tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN May 1, 2019 4:00am-5:01am PDT
dissatisfaction that four-page letter didn't capture the nuance in the report. >> barr needs to resign. he took an oath to the constitution not to trump >> barr is supposed to testify before the senate judiciary committee. >> the attorney general has to accept our terms well. will control the hearing >> if these guys want to keep diggi digging, fine. mueller is the last word for me >> guaido escalated the tension calling for a full military uprising. >> he was ready to leave. the russians indicated he should stay >> they are trying to come to grips with what the aftermath might be. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning. welcome to your "new day." so has the entire prism with which we view the mueller report changed? we now know special counsel robert mueller doesn't like the spin that the attorney general put on this. overnight, we learned the special counsel sent a letter to william barr in late march telling him his four-page summary of the report, quote,
didn't fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions. the two long-time friends spoke by phone with the special counsel telling barr his summary lacked mueller's nuance on obstruction of justice. >> it also appears bill barr wasn't truthful when he spoke to congress two weeks after getting mueller's letter. here's a small portion >> did bob mueller support your conclusion? >> i don't know whether bias or prejudice supported my conclusion. >> we'll play more of that for you. as we look ahead to barr's testimony this morning there is one man on capitol hill -- a lot of lawmakers on capitol hill would like to hear from. that's bob mueller. joining us now is the washington investigative correspondent for the "new york times" and security analyst, one of the reporters who broke the explosive story. mark, it was stunning to hear this for the first time. it's the first time we hear really how robert mueller who
was so tight-lipped during this, how he felt about bill barr's characterization. turns out he was frustrated. what did he say in the letter? >> we need to see the full letter. we need to see exactly the words he used, exactly what he was objecting to. what we were learning was at least there were concerns expressed in the letter about how william barr's letter had taken the findings out of context, somewhat mischaracterized the judgments, at least in terms of how damning or not they were for the president and we had known, of course, that there had been anger and frustration among members of mueller's team. we reported that some weeks back after barr's letter. for mueller to take the step to write a letter, send it to the justice department, send it to barr, it's pretty extraordinary. we really get a sense of mueller himself >> you write mueller laid out his concerns in such stark turns
it shocked doj officials. do you know what the terms were? >> that was something the post put in their story. >> i'm sorry. >> that was them. i wouldn't characterize how it was received at the justice department. i think we need to know more about what the terms of the letter were, how it was received. i can say certainly the fact that there was a letter surprised people at the justice department in part because they were not expecting mueller -- again, this is a career prosecutor who knows what actually putting something in writing shl writing, sending it up the chain can do. people have to respond. i think there was a scramble that went on to figure out, how are they going to respond? barr decided to get on the phone and talk about it rather than have a letter exchange between him and mueller >> i also read and forgive me that i don't remember exactly which article it was in, as you're saying justice department
officials were taken aback by the tone of robert mueller's letter. so do you have any -- can you categorize what the tone was? >> we have glimpses of it at this point. as they said, we need to know the full context. in terms of what we know, he was up front and he's careful with his words. to say i and my team put in the letter is a powerful statement. the tone even saying this, this and this were of concern to my team in itself is a big deal. >> this i know is from your article. it's an important point and i want to read it. mr. barr and senior justice department officials were frustrated with how mr. mueller
ended his investigation and drafted his report according to three people. they expressed irritation that mr. mueller fell short of his assignment by declining to make a decision about whether mr. trump broke the law. that left mr. barr to clear mr. trump without the special counsel's backing >> there is clearly a simmering and possibly escalating dispute between the sides. there is some sense from people around barr that mueller left them to have to decide this. therefore, they were put in this position to have to decide it. one might question whether robert mueller really did leave it for them to decide, if you read the report. it looks like they didn't make a judgment. it doesn't necessarily mean they were expecting the attorney general to make the decision. one reading of the report was
they thought maybe this was for congress. it's not completely clear, but there is some bad blood between the sides. certainly if you look at what's happened since then, since the initial letter you see the way barr was asked if it's a witch hunt. he said, i don't know. his characterization in the press conference on the day the mueller report was released. he said he objected to some of mueller's legal reasoning and defended the president in some cases. this isn't going away >> furthermore, when lawmakers asked him does robert mueller support your conclusions, he said, i don't know. we now know from the reporting and from the letter that robert mueller had real concerns with the conclusions. so that was not fully truthful to congress either. >> well, there were a couple of clips floating around since last night. one of them specifically asks the question, did he know about
concerns among the mueller team about his initial letter. he says no. that clip, you will certainly hear more about today, i would imagine, with the questioning by the senate. that seems to be very much on point to whether he was misleading congress. we now know he did know about the concerns because mueller had written him a letter >> we'll play those moments for our viewers. thank you very much. >> he received a letter and had a telephone conversation with ra robert mueller. >> he knew there were concerns. >> want to bring in david gregory, kaitlyn collins and elliot williams, former deputy assistant attorney general. let's do something we haven't done yet. i want to read p 108 and 109 to get a sense of what is in robert mueller's letter in the washington post. the summary letter didn't fully
capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions. there is public confusion which threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. the fact of the letter, robert mueller is making paper here. he's creating an official document of his concern, his split with william barr >> it's easy to say he outlined his
now to say there was no obstruction of justice. what mueller does in the report that's clear, if you read it is to say we knew from the get-go we weren't going to charge him criminally because of the guidance and the guidelines in the justice department. so therefore, here's behavior. this is for congress and its role to make a decision about whether to proceed. >> how do you see it? now that we know about the existence of the letter and some of the contents and the phone call, how do you think it changes the equation of what we know? >> it does, pretty dramatically. not enough can be said about the decision to put this in writing. lawyers know when something will be made public and when something needs to be memorialized. legally, i think there is no reason why this letter can't be made public. i don't think it's going to contain grand jury information
or national security information. given the care or it was deliberative internal document or anything like that. given the care that went into drafting the report i'm sure that level of care also went into the drafting of the letter. it's as if robert mueller was drafting it with an eye toward the public seeing it. it seems like his goal is maintaining the integrity of the investigation and keeping public faith. one of the things you quoted in this is that i'm concerned -- i'm paraphrasing -- but i'm concerned that public faith in this is being damaged or being harmed. it's almost that secondary to the legal findings is what does the public think about this? i think this changes things dramatically and makes robert mueller's testimony far more likely now. initially, the testimony -- any testimony he would have given would have been on the four corners of the report. now you can ask about, well, tell us about the dispute you had with the attorney general. it becomes a richer congressional tale now.
>> how does he not testify? i can't imagine what the excuse would be not to appear before congress and explain your misgivings. >> i only know he's seen as a man of few words. he avoids the spotlight >> writing this memo is a way to say not only do i expect this memo to become public, i think he probably feels, you know, kind of that his work was violated enough that he's willing to speak out about what should be the correct interpretation. >> that would be helpful. >> let me do this. william barr did face questions. this was after the summary was released after william barr received the letter from mueller and had the phone conversation. let's make sure we play both exchanges here. you can see barr being far less than truthful, we think, in his answers.
>> did bob mueller support your conclusion? >> i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. >> reports have emerged that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report's findings. do you know what they are referencing with that? >> no, i don't. >> at this point he had already read the letter from robert mueller and had a phone conversation with robert mueller. so his answer there does not seem true. >> it's the second exchange there that's so crucial. of course he had already received that letter over about a week before from robert mueller detailing his issues with how barr portrayed the report. telling that lawmaker, no, i don't know why members of mueller's team are frustrated as had surfaced in media reports is
not what he had heard from the special counsel himself. now there barr goes on to say he believes members of mueller's team would have wanted more of the report to come out. according to the post that's the conversation that bill barr and robert mueller had. what makes all of this more fascinating is the personal relationship between the attorney general and the special counsel because bill barr did not know the president very well before the president picked him to be attorney general. but he does have a relationship going back with robert mueller. they talked about that. he talked about it under oath during his testimony before lawmakers. so that's what makes this interesting. it's not only significant that bob mueller is someone who is fay loumously tight-lipped throt the two years of the investigation, wrote a letter detailing his issues and had a phone conversation with the attorney general. when the attorney general is before lawmakers he said he didn't know what the grievances with his portrayal of the key findings was. >> i'm with kaitlyn.
i find it interesting the psychology of the friendship and who bill barr is. bill barr famously said the barrs and the muellers have been friends before this report and the barrs and the muellers will be friends after this report. that comforted people to think, okay, they are on the same team, looking for truth. they both want to get the facts out. now to know they had what was described as a cordial and professional conversation, that's not a friendly conversation. >> right. i think clearly mueller felt he had gone way too far in being reductive of the report, reducing it and shorthanding it in a way that violated the central mission and raising concerns which we still don't know the basis of. disagreeing with parts of the legal reasoning. was that a trip wire to say, no, there was no obstruction. rod rosenstein signed off on this as well.
finding out what was behind that is important. in the end, donald trump, president trump had got the attorney general he wanted. someone who would protect him, basically lead the charge in shaping the public narrative around this report such that his own legal team has not put out its rebuttal. i think they feel they don't have to. lindsey graham, chairman of the judiciary committee said it's over for him. we'll see how much the drama of today will change anything >> to that point, did robert mueller get played here? is it a fair question to ask at this point if his intention was to tell the american people, look at the evidence of obstruction of justice. did he get played by allowing william barr to step in the way he did? >> that's an excellent question. the underlying question here is what was the goal of the whole enterprise? was it to find whether there was wrongdoing or was it to exonerate the president? all of the actions we have seen william barr take from starting with his theory on obstruction
of justice a couple of years ago to the press conference, to the letter all seem geared at clearing the president's name more than making a determination as to whether there was wrongdoing or criminal conduct. his testimony makes it clear. look, we are prosecutors. it is our job to decide whether something is a crime or isn't. on this bigger question of was there wrongdoing or misconduct, that mueller seems to be punting to congress as he does in the report, barr says, well, this is really about clearing the president's name. he was angry that day. >> one thing we have to look at is the timing of this. this came out shortly before he was scheduled to go before the senate, just hours before he was scheduled to go before them. there was already a level of scrutiny facing the attorney general. now it's a fresh new level of scrutiny with the letter from the special counsel. one thing to keep in mind is over the past few days we have seen the attorney general pushing back on a request from
the house because he was supposed to testify before them because he doesn't want to be questioned by staff lawyers. it's something democrats have been pushing for. jerry nadler has been strident that he wants it to happen tomorrow. it makes you question, is this part of the reason why barr has been pushing back on that? >> that's a super fair question. also worth asking if democrats should wait to talk to barr all together until they get robert mueller. >> get him in front of the committee. there are three presidential candidates doing the questioning which under scores how completely polarized the report has been, will be seen and that will continue in today's hearing >> david, elliot, kaitlyn, thank you very much. the attorney general will be appearing before the senate judiciary committee in a couple of hours. coming up, we'll speak to a senator who will be part of the questions. senator chris coons, what will he ask the attorney general now that we know how robert mueller feels? >> announcer: "new day" brought to you by jared.
dare to go all in. dare to never let go. dare to be devoted. dare to shop the jared semi-annual sale... it's our best sale of the season featuring 20% off select diamonds. dare to be devoted. only at jared. 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 ♪
and helps stop the progression of joint damage. for people with moderate to severe psoriasis, 90% saw significant improvement. taltz even gives you a chance at completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. for all the things that move you. ask your doctor about taltz.
did bob mueller support your conclusion? >> i don't know if bob mueller supported my conclusion. >> william barr just a few weeks ago. and that's being called into question. special counsel robert mueller sent barr a letter two weeks prior to the testimony telling barr his characterization of the report, quote, did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions. barr testifies in front of the senate judiciary committee just hours from now. democratic senator chris coons is on that committee, foreign relations and appropriations also. you were part of the last hearing as well. let me start with that. did the attorney general lie to you in that answer? >> well, john, that's one of the things we should explore today. he certainly wasn't fully forthcoming. he did know that robert mueller
had reached out to him, first in a letter and second in a phone call to convey he was upset or disappointed that william barr's four-page summary to congress was creating, as he called it, public confusion, and didn't fully reflect the context, substance, nature of the important work of the special counsel. one of the first questions i want to get to this morning, john, is whether or not it was that letter from special counsel mueller that propelled attorney general barr to release much of the report and to commit to testifying in front of congress. one of my thoughts is that the timing of the release of this letter is quite telling. it was released yesterday on the eve of attorney general barr's testimony and suggests that at least some on mueller's team remain upset at the ways in which this four-page summary released by attorney general barr weeks ago was significantly misleading about the conclusions of the special counsel's work.
>> does this change the questions that you plan on asking the attorney general today? >> yes, it does. that first question i just suggested -- did this letter from mueller telling the attorney general that he was unhappy with the characterization of his work lead to him agreeing to testify or release the content. there are two other things i hope to get to. as you know, there are lots of members of judiciary. it's tough to predict exactly what i'll have the chance to question. but first it is blindingly clear from robert mueller's report that russia directly interfered in our 2016 presidential election. that's been the conclusion of our intelligence community for a long time. in great detail, robert mueller lays out the many ways in which russia interfered in our election. what is the president doing to protect our country for the next election from foreign interference? there are things folks at homeland security or nsa or fbi are doing, but i don't believe
president trump has ever said this is a threat, we need to confront it and we need to invest in securing our next election. second, if part of what robert mueller's report was supposed to do was to clarify whether there was wrongdoing or misdeeds, there are ten different instances detailed in mueller's report of actions that amount to an attempt by the president to obstruct justice, one that stood out to me was two instances when he directed white house counsel john mcgahn to fire the special council. the only reason it didn't happen was don mcgahn refused to carry out the order. to me for many months i was trying to get a bill passed to protect the special counsel and many republicans said there is no need to worry, trump would never do something like that, this is clear hard evidence that trump tried to do exactly that. the only reason we are not sitting here talking about an obstruction prosecution is that trump's own deputies, his white house counsel in this case
didn't carry out his directive. that's stunning. that deserves further discussion >> i will note the other reason we are not sitting here talking about an obstruction prosecution is special counsel robert mueller says repeatedly that he does not feel that a sitting president can be indicted. >> right. he framed his entire investigation around that fact and the report. he said, i'm not going to say he was guilty of a crime. it's inappropriate to do so because we can't charge him. he can't defend himself in a court of law. i want to ask you. you said if robert mueller's intention was to lay out the case for obstruction and provide the evidence. did robert mueller get played here? if his intention was to make a case for obstruction, did he get played by creating the space for william barr to come in and shape the narrative? >> they have a long professional relationship. i think he trusted the attorney general to represent the work of the special counsel faithfully.
i'll choose to be thankful for the hard work of the special counsel and his team and for the evidence that's in front of us today in the report that we have even with the redactions we have. to your point -- >> don't you have to get robert mueller in front of you now and ask him about it. >> absolutely. that's the conclusion i was headed toward, john. i'm now convinced the attorney general is conceiving of himself as the president's lawyer, not the people's lawyer. as someone who really was trying out for the role of president's attorney by sending in an unsolicited 19-page memo attacking robert mueller's theory of obstruction and his conduct suggests he thinks his central role here is to defend the president and to make the best case he can on the evidence given to him by mueller that the president was cleared even though there is evidence in the mueller report that misdeeds, inappropriate actions took place in the white house >> one quick question on
venezuela. there is bipartisan agreement that the maduro regime is illegitimate and should go. mike pompeo, the secretary of state said there was a plane on the tarmac waiting to take maduro to cuba but the russians intervened. do you have information on that? >> that's as much as i know. russia and cuba played a heavy hand in supporting the maduro regime. the regional pressure that has been assembled due to secretary pompeo is an important piece of this. there is strong bipartisan support for what the administration is doing and for the demonstrations and protests of the venezuelan people as they seek to restore a legitimate constitutional government in their country. my hope is this will come to an end soon. this is just one of many countries where we see vladimir putin interfering to prevent legitimate constitutional elections >> we'll be watching venezuela closely today. likewise we'll watch you in the senate judiciary hearings coming up in a couple of hours.
senator chris coons, thank you very much for being with us >> thank you, john. a cnn investigation raising safety concerns about boeing 737 max jets. the details you need to hear next. om saw a chip in her windshield. >> mom: honey is that a chip? >> tech: they wanted it fixed fast so they brought it to us. >> mom: hi. >> tech: with our in-shop chip repair service, we can fix it the same day... guaranteed. plus with most insurance a safelite chip repair is no cost to you. >> mom: really? drive safely. all right. ♪ acoustic music >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, ♪ safelite replace.
a cnn investigation is raising new safety concerns about boeing 737 max jets. the fleet is grounded in the wake of two recent crashes in which 346 people died. cnn's drew griffin is live in chicago with details. what have you learned, drew? >> this goes back to the design of the plane, how the design was improved and flight safety. one government official saying it all has serious implications for boeing. a cnn analysis of faa data is raising questions about how boeing could have designed a flight safety system on its 737 max centered on just one sensor with a history of failures. the mcas system is designed to prevent a plane from stalling. it is triggered by one of two aoa sensors which lead the angle
in flight. if the sensor gives an incorrect reading, the mcas could activate, automatically pitching the nose of the plane down repeatedly as the pilots struggle for control. investigators in the crashes of the lion air and ethiopian airline crashes suspect that scenario started a chain of events that led to both tragedies. just why boeing would have no backup for a single sensor with a terrible track record has aviation experts baffled >> this is a fairly simple external device that can get damaged on a regular basis. >> reporter: a cnn review of faa records shows aoa sensors had problems on at least 216 flights since 2004. sometimes forcing pilots to make emergency landings or abort takeoffs. 42 happened on boeing planes. here's proof boeing knew the sensors were prone to problems. two separate faa air worthiness directives involved boeing
planes. in 2013 and 2016 before the max crashes ordered inspections or changes to aoa sensors because of an unsafe condition that could lead to problems with control of the airplane. >> far too often it takes a tragedy to connect the dots and say we really ought to take a look at the design of this piece of equipment. >> reporter: going said the new software fix includes input from two aoa sensors being in agreement before the system would activate. boeing's ceo said it is not an admission of a design flaw >> we haven't seen a technical slip or gap in terms of the designion. >> reporter: cnn learned boeing never flight-tested a scenario in which the aoa sensor malfunctioned. a former test pilot said apparently we missed the ramifications of the failure of the aoa probe. potential failure conditions were analyzed in the design and certification according to a
source familiar with the testing. it was determined trained pilots would have been able to handle the failure. >> it should have been in the test program up front to expose the problem. >> reporter: peter lammare who was subpoenaed said he doesn't understand why it took two fay toll crashes for boeing to make changes. >> this is the part i find almost incredible. aoa have been on the plane for years. it's a well known failure. >> reporter: the boeing 737 max was designed safely but proper procedures weren't followed by the pilots. >> when we design a system understand the airplanes are flown in the hands of pilots and in some cases the safety analysis include it is engineering design but also the actions that pilots would take. >> reporter: when pressed on why boeing is admitting no flaws in the design, the ceo walked out of the press conference. >> 346 people died, can you
answer questions about that? >> reporter: the department of justice, congress, the faa have opened investigations looking into how the plane was designed and how boeing was able to get proper government clearance with what now appears to be a plane with a safety flaw. >> these questions remain open and very concern iing. an thank you for your reporting on this. this is the first full week of joe biden's 2020 campaign. is he making the grade? chris cillizza's midweek grades are out next. -♪ just like any other family ♪ the house, kids, they're living the dream ♪ ♪ and here comes the wacky new maid ♪ -maid? uh, i'm not the... -♪ is she an alien, is she a spy? ♪ ♪ she's always here, someone tell us why ♪ -♪ why, oh, why -♪ she's not the maid we wanted ♪ -because i'm not the maid!
-♪ but she's the maid we got -again, i'm not the maid. i protect your home and auto. -hey, campbells. who's your new maid? i protect your home and auto. was a success for lastchoicehotels.comign badda book. badda boom. this year, we're taking it up a notch. so in this commercial we see two travelers at a comfort inn with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. nobody glows. he gets it. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com
all right, joe biden has officially been in the race for less than a week. already it's time for his first report card, so says chris cillizza. he's here with the midweek grades. he's our cnn politics reporter and editor at large and a tough grader, i find >> tough but fair. >> okay. joe biden, you give him a what? >> i give him an a. i have a lot of grades to get through so i will go quick. he raises the most money in the first 24 hours of any candidate, $6.3 million. particularly for someone we were worried about for his ability to raise money online. he's ahead by 24 points in the most recent poll and donald trump sent five tweets about him in the last 36 hours >> that inflates a grade for you? >> those things help joe biden's
argument that he's the one trump is worried about and the most electable. solid a >> the next person you give a grade to, joe biden is beating him by 38 points. >> yes. >> in the cnn poll. why does eric swalwell get a b plus? >> he has only one chance of doing anything. that's getting on the debate stage late june, late july. getting on the debate stage and impressing people who have never heard of him before which if you look at polling is most people. this week he's announced he has 65,000 individual donors that allows him to qualify for the debates. assume he can get the polling -- there is a polling metric, too. he has to get above 1% in three national polls. assume he can do that. that's a win. he has only one path to viability, credibility in the race. it's debates. i give him a b plus. he's still a long, long, long, long, long shot. >> kamala harris is doing better in the polls but you give her a
b minus. >> yes. you have to compare yourself to yourself. in our march poll, alisyn, she was at 12. in our most recent poll we just released in april she was at 5. it's not all bad. it's april -- now may 2019. there is a piece of the poll that i think matters. one in four voters who are for someone else who told our pollsters they support another candidate say they want to learn more about harris. she continues to be -- if we were doing it as an nba draft she's someone who a lot of people are interested in, a lot of potential. taking a step back in terms of public opinion polling now. nothing to be concerned about >> elizabeth warren is right in the same position. >> correct. >> she's performed better in polls and people want to know about her. they are onthe rise. on the fall is? >> beto o'rourke.
it's not clear to me what he's doing. i didn't give him an f because i didn't give anybody an f. a d minus is the worst grade we have given. i don't know. he's really not anywhere. he did release a climate plan. that's something. overall it feels like he's not doing much. a buzzfeed story came out last night that essentially says there is not a lot of coordination in the staff. people are confused at what's going on. his polling has dropped. he was at 13 in our march poll. way down into single digits. it feels like pete buttigieg, mayor pete, south bend mayor is taking the momentum there, the fresh-face momentum and beto hasn't figured out his next act. doesn't mean he can't. >> i'm not familiar with the next candidate. arya >> arya stark. can you give ratings to "game of thrones" candidates? good. do we have an hour?
arya stark killed 200 of the undead in the battle of winterfell and did the knife drop in the gut of the night king. a plus plus. >> we're seeing a different side of chris. >> he's underselling it. arya is the most impressive person in real or fake earth. there's never been anyone as impressive. >> she should run for president. >> all right. next in line >> jon snow. >> he knows nothing. >> c minus. that's being kind. terrible battle plan overall. i don't know why they put the whole army outside of the gates of winterfell. anyway, he lets the dothraki get murdered at the beginning. the dragons are flying, unclear. his plan at the end to an undead dragon is to stand up and yell at it? very lucky arya saved his bacon >> better than daenerys. >> no clue what she's doing. i gave her an f.
she's just flying around. it's not clear if she likes jon snow, thinks he's a threat. the main advantage of a dragon is it flies. why would you land it among an army of the undead so they could all get on him and start stabbing the poor dragon? >> how many times have i asked that? >> we have been over this. >> she benefits from low expectations going forward. she and beto o'rourke have that going for them >> high upstudy, daenerys targaryen, high upside. >> chris cillizza, alisyn has never watched an episode. >> i'm sorry. >> i hope there were no spoilers in there. >> oh, my gosh. i know we are out of time. i'm doing my rant on spoiler aert will. i didn't say spoiler alert. i didn't. i'll tell you why. tls like the super bowl. you've got to watch it live. i'm not apologizing. this is a huge event. it's been three days. >> very controversial. >> take that, america. >> thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you.
can elizabeth warren solve the student debt crisis and make four years of college free? we break it down in the reality check next. ter 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. ♪
i've always been amazed and still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin... i want that too. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? reeling in a nice one. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden sign of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner.
numbers. 1 in 59 children has autism. most will not be diagnosed until they're three or four years old, but a new study suggests that kids can be screened and diagnosed much earlier which would mean the possibility of therapies much sooner. cnn chief medical correspondent dr. sanjay gupta joins us live with more. this sounds like a game changer. >> it could be. you know, you think about autism and the diagnosis right now, there is no specific blood test or biomarker or scan to be sure that someone has autism, that a child has autism, and so as you mentioned, typically the diagnosis happens around three
or four. sometimes as early as two. but i think for some time now researchers have been saying, well, look, how early can we reliably diagnose a child with autism. that's what this study focused on. they looked at over 1,000 children and the conclusion that they arrived at here, alisyn, i think the headline was as early as 14 months, 14 months of age, they could make a stable diagnosis of autism. meaning that they would make the diagnosis of autism and then that child at three or four years old, they had autism. there was about an 84% likelihood that that diagnosis was going to be consistent and stable. earlier diagnosis, more consistent diagnosis, possibly leading to earlier intervention, that's the significance here. >> what would you do for a 14 month old if you determined they have autism? >> i think, you know, we talked to some of the scientists specifically about that, because, look, if you just diagnose something, there's nothing to do about it, then that obviously doesn't do the patient or family any good.
there is a couple ways that they break it down. first of all, earlier diagnosis might mean avoiding what they refer to as more challenging behaviors. so for a child who is not communicating, for example, and instead they're trying to get attention in other ways by head banging or things like that, could you start to intervene, prevent, you know, develop other skills to prevent that sort of behavior, prevent isolating behavior, provide skills for not only the child but also the family. the family now knows the diagnos diagnosis, this he know what they're dealing with, could they develop skills to better cope? but then there are other interventions and i think we have a list of the thi that people sort of focus on here, everything from family training obviously, but speech therapy, hearing impairment services, physical few triggs services. it comes under this umbrella of applied behavioral analysis as well, really trying to understand what are the behaviors, how are the behaviors impacted by the environment and
how can you subsequently change the behaviors. no one is saying, look, earlier intervention is going to lead to an absolute treatment or certainly cure, but the idea of better adaptive behaviors for both child and family, i think, is what people point to as the benefit of earlier intervention. again, 14 months is very young, i mean, think about a 14 month old and what they typically are able to do. if you can diagnose earlier, you know, that could provide some benefit. >> okay. sanj sanjay, thank you very much for explaining all of that to us. >> thank you. >> so important to so many people. elizabeth warren has a $1.25 trillion plan to cancel college debt for almost everyone and make four years of college completely free. could it work? john avalon has our reality check. >> look, according to a new cnn poll tuition free public college is number four on the list of top issues for democrat i can it voters this year. free college may sound radical, but it's a reaction to rising costs and crippling debt.
college tuition has more than doubled over the past 30 years. america's total student loan debt is more than $1.5 trillion with a per student average of more than $20,000. at a time of growing income inequality it's no surprise that progressive politicians are offering alternatives. out in front is senator elizabeth warren. she says she can immediately raise more than 95% of students. also boost spending on higher ed. the cost, a whopping $1.25 trillion over ten years. it's roughly a dozen marshall plans, but only half the estimated cost of the trump tax cuts. so how do we pay for that, you ask? >> it's a familiar refrain. tax the super rich. a 2% tax on wealth above $50 million and 3% tax on wealth above a billion. it may seem like a lot but to warren it's a small sacrifice to pay for a new great society. >> two cents. we can do universal child care
for every baby 0 to 5, universal pre-k, universal college and knock back the student loan debt burden for 95% of our students and still have nearly a trillion dollars left over. >> this is a pretty popular idea by polling 90% of americans agree that college affordability is a big to very big problem. democrats have been moving in this direction for a decade, president obama first proposed two years of free community college back in 2015. bernie sanders of course made free college his signature issue in 2016 and hillary clinton followed suit by backing tuition free bachelors degrees for families making less than $125,000 a year. joe biden started talking about free college when obama did and it's still part of his core sell. he wants to pay for it by closing a loophole used by the wealthy to avoid paying taxes on things they inherit. they are all co-sponsors of the debt free college act. kirsten gillibrand is pegging her free college to public
service. two have come out strong against free college for all and one of them, mayor pete buttigieg has a clear reason why. >> americans who have a college degree earn more than americans who don't. as a progressive i have a hard time getting my head around the idea that a majority who earn less because they didn't go to college would subsidize a minority who earn more because they did. >> instead buttigieg supports expanding pell grants and incentivizing states to help out. other writ critics point out that warren's plan penalizes those folks who have paid back their loans while critics say if you think college education is expensive now, just wait until it's free. america needs to strengthen the middle class and improve social mobility and increasing access to higher education is one powerful way to do that. let the policy debates begin, that's what we should be doing, and that's your reality check. >> and those debates are very much on. we look at our most recent poll a lot of democratic voters want to be talking about just this,
the idea of free college tuition. >> big debate. we now know what robert mueller told william barr about the handling of the mueller report and barr is going to have to answer for it in just a little bit. he appears before the senate two hours from now, this will be a dramatic day. "new day" continues right now. there was a letter from mueller expressing objections about how barr characterized the findings. >> barr put out a misleading summary. >> mueller was pissed. >> the special counsel couldn't conclude barr who was doing what he was supposed to do -- >> we are looking ahead to two days of the attorney general testifying. >> this is an opportunity for him to be completely transparent. if he stands by his statements, he should be forthcoming. >> he is going to get tarnished if he isn't fully cooperative. >> the intense standoff at the heart is still ongoing. >> there is no way maduro can stay in a station he has so
decimated. it's time for him to leave. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> all right. things are heating up this morning. good morning, everyone, welcome to your new day, it is wednesday, may 1st. >> are you talking about the news or other things? >> i'm talking about the in us. >> good. >> because we are just two hours away -- >> because that was awkward for a second. >> and our chemistry. two hours away from bill barr settling into a seat that just got hotter on capitol hill. that is going to be a hot seat because the attorney general will have to defend his handling of the mueller report in front of the senate judiciary committee, but overnight we learned that the special counsel, robert mueller, sent a letter to bill barr in late march expressing frustration about the attorney general's four-page summary of his report that he felt mischaracterized the findings. mueller said it failed to fully capture all of his investigation. mueller then called barr on the phone to share those frustrations. >> this raises all kinds of new
questions. did robert mueller get played by william barr? if mueller meant to send a message to the american people on obstruction did he fail because he was outmaneuvered? when will we hear from mueller himself? his testimony really seems guaranteed and vital because there are serious questions about whether the attorney general lied in testimony he has already given on the report. how will barr explain his selective quotes from the mueller report that seemed to twist the special counsel's intent. some democrats are already calling for impeachment of william barr. so we have a potentially explosive day ahead and our coverage begins with lauren fox live in capitol hill. she is in the hearing room, the room where it will all happen. lauren? >> reporter: that's right, john. in just a couple of hours bill barr will come before the senate judiciary committee and have to answer questions about how he handled the mueller report, specifically that reporting from the "washington post" as a new explosive element to all of this