tv At This Hour With Kate Bolduan CNN June 26, 2017 8:00am-9:01am PDT
hello, everyone. i'm kate bolduan. we are following breaking news at this hour. the u.s. supreme court agreed to take up president trump's travel ban in the next term, starting in october. in the meantime, part of the ban, according to the courts and what it said today, will be able to go into effect partially lifting the stay on the president's executive order, a huge final day of the highest court in the land and a lot to figure out at this hour. what does it all mean, politically, what does it mean? what does it mean for the
country. >> outside the supreme court, cnn correspondent, jessica schneider. break this down for us. what did the justices tell us with regard to the president's travel ban? >> reporter: somewhat of a surprising decision. a decision 6-3. it can go into effect. they will hear arguments the next term. it's a partial win for the people who brought this case and a partial win for the trump administration. the supreme court saying foreign nationals may be banned into the country, however, if a foreign national has what they call a bona fide relationship with with a person in the united states, they must be allowed in the
country. spofkly referring to the challengers in the case, including one man in hawaii, who wanted to bring his mother-in-law. she did get a visa over the weekend so that's a moot point. those coming to work and go to school, will be allowed into the country. what's interesting about this, kate, is the three centers, justice thomas wrote the dissent. gorsuch joined saying the travel ban should be allowed to go into effect in whole, not just this partial remedy the supreme court remedied. i'll read briefly, saying this ruling by the supreme court will cause confusion. justice thomas saying the compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding on peril of contempt of court, whether individuals have a significant connection. they split the ruling, but the
question remains how do you establish a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the united states. will this cause, perhaps, more confusion at the borders and more of a headache, perhaps, for immigration officials? kate? >> a lot in there and they haven't heard the case and so many questions. thank you very much. laura, you want to bring you in on this. an important part is the road to the high court and how we got here. that is something you have been covering extensively. how did we get to the white house and where we are today? >> that's right. kate, the president signed the first executive order seven days after he took office. there was a period of chaos where no one -- had a temporary status. there was all sorts of confusion. they went back to the drawing board. the trump administration tried
to clarify. two court of appeals said, nope, that's not enough. we are putting the travel ban on hold. they kept it on hold for all intents and purposes since earlier this year in may. it's interesting, you know, the courts said there were constitutional problems with it and they were looking back to trump's campaign statements saying that shows some sort of impermissible, discriminatory intent. they are looking at what is your close, familial relationship? if you have one, you can come in. if you don't, the ban is in place and you can't come in. the key question is what's going to happen with the implementation. the justice department will be reviewing it closely. the president did sign an amended executive order saying in 72 hours, once the supreme court's decision comes down, if
it lifts any part of those previous decisions, it's supposed to go into effect. it's supposed to happen in 72 hours. we reached out to see what the game plan is and how they plan to avoid the chaos. kate? >> thank you so much. a lot to get through. laura set us up perfectly. let's bring in cnn's legal analyst, jeffrey toobin. of course we are awaiting reaction from the white house. as soon as we get that, we will bring it to you, be it a tweet, a statement or otherwise. don't laugh. it's real. >> that is how it works. >> you tell me things via tweet as well. there were several options of how they could move forward, the justices. they could completely lift the stay, not take up the case at all. how they did it today, what does it mean? >> well, i think it's basically a good sign for the trump
administration. i think, certainly, there are three votes, justice gorsuch, justice thomas and justice aledo who feel the ban is slightly unconstitutional. they didn't think the stay should remain in place at all. the question is, can the trump administration get two more votes? and the other big knews, anthony kennedy did not announce his retirement. that means he is likely to be on the court in october when this is argued. chief justice roberts, those five appointees looked like the most likely votes for the trump administration. i think, on balance, this news is good for the trump administration. but, it is by no means clear they are going to win and we will know in october. we'll hear the argument. >> exactly right, jeffrey. one of the concerns, obviously, is the whole issue of bona fide
relationships. that's what folks are raising and what it means. as you read this today and how that, i keep tripping on it, but the stay lifted, the ban is partially going into effect. do you think it will be a real headache or easily worked out? >> i think it's going to be an extreme headache. think about people at the airport and people at the border will have to implement the supreme order. somebody is going to have to make a determination. it's a factual determination, case by case. does the person trying to enter the united states have the contacts, whether it's an individual with family members in the united states or an individual trying to get work who had some relationship established, either a job offer, contract, something like that. who is going to make the decision? if we leave it to the folks on the front line, it is going to
cause more litigation. i think the centers are right about this. what the supreme court did is not going to clear up confusion. i agree with jeffrey. what they have done today is there are enough votes on the court to uphold the president's travel ban. had they believed@constitutional argument, i don't think you would see the order we saw today. >> i don't think administratively, this is as difficult as all that. certainly, there will be difficult cases, but it is not that difficult to identify who is an immediate family member of someone inside the united states. it's not that difficult to identify someone who has a job offer in hand or a letter of admission to a university. certainly, there will be difficult cases, but it seems to me the supreme court drew a sensible line when it said, if you have a legitimate reason for being here, the travel ban, at least for the next three months
doesn't apply to you. that seems to me common sense and yes, doesn't answer every question, but -- >> let me add this into it. this is one of the quotes coming from the dissent as we are discussing and where they raised this question of concern. here it is. today's compromise will burden officials with the task of deciding on effect on those who wish to intenter the united states have a connection to a person or entity in this country. that is coming from justice tom aledo and gorsuch's page. >> i understand the analysis could be simple. don't think it's not going to cause litigation. if someone gets turned away and they have a colorful claim to e relationship, they are going to file a lawsuit. i can imagine most of these lawsuits at almost every border point in the country. maybe my cousin is here and i
want to see them, is it mother, father, child? where do you draw the line? will different justices draw the line differently. that relationship, but denied in another district. i think it is going to cause a lot of confusion. >> what this started as and the question today is the scope of presidential power. we are no closer to getting to that ansz quite yet. of course, they have to hear the case. >> we are closer. i mean, i think the supreme court, you noted that, you know, this was a very long order for simply a scheduling order, 16 pages and it did not include any citations to president trump's campaign rhetoric or his -- >> which you heard over and over again. >> i think the supreme court is going to be much more reluctant to get into that than the lower courts will. that's why i have always thought the trump administration has a better chance of winning in the
supreme court than in the lower courts. the business of evaluating presidential executive orders based on campaign statements by a nonpresidential, nonpresident candidate for office, i'm certainly unaware if the supreme court has ever done that before. i would be very -- i would be very confident the trump administration will be saying to the court, this is about the executive order itself. it's not about the campaign. it's not about anything outside the record in this case. it is simply about the executive order and certainly, at least three justices, gorsuch, thomas and alito think that's now have uphold it. >> tell me, do we have gloria with us now? thanks for joining on. give us your reaction to this news this morning. >> i think a lot of liberal people who were supportive of immigration rights are
disappointed because they thought there would be a full out assault against the trump ban of muslims based on what he said it is. we also, as jeffrey pointed out have three justices who stayed the decision completely, not a partial stay of certain aspects of it. it's going to be a battle in the fall that will be much more heated and controversial than what people had in mind. >> paige, one of the things i'm wondering now, with this move now that says if you have that bona fide relationship, then you can come into the united states and outside of that, the ban is in place. everything that was argued in the lower court, is that the argument that the administration, the government was making? this relationship was going to help divide it? >> there was no recognition that
any relationship would have been significant for purposes of getting into the country. there were suggestions as they started to roll out the first travel ban. people with green cards and legal permanent residents. the second ban was to clarify the administration is going to try to adopt a case by case determination. perhaps the second travel ban was drafted with an eye toward the supreme court thinking by the time the case gets there, we'll have a ban we can at least make exceptions for certain people, maybe it's constitutional. what's what i see as most concerning about this order today, is the way jeffrey mentioned this, the justices did not talk about trump's comments or the effect of the travel ban its on one particular religious group. the arguments against the ban are in serious jeopardy. >> jeffrey, do you have something to say? >> i think it's true. the other complexity of this situation is the travel ban, on
its own terms, was set to expire after 90 days. >> for the six countries. right. >> the 90 days, depending on how you count, which is also unclear, will expire before this case is argued. there's a possibility the whole thing may be moved by october or there might be a replacement executi executive order in by then. >> the calendar is an interesting point. another part of the travel ban was for syrian refugees, a hold of 120 days, not indefinite. the calendar gets complicated here. >> it's always been complicated in this case. if the justices, as is sometimes the case, are looking for a way to duck hard issues, they could say the travel ban is expired, we have nothing to decide. next case. i somehow think it's not how it will be resolved, but it is a
possibility. >> never put anything past, as we learned over time. >> i try not to make decisions for the future. >> will justice kennedy retire? >> the fact he didn't retire today probably means he's not retiring. although sandra day o'connor retired two days before the last term. >> not sticking his neck out. great to see you all, thank you very much for helping with the breaking news. let's get to the white house. joe johns is standing by there. joe, of course everyone is waiting to hear what the reaction from the white house is, specifically what the reaction from the president will be. any word yet? >> reporter: no word yet. still waiting on that. we have a nugget from cnn's laura. she reports president trump signed a memorandum earlier this month that states administration officials essentially will begin implementation of the parts of
the order the supreme court allowed to go into effect 72 hours after the court decision. it's clear that things are going to move quickly, at least as to those parts of the order that are allowed to go forward while the supreme court waits to hear the broader case in the fall. back to you. >> of course, you are all asking for reaction from the president. when are the opportunities to see the president today, unless he takes to twitter beforehand? >> reporter: there is opportunity to see the president later in the day, somewhere around 3:30. he will be having a meeting with the prime minister of india here. we expect a news conference or some type of appearance in front of the camera. at that time, a real good opportunity to try to find out what the president is thinking. he is also said, to be quite frank, he will eventually be
vindicated on the travel ban, only upset that the first travel ban didn't get submitted to the court, which we call watered down. >> we'll get back to you when we hear from the president. we'll continue to follow that. also, ahead, a protrump versus the superpac is going to put big money into the health care fight. the first target could be a republican senator in a tough re-election battle. what's going on here? s president trump says the story of the russian hack is problesit obama not doing enough and some democrats seem to agree with him, at least in part. we'll be right back. so when i need to book a hotel, i want someone who makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. c'mon, gary! your summer vacation is very important. that's why booking.com
parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized
medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long. the only bed smart enough to change sleep as we know it. it senses your every move and automatically adjusts on both sides to keep you comfortable. and snoring ? ... does your bed do that? right now save on sleep number 360 smart beds.
plus, it's the lowest prices of the season with savings of $500 on our most popular p5 bed. megan's smile is getting a lot because she uses act® mouthwash. act® strengthens enamel, protects teeth from harmful acids, and helps prevent cavities. go beyond brushing with act®. it is monday, which must mean it's another battle of republican versus republican and republicans up against the deadline, and, once again, it's all about your health care. front and center on capitol hill, republican leaders are scrambling to get enough votes to pass the health care bill before they leave for the long fourth of july recess. the problem, it has been from the beginning. at least five republicans are a no on the gop plan, at least
right now. several others are voicing concern about policy and the process. one key factor that everyone is waiting for, the cost and impact of the bill. from the nonpartisan congressional office could come as early as today. phil mattingly is following it. where do things stand right now? >> reporter: very fluid. there's a lot of staff scheduling and changes that could be made. senators said they are no on the current draft, trying to figure out pathways, what could be given to a conservative senator that wouldn't cause more moderate to fall out. there's policy revisions they know each senator is worried about. while the meetings have been going on behind the scenes, they have been happening with regularity. mitch mcconnell is familiar with
what they need to get a yes. the question is, how do you thread the needle to give them what they want. another key come boponent is tho score. he dropped a bomb, not because he's concerned about the policy side of it and the medicaid expansion but the other areas he listed as having, at least in his view, being problematic. the cbo score is important. if he feels millions are going to lose insurance, that is problematic for him. same with susan collins the senator from maine. the cbo score will show the changes like medicaid expansion. millions will have less insurance than they do now. there will be a budgetary impact. that's the key. they have to show it is safe. at least $133 billion, which would match up with the house to move forward. if it shows more than that,
kate, it's more money for senate leaders to work with to get the moderates on board who are concerned about cuts. along with him saying that, they want to do that this week. there are a lot of important components here. in terms of a concrete path forward, it's not there yet. the biggest thing to pay attention to is this is a dispute that is big. you have conserve tiffs that believe it will play a specific role in society and the marketplace drawing that role. you have moderates to believe government and government programs will have an influence. how they bridge the divide will determine if they do. >> we'll see. it's just as easy as that. thank you, phil, great to see you. joining me now to discuss, democratic senator, ed marky of massachusetts. thank you for coming on, i appreciate it. >> good morning, kate. >> i want to get to health care in a second. because of the breaking news at
the top of the hour, you sit on foreign relations. i want to get your reaction to the supreme court announcing they agreed to take up the case of the president's travel ban. in the meantime, before they hear arguments in october, they will allow parts of the travel ban to go into effect. your reaction? >> the supreme court made it clear they overreached with regard to students coming to the country and business people with connections to our country. other family members who had connections to our country. they cannot come. so, that was an overreach by trump. i'm disappointed that the court just didn't rule that a muslim ban in and of itself is unconstitutional. it goes right to the heart of the statue of liberty staring at the trump tower in new york city every day in terms of what it stands for. but, this decision with regard to the overreach for businesses,
for family members, students coming into the country, that's good, but it still doesn't deal with this fundamental flaw that it is a muslim ban. it says all refugees, if you are a muslim, you cannot come to the united states of america, regardless of the reason why you are turning into a refugee. most of it, because of the civil war in countries that are driving them out. they don't want to, they are leaving because their families would otherwise die. >> no mention of muslim in the executive order, but the supreme court will have the final say on that. we will see where it goes in october. the other issue facing you at the moment, the issue of health care an the republican plan. an issue for democrats and republicans, very publicly now, are cuts in the medicaid
program. according to the white house, these are not cuts at all. listen to kellyanne conway over the weekend. >> they are not cuts to medicaid. it slows the rate for the future and allows governors more flex kt with medicaid dollars. if you are currently in medicaid and became a medicaid recipient, you are grandfathered in. we are talking about in the future. >> conway says they are reforming, not cutting the program. what do you say? >> well, what do i say? well, what i say is they are going to cut $800 billion. those are their numbers, not my numbers. those are the numbers in their bill. $800 billion cut. just to take it and put an exclamation point on it, 33 billion of that money goes to the 400 wealthiest billionaires in america as a tax cut coming out of alzheimers patients, old
people, people who need opioids. >> are you saying the white house is lying that kellyanne conway is lying when she says that? >> i'm saying, as usual, the republicans are able to harness ill luminous amounts of information. the single, phony premise, this is not a cut. four people who need opioid treatment in our country. it will be a devastating cut for those people. that's why the republicans are now feeling pressure in their home state all across the country. this is something that goes fundamentally to the well being of every family in the country. the pressure is only going to build as each day goes by. >> let's talk about the issue of opioid addiction. it's a huge problem in massachusetts.
you speak out about it all the time. here is the position from kellyanne conway, representing the white house. listen to this. >> pouring money into the problem is not the only answer. twof get serious about in facility treatment and recovery. >> that takes money, kellyanne. >> it takes money and a four-letter word called will. it takes focus that it includes money and includes understanding the difference between just intradiction and prevention and recovering treatment. >> do you agree with kellyanne? is sheer will to tackle the problem what is missing here, not money? >> listen, a vision without funding is a hallucination. in the obamacare program, over the next ten years, $90 billion would be spent on opioid addiction treatment in our country. under this bill the republicans are going to pass, it could be cut in half and, in fact, on friday, they decided to add 2
billion more. 2 billion more when obamacare has 90 billion for families that need treatment, families that need help and an ability to take their loved ones who otherwise might die, might have a further relapse than just passing away, they are going to need nurses. they are going to need doctors. they are going to need treatments. that takes money. will alone, will not accomplish that goal without the funding we are going to see. tens of thousands of additional people unnecessarily die in our country from opioid overdose. that is immoral and plain wrong. i am going to go every day to make sure it does not happen. >> we know there are republicans like rob portman and susan collins. it's not just a democratic
issue. let's see where this heads. senator markey, thank you for your time, appreciate it. >> you're welcome, thank you. we continue to invite republican senators and lawmakers on all the time. we hope they can join us as their schedule allows. republican sides matter in this health care debate. coming up, president trump is launching a new attack againls his predecessor, accusing president obama of obstructing or colluding or both, in his words, to help hillary clinton during the election. details on that, ahead. just let obamacare crash and burn. president trump tweeting that moments ago. republican leaders in the senate work around the clock to get enough votes for their version of an obamacare overhaul. what's going on? what's the latest? back. we'll be right back. flz .
the white house, the president repeatedly said washington's focus is too much on russia. what is the president focused on today? russia. this morning, here is one of his several russia related statements on twitter. the real story that president obama did nothing after being informed in august about russian meddling after looking at them under a magnifying glass. there is no collusion and no obstruction. i should be given apology. democrats probably don't agree that president trump deserves an apology. some agree the obama administration was too slow to react. >> the american people needed to know. i didn't think it was enough to tell them after the election,
but, rather, given the seriousness of this, the administration needed to call out russia earlier, act to deter and punish russia earlier. i think that was a serious mistake. >> joining me now, michael allen who works in the bush white house and jaime who works at the state department and the clinton white house. jaime, first you. did the obama administration move too slow? >> yes. the administration did a lot of good things, but on this, it took too long to recognize the magnitude of the challenge. most people from the obama administration wish they would have done more. >> in defense of the obama administration, jay johnson has been out, michael. one of the things he said, basically, this is his defense on the decision making process. we were going to be seen as taking sides in the middle of an election. you have one candidate already saying that the election was rigged against them, rigged
against him, that being president trump. was it is damned if you do, damned if you don't? >> maybe. i have great respect for jay johnson. this should have been seen strictly through national security limbs. i'm afraid it was a pattern of the obama administration, paralysis by analysis. this is and was so serious, they had to have seen it that way and approached russia strongly. they chill to the response of this great threat. so, you know, at the end of the day, i think they should have acted and should have acted a lot stronger than they did. >> michael, let me ask you. if you look tat the bigger picture here, you had a candidate trump, then protect trump and now president trump. who was behind the hack or
downplaying how serious the meddling was or down playing if russia was behind it or to blame. now you see, especially today coming out against president obama and not acting enough and implies this is a serious situation. can they both be true? don't pay attention to it, but obama didn't do enough about it? >> yeah, look, i don't think it's totally consistent with where the president's been. i recall he got a briefing sometime before he was inaugurated where he went close to admitting the russians had certainly been involved in the election. look, it's true, i'll take it, better late than never. this is a serious issue that russia needs to be retaliated with. one thing for you, kate, russia sanctions are coming through the congress. >> yeah. >> it's going to be a political catastrophe, i think, if
president trump tries to threaten a veto or veto those sanctions when they come to his desk. >> i think there are republicans in the senate who are ready to face him down on that, if it comes to that. we will see, you are right, michael. >> about the question of the tapes, the president has a different take in his tweet. it's come up again. it's not been put to bed, if you will, jaime, because of what the white house is saying about the tape. the president didn't have a tape. then the white house is still leaving open the possibility. kellyanne conway did it this weekend saying he is leaving open the possibility this could have happened, someone else has tapes. the question kellyanne conway was asked and didn't answer is couldn't the president find out himself if someone had been taping? >> obviously. we are asking the same questions about a very, almost insane situation. "the new york times," on sunday, had a long list of the lies of this administration.
nothing like this has ever been seen in the history of american presidential politics. so, there's such a fast skeam played with the truth. on this issue, last week, the russia investigation was a hoax, now it's real and president obama didn't do enough. the question is, president trump is the president of the united states. if the united states was attacked, what is he doing about it? >> real quick, you came from different administrations but both worked on this issue. is it conceivable or possible the intelligence committee is taping a conversation without the president knowing it? >> absolutely not. the idea there would be political spying going on in the united states. it's a myth that's been prop kated by edward snowden type. i can't see this coming from any responsible national security
person. >> great to have you here. i appreciate it, trying to cut through it. thank you, gentleman. programming note for you, tomorrow night, a special cnn report. we go inside the russian hacking investigation, called the russian connection, inside the attack on the democracy. that's tomorrow night at 10:00 eastern. thanks for the ride around norfolk! and i just wanted to say, geico is proud to have served the military for over 75 years! roger that. captain's waiting to give you a tour of the wisconsin now. could've parked a little bit closer... it's gonna be dark by the time i get there. geico®. proudly serving the military for over 75 years.
so when i need to book a hotel to me tharoom,vacation. i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it, with great summer deals up to 40% off. visit booking.com. booking.yeah! 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.
breaking news. the u.s. supreme court agreed to take up president trump's travel ban in the next term, which, of course, starts in october. in the meantime, part of the president president's travel ban will be going into effect, partially lifting the stay. a huge day. let me go outside the supreme court now where jessica schneider is standing by.
we talked about everything the travel ban means, but they got other big rulings. >> reporter: that's right. when it came to the travel ban, we are already looking toward next term when the supreme court said they will take up one important opinion. the cake case out of colorado. they agreed to hear it two days after they granted same-sex marriage as a right. a cake owner declined to make a cake for a same-sex couple when they came in and asked him to bake one for their wedding reception. the cake shop owner saying it violated his religious. the supreme court will, in fact, take up this case in the fall and decide whether or not individual business owners have this religious liberty to say, no, i don't want to provide
services for same-sex couples because it violates my religious beliefs. note, kate, as we approach the end of the term, this is the final day the supreme court issued decisions, we are on retirement watch. justice anthony kennedy, it's speculated he could potentially retire. we haven't heard anything to that effect, yet. it is the last day of the term. it is possible he could announce his retirement as we move forward. sandra day o'connor announced hers back in 2005. justice kennedy knows there's a speculation about his retirement. he had former clerks together saturday. justice kennedy got up and said, hi, i hear there's speculation swirling. perhaps an announcement. i do have an announcement. he inserted a dramatic pause, the bar will be open after dinner. justice kennedy getting into the joke on this. a lot of eyes are on him to see
if he will approach the end of this week or summer. kate? >> retirement watch continues despite the jokes. great to see you, jessica, thank you so much. joining me to discuss this as well as other things on capitol hill, health care. jason is here as a cnn contributor and former democratic secretary of state. alex is a former director for marco rubio's campaign. great to see you all. thank you so much for being here. congresswoman, your reaction to the travel ban. well, your reaction to the supreme court, agreeing to take out the travel ban, saying partially, it's going into effect anytime. >> i think they made a sensible decision. if you look at the list of countries across the world that are muslim majority, the fraction represented by the
travel ban clearly indicates the small size of that indicates this is not a muslim ban, this is a ban, temporary, on travel from nations that are known to sponsor terrorism. i think the supreme court made the right choice. >> jason, i know you have >> your reactions with this move? >> my question here, this was started supposedly because the president said i believe his words were, we need time to figure what the heck is going on. they put in this 90-day thing. it doesn't appear they -- they claim changes need to be made. they've had all this time, don't seem to be working on that. second, it's un-american to begin with. you referenced this, i've been speaking out a lot about, the concept of a muslim ban is just the president of the united states basically playing into the hands of isis recruiters. all this rhetoric around it,
everything that needs done is just a dream come true for them, because it helps them make, you know, an argument that is wrong, but that he's helping them make about the idea that america is in some sort of war with islam. it's very -- it's a big problem for our national security to play into their hands that way. >> i'm interested to hear how the president reacts to this whenever we get reaction from him. again, as you see, the politics at play did not go away and won't while the supreme court gets ready to take up and rule in the fall. how about health care? look into your crystal ball. where is this headed this week? >> reportedly, mitch mcconnell will release an updated version of the health care bill as soon as today. it's clear what he released last thursday wasn't going to pass the senate. you had multiple republicans, moderates and conservatives, can only afford to lose two. has a lot to do over the weekend.
i still haven't heard anybody coming out making an affirmative case for why this legislation is better than what the house passed. outside groups aren't supporting them and i think he needs to, once he puts it out, an updated version later today, hopefully the cbo report helps him build momentum and start getting endorsements and that gets you closer to passing it by the end of the week. if it doesn't pass this week it becomes tougher to pass later this month. >> maybe take that on. one thing remained on my mind. can't play one dimensional chess. what he's known for. when it comes to the deadline, what is in the deadline? say friday comes and goes. yes, senators go home. members of congress go home and get yelled at, but what's the deadline. >> that republican senators are well aware the left is energized on this, more than the right.
obamacare appeal and opposing the law extremely effective for republicans when the law was passed and now it's swung in the other direction. why senator mcconnell wants to move quickly and get this done. one reason you get to the fourth of july recess and beyond, a lot of activism against it. a big part of the reason and republicans want to move on to other things such as tax reform. you have to get this off the plate before you do things like that. a huge fight probably the biggest week and probably the biggest roll call vote of mitch mcconnell's ten-year career at republican leader. squeezed on many ends. conservatives want more flexibility, opt outs and deregulation. two moderates, murkowski and collins, don't like the fact it defunds planned parenthood. dead on arrival in the house and senators like rob portman and others with opioid dilemma in theirs states and what that addressed in the bill. procedural, political hurdles.
a big, big fight for miami mcconnell. >> and congressman, the president confirmed on health care that he actually did use the word "mean." that he did call the house bill mean. i want to play this for viewers. the president on fox news. >> actually used my term, mean. that was my term, because i want to see -- i want to see, and i speak from the heart. that's what i want to see. a want to see a bill with heart. health care's is very complicated subject from the standpoint that you move it this way, and this group doesn't like it. you move it a little over here -- you have a very narrow path. and honestly, nobody can be totally happy. >> right. no one can be totally happy. maybe that's the case, but how does this help the president politically at all to call the house bill, mean that he held an entire pep rally about it in the rose garden? >> kate, what the president is emphasizing there, rightly so, that, yes, we do have to have a
heart. we have to have a heart for all the people rendered more dependent by the affordable care act and they have been. all the folks now on medicaid who need to be cared for with all the resources we can bring to bear as a great society and also a heart for the folks who deserve to go back to work and obamacare mandates have made them almost impossible. >> calmed that impossible? >> plenty in the house bill the president supports and did support and will continue to support. i think he wanted to see certain modifications made in the senate bill, but here's what's senator mcconnell, i think, is going to do. three-level chess. if they can't get it done procedurally because it's a reconciliation bill, the american public shouldn't have to worry about, going back to parliamentary procedures in the senate to pass a broader bill with more provisions that will make a more fiscally conservative senators happy, because of more economic growth opportunity, more mandate relief, but also still be able
to take care of the folks who need it. >> and getting from mitch mcconnell, more time and discussion on this is not going to help us. i think that is what we getting. unfortunately, i want to get alison in on this. much more on this, ahead. at whole foods market, we believe in food that's naturally beautiful, fresh and nutritious. so there are no artificial colors, no artificial flavors, no artificial preservatives in any of the food we sell. we believe in real food. whole foods market. (vfirst ingredient?g food's corn? wheat? in new purina one true instinct grain free with beef, real beef is number one. no corn, wheat or soy. support your dog's whole body health with purina one.
the only bed smart enough to change sleep as we know it. it senses your every move and automatically adjusts on both sides to keep you comfortable. and snoring ? ... does your bed do that? right now save on sleep number 360 smart beds. plus, it's the lowest prices of the season with savings of $500 on our most popular p5 bed. parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free
decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long. pain is sometimes in my hands, be a distraction. right before a performance especially. only aleve has the strength to stop minor arthritis pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. this is my pain. but i am stronger. aleve. all day strong.
thanks, kate. welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thanks for sharing your day with us. senate republicans short votes for their plan and the white house is helping rebut critics saying it will punish the poor and the elderly. >> the plan we have would put in place not allow people to fall through the cracks, not pull out the rug in anyb