tv At This Hour With Kate Bolduan CNN April 1, 2019 8:00am-9:00am PDT
nomination for best rap album and told cnn before on the red carpet it was a dream. nipsey hustle, dead now at 33 years old. >> wow. what a tragedy, paul. thank you for bringing us that reporting and let us know when you have more. we appreciate it. thank you all for joining us today. we will see you back here tomorrow morning, i'm poppy harlow. >> and i'm jim execute show. nice to have poppy back after our various vacationes. >> we are back together. >> "at this hour" with kate bolduan starts now. >> hello, i'm kate bolduan, thanks for joining me. we are following breaking news out of washington right now. the head of the house oversight committee says he is planning to subpoena a top -- a former top white house official over security clearances. this all started from a -- when a white house staffer tricia newbold came forward and has told top investigators top white house officials overruled clearance concerns on not one or two people but about 25 people to get security clearances.
she claims the concerns that popped up during background checks ranged from fears of foreign influence to possible drug use. so what does this all mean now? let's get over to the capital, man kn manu raju is there. >> house oversight chairman elijah cummings has made this a priority for his committee to investigate the security clearance process at the white house, raising concerns about officials such as jared kushner and ivanka trump who apparently had got their security clearance approved, overruled and pushed through by the president despite concerns within the white house. this whistleblower who elijah cummings called a whistleblower, tricia newbold does not identify anyone by name, but says there were 25 individuals that she listed since 2018 who were allowed to get their security clearances despite initial denials by career officials who
had raised significant concerns about their back grounds. now, according to this memo it says this, according to ms. newbold these individuals had a wide ranging disqualifying issues cloug conflicts of interest, concerning personnel conflict, financial problems, drug use and criminal conduct. she goes ton to tell house democratic and republican staff on this committee about a range of concerns about the way the security clearance process works at the trump white house. she said there is not adequate staff to review this, said there is not enough security to look over the personal security files. she also says there is, quote, an unusually high number of individuals who get interim security clearances who she said should not. she said she is people who got interim security clearances were later deemed unsuitable for access to classified information. now, on top of this, kate, she claims that the white house retaliated against her, white house officials have, and she said that she was forced to come
forward before this committee. now, elijah cummings says that he does plan to subpoena an individual, carl klein, who served as the personal security director at the white house, he plans to do that this week. we have not heard back from klein or the white house or any of those individuals, but we did hear just back from the top republican on this committee, jim jordan, who calls this a reckless use of whistleblower information, says that cummings is mischaracterizing ms. newbold what she told the committee sand said these 25 individuals one was a gsa official on the custodial staff. clearly the democrats are in the majority, they plan to pursue this in the days ahead. >> regardless, i think especially when you see that dispute between cummings and jordan on there, more information coming out would be better to clear up exactly what's going on here. great to see you, manu, thank you so much. to be clear, the president has the unique power to override any recommendations when it comes to this and grant security clearances to whomever he wants
really, but remember everyone from the president on down repeatedly claimed that the president at least had nothing to do with the clearance process of his daughter ivanka trump and his son-in-law jared kushner. as a reminder here is ivanka trump just last month to abc's abby huntsman. >> the president had no involvement pertaining to my clearance or my husband's clearance. >> so no special treatment? >> no. >> and that is now all in question yet again. so what is the white house saying about this whistleblower complaint and the cummings subpoena? cnn's kaitlan collins is at the white house. kaitlan, what are you hearing right now? >> so far we've gotten nothing from the white house on this request and what this fight is going to look like and as manu just laid out eventually what this could end up with the white house counsel either being forced to accommodate the request from capitol hill or this is going to end up in a nasty lengthy court battle. we know, kate, in the past that the white house counsel has argued that he believes the
president and the executive branch had the exclusive authority to either grant people security clearances or deny them. he does not think that congress has involved in this process in the way that they are trying and he has recalled these requests essentially intrusive in the past. it doesn't shed a lot of light on whether or not he is going to be willing to accommodate with these requests now that elijah cummings is in charge and is demanding these documents. now, we do know that in this letter cummings wants to see information related to the security clearances of not only jared kushner and ivanka trump, but also john bolton, the national security adviser. we have reported that the president got involved in granting jared kushner and ivanka trump security clearances even though ivanka trump in that clip just there said she did not know that her father was involved. when we reported that we had sources telling us that maybe ivanka did not know that her father played a role in her getting a security clearance. all of this is coming to a head as white house officials have been pretty uneasy about the topic of security cleerns for over a year now, kate, ever
since that rob porter scandal happened where there was so much scrutiny on how the white house was granting people security clearances not just security clearances but also those interim clearances and that's what led to john kelly former chief of staff changing the process and that's when you saw jared kushner go from having that interim clearance to being downgraded until the president did get involved and grant him a permanent security clearance. white house officials are not responding to this, but we know they've been uneasy about what information could potentially come out now that there is a os handling these clearances. >> it also seems a process that doesn't need -- in the past there isn't this kind of on fusion and unease with regard to how it all plays out. what you're pointing out i think is one of the most important parts here. >> right. and that's a big part of this. that's a big part of this. there's so much scrutiny on this because they say, yes, the president does have the authority to do this, but because of the situation like with rob porter which has had complete ripple effects on this administration and that's why with this woman telling cummings that, yes, the president does
have the authority to do this, but the way they did it was irregular, it was often and there were so many concerns that were never addressed which is why those career officials had denied these people their clearances in the first place. >> kaitlan, good to see you. thank you so much. for more some perspective on this joining me is a former senior advisor to the national security council during the obama administration, samantha v vinaigrette. about 25 people despite concerns and a range of concerns that were flagged with their initial background checks, 25 people overriding that and giving them security clearance. does that -- can you give me perspective? i mean, 25 or one for someone who doesn't know could be the same thing. is 25 people a lot for the number? >> it could be. it's a bit of groundhog day because another day another process foul by the white house. it's important to remind people why this matters. >> yes, auto please. >> i had a top secret clearance in the white house, i filled out my paperwork, i didn't lie, i
disclosed my foreign contacts. that meant that experts thought that i could be trust you had with classified information, that i wouldn't inappropriately give it to a foreign government or misuse it. the fact that these individuals got security clearances over experts' objections means that there is a chance that foreign governments are inappropriately accessing the intelligence of these white house officials are seeing because these officials either don't know how to responsibly handle it or there is some other malign intent involved whereby they are somehow giving this information over to foreign governments. so the question becomes why would the white house, these multiple senior officials that are referenced in manu's reporting, why would they knowingly do something that would open up the risk that foreign governments were inappropriately accessing your information? what is the benefit to doing that other than perhaps expediency of having more people with clearances in the situation room or reviewing information. >> so can you remind folks the range of possibility and i'm sure it's far beyond what we could list out, but the range of
possibility of what would be a red flag in a background check? look, some of the red flags can be cleared up with a conversation. >> they can. >> with an honest conversation. >> there you go. but what are we talking about here? >> the point of a counter -- an intelligence investigation into an individual seeking a clearance is largely to make sure that they don't have any manipulation points, that there's nothing in their background that a foreign intelligence service could use to manipulate them knowingly or unknowingly, wittingly or unwittingly. that could be something like a secret, whether it's a gambling debt, affair or past drug use that they haven't been forthcoming about or it could be a too i to a foreign government they haven't professed. i was a french citizen when i joined the u.s. government, i had to give up my passport because they didn't want there to be any concern that i had allegiances anywhere else. it could be anything like that. the key issue is you can't lie about anything in your past. secre secrets are manipulation points, particularly secrets related to a foreign government because, again t begs a request yes would you want a foreign government to know something that the u.s.
government doesn't. >> when it comes to where it goes from here, i am unclear as to, yes, a subpoena to bring this senior official in to answer questions about obviously questions are why were these things overwritten, who told you to override these concerns and so forth. what could happen now? do you see a universe where when congress gets involved these -- some of these 25 people get their security clearance now revoked? i just don't -- >> it seems unlikely because the white house has doubled down whenever they feel cornered by congress. it's true the president could give clearances to whomever he wants. we don't know if the president was involved in these particular decisions. >> great point. there are multiple levels of this. >> if i was an intelligence partner of the situates right now one of the five eyes, the country we share most closely with i would be nervous about sharing intelligence with the white house knowing that u.s. experts didn't think that these individuals could responsibly handle this information. it could degrade our actual
intelligence sharing. for people in the white house who got their clearances because experts thought they should -- >> didn't have -- >> didn't have red flags, i wouldn't feel comfortable sitting in the situation room and talking about information with people that experts didn't think warranted a clearance. that could impact the quality of discussion at the white house right now. >> directly to your point, you would think that the president wouldn't want that as well. you want to be surrounded by trustworthy people and that's -- >> so that you can have a real conversation without the wrong people listening. >> right, and that's why this -- this has popped up before and now we're learning more information about how many people and now it's going to head towards a subpoena. this is why it is so head scratching and why when it came to the president being involved in the security clearance for ivanka and jared, it was also so head scratching. if it isn't a big deal and you have the power to do it, why was everyone lying about it leading up to it? it fits to this really confusing -- confusing narrative
that we have seen over and over again, this pattern over and over again. great to see you, sam. we were also following another story unfolding on capitol hill. the chairman of the house judiciary committee has taken a big step in week toward issuing a subpoena to get his hands on the full unredacted mueller report. attorney general bill barr has said that he plans to release a redacted version of the report in the next couple of weeks, but top house democrats are clearly not satisfied and readying for a fight as barr is surely going to miss the deadline that they let's be honest arbitrarily set to see the report because the deadline is tomorrow. let me bring back in manu raju. let's keep our subpoenas straight. so barr says the report is coming, so what does chairman jerry nadler do -- what is he doing here with this vote this week, then? >> well, they're trying to make clear they want the full report not the redacted report and they're trying to demand the underlying evidence that underpins all the information,
the conclusions within the mueller report. according to bill barr's letter from friday he said he planned to redact four categories of information and two categories in particular caught democrats by surprise and raised some significant concerns. one was grand jury information, two was information regarding to what bill barr would consider that would impugn the integrity of peripheral third parties in this investigation. it's unclear what that actually would entail, but nevertheless democrats are worried that this would be a significantly redacted report and the american public won't see the full picture. so they are planning on wednesday to authorize the house judiciary committee to issue a subpoena to the justice department to get the full report unredacted report underlying evidence and they're also planning to issue subpoenas for five former white house officials who they say are no longer covered by executive privilege because those officials have cooperated with the mueller investigation.
democrats contend that they have precedent on their side, they point to the starr investigation, the watergate investigation which underlying evidence, grand jury information was provided to capitol hill. republicans say this is arbitrary and they're trying to essentially force the justice department to break norms and regulations, nevertheless, kate, this is escalating this fight. could lead to a court battle between congress and the administration depending on what bill barr ultimately decides to do, kate. >> it honestly seemed more straightforward last week and now this week it is not straightforward for on exactly what's going to happen. thanks so much. >> thanks. coming up, the white house doubling down on the president's threat to close the u.s. border with mexico. we will take you live to one of the texas border towns to find out what that actually would really mean if the border was completely shut down there. plus 2020 underdog mayor pete buttigieg is reporting a massive fundraising haul. what that means for him now and also the democratic primary race. that's ahead. ♪
introducing freedom from the bounds of convention... 472 horses of v8 craftsmanship... zero to 60 in 3.96 seconds. it's performance, born of refinement. the 2020 lexus rc f track edition and rc f. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. hmm. exactly. and doug. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? oh. well, we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance, because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. [ loud crash ] yeah. he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪
new this morning, the secretary of homeland security is now sending more officers to the u.s./mexico border. the department just announced a few moments ago that it is now going to be speeding up the deployment of some 750 new officers to the border there and there could actually be even more. that is on top of the message from the white house today which is something dramatic needs to happen to stop them from taking another very dramatic step, which is shutting down the entire u.s./mexico border. listen to this. >> it certainly isn't a bluff. you can take the president seriously. >> the president will do everything he can, if closing the ports of entry mean that, that's exactly what he intends
to do. >> all right. so this new threat coming as the crisis continues at the border. just take the border town of brownsville, texas, where authorities there say thousands of undocumented immigrants are about to be released because the city says it simply doesn't have room to hold them anymore. cnn's martin savidge is in brownsville and has been tracking this. what are you learning there? >> reporter: this is essentially a cascading effect that you see down here in brownsville. you have the federal government that says it no longer has room in all the detention centers for all the migrants it has apprehended to it has done releasing them. there were over 1,000 processed here in brownsville alone over the weekend but now brownsville is also saying, well, we can't hold them here, their job is to try to move them as quickly as possible. there was a group that just arrived a short time ago, we will show you sort of what happens when they come in from a bus from the federal side, they're met by brownsville authorities that then bring them
inside the bus terminal here where there are city officials and county officials who help process them. make sure they've got the right traveling documents, put them in touch with their loved ones or whoever they may know in the united states and try to arrange as quickly as possible either a bus ticket or airline ticket so that that migrant family can leave here and go somewhere else in the u.s. while they wait out the whole asylum process. amazingly, much of that gets done in about a day. still, it is stressing the city as far as resources and money and the mayor is frustrated about all of it. listen. >> you know, as long as washington doesn't listen, this is the way we're going to have to handle it. >> but doesn't that seem outrageous or crazy? >> it's totally outrageous, but like i tell people all the time, you know, as a mayor we have to walk the streets of our own town and we've got to make sure they're safe, make sure they're healthy and they have to deal with anything that comes across our front door.
okay? >> reporter: and they have been dealing with what's coming across their front door. in fact, they say they could probably handle up to 1,000 migrants a day. the problem is there's no communication between the feds and the city. so no one knows how many my grants will show up on any given day or even what time buses will arrive. they simply have to deal with what literally is showing up at their doorstep. kate? >> quite literally, that's the most amazing thing, despite even all the coverage of it now, it's quite literally exactly that still at this moment. martin, thank you so much. i appreciate it. joining me is john sandway a former acting director of u.s. immigration and customs enforcement, also served as the acting general counsel for the department of homeland security. thank you for coming back in. i appreciate it. when you hear close down the entire border, ports the entry and all, what does it mean? how do you do it? >> well, the president has
emergency authority to close down the ports of entry, but what it means is the miles and miles of long, you know -- of trucks waiting to come into the united states, importing produce, manufactured goods, the hundreds of thousands of workers who work for u.s. businesses legally but live in mexico, all of that's going to be shut down. $650 mexico threatened and it's going to do nothing, absolutely nothing to stop the flow of central americans into this cans what they're doing is this, they're coming north, making that arduous journey through mexico and their goal two feet on american soil. the overwhelming majority are crossing the border illegally. they are not going through the ports of entry. once they get their two feet on american soil they file their asylum claims, we have a process that has worked for decades to deal with that, we haven't dedicated the resources necessary to process these numbers of people efficiently or quickly, so it's taking years, thus further incentivizing more to come. what's going on at the ports of entry is lawful trade and travel
and i don't understand the nexus, i guess the president is thinking maybe by closing the ports he puts a little bit more pressure on mexico to close the southern border but generally speaking only a traction of these people are coming through the lawful ports of entry he. >> here is one of the reasons at least his acting chief of staff is saying for this move, he says that they need to move people, he actually said this yesterday, they need to move people from the ports to in his words go and patrol in the desert where we don't have a wall. does that make sense to you? >> again, it makes no sense. listen, the wall is not going to be terribly effective at stopping there. there are parts of the border where the wall is directly on the border but the majority of the people coming across are in the rio grande valley. because of flood zones and other things in that particular part of the country the wall is going to be in many places up to a mile inland or half a mile. all these central americans need is two feet of american soil to get their feet on. this is a different type of situation than we have ever dealt at the border before. they are not trying to sneak into the united states and evade
capture, they want to surrender because they know that dhs is overwhelmed. so, no, the wall is not going to do anything about it and quite candidly the personnel, the staff at the ports of entry are different from border patrol. there will be people like u.s. citizens who you just can't say you are stuck in mexico because we closed the border. you will have to be able to pro sews those individuals. it doesn't make much sense at all. >> this is something and you got it at the top, but this is something that we've talked about before and i think this gets to the whole point here. short of comprehensive immigration reform you have advocated -- which let's not even pretend it's going to happen -- you've advocated that a solution to the immediate problem at the border is to staff up and speed up the process of processing these asylum claims. get more immigration judges down there to handle the cases, get them processed faster. that hasn't happened.
do you have any -- could you come up with any good reason why that hasn't happened or why they haven't even tried it? >> no, you know, honestly i think what's going on here in part is the administration sees an opportunity in this crisis. the immigration folks at the administration have never liked the asylum laws, they don't like the idea that the united states provides a safe haven for people fleeing political persecution. this he see an opportunity to leverage this crisis to cut off those laws, to change those laws and no longer provide access to people claiming asylum. i think if you were to accelerate and provide immigration judges and process the cases quickly, one is the american people's concern about the situation would diminish because we would be getting these people out quickly, but secondly when you get the people out quickly the smugglers will no longer be effective at recruiting new people in central america because they will see the neighbors, their friends who went north coming right back. unless and until that happens and frankly things stabilize a bit in central america, i worry this crisis is going to
continue. so, i mean, could be some political opportunism to see with this crisis, might be an opportunity to leverage and achieve a long term goal which is to modify the immigration laws, but, look, let's be realists, this congress is not going to change the asylum laws anytime soon, there is not going to be comprehensive immigration reform anytime soon, in the interim we have a legitimate crisis and are doing little meaningful steps to address it. >> i'm out of town. you're advocating putting more judges, like a surge of judges down there in order to process claims. >> yes. >> faster. the secretary of homeland security is putting a surge of officers they just announced this morning, 750 officers to the southwest border. does that have any of the same effect? >> it does. i mean, honestly they do need to process these ids have. they are not kidding, they are overwhelmed, these are stunning numbers but they need to process them. it doesn't matter if you process them quickly if there isn't a hearing where you can process the asylum claim and get them
out so you need to do both. >> fix the place where there's actually the backlog, the long lead time into why he. >> john, thank you for coming in. coming up for us, small city mayor, big time fundraising haul, pete buttigieg pulls in millions for his campaign. how is it going to stack up to the next pack pack? that's next. kind of like how you get 24/7 access to licensed agents with geico. hmm? yeah, you just go online, or give them a call anytime. you don't say. yep. now what will it take to get 24/7 access to that lemon meringue pie? pie! pie's coming! that's what it takes, baby. geico®. great service from licensed agents, 24/7. we really pride ourselvesglass, on making it easy to get your windshield fixed. with safelite, you can see exactly when we'll be there. saving you time for what you love most. >> kids: whoa!
mno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.
it's big money boost for the ones little known mayor of south bend, indiana. mayor pete buttigieg announcing this morning his team has raised more than $8 million since throwing his hat in the ring in january. it's like throwing your hat in the ring sort of kind of maybe. he has not official announced. what does a big money haul mean for an underdog campaign in a crowded field. it's great to see you guys, jess, 7 million bucks raised in this first report, does that tell you he has arrived? what is the message to you? >> for sure. i mean, i think for somebody who was a third tier candidate if even that to have gotten the kind of coverage that he got in the last couple of weeks and had that much excitement about it, i mean, this is exciting for him. i think this is very early and we are going to see one of those primaries where everybody sort of has their moment in the front, but i do think it's a note of caution to everybody
like us who talks about the 2020 race. >> as a foregone conclusion, right. >> if you spend two weeks talking about how great and smart and substantive the candidate is they will raise ten points in the polls. i want to make sure we are seeing equal coverage -- >> you're saying don't talk about people's policy positions. i'm kidding. >> i want elizabeth warren to get the same due for having very similar policy positions that i feel like sometimes we get really excited about the new shiny thing and there are, in fact, a number of very good smart, qualified candidates running. >> very different people and very different personalities. >> entirely. >> personalities are one of the things that people with pointing out for with buttigieg. david, when you look at the field as a whole what do these fundraising numbers tell you? what are you watching for as obviously more candidates are going to be reporting? >> right. i mean, we're going to get unlike polls which are not the most reliable things in the world as a metric, we're going to get a real -- >> blasphemy, david. >> sorry. >> just kidding. >> in terms of financial strength which of course matters
for a long haul race. now, what you look for besides the top line number how much are these candidates spending, how much are they husbanding resources and have cash on hand? how much is coming from small dollar donations so they can dip back into that well over and over and over again and ask those folks to donate more versus those that max out at $2800 for the donation. these are the kinds of things you are looking at. remember this cycle the dnc has introduced fundraising as one of the metrics to get on the debate stage. in addition to your polling threshold candidates need 6,500 donors from 20 different states to show that kind of fundraising appeal as a metric to get on the stage as well. >> so with that it looks like maybe, you tell me what you think, jess, that pete buttigieg has at the moment a hillary clinton drama problem on his hands. her spokesperson, adviser, nick merrill came out over the
weekend and slammed buttigieg for -- well, this, this is what merrill said about it, this is an interview in the wast post that was published in january, pete buttigieg says this, donald trump got elected because in his twisted way he pointed out the huge interest you believe so in our economy and democracy. at least he didn't go around saying that america was already great like hillary did. merrill's take is this is indefensible, hillary clinton ran on a belief in this country and the most progressive platform in modern political history. trump ran on false promises and vitriol. interpret that how you want but there are 66 million people who disagree. good luck. do you see what buttigieg said as indefensible? >> well, the "washington post" article that you just referenced was actually buttigieg trying to clean up some comments he made about hillary the week earlier where he criticized what he called her slogan, i'm with her, and said it was too candidate focused. i'm with her is not her slogan, stronger together is not her slogan. fans adopted i'm with her and they went with it. then he said democrats focused
too much on donald trump and didn't have a policy based message and that is why mill ri lost which is also not true. this piece i think was his third attempt to explain how he wasn't going to make the same mistakes that hill are i did. i understand the impulse but it makes me nervous for him because the two biggest things that took down the 2016 campaign, the donald trump news cycle and the dirty tricks, stolen e-mails, those are still in play. if pete walks out and says hillary didn't outline a positive message correctly, i'm going to and therefore i'm going to win, he is not going to understand what he's up against and that concerns me as a democrat. >> he's answering to questions or bringing it up himself, david, it isn't the first time he has criticized her campaign. when i interviewed him in february he did very much the same. listen to this. >> i think part of how we got here, part of how we got this president was we had an election cycle where our candidate was talking about herself or she was talking about him and a lot of
people at home were saying, okay, but who is talking about me? >> what's your take, david? is this the difference of a candidate running -- the difference a candidate from the midwest can bring? is that what he's trying to carve out? >> he tried to clean up, again, this weekend in talking to a local station in indiana saying he's not at odds with as nick merrill pointed out the 66 million people who voted for hillary clinton because he was one of them and campaigned on her behalf and expressed his respect for secretary clinton, but i don't think it is that unusual in american politics even for people in the same party to go back and criticize the nominee who lost last time around, it's always the case that the loser ends up having a terrible strategy and the winner ends up looking like a genius no matter really the reasons behind there. questioning the last nominee who was on the losing end their strategy in place does not seem to be an out of bounds kind of thing here, but i do think what
buttigieg is learning real quickly is that he has to be real careful about separating out an attack on hillary clinton the person and maybe a broader strategy on the part of her campaign or you're going to really raise the ire of her supporters who as nick rightly noted, you know, half the country or more on the popular vote. >> exactly. all right. let's see what the next chapter brings. good to see you, david. thanks, jess. coming up for us, is the 2020 democratic primary race starting to look like an apology tour? why so many contenders keep saying sorry next.
you don't often have to kick off a campaign apologizing, but some of the democratic front runners have had to do just that in the 2020 race already. joe biden is the latest example, even before entering this race acknowledging that he's shown expressions of affection to people during his years on the campaign trail, but also saying never did i believe i acted inappropriately. so that is after former nevada politician lucy flores said that biden made her feel in her words uneasy, gross and confused when he touched her shoulders and kissed the back of her head at an event in 2014. and also beto o'rourke apologizing for this comment that he made early on in his campaign a couple times. >> i just got a call from my wife amy, who is back in el paso, texas, where she is
raising sometimes with my help ulysses who is 12 years old, molly who is 10 and their little brother henry who is 8 years old. >> afterwards beto o'rourke said that he would never say that again. and bernie sanders having to apologize for his handling of sexual harassment allegations within his 2016 campaign. listen. >> how has it affected you personally knowing what happened? >> it was very painful. very painful. and it will not happen again. >> so there's that. jess mcintosh is back with me and joining us jeff zeleny. jess, what does it mean in your view that you have three we will call them -- they're big names in the democratic primary, if you want to call them front runners or not, we can all debate it, all white men starting off their campaigns or before they get in the campaigns with apologies and issues related to how they treat or talk to women. >> i think it means we should have a conversation that lasts two or three weeks where kamala
harris and elizabeth warren and amy klobuchar take the lead and we talk about issues and policy points that democrats want to be making so we don't have to deal with this, but since we do i think what's happening right now is really interesting because those three men they are not accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault, this is not a harvey weinstein situation. >> no. >> what's happening is we are having interesting conversations that are very long overdue. with beto we're talking about a double standard. there's not inherently wrong with what he said except the fact that if a woman said it she would be reviled as something kind of unnatural, a woman saying she didn't really take care of her kids is not going to be a laugh line coming from her. we need to talk about that. what's happening with biden is not sexual assault, but treating women in a professional setting like they are your niece or granddaughter can be pretty demeaning and that's something that we should have the conversation about. so i'm glad that our side is willing to have these tough conversations. i want to make sure that we stay very focused on the fact that
the other side has actually elected somebody who is an admitted sexual assaulter, so we're not comparing apples to apples here. one side is willing to have really tough gender-based conversations and the other side is pretty happy to double down on misogyny. >> that's jess' position. i have a million questions about this. we will continue it much further than that, but is this a generational example of a generational divide? does this change? does this conversation change dramatically when it's not democratic primary and we are talking about a general election as jess points out against donald trump? what do you think of this, j jeff? >> i think it is a generational divide in some respect but i also think what is going on here, joe biden has such a long record of public life, public service and throughout the -- from generation to generation from decade to decade things have changed. so he is trying to, i guess, get right with the moment and it's happening in a variety of different sideways and it will probably continue to happen if he jumps in as we still expect him to do at the end of april.
but, look, i think it's -- it is something of an apology tour, i guess, but it's also just explaining. i think you can add elizabeth warren on to that list as she has apologized, explained other things that she has talked about her past as well, her native american heritage. i think that it is a long list here. i think the question is the democrats that i am talking to about this isn't necessarily divided i don't believe as much on generational lines as they are ideological lines. are they looking for someone who can, you know, doo he feet the president or are they looking for someone who lines up directly with these progressive ideas and views? so i think that is much more what is happening inside the democratic party for the democrats i speak to as opposed to automatically assuming that older voters, you know, are aligned with joe biden and younger voters are not. i think it's much deeper than that. >> and how does this play out throughout the primary, i think, will be interesting and in a shrewd political way how do the other candidates use or not use
this when things -- when they're standing on a debate stage perhaps. we will see. jeff, thank you so much, jess, thank you so much. i really appreciate it. coming up for us, chilling new details about a college student who thought she was getting into an uber but ended up being killed. we will have the latest on the investigation in okay is. that's next. . . billions of mouths.
you'when you barely the clip a passing car. minor accident -no big deal, right? wrong. your insurance company is gonna raise your rate after the other car got a scratch so small you coulda fixed it with a pen. maybe you should take that pen and use it to sign up with a different insurance company. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
it's something that millions of us do every day, open an app and request a ride share, a car arrives and you hop in, and you end up going to wherever you need to be, but for one south carolina college student that simple act was deadly. it was her last. police now have a suspect, but still a lot of questions about the death of 21-year-old samantha josephson. josephson's mother had this to say about the accused killer in court. >> it sickens us to think that his face was the last thing that my baby girl saw on this earth. unlike you she has love within her heart and purpose in her life, the life he brutally ended. he took away a doubtary, sister, a granddaughter, a niece, a cousin and a friend to so many.
hisselfish unspeakable and violent actions have created a hole in the universe. >> cnn's diane gallagher is gathering information on this case in south carolina right now. diane, what are you learning? >> reporter: exactly what you said. this resonates with just about everyone, especially in a college town. this 21-year-old senior at the university of south carolina was trying to do the safe thing. she was getting a ride home from the bar that's right here behind me just before 2:00 in the morning on friday. again, that's the last time that any of her friend saw her. 24 hours later, police saw a vehicle, that black chevy impala, not too far from the same location. they stopped the vehicle. the man who was driving it ran off. they caught him inside the vehicle. they say they found her phone. they found blood inside the passenger compartment area inside the trunk and that they had noted that he had the child lock capabilities on in the back seat for the doors and the windows. police say that they believe
that nathaniel rowland prevented samantha josephson from getting out of the vehicle after she got in mistakingly believing that his car was her uber. now, look, uber has not delivered an official comment on this. we do know that rowland was never a drive of any sort for uber. she thought it was her car, kate. a cautionary car. make sure they know your name and make sure they tell you their name, the driver and check the tags. >> the poor girl, her family. diane, thanks so much. appreciate it. thanks so much. still ahead, a new twist in the battle over white house security clearances. a whistleblower reveals white house officials overruled security concerns for about 25 people. that's next.
if you're turning 65, you're probably learning about medicare and supplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything - only about 80% of your part b medicare costs, which means you may have to pay for the rest. that's where medicare supplement insurance comes in: to help pay for some of what medicare doesn't. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by united healthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you.
a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? well, these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp and that's because they meet aarp's high standards of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. for example, with any medicare supplement plan you may choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan, there are no networks or referrals needed. also, a medicare supplement plan goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. a free decision guide will provide a breakdown of aarp medicare supplement plans, and help you determine the plan that works best for your needs and budget. call today to request yours. let's recap. there are 3 key things you should keep in mind.
one: if you're turning 65, you may be eligible for medicare - but it only covers about 80% of your medicare part b costs. a medicare supplement plan may help pay for some of the rest. two: this type of plan allows you to keep your doctor - as long as he or she accepts medicare patients. and three: these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. learn more about why you should choose an aarp medicare supplement plan. call today for a free guide.
welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. new confrontations between democrats and the trump white house. the latest fireworks, a whistleblower says in at least 25 cases the trump administration overruled career officials who had rejected applications for security clearances. plus, the white house says the president is not bluffing and is prepared to close parts of the u.s. border with mexico. even some of his allies worry his immigration obsession will hurt the economy and maybe hurt the president's re-election chances. and a me, too challenge for joe biden. he says he has offered countless expressions of affection over the years, but never did he believe them to be inappropriate. a