tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN April 10, 2019 4:00am-5:00am PDT
within a week i will release the report to the public. >> if the report indicates no collusion, that's it. done, over. >> not afraid at all. >> steve mnuchin was measured, precise in his language. >> if you wish to leave, you may. >> the republicans didn't treat the secretary this way. >> you're going in front of the oversight committee you can win on facts, not emotion. >> as it stands the race is too
close to call. >> he has a pretty clear path that's center left. >> they are not friends. we can see which way the president jumped. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning. welcome to your "new day." this morning we are preparing for the release of the "grease" prequel which we are told is imminent. >> that's the headline. >> there is other news as well. william barr will be back on capitol hill after his first day of testimony there. there are several major questions unanswered and several questions that he notably raised with his nonanswers. namely, what has he told the white house about the contents of the mueller report? barr refused to answer whether the president and his lawyers may already know more than congress and the public about what's inside the report. barr did tell lawmakers they'll have a redacted version of the report soon, within days. democrats in congress want more. they are vowing to issue a
subpoena for the full version. >> meanwhile it appears the irs will miss the deadline today that was set by house democrats to turn over six years of president trump's tax returns. treasury secretary steve mnuchin sparred with democrats over the demand and revealed his department has been in touch with white house lawyers about the president's taxes. he then got into it with maxine waters over the hearing's length. >> joining us now, david gregory and sun mi nrkn kim from "the washington post." we'll see the report within days. we knew that. the other headline was when barr refused to answer whether or not he has been talking to the white house about the contents of the report. let's play the exchange. >> did the white house see the report before you release your summarizing letter? has the white house seen it since then? have they been briefed on the contents beyond what was in your
summarizing letter to the judiciary committee? >> i have said what i'm going to say about the report today. i'm not going to say more about it until the report is out and everyone has a chance to look at it. >> so he said quite a bit in the hearing before he got to that point but held the line on whether or not he's been talking to the white house. he said they didn't speak before barr released the summary. have they been talking since? they really opened the door to the possibility. it does raise questions. >> this is the puzzling thing about barr's refusal to answer. it's that other people involved whether it's the president's lawyers or the president himself and even barr in other contexts have said at different points that he hasn't briefed the white house on the full mueller report. he hasn't handed it over. he said at one point he didn't believe he needed to do that at any time. so the fact that right at this particular moment when we know the full report is likely to
come out soon, that he's sort of drawn a line and says i'm not going to answer that question anymore, i'm not sure what to make of that except perhaps he doesn't want to box himself in by being forced to answer, you know, when he's briefed the white house at any point between now and when he release it is report. i think it is to be expected though that the justice department probably will brief the white house shortly before they release the report publicly. that's kind of what happened in the past just before the summary came out. there was a phone call between someone at the justice department and the president's attorneys briefing them on the contents of the summary letter. i think maybe barr is trying to not have to answer when that does, in fact, happen which i think is likely to happen within the coming daiys, especially if we think the report is coming in the next week or so. >> david? >> if the answer was, no, i haven't briefed anybody that would be simple to offer.
the attorney general said in other places why he didn't write more. why he didn't summarize more, that he didn't want to be ov overinclusive or underinclusive. in this case he would rather put out whatever part of the report he's going to put out with redactions and have everyone analyze and digest and dissect that rather than answer the question now, yes, well, i shared with the white house this, but not that. it was appropriate. it wasn't inappropriate. i don't think he wants to face the scrutiny which is only inviting more scrutiny. he appears through his answers to have shared something. it's just not clear why he would avoid all of this now. i think what he wants to do is put out the breadth of the report he'll put out, whatever that is. and have everyone take a look at that and take a little bit of the heat off of him in that interaction with the white house. >> i don't think it's anything illegal necessarily about briefing the white house on
what's inside it. there are political issues here which is, number one, the white house and his lawyers including rudy giuliani and jay sekulow, they may now know the full contents of the reports and may be able to prepare responses weeks before congress gets to see it. >> that's why congress would have ethical issues with it. >> they may have their spin ready on this. plus, if the white house has been briefed, pushed back and said, hey, wait a second. we don't want that to be public. the third issue here is maybe the white house knows and maybe this gets to the president's mindset the last few days. he's been lashing out at mueller again. he's been hot on the immigration issue. maybe this is driving other decisions. >> exactly. there is no doubt that while there may be nothing technically wrong with sharing information before the actual release, clearly there are political issues and how far the fight between house democrats and the administration continues over
the mueller investigation. one of the big takeaways from yesterday as well is if a subpoena weren't going to be issued for the report it's almost certainly definite now. mitch mcconnell put it concisely yesterday when he said you either trust bill barr or you don't. he says he does. it's clear house democrats don't. they have been trying to get as much information out there to kind of make their case for the entire mueller report to be shown. there is the issue of barr not being able to answer or refusing to answer whether he has talked to the white house about the contents of the report since his letter. there is also him telling lawmakers he's not willing to go to a judge to allow congress to see the grand jury information. because congress won't have access to the information they'll ramp up the fight over getting the report out to the public. >> democrats said i don't know whether he can trust bill barr. given the 19-page unsolicited
memo. he said they are trying to determine if he's impartial. >> right. that's the issue for bill barr who essentially auditioned for the job, many people feel, by writing the memo saying he could never -- the president could never be charged with obstruction of justice. he sent the memo as one of his credentials. we have to remember this morning the jim comey standard. the former fbi director who was fired by president trump because he didn't like how the russia investigation was going. comey got hit initially in the investigation of the clinton e-mails for saying at the end of the investigation, look, nobody is going to charge her. but she did these bad things. but nobody would bring a case against her. no prosecutor would charge that. when it relates to potential obstruction of justice here you have the case for and the case against that's apparently in the report by mueller. the justice department saying, well, no, you wouldn't charge this. now are they going to try to keep the information hidden? when congress has a specific
duty to evaluate whether there was obstruction of justice. again, we keep heading for the same place of tension. >> all right. for your viewing pleasure, what was one of the more awkward moments that i have seen in a congressional committee hearing. treasury secretary steve mnuchin testifying, making it clear treasury and the irs is not about to hand over the president's taxes. at the end of the hearing there was a back and forth with the chair and steve mnuchin about how long it was going on. it gives you a sense of what we are going to face in this country for the next two years. >> i sat here for over three hours and 15 minutes. i told you i will come back. i don't believe we are sitting here negotiating when i come back. we'll follow up with your office. how long would you like me to come back for next time? i told you i will accommodate you. >> i appreciate that and you
reminding us of the length of time other secretaries have been here. this is a new way and it's a new day and it's a new chair. i have the gavel at this point. if you wish to leave, you may. >> can you clarify that for me? >> yes, clarify is this -- if you wish to leave, you may. >> we are dismissed, is that correct? >> if you wish to leave, you may leave. >> i don't understand what you are saying. >> you are wasting your time. remember, you have a foreign dignitary in your office. >> i would just say that the previous administration -- when the republicans -- they did not treat the secretary of the treasury this way. if this is the way you want to treat me, i will rethink whether i will voluntarily come back here to testify which i have offered to do. >> mr. secretary, i want you to know that no other secretary has
ever told us the day before that they were going to limit their time in the way that you are doing. if you want to use them as examples, you have acted differently than they have acted. as i have said if you wish to leave, you may. >> if you wish to keep me here so that i don't have my important meeting and continue to grill me, then we can do that. i will cancel my meeting and i will not be back here. i will be very clear if that's the way you would like to have this relationship. >> thank you. the gentleman, the secretary has agreed to stay to hear all of the rest of the members. please cancel your meeting and respect our time. >> i have a foreign meeting. >> who's next on the list? >> you are instructing me to stay here. >> you just made me an offer. >> no, i didn't make you an offer. >> you made an offer which i accepted. >> i did not make you an offer. i just want to be clear. you are instructing me to stay
here. you are ordering me to stay here. >> no, i am not ordering you. i responded, i said you may leave any time you want and you said okay, if that's what you want to do, i will cancel my appointment and i will stay here. i am responding to your request if that's what you want to do. >> that's not what i want to do. i told you -- >> what would you like to do? >> i told you i thought it was respectful that you would let me leave at 5:15. >> you may go any time you want. >> please dismiss everybody, i expect you are supposed to bang the gavel. >> please don't instruct me as to how i am to conduct this committee. >> it's a gavel first of all. he didn't want to take yes for an answer there when she said you can go if you want to. that was fascinating, abby. i don't know if it shows us perhaps how this administration will respond to this new democratic oversight, if it is a sign of more things to come. >> it does show you that this is an administration that has over the last two years really gone
pretty aggressively in the direction of not giving any ground to congress on anything. i think that especially in this democratic house, you have seen cabinet secretaries, frankly, be so brash and in some cases clearly disrespectful to committee chairs in a way i have never seen in this town in such a blanket fashion. i'm recalling mark whitaker when he came to the committee serving as the acting attorney general. he was telling the chair how to do his job. that's not usually how these things go. but it is a reflection of who they work for. they are working for a boss that requires them to push back, not give ground and to not sort of give any sense of dignity to a congressional hearing. this administration believes they are part of a harassment of the president.
you're kind of really -- i think this is really beyond the pale what we just saw there. i thought it was interesting. it seemed steve mnuchin was surprised maxine waters took him up on his offer. he wanted to backtrack and she wouldn't let him. that's why we ended up where we were at the end where in frustration he was like, i think you are supposed to bang the gavel and she just looked at him like, i'm the person in charge here. >> there was some grandstanding by her as well, by congresswoman waters. >> of course. >> he was there testifying for several hours. you know, there is no pure politics here. democrats are setting the agenda here. they are going to be tough in their accountability, try to push hard on this administration. i think what he didn't want was the picture of him getting up and leaving a hearing while it was in the middle of the hearing. that would look bad for him. he doesn't have a lot of experience doing this. so i think abby is right.
the administration is taking a hard line against what they see coming which is a lot of oversight and tense oversight at that. >> not until you hit that "gravel". >> all right, david. abby, thank you very much. we are following breaking news. benjamin netanyahu is poised to win an historic fifth term as prime minister of israel. his challenger is also claiming victory this hour. we have more from jerusalem. what's happening now? >> reporter: with more than 95% of the votes counted it appears that prime minister benjamin netanyahu is emerging with a clear path to victory. the head to head between him and former chief of staff benny gants remains close. perhaps too close to call with something like a couple hundred thousand votes to go at this point. crucially, the all important question of who is it that can form a government, put together
a governing coalition, that advantage very much in netanyahu's favor. his rival saying the odds are against them at this point. netanyahu has said he's already spoken to the other right wing parties who offered support for his government. that means he has the clear path to putting together a coalition and in all likelihood it seems like he'll win a 5th term in office and this summer will become israel's longest serving prime minister, outlasting, surpassing israel's first prime minister, a legend in the country. that record, that period would transfer if netanyahu secures the victory. you may ask how he was able to secure this with corruption investigation over his head. based on the results those investigations didn't really affect him at all. he's been working against them for two, three years trying to delegitimize those and this is very much netanyahu's golden age. he has president trump in the
white house so in the last few weeks trump gifted him major political victories. it certainly looks like it helped. >> thank you very much. keep us posted. so she grilled the attorney general at a congressional hearing, what questions does the house appropriations chair still have? she joins us next. >> announcer: "new day" brought to you by bdo. people who know know bdo.
♪ add fullness to lips with juvéderm ultra xc. tell your doctor if you have a history of scarring or are taking medicines that decrease the body's immune response or that can prolong bleeding. common side effects include injection-site redness, swelling, pain, tenderness, firmness, lumps/ bumps, bruising, discoloration, or itching. as with all fillers, there is a rare risk of unintentional injection into a blood vessel, which can cause vision abnormalities, blindness, stroke, temporary scabs or scarring. juvéderm it. ♪ you better, better! i had nomine...ms of hepatitis c. ...caused liver damage. epclusa treats all main types of chronic hep c. whatever your type, ask your doctor if epclusa is your kind of cure. i had the common type. mine was rare. epclusa has a 98% overall cure rate. i just found out about my hepatitis c. i knew for years. epclusa is only one pill, once a day, taken with or without food for 12 weeks. before starting epclusa, your doctor will
test if you have had hepatitis b, which may flare up and could cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you have had hepatitis b other liver or kidney problems, hiv or other medical conditions... ...and all medicines you take, including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with epclusa may cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects include headache and tiredness ask your doctor today, if epclusa is your kind of cure. 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 ♪
or high-flying thrills, get more into what you're into. just say "watchathon" into your x1 voice remote, or download the xfinity stream app. xfinity watchathon week, free. now through april 14. attorney general william barr grilled by house democrats over his handling of the special counsel's report. one exchange raised new questions about what the white house knows about the report. >> did the white house see the report before you release your summarizing letter? has the white house seen it since then? have they been briefed on the contents beyond what was in your summarizing letter to the judiciary committee?
>> i have said what i'm going to say about the report today. >> joining us is the chair of the house appropriations committee. thank you very much for being with us this morning, chairman. the white house and the justice department said prior to the release of the summary, barr's summary, there was no contact. but he did refuse to answer your question about whether there's been contact since. why would that contact, if it happened, be important to you? >> it was very clear to me that as soon as contact with the white house was mentioned the attorney general shut down and he was off to the next subject and didn't respond to my questions or any questions from my colleagues that was related. the key is what did the white house know and when did they know it? did the attorney general release the report before discussing it with the white house? i would like to pursue that
another time or maybe he'll have to pursue it with the judiciary committee. >> we have been told, again, before the summary, before barr released the summary that there had not been a discussion about exactly what was in the report. but since then -- and that's where barr seemed to really open the door. since then he would not answer about whether they'd have contacts about the content. why would it matter to you if they have been talking in the last week. that's what we are talking about here. a week to ten days. why would it matter if they have been talking about what's in the report? >> i think it is essential if the attorney general feels that he has to clear what he releases publicly with the white house. right now i'm looking forward to seeing the report without redactions. we must read the report and get to the bottom of it.
we have to know the facts. was the white house involved? was mick mulvaney involved in was the president involved? we need the facts and as the head of the appropriations committee i have to go on with my work and figure out how to spend $1.3 trillion. so the attorney general is just going to have to deal with the judiciary committee because he would not respond openly and directly to my questions. >> he didn't respond to that question, to be sure. mitch mcconnell, senate majority leader said of william barr, look, either you trust him or you don't. mcconnell says he does trust the attorney general. do you trust the attorney general? >> trust but verify. the attorney general was appointed by the president. we can read his comments in 2018. i want to see the facts and, frankly, i have a responsibility to read the entire 300 or 400-page report.
the sooner it's released in its entirety without redactions then we move forward. >> do you think he somehow is massaging it or keeping things out to benefit the president? >> if he showed that report to the white house then it's up to all of us to make a judgment as to whether there was any input, any suggestions, any corrections by the white house. >> all right. you have said you support chairman nadler's subpoena which he will issue after the redacted report is delivered to congress. by all accounts you will get a redacted report so there will be a subpoena. you support that subpoena. there is a legal question about whether or not they can be compelled to produce the unredacted report and there are legal scholars who say your case to get the full report is better if there is a formal impeachment inquiry under way. if that's the legal requirement. if a judge says that's the legal
requirement for congress to get the unredacted report, would you support a formal impeachment inquiry? >> i have made my position clear as had speaker nancy pelosi. i'm not looking to an impeachment. i want to see the report. i want to read the report. then we'll see what actions follow after that. but we must see the report. i have an obligation. i represent a lot of people, over 700 people in my district. i want to know what happened. i want to see the report. i want to know the involvement of the white house. the sooner we do it, the sooner we move on and do our work. >> but the issue, again, if there is a legal bar, a judicial bar that the only way congress would get to see the full report is to have a formal inquiry, i know you don't want to go down the road to impeachment until you learn more, but it may be that you need to be in the formal process of impeachment to get the report. >> as a member of congress, chair of the appropriations
committee, i am not an attorney. i am not going to make that judgment. i want to i cmake it clear i mu see the report. my constituents want to know what's in the report. i need to know what the involvement of the white house is and was and will continue to be. >> the attorney general can clear it up today. he can tell us yes or no whether he's been speaking to the white house when he goes to the senate today. that's a question he could answer. insofar as redactions go, do you accept that there could be some redactions? maybe not as many as william barr wants but national security issues, ongoing investigations. would there be any redaction that might be appropriate in your mind? >> let me make this very clear. as a member of congress, there is a place called a skiff. i read all kinds of classified reports and i have a responsibility not to discuss any classified material publicly. i want to see the whole report. i will go down to that skiff,
but i have a responsibility to see the whole report as do my colleagues. >> nita lowey, come back soon. thanks for being with us. >> thank you very much, john. have a good day. >> the irs is facing a deadline today to hand over president trump's tax returns to congress. what if they don't? up next, a republican on the committee trying to get their hands on mr. trump's taxes. no matter where you are in life or what your dreams entail, a cfp professional is trained, knowledgeable, and committed to financial planning in your best interest. find your certified financial planner™ professional at letsmakeaplan.org. who see things others can't. they're the ones who see a city that make those who live in it feel a little safer. who see the efficient shape and design of the ocean's wonders as the future of aerodynamics. at dell technologies, we see it too. if you'd like to transform your business, talk to us.
and we'll show the world what impossible looks like... when it's made real. here's the story of green mountain coffee roasters costa rica paraíso. meet sergio. and his daughter, maria. sergio's coffee tastes spectacular. because costa rica is spectacular. so we support farmers who use natural compost. to help keep the soil healthy. and the coffee delicious. for future generations. all for a smoother tasting cup. green mountain coffee roasters.
our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy. and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. so let's promote our spring ftravel deals, on choicehotels.com like this: (sneezes) earn one free night when you stay just twice this spring. allergies. or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com.
today, a key deadline for the irs. the house ways and means chair richard neil asked for six years of the president's tax returns to be handed over today. yesterday, treasury secretary steve mnuchin didn't sound as though he was ready to comply. >> based upon the request we'll examine it and follow the law. >> thank you. >> i would expect that we would -- i'm not aware if there's ever been a request for an elected official's tax return. we'll follow the law and protect the president as we would protect any individual taxpayer under their rights. >> reporter: joining us is republican congressman tom reed, a member of the house ways and
means committee. good morning. >> good morning. good to be with you. >> did it sound to you as though secretary steve mnuchin is inclined to hand over six years of mr. trump's taxes to your committee? >> i do believe this is going to have to be litigated. the democratic chairman of the ways and means committee is going down a political path of weaponizing the tax code for political purposes. i don't know if this was the chairman's intent. it was just pressure within his party to bring forward this potential impeachable impeachment process that they are trying to pursue. >> how is it a political path? it is the law that the chairman of the house ways and means committee is one of three people who can legally ask to see any american's tax returns. >> for the purposes of tax administration, not for political purposes. that's very clear under the law. that's why this is a question that's going to have to be litigated. there are a lot of people who disagree with the assessment. if you are using this 6103
provision of law for political purposes it is clear to me that's not what the intent of congress was. >> chairman kneel wants to see if the irs is properly auditing the president. how is that political? >> you have watched the last two and a half years of the democratic party once this election occurred was going after the president to remove him from office, impeach him. this is just another step. they may argue that, but you can clearly see it through the approach they have taken to theish y. it's all about impeachment and political. >> to you, any democrat's request is of a political nature? >> it clearly is of this -- when they use 6103 like the purposes in this situation going after the president's individual return that's clearly, in my opinion, political given the totality of the evidence that i have seen in these discussions and the preparatory work up to this point in time. this is not about tax administration. this is about political and weaponizing the tax code for political purposes and americans
should be concerned. this is dangerous precedent. >> since you brought up 6103 let me read to you and the viewers what the law states. upon written request from the chairman of the committee on the house ways and means, which is what chairman kneneal is, the secretary shall furnish the committee with any return except that which could be associated with or identified directly or indirectly with a particular taxpayer. that shall be furnished only in closed executive session. if chairman neal says he'll do it in a closed executive session he has the legal right to see mr. trump's tax returns. >> i disagree with the conclusion. if you look at the totality of the provision of law it deals with the tax administration process of the irs and the government. not going after someone for political purposes. that's the slippery slope. if you're really concerned about the issue, we should be reforming the financial
disclosure forms, making sure they are as broad as possible so people can see individuals running. it's not just a privacy right of the president. it is a privacy right of every american. on top of that, remember, the tax returns will get into personal relationships with family members, business relationships. people that had no idea the president was running for office and now they are brought into the public domain in this political circus created by these guys looking for the impeachment. >> and if anything untoward were happening. >> that's obviously a concern and that's in the financial disclosure forms. it's already out there in regards to information that's available. if there is anything untoward to pursue, why not look at the financial disclosure forms and pursue it under that front. that's the hearing i raised questions to the experts testifying saying, look, if you are worried about that, look at the financial disclosure forms. reform those forms to provide more information to bring bipartisan members together to
solve the problem. if truly it was about that issue. >> does it concern you that mr. trump was very anxious to get his own hand-picked person into the chief counsel position of the irs. this man named michael desmond who advised the trump organization on tax issues. >> i won't go down the conspiracy theories -- >> these are just the fact. >> the innuendo of the question. >> just the facts. >> what i'm going to respond to is what 6103 is about. what we are doing in regards to protecting privacy rights of individuals. it doesn't concern me. these are individuals that are going to pursue the law in my opinion. they'll pursue the law the rightful way as opposed to the politics in washington, d.c. >> there are different interpretations of the law. i'm asking if you are concerned a hand-picked associate, someone who is familiar with mr. trump's taxes is now in the position of
making the decision. >> if you are saying he was put there just to deal with the trump tax return, that's a very egregious allegation and a conspiracy theory i can see developing on the left. >> why do you think he was put there? >> to do the job, pursue the law and do his job as best he can to make sure that the position is being pursued in a proper and lawful manner. >> it doesn't -- >> not to protect the president. not to get somebody in there in order to engage in nefarious practices to protect the president. i don't buy that. i think people are better than that. >> the only reason we ask is because of the reports that the president was more interested in this and rushing senator mitch mcconnell to do this over the attorney general bill barr. that's just a curious anxiousness on the part of the president. i wanted to know your thoughts on that.
>> well, i believe you bring up the appointment process in the senate. they should probably move folks faster than they are doing today. >> we are almost out of time. quickly, do you think the president should reinstate the policy on the border of family separation? >> i don't believe that's going to occur nor do i support that. i think congress should do its job and fix the broken immigration system creating the situation. at the end of the day i'm not concerned about that occurring. >> we appreciate you being here. thank you. >> always good to be with you. >> john? >> they cover congress every day. how has it changed since president trump took office? the authors of one of the most highly anticipated books in washington in years, i would say. they join us next. it's probably gonna be dinner and drinks.
discover. hi, what's this social security alert? it's a free alert if we find your social security number on the dark web. good, cuz i'm a little worried about my information getting out. oh, why's that? [bird speaking] my social security number is... 8- 7- 5 dash okay, i see. [bird laughing] is that your daughter? no, it's a macaw. and his name is timothy. timmy, want a cracker? timmy, do you want a cracker? [bird speaking] what do you think, kevin? no. sign up online for free. discover social security alerts. sign up online for free. drama queen with serious root issues. she sees a bit of gray and thinks... (screams) luckily, there's magic root cover up from l'oreal. three seconds to flawless roots 3...2...1... done! the number one root concealer in the world. magic root cover up from l'oreal paris. might mean a trip back to the doctor's office just for a shot. but why go back there when you can stay home with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection
from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.
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. our next guest has spent the last two years getting an inside look at the trump presidency as seen from the halls of congress. the result of their effort is the new book "the hill to die on: the battle for congress and the future of trump's america" which is out now. i hold it in my hands. joining us now, jake sherman and anna palmer who cowrite the politico playbook. thanks for being with us. i want to read a quote getting a lot of attention in the book. it's a microcosm of the struggle
between congress and the president here. it has to do with a meeting the president was sitting in chaired by ga rico hen about infrastructure. people were impressed that trump seemed so engaged in the proposal especially after seeming skeptical after the presentation. but the notes had nothing to do with infrastructure. sloppy steve, trump had scrawled on the top of the card in black marker. copious notes followed as cohn had detailed his plans to rebuild america's roads the president was writing down how he wanted to trash steve bannon. there are people trying to govern and the president is doing something decidedly different. >> yeah. i think what this shows is all the behavior you think the president is doing, he actually is doing. he's thinking about branding, how he's going to trash the next person who he thinks has wronged him instead of trying to figure out how to solve the
infrastructure and road crisis in the country. >> i like that they thought he was taking notes. it was different. this was novel. they were excited he was actually paying attention to the policy particulars. then they were like, oh, no, he's doodling. >> if you dig deeper, i think this shows a larger truth about donald trump. he's really not interested in what the party, what the senior people in the party think he needs to do to improve his political fortunes. we detailed that throughout the book on health care, tax reform, policy, political positions, election strategy. throughout the book we see the president ignoring party elders and at times doing it with glee. he thinks they know nothing and he knows everything. >> oddly, one of the strains throughout the book is there is an odd admiration for nancy pelosi and chuck schumer and disdain for the republican leaders. >> the president is almost jealous he never had a speaker or a political leader on capitol
hill who keeps the troops together as well as chuck schumer and nancy pelosi have. he told us that. there is a great quote from the president at the end of the book. he says democrats think on policy. they have the worst ideas in the world but they stick together which is a fascinating insight into his mind. >> he also has a personal relationship with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. he has more in common with them than with paul ryan and mitch mcconnell from the midwest. there is an ease with which he interacts with them as well. >> you did 26 months of reporting, interviewed scores of people. what did you find out about how the republicans in congress have been able to so unabashedly get on board with what the president wants to do even when it used to go against things they said they believed in? >> i think the reality on capitol hill and we see this every day and it became clear in the book is republicans represent districts around the country that are so fervently in
favor of donald trump there is a political downside to opposing the president on almost every issue. this president has of course changed the republican party. people are going home and the constituents are saying, why haven't you been with the president more? why are you not standing by him and protecting him more? some members have retired because they felt like they couldn't be with him as much as the constituents wanted. >> you're right. the other thing that we found in this book in talking to members and also to the president when we sat down with him is how much access they have to them. it is unlike a presidency where it would go through the leadership and the party elders made a decision. you have donald trump calling republican rank and file members asking them what they think on a wide variety of issues. it's unheard of. >> they can get through to him. we want to cover two more things. the saga of paul ryan. he quit. he'd had enough of this. >> yeah. paul ryan at the beginning of
the 2016 right after the election thought he had reached a fork in the road. he was vehemently opposed to donald trump during the 2016 election and thought he could leave congress which he considered, or he could get on board with trump and try to project some normalcy in government. he said so us, if i just nev never -- and took my toys home and huffed and puffed. he conceded it was his instinct to never trump and take his toys home and he didn't do that. >> let's talk about the vice president, sean hannity. it is fascinating how often he's involved in policy conference calls. >> that was one of the stunning things throughout the book that we detailed is him being on conference calls with republicans, with the president around health care. we have members of congress leaving private meetings where they are deciding what they are going to do on major issues and
the first call is sean hannity. >> that they make or he calls them? >> both ways. during the shutdown jim jordan was in almost constant contact with sean hannity. this isn't a criticism of them. it shows sean hannity's hold on members of congress and on the president. >> senate-confirmed sean hannity, by the way. jake, anna, stick around. we are not done with you yet. >> good. >> a house hearing on white nationalism took a surprising turn in the chamber and online. why the livestream was shut down. all of that next. ♪ when cravings hit, hit back. choose glucerna, with slow release carbs to help manage blood sugar, and start making everyday progress. glucerna.
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. ♪ a congressional hearing on white nationalism turned ugly, both in the house chamber and online, cnn's sara sidner was there and she joins us from washington. what happened, sara? >> reporter: this was supposed to be about hate and combating hate, especially online, as well as the rise in white nationalism
and, you know, there was a lot of talk about the things that have happened just in the last year or so, you are talking about what happened in new zealand with the killing of 50 people at a mosque there, at the hands of someone with white nationalist ideals, we're talking about what happened in pittsburgh, the mass shooting there inside the tree of life synagogue. but unfortunately it dee involved into partisan showmanship at some point during this hearing and it happened pretty quickly, to be completely honest with you. youtube and facebook, google, all there to talk about their role in all this and what they're doing to try to combat hatred, especially online, which can be insightful and insight people to violence. to give you a sign of the times, right as this was going on youtube was streaming this judiciary committee hearing and they had to disable the comments because there were so many anti-semitic and racist comments being put there that they decided that it needed to be disabled, which gives you some idea of the discourse that's
going on online. but then, you know, as people were talking to youtube, as people were talking to representatives from google and facebook and asking them what they're going to do, facebook did say that they had just started wiping their platforms of white nationalist content, not just white supremacist content, saying basically those ideologies are inseparable, they are the same thing. after that there was a partisan tinge to this hearing. when we heard from candice owens who is a conservative blogger, she was brought in by republicans, she attacked the democrats in her opening speech. >> the hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes, it's about fear mongering, power and control. it's a preview of a democrat 2020 election strategy, same as the democrat 2016 election strategy. >> she questioned the statistics, saying that they had been manipulated when it comes to the rise in hate crimes that we saw the fbi put out there,
that there is a 17% rise in hate crimes in 2017 and that it has been rising steadily for the last couple of years. she questioned those statistics. but then democrats did push back, you saw one of the democrats on the judiciary committee, cedric richman referring to her and talking about the fact that these hate crimes are clearly happening in greater numbers, all you have to do is consider the victims, and he mentioned the victims from the s the south carolina church shooting. >> it was said that we're fear mongering. i would just tell you that the families of the emanuel nine, those were real funerals. those are real kids without real parents. those are real grandparents who were worshipping the lord and invited the young man in.
>> so you see there it started to become this whole argument between, you know, whether white nationalism really was a big deal, whether it was a problem, as opposed to looking at the statistics, looking at the numbers, but certainly there was a lot of discussion about what to do online in both the executive from google and the executive from facebook said they are working on things with coalitions trying to rid their platforms of hateful content that insights violence. >> all right, sara sidner, thank you for the report. thank you for sitting through that hearing for us. maybe along these lines investigators in louisiana believe fires at three historically black churches in the last ten days were intentionally set. some pastors are sleeping in their churches to keep them from burning down. cnn's josh campbell is live in louisiana with the very latest. josh, what have you learned here? >> reporter: hey, john. we are in opelousas, a lurl a a
area, all threes of these churches have been located in remote areas. look at the devastation as we pan, you can see we are at the greater union baptist church, as you look at the front of what used to be a sanctuary, you can almost envision the choir sitting in these seats singing, this is now a total lost. we are told over 100 investigators are on this case trying to determine who set this fire. we're told by a local elected official that investigators believe that it was intentional. this fire along with the other two, they are working now to try to, again, determine what evidence that they can find that would lead them to the person or persons that were responsible for this. now, it's also important to remember this story is more than just buildings, obviously this is devastation behind us, it's also a story about people. as you mentioned we're told some pastors in nearby churches are sleeping overnight in their churches out of fear they may be targeted next. we talked to one person who didn't want to go on camera or want us to mention where he was for fear he might be targeted but talked about the agonizing nature of this. sleeping overnight in his church, hearing every creek, every sound, every passing car
wondering if they are going to be next. this community has been very resilient. we talked to one person yesterday as we rolled up on the rubble, we were expecting had i'm to talk about how angry and devastated he was, we asked him what he was doing, he said he was waiting for the electric company to show up, they're going to start rebuilding. >> i hope they get the help they need to rebuild and i hope the investigation yields some results. thank you very much, josh. we have new reporting on what the attorney general is now investigating involving the fbi's russia investigation. investigating the investigators. so let's get to it. >> i don't intend to send the full unredacted report to the committee. >> if we don't get everything, we will issue a subpoena and go to court. >> they want to keep this narrative alive. they don't want to say there was no conspiracy. our legal department has consulted with the white house. >> i have the gavel at this point. if you wish to leave, you may. >> can you clarify that for me?
>> yes, clarify is this -- >> so -- >> if you wish to leave, you may. >> actress lori loughlin facing more charges in that college admissions scandal. >> those who didn't strike a deal with prosecutors ran the risk of facing more charges. >> this raises the anti and says plead now. this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to your "new day," it is wednesday, april 10th. 8:00 in the east. we do begin with breaking news because cnn has just learned that attorney general william barr has assembled a team at the justice department to look into the origin of the fbi's investigation into those potential ties between the trump campaign and russia in 2016. we will have much more on that. meanwhile, mr. barr returns to capitol hill in just two hours, this time before the senate. there are still many unanswered questions, among them has mr. barr spoken to the white house about the contents of the mueller report.