Skip to main content

tv   Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer  CNN  November 9, 2018 3:00pm-4:00pm PST

3:00 pm
creating distance. as mr. trump kicks off an overseas trip, he is trying to get far away from his controversial new acting-attorney general. how could he claim he doesn't know a man he recently called a great guy? lashing out. after republicans lose control of the house, the president is losing his temper, insulting reporters, picking a fight with the french president and taking angry swipes at the obamas. false fraud claims. as the florida senate and governor races may be heading for recounts, mr. trump is ru returning to a favorite tactic, alleging election corruption with no evidence to back it up. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room". ♪ this is "cnn breaking news". . breaking news tonight. a new report on the president's extensive personal involvement in pay-offs to silence the porn star and the playmate who say
3:01 pm
they had affairs with him. the "wall street journal" says federal prosecutors have gathered evidence of mr. trump's direct role in the hush money deals with stormy daniels and karen mcdougal which may violate campaign finance laws. daniels' lawyer, michael avenatti, says it is more proof that the president repeatedly and lied about his knowledge of the pay-offs. this as mr. trump is facing backlash for firing attorney general jeff sessions and appointing a controversial critic of the russia probe to oversee robert mueller. i'll get reaction from senator richard blumenthal. he is a top democrat on the judiciary committee. and our correspondents and analysts are also standing by. first, let's go to our chief white house correspondent, jim acosta. he's covering the president's trip to paris. jim, mr. trump landed there just a little while ago, but he landed with some new baggage. >> reporter: that's right, wolf. the president is on the ground here in france to celebrate the
3:02 pm
100th anniversary of the end of world war i. the president though doesn't sound like he's in much of a mood for peace. he's picking fights left and right, especially on the russia investigation, but there's also another storm cloud on the horizon. leaving for a weekend trip to france, president trump is having trouble getting clear of some big storms brewing back home. the "wall street journal" reports the u.s. attorney in new york is gathering evidence that shows the president was involved in hush money deals with two women who say they had affairs with mr. trump, karen mcdougal and stormy daniels. the journal says the president was involved in or briefed on nearly every step of the payments. contrast that with the president's comments last april when he claimed he didn't know about money going to daniels. >> you know about the $130,000 payment to stormy daniels? >> no, no. >> reporter: as he was leaving for paris, the president was pressed on the other big legal mess hanging over him, the russia investigation, specifically his decision to
3:03 pm
make matt whittaker his acting attorney general, a move that puts a critic of the probe in charge of it. >> i didn't know matt whittaker. he worked for attorney general sessions. he was very, very highly thought of and still is highly thought of, but this only comes up because anybody that works for me, they do a number on them. >> reporter: the president repeatedly claimed he didn't know whittaker. >> i don't know matt whittaker. >> reporter: but that's not true if you believe what mr. trump told "fox news" last month. >> i never talk about that, but i can tell you matt whittaker is a great guy. i mean i know matt whittaker. >> reporter: prominent d.c. attorney john conway, husband of kellyanne conway, argued in a "new york times" op-ed that his selection is unconstitutional, it is illegal and it means anything mr. whittaker does or tries to do in that position is invalid. the president brushed off conway's concerns. >> he is just trying to get publicity for himself. why don't you do this, why don't you -- why don't you ask kellyanne that question, all
3:04 pm
right? she might -- she might know him better than me. i really don't know the guy. >> reporter: the democrats, who are about to take control of the house, are vowing to protect special counsel robert mueller. >> the american people spoke on tuesday. they want a check on abuses of power. that's, i think, one of the issues that was on the ballot. so we have a number of options. one, we're going to have a funding-the-government vote coming up in a couple of weeks, and we will insist we protect the mueller probe. >> reporter: even with all of that on his hands, the president is also sparring with, of all people, michelle obama. in excerpts of the former-first lady's new book obtained by "the washington post", she says she will never forgive mr. trump for being a birther, saying what if someone loaded a gun and drove to washington, what if that person went looking for our girls. the president dismissed that and took a swipe at barack obama. >> she got paid a lot of money to write a book, and they insist you come up with controversial. i'll give you controversy back. i will never forgive him for
3:05 pm
what he did to our united states military by not funding it properly. >> reporter: the president is said to be, quote, on the warpath about vote counts still underway in places like florida. mr. trump complained of voter fraud, but when asked for evidence he didn't have any. >> although i hear. i don't know, you tell me. it is always the democrats. >> reporter: another nemesis that might be on the president's mind is michael avenatti, the attorney for stormy daniels, who writes in a new "new york times" op-ed that the president can, in fact, being indicted. that is contrary to the claims coming from the president's defenders and lawyers who say he cannot be indicted. wolf, avenatti says the theory should be tested in court. >> yes, i just spoke with him in the last hour and he made that point. jim acosta who is in paris with the president. thank you very much. let's dig deeper into the new report on the president's involvement in the hush-money payments. we are joined by sara sidner. this "wall street journal"
3:06 pm
report has a lot of important, new information. >> reporter: it certainly does, an explosive report really when you consider the details in it that could put trump in more hot water, if you will, when it comes to the two women he is accused of having an affair with and paying off and trying to silence. the "wall street journal" reports that donald trump not only knew about hush money payments made to two women to keep their alleged affairs with him out of the press before the 2016 presidential election, but he was directly involved in the payments and process to get those stories killed. the report says trump in 2015 met with david pecker, the head of ami which owns ""the national enquirer"" and other publications and asked him, "what can you do to help my campaign?" the women involved include playboy model karen mcdougal and porn star stormy daniels, both of whom say they had affairs with him. trump denies the allegations. the report says the "wall street journal" found that mr. trump was involved in or briefed on nearly every step of the
3:07 pm
agreements. he directed deals in phone calls and meetings with his self-described fixer, michael cohen, and others. daniels was convinced trump knew about her hush agreement and sued him to get out of the agreement. >> my attorney and i are committed to making sure that everyone finds out the truth. >> reporter: mcdougal told cnn's anderson cooper in an interview she was unsure. >> do you think donald trump would have been aware of this deal? >> one of the big complaints with why i think my contract is illegal is because his attorney was talking to my attorney, so -- >> you're saying donald trump's personal attorney, michael cohen? >> correct. >> was speaking with your attorney. >> with keith, without me knowing, without my knowledge. i would assume maybe he knew. i know his attorney did. i can't say he knew. >> reporter: the journal reports that the u.s. attorney's office
3:08 pm
in manhattan has evidence of the transaction. people familiar have told cnn prosecutors have prepared a draft indictment of his attorney, michael cohen, that was more detailed and included additional charges when cohen suddenly decided to plea they dropped it. trump and his son eric were directly involved in efforts to stop stormy daniels from speak filing out. trump has previously denied any knowledge of the payments to daniels. >> reporter: mr. president, did you know about the $130,000 payment to stormy daniels? >> no, no. >> reporter: why did michael cohen say that -- >> well, you have to ask michael cohen. michael's my -- an attorney, and you'll have to ask michael cohen. >> reporter: in august michael cohen revealed in a ply deal with federal prosecutors he knowingly made a contribution to trump's campaign in excess of the election act at the request and suggestion of one or more members of the campaign.
3:09 pm
court documents suggest trump knew about the deal with the women. cnn obtained audio tapes from cohen's attorney of a conversation cohen taped between himself and trump, allegedly discussing details made with tabloid owner pecker. >> i need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend david. >> reporter: now, ami has not responded for comment as we have requested. as you know, you had michael avenatti on, the attorney for stormy daniels, he's on the warpath saying that he believes that donald trump broke the law and that he should be indicted. he is speaking about federal election finance laws, saying that he believes the president broke those laws. the president's attorneys have long-said he did not break any law and doesn't believe he should be indicted or sued or otherwise. trump -- sorry. >> wolf. >> reporter: wolf. >> sara sidner reporting for us.
3:10 pm
thank you very much. let's get back to the firestorm over the president's new acting attorney general and his oversight of the russia investigation that he's publicly criticized agency t criticized as the president tries to distance him from matthew whittaker. he is now speaking out about his new boss over at the justice department. our justice reporter laura jarrett is on the scene for us. laura, you had a chance too speak with the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein today. what did he have to say about his new boss? >> reporter: only praise, wolf. it was very interesting. we managed to get a few minutes for a pull-aside with the deputy attorney general out in virginia when he was there for an invest tour ceremony for a new u.s. attorney. myself along with a couple other reporters were able to talk to him about a conference call that he did with u.s. attorneys around the country, and he described for us how he showed support for whittaker. take a listen. >> i worked with matt whittaker,
3:11 pm
five-and-a-half years, we actually served under seven attorneys general during that time, four senate confirmed and three acting. i explained with various attorneys dealing with matt then. for the past year that he's been serving as chief of staff, i think he is a superb choice for attorney general. he understands the work, understands the priorities. i think he will be -- he is going to do a superb job as attorney general. >> reporter: so you heard it, a superb choice. the context here is important, as these two men have a complicated relationship, i should say. we all remember a few weeks back as we reported that whittaker had actually discussed with the president potentially taking rosenstein's job as an acting deputy attorney general when we all thought that the deputy attorney general might be fired by the president for his comments, but, of course, that didn't happen. rosenstein stayed on the job, and now it appears he's trying to offer something of an olive branch, something of department solidarity as the onslaught of
3:12 pm
bad stories continue about whittaker this week. >> what are you learning about why he was chosen to be paired with jeff sessions, the chief of staff to the then-attorney general? >> reporter: that was no accident. sources tell us it was actually the architect, this construct came about because of former white house counsel don mcgahn who thought whittaker would be a good choice nor the job. he wanted someone over here he thought could put a check on the justice department, sources say, and it was also at the urging of the head of the federalist society, a powerful voice, leonard leo, who has deep ties with the white house e he came out with a statement today saying he supported the pick as the chief of staff, but he did not have a prior relationship with sessions. sessions interviewed him, he liked him and picked him, but the idea that the white house was not heavily involved in the choice as the president somehow suggested today, he didn't even know him though he had said the exact opposite several weeks ago, our reporting shows he has been at the white house a number
3:13 pm
of times. he has spoken with the president a number of times, including, as i mentioned, about taking the deputy attorney general's job, wolf. >> laura, thank you very much. laura jarrett reporting. joining us, senator richard blumenthal. he is a democrat who serves on the judiciary and armed services committee. senator, thanks for joining us. i want to get your thoughts on the new acting-attorney general in a moment, but let's begin with your reaction to the new bombshell report in the "wall street journal" which details the president's involvement in the pay-off schemes to women he allegedly had affairs with. do you believe the president committed a crime? >> the president did commit a crime according to the charging document that the u.s. attorney's office for the southern district of new york submitted to the court in connection with the cohen plea agreement. it, in effect, charged him as an unindicted coconspirator without naming him, and this very abundant detail indicates additional evidence, very strong
3:14 pm
factual support for that naming the president in effect as an unindicted coconspirator. >> you served as the attorney general of connecticut. how unusual would it be for prosecutors to draft an 80-page indictment laying out so much evidence? >> very unusual to have a talking indictment, as it is known, laying out the case in such abundant detail, but also then a 22-page document in connection with the plea agreement that further bolstered it. now this report that provides additional evidence about the details of trump's own communications with pecker, with cohen, with others, and the knowledge that mcdougal and stormy daniels are also bringing to the case. so clearly there's a lot of cooperating going on here, and it spells trouble for donald trump in the southern district of new york, which, again, is
3:15 pm
outside of the special counsel's direct purview. >> the direct purview, but they work closely together on many, many of these cases. no sitting president, as you know, senator, has ever been indicted. do you think that could change? >> it could change, but robert mueller is very much a by-the-book, cautious and deliberate prosecutor who has methodically and meticulously putting together the mosaic of evidence regarding russian collusion involving the trump campaign and potential obstruction of justice. when he makes a conclusion, it will have to be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a very high standard for any defendant and an even tougher one when you consider a public official and even harder when it is a public official like the president. so the odds are against an indictment much the presiden indictment of the president, but he is certainly putting every effort into collecting this evidence.
3:16 pm
>> the current position of the justice department is a sitting president cannot be indicted. but do you think that ultimately that this new information contained in this "wall street journal" report could prove more damaging to the president than the mueller probe? >> it could prove more damaging to the president because it is a discrete, definite crime involving campaign finance and fraud against the government. i happen to believe the president could be indicted legally and the trial postponed until the end of his term as president under the constitution, but the question really will be for the special counsel and for the southern district of new york based on the evidence. it will be a very fact-based decision. >> let's move on and get to some other important issues. you're considering suing the trump administration over the appointment of the acting attorney general, matt whittaker. why do you believe his appointment is illegal? >> the president should withdraw this appointment. it raises very serious
3:17 pm
constitutional questions. we have made no definite decision about whether or not to seek a court action, but clearly matt whittaker has never been confirmed to his present post. he was confirmed as u.s. attorney but not as chief of staff, and, therefore, his installation in this position potentially violates the advice and consent requirement under the constitution as well as other statutory requirements. so the president would be well-advised to withdraw it. in addition, of course, mr. whittaker has indicated a profound hostility to this special counsel investigation, saying that there was no collusion with the russians in the trump campaign, saying that it is mueller's lynch mob, and the specter here is of, in effect, a slow-motion saturday night massacre, a death by 1,000 secret deaths and cuts to the
3:18 pm
mueller investigation, cuts in spending, cuts in authority, cuts in charges that could be brought, and that is very, very deeply troubling. >> the president says he didn't speak to whittaker about the mueller probe before appointing him. do you buy that? >> i have very strong suspicions that there was some conversation about it. it is an issue that should be investigated by the judiciary committee in the senate or the house because, again, it goes to the question of whittaker's hostility to the special counsel's investigation, the appearance of a conflict of interest. he has set forth a roadmap for how to stifle and strangle this investigation. he has indicated how to do it through cuts in the funding for positions in that office, through limitations on its authority, and through the potential disapproval of indictments that may be brought by mueller. he has direct responsibility as the acting-attorney general.
3:19 pm
>> senator blumenthal, thanks so much for joining us. >> thank you. just ahead, we will have more on the bombshell report of the president's central role in hush money payments to stormy daniels and karen mcdougal, how an 80-page indictment exposed his involvement every step of the way. plus, we are minutes away from a court-ordered deadline where the legal battle unfolds in florida where the elections for senate and governor are still undecided.
3:20 pm
it was always our singular focus, a distinct determination. to do whatever it takes, use every possible resource. to fight cancer. and never lose sight of the patients we're fighting for. our cancer treatment specialists share the same vision. experts from all over the world,
3:21 pm
working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. specialists focused on treating cancer. using advanced technologies. and more precise treatments than before. working as hard as we can- doing all that we can- for everyone who walks through our doors. this is cancer treatment centers of america. and these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. treating cancer isn't one thing we do. it's the only thing we do. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.
3:22 pm
there lots of people who are confused about which medicare plan is right for them. hey, that's me. i barely know where to start. well, start here with me, karen. i'm a licensed humana sales agent. well, it's nice to meet you, karen. i'm john smith. hi, john. at humana, we know you're unique. so you have different needs from other john smiths. yah, i've always thought so. and together, we can find a plan that's right for you. great! i go to the doctor a couple of times a year. and i have some prescriptions. but i'm never fully sure of what's covered and what's not. with humana's all-in-one medicare advantage plans, you get coverage for hospital stays, doctor visits, and part d prescription drug benefits. all for an affordable, and sometimes, no monthly plan premium. do you have any more information? sure. i'll get a decision guide in the mail to you today. they're free. finally. someone who understands
3:23 pm
the real me. your health and happiness is important to us. call or go online now to get your free decision guide. call a licensed humana sales agent today.
3:24 pm
♪ we're following multiple breaking stories on the federal investigations weighing right now on the president as he begins a trip over the weekend to paris. tonight the "wall street journal" is reporting that the feds have gathered evidence of mr. trump's personal involvement in hush-money payments to women refuting his past denials and potentially -- potentially violating campaign finance laws. let's get some more from our reporters, commentators and analysts. laura coates, this bombshell report in the "wall street journal", do you believe the president broke the law? >> i think it looks like he did, yes, and i believed when michael cohen gave his plea -- >> ahead of the ami which publishes "the national enquirer." >> right, known as our friend david in a secret audio tape. it all indicates that the prosecutors issued and gave immunity to this person because they believe he had a risk of
3:25 pm
exposure, number one. number two, the actual guilty plea of michael cohen talked about an unindicted coconspirator in the case, talking about someone trying to circumvent federal campaign finance laws. we find that president trump knew about it and asked a question, what can you do for my campaign, which is different from what was said in john edwards case. he was trying to hide a mistress from his pregnant wife. that question puts him in the line of extreme legal exposure and shows he may have violated criminal law. >> what is your analysis? >> i hesitate to disagree with laura so i'm going to line up with her. i think there's an additional perspective, and that's not whether the president violated law, that's whether the federal or state government wants to bring charges. i mean in contrast to the overall question, we have here, whether there was cooperation with the russians, this is pretty low-level legal violation. i think the interesting question if you think that the government
3:26 pm
is going to bring charges against the president is forget about the acting attorney general, i think in the past 24 hours there's been too much focus on him. there's rod rosenstein who will weigh in on this. there will be questions to any attorney general in the nominee in the senate, what do you think about these charges. there will be what a grand jury thinks about this. they are independent of the department of justice, and there could be a state jurisdiction that weighs in here. i think the real question is not whether the president did something wrong, it is whether somebody will do something about it. >> abby, you cover the white house for us. as you well know, the president has repeatedly denied any knowledge of any payments to karen mcdougal or stormy daniels. >> right, and that's the other part of this, is the fact that this is all exposing a long-running lie from the president and the people who work for him who have reinforced this lie over many, many months. it is becoming very clear now that virtually everything that the president has said about the series of events surrounding the hush-money payments has been untrue, and, you know, interestingly enough it doesn't seem to have had a huge effect.
3:27 pm
but as we get further and further down the legal line, it will be interesting to see whether that starts to change, when it becomes clear, if it becomes clear to phil's point, that there is legal exposure, will voters start to pay attention to this or have they become kind of used to it by now? i think there's a real risk here that that has already happened. >> you know, sara, you have done a lot of reporting on this. some are suggesting the bombshell report in the "wall street journal", the foreign inn it contains, could be more damaging than the mueller probe. >> it raises a number of concerns because we don't know that the president is implicated in anything when it comes to the mueller probe. whereas when it comes to cohen's guilty plea, he clearly implicated the president in this scheme as he was pleading guilty to a crime. i think the other door it opens that is certainly potentially worrisome to the president but also to members of his family, is michael cohen was working for the family business at the time. it gives prosecutors a reason to ask questions and go poking
3:28 pm
around in how the trump organization was running its finances and who else may have been signing off on payments like this, and that could be worrisome to president trump, wolf. >> could the president actually face criminal charge? could he be indicted by the justice department? because i understand, laura, that the current position of the justice department is a sitting president can't be indicted. >> that's the current position. it is really a guideline. it is not set in stone, nor should it be. think about the timing of when that memo was drafted. it was drafting around the kenneth starr investigation and it was the clinton justice department that said, hey, we can't indict a sitting president. that 2000-era memo is having weight and implications right now in 2018, but it still has never been tested in a court of law. there are legal scholars who debate this issue, whether or not you can indict a sitting president, whether the nixon -- the nixon case says if a president is not above the law and you cannot say that the administration of due process and justice should fall victim to the president's position, well, then, you might say if no one is above the law it includes
3:29 pm
an indictment as well. there are others, as senator blumenthal suggests, you could probably indict and not have a trial until after his term, which would eliminate concern about the head of the executive branch having all of this time taken over by trying to defend an actual case. it is a debate, but as we see right now from mueller's team, as we've seen from his decision not to make any indictments or anything else before the midterm election, they seem to be abiding by current legal policy. >> abby, you cover the white house for us. a lot of officials are deeply concerned now that the democrats will be the majority in the house of representatives starting in january, they will have subpoena power, oversight. they will be more aggressive in trying to get this information than the republican majority has been. >> exactly. that's the other half of this equation, is that now -- you know, for the last two years there's been the president's party basically protecting him from a lot of these kinds of investigations. that is going to change immediately upon democrats taking over the house, and maybe this won't end up in legal trouble for the president
3:30 pm
personally, but there's almost a certain likelihood he will have a lot of inquiries. it will take up a lot of his time, a lot of the white house's time. it is going to cost a lot of money, and it is going to put a lot of people around the president in some legal jeopardy or in the position where they're facing subpoenas. this is going to be a real headache for the white house, in addition to all of the stuff related to mueller, which they are not totally prepared to deal with in terms of what is coming down the pike on the democratic house side. >> yeah, i felt for a long time, phil, i wonder if you agree, what should really worry the president is that there are individuals who are very close to the president as a private citizen, like david pecker of american media, allen weisselberg, the long-time chief financial officer of the trump organization, who have received immunity in exchange for their testimony, their cooperation. they know a lot. >> that is exactly right. let's play a scenario that goes a little bit outside of standard court case. that is we have heard that the mueller team is putting together
3:31 pm
their final report. presumably it is a lengthy narrative describing not only what is going to be prosecuted but the circumstances they chose not to prosecute. let's presume that the congress gets along with it with the grand jury, and you lay under that all of the trump confidantes who decided to talk. we will spend two years, regardless of whether there's a legal case, discussing what mueller found and what people say about it. >> let's not forget, sara, michael cohen worked for the president as a private citizen for ten years as his lawyer and fixer. >> that's right. he worked nor a long time. you know, michael cohen has certainly made no secret of the fact he is happy to cooperate however he sees fit. he went out and encouraged people to vote for democrat in 2018. i think, you know, he has a little bit of a grudge to bear here, and i think that's what is really unsettling for president trump when you watch this play out, is he sees more and more people who were close to him who are now cooperating, who are now offering to share what they know. he does not have a good view into what exactly they are sharing. anyone would be unnerved in that
3:32 pm
situation. >> they certainly would. everybody stand by. we have a lot more on the breaking news right after this. since you're heading off to dad... i just got a zerowater. but we've always used brita. it's two stage-filter... doesn't compare to zerowater's 5-stage. this meter shows how much stuff, or dissolved solids, gets left behind. our tap water is 220. brita? 110... seriously? but zerowater- let me guess. zero? yup, that's how i know it is the purest-tasting water.
3:33 pm
i need to find the receipt for that. oh yeah, you do.
3:34 pm
3:35 pm
3:36 pm
♪ the breaking news tonight, new information emerging about the acting-attorney general of the united states, matthew whittaker, and his role in the administration as president trump attempts to distance himself from whittaker. laura coates, let's get to this
3:37 pm
controversy. some people actually believe the appointment of whittaker to be the acting-attorney general after sessions was fired was unconstitutional. >> they would be really accurate, because what happened when this person was appointed it upended the line of succession. there's a reason it has to be a senate-confirmed person. there was a line of succession. the chief of staff was never there in the line of succession. you got the notion of how did the president have the authority to do so. normally you don't argue with somebody that can answer the question, you and what haerm, but, mr. president, is it the vacancies reform act you are using? no, that wouldn't qualify. though he was confirmed in iowa, that was years ago. you can't rely on that. number two, is the recess appointment. that is kind of a give and take, too. the president has done this action. i have been talking about it as akin to what if the president of the united states was suddenly incapacitated and they put chief general kelly there instead. there's a line of succession for that as well.
3:38 pm
it is a fundamental issue of the constitution, but he did it anyway. >> the other problem that a lot of people have is they've been going back and looking at his statements over the years, and at one point he suggested b barbari versus madison is one of the worst supreme course cases ever, even though it is the basis of what they've been doing, and also said there should be a religious test for nominees. >> both are stunning. first of all, barbari versus madison is not controversial. it is where the courts are saying we're the final arbiters on what is constitutional or not. an inferior branch, does not bode well on his judgment. on the second issue, there's a first amendment that says we don't establish or endorse religion. therefore to imply a judge is supposed to no longer be secular in their approach is completely against the constitution. i doubt his judgment if that's what he said. >> you also seemed to suggest if you're not a christian, you don't believe in the new
3:39 pm
testament, you know, you shouldn't really be promoted to get a serious judicial nomination. so if you're jewish or you are hindu, buddhist, ago gnostic or atheist, forget about it. >> you might want to read the history of the people who founded this country, not all of whom might have identified as christian. so the founding fathers wouldn't agree with that statement. on this issue of who is the inferior piece of government, after having 25 years in the executive branch, let me offer a quick lesson. if you look at what the american people think about the legislative branch, they think it is a bunch of clowns. if you look at what the american people think about the executive branch, we saw that in voting. 50%, give or take, don't like what they see in the executive branch. my point is the polling data, not just phillip mudd, polling data tells you if you want somebody to trust, forget about the president, forget about a senator or the members of congress, we trust judges. >> abby, you were over there when the president answered questions as he was leaving the white house this morning and you
3:40 pm
asked a serious, appropriate question to the president about whittaker, trying to maybe curtail the whole mueller probe. i'm going to play the exchange and then we will discuss. >> reporter: do you expect matt whittaker to be involved in the russia probe? >> that's up to him. >> reporter: do you want him to ra rein in robert mueller? >> what a stupid question that is. what a stupid question. but i watch you a lot, you ask a lot of stupid questions. >> he rudely insulted you, which was totally inappropriate. your question was 100% perfect, got right to the point. you know, there's a pattern that this president has in insulting journalists, especially female journalists, especially african-american female journalists. >> yeah, i mean i think this was what seemed to me to be the question of the day, the most basic form of asking the president what he wanted his appointee to do in that job. i thought his answer was telling, or his lack of answer was telling, but it is also telling as a pattern. just in this week, both april
3:41 pm
ryan, who is our contributor, and yamish yelsindor. >> from pbs. >> yes, they both attempted to ask the president serious questions, but we see an attempt to avoidancing questioe of askis that are difficult or tough. the answer to that question, wolf, is extremely important and i think we deserve to get the answer to it. >> what do you think, if that same question came from someone from "fox news", would there have been a different response? >> i'm sure there would have been a different response. president trump obviously has a fond relationship with "fox news", so much so he hired one of their ousted executives to work for him in the white house. i think to abby's point, it is telling that the president not only didn't answer the question but got so defensive, so insulting that he would be asked such a question. you have to bet if there had been a kind of senate confirmation for matt whittaker, there would have been questions about his conversations with the
3:42 pm
president, about whether it was part of an effort from president trump to rein in the mueller probe. those are all questions that would have come up in senate confirmation. instead, as laura pointed out, the president decided to skip around, go shopping for who he wanted to lead the justice department, whether they were confirmed or not. when asked about what the motives might be, thought attacking a journalist was the appropriate route. >> very quickly, what did you think? >> i thought it was outrageous. i thought you asked a pointed and direct question as every journalist should under the first amendment, and we see a pattern not just against blam females but journalists. we see the person he thinks should be in charge of the justice dent doesn't believe in the first amendment. we can't be shocked by that. >> phil. >> when the president gets uncomfortable, he diverts. he takes away people's security clearance because they attack me. diverting. i want to take away a badge of the member of the press because i'm uncomfortable with the question. there's only one question anybody had in that circumstance, and that is what do you think in terms of the
3:43 pm
acting-attorney general and whether you had a conversation about what will happen with russia. what would you ask the president? do you dye your hair? i don't know what else you would ask. >> it was pretty disgusting the way he treated all of these journalists and the way the white house treats some of these journalists. what has been the reaction among the white house press corps? >> there's been a lot of solidarity. i think we all understand what is at stake here. it is not about us personally. it is about the institution. it is about the freedom of the press. it is about the idea that just because the president doesn't like something that a journalists asks them or says to them, it doesn't mean that retribution or blocking them from doing their job is the answer. i think that there are a lot of people who are defending that kind of behavior, who when they are in -- when the shoe is on the other foot, they would be crying foul. that's the reason why we're doing what we're doing, to prevent people from being in that situation when you are no longer in power. >> you had some run-ins during the campaign when you were
3:44 pm
covering the then-candidate. >> yes, he had problems with me, he had problems with abby, he had problems with jim acosta, he had problems with plenty of journalists from other places. americans have the choice of where to get their news from. you can watch cnn or choose not to, but every american should have access to basic information coming from their white house. journalists should not be punished based on what news outlet they come from because ultimately the people punished are the american citizens who want to know what is going on in their government, and they deserve to know that. >> abby, you are doing an excellent job for the american people as a wonderful white house correspondent. thank you very much. more breaking news, a court-ordered deadline for election officials minutes away as florida faces election chaos.
3:45 pm
hi, my name is sam davis and i'm going to tell you about exciting plans available to anyone with medicare. many plans provide broad coverage and still may save you money on monthly premiums and prescription drugs. these are affordable, all-in-one plans that help pay for doctor visits, hospital stays and emergency care. but they also include prescription drug coverage. in fact, last year humana medicare advantage prescription drug plan members saved an estimated $6,900 on average on their prescription
3:46 pm
costs. call a licensed humana sales agent or go online to find out if you could save on your prescription drugs. this plan delivers coverage for the three things you may care most about; prescription drug coverage, doctor visits, and hospital stays. plus, potential cost savings on your plan premium. humana has a large network of doctors and hospitals. so call us, or go online to find out if your doctor is part of the humana network. ready to learn more? call the number on your screen for this free, fact-filled decision guide. there's no obligation, just good information. call the toll free number on your screen, now. you'll learn all about a humana medicare advantage plan and how it compares with your plan. with most humana plans, you get coverage for prescription drugs, doctor and hospital visits, and more. all for zero dollar monthly plan premium in most areas. most humana medicare advantage plans even include
3:47 pm
dental and vision coverage. and, most humana medicare advantage plans include the silver sneakers fitness program at a local fitness center. so call or go online to find out if your doctor is part of humana's large network of doctors and hospitals. and see if a humana medicare advantage plan is the right plan for you. pick up the phone, and call the number on your screen. the call is free. and licensed humana sales agents are standing by. so call now.
3:48 pm
3:49 pm
back with our correspondents and analysts. michelle obama has a new book coming out, very personal, but she also goes after donald trump for spreading the birther lie, which she says potentially could have endangered her daughters. >> and it could have. words matter. and i think that most people look at the birther controversy as one that was discussed among political pundits and didn't have much gravitas among everyday people but it did, on her exact family. she's a mother first, she said that when she went into the white house and her vulnerability about that issue, i think, was extremely impactful and accurate. >> and when the president was asked about that today, he completely deflected, didn't really go after her, but he said
3:50 pm
he'll never forgive former president obama for cutting down the u.s. military. >> and it was really surprising, being there, to watch him not even acknowledge what she was saying about her fear for her own family. which the president actually knows about that. his own family has been the subject of threats in the past, but he didn't even address that at all. he took it as a personal critique of his -- of him, but she is speaking about something that, to her, is not only about her own safety but it's also a lie that was racist at its very core. >> i think she makes a great point. this is a president who says a lot of things and does not spend a lot of time considering what the ramifications of those words might be. it's not that he doesn't understand it. it's just that he opportunity se -- doesn't seem to care. this whole conspiracy theory is that he was presented with the truth, he didn't care, he was presented with the fact that it was hurtful, and he didn't care. >> everybody stand by. just ahead, doctors take on
3:51 pm
the national rifle association after it tells them to stay out of the gun violence debate. your insurance rates skyrocket after a scratch so small
3:52 pm
you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
3:53 pm
since you're heading off to dad... i just got a zerowater. but we've always used brita. it's two stage-filter... doesn't compare to zerowater's 5-stage. this meter shows how much stuff, or dissolved solids, gets left behind. our tap water is 220. brita? 110... seriously? but zerowater- let me guess. zero? yup, that's how i know it is the purest-tasting water. i need to find the receipt for that. oh yeah, you do. the sun goes down. you run those miles, squeeze the toothpaste from the bottom and floss to set a good example.
3:54 pm
you fine tune the proposal, change the water jug so no one else has to, get home for dinner and feed the cat. you did a million things for your family today but speaking to pnc to help handle all your investments was a very important million and one. pnc. make today the day.
3:55 pm
the national rifle association is facing fierce backlash tonight from doctors after it dismissed an article on gun violence in a leading medical journal. cnn's brian todd has details.
3:56 pm
>> reporter: wolf, this is a very nasty political fight between the nra and some very prominent doctors and the fact that it's played out as the country has dealt with two high-profile mass shootings has made this public battle even more bitter. in the aftermath of two deadly mass shootings, tonight, a heated political showdown between two unlikely rivals, the national rifle association and the doctors who treat victims of gun violence. the fight stems from a recent article published by the "american college of physicians" calling firearm violence, quote, a public health crisis that requires the nation's immediate attention. doctors shared new recommendations on how physicians can help reduce gun violence, such as counseling patients on the risks of having firearms in the home. but the doctors also weighed in on the issues of background checks and illegal gun sales. that prompted this tweet from the nra, "someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane. the medical community seems to have consulted no one but themselves." but that broadside came just
3:57 pm
hours before the mass shooting in thousand oaks, california, where 12 people were gunned down. some doctors are outraged. >> for a group to simply dismiss the medical community that is on the front line of taking care of these patients is absolutely unacceptable. >> reporter: joseph sakran is a trauma surgeon at johns hopkins university in baltimore. he not only treats many gunshot wound victims. he was one. >> the bullet ruptured my windpipe right here and then these scars are where i had the emergency surgery. >> reporter: in 1994, when he was just 17, sakran was at a high school football game when a fight broke out and someone started shooting. he ended up with a paralyzed vocal cord. after the nra tweet, sakran responded, "i cannot believe the audacity of the nra." >> where is the nra when i'm having to tell those loved ones that their family member has died and is not coming back?
3:58 pm
>> reporter: sakran's tweet was followed by an avalanche of others from fellow doctors, slamming the nra. one, accompanied by an x-ray says, "i helped save a gun violence victim in med school. those are my hands holding pressure on his femoral artery. the bullet is right by my fingertips. this is me in my lane, nra." recent accounts from weapons experts on the guns used in high-profile shootings have intensified the political debate. cbs' 60 minutes recently profiled the effects of bullets fired from an ar-15 semiautomatic rifle. compared to a standard handgun bullet fired on a gelatin target, the ar-15 bullet is much more devastating. that's one of the many complaints from doctors that it's harder and harder to save the lives of people hit with hi hi high-power ammunition. the nra is pushing back hard tonight, telling cnn, those doctors attacking the group are pushing a gun control agenda
3:59 pm
that wouldn't prevent those shootings. >> when the nra says, you guys weighing in on policy issues like background checks really isn't in your lane, do they have a point? >> we have both the possibility and the responsibility to weigh in on this issue that we're having to deal with on a daily basis. >> reporter: but the nra's pushback also includes several online posts from doctors who support the nra's position, one physician writing that the nra's -- that those articles written by anti-gun doctors are not from people who are practicing medicine in the trenches and one retired physician here says that he's appalled by what he calls the leftist direction that organized medicine has taken. wolf, the nra is also arguing tonight, as they often do, that these doctors really need to focus on the mental health component of gun violence, but one prominent doctor, that doctor we interviewed, says that only a very small percentage of the gun violence in the u.s. is actually committed by people who have serious mental health
4:00 pm
problems. wolf? >> cnn's brian todd, thanks. i'm wolf blitzer. thanks very much for watching. "erin burnett outfront" starts "erin burnett outfront" starts right now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com "outfront" next, the president's revisionist history. he says he doesn't know his new acting attorney general, but that's not what he said just a month ago. plus, michelle obama versus the president of the united states. who wins this battle of the titans? and a bitter fight in florida coming to a head this hour. things are getting ugly in the too close to call senate race. let's go "outfront." good evening, everyone, i'm kate bold in for erin burnett. "outfront" tonight, trump's convenient memory lapse. the president now trying to distance himself from his new acting attorney general, matt whitaker, the man he picked to oversee the russia investigation. that is convenient since the

96 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on