tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN July 26, 2018 5:00am-6:01am PDT
it is thursday, july 26th. it is 8:00 in the east. the white house has apparently now caved to the mounting criticism and postponed that second meeting with vladimir putin. the president, as you know, had invited the russian leader to washington. he said, come over here in november, despite the blistering criticism he'd been taking for accepting vladimir putin's word over that of his own intelligence agencies. it is note that belieable that putin never officially responded to the invitation to come over. now national security adviser john bolton claims that the president has decided to wait until the russia witch hunt is over, his words. meanwhile, secretary of state mike pompeo clashed with senators on capitol hill yesterday. they wanted to know exactly what president trump agreed to behind closed doors, virtually alone, with vladimir putin. but the secretary of state refused to spell much out about that. >> here to help us break this all down, director, president, and ceo of the woodrow wilson center, jane harman, and cnn
political director, david chalian. i just want to play, the central question, i think the world has, is what was agreed to behind closed doors by president trump and vladimir putin. these questions have existed now since last monday when they stood side by side and the president raised so many questions about why he believes russia as much as he believes his own intelligence agencies. and senators pressed the secretary yesterday. they wanted to know what was discussed. let's just play a little bit of that again, so people can hear the exchange. >> has the president told you what he and president putin discussed in their two-hour, closed-door meeting in helsinki? >> the presidents have a prerogative to choose who's in meetings or not. i'm confident you've had private one-on-one meetings in your life, as well, and chosen that setting -- >> i asked you a question. did he tell you whether or not what happened in these two hours. >> the predicate of your question implied there was something improper about having a one-on-one meeting.
i completely disagree. >> i didn't ask you a predicate. i asked you a question. did he tell you what transpired in the two-hour meeting. >> i have had a number of conversations with president trump about what transpired in the meeting. >> so jane harman, i think in many respects, you think the secretary has done a good job since he's taken over here. how do you assess his performance yesterday? >> well, i think both sides did a good job. bob menendez had the testiest questions, but they both came ready to play and the questions were illuminating. that's not always typical of a congressional hearing. and i learned a lot from watching parts of the three hours, about a lot of subjects. s so i assess pompeo's performance as very good. he has a tough hand. on that private meeting between trump and putin, somebody knows what happened in there. most of our intelligence folks guess that the russians were able, somehow, to record the session and i think we probably
were able to get readouts of the session through means that we have. therefore, people know what happened. i think it was a dumb idea to have a private session at that time. i think it's a smart idea to postpone putin's second visit. >> but jane, just to follow up on that, did you get the impression that pompeo knows, really, what happened in there? because he seemed to be doing a bit of a defensive dance there. >> well, i think he played the hand that he has. and he said the president calls the plays and so on and so forth. and if he has the information, he doesn't want to share it in public with a committee. he also doesn't want to share his private negotiations with the north koreans in public with that committee. but the point here is, i don't know what he knows. i don't think he's going to share that. i think he was put on defense because there was the private meeting. if, instead, there had been a proper meeting with the proper process, with key people in the room, which followed the private meeting, i don't think we would be having this difficulty and these suspicions about what
trump and putin talked about. >> you also heard the secretary, david chalian, say something that we have heard before. but now to hear it from an official so high up, it's notable. which is, the secretary of state basically said, don't pay as much attention to what the president of the united states says. pay attention to what the government has done. and he laid out what he thought were compelling cases of how the united states has been tough on russia. you can argue whether or not it's as tough as he says it is. but he basically said, no words, actions here. it was interesting to hear that. >> it was. although he then walked it back a little bit when pressed, that the president's words are indeed u.s. policy. but there's no doubt that pointing to the actions and not the words or the twitter feed of the president has been a refrain from many officials inside this administration. i agree with jane that secretary pompeo defended himself okay,
acquitted himself okay in that hearing. i also think he gave the kind of combative performance that his boss loves to see his folks give. so giving as good as he gets, i think, is important for president trump to see, as well. and i think secretary pompeo is keenly aware of that. >> jane, let's talk about the invitation from president trump to vladimir putin to the white house. which was head scratching after the helsinki summit that had gob so poorly, according to political watchers, that suddenly president trump seemed to be doubling down and civil right vladimir putin to the white house. and nobody knew what that was going to be about. well, the reporting is that vladimir putin never responded to that and now the white house is saying, well, we're going to put it off. we've decided for political reasons, we're going to put it off. but mostly for political reasons, what i want you to address is john bolton's about-face. so the national security adviser wrote something exactly a year ago about how he saw the russian interference, their cyber warfare on the u.s., and then we'll contrast it with what he said yesterday. here is a year ago, okay?
this is what john bolton wrote in an op-ed before he was part of the administration. "attempts to undermine america's constitution is far more than just a quotidian covert operation. it is, in fact, a true act of war and one washington will never tolerate." yesterday, here is what that same man, now that he is part of the administration, wrote. "the president believes that the next bilateral meeting with president putin should take place after the russia witch hunt is over. so we've agreed it will be after the first of the year." how do you explain that, jane? >> well, oh, easily. just the way i explain everything else that's been happening. i actually can explain it. first of all, now there is no question. it is a slam dunk that there was russian influence operations in our 2016 election, possibly our 2014 election, and they're ongoing now. and bolton didn't contradict himself on that. what he did say, however, was the president's view that the mueller investigation is a witch
hunt. so conflating the two, that means we need the witch hunt ov over, so that we can then have the proper meeting. >> if if you believe it's an act of warfare, like you said, why wouldn't you want that act of warfare to be investigated? >> well, yes, but why are you asking such a rational question? >> i don't know. i don't know. when will i learn? >> let me just say one more things. politics is complicated and it's not is a rational process. and right now, the polls are dropping for trump and the republicans are panicking. and the pressure on him is one way. get putin offstage. we don't want to talk about this before our elections, because it makes us look terrible and we could lose. and they had no choice. also, i wonder if putin pulled out. have you thought about that? i mean, we don't have the information, but putin might not have wanted to be the spectacle here. >> it is certainly a rare moment of the president backtracking, right? we saw it a little bit with theresa may when he was over there. that was a rare moment. and this is another rare moment of him trying to come out boldly
with something and announce something quickly and try to own a news cycle on something. and then he is reversing course. that hasn't been a character trait overall of the trump presidency. >> let me give you -- i don't want to interrupt you. go ahead, jo -- jane. i was in aspen last week when this was the surprise, the breaking news. and andrea mitchell was interviewing dan coats, and he handled it very gracefully, i thought, because he was blindsided. but i think we're ending up in a better place. there is a lack of focus in this administration, but there are some good people in this administration. >> and i think there are people who can read polls. we have seen the reaction to much of these dramatic reactions and it hasn't been good. and yesterday, david chalian, i thought of you at 5:00 p.m. when the nbc news/marist numbers came out from michigan, minnesota, and wisconsin here. these are fascinating. the president won michigan and minnesota, but look at his approval rating now --
>> he won michigan and wisconsin, came close in minnesota. >> right, look at the numbers there. 36, 38, 36% approval rating. that is really low. and there are some other numbers here, if you talk about 2020, whether or not the president deserves re-election, more than 60% in each of these states wants to give a new person a chance. and on the mueller investigation, in all of these states, they all think it's a fair investigation by pretty substantial margins and not a witch hunt, which pertains to this discussion we were just talking about russia here. these are tough numbers for the president, and it comes right after this big week with russia. >> there are tough numbers. you may recall in 2016, we talked a lot about that blue wall. and donald trump talks a lot about how he shattered it. we, it seems the building blocks of it are coming back in the moment in some way. these are bluish, purplish states. if you look at his overall national approval rating hovering in the low to mid-40s, then it's not terribly surprising to see that in these more bluish states, that he's a
bit lower than that. but i agree with you, the numbers on the mueller investigation there, no matter how successful he may be with rallying republicans and his base to his side on this, in the critical states, the building blocks he will need to get re-elected, he's got a ton of work to do. even though in all of those polls, a plurality in each of them give him credit on the economy and say that the economy is good and it is due to him. >> david, just one more thing p. correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems like the russia investigation, which has been going on for more than a year, never has gotten as much traction with voters in polls until helsinki. something about helsinki is what these polls are responding to. >> there's no doubt that what we're seeing right now is a response to helsinki and these polls that have been taken in the last week. i don't know yet, alisyn, how much people are connecting the two. you are right, throughout the entire russia investigation, it really has been every poll sort of, where you stand politically is how you see it.
if helsinki actually changed that permanently, we have to wait for a little bit of time, i think. >> and i will say, after 2016, michigan polls, we'll have to be careful, if we look at polls from michigan going forward. jane harman, you brought up dan coats and the performance at aspen, which is notable. we had thomas friedman on at the top of the last hour, and he was talking about what he sees as the last line of defense for what he believes are problematic policies by the president and this administration. he looks at christopher wray and dan coats specifically to protect the country. do you think that's what it's come to? do you think dan coats needs to serve as this buffer? >> well, i heard your interview of tom friedman, who also says he sometimes agrees with the president, sometimes the president's right. but his team on foreign policy, by and large, certainly, i think dan coats, jim mattis, full disclosure, i serve on mattis' defense policy board, and pompeo
are strong. and i think they buffer him in good ways. what's missing here is the lack of process. if there were a good process, i think we would have much better statements on the front end and, you know, somebody said that trump asks all the right questions, he just doesn't have the right answers. we need a better strategy. and it's painful. and every one had aspen said this in different ways, to see america's preeminence as the leader of the free world eroding in various ways. you don't have to think america is the policeman of the world to think america's role, its moral role, the city on the hill, the ronald reagan phrase, is very important. and it's been all throughout our lifetimes. and if it goes away, it's a tragedy. >> jane harman, david chalian, thank you both very much. >> thank you. okay, so today the president is doing something interesting. he's leaving for iowa this morning. and that's where farmers are confused by his trade war, by
his tariffs. so what kind of representation wi -- reception will he get? we'll speak to a republican lawmaker from iowa about all of this, next. let someone else do the heavy lifting. tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. so you barely have to lift a finger. or a wing. tripadvisor.
the european commission. >> we agreed today, first of all to work together towards zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods. this will open markets for farmers and workers, increase investment, and lead to greater prosperity in both the united states and the european union. it will also make trade fairer and more reciprocal. >> all right. joining us now to talk about all of this, we have republican congressman from iowa, david young. congressman, you're the perfect person to speak to this morning, so that you can give us a pulse on how iowans are feeling. so, what has the response been from the people in your district to the president's tariffs? >> so, it's been kind of mixed. so a lot of agriculture folks, producers, farmers are hurting already and they say, can it get any worse?
let's give the president a little bit more rope on this. and some, i guess, because of maybe the way they're just personally positioned are saying, this is overwhelming us already, we need help, and help for me, and in the end, and what farmers really want, they want trade, they want markets, and not necessarily any kind of b l bailout or aid. but these are kind of the cards they've been dealt with. >> so you are what? you support the president's attempt at tariffs or no? >> i don't like tariffs at all. tariffs are taxes. they increase the cost of goods and services on consumers and they can harm employers and employees as well. and so, i don't like tariffs. >> here's what the president says about that. every time i see a weak politician asking to stop trade talks or the use of tariffs to counter unfair tariffs, i wonder, what can they be thinking? are we just going to continue and let our farmers and country get ripped off? lost 817 billion on trade last year. no weakness. are you being weak?
>> well, the question here for me is, who's my boss? the people of the third district or the president of the united states? and it's obvious the people of the third district. so that's who i answer to. and when it comes to tariffs, i just think that's a bad place to start. i think the president should have started with maybe a world trade organization appeal, maybe sitting down with the leader of china, president xi. gaining allied support in isolating china on trade. those kind of things. and so there's no doubt china's been ripping us off in a big way. and we all want a better deal. what is a better deal in the end? i think the president, secretary ross, needs to define what the goals and objectives are here to get us where we want to get and land this plane on a runway sooner rather than later. >> they say the objective is to get china's attention and retaliate against china for what you've just spelled out. and if you don't see it, then you're weak. >> well, i think the president needs to sit down with a leader in china.
at some point, i think that would be a good idea. i really am concerned about this, in the long run, and the short-term here as well. but the long-term effects, by just, you know,levying tariffs and not sitting down with the leader of china and not building that coalition of allies on this. and listen, with the eu, that was a good start. we need to bring them in with us to isolate china on trade and get the nafta deal done, sooner rather than later, being that canada and mexico have been such great and important and strategic trade parntners with us. >> are you happy about the announcement of a $12 billion bailout for farmers? >> i'm not for bailouts. i'm not happy about that. and a lot of farmers aren't as well. it may be needed, though, because these are -- this is coming from the effect of what the administration has done. and it's an admonition that tariffs are harm iing agricultu and harming farmers. so it's not what they prefer. they want markets.
it's so easy to lose markets, alis alisyn, and we're seeing that. it's so hard to gain them. sometimes it can take years, if not decades, to gain markets. and at the same time, we need to be looking at ways to get some bilateral agreements on the table. that's where the president prefers his trading agreements. not the multi-lateral agreements, like nafta or the tpp, which was under president obama, which i supported. >> but the president has not done the bilateral agreements? >> he needs to. he needs to. he's got to start opening up those doors and those relationships. >> it's hard for some people to understand the strategy of imposing tariffs that hurt iowa farmers and then giving iowa farmers a bailout, a federal government assistance in the form of taxpayer bailout. we understand the strategy in terms of getting their votes or keeping their votes, but as a republican, these are things that republicans generally
always disagreed with. so in the halls of congress, are you, you know, experiencing cognizant dissidence with your colleagues on this? >> for the most part, we've been a party of no tariffs, free trade. the president has always had a different approach on that. he campaigned on this, so it shouldn't be a surprise that he has more maybe a populist streak when it comes to tariffs on these things. and so, you know, i can just argue against them, contact the president, let the voices of iowans be heard. the president in iowa today, not in the third district which i represent. and i'm sure the president is going to be hearing a lot about trade. >> now to deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. would you like to see him impeached? >> well, impeached is -- that's a big word. people have talked about impeaching the president, rosenstein. when it comes to impeachment, i
mean, that's an issue you have to bring down to the floor, have serious -- >> just to be clear, your republican colleagues in the house freedom caucus have now voted on that. >> well, i was just going to say, i don't see a reason to impeach him at this moment. and i'm watching carefully and listening to leaders of the respective committees, oversight committee, chairman goudy, chairman goodlatte, as well. and so impeachment's a big deal. i think back home, as well, a lot of people aren't talking about this. this seems to be more of a inside baseball parlor games kind of issue that's popped up here before we go into our august work break. >> so why do you think your republican colleagues, jim jordan and mark meadows, have launched this? >> well, that's -- you know, that's -- you know, up to each and every individual member of congress, but i'm not there. >> you don't support their move? >> my name is not on that impeachment resolution, so -- >> fair enough. congressman david young, thank you very much for joining us with your perspective. >> hey, i appreciate it. thank you, alisyn. >> we appreciate you. >> very interesting discussion
there. the federal government reportedly has many more secret recordings by michael cohen. is there anything that is in there that could hurt to the president? welcome to holiday inn! thank you! ♪ ♪ wait, i have something for you! every stay is a special stay at holiday inn. save up to 15% when you book early at hollidayinn.com
well, "the washington post" reports that federal investigators have seized more than a hundred secret recordings from michael cohen, including the one we heard yesterday with president trump discussing a potential payoff to silence a former playboy model. joining us now, an investigative journalist who has covered donald trump's financial dealings for years, david cay johnst johnston, editor of the dcreport.org, and author of "it's even worse what you think: what the trump administration is doing to america." david, thanks very much for being with us. i'm really curious, as someone who has covered donald trump for years and looked into so many of his dealings, when you heard this recording, this discussion between donald trump and his personal lawyer, michael cohen, about a possible payoff, what did you take from that? >> well, it didn't surprise me at all. donald has been paying people off to be quiet many times.
there are, i'm sure, numerous other cases, that as this goes forward, we're going to see come forward. and donald has been doing this for the hole whole 30 years that i've covered him. >> and one of the questions that has come up, and it's come up this morning on this show is, why would michael cohen ever record this conversation? why would he record a hundred more conversations? again, based on what you know of trump world, why would someone record stuff? >> well, wifirst of all, in new york city, it's not unusual that people tape you. new york state is called a one-person consent law. and when i was at "the new york times," i was always assumed that i was being taped when i interviewed somebody on the phone in new york. but some lawyers may tape a client now and then to get make sure they get their directions straight. and the other reason is, this is insurance. if the boss is asking you to commit an illegal act and you
have a tape of him, you have an insurance policy. so what i think is interesting is how is it that the "new york times" and cnn got the fact that there was a tape and you guys got the transcript? most likely the federal judge indicated that attorney/client privilege did not apply to the tape and she was going to make it public and they didn't want a judicial ruling that the crime fraud exception applied. that is that this tape was about two people discussing a crime, john. >> well, we do know that the president's legal team, rudy giuliani and others, waived privilege on this. >> right. >> timing of that, i suppose, is what is an open question, because what the judge would ultimately rule, we don't know. but we know that his team waived privilege. as interesting as all of this, there's been another legal development over the last 24 hours which i know interests you in particular. this ruling in a federal district court in maryland on an emoluments lawsuit against the president brought by maryland in the district of columbia there. why do you think this case is so important? >> because our constitution has that word "emoluments" in it
three times. and trump and the justice department representing the office of the president have tried to argue that it only means bribes. no, in the dictionaries from the 18th century, emolument meant any gain, any benefit. and if judge's decision at the very end, page 49, in plain english lays out the manipulations of the government by donald trump, once he became president, so he could keep the old post office, which has become a big money maker for him by people trying to curry favor with the white house. >> the issue is, this judge decided that it can't go forward to figure out, based on this lawsuit, who the president is getting any gain from these businesses, from foreign countries. not a bribe. and you note, this is the first time that a judge has actually distinguished between the two. as the constitution does. >> that's right. and it's important, you know, there is an argument that we've heard from justices like the lake justice scalia, that we need to look at the constitution
and the context of when it was written. and clearly the emoluments cause, to make sure foreign governments weren't influencing our decisions plays a role here. but donald trump's manipulation of the general services of administration, which runs the lease for the old post office which is now the trump hotel, is a key part of this ruling. it's in plain english, anybody who goes to the internet and goes to page 49 of the jubdge's decision can read it. it's very clear that there is a serious constitutional problem here and that donald trump, in my view, has been violating his oath of office from the moment he took his oath. >> and again, that's your view. the judge is letting this case go forward. the important thing is, what happens now? what does this allow in terms of discovery? >> well, first of all, we should expect that the justice department will appeal this ruling. the people who brought the case and very carefully wrote their case, a crew, citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington are going to start
pressing for discovery. they're going to want to see the books skpror-- and records of t hotel. who's doing business there? how is it they're taking in $68,000 a night at the bar at that hotel? and undoubtedly, there'll be a fight to oppose that. of course, donald has a long, very well-documented history of hiding books and records, claiming they don't exist, and otherwise not cooperating with audits. >> and then, of course, there is, and you can cue the ominous music now, the question of donald trump's tax returns. might those be something that ultimately becomes part of this case? >> well, i have been pressing for an investigation of trump's tax returns and giving the new york state attorney general criminal authority. she has civil authority. she gets criminal authority if governor cuomo or the state department taxation refer the case to her. donald trump lost two tax trials, they were civil trials, but tax fraud trials, he lost
them both. he's confessed to sales tax cheating. there are numerous other things in the record where he has cheated the system. and we now have governor cuomo sort of hinting well, he's open to this, but he hasn't actually ordered an inquiry of trump's tax returns. but i'm sure that that will show that donald trump's tax returns are not clean. >> well, we don't know. we haven't seen them, except for what, that year 2005, which is something that you obviously know a lot about. when you think about his tax returns and when you look at what we all saw a week ago monday now on stage between president trump and putin. as you were watching that. again, as someone who had covered donald trump for so long, particularly his financial dealings, did it raise questions for you? >> well, i'll tell you, in high school in the '60s, a civics teacher has said, an american president will stand next to the leader of the kremlin and will side with him and take his word
against the american's intelligence officers, i would say, you have a crazy person teaching civics. that was an astonishing performance by him. and it should deeply, deeply trouble us. as identi've said in many forum john, the kindest thing you can say is donald trump has divided loyalties. he has continuously supported vladimir putin. this is a man who -- >> do you think there'll be any financial trail in those tax returns if we ever see them? >> oh, sure. because we know that donald was suddenly flush with cash and buying assets and his sons -- one of his sons has said, we were getting lots of money from russians. we know of documented cases where we he got money from russians. we know donald trump has been doing business with russian gangsters for years. and when i say russians, i mean russian-speaking people. >> what that means and what we will actually see, shall remain to be seen. david, thank you very much.
all right. so the u.s. government faces a court-ordered deadline today to reunite those families separated from their children at the border. the trump administration has already admitted that roughly 914 parents will not be reunited with their children by this deadline today. cnn's ryan nobles spoke with many of the families affected and he joins us live from washington. what did you learn, ryan? >> well, alisyn, i met two children from two different families. one a 7-year-old boy, who loves the super hero, flash, and the other, an 11-year-old girl who has to help her father operate a smartphone and likes to play basketball. they are normal kids in almost every day. normal kids dealing with a very difficult situation. even though they're sitting right next to each other, at certain times, arielli reaches to grab her 7-year-old son, andi, as if to make sure he's
still there. it was an incredibly hard experience for me, she says, when they separated me from my son. arielli and andi fled from el salvador, seeking asylum from a situation they aren't comfortable talking about. they crossed into texas hoping for relief, instead they were separated as part of president trump's zero-tolerance policy. andi sent to a shelter in new york city, his mother held at the detention facility. when she saw her son taken away, she wasn't sure she would ever see him again. they took away my son. they told me i would never see him. they told me they would deport me and he was going to stay with the government. jose angell and his 11-year-old daughter kimberly fled honduras and arrived at the u.s. southern border june 17th. almost immediately, kimberly was sent to the casa presidential shelter, her father detained at port isobel. it would be a month before they would see each other again. when god creates a family, he
has jose angel, i feel that there isn't anything that can separate you from your kids, except something like death. both families describe a painful month, filled with a desperation to reunite, coupled with uncomfortable conditions they say were inhumane. they wouldn't let me go to the bathroom sometimes, and when i wanted to eat, they wouldn't let me eat until they wanted. immigration and customs enforcement and the department of homeland security did not respond to a request from cnn about the treatment of these families while in their deposition centers. but the day-to-day experience for arielli and jose angel pale in comparison to the lingering trauma they say their kids are dealing with after being torn from their parents. i am happy i am with him and not separated. kimberly and andi say they neve blamed their parents for their separation, but both parents say the guilt they felt was
overwhelming. i begged her to forgive me, he says. i said, forgive me, daughter, while i was crying, forgive me. their attorney, sophia greg, calls her representation of both families luck. she was in the right place at the right time. she argues this crisis was avoidable. >> there is a system. people can seek asylum. just because someone seeks asylum in this country doesn't mean that they need to be held in a high-security prison while they attempt to seek asylum. >> reporter: but even if the crisis was avoidable, the reality of its impact is now a part of the day-to-day lives of these two families. jose angel says that like for him, it's like a nightmare. the things that happened to me are things i would never wish on anyone. it's a nightmare that may have ended, but will take much longer to completely recover from. and jose angel left behind a wife and two other children in his native honduras. we asked him if he had it to do all over again, would he still make the journey to the united
states? john, he answered, no. >> ryan nobles for us in washington. again, even if these reunifications take place, the damage that was done may be inreparable in some cases. so why has the president blinked? why might he be using so much visine this morning? blinking on not one, but at least two issues in the last 24 hours. stay with us.
you finished preparing overhim for college.rs, in 24 hours, you'll send him off thinking you've done everything for his well-being. but meningitis b progresses quickly and can be fatal, sometimes within 24 hours. while meningitis b is uncommon, about 1 in 10 infected will die. like millions of others, your teen may not be vaccinated against meningitis b. meningitis b strikes quickly. be quick to talk to your teen's doctor about a meningitis b vaccine.
all right. as you know, president trump wanted to invite vladimir putin to the white house. >> he did invite him to the white house. >> okay, he did invite him to the white house. he wanted vladimir putin to show up, but now president trump is taking a rain check. the president also had threatened to escalate a trade war with the european union, but yesterday seemed to walk it back. so why does the president keep reversing course? let's get the bottom line with cnn's senior political analyst, john avlon. do you find these things notable in this week that seem to have turned around? >> i think it's easy to say, this has been a moonwalk week.
he's backtracking with different degrees of elegance. retreating on the putin invite is just the recognition that it was the latest in a parade of bad ideas? >> but who gets to him and says, do not do this? >> hopefully anyone, everyone. there's nothing smart about inviting vladimir putin and surprising your director of national intelligence by telling him on stage and he says, say again. >> even vladimir putin doesn't think it's a good idea. he didn't return the text. >> donald, you don't want to do this, pal. that's a good walkback, that's great. in terms of his reversal of his tough talk on trade with the president of the eu, i actually think he deserves credit for this. this could be -- there's the risk of lucy and the football with a big bunting announcement without any substance. but it can be seen a vi-- vindication of his tough talk, that he was talking tough, playing a hard ball and people say, we do need tougher reciprocal trade agreements. way too easy to say, but the
tariff truth is a step in the right direction. >> i actually really don't understand what happened with the european union yesterday. they agreed to buy more soybeans and liquefied natural gas, which is something and substantial. but as far as actually the real contentious issue, the steel tariffs are still in place. the reciprocal tariffs are still in place and they just agreed to not make it worse? >> i think they agreed not to make it worse. they say, we're going to work on this with the goal of lowering trade barriers or getting more equality where it exists. that's a step in the right direction. and again, a lot of the hope for president trump, the disrupter, is that tough talk would breed action. and we'll see if it does. >> we just had the congressman from iowa on, republican, who was saying how confused, you know, voters are. so, the tariffs are hurting them in iowa, but they might get this bailout, but they don't like bailouts, but maybe we need a bailout. >> ron johnson, republican senator from wisconsin called a soviet-style economic move. there's a lot of confusion, as we also saw from that most recent poll, a lot of trump's
base voters, states he won, are really sewouring on him, and it may be partly impacted by the trade tariffs. >> i want to talk about something happened yesterday after our air, which i found to be fascinating. there was the maggie haberman piece in "the new york times" which discussed how the president got very angry when melania trump, the first lady's television on air force one was turned to cnn and not fox news. >> what can we say? >> and he ordered, apparently, in a series of e-mails, all the televisions on air force one to be on fox. so there was this statement put out by the first lady's office yesterday, the east wing, not a statement, but a comment to our kate bennett, and the statement was, the first lady will watch whatever she wants on tv. and i am always fascinated by what the first lady's office chooses to comment on and how they choose to comment on it. >> yeah, and this was not a subtle brushback pitch.
this was, nobody puts baby in a corner. and i say free melania, folks, she should be able to watch cnn as much as she wants. but the sinister side of that story, president trump trying to control the environment of air force one, sort of hermetically seal it into an affirmation news bubble. that's a big part of the problem we're having in this country. >> i want to read the statement put out by the first lady's office, because i think it's actually even more interesting. "did you know that every 15 minutes a baby is born with neonatal abstinence syndrome, that's from drug exposure in the room. maybe you would like to talk about the 160,000 kids who skip school every day for fear of being bullied, or the 280,000 students who are physically attacked in schools every month. seems kind of silly to worry about what channel she watches on tv, any channel she wants, by the way, or if she heard some recording on the news. stephanie grisham is exactly right, the president should focus on those issues over his choice of what his wife will be watching on cable news. so i hope she is impressing this issue upon the president of what she'd like him to talk about and focus on, rather than who he
sees as his enemies in the press. >> i think that would be very good advice for all of us. >> but it's interesting, she chooses to respond. when the office chooses to push back with statements like this is when articles come out that in some way she's being controlled. and they want to make it clear that she's not. >> yeah. look, i mean, she is an accomplished, independent woman in her own right. and look, i think the mere fact we have an immigrant as first lady could be a very powerful position. the question is, how much does she feel empowered? and when she does get sort of treated like something that can be controlled, it's understandable that she and her staff would lash out. what that says about the state of play in the white house and the kremlinology, in this case, no pun intended. >> no pun intended in that particular case. but it's a fascinating insight into the tensions between the first lady's office. >> i would hardly say they exploit her role as an immigrant or even talk about it. >> sadly, no. >> i mean, that this is an this
is an issue that is so on the forefront of all of the national dialogue right now and they really don't bring that up. >> we are a nation of immigrants and the first lady is a good reminder of that. >> john avlon, thanks to have you with us. you, too, can watch whatever you want. the good stuff is next. crowne , we know business travel isn't just business. there's this. a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly. crowne plaza. whoooo. tripadvisor makes finding your perfect hotel... relaxing. just enter your destination and dates. tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites to find the hotel you want for the lowest price. dates. deals. done! tripadvisor.
it is time now for the good stuff. a 3-year-old from wisconsin meets his real-life heros. check out kalix in his superhero outfit. >> oh, my gosh, how cute is he? >> he is wearing that very well. he wore it to meet the firefighter when is helped save his life. the young boy nearly drowned earlier this month. when crews arrived on the scene, kalix was unresponsive, but together they quickly got his heart beating. >> it's that great feeling. it definitely makes me believe that there's a reason we were all there. we were all put in that position and all in the same spot that we were supposed to be in order to save his life. >> i will note, spider-man does not wear a cape, but kalix can wear a cape if he wants to after what he's been through. >> he rocks it beautiful, but those angels who saved his life, oh my gosh, i remember that
story. that is incredible how well he's doing right now. okay, we need some levity. the audio of donald trump and michael cohen discussing the playoff to a playmate got this reaction from late-night. >> the audio confirms that trump knew about the payments during the presidential campaign! donald trump lied! so now they have to reset the sign on the white house lawn. >> you never know where that company, never know where he's going to be. >> maybe he gets hit by a truck! >> correct. >> yeah, getting hit by a truck is a real risk. have you seen the idiots they let drive those things. >> michael cohen released a tape about paying off a playboy model. of course, it's lurid because it involves playboy, but i'm only in it for the articles. >> just laugh at the material they're presented with every day. >> an embarrassment of riches. >> an embarrassment of riches. >> thank you all for being with us this morning. that is all for "new day."
it is time now for "cnn newsroom" with poppy harlow. >> see you tomorrow. hi, everyone. good morning. i'm poppy harlow in new york. so glad you're with me. we are watching the white house this hour, as we do every morning. but any second now, president trump is due to leave on a day trip, highlighting jobs and trade in iowa and illinois. this is after a new and unexpected truce with the european union. the president who recently called the eu a foe and on tuesday declared tariffs are the greatest agreed yesterday to try to make a deal to scrap them altogether with european. there's also the question of summit 2.0 with vladimir putin, which now is off the agenda for the fall, at least, before it was ever really officially on the agenda. let's go to the white house. jeremy diamond is there. so let's begin with this and what's ahead for the president today. as he heads to some states where he should be warmly welcomed, especially in iowa, but his moves on trade have been angering a lot of