday night's show and i did not call representative omar un-american. my intention was to ask a question and start a debate but of course because one with a muslim does not mean you don't support the constitution. i invite her to come on my show anytime to discuss all the important issues facing america today. meantime, tucker carlson is under fire for comments he made to bubba the love sponge. over course of several years. >> didn't marry under age girls. >> he's in prison for the facilitation of child rape.
>> whatever that means. he's in prison because he's weird and unpopular and -- >> no, he's an accessory to the rape of children. >> what do you mean an access y accessory? he's got a weird religious cult where he thinks it's okay to marry underage girls, but he didn't do it. why wouldn't the guy who had sex with underage girls, he should be doing time. the rapist in this case has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person. be honest about it. this guy may be the -- >> just telling you, 16-year-old and 27-year-old is not same as pulling a stranger off the street and raping her. i love women, but they're primitive, basic, not hard to understand. >> i feel sorry for unattractive women. it's nothing they did. >> what's better than hockey? weed and whores.
>> my trophy wife is my hero. i'm voting for the guy. >> you want to [ bleep ] sarah palin. >> i'll agree with that. >> okay. just to recap. the host of fox's most coveted time slot insulted woman, suggested underage marriage is not as serious as forcible child rape calling the laws totally unfair. but he didn't apologize, called his words quote, naughty and instead, pushed viewers to tune in tonight. join iing me now, anna navarro d senior political analyst, john avalon. john, no apologies for the vile rhetoric. instead, the message is tune in. is that their business model? >> no. i think what they're saying though is a contagion from the shock and awe business model where it's play to the base, inflame with agitation, anxiety and it gets them into trouble because guess what, you're playing with fire when playing
with those forces. those comments, those were on prompt er. >> others had seen them, okayed them, allowed them to go on. >> and she endorsed them. it wasn't a slip of the tongue, a misspeaking. and for constitutional conservatives to say something like that should read the constitution, which free religion is a pretty prominent part. but it's part of the game they've been playing. i think with tucker, those comments i'm glad you played the warren jeffs one because i think that's the most serious. >> tell me why. >> because he's making light of sort of institutionalizes child rape with force marriageded inside a religious cult. nothing funny about that. you're call iing a shock jock c vaer sags, it's a lopg time ago, i shouldn't have said those things. there's a degree of normalization. when he's trying to be b the voice of reason on that one, that's its
own sort of warning. look, tuck rer can be a charming guy in person, but i think you're accountable for what you say when you have the microphone. that's crossing several lines. >> what do you think? >> i suspect that you know, i'm not sure that i can even buy he's a charming, funny guy in person. to me, it's more important what you're like when you're being viewed by millions of people. the same way you said the constitutional conservatives have to think about what pirro said. social values voters and christian voters and the people who have all the trouble when other people do crazy things, should also really question themselves and look at themselves in the mirror and say why are we listening to this guy who we just heard on audio, you know, say some really vile things. then again, brooke, take a look at who the fox view irs are. they listen to on audio, a republican candidate, republican nominee, saying some very vile things then still voted him in. so i think the standards are
different. i think the bars have been lowereded. i think they don't apologize because they don't feel like they have to. >> they refuse to apologize and not only that, i know tucker made those comments while he was at msnbc and they should be answering some of these questions, but you look at what happens with fox news and a host steps in some of it. maybe semirebuke. and they still have a job. >> this is the downstream effect of donald trump. the play of you know, doubling down, refuse to apologize. distract attack deflect divide. that start, we see that contagion throughout our political and media culture because it's worked for him. so you get that effect when it comes to tucker. we'll see what he says tonight. it's impossible to defend some of those things. i will say it's mildly ironic given that last week, he was hitting jobz for comments he made in the 1970s about bussing, which is a whole other conversation you could have. i don't think you could say that should be vieweded in the con
tek of his time when i was calling in to bubba, but everything else is fair game. >> ironically, i think they've made the case for the democrats saying we're not going to give fox news the debate a single debate. they've also made the case and they've also you know, thrown a life raft to omar with these comments. so if you can't take issue, consistently with omar question ing will whether a jewish politics has do a loyalty, where at the same time, you're saying one that wears a hijab can have no loyalty to the u.s. constitution. so you take issue with the one wearing a yam kika, but not a hijab. it's called hi pockry say, stupidity and doing a great big favor to omar and the democrats. on that issue and the debate issue. because you know, at this point, they can say yeah, of course we're not going give these
deplorable people, folks who are so tainted and offensive and outrageous a debate. they just made the case. >> that's an important point about the irony of her attacking o r mar on toews lines. also look, we're all human. we all make mistakes. you should be judged by the totality of your life, but u also what you say an do when you have the microphone. the problem is this has been part of the business plan of dividing to conquer. of appearing to narrow niche audiences. >> that's why it starteded. the business model. i do think you know, i think this is a, this is contagion from the business model. i think it's gotten people to a place where nothing's shocking. and they need to find a way to keep dialing that up. >> i bet you that tonight when you have folks tune in to watch tucker, which of course i never do, there's going to be video of us having this conversation and instead of him admitting his -- you want to do an over under? >> here's my last question. i want to move off that and talk
about this new poll out of iowa. 40% of registered republicans out of iowa want a trump challenger. but context is key here. interestingly, trump's polling well among republicans there at 80% approval. so to me, that doesn't make sense. >> fascinating. >> it doesn't but look, anybody taking a look at challenging trump has got to the think of the logistics and the requirements for running. it requires money. it requires a team. who is going to do that. if it's going to be a suicide mission and if trump is polling in the 80 percentiles, then it looks like a suicide mission. >> that's speaking to attention. those folks whob thinking about it, there's a lot to be said for fighting the good fight because when the trump fever breaks in the republican party in our politics, that person is going to look like a hero who had the courage to face their convictions when everyone else was falling in line. >> if they are doing that for that reason, courage and
conviction, not as self-promotiself-promoeg self-promotion ploy, not to get a cable gig, not to get on dancing with with the stars. they're doing it for the country. >> crazy idea. >> you guys are excellent. thank you very, very much. still ahead here, she didn't just take selfies with the president. the former owner of the florida spa connected to robert kraft's prostitution case also brought chinese businessmen to trump fundraisers. we have the latest. we're live in florida and cnn on the front lines in what is being called the final fight against isis in syria. we'll show you what happened. >> gunfight is hitting around the corner from us because there's a sniper in an isis building just 200 meter s from where we are. liberty mutual accident forgiveness
call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ when cravings hit, hit back. choose glucerna, with slow release carbs to help manage blood sugar, and start making everyday progress. glucerna. let's see, aleve is than tylenol extra strength. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain. ♪
pardon the interruption but this is big! now with t-mobile get the samsung galaxy s10e included with unlimited data for just $40 a month. we've seen him tweet in the last couple of days, ta democrats are the quote anti jewish party. does the president really believe trats hate jews? >> president has been an unwaivering and committed ally to israel and the jewish people and frankly, the remarks that have been made by a number of democrats and failed to be called out by democratic leadership is frankly abhorrent and it's sad and it's something that should be called by name. shouldn't be put in a watered down resolution. it should be done the way the republicans did it when steve king made terrible comments.
we call ed it out by name, stripped him of his committee memberships and we'd like to see democrats follow suit. >> you mentioned steve king. the president, correct me if item wrong, has not condemned steve king. praising white supremacy. has the president publicly come out and said anything to criticize or condemn? >> identify talkeded about that a number of times and i'd refer you back to those comments where i used words like abhorrent and unacceptab unacceptable. >> we're getting word the president plans to nominate patrick shanahan for secretary of defense. can you tell us whether or not that is going to happen. >> i'm not going to make any personnel announcements at this time. i can tell you that the president has a great deal of respect for acting defense secretary shanahan. he likes him. and when the president's ready to make ab announcement on that front, he will. >> there are a lot of actings in the administration these days.
any possibility of remoouing act aing from mick mull janie's title? >> certainly a lot of possibility there. some of the reason that we have actings is because we're waiting on the confirmation process, at least for a couple of those folks and we hope it moves forward quickly. >> i wanted to follow up on what the latest with china is. has the president made an offer for a mar-a-lago date and there are reports that the chinese president unreliable partner. >> start with the first. in terms of whether or not we have a date set, not yet. we're continuing to negotiations with china. when we have an announcement for the two leaders to sit down, we'll let you know. >> what do you say to the concerns by the chinese that the president is unreliable negotiating partner after the talks with north korea broke down and he -- >> i would say that's b absurd. the president's going to make a deal. if it's a good deal. he's going to make a deal, if it's in the best interest of america and if doesn't feel like it's a good deal, it's not worth just signing a piece of paper
and the president didn't feel like what was on the table was enough. president's 100% committed to denuclearization of the peninsula and he's going to make sure whatever we do furthers that process. we'll see what happens with north korea the same way we're going to see what happens in the negotiations with china. they're ongoing and the president's going to make sure whatever deal we get is in our best interest, that it protects our property and that it actually has safeguards to make sure that the chinese follow through with whatever commitments they make. >> picking up on that. does the president have any plans the speak with president xi over the phone? >> i'm not aware, but we'll keep you posted. >> is that the most likely step here, that they speak on the phone beforehand or is it possible these two still meet at the end of the month or the beginning? >> we'll keep everything on the table. again, negotiations are ongoing. the president's team as well as
the chinese delegation continue conversations and when they feel it's time for the two leaders to sit down, we'll make that happen. >> i have a news of the day question. i didn't ask my budget question -- >> you missed a big moment. >> all right, so in the budget the way that i see it and there's a lot of pages to go through, it keeps referring to western hemisphere with regard to the foreign aid spending. but nothing specifically about central america. the president has said that he wants to cut money to central america. in fact, cut it all. is that in the budget? >> i don't have any specific update on that front. i don't think there's a different policy. >> on the news of the day, votes coming up this week in the senate on the resolution with regards to the national emergency. what is the president doing to stop a rebellion among republican senators? we know that a rising number of have been r reported, as many as ten or 15, what's the president doing about that? >> he's doing his job. what congress should be doing.
he took an oath of office and he has a constitutional duty to protect the people of this country. we have a humanitarian and national security crisis at our border and the president is doipg his job and addressing it. he gave congress a number of opportunities to actually address it and they failed to do so. so the president is taking his constitutional authority that congress granteded him. let's not forget the only reason he has the authority to call a national emergency is because congress gave him the right to do so. they failed to do their job. the president's fulfilling his duty and he's going to make sure what's necessary to protect the people of this country, secure our borders. >> the meetings he might be taking with senators who he believes could be voting for that resolution. >> certainly, we talked to a number of members every day. certainly at the presidential and staff level. we're going to continue to engage with them in this process! sarah, what is the administration specifically doing to look into acosta's role
in the -- did the president have misgivings of the role this top official played? sfwl that's currently under review. because of that, i can't get into specifics. >> is there a timeline? >> i'm not aware of a specific timeline. >> i have a question and follow up to a colleague because i didn't hear you actually answer the question, so yes or no. does the president truly believe that democrats hate jews? >> i'm not going to comment on a potentially leaked item. i can tell you what -- >> think democrats hate jewish people? >> i think they've had a lot of opportunities over the last few weeks to condemn some ab abhorrent comments. i'm trying to answer, if you'd stop talking, i'll finish my statement. the president has laid out cloorly his position on this matter. democrats have had a number of opportunities to condemn specific comments and have refused to do that. that's a question you should ask democrats what their position is since they're unwilling to call this what it is and call it out by name and take action against members who have done things like this like the republicans
have done when they had the same opportunity. >> so i want to be very clear. you're not answering the question. is there a reason? >> i believe i answered it twice. >> didn't say yes or no. does he believe democrats hate jews. ? >> you ought to ask the democrats. >> paul manafort goes for the second half of his sentences. why hasn't the president ruled out a pardon? >> the president has made his position on that clear. he'll make a decision when he's ready. >> last week, the president tweeted that michael cohen quote, directly asked me for a pardon. when did that happen? was that when cohen was here at the white house and came into the oval office and asked the president for a pardon? did it happen on the phone? do you have a date? >> i'm not going to get into specifics of things that are currently under review by the oversight committee and other committees. what i can tell you is that cohen's own attorney stated and contradicted his client when he
said he was aware those conversations had taken place. we know michael cohen lied to congress prior to his testimony, most recently. we know he's lied at least twice in that hearing. i think that it's time to stop giving him a platform. let him go on to serve his time and let's move forward. >> my budget question, just to put it on the record because a lot of people want to know, is there anything in the president's 2020 question that has mexico play iing for the wa? >> as the president has stated a number of times, through the u.s. mca trade deal, that we look forward to get ipassed soo, that will be part of how that takes place. >> john. >> thank you, sarah. two brief questions. following up on john's personnel question. does the president have full confidence in secretary acosta or is the labor sector possibly leaving? >> i'm not aware of any personnel changes, but again, those things are currently under review. when we have an update, i'll let
you know. >> the other question is is the president in discussion about signing exec putive order to un executive order 13166, president clinton's executive order. >> i hope you can tell me what that is. >> 19 years ago requiring multiple languages. a new executive order i am told would make english the official language in government. >> not aware of a specific ex executive order that's been drafted, but that's the position of the white house. jim. >> yes, can president ask gary cohn to intervene or block at&t's merger with time warner. >> not aware of any conversations around that matter. >> and just to get back to john and the question about the president's comments about democrats and jewish people. isn't that kind of rhetoric just sort of beneath everybody and do you think that the president has thought at all going into 2020
campaign that the rhetoric just needs to be b lowered? whether it's talking about democrats, the media, immigrants, or should we just plan on hearing the president use the same kind of language we heard in 2016 and all through the first couple of years of his administration? >> look, i think the real shame in all of this is that democrats are perfectly capable of coming together and agreeing on the fact they're comfortable ripping babies straight from a mother's womb of killing a baby after birth, but they have a hard time condemning the type of comments from congresswoman omar. i think that's a great shame. the president has been clear on what his position is. certainly what his support is for the people and the community of israel. and beyond that, i don't have anything further. >> just sort of drags down the rhetoric and debate, when you're saying something that's just patently untrue. >> stating their policy positions is not untrue. >> democrats don't hate jewish
people. it's just silly. >> they should call out their members by name. i've made that clear. sorry. zblsh. >> the president after charlottesville saying there are fine people on both sides in charlottesville, essentially suggesting there are very fine people in the nazis. >> that's not at all what the president was stating. not then, not at any point. the president has been incredibly clear and consistently and repeatedly condemned hatred, bigotry, racism in all of its forms, whether it's in america or anywhere else and to say otherwise is simply untrue. april. >> asking two question, but that's kind of what i was asking. since the president did that say that in charlottesville, some very fine people on both sides, has he in our opinion or has he or us because i don't remember it, condemned the neo nazis in charlottesville for their actions against the jewish americans there? >> the president has condemned them and called them by name. which is what we are asking
democrats to do when they see the same type of hatred. >> can we expect to have briefings more often now since there have been a little bit of changing atmosphere here? >> i haven't noted a chanchange atmosphere. the president is the most access bable in modern history. he takes questions from you guys nearly every day. on days he doesn't, sometimes i do it from here. we answer hundreds of questions from reporters all over the world every day. we're going to continue to do that. sometimes we'll do it from this room, sometimes in other venues and platforms. >> the only include money -- >> can you say that louder? >> yes, i can. why did the omb include money for the yucca mountain nuclear waste repository and what are the chances that congress will actually enact that? >> i think the chances that
congress will do its job based on his tor cal precedent are unlikely, but that doesn't mean we're not hopeful they'll work with us, look for ways that we can reduce spending and grow, protect our military, do thipgs like that what you see in the president's budget. >> can you tell us about what the thinking was to put that in? >> i'm not aware of anything on there. one last question. >> why did the president write a check to michael cohen for $35,000 in august of 2017 while he was here in the white house? what was the money for? >> i'm not ware of those specific -- >> he testified. accused the president of engaging in a conspiracy to conceal campaign violation. >> the president's been clear. beyond that, i can't get -- >> he didn't know. the story has changed. >> i would refer you back to the
president's comments. not something i'm a part of and i would refer you to the president's outside counsel beyond his comments. >> during his time in the white house, does the white house deny -- >> sorry? >> individual one. in the southern district of new york? >> again, not going to comment on an ongoing case. that's not ng smg i would be a part of here in the white house and i would refer you to outside counsel. the president has stated his position and made it clear. >> thanks, guys. >> why kid the president deny saying something was caught op tape. >> after 42 days, we got a brief frg the white house. sarah sanders there answering all kind of questions from the national emergency and republican rebel john, i want to start with what seemed to be b the thrust of the conversation. a lot of questions came to her on comment that is the president made on friday. about democrats being antiisrael, antijewish. this is what the president said. >> and i thought that vote was a
disgrace and so does everybody else if you get an honest answer. if you get an honest answer from politicians, they thought it was a disgrace. the democrats have become an antiisrael party. an antijewish party. and that's too bad. >> so i know. i know. i know. i know. and when sarah was pressed on the president's comments there, she compared the congresswoman omar's situation to that of congressman steve king. the racist comments he's made and the point simply being where was trump on steve king? >> exactly. that was her push back. was that the republicans centered steve kipg took away his committees. >> trump said nothing. >> that's the kicker. that's the kicker. that they weren't apparently ready for in the white house by invoking the example republicans tried to set with steve king. crickets. tumbleweeds. silence from the president. when she says tries to deny the
president said what we all heard him say on camera, said he's consistently condemned hey tret and bigotry, we know the example of charlottesville. among many, many others. >> neo nazis came up. why didn't he condemn them. >> both sides, people. not really a tough one, but apparently it was for the president who kept going back to that particular talking point. so again, you see the white house in a situation where the best they've got is trying to assert something that the president's own words makes it fall apart. >> just looked at my notes. she was asked about the paul manafort right, the fact that he was, we know he was sentenced week. some thought it was lenient. he'll be sentenced on the whole lying an plea deal that coming wednesday. would he not be pardoned. did she, she didn't totally rule it out. if i heard that correctly, right? she doubled down on trump's claim that cohen asked him directly for a pardon. >> brought it back to that. i think you've got the classic white house, the president's been clear on this.
when the whole point is that no, he has not, but when you got nothing, that's the best you can do is cite a largely fictitious standard. no that door is still apparently open or sarah sanders didn't have the clarity or authority to speak on behalf of the president conclusively to it. >> i've got a question for maya on budgets. here's my question r for you on this whole news of trump releasing the budget to congress. the big one that everybody's latching on to today is the 8.6 billion for construction of the border wall. there was a question again from a reporter toe, is is mexico going to pay for it. news flash, no. why do you think the president is bring iing this up again? is it about the fight for 2020? is it about needing the money? what do you think? >> right, well i think the fact that the wall is going to be what gets so much attention when
this is the president putting out what's supposed to be b the whole blueprint for how we would guide the country forward, but the reality is that the budget has become less and. >> lewis: serious around this just demonstrates this. that this will have a big fight over the wall and nobody will notice a couple of key things here. this is a president who for years was critical of barack obama and all the debt he added, but this budget would add another $7.5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. and if you use realistic number, which its growth numbers are too aggressive, closer to $10.5 trillion. so look at the sparkly thing over here. create a fight and unfortunately, our entire budget process, which is really important to the governments of country, is becoming less and less important and not being taken very seriously. >> let me play something for you. we took live the q&a with sarah sanders. prior to that, the new omb director spoke. i want to play what he said about the deficit. >> washington has a spending
problem and ilt endangers the future prosperity of our nation for generations to come. >> so he said it gets hard er t balance the budget every year. congress doesn't go along with their spending plan. so my question is it congress' fault? is it the white house's fault? the administration asking for a 5% increase in defense spending to 750 billion. here's what he had to say about that. >> and to be clear, this is not funding for endless wars, this is for research and development for the most awe inspiring military the world has ever known. >> where would the money go? >> we have a spending problem and we have a revenue problem and this budget doesn't really address either of them seriously in that it extends all tax cuts in the baseline and doesn't pay
for them. that makes the revenue problem worse and ignores the biggest drives of our national debt. the bigger program, social security. it does some health care savings, but it would need to do more and it doesn't get serious about part of the budget that are going to fix the problem. so the focus on small domestic savings, which in reality, aren't going to happen and are not going to be paired with big increases in defense. and some of the welfare programs which are targeted in a way that democrats will never dgo along with means we're not being serious ant tbout the big quest how are you going to pay for it and now are we not going to continue this endless cycle of borrow iing that's going to lea us very weak for all the future challenges including a potential recession that we're going to face at some point. >> yes, seeing john nodding aggressively out of the the corner of my eye. i've got jim acosta standing by who got a couple of questions in. loved your question about the rhetoric ahead of 2020.
but of all of the above, what stood out most to you, jim? >> we, you know, this is part of the reason why we've seen the briefings get scaled down over the last several months. there are just so many difficult questions for this white house to answer. but you saw sarah sanders there and to her credit, she did take multiple questions from several reporters. my colleagues at nbc and abc and so on. were able to ask several follow up questions on some pretty pointed issues. i think this issue of the president referring to democrats as antijewish or hating jewish people, that just naturally is going to dredge up some of his own questions from his past. you know, the days after charlottesville when he said that there were very fine people on both sides in charlottesville. that's a comment that's goijust going to live on forever no matter what they say here at the white house and i think it's important to say and not even put it in the form of a question, that obviously, democrats don't hate jewish
people. that is just a silly thing to say. but it just goes to where we're headed i think over the next you know, 18 to 24 months. we are in for probably, it's astonishing to say this and to hear it, but we're in for the nastiest campaign we've ever seen in our lifetimes coming up in 2020. and i wanted to ask whether or not the president plans on taching down the rhetoric because as we know, he is largely responsible for this driving down of our political discourse. you know, going out and making speeches saying democrats are hating jewish people. that just goes to push iing people's buttons in ways that you know the president of the united states really shouldn't be engaged in doing. but getting to i think some of the other critical questions in this briefing, some critical o were asked about michael cohen, the stormy daniels payments, paul manafort and whether or not he's going receive a pardon. you can see going back to the issue of why they haven't had
many briefings lately, there are just legal questions that are going to twist any press secretary into a peretz el because she's not going to want to say something that might get her hauled into the special counsel's office for example, so there's a whole host of issues that are difficult to deal with. i think it's important when we were going through the budget with acting omb director, you know u, this issue of the wall and the funding for the wall, they know that that is is a political item here at the white house. it was inserted into the budget to spark another fight with democrats and they know inside the trump campaign it's one of the bread and butter issues going into the 2020 election and so these budgets tend to be almost more political documents than fiscal documents. but you know, the president did say during the 2016 campaign he knows how to eliminate a budget deficit, knows how to trim the national debt that he'll do it in eight years so on and a lot of those comments coming back to haunt the president like they often do. >> yeah will the idea of budget
driven by political ideology, we've seen that movie before with presidents on both sides, but jim, thank you so much. a lot happening there. it was nice to hear from her trying to answer some of those questions. john, i appreciate you. we'll continue that conversation with gloria borger up next. the white house is asked about pru president trump's stunning claim that democrats hate jews and sanders leaving a door open to a b possible pardon of paul manafort. we're back in a flash. pursuing life-changing cures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.
we'd love some help with laundry. here's how you do it. spray and scrub anything with a stain. soak your nasty jersey. it stinks! wash the really dirty clothes separately. remember -hard work builds character! new tide pods with upgraded 4-in-1 technology unleash a foolproof clean in one step. aww, you did the laundry! but you didn't fold it. oh, that wasn't in the note. should have sent a text. #1 stain and odor fighter, #1 trusted. it's got to be tide.
we're back. moments ago at the very first white house press broefing in 42 days, the white house failed to answer a simple question. whether president trump said during private comments that democrats hate jews. this all stems from these comments that the president made just this past friday. >> and i thought that vote was a disgrace and so does everybody if you get an honest answer.
if you get an honest answer from politicians, they thought it was a disgrace. the democrats have become an anti israel party, they've become an antijewish party and that's too bad. >> and just talking to our chief white house correspondent, jim acosta, he was in the room and had this change with sarah sanders on that point. >> just to get back to john and the question about the president's comments about democrats and jewish people. isn't that kind of rhetoric sort of beneath everybody and do you think that the president has thought at all going into this 20 campaign that the rhetoric just needs to be lowered? whether it's talking about democrats, the media, immigrants or should we just plan on hear ing the president use the same kind of language we heard in 2016 and all through the first couple of years of this administration? >> look, i think