Return to Transcripts main page


Tensions Appear To Be Rising With North Korea; 37 Percent Of Americans Think North Korea Is An Immediate Threat To The U.S.; Info On Michael Flynn's Unpermitted Travel To Moscow; President Trump Is Putting Himself At Risk Through Social Media; Secret Service Spread Thin; How Do The Blue States Feel About Trump's First 100 Days?; Insight From Two People Fighting Against President Trump's Agenda. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired April 28, 2017 - 00:00   ET



DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking News, President Trump warns a major, major conflict with North Korea is possible. This is "CNN Tonight", I'm Don Lemon.

That, as Michael Flynn, the investigation heats up. We're learning tonight the Pentagon warned General Flynn in 2014 about accepting foreign payments. Now the inspector general of the Department of Defense is investigating and a top democrat on the House Oversight Committee charges the White House is covering up for Flynn.

Let's get right to CNN Political Commentator Jason Miller, David Rohde, CNN Global Affairs Analyst, National Security Analyst Juliette Kayyem and Military Analyst Colonel Cedric Leighton. Hello to all of you. Thank you so much for joining us.

Colonel Leighton, I'm going to start with you. Tensions appear to be rising with North Korea. I want to get your reaction to what the president told Reuters tonight about North Korea. Listen first.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (voice-over): Well, there's a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely.


LEMON: So, colonel, how do you interpret what the president is saying there? Is he talking about U.S. military engagement?

COLONEL CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, he's -- I think, he is, Don, but the issue here is, you know, what kind of a message is he trying to send? And I am somewhat puzzled that he would phrase it in that way because the minute that he talks about this possibility, the likelihood of it happening could potential increase and that's something that he wants to avoid.

I don't think that was his intent but the fact that he talked about it as if he is a dispassionate observer gives me a lot of concern.

LEMON: How do you think -- how do you suppose North Korea will respond to the president's remarks?

LEIGHTON: Well, I think they might just ratchet it up on their side as well.

They may, in essence say, bring it in on, in their version of that and if they do that, then of course, tensions on the Korean peninsula are going to get even higher than they already are and I don't think we want that either in the U.S. or in South Korea or really in -- as far as China is concerned either.

LEMON: Juliette, the president does say that he would prefer a diplomatic outcome. Does that make you feel any better about this?

JULIETTE KAYYAM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I guess in the sense we all would hope for a diplomatic outcome in any of these conflicts but I -- just picking up on what the colonel said, it's just these sort of random moments or statements that have real serious consequences in national security and foreign policy that are going to be interpreted by our allies as well as our enemies -- and let's just be honest here, no one knows how to interpret it. That's not good.

You know, the sort of -- you know, we're trying to figure out the Trump doctrine. It can't possibly be, you know, read my mind. That cannot be the Trump doctrine and I think we're all just honestly sort of confused by the various opinions coming out of Trump himself, let alone, varying degrees of aggressiveness between his U.N. ambassador and his secretary of state.

LEMON: Jason, I want to read to you what the president said about the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Un.

He says, "He's 27 years old. His father dies, took over a regime. So say what you want but that is not easy, especially, at that age. I'm not giving him credit or not giving him credit. I'm just saying that's a very hard thing to do. As to whether or not he's rational, I have no opinion on it. I hope he is rational or I hope he's rational." He has no opinion on whether Kim Jong-Un is rational? s

JASON MILLER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So, I'll respectfully disagree with the president on this one as I think Kim Jong-Un is completely nuts but that's my viewpoint but, look, I think the president's taken a pretty smart approach here where he realizes that he has to have China engaged on this issue, that diplomacy is going to be key.

Look, North Korea is completely different situation than what we had in Syria or in other area hot spots around the world and the fact is Kim Jong-Un is nuts. He's firing off nukes.

We know that Seoul is only 30 miles south of the border. This is a very dangerous situation, so, I think the president's right. We have to get China involved here.

LEMON: I think, it's the first time I've heard you disagree with the president, so, that's interesting to hear.

I want to go on and talk about this new CNN/ORC poll. This is for you, David. It shows that out tonight on North Korea -- this was before tonight's breaking news, by the way, so here, it is 37 percent of Americans think North Korea is an immediate threat to the U.S.

That is down from 41 percent in 2013. Around the time North Korea announced plans to restart the nuclear reactor. What do you make of those numbers in light of what the president is saying tonight, David?

DAVID ROHDE, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I'm surprised that the numbers aren't higher because I do think tensions are way up. There's much more information about there about, you know, the missile technology they're developing and potentially reaching the U.S.

So, maybe, that -- those numbers will go up, you know, as more news gets out there but it's a very difficult situation and I agree with Jason. The president is playing the China card. In the same Reuters interview, he was effusively praising President Xi of China, saying, he's an amazing leader, you know, and this is very different from candidate Trump who, you know, talked about China, you know, being a currency manipulator and again will China deliver? That's the question where this is all going.

LEMON: He appears to have built a pretty good relationship.

ROHDE: Yes. A very --


ROHDE: If the Chinese produce results but it's, you know, he clearly seems to believe in that relationship or at least betting on it publicly and, you know, it could work. Let's give Trump credit. Maybe he has built this amazing new relationship with China he'll get more than past presidents but --


MILLER: A quick note. If you look at the poll, you talked about the immediate threat but if you look at the overall threat of North Korea, that number was 86 percent and, so, Americans definitely do realize that North Korea is problematic and it could impact our allies and set off something in the region that's very problematic. So, that's a pretty darn big number.

LEMON: Moving on now, let's talk about Russia, Juliette, because there was also big news today on the investigation into President Trump's former national security advisor, Michael Flynn.

He didn't get permission to travel to Moscow. He was paid by the Kremlin backed news station R.T. and allegedly didn't disclose that and he was also warned about accepting payments from foreign governments. What do you make of Flynn's actions?

KAYYEM: Well, I mean, they were clearly in violation. If the letter is accurate, they were clearly in violation and we've all been saying Flynn should've known better.

So, the idea that this was just a mistake in (INAUDIBLE) isn't true but I want to separate that and having to do with Flynn which will be an internal Pentagon issue which it should be, right?

He violated basically his oath to the Pentagon essentially and to the United States. There's a separate issue which it was of course the defense by the White House sort of saying that, well, he got security clearance through Obama.

So, I just want to state what the law is and why Sean Spicer was just factually incorrect. When you leave government service, as many as I have, in and out -- I've been in and out three different times in my career.

You have to restart your security clearance because the belief is that I've done things in between those two services that might be something that should be disclosed. I might've worked for a foreign government. I might've done something.

So, there -- because there was a disruption in service, Obama fires him, he gets rehired. That is why this new security clearance is relevant.

So, the Sean Spicer thing, everyone was jaw dropped just because in national security law that is basically known. It's a restart. You don't hold on to your security clearance for life.

LEMON: Jason, are you buying what Sean Spicer said? Do you understand what Juliette is saying there? He's -- basically, they said it was the Obama administration's fault. That they vetted Michael Flynn and that this White House did not have to -- they believe that they didn't have to vet him, for these matters at least.

MILLER: So, well -- right. So, I won't profess to be an expert on SF 86 forms, top secret clearance forms that you fill out. The one thing I don't understand though is if the Obama administration reauthorized General Flynn's top secret clearance after he went to Russia and after they knew that he had gone to Russia.

So, I'm not sure if Juliette's off there or where exactly it is but, I mean, the previous administration did reauthorize that. So --

LEMON: Juliette, you want to explain? Do you want to respond?

KAYYEM: Yes. So, you have to do a review every five years regardless. So, there will be different reviews depending if you stay in government service, even after five years, you have to ratchet up and then also remember there -- not all security reviews are the same.

So I will have different classifications basically, essentially depending on how close my proximity to the White House.

So a national security adviser also will have an increased review than, say, an assistant secretary who's further down on the pecking order. So the -- so, the idea that you -- that once you get it and even it

says it's reauthorized that it would extend into a national security adviser role is just not true.

There's a redo and he had also ended his service. So, that's just the -- I just don't want people to be confused that you have it for life. You just don't. None of us do.


MILLER: Juliette, did the Obama administration not reauthorize General Flynn's top secret clearance after he made that trip to Russia?

KAYYEM: Not in the summer right before the election, no.

LEMON: Yes. I want Colonel Leighton -- that's what -- I want you to weigh in. Go ahead, Colonel, because you would know about these matters.

LEIGHTON: Sure, Don. The big problem is this. They -- traditionally the generals like General Flynn have had security clearances and they keep them after their service, however, one of the big problems is that there's a huge backlog in security clearances and even for general officers, it becomes more or less, say, pencil whipping exercise. In other words, you just go through the motions and you give it to them just because they have had that position.

That is not a good way to handle it but that is in fact the way a lot of things happen within the Department of Defense.

What is really important about this though is that the whole idea that there was no other vetting done or at least that's what appears to have happened.

That is the real problem here, these types of issues with security clearances and with vetting for positions. That should be something that is handled for each particular position and if you're going to be the national security advisor, you must go through all kinds of vetting procedures that are in addition to the security clearance procedures on the SF 86.

LEMON: I want to get this in really quickly because I think it's really important.

We also have these new poll numbers, they're out on Russia. Most Americans, 57 percent, see Russia as unfriendly or as an enemy. That's down from 77 percent in 2014 but when you break it down by party, in 2014, 74 percent of democrats, 82 percent of republicans considered Russia unfriendly.

Fast-forward to today, democrats are at 73 percent, basically, the same but for republicans, that number drops to 41 percent. David, what do you attribute that to?

ROHDE: Largely to Donald Trump. I would think in the 2016 campaign, I mean, he repeated over and over again that, you know, Russia could be a partner and he's, you know, turned very harsh on Russia after the chemical attack and --

LEMON: Half of Russians changed their mind because of Donald Trump's stance on Russia?

ROHDE: Half of the republicans.

LEMON: Republicans -- excuse me, republicans.

ROHDE: I'm not sure. I'm would -- and I'm no expert here and -- I guess, but I would think it was a driving factor.

LEMON: Juliette, would you -- is there any way --

ROHDE: He has a very loud voice in that period.

LEMON: Were you -- did you say something?

KAYYEM: Yes, I think that's exact -- I think, there's no other explanation for it and we'll just see if that holds, Don and David.

We'll just see if that holds if the administration's opinion about Russia changed policy-wise. The interesting thing is through all this Trump/Russia stuff, with the investigations, there's really been no significant change in policy vis-a-vis Russia in the last -- you know, in the last 100 days.

LEMON: So, colonel, why didn't the democrats change?

LEIGHTON: You know, that's very interesting. I think, you know, part of the explanation, Don, is that in fact the republicans were swayed by their nominee.

The fact of the matter is the democrats have continued to look at Russia as a threat which is kind of the opposite of what it was during some periods like the immediate post-Vietnam era and it's very interesting to see the parties reverse themselves in this case.

LEMON: All right. Thank you all, when we come back, more on our Breaking News. I'm going to ask a democratic congressman how he thinks President Trump is handling the rising tensions with North Korea.


LEMON: Stark words from President Trump tonight on the growing crisis with North Korea, telling Reuters, he hopes the tense situation can be solved diplomatically but also issuing this warning.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE United States: Well, there is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely.

(END VIDEOTAPE) LEMON: Joining me now is Congressman Tim Ryan, a democrat from Ohio.

Congressman, thank you so much for joining us and before we get started on domestic matters, I want to get your reaction to President Trump telling Reuters in an interview that there is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea but said we'd like to solve things diplomatically. What's your reaction to hearing that?

REP. TIM RYAN (D), OHIO: Well, you know what? I guess, I worry a little bit about how he speaks so much with hyperbole. You know, I don't think that plays very well when you're dealing with international diplomacy.

There's always a chance of things happening. There's always a chance of something bad happening but, you know, I think this is an issue that we can resolve. We have a lot of artillery and a lot of strength and a carrier strike force in that region and, you know, we're prepared but we're also talking and I don't think it's in anyone's interests, whether it's China, North Korea, South Korea, the United States, to overblow this thing.

It's something we need to be concerned about and work on but, you know, it's like a quarterback in a football game. You want the quarterback that keeps a cool head. So, I hope he can do that.

LEMON: This comes just one day after you guys were taken over by bus to the White House to be briefed on it. Is this stand in opposition to what you heard or does it go along with it?

RYAN: Well, in the House, we had a briefing in -- at the House of Representatives and again it's a classified briefing. There are things to be concerned about but, you know, I have a lot of trust with General Mattis and the national security team and I think they'll keep things in perspective but I think it's also important for the president to keep things in perspective for the people of the United States and not to overblow things, not to overstate things, not to incite any more anxiety into our global diplomacy than is already there and I hope that he can kind of tone things down.

People don't need to worry about this. It's not to the point where the average American needs to worry about it. It needs to be dealt with diplomatically and, again, I think the secretary of state and the secretary of defense have things moving in the right direction and we'll continue to monitor it but there's no need to overblow things.

LEMON: I want to talk now and switch gears and talk about the president's tax proposal, OK? So, do you see any democrats supporting the president?

His argument is if the business tax rates are cut by 15 percent, it would make U.S. corporations more competitive. Could that be a good thing?

RYAN: Well, yes, it could be a good thing. I think simplifying the tax code is something that we really need to work on. It's very frustrating for most Americans to even try to deal with the tax code under its current standards and current make up, so, we got to move past that.

I do think that corporate tax rates are too high but the way that Trump's proposal -- President Trump's proposal is right now is it's going to be a real boondoggle for the wealthiest multinational corporations who have enough lawyers to be able to figure things out and it's not necessarily going to benefit the small business person or the start-up business person and I think in the meantime it's going to put trillions of dollars on the national debt.

So it's basically a tax cut for the wealthiest people in the country and they're borrowing the money that we're going to have to pay interest on for years to come.

So if you take both of these issues back to back, they're trying to pass a health care bill that's going to throw people off of health care, 24 million with the last one. It's going to jack up premiums, cost more, eliminate preexisting condition protections and at the same time there's going to be a huge tax cut for the wealthiest, most profitable multinational corporations.

That is not what this blue collar billionaire campaigned on when he was in Ohio. Telling average people he was going to look out for them. This is the complete opposite.

LEMON: Well, speaking of Ohio, a lot of people in your home state of Ohio are -- they're -- they voted for President Trump. They're sticking with him despite the rocky first 100 days. Do you think your party is doing enough to speak to those voters?

RYAN: I don't think so at this point. I mean, we have been very focused. I think our party has been focused on pushing back on Donald Trump. I don't think that gets us home, Don. We need an affirmative message. I was back home over Easter break and I had a lot of meetings and the level of anxiety for working class people is at a level I haven't seen in my, you know, 17 years in public life or really in my lifetime.

People are so concerned about what the future looks like for them and, you know, they bet on Donald Trump to try to fix this and he has no plan to do that right now. Dealing with automation, you know, driverless cars, driverless trucks, all these things that are going to put people out of work in the retail sector, in the fast food center.

Automation is eliminating millions and millions of jobs. Trump has no plan but democrats just can't sit around and say Trump doesn't have a plan. Democrats need to have a plan on how we're going to say to the American worker, you're hired.

We're going to hire you to lay broadband cables all over -- fiber all over the United States, every corner of the country. We're going to redo our energy grid to make sure it's secure and efficient and able to handle a lot of the new technologies that are coming on for green manufacturing jobs, windmills and solar panels, those kinds of things. You're hired now. We need to say that to the American people. That

needs to be part of the democratic proposal. We can't just rely on -- Trump's going to screw up or the republicans are going to screw up. We've got to have a realistic agenda that's going to put people back to work.

We've got to figure out how to talk about these things better and let the American people know we're really for them and we have a plan and an agenda to move forward. Not rely on republicans to screw things up.

LEMON: Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio. Thank you so much. I appreciate you joining us.

RYAN: Always good to be with you, Don. Thanks.

LEMON: And when we come back, why protecting President Trump is a bigger challenge than usual for the Secret Service and how his twitter habits are making things even tougher.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): This is CNN. The most trusted name in news.

LEMON: With President Trump's 100th day in office just around the corner, I want to talk about the huge task of protecting him and the first family.

Here to discuss Douglas Smith, a former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, and CNN law enforcement analyst, Jonathan Wackrow, a former Secret Service agent for President Obama.

Gentlemen, thank you both. Nearly 100 days of protecting President Trump administration, Jonathan, what do you think of the security challenges that this White House poses for the Secret Service?

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, first of all, the President is not an introvert. He's out there. He -- anytime you have a protectee that constantly puts himself out there and exposes himself, there's greater risk. Secret Service has to respond to that risk, you know, through different means.

Concurrent to that, there's a change in the global landscape of risk. So social media has allowed for directed and inspired attacks around the world. Messaging has gone out on how to, you know, execute on different types of attacks. So, the global landscape is changing as we have this dynamic president who is changing the paradigm of, you know, Secret Service.

LEMON: So, a couple of things that you said, constantly putting himself out there, you mean physically like at rallies or in crowds or do you mean through social media?

WACKROW: Out there on social media. He's drawing attention to himself. Any time a protectee draws attention to themselves, they go out to a wider aggregate and you -- what you start doing is you start bringing in people who are now focusing on this individual.

People who may have, you know, mental health problems are now focusing in and keying in on him. Those are greater threats that are being made.

LEMON: So that the more you stir it up, the more they're going to come?

WACKROW: Absolutely.

LEMON: That's right, yes. So would you -- do you think it would be wise for the president to stop tweeting at least on, you know, the way he tweets instead of just about policy?

WACKROW: Listen, from a Secret Service standpoint, you can't direct the actions of a protectee. Listen, if it was up to me, I wish that our protectees could be in a big metal box and never move and would stay still.

LEMON: Like a president-mobile, like, the pope-mobile, right?

WACKROW: Yes, just never move but that's not reality.

LEMON: Douglas, do you think that -- do you agree with what Jonathan said here? Would you -- do you think it would behoove the Secret Service and the president to stop tweeting?

DOUGLAS SMITH, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY, HOMELAND SECURITY: Look, I -- well, I think there are a couple of things. I think, the very first thing -- because I remember when I was a young guy, I went to go work for President Clinton. There's a gigantic learning curve.

When these people come into the White House, it's a big difference from being on the campaign trail to actually being the president and when they begin to learn and see the challenges that the Secret Service has to go through, yes, there are two ways they can go. They can either adapt and work with them or they can challenge the protocols the Secret Service has out there and I don't think Donald Trump is doing his detail any favors by, you know, tweeting away at odd hours.

First of all, it draws attention to where his location is which is something that Secret Service doesn't want, you know, second of all, what I'd like to know is, what's the device he's actually tweeting on?

You know, is it a device that could be blocked or is it just an off- the-shelf device that any hacker from Russia or another country wishing to do us ill will could hack in to.

You know, one of the real challenges is the staff and the staff needs to learn how to talk to their boss and just say, hey, boss, you know what? There are boundaries you need to work with in here. These guys, these women, these men have a very difficult job to do and by you drawing more attention, bringing in more crazies, creating more threats for them to investigate just spreads them that much more thin. You know, and I think the other thing is also his -- on the one hand,

he has traveled a lot less than President Obama did at this point, than George Bush did at this point, than President Clinton. The downside is, he's very predictable. You know, he's going down to his club in Florida. He's now talking about going to his club up in New Jersey, both big, open spaces making it far more challenging for the Secret Service to protect him.

You know, and the last thing I would say is about planning, and one of the challenges the Secret Service is going through right now is they are down on numbers. They are stretched thin. They have been living this never-ending campaign.

And this White House will say, "All right. The President is going to X." And then the Secret Service begins planning, sends officers out. And then all of a sudden they say, "You know, forget it. He's just going to stay home and, you know, watch "Weekend at Bernie's" back at the White House." And that puts another great strain on the White House as well.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: You said he's traveled more. He's traveled less. You're talking about overseas official trips, not just to his homes, right? To --

SMITH: Correct.

LEMON: Because he's traveled more than other presidents. So he has 22 -- with the Vice President, he has 22 family members to protect. And it seems this family is constantly on the go. What sort of strain -- because he mentioned that the numbers are down when it comes to the Secret Service.


LEMON: What kind of strain is this? That's a lot of people to protect and (INAUDIBLE)

WACKROW: it's a lot of people.

LEMON: It's a bit unprecedented, isn't it?

WACKROW: Twenty-two family protectees is unprecedented for the Secret Service. But it's not -- you know, unattainable to protect everybody. The Secret Service, what they do great is they have a protective methodology. And they will follow that protective methodology around every single one of these protectees.

There's a strain. There's a strain on manpower, budget, equipment across the board. That's reality, but the Secret Service will have to overcome that. The new director that was just appointed, you know, that is his biggest challenge, is to understand what these pressure points are and how to, you know, bring relief to an agency that's been, you know, under battle for the last year.

LEMON: All right. Well, let's talk about the actual budget -- because we've been talking about manpower, but let's talk about the budget because you mentioned that he frequently goes on weekends. He's at Mar-a-Lago, back and forth to his clubs. His wife, the First Lady, and his son, they live in New York City. That puts a strain on New York City and New Jersey because he has a home in New Jersey as well. How much of a bill -- New Jersey, Florida, New York, how much of a bill are they footing here? How much are they expected to pay for this?

WACKROW: Who, the American taxpayers?


WACKROW: The American taxpayer is paying an astronomical amount, you know. And then you start adding in the family with, you know, the adult children who are running, you know, a major industry and they're going all around the world. There are significant costs.

But what should the cost be? Remember, we're protecting the President of the United States. So is there a budget for that? Is there a budget that is acceptable, that we shouldn't cross to protect the sanctity of the office of the presidency? I say no. I say that is -- that office of the presidency is one of the most sacred things we have in our country. Why should we cap that?

LEMON: Douglas?

SMITH: Yes, I mean, I think I'd agree with that. I think whether, you know, you're a fan of the President or not, I think we can all agree that the safety of the First Family is paramount and the number one thing we have to worry about.

That said, they are stretched thin. You know, they've just gone up the hill and asked for 60 million-plus of emergency funding to try to fill this gap. I mean, they're under tremendous strain of, in a sense, kind of protecting two White Houses. They're having to protect the White House here in Washington as well as his apartment up in New York, which stretches them thin. And (INAUDIBLE)

LEMON: And also with that, because his sons travel around the world a lot with business. And the question is, OK, yes, the First Family should be protected, but how do -- should taxpayers be footing the bill for his sons doing personal business all over the globe?

SMITH: You know, I think -- personally, I think they should maintain Secret Service protection, but I think the Trump organization should be reimbursing the federal government for that travel. You know, I think we need the expertise, the Secret Service keeping his family safe, 100 percent.

But I think, you know, the boys should be reimbursing the federal government for that cost. I mean, we are going through a very tough time at the Secret Service, you know. They are way short on manpower. They're definitely short on budget. And to strain them from going from opening golf courses in Dubai, flying off to Vancouver -- you know, the other important thing to remember is when the President travels, he gets the full might of the U.S. government behind him.

There are tremendous assets that are given to that. You know, when the sons travel, you know, their safety is just as important, and yet, those agents have far less to work with, so they're stretching them very thin. I think that the real question when you talk about it

LEMON: Thank you. Thank you, I appreciate it. We'll see you soon.

When we come back, we're going to go to the heart of the deep blue states where President Trump lost to Hillary Clinton. How voters in these states feel about Trump nearly 100 days into his presidency.


LEMON: Donald Trump's 100th day in office is Saturday, so what do the bluest of blue states think of his presidency so far? CNN's Kyung Lah reports in our special series, "Red, Purple and Blue: First 100 Days".


KYUNG LAH, CNN HOST (voice-over): Across California's fields --


LAH (voice-over): -- and its cities --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 100 days of, "I can't believe this is happening."

LAH (voice-over): -- to the east coast states of Maryland and Massachusetts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At this point, us staying out of World War III seems to be the number one priority.

LAH (voice-over): -- The blue states, where Donald Trump overwhelmingly lost, 100 days into his presidency, fear that they're losing their country, but promising a fight. The State of California, the largest, bluest state in the union leading the fiercest opposition.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think he can be impeached soon enough.

LAH (voice-over): At Milly's Coffee Shop in the heart of liberal L.A., I meet Alex Martini.

ALEX MARTINI: He frightens me. Trump frightens me.

LAH (voice-over): For the first time in this millennial's life, she's afraid the President will hurt her. She is on Obamacare.

MARTINI: With Type 1 diabetes specifically, I cannot physically survive without insulin. And without health insurance, this device is almost $4,000. It's almost embarrassing to be an American.

LAH (voice-over): I head 400 miles north to California's Central Valley. Trump's immigration policies sowing fear in the fields that feed America.

LAH: How many people have their papers? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nobody. Maybe just me. They're scared to go out. Scared to go to the store because they think immigration's rolling around.

LAH (voice-over): Farmer Joe Del Bosque, the son of Mexican migrants, couldn't get enough workers this year. Problems that escalated after the election.

DEL BOSQUE: When he talks about mass deportations, that makes me nervous. Putting a wall up on the border, that makes me nervous.

LAH: And that affects your bottom line?

DEL BOSQUE: It does because we can grow the crops, but then we can't pick them.

LAH (voice-over): Three thousand miles away lies Baltimore, Maryland, a majority black city where only 12 percent voted for Trump. On a stormy morning, I meet Melissa Bagley, Baltimore born and raised.

LAH: Do you think the president has any insight into your life?

MELISSA BAGLEY: Absolutely not. And I don't think that he cares to.

LAH (voice-over): Baltimore's challenges -- unemployment, crime, and budget shortfalls. Bagley has lived through all of them.

BAGLEY: The fact that young black boys are falling like flies, and I've given birth to five of them, my city is screaming out for help. He spoke about being a President for all. I said, wow. But he's failed. He's failed according to what he promised. He has failed at this point.

LAH (voice-over): On the other side of Baltimore works Dr. Crystal Watkins-Johansson, a neuropsychiatrist at Johns Hopkins University, an economic world away, but she, too, feels shut out.

DR. CRYSTAL WATKINS-JOHANSSON, NEUROPSYCHIATRIST, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: From what I hear and what I see, I don't think that I'm represented at the table.

LAH: You don't see yourself at the table? What happens to you in four years?

WATKINS-JOHNASSON: I think that's where the anxiety comes from is because we don't know.

LAH (voice-over): Anxiety felt from urban Baltimore to idyllic Massachusetts. Every single congressional district in this state voted for Hillary Clinton, a liberal unity awakening activism. Greenfield. It's Sunday and this Rev. Cory Sanderson (ph) is calling on his progressive Christians to be this country's conscience.

REV. CORY SANDERSON: The truth is out there.

LAH: Do you see the church as a force of Resistance? SANDERSON: Yes, I do. I do. He may be underestimating the power in the people and in the sense of Resistance against what he's been doing.

LAH (voice-over): After the service, as church members share pastries and coffee, I met Kendra Davis, age 21, a music student whose personal crisis collided with Trump's election.

KENDRA DAVIS: I actually had an abortion in January this year. I don't want that to be taken away from other women in the future throughout his presidency.

LAH (voice-over): Just days after her abortion, she joined the Women's March in her town square to defend choice.

LAH: Did he factor into some of this thinking?

DAVIS: He factored in, definitely, because I was scared that once he became president, he would make abortions illegal. It was disappointing to me that he was a part of my decision.

GLORIA DIFULVIO: Some of us have been here since November.

LAH (voice-over): Gloria Difulvio (ph) started this grassroots opposition group in Hadley.

DIFULVIO: I don't know if it's because we have this moment where we almost had our first woman president, and so now we're kind of pissed off.

LAH (voice-over): Angry, but also realizing she had become complacent, even on her most personal issue -- gay marriage.

DIFULVIO: The Supreme Court decision came out and that was really special.

LAH: How are you, today, different than before November 8th?

DIFULVIO: I'm way more involved. I am not falling asleep again.

LAH (voice-over): A repeated refrain of determination across three blue states to derail a presidency. Kyung Lah, CNN in California, Maryland, and Massachusetts.


LEMON: Thank you, Kyung. Two people who are fighting the president's agenda, the Resistance, and the first 100 days, next.


LEMON: We're back now. We're talking about the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, which also means the first 100 days of what's become known as the Resistance. Joining me now, two people active in the Trump's Resistance movement. Women's March organizer, Pamela Campos- Palma. And environmental activist, Rick Ridgeway, the Vice President of Public Engagement at Patagonia. Thank you both so much for coming.

Now Rick, I'm going to start with you. You work at Patagonia, an outdoor clothing company, which is threatening to sue the White House over the President's executive order that will review national monuments that have been designated by the last three presidents, both democratic and republican. Why does Patagonia resist this move so strongly?

RICK RIDGEWAY, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, PATAGONIA: Well Don, we're going to do everything in our power to resist this executive order, at least what we assume is coming out of it, which we're assuming is a likely attempt to rescind some of these national monuments, starting with Bear's Ears.

And our company is in business to protect the environment. We are doing everything we can to double down on that now. We will resist with everything we've got to protect these treasured landscapes that are national monuments, the national parks and national wildlife refuges.

LEMON: Your CEO released a statement saying, in part, "We're watching the Trump administration's actions very closely and preparing to take every step necessary, including legal actions to defend our most treasured public landscapes from coast to coast."

On what grounds would you sue?

RIDGEWAY: Well, we have to see what Secretary Zinke and the President come up with this review.

But the national monuments were created by the Antiquities Act that was established by President Roosevelt in 1906. And that act empowers the president to create national monuments, but it does empower him it rescind them. And subsequent acts by congress have further clarified the original act to prevent the President from modifying the boundaries of existing national monuments as well.

So we're going to do everything we can to support the existing laws. And as I said, everything in our power to protect our national monuments and parks.

LEMON: OK. I'm going to go to Pamela now because during the President's first 100 days in office, the people on the left and progressives -- those who favor progressive goals, have been galvanized to oppose him in impressive ways. I mean, you led -- look at all these people -- many of the Women's Marches. So why do you say it's your specific duty to strengthen the Resistance?

PAMELA CAMPOS-PALMA, ORGANIZER, WOMEN'S MARCH: I mean, it's pretty simple. This commander-in-chief, right? So I leave common defense, which is better in the military families, a diverse grassroots movement, in the Resistance movement. Right? This commander-in-chief is illegitimate. He cannot hold himself to the most basic standards of accountability, of transparency. Anything we've been inundated with proof of what's the premises in his White House and our White House. And so, it's a specific duty. It's a necessity. LEMON: Well two things here, you're talking about Steve Bannon, right?

CAMPOS-PALMA: Of course.

LEMON: Steve Bannon has said -- he has said that he is not, you know, you said what you said he is.

But also, I mean, you say he's an illegitimate president. He was elected by the American people in the way that American presidents are elected. So in many people's eyes, he is the legitimate president.

So I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say, you know, when President Obama was elected, they said, "Hey, we're going to do everything to make him a one-time president." Do you think it's fair to this president that you're doing everything that you or the Resistance, that you're not on board with -- you know, he's the President of the United States, I should stand behind my president.

CAMPOS-PALMA: You know, at the end of the day, this president has called this action himself by not releasing his tax returns, by not, you know, conducting himself with the utmost standards of accountability and transparency. He has shown us that he's not beholden to lead the people. He's beholden to himself.

Through nepotism, through fear-mongering, through just having no regard for, really, our checks and balances in this country. He's un- American, pretty frankly. And so, this isn't business as normal, and so we should treat it as such. And this country has never seen a crisis like we are now.

LEMON: You have a big issue with the way some of the comments he's made about women. Inappropriate comments. Just listen to them and I'm going to get your response to them. Here it is.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I better use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything. Well, Rosie O'Donnell's disgusting. I mean, both inside and out. You take a look at her, she's a slob. We're all a little chubby, but Rosie's just worse.


LEMON: You take particular issue with those comments and others like them.

CAMPOS-PALMA: How can we not? As a woman of color, a Latina who served in our military, one that he has said we should expect sexual predators, how can we not take civic action against someone who just really hasn't held himself to the standard we deserve, as an Americans, as a country?

LEMON: Rick, do you -- are you concerned, you know, since you represent such a large company and, you know, you depend on people liking your product and buying your products, that they may be turned off by your company holding such a staunch opinion, position against the President of the United States?

RIDGEWAY: No, not at all, Don. You know, the -- recent polls, including the most recent -- just in the last few weeks, have shown that up to 80 percent of the people polled support the protection of our national monuments in protected areas.

So we're on the winning side here in all ways. We're not worried about that at all. But even then, that's -- we're in business to protect our environment, as I said before. So, every effort we've made to protect the environment in the past has been supported by our customers and we're absolutely confident it's going to be the same this time.

And we're also on the right side of the economic returns for this. I mean, if you just look at the value that these protected areas give back to the nation, we're on the winning side there, too. You know, our outdoor industry alone is responsible for $887 billion, so that we contribute to the national economy. Our industry creates 7.6 million jobs. That's way more than the fossil fuel industry.

LEMON: I'm out of time, Rick. I'm sorry. You guys, how long can you do this, until for four years? Or eight years? How long can you resist?

CAMPOS-PALMO: We're organizing around the clock. I mean, the President has released the victims of the office -- the victims of (INAUDIBLE) crime engagement and we've already disrupted it.

LEMON: As long as he's in office, you can -- you will resist?

CAMPOS-PALMO: We will keep fighting at his door.

LEMON: Thank you both. I appreciate you joining me here on CNN. That's it for us.

RIDGEWAY: And we will, too.

LEMON: Thank you. That's it for us tonight. Thanks for watching. I'll see you right back here tomorrow.