tv MSNBC Live With Craig Melvin MSNBC May 2, 2017 10:00am-11:01am PDT
president vladimir putin on the phone in the past hour. what their conversation could mean for the growing tensions between the united states and russia. and hillary speaks. the former democratic nominee making a very public appearance any moment now. when it happens, when she starts to speak there, we will bring it to you live. but we start with president trump's speech just a few minutes ago, it was a deeply political speech, using the armed forces as a backdrop. the air force football team came to the white house rose garden in recognition of its most recent winning season. they were the recipients of a commander in chief trophy, however the president used this display to tout his own record and attack democrats, including it seemed former president obama's record on military spending. >> this week a republican team had its own victory under the radar. we are taking care of our military and we're not going to go back to what we were doing
for the last long period of time. with this major investment in america's national defense a core campaign promise of mine, we achieved the single largest increase in border security, funding in ten years. so we have more money now for the border than we've gotten in ten years. the democrats didn't tell you that. they forget. >> nbc's chris jansing at the white house where president trump's also scheduled to speak with russia's president vladimir putin in the last hour and mike viqueira on capitol hill where republicans are trying to find a way to 216 on the health care reform package. miss jansing, start with you, th was supposed to be a fairly apolitical speech. typically when you have members of the military behind you, you don't do what this president did last hour, but there was also talk of government shutdown from the president.
what was the president getting at there? >> look, not only is this usually an apolitical speech but when you talk to previous administrations a way for the president to sort of step away from the everyday pressures that it is to be president, but it was something very different here. you heard him, as we saw, talking about the budget bill and the victories that he believes he's not getting enough credit for, that there was a bipartisan agreement touting the things that he feels he got accomplished. money for the military, of course. money for border security, but not talking about the things that have made conservatives unhappy which would be things like planned parenthood and the wall. he also veered off when openly questioning what was going on with health care. you can sense the frustration now that the president has with congress and to your question, this sort of government shutdown talk really has to do with remember when the supreme court nominee was approved. they had to go to the nuclear option in the senate.
but at that time, the question was, would they ever go to a legislative nuclear option. the president has tweeted twice about this. one after the other. he said, the reason for the plan negotiated between the republicans and democrats is that we need 60 votes in the senate which are not there. we, either elect more republican senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. our country needs a good shutdown in september to fix this mess, which brought immediate reaction from republicans on the senate side. john kennedy of louisiana who's new to all this said, we're not going to change this. this is how the founding fathers set it up. orrin hatch, a long-time republican member of the senate, said i'm going to talk to him about this. we need to get him on another page in this. of course mitch mcconnell, after everything that happened with the supreme court, had said back then that was going to happen. so highly unusual what we saw today here at the white house.
the last three presidents all big sports fans, all love these events use them for what they were, which is kind of celebration of success of american sports. something very different here today. >> vick, we heard chris jansing talk about the health care bill. where are we on that? what's -- what are you hearing on the hill about that? >> well, right now they're still trying to twist arms and cajole pressure members in the house, republican members, any way they can. as we speak i'm standing outside the senate chamber. behind me, vice president mike pence is about to make his way over here from the house side where he's been meeting behind closed doors with members of the house republican conference trying to bring them along on the health care bill. what's clear, craig, at this point, is they are simply not there yet. they do not have the votes. today they lost a high-profile member of the republican conference. a former chairman of what they call an a-committee, energy and
commerce, very powerful panel on the housside, fred upton. he td his local media in western michigan he's not on board with what's happening with health care, especially this controversial provision about preexisting conditions. as we know the affordable care act, obamacare, for bid insurance companies from denying coverage for those with preexisting conditions. that's been a sticking point with conservatives. the house leadership has made conservatives happy. there was a compromise reached with the moderate group of republicans to essentially give states a waiver, let them opt out of preexisting conditions if, in fact, they can provide a high risk pools or some other sort of substitute where those individuals with preexisting conditions can go to get insurance. critics say it's going to be accessible, perhaps available, but not affordable to them. craig, a high stakes game right here but appears that it may -- they may be losing ground at this moment. remember, they had to pull the bill from the floor or didn't even make it to the floor in the house just last march.
>> there's been a lot of talk over the preexisting condition component of this bill. this is speaker paul ryan and congressman steve ska lease a short time ago addressing this controversy. >> there are a few layers of protections for preexisting conditions in this bill. >> our bill protects people with preexisting conditions and it actually provides multiple layers of protection for people with preexisting conditions in ways that obamacare doesn't do. >> so vick, we know that's essentially the biggest hangup for a lot of republican lawmakers. at this point are leaders massaging the bill in a way to win over more support or are they simply just trying to twist arms to get them to vote for the bill in its current form? >> well, that's a great point. again it gets to the confusing messaging coming out of the white house, the lack of message discipline is the only inescapable conclusion you can get from president trump on down. yesterday while vice president was -- pence was up here again,
the whip leadership, the republican leadership, meeting behind closed doors trying to come up with a strategy to get people to vote for this latest compromise, president trump said that it's not a final version of the bill. and that sort of threw a monkey wrench and set them back yet again. we should point out though whip skalease and speaker ryan said they were going to -- said they were going to -- those with preexisting conditions would have coverage, would have better coverage, that is sharply in dispute. many critics say a patchwork state by state coverage for those with preexisting conditions, uneven across the country that will be much more expensive in terms of the premiums folks will have to pay than they're paying now. craig? >> chris, really quickly here, that fphone call scheduled with vladimir putin do we know if it happened and do we expect a read out? >> we usually get a read out and we usually don't know until after the happens. we would expect that conversation to be a lot about bashar al assad and syria.
it will be for the first time a conversation that they have had since they both said relations between the two countries have reached a new low and since the united states took action against assad for gassing his own people. as you well know, sometimes what seems to be the topic of these conversations they can go on a while and veer off course as they seemed to on saturday when he issued an invitation to the president of the philippines to visit the white house causing a lot of controversy. >> who knows. he may invite russia's president as well. chris jansing from 1600, mike viqueira, good to see you, my friend. >> thanks, craig. during that speech, which again was supposed to be about the air force and football, president trump brought up the wall as well. he even seemed to politically threaten any member of congress republican or democrat who opposed it. >> and make no mistake, we are beginning to build the wall and we will keep out the gang members, criminals, drug and human traffickers, that threaten
our citizens and that threaten our security. any member of congress who opposing our plans on border security, and i know these folks didn't, is only empowering these deadly and dangerous threats and we will not put up with it and the public won't put up with it. >> rodney davis is a republican congressman from illinois and a member of the transportation and infrastructure committee. congressman, i want to get your opinion of the speech in just a moment but first of all, do you think it was appropriate to go after members of congress using members of the armed forces as a backdrop there? >> well, let's give the president some credit. he talked about historic increase in military spending at an event where we had military members, regardless of whether or not it was a sporting event ceremony or not and i think the president is not getting enough credit for helping to avoid a
government shutdown, just north of his 100-day anniversary of being in office and that's something the president needs to talk about. >> congressman, to be clear, though, i mean we, perhaps, would have had a shutdown had he continued to insist on funding for the border wall. >> well the president clearly has gotten historic amounts of funding for border security. what that method is over the next search months of this fiscal year is yet to be determined. and i believe the american people spoke that was one of their priorities because it was one of his priorities during the campaign. let's pivot to health care. the bill ints current form are you going to vote for it? >> i'm a yes. i' been an advocate because we got to look at the facts here, craig. the facts are 29 million americans right now under the affordable care act still do not have insurance even though the law requires them to. another 31 million, craig, have insurance they can't afford to use. pleemiums sky rocketing in the individual marketplace. if we don't do something, then
we're abdicating our responsible as policymakers and i wish the democrats who gave us this bill, i wish they would come to the table and offer their suggestions for this fix they keep talking about but we don't see. >> late night host jimmy kimmel as i'm sure you heard or read getting a lot of attention today for a very personal story that he shared about his newborn son and health care in general. these highlights are a bit long, but well worth the time. we've trimmed them down. take a listen and we'll talk about it on the other side. here it is. >> a little over a week ago on friday, april 21st, my wife molly, gave birth to a boy, a baby boy, his name is william kimmel. a very attentive nurse at cedars-sinai hospital, nanoosh was checking him out and heard a murmur in his heart which is common with newborn babies but noticed he was a bit purple. which is not common. but they did an x-ray and his lungs were fine. which meant his heart wasn't.
so now more doctors and nurses and equipment come in and it's -- it's terrifying thing. so we put the baby in an ambulance, to children's hospital los angeles, and on monday morning, dr. starns opened his chest and fixed one of the two defects in his heart. he went in with a scalpel and did some kind of magic that i couldn't even begin to explain. opened the valve and the operation was a success. before 2014 if you were born with conjettal heart deese like my son was there was a good chance you would never get health insurance because you had a preexisting condition. if your baby is going to die, it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make. i think that's something now whether you're a republican or a decr, or something else, we all agree on that, right? i mean we do. >> did your -- did your side make a mistake going after preexisting conditions? >> our side didn't go after
preexisting conditions. preexisting conditions and the ten essential health benefits in the affordable care act still remain. preexisting condition coverage will remain. it's just tragic to hear the story of jimmy kimmel's son and that's a story that is many hospitals throughout this nation every single day. which is why we want to protect that. look, my wife is an 18-year colon cancer survivor. she was told when she was misdiagnosed it was in her head. we stayed in -- i stayed in a job to keep the health insurance i had because of her preexisting condition. that's why i believe that our policies will row text everyone including jimmy kimmel's son and my wife. >> congressman the kaiser family foundation says that bill in its current form does not contain any specific language about premiums, benefits or eligibility basically you may say you cover preexisting conditions but the language is so vague that the bill doesn't really say that. are you saying right now that
that's not the case? that we've all gotten it wrong? >> i am saying that it's wrong. we are covering preexisting conditions. it's part of the federally mandated health benefits. many states including mine have more essential health benefits and when we continue to address a whicheverer -- waiver process that no one has picked up the phone to call a governor to ask if he or she will apply for this waiver she would still even if they applied for a waiver have to guarantee preexisting condition coverage and it's got to meet a set of standards that relate to access, accessibility, and coverage and affordability before they can even bring an innovative idea to the table. so those are the things that i believe that are wrong in this debate. when people try and mischaracterize what's actually in the bill. >> congressman rodney davis from illinois, trying to clear up some of the confusion this afternoon. congressman, thank you for your time. >> thank you. russian connection,
president trump speaking to russian president vladimir putin on the phone this after saying he would meet with the leaders of nousrth korea and the philippines. why the president is so ig eager to go one on one with tensions around the globe. live tensions from the white house briefing room. sean spicer scheduled to start that daily press briefing in the next 15 minutes or so. we are also waiting for hillary clinton to speak from new york city. that scheduled to happen any moment now. when that happens we will bring it to you live. over here! over here! no! (dog barking) whoever threw it has to go get it. not me! somebody will get it... ♪ (dog barking) anyone can dream. making it a reality is the hard part. from the b-2 to the upcoming b-21, northrop grumman stealth bombers give
america an advantage in a turbulent world. and we're looking for a few dreamers to join us. it to you live. all finished. umm... you wouldn't want your painter to quit part way, i think you missed a spot. so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with just part of a day? aleve, live whole not part. it to you live.
happening right now, three of the world's most powerful leaders are meeting today separately. we'll get to that. but this is a live picture here new york city,emratic presidential nominee hilry clinton expected to take to the stage any moment now. when it happens we'll go there live. but back to these three world leaders. president trump in a phone conversation with russian leader vladimir putin expected to talk about the crisis if syria among other things, meanwhile in russia, putin met earlier with german chancellor angela merkel. syria, ukraine, human rights. on that agenda. putin during that exchange we're told also once again denied that russia had interfered in the 2016 u.s. presidential election. let's bring in our white house correspondent for politico, michael mcfall, former u.s.
ambassador russia and msnbc contributor. tara, let me start with you, this phone call coming at a time when the relationship between russia and the u.s. is a bit strained to say the least. is this call itself a signal that the trump administration is trying to improve that relationship? >> the trump administration and during the campaign they've said that they wanted to have warmer relationships with russia, so, obviously, they've hit an all-time low after the syria missile attack and when trump himself seemed to insinuate that russia new about the chemical attack in syria by assad. it makes sense after these few weeks have passed that they would try to mend those fences if possible. this has been, you know, trump's promise that he is the one president who could deal with putin, he could take him on in his macho man, hard talking shoot from the hip diplomacy, so we'll see if this follow up call
does anything to mend this -- the fences between the two countries at an all-time low. >> mr. ams about dor in phone calls like this, typically what's discussed, how long do they usually last and what should we expect from this one? >> well, i worked at the white house for three years. i did a lot of these calls with president obama with president medvedev. back then we were in a better place with russia and they were substantiv conversations about reducing nuclear weapons in the world, sanctions on iran, getting russia into the world trait trade organization. the problem i think president trump faces is what the is the agenda of cooperation with russia. it should never be the u.s. policy. i don't care what country we're talking about, to have better relations and warmer relations. the question is what do we seek to achieve in our interaction with russia and right now, i think that agenda is pretty
small. >> what you said i suppose could be yap ply kabul to -- applicable to north korea, the philippines. i want to talk to you about something else because this made news recently the idea that president trump in his first 100, 102 days, i guess, hasn't left the country and we've got a graphic that shows president bush's trips, president obama's trips, president obama left the country nine times in his first 100 days. have we been making too much of a big deal out of this, or is that a significant statistic and if so why? >> well, i think it is significant because when a president travels, what happens within the government, within the interagency, is it forces decisions. it forces a policy review. and what you've seen so far in the trump administration is they haven't had those policy reviews. in large measure because they don't have a team to do it, right. they don't have the team at the
deputy secretary level, the undersecretary level, the assistant secretary level, so maybe that's part of the explanation. they don't know what to say on trips, and, therefore, they don't want do it. but that means that the policy review process that typically happens at the beginning of administrations, has been a lot slower in the trump era. >> tara, president putin had the face-to-face meeting with germany's chancellor angela merkel today. we also understand that president putin is meeting with turkey's erdogan in sochi tomorrow. are there any concerns inside the white house that the creme lip is starting to set the international agenda? >> i haven't heard that concern specifally, bu i could see how, you know, trump would want to be in the know on these calls and what's being decided and that, you know, realizing that putin is reaching across and trying to have conversations with others on the international stage, it may be a way to
isolate the united states. i can't see angela merkel going for that, but maybe, you know, a leader like erdogan may be more interested in building an alliance with russia, but at this time, you know, trump needs to be reaching out to international allies. this foreign trip that he's taking next month to the g-7 and possibly to israel and saudi arabia, this is a very high-stakes mission for trump. he needs to rebuild alliances with the g-7 nato. he needs to really set the trump doctrine and lay it out for these leaders and i think that, you know, he's been criticized for his foreign policy and for the flip flopping and this will be his chance like the, you know, first 100 days of the state of the union, a big moment for trump will all eyes will be on him to see how he can build allies abroad and deal with some of the threats like north korea and syria. >> mr. ambassador, after a weekend conversation, trump apparently invited the president of the philippines to the white
house, despite an atrocious human rights record. president trump also said he would, quote, be honored to sit down with north korea's kim jong-un. this is what senator john mccain had to say about the president's overtures. >> i wish that the president would consider much more carefully his comments, particularly in praise of a north korean -- he's worse than a dictator. he's a despot. i've run out of adjectives and adverbs and this guy in the philippines has praised judicial killings of people. >> ambassador what kind of message do president trump's actions send to u.s. allies, even u.s. foes? >> it's a bad message. it's a message that says he doesn't care about democracy and human rights. for decades the united states has been called the leader of the free world.
the president of the united stes is the leader of the free world and president trump to date doesn't talk about freedom. he doesn't talk about liberty and democracy. and i think that's very shortsighted. it means that we're not standing up for values and that has concerns for our allies. we treat our allies and our foes in kind of the same breath. i think in the long term that does not serve america's national interests. >> mr. ambassador, thanks to you, tara as well. hillary clinton has taken the stage at the women's international annual luncheon in new york city. let's listen in. >> your question is especially important for this organization because historically, women for women international, has worked in some of the most difficult places in the world. conflict zones, post-conflict zones, places where violence, particularly violence against women and children, is a threat for everyone. and they have gone year after
year, in these places to support women, to give women a voice to give women job training, to give women access to markets, to try to insure that women are represented when there are conversations about peace or trying to end the violence that afflicts their community or their nation. so, during the course of my years of working on behalf of these issues, this organization has been one that's really produced results and i want everybody here who is supporting it to know you really make a difference and your contributions, your frontline work, help to change lives. hundreds of thousands of women have been helped through women for women efforts. and you're being here today keeps that process going. let me just quickly say, you know, if you look at the progress that women have made,
certainly since the beijing conference in '95 that i was privileged to represent our country at -- [ applause ] that conference adopted a platform for action and it called for a quality in education, a quality in health care, equality in inheritance and property rights, things that were denied women in much of the world at that time. and it also was a platform foraction that nations were really -- for action na nations were called on to implement themselves. in the united states we made real progress in those years, both under two democratic presidents and one republican president and i want to give a shout out to laura bush who was active on behalf of afghan women and she and i co-chaired that effort. so when i did a project that was
looking at whether we had gone far enough, i learned that we made a lot of progress except in the areas that christian highlighted. peace and security where women were the primary victims of conflict, and yet, were not really giv the opportunity to be at those peace tables, to make their views known, to speak up. now there were a couple of really remarkable examples of difference like women ended in many ways the civil war in liberia and if you haven't seen the movie "pray the devil back to hell" you should because it talks about what women did. out of that came a women president. the first on the continent of africa, ellen johnson surly. and so there are other places where women being involved has made a difference and what we have to do is to raise up organizations like women for women international, that are
really on the front lines and do everything we can to institutionalize that and i am going to publicly request that this administration not end our efforts making women's rights and opportunities central to american foreign policy and national [ inaudible ]. [ applause ] >> so i don't need to ask you, i was going to ask you of what you made to the severe proposed cuts to the state department, to the usid budget and women's issues and platforms you started and what you make of the distinct lack of any women, most women, at the security and defense and peace table of this current administration? >> yeah. well i'm hoping that voices like many of yours in this room and i would say bipartisan, nonpartisan voices, will speak up for the work of diplomacy and development.
i know that secretary of defense mattis understand that. he has spoken out and said you cut the state department and the usaid budget you will have to buy me more ammunition because you cannot talk about pursuing diplomacy and development that will be to the benefit of the united states, to our security, to our values and interests, without understanding we're left with one tool in the toolbox, namely the military tool. that is a necessary tool but it should be only one of three. and diplomacy and development should be the first efforts and i'm hoping that because of voices like jim mattis and others, that that will begin to influence the administration. >> i am sure that everybody in this room, everybody in this country, frankly, everybody in the world, is really afraid of the crisis with north korea. so given that that affects, everybody including women, what
do you make of president trump saying that he would be honored to meet kim jong-un? i ask you that seriously because the dirty little secret is, that it will take, won't it, negotiations, with the north korean regime, to actually come -- i want your view on negotiations as a way to forge peace and not as a sign of weakness and appeasement. what do you think? your predent bill clinton was the last person to negotiate and cause an arms control agreement that worked with north korea? >> boy, how much time do we have? this is one of those wicked problems that people who get the honor of holding a position like i did, really spent a lot of time on. so briefly as i can, let me say this, first of all, there has to be a regional effort to
basically incentivize the north korean regime, to understand that it will pay a much bigger price regionally, primarily from china, if it pursues this reckless policy of nuclear weapons development and very dangerously for us, the missiles that can deliver those nuclear packages to places like hawaii and eventually the west coast of the united states. i take this threat very seriously. but i don't believe that we alone are able to really put the pressure on this north korean regime that needs to be placed. now, the north koreans are always interested, not just kim jong-un, but his father, before him, were always interested in trying to get americans to come to negotiate, to elevate their status and their position. and we should be very careful about giving that away.
you should not offer that in the absence of a broader strategic framework to try to get china, japan, russia, south korea, to put the kind of pressure on the regime that will finally bring them to the negotiating table with some kind of realistic prospect for change. as christian said, there was a negotiation in the '90s that put an end to one aspect of their nuclear program. two ways to make it, plutonium, uranium, shut down the plutonium and then a few years later there was evidence that they were cheating. and i think that there was -- i said this publicly before, i think the bush administration ear erred and said they're cheating we're not doing anything with them. but because they withdrew, from any kind of negotiations, the uranium program started up. negotiations are critical but have to be part of a broader
strategy not thrown out on a tweet some morning let's get together and, you know, see if we can't get along and maybe we can, you know, come up with some sort of a deal. that doesn't work. [ applause ] >> did the syria strike work? >> well, i think it's too soon to really tell. >> did you support it? >> yes. i did support it. i didn't publicly support it because there was, you know -- that wasn't my role. but i did support it. but i am not convinced that it really made muc of a difference and don't know what kind of potentially, you know, back room deals were made with the russians. i mean we later learned that the russians and the syrians moved jets off the runway, that the russians may have been given a head's up even before our own congress was, so i think there's a lot that we don't really yet
fully know about what was part of that strike and if all it was was a one off effort, it's not going to have much of a lasting effect. and, you know, syria is another one of those wicked problems which everybody is, you know, desperately trying to figure out how to stop a civil war, how to prevent iran from increasing its influence, how to prevent russia from having a real foothold in the middle east which is something that they are desperately seeking. so now turkey and what it's going to do is a big question mark as well. so there's lots that this strike had really nothing do with that are critical issues that still have to be addressed. >> i'm going to come back to russia in a moment. it's, obviously, vital. i want to ask you as a woman and we're dealing with issues that affect women all over the world, what do you imagine your election as the first female president of the united states, might have said to the world and to the women of the world, who
were looking for validation for somebody to shatter that highest and hardest ceiling? >> i think it would have been a really big deal, and i think that -- [ applause ] i think that -- -- [ applause ] and you know, ile wright a book and it's a painful process, reliving the campaign, as you might guess, but i think that partly here at home, there were important messages that that could have sent to our own daughters, grand daughters, grandsons and sons, but i think especially internationally. you know, i've had the great privilege of traveling around the world visiting in many different settings, far from the
formal palaces or offices where leaders are, but into villages, down dusty roads, meeting with people, many of whom are the kind of women that women for women international are helping. and there is still so much inequity, so much unfairness, so much disrespect and discrimination toward women and girls, so have we made progress? yes, we have. have we made enough? no, we haven't. and it's not a minor issue. it's not a luxury issue. you get to after everything else is resolved. it is central to the maintenance, stability, sustainability of democracy, of human rights, it is critical to our national security. you look at places where women's rights are being stripped away, they are the places most likely to either catalyze or protect
terrorism, or create ideologies that are antitheatricalle to women's lives and futures. it's not an accident. and so part of what i really believe is that women's rights is the unfinished business of the 21st century. there is no more important larger issue that has to be addressed. [ applause ] >> given that then, i wonder if you can address, you've spoken eloquently about the sexism, misogyny and inequity around the world but do you believe it exists here still, and do you think -- do you think -- were you a victim of misogyny and why do you think you lost the majority of the white female vote? the security moms, the people who want to be protected from the kinds of challenges you're talking abouright now. >> right. well, you know, the book is coming out in the fall. but we're --
>> just to give you a tiny little preview, yes. i do think it played a role. i think other things did as well. every day that goes by we learn more about some of the unprecedented interference, including from a foreign power whose leader is not a member of my fan club and so i think it is -- it is real, it is very much a part of the landscape politically and socially and economically. an example that has nothing to do with me personally is this whole question of equal pay. we just had equal payday in april which is how long women have to work past the first of the year to make the equivalent of what men make the prior year in comparable professions and we know it's a problem in our country. it's not something that exists somewhere far away. it exists right here.
and it's really troubling to me that we are still grappling with how to deal with an economy to ensure that people who do the work that is expect of them get paid fairly and equally. so yes, there are many, many representations of that, many kinds of examples of that. and yes, it was a role in this election, and i will have a lot to say about it and i think that it is something that, whatever your political party, whatever your particular ideological bent, you have a stake as a woman and a man, to go back to your very first comment, in ensuring that the promise of quality, that we hold out, and the efforts that so many women and men have made over the decades to secure it, don't go backwards and i think we're not
just at a stalled point, i think we are potentially going backwards. for example, real quickly, on equal pay, a number of cities and states have said one of the problems about equal pay is when you hire people, you say what was your last pay. so if you're a young woman, and and you say what your pay is, then a slight bump looks fair but it's not because you've got built in inequity. what is happening in current times in some places i think is quite troubling because there is a great effort to make sure that localities don't pass laws ta prevent employers from asking about past pay. as somebody who has employed a lot of people over the course of my professional life, men and women, it's the case when you offer a job to a young person that is a bump up in pay and respect and responsibility,
young women almost always say to me, do you think i can do it. do you think i'm ready? young men basically say, what took you so long. so this is something we have to clear out the could bwebs and s there shouldn't be differences and we've seen a lot of evidence in the last months that tech industry, the forefront of our economy, is still mired in pay inequities. how do we get out of it if we don't set some standards, some metrics, and one of these is don't ask, what's the job supposed to pay, and if the person has the qualifications, pay that person, man or woman, what the job requires, right. [ applause ] >> sorry, to bring you back to that leader of that foreign country who is not a member of your fan club. >> yeah.
>> what do you make of a journal whois basically said that -- who basically said, in fact, president putin hated you so much it was personal, that he was determined to thwart your ambitions. do you buy that? >> well, he certainly interfered in our election. and it was clear he interfered to hurt me and help my opponent and if you chart my opponent and his campaign's statements, they quite coordinated with the goals that that leader who shall remain nameless had. so yeah, look, think russia is a great country and i think the russian people are extraordinarily talented and i think they are badly governed and i think they have been denied their opportunities to
really join the modern world in a way that will lift them all up. and i also think that when their president came back after having take an time-out to be prime minister, he rigged the elections for the parliament and i was your secretary of state and we do speak out about rigged elections. that kind of goes with the territory. at least it did prior to this administration. and so i did say it was an illegitimate election and it had been rigged and people -- you know, i wasn't telling hundreds of thousands even millions of russians something they didn't know, so they go out in the streets and moscow and st. petersburg and demonstrate and putin blames me that i'm the one who got all those people in the streets. so, it kind of went downhill from there. >> it did. it did. >> before i ask you whether you would have invited president
duterte to washington or the white house, can i just ask you something, because again, i think many people in the room, look, whenever anybody says they're going to speak to secretary clinton, there's a -- your supporters are sad, they're devastated, disappointed and some angry, and some say, you know, could it have been different, could the campaign have been better? could you have had a better rationale? we had one message, your opponent, a successful message, make america great again. where was your message? do you take any personal responsibility? >> oh, of course. i take absolute responsibility. i was the candidate. i was the person who was on the ballot and i am very aware of, you know, the challenges, the problems, you know, the shortfalls that we had, again, i will write all this out for you, but i will say this, i've been in a lot of campaigns and i'm
very proud of the campaign we ran and i'm very proud of the staff and the volunteers and the people who are out there day after day, a -- [ applause ] it wasn't a perfect campaign. there is no such thing. but i was on the way to winning until the combination of jim comey's letter on october 28th and russian wikileaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off and the evidence for that intervening event is, i think, compelling persuasive and so we overcame a lot in the campaign, we overcame an enormous barrage of negativity, of false equivalency and so much else, but as nate silver, who, you know, doesn't work for me, he's an independent
analyst, but one considered to be very reliable, you know, has concluded, you know, if the election had been on october 27th i would be your president. and it wasn't. it was on october 28th and there was just a lot of funny business going on around that and ask yourself this, within an hour or two of the "hollywood access" tape being made public, the russian theft of john po desto's e-mails hit wikileaks. what a coincidence. you can't make this stuff up. did we make mistakes? of course we did. did i make mistakes? oh, my gosh yes. you'll read my confession and my -- my request for absolution. but the reason why i believe we lost, were the intervening events in the last ten days. and i think you can see i was leading in the early vote, i had a very strong not just our polling and data analysis, but a
very strong assessment going on across the country about where i was in terms of, you know, the necessary both votes and electoral votes. i did win more than 3 million votes than my opponent. so it's like -- [ applause ] really. >> i feel a tweet coming. >> well, fine. you ow, better that than interfering in foreign affairs. if he wants to tweet about me i'm happy to be, you know, the diversion because we've got lots of other things to worry about. and he should worry less about the election and my winning the popular vote than doing some other things that would be important for the country. >> just briefly, we have to finish on some other stuff, but once the result was known, did you call president obama? what did you say to him?
>> yeah. i called president obama. and i called donald trump. yeah. >>laughter ] >> did you have any message for president obama? >> you know, look. i mean i was very proud to serve in his administration. i said ad nauseam during the campaign i did not think president obama got the credit he deserved for saving our economy, for passing the affordable care act. i just didn't think he got that credit. [ cheers and applause ] so, look. again, you can read all about this excruciating analysis that i'm engaged in right now. when i'm not in the woods walking with my dog. >> is it good therapy? [ laughter ] >> i wouldn't say that it is therapy. i would say that it is cathartic
because, you know, it's very difficult to succeed a two-term president of your own party. that is a historical fact. and democrats haven't done it since, lord knows, like the 1820s on '30s. long time ago. the republicans did it once with george h.w. bush succeeding reagan. so it was -- others may not have realized it. i always knew it was going to be a hard election, but i thought that at the end of the day, we had made it clear we were -- you know, i wasn't going to appeal to people's emotions in the same way that my opponent did, which i think is, frankly, what's getting him into all kinds of difficulties now in trying to fulfill these promises that he made. because health care is complicated. [ laughter ] and so is foreign policy.
and other stuff that land on a president's desk. if it is easy, it doesn't get to the president's desk. so the stuff ends up on your desk. and i'd obviously given a lot of thought about what kind of president i wanted to be, what i thought we could do, and i believe that we could build on the progress that we had made under president obama. now, that was not as exciting as saying, throw it all out and start over again. but i think it is how you make change in america that is lasting change, that is going to actually improve people's lives. so i was very proud of e policies we put forth. i kept waiting for the moment. i watched a million presidential debates in my life, and i was waiting for the moment when one of the people asking the questions would have said, well, so exactly how are you going to create more jobs?
right? i mean i thought that -- you know, i thought at some moment that would happen. and i was ready for that moment. [ laughter ] if some of you who are maybe debate junkies remember, in that first debate, my opponent actually made fun of me for preparing. so i said, yes, i did prepare for the debate, and i'll tell you something else i prepared for. i prepared for being president. and i think -- you know -- [ applause ] -- it's not exactly headline grabbing. i understand that. but, you know, i can't be anything other than who i am, and i spent decades learning about what two take to move our country forward, including people who, you know, clearly didn't vote for me, to try to make sure that we dealt with a lot of these hard issues that are right around the corner, like robotics and artificial
intelligence and things that are really going to be up-ending the economy for the vast majority of americans, to say nothing of the rest of the world. so, you know, i'm now back to being an activist citizen and part of the resistance. [ cheers and applause ] >> i could end it there, because that's a good ending. [ laughter ] but i'm sure the ladies and gentlemen in this room would want to kno one more thing. peace, security, is all about poverty, alleviating the worst of the worst that women have to endure. you mentioned robotics and technology. we're in this massive political youp siupside down populist wav right now, people thinking jobs are going to come back by looking inwards. what would you say to men and
women here, there and everywhere about actually the reality of the labor market? >> i'd say a couple of things. we have to make investments in even more comprehensive job training and education to provide the skills that are going to be necessary. and we have to invest in certain sectors of the economy where we think we can stay ahead of the technological wave. and we're not going to be able to do that if you have massive tax cuts that benefit people like us. it's not going to happen. we will end up in a terrible deficit. the debt will explode. and investment will shrink dramatically. so you need a strategy. another really boring word. which i think was what you saw happening in the obama administration. a lot of the pieces of it. and you need to recognize that
trying to provide opportunities to people everywhere requires investments everywhere, but that doesn't mean good jobs will be everywhere. so for example, if you don't have access toroadband, which large parts of america do not. not just rural, suburban and rural, but predominantly rural, you are not going to attract and keep the jobs of the 21st century. that's just a fact. and so why would a private company go in to those areas when there are not very many people and there's not a big profit margin? so you've got t d whate did back in the day in this country and helped to electrify. so, yeah, utilities are going in to places where there is a market, but you're going to have to provide some kind of subsidy,
some sort of floor to get everywhere. if you drive around in some of the places that beat the heck out of me, you cannot get a cell coverage for miles. and so you don't -- and even in towns. you know, the president was just in harrisburg. i was in harrisburg during the campaign. and after it was over i in et with a bunch of people. one of the things that they said was, there are a lot of places right here in central pennsylvania where we don't have access to high-speed affordable internet. we have dial-up. and you know, we don't have kids in a lot of places who have the technical capacity to actually do the homework assignments that they are given. we're talking about places that are not the outback of alaska. they are within easy drive of urban areas. so you got to have a strategic plan about what you're trying to deliver so that people can have
choices. and we now have more people working in solar than we do working in coal. now if we don't continue to promote solar and wind -- [ alapplause ] -- we not only beat up the environment, we lose our jobs. china will eat our lunch in the solar investing and creating jobs for people that are jobs of the future. health care. big job opportunity. if the republicans repeal the affordable care act, jobs drop. they don't increase. because there's no revenue stream to pay for those jobs. everything is connected. and if you do a one-off kind of political approach, you d't understand the connectivity. and so i think there's a lote can do. one of the hopes i had is that we could have a really serious national conversation about robotics and about artificial
intelligence. both their promise and their peril. and what could be done about it. and what kind of floor of income would people need to be able to be anywhere near self-sufficient. so these problems are not going to go away just because they're not addressed. they're just going to hammer people over and over again and create more anxiety and insecurity and anger, which then undermines or democracy, which then puts at risk our freedoms. so this is all part of what we've got to be thinking about. and i'm hoping that the private sector will help us lead the way on this, and that eventually people within this administration and the congress will understand this is not -- this is not some kind of subject that people like i talk about, but this is really imperative to the future of our economy and the opportunities that people
have for themselves and their kids going forward. >> hillary clinton, thank you very much. >> thank you very much. [ applause ] thank you. thank you all. thank you! welcome to the top of the 2:00 hour. i am katy tur. you've just been watching hillary clinton make quite a bit of news there with christiane am pour at that panel. she was asked about the election. very obviously. and whether or not she thought she was a victim of sexism and misogyny. she said i think it played a role. also said that it was unprecedented the interference from russia. she believes that played a role as well. and james comey, the fbi director, and his letter to congress in october that said that they were looking into the clinton e-mails once again. she