Skip to main content

tv   CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin  CNN  October 31, 2017 11:00am-12:00pm PDT

11:00 am
s president, then what has our government become? i'm tom steyer, and like you, i'm a citizen who knows it's up to us to do something. it's why i'm funding this effort to raise our voices together and demand that elected officials take a stand on impeachment. a republican congress once impeached a president for far less. yet today people in congress and his own administration know that this president is a clear and present danger who's mentally unstable and armed with nuclear weapons. and they do nothing. join us and tell your member of congress that they have a moral responsibility to stop doing what's political and start doing what's right. our country depends on it. all right. here we go. you are watching cnn.
11:01 am
i'm brooke baldwin. the press conference from the white house will be taking place in a little while. first time to comment after president did the attack against papadopoulos. i've only said it 20,000 times now. the former trump campaign adviser pleaded guilty to an act that hits at the russian investigation. he admitted he lied after communications with russians after the presidential campaign. news of his plea agreement was released on the same day that the president's form tear campaign chief paul manafort and his associate rick gates were indicted for conspiracy and money laundering. and today president trump tweeted this. the fake news is working overtime as paul manafort's lawyer said there was no collusion. and events mentioned took place long before he came to the campaign. few people knew the young low
11:02 am
level volunteer named george who has already proven to be a liar, check the dems. so let's start at the white house. an ahead of the briefing with our correspondent sara murray there live. the president trying to play this down calling papadopoulos a liar this morning on twitter. but if he doesn't care so much, then why is the chief of staff saying it is distracting him. >> that's right. we saw john kelly admitting this is something that is weighing on the president. the investigation is weighing on him. he has other things he needs to be doing. but there also seems to be this coordinated effort from the president as well as allies to try to be little and disparage to papadopoulos. listen to what former trump campaign had to say versus trump had to say about him. >> he was the coffee boy.
11:03 am
you might have called him a foreign policy analyst but all we know is whether he prefers regular coffee. he had nothing to do with the campaign. >> if you want, i can give you some of the names. george papadopoulos. he's an oil and energy consultant. excellent guy. >> so from an exhibcellent guy the coffee guy. you can see how trump and allies has been trying to downplay. but it does raise the question, brooke, the president has insisted from day one there is no collusion that the special counsel will not find anything. so it's curious that the white house and president's allies outside the white house feel the need to come out strongly and hit this guy so hard now that he's cooperating with the fbi. >> we'll see how the spin continues today. thank you so much. we also may be closer to uncover
11:04 am
the mystery referred to as the professor in this complaint against papadopoulos joseph based in london as academic. fits in the profile in the after davis overseas professor, citizen of a country in the mediterranean and someone who flew to moscow in april of last year. so nick robertson our cnn diplomatic editor for this piece of this. and so who is this character? >> reporter: that mediterranean island is malta. he was a professor for various different academies in london in diplomacy and international law working with various different british universities. a source who knows him and has known him for a couple of years now told me that in early april last year, this is all that time in question, early april, that he was meeting with him, with
11:05 am
professor, that he said that he was sort of bragging about his relationship with russian officials, including president putin that he had dinner with him. my source says pro russian. and indeed professor had said to my source they, meaning the russians, have got a lot of stuff on hillary clinton. also, he introduced my source to george papadopoulos. they met the day after the introduction. papadopoulos introduced himself to my source as being a foreign policy representative of president trump and wanting the source to help him reach out to various different country leaders to tell them what president trump might be saying publicly wasn't the entire picture. but he was trying to use this source, papadopoulos was trying to use the source to make contact in the context of a foreign policy adviser.
11:06 am
president trump with other leaders. now, my source says of papadopoulos that he was a nice guy. bull he didn't appear to sort of know the issues in-depth. indeed, he found his age and his lack of real deep knowledge on some of the issues he was talking about quite startling and surprising. and he did comment on that particular issue back to him again at a later date being surprised that this guy doesn't seem to measure up to the bill of being a -- of having the wherewithal of being a foreign policy adviser for a u.s. presidential candidate, brooke. >> all these names and the details starting to emerge. nick robertson, thank you so much for all of this on him. as we are waiting for this white house daily brooiefing to begin and we hear from sarah huckabee sanders from the podium let's talk. cnn and national security
11:07 am
analyst. cnn political commentary and national political reporter for clear politics. let me start with you, errol, now sara murray put it or how the sound bite was as far as papadopoulos coffee boy. how is papadopoulos fetching coffee when we have something to show the connections he has very high within the trump. >> i'm glad you played the audio of the excellent guy. photos hit the web showing him at high level meetings with donald trump or one of his foreign policy advisers during the campaign. we should also keep in mind that michael caputo, he's a coffee boy. on the other hand only one person involved was under oath. only one went to court and said
11:08 am
i did all of these things and tell you all about it. and he's been talking about it for months now. so if you want to have a swearing contest between the white house crew and somebody who swore under oath what he did, we'll see how that plies out in court. >> so i'm wondering if i'm papadopoulos, to you, sir, and hearing now i think i had some role, clearly as this foreign policy adviser, name check by the president, but to the "washington post" and this president is calling me a liar and this is all being downplayed, aren't i going to talk more? >> well, he's probably going to talk all these going to talk. but surely he's not winning any fans from the white house. but the thing that strikes me, and you are an active defense attorney, the thing that strikes me is carter page was on tv yesterday, on tv today, caput0 is on tv today. they are all making statements. if they are untrue, they are
11:09 am
building another case for robert mueller for false statements and egg interviewed. one thing the papt teaches all of us who practiced law is don't lie. and these guys need to shut up. >> you are going to get caught. >> doesn't make any sense, especially when you read the case and you see it says that this is one, a small part of a larger case. and that, two, the interests of justice are yet to be v vindicated. stlas is other information here, but we are not yet releasing it. doesn't make sense to me what they are doing. >> there was a whole bunch of i don't know. if anything, i think what robert mueller is sending strong signal to the white house but all of us none of us saw the papadopoulos story going they have a lot
11:10 am
going on. if you are in this net, looking at the indictments and potentially in the net and ee tear of what's to come, are you thinking hmm, i'm thinking what's going on the last 24 hours. you should i cooperate and reconsider talking? >> i think that's what's on your mind. and if you already talked to mueller, you may have had some amnesia say when you were speaking to him or the agents you may want to consider whether it's time to come clean. mueller's way of saying here are your options. do you want to be papadopoulos or do you want to have a big box on your ankle and your passport taken away and stuck in your house? so this sis your menu. >> you choose. >> and to that exact point, papadopoulos doesn't agree, he gets five years.
11:11 am
he agrees least at 0 to six months. manafort he's about 11 to 12 years if he goes to trial and loses. if he cooperates fully he's about four to five years. big incentive to cooperate. >> i'm coming to you in a second. but focusing on legal angles. is president trump in any trouble whatsoever for calling papadopoulos a liar and bashing potential witness? >> i don't think so, not yet from a legal standpoint. if his language tends toward obstruction, that is witness intimidation, then theoretically. if he says to somebody if he says to manafort, just be quiet. >> so calling someone a liar isn't intimidating or obstructing, that count be perceived as stop talking. >> it could be in the broader context. i think as a one off tweet probably not. others will chime in. but if he gets to the point and he says to somebody, be quiet, and i'll pardon you, that's
11:12 am
obstruction. if he says to somebody you keep talking and they'll be hell to pay that will be witness intimidation. i don't think we are to either yet but that's the parameters. >> what are you thinking listening to this? >> interesting enough, the papadopoulos is huge. because when you look at the footnote of the after davfidavi yesterday he goes from bit player in the trump campaign. those who covered the campaign knows he was talking to the highest levels of the campaign. and now he is at the center of this investigation. i think this provides a lot of problems from the white house, and for republican lawmakers on capitol hill. remember, when the manafort news came out, republicans and the white house were able to make the argument of, well, this doesn't have anything to do with the campaign. you can argue on those merits of course as well. when the papadopoulos news came out, that made it very difficult to spin this. because this hits at the center
11:13 am
of mueller mandate which is russia, collusion, allegations of russia collusions. so to downplay his efforts in that campaign you can do that, but you also have to explain why was he talking to senior officials. and he's been talking and cooperating with the fbi. so republicans on the hill are just waiting for other shoes to drop. and they don't know what to say. a lot of them are remaining silent and that silence is becoming deafening. >> so curious to say how sarah huckabee sanders handles this today. stay with me, i have more for you. coming up at cnn white house briefing about to begin. how trump is reacting behind the scenes. we'll take the briefing live. also questionable comments from the chief of staff, john kelly, praising confederate general robert e. lee and saying the civil war resulted from an inability, lack in this country
11:14 am
to compromise. huh? is general kelly more like trump than the country previously thought. you are watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. complete the job with listerine® help prevent plaque, early gum disease, bad breath and kill up to 99.9% of germs. listerine® bring out the bold™ we're on a mission to show drip coffee drinkers, it's time to wake up to keurig. wakey! wakey! rise and shine! oh my gosh! how are you? well watch this. i pop that in there. press brew. that's it. so rich. i love it. that's why you should be a keurig man! full-bodied. are you sure you're describing the coffee and not me? you or joints. something for your heart... full-bodied. but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.
11:15 am
it's a like, a dagger?a worm! a tiny sword? bread...breadstick? a matchstick! a lamppost!
11:16 am
coin slot! no? uhhh... 10 seconds. a stick! a walking stick! eiffel tower, mount kilimanjaro! (ding) time! sorry, it's a tandem bicycle. what? what?! as long as sloths are slow, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. he's a nascar champion who's she's a world-class swimmer who's stared down the best in her sport. but for both of them, the most challenging opponent was... pe blood clots in my lung. it was really scary. a dvt in my leg. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. my doctor and i choose xarelto® xarelto®... to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner...
11:17 am
...that's proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt and pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. here's how xarelto works. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least six blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective... ...targeting just one critical factor, interacting with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures and before starting xarelto® about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems.
11:18 am
you've got to learn all you can... help protect yourself from dvt and pe blood clots. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. there's more to know. watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. as president trump is in a word seati seethe go over the russia investigation, also tug of war. officials say strategies steve bannon who left the white house as recently as august, is suggesting the president push back. he says to the president, get combative, do things like cut funding or slow down document production in court. on the other side, the white
11:19 am
house chief of staff, john kelly, and white house ty cobb are urging the president to cooperate to get through it as fast as possible. my panel is back. so first to you on this. if the president, again this is just the steve bannon of how to handle the whole situation, if the president takes his advice, would that then be obstruction of justice? >> you mean if he takes his advice to fire mueller? >> no, i'm not going there. but i'm saying not handing over documents, cutting fund go to certain things, things that are pertinent to this investigation that mueller is asking of the white house, if he's fighting him tooth and nail, is that a problem for the president? >> it is a problem for the president. i mean, look, all of the president's actions go to his motive or state of mind in this original obstruction case going back to why he fired comey. okay. that is what the main obstruction case is about. and the question is did he do it
11:20 am
with corrupt intent? this is incredibly difficult crime to prove because you have to get into somebody's heart. and if he takes every measure he can to stand in mueller investigation or per swasuade h they could also bolster this case that he really wanted this russia investigation to go away because he had something to hide or he is afraid of something being exposed. so he is a little bit in a corner, in my opinion, in terms of how aggressive he can be against mueller. >> errol, knowing the steve bannon role, just preand during and post white house, how likely might the president take him up on these ideas? >> you have to keep in mind when ban ton says fight this to both the last ditch he's not telling donald trump something that the president doesn't want to hear. in fact, it the other side of his brain. i mean, this is the way donald trump conducted his life in commerce, this is the way he
11:21 am
conducted his campaign and young presidency. always fight back. never give an inch. doesn't matter what the access hollywood tape shows you doing, just say it's all a lie. doesn't matter if you have no intention of suing any of the women who are making acquisitions of sexual assault, say you'll sue them all. it doesn't matter if you lied a couple of years for this birthism conspiracy theory, just stick with t it. so i don't think bannon would be foreign, it's something he would do absent any other options. one thing that i think is worth noting though, brooke, when the papadopoulos plea was exposed yesterday, it was revealed yesterday, donald trump went silent on twitter for about 20 hours. and that doesn't happen very often. >> no, it doesn't. >> i think he really got thrown for a loop what's going on. so whether he's going to seethe some more or take advice of his
11:22 am
lawyers or do whatever it makes sense to do, i think that silence really was the right thing to do. because getting into an attack on the judiciary, on the courts, on the special counsel, ultimately on congress, it's going to all backfire sooner or later. >> that is precisely where i was going to go next. thank you for that. let me pause and play some sound what we heard from the top republican on the side mitch mcconnell commenting on the special investigation, commenting on the special counsel robert mueller. here he was. >> special counsel has his job to do. the job we have here in the senate is the investigation being carried out by the in tell begins committee so far bipartisan basis with senator beur burr and special counsel has his job to do. and we'll concentrate on what we are doing here in the senate. >> all right. so acknowledging that bob
11:23 am
mueller has his job to do and respecting that so says the top republican on the senate side. are you surprised, just piggy backing on what errol said, that he has withheld, he called papadopoulos a liar but doesn't say anything about mueller. >> that is the correct strategy. all those things you outlined absolutely true. you don't want to lie to bob mueller though. it's one thing to lie in the broad discourse of communications. but you don't lie to bob mueller because heel indict you for that lie. and so ty cobb is saying mr. president help yourself here. and for 20 hours he helped himself. he's not been able to resist the impulse he gets to communicate but he's on very dangerous ground. if he starts trying to instruct
11:24 am
rosenstein to cut funding, he gets much much closer to the point that this becomes obstructionist behavior. >> yeah, so i think this is going to be the tension between fighting this in the court of public opinion and fighting this in a court of law. and i don't think donald trump understands the difference between the two and why there are consequences for doing it one versus the other. i actually think that maybe the last 24 hours his lawyers were successful, they locked him in a room with mittans on, but whatever he needs to listen to his lawyers. he can fight back against mueller in certain ways, exert privileges and litigate stuff. but if he starts using the power of his office and influence he has over his staff and the people who work for him to try to impede it, that's when it becomes a problem. >> you have to look at the impeachment articles against nixon and clinton, you'll see exactly the truth of what she
11:25 am
has said. >> i'll take your word for t and just finally to you, caitlyn, emergen imagine a world we had a democrat president, what would that look like from republicans if this were reversed? >> if this were clintons for example you would see t and you are kind of already seeing it. last week the republicans tried to run a counter narrative going after clinton for the uranium one deal which was not true and also going after the clinton campaign for the famous dossier. back to your point about bannon, i think bannon reflects the republican base that wants the republican majority in congress to be fighting back more. and at the same time, however, you are seeing a lot of republicans on capitol hill say let the special counsel do its work. because we don't want to cross that line. in fact, you had some conservative republicans calling for pulling out funding from
11:26 am
this investigation. can't really do that because it's not under doj purview, it's under treasury, but given that it don't come up to the flow which shows the complications of this. and you also have people saying that to fire mueller would cross a line that we don't want to go. so they are sending these signals now just in case. bull i think that divide is pretty interesting. >> a lot of tough questions coming at sarah huckabee sanders momentarily. thank you so much. fascinating times in which we live. we are waiting for the white house briefing to begin we'll bring it to you live. also talk about the comments from president chief of staff equally praising the confederate general robert e. lee saying it was a lack of compromise that led to the civil war. more on his comments when we come back. you wouldn't do only half
11:27 am
11:28 am
of your daily routine, so why treat your mouth any differently? complete the job with listerine® help prevent plaque, early gum disease, bad breath and kill up to 99.9% of germs. listerine® bring out the bold™ they always refer to me as master sergeant. they really appreciate the military family, and it really shows. we've got auto insurance, homeowners insurance. had an accident with a vehicle, i actually called usaa before we called the police. usaa was there hands-on very quick very prompt. i feel like we're being handled as people that actually have a genuine need. we're the webber family and we are usaa members for life. usaa, get your insurance quote today. a heart transplant... that's a whole different ballgame. i was in shock.
11:29 am
i am very proud of the development of drugs that can prevent the rejection and prevent the recurrence of the original disease. i never felt i was going to die. we know so much about transplantation. and we're living longer. you cannot help but be inspired by the opportunities that a transplant would offer. my donor's mom says "you were meant to carry his story". (avo) but you also have a higher risk of heart attack or stroke. non-insulin victoza® lowers a1c, and now reduces cardiovascular risk. victoza® lowers my a1c and blood sugar better than the leading branded pill. (avo) and for people with type 2 diabetes treating cardiovascular disease, victoza® is now approved to lower the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. and while it isn't for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (avo) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis.
11:30 am
do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so, stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. ask your doctor about victoza®.
11:31 am
facebook, twitter, google, all on capitol hill right now. this is happening at the senate judiciary hearing. just getting started now. where senators are about to grill the social media giants how russia used their platforms to meddle in u.s. politics and specifically in the 2016 presidential election between donald trump and hillary clinton. the numbers tell the story here. consider this, provided by facebook here in a stunning statement, 126 million americans, let me say that again, 126 million americans might have seen content provided by the russian government in the weeks leading up to election day. compare to to the number of
11:32 am
people voted last year 139 million. let's go straight to drew griffin listening in. forgive me, let's listen in to senator lindsey graham. >> certainly allowed to do so. the title of this hearing is extremist content in russian disinformation in line. working to work with tech to find solutions. that's what we want to do. so we are here to try to find soluti solutions. let me describe the challenge. i doubt if i would be here if it weren't for social media president trump told fox news on 2017. so this the president of the united states saying that from his point of view social media was an in valuable tool to help him win an election. i would dare say that every politician up here today asking you questions uses your service. and we find it in valve tobl
11:33 am
communicate with our constituents and get our message out. not only do we use it and does the president use it, millions of americans use your technology to share the first step of a grandchild, to talk about good and bad things in their lives. and i would like to say to all of you you've enriched america. we have more information available to us because of what you do. we can find almost an answer to any question, when was the pentagon built. we can share aspects of our lives with those who mean the most to us. and we can talk among ourselves 140 characters some are better than others, some people should probably do less of it. but the bottom line is these technologies also can be used to undermine our democracy and put our nation at risk. the platforms that i've just described that add value to individual american lives and to our country also can be used by terrorists to recruit in
11:34 am
cyberworld people to their cause, can be used by foreign governments. we have seen an example of that in 2016 to create chaos within our democracy. information is power. ideas are the essence of democracy, the exchange of ideas, being able to criticize each other is one of the things that we cherish the most, but what we have to be on guard as a nation is having people who want to undermine our way of life using these platforms against us. and i think this is the national security challenge of the 21st century. here's what general petraeus said about jihads online. there are also exploring the vast, largely ungoverned spaces in cyberspace demonstrating technical expertise, sophistication in media production, and a guilty in the
11:35 am
face of various efforts to limit its access. it is clear that our counter extremism efforts and other initiatives to combat extremism online have until now been inadequate. i think that's a fair statement. and the purpose of this hearing is to figure out how we can help you. i believe that each of us in your own way are taking these problems seriously. the one thing i can say without a doubt what we are doing collectively is not working. you had a foreign government apparently buying thousands of dollars worth of advertising to create discontent and dis cord in the 2016 election. you have foreign entities going to websites to create bites amo fights among americans. so the bottom line is these platforms are being used by people who wish us harm and wish to under cut our way of life. if you are a man like putin
11:36 am
democracy sur worst nightmare. good and bad about your government is something you dare not do because you won't last very long. so to those who wish to undermine the american way of life, they found portals into our society that are intermingled in our every day life. the challenge of this hearing is how to keep the good and deal with the bad. we'll never be 100% perfect but the go el is to be better than we are today. and to the extent ta legislation can help, we would like to know about what we can do to help. to the extent that the status quo is acceptable, we all want to be on the record and say it is not. so with that, i'll turn it over to senate white house. >> thank you, senator graham for organizing this fourth subcommittee hearing into
11:37 am
russia's meddling into the 2016 election h i'm very proud of the work we are doing on this issue. i hope it will continue. and i hope that you and your team see me and my team as loyal partners in this effort. understanding what happened, how russia applied the varied methods is important step to protecting future integrity of our democracy process. each hearing we hold gets us closer to our understanding. in our first hearing in march, i talked about to begin a public conversation about the means russia uses to undermine government. we heard testimony from witnesses who outlined the various tools through which the kremlin influences a broad like
11:38 am
compromising corrupt business and political figures, to hacking. >> all right. here she is. sarah huckabee sanders at the white house. >> good afternoon. happy halloween. >> thank you. >> i thought for sure i would see some costumes today. >> dressed as reporters. >> that's not nearly as exciting as what you could have come but we'll let it slide for today. today i'm once again pleased to talk about the topic that we and more importantly the american people are excited about. tax cuts. we are approaching the release of legislation based on the tax reform framework the president supports. fl no matter how great the plan is for the hard working families, democrats are expectsed to criticize the tax cuts as they've done in recent years. while arguing over president reagan 1981 tax cuts, democrats claim it would only benefit the rich. the democrats speaker of the
11:39 am
house at the time, tip o'neil, called them royal tax cuts because he claimed they favored the wealthiest americans. what really happened was 14 million new jobs were created over five years, incomes grew by over 22% for the next seven years, and the economy grew by over 3.5% on average for the rest of the decade. some democrats must have been paying attention to history because as recently as last year they publicly supported many of the principles for which the president is advocating that includes lowering the tax rate which is the highest among developing nations so our businesses can be more competitive. in fact, president's obama and clinton both advocated for cutting corporate tax rates. senate chuck schumer called it upside down. and actually admitted that cutting corporate taxes is quote really important for american competitiveness. minority leader nancy pelosi apparently agreed because she
11:40 am
said, quote, it is long since past time for tax reform that would lower the corporate tax rate. the only thing that changes sinced then is who occupies the white house. since day one president is trying to give the hard working americans the raise they deserve. under the framework supported by the president our economy will grow, businesses will invest back in the country and american workers will see their wages grow. in fact the counsel for economic advisers estimates that a typical hard working american family would get a $4,000 pay raise. so to democrats and congress, particularly those who would like to place american jobs and middle class tax relieve ahead of politics, the question is very simple. do you believe the american people deserve a pay raise? we certainly do. and that's what we'll be focused on in fighting for. the choice is yours. and with that, i'll take your questions. . steve? >> where does the president stand on the tax reduction for state and local taxes? that seems to be in dispute?
11:41 am
>> we laid out our priorities for the tax cut plan. those haven't changed. the president is going to continue working with both the house and senate to push forward and make sure that the principles he laid out are achieved. and we haven't made any adjustments to that at this time. >> what about the mortgage interest deduction? >> again, same point here. we haven't made any changes to the priorities that we laid out. i'm not going to negotiate between you and i. but the president is going to be involved in ongoing conversations with members of both the house and senate. we have laid out what our priorities are and going to stick to those as we move forward. >> conversations with speaker ryan just now? >> still meeting now and we'll have a read out on that meeting once it's completed. matthew? >> thanks. question on mueller news. president nominee chief science over at the sam clovis. and clovis was the campaign supervisor cited in that papadopoulos plea and his lawyers since acknowledged that he was the one in that plea who
11:42 am
encouraged papadopoulos in august 2016 to make ha trip to russia to meet with russian officials about the campaign. given all that is the president still comfortable with him sam clovis serving in the administration? >> i'm not aware of any change that would be necessary. >> and on it that note is the administration aware of who the other three or four campaign individuals who were referenced in that papadopoulos plea were and are any serving in in the administration? >> i'm not aware of the specific individuals. what i can say is i think papadopoulos is an example of actually somebody doing the wrong thing while the president's campaign did the right thing. all of his emails were voluntarily provided to the special counsel by the campaign. and that is what led to the process and the place that we are in right now was the campaign fully cooperating and helping with that. what papadopoulos did was lie and that's on him not on the campaign and we can't speak for that. john? >> chief of staff john kelly said this special counsel investigation has been very
11:43 am
distracting for the president. can you elaborate on that? is this affecting his ability to get his job done? >> i don't think it's affecting his ability to get the job done. that wasn't the point he was making. you seem completely obsessed with this. while a lot of other things happening around the country and frankly people care more about. the media refuses to cover it. and that's the distraction instead tft focus being on constantly on tax reform. if you look at the records the questions i take in day out have far more to do with investigation that frankly americans don't care a lot about and whole less about policies that effect them. >> why are you so confident that the investigation won't go on further? >> we have confidence that it's going to come to a close in short time. glen has a call. maybe he needed a phone in to get help with his question. >> sarah. >> glen, i had more faith in you
11:44 am
to be able to ask a question all by yourself. but. >> the other thing that general kelly said yesterday was in reference to general lee and he said that the civil war was the result of the failure to compromise. was he suggesting that there would be compromise on the ablution of slavery? >> look, all of our leaders have flaws. that doesn't diminish the contributions to our country and certainly can't erase them from history. and general kelly was simply making the point because history isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not our history. >> you are a proud daughter of the south. when you see a statue that was responsible for the massacre. is there a differentiation? do you think there are certain
11:45 am
that don't deserve to be honored? >> look, i don't think we should debate every moment of history. i think those moments took place. there are moments that are going to be a lot less proud of than others. but we can't erase ts fact they happened. you have to determine where the line is. the president has said those should be something left up to state and local goofts and that's not who i'm representing to you. john? >> thaunnks a lot. follow up what you said today and reiterated today about this streks and your belief it's going to be wrapping up soon. >> yesterday you said those are the indications that we have at this time. from your point of view, is what you are saying wishful thinking? is it spin? are you getting leaked information? why do you continue to say that you believe it is wrapping up soon? >> again, that position has not changed. and we do think that it will wrap up soon. >> i didn't say it would be
11:46 am
three or four days. i said soon. and we hope that's the case. in large part because we know that the facts are on our side. there was no collusion. and we are looking forward to moving forward. and hoping that you guys can as well. and we can actually start talking about and focusing on some of the things that i mentioned to jonathan, that we feel the american people would rather the conversation be turned towards. jessica? >> hearing. >> sorry, i'm going to keep moving on. >> one of the prosecutors that is on bob mueller team, the plea hearing from mr. papadopoulos last month at the hinted at the possibility more to come in the investigation. he said the mueller probe is quote large scale ongoing investigation of which this case, the papadopoulos case, is a small part. so given what he said, as an officer of the court, are you disagreeing with anything that he said in his remarks during that plea hearing? >> maybe his references in looking more to come tweej the
11:47 am
democrats and the clinton campaign since i think if there is any evidence to date it's between them colluding with other foreign governments. certainly not from our side. jessica. >> one question about what the president said today and then question broadly. but first question is president mentioned in the tax reform meeting there that he was going to be announcing quote soon some companies that are coming back to the united states. can you either name them or give us the industry that we are talking about? >> you know i'm not going to get ahead of announcement the president was going to make. >> and then the speech that he's making in apex big billed as a theme for the trip as well as indio pacific. does this administration see india as strategy? >> certainly plays a big role. and general mcmaster will be later this week to discuss the trip in greater depth and happy to address more of those
11:48 am
questions at that time. >> white house steve bannon is saying the administration should push back harder against special counsel robert mueller. does the president support the special counsel? >> no, i'm not sure what we would push back against since so far they were shown more and more no connection between the trump campaign and collusion with russia. john? >> thank you, sara. two questions, please. first, the president is quoted last year as calling mr. papadopoulos, and i quote, a great guy. and today it was a liar. and i wonder just to kind of clear the air how well did he actually know him? and was he briefed by him often? did he have frequent meetings? how well does he know this man? >> my understanding only interaction he had was the one meeting that advisory counsel gathered together where he was in large group with other people in the room.
11:49 am
and to my knowledge that's oinl in only interaction he had. he was somebody that played a advisory board, that's it. >> and only met the president one time? >> that's only one we are aware of. >> other thing i wanted to ask a few weeks ago when the president sent out twitters about the media, he suggested that equal time be applied. now, to many, many people that was an euphemism for the fairness doctrine. something that president trump ronald reagan helped eliminate and since nancy pelosi tried to revive. is he seriously in reviving the fairness doctrine? and i might add that it's premier opponent of revival was a young congressman named mike pence. >> i don't know that he's into the deep weaves of the fairness doctrine. but i know he's certainly
11:50 am
believes in fairness. and i think he would like to see that applied certainly to his administration in a way that it probably hasn't been so far. charley? >> on the president, sorry, republican senate candidate roy moore's on capitol hill today. does the president have plans to meet with him before he leaves for asia? >> flo, no planned meetings at this time. blake? >> there are still lots being negotiated on taxes, salt which was just brought up, possible phasing incorporate rate just to name a couple. when the tax bill, whatever of it is released tomorrow, will the president wholeheartedly endorse this as his plan? >> as of right now we see no reason to feel otherwise. but until we see the details of that, i'm not going to speculate on where we are. we have laid out what our principles are and expect that piece of legislation to reflect those principles. if it does, you'll certainly see
11:51 am
the administration come in with full support. >> i'm not asking you to give a name. >> what if i did, wouldn't it be fun? that's the most excitement we've gotten out of this room. sorry. >> if you want to give us a name, we will take it. if not my simple question is has the president made his decision or is he still debating it? >> i can tell you it's not major garrett but beyond that i don't have anything to weigh in on. >> president trump during the campaign repeatedly castigated hillary clinton for not coming forward and clean when she got debate questions ahead of the debates. why didn't anyone in the trump campaign, including his son, come forward, when there were solicitations from russian agent to provide dirt on his opponent. >> i'm not sure how those two things are remotely related so i couldn't figure out how to answer that question. >> i'm getting to the sense of pro-active duty to come clean when there is an ethical
11:52 am
question. and is the president upset that people in his campaign did not come clean when there were ethical questions? >> i don't believe that to be an ethical question. that's a pretty standard campaign operating procedure. >> the russians? >> that's not klobuchcollaborath the russians. >> i have two questions. you've been very clear that trump didn't collude and hillary clinton did. what's your definition? >> i think taking millions of dollars into a foundation that benefits you while making decisions that impact people that gave that money. i think those are certainly areas of collusion that should certainly be looked at. >> and my second question, just to follow up from glen, robert e. lee, a side and i understand your point about how leaders have flaws. what kelly said yesterday was an inability to compromise led to the civil war. and back in the spring the president said that he thinks that andrew jackson could have
11:53 am
made a deal to avert the war. what is the compromise that they are talking about, to leave the southern states slave and the northern states free? what was the compromise that could have been made? >> i don't know that i'm going to get into debating civil war. but i do know many historians agree that a failure to compromise was a cause of the civil war. there are a lot of historians that think that. and there are a lot of different versions of those compromises. i'm not going to get up here and relitigate the civil war but there are certainly i think some historic documentation that many people, and there are pretty strong consensus, people from the north, south, right, left, that if some of the individuals engaged had been willing to come to some compromises on certain things that it may not have occurred. >> thanks. apropos what's going on in the hill this afternoon and facebook disclosing that more than 100
11:54 am
million americans were apparently exposed to what amounts to return propaganda, what is the white house view of that notion that more than 100,000 people have been reading and watching what this russian outlet has been putting out? hand what do you think of the motion there ought to be some kind of requirement that facebook be required to disclose the way that broadcasters are required to? >> i think we have to see how the process works out. some of the questions you'll have to ask facebook. that's not something that the federal government can weigh in at this point until the findings of that investigation and those hearings are completed. >> i'd like to follow up on something you said earlier, but also follow up on the conversations happening about the slavery compromise. i'm not asking you to relitigate the civil war. we don't need a history lesson. but does the white house acknowledge that the chief of staff comments are deeply offensive to some folks? and historically inaccurate? >> no.
11:55 am
because as i said before, i think that you can't -- because you don't like history doentd mean that you can erase it and pretend that it didn't happen. and i think that's the point that general kelly was trying to make. and to try to create something and push a narrative that simply doesn't exist is just frankly outrageous and absurd. i think the fact that we keep trying to drive, the media wants to make this and push this is some sort of a racially charged and divided white house, frankly the only people i see stoking political racism right now are the people in the groups that are running ads like the one you saw taking place in virginia earlier this week. that's the type of thing that i think really is a problem. and i think it is absurd and disgrace full to try to keep making comments and take them out of context and mean something they don't. >> can i follow up on that? >> new poll out that shows the
11:56 am
public seems to trust some of the media mainstream more than they trust the president himself. why do you think this would be? and do you think the white house agrees with that. >> i haven't seen anything to suggest that. i certainly can't comment on something that i know nothing about and don't agree with. >> given some of the criticism we've heard from the president's outside advisers s the president happy with his legal team right now? does he feel well represented and defended when it comes to the mueller probe? >> i'm not sure how he couldn't considering with what i said yesterday and preeted several times today all the revelations that have taken place over the last several days and hours have nothing to do with the president, have nothing to do with his campaign. and i think the further we get into it, the more and more we see that happening. >> one of the questions. >> thank you, sara. i wanted to ask about taxes and make a quick follow up on the discussion about compromise. if i'm understanding you
11:57 am
correctly, what you are really saying he's not suggesting a compromise on slavery but other things that are germane to history? >> he didn't get into the specifics because that's something that's been discussed very widely by many historians, again from both the north and south right and left, and he didn't get into the details of it because it wasn't the point he was maeking. >> making. >> on taxes, the child tax credit, and as far as obamacare mandate, is it your thing that the president would be major tenet of the tax reform that will be unveiling this week? >> certainly supports the child care tax credit. what was the other? >> obamacare mandate, does that have to be part of the tax reform? >> i don't believe it has to be
11:58 am
part of tax reform but the child tax credit is something he would like to see. one last question. major. >> star a, yyou said to us a fe ago the papadopoulos plea agreement. does that extend to sam clovis encouraging george papadopoulos to go to russia on behalf of the campaign to solicit information? >> my understanding is there wasn't encouragement. he made multiple attempts at setting up meetings that were constantly rebuffed. also made false statements to the administration. that was nothing that the administration would support. all of the emails were provided to the special comb by campaign that is how they got to the place they are in right now. >> are you saying clovis is being misinterpreted by papadopoulos? >> i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about the meetings more than one instance in which
11:59 am
he tried to set up meetings that were rebuffed by the campaign. he lied about a lot of those activities. and that is the place that i think you see come through in the emails voluntarily turned over. >> you were asked at one point when the president became aware that russia was behind in possession of emails, you said i'm not sure of the specific date when that took place so i'd have to look an and get back to you. >> yeah i can respond to that now. the president was briefed in a pretty widely publicized meeting in january. later day he said he believed the intelligence briefing and said he believed russia was behind the hacks. thank you very much. i hope you have a happy and safe halloween. thanks, guys. >> okay. before we get into the panel, just quickly, my memo to sarah huckabee sanders if she thinks the press is obsessed with this story, she needs to check her boss's twitter feed.
12:00 pm
let me hear from you how does any of that hold water? >> which part? >> let's talk about the russia story. >> yes. >> and sarah huckabee sanders making case today as she did yesterday that none of this has anything to do with the president and the campaign. i think it would be easier for them to make a case if there hadn't been more than the manafort gates part of the story revealed yesterday. but after the papadopoulos revelations, and after the revelations of his emails with key members of the president's campaign, and after revelations that perhaps this person was wired or has been corroborating with prosecutors, i don't see how you can actually she that yest