tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN June 15, 2018 5:00am-6:00am PDT
the east. it's been a busy week, and today is no different. >> it's a week's worth of news in one day. >> the justice department inspector general's report is out and already being used by president trump and his allies as ammunition against the special counsel's russia investigation. the president tweeting about the report for the first time just this morning as his lawyer, rudy giuliani, says robert mueller should suspend his investigation today so fbi officials in the report can be investigated and even jailed. >> the report finds james comey was not motivated by political bias in his handling of the hillary clinton e-mail probe. comey was strongly criticized for his actions that were, quote, extraordinary and insubordinate. and there's more, house republican leaders unveiling a draft immigration bill that adds new restrictions to legal immigration and asylum seekers but would offer protection to young undocumented immigrants and change the trump administration policy of separating parents and children at the border. this comes as the attorney general, jeff sessions, is now
using the bible to defend that practice. "the washington post" notes it's the same bible passage once used to justify slavery. >> let's bring in cnn political analyst and white house correspondent for "the new york times," maggie haberman. glad to have you here. let's start with the inspector general's report, the long-awaited inspector general's report. this is what president trump had been touting as, you know, was going to be filled with big headlines and it is filled with big headlines in terms of james comey's, i guess, wrong-headed behavior. they think he broke with protocol, that he was insubordina insubordinate. what does donald trump do with this? >> the report says he was insubordinate and broke protocol with regard to the hillary clinton probe. the president's lawyers are aware a lot of people are not going to hear that aspect. they're just going to hear insubordinate, colored outside the lines. >> and meld it with the russia investigation of the white house.
>> correct. the president's legal team has. they are looking to muddy the waters. and so the president this morning tweeted said this essentially validates his, quote unquote, good instincts in terms of firing james comey. initially the logic he cited was how he handled the hillary clinton probe and then gave several other answers too. i think if you went into this believing james comey and thinking that he was a reliable narrator, then this didn't necessarily change your view. i think if you went into this thinking that he was a problematic figure, this compounded your view. and i think you are going to see various parties use this for political means, as expected. >> you are seeing various parties using this for political means. i want to know, maggie, what you're hearing from your sources. you have rudy giuliani saying mueller needs to suspend the investigation today. this is rudy giuliani who says things. he makes noise, words out loud that often doesn't lead to anything. do you have a sense that the president will make this call within the next few hours?
>> i don't. but i think they are stoking the idea that he might. i think the president is aware that messing with the mueller probe, especially before there is a report out from mueller, is a particularly bad idea when the president is still in the process of this back and forth over an interview that very few people believe he will ever give mueller. >> so is this a real back and forth? i'm sorry to interrupt you. but the idea that they're still negotiating, are they really? >> no, i think what it is is essentially buying time by the trump legal team. their job is to defend their client, their job is not the same as what reporters' jobs or or government officials' jobs are. this is to get this as close to the window of the election as possible so mueller will get accused of playing politics. what i think has become fairly clear if the president's lawyer is to be believed is that he's not going to be indicted. i think people are hoping that people thinking the president will get frog marched out of the
oval office is not going to happen. but it could spark impeachment hearings depending what happens in the house. >> it is interesting that rudy giuliani is lighting his hair on fire saying sessions should suspend mueller right now. your reporting is it's unlikely the president, who has the power to fire rod rosenstein isn't likely to do it right now. this is all an act from giuliani. >> or it's lawyering. it's a pr effort that we're seeing from giuliani. i don't know that i think it's an president is going to do this, he said this should happen. we've seen repeatedly when the president is acting as if the doj is not part of his government. they act this is something they are pushing back separately from and i think this is a continuation of that. >> next topic, somewhere between 500 and 650 children have been separated from their parents at the border. this is a new policy from the trump administration, they call it a zero tolerance policy. it's hard to know how they really feel about it because they are looking for other
justifications for it as if they don't want to own it. >> that is 100% correct. that is one of the most striking things about this. it's what we saw with the president with daca too. he doesn't want to be known for the thing that he is doing, his administration is doing. ending daca was the president's choice. i know their argument was it's unconstitutional and we had to say something because of an external lawsuit. that lawsuit was brought by allies of the administration. it is hard to imagine that there was not some foreknowledge. if the president wanted a fix to daca, he could make it happen. the same thing here. he keeps saying this is president obama's policy. there are aspects of obama's policy that are part of what president trump has been doing with immigration. separating children from their parents at the border as a deterrent to future immigrants or asylum seekers is not an obama policy, it's a trump policy. and it's not a law, it's their policy. >> chief of staff john kelly has told us this is a deterrent. we know this because he has told us it out loud.
>> sessions says it also. >> it is a trump administration policy. >> correct. and it is very -- it is increasingly creeping into the mainstream consciousness to see these images of children being taken from their parents. i think it is going to be very, very hard as time goes on for the president to keep spinning that as something that someone else is doing. this is his policy. >> okay, that said, and we were debating this last hour, maybe it's a tactic and maybe it's an effective one. even if you're using children as political footballs or tools or wrenching them from their mother's breast, maybe it's a tactic that appears to be working since it has gotten congress' attention and now there is a republican immigration bill that they are going to vote on and they are going to present. >> i reject that theory because this bill is going to attract no democratic votes. it's a poison pill. the president will then blame democrats and say, see, they don't want to fix. this would impact asylum seekers, which the democrats
will not go along with, number one. number two, one of the most troubling aspects of this bill for people who are concerned about the president's border policy is it keeps billing this as if this is about keeping families together. we're going to change the separation policy. it's not really. it's going to say that parents can stay with their children but then they will be held indefinitely. that is quite a choice. >> finally on this subject, maggie, i'm interested in what your reporting tells you. does the white house -- are there people in the white house who think they have a problem on their hands. >> yes, yes. >> now that these pictures are out there, do they realize this is dicey. >> there are a lot of people in the white house who realize this is dicey. as we have seen repeatedly, it is not clear that they are going to be able to get anyone to change anything. if people wonder why it is that jeff sessions puts up with everything that he has put up with over the last year and a half, jeff sessions has a real vision of what immigration should be and this is what it is. and this is why he is staying. you have other people around the president who have that as well,
such as stephen miller. it's going to be a heavy lift to get the president to get away from it, especially in an election year, which we are in now. it's not the president's election, but the midterms will affect him greatly and they believe they need to turn their base out. >> jeff sessions cited the bible, romans 13, about why this has to happen. he was sort of saying that the government's decisions are beyond reproach. that's gotten a lot of criticism, even franklin graham, probably best known evangelical christian in the country. >> right. >> so any sense that there's enough blowback or pushback that they would alter this? >> i think if you start hearing from more evangelical leaders, sessions' quoting of the bible aside, if you hear from more evangelical leaders, that could impact the president, especially if he sees them on tv. >> you have some reporting on the comings and goings at the white house. who's in, who's out, what are you learning? >> everybody is often both in and out. the president is consumed with the topics of leaks to a degree
that he was actually in the first two months of the administration. he is constantly asking is xyz a leaker, him, her. the new -- i think there has been a lot of proxy war going on and a lot of it is basically john kelly's frustrations with the president and things the president will not submit to or get other people to submit to in terms of kelly's authority. so the latest target of that is andrew giuliani, the son of the president's lawyer, who had his west wing pass revoked because he was seen as not following protocol. he also had the president say he wanted him elevated to a certain position and john kelly just didn't do that. you have seen now marc short, the white house legislative affairs director, make clear to people inside the building that he will leave sometime this summer, i think likely next month. i think the job has become sort of impossible generally but certainly in a midterms year, i don't think they're going to get much done legislatively. then the question is who takes it over.
john kelly's -- my understanding is she has told people she's not interested. >> how about sarah sanders. >> i think that sarah sanders is increasingly having a more and more difficult time in that role. i think that she has made clear to people outside the building that -- and inside the building that she doesn't know she's going to do it forever but i don't know if that means before the midterms or not. i think the midterms will be the demarcation point you'll see many people leaving. she may leave before, but time will tell. >> on north korea, one of the things we were thinking about during the summit while we were in singapore is would the president be surprised at some of the criticism of the agreement that was signed. does he think, does he really think that he got something new, new concessions from north korea, or is he just trying to make a big show of it? >> no, i think that he has told himself that this is actually something real and this will
lead to something even further. when he feels like he is not getting proper praise, that's when you see the tweet that there's no more nuclear threat, which is obviously not true. but that is what he wants people to perceive it as. i believe it was very frustrating for him to get back to the u.s. and see the coverage of this summit and recognize it was not quite on par with what in his mind it should be. >> look, we have to go, but also, maggie, since you know i like to do a little arm chair analysis, when you talks about kim jong-un and how impressive he is and how much respect he has because of what he was able to take over from his father in his 20s and 1 in 10,000 -- >> actually it was 1 in 1. there was not a request for proposals to take over for the dictatorship, there was just one person. >> thank you for doing the math, for crunching the numbers on that for us. much more on the justice department's inspector general report into hillary clinton e-mail situation. what does it mean for the
mueller probe? one of the president's staunchest allies in congress who has called for the firing of robert mueller weighs in next. ♪ (daniel jacob) for every hour that you're idling in your car, you're sending about half a gallon of gasoline up in the air. that amounts to about 10 pounds of carbon dioxide every week (malo hutson) growth is good, but when it starts impacting our quality of air and quality of life, that's a problem. so forward-thinking cities like sacramento are investing in streets that are smarter and greener. the solution was right under our feet. asphalt. to be more precise, intelligent asphalt. by embedding sensors into the pavement, as well as installing cameras on traffic lights, we will be able to analyze the flow of traffic. then that data runs across our network, and we use it to optimize the timing of lights, so that travel times are shorter. who knew asphalt could help save the environment? ♪
♪ ♪ ♪ raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ♪ ♪ bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ♪ ♪ brown paper packages tied up with strings ♪ ♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ can make you feel unstoppable. ♪ but mania, such as unusual changes in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on shaky ground. help take control by talking to your doctor. ask about vraylar. vraylar is approved for the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes of bipolar i disorder in adults.
clinical studies showed that vraylar reduced overall manic symptoms. vraylar should not be used in elderly patients with dementia due to increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. high cholesterol and weight gain; high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death; decreased white blood cells, which can be fatal; dizziness upon standing; falls; seizures; impaired judgment; heat sensitivity; and trouble swallowing may occur. you're more than just your bipolar i. ask about vraylar. our because of smoking.ital. but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. but then, we were like. what are we doing? the nicodermcq patch helps prevent your urge to smoke all day.
nicodermcq. you know why, we know how. it wi called usaarst and the first thing they asked was 'are you ok?' they always thank you for your service, which is nice because as a spouse you serve too. we're the hayles and we're usaa members for life. president trump's lawyer, rudy giuliani, says the special counsel's investigation should be suspended today in response to the inspector general's report about the fbi's handling of the hillary clinton e-mail probe. joining me now is republican congressman matt gates of florida. he has repeatedly criticized the
special counsel's investigation and called for the firing of robert mueller. congressman, thanks for being with us. >> thank you. >> i know you're on the president's speed dial, so i have to ask, have you had a chance to speak with the president of the united states since the release of the i.g. report? >> i have not. i think he's been a little busy trying to make sure we frame up the sewing together of the korean peninsula so he hasn't had time to call me with his hot takes. >> i'm sure you'll get that call sooner or later, congressman. i'm sure that you've read the report. are you concerned that james comey, the fbi director, treated hillary clinton unfairly during the e-mail investigation? those decisions to give that news conference, the decision to release that letter to congress in the days before the election, do you feel that was unfair to hillary clinton? >> i think it was unfair to the american people that james comey repeatedly violated fbi procedures and that the protocols and processes that we rely upon for the most extraordinary of circumstances like the investigation of a presidential candidate weren't
followed. look, i think that that was bad for all of us. hillary, trump, the entire campaign and the country. >> did that hurt the clinton campaign in the days before the election? >> you know, so many things happen in a presidential election, it's very difficult to engage in the histrionics but if peter strzok had not prioritized the russian investigation, the timetable seems to indicate anthony weiner's e-mail would have come out in september rather than october and maybe that could have worked its way through the political die jest i've system. >> so you think the fact that this was held back actually may have hurt hillary clinton when all it all comes out? >> i think what i said is there's so many alternate causalities in a presidential election, but that was not a good thing for hillary clinton, wasn't good for donald trump and wasn't good for the country.
>> let me tell you what james comey said about the delay there. he said the fbi had all the information it needed on september 29th to obtain the search warrant and it did not seek until more than a month later. the neglect had far-reaching consequences. comey told the inspector general had he known about the laptop in the beginning of october and thought the e-mail review could have been completed before the election, it may have affected his decision to notify congress. in other words, he wouldn't have told congress, the public may never have known that the e-mail investigation was reopened, so perhaps that may have hurt hillary clinton. >> it may have. again, it's a presidential elecon and a loes on. but i that it's a bad thing when the inspector general says that the lead agent in the hillary clinton e-mail investigation, who then becomes the lead agent in the trump russia investigation when he is utilizing and accessing bias to pri prioritize one over the other.
they said it wasn't political bias that led peter strzok but that threw off the entire timeline and began ann an illegitimate russia investigation. it was only six days before he was talking with his girlfriend about an insurance policy against the trump presidency. that was as good an evidence of bias that you could have in a case. >> to be completely fair, he said we did not have confidence that the decision to prioritize the russia investigation was free from bias. he doesn't say they found there was bias, he said we didn't have confidence that there was no bias. >> that's as bad as it gets in an i.g. report. >> i'm just saying out there what was said. >> yeah, but they don't have confidence that there wasn't bias, that necessarily means that bias was present. >> i'm just reading you the language the i.g. used so the american people can hear what it is and make that judgment for themselves. they also said, by the way, when it comes to the hillary clinton e-mail investigation, we found
no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias. those are the two different ways that "bias" is used as a word in this. i keep asking about the hillary clinton e-mail probe in this case because it does seem that you are open to the possibility that the net impact of all these decisions were made, it's possible, you're leaving open the possibility that it did have a negative impact on the clinton campaign. >> i just don't know. i just don't know. >> you're not ruling it out. >> yeah. it's a presidential election. >> we agree that you're not ruling it out. yet you were out here every day saying that the hillary clinton e-mail investigation and those involved in it were out to get then candidate trump. it just doesn't seem as if those two things could be happening at the same time. >> no. look, if you look at the text messages between the people who were the senior folks on the hillary clinton e-mail investigation, they're doing everything they can to pave a yellow brick road for her. >> no, no, no, no. hang on, hang on. you don't know -- you say everything that they did. everything that they did.
but they said, they said -- hang on. we're judging the things that they said. they absolutely said the things that they said and we now have that from this inspector general report. >> they were for hillary, they were against trump. >> in terms of the things that they did, what they could have done was leak the fact that president trump, the candidate, was under -- his campaign was being investigated, they were looking into the possibility of russian collusion. they did not do that. in terms of what they did, that was something that didn't happen, correct? >> i don't think that we give the fbi a gold star for not leaking. that's their job. you don't get extra credit for doing your job. here you saw persistent examples of the very people who should have been holding hillary clinton accountable demonstrating their bias in favor of hillary clinton. it's a different question whether or not -- >> where, where -- >> hold on. let me finish my answer. so whether or not they were effective in helping hillary clinton is a different question as to whether or not they wanted to help hillary clinton. i think that likely peter strzok believed that delaying on the
weiner laptops was helping hillary and in the end it may have ended up hurting her. that's why the processes are so important and we should follow them in any circumstance so we don't have to monday morning quarterback those decisions. >> no argument here. that's clearly what this report says, that james comey had a choice whether or not to give that july 5th press conference. he chose to do it and that was the wrong choice. he had a choice whether to deliver the letter to congress, he did and that was the wrong choice. you keep on suggesting that there was some conspiracy to get donald trump and that's just not in this i.g. report. you say that these agents were trying to help hillary clinton. where's the evidence they were trying to help hillary clinton before james comey gave that july 5th news conference? >> well, the fact that they were texting one another repeatedly saying they thought hillary clinton should win the election 100 million to 0 is likely they didn't just hold that opinion at one time, that it was pervasive throughout the decision-making process these people were engaged in.
>> look, you don't -- you don't know -- >> being dismissive of the trump movement to their peril. >> there's no argument that those texts are deeply troubling. the fact that there are five people is now being looked into, there is no question about that. but in terms of helping hillary clinton during the clinton e-mail probe, that's not here. in fact it says the exact opposite. >> of course it is. >> it says the opposite. >> no. >> it says we found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. >> so they acknowledge that bias existed, but they don't find the connection between the boyias a investigative decisions. i think that's a decision the american people can make and particularly the e-mail from andrew mccabe to the washington office is instructive. andrew mccabe rips this case away from the jurisdiction of the washington field office so a bunch of people at the head shed at the fbi can cook the investigation and that's precisely what happened. if we would have followed our
normal processes, you would have had the front line prosecutors, investigators in the washington, d.c., field office and this is why so many retired fbi agents and current fbi agents were livid with james comey and were e-mailing him after his really bad announcement saying if they had done the very same things they would have been fired and possibly prosecuted for it and shows the double standard for it. if you don't think there's evidence of that, you need to reread chapter 12. it's pretty clear on the manifestation of that bias as it comes to opening up trump and russia. >> there's a separate i.g. investigation into that. >> well, it mentions russia too. >> it does come up, but it doesn't reach any conclusions about the russia investigation. >> it concludes that you can't exclude bias as a factor in prioritizing the russia investigation. that's one hell of a conclusion. [ overlapping speakers ] >> but at the same time it opens
up the possibility that that actually helped donald trump. again, all i'm saying -- >> it helped donald trump to open up on russia and prioritize this. >> hang on, hang on, congressman. i let you make your case here. in this case where it talks about the fact it could not say with confidence that peter strzok did not act with bias when he delayed that aspect of the clinton investigation, it opens up the possibility that it helped candidate trump and not hillary clinton. all i'm saying is if there was a conspiracy, which you have suggested, to help hillary clinton, there is no evidence here. >> no. just because the conspiracy didn't work doesn't mean it didn't exist. again, the conspiracy is ongoing. >> do you feel -- last question, last question. do you feel the same way about the trump tower meeting between donald trump jr. and russians promising dirt on hillary clinton? just because the conspiracy didn't work, it doesn't mean it didn't exist? >> no, that's different. >> does the same logic apply there? >> no, because there was not an accepted offer. donald trump jr. did not accept
the offer of assistance. >> he absolutely did. he said if that's true, that's great. >> no, no, no, he did not accept any assistance or collude. these are people making an offer that wasn't accepted and they were engaged on their own for their own purposes and own reasons. at the end of the day we should not have a russia investigation ongoing. it was only nine days before peter strzok said we'll stop him that he opened on papadopoulos and only six days after that that she's talking about his insurance policy against the trump presidency. it's one of the reasons why more than half the country believes this is a politically motivated investigation and that number is about to skyrocket. >> we'll have you on to talk about it as the days go on. great to have you with us, sir. >> thank you. >> good thing you read that report. there were a lot of citations in there. wow, good job. attorney general jeff sessions is using the bible to justify separating children from parents at the border. as house republicans circulate a
new draft of their new immigration bill that they claim could fix all this. what do democrats have to say about it? joaquin castro of texas joins us live. having it problems? ask a business advisor how to get on demand tech support for as little as $15 a month. this week get boise case paper for only $29.99 at office depot office max. you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels
until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia. add-on advantage. heartburn and gas? ♪ now fight both fast new tums chewy bites with gas relief all in one relief of heartburn and gas ♪ ♪ tum tum tum tums new tums chewy bites with gas relief i think, keep going, and make a difference. at some point, we are going to be able to beat als. because life is amazing. so i am hoping for a cure. i want this, to uh, to be a reality. um, yeah.
(burke) so we know how to cover almost anything.en almost everything even "close claws." (driver) so, we took your shortcut, which was a bad idea. [cougar growling] (passenger) what are you doing? (driver) i can't believe that worked. i dropped the keys. (burke) and we covered it. talk to farmers, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
>> it was tough. >> he was asked by one of the reporters why are you separating children from the parents within this zero tolerance policy at the border and he said that's the democrats doing that. that's the democrats' policy. that's the democrats' plan. your response? >> well, the president lies often and he's lying this time. it's not a democratic plan. his attorney general is making the decision, a choice to separate these young kids from their families. and the president is so ashamed of his policy, that he won't even own it. he's so embarrassed and ashamed about what he's doing, that he won't even accept that he's doing it. he's denying reality. and the fact is, he should be ashamed because this is a brutal policy of taking young kids, little kids that are crying, that are experiencing severe emotional trauma, and taking them from their families. >> congressman, i mean often, as you know, the president spins things to his own, you know, best benefit. >> well, i would say he doesn't
just spin things, he lies. you guys should be clear about that, he lies. >> i appreciate your candor in this because this one is hard to figure out what he's saying. he's the president. the attorney general is his attorney general. the attorney general has announced this new zero tolerance policy. there wasn't a zero tolerance policy before they came to office. >> right. >> so how he can possibly say that this is up to the democrats, this one is a total head scratcher. you know, why are they doing it? if he's ashamed of his own policy and trying to claim that it's the democrats, why are they doing this? >> well, i'll give you one reason i think they're doing it. i think he does a lot of stuff for policy leverage later on. so, for example, here he's creating a humanitarian crisis so then paul ryan and the republicans in congress can -- and he can try to fix it and use fixing that crisis as leverage to get other concessions from folks in congress. and you see that with the bills that they have laid out for next
week. >> okay, let's talk about that. so if this is just a tactic in order to get leverage, and i hear your theory on that, here's what the republicans have brought to the table in this draft bill on immigration, okay. so let me just lay it out. $25 billion for border security, including the border wall. we know that's long been one of the president's top priorities. ending the diversity visa lottery. cuts to family-based visas. path to citizenship for daca recipients, so i assume that you would be please wed that portion of it, and they will address this issue that is happening right now at the border of family separation, children from parents. so what do you see here? would you go along with this? >> well, it's a 300-page bill so i'm still going through it. all of us will go through it over the weekend and into next week. again, they're building the wall. $25 billion wall which is hugely unpopular with the american people, at least the majority of people don't support it. most texans don't support it. they're also using this humanitarian crisis they created
as leverage to put in a bunch of other bad stuff while solving the crisis that they created. >> so you're saying that if you don't go along with it, help me understand the logic. if democrats don't go along with it, then can the president say, look, we had a fix. republicans suggested a fix. democrats won't go along with it. that's what's happening at the border. >> that's absolutely what he'll do. he did a similar thing with north korea, for example. he got credit -- he and kim jong-un got credit for taking us away from the brink of war. but the fact is, you all know that president trump was the one who was agitating on twitter and press releases and press conferences creating these hostilities, bringing us to the brink of war, and then going over to north korea and getting credit for taking us away from the brink of war. it's the same thing he does over and over. >> if you don't go along with this as democrats, then what happens to these families at the border? >> you're right. it puts us and people in congress in a very difficult position because i think this administration will continue to
get more brutal. >> what does that mean? >> i think that they'll continue with this inhumane policy and i think that it will get worse. i can't tell you exactly how it gets worse, but my sense is with these guys, it will get worse. >> you're just saying that's your fear? >> yeah. and so far, you know, i think a lot of these fears have come true. >> so democrats are powerless to keep these families together or to stop babies and children being separated from their parents right now and being held. we've heard from some who have gone down to the border in pens. right now the government is trying to come up with better, less inhumane accommodations, but they're still going to separate the families. >> i wouldn't say that we're powerless. we're pushing legislation. there were -- people have been doing everything that they can to raise this issue. that's why you're seeing so much attention to it now. so we can never give up hope and we can never stop trying because if you do that, you really shouldn't be in this place. also the american people are not powerless.
the american people can do something to change what this government and what their president is doing in their name. >> senator -- attorney general jeff sessions says that the bible dictates this. the bible suggests that we obey the laws of the government because god has ordained the government for his purposes. your response? >> that's a perversion of the bible that attorney general jeff sessions -- his interpretation. >> congressman joaquin castro, thank you very much for being here with your perspective on all of this. >> thank you. president trump talking to the media just moments ago about immigration, about this very subject. also the inspector general report. we'll talk about all of this with van jones coming up next in our bottom line. first, we have some incredible people who are changing the world for better. here is a preview of our special series "champions for change." >> all next week, a special cnn series. our anchors profile "champions for change." >> we travel the globe telling
stories of change makers. >> this time we're joining their mission to make a difference. >> giving time to the causes that are dear to our hearts. >> and sharing the stories of the champions leading the charge. >> it was for a great cause. that's motivating. >> we had to help them in a way that lets them see this is not how your life has to be. >> this is an opportunity to pay it forward. >> to do something that is going to be meaningful. >> they are the kinds of students any community would be blessed to have. >> it just warms your heart that you could help someone with f d food. >> join the journalists of cnn as we work alongside champions for change, all next week. presented by charles schwab. hi.i just wanted to tell you that chevy won a j.d.power
dependability award for its midsize car-the chevy malibu. i forgot. chevy also won a j.d. power dependability award for its light-duty truck the chevy silverado. oh, and since the chevy equinox and traverse also won chevy is the only brand to earn the j.d. power dependability award across cars, trucks and suvs-three years in a row. phew. third time's the charm...
cnn's van jones here with the bottom line. i guess let's listen to just what he said because we were on tv. i want to get a take on this. >> i say that the i.g. blew it at the very end with that statement because when you read the report, it was almost like comey. he goes point after point about how guilty hillary is and then he said, but we're not going to do anything about it. the report, the i.g. report, was a horror show. i thought that one sentence of conclusion was ridiculous. >> what he's talking about there is the i.g. put out a report that said we found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper consideration. so we have this 500-page i.g. report where there's a lot in it the president likes, but he decides to dispute the conclusion there, van. >> well, there's nothing there that nobody should like, let's just be honest. when you have people who are supposed to be doing a professional job and they're having side conversations. but you know what, that actually happens in real life.
i've been in hospitals where, you know, doctors and nurses are having negative side conversations about patients or families. that doesn't mean they then go into the surgery and botch it on purpose. it doesn't mean the nurse is not giving the pills properly. people can have opinions. maybe they shouldn't have them. maybe they're catty or petty, but it doesn't mean they're not doing their job properly. at the end of the day it seems to be what they founding. people had catty, personal opinions but you can't find evidence that those opinions actually changed the outcome of these investigations. and both facts are important. both facts. >> we were just talking about immigration. as you know, there are children who are being separated from their parents under this new zero tolerance policy that's being implemented by attorney general jeff sessions. i think the president just addressed that. we think that what he said was that there is this immigration draft of a new bill from the republicans and it has, you know, various tenets, most of them pretty hard line or will
assuage conservatives' feelings more than democrats. it does include a path for dreamers and says it will be a fix for this separating parents from children but it sounds like the president will not vote for this republican bill. >> he says that he will not sign what he calls the more moderate agreement. you can disagree about whether it is moderate or conservative, but he will not sign this agreement that the house speaker and others helped forge with the moderates in that. this essentially blows up the republican deal that they just made. van, there is urgency here to solve the problem of separating these parents from children. >> beyond urgency. i mean this is not a zero tolerance policy. this is a zero humanity policy, it's a zero dignity policy, it's a zero human rights policy. there is no country on planet earth that when refugees show up on the border fleeing violence,
fleeing gang activity, running for their lives, that rip babies away from mothers and jail the mothers, incarcerate the mothers and the children too. that is -- it's unprecedented on the planet. has it happened in narrow cases in the u.s. befe? yes, with good cause. but a blank wholesale attack on every single person coming here, even people who say these people are breaking the law. some of these people are following the letter of our asylum laws. >> absolutely. >> to the letter and having their children ripped away. >> they must be protected when they show up on our shores seeking asylum. >> because of the human rights law the united states pioneered and brought the world into requires that. not only our own laws but global hum ranit human rights laws. by the way, if you're a conservative, if you're a republican, pro family, pro baby, pro choice, all these things about the innocent and so
frustrated with the democratic party for not understanding your argument, that whatever the parents did or didn't do, that child in the womb is innocent and shouldn't be punished based on what the parents decide. apply that to the border. don't punish babies. don't punish children because of the choices of the parents. where is the republican party? where are my conservative friends? where are my fellow people of faith and christians on the abuse of children on our own borders? the silence has been appalling. i hope it breaks this weekend. >> where is the president? let's listen to the sound from the white house just moments ago. >> i certainly wouldn't sign the more moderate one. i need a bill that gives this country tremendous border security. i have to have that. >> i want to bring in david chalian. the president just said it, he would not sign the more moderate bill. david, and i say this with the utmost respect. i'm not sure he understands what he just said. i think what he was just saying is he's not going to accept the
deal that was reached within the republican caucus. if that's the case, he just blew up the party's immigration plans again. >> and you're saying that, john, because the more moderate version, that deal, the goodlatte bill is what we would analyze as the more moderate version. but here's the thing. the other thing that the president said there was, yes, they need to fix this legislatively. he likes to blame the democrats, assayer a sarah sanders did yes that created the law to separate the children from their families. my ears perked up too when i heard him say that because it sounds like he's not willing to sign at this point the bill that the republican house majority is crafting as a compromise deal, yet he still says he wants a legislative fix. right now that seems to be the only one that potentially has the possibility of getting enough votes to actually be a legislative fix. >> van, you said where are my
fellow -- my friends, the conservatives, where are the evangelicals. franklin graham arguably best known evangelical christian in the country, he said that this is unconscionable. i'm paraphrasing, but that was basically the message that he sent to the white house. and he said this is because of 20 or 30 years of bad policy and lack of leadership, which is also true. but we need sharper statements from our conservative christian friends. this is a no-brainer. this is not hard. you can say i want the most secure borders ever, but i don't want to scar children. i do not want 2-year-old babies who are going to be emotionally scarred for 20, 30, 40, 50 years, where is my mama, for three months, six months. you don't want that to have a secure border and you don't have to do that to children to have a secure border. it's a no-brainer. it's a no-brainer. from my point of view, this is the opportunity for the christian evangelical movement to step forward and say hold on a second. if we're going to be key to this
dpov governing coalition, we are going to impose some morals and some principles. maybe not on the president in his personal life but certainly on the behavior of public policy. >> david chalian, the president saying he wants a legislative fix once again is deflecting, saying that others should do something on this when it's an administration decision. >> totally. >> the administration decided to do this. you can have the argument, obviously van feels a certain way, there are others. although it does feel as if they have created a ground swell of people who feel similarly to van here along franklin graham and others. >> and the pope. >> but the white house needs to own the fact that they chose this path. they are choosing to separate the children from the parents. >> and the other thing that president trump said in this really unprecedented kind of stroll to the north lawn kind of interview, i don't think i've ever seen a president of the united states speaking on television from the stand-up reporter position on the north lawn before, but he strolled out
there and talked to fox this morning. the other thing he said, john, is tough on immigration wins. i've learned that and now we're in an era where tough on immigration wins. so he sees this enforcement action as some kind of political -- and the polls don't say that at all. the congress, his own party in the congress clearly doesn't believe this is a political win for them right now. they are scrambling to come up with a more humane solution here, but the president truly just using his own words, believes that the toughest position you can have on immigration-related matters is a winning position. >> there you go. if the poll numbers dip, then you'll see the policy on this zero tolerance policy changing at the border. if americans speak out and tell pollsters how they feel action that's possibly how it will change. >> i think there are a number of things that need to happen. first of all, everybody -- if you've never called your congressperson before, google it, it's not hard. everybody right, left, doesn't matter who you are, say don't
abuse babies at our border. that's not appropriate, we don't want that. and then it's important, listen, there needs to be a signal sent i think in november that some things are beyond the pale. i think if you begin to put that together, i think the calculation changes. but what's key is that trump doesn't care about the general polling. he cares about the polling for his base, which means if you are a trump voter, you have a tremendous amount of power in this situation. if you are a trump voter and have always been there for him, you want the wall. you can say i want the wall but i don't want babies abused, that begins to crack into his decision-making model and we need to hear from trump voters who don't want this kind of abuse. and if you're going to ride with him on everything, including this kind of mistreatment where we're going to be an international pariah, where we're doing bad stuff, then i start to ask the question, is there a bottom to the moral collapse that we're in? >> to change the subject because i think this is an interesting discussion but i want to get to another thing the president was talking about on the lawn. he was talking about north
korea. listen to what he says about his recent meeting and a little bit of history. >> you took some heat over saluting one of the generals. >> i think he fired at least -- when you say he fired. i think maybe fired at least, fired may be a nice word. that's right, i met a general, he saluted me, i saluted him back and they're using that as another sound bite. i think i'm being respectful to the general. we have a very good relationship with north korea. when i was talking to president obama, he essentially was ready to go to war with north korea. and i did ask him, have you spoken to him? he goes no. do you think it would be a good thing to speak to him maybe? because you know, if you go to war, you're not talking about 100,000 lives, which is a lot. you're talking about 30, 40, 50 million lives. >> so this, david, i assume the president is speaking about the meeting he held in the oval office immediately after the
election. president trump claiming that president obama said he was about ready to go to war there. tis fits into the narrative, though, where president trump is trying to make the case that he has done something that no one else could do or would do with north korea. >> that's his nobel peace prize application there. but what is interesting to hear him say, and it sounded like it was president-elect -- then president-elect trump's assessment that president obama was prepared to go to war. but what is interesting is we know that president obama said this is going to be your greatest problem. it wasn't president obama who promised fire and fury, the likes of which we've never seen before. that was president trump who was amping up that war rhetoric last august. we were -- most experts, john, that have been on this show and told you guys, we were closer to the precipice of an actual military conflict and war with north korea under president trump in the fall, summer and
fall than we've ever been as a country before. >> van, your thoughts. >> yeah, look, it's just interesting. trump, just to make the story work, will change who the characters are. so now it's trump is the peaceful, reasonable person and obama is this crazy war monger. but he ran against obama for being weak, for being too appeasin appeasing, for going on this alleged apology tour, which he never went on. so it's more about telling the story which makes trump look like the hero than telling the truth. >> can i just read you something the president said pause this will make you sit up. he said of kim jong-un, he speaks and his people sit up at attention. i want my people to do the same. >> see. that's just stunning. can you imagine if president obama had come outnd said i just met with a brutal dictator and this brutal dictator who murders people, who starves people, has his people sitting up at attention. i want the american people to do
the same thing. it would be game, set, match. it would be done. and yet -- >> van, never mind the political hypocrisy on that point, what american president, irrespective of party, would ever say that? >> or want that? >> and think that way? i just can't think -- so, yes, you can call out the political hypocrisy that if obama did this it would be a five-alarm fire for the republicans. but that doesn't even sound like an american president. >> it's a five-alarm fire for democracy at this point. that's -- i'm stunned. it's hard to stun me. i've been sitting here for three years listening to this stuff and doing the best i can. the pundits are going to be speechless. >> until i hear him say it with his own words, i'm actually reluctant to believe this, because it is such a stunning statement and it is -- it's such a moment of, i don't know, unvarnished something, candor. but i'm waiting to hear it from the president's mouth because i can't believe that the president of the united states would have
just said that. >> you know what happens in north korea if you don't sit up and listen to the supreme leader? >> something bad? >> you get shot. you get shot. and the president of the united states is, i guess, lamenting the fact that he can't elicit a similar reaction in the united states. we're trying to get that sound together so you can listen to it, but it is illustrative, van, of the state of mind of the president here. >> listen, i -- i try not to overreact and sometimes i feel like every tweet, everything, we're just all upset and then babies are being ripped away from their mothers at the borders and we're already at 10 all the time so there's no 11 to go to. liberals get mad at me because i don't react to everything. this is very, very horrible, this is unacceptable. the entire point of this country is that people don't sit up and pay attention to the leaders, the leaders sit up and pay attention to the people. that's the entire point. that's the whole model is that it's the people who stand up and the leaders who respond and the leaders who take the people seriously.
if he wants the reverse, there are plenty of countries that he can go and stay there and i would suggest he start looking around. >> obviously we'll get that sound for everyone as soon as we have it. in the meantime, be sure to watch van jones' show tomorrow on cnn at 7:00 p.m. eastern. kim kardashian and seth meyers. >> you'll sit up and listen. >> cnn newsroom with poppy harlow will pick up after this quick break. hainer oh don't... it's early 90s sitcom star dave coulier... cut...it...out! [laughing] what year is it? as long as stuff gets lost in the couch, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
heartburn and gas? ♪ now fight both fast new tums chewy bites with gas relief all in one relief of heartburn and gas ♪ ♪ tum tum tum tums new tums chewy bites with gas relief you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.
all right, good morning, everyone. i'm poppy harlow in new york and it has been an extraordinary past half hour. hearing from the president directly on so many things. president trump unloading on that no holds barred doj report on the hillary clinton e-mail probe and then on ex-fbi director james comey. you're going to hear all of the significant things the president just said this