tv Meet the Press MSNBC January 8, 2017 11:00pm-12:01am PST
this sunday, the battle over russia's election year interference. the intel community says the russians are guilty. case closed. >> russia has clearly assumed an even more aggressive side or posture by abusing cyber espionage operations. >> president-elect trump got an intel briefing on friday, but says he's still not sure. >> my sitdown with two republican senators, lindsay graham of south carolina. >> after the briefing he's still not sure that would shake me to my core about his judgment. >> and john mccain of arizona. >> if we were able to succeed doing that then you destroy democracies. >> the secretary of defense ash carter live this morning on what
options the u.s. really has to counter russia. >> and obamacare, the republican party is increasingly divided over how fast to repeal it. >> health care will be better and less expensive when obamacare is completely repealed. if there's nothing to replace it with. >> i think it would not be the right path for us to repeal obamacare without laying out a path forward. >> joining me this morning for insight and analysis are david brooks, columnist for the new york times. andrea mitchell of nbc. cnbc's rick santelli and former congresswoman donna edwards. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press". >> from nbc news in washington, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning. if there's one thing donald trump as candidate and president-elect has been consistent about is that russia in no way interfered with the u.s. presidential election from arguing in a debate that the hacking of the dnc could just as easily have come from someone
who is 400 pounds and sitting on his bed to trashing the agencies to appearing to side with wikileaks founder assange. now he has more to pushback against, on thursday the heads of the top intelligence agencies made their conclusions clear, russia interfered with the presidential election. on friday, those same intelligence agencies released a report that included this line, putin and the russian government appeared to help president-elect trump's election chances when possible by discrediting secretary clinton and contrasting her unfavorably to him. it did not include the sources and methods of how the intel agencies came to these conclusions. that portion is classified but that was part of mr. trump's briefing on friday. the president-elect reacted by neither accepting nor rejecting the finding. there was absolutely no evidence that the hacking affected the election results voting machines want touched.
the president-elect tweeted. no one is suggesting that voting machines were impacted and the president-elect still appears to be largely on his own, at least within his party, on this dispute. >> reporter: donald trump is calling the controversy over russian interference during the presidential election a political witch hunt, putting himself at odds with the intelligence community. >> i think there is a difference between skepticism and disparagement. >> reporter: he's at odds with members of his own party. >> every american should be alarmed by russia's attacks on our nation. >> reporter: and he's even at odds with the outgoing president. >> we have to remind ourselves we're on the same team. vladimir putin is not on our team. >> reporter: after an intelligence briefing on friday, trump dialed down his outrage in a longer statement saying, instead, he has tremendous respect for the intelligence community, but trump also con flighted russia, china and other countries and outside people
that have waged cyber attacks on the united states. the intelligence committee released a report publicly concluding that russian president vladimir putin influenced a campaign aimed at the united states presidential election. quote, russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the u.s. democratic process, and denigrate secretary clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency. we further assess putin and the russian government developed a clear preference for president-elect trump. the intelligence agencies also concluded with high confidence that russia's military intelligence arm passed on material it acquired from the dnc and democratic officials to wiki leaks and other sites. for trump promoting the wikileaks material came a campaign staple. >> wikileaks just came out with a new one. >> they've got it all down, folks. wikileaks. >> they were just announcing new wikileaks and i wanted to stay there, but i didn't want to keep
you waiting. i didn't want to keep you waiting. let me run back under the plane and find out. >> a senior u.s. intelligence official tells nbc news that u.s. intercepts picked up senior russian officials celebrating trump's victory. the report did not address whether the russian campaign actually tipped the election to trump, but for a candidate defined by shifting policy stances, trump has been remarkably consistencent on his ambivalence about russia involvement. >> i don't think anyone knows russia. they're saying russia, russia, russia. it could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds. >> they have no idea if it's russia, china or somebody. it could be somebody sitting on a bed some place. >> our country has no idea. >> he'd rather believe -- >> i doubt it. >> as mr. trump was being briefed i sat down with two republican senators who have been critical of president-elect trump. john mccain and lindsay graham.
i began by asking the both of them about mr. trump's claim friday morning that what we're seeing is nothing more than a political witch hunt. >> i believe our intelligence leaders, general clapper and admiral rogers who testified before the arms services committee are credible people and well respected. general clapper, i think, has 53 years of experience in the intelligence business and yes, intelligence authorities have made mistakes in the past that have been wrong in the past, but what they're saying is there is a long history of russian attempts to affect the outcome of our election. >> you know, here's the deal for me. i think he's worried that inquiring into what russia did in the election is going to undermine his credibility and his legitimacy. quite frankly, i haven't heard any democrat at all of promise say that we doubt that donald trump won. putin is not the reason that
clinton lost and trump won. i don't think anybody's saying that, so mr. president-elect, that's not what we're trying to do. what we're trying to do is find out what the russians did in our elections and make sure that other people including the russians won't do it next time. no doubt in my mind that russians interfered, that john podesta's emails were hacked by the russians and not some 13-year-old kid or 400-pound guy and that the dnc was compromised by the russians and it seems pretty clear that wikileaks got it from the russians. it didn't affect the outcome, but they tried to affect our elections. he'll be the defender of the free world. in a couple of weeks donald trump will be the defender of the free world, you should let everybody know in america, republicans and democrats that you should make russia pay a price and they need to pay a price and i don't care what their motives were. >> why do you think he continues to question intelligence on this? >> i think he's worried about it
undermining -- >> you think it's personal? >> because he said it's time to move on. remember when he was asked about, maybe on new year's eve, let's just get on with our lives. >> here's my retort to that. our lives are built around the idea that we're free people, that we go to the ballot box and we have political contests outside of foreign interference. you can't go on with your life as a democracy when a foreign entity is trying to compromise the election process. so, mr. president-elect, it is very important that you show leadership here. let me say this. if after having been briefed by our intelligence leaders, donald trump is still unsure as to what the russians did that would be incredibly unnerving to me because the evidence is overwhelming. all i'm asking him is to acknowledge that russia interfered and push back. it could be iran next time. it could be china. it was democrats today, and it
could be republicans in the next election. >> i want to get -- the washington post has a part of this intelligence assessment is they intercepted some communications with russian officials that were essentially celebrating the trump victory. what does that tell you? >> i think you can only draw the conclusion if they were celebrating that they obviously wanted the outcome to be what it was, and then the question is is what did they do to try to achieve that outcome? and it's pretty obvious that they were heavily engaged and we need to come to grips with it and get to the bottom of it and overall, come up with a strategy in this new form of warfare that can basically dismantle -- harm our economy, harm our elections and harm our national security.
>> where should this investigation go from here? you guys are focused on the larger issue of cybersecurity and frankly, protecting democracies around the world, but what about should there be an investigation about whether any of the campaigns had any interactions with moscow, with any -- >> i would like to see a select committee, apparently, that is not in agreement by our leadership. so we will move forward with the arms services committee and foreign relations and intelligence committee will, as well, but it is possible if enough information comes out that that decision could be reversed. i still think it's the best way to attack the issue. >> are there still active investigations going on to try to figure out if there was coordination between campaigns? >> you asked me what should we do? we should have come down to the bottom of russia 2016. >> period. >> period. wherever it leads.
>> is there fbi, a joint task force and is it currently happening? we just don't know about it. >> i believe that's what's happening. you need to speak with them. here's what we should do as a nation, we should all, republicans and democrats condemn russia. to my republican friends who are gleeful, you're making a big mistake. when russia -- put our troops at risk most democrats condemned that some celebrated. most republicans are condemning what russia did and to those who are gleeful about it you're a hack. you're not a republican and you're not a patriot. if this is not about us, then i'll never know what will be about us because when one party is compromised all of us are compromised and here's what i'm going to do with senator mccain, we will introduce sanctions that are bipartisan that go beyond the sanctions today against russia that will hit them in the financial sector and the energy
sector where they're the weakest and we're going to give president trump an opportunity to make russia pay a price for interfering in our elections so it will deter others in the future. i hope you will take advantage of it. >> let me play devil's advocate. senator mccain, hey, we spy on russia. russia spies on us. we've supported democracy movements in russia actively so. isn't that a form of getting involved in their politics? how is this not the same thing? >> it isn't just elections that they are hacking into. it is across the board including military secrets that we have, including the ability to shut down satellites, including the ability to shut down power plants. i mean, they can do grave danger to the united states of america. we never tried to do anything like that. >> you guys just returned from a trip to eastern europe, spending some time in the baltic
countries. what would you say to donald trump? he seems to have an affinity for putin. he seems to want to have a reset with him. after your visit with eastern europe, do you think a reset with putin is something worth doing? >> i wish he could have gone with me to ukraine as we did to foriople, and met with brave ukrainians that are serving. they have slaughtered ukrainians and they've sladismembered a country and they've done so with all international norms of behavior and they're putting strains on the post-world war ii new world order, the likes of which we've never seen. >> here's what we've told them. our voices will be lent to their cause in two ways. i want more sanctions to hit him harder to deter what he did in our election and what he's doing throughout the world, putin. secondly, i want to help the baltic states, ukraine and georgia more. we want more trainers on the
ground 365 days a year. a permanent, u.s. military training presence in the baltics, ukraine and georgia. >> would you be more comfortable today if hillary clinton were preparing? >> no. i don't think much about that because the result of the election, but i thought some of the things that were revealed in the wikileaks were very disturbing, as well, and the server and the statements about benghazi. so, no, i'm not sure it would be better. >> any where are you in this? >> i want president trump to be a good president. i like the fact that he wants to get a better deal with the iranians. i like the fact that he wants to cut taxes and secure our border. there's a lot of things i agree with donald trump on. i want to help him where i can, and i feel an obligation to say
no where i must. right now the biggest problem i have with what i see coming out of the president-elect's team is russia. i'm hoping that after he gets the briefing from the finest among us, that there is zero doubt the russians did this, nobody is saying that you didn't win the election, mr. trump, president-elect trump, that's not the issue. i hope you will embrace the intelligence. you will join with republicans and democrats to push back against russia to make sure it stops and doesn't happen again. if after the briefing he is still unsure, that will shake me to my core about his judgment. >> i'm going to wrap up with a question that has nothing to do with this. president obama will be give his farewell address. most positive part of his legacy, most negative part of his legacy. i'll start with you, senator mccain. >> i would say the most positive part of his legacy is that the very fact that the first
african-american of the president of the united states is a signal that in america anybody can rise to the highest level, and i think that's a very important landmark and is historic. i would argue that his worst is his handling of national security particularly in the middle east. the red line over syrian use of chemical weapons, that -- when he went back on that it sent a message that reverberated throughout the world. >> for you? positive and negative. >> he and the first lady have to be complimented for representing our nation well as a first family. it's not like senator mccain said, it's historic, he's the first african-american president, but it just wasn't that. i think the family represented us in a fashion we can all be proud of as to policy. i think he's going to be remembered for taking america in a position of strength to a position of weakness that on his
watch he was a very poor adversary for evil, and even worse defender of democracy. >> that's rough. >> it's true and it's sad. it's not what i want to say, but tell me how you can come to any other conclusion? all i can say is his foreign policy has been a miserable failure and he's been weak to his core when it comes to representing american values, and that is what i believe, and i hope donald trump will make it better. we've had eight years of weak. i don't want four more years of it. i hope he'll turn this around and when it comes to russia, he's on the wrong path. when we come back, incoming white house counselor to president-elect trump kellyanne conway responds. republicans want to repeal and replace obamacare. they've got the r every body is different, but everybody gets dry skin. feel moisturized without feeling your moisturizer with lubriderm. absorbs in seconds.
affairs correspondent, my friend, andrea mitchell and new york times columnist david brooks. this morning i spoke to kellyanne conway and she, of course, is now the counselor to president-elect trump in the new white house, and i asked her if donald trump accepts the conclusions from the intelligence community on russia's election interference. here's her response to me. >> in terms of russia, if the report says that they attempted, i read in "the new york times" stories they appear to and attempted, they did not succeed in embarrassing this country in the world stage. they did not succeed in throwing the election to donald trump. that's very clear in this report, and i don't want your viewers to be left with any other impression. read "the new york times" outtakes and read "the washington post" and read the report itself, there is no evidence that russia succeeded in any alleged attempt to disrupt our democracy or, in fact, to influence the election results. >> he want to pursue better relations with russia, even
staring at this report that says russia was trying to disrupt our democracy. do you believe he can do both? >> he has said yes. >> so he will punish russia on this? he does plan to punish russia on this? >> i didn't say that. i told you earlier and i'll repeat it now. he's not the president yet. all of you insist one president at a time, so, okay, one president at a time. when he becomes president and he meets with his security intelligence team, he as president trump will make a decision on what to do. >> okay, guys. i heard one piece of news there from kellyanne, andrea, i wonder if you heard the same thing. there seems to be a tacit acceptance of the intelligence community conclusions that russia attempted to disrupt, and so they have -- i feel as if the -- they have moved a little bit. >> well, she has. not the president-elect in his tweets about this because he lumped russia, china, all of the other bad actors on cyber attacks which we've known about in the past. this was a report, an investigation into russia, and
it was not an investigation into whether they succeeded. the very attempt is the issue and it's not just cyber, it's the propaganda war. it's fake news, it's r.t., the official russian television network that has some connections in the past, in fact, with michael flinn, the incoming national security adviser. there are profound questions here and this was a devastating attack and attempt, and whether or not they succeeded is not the issue. changing the subject is not the issue. the, attempt itself is what is being punished. >> this thing is happening on two levels. the first level is the gravitational pull of donald trump's ego which is like jupiter coming through the solar system around which everything must revolve, and he cannot admit he won this election without anybody's help, and he wants to say it's me. it's me. the more important thing is the shift in strategy, and a lot of people in the donald trump administration, steve bannon and others want to do which is all through all our life times, republicans and democrats have basically supported the post
world war ii international order and seen russia or soviet union as a threat to that. bannon and others and the international tea party movement do not support that order. they see it as nationalist populist against islam and that would be a fundamental shift in american foreign policy if we're more pro-russia than we are pro-nato. to me, in this administration will be bannon versus trump. a guy with ideology, versus a guy that has no attention span against shiny objects. >> if hillary didn't have her email problem and if it was lindsay graham or john mccain be a bigger issue. when target got hacked i don't hear people saying was it kohl's? was it wal-mart? it doesn't matter. it's a hack. let's deal with it. what is going on here, it doesn't matter who did what
when? you have to take each situation uniquely. the president-elect has a boat load of issues. i agree with the pull of his ego, but i think that the media -- the media in general is just being quite unfair here. it did not inflate the hillary emails with the -- let me finish, with the russian interference in this election. i don't agree with kellyanne conway. i actually do think that, you know, the russians got what they wanted. they interfered. they are creating this chaos. we are two weeks outside of an
inauguration, and we have chaos around what happened during our election process. so i think that there was success, and i think the president-elect needs to not just move from accepting that there was an attempt, but to really going after the russians because here it's the elections and the next time it's another election. maybe it's the republicans, maybe it's our economic system. we have to treat this seriously, and the president-elect needs to get out of campaign mode and get into governing. >> putin is a guy who murders journalist, who has destroyed the democratic process in his own country and he feels the freedom to try to do that in our country. it's not normal state -- >> to see russians happy because trump won on election night, i never saw you so unhappy. you pick sides. everybody picks sides. >> who picks sides, rick? >> it's not. >> let's get back to the facts here. >> the russians -- >> we've been seeing entities from -- we were hacking merkel's
phone, everybody does it. >> rick, here's the difference. we do it. they do it. what made this different is that the rugs weaponized it by transferring it through intermediaries to wikileaks. they dumped it out. we do it and hold it. they do it and hold it. let me finish my sentence. wikileaks was out from the end of the summer, and it was being investigated. >> so what were these headlines then. >> whoa, whoa, whoa. there were plenty of headlines and there was no proof of who did it. >> people in charge of int intelligence are political as well here. >> the intelligent gathering that normally takes place was operationalized by the russians to interfere with our elections. >> they did it in u crepe. they are doing it in germany right now. this is really serious and we're not going to get over it by just saying everybody does it. >> right. we should be solving the problem instead of making it a political hot potato. let me see the cuban missiles on
the island picture. trump needs to see it before trump needs to see it in the hearings. there are hearings on everything. they're kabuki theater. >> well, rick, if you would have been there you would have seen something different. >> i'm going to pause this conversation, we will come back, but when i come back, i'm first going to have a conversation with the outgoing secretary of listerine® kills 99% of bad breath germs for a 100% fresh mouth. feeling 100% means you feel bold enough to... ...assist a magician... ...or dance. listerine®. bring out the bold™
welcome back. there are few people who are better positioned to know what options the united states has at its disposal to retaliate against the russians for the election interference than my next guest. ash carter has been president obama's secretary of defense for the past two years, and he's watched as we've moved from a hoped-for russian reset to russian aggression in ukraine, crimea, syria and now, of course, the 2016 interference issue. secretary carter joins me now. welcome to "meet the press," sir. >> good to be here, chuck. >> let me start with what senator mccain said on thursday, he called this interference an act of war. do you agree? >> whatever you call it? it's an aggressive act against our very democracy, and that's why i think all americans need to regard it very seriously. the intelligence community came to that judgment. they reported that out this
week. they obviously did a careful job, painstaking job given the nature of it which is cyber, and that's the conclusion they came to, and it raises questions about our overall strategy with respect to russia. >> okay, but let me go to, does it require, what kind of response, do you believe it's a military response? many people do not believe it should be a cyber response. >> i think we should not limit ourselves when it's, and that part is right. i don't think it should be a military or purely military response. there has to be a response, and i think the things and the steps that have been taken so far probably represent a web gibegi and not the end, a floor, not the ceiling, and it is up to the next congress to take those steps, but suppose i believe there should be more. >> do you accept the criticism that this administration has
moved too slow in punishing the russians. >> i can't speak for the fbi and the national intelligence community. they obviously, did a very careful job. they took the time that it required them to become certain about this conclusion, but now it is what it is. they're very clear. they're very unequivocal about the judgment and the seriousness of the issue is one that all americans need to take very seriously. >> the president-elect while he's dialed back his criticism of the intelligence community, he said, as of yesterday, he tweeted having a good relationship with russia is a good thing. only stupid people or fools would think that is bad. can the united states continue to have a compartmentalized relationship with russia anymore under this circumstance which is what you pursued for a long time? >> i would not say compartmentalize, but we do have to have what i call a strong,
but also a balanced approach to russia. you know, chuck, i'll be leaving the pentagon next thursday. i first walked in there 35 years ago. it was the peak of the cold war, and at that time we had serious problems with moscow as we do now, and even then we always tried wherever possible to find common ground with russia, and work with them then. i did that after the wall came down and worked with russia and the russian military very effectively and cooperatively. what's become difficult in recent years is russia under putin has tended to define its interests as being ones of frustrating the united states rather than pursuing its own interests. they're pursuing their own interests and we can look at their interests and our interests so we need a strong policy of countering russia, but also a balanced one where we try to work with them where we can. >> has russia been an ally in this renewed effort to get out
of isis. >> no, they haven't done anything. >> would you put it the at zero? >> virtually zero. they came in and they said they were going to fight isil and they said they would help end the civil war in syria. they haven't done either of those things. the consequence, of course, we're fighting isil ourselves, we have a campaign plan that you see unfolding in mosul today in raqqah today. i'm encouraged that's going exactly according to the plan that we laid out about a year ago. in fact, iraqi security forces are approaching the tigris river as we speak today. >> secretary kerry and an exit interview of sorts, seemed to say that whatever the red line decision by president obama on syria, however folks want to interpret it now got interpreted as something was going to happen and then when nothing happened it created this vacuum. do you tend to agree with that premise? >> i wasn't secretary of defense
then. that was then and now is now. >> has it made your job harder? >> for the russian behavior in syria has certainly made the ends of the syrian civil war there harder. >> would the russians be there if the united states had forced the read line? >> i can't say that. i think the russians saw an opportunity there to play a role which could have been fine because what they said they were going to do which they could uniquely do is help assad move aside gently, bring the moderate opposition into the syrian government and put an end to the terrible tragedy there. that's what they said they would do, that's not okay. they doubled down on the syrian civil war. >> i'll ask you about something. it's related and there was an op ed this week by one of your predecessors and former secretary bill perry and he's concerned about some sort of nuclear bomb that's used somewhere, anywhere, that this is a crisis that we're not
paying enough attention to. you co-wrote an op ed with him ten years ago advocating that maybe there should be preemptive action against a north korea. north korea seems to be the one everyone is concerned about, that you would support nuclear facilities and would you advocate that now? >> that was a different circumstan circumstance, but with respect to north korea today, that's absolutely right. their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile defense program is a serious threat to us. we try to stay ahead of that and we are staying ahead of that with our missile defenses to make sure we've upgraded their number and their type so we're sure we can defend ourselves. we've deployed missile defenses in south korea, japan, guam and of course, we have 28,500 troops there today, chuck. we do every day. their slogan is fight tonight. we're ready to defend the korean peninsula and defend our friends
and interests there. so in the defense department our job is to stay one step ahead of that. >> is it policy now that if they test intermediate range ballistic missile, the united states would shoot it down? >> if it were threatening to us or one of our friends or allies, yes, we would shoot it down. >> what about a test? is that something that you would shoot down? >> we would use an intersentor, that means if it was coming into our territory or the territory of our friends and allies. >> before we leave here, there's the tragedy that happened at fort lauderdale, the gunman appears, the family believes there's some sort of trauma he received while serving overseas. obviously, this issue of ptsd is something that is a concern of our lot of our leaders in the military. do you worry that the national guard just doesn't have the ability to find these mental health problems with veterans as they get discharged soon enough? >> i can't say that that's --
>> we understand that. >> in this particular case, but ptsd and so-called invisible wounds of war is something we do take seriously. we have to take it seriously. we owe to our wounded warriors, 15 years now, including today and one of the most serious things i do is sign deployment orders and execute orders that send people into harm's way. so it matters a great deal to me that we take care of wounded warriors and the mental wounds are very real. >> and do you think we've done enough? >> we keep learning more about how to deal with this kind of illness. we're going to learn more and we need to do more as we learn more. absolutely. we owe it for these people. >> thank you for your service to the country and good luck. >> thanks. appreciate being here. back in a moment with the very real perils for republicans if they can't figure on the the replace part of obamacare. repeal and replace, that
equation. what about the replace? then rupert murdoch new york post is urging hillary clinton to run again for mayor of new listerine® kills 99% of bad breath germs for a 100% fresh mouth. feeling 100% means you feel bold enough to... ...assist a magician... ...or dance. listerine®. bring out the bold™
no, i'm scheduling time to go oto the bank to get a mortgage. ugh, you're using a vacation day to go to the bank? i know, right? just go to lendingtree.com. get up to five loan offers to compare side by side for free. wow, that's great. wait, how did you get in my kitchen? oh, i followed a raccoon in through your doggie door. [chittering]
[gasps] get a better mortgage on your schedule. not the bank's. lendingtree. when banks compete, you win. just think of him as a big cat. [chittering] with rabies. ♪ ♪ and we are back. data download time. for years now republicans have been talking about repealing and replacing obamacare, but there's been a lot more emphasis on replace than we've heard in the past. more than 20 million americans now have health insurance
through the affordable care act and my colleague, dante chinny our data guru at nbc indicate that many of those people voted for donald trump in a big-league way. let's start with grundy county, iowa. it's seen a 50% drop in those without health insurance since president obama was elected in 2014. that's well above the national average. that's a 20 percentage point drop and they voted for trump by a whopping 39 points in november and this is a pattern that holds across other kinds of counties that were trump strong holds, as well. the sparsely populated aging community of luce county, michigan, which has seen a 33% drop in the uninsured. luce county voted for trump by a 42-point margin. let's look at working-class vinton county, on high owe, where it dropped 28%. same county voted for trump by a
50, 5-0, points. it has no choice, but to dim bell onicly repeal obamacare, a campaign promise it's been making for six years, but a lot of voters, democrats and republicans could end up losing their health care if the republicans don't figure out the replace side of this equation. when we come back, how exactly do republicans plan to replace obamacare? listerine® kills 99% of bad breath germs for a 100% fresh mouth. feeling 100% means you feel bold enough to... ...assist a magician... ...or dance. listerine®. bring out the bold™
we're starting to see something of a sea change in how republicans are talking about repealing and replacing obamacare now that the gop controls the house, the senate and the white house. the promise that they've been making to voters to repeal the law shouldn't be that difficult, but this week, a growing list of republicans are successful with the repeal and replace program will be ready to go at the same time. >> i think it's imperative that republicans do a replacement simultaneous to repeal. if they don't boomcare continues to unravel. >> during the campaign he said that the repeal and replacement should take place simultaneously. okay? that to me, is the prudent course of action. >> kicking the can down the road for a year or two years will want make it easier to solve. >> the panel is back. the health care wars. rick, let me ask you, you see, you know, it's one thing to campaign. now they've got to govern. where are you? >> i think the repeal we
probably all agree on is going to happen. the issue on replace is that if you have insurance right now, just because replace doesn't come immediately when they pull the straw to repeal doesn't mean you're not going to have insurance and many out there don't understand that. i've had many insurance experts on as guests on my spots and the earliest any of these believe that you can actually implement is some of these changes is '18, maybe early, '19. i think it will be difficult to find the replace, and people need to be aware it will not affect the coverage they have and this is donald trump's test. he's a dealmaker. he's already visited many of the players, and i think that this is where his skill lies. i think he's going to make deals, and i think competition is the biggest thing he's going to bring to the table. >> it's interesting why i'm glad we led this segment also with the data download which shows, look, many of his constituents are not going to accept just a repeal. they want the replacement.
>> the big problem that conservative republicans and the freedom caucus are concerned about are the billions of dollars in tax revenues. if you repeal, you lose the money that finances a lot of this and they're using that money already so this is going to be a big problem and they don't want to blow a hole in the budget deficit. they can deplay the implementation dates and they've got a real problem. >> i want to underscore, something, it the phase in, it took three years, but it's seeing the plan immediately is the concern. >> i think, you know, the exchange markets in decay right now. they're falling apart and the insurance companies are one step out the door and they're losing large amounts of money and thinking that they'll hang around a system that's falling apart because of a system that's over three years. >> the policy sign today will be in place. >> will the coverage be as good? maybe it has to be. >> that's been the hallmark of
this plan. >> the base of the system is an insurance-based system. they were ideas built from republican ideas and mitt romney in massachusetts and the fact is republicans know that their replacement has to include some of these elements, and so i think the honest thing to do for republicans is to repeal it and replace it, and if they'd had a replacement we'd have it by now. >> think what's interesting to be interesting is will there be a dynamic where chuck shchumer and donald trump forge an alliance to come up with a compromise. >> if donald trump keeps tweeting that he's a clown probably not. not the best way to go into this. >> you want pre-existing conditions to be covered. you want young people who can stay on their parents' plan. all of these elements that people really like, and to do that you've got to have the other where you get, you know, a guarantee in the system so that it can pay for itself, and i just don't think republicans have the ideas and they want to
delay it so they can get the bonus to say yeah, we repealed obamacare. >> selling you car insurance, how would that compare with the rates you get today? >> i think many agree, being on the plan to 26. good idea. pre-existing conditions, they all have a cost so you have to find a way to pay for it, but it doesn't mean that you're going to keep or change. listen, cars have tires. you can reinvent a car, but it will still have tires. those aspects are components of health care. >> it's a silly a nnalogyanalog. >> people can keep what they have right now or it's political suicide. >> do you want to keep your plan, that's bad politics. >> it's political suicide for the democrats. the wonky thing to say is they can change the budgetary aspects and they can't change it without a much higher political hurdle and that's tough to get. >> all i have to say, democrats made a mistake when they didn't bring republicans into the
process and they owned it on. and republicans will make a mistake if they own it on this own. if it's a partisan effort on the other side we will continue to litigate. >> i think there will be big compromise. >> i think we all want to see compromise once somewhere. i have one compromise here. let's take a break. that we can all agree on. "meet the press" has expanded. we call it 1947 and that's the year the podcast was born. i talk to the andrew sullivan and chris fowler, just to name a few folks. we have a lot more interesting guests lined up and find us on itunes and the apple podcast app, the purple thing. just mash it on your phone. coming up, and the game the new york post seems to be playing saying it's time for her to run again, for mayor. we'll be right back. coming up "meet the press" every body is different, but everybody gets dry skin. feel moisturized without feeling your moisturizer
...another anti-wrinkle cream in no hurry to make anything happen. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair works... ...in one week. with the... fastest retinol formula. ...to visibly reduce wrinkles. neutrogena®. back now with "endgame." everyone is wondering what is hilldo? well, our friends at "the new york post post" has an idea, new york city needs hillary clinton to run for mayor. it seems unlikely, but the idea has been floating around for several days and so far these not rejecting it. for what it's worth, we'd love to see you run for mayor. new york needs you. the new york post loving hillary
clinton. >> the new york post hates bill de blasio and no love loss there, they're stirring the pot and no comment for team clinton and she's coming for the first time back to washington to actually speak. she's coming to the state department to dedicate a memorial wall on tuesday night, but the bottom line is that this could be a trial balloon. no one is saying it isn't. >> here's my conspiracy theory -- >> it would be a terrible idea. >> the only reason the clintons haven't put it down yet is they're having a little fun with de blasio who took forever to endorse her and it's a little political needling. >> does new york city need mayor hillary clinton? >> being from chicago and looking at our history on mayors. i never weigh on which direction it goes. >> because they're not going to pick up your garbage. >> exactly. >> she can be celebrity apprentice and apparently that's not working out. redskins coach, paul simon roadie. there are a lot of good jobs. >> defensive coordinator.
>> dawn edwards, what would you tell her? >> i would invite her on my rv road trip. >> you brought up "celebrity apprentice." donald trump and arnold schwarzenegger and, yes, okay, before viewers all start yelling at me, nbc has a conflict -- okay. it's on nbc entertainment, but clearly, trump tweets about ratings and arnold has fun with him saying you didn't have a great -- arnold tweeted right back. first, here's trump, wow! the ratings are in and arnold schwarzenegger got swamped or destroyed by comparison to the ratings machine djt. >> i wish you the best of luck and i hope you'll work for all american people as aggressively as you've worked for your ratings. >> donald trump is an executive producer of this show. why trash your own show? >> we can all debate on the tweeting and maybe it's a new way to communicate with the people as president-elect. >> how about doing it two hours before getting the intelligence
briefing on russia? >> finally, he tweeting on something he has expertise on. >> in all honestly, it's funny, this is the week, david brooks, that i thought donald trump said i'm just going to tweet what i want. this was his tweeting habit this week felt like the september donald trump. it was interesting, and boy, when you have the incoming white house press secretary saying i don't know what he's tweeting until after i see it on twitter. that's tough. >> we have to treat it like snapchat, they'll go away. >> the rest of the world is reading this stuff. >> they, too, have to acknowledge these things come out of his mind and then they go off. >> he's the president of the united states after january 20 -- >> shake it up. >> it's interesting with the tweets this week, there were three automakers, rick, that he hit. you came out hard against president obama overall. you don't like government interference in the economy. when is it too much for you?
when is it too much for your taste? >> when it doesn't benefit the u.s. economy. he's restricted on how involved he gets and i like fair markets, and free markets. there will be tax policy changes, most likely and regulatory rollbacks most likely which will change the scale of how businesses operate that aren't in this country selling products here. maybe he's giving them a head's up. >> i was told, in fact, that the ford ceo got so many calls, eight or nine separate calls from donald trump about trying to shut down other overseas operations so they finally came up with this small piece of it, but that's the kind of pressure we've seen of boeing and lockheed martin. it does raise issues. the other piece we haven't talked about is the ethics issues that have not been addressed going into the hearings. >> we'll see all of that this week. that's all i have for today. if it's sunday it's "meet the press" and next sunday it better be packers-cowboys and big shout out to the viewer who sent this.