tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN July 19, 2017 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
and thank you all for joining us. ac 360 begins right now. good morning the new york times just printed an interview with the president. we have detail osthat shortly. we begin with sad and shocking news about senator john mccain. what have you learned? >> with senator mccain's permission i spoke with his doctors earlier today and he said the operation he had reveals an aggressive type of brain cancer. that was what was causing his problems they operated on above his left eye. this is a type of primary brain cancer. they just found out after the pathologist looked under the micro scope specifically, and that is what they found. as you point out it's sad news. this is an aggressive type of brain cancer and surprised
everybody. >> what more can you tell us about this? you were given this information or permission by the senator or by his family in order to broadcast this? >> yes, they -- with his permission, i spoke to the doctors they ask that i talk to the doctors get the information about what happened. we know that on friday morning he went to the doctor's basically for a scheduled annual physical exam. he was complaining a bit of fatigue and said he's been feeling tired over the last few months. he also had a bout of double vision. but because of those things his doctors decided to order a cat scan of his brain. this is all friday this happened. it was that cat scan and an a subsequent mri scan of the vain that revealed this abnormality. it was concerning enough that urgently, within the next couple of hours, the doctors took him to the operating room, they per
performed the incision in the left eyebrow area, removed some intone they believed they removed the entire tumor they could see from the area of the left front of his brain. this is a glee owe blas toe ma. it's the same type of tumor that senator kennedy had, that bo biden had. it is an aggressive type of brain cancer. so senator mccain and his family are dealing with the news and trying to decide the next steps in terms of treatment. he is at home, he was able to go home the next day after surgery. he had a rapid recovery. the doctors told me after he woke up from the anesthesia, he was alert, sharp, able to tell you what year it was. he was making jokes with the recovery room staff. but again it takes a few days for these diagnoses to come back because the pathologist has to review it and this is what they found. >> what are the potential next
steps? >> well, this is one of those types of tumors that is -- it doesn't have a particular cure. there's not a type of treatment you can say is going to likely lead to cure. the types of treatments typically are a combination of che che chemo therapy and radiation to his brain. this is a discussion i'm sure senator mccain and his family are going to have with doctors as how to proceed and when to proceed. just recovering from this operation can take a couple weeks, but to begin this therapy, radiation, chemotherapy. they have to wait three to four weeks until after the operation. he had the operation in arizona, at the mayo clinic there. >> this is a dumb question, but is this a tumor or is it more than that? >> this is a tumor. it is a type of brain tumor. it's a tumor that comes from the
brain as opposed to types of tumors that come from somewhere else in the body and spread to his brain. this started in his brain. people were concerned about the melanoma having spread. but this is not a melanoma. this is a malignant cancer. what that means, you operate on this, it needs to be treated as well with chemotherapy and radiation. the concern is it will come back. that's the big concern with these type of tumors. in order to try to give him the best chance at that, it is likely he'll undergo further treatments in the next several weeks. >> i want you to stay with us. david axle rod is also joining us and gloer ya borjer. this is very devastating news for senator mccain and his family. very tough news to hear for everybody. he was first elected to the
senate in 1986, more than 30 years ago. for the impact he has had, and continues to have, on the senate is not to be overstated. >> it's remarkable and don't forget he ran for the presidency twice and he told me he once came in second place, which wasn't good enough. you know, john mccain is a fighter. i think we all know that, all of us tonight. and, you know, this is a man who survived fire on the forest, shot out of a plane, would you say tortured, five years in a pow camp, melanoma. we've been talking to folks close to mccain. he's been on the phone talking about his statements on health care and continuing to work. if i know john mccain he's going to want to get back to work as soon as possible and want to continue to do what he does best, which is represent the people of arizona. and be the lion that he is in
the united states senate. >> you covered capitol hill for a long time, talk about the influence senator mccain has there and within the republican party. i interviewed him a number of times, he has a great sense of humor and is engaged in not just domestic issues but international. >> the only people who can call people little jerks and mean that as a term of indeerment, which he does. there is nobody who is the kind of fighter that john mccain is, never mind all the things he went through in vie yet nam, the melanoma he had in 2000, but that he's going constantly. warp speed always. you mention it had impact he had in the senate, a huge impact. but he has a huge impact
globally. just this year alone, anderson, 75,000 miles to 15 nations across three continents he logged. i was talking to chris coons who went back to vietnam with john mccain and talked about the fact that chris coons, who's about 30 years younger than john mccain. he had to change his own schedule because he couldn't keep up with mccain. and the way he said mccain is revered by leaders across the country, even especially in vietnam, which was really interesting. b but covering mccain in the senate and i covered his presidential campaign in 2008 from start to finish. he has a fighter pilot's mentally which is you keep going and keep going. you don't look back, you don't
think about regrets, because we all have them. but you keep going. that is his m.o.. there's no question knowing him and the way he likes to fight and he's probably also telling his joke that is he told on the campaign trail, in the words of chairman mow, it's always darkest before it's black. >> anybody who can survive what he did with his brothers in arms -- he spent years there under excruciating conditions. he is a fighter and he also in so many ways he's one of those politicians that transcends party lines. >> he does. i spent an hour with him the initial ax files on cnn with john mccain. and to hear him tell the story of his captivity and those very dismal years but the strength he
drew from that experience and the lessons he drew from that experience was incredibly moving. yes, he's one of those people who has over the last 30 years found a way to work across party lines on issues like immigration reform, climate change. it didn't always make him popular with the base of the republican party. but even on the health care issues, as he was waiting for this diagnosis, he was issuing statements on bipartisan health care. i think that's who john mccain is. when i sat here listening to you and sanjay read that news, discuss that news, i thought of his friend ted kennedy, who eight years ago -- eight or nine years ago got a diagnosis like this and continued to fight through it, worked through it. but two those worked together on many, many issues. and, in fact, john mccain spoke at ted kennedy's memorial
service. there aren't that many giants left in the united states senate. john mccain is a giant. >> we certainly wish him and his family the best tonight. i know there are a lot of people across the country and people he's met all around the world who are saying a prayer for him. so thank you all. in other words the president weighs in on his attorney general. he said to the new york times, you'll hear it all next. and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you choicehotels.com. badda book. that's it?. he means book direct at choicehotels.com for the lowest price on our rooms guaranteed. plus earn free nights and instant rewards at check-in. yeah. like i said. book now at choicehotels.com
yet at what is on the president's mind, the russian probe the man in charnl of it had to recuse himself. the president spoke to the new york times. the headline only hints at how much news he made. he expresses anger with comey and sessions and mueller. >> this interview is something. i want to start with what he told you about attorney general sessions. what did he say? >> he was clearly frustrated with jeff sessions he said that he would not have appointed him if he had known that he would recuse himself from anything russia related. he would have appointed somebody else. we know that donald trump has been angry with jeff sessions for quite some time, but it was a pretty remarkable statement for him to make on the record, for him to vent his ooire that y and make clear that he considers what jeff sessions did, which was a recusal because he was concerned about a conflict to be
praum problematic he faulted sessions for turning an easy question into a hard one at the senate confirmation hearing. it's a sentiment a fair number of critics agree with. >> he also said that if sessions hadn't recused himself there wouldn't have ended up being a special counsel, is that right. >> he did. a couple weeks ago the president's anger with sessions was really at the root of what he was saying had to do with other issues. he believed if sessions had not recused himself from russian there would be no rod rosenstein stepping up, no special counsel appointed. it is all the original sin from there. he was less about mueller but he was clear that he believed mueller had a number of conflict of interest one of which trump aides talked about for quite some time was that they say that
bob mueller interviewed as interim fbi director the by the way day before he was appointed special counsel. they consider that a mitigating factor to put it mildly. the president refused to say what he would consider a violation of the charge on the part of bob mueller. he wouldn't answer it. but he believes mueller's charge is on russia and he doesn't believe he's under investigation. >> he doesn't believe he is personally under investigation by bob mueller. >> that's what he said. >> he also had choice words for former fbi director james comey. >> he did. he said any number of choice words about james comey for some time. but he was very specific that he, you know, believed that comey was trying to essentially get leverage over him with that dossier, making all sorts of wild allegations about president trump and his appearance in russia in 2013.
you know, he -- as we know, he was not happy with comey for quite some time, long before he actually fired him. there had been some belief that he might fire him immediately upon taking office. but i will say his frustration was less trained on comey than on sessions today. >> the allegation against comey, this goes back to the meeting when u.s. intelligence officials at the time briefed then president elect trump in trump tower and as comey has testified, comey pulled him aside after the meeting and told him about the existence of this dossier or two-page summary of thises dossier, the president saying he believes comey did that to get leverage to keep his job. >> essentially comey wanted to keep his job and that was the point in showing it to him. again, the president feels sort of vindicated as i think you have seen him say publically,
that comey had to acknowledge under oath that he had told the president three times he was under investigation, he said he would not say that publically because it might change. the president doesn't accept that as an answer and was very frustrated that comey wouldn't say it publically. again, i think his frustration with the dossier continues and this was a piece of that. >> the white house went after cnn and others who reported that comey had briefed the president about the existence of the dossier and the two-panl summary of the dossier. i remember having a conversation with kellyanne conway where they seemed not to know it happened or denied it had happened. so the president is confirming, as has been confirmed already, that it did occur. it's fascinating to hear his perspective why that briefing took place with comey he thinks.
and the second conversation with putin he said it lasted only 15 minutes. >> i have to go back and check the transcript what was said -- >> i just raid ead it he said 1 minutes because we have other sources that were there that said about an hour. >> he was adamant with that time frame, which was consistent with what white house officials said yesterday about this second get together. he was not defining it in his mind as an actual meeting. he told a long and elaborate story about sitting next to japan's prime minister's wife. he got up to see his own wife next to putin. they started talking. he did say the topic of russian adoption came up when he was talking to putin at the newer meeting. the topic of russian adoption, as you recall, was supposedly part of the subject of this meeting that the president's son, don junior had with the
russian lawyer on june 9, 2016, one that was ultimately billed as dirt against hillary clinton. so it was surprising that came up, i have no reason to believe that it was anything other than coincidence. but the adoption relates to sanctions. >> it sounds like he didn't mention it, it be sounds like putin mentioned it. so if putin mentioned it, they're talking about sanctions. >> that was my read, but i don't want to get ahead of what the president said in his remarks. >> how does his demeanor seem? >> incredibly upbeat. when i contrast him on air force one last week and today with some of what we saw earlier in the administration, for whatever reason, he seems to be in a pretty good place. >> fascinating reporting as always. thank you. >> thank you. >> one other notable item from
the interview, asked if mr. mueller's investigation would cross a red line if it looked at his family's finances. he said, i would say yes. he was asked what he would do, he said listen this is about russia. your panel is back. gloria, have you ever heard of a time when the president of the united states says such things about the attorney general, who he appointed, an oig who wttorn who was one of his earliest supporters, campaigned for him? >> no, his earliest supporter somebody who was with him every step of the way and i think what you heard in hearing maggie and in reading this remarkable piece in the new york times is that this is a president who's very angry at a lot of people who work for him, i made a list,
jeff sessions, comey who used to work for him, andrew mccain, rod rosenstein, and of course special counsel mueller who he is not directly threatening but saying you have a lot of conflicts out there. so this is a list of. vegrieve enss. even though he was upbeat in mood, you could hear the grievance in the new york times piece. >> i talk to people who talk regularly with the president for months and we were told this is something he will not let go for months, his anger and ire at jeff sessions for recusing himself. if you remember, go back to his tweet, one of the first tweets he sent that got him as n big trouble as president it was the saturday morning after jeff sessions recused himself where
the president tweeted that president obama was tapping trump tower. it was donald trump lashing out in furry, you know, maybe pointing his anger in the wrong direction, but that was where all of that came from. from jeff sessions recusing himself. and since then, as the president himself has now said in public on the record to the new york times. so many bad things for him have stemmed from that recusal. having said all that it's one thing to hear about private conversations the president has about his attorney general and how upset he is, it's another thing to throe jeff sessions under the bus and then put it in reverse and come back and do it again in the new york times. this isn't a former attorney general. this is a sitting oig. the person who he put in charge. and as i you said anderson, a guy who went out on a very big
limb to endorse president trump. and that gave him credibility with the republican base in the campaign. >> does this mean that sessions needs to resign or something? >> i don't think so. donald trump operates by his own rules. jeff sessions is the attorney general. i'm going to see on friday -- he's going to be giving a talk in philadelphia. he will continue pushing for longer prison sentences for more civil forfeiture, it's a bizarre situation, there's no doubt about that. but he is still the attorney general, he will continue to do what he's doing, advancing an agenda, which is basically donald trump's agenda but just under this weird cloud. i don't think he has to resign. >> if he had any dignity he would. i think he should resign. first of all, i'd have to talk to maggie, i don't think it's in the report, but was this unsew listed? was it in response to a question. >> he may have been asked about something. >> i think to his point, why
give this interview today of all days where health care is obviously the thing -- this is right after the lunch with the senators about health care. >> that's the other thing. nobody stands up to donald trump. we had him humiliate senator helder at that lunch and then he does this. i'd love to see jeff sessions walk away at this point and -- on principle walk away. >> what's the the principle? >> i think -- go ahead. >> i think -- i think one of the reasons he went after jeff sessions is he blames jeff sessions for the rabbit hole of the russia investigation as he sees it. >> he said jeff sessions's led to the special counsel. >> he said jeff sessions is the one person who actually did the right thing. what jeff sessions did in that moment was honorable. >> but if you look at it -- i agree with you, but if you look at it from the president's point of view, the point he made to the times is okay if you wanted
to recuse yourself and you knew all along that you couldn't deal with russia, tell me before i made you attorney general. >> he thinks that jeff sessions works for him. >> exactly. i agree with you. but i'm telling you -- i'm channelling the president here as hard as that is, but that's his point of view. >> that's right. e he thinks everybody works for him. the presidency, the white house is about him. he doesn't care about health care he can have a nice lunch and elbow some people in the ribs he doesn't care about the agenda that jeff sessions is implementing as the head of the department of justice, he views him as his personal lawyer and he's not doing his job. he doesn't see the mueller investigation as an independent investigation. he wants mueller to know he retains the right to get rid of him if he cross it is line. say what you will about donald trump you know what's on his mind. he doesn't sugar coat it. it's clear. >> he approaches its like a job interview. if you knew before you took the
job you were going to recuse yourself, you should have told me before i gave you the job. >> that's right. and, you know, there is a corner of what trump says that makes a certain amount of sense. what really led sessions to recuse himself is that convoluted and false answer he gave -- >> which the president criticized him. >> -- to al frank from minnesota. he which he denied meeting any russians. which put sessions under the russia investigation, which meant he did have to recuse himself. there's no doubt that sessions made the right choice, the ethical choice in recusing himself. but that led to the mueller investigation, which is plaguing donald trump. >> he was on the campaign. he was a surrogate for donald trump. so even had that not happened, he probably still should have recused himself from this case. i think jeff sessions in that
case did the right thing and that's what he's being attacked for. >> it's also interesting that he's accusing former fbi director comey basically trying to leverage the dossier to try and keep his job. do we have any evidence to suggest this actually happened, beside the president leveling this accusation? >> no, we don't. >> because comey testified about this, explaining why he felt he should give the information to the president. that he worried that -- if my memory serves me correct, that down the road the president finds out about it and he thinks they kept it from him, that wouldn't be fair. >> that's right. and that's what i was thinking about when you were asking me that question, james comey's tom this issue and the question of why he decided to pull the president-elect aside because he wasn't yet the president, when they briefed him in trump tower and give him this information and the fact that that -- that
the president's -- then president-elect's reaction was so unbelievable that he had to run down to his car, pull out his laptop and write it in a way that he could remember and retain the contemporaneous notes but do it in a way that wasn't classified. there's no question about that. >> if memory serves me, and i might be wrong about that, but it was a decision by all the intelligence heads that comey would be the one to do this. >> right. >> i'm not sure it was comey saying i want to be the one to do it because maybe this will give me leverage. >> that's true. now at the time the intelligence heads the others were obama appointees because he wasn't president. maybe it made sense because he was the guy staying on because he had a ten-year term. comey sin insists he did it for the right reasons. he felt if this was out there he wants the president to have a heads up about it, not because he was warning the president if
he fires james comey it's going to get out there. it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, but having said that i think taip take a step back. this comey story, the jeff sessions story and more recently mueller. you have such a sense in this interview about where the president's mind is. he is obsessing about these things. some of the things that he can't change that happened before, you know, really many months ago with comey, a guy he already fired. about feeling betrayed by his current attorney general and not having control over the current special prosecutor. and what are we talking about now we're talking about russia and we're doing it because it is the president of the united states who just blew a whole tank of oxygen into the story. >> you also get the sense this is a president who believes that everybody is out to get him. and talking about mueller, look he interviewed for fbi director.
you know, i didn't give him that job now he has this and democrats working for him. rod rosenstein comes from maryland everybody knows there aren't a lot of republicans in maryland. andrew mccabe's wife gave money to the democrat policy. so it's not about mueller's qualifications or rod rosenstein's qualifications. it's about where he sees them on the spectrum and it's black and white, they're either with me or against me. >> and we should say maggie said he seemed upbeat, when we talk about obsessing and stuff, according to to maggie he seems in a good head space. >> that was the report that i got from several republicans who were in the health care meeting that he had with all republican senators. that he was jovial, that he tweaked senators like rand paul stop going after republicans on
tv, maybe i should take you golfing to get you off tv for three days. but this particular issue he seizes on it and expands it. any professional would tell you stop talking about it he can't. >> the white house efforts to down play the second meeting between the president and vladimir putin at the g20 meeting, more on that ahead. ♪ when heartburn hits fight back fast with new tums chewy bites. fast relief in every bite. crunchy outside. chewy inside. tum tum tum tum new tums chewy bites.
so, if anyone has a reason that these two should not be wed, speak now. (coughs) so sorry. oh no... it's just that your friend daryl here is supposed to be live streaming the wedding and he's not getting any service. i missed, like, the whole thing. what? and i just got an unlimited plan. it's the right plan, wrong network. you see, verizon has the largest, most reliable 4g lte network in america. it's built to work better in cities. tell you what, just use mine. thanks. no problem. all right, let's go live. say hi to everybody who wasn't invited! (vo) when it really, really matters, you need the best network and the best unlimited. plus, get the pixel, by google with no trade-in required. over the course of 9 days sthe walks 26.2 miles,. that's a marathon. because he chooses to walk whenever he can. and he does it with support from dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort to keep him feeling more energized. so he even has the energy to take the long way home. keep it up, steve! dr. scholl's. born to move.
presidential meeting with vladimir putin they made no effort to actually disclose. first we have breaking news on the three participants on the other undisclosed meeting. the one at trump tower last year billed as an attempt to get dirt on hillary clinton. we learned that donald trump jr., paul manafort, and jirk have dates to testify on capitol hill. >> they've been called before the senate judiciary committee that's been scheduled on wednesday however paul manafort's spokesperson has confirmed he's been invited. we haven't heard from donald trump jr.'s representatives. but senators expect both men to appear. >> the testimony by donald trump jr. as well as paul manafort that will be in public. >> it will be in public. if they both appear as requested it will be the first time senators will be able to drill
into them on details about the june 2016 meeting that was set up on behalf of the oligarch. the russia american lobbyist so a lot of questions that could come from the senators if don junior and paul manafort do, in fact, appear. >> they wouldn't be at the same time, i would assume one would be after the other. >> we have two different sessions they're scheduled to appear in the second session to presumably they would be one right after the other and not at the same time. >> jared kushner also testifying next week before another committee, is that public? what do we know. >> that is definite. he will be appearing on monday. it's a closed session before the snal senate intelligence committee. the questions although we won't see it play out in public. it will likely include what he knew about the meeting at trump tower and senators will probably drilled into why jared kushner has amended his security form at
least twice now. to disclose meetings with the russian ambassador, the chairman of the bank and the june 2016 meeting. so a lot of questions there, but that one while it's definite it will playout behind closed doors when jared kushner goes before the senate intelligence committee. >> thanks for that. the white house gave another one of their no cameras allowed press briefings today. they used some of it to talk about the president's previously revealed meeting with vladimir putin. it seems silly, said sarah huckabee-sanders, that we would disclose a dinner that he was already participating in. keep in mind the dinner isn't the issue, that was known. the meeting was not and the white house made it no effort to make it known. it's one in a string of previously unknown contacts big and small and people in donald trump's circle and russias. the undisclosed meeting with
jeff sessions, michael flynn, it goes on. we're focussing tonight on the latest. it's important to point out this is what presidents do, meet with foreign leaders however after wards they do not conceal the meeting while pretending there's nothing unusual about concealing it. what's also not normal is the time of the meeting. not even another interpret orwas present. >> putting the quote from sarah huckabee-sanders in context because it's a bold claim to make. >> it's a bold claim to make but in line with what the white house was doing all day. saying this was a normal meeting, something that was not a surprise. the reality is the white house only disclosed this last night, 11 days after the meeting because it had already leaked out. it was not a normal meeting. they were having a dinner but the fact that the president was there having dinner sitsing next
to the japanese prime minister. that's why the translator only spoke japanese. he was not intended to speak with the russian president that evening. they spoke earlier in the day for some two hours and 15 minutes. all eyes were on that meeting but it seems they had more to talk about. but this is what sarah huckabee-sanders said at the press briefing. >> they had a conversation, i'm not going to get into the conversation. again this was a social dinner where the president spoke with many world leaders as is the purpose. i think it would be awkward for them to all sit at a dinner and not speak to each other. i would imagine all of you would agree with that. it seems silly we would disclose a dinner that he tha we had announced to you as participating in. >> yes, we knew he was at dinner with the other world leaders at the g20 summit but it was the fact he had a separate
conversation that drew the attention of other world leaders that they were spending time together at the exclusion of other allies, but the white house would not say what they talked about during the meeting. >> president trump revealed more about what he said was in the meeting with president putin and put forth a new time line, basically saying it was much shorter. >> right he said the meeting was some 15 minutes or so to the new york times. i asked last night, a top administration official if the meeting was an hour long because that's what the people were saying that broke this story. and they said nearly an hour. the president saying 15 minutes. we know they stayed at that venn knew until midnight, long after it was scheduled. so i'm not sure the 15 minutes is accurate. we've seen story after story not necessarily the real story. the white house would not tell us today the length of the meet meting we asked sarah
huckabee-sanders about that, she would not say how long it was or what they talked about. the reason it makes a difference is because there is no u.s. record of what happened at the meeting and a translator was only by the russian government. it's highly extraordinary, unusual to have a conversation like that between adversaries without having at least a translator from your own government there to make sure things aren't mixed up, confused and that was not the case. >> appreciate the update. joining us now is ian bremer and thomas pickering. rey ian the white house released an official statement calling this a brief conversation minutes after that an unnamed senior white house official told jeff zelenys after close to an hour. you have sources inside the room, do you know how long this was? >> yeah look the reason i found out about it is because a number
of the 2: g20 allies were unnerved by the fact that trump's best meeting and best chemistry, clearly closest relationship among all these countries is with putin. it was the fact it was in front of all these people, it wasn't by himself. he's putting on display this very engaged, e ner jet ik, one hour conversation that apparently the senior white house official also confirmed to you, trump saying 15 minutes is unfortunately just not credible as we've seen on so many of these issues on the u.s. russia discussion. >> in terms of other details, where in the room was it? other people were around -- other world leaders were around watching this you said? >> yes, there were a lot of empty seats because a number of the leaders and spouses didn't actually come. so as a consequence, true doe's wife was seated by hergs with
empty seats on either side. i believe there was an empty seat near putin. so trump gets up leaves the japanese prime minister, the meal is 3 1/2 hours long. trump goes over to putin, my understanding it was at the table or right next to it and started engaging in this conversation, which now he hear is about adoption, read sanctions, and frankly, who knows what else. >> ambassador, when you hear the details, there's a big difference between a 15-minute meeting in which pleasantries can be exchanged and a discussion of nearly an hour. do you see a difference in that? do you believe there is? >> i do anderson. i think it's self-evident p. i think ian made it very clear. my sense is a conversation that long is probably half interpretation time and half statements on each side. that's still a half hour. a half hour is long time in international conversation. and talking about critical
subjects can consume a half an hour very easily. i think we're now seeing some of the results of that. i understand that the syrian rebels are no longer going to be supported by the united states. one wonders where that came from and how it fit in either to that context or perhaps other things that one way or another are part of the u.s./russian dialogue. i think it's important not to, in fact, let the message here be the problem so much as understanding that it is important for putin and trump to talk, were there allied jealousies and it was unwise to do this in front of allies, but allied je lieied je low sis asi, they've been in a deep hole. if putin and trump can dig us out in a serious way, fine. but it doesn't look like we have
the great deal maker at work here if, in fact, we're ceasing something that was in our interest and in our way of dealing with the syrian problem was to support the opposition to assad, who we would like to see gone. so those are important pieces to look at. i think we don't know, we'll perhaps find out, we perhaps won't find out if there's no u.s. record. >> it's interesting that president trump telling maggie haberman that the issues of adoption came up, obviously on the russian -- he was saying it came up, i'm not sure if he means he brought it up or putin brought it up. if putin did, adoption for russia means sanctions. >> clearly putin has been talking about the need to remove the sanctions for some time. another interesting point to the very appropriate one tom just brought up. is the russians have given the
americans an ultimatum, they want these properties back and they're not do going to engage in a deal for them. and in the last few days we hear they're close with the trump administration to get these properties back. again, is there a qid for that quo. was this discussed between trump and putin privately. the russians were the only ones with a read out of that conversation. i think all of that is problematic for the united states and russia. i think one of my big concerns is that trump gets played here. he doesn't have his national security advisor or team he doesn't have any expertise on this issue. in the same way when he was in saudi arabia, we saw the saudis and others hosting him very well and saying you're a great guy and saying the evil irans and qatar supporting them and then we have a move against qatar and
our allies and then tillerson and matson have to clean it up. to what extent is trump operating by himself going to give away the store. that's the concern here. >> i think people listening to this those people who like president trump say what's the big deal, he should talk to president putin. others who don't like president trump would have concern. have you heard about this happening before where there's not someone with the u.s. president or there was no talking points. >> i don't know if there were talking points or not. i think what is unusual is not to have one interpret tor from the u.s. side. it may have been it was unplanned and he had the japanese speaking interpret tor, and he thought had had to go and do some business. it was unwise if there were any difference in interpretations,
two russians will agree and he will be out there alone. i don't think putin wants to in a sense publically nail him to the wall in a set of verbal arguments at the time, it's not in putin's interest especially if he's doing well. it is extremely unusual to do that. i do know that in the oval office there are often meetings with heads of state in which part of the meeting is a group meeting and part of the meeting is a one-on-one with interpr interpretors if that's necessary. that's to settle carefully prepared business worked up in advance and very much part and parcel of a government clearance process in which they say mr. president we recommend you do this, i agree, or i'm going to do something else go prepare that for me. but unprepared and at this stage unverifiable. it has its dangers and one needs
to be concerned about that. >> appreciate you both being on. when we come back more breaking news, we're going to sides up the new cbo numbers on obamacare repeal. does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin.
just ask your doctor about taltz. now's your chance at completely clear skin. no, please, please, oh! ♪ (shrieks in terror) (heavy breathing and snorting) no, no. the running of the bulldogs? surprising. what's not surprising? how much money aleia saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. there are the wildcats 'til we die weekenders. the watch me let if fly. this i gotta try weekenders. then we've got the bendy... ... spendy weekenders. the tranquility awaits. hanging with our mates weekenders and the it's been quite a day... ...so glad we got away weekenders.
to our other breaking news. the cbo score of a straight obamacare repeal without a replacement plan. 32 million fewer people would be insured by 2026 and premiums would skyrocket. and it would decrease the deficit by $473 billion over a decade. this is likely a topic for a group of senators and white house staffers meeting on capitol hill. so what have you learned about tonight's meeting? >> reporter: there's certainly a broad group of senators in this
meeting, still taking place at this late hour on capitol hill. you had moderates like lisa murkowski and conservatives like ted cruz. their goal would be to find a way around this impasse that divides the moderate and conservative wings of the party to move forward with a bill that would repeal and replace obamacare at the same time. the white house is involved, as well. we saw reince priebus walk in not too long ago. even though this meeting looks good and we got a lot of happy talk today out of senators and the white house, aides are cautioning us that these fundamental problems that exist still exist and they are a long way away from cutting a deal. >> the cbo report saying that 32 million fewer people would have health care coverage, explain more about what the report says. >> reporter: well, the cbo score was devastating to the republicans on a number of levels. you talked about how it will
impact people on insurance. there was a deficit decrease in that report, but the real problem is what it says is going to happen to premium costs. that's long been the argument that repeal would lead to lower premiums. republicans would only argue this is only about the repeal portion and even if they only repeal, they have a plan to replace obamacare within two years, but some of these provisions would take place right away. so even though you heard talk about putting repeal only on the table first, that it's really the desire of almost all republicans to do repeal and replace at the same time. the problem is, they're just having such a hard time coming up with an agreement that everyone can get on board with. >> thank you very much. the white house just weighed in on the whcbo numbers saying it' flawed because it doesn't take into account the president's full plan. the president is blaming democrats for the republican's
failure to get health care reform done. >> the way i looked at it, we have no democrat help. they're obstructionists. that's all they're good at is obstruction. they have no ideas. >> democrats are saying hey, wait, we do have our own plans, including senator joe manchin. senator, the cbo score, premium also double by 2026 and 36 million americans lose their insurance, how much does that change the equation? >> from my point of view it doesn't, saying we're going to save $470 billion. that's a lot of money and we need to be as cost effective as we can. but the 32 million people that are going to lose their health care are going to be much more expensive than than. what happens to them when they go back to the way they were getting health care before? in west virginia, if you don't have health care, you go to the
emergency room. if you're working, you're going to claim worker's comp. so you're using health care at the most expensive level you can. >> that's money taxpayers are paying. >> that's exactly. i had every hospital coming to me saying hey, i gave $10 million, $15 million. people came and couldn't pay. so i know the toll it takes in states. >> over the last 48 hours, president trump talked about repeal and replace, talked about just repealing to let it fail, now back to repeal and replace. what do you make of the president's approach and for you, what is the priority? is it the insurance networks and propping them up? >> i've tried to remind the president and the white house, the president got elected with a tremendous margin in west virginia. those were mostly democrats. these were people upset with the previous administration, who thought they wanted a change and unorthodox. they didn't think they were
electing somebody partisan like it's been before. so i would say to the president, there's a lot of democrats, a lot of people that are going to be hurt. there's not one demographic group in my state that won't be affected. >> a lot of people talk about bipartisanship. i talked to governor kasich yesterday about it. do you believe that's possible? we're talking about washington, d.c., where there's a lot of politics involved and each side has a reason to not cooperate with the other. >> anderson, we have 11 former governors and united states senators right now. four republicans, six democrats and one independent. we started talking informally, nothing formal -- >> former governors in the senate? >> i'm a former governor for west virginia. we have 11 of us, former governors, we're recovering governors because it was the greatest job in the world because we could get things done. but we are used to in our work confinement as a governor of our state, bringing contentious
legislators together, finding a purpose of moving forward, understanding the challenges every state has. we understand that. we think that we can add some clarity to this, and also some bipartisanship. that's what we're working on. so i've said if the governors can't do it, nobody can. >> chuck schumer yesterday said that democrats are open to working with republicans, the door is open. he did seem to put self-preconditions on that cooperation. should there be preconditions on getting democrats to sit at the table? >> the only precondition we need is we're not going to repeal it, and the other precondition we need is we're going to go through a regular order. we're going to sit down and dissect the bill. nibble who has an idea, an amendment that comes before it goes through this process. that's the way legislatures work. that's the way the united states senate should work. we haven't done that for quite some time. that's the only preconditions you should have. anybody else that has an idea should be discussed. >> can republicans who have
campaigned for years on repeal and replace, can they go back to voters in 2018 or 2020 with a plan that hasn't done either, which has still kept obamacare in place and to your point, tries to make it better and more efficient? >> anderson, i can't speak for anybody else. i can only tell you how i approach a process. if i said something and this is what my conditions were six or seven years ago, the facts have changed. the dynamics have changed. i said this, if you can't change your mind, you can't change anything. maybe repealing seven years ago is what they believed and wanted to do. now that they see an intricate in every framework of our economy and how we're delivering health care, and you have every group that's going to be harmed, from aarp to every hospital group, american medical society, everybody, don't you think maybe you better relock at the facts and say listen, things have changed. >> senator, thank you for your time. we are at the top