tv State of the Union With Jake Tapper CNN November 11, 2018 6:00am-7:00am PST
as president trump joins world leaders in france, warnings that a shakeup at the justice department to push it to the brink. >> protecting mueller and his investigation is paramount. >> we'll talk with senate minority leader chuck schumer next. plus here we go again. all eyes on florida. election officials are in the
middle of' recount. president trump suggesting fraud but officials say he has no evidence. corey gardner will be here. and taking on trump. democrats win control of the house and have a message for president trump. >> he will be held accountable. we have a president not a manarch. >> top democrat on the judicial committee, jerry nadler, in moments. hello. i'm jake tapper in washington where the state of our union is honoring our veterans, while we here in the u.s. express our appreciation to those who serve our nation. president trump is in paris, gathering with other world leaders to mark 100 years since the end of world war i, but the president's trip abroad has not been without controversy. this morning, french president
emmanuel macron saying in front of the international gathering, nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. president trump drew swift condemnation after canceling a trip to honor american soldiers who died in the war. the white house explained that the weather made it impossible to helicopter and made it logistically challenging to motorcade. veterans and former white house aides criticized the american commander in chief for not having a backup plan to attend the event. president trump also facing a slue of unfolding crises back home, recount for three races in florida, deadly wildfires ravaging california and warnings by top democrats bay constitutional crisis after his decision to fire attorney
general jeff sessions and replace him with a critic of the special counsel.
joining me now senator minority leader schumer. minority leader schumer i want to start with tuesday night's election. big democratic gains in the house and some warning signs for republicans in the suburbs. republicans in the senate look poised to grow their majority, flipping three blue seats in missouri, north dakota and indiana, as well as potentially in florida. why didn't the democratic message resonate in those states? >> let me say this, jake. the election was a great victory for democrats, taking back the house with up to 35 seats is huge. seven governorships, lots of legislative races, lower state legislative races that we picked up seats. trump and the republicans are trying to say, well, but the senate showed that we really won. nothing could be further from the truth. first, if you would have told us a couple of years ago that we would be as close as we are, people would say we're crazy. they were saying we would lose
eight to ten seats and even 40 votes in the senate. we had ten states where donald trump won the election in 2016, our senators won in six of those ten with one still -- florida still in contest. and in the three states that carried trump to victory, pennsylvania, wisconsin and michigan, not only did democratic senators win by double digits in two of them, but republicans told trump he couldn't even set foot in those states because he was so unpopular. and so this is a great victory. for donald trump to claim because he won a senate race in north dakota or indiana or missouri, states he won by 19, 19 and 36%, that shows how weak -- i would be very worried if i were donald trump and the republicans about the 2020 elections if all they can claim is they won in north dakota. we greatly regret the loss of wonderful people, great senators like heitkamp, donnelly and
mccaskill but hardly a victory in those three states is any vindication for the route of the republicans. >> with all due respect, sir, is it not true -- i talked to a number of democrats in those states who say this is a warning sign for democrats when it comes to the 2020 presidential election. kavanaugh and the caravan, they say. those messages from republicans, those messages from president trump enabled people, ooin even like claire mccaskill to lose decisively. do democrats not have to come up with a better response when it comes to border security and did you not get outplayed when it came to the kavanaugh nomination? not just the fact that he's on the court but also the politics of it? >> the bottom line is, you know, kavanaugh dispute, i think, helped us more than it hurt us. it's one of the reasons we won the house so decisively.
suburban voters, traditionally republican, came to our side. if the coalition -- the old democratic coalition can add suburban voters to it and continue to focus on issues like health care, which matter to working class americans throughout the country, we're going to win. west virginia. the state that trump won by more votes than any other, other than wyoming, joe manchin, despite president trump's efforts, won. and he focused exclusively on health care. the issue of health care, infrastructure and jobs will resonate in rural america, in suburban america and urban america. and the way it helped us in 2018, it's going to help us here. i think the president lost more votes because of the kavanaugh issue than gained throughout the country. >> let's talk about the florida recount going on right now, the florida senate election is moving in that direction, as are two other races there. broward county, florida, has been plagued with election problems, not just this year but in the past. the election supervisor has been accused in the past of illegally
destroyi ining ballots. this year in state law, a judge needed to step in. isn't it reasonable for people to have concerns about what's going on in broward county? >> look, every vote should be counted and president trump and rick scott are so afraid of every vote being counted because they think scott will lose if that happens that they're interfering. they allege massive fraud. his own republican officials in florida said there is no fraud. when you vote by mail, it takes a while to count the ballots. some of the mail votes come in on election day. that's a process that should be transparent. there have been republican and democrats in those election places. no one has alleged any fraud. what, now we have a recount. and my guess, trump and particularly scott will try to interfere in that recount because they don't want the votes counted. we democrats want every single vote counted. that's every america's right, no
matter who they vote for. we're willing to abide by the outcome if every vote is fairly counted and nothing is interfered. we believe bill nelson will be re-elected senator if every vote is counted and that's what trump and scott are so scared of. >> there's been no fraud or theft proven or evidence introduced. do you not understand why some people looking at broward county say, boy, that place say mess. it's run by democrats and there have been election problem force a long time in that county, so i have concerns. >> saying it's going too slowly is one thing. saying you have concerns about how legitimate the count is another. no one has said there is any fraud here. the paramount issue is having every vote counted, even if it takes a little longer. we should not be rushed into doing this, particular bely in an election that is so darn close. one other point, jake, even in
georgia, the secretary of state recused himself because he was on the ballot. scott should recuse himself and should be out of it all together. >> the president fired attorney general jeff sessions and appointed matt whitaker as acting attorney general, prompt ing even some senate republicans, including susan collins and jeff flake, to make sure that the president can't fire special counsel robert mueller. you supported this legislation for months. how far are you willing to go to support it? are you willing to risk a government shutdown to force this into the agenda, that president trump has to sign it? >> let me say first, the appointment of mr. whitaker should concern every american, democrat, republican, liberal, conservati conservative, who believes in rule of law and justice. he has already prejudged the mueller situation. if he stays there, he will create a constitutional crisis
by inhibiting mueller or firing mueller, even -- so congress has to act. has to act. now here is what he said. this is amazing. this fellow, whitaker, the new acting attorney general, said there at one point that there was no problem that russia interviewed in our elections when 17 intelligence agencies said we did. he has already outlined how to strangle the mueller investigati investigation, cut their funding and other things, so we democrats intend to do two things. first today, i am sending a letter, along with leader pelosi and other democrats who are ranking members in their committees to the chief ethics officer of the justice department, asking him to issue guidelines, should whitaker recuse himself from anything involving mueller. he issued guidelines like that with jeff sessions and jeff sessions recused himself.
whitaker should. second, if that doesn't happen, we democrats, house and senate, will attempt to add to must-pass legislation. in this case, the spending bill, legislation that would prevent mr. whitaker from interfering with the mueller investigation. that legislation has had bipartisan support. two democrats and two republicans introduced it. as you mentioned, there are a number of republicans who have spoken out that we cannot allow whitaker to interfere with the mueller investigation. so there's no reason that legislation shouldn't pass. >> right. >> and be added to the bill. >> the majority leader of the senate at mitch mcconnell has expressed zero desire or willingness to have this be voted on in the full senate. you have the power, because of the 60-vote threshold, to force this legislation into the government spending bill or some
other mechanism if you risk shutting down the government, are democrats willing to do that? are you willing to risk shutting down the government and not signing a government spending bill unless the mueller protection legislation is included? >> look, i believe enough of our republican colleagues will join us. there's no reason we shouldn't add this and avoid a constitutional crisis and so that is our position. if that doesn't happen, we'll see what happens down the road. >> i don't mean to be skeptical. >> okay. >> but why would you believe republicans are going to join you on this? >> as i said, we have bipartisan legislation and a number of republicans have spoken out. i've spoken to some. people are really concerned about this. better to avoid a constitutional crisis before it happens and mitch mcconnell said he saw no reason because there's no interference. with whitaker, there's every
reason to believe there will be interference, based on what mr. whitaker has said. i think -- i believe that many republicans will find the same. >> you raised concerns about the legality of whitaker's appointment. >> yes. >> in a letter you sent to the white house friday. if an officer or executive agency resigns, the president may direct an officer or employee to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity. i get that you have objections to matt whitaker. isn't the president in his legal authority to put him in as acting attorney general temporarily? >> the constitution requires advise and consent for principal officers and if the attorney general isn't a principle officer, who is? there are a number of senators who are looking at a lawsuit. we'll have to see if they have standing. there are people who have
standing who will pursue this in the courts and i believe it will be found that mr. whitaker cannot be put in as attorney general because he has not been approved by the senate. it's not only the right thing to do, i think it's the constitutional prerogative as well. >> us v. eaton, the court rejected the idea that a temporary replacement needs to be confirmed by the senate. >> in the case of attorney general, i think it's different. and i think that the courts will side with us. if there ever was a principle officer, someone in charge of law enforcement, in charge of rule of law, has responsibilities far beyond being extreme partisan, as whitaker is, this is the instance and i think the courts will rise to the occasion. >> new levers of power in january when your colleagues take control of the house. you have been out warning about a possible constitutional crisis, including on the show
this morning, from everything you've seen from president trump so far, should the house file articles of impeachment or is that premature? >> we should pursue the ways we're going about this now as i outlined. the ideal situation, which i hope will happen, i believe our republican colleague also join us in making sure it happens, is to allow the mueller investigation to go forward, to make public what he recommends and take it from there. so, that's where i think we should go right now. first step, job one, avoid interference with mueller. it's imperative not to become a third world republic. >> you say an issue that helped democrats take the house and keep some of the senate seats and obviously was very important to voters according to exit polls. a lot of candidates in 2018 rallied around not just preserving the protection for people with pre-existing conditions but medicare for all.
in fact, last year a third of your senate caucus, including corey booker, elizabeth warren, kirsten gillibrand, have agreed to medicare for all. you have not. why not? >> democrats are united in one thing. we want to provide better health care at less cost for the american people. when the average family sits down at their table friday night they worry more about health care costs for a spouse, parent, child, more than anything else. that's why in this country democrats did so well in this election. there's lots of different approaches to make that happen. medicare for all, buy in to medicare or medicai. senator murray has put forward some. and we are united in improving health care at lower costs for
americans and there are lots of different approaches. we will unite on an approach and come forward with that as we move through the legislative process. >> is it not particularly a wise approach? your senator tammy baldwin embraced it. >> i'm not picking one over the other. there are lots of good approaches. the most important thing here is to have democratic unit y we had unity on health care in 2017 and we were able to preserve the health care of 30 million people when we defeated the attempt to repeal the aca. we will come together. people from elizabeth warren to joe manchin come together and we discuss how we can be united in a strong position and it's worked. i think it will work again with health care. >> speaking of your caucus, you watched what happened in the fight for the republican
presidential nomination in 2016 when more than a dozen candidates ran against each other and beat each other up pretty good. it looks like your democratic party may tas face a similarly crowded field in 2020 if not more so. are there any lessons learned that you'll take into this presidential cycle that you'll caution warren, gillibrand, booker, et cetera? >> my basic phil fois osophy is thousand flowers bloom. it's almost mystical. you never know who is going to emerge on top. having candidates out there with various views, all united in the need to change the course of how the presidency is conducted and how we help the middle class, people aspiring to be in the middle class in a much better way than the republicans have, i think democrats at the end of the day will be united, will be
united on a candidate who can best defeat trump and at the moment there are many different approaches. let's
see which one proves to be the strongest. >> chuck schumer of new york, thank you for your time, sir. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> good to have you. is there any evidence, is there any proof of election fraud in florida? corey gardner joins me and calls himself the best chance to impeach president trump. is that his plan? we'll ask the incoming head of the house judiciary committee, next. you get all the shrimp you want, any way you want them. and now savory parmesan shrimp scampi is back! new sesame-ginger shrimp is here, too. but hurry in, endless shrimp ends november eighteenth.
who transition out of the u.s. formilitary every year...ers ...one of the toughest parts is the search for a job that takes advantage of the skills you've gained while serving. you can now search with the phrase 'jobs for veterans' directly on google... ...and then enter your military occupational specialty code. google brings together job openings from across the web that match the skills you gained in your military role. just click to apply and use your experience to guide your future.
...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. [grunting noise] i'll take that. 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. ensure max protein. in two great flavors. and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am.
with tough food, your dentures may slip and fall. new fixodent ultra-max hold gives you the strongest hold ever to lock your dentures. so now you can eat tough food without worry. fixodent and forget it. every insurance company tells you they can save you money. save up to 10% when you bundle with esurance. including me, esurance spokesperson dennis quaid. he's a pretty good spokesperson. ehhh. so when i say, "drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412," you probably won't believe me. hey, actor lady whose scene was cut. hi. but you can believe this esurance employee, nancy abraham. seriously, send her an email and ask her yourself. no emails... no emails. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.
a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! welcome back to "state of the union." i'm jake tapper. it's deja vu all over again in florida. president trump has been working to undermine the recount process, calling attempts to recount a fraud and charges that are not backed up by the republican secretary of state or florida law enforcement. joining me now, colorado senator corey gardner chairman of the national republican senatorial
committee. it says of florida, quote, it's clear the democrats vote here is not to count every vote fairly but to steal an election n a tweet, president trump accused democrats in florida of committing fraud. is there any specific evidence at all of anyone committing fraud or trying to steal the election, trying to change the outcome? >> well, here is the specific evidence we v we have a court in florida that has said there was a violation of the florida constitution. we have a court that has directed certain better behavior out of the palm county election supervisors. and we have courts that are saying follow the law that is not being followed. we know they're not following the law. they certainly weren't following the law. they weren't posting when they were supposed to be the results of ballots coming in. they weren't providing the canvas, the total number of ballots that had been cast and courts had agreed with us on those points. there's clear evidence that the constitution was violated and a
court in florida has said the same. >> it's true what you're saying about transparency and it's true what you're saying -- >> that's exactly right. it's true. >> transparency and meeting deadlines, absolutely correct. florida's department of law enforcement said friday they haven't even received any allegations of criminal activity, of fraud, of stealing. and the secretary of state's office said there's no evidence of criminal activity. so it seems like the rhetoric we're hearing from -- >> what is a violation of the constitution? i mean, it violated the constitution, doesn't rise to the level of concern in florida? it absolutely rises to the level of concern. >> i'm not saying that. >> we have people who are duplicating ballots, which is allowed under law if you follow the law, but they're doing it without witnesses, without the canvas that they're supposed to. this is insane. you have election officials that weren't even following court orders yet. they weren't in compliance with court orders. so i think this say bis a big
problem. we're trying to protect every single vote in florida, we're protecting them from the fraud, from the integrity of these votes. every vote should be counted but by gosh not fraudulent or anti-constitutional behavior prevail. >> this is what i'm taking issue w there's a difference with all the things you're taking issue with, that i mentioned with senator schumer in the previous interview, palm county or more specifically in broward county but there's a big difference between that and fraud and stealing and theft of an election. i've covered recounts before. i've covered recounts in florida before. typically lawyers for the candidate who is ahead, they go in and use every legal maneuver they can from votes being counted and does the nrsc think every single vote legally cast by election day should be counted? is that an important principle for you? >> every vote legally cast should be counted and every vote
legally cast should be counted the same, whether it's miami or pensacola. we shouldn't have standards that are different in broward county or palm county. we shouldn't have somebody who is actually defying the law or court orders. it isn't a question of potato, potato here. this is the constitution of florida that has been violated and the court has said the same. i don't take this lightly. we need to make sure we are protecting the integrity of the electorate in florida, that every vote is counted and make sure we protect this from fraud. that's exactly what we're doing each and every day that we're in florida with these court decision decisions and making sure that the law is applied equally across the state. >> the state -- the senate race in arizona is also, right now, still too close to call. nrsc sent out, quote, using his position to cook the books but
republican secretary of state, they've all voiced support for the process. we haven't heard any complaints about the republican senate candidate, martha mcsally. is there any evidence to support that the maricopa county officials are cooking the books? >> i think what we've seen in arizona, making sure that everyone is being treated fairly. whether it was yuma, maricopa or other places, they were concerned that maricopa was using a standard that was not allowing votes to be counted in other parts of the state. there's been an agreement to count everything the same, to follow the same procedure. and that's important. a vote that's cast in yuma shouldn't be disqualified under
the same provision that qualifies a vote in maricopa. a legally cast vote, wherever it is legally cast, should count the same, not with differing standards of the offices. >> there was accusation of cooking the books and i don't see any evidence of illegality. there are questions, if you want to get technical, about what emergency voting is. in maricopa county, the law is very vague, emergency voting stations before election day, two of them in republican areas, mesa and scottsdale and different counts interpret that law in different ways. that's not cooking the books and i keep hearing your organization, your chair of accusing people of breaking the law. >> if you're a voter in arizona and you cast a vote in yuma and you cast a vote in phoenix, legally you did it the same. and your vote in yuma is disqualified. your vote in maricopa is not
disqualified. is that fair? >> i defer to the -- >> is that fair? >> i defer to the governor and secretary of state of arizona. they're both republicans and they say everything is going according to how it should be going. now if you have issues with county by county election processes, whether it's in florida or arizona, then, you know, i don't want to stand in the way of you introducing legislation saying every state has to do it the exact same way. >> i'm not talking about federalizing elections. i'm talking about the state of arizona. i think federalizing elections would be a bad idea. making sure that as of -- if you're in arizona, the vote you cast legally counts. that's what we're trying to do. >> sure. >> that was the agreement reached in arizona and that's a good outcome. >> where is the evidence that anybody was cooking the books? >> we had evidence that people were treating ballots differently. again, this is about the integrity of -- when you go and cast a ballot, you don't expect yours to be disqualified under a provision that allows a ballot
to be counted somewhere else? >> whose ballots were being disqualified? in maricopa county they had four emergency voting stations set up in the county. by the way, it's a county that joe arpaio won. it's a mixed county. republicans and democrats both can win in that county. that's what happened. it's not like people in yuma county were not allowed to vote. it's just that this elections official set up four emergency voting stations throughout the county, including in scottsdale and mesa, which are republican leaning. >> i think i've answered the question. we just want to make sure that every vote counts and every vote legally cast is counted and you don't have different standards on signatures that might not allow a vote to go forward in one part of the state and allows it to go forward in another part of the state. we're both interested in making sure every vote is counted, that every person that has legally cast is there. whether you cast it in the southeast or northeast part of
the stay, it doesn't matter, it counts the same. >> you and i agree and probably everyone watching, every vote legally cast by election day should count. senator cory gardner, thank you very much. >> thank you, jake. my next guest opposed president trump over real estate in new york city and now sky is the limit as democrats set to. democratic congressman jerry nadler of new york. mr. chairman, in all likelihood, thank you very much for joining us. under the republicans, you've been saying, there's been no congressional oversight of the trump administration. now that you're expected to be the chairman of the judicial house committee, what are the first three things you want to hold hearings on? >> very first thing, obviously, is to protect the mueller investigation. the president's dismissal of
attorney general sessions and his appointment of whitaker, a complete political lackey, is a real threat to that investigation. that investigation is of utmost importance in making sure we adhere to the rule of law and that the administration is held accountable. we will certainly hold hearings on that. as of january 3rd, we will subpoena or summon, if necessary subpoena mr. whitalk dlwhitake >> what will you ask of mr. whitaker? >> it will be about his expressed hostility of the investigation, how he can possibly supervise it when he has expressed, come out and said that the investigation is invalid, that contrary to the findings of every intelligence agency there was no russian interference in our election and when he has expressed ridiculous legal opinions that go against the foundation of american law. he's totally unqualified and the
only qualification seems to be that he wants to be -- the president wants him to be the hatchet man to destroy the mueller investigation. >> be that as it may, you know, when you called whitaker's appointment illegal, the law in this case -- the federal vacancy reform act of 1988 authorizes the president to replace attorney general jeff sessions with any official as long as they're acting capacity fewer than 210 days. regardless of your opinion of mr. whitaker, he meets those requirements. >> well, i don't think so. regardless of the vacancy act, you cannot have an attorney general or for that matter an acting attorney general who has not been confirmed by the senate. anything he does is invalid. that may very well be tested in court. meanwhile, we have to ask the
claimed attorney general for assurances that he's not going to interfere with the investigation by mueller because the rule of law must be maintained and no official can be above the rule of law. not the president. and that is key. there's been -- the republicans in congress have refused to have any checks, to perform our constitutional duty, to have a check and balance on the president. we will do that. this is the first i've been doing that. the president may think he is above the law. he may think that he will not be held accountable. but he will be. >> do you plan to take any action to remove president trump from office? are you going to attempt impeachment? "the new york times" reported you pitched yourself to your democratic colleagues. >> no, no, no. >> as, quote, the strongest member to lead the potential impeachment. >> the key word is potential, if it comes up. no. impeachment is a question that
will come down the road maybe, depending on the findings of the mueller administration and of other investigations. we're far from that right now. >> you were vocally opposed to the impeachment proceedings against president clinton, of course, in 1998. you called him a partisan coup d'etat and said any impeachment of president clinton must not be partisan. >> correct. >> 77% of democrats support impeaching president trump, 5% of republicans. there is a real partisan divide on this issue of impeachment. does that concern you? >> not really because, as i said, we're far from that. if we get to the question of impeachment, then one of the tests should be -- and i said this repeatedly, is the evidence so strong of misdeeds so terrible that you really believe at the beginning of the process that by the end of the process, when all this is laid out
publicly, a very large fraction of the people who voted for the president will grudgingly acknowledge to themselves and others that you had to choice but to impeach the president? that is the test. you don't want the country torn apart by half of the country saying we won the election, you stole it. are the deeds so strong that a large opposition of the president's vote base will be convince bid the end of the process. >> and you're not there yet? >> we're far from -- >> you don't see anything. >> i see potentials but we don't know. we're waiting to see what the special counsel finds. we're waiting to see what a fair investigation, the republicans intelligence committee and judiciary committee made sure there was no fair investigation in congress. there will be now. and we'll see what that comes up
with, what special prosecutor, special counsel's office comes up with. and then we'll have to make judgments. i certainly hope that we will not find necessity for impeachment but can't rule that out. >> a conservative writer heard you on the train from new york to d.c. wednesday. you were on your phone. according to her, you were detailing a plan to impeach recently confirmed supreme court justice kavanaugh for alleged perjury. >> she was not telling the truth. i'm not going to comment on a private conversation with a friend. >> it's not true? >> no. >> you have no intentions of trying to or discussing potentially impeaching justice kavanaugh for perjury? >> no. the only thing that i think we do have to -- no, no. what i do think we have to do is -- one of the things that the committee has to do is investigate the question of the fbi not doing a proper investigation so that -- because of white house interference so that we can do whatever is
necessary to make sure that in the future investigations are adequate. >> but you did promise to investigate kavanaugh if democrats gained control of the house. right? >> no. i said we would look into the question i just mentioned. >> but no commitment to investigate him. all right. congressman jerry nadler, one last question for you. wall street journal reported friday that president trump was, quote, involved in or briefed on nearly every step of hush money payments made to women on his behalf, women with whom he allegedly had affairs. prosecutors have evidence of the president's participation, the journal reported. if the president is found to have been involved in campaign finance violations that are potentially criminal, is that an impeachable offense? >> that might very well be an impeachable offense. and the question would be, a, can you prove -- it may be an
impeachable offense if it goes to the question of the president procuring his office through corrupt means. and that could be impeachable. and you would have to see whether -- how good the proof of that is and secondly what else there is. the fact that an impeachable offense has been committed does not mean necessarily there ought to be an impeachment. that depends on whether the situation is serious enough that it makes sense to do an impeachment to defend the system of government and the system of democra democracy. so, yeah, that would be a factor that would go into any such judgment. >> soon to be incoming chairman of the house judiciary committee jerry nadler of new york, thank you for your time this morning. >> thank you. president trump fired his attorney general and replaced him with a critic of robert mueller. he banned a reporter from the white house. he called florida's election a
♪ (electronic dance music)♪ ♪ ♪ ato be there... for the good. and not so good. for the mundane. the awe-inspiring. the heart racing. the heart breaking. that's what life is all about... showing up. unless migraine steals your chance to say "i am here." that's why, we created aimovig.. a preventive treatment for migraine in adults. one dose, once a month. aimovig is proven to reduce the number of monthly migraine days. for some, that number can be cut in half or more. the most common side effects are pain, redness, or swelling at the injection site and constipation.
these are your days what will each one bring? doesn't matter, as long as you can say... "i am here." talk to your doctor about preventing migraine with aimovig. and be there more. replace one meal or snack a day with glucerna... made with carbsteady to help manage blood sugar... ...and end the day with a smile. glucerna®. everyday progress. and the wolf huffed and puffed... like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. so my doctor said... symbicort can help you breathe better. starting within 5 minutes. it doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. doctor: symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. it may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems.
ten years. take a look at broward county. take a look at the total dishonesty of what happened with respect to broward county. >> welcome back to "state of the union." i'm jake tapper. two presidents, two florida recounts, two very different tones. let's dive in and talk about it with our panel congresswoman. president trump going full throatedly against what's going on in florida. you saw the difference with president clinton who -- that was a presidential one and his vice president was on the ballot there. what's your take? >> he ought to have proof for what he says. that seems to be something that's thrown out the window. if you are going to say there's criminal behavior, unethical behavior or corruption, you ought to have proof. he doesn't have any proof of that. i've seen your guests that were on a little bit ago. every vote ought to count. that's what matters. getting to the truth, whether it's an investigation, whether it's vote recounts, just getting to the truth matters. i'm a former journalist,
investigative journalist and what always guided us in journalism, and i don't believe journalists are the enemy of the people. i believe they're essential to our democracy, but getting to the truth is what matters. we ought to count every vote and have every attempt to do that. >> broward county and palm beach county officials should be transparent to the process and open up these rooms to the journalists down there. that's part of this process as well. >> that's a big thing. look, we have -- we know that they violated the law. the court came down and said palm county violated the law. >> in terms of -- >> that's important. >> but it's not fraudulent. >> where does fraud happen? when people aren't watching and there is no transparency and people aren't following procedures. procedures are in place to stop fraud. they are not following procedures. therefore -- and they're keeping it -- there's no transparency. that raises a big concern that
there might be fraud going on. if there wasn't, why wouldn't you be transparent and why wouldn't you follow the law? >> you're from a state where people have alleged voter fraud against republicans. i'm old enough to remember the 2004 presidential race where people made all sorts of allegations against the bush campaign in ohio without any evidence and proof, just based on a lot of suspicion. >> i mean, listen, if they broke the rules -- the court said they broke the rules in palm beach, they should be held accountable for that. we can't conflat these two things between election officials not doing their job and actually saying voter fraud is going on in that state. florida has a problem. it has had a problem for a very long time. federal government should step n help america vote act, there was funding there. a lot of these states are underfunded in terms of their voting apparatus. we need a better commitment as a nation to make sure that every state has what they need to have. but count every vote and let the
chips fall where they may. >> part of a very aggressive week by the pres president in which he went after a whole bunch of american institutions, house oversight, journalists, election officials, et cetera. one in particular that i was curious about your response to it as a former fbi official, the president attacking the democratic house majority and their desire to do oversight, tweeting if the democrats think they're going to waste taxpayer money investigating us at the house level, we will be forced to investigate them for all the leaks of classified information and much else at the senate level. two can play that game. and then going on to talk about how the trump administration itself would be going after -- not just using the senate against the house but the department of justice and the fbi against the house. what do you think of that? >> obviously that's always the wrong answer in any of these. i do think that the house risks going into becoming the house of investigations, throwing subpoenas because they're
curious, not well founded. that's a risk that kacan't happ. the president interjecting himself into a process of i will investigate you, that is a form of intimidation that i think is uncalled for at the presidential level, candidly, just like i think it's wrong that democrats are saying we have a stack of subpoenas that we're curious about. that's wrong, too. we have to get back to a normal operation of these house committees and the president needs to just worry about -- listen, if he would have talked about jobs, the economy and things that his administration did do right, i think the election could have turned out he didn't. he's caught in this trap. it's not that i win, you have to lose. and i think this was a week of frustration. you saw the president venting that frustration in ways that i don't think is helpful to good regular order of important institutions, the congress of the united states. >> you're a democratic congresswoman but you're from a republican part of illinois, you
you're a former investigative journalist, it says you want to go where the facts go. do you have any concerns that you've heard that democrats are going to go out on fishing expeditions? >> i'm not a lawyer. i'm not on the judiciary, but i believe we ought to let the truth guide us. listen to mike rogers. we were talking in the hallway on our walk down to sit right here with you. he was speaking glowingly about the democrat when mike rogers was the chair on intel. and we just need to let the truth guide us. remove the politics, especially from the intelligence committee. we need to work together, democrats and republicans. i don't think it's that hard. when you have reasonable people, i don't think it's that hard to do that. >> what do you think? that's -- from her mouth to god's ears, but i don't know. >> well, i just look at that time, you know, from the preside president's perspective. the president suffered some losses that were unforced
errors. a lot of suburban republicans lost because of this president's hyperbole and combative tone. this is an opportunity for him to sort of take a step back and recognize this is going to affect his ability to win re-election. he cannot win states like pennsylvania and michigan and wisconsin and other states continuing this -- this harsh, combative attitude that turns off suburban voters. while at the same tight nme not appealing to minorities who should be voting for him based on his record of the economy hand he's doing to create employment opportunities and better well-being for them. so he has to do something to change his tone. and what he's done coming out of blocks is doubled down on that tone. and that's just a big mistake. >> i wondered what you thought had to do with the president's
combative tone. he went after four journalists in particular this week, one with jim ape costa, perhaps the one that was noticed the most. but coincidently or not, the other three were african-american women. listen. >> on the campaign trail you called yourself a nash pist the some people saw that as emboldening white nationalist. >> i don't know why you'd say that. that's such a racist question. i mean, you talk about somebody that's a loser. she doesn't know what the hell she's doing. >> what i stupid question that is. what a stupid question. but i watch you a lot. you ask a lot of stupid questions. >> that's the president talking about pbs who did not ask a racial question. app ryan who is not a loser, and cnn's own abby philip who doesn't ask a stupid question and is in fact one of the smartest people i know. your response? >> i'm pissed i'm trying to keep my composure on this fine sunday morning. the president was a bully, just flat out. and some people will say he's an
equal opportunity bully, but we understand that in this country when you level those kinds of comments against african americans, you're a loser, you're stupid, gillum is a thief, he knows exactly what he's doing. he's invoking and stirring up stereotypes that impact the african-american community, our image, our profession, who we are more deeply than anybody else. she you be ashamed of himself, but is he not. and there was a photograph that was captured of seeing him, you know, pointing his finger at abby in a way that it should be totally unacceptable. but what do we expect from this president this is who he really is. and he has a disdain for african americans and other people of color, whether it's calling all mexican rapists or calling countries that are dominated by people of color shit hole countries. this president has a great date and disdain for period of color, period. >> congresswoman, as a former journalist, what do you make of all of that? >> the president was
disgraceful. he behaved in a way that we should never see a president behave. what nina just said about how he is directing his comments to people of color, you know, we shouldn't have a president who feels like he can speak in those tones whether it's to african americans, whether it's about people coming from mexico or central america or people who are living in our country, people of color. i mean, i think it's disgraceful. >> i understand there are people he just attacks everybody. >> he does attack everybody. >> are there any african-american women jurisprudenceists in the press corps, which is another matter. but to will go after four people, jim accost a get there's a whole thing there, we don't have to go into that. but i don't think that they should have taken away his cre tent dal for the record. but the other three, it's so disproportionately african-american women. >> the president does treat everybody that confronts him poorly. and -- but having said that, he
needs to be aware of what he's doing. he can't see this in a vacuum that it is. he went after people specifically african-american women and he has to recognize that's a problem and he shouldn't do it. >> the journalists asked him questions. >> they were incindiary questions. >> i think he's just combative. >> i don't think we're going to settle the matter right now. thank you so much. tonight, don't miss the final episode of parts unknown way very personal tour of anthony bourdain's lower east side. fa reek saturday kari sits down with french president emanuel macron next. stay with us. urce of inspiratio. an act of kindness. an old friend. a new beginning. some welcome relief...
. this is a special edition of gps, the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live from paris. today on the show, a global exclusive, an interview with the president of france, emanuel macron from his office in the palace. macron has spent the week traversing parts of his nation to