tv Inside Politics CNN May 7, 2019 9:00am-10:00am PDT
welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thanks for sharing your day with you. where in the world is mike pompeo in the secretary of state abruptly cancels meet national germany to tend to what he calls more pressing business. we're waiting to learn where he headed instead. plus the fbi director versus the attorney general. fbi chief christopher way says he would not use the word spying and says he's seen no evidence that the fbi acted you will legally in the surveillance of the trump campaign back in 2016 and case closed or no. the republican senate majority leader says it's time to move past the mueller investigation. the democratic speaker of the house says no way, but also says
democrats need to understand what the president and his allies are up
to. >> don't tell anybody i told you this. trump, i use his name, trump is goading us to impeach him. that's what he's doing. every single day he's just like taunting, taunting, taunting because he knows that it would be very divisive in the country but he doesn't real care, just wants to solidify his base. we can't impeach him for political reasons, and we can't not impeach him for political reasons. >> big breaking news this hour. the white house putting a muzzle on a key witness in robert mueller's investments the white house chief staff instructing don mcgahn, the former white house counsel, to ignore a congressional subpoena for documents. the white house has yet to indicate if it intends to block
mcgahn from testifying in person but letter is an escalation on the white house war on democratic oversight and it comes the very same day of a public disagreement between the nation's two top cops. big pushback from the fbi director this morning on capitol hill aimed at the attorney general and at the white house at large. you'll remember just weeks ago the attorney general bill barr said he's investigate why the fbi's front office surveilled the trump campaign because in 2016. his words then, spying did occur. this morning fbi director christopher way says that's not what he would call it. >> well, that's not the term i would use. look, there are -- lots of people have different colloquial phrases. i believe that the fbi is engaged in investigative activity and part of investigative activity includes surveillance. the question is making sure that that's done by the book. >> with me this day to share their reporting and their insights julie pace with the associated pace, olivia knox
with sirius km, karoun demergian and let's start with the white house chief of counsel saying no way, you don't get don mcgahn. not surprising. they said no to every subpoena. in this case what does it tell us -- is it an evolving white house strategy or are they just locked in on no? >> they see no matter what the investigation is or what the request is, whether it's not the president's taxes or about having white house officials appear before committees, about turning over documents, they believe that their best strategy is to just say no, and that is both for substantive and political reasons. you know, from the substantive standpoint there's information that they don't want expanded on that, they don't want to be pushed further into the public spear but from a political standpoint one of the strategies for this white house is to push these investigations deeper into the election, and it might sound a little counterintuitive and
what trump believes is they had success in casting the mueller investigation as political, and if democrats are seen holding hearings, trying to investigate president deep into his re-election campaign they can have the same level of success in casting those probes as simply an effort to damage him and his re-election campaign. >> and keep people in their tribes, if you will. i want to read from the current white house counsel pit sip loney. the white house provided these the letters to mr. mcgahn in conjunction president special counsel's investigation with clear understanding that the records remain subject to the control of the white house for all purposes. essentially saying don mcgahn, these are memos you wrote, documents you collected when you were in the white house, but they belong to the white house. now that you're back in private practice, sorry, you can't use them in your testimony. >> well, we're just seeing this really fascinating and vivid sort of history lesson in checks and balances in american government play out in real time, right? the legislative branch, congress, especially wright after democrats taking over the house, they are trying to do
what they always said they would do and that is to hold the white house and the president accountable, and what we have seen, as julie said from the white house consistently and coming directly from the president himself is thwarting all of those efforts, right, whether you want to call that stonewalling or being uncorptive, that has been a consistent strategy from the white house, and it all is now pointing to the very real possibility that so many of these threats end up in the courts, and for democrats, every indication is that they will go there. however, there's a big downsize to that. the reality is that those things will probably take a really long time, and they want -- democrats want these investigations and these efforts to proceed. they don't want things to simply just sit in court, but the reality is that things take a long time usually when they end up in the court system. >> it's also going to be just a very interesting legal lesson but to say that you this all the contingencies of the white house
executive privilege applying in one situation but it was always understood it would apply in another situation after they went through the mueller is to kind of -- is to potentially bend the way the law is very hard and fast which is once you -- once you dispense with executive privilege it's very hard to put the jeanie back in the bottle, but this is the argument that is being made. a lot of it is going to come down to how much does mcgahn himself want to cross the whole white house on this front. as we've seen he hasn't wanted to step in front of him yet but clearly the judiciary committee is not going to say that's clearly an understood position when people were going into the mueller interviews, and have you to talk to us the way you talk to him. >> to that point about his attitude, the president -- the president's tv lawyer, the lead attorney, rudy giuliani is questioning the truthfulness to mueller so they should be quiet at team white house if they don't want to goad him out there. jeanne shaheen a couple minutes ago in questioning of attorney general bill barr where he said spying did occur in his view. today the same senator asking the fbi director spying, was
this illegal? >> and at this time do you have any evidence that any illegal surveillance into the campaigns or individuals associated with the campaigns by the fbi occurred? >> i don't think i personally have any evidence of that sort. >> he's the fbi director who when he came in was pressed by a lot of people to make sure that the ship was straight, if you will, because of the questions. if there was -- wouldn't he have that evidence? >> i don't want to get too lost in the semantics, but i personally, i'm not sure what i mean, and the other important thing was he described how -- it has to happen by the book. that a more significant statement, because people are getting hung up she said illegal. what about imapproximate what about immoral and what about this, he seems to be saying that so far what he's seen is by the book which is more important whether you stick a lafbl surveillance or spying on what the fbi does. >> the point about the fbi director, lindsey graham, the chairman of the judiciary
committee, answered with a simple yes today when asked by manu raju, shouldn't the president have brought up meddling in his phone conversation with vladimir putin the other day in the president says it didn't coming up except for a joke about the so-called hoax. this is not the deep state, this is the trump station staying we need to send more messages. >> when it comes to deterring russian interference in the elections, is it working or should we do more? >> well, i tend to be dissatisfied which nature, so i always think we can do more and should do more on pretty much every thing we've described here. >> do you think russians have gotten the messages, or there's still more messages to be sent? >> i think there's still more messages to be sent. >> one of the, you know, which lindsey graham is it on which day in terms of his relationship with the president. i think he's trying to be a friend to the president, if you will, on this particular point you need to drop your blinders. >> you talk about messages.
what kind of message does it send to vladimir putin that he has an hour long phone call with the president of the united states and election interference never comes up? that is almost seen by russia as a sign that this president is going to be open to this kind of interference again in the 2020 election as long as it benefits him and the concern from republicans, like a lindsey graham and others is that maybe the russian meddling is benefiting their party right now, but it's not always going to be the case there. will be other actors that are going to try to meddle in these elections, and they will be on both sides of our political debate and this is not a zero sum game. this is real interference in american democracy and it should be a concern that pros crosses party lines. we're not in this situation with this president right now. >> so off it's so telling what the president doesn't say. you can read a lot into that as opposed to what he does say, but i think what this -- with this president, too, what's been interesting he appears to in his head often conflate the idea of russian meddling in the 2016
election which is sort of a given at this point. everyone is in agreement that that is the thing that happened. him even bringing that up in a conversation he appears to suggest that even bringing it up or saying it means there's somehow wrongdoing on his part or his campaign or the people around him. >> or that he wasn't elected fairly. >> and that's a spot he doesn't want to end up in so he's so reticent even when he's speaking with a world leader like this and it's the most appropriate venue and form to bring this up, he certainly refuses to. >> how would you like to be the fbi record. he says at least in tone i disagree with the attorney general about the use of the term spying and at least in his view i've seen nothing outside of the book. he used the term correctly. he just says right there we need to send more messages. that's to the president. united states who does run the government. maybe you should tell vladimir putin it won't be tolerated again. democrats decide there's a big conversation now about can we get bob mueller to testify? the president says no.
senator joe manchin of west virginia says help us out here. >> if he did appear -- it would be helpful to me as someone who voted for mr. barr and leaving a lot of questions unanswered to hear mr. mueller's report and basically from himself. >> you know, that's really a decision between the special counsel and the department and the congress. >> no, thanks, i've given you enough already. >> if he was born at night it wasn't last night. he doesn't want to touch that. >> the president made a turnaround by saying that's okay to i have several objections and i want the attorney general to stop it from happening, so if way were going to -- he's not refight the president at that the point. he would be going directly against his boss and that's potentially more awkward. >> up next a very related conversation. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says the democrats are having a public meltdown over the russia investigation but
some republicans say, you know what, maybe we should hear from mr. mueller. i felt i couldn't be at my best wifor my family. c, in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems.
since my dvt blood clot i was thinking... could there be another around the corner? or could it turn out differently? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot... almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. ...and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious
and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs 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. what's around the corner could be surprising. ask your doctor about eliquis.
the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell urging fellow republicans to get on the page today saying demands for special counsel bob mueller in his rue is another way to keep up attacking on the president. >> my republican republicans are working through five stages of grief. they seem could be angrier at his job for doing his job than
vladimir putin. our colleagues across the aisle want to shoot the messenger and keep the perpetual outrage machine right on going. >> a lot of republicans, most republicans, actually agree. they think it's time to move on, but not all of them. >> it appears that mr. mueller would like to testify, and i think would give the opportunity for the public to get additional views and clarifications on some parts of his report. >> i'm fine hearing from bob mueller. >> the president saying he wants it, you know, i'd be for that. if it doesn't happen, i don't think it's going to change the dynamic. >> i agree with the chair. >> cnn's manu raju live from capitol hill. you've been talking to republicans all day. what's trying the division and how big is it? >> well, it's significant because the -- most of the republicans are concerned if bob mueller were to come forward he would only give ammunition to
the democrats push going forward to further investigate the president. what the republicans are not speaking much about on capitol hill are the ten episodes outlined in the investigation about potential obstruction of justice at the white house. the president apparently trying tonight fear with the mueller probe. that is not something that you're hearing republicans talk about much at all. instead, you heard mitch mcconnell this morning not talk about the on trucks part but talk about the russian interference aspect of that report and saying that there's no evidence to establish a conspiracy, in other words, trying to undercut the democratic claims of collusion between the trump campaign and russia but at the same time republicans are concerned, a lot of them, having a much more hawkish line than the president of the united states does. i talked to mitt romney, john, and i asked him about the president not bringing up the fact that russia interfered in the election with vladimir putin. romney said he did not want to second guess what the president said to vladimir putin, but he
said that the u.s. needs to push back at every opportunity against very hard on russia, so the republicans are being very careful on how they deal with mueller and the report and everything going forward and bringing it forward mueller before the senate republican led committees would interfere with the president and that's what republicans are hoping to avoid. >> job. i think that's the bottom line right there, what the republicans are hoping to avoid is an angry republican president. manu raju, live from the hill. appreciate the live reporting in the rope can samples, to me the most telling was the newly indiana senator who said if the president is for it, i'm for t.in other words, it's his call. otherwise i'm not running afoul of him. >> that's where you've seen republicans, you know, kind of hang for the last two years. they want to be with the president. i do think though there is -- there are some cracks in this republican coalition on this question, and you've heard some democrats say, hey, if the report is all good for donald trump, why not have bob mueller come up there? wouldn't that actually bolster
his case? of course to manu's point, what democrats want to dive into is messier. there's not a clean clear answer like this is on collusion and conspiracy and the question that they want to ask mueller and try to get him to answer under oath is if the president was not president would you have had enough material to indict him? >> mitch mcconnell goes to the floor and says case close and senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts running for president sees an opening. she's been on the floor much of the morning says mitch mcconnell says case closed. i think i'll do a little reading. >> since the majority leader has pronounced his judgment here on the senate floor, i would like to spend some time reminding him of exactly what this report said. trump directed mcgahn on multiple occasions to fire mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pr
pretext of getting rid of the special counsel. >> connects the dots in several ways to what we were talking about in the previous segment in that don mcgahn, the white house is saying no, he can't testify because the democrats want to ask him did the president of the united states tell you to get rod rosenstein to fire the special counsel? what else did the president do to try to interfere with the special counsel? republicans don't want any of that. they want to say let's just move on. >> don't forget also that the mueller report has a lot of information about russian interference. not case closed. we have an election around the corner and the president is not bringing up meddling talking to vladimir putin. there are a number of court cases stemming from the mueller investigation. even if you didn't have all the questions about obstruction, about whether he would are charged the president about, whether he actually did object to bill barr's characterization of the principle conclusions,
there's still a lot of threads to pull on. >> and on the house side some republicans say let's hear from bob mueller and even they acknowledge, the obstruction part not good for the president but some of them think bob mueller, former fbi director, let's talk to him about the genesis of all of this, say like a lot of house republicans believe, that there was some phone misconduct or ethics questions. here's doug collins the rank member on the house judiciary committee. >> i want to the ask bob mueller, i want to know not only obstruction issued. did he actually go through the basis for this investigation? did he actually dig into the underlying evidence of what we've seen from the cabal of strzok and page and comey and going back to how we got back into the russia investigation at all. my question is did you question how this even started and if so how did you do it? >> these are the competing winds that are both afoot in congress which is the democrats want to lean in harder to the substance of what mueller produced, the evidence behind it in order to form their probes of trump. and if you want transparents, we
want everything that came out that was touched by the mueller probe so we can see what he looked at and didn't look at because the republicans are urging the probe of the investigators and the agent statehouse ran these investigations, so you could come to the same place and say put everything on the table and that's not actually going to resolve the dispute that's playing out along partisan lines. >> and there's not really an ideal outcome for republicans. they can pick from a range of options and a range of things that this could look like if mueller were to testify, but if he were to, we legitimately don't know what he would say yes we have the 400-page report and we know how he decided to lay out the facts. we know what he saw and what he determined was important in terms of the fact, but we don't know exactly what he would say under the circumstances, the circumstances being he's not writing a paper. he's being grilled by lawmakers possibly in public in front of cameras and also anything that he gets asked about the obstruction of justice question that issue is going to be treacherous grounds for the
president, but on the other hand i think not testifying republicans are keenly aware. yes, that makes it seem as though and sort of feeds the continuing narrative that the wows is simply stonewalls, and they don't really want either. >> one would think in a lower case "d" democrats that if you spend millions of dollars on an american investigation that americans would hear from the person who led this. the context of senator mcconnell saying, nah, let's move on and speaker pelosi and chuck schumer issued a statement. senator mcconnell's declaration of case called is a stunning act of political cynicism and a brazen violation of the oath that we take. the administration and a complicit republican senate are wrajing an unconstitutional and not only dangerous campaign of stonewalling, that from the democratic leader of the house and senate minority leader. it all looks like this will be tested in the courts there and
their point which has some of those issues and a whole lot of politics. >> we're in a moment where every day there's going to be a squabble back and forth, but i think it's important to think about this big picture. we're really in an extraordinary point to m.j.'s moment, we're witnessing the system of checks and balances and the strength that have system in real time. it will be a really couple of extraordinary months in washington. >> and we'll see it play out in the courts. might go longer than 12 months or so in washington. up next, one 2020 democratic candidate goes to a different place promising a litmus test for her judicial nominees. you're turning onto the street
when you barely 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. ♪
if you have moderate to little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you.
welcome back. some important battle lines being drawn on both sides of the abortion debate. in georgia the republican governor brian kemp bans most apportions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks. many women don't even know they are pregnant the so-called heartbeat bill is sure to set off a drawn out legal battle that could land in the supreme court and one of several actions that could debate the abortion issue. kirsten gillibrand declaring because of those actions if elected she would only nominate judges that vow to uphold "roe
v. wade." that tradition ended when mitch mcconnell obstructed the nomination process and stole a supreme court seat. strongly worded statement there. it is normally people get aghast, both sides, not supposed to have a litmus test, supposed to appoint qualified judges and that's been, forgive me, a joke in politics all along, but if you're not joe biden and you're not bernie sanders you're looking to break out in the presidential race. elizabeth warren on the floor of the stat today, how does this factor in? >> i think gillibrand is going to get and already is getting praise from liberal activists in the democratic party who have been pushing these candidates to break down some of these traditional guardrails that have been around things like the supreme court. they want these candidates to be bold. they think that republicans have been playing by a different set of rules certainly over the last eight to ten years, and they think democrats need to play this new game. they think democrats have played
an old more traditional political game and they need to be as aggressive on policy and on their ideas as it relates to the court as they believe mitch mcconnell and the republicans have been. >> the litmus test thing is interesting. you get the idea. if you don't think presidential elections have consequences, look what's happened in the trump presidency. two supreme court justices, 37 circuit court judges and 63 district court judges. there's 102 so far. so far confirmed to the bench during the trump presidency. >> and you heard mitch mcconnell claim that this is the signature achievement of the gop under trump, and you could say, yes, it's not traditional for presidential candidates to promise this but it's not traditional for the president and the top republican in congress say this is their main achieve president. there's a question of whether this is great for the future of the judicial branch when you argue in such partisan terms, but it's out there and real and
potentially has a generational shift which is significant in the way the courts go. actions of congress don't matter much if courts are all one side or other. >> this is not all about judicial nom nations. it's also wading into the identity politics territory, right. there's -- it's not an accident that gillibrand is a female candidate and one of many female candidates and she's choosing to talk about the issue of the judicial branch in the context of "roe v. wade" or context of frankly kavanaugh who she was very outspoken about when his nomination was working his way through the senate. she's doing this to remind voters and mainly to speak at women voters and look at the chart you put up before about the judicial nominees under president trump and are fearful about these very specific female issues. >> let's shift for a second to another of the democratic candidates. this one was actually moving up, and now you can say with biden is frozen a little bit but the south bend, indiana mayor pete
buttigieg, the surprise of the early ration, he acknowledges that one of his big problems is he's relatively unknown and having a hard time in a state like south carolina breaking through with african-american voters. >> how do you plan to speak to african voters specifically? >> part of it is by laying out an agenda on the issues that black voters also asking me about most often but it's also about a relationship. it takes a lot of work to make sure people get to know >> you just as with we have this conversation, want to show you our most recent polling. joe biden way at the top of the pack with 39% and pete buttigieg, really a nobody when he started the rashes especially when you're look at senators in the race and if you shift this over here. here eerts challenge. one of the reasons joe biden has the big lead is 29% of white voters but 50% of non-white voters, familiarity, bernie sanders, let me blank this so you can see senator sanders' numbers, also at the top of that
pack so the lesser phones, pete buttigieg 10% of white voters and 3% of non-white voters. is it the among family or is it more? >> more democrats identify as obama democrats than any other faction, joe biden's top option. after weeks and weeks of coverage predicting he would droop and everyone was fond of uncle joe and he would fade once he got in the race and that's not happening. that's a real interesting dynamic. >> it's interesting that you still have a larger percentage of non-white voters saying they would vote for sanders over someone like harris which suggests it's still kind of early and there's more messaging to be done. >> recognition, family, i think the two guys who have run before, vice president biden and sanders so far. an interesting conversation. up next, to the joe biden point, jill biden in an interview on why she thinks now is the right time for her husband to be in the race. this year, ancestry isn't celebrating mother's day. we're celebrating colleen's day.
julia's day. marie's day. and all the one-of-a-kind women we call "mom." ancestrydna tells a story as unique as she is... ...with an engaging new experience that can help her uncover rich family details. give her ancestrydna for ...denise's day... . and at just $59, grab one for jeff's day, too. order a kit at ancestry.com with licensed agents available 24/7. it's not just easy. it's having-a-walrus-in-goal easy! roooaaaar! it's a walrus! ridiculous! yes! nice save, big guy! good job duncan! way to go! [chanting] it's not just easy. it's geico easy. oh, duncan. stay up. no sleepies.
topping our political radar today, the u.s. secretary of state mike pompeo abruptly cancelling a trip to berlin. that announcement came hours before a scheduled meeting with the german chancellor angela merkel. no reason was given for the cancellation. reporters traveling with pompeo were then told where they were not going next around warned they might not be able to report from where they are were going until after they return. >> today was the one-year an versye first lady's be best program. as a rose garden event she reflected on the campaign's
achievements. >> since announcing be best i have visited schools and hospitals and visited the states. >> jill biden has a new memoir that hits the shelves and it offers a glimpse into her marriage of vice president joe biden and personal challenges her family has faced. mrs. biden sat down with cnn's dana bash and she explained why the country needs her husband in the white house this time. >> one of my favorite stories in the book is 2004. your husband is meeting with advisers. >> yes. >> about whether he should run. you're out at the pool in your bikini. you walk through the meeting and you write in sharpie on your bare stomach n-o. >> they got the hint. why is this the right time for joe biden to run for president and be president? >> well, for the past two years
everywhere i've traveled across this country people are coming up to me saying he's got to run. he's got to run. joe has to run, and i really have taken it to heart. >> taken it to heart in that she supports it this time where she had a very colorful way of making it clear she did not support it a previous time. she certainly is an asset, and has the experience and can do media and travel country. what else do we take away from that? >> i take away from that that the biden family is all in. that's significant for a couple of reasons. joe biden is very close with his family hand anyone who knows he speaks knows that and the biden family have gone through a lot and they are aware that donald trump picks on your weaknesses and knows that's a sensetive point for the former vice president and the fact that they understand that we understand that's coming and we're okay with it. it was probably a real tipping point for the former vice president. >> and just in terms of optics, too, i think for people who have any sense of nostalgia for the
obama years, they are going to look up and see the former second lady and think this is what it could be like again if they were happier under the obama administration and under the obama white house and in their minds, that that time was much more or less, i should say volatile and all of the drama that we see from the trump white house, they are completely sick of that and don't want, that yeah, i think they see a jill biden and it's another reminder of the obama years. >> an interesting interview. go to cnn.com to see more and watch more of it throughout the day. new trade tensions spurred by the president, yes, his tweets, and what the jitters mean for your money. dad, it's fine. we have allstate. and with claimrateguard they won't raise your rates just because of a claim. that's why you're my favorite... i know. are you in good hands?
♪ applebee's bigger, bolder grill combos. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood. last year, the department of veteran's affairs partnered with t-mobile for business, to help care for veterans everywhere. with va video connect, powered by t-mobile, men and women who serve can speak to their doctors from virtually anywhere, and get the care they deserve, so they can return to their most important post. best friend, quarterback, or just dad.
the va provides the care, t-mobile provides the coverage. we were paying an arm and a leg for postage. i remember setting up shipstation. one or two clicks and everything was up and running. i was printing out labels and saving money. shipstation saves us so much time. it makes it really easy and seamless. pick an order, print everything you need, slap the label onto the box, and it's ready to go. our costs for shipping were cut in half. just like that. shipstation. the #1 choice of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get 2 months free.
shipstation. twhen it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m. coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org
foods and consumer goods since last december and they have mostly absorbs the costs. now everything on bicycle helmets and car seats and furniture. thousands of different items. consulting firm trade partnerships wants to raise the cost of all the . >> american business, no fan of tariffs as a negotiate tool, but this president is he's famously called himself tariff man and he
holds the false view that the chinese government somehow pays the tariffs. he's said many times he's tacking china. in reality the customs bill is given to and paid by the american companies at the port of entry. they can either eat the higher costs or pass it along. there is a contradiction for american businesses, they hate tavaras but they don't like china's trade practices and do favor getting tough on china. they feel they have more leverage with a very strong economy that can withstand any hit for a trade war. >> the question is will this work? this is president owes posture, agree or disagree. certainly outside the box. the president thinks the economy is strong enough to take the hit at least in the short term. >> the chinese are sending the vice premier. the question is would they say never mind and the white house said china had backed off some things they agreed to do in this deal. is the president carried to prepare this through if they can't work it out this week? >> you asked will if work. i don't know what work means.
will it drive a deal? one of the problems is we keep being told we've wrapped up 95% of this trade deal. all we have left is the relationship between china and its economy and -- which is the deal. >> which is not 5%. that's actually the bulk of the problem and the bulk of the conflict between the united states and china. are they going to change any of that related to tariffs? i'd be surprised, especially given the state of their economy. >> trade and tariffs has been central to his political message, almost as central as the immigration message. he's basically making the calculation that even if there is some short-term economic pain, if you go to the store and you pay a little more for sneakers, your wash mag sheen costs more, that the overall idea that we're rebalancing our relationship with china, this is better in the long term, will work for him, burks again, it's a gamble particularly at a time
when the economy is strong, and that is his most powerful message heading into re-election. he could really upend that. >> corporate interests like the u.s. chamber of commerce, put out the graphic. they want the president, please, mr. president, cut a deal and don't extend the tariffs and look, a lot of states that have their exports going either to canada, mexico or china, a lot of those states are trump states. you really want to go into your re-election year where you could be hurting yourself and the political base? brookings did a study looking at the businesses prominent in trump country and most of them are doing pretty well during the trump years so the question is does the president think, again, you know. what it's risk, but we're strong enough to take it and i'll be keeping a promise. >> that does seem to be the calculation he's making and he's also betting on the strength of his messaging which is pretty good and makes a lot of people -- sweeps people up who might be looking at their personal bottom line and find maybe it's not quite in line with how much the president is promising, but this message has
managed to heal a lot of wounds in the past. the question though is does it backfire on him across the country? does it backfire on his north korea plans because you can't touch one part of china without it affecting our international relationships and does the president have to answer that before it comes up for reelection and that's when it potentially becomes an issue. >> up next for us here, could the highest ranging woman in house history give up that leadership post and if so, why would she?
morning. what are you doing? isn't it obvious? nah. we're delivering live market coverage and offering expert analysis completely free. we're helping you make sense of the markets without cable or a subscription from anywhere you are. i get that. but what are you doing here? nice pajamas. really? i say pajamas. pajamas, pajamas, whichever. good. yahoo finance live. stream free anywhere. welcome to the show. let's make finance make sense. with a $500,000 life insurance policy.
how much do you think it cost him? $100 a month? $75? $50? actually, duncan got his $500,000 for under $28 a month. less than a dollar a day. his secret? selectquote. in just minutes, a selectquote agent will comparison shop nearly a dozen highly-rated life insurance companies, and give you a choice of your five best rates. duncan's wife cassie got a $750,000 policy for under $23 a month. give your family the security it needs at a price you can afford.
liz cheney has a big decision to make. does she stay, or does she go? the congresswoman staying in the house could set her on a path to the speakership if republicans win back control. cheney is all right number three ranking member for house republicans. only in her second terms, but mike nze is retiring meaning wyoming would have an open senate seat and cheney would be a giant favorite to bick the first female senator. joining us now is phil mattingly up on capitol hill. how does she strich this tough balance? >> this is one of the more intriguing -- with all that's going on, one of the most intriguing side bar stories that's going on right now. liz cheney's ambition is no ambition. some of her leadership colleagues in the republican caucus over the course of the last couple of minutes and the real question is this. what does liz tchani want to do, there are very clear eyes on the potential for a speakership at some point in the future, the
first republican female speaker. there is constant talk that she has told colleagues and told reporters as well that she now understands why her father, former vice president dick cheney holds this institution, the u.s. house in such high regard and there's also intent watch she wants to do in the future. speakership is out there, and if she decides to run for the senate, the expectation is she would win and the expectation is the field that's prosen than would be a bigger platform for the issue she wants most and it would be a big platform if she wants to run in a national election, like say for president which a lot of people have been talking about up here had. the decision is hers. the field is frozen. i'm told there's no decision that's imminent at this point in time. part is the practical. if she runs for senate, she has to give up her leadership position, particularly in the rhetorical battle she's had with the democrats over the last couple of months. >> trademark mattingly subtle
there. national election say for president down the road. interesting choice, fascinating choice. she'll get some advice from her father, that you can be sure of. don't go anywhere. busy news day. brianna keilar starts right now. have a good day. >> i'm brianna keilar live from cnn's washington headquarters. underway right now a fast moving war of words. democrats pouncing on mitch mcconnell's words that the mueller report is a closed case. and where in the world is mike pompeo after cancelling a trip to go on a mysterious trip after tensions in iran election and the attorney general said the trump campaign was spied