tv Meet the Press NBC May 7, 2017 10:30am-11:30am EDT
this sunday, health care fallout. president trump gets a big win and isn't afraid to gloat. >> how am i doing? okay, i'm the president. hey, i'm the president. >> democrats can't stop the obamacare repeal. yet aren't afraid to taunt. >> with respect to the transactions related to the north korea and for other purposes. and senators aren't afraid to make predictions both republicans -- >> we have turned the volume off on health care. >> and democrats. >> zero chance, dead on arrival, over in the senate. >> we have the obamacare repeal vote covered on all sides. defending the bill with health and human services secretary tom price. it's -- its chances in the senator with roy
and the democrats' response with senator dianne feinstein. and democrats lost the house in 2010. after passing obamacare. what will happen now to republicans who voted to kill it? and sound familiar? a computer hack attack on the leading candidate in today's french presidential election. why u.s. intel believes the russians are at it again. joining me for insight and analysis are rich lowry of the national review. kristen welker, white house correspondent. matt bai, from yahoo news. and iliana johnson. welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, celebrating its 70th year. this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good morning. chuck todd is off today. it's not often you see a white house signing ceremony celebrating the passage of a bill that has merely made it through the ho
president trump and house speaker paul ryan were more than happy to spike the football. even if there is still a lot of green grass between them and the end zone. that said, the house did just hand a skeptical senate a bill not scored by the congressional budget office, not read by most of those who voted for it. and that counts among its winners those with high incomes, wealthier people without pre-existing conditions. the young and large employers. and among its losers, the poor, older americans, people with pre-existing conditions and those who counted on obamacare's essential health benefits. still, this was a win president trump needed and got. many people declared the repeal and replace movement dead as recently as this week. but the president as he has done so many times before proved people wrong. >> the yays are 217, and the nays are 213. >> after a legislative victory a white house celebration. >> how am i
president. can you believe it? >> the house of representatives voted to scale back health care for millions of americans. bending if not breaking promises mr. trump has made. >> i want to keep pre-existing conditions. i think we need it. >> but the house bill would allow states to opt out of rules which prohibit insurance companies from raising rates on people with pre-existing conditions. candidate trump promised there will be no cuts to social security, medicare and medicaid, but congress to the congressional budget office analysis of the first version of the bill, federal funding for medicaid would drop by $880 billion over the next ten years. in january, president-elect trump promised insurance for everybody, repeating a vow he made on the campaign trail. >> i'm going to take care of everybody. i don't care if it costs me votes or not. >> but the congressional budget office estimated 24 million would lose health care. the housell
requirement. meaning insurance companies could choose not to cover services like maternity and pediatric care. mental health and prescription drugs. even under employer based plans. republicans say it will lower premiums overall. >> you'll have better health care at a lower cost. >> the bill also ends federal funding for planned parenthood. republicans still have to wrestle a bill through the senate that house conservatives will accept. some republican senators already say the house bill falls short. don't supporter the bill as currently constructed and have more questions than answers. now with 13 member senate working group will write a new bill. >> in the senate bill if you have a pre-existing condition, you'll be able to get insurance. in fact, that law can't be changed. >> and after this emotional plea -- >> no parent should ever have to decide if they can afford to save their child's life. >> with a child born with a congenital heart di
everything he or she would need in the first year of life i want i want to pass the jimmy kimmel pass. >> the democrats were taunting the republicans on the floor -- >> for other persons -- >> after the vote, the nonpartisan report changed the ratings of 20 seats to show new opportunities for democrats in the midterms and within an hour of the house vote, a democrat running for governor of virginia released this ad. blaming republicans for crushing affordable care act. >> we'll make sure that this happens in virginia. >> and joining me is the secretary of the health and human services, tom price. thank you very much for being with us, mr. secretary. thank you for joining us. >> thanks, andrea. thank you so much. good to be with you today. >> well, good to be with you. let's talk about the health care bill as it was passed by the house. the president promised that he would take care of people with pre-existing conditions. critics say that this bill as passed by the house does not.
true that the president is fulfilling his promise to the american people and that is to make certain that every single american has access to the kind of coverage that they want for themselves and for their family. not that the government forces them to buy. and makes certain that we insure that individuals with pre-existing illnesses and injuries are covered but covered in a way that they want. not that washington forces them. >> but you're talking about access. access at what price? are you pricing people out of the market? 84% of people 55 years and older according to your own department's studies have pre-existing conditions. are they going to be afford the price that is set because states can opt out and there will no longer be any requirement that this be affordable. >> absolutely, we think it will be more affordable, andrea. but look at the people that we're talking about. if you have medicare, if you have medicaid, if you have insurance through the v.a. or tricare or othrough your employ -- or through your
or condition discussion that we're having. if you have a pre-existing condition and you're in the exchange market right now, remember that many, many people have increasing premiums, increasing deductibles. they're in an area in this country where there are -- it's either one insurer offering coverage or in some places some. those are individuals who can't get any care at all. they may have an insurance card, but they can't get care. this is a system that's not working for patients and that's what we're trying to fix. >> i didn't mean to interrupt you, but let me stipulate, there are areas -- we know that in iowa, now in virginia that there are insurance market issues. that could be fixed, but let's stipulate that that still needs to be fixed. but what about this issue of pre-existing conditions? you have 22 major health care groups. we're going to scroll the names, let our viewers see, 22 groups including the ama, the doctors, the american lung association, the american osteopathic
pediatrics, the children's hospital association, the aarp, nurses, even insurers, all of them are against the way that the house passed this bill. are they wrong? >> well, what i believe they're not recognizing is that this is a different and we believe a better way to cover individuals with pre-existing illnesses and injuries because it allows for every single person to get access to the coverage that they want. look, nobody wants folks who have a pre-existing illness or injury not to be covered. we want to do it at a lower price and broader choices for patients so that again they're able to see the doctor that they want to see. they're able to go to the hospital that they want to go to. to the clinic that they want to go to. not that washington forces them to participate in. so this is -- yes, it's a different way, but it's a way that we believe to be better and more comprehensive and ability to have those patients have the kind of coverage and care that they want. and just because we stipulate that there are places where there's only one insurer or no
and those are the kinds of things we're trying to fix. >> but you say that people are not going to lose what they are getting now. well, let's take a look at what you said on fox business on friday. >> under obamacare, the older folks and sicker folks could pay three times more than the younger folks. whereas under this plan they might pay five times more. that's going in the wrong direction. >> well, it's pricing for what individuals' health status is. that's important to appreciate. >> so you're raises the costs on the sickest people, the sicker people to pay for the pay who are healthier. >> well, what we're trying to do is to make sure that every single person has health coverage. remember, there are 20 million people right now in this country who have said to the federal government, said to the previous administration, nonsense, i'll either pay a fine through the irs or i'll get a waiver. that's 20 million individuals who don't have coverage and we ought to say, why don't they have coverage and try to fix that. the
those individuals who are sicker, who are older, who are poorer, they will get larger subsidies so that they're able to gain the kind of coverage they need and want for themselves and for their family. we are -- our desire is to make certain that we have a system that works for patients. not for government. not for insurance companies but for patients that's the goal. >> we looked at the map and we looked at the states with those under 65 who have pre-existing conditions. the highest rates of those under 65 are in states that voted for president trump. what do you say to your own voters? >> i say to them and the president has an absolute commitment to make certain that they have the kind of coverage that they want. look, this is a different way to do things. there's no doubt about it. we believe it's a better way because it puts patients and families and doctors in charge of health care. not washington, d.c. this is -- this is a change in how we would manage to allow for individuals to gain the kind of coverage that they want. we
and sometimes change can be disconcerting to folks. and that's why i would suggest that that list of groups that you had up earlier say they now oppose it. the fact of the matter is, they're not focusing on the kinds of thing that are going to improve the system. improve the system for patients and families and docs. not make it so that government or insurance companies are in charge. >> well, let's talk about women. when we looked at the rose garden and the celebration of this on thursday, they were all -- mostly all men and white men at that. there was no diversity there. women's health issues arguably are going to be disproportionately affected. obamacare includes maternity and newborn care, preventative care. mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, birth control. all of this under the essential package no longer required under this house bill. >> andrea, come on. look at that picture. congresswoman diane black, i was standing next to her.
standing next to her. >> out of a group of dozens and dozens of people, you can cite two or three -- two or three women? >> these are prominent individuals who are leading -- who are leading in this area of health care. but the goal as i mentioned is to make certain every american, men, women, rich, poor, old, young, have the kind of coverage that they want for themselves and for their families. not that government forces them to bieuy. that's the change. >> let's talk about what the president promised. i wanted to play for you what the president promised about medicaid during the campaign. >> there's a percentage, a fairly large percentage that can't afford it. then those people don't get taken care of. that's a wrong. we'll take care of that through the medicaid system. we'll take care of those people. we have no choice. we're not going to let people die on the streets. >> medicaid expansion is going
of this bill and there's no cbo score because they rushed it through before getting the accounting from the nonpartisan congressional office, but the first version had $880 billion cult from medicaid. that goes right against the president's promise not to cut medicaid. >> no, what it does is say there's a better way to do things. imagine a system if you will where if you have insurance through your employer, but you fall on tough times and you fall into the medicaid market, that that transition is seamless. imagine if you go the other way, from medicaid to employer sponsored insurance that's seamless. imagine you go from medicaid to the exchange market that that transition is seams will. right now there are huge holes in the things. we don't want to pull out the rug from anybody. >> but you found -- with all due respect, you found $880 billion. isn't this another way to come up with the close to a trillion dollars the president said as much to -- on fox business. you're finding almost $1 trillion in savingsor
is -- that is revenue neutral. >> andrea, andrea, in the medicaid system right now, one out of every three physicians in this nation who ought to be seeing patients in medicaid are not. we ought to as a society ask ourselves why is that the case and fix that. the medicaid population is basically four different demographics. seniors, it's disabled, it's healthy moms and kids. and what the federal government now stipulates is that those healthy moms and kids need to be cared for in exactly the same manner as the seniors and the disabled. that doesn't make any sense to anybody. so what we're trying to do is to improve the medicaid system. make it more responsive to patients so that there are more resources to be able to be utilized for the disabled and the aged that makes a whole lot of sense. >> i think a lot of people will wonder how taking more than $800 billion out of something is going to put more resources in it. but let me ask you one final question about hea
the office of drug policy -- drug control, the white house office is being decimated according to one proposal. 90% cut. why eliminate the white house office of drug control at the very time when we have an opioid epidemic in this country? >> well, this is a budget that hasn't been completed yet, but what i will tell you is that the president has a commitment to making sure we fight the opioid crisis. one of the top three priorities i have identified for the department of health and human services. we were able to put out $485 million in grants to states two weeks ago. i'm moving around the country this coming week to go to states where wez want to make sure -- where we want to make sure they're allowed and have the resources to address this opioid crisis. 33,000 deaths last year due to opioid overdose. we cannot tolerate that and the department of heal
services this is a priority. whether it's through the government i don't think the american people care. they care that we're addressing this opioid crisis in the most aggressive and effective manner possible. >> mr. secretary, thank you very much. we'll have to leave it there. thanks for being with us today on "meet the press." >> thanks, andrea. and the house health care bill does face an uncertain future in the senate. republicans can afford to lose only two votes and there's an enormous gap between what conservative hard liners want and what more moderate republicans will accept me. joining me is roy blunt of missouri. >> welcome. >> good to be here. >> let's start with something that secretary price said. he's going to improve medicaid by cutting at least in the first version of this bill and we don't have a score yet from the congressional budget office as to how much would be cut from this bill. but you're cutting
the president doesn't propose something he looks like the military will be made better by cutting almost $1 trillion from the military. he wants to spend more. >> well, i think part of the point here, we're on the path to spend $1 trillion and all really the only addition that's significant to health care coverage under obamacare are people who got expanded medicaid as part of that. you know, this system is just not working. it's the -- the individual market is collapsing and has been. >> so why not fix those market issues? >> well -- >> why not do the fixes rather than taking medicaid expansion, slashing it and addressing pre-existing conditions by basically saying it's not a requirement. insurers can up the price and price it out of the market for people. >> i think the goal should be to include people in this system who aren't in it yet, to give people more choices, to create more competition. i don't talk to anybody who doesn't believe there has to be a way that's better
people who have pre-existing conditions continue to be covered. and for the states to have more options in medicaid is a good thing. not a bad thing. every state is different. this is a huge budget issue in every state. people need a medical home if that's what the state thinks they can put together so you have a place to go. you know, coverage is different than access. and both in the insurance market where a lot of people have coverage, but nobody has a place to go because their deductible is so high and in medicaid doctors don't want to take the medicaid patients, those ought to be the problems we're solving. >> some of your republican senators have spoken out against it. rob portman says that the house bill does not do enough to protect the ohio medicaid expansion population. lindsey graham says it needs to be viewed with suspension. is this dead on arrival, taking the house bill and starting to improve on it? >> what is
on arrival, not taking the house bill and bringing it immediately to the floor, but taking what the house was able to do, looking at that carefully. and coming up with what the senate thinks the senate can do. this is the way that legislation used to be pass. there would be a house bill, a senate bill. then you'd get together. the conferees who understand by that time the intricacies of what they're doing and come up with a bill that can go to the president's desk. i hope that's what we do here. >> presumably you will read what you're working on and actually get a congressional budget office score? the house didn't wait. >> well, we will. from the house's perspective, you know, they added a few things late. but this is not a new issue. the senate's going to have to have the kind of score to move this forward and the senate has to be looking at this to see if we can take the house work, look at what the house did. look at what we can do to improve that in our view. and then see if that's a bill that in all likelihood you have
here's what you think, here's what we think. let's be sure we solve the problems of obamacare. you know, a third of the counties in america only have one insurance company willing to offer insurance on the individual market. five states only have one company willing to offer insurance. there's something dramatically wrong with the current system. i saw one of my democrat colleagues this week who said that this system isn't working. and he said, i'm maybe willing to be part of the repeal and replace strategy and we need to hear and see more of that. >> will you be able to do something that satisfies susan collins on the planned parenthood issue and also can satisfy the freedom caucus if you produce something that goes back to the conference committee in the house? >> obviously if we're successful we have to do something that either gets 50 senators and the vice president or 60 senators for even more broad based change. we ought to be lookingling a both of those options. >> let me ask y
the senate intelligence committee has written letters asking for a number of former associates or republican operatives who were involved in the campaign like paul manafort was the campaign manager and carter page, roger stone, asking what their contacts with the russians were. are you going to get to the bottom of this possible russian connection that the fbi started investigating all the way back in july? >> i think there's no question there was russian interference in our elections like we're seeing in france and in germany. in fact, in europe we have seen for over a decade the russians trying to interfere. we need to look at that. that's one issue. we need to look at that in a way that better prepares for us 2018 and 2020. and in terms of bringing everybody in that should be talked to, i think, you know, the senate intelligence committee is the one committee that's been asked to reach conclusions here. that conclusion needs to include
reasonable person thinks we should have talked to. looking at anything that a reasonable person would think we should have looked at and a largely bipartisan consensus of here's what we found and i think what you saw this week was the indication that that process of now bringing individuals in after tremendous background effort to see what we ought to be asking is happening. >> sally yates testifying tomorrow before a subcommittee of judiciary. there are indications that the trump transition itself was warned about mike flynn and his connections and the conversations he had with the russian ambassador. >> well, i think in terms of the transition team and particularly the new national security adviser talking to the ambassadors from around the world, there's nothing wrong with that. >> but the substance of what he said. >> what was particularly wrong was general flynn not being truthful about the substance of what he said.
rather was apparently concerned about that early on and it appears they should have been. >> and the fact that you say that the russians were involved, the president has still not accepted that reality. why not? >> well, i think what -- i think the president -- i don't know what the president's view of this would be because i haven't talked talked to him about it. >> but he denied it publicly and called it witch-hunt. >> i think he's talking about collusion. we'll determine that and where the facts lead us. i'm not sure there's any reason for the president to believe there's collusion between his campaign. i think the president has to understand at this point that the russians were doing things to both increase their influence -- i mean, the russians couldn't be happier than to have us on a sunday when the french elections are going on that the russians figured out how to punch
this is a country that struggles economically. it's a country that resents its current role in the world. a diminished role it has now. and getting involved in these elections is one way that it can reassert itself in ways that it's not otherwise able to and i think it's unfortunate for every democracy involved and the world should have been more concerned about this when those little countries were also fighting back as the russians tried to involve themselves in their elections. >> senator roy blunt, thank you so much for being with us on "meet the press." >> good to be with you. when we come back, democrats say they have no intention of passing a bill that looks anything like what the house just approved. senator dianne feinstein joins me. and the democrats lost a net of 63 seats in the house after voting for obamacare. will the same thing happen to house republicans after voting to repeal it? as we have seen one democratic
♪ (music plays throughout) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ so we need tablets installed... with the menu app ready to roll. in 12 weeks. yeah. ♪ ♪ the world of fast food is being changed by faster networks. ♪ ♪ data, applications, customer experience. ♪ ♪ which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. fast connections everywhere.
what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. ♪ everybody two seconds! ♪ "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. ♪ co-founders of instagram. 18 months and welcome back. the panel is here. kristen welker, nbc news white house correspondent. rich lowry of "the national review." matt bayh, and eliana johnson. kristen, the democrats are celebrating, they are seizing
the advantage, putting out ads already. are they jumping to conclusions too quickly? the republicans know how to message, you heard tom price on message, we're improving it, it's failing. that's what they're going to say. >> no doubt they're jumping the gun, trying to capitalize on this moment. one democratic group preparing to put out a six-figure ad buy tomorrow, targeting 24 members of congress. i spoke to one top democratic operative who said the challenge is, they need not to just run against something but for something. republicans are gearing up for a top of fight. mitch mcconnell telling his team, let's bear down and get to work and they'll be targeting the preexisting conditions, andrea, they'll change that. >> matt bayh, look at what republican congressman mo brooks had to say about the health care vote. y
of people, for whatever reason, either they lack the resources or want to game the system, they've decided not to have insurance. then they get sick and want other people to pay for it. >> so let's talk about this. he also already said the whole problem with people with preexisting conditions, people are sick because they didn't live healthy lives, it's their own fault if they're sick. >> the idea of people having insurance so other people don't have to pay for it is not a new idea, it's the guiding principle behind the obama health care program. we've had three straight presidents where the president has lost either one chamber during their first term, or both, and have lost both chambers during the course of their presidency. we've never had that before in our presidency. so we have a volatile midterm climate every time. that's one problem. and we have never seen a party try to roll back a major s
program on this scale. we don't know what that looks like from a public point of view. when we talk about a messaging perspective, i heard secretary price. it was a lot of good rhetoric. he had very few specifics. it was basically a campaign kind of interview. i think they have to be very, very careful with the unknowns here. it's a very volatile issue and a very volatile political climate. >> i think one of the challenges you're seeing republicans grapple with here is they are trying to do something historic, which is to roll back a social program. the challenge is, they're trying to do that without actually taking anything away from anybody who got something that they now like. that's what you'll see the senate grapple with. i am sort of puzzled by this assumption underlying the conversation that this is supposed to be a political victory for republicans. when you saw democrats pass obamacare in 2010, it was hugely unpopular and they paid an enormous price at the ballot box in 2010. i think the president, obama at
that it was worth it because this was something democrats believed in. i wonder if republicans are going into this thinking that there's a price, that it's worth paying a price at the ballot box if this is something they believe in. i don't know that these things are supposed to be cost-free politically. and this is rich, the fact is they're already running into some problems back in the districts. raul labrador on friday was at a town hall meeting, and i think we have a bit of tape of the exchange from the audience when he claimed that this was not going to take anything away from them. >> you are mandating people on medicaid accept dying. you are making -- >> no. you know, that line is so indefensible. nobody dies because they don't have access to health care. [ crowd shouting ] >> you can see why there's
insurance. it's better than nothing but it's harder to prove that than you would think. it provides a better sense of financial security, which is important to people. but it's a system that needs to be reformed. the politics on preexisting conditions are horrible. but it's disproportionate to the nature of the change they're proposing, which is allowing some states to get a waiver on certain conditions, including that you're not going to get charged more if you're continuously covered, states have to have a high risk pool to catch people falling through the cracks. but the politics are so terrible, i wouldn't be surprised if the senate ends up dumping this provision. >> but rich, you've got to be able to pay for that. what's cynical about this bill, and like everybody who voted for it, i haven't read the entire bill, but it's pushing everything to the states. you decide how to get out from under these protections and you figure out how to pay for it. >> you have governors saying, we're not doing that, we're not taking this, and we're notoi
cutbacks in medicaid. >> that's right. and you asked the question, is this bill doa in the senate. i am told it's not, but again, the preexisting conditions portion of it may be doa. they think the politics of it are very difficult. they think practice kickly it's very difficult. and even though you hear them say, look, we're not under any deadline, the reality is there is a bit of a deadline, because come september they have to deal with the spending bill, they have to deal potentially with the debt ceiling. i'm told if they don't get something done by july or august, it's going to be much more difficult. >> the president acknowledged this is to create a pool of money for the tax cut, because what they're proposing on taxes is $1 trillion. >> democrats passed a -- basically a transfer program, a social program that was masquerading as an economic growth measure. republicans have passed a pure tax cut that is masquerading as a health care measure. >> that's not a secret. i think that's what republicans said all along. they wanted to
tackle tax reform. i think, you know, rich's point about medicaid being equated with, you know, good health insurance, is valid. and i think what you're going to see the senate do, the goal is to get people on private insurance which has better proven results. the challenge with the house bill is it supplants medicaid over time with a tax subsidy that doesn't allow people to afford private insurance when it's substituted out. that's really dangerous politics for republicans. >> we'll leave it there for now, we'll pick it up in a moment. later in the broadcast, hillary clinton taking on james comey, vladimir putin, wikileaks, and the media stream media in explaining why she lost the presidential election. but up next, senator dianne feinstein on james comey. and on what the democrats plan to do about that health care bill. but up next, senato♪ ♪
that it would be a disastrous, catastrophic concealment. it was incredibly painful choice, but actually not all that hard between very bad and catastrophic. i had to tell congress that we were taking these additional steps. i prayed to find a third door, i couldn't find it. >> senator dianne feinstein is not at all convinced that there was no third door. and she says the fbi director's october surprise helped sink hillary clinton's campaign. senator feinstein joins me here in washington. i want to talk about what comey said and the sally yates testimony tomorrow. but first, let's talk about health care. they passed it without reading it. but there are legitimate problems -- big problems with obamacare. the fact that some of the insurers, aetna and others are pulling out. virginia is now going to be affected. iowa doesn't have choice. don't they have a point? >> well, there is a point, yes. but i want to say something.
insured post the beginning of obamacare today. this bill which looks like this and is complicated to read. i have been rye thing to read it over the weekend. and this is the manager's package that has the series of amendments. this is just come over to the senate. it has no score. it's probably one of the biggest bills that the senate will ever consider. we don't know its breadth and depth as analyzed professionally. we don't know its cost as analyzed professionally. and there are a lot of major changes which are going to have a dramatic impact on the health care marketplace which is now one-fifth of the economy. i think i was reading the chief economist at barclay's this morning, andrea, and pointed out that this is going to have major impact on the economy. if
so i don't want to monopolize. >> no, i'm intrigued by your comments about this. you think that something can come out of the senate. can enough democrats go over or enough moderate republicans be persuaded that they should vote for something or what has to come out of the bill for you -- >> yeah, first i don't know what the leader mcconnell has in mind. i don't know what the 13 white men when you have five republican women who are excluded from that -- these 13 men are supposed to sit down -- >> you're speaking of the working group. it's all male. >> it's all male. and women's health is a big part of this. and women are a majority of the population. and their health interests deserve to be contemplated in any reform. any position is -- my position is and i believe this is the democratic position, don't repeal obamacare.
individual market, which has some problems with it and deal with it and fix those sections. and it can be done. i'm really very worried that in the rush to judgment we create a major health care problem for people. and we lose a lot of jobs in so doing and we create a whole atmosphere of unpredictability. >> i want to ask you about the fbi director's testimony. he said he was mildly nauseous at thinking he had impacted the election, but he thought he had no choice. you disagree. >> i disagree with him. i think you look before you leap. the fbi has a policy of not announcing october surprises. this was 11 days before the election. what he could have done is said, let's just be sure. let's get a search warrant. let's look at the weiner computer and let's see what there is. and if he did that, he would have
there's no need for another investigation. we have all of this material already. 3,000 e-mails, 12 classified. we have already looked at them. so there was no need. so what he did was authorize what i believe to be a needless investigation, 11 days which i have no doubt and i believe that the clinton campaign's polls show this that it made a big difference. and the fbi should not do that. so i don't understand the march to do this immediately when he could have gotten the search warrant first. >> what do you want to hear from sally yates? she was fired, she was the acting attorney general. she's going to be testifying tomorrow morning for the first time in public. >> well, sally yates is very much respected. she's a professional
she's not a politician. she's spent a lot of time in the department. she is very widely respected. and she apparently has some information as to who knew when. that she is willing to share and that would be what she knew about michael flynn's connections to russia. and exactly what she knew they were. i don't want to in any way say that i know what she's going to say because i don't. but there are so many questions here as to who knew what when, what was done with this. why did russia that always responds to sanctions, when president obama, png'd 35 russian -- >> kicked them out of the country. >> right. immediately. there was no response from russia
responds. this time they didn't. what changed? that's what we need to know. >> what we now know is that the trump transition was warned about michael flynn. why was he hired then as the national security adviser? >> i wouldn't know the answer to that. >> does it raise suspicions in your mind? >> it raises suspicions because he was fired by jim clapper from his job running an intelligence agency. signal. when i saw a three star general shouting lock her up, i thought oh, my goodness. this would never happen. never happened before. this is a three star general of the united states military doing this with no evidence.
me. >> dianne feinstein, we have to leave it there. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming in on "meet the press." when we come back, republican members of the house celebrated the passage of the obamacare appeal, but how many will live to regret their as after a dvt blood clot,ital i sure had a lot to think about. what about the people i care about? ...including this little girl. and what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i asked my doctor. and he recommended eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. yes, eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. both made me turn around my thinking. 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. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis the right treatment for me. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you. i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises.
it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration,
with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option, click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. and welcome back. it's "data download" time. every political action has a reaction usually from the voters themselves and that goes for the republican vote to repeal and replace obamacare. so how will both yes and no votes play in republican districts across the country? currently, there are 23 republican house members in districts carried by hillary clinton. nine of those voted no on the health care bill and 14 voted yes. and of those yes votes seven werro
california alone. a state clinton won by more than 4 million votes. what's more, a 41 competitive republican districts, 31 members voted yes while ten members voted no. this could be an incredibly risky move for some of those house republicans whose districts are far more moderate than the average gop district. by one measure since the health care vote, the cook report has already moved 20 house seats currently held by republicans one step in the democrat's favor, including some tossups. one of them mike kaufman didn't vote for the bill, but the cook report believes the mere hesitation will hurt him. a lot of republicans seem to be keenly aware of the political dangers this bill poses. of the 20 gop no votes, 14 come from suburban districts including four from the greater philadelphia area. and virginia congresswoman barbara comstockm
care bill to win support from these districts may be another sign the republican party is struggling to find policies that appeal to those politically valuable areas. when we come back, it's "end game" time. the latest election hacking being tied to russia and the real reason that hillary clinton said she lost the 2017 presidential election. >> coming up, "meet the press" "end game" and "postgame" brought to you by when you have a digital notebook to capture investing ideas that instantly gives you stock prices, earnings, and dividends... an equity summary score that consolidates the stock ratings of top analysts into a single score... and $4.95 online u.s. equity trades... you realize the smartest investing idea, isn't just what you invest in, but who you invest with. ♪
ready or not, here i come. ♪ anyone can dream. making it a reality is the hard part. northrop grumman command and control systems always let you see the complete picture. and we're looking for a few dreamers to join us. so you miss the big city? i don't miss much... definitely not the traffic. excuse me, doctor... the genomic data came in. thank you. you can do that kind of analysis? yeah, watson. i can quickly analyze millions of clinical and scientific reports to help you tailor treatment options for the patient's genomic profile. you can do that? even way out here? yes. even way out here.
what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. ♪ everybody two seconds! ♪ "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. ♪ so new touch screens... and biometrics. in 574 branches. all done by... yesterday. ♪ ♪ banks aren't just undergoing a face lift. they're undergoing a transformation. a data fueled, security driven shift in applications and customer experience. which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. hello, mr. deets. every branch running like headquarters. that's how you outmaneuver.
"meet the press" "end game" is brought to you by boeing. always working to build something better. >> and we're back with the panel. hillary clinton this week in her most candid expression of why she thinks she lost. let's watch. >> did i make mistakes, oh, my gosh, yes. but the reason why i believe we lost were the intervening events in the last ten days. you know if the election had been on october 27th, i would have been your president. it wasn't. there was a lot of funny business going on around that. >> there was a lot of funny business, matt bai. >> yeah. i'm not sure what the utility of a continuing to -- of her continuing to talk about this. look, i never lost a national election so i'm sure it's a -- >> one that you thought -- >> i'm sure you could, matt. >> i'm sure you could if you try. >> i appreciate that compliment. >> one that you thought you were going to win. >> eveha
>> and to trump. >> and i agree with joe biden and what david axelrod said on this. she did not lose because of comey's press conference. comey put the attention back on her. he may have made it more of a referendum on her. reminded people she was running for president. by all rights it should have been that referendum all along. she did not run an assertive campaign. argumentative campaign. she hoped her opponent would implode and spare her having to do that. that was a huge gamble that's why she lost. >> well, you were there. we were on every minute of that campaign. she points to nate silver and others that the polling was going all the way up. and then 11 days out comey and it starts to plateau and go down. >> when you think of the momentum i think everyone agrees there were a whole host of reasons she lost, her message and not campaigning enough in michigan.
i was on the plane with her that day. her campaign had just announced she'd expand into arizona a traditionally red state. she was going to actually visit arizona. and then moments later on the plane, she learned the campaign learned the press corps learned about this comey revelation. you could feel the momentum -- in a single moment. >> trump said that the election would be rigged if he lost and democrats recoiled from this. but since election day on the democratic side, it's been rigging arguments every single day. yes, she was vulnerable to any number of intervening events in the last ten days because this election was so close and it was so close because her campaign was so uninspired and basically incompetent. >> what's amazing to me is that, you know, these were supposedly her most candid remarks but she sounded like a broken record since the election about why she lost and i think proved and
lost the election. she sounds terrible. but trump also has continued to talk and talk and talk about why he won the election. driving home the point that he won the election. they both remain in a state of shock. trump that he actually won. and clinton that she actually lost. so they continue to talk about it. i do think the country at this point is still sort of grappling with the new political reality. and the changing political -- >> it's extraordinary that everyone who votes the oval office lately, you have seen the pictures, the president is handing out the electoral map to try to offset and deflect in the fact that he lost the popular vote. >> he's hoping somebody can find a flaw in it. >> because the job is a lot harder than he thought. >> i think he had a panic period and then i think the first 100 days which we keep talking about was more of a traditional transition, okay, how do you do this? i think we're just starting to get a sense of the trump presidency because of that jolt
of him winning the election. to him too. >> and kristen, sally yates is going to testify tomorrow. there's a lot of shadows hanging over this white house. what do we think is going to come out of this testimony? >> well, it's going to be extraordinary, andrea. it will be the first time that we hear sally yates talk about this. of course there's been so much reporting. the anticipation is she's going to say that she warned the trump white house days before flynn was actually fired, that he may have had an inappropriate conversation with the russian ambassador. but just how loud was that alarm bell, i think that's one of the questions that a lot of folks want answered. and on the other side i think the trump administration is bracing to paint this in political terms i am told. they're going to say, hey, if this was such a big problem why did she just keep it to that conversation? why didn't she speak out more publicly? so i think you're going to see a very fierce push back. this is an administration that wants to turn the page and they want to be focused on the health care victory aov
and russia kinds to overshadow. >> we have to leave it there. you have the last word, kristen welker. thank you all so very much. that's all for today. chuck was off this week for the bat mitzvah of his daughter, margaret. congratulations to margaret and her entire family. chuck will be back next week. if it's sunday, it's"meet the press." >> you can see more "end game" and "postgame" on the "meet the press jshs" facebook page.
there are always new challenges and opportunities., at unitedhealth group, we're built to help with both. providing employers with data and insights to improve outcomes. ensuring seniors have stability and choice in their benefits. and working with governments to expand access, lower costs and improve quality. to all those with a passion to improve health care, our question is: how can we help? unitedhealth group. built for better health.
dear shareholders... last year, at&t made significant investments important to the future of our company. not just in new ideas and technology, but in the places we live and work. we built roads to the future. invested in first responders and new engineers. we employed more than 200,000 americans, and we're still hiring. at&t invests more in america than any public company. because we're all shareholders in this place. our home.