tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN February 7, 2017 5:00pm-6:01pm PST
thanks for watching us. "ac 360" starts right now. >> a case that could go to the supreme court. if you've lost track, it's worth noting this is happening less than three weeks into this president's term. we'll hear from our analysts. first pamela brown. >> jimmy:s us. the justice department, explain what arguments they put forward tonight. >> reporter: right off the bat it was a hot bench with these three judges peppering the justice department lawyer with questions on everything from evidence connecting the seven countries and the travel ban to
terrorism. even asked why they're listening to the oral arguments today after the doj attorney said on repeated occasions that things were moving very quickly. here's that exchange. >> why should we be hearing this now if it sound like you're trying to say you're going to present other evidence later? >> could the president simply say in the order we're not going to let any muslims in? >> that's not what the order does here. >> could he do that? would anybody be able to challenge that? does here. >> weed like to get an answer to that question because it speaks back to the standing issue. if the order said muslim cannot admitted, would anybody have standing to challenge that? >> reporter: the standing issue came up repeatedly. the doj attorney says the states don't have the legal right to bring this lawsuit because many of the people impacted by the
travel ban have never even stepped foot in the united states. but there were moments of high trauma, anderson, and at one point the doj attorney conceded that he wasn't sure he was convincing the court. >> what is the state of washington resting its case on? >> reporter: the solicitor general said the travel ban harms their citizens and violates the establishment clause saying it discriminates against muslims. at least one of the judges tried to poke holes in that argument. >> you infer that desire if in fact the vast majority of muslims are unaffected? >> well, europe, in part you can infer it from intent evidence. there are statements we've quoted in our complaint that are rather shocking evidence of intent to discriminate against mus lips given we haven't even had any diskoef yet to find out what else might have been said in%t private. the public statements from the president and his top advisers
reflecting that intent are strong evidence certainly at this pleading stage a allow us to go forward on that claim. >> you faulted the government for exactly the same thing. you sought the temporary restraining order. don't tell us maybe you'll gather it later. if you can't demonstrate likelihood of success what you have in the record so far, and maybe you can, i'm not saying you can't, but i haven't heard a lot of reference to evidence and a lot more reference to allegations and i don't think allegations cut it at this stage. >> reporter: they asked if having the travel ban applied to those at this point that have never stepped foot in the united states but the solicitor general rejected that option saying it would still harm the state citizens. we expect a decision from the ninth circuit court sometime this week according to the courts. anderson? >> pam brown, thank you. jeff zeleny is at the white house. any statement from the white house on tonight's hearing? >> reporter: there has not been a statement38 from the white hoe yet on the hearing but they were reviewing it and watching it
very carefully and giving the president updates as the hour-long proceeding went on. they heard the skepticism in the judges' voices as well, but i am told by a senior administration official they are not planning at least to release a statement tonight. they are going to wait until they get some type of a ruling. it is such a marked contrast. we have seen the president commenting again and again throughout the weekend about this ruling.dp[ but for the last couple hours or so it's been very quiet here. they obviously are waiting to see and don't want to influence perhaps the outcome of those three judges' decisions. >> we talk about the message from white house in the run-up to the hearing. >> reporter: throughout the day, the president was arguing that it's common sense. he said common sense should prevail over this. he was meeting with law enforcement officials. of course that was by design to make, you know, this argument. he's also been talking about the rising terror threat across the country saying falsely the media has not been sort ofujtuár'g on this and covering this. they're trying to conflate the
two things that there is a rising threat. that's why this is needed. but i am struck by the silence of the president tonight. he could sort of speak out, you know, in this evening or overnight or in the morning as he often does but at least as of right now i'm told by the administration official they will not comment until a ruling comes in. we'll see if that holds. >> jeff zeleny, thanks. page pate, laura coats andkq jeffrey toobin, jeffrey lord, paul begala and elizabeth, and ken guch nelly. i want to start with the legal mind. jeff, what do you make of the arguments you heard tonight? >> i know from painful experience how difficult it is to predict the results of any case based on oral argument. the real answer is we don't know. the judges were clearly giving both lawyers a hard time. i think on the standing issue
whether washington has the right to bring this case, i think washington is in good shape there. on the merits, the bush appointee, judge clifton, seemed very kept cscent cal of whether was appropriate this stay. judge friedlad, the obama appoint appointee, seemed like she was sympathetic to the plaintiffs, washington state. and judge camby, the 85-year-old brother-in-law of walter mondale, was harder to read. i just don't know. >> what about the issue of standing? >> i thought washington made some compelling arguments about they had people who were going to be injured in some way by this ban. so they made a more co-he's i have argument than the doj. they didn't have a strong response to the standing issue. the most telling part was the question about what was the th administration's evidence as to why they put forth this ban. remember, the big gun for the trump administration is the
national security interest. was there evidence behind that. that was very telling and revealing about where they're going to balance the interestsk of the government. >> one of the judges pushing back on the notion this was a muslim ban saying the vast m)5zu+hjsuásrsáhp)ound the world would not be affected. >> i think jeffrey's right. you can't tell how they'll decide based on their questions. i've argued about a dozen times before federal appeals court and i'll walk out thinking i've won, no question, and i get the opinion and i haven't. they'll press each lawyer, focus on the weakest points of that argument and question them. that's exactly the point of an oral argument. they've read the briefs and the cases. let's get this and hash9g it ou. i'm not surprised. >> the attorney general familiar with these claims. what's your assessment? m] i disagree0olk with the comfortable position washington is in as far as standing goes.
they really didn't and still haven't shown an injury other than to the people in their state. and no one disputes that. obama said if we don't find this [ don, and of course washington said no, we'd still be here. claims. the problem is there's no factual basis, no reason the state is harmed. individuals ought to be caring for this case as they did in] massachusetts where judge gordon ruled for the trump administration in the district of massachusetts. which by the way would seem to success when it went trump administration's way. >> would you expect the ninth circuit to take into account the level of confusion we saw in elsewhere, that might result if they dd,vreinst
the travel ban? do they consider that component? and do they consider statements trump? >> well, i certainly hope not.4q it has nothing to do with the ñ executive order. i hope the court stays focused on the legal issues. with regard to those legal issues i continue to believe that the standing hurd sl the ♪r,ñ impediment for the e of washington. i don't see any injury in fact by washington as a statement. the supreme court has made clear since 1923 in a case called massachusetts versus melon that states don't have the standing to bring claims on behalf of their citizens. if the citizens have injuries themselves they're supposed to n:ñ lawsuits.
and ken is absolutely right again with regard to the state's attempt to salvage standing by > what do you think about that? the attorney general for washington said we represent public universities who are being harmed by this and we also are speaking for companies that have filed motions. >> there are several different ways to evaluate standing and at least two theorys the states have put forth here. in my experience standing is whatever the judges say it is. if the judges don't want to hear your case, they can kick you out on standing thap eel find a way. if they want to address the constitutional issues they'll find a way to get the state standing. it was pointed out in the questioning if we can't listen
to these states, who are we going to listen to? >> at one point the solicitor general from washington, it was noted by one of the judges or the solicitor general said they hadn't had a chance to have discovery to see what private comments were made by trump and others in the administration about whether or not this was a muslim ban. but they are pointing and alluding to commentsáy made by candidate trump. but i thought that was actually a védx weak moment for the state of washington because, you know, they are the ones -- washington is saying to these judges, stop this enormous federal program. and but at the same time they're saying we don't have enough information. then the judges say, okay, let's just have a trial or have more discovery and then we can decide whether you're entitled to this stay. but they are asking for a really very serious piece of relief from this court and for them to say we don't have enough information i think that's a weak moment. >> it goes beyond that. of course they've&ssxç cherry-p
the statement where is trump was at his most blatant in terms of the muslim language. but he also said terrorism, he also said islamic terrorists. he used a lot of other phrasing that would come out in a rial. wi extraordinary standard that is supposed to be achieved for preliminary injunction to say nothing of an injunction that goes way beyond what the state of washington even asked for by judge robart, there's an awful lot more evidence out there. and trump real hi helped himself by relying on president obama's classification of countries and congresses. that provides a permanent rationale, national security rationale, underpinning this order. >> we have to take a quick break. we'll have more. coming up at the top of the next hour, debate night in america. bernie sanders and ted cruz
withevery late night...g... and moment away... with every click...call...punch... and paycheck... you've earned your medicare. it was a deal that was made long ago, and aarp believes it should be honored. thankfully, president trump does too. "i am going to protect and save your social security and your medicare. you made a deal a long time ago." now, it's congress' turn. tell them to protect medicare.
wonly new alka-seltzer plus st want powerful relief. free of artificial dyes and preservatives liquid gels delivers the powerful cold symptom relief you need without the unnecessary additives you don't. loudspeaker: clean up, aisle 4. alka-seltzer plus liquid gels. that the essence of integrity is a promise kept. ♪ if you've got the time welcome to the high life. ♪ we've got the beer ♪ miller beer
three-judge panel in the ninth circuit court of appeals hearing the arguments on trump's travel ban. anotherveg key moment, how bro presidential discretion is in cases involvi.it+ national security. what role if any the courts can play.?h0 >> the district court's decision overrides the president's national security judgment about the level of risk. we've been talking about the +fñ acceptable. as soon as we were having thata bññ ussion, it should be acknowledged that the president is the official that is charged with making those judgments. i'd also like to -- >> are you oorging them the president's decision in that regard is unreviewable? >> the -- yes.
there are obviously constitutional lipations but we're discussing the risk assessment. >> can you explain what we heard? >> the justice department lawyer gave a halting performance, especially in that moment. but that's a very important point, which is who decides what's in the national security he justice department decision is the president makes that decision. that's the president's primary$ responsibility. and who are courts to tell the president, no, iraq is not that much of a threat? courts don't have that kind of expertise. the problem is that discretion can't be completely unlimited. there has to be some limit on that and that's what this case is about, have we reached that limit. >> that limit is whether or not there is a valid, not a hypothetical national security
concern. the first question out of the gate, one, was do you have any evidence for why these countries were chosen and why this ban was in place? that was telling to show them that, listen, it must be more than hypothetical to trample on separation of powers or constitutional rights. >> don't courts give wit latitude to the president on issues of national security? >> mass ive latitude. i got it upside the head how much latitude the executive branch gets. i disagree with one panelist, there are times the court says we cannot review this, classification questions. when it comes to -- i disagree with the last speaker. when it comes to the decision about whether there is a threat or not under the immigration naturalization act, the courts do not have the authority, it is a"c violation of the separatiof powers for the courts to second-guess the president's assessment. they do not have that authority. >> i want to bring in paul
begala. are you concerned about the idea that attorneys from washington state are talking about discovery on what the president said to folks on his staff? >> when the solicitor general of the state of washington was appear big phone with the court, they pressed him about it. discovery, a fair point. i panicked as a former white lawyers sitting t ing thting th security advisor down, grilling him about it. i worked for president clinton who ken starr forced his private secret service agents, thetx gu closest to himtns physically, ry to risk their lives to protect them, forced to testify against the president because he was a obsessed with the president's sex life. i want the branch to make national security decis#y ñ without -- >> you think that harms -- >> i'm the most anti-trump you can be and i think the ban is
terrible, he's off, i don't even like his hair. but as a citizen and former government official, you cannot have lawyers grailing white house aides about advice they gave they gave president. >> another president and white house staff in future. >> would you advise president trump to comment about, you know, what we heard tonight on whether via twitter or anywhere else before there's an actual ruling? >> politically speaking, sure. i would. >> andrew jackson did this, but abide the chief justice because of his dred scott decision, her makes it plain in his cam pin. gets electricitied, the attorney has to swear him in. thanks him, turns around and attacks the supreme court while he's standing there at his inaugural address. there is a political point to this kind of thing which i'm sure when president trump talks
about common sense i think he's appealing to hi audience out there saying we've got a bunch of pinhead liberals on the bench trying to take this and somebody is going to get hurt. >> two things. the poll numbers on this are going down. anytime a president waves the bloody shirt of terrorism, trump is an expert manipulating fear. this time he's losing. quinn yak poll today a 12-point decline in support for this policy in just a month. used to be positive six, now negative six. i suspect because of a couple things. the very first sentence in the ñ brief is on january 27th, president trump unleashed chaos. that's not legal terminology, it's political. people don't like the way donald trump personally attacks judges. >> if i may, missing the bigger point here, and that is yes, national security is an extremely important point but it's not carte blanche and you
can't use it if it's not the actual reason. they want to know if the emperor has no clothes. if he doesn't, you can't have the executive order stand. >> part of the ap2cnãi can't answer of the foundation of this order because they use president obama's classification of the countries from which danger from terrorism arises and congress'. that was not trump's own discretion. it was not his own decision. he used his discretion for the immigration and naturalization act to take their judgment, president obama's judgment. anybody on this show want to say he was a bigot when he made that judgment? i don't. how about congress? were they bigots when they decided iran was dangerous? that classification is bulletproof. when this case is over, these seven countries and the blocking these countries until the time period is over will stand. the only thing that may go down is what frankly the federal government has already conceded and that is the inapplicability to lawful permanent residents.
>> thanks to the panel. coming up, why the president of the united states says#n things that are simply not true time and time about the press, terrorism coverage, yesterday and today about the murder rate in the united states. jake tapper pressed kellyanne conway on that. fascinating interview.chg mobility is very important to me. that's why i use e*trade mobile. it's on all my mobile devices, so it suits my mobile lifestyle. and it keeps my investments fully mobile... even when i'm on the move. sign up at etrade.com and get up to six hundred dollars. that has everything to do with the people in here. their training is developed by the same company who designed, engineered, and built the cars. they've got the parts, tools, and know-how to help keep your ford running strong. 35,000 specialists all across america. no one knows your ford better than ford. and ford service. right now, get the works! a synthetic blend oil change, tire rotation, brake inspection and more -- for $29.95 or less.
a body without proper footd needssupport can mean pain. the dr. scholl's kiosk maps your feet and recommends our custom fit orthotic to stabilize your foundation and relieve foot, knee or lower back pain from being on your feet. dr. scholl's. mattress firmness? fortunately there's a bed where you both get what you want every night. enter sleep number and the ultimate sleep number event, going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. she likes the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store. and right now save 50% on the ultimate limited edition bed. go to sleepnumber.com for a store near you. why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension,
as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
welcome back. for the second time in the last two days the president of the united states has said somethings that objectively,jñ demonstrably untrue. today he said the murder rate in the united states is the highest it's been in 47 years. not true. yesterday he said it's gotten to a point where terror attacks are not even being reported. not true. when the president says things that are not true, i guess there spreading it or deliberately not telling the truth. today jake tapper asked kellyanne conway about the falsehoods of the past few days. >> kellyanne, cnn and other media organizations cover terrorism around the world all the time saying that we don't cover terrorism, that's just false. >> the president is saying there, jake, is that there are other attacks that don't get as
much coverage. obviously the very sad incidents you related where frankly cnn did amazing coverage for weeks at a time, i is a you all on the ground doing that, telling human interest stories and frankly the involvement of the terrorists, those get coverage. the other ones not so much. i think his point is twofold. >> the ones i just recruited for you were on the list. >> absolutely. i'm saying the ones are high casualties like nice and brussels and paris and the like, those are covered extensively by all media vout outlets as they should be. >> earlier today president trump made a quote about the murder rate being at the highest level it's ever been in 47 years. he said that and said nobody in the media reports on that. there's añ5; reason nobody in media reports on that. it's not true. the murder rate is not at the highest rate it's been in 47 years. it spiked a lit bull still much lower. wç 4.9 peoples2nrh per 100,000,
dwarfed by the murder rates of the 1990s and before that2ñ the 1980s. facts are stubborn things. to say we're not reporting something that happens not to bs true, therefore we're not to be trusted, that's a problem. >> jake, if i can take the barter issue of our relationship the most open press person in the white house. i'm now being attacked by the media including networks familiar to#&tx&u. i'm going to keep soldiering on. >> have you or president trump ever said anything incorrect? >> absolutely. >> from your mouth? >> i did this past weekend. i regretted it tremendously because i used the wrong word to describe something several times and i'm sorry because7< i've spoken millions of words on tv i'm sure, been on cnntá%x/ver a thousand times in my career i'm sure. >> referring to the bowling green massacre. >> i am because i felt really badly about that. i felt badly about that and i apologized and rectified -- >> i don't think:krp is fake news. i think there are some reports
everywhere. in print, on tv, in radio, on conversation that are not well researched and are sometimesrv based on falsehoods. the panel joining the conversation.,y÷8g jeff, what do you think is the purpose of the president of the united states saying things which are demonstrably obviously not true? >> i think in terms of the murder rate, i think that he anything machiavellian or anything about it. >> he's claiming -- not only incorrect about the murder rate but saying we're not reporting it for -- >> the terrorist ps. >> the murder rate. not reporting it for some ulterior motive. >> i don't know and i don't want to say not knowing where he's going with it. >> does it help the president in some way to sow doubt about anybody who does --,p%ñ >> every president -- anderson, we've had this conversation
before. this has been going on for four or five30ñ decades. >> lying from a president? >> no. the conservatives feel that the media is tilted against them. let me pick up on this. >> that has nothing to do with whether or not the prc÷d$ent is actually lying"-ixw or badly informed. >> let me pick up on the terrorist end. i saw the show last night. obviously you've been there. cnn has been fabulous doing this. here's where the thing gets hazy. i saw in "the new york times" today a list of these -- this 78 list of attacks and they put their coverage down there. i looked at the coverage. for instance there was a guy who took a hatch tote a couple cops in new york city. ptt of their paper. they did like two stories on it. what it seems they are saying is the extent of the coverage asã these incidents -- >> initial through statement was
they're not reporting on it. now it's underreported. >> i heard sean spicer on air force one answering. that to me was honestly my take. i just -- you're there. there's no question that cnn is there. and these others. i think what they're trying to communicate is the degree and the intensity because of -- >> there's another argument, paul, which is the president is intentionally labeling cnn, anybody who does any critical reporting as fake news to basically make not only his supporters but everybody doubtful about what's true, what's not. how does anyone know what's true? >> the president is clearly a highly intelligent man. >> right. >> i think he's the liberace. he's flamboyant but there's a point to it and his point is to undermine any check on him and his authority. >> hind the candelabra. >> liberace. >> when you come up against
interview. let me say kellyanne conway has a shtick. we've seen it for years. she's very good at what she does. >> let me get thenó harlarger . >> she's got about five different go-two moves. very hostile, take you on, not against jake tapper when he has this righteous indignation defending journalism. here she was playing a this is all a big misunderstanding act and i think it was laughable. >> he's trying to undermine the free perress, the judiciary, personal tattack on the judge. undermining our allies around the world. it seems like anyone who can be a check on him is going to be discredited and that's troubling. >> interesting, because he specifically had said during the campaign i will never lie to you, the american people, and look, presidents lie but daily thr things which are
demonstrably false coming out of the white house. >> yes, and this is why -- not yes that they're demonstrably false. sometimes there are nuances not said. >> the murder rate the worse-in 47 years. >> i know what fact he wasfx referring to. donald trump was accurate the u.s. had the biggest increase, not murder 6m;fbrate, in murders in 45 years. >> that's not what he said. >> he left out one word, increase in murder rate, not murder rate. >> >cx trying to paint a pictur chaos in america, then that's a pretty big word to leave out. >> of course and i think that's nigh nuance is important. i lambaste my leftist friend when they leave out references to the muslim ban. he needs to be more careful with respect to nuance and make sure every word -- >> nuance is precision, detail. words matter. >> what kellyanne conway was getting at -- you said her performance was laughable, i
thought it was2iñ good. some in the media, not all, jump to the cop collusion immediately that there has to be a negative spin on things. it isn't that donald trump accidentally sitecyted a static wrong. >> he lied. lied. >> and then she tries to go up against a journalist and> there was a massacre? >> she used the wrong word. >> first of all, wait a minute, in the last interview i did with her two weeks ago, she said something whether it was intentionally a lie or suited); their agenda, to equat saying what we were reporting about the intelligence chief briefing the president on this two page summary with salacious details which wewly never repor she said that didn't happen and that night after the interview
clapper came out and said it did happen and vice president biden said we got the same briefing. the idea she says stuff that's not true, i mean, it's just not true. >> cnn didn't link -- my point is that it's alwayss0÷ an assumption that it's a lie. it's not an@uu÷ assumption that maybe she mic> more troubling. i think just trying to discredit the media is what you do.
frankly in@, a democracy, you can't just yell at journalists. so politicians try to discredit them. >> president obama tried to go with fox news. >> this is at level beyond anything in modern history. go backuh to the 19th sefshcent there are examples.ep &hc% they can't throw us in jail. democracy, you discredit. it's like ocean waves on the beach -- >> we are trying to get to libel laws. >> if he really was trying to do anything that was legal against the perez he probably would have -- >> politically -- [ talking over each other ] >> the perez is not popular. haven't looked in a!kbd while b imagine it's somewhere below congress. >> he's the president of the united states. we can get things wrong. we're just journalists. the president of the united states. we have to -- >> we correct things all the time if we get it wrong. i haven't heard him do that.
>> the white house -- thel3 med hasn't covered terrorism. >> coming up, we'll tell you about reports that the president is not thrilled with secretary sean spicer's performance and the@71 search for someone to h lighten his load. and the future of obamacare. jake tapper, dana bash moderate a debate with bernie sanders and ted cruz. 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 relvers, why put up with just part of a day? aleve, live whole not part. painter: you want this color over the whole house? safety doesn't come in a box. it's not a banner that goes on a wall. it's not something you do now and then. or when it's convenient. it's using state-of-the-art simulators to better prepare for any situation. it's giving offshore teams onshore support. and it's empowering anyone to stop a job . . . ing satisfied. and always working to be better. that has everything to do with the people in here. their training is developed by the same company who designed, engineered, and built the cars. they've got the parts, tools, and know-how to help keep your ford running strong. 35,000 specialists all across america.
no one knows your ford better than ford. and ford service. right now, get the works! a synthetic blend oil change, tire rotation, brake inspection and more -- for $29.95 or less. but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how.
welcome back. you may not realize this, but sean spicer is wearing two mats in the trump white house. multiple sources say there's an increased effort to get that down to one. sources say the white house is ramping up a search for a new communications director. he's acting in that role and press secretary. a source familiar with internal community case says the president is disappointed in his performance. press secretary, communications director, obviously both difficult jobs. we bring in the former obama white house communications director. thanks for being here. >> great to be here. >> this idea of the leaks that are coming out now with the white house about sean spicer, what about the difficulty of holding these two roles? >> unless you're in the cloning business, anderson, it's pretty hard to do both jobs. >> what is communications
director do versus what we see sean spicer do? >> the press secretary is really the fireman or fire woman of any administration. so they take all of the incoming. they are the face of the administration aside from the president answering all of the media inquiries. it really takes the entire day to fulfill that job between preparing for it and getting the answers you need and then conducting the entire briefing. >> the communications director? >> at the same time, while the press secretary is preparing for the briefing and out there briefing the media, the communications director, a role i played as of two weeks ago, is meeting with the policy teams and the president, determining what the strategy and the message will be moving forward and really has a seat at the table for all of that. >> kind of a bigger picture -- >> exactly. they work very closely hand in hand, and ideally the press secretary and the communications director are communicating about what's happening in the this meeting, what should we recommend, what should we say about this controversy or this
breaking news story. and they work very closely together. >> let's talk about the travel ban for a moment. we're hearing a lot from republicans that these seven countries that are on this temporary travel ban in most cases according to the trump administration, they say they were identified by president obama, by the obama administration. is that in your opinion accurate? >> a great deal of revisionist history, anderson. what happened was in 2015 right after the pafrs attacks pool in the country were scared, congress was reacting strongly. they decided to put in new restrictions. >> congress did. >> congress, republicans in congress specifically. we tried to dial back and work back what we thought would be viable. make it not as stringent or strong. it was never a ban. it was never banning any individuals from these countries coming in. but eve. visa restrictions that were proposed were not proposed by the white house. we weren't in control of
congress. this was joan -- >> these seven countries you're saying they were identified by members of congress? >> they were identified by members of congress, yes. >> do you know what that identification was based on? >> you'd have to ask members of congress. >> your old boss came up in an interview president trump did with bill to rye le on the weekend. i want to play part of it. >> you guys seem to get along. all right? would that be accurate? >> it's a very strange phenomenon. we get along. i don't know if he'll admit this, but he likes me. >> how do you know he likes me? >> i like him because i can feel it. that's what i do in life. it's called, like, i understand. >> not putting you on the spot about your former boss and whether he feels that way about president trump. >> not doing friendship bracelets. >> president trump, view him more as a candidate, can be charming. people who know him well say he's different one-on-one in small meetings than in front of a rally. what do you make of what he
said? >> i think what he's seeing and misreading is the pragmatist in president obama. he's somebody who is a really practical guy and even in the 24 hour it was a election he was thinking about what to do during that first meeting and what to get out of it. and he has always seen that relationship as one where he can try to convey how difficult it is and what the impact of unwinding the affordable care act or unwinding the iran deal. he still sees that as a useful challenge. we'll see. >> just days after president trump said it might take until 20108 to repeal and replace obamacare, the house speaker is setting a different time line. eel have more on that. and also minutes away from a debate between bernie sanders and ted cruz debating the future of obamacare. jake tapper, dana bash the moderators. those in the audience will be asking many of the questions.
tiki barber running a barber shop? yes!!! surprising. yes!!! what's not surprising? how much money david saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. who's next? do you know how your you might be surprised. stimulant laxatives make your body go by forcefully stimulating the nerves in your colon. miralax is different. it works with the water in your body to hydrate and soften, unblocking your system naturally. miralax. asmy family tree,ing i discovered a woman named marianne gaspard... it was her french name. then she came to louisiana as a slave. i became curious where in africa she was from. so i took the ancestry dna test to find out more about my african roots. the ancestry dna results were really specific.
they told me all of these places in west africa. i feel really proud of my lineage, and i feel really proud of my ancestry. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story, get started for free at ancestry.com i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes
or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. shocked by your wireless bill every month?
additional fees. tacked on taxes. come on! with t-mobile one, taxes and fees are now included! get 4 lines of unlimited lte data for 40 bucks each. that's right - all unlimited. all in! and now, for a limited time save more than you pay in taxes on all smartphones. so switch to t-mobile and save hundreds vs. the other guys. it's better than a tax holiday! and it's only at t-mobile. we're about eight minutes away from cnn's town hall debate, sanders versus cruz, the future of bauobamacare. the backdrop is the campaign
promise donald trump made to repeal and replace the affordable care act. how quickly that will happen is growing unclear. cnn's phil mattingly joins me from capitol hill with the latest. it seems like republicans can't settle exactly on a timeline on this central campaign issue over the last four lelections. >> reporter: what you're seeing is campaign promises running head long into the problem of legislating. they acknowledge, this is going to be a lengthy process, particularly as they go through the replace process. those details far from agreed upon. but you do have a lot of republicans, who as you know, made a lot of promises to constituents. they want to move quickly. the problem is some senators in particular aren't ready. take a listen to what senator lindsey graham told me earlier today. >> when it comes to people's health care, i've spine speed. i've seen partisan results, it's
called obamacare. i don't want to go down that road. the only goal i have in my own mind is try to find a way to improve health care for people who don't have it without changing the entire system for people who do. so the bottom line is you can't keep your doctor if you like it. you can't keep your health care if you're fond of it under obamacare, so my goal is to get it right. more than anything else, and there's no timeline associated with that. >> reporter: now anderson, no timeline might work for senators who are not up for election in two, four years, but they want to deliver on those promises. they want movement now, even if that's not really a real option right now. >> as you described the repeal and replace process e walk -- ws through it. >> reporter: they want votes in the committee. then they want it to move to the
floor. this is expected to be a piece by piece process. a number of republicans have told me, look, the democrats did thousands of pages of bills. that's not what we want to do. we want to take step by step, but anderson, step by step takes time, time is something that a lot of republicans don't think they have right now. it's not just conservatives in the house. there's also outside groups also pushing this as well. so anderson, a lot of pressure on this process, a complicated one to begin with. it's only going to continue in the weeks and months ahead. >> thank you. joining me is robert reich. also with us, steven moore. chief economist. secretary reich, we heard a different timeline from president trump, saying maybe by the end of the year, next year. he said this was something he
was going to do on day one. >> it's reality of mathematics. because what republicans have discovered, and this is not a new discovery. even when they were railing against obamacare, two and three, five years ago, they were trying to come up with a replacement. they couldn't, because, if you want preexisting conditions to be covered, you've got to have a mandate for healthy people to get health care. you've also, in terms of subsidizing 80% of the people who are on obamacare or the affordable care act to get some federal subsidies to pay for those subsidies, you've got to raise taxes, primarily on the wealthy, and that's the way obamacare is organized. if you repeal this piece or that piece, you simply can't afford to do it. >> steven, is that how you see it? that it's much more difficult than republicans had sort of let on? >> well, look, i think it is mathematics, bob, and i think you got the mathematics all wrong. the problem with obamacare was
it promised they were going to put tens of millions more people under a government-subsidized program and there were going to be all sorts of services provided and it would save the system money. there aren't a lot of people in this country saving $2500 a year on their health. most families are costing more. my own situation, my family, we're $2,000 more per, you know, for our family per year, and those are costs people simply can't afford. the key isn'statistic, anderson that in 2017, the costs of these plans are going up by 22%. bob, you talk a lot about the fact that workers haven't had a pay raise in a long team. and i agree with you. one reason is these exploding health care costs are costing employers so much money they can't afford to give workers a raise. >> you put your finger on exactly the problem. it's not the affordable care act
or obamacare, it's exploding health care costs. that's the problem, that's what's going up. regardless of whether you have obamacare or affordable care act coverage. everybody is suffering from bigger deductibles. >> bob, it was people like you who said this was going to save money. you said it was going to reduce health care costs, and we're seeing these rising costs. >> what has happened is that the obamacare did actually tastart slow the rise of health care costs. my problem is it's not obamacare, affordable care act, medical care. you've got these huge health care mergers. bigger, more economic power and hospitals and drug companies. look at the prices of drugs. drug prices continue to rise. one of the fastest. >> hold a minute. >> wait. >> health care coassts, and there's no attempt to to
anything abo -- do anything about it. >> there are popular aspects of obamacare, being able to stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26. is it possible to keep those parts while getting rid of the rest. secretary reich said it's not. >> we're going to keep the people with preexisting conditions. >> how do you do that? >> you put them in a pool and public subsidies for those with preexisting conditions. i have a niece with epilepsy, but you don't have to ruin the entire health care market. here's what i would propose, and i think donald trump is in support of this. tell me why you don't think that insurance companies, if i live in virginia, why shouldn't i be able to buy a health care plan anywhere in the country. rather than two or three options, i could have 100 options. >> i'm in favor of that, but i also want to use anti-trust laws
to bust up the big corporations. they are merging like mad. they should not be allowed to merge. >> bob, i'll agree. i think you're on to something there. the confwlom racial of health care is a big problem. we have to go after the trial lawyers, because the medical malpractice reform would also save money for families as well. but we're almost there with a little bit of a consensus there. >> let's see if senator sanders and senator cruz get that consensus. >> we got that in since minutes. a third of americans don't know that obamacare and the affordable care act is the same thing. >> because it's not afordable, bob! >> interesting discussion. some agreement there between you, robert reich, thank you, steven moore. as i said, we have a remarkable event coming up in a
matter of seconds. we want to thank you for watching 360. we want to hand you over to jake tapper and dana bash for a town hall on this very subject. senator sanders versus senator senator sanders versus senator cruz. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com [ applause ] live from the george washington university in the nation's capital, this is cnn's debate night on the future of the affordable care act, also known as obamacare. welcome to our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm y i'm jake tapper. >> i'm dana bash. president trump has made the repeal and replacement of the affordable care act a priority. these defenders and supporters of obamacare will get