Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC Live With Steve Kornacki  MSNBC  June 26, 2017 1:00pm-2:01pm PDT

1:00 pm
all right. that brings us this busy hour to a close for me. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. ♪ hi, everyone. it's 4:00. it's a campaign promise 18 montmont months in the making. the supreme court upheld the travel ban from six jm %-ppete, i have been watching y8 all daz unfair. what happens next?$5l&$0jñ1ql >> reporter: well, the next part is easy.
1:01 pm
daysúlñ" then the"z óep[$l fede1 this çcs÷mean?umyi.@%#u; they'll begin to carry out the l~áéóòzñb0yl xwl)"d7>f
1:02 pm
1:03 pm
1:04 pm
but regardless, nicolle, politically, the white house is seizing on this as what they believe is a clear victory. unit's because they would like one right now. the president would like to be able to come out into the rose garden behind me in about an hour from now and open his remarks with prime minister modi by saying that he has achieved a victory or at least has a political win when it comes to the supreme court issue on one of the key presidential priorities. that is what you have seen from this administration down the line. discussion about national security. and that was part of what this decision was about. and this is what the white house is seizing on and it is likely to continue to seize on, at least from the department of justice perspective down the
1:05 pm
road which is that the administration will argue what it has been. that the president has the authority to protect national security council. i'll tell you this. you saw the prime minister arrive just in the last few minutes on the south lawn. i was here so i couldn't be there but one of our camera folks over there says the president was shouted a question about this decision and he said he feels good, very good about it. not so wordy from the president but at least a little something before we see him potentially talk about this in the rose garden. >> he'll save more words for twitter i'm sure. let me bring in the massachusetts attorney general and she has been fighting the trump administration on this travel ban. she tweeted today, president trump's discriminatory travel ban undermines the rule of law, i look forward to continuing our fight in the supreme court. who are the losers of today's decision? who gets hurt? >> well, i think that what is significant about today's
1:06 pm
decision, nicolle, are a couple of things. we have been fighting this unlawful ban since january 27th. and once again, the supreme court ruled as other courts have in the past that this ban in large part cannot go into effect. it's a really significant win for the states because it protects our students, our workers, those in our colleges and universities who are looking to come here and teach or do research. those in our hospitals who are coming here to study or to contribute and make contributions to the health care system here. so it's really good decision and it's not a surprise either, nicolle, that the court has said we're going to take this up after a full briefing in the fall. we always knew this was the kind of matter that was going to be headed for the supreme court. we look forward to working together as states to prepare our briefing and get ready for argument in the fall. >> what if you lose? >> i'm sorry? >> what if you lose the case in the fall? i mean, what if the supreme court finds that it is within
1:07 pm
the president's authority to ban travel from these six countries for national security purposes? i mean the president obviously is feeling like he's on the road to victory and i'm sympathetic with your cause, but what if you are not successful or do not prevail in front of the supreme court in the fall? >> well, let me tell you something. first of all, donald trump declaring victory shouldn't confuse anyone. he's been wrong about the law so many times and he has a tendency to declare victory on things which aren't actual victories and today is another illustration of that. so we'll put the president's comments aside, but here's what we're focused on, nicolle. when we brought this suit it was because we had concerns about the impact that this ban was going to have on our economy. on our colleges and universities, on our research institutions and on families and communities here in our states, and we're pleased to see this kind of decision today that keeps that ban from going forward. that's really important. we'll wait and see what the
1:08 pm
supreme court rules -- when this gets to argument and when a decision comes fall. in the meantime, i know that i'm going to join my colleagues in continuing to talk about this and to stand up for the rights of americans to stand up for the rights of immigrants and to respect american values. that was really what was so wrong about the president's so-called muslim ban which he's admitted to time and time again that's essentially what this was about. we look forward to our day in court but again it's good news today for the students, for the workers and refugees. for those in the health care community who we need and we welcome certainly here in massachusetts as providing meaningful contributions, not just to our state but to our country. i'm glad that the supreme court recognized that today. >> all right. please come back and check in with us at every critical juncture here. obviously covering all of your efforts closely. thank you so much for spending some time with us today and giving ussior reaction. before we dig into all of
1:09 pm
this with our panel i want to look back at how we got here. >> donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. this is the protection of the nation from foreign terrorists entering into the united states. >> airports across the country, crowded with demonstrators saturday night. >> no fear, refugees are welcome here. >> do you feel like you and your staff there you're in control of events at the white house? >> to say we're in control is a substantial understatement. we have equal branches of government in this country. the judiciary is not supreme. there's no such thing as judicial supremacy. what the judges did both at the ninth and at the district level was to take power for themselves, that belongs squarely in the hands of the
1:10 pm
president of the united states. >> nearly six weeks after president trump touted extreme vetting a far more reserved rollout today out of public view. the white house tweeting this photo of the president signing the revised executive order. >> this is a watered down version of the first one. this is a watered down version and let me tell you something. i think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way which is what i wanted to do in the first place. >> msnbc's chief legal correspondent ari melber is joining me right now, along with our panel. jess mcintosh now executive editor, and a former adviser to marco rubio and a former senior adviser to the clinton campaign and an msnbc analyst. so ari, i'm officially confused. so the white house and the president is calling this a victory. and one of its chief opponents the attorney general of massachusetts is calling it a good day. >> i guess lawyers are like
1:11 pm
political hacks sometimes. >> is -- who's spinning? >> i think it is a partial victory for the trump administration which is better than what they were expecting because lower courts around the country had done a pretty much a full blockage of the order until we get to the actual court case, right, and the supreme court came in and said, no, that's too broad because that basically puts the potential rights of foreign nationals who have no link to the united states, who have no rights under any sort jurisprudence above a power of the president. >> i thought he touted a muslim ban and that made it discrim thattory in nature. >> you can really take the entire case down to the who versus the why. and the lower courts had focused on the why. they looked at the footage you just play and they said, you have a person running for the highest office in the land
1:12 pm
saying out loud, let's do religious discrimination and if you look at it through that lens, the why, if you believe that's why he did it and don't believe he's changed or evolved as his lawyers have claimed that makes it harder to uphold. >> why did the supreme court -- >> they didn't look at why. this ruling is all about the who. and the who is we're going to look at this order for what it says, and the foreign nationals don't have traditionally rights here. so they can't even necessarily get into court to challenge this and they can have the order enforced against them. the other folks who have a link to the u.s., whether through a family member, say you have a friend or you hire somebody for you show, a job or a relationship, that's a link they're still protected so the attorney general you had on the show say this is legally accurate. >> can they look at it in the
1:13 pm
fall -- >> they can and they will. >> what do you think will happen? >> i think it's fascinating when you look at this ruling what strikes me is the lower courts were all about trump. the tweets, the drama. the language that any lawyer would encourage a client not to use. and this ruling -- >> forget about a lawyer. isn't just flatout offensive and discriminatory? wasn't that the whole case against it morally, was it was un-american? >> yeah. also that. and -- >> that. >> and in 2016 you had a candidate running on that. i don't care what religion it is. in other words you believe in the inequality or you don't. it doesn't matter that it's muslim. i happen to be jewish and others are christian or mormon. the idea that someone was saying let's ban something because of their faith is appalling. i want to fair and make the argument. the other argument that trump supporters and his lawyers make is he has grown. he has changed. >> what? what? who thinks that? let me talk to them.
1:14 pm
he has -- who says that? >> i'm just telling you his lawyers -- >> oh, my, i need a drink. joel. >> they make the argument -- >> that's the legal argument, that he's grown and changed, are you serious? >> i'm dead serious. just to finish the point in fairness, they say that the order does not use the word muslim or the word islam. i'm not saying it's a winning argument. >> does anyone think he's not trying to ban muslims? >> you had three justices sign on today to what thomas wrote basically saying that they believe he's got a likelihood of success when it goes before the full court. that may be, you know, saber rattling and maybe sending one strong signal but the fact that there were only two shy away from reinstating the whole thing as written to me is the most worrisome thing -- not an argument. >> let's create our own alternate facts. say marco rubio had one and he
1:15 pm
looked at the six countries that president trump had put on a list as countries that may not have great internal domestic security. do you think that -- i mean, to me the variable is that the person who became president was for banning all muslims. mine, do you think that the policy in and of itself is sound? do you think republicans -- >> of course not. the policy of saying you're going to ban people from certain countries is a great recruiting tool for isis in those countries. that's the policy problem with this -- with what the president has done and the white house never tried to explain that to people. they never tried to explain why this policy was good. so the argument -- the argument for why it was a bad policy is well established. people like my former boss like marco rubio have voiced the concerns. that's the policy argument. i think that now it's in the supreme court it's a constitutional argument. does the president and in times of national emergency like of war on terror, can he ban people from certain countries i think is an interesting constitutional argument. this is bad politics for trump
1:16 pm
period. this is very unpopular. now it's being pushed into this fall when they're doing other stuff. >> do you think this makes the potential of making a kennedy resignation more fraught for democrats? >> nothing more fraught than a kennedy resignation and you need to pay attention to this week. we had three dissenting justices saying they want to uphold trump's muslim ban in whole. the one that confused all the green card holders, the one that banned refugees. >> and iraqi translators. >> who helped our army. they want to implement that. there's a reason we don't hear what's the reason for wanting to ban muslims. this isn't anybody policy benefit. nothing that up helps our national security with this muslim ban. that's why he's doing it, it's political. his lawyers rightfully don't want him to say that because
1:17 pm
that's not american or constitutional. >> last word. >> look the last word is the best news for the white house in here is you have a procuring opinion, which means unsigned but representing the court this is a serious power. the court is interested in who happens to be more than being president right now. the interest in preserving national security is quote an urgent objective of the highest order to prevent the trump administration from pursuing that objective, would appreciably injure its interests. that's good news, but doesn't mean they'll ultimately win. >> you have to hold my hand every step of the way. >> you got it. a super pac aligned with president trump takes aim at fellow republican, one of a growing numb of no votes. i said mean first, said no president ever, except president trump when he heard that president obama called the republican health care plan mean. and alone time. the associated press reports that president trump is eager to
1:18 pm
meet one-on-one with vladimir putin with full diplomatic bells and whistles when they're both at a summit next month. not everyone at the white house is on board. ahh. where are mom and dad? 'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico! goin' up the country. love mom and dad' i'm takin' a nap. dude, you just woke up! ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides.
1:19 pm
at planters, we put fresh roawhich has its, guys, know anything about this missing inventory?
1:20 pm
wasn't me! the cheeks don't lie, chet... irresistibly planters. yogig-speed you know what's not awesome? when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids. and these guys. him. ah. oh hello- that lady. these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh. sure.
1:21 pm
still yes! you can get it too. welcome to the party. introducing gig-speed internet from xfinity. finally, gig for your neighborhood too. health care is a very complicated subject from the standpoint that you move it this way and this group doesn't like it. you move it a little over here, you have a very narrow path. and honestly, nobody can be totally happy. even without the votes. forget about votes. this has nothing to on the with votes.
1:22 pm
this has to be do with picking a plan that everybody's going to like. i'd like to say love. but like. but we have a very good plan. >> ali velshi is joining me now because we have breaking news. a congressional budget office sees 22 million more uninsured by 2026. someone printed it big enough for my eyes to see. what does that mean? >> that's the headline. by 2026, there would have been 28 million people who didn't have insurance. for whatever reason. whether they weren't part of the exchanges, didn't choose to buy insurance. that would have been the problem to solve. under the senate approved plan that number would be 49 million so we're comparing everything now versus obamacare. what the cbo refers to as current law. so under the senate plan, 22 million more people would be uninsured. 22 million fewer people would have insurance than they would
1:23 pm
by 2026 under obamacare. the cbo is very detailed. it takes about -- talks about the effects on the deficit and on premiums. we both got it at the same time so i'm not as far down the report yet to give you those pieces of information. but i throw this caution out at this point in the discussion. and that is, when talking about the effects on people, we need to talk about the effects of total cost not just premiums. there's always a way to get premiums as you know nicolle, lower or higher. you need to find out what you get for the premiums. we use the benchmark of the silver plan in obamacare. what would have happened, that's what the cbo uses as well, but unfortunately i have to take a quick look at it to figure out what those numbers are. i can bring that to you as soon as i got it. the other big thing that we're looking at is the effect on medicaid. you have been having this discussion i know as have many people. i want to give you perspective on this. there are 10 million people in the individual insurance market
1:24 pm
under obamacare. so when we talk about the death spiral and the imploding obamacare, we're talking about 10 million people. it's not a small number, it's very significant, very important. there are 70 million people on medicaid. there are far more people on medicaid than there were at the beginning of obamacare. so the effect on medicaid in this legislation is much bigger than the effect on the individual insurance market. those are the two pieces of information to look at very closely and i will carry on through this and then i'll get back to -- >> yeah, we'll keep a camera on you. i can see the steam coming out of your ears. kasie hunt, does this achieve the president's stated goal of wanting the senate bill to have more heart than the house bill? >> reporter: well, nicolle, i'm digesting it and so are members on capitol hill right along with you on air. i have not found anyone yet the
1:25 pm
hallways to ask about it. as soon as i do i'll bring it to you. i think the reality this number is not significantly different to the point where it will affect the underlying politics of this if a major way. this is relatively similar. i don't want to minimize 1 million people who they say would have insurance under this plan who would have lost it under the house plan, but at the same time, 22 million people not having insurance who would have it under current law is a very difficult number that explains a lot about why so many republicans have been so much trouble defending this law. it's become easier i would say, i talked to a number of senators before this report came out today who have essentially been saying, look, this market is breaking over time. medicaid's unsustainable over time, the obamacare individual market is breaking over time and this is something that will make them sustainable in the long term. so that's the pro argument on this side. but that said, there are still so many senators who are undecided and who are in a very
1:26 pm
difficult position here and when you think about kind of the polls of these two camps you have dean heller on the one hand saying this is not a solution, medicaid's insurance for all the people and it will fundamentally hurt it. on the other side you have conservatives saying this doesn't repeal obamacare. this doesn't fulfill the promise that i said i would make to my constituents. so i think that essentially what this report means is that you're going to have a basic status quo from a political perspective as far as how this argument plays out. of course, what it does in a practical way is give republicans what they need to move forward with a vote on this. they have to have a cbo score to have a senate floor vote. we're anticipating procedural votes, john cornyn told my colleague frank thorpe as soon as tomorrow, more likely wednesday. and then the votes on the final passage later this week. >> i want to ask you about where things stand politically, kasie. you talked about the two factions in the house where the conservatives feel they have
1:27 pm
promised and should they run for president again if you're ted cruz or rand paul, that they want to be able to say that they were for a full repeal. you have got -- i don't know that moderate is the right term, but you have folks in states where they're worried about the numbers of people that rely on their medicaid dollars. i mean, what are the prospects for passage even without this cbo number and is that mcconnell's goal -- passage, or is its simply to say to the white house, hey, i got a bill to the floor. you know, you couldn't convince them, maybe if you weren't tweeting it was mean and had no heart it would have made it easier for us. >> i think at the end of the day mitch mcconnell wants to pass a obamacare repeal law. it has a lot of mitch mcconnell's very long standing, long held entitlement controlling spending reduction priorities in it. right, if you think about what mitch mcconnell has spent his career trying to accomplish i think this bill is a good representation of a lot of that. but that said, i think there's
1:28 pm
clearly a sense here and it's surprised a lot of long time hill watchers and reporters i talk to every day, there seems to be a sense that mitch mcconnell is willing to put this on the floor even if he doesn't have 50 votes and that is a very different strategy than one that we have seen him employ in the past. kind of contrary to the conventional wisdom of how this place works but it might accomplish giving the people who want to be able to go home to say, hey, i voted against obamacare. i voted to repeal it. take the procedural vote for example. that's what dean heller said i'm going to vote against this motion to proceed, a motion to get us on the bill. if in fact there are senators who want to vote for this and say i repealed obamacare they'd be able to do that. even if in fact it ultimately fails. so it's a little bit of a complicated chess match going on over here. >> kasie, some reporting on the house side they feel like they were hung out to dry by the president that then called their bill mean.
1:29 pm
is there any undercurrent on the hill of feeling like they have their president in their party rapidly responding and not in a good way to their own legislative efforts? >> i think that there was some frustration around those comments. i talked to mark meadows on friday. he have the one who led that conservative revolt. they seem to be coordinating pretty closely with the conservatives in senate, with ted cruz, rand paul and mike lee. if they vote yes on this, you might see the house conservatives say, okay, fine, if it's a bill that ted cruz could vote for, it's a bill i can vote for. i think that's what's going on behind the scenes from an optics perspective. my sense is that, you know, essentially the senators went to the president and said, we can't vote for something that does this, so the president has been out there basically saying i want to cut a deal so let's change it, let's make it less mean. i think it's -- it's not necessarily playing out up here the way you might expect. >> kasie, stay with us if you can. ali velshi has some new analysis
1:30 pm
on premiums. >> i wish i had graphics for you, in 2018 under the new plan, premiums would be 20% higher than under obamacare. by 2019, they'd be 10% higher. by 2020, 30% lower. and by 2026, 20% lower. there's a piece of math you have to understand here, however. the congressional budget office has been calculating the basic obamacare silver package as being a value of 70%. called an actuarial value. what they're saying is under the new senate program so many things will be taken out like the possibility of guaranteeing essential health benefits that they're taking it from 70% down to 58%. you don't need to know what the numbers are. except to say that you'll be paying lower premiums as you and i just discussed, lower premiums for less actuarial value, less insurance value. it's not an apples to apples comparison. either that the premiums are going up or going down.
1:31 pm
you're getting less insurance for it in the end. so again, within a few hours we'll have all of the math done whether we can give you an apples to apples comparison. remember this you'll hear people saying premiums will be lower by 2020, all the way through to 2026. you'll pay less but also get less. >> stay with us. joining me now is doug holtz eakin, a former executive of the cbo. you have explained a lot of these kinds of reports to me. explain the good news and the bad news for senators who are asked to consider this in a very short timetable. and make tough votes for a lot of them. >> well, i think the surprising news is that this bill saves about $200 billion over the next ten years than the house passed bill. for the fiscal conservatives in the senate who are looking for something to support that's good news. a more aggressive deficit reduction bill. it has about the same coverage implications. i think that's a bit of a surprise. they worked hard to front load a lot of, you know, cost sharing
1:32 pm
reduction money, the kind of things they expected to bring premiums down more sharply. and so i think, you know, the senate republicans are a little disappointed by that. it's essentially the same coverage, but to my eye, you know, the core of this remains the medicaid reforms. those are reforms that i believe anyone who looks at the budget knows are inevitable. they might not be these reforms but we'll reform medicaid and they have to stand behind the net impact of better economic policy, lower economic burden, entitlement reforms and cutting some deficits in the process of targeting help to the most needy americans. >> well, entitlement reform oftentimes doesn't happen even if it's the right thing because entitlement reform is also known as taking things away from the most vulnerable citizens. >> absolutely. >> you had susan collins talking about how she was a no vote at this point or probably a no vote because she was worried about the most vulnerable citizens in
1:33 pm
her state. it seems to me we're only talking about covering 1 million more of the most vulnerable people in this country. it doesn't feel like the politics changed one iota based on this score. what do you think? >> i think the difficulty that the senate republicans are having is breaking through and trying to make the point that there isn't a single kind of medicaid beneficiary. if you're elderly or disabled or a needy child, this is no news to you. there's just as much money in there and that's a lot of money from the perspective of the future. instead, the cuts are more focused on those individuals who are above the poverty line and some would argue don't need such access to a social safety net, who are prime age and of working age. i think that is a very different picture than saying we have the neediest, the old, the young, the sick getting their medicaid reduced. >> i want to bring in ashley parker, white house reporter from "the washington post" and an msnbc contributor. very happy to say the last part
1:34 pm
of that. ashley, i know we haven't heard from the white house yet but do you think this achieves the goal that the president had to make the senate bill less mean and to give it more heart than the house bill? >> well, i think the president has two goals. the first one was the stated behind closed door to give it more heart, less mean, and no, i don't think the cbo scores show that the senate bill is demonstrably different from the house bill and that may be tougher for the white house to mention. the second goal, however, which is always this president's top goal is to get a deal. and i do think that if he was faced with the option of being able to get the 50 votes necessary with vice president pence as a tiebreaker to pass the bill although it's a little mean by his own metrics, i think he'd choose the deal to move past health care and animate him more than he would to build a bill with more heart.
1:35 pm
>> let me read what i think was the president's attempt to give some cover i'm guessing to senate republicans. he tweeted this morning, recommend can senators are working very hard to get their there with no help from the democrats. not easy. perhaps just let o care crash and burn. he seems to be prespinning a predicted defeat. do you think he's bracing himself for this not to work out? >> i think -- i mean, this is something he's said previously for a couple of months now. he said this in the house bill when things looked touch and go. it's definitely his attempt obviously at blame shifting and sort of political messaging. but it's an open question how effective this will be. you have to remember that when president obama was president, house republicans voted, you know, upwards of a dozen times with their own plan to repeal and replace obamacare. so in theory they should have had a plan already to go. that could pass with republican support. no democrats necessary. so i think it's a little disingenuous to try to blame democrats for a republican
1:36 pm
health bill potentially going down. >> all right. ashley, we'll come back to you in the hour. we'll take a quick break and then let our panel dive into this breaking news. we'll be right back.
1:37 pm
1:38 pm
1:39 pm
i am going to take care of everybody. i don't care if it costs me votes or not. everybody is going to be taken care of much better than thousand. i'm not going to cut social security and i won't cut medicare or medicaid. save medicare and medicaid and social security without cuts. have to do it. we'll have a health care that's far less expensive and far better. yes, premiums will be coming down. yes, the deductibles will be coming down. you know i have been talking about a plan with heart. i said add some money to it. a plan with heart. >> we are covering breaking news. we're just coming into our newsroom that the congressional
1:40 pm
budget office sees 22 million more people uninsured by 2026 under the senate health bill. joining us is lonnie chen, a former senior aide at the department of health and human services and also a fellow at the hoover institution. thank you for being here. dive right in. >> the biggest number is the deficit savings. it's important. because remember, mitch mcconnell needs votes. how did barack obama get votes when he needed them for the affordable care act? the answer is you figure out how much money you can invest in helping senators get over the finish line. if there's someone who says i need more money for the medicaid program, there's more money. i need to get people uninsured more insured, there you go. yes, the 22 million that's going to get all the headlines. people are going to be talking about that.
1:41 pm
frankly not to be surprising at all given that there's no individual mandate in the house or senate bills. there's no requirement to purchase health insurance which cbo gives a lot of credit to. >> were you advising mitch mcconnell on this bill? >> i had some discusses about what they're doing on the policy side, yeah. >> how would you advise him to bring along susan collins and rob portman and people who are representing states where the most vulnerable among them in susan collins' words would be thrown off of coverage? this has 22 million people more insured. uninsured. >> i think the question is what is most important to the individual senators. a person like susan collins the important issue might be look, i want to figure out how to get more money into the state's medicaid -- >> might not be -- you're so upset. he's throwing things. you're next. >> i have had it. >> no money for susan collins. no, i think part of this could
1:42 pm
be for example one of the things that the aca set a precedent for was to say, look, we're going to give enhanced -- >> if you advised mitch mcconnell on how to get collins' vote? >> no, i haven't. >> how would you advice him on how to get collins' vote? >> you need to get more medicaid money into her state. that's a crude way -- >> before joel throws anything -- >> i won't throw the cup again. look, they're suffering from the same problem they have been suffering with since they started this. they don't have a coherent plan that says here's what we'll do for the american people. and i appreciate and respect what you're talking about from the policy piece and how we might negotiate with susan collins. but from the perspective of the american people out there, fewer people are going to have coverage. they are not going to believe their premiums are going down in eight years because they don't trust insurance companies to begin with. so you're selling people a pig in a poke in terms of the american voters. if he can buy off enough senator with us that i'll be amazed. so far this president when it
1:43 pm
comes to health care has been a man without a plan. >> alex -- hang on. isn't john boehner on to something when he said at the beginning of this debate that once you give someone something it's -- i mean, if one person whose kid with asthma loses care that's a political crisis. and in this climate, it seems pretty untenable to drop 22 million people from coverage. >> right, the long term political problem for the republicans right now is that we are going to own the health care system regardless of what happens in the next week. if we don't pass anything it's our fault. if we pass something it's our fault. if anybody loses their health insurance. but that was the democrats' problem as well. you talk about premiums going up, the premiums went up over obamacare. obamacare is not a big success, it cost them elections as you well know. it cost mid term elections, cost potentially the presidential election. 2010 and 2014 and 2016. it's a big win for republicans and now the onus is on to deliver. that's the choice between the --
1:44 pm
>> let me get you in. obamacare was never as popular as it became when republicans started messing with it. >> right. that's because obamacare was there to be a substantive policy. it had a coherent plan. there was a goal. >> was it sustainable? >> yes, absolutely. if we don't have the republicans sabotaging obamacare right now it would be in the peril overstated as that is by them. >> most democrats will admit it needed some tweaks. >> publicly most democrats would admit it. but this is why the cameras are off in the white house. they know that 22 million is the head line because those are people. they can't possibly sell that kind of heartlessness to the american public. that's why we're not seeing sean spicer on camera today and that's why supporters -- constituents who might be dissent from a publicly advertised event was kicked out. that's why zero senators met with their constituents over town halls in the weekend.
1:45 pm
they know how -- >> do you see some of the same -- i remember 2010 and there were grass roots emotions in opposition to obamacare but don't you see a parallel to grass roots opposition now against taking away the care that it provided? >> it's easier to be against something than for it. harder to make an argument against it than make the affirmative case for why this is good legislation. we have not heard the affirmative case for why this is better than the status quo. president trump has not given a single speech about health care in the last month. he hasn't made the argument. >> you're holding your breath. thank you doug holtzs eakin for being with us. is president trump changing his tune on russia now that gets to blame his predecessor? ps) (laughing) (light upbeat music) (laughing) ♪ if i were a rich man ♪ daidle deedle daidle
1:46 pm
♪ daidle daidle deedle daidle dumb ♪ all day long i'd biddy biddy bum ♪ if i were a wealthy man ♪ i wouldn't have to work hard ♪ daidle deedle daidle ♪ daidle daidle deedle daidle dumb ♪ lord who made the lion and the lamb ♪ you decreed i should be what i am ♪ would it spoil some vast, eternal plan (bell tings) ♪ if i were a wealthy man (bell dings)
1:47 pm
1:48 pm
1:49 pm
i don't think anybody knows it was russia that broke into the dnc. she is saying russia russia russia, but maybe it was. it could be russia, but it could be china and lots of other people and could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay? >> as "the washington post" is reporting how global russian interference in elections is reaching its way across europe, president trump is finally leaving the 400 pound man out of the room and acknowledging russian election interference here in america. trump tweeted the real story is that president obama did nothing after being informed in august about russian meddling.
1:50 pm
with four months of looking under russia under a magnifying glass they had no evidence of collusion. i should be given an apology. sean spicer president's recent are a shift in ideology. he said no. >> over the weekend in an interview on fox, president trump seemed to acknowledge that he does believe that russia interfered in the u.s. election. is that how that statement should be interpreted. does he believe that russia interfered in the election? >> the statement is consistent with what he said the other day. he believes russia was probably involved. potentially some other countries as well could have been equally involved or could have been involved, not equally. and he stands by the statements he made in january. >> why when the president finally got on the right mess alk about russia did sean spicer throw other countries into the mix and why does it take his
1:51 pm
obsession with president obama to get them to russia was involved. >> look, i think this whole thing has been covered absurdly. donald trump was briefed before he was president in the first week in january by our intelligence agencies at the highest levels on what russia did in our elections. a week later he tweeted he was going to have a report on cyber hacking in 90 days. he hasn't create d a a team to o it. all he's done is tweet. we have seen no report. you were brief ed. you know russia did this. your responsibility is to do shotgun. >> let me bring in susan glasser into the conversation. let me ask you about that. until this series of tweets attacking president obama for doing nothing, he announced sanctions in december, he expelled diplomats. he shuttered two compounds largely viewed as being intelligence assets for the
1:52 pm
russians. why this sort of bizarre fixation on what obama didn't do. why not seize the steering wheel and drive our own government in the direction of ridding russian influence from our democracy. what are people in the national security infrastructure have to say about the president's bizarre reflexes on russia? >> look, i mean, they are all watching this the same way you and i are. number one, that donald trump is obsessed with the russia investigation. and clearly he will do anything change the subject. this meets a all of our definition of extraordinary to blame president obama. so it is jaw dropping, even by the standards of president trump. but i think joel is right to point out. let's look behind the rhetoric and the tweets, which are crazy. you have the president saying he
1:53 pm
wants to blame his predecessor for something happened. >> jim comey had never had a conversation with the president about the investigation into russia. what's wrong with them? >> i guess they are busy with other matters. first of all, this is serious stuff. president trump, by the way, is set to have his first face to face encounter with vladimir putin just a little bit more than a week from thousand. ten days from now. there's a broiling debate over what exactly is our russia policy. remember he's now blaming president obama for doing nothing when at the same time he's looking into lifting the sanctions that he now claims were never imposed on russia as a result of the hacking. it's almost this sort of double speak moment on russia. it underscores the fact that no one that pays attention to this can tell you what is our policy
1:54 pm
is toward russia. we can only tell you that president trump is absolutely ab sesed with the investigation into allegations. >> the ap is reporting that donald trump wants all the bells and whistles for a bilat with putin at a summit next month. some on his staff are making the case that you're making. that doing some sort of pull aside might be more appropriate until the russia policy is better. in the context of all we know about his meddling in 2016. >> i'm glad you raised it. all indications are and my sources have said this as well as the ap sources that president trump personally has just never relinquished his desire to go
1:55 pm
ahead and look putin face to face. sit down with him. e he truly believes that somehow we're going to change our policy course and get to be on much friendlier terms with russia under his leadership. he's been given every opportunity in favor of donald trump just giving up or at least putting aside that goal of a reset with russia. the president himself has never done so. his aids have tried over and over again to desuede him. you have republicans on capitol hill very uncomfortable in this situation. and saying he's too soft on putin. . it's put them in a terrible position. but trump has shown consistency on this issue. he's consistent desire is to sit down with putin and make a deal with him. >> sou san glasser, thank you for spending time with us. when we come back, president trump says i said mean first. we'll talk about that when we come back.
1:56 pm
♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor
1:57 pm
or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay.
1:58 pm
you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today.
1:59 pm
some people might say the level of anger is unprecedented, but also for a former president to come out the way president obama has. he came out on facebook and said your bill, thot a health care bill, it's a massive transfer of wealth that's going to harm americans. what do you say to the former president? >> he used my term mean because i want to see -- and i speak from the heart. that's what i want to see. i want to see a bill with heart. >> president obama has now stolen his word mean. >> president trump is not a smart man. and luckily, he regularly gets
2:00 pm
out ahead of his own policies with his inability to allow anybody to get a per sooeed slight on him. we have seen it with the muslim ban, health care, it's stopped republicans from passing some pretty horrible legislation. >> elevate us. >> the more likelihood it is this bill gets across the finish line. >> thank you to my panel. that does it for this hour. katy tur is in for chuck. >> if it is monday, the score is out on the senate health care bill. good evening, welcome to "mtp daily." live from los angeles, we're e preparing to hear from president trump live in the rose garden with the indian prime minister.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on