Skip to main content

tv   Cuomo Prime Time  CNN  March 5, 2019 7:00pm-8:00pm PST

7:00 pm
afraid of the migrant. here's the truth. you need to be afraid for them. they're coming with false hope and in most cases nowhere to turn. they're dealing with a system that can't handle them and a president who wants them treated like ants in a kitchen. now you know. now congress knows. what will you demand? what will they do? i'm going to go back. if these numbers come true, you have to see the reality. i hope they don't. i hope the projections that we showed you tonight are off. but if they do come to fruition, congress, it is time to do your damn job. you know the president has been selling something else. i know that people don't expect anything better from the system right now. please show the american people they are wrong. do your damn job. address this situation. all right. that's my argument. i've got more time for you tonight. how about a bonus hour of prime-time? all right. another security clearance
7:01 pm
firestorm is brewing. developing news on our watch. first it was jared kushner. now it's ivanka trump. access to our nation's secrets under the microscope. there's a zoom lens on the president's role in it again tonight. what does anthony scaramucci think about this? he's a great guest to have on a night like this and we have them. we also have information on our southern border that is at a breaking point according to the people protecting us. we've got to take a look at what they see coming, where the help should be and why it isn't there. the president's national emergency is an obvious abuse of power say the democrats. only a few republicans, however, are objecting. we actually have one here willing to stand up for why it is wrong. what do you say? let's get at it. we now know the president not only bypassed u.s. intelligence to get his son-in-law top secret
7:02 pm
clearance, he insisted his daughter have it too. pressuring aides, trying to set them up to take the fall for any blow back. that's our reporting new from three sources that contradicts everything the president has been telling us. anthony scaramucci is here. here's what i don't get. he has the right, but he lied about it. why? >> well, i mean, i don't know the answer to why he lied about it. i can't tell yu he lied about it. i think it was just a bad strategy, bad tactics, or it could have been a reaction to pressure. i mean, he could have been in several meetings where people told him hey, look, don't give this to them, here are the 1,600 reasons why you can't do it, as a result of which he said give it to them. he has a right to do that. you know he has a right to do that. i think the recommendation would have been just tell the truth in the beginning. say listen, people were voting for disrupted change.
7:03 pm
my daughter and my son-in-law worked with me during the campaign. ivanka specifically worked with me at the trump organization and in the apprentice, so she's coming with me. i want her to have access to this sort of stuff. i think that was inside the band width of him and who he is and who the american people voted for. i mean, lying about it was probably not the right thing, but i haven't heard their side of the story since these allegations have been made. >> you're not going to hear it anytime soon. >> i think it's fair to just say let's wait for their side of the story. >> they won't put it out. >> let's see what they say. here's what i would say. >> they're saying we won't talk about clearance. >> he has the right to do what he did and so it seems like we're in a gotcha cycle where a lot of things come out. this is the kill shot on the president. >> no. look, i think you guys focus on the expect taeations of the out.
7:04 pm
>> i'm saying he had a right to do that. >> but that's what abuse of power is. you have the right but the way you use your power is abusive. >> if my mom tells me i can have seven scoops of ice cream and i have five scoops, it's a bad analogy. >> it's terrible. you know what your mother would tell you? if you're going to do it, own it. >> he should have told the truth about it. jared and ivanka had the right to the security clearance fist they wanted it. >> no, they didn't. >> yes, they did. >> the president has the right to give it to them. >> he had the right to give it to them. they didn't have the right to get it. it's a different thing. >> but if he gives it to them, then they have the right. >> they didn't have the right. they had to go through the process and the guy whose do the processing -- >> we're not debating semantics. >> no, no, no i'm just saying look at the components of the process. the guys say you didn't fill out the paperwork the right way. you keep adding contacts, it makes us nervous and the
7:05 pm
president said too bad. >> i think that's where the fibbing came in. there was probably pressure on the president. they were probably explaining maybe there was certain protocol and maybe nepotism involved. they probably put pressure on him. that's why they wanted it to flow as if it was a natural process. at the end of the day, he did have a right to give it to them and there's nothing illegal. he didn't do anything wrong. i'm okay with it. >> well, he didn't do anything illegal. true. did he do something wrong? yes. he lied about it. that's abuse of power. it's political malpractice. >> you had one guy, i can't remember his name, trying to preten the president hasn't told fibs or lies. i'm not that guy. i'm not him. i'm not going to sit here and tell you that the guy hasn't contorted the truth and he hasn't told fibs and done that stuff. he's obviously done that. most politicians do that. it's not an excuse for him to do it. >> i think that is the excuse,
7:06 pm
by the way. people don't expect anything better from the system. >> i didn't come on the show to make excuses for the president. >> i know. >> i'm a supporter of his. i'd like to see him do well. i think by and large, when you look at the -- this is the big trouble with this situation. when you look at the style and look at some of the things you cringe at, and say jeez, i wish he didn't do that or i wish he didn't say, that but then look at the totality of the policies and look at a lot of things going well for the country, you know i'm a trained economist. you can go through that quarterly report and you can look at the depth and breadth of the economic experience and the american people are doing much better and that's attached to his approval ratings. that's a "wall street journal," nbc news approval rate. >> absolutely. >> there's a lot of things he's doing well and the approval ratings are going up. i wish from style, he's like a phenomenal figure skater, but there's some style points that the judges are going to hit him on. i just wish he would stop doing
7:07 pm
that. >> i wish he'd stop doing it too. >> i brought up ice cream and figure skating. i'm going to fine the right analogy. >> keep doing it. you'll get there. the idea of style didn't put enough emphasis on the issue. you look at his ratings. to have the stock market where it is, to have the perception of the economy be where it is, to have us go this long and have nobody hurt, he's not even close to 50%. he's not even close. i don't care what number you take. some people put him at 43. doesn't he get that the way he's doing it -- >> 46% number feels pretty good to me. >> i think it's high because of how he is. >> if he asked me, i'm not saying he does, but if he did, i would say there's probably three or four things you could do. one of them is in situations like this, just say hey, i'm the president, i'm doing it this way, that's the way it's going
7:08 pm
to be, like it or lump it. >> lying is his style. >> if he did it the other way where he said like it or lump it as opposed to contorting it, i think his ratings would go higher. if he dialed back on twitter, it would go higher. i think he's got a 7% or 8% head wind. if you call the secretary of state rex tillerson dumb as a rock on your twitter feed, that may feel good in the moment, you may not like what rex is saying about you, but you have all these suburban women and they'll go jeez, i don't want my kids to read that, it's not something i want my kids to see, and so you could get your approval ratings with those people hurt and they could slow down their voting. he got 52% of those white women to vote for him last time. so when you're doing stuff like that, you say hold on a second, that could hurt you with those people who genuinely like you and like to see you do better on those issues because they like
7:09 pm
all the policies. so the election is going to be on a number of different things. who he's running against. it will be okay, we like so many of his policies, but we're sort of sore at his style and the approach that he's taking. you want to say it's not style. >> i don't think it's style. i think it's going to be a referendum on him. if it's about policy, it will be for the democrats to figure out -- >> it's not policy when he wins reelection. >> i don't know about that. >> here's the thing. in a rising economy -- >> it's tough to beat an incumbent in a good economy. let me ask you about things. i've got a bee in my bon net about what's going on at the border. i knew the wall was a problem in terms of where the priorities lay. not that you want to build barriers, that's a should or shouldn't. but i knew from the day that the reporting and from my personal experience there are bigger
7:10 pm
problems that a wall can't effect and now they're upon us. this president has not spoken about them. is that political malpractice? >> i don't want to say that. i don't think it's political malpractice as much as it is surfacing right now and it's getting into the -- i think he's becoming more aware of it. let's see what he does over the next three or four weeks. >> we need the wall, mr. president. >> let's give him credit on one thing. when the child separation policy got to his desk and it was inside the gear box, he was understanding what was going on and it got right into the kill shot, he reversed it. >> first he said it was good. it was a deterrent. kirstjen nielsen was misleading. it was their policy. >> the monday the volcano was erupting, on thursday he turned it back. you've got to give him credit.
7:11 pm
>> but first he said he liked it and he was pitching it. >> once he fully understood it -- >> he doesn't have kids? >> chris, be fair to the guy for a second. when the stuff is on his desk, that means there's 5,000 other people in the government that could have made the decision. there are very tough decisions on his desk. his plate is full all day. when it got into his gear box and he understood the magnitude of the problem, he reversed it. give him time to understand what's going on here. i see the crisis. i don't think it's a george soros sponsored caravan. if women who are moms are moving very young children below the age of 10 100 miles, 800 miles, it's a humanitarian crisis, no question. we have to, as a humane country, and people that have great american values, we have to handle it appropriately. we have to handle it without any level of callousness.
7:12 pm
i'm hoping and praying that him and his team sit down and look at the situation and say okay, we certainly can't have a mass migration into the country. we certainly need to have this done process wise and legally so that it's legal immigration, but we need to come up with a humane solution that is classically american that from a bipartisan basis all of us can be proud of. so let's see. >> tomorrow they're going to be presented with the facts by the people in charge of keeping us safe. we'll see what they do. >> good to be here. >> i appreciate it. we're going to see ivanka trump i believe called to testify about her own security scandal. will she go? that's a different question. it looks like the democrats, they're going to bring her in. now we've got this drama unfolding in the west wing. what is the law? what is right? that's what court is all about. look at those heavyweights next.
7:13 pm
my son forest, he was born while my husband was deployed. i video chatted the entire birth. i had great connectivity. his entire platoon was standing next to him. they kept telling me, "you gotta push! you gotta push!" they all got to meet forest, all together. about 50 of them. and they all started crying. it was the sweetest thing i have ever seen. (vo) there for you when it matters most. unlimited on the best network now includes apple music and a samsung galaxy, on us. all starting at $40. only on verizon.
7:14 pm
when i had my brother take me places, it was always like, we had to get there early so i could smoke a cigarette before we go inside. we always had to stop for cigarettes... it's true... i decided i needed to find an alternative... so i started looking and then juul came up. i did both for a while. and eventually i just switched over, it's very quick. i remember recently you asking me like did you want to smoke before we go in? and i was like no, i don't need to. ♪ 'cos i know what it means ♪ to walk along the lonely street of dreams ♪ ♪ here i go again on my--- you realize your vows are a whitesnake song?
7:15 pm
i do. if you ride, you get it. geico motorcycle. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more. need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel sites - even our competitors - so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. kayak. search one and done. (danny)'s voice) of course you don'te because you didn't!? your job isn't doing hard work... ...it's making them do hard work... ...and getting paid for it. (vo) snap and sort your expenses to save over $4,600 at tax time. quickbooks. backing you. the matters.ar... introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger, it's the right gear. with a terrain management system for... this. a bash plate for... that. an electronic locking rear differential for... yeah... this. heading to the supermarket? get any truck.
7:16 pm
heading out here? get the ford ranger. the only adventure gear built ford tough. ivanka trump security clearance. is the president guilty of special treatment for his family members? yes. is this an abuse of his power? let's gavel court into session. barrett burger, jim shultz, thank you both. jim shultz, you argue why this is an abuse of power. i'm just kidding. barrett, you make that case. jim will defend. do you believe that the president exercising his right to give security clearances as he sees fit, can it in any way
7:17 pm
be an abuse of power? absolutely. i think this falls within the theme that we've seen a lot in this administration which is just because you have the power to do something doesn't mean that you can do it correctly. so whether it's firing employees, whether it's issuing pardons, or whether it's ordering a security clearance, if you're doing something with a corrupt intent, you lose your absolute ability to do it. i think it could absolutely be an abuse of power if the normal process was somehow subverted or tainted. >> where is the corrupt intent? >> i think we don't know yet. that's what needs to be %-pg is that the normal process was not followed. that should not be something that's political. with respect to security clearances more than almost anything else, this should be fully apolitical. there should be something that the career officials that do this every single day are really trusted with, can let their process play out, and are given
7:18 pm
the autonomy to make these decisions not for any sort of political favor, but based on the facts before them. >> there are two theories. the first is this is about paperwork. they didn't fill out the paperwork the right way. they kept adding to it, especially in jared kushner's case. adding contacts with people that would make hairs go up on the back of the neck of an intel type. they didn't like it. so they responded by being slow walking on the paperwork and on the clearance. the president got frustrated with it and he went ahead. the second theory is they had good reason to not want to give them clearance and the president overrode it. which do you subscribe to and why? >> this is squarely within the president's powers. you've established. . >> right. >> at the same time he had jared and ivanka with him through the campaign. they came in the white house. ivanka has been doing work on
7:19 pm
the domestic agenda and jared has had success on that and foreign policy issues. the president relies on them and trusts their judgment. he's probably thinking look, i know these folks better than anyone and it's within my power to make this decision. now, there was some reporting and who knows what's true and what's not as to what staff said no, we're not going to sign off on this. >> memos. >> there may be memos, but at the end of the day the president has the power to do that. >> if they're recording something they found was offensive and abusive of that power, and recording the same contemporaneously and then the president lied about it. why lie? >> at the end, what's congress going to do about it? >> why lie? >> they can't change the law. >> but why lie? >> look, i don't know. we're relying upon sources and other things. >> memos prove it. >> i don't know why he told the story that he told.
7:20 pm
i have no idea why he toll the story he told. if he did, in fact, make that decision, he should have come out and said he did it himself. no question about it. but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not within his power. >> nobody is saying it's not within his power. don't go for the low fruit. the question is, did he abuse the power? did he misuse it? did he do it in a way he should not have? >> if he felt comfortable with them, that's within his power as president of the united states. if he looked at that memo, he knew those two individuals better than anyone else, he can make that judgment. >> that's fine, although i would love to know if he knew about the contacts of his sob in ln-i. if he did, he's got a bigger issue. >> to jimmie's point, what are you going to do about it? >> well, that's the million dollar question. i just want to address one thing. just because he knows these two people and i absolutely agree, he probably does know them better than most people.
7:21 pm
it does not necessarily mean they know all of the surrounding factors that go into granting a security clearance. his intel chief, the people making these decisions, have much more information that would go into this kind of process than simply do you know this person, was she a good daughter, is he a good son-in-law. there's a lot more factors that go into this. >> he probably had the benefit of that information when he ultimately made the decision. >> you would think so, except if the decision was already made that they were not going to get a clearance and then he chose to override that decision. it raises some real questions as to why go against the advice that you're going to be given. i understand why it would be a benefit for him to have them have a clearance. he wants to have them in certain meetings. i get why he wants them to have a clearance. whey don't understand and what i don't think any of us do is what were the concerns that were raised that really stood in the way as an impediment to them getting the clearance? in my experience, this was not some sort of huge uphill battle
7:22 pm
to get these clearances. this is not something you hear about every day of people being rejected for no good reason. chris, to your question, what happens next? that is the million dollar question here. we know that they have sort of said they will not give documents over to congress based on this, so i think this really puts congress in a tough position right now. do they want to press this issue and really take this to the courts ultimately as to whether they're going to challenge this? i think that's a tough challenge. >> i would make it the $9.99 question, because it's just one more example of this president doing things the wrong way and lying about what he does. is it a crime? no. could it be a political crime? we'll see. because that's obviously where the democrats are looking to build a case. jimmy, well argued. thank you. barrett, always a pleasure. thank you for being on the show. just a week after trump's failed summit with kim jong-un,
7:23 pm
why fail? because they left early. now what do we hear? north korea caught rebuilding a missile launch facility. what do republicans say about it? so far, that. we're going to talk to one of them next. congress thomas massie joins us next. naysayer said no one would subscribe to a car the way they subscribe to movies. we don't follow the naysayers. ♪ ♪
7:24 pm
7:25 pm
when did you see the sign? when i needed to create a better visitor experience. improve our workflow. attract new customers. that's when fastsigns recommended fleet graphics. yeah! now business is rolling in. get started at fastsigns.com. yeah! now business is rolling in. ♪ t-mobile is always happy to see you. when you join t-mobile you get two lines of unlimited with two of the latest phones included for just one hundred bucks a month. conventional wisdom says you can't make a 400 horsepower sedan, that's also environmentally conscious. we don't follow conventional wisdom. ♪ ♪
7:26 pm
7:27 pm
. president trump has been desperate to get a nuclear deal done with north korea and with good reason. that is a good goal. but how do you it matters. he's held two peace summits. not had any real concrete steps, except elevating kim jong-un to equal footing with the president. and how has kim repaid him? satellite photos appear to show kim jong-un has begun rebuilding parts of a long range missile testing facility. implications? let's discuss. congressman thomas massie, republican on the house oversight committee. good to have you on the show, sir. >> thanks for having me, chris. >> so there was a messaging issue here. nobody is surprised to hear that the north koreans are being
7:28 pm
shady. they're doing something that is wicked. we're not surprised by that. that's who they are. except the trump discrimination keeps telling us they're no longer a threat. pompeo tries to clear it up and gets more confusing. why that messaging? >> i think the president has extended an olive branch instead of treating the north korean leader as a pariah on the spot of the planet. he's trying to bring him to the table and it's hard to bring somebody to the table by calling them names 24/7. >> true, although he was the one who played the rocket man game. he's done it both ways. i'm wondering do you have concerns about dealing with a murd murderous despit now that you see how he returns the favor? >> i think you have to go to the table and words like murderous despit, even though it might be true, it doesn't advance your
7:29 pm
agenda. >> when you ignore it, what do you tell other bad guys around the world? when you forgive these atr atrocities like you did with putin? what do you think the other men say? this guy is somebody i'll work with. i'll do whatever i want. he'll be okay with it. he's just like me. >> i don't think that's the message the president is giving. we've got just about every sanction you can imagine on north korea and the pressure is getting to them. i actually think the change that's going to pressure their leader to change is actually going to come from the people themselves as they learn more about how society in an vladvand civilization lives, they're going to want those lifestyles too. i think the pressure is going to come from within. the president has to be there to give the dictator an opportunity when he feels that pressure from within and when he feels some of that pressure from china to comply with normalized world standards. i think the president has to be
7:30 pm
there to receive him. so i'm glad he's having talks. i was with congressional delegation last year. we visited korea. we went to the dmv. in the u.n. building where those talks could happen and people forget it doesn't take a long range missile site to take seoul south korea off the map. >> that's true. >> it's about 30 miles away from the dmz. >> that's true. >> so even though it's trouble some he's building a long range civil site, if that in fact is true, the danger and present and it's there now. >> lets me ask you about the oversight concerns. first the general and then the specific. what do you think of the ambitions? >> ambitions of? >> your committee. >> the oversight committee? they were trying to lay a cornerstone in the foundation of impeachment against the president. >> they say they're not. >> well, what was the purpose of the hearing? i mean, they had cohen in there.
7:31 pm
was it just for a circus? it was somewhat of a circus. the question that i asked cohen, by the way, based on his opening testimony, he said when he made payments to ms. clifford he didn't think about what was right and whether it was proper. i asked him if you were the president's lawyer and you didn't think about whether it was legal or not, how were you able to advise him on whether it was legal or not? it was just a long pause. he had no answer for that. he proceeded to basically tell me he was a fixer and not so much a lawyer. i think that somewhat exonerates the president. if your lawyer isn't giving you good legal advice, can you possibly knowingly violate the law? >> 100%. it's pretty obvious the president knew what he was doing. whether or not the american people care to pressure people like you to make a move on him is different. we're not talking about criminal behavior or procedure. we're talking about political ramifications here. >> you know what?
7:32 pm
i've never seen an s.e.c. report that has disclosed a payment for hush money. in fact, i think it would have been illegal if he used campaign money to do it. so that's just my opinion. i'm waiting for somebody to show me an s.e.c. report that actually is an example of where you pay somebody hush money. could i pay my children hush money? >> they don't put it in there because they're trying to hide it. you don't have to just fail to disclose it that way. it's about how it was engineered. but again, oi've said this many times, i do not see a prosecution ending this presidency. i don't see it. i think if the democrats want to go down the road of impeachment, they have to have buy-in from republicans. otherwise it's a waste of time many would argue. >> there was one other thing that michael cohen said. i had him restate it to me. he said a lot of times he acted on what he thought the president wanted and not what the
7:33 pm
president told him. >> true. >> i asked him to repeat that and he said it again. if they were trying to lay the foundation for a conviction of the president. maybe that's what they were after. they were going fishing. i didn't think they didn't catch any fish at our hearing and i think cohen came across as the least credible witness we've ever had in the oversight committee. >> polls put it at about 50/50, but you have to go against who he's being measured against. the president takes the biggest beating in polls of any politician i've ever seen when it comes to credibility. lucky for him, the american people, especially those who support him, have almost 0% of expectation of you guys acting with integrity and that is a sad commentary. >> we didn't get a call to witness. if you want integrity, i will suggest you don't bring michael cohen to the hearing. >> well, listen, that was a controversial first step for them to take. i invite you back to discuss what the committee does, what you think about it. >> absolutely.
7:34 pm
thanks, chris. >> congressman, thank you. there's a crisis at the border, but not nit is not the the president's been telling you about. it is the great debate to have, because tomorrow it's going to get very real in front of congress. ♪we gonna do what they say can't be done♪ ♪we've got a long way to go ♪and a short time to get there.♪ ♪i'm eastbound, just watch ole bandit run♪ whatever party you've got going in the back, we've got the business up front. or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable,
7:35 pm
with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you.
7:36 pm
7:37 pm
7:38 pm
white house once again resistant, defiant in the face of demands from house democrats for documents showing how the trump administration goes about its security clearance process. the president's counsel blasted the committee as, quote, overrule intrusive. when house oversight chair elijah cummings countered. >> i want the american people to understand that when you cannot get information, you cannot be a check. >> that's what this is about? is it about a check? or is it harassment? great debate and two perfect
7:39 pm
guests. michael eric dys dyson, ying mo. do you believe the white house should be complying with what the oversight committee is asking for? >> the white house has every right to negotiate how it wishes to cooperate with the committee. as the white house counsel said in his letter, congress cannot simply demand anything and everything. there has to be some sort of relationship to how the information it seeks is going to actually help its legislative task. and according to the white house, congress has actually not made that clear to this white house. and so the white house has every right to push bash. white houses have all pushed back. it's doing what is reasonable. >> what do you think of that? do you believe, mr. dyson, this is about the democrats once again overreaching? >> not at all. i think chairman cummings was
7:40 pm
absolutely right. you've got to be able to check by having information. when ms. ma makes the legitimate point that other white houses have behaved similarly, then extend the analogy all the way. this white house has not acted the way other white houses have acted. therefore, there is a suspicion that has been created. why? because there's a network of lies. there's a web that's been spun by this white house from the very beginning at every level. so i think it's only right that the congress that is impaneled now has a responsibility to make sure that what is going on is clear, fair, and reasonable and in order to make sure that they are the balance and the check to what is going on in the executive office, they've got to will their legislative authority. >> dyson went with web, ying. i usually go with mountain of mendacity, but he's much smarter. the point remains when you look at the meat of the matter, nobody should be arguing whether or not the president had the
7:41 pm
right to do anything. i see that as a distraction. we all know he has that kind of purview. the question is did he do it the right way? did he lie about it as the reporting suggests with the memos to back it up? why did they handle it this way? legitimate questions? >> sure. they're all legitimate questions. let's not confuse these questions with the law and i think the white house counsel's letter to the committee has made very clear there is case law in place saying very clearly that it's fine for you to ask for information but there has to be some relationship to how you intend to legislate because congress is there to legislate. you're not there to enforce the law. one thing to keep in mind is that congress has also deferred to the executive when it comes to national security issues such as granting security clearances. i know you keep saying that the president having the prerogative to grant a clearance to somebody is a distraction. i think it's kind of funny you keep saying that, because it actually goes to the heart of the issue, because this is
7:42 pm
actually what he is able to do and it's not -- >> how do you it matters. if i want to come after you for abuse of power -- >> but if it's within his power to do that, it's not abuse of power. >> that means if you have a power to do something, you can do it any way you want under any circumstances and it's okay? we both know the answer to that is no, don't we? >> it's up to him. he can grant a security clearance to ivanka and jared whenever he wants to or to anyone else. so should he have -- let me also back up a little bit, because right now we are basing our entire discussion on reporting from "the new york times." >> yes. >> and we don't actually know for sure if these sources are reliable. >> right. that's why the oversight is doing their job. >> is that actually correct? i have no objections to you asking the question. i think that's a very good -- >> that's journalism. >> it's in general what politicians are doing, but is
7:43 pm
this really something for the oversight committee to do, particularly the way they've asked for it. the white house didn't say they won't cooperate. they just object to the inprodui intrusive way. >> dyson, make the argument about why this is oversight. >> it's oversight. that's their purpose and their realistic goal. if lawyers agreed on everything, there would not be a counter argument. so-t to say it's a matter of case law is one thing. to stipulate the truth is not to make the other. mr. mcgahn wrote a memo to say i don't want any part of this. mr. kelly said the same thing. for they don't protect themselves first, they will be complicit in there mountain -- this web of lies being spun by the white house. the only adult in the room is the legislative arm at this
7:44 pm
point. we see that donald trump is being in one sense facilitated by people who are complicit in his very mendacity. did it happen? d didn't it happen? what do the facts say? facts still matter. truth still matters. what actually happened makes a difference. impeer cal means that which can be falsified through the census. what the legislative process is asking, let us apply the common sense and the facilities and faculties we have. if the president says no, let's see if it says no. if we don't have the evidence, if we don't have the paper or documents, we don't know what we're dealing with. >> this is a very good back and forth and i appreciate it. i think it was helpful for the evidence. it was certainly helpful for me. ying, great to have you. michael, same to you. hope to have you both back and soon. >> thank you. federal deficit, it's getting fat. why? well, in part because of this tax cut. in part because of our fiscal
7:45 pm
irresponsibility. but the interesting part is that republicans are usually swinging a hammer at these kinds of situations. but they didn't criticize this president for the tax cut. they swallowed it. why? answers next. the job is yours." and then, i need my phone to work while i'm on the subway or streaming the video they sent me while i learn the choreography as best i can. the key is to hold the bar up top and not the pole, so that you have full range of motion. it's a little kooky. (vo) there for you when it matters most. unlimited on the best network now includes apple music and a samsung galaxy, on us. all starting at $40. only on verizon. daci no more excuses with cologuard.
7:46 pm
we all make excuses for the things we don't want to do. but when it comes to colon cancer screening... i'm not doin' that. i eat plenty of kale. ahem, as i was saying... ...with cologuard, you don't need an excuse... all that prep? no thanks. that drink tastes horrible!
7:47 pm
but...there's no prep with cologuard... i can't take the time off work. who has two days? and i feel fine - no symptoms! everybody, listen! all you need is a trip to the bathroom. if you're 50 or older and at average risk, cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab! this is your year! own it! cologuard is not right for everyone. it is not for high risk individuals, including those with a history of colon cancer or precancer, ibd, certain hereditary cancer syndromes, or a family history of colon cancer. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.
7:48 pm
ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. you should meet our newest team schwab, bmember, tecky.do that, i'm tecky. i can do it all. go ahead, ask it a question. tecky, can you offer low costs and award-winning full service with a satisfaction guarantee, like schwab? sorry. tecky can't do that. schwabbb! calling schwab. we don't have a satisfaction guarantee, but we do have tecky! i'm tecky. i ca... are you getting low costs and award-winning full service? if not, talk to schwab.
7:49 pm
. economics is tricky. it's never just one thing. for example, right now the question is looking strong. but you have low employment and tax revenue plummeting and government spending is going up. what does that give you? it gives you a big fat deficit for the first quarter of the 2019 fiscal year. now, here's the political confusion. when you think republican, very
7:50 pm
often you think fiscal responsibility. trying to keep things small. now kwliit's the opposite. why? katherine, three questions. first four months fiscal year '19, federal deficit, $310 billion, up $176 billion year over year. why? >> there are a few things going on. one, of course, as you mentioned is the tax cut. despite what was promised, the tax cuts sadly did not pay for themselves. wouldn't you know, we cut taxes and tax revenues fell. so that snake oil still not working. not only the tax cuts. it's also on the spending side. so we had this grand bargain that democrats and republic b cans came to last year, they decided day were going to increase funding for each other's pet projects, particularly defense, not only defense. you saw a big increase in defense spending.
7:51 pm
the country's also getting older so you have more spending on medicare, for example. so that's part of it as well. and also interest rates are rising which means that the interest payments on the debt are also going up. all of that debt not looking so cheap anymore. >> so the sell was, listen, if you cut the taxes, they will invest more, they will pass along more, individuals will benefit as workers, they'll also benefit as recipients of more cash in their pocket from the tax cut i'm giving them as well and they will spend more and that will offset the decrease in revenues by increasing spending. >> right. >> what happened? >> the same thing that's happened every other previous time that we have tried this strategy. it did not pay for itself. we had a nice k-- >> meaning you needed to offset spending to anticipate the cut in revenues. >> meaning that the idea is that if you cut taxes enough, that will increase investment, that will increase the number of people who decide to go work and the number of hours that the
7:52 pm
they work, and that in and of itself, that additional economic activity, will increase the tax revenues that roll in, right? so it's the rate may fall, but the amount of activity that you see, the at of growth ksh. >> it offsets and then some. >> it will offset it. that's not actually what happened, and, again, we have seen this argument made, this snake oil sold, many times before, and it turns out never to actually to bear out. >> so tax cuts are not as good as they sound in general. they got to be targeted. they got to work the right way and at the right time. gotc gotcha. unemployment. thread this into it for me. historically low. historically low unemployment and a high def sit. do those two go together? are they supposed to be anathema? what is this? >> this is highly, highly unusual. look at the past 70 years basically the entire period, entire post-war period, the business cycle and the deficit moved in tandem, kind of like, looks like this and in the last few years it looks like this.
7:53 pm
what's happened is essentially the two things have decoupled. the reason why deficits and unemployment moved in tandem, why they were always sort of in sync for so long is can what wh expect. the economy is good, people are making more money. they're paying taxes on not money. on the other side of the ledger, you should find there would be less spending because if the economy is strong, fewer people need food stamps. fewer people need unemployment benefits. other kinds of things like that. so, you know, you don't have as much of a -- as much red ink spilled. beyond that, there's this idea that when the sun is shining, you fix the roof. that when the economy is good, that's when we can sort of try to be a little more fissically responsible than we'd need to be if we're about to see the economy implode along the lines of what we saw ten years ago during the financial crisis. instead, the sun is shining and rather than repairing the roof, we are blowing a much bigger hole in the roof, right? because we are increasing
7:54 pm
spending. we are cutting taxes. we are putting ourselves in a much less fiscally responsible situation than we need to be for the next time there is a recession. and -- >> the kbrogrowth is up. >> growth is up, but, again, normally, you would expect that when growth is up, tax revenues would be up, and the opposite has happened. so this is historically anomalous. we've never seen this before. the only times when we have seen that decoupling that i mentioned was in times of war. was during the vietnam war. the korean war. that's when you saw, okay, look, we had to spend a little extra money because we were fighting a war. you can't make quite the same argument now. we don't have the same mass mobilization even if we do have troops abroad. >> catherine ram pel, well argued and well answered on the three questions. thank you very much. >> any time. >> good to you. so, it's a big day tomorrow for president trump's really, it's more than just kirstjen nielsen. i was going to say for his pointwoman on national security. it's more because you had the head of dhs, you got the head of
7:55 pm
cbp, and it's going to be a big day for his own daughter also. why? i got the answers for all of you ahead. ocking chair would look great in our new house. ahh, new house, eh? well, you should definitely see how geico could help you save on homeowners insurance. nice tip. i'll give you two bucks for the chair. two?! that's a victorian antique! all right, how much for the recliner, then? wait wait... how did that get out here? that is definitely not for sale! is this a yard sale? if it's in the yard then it's... for sale. oh, here we go. geico. it's easy to switch and save on homeowners and renters insurance.
7:56 pm
i had a few good tricks to help hide my bladder leak pad. like the old "tunic tug". but always discreet is less bulky. and it really protects. 'cause it turns liquid to gel. so i have nothing to hide. always discreet. ♪
7:57 pm
♪ t-mobile will do the math for you. right now, when you join t-mobile, you get two lines of unlimited with two of the latest phones included for just one hundred bucks a month. when did you see the sign? when i needed to jumpstart sales. build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage. and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com.
7:58 pm
and got them back on track. your favorite restaurants now it doesn't matter dash. where you are. ♪ it doesn't matter what you're hungry for. it doesn't even matter how many you are. ♪ restaurants come to you. delicious at your door. download doordash. first order, no delivery fee.
7:59 pm
big day, i think you're going to get something that you're not used to tomorrow. in front of congress. you're going to get the truth. you're going to get homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen, i know she's controversial, but she's going before a house panel and i've already made my case about what's really happening at the southern border, but it's based on their data about what they project is going to come. and it's not about a wall and it's not about a much of marauders. this hearing is going to be a big step because once congress gets the kate tdata, i don't kn they don't have already, once they get it they have to act because this is a big problem and they're not ready for it. then you have the white house facing backlash over reports
8:00 pm
that president trump pushed officials to grant his daughter a security clearance. unlike what was just argued to you, just because you have a power doesn't mean you can exercise it any way you want, right? if he pressures people to give clearance to jared kushner, isn't it a legitimate question to ask why? we'll see tomorrow and i'll see you as well. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight with erin burnett" aka, the upgrade. for d. lemon, starts right now. >> oh, it is so true. sadly, he's probably not even watching to know what we're talking about. >> he passed out long ago. >> he's a lightweight. all right. have a good night. >> you, too. and to 5all the of you, welcome to tonight. this is "cnn tonight" in for don lemon. multiple sources telling cnn president trump put pressure on two former top aides, chief of staff john kelly and white house don mcgahn. put pressure on both of them to grant security clearance to ivanka trump, the president's daughter and senior

22 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on