Return to Transcripts main page


Trump Plaque Commemorates Civil War Battle That Never Was; GOP Group Crafting Health Care Bill Only Includes Men; American With Pre- existing Condition: "I'm Nervous"; Republican On Healthcare: "The Senate Will Write Its Own Bill; Trump's Second Pick For Army Secretary Drops Out; Aired 7-8p ET

Aired May 5, 2017 - 19:00   ET


May 5, 2017

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: But one member told me, quote, I'm sick of everything being blamed on President Trump. Briana?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Brian Todd, thank you. I am Brianna Keilar. Thank you so much for watching. Erin Burnett OutFront starts right now.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN OUTFRONT HOST: Next, 13 men crafting the senate's version of Trumpcare. They couldn't find a single woman? And new developments in the Russia investigation. The senate ready to subpoena former top Trump aides to testify on Capitol Hill tonight. Plus could one state force Donald Trump to release his taxes? Let's go OutFront. Good evening. I'm Erin Burnett. OutFront tonight, 13 men. Thirteen men are deciding the future of American healthcare tonight.

They are the republican senators who will take the house bill passed yesterday and craft the senate version that could become Trumpcare. That version could be the law of the land and there is not one woman at the table to represent more than half the population of this country. Let me show you the picture of the 13. Here they are. These are the men who will take on the healthcare bill. Lots of questions here, including this.

Why couldn't they find one woman to represent the concerns of 126 million female adults in the United States of America? What can they realistically bring to the table when the conversation turns to, let's just say, childbirth, maternity leave, ovarian cancer, or even breast cancer? And what is their response tonight to excluding even one woman. Well, I want to read exactly what one of their aides told our Dana Bash and I want to read it in full.

They said, "We have no interest in playing the games identity politics, that's not what this is about, it's about getting a job done. We'll work with any member of any background who wants to pass a health reform bill that will reduce premiums and take away the burdens that Obamacare inflicted. To reduce this to gender, race, or geography misses the more important point of the diverse segments of the conference the group represents on policy - from members who support Medicaid expansion, to those opposed to, to those who have called for long term full repeal."

Well, apparently that's what good governing is these days according to those 13 white men. We begin with Phil Mattingly, OutFront tonight on Capitol Hill. And Phil, it does seem like a pretty glaring omission, right? I mean, we're talking about 51 percent of the country not included and there are big medical differences between men and women. Are republicans really going to cut the women in their party out of the process?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. It was hard enough to miss and most importantly I think because there are five female members of the republican conference in the senate who are very high profile, very well thought of, and are expected to play a very big role in this process. I think what it does underscore, Erin is that they're at the early stages of this and there are going to be a lot of people involved. But what was most interesting at least over the course of the last 48 hours is they started to figure all this out was just their reception to the house bill at all. Take a listen to how Republican senators responded to the passage.


SEN. BILL CASSIDY, (R) LOUISIANA: Well, the senate will write its own bill. I mean, that's the way it works, right?

SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER, (R) TENNESSEE: We will work together carefully to write our own bill. We will make sure we know what our bill costs when we vote on it.


MATTINGLY: Yes. So when you heard from Lamar Alexander who is the top -- the Chairman of the Health Committee over in the senate is basically a little bit of a not so subtle shot at the house for moving their bill without knowing what it costs and making very clear. They're going to move in their own direction. Now, this group of 13 that you pointed out is starting at least from a diverse perspective from an ideological perspective.

And the issues that they will be tackling right now are central to the house bill and changes are very much expected. Whether it's the Medicaid expansion, whether it's the shape of the tax credit, whether it's the Obamacare regulations that became such a hot issue in the house but also another issue that I think is really important based on, kind of, how you let in or planned parenthood defunding. That is in the house bill. There are a lot of republicans that are very much for that.

Two of the women in the senate, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have made very clear, they do not support that. Erin, republicans can lose two of their own members and still pass this bill with a majority over in the senate. So you talk about who is going to be involved, how they're going to be involved, and how they're perspectives are represented here. They don't have a choice. Everybody in this conference is going to have to play a part of this process, but to your point, it's better to be in the room early than outside of it and consulted earlier.

BURNETT: Right. And you would think they could've brought Murkowski and Collins right into those fixers, if at all to at least not to this glaring omission. Thank you so much, Phil. So obviously the big question here, on this bill is what does it mean for millions of Americans who have pre-existing conditions? Dr. Sanjay Gupta is OutFront with this special report.


DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Thirty-three-year- old Valerie Daniel does all the typical things a mom of two does. Also typical, Valerie suffers from a chronic illness. In her case it's Crohn's disease. An inflammation of her G.I. tract. No doubt, if the bill that recently cast the house ever becomes law there will be winners and losers. The winners, the young, healthy, and wealthy. On the losing side could be the millions of Americans with chronic conditions like Valerie. Every few weeks Valerie makes a 40-minute drive from her home in Union, Georgia to the hospital for an infusion treatment. She invited me along on one of her trips.

VALERIE DANIEL: (INAUDIBLE) is a lifetime commitment.

GUPTA: You could not take the treatment?

DANIEL: I have no option. I mean, at this point I have tried every drugs, surgeries, procedures. This was my option. My decisions, you know --

GUPTA: Without insurance, a year's dosage could cost Valerie about $20,000. Are you worried about the Affordable Care Act being repealed and the impact it would have?

DANIEL: I'm nervous not knowing the future, not knowing exactly what's going to be voted on. What are they going to keep? What are they going to do for people like me who have chronic illnesses.

GUPTA: Under the house bill now at the senate, insurance companies could possibly put limits on coverage of certainly treatments, depending on the state. States may no longer require insurers to cover essential health benefits like emergency and preventive care and people with a chronic or pre-existing condition like asthma, diabetes, or Crohn's disease like Valerie has could potentially have to pay more.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, Valerie. How did you do after your last infusion?

GUPTA: Now, if Valerie does maintain her health insurance without any gaps longer than 63 days, the proposed law should protect her from any sudden jumps in her premiums due to her underlying illness. The problem is that can be hard to do. On average 30 million people have gaps in their insurance coverage because they are out of work, too sick to work, or can no longer afford it.

DANIEL: My husband lost his job three years ago. So there was about a three-month period where he was not employed and we were told that we had no choice.

GUPTA: When you look at our health insurance industry overall now as a -- as a consumer, someone who again uses it, what grade would you give our health insurance system?

DANIEL: I would probably say about a C.

GUPTA: C? All right.

DANIEL: Maybe a B-.


GUPTA: One of the things that comes up, Erin, obviously, when you hear from someone like Valerie is obviously people with chronic illness, they utilize the healthcare system more. In fact, listen to this, Erin. About one percent of people in this country account for 21 percent of healthcare cost. Five percent of people account for fifty percent of healthcare cost and twenty percent of people account for eight percent of healthcare cost. The cost issue is something that's really not addressed in either one of these plans and probably something that has to be addressed to fix our healthcare system once and for all.

BURNETT: Right. Ultimately as you lay those numbers out which I think is so crucial and stunning for everyone to hear. I mean, ultimately, that's the issue. If you don't address the cost nothing's going to work because premiums are going to stay going up, deductibles are going to go up because cost are going up. All right, Sanjay, if you could -- if you could stay with me, I'd really appreciate it. I want to bring more question as well and Phil Mattingly also coming back.

So Mark, you know, when you see Sanjay's reporting and you take Valerie's story. There are millions like her with chronic illness across this country. You hear Sanjay's statistics, right? On how 20 percent of people account for 80 percent of the costs in this country. Are lawmakers going to ever be honestly saying that these people, people like Valerie will not lose coverage?

MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Listen, I think that -- no. I mean, I don't think so. I mean, honestly, I think that they may believe it. They may say it enough times that they think that in fact that it is a fact but the bottom line is that there are people that are going to be hurt and I think we'll know in a week or so what the CBO cays. We saw the CBO score, we saw 24 million people are going to lose insurance.

We'll see what happens when the congressional budget office actually scores this bill, reviews it, and then these members of congress, these house members who are back home perhaps they'll start getting an earful from their constituents. I mean, the bottom line is that when you put a face to what, like, Sanjay just did that's a lot more powerful than putting a statistic to it.

BURNETT: It absolutely is, but Sanjay, on that statistic front, when you -- can you just say it was one percent of people account for how much of the cost, twenty percent?

GUPTA: Twenty-one percent of healthcare cost, that's right. Five percent, fifty percent.

BURNETT: So Phil Mattingly, is that part of the calculation here for some of the members in the senate when they look at this that they're hoping that the statistic is more powerful than the individual story because obviously one percent accounting for twenty-one percent of the cost, you know, that's a -- that's a small group of people and from a purely voting political point, perspective, that might be something they could overcome.

MATTINGLY: Yes, look, that's really the rational of what you saw come through in the house. It is, kind of, the divergent, almost ideological views of how to handle healthcare that's not democratic or republican. It's what the Republican Party as well. We saw it crystal clear over the course of the last couple of weeks. The idea of if you want to get premiums down, some of the things that you would need to provide to try and help people that cause drive cost up for the entire system might have to go away.

That's exactly the core of the debate, the internal debate we saw in the Republican Party over the course of the last three weeks. I think the big issue is right now is you can see in Sanjay's piece and you can hear it from people who are dealing with constituents, the phone calls that are coming in to their offices right now. This is real.

This is real life for a lot of these people and so when you have the effort to try and address maybe the majority of your constituents who don't have to deal with issue and are concern about premiums going up while you still have to deal with personal stories and people who call into your office and are legitimately scared, it is a very, very difficult position for lawmakers to be in. And one that senators as they kind of consider rewriting large portions of this are going to have to grapple with every day.

BURNETT: Tami Luhby joins us as well from CNNMoney as we talk about this. So the bill, we all know it's going to change in the senate and as you all know as polls reporting, I mean, there is the calculus that republicans are playing with right now but I'm wondering how much it's going to change in the senate because President Trump talked about healthcare last night in that meeting with the Prime Minister of Australia and he said something that everyone on this panel will probably find pretty shocking. Let me play it for you.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have a failing healthcare. I shouldn't say this to our great gentleman and my friend from Australia because you have better healthcare than we do. We're going to have great healthcare very soon. Obamacare is failing.


BURNETT: OK. The reason that's stunning for anyone who tracks Australia. They have a universal healthcare system, OK, which is something that republicans and the president say is an anathema to them. This was not lost on Senator Bernie Sanders. He seized the moment and responded with this.


SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: Let's take a look at the Australian healthcare system. Let us move to a Medicare for all system that does what every other major country on earth does, guarantee healthcare, go tell people at a fraction of the cost for capita that we spent. Thank you, Mr. President. We'll quote you on the floor of the senate.


BURNETT: Mark, did the president realize that he just endorsed universal healthcare with that comment to Prime Minister Turnbull?

PRESTON: God, I don't even know what to say. I mean -- I mean, listen, it's clearly that the president doesn't understand the healthcare system as it is right now, he doesn't understand necessarily what the bill is, and he certainly doesn't understand how Australia executes its healthcare system. You know, it's comments like this that really do make it more difficult for republicans as they're selling the plan.

And quite frankly, it makes it more difficult for people to buy into the idea that they actually have the right proposal to overheal (ph) -- overhaul healthcare as we know it right now because, look, we do understand there are problems with Obamacare that need to be fixed but when President Trump does that, Erin, he does himself no good.

BURNETT: Right. And Tami, I think what Mark mentioned is a crucial point here. The reality of it is, is Obamacare was not working for a lot of people, even the people it was supposed to help. There were some who were helped dramatically but many others had healthcare but the premiums were surging so much that they simply couldn't afford them even under Obamacare, right? So the reality of it is, is the system in this country is broken at this time, right?

TAMI LUHBY, CNNMONEY SENIOR WRITER: There are problems with it. I wouldn't say it's completely broken. Some of the problems were also of the republicans' making. Obamacare had a lot of risk protections in the back of it to help lower premiums and help insurers get through this but the republicans actually blocked some of the funding for this, so insurers end up having to increase premiums a lot because they weren't get -- getting the risk protections on the back end to help cover these high-cost patients.

BURNETT: Sanjay, you know, I want to -- I want to ask you this -- the other thing that we pointed out here at the top of the show which seems really important, not from a political point of view but actually from a healthcare point of view, right? The healthcare working group of the senate, right? The republicans are they going to get together to put this together. They are saying -- they represent their constituents, it doesn't matter what race they are or where they're from or what gender they are. The reality of it is, is they are all men, it is 13 men, and it is not diverse at all in pretty much any respect at all, but certainly not in terms of gender. What do you think about that, just from your perspective as a medical doctor, given that women, of course, have medical needs and medical risks that men simply do not have?

GUPTA: Yes. I mean, look, on one hand, you know, there are certainly male medical doctors and people in the medical profession who take care of women's issues, breast cancer, cervical cancer, some of the things you mentioned. On the other hand, you know, you're talking about a very, hopefully, a comprehensive bill and the idea that you wouldn't have some other -- you know, you wouldn't have women on this panel offering their points of view, I think it's probably just a -- being really shortsighted. I don't -- I don't want to say that the -- that there's not men who could -- who can address some of those issues you mentioned, but I think it just seems like an oversight.

BURNETT: All right. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate all of you taking the time tonight. And OutFront next, breaking news on the Russia investigation crossing at this moment. The Washington Post is reporting at this moment that General Michael Flynn was warned by senior members of the Trump transition team about concerns over contacts with Russia's ambassador. So why then did they say they knew nothing about it? We have the breaking news. Plus more breaking news this hour.

Why is Trump's second pick for army secretary dropping out tonight? A nationwide outrage over an alleged rape by two immigrant teenagers. The White House fanning the flames and tonight, the administration not backing down even though charges are dropped.


BURNETT: Breaking news. New reporting tonight raising questions about when the Trump transition team actually knew about General Michael Flynn's contacts with Russia. The Washington Post is reporting at this hour that Trump's former National Security Advisor was warned by senior members with Trump's team weeks before, weeks before the December call that eventually led to Flynn's firing. CNN is seeking comment from the administration and from Flynn. Evan Perez is OutFront in Washington.

We have a lot of news on the Russia investigation tonight. Evan though this crossing literally moments ago. What are you learning? I mean, when did the Trump transition team know about this? Does it conflict with what they said later when they said they didn't know about some things.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it does appear to conflict with the explanations that we've heard from the administration. It certainly conflicts with the way they handled the Flynn matter because as you recall, even after Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General came to the White House and warned them about discrepancies between what Flynn had told the Vice President Pence and the explanations that had been offered an what was discussed with the Russian ambassador in that December phone calm, even after all of that, it took weeks before the White House took any action against Michael Flynn.

It was only after the Washington Post published a story about the sanctions discussion that they finally did move to get rid of him and to fire him. So it does conflict with a lot of what the White House has explained about how this was handled.

BURNETT: So Evan, stay with me because I know you have more breaking news. I want to just get reaction because this obviously could be significant with the timing. Tony Blinken is with us, the former Deputy Secretary of State and Paul Callan, our legal analyst. So Tony, let me ask you about this Washington Post reporting, right? Trump's transition team warned Flynn about his contacts with the Russian ambassador in late November, OK? How serious of develop -- of a development is this, given what Evan is saying that it could contradict with the timeline that they gave later?

TONY BLINKEN, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER PRES. OBAMA: Well, Erin, what's troubling is we just have a long litany of the administration or previously the Trump campaign not being fully forthcoming and denying things that later prove to have happened. So, you know, this is like any of these situations in Washington. When something like this happens, put everything out right away. Just get it all out there because instead you're faced with this drip, drip, drip where everything you said winds up being contradicted and that's just not good for the administration's credibility. So again, I hope if there's more, they just get it out there, let the chips fall where they may and be done with this.

BURNETT: Paul, what do you say? I mean, they're saying that they, you know, obviously now, it would appear that they knew, that they knew that there were issues and they warned him about them and then they said that they were aware of no issues and they said so for weeks, if not months.

PAUL CALLAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, it's clear that they were really worried about him because they forced him out of office. The president, however, kind of surprised everyone when Flynn went shopping his immunity deal. The president immediately said, "Well, go ahead, you should get immunity. You know, you're an honorable man, you haven't done anything wrong," well, this would suggest that, you know, they were looking at a lot of things and it's just another example of the president going out on a limb and making comments with incomplete information, I think, and I think it's why you keep quiet when you hear that there's an investigation going on.

BURNETT: And when you hear immunity though, obviously, you had said usually people don't ask for immunity, the president himself has said his historically unless --

CALLAN: And Flynn himself said it.

BURNETT: I was pointing himself, you don't ask for immunity unless you've done something wrong.

CALLAN: That's correct.

BURNETT: And with this new development?

CALLAN: Well, it certainly leads us down the road that Flynn was worried about exposure and that he did something wrong. And I do want to be clear. Not everybody who asks for immunity has done something wrong. Sometimes you have a super careful attorney involved and he is just saying ask for it but usually, there is something they're worried about, seriously worried when they make an immunity request.

BURNETT: All right. So Evan, you also have more breaking news at this hour which is -- I know that they're now putting out their list, right? The senate calling, putting out the letters of who they want to come in and testify. Carter Page on that list. Others, of course, high profile witnesses from the Trump campaign and Carter Page is now responding with a pretty stunning response, right?

PEREZ: That's right. All along Carter Page had said that he was willing to cut to essentially to come in and help his investigation. He said he was willing to cooperate. In other words, he was saying, "Bring it," like, you know, "I have nothing to hide," but then today he said that well as an average citizen he doesn't have the means to provide all of this information that the senate committee is asking for which is -- includes communications, meetings, records, and also financial records of ties with Russians and that's what they, the senate committee is looking for from not only from Carter Page, from Paul Manafort, from Roger Stone, and from Michael Flynn.

Now, we do have part of a -- Carter Page's statement which he says, "I suspect the physical reaction of the Clinton/Obama regime perpetrators will be more along the lines of severe vomit -- vomiting when all the facts are eventually exposed regardinf the steps taken by the U.S. Government to influence the 2016 election." What he is referring to there, Erin is, the comment that Director James Comey said from the FBI said this week, that essentially he was feeling mildly nauseous that they thought at what the FBI did last year in handling the email investigation might have had an effect on the 2016 election.

BURNETT: And so Tony, let me get your reaction to that. If Carter Page is refusing to cooperate, saying he was the target of surveillance basically by the Obama administration. You heard Evans words that all the facts would come out and induce severe vomiting. What do you make of Page sending such a letter to the -- to the committee when they are asking for serious testimony?

BLINKEN: Well, Erin, a couple of things. First, it's important to remember that to the extent Mr. Page was the target of surveillance, that would have been done pursuant to a request not from the Obama White House but from the Justice Department or the FBI and the basis for that warrant has to be probable cause that either he committed a crime or was a foreign agent and that warrant is issued by a judge.

So if he's pointing the finger at the Obama administration, he should really be looking in the mirror instead and as to feeling nauseous, I think the American people may well feel sickened at the fact that Russia interfered in our election and that the possibility that people colluded with the Russians in that effort. BURNETT: And Paul, just to be clear as Tony's point out. It was a Pfizer request and it was on -- and iot was for Carter Page, OK? He had met with a Russian spy, unknown Russian spy, exchanged information with him. He had taken money from Russian -- I mean --

CALLAN: Oh, he's in deep because when a (INAUDIBLE) support issues an order saying it's ok to surveil an American citizen that means you -- as Tony said, you have to have probable cause that a crime has been committed and certainly a strong suspicion that the person is involved with the crime. So it's clear to me he is shopping an immunity deal by making these wild statements about information that will make people vomit in order to get immunity.

BURNETT: All right. Thanks very much to all. And next, breaking news, another Trump pick for a top government post dropping out tonight. Why? And the White House used an alleged rape case as an example of why the United States must crack down on illegal immigration. The rape charge, though, dismissed tonight. What is the Trump administration saying now?


BURNETT: Breaking news at this hour. A top nominee of President Trump dropping out. Mark Green was Trump's second pick, second try for army secretary, made a host of controversial comments including saying that being transgender is a disease. Green justifying his withdrawal saying, unfortunately due to false and misleading attacks against me, this nomination has become a distraction. Athena Jones is OutFront near President Trump's golf club in New Jersey toight.

And, Athena, look, this is the second try. He had made those comments about transgendered people. What is the administration saying tonight?

ATHENA JONES, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: All right. Erin, well, the White House is declining to comment. So is the Pentagon. But as you mentioned, Green is with drawling after coming under fire after past controversial statements have come to light, not just on transgender issues but also on Islam and evolution. Green is a retired army sergeant, a West Point graduate, and is serving right now as a state senator in Tennessee.

And, as you mentioned, he's the president's second pick for this post. The president tapped Green in April after his first choice, billionaire Vincent Viola had to withdraw because he had issues related to divesting from his financial holdings.

Now, Green is accusing the, quote, "liberal left" of distorting some of his remarks. But it isn't just liberals who have been critical of Green. Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, both Republicans, have also expressed concerns -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right. So, obviously, a blow -- I mean, in terms of they need to get those positions in. Now they have to find someone else for that. There was, though, very big news and good news for the president

today, the latest jobs report, 4.4 percent for unemployment in April. That is the lowest rate in the decade.

How big of a deal is this? Does the president think this is?

JONES: Well, this is a big deal. This is a president who ran on being a jobs president. In that video the White House put out last week, a week or so ago, touting his accomplishments in the first 100 days, one of the data points was about the number of jobs the economy has added while he's been in office. So, it's a bit surprising to not see him take to Twitter early this morning to celebrate as we've often seen him to do.

He did tweet late in the day, sometime after 3:00, tweeting out a link, saying "Jobs, jobs, jobs," and a link to a FOX News clip that talks about this, what they call an exceptional jobs report.

So, the White House not making as big a deal out of it today as you might expect, Erin.

Not as big a deal but, of course, he did come out with all caps and, you know, finally come out with his personality in that tweet.

Thank you so much, Athena.

And OUTFRONT now, a former senior economic adviser to the Trump campaign and senior economics analyst for us, Stephen Moore, and the president of the Economic Future Group, Democratic strategist Jonathan Tasini.

Jonathan, 4.4 percent, lowest level in a decade. That puts it back to the peak of the incredibly strong job market before the Great Recession. How much credit do you give President Trump?

JONATHAN TASINI, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Very little credit and I think in fact any honest economist would tell you that presidents don't have that much effect on jobs at that level. Certainly, Trump's only been in office, as we know three months, and it has very little to do with him, even though he's been a pathological liar about this, and I have some standards from this.

"Fortune" magazine actually looked at the claims he's made over the last three months, looked at dozen or so examples and found most of them either false or misleading, including your reporter mentioned his claim that he had created 600,000 jobs. That was a claim he made back in April, when in fact the BLS said in that time period since he'd been in office, only 533,000 jobs had been created. "Fortune" gave that a false grade.

I could go through a whole lot of others. But he gets very little credit for this.

BURNETT: Steve, very little credit?

STEPHEN MOORE, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SENIOR ECONOMIC ADVISER: Well, I think this is confirmation that there has been a Trump bounce in the economy. We saw it the day after the election with the stock market really taking off.

By the way, there's relief in the White House, Erin, because we had a bad jobs report as you recall last month.


MOORE: And the GDP number that came out a week or two ago for the first quarter was pretty weak, very weak, you know, less than 1 percent growth.


MOORE: So, I think there's a sigh of relief right now that it looks like the economy's back on track.

You know, it's interesting with these numbers right now, we have a situation where we're getting -- while we still have a lot of -- we still have a lot of people out of labor force, that's a problem.

TASINI: Right. I agree with that.

MOORE: But we're getting close to getting to pretty full employment where more and more employers that I talk to, Erin, are telling me that one of their biggest problems now, or one of their biggest problems is finding workers.


MOORE: And filling these jobs that are out there.

TASINI: Let me take off on those points. I agree with Steve that certainly it's a sigh of relief but it is one month and we have to look, you'll agree, several months --

MOORE: Sure.

TASINI: -- and see how that plays out.

Here are the two points. I think the first one Steve will agree with me. Part of the problem is that people's wages are still low, and that there's been -- the buying power of people, particularly in an economy that's powered 70 percent on consumer spending, people wages are too low.

Now, on this point, you may not agree that this is one of the reasons we've been pushing for a hike in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. I know Steve don't agree with that, but the minimum wage should be actually, if you look at productivity over the 30 years, about $20 an hour.

[19:35:10] So, we have to -- if I can say one last thing --

BURNETT: OK. TASINI: If the Affordable Care Act is repealed the Milliken Institute

estimates that we will lose 3 million jobs and we will lose in GDP $1.5 trillion between 2019 and 2023. So, that's another reason that repeal is (INAUDIBLE)

BURNETT: OK, I want to ask you about this, Steve. The president came out today, jobs, jobs, jobs, OK?

MOORE: Uh-huh.

BURNETT: He's proud of this report. Here's the thing and this is what I love about the president. He has a trail 50 miles long and he doesn't try to hide his trail. Here is what he said in the past about the jobs numbers and whether we can trust them.


TRUMP: The unemployment number, as you know, is totally fiction. I hear 5.3 percent unemployment. That is the biggest joke there is in this country. The 5 percent figure is one of the biggest hoaxes in American modern politics.


BURNETT: OK. If 5 percent was the biggest hoax in modern politics, I don't know what 4.4 is, Steve.

MOORE: Well, I'm a little guilty here, because, you know, I was one of the advisers of Donald Trump and I was telling him, look, these unemployment numbers are misleading, and even this latest numbers misleading because we have so many millions of people outside of the labor force. That's simply true that, you know, there's another statistic that -- I don't want to get in too much details -- that takes into account people who have dropped out of the workforce, people cannot find a fulltime job.


MOORE: And that's a lot higher number.

And, frankly, I think that should be the number we should be using.

Now, another quick point about the jobs report that I think is interesting because I've talked about this on your show and others and been criticized for it. You know, in terms of the mining industry, another 8,000 jobs created in the mining industry this month.


MOORE: That's 44,000 since Donald Trump --

BURNETT: Which he promised he would create mining jobs.

MOORE: Yes, and he's creating them. Coal is back.

TASINI: Mining jobs are not the future of this economy but health care is. And we're going to lose if the ACA is repealed.

MOORE: Well, you know what? I got to address that. There are two things that deterred employment in the Obamacare bill. One was the 50-worker rules, which a lot of employers became 49ers, they capped their employment at 49 workers and the other was the 30-hour week rule that if you had somebody over 30 hours. And people cut back on hours as well.

So, both those things actually hurt employment, not helped it.


BURNETT: All right. As we go, I don't know whether it was you guys or what it was, but anyway, the president has just tweeted, "Great jobs report today. It is all beginning to work!" Somewhere in the depths another tweet has emerged.

TASINI: I'm not taking responsibility for that at all.

BURNETT: Thank you both. I appreciate your time tonight.

OK. OUTFRONT next, rape charges against two undocumented teens dropped. What's the White House saying now? After all, it had used that story to crack down on illegal immigration.

And one state may have found a way to force Donald Trump to release his taxes, so says the United States attorney general. He's my guest OUTFRONT.


[19:42:08] BURNETT: Tonight, the White House not backing down, refusing to retract its comments on an alleged rape case used -- that they used as an example of why the United States should crack down on illegal immigration. Prosecutors have dropped rape charges against two teens who entered the United States illegally and were accused of attacking a 14-year-old class mate in a bathroom stall.

Ryan Nobles is OUTFRONT with the story.


RYAN NOBLES, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A startling case that drew national attention. A 14-year-old girl allegedly attacked and raped by two teenage boys in a Maryland high school bathroom. The fact that the boys has entered the United States illegally just a few months ago was enough to draw a strong rebuke from the White House.

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is a tragic event and it's horrendous and horrible and disgusting what this young woman in Rockville went through. I can't possibly imagine.

NOBLES: Press Secretary Sean Spicer didn't stop there, framing the case as an example of the need for tougher immigration standards. SPICER: But I think part of the reason that the president has made

illegal immigration and crackdown such a big deal is because of tragedies like this.

NOBLES: But that story that drew such a strong reaction from the highest perched of American government has changed dramatically.

MARIA MENA, ATTORNEY FOR JOSE MONTANO: I commend the state's attorney's office for doing the correct thing and dropping the rape charges and doing the right thing, because, obviously, this young girl was not raped.

NOBLES: Prosecutors today dropping the charges against 18-year-old Henry Sanchez Milian and 17-year-old Jose Montano after determining that there was not enough to corroborate the girl's initial claims.

JOHN MCCARTHY, STATE'S ATTORNEY FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY: We have concluded that the facts in this case do not support the original charges filed in this matter.

NOBLES: The suspects' attorneys have argued from the beginning that the encounter was consensual. At this point, prosecutors have introduced new child porn charges because of sexual images shared between the teens on their phones prior to the incident.

Attorney Maria Mena believes the rush to convict her client was in part because of he political furor over immigration.

MENA: This case blew up because they immediately assumed they were immigrants and as a result, they immediately assumed they were rapists.

NOBLES: But despite the new dynamics in this case, the White House refuses to retract its earlier statements.

REPORTER: Is there a general danger that the White House in its rhetoric are animating too many people to jump to conclusions against immigrants and in the process diminishing the entire immigrant community, whether they're law abiding or not?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Not at all. The president has been incredibly outspoken against crime in any form, fashion. Look, this is a law and order president. He's focused on restoring law and order.


NOBLES: Meanwhile, the Maryland school district where this took place has no interest being the focus of a political argument here in Washington.

[19:45:01] At the time, the Montgomery County Public School superintendent Jack Smith said that the district serves, quote, "every student who walks through the door." Today, he said that the focus of the district is on the safety and security of every student in their schools -- Erin. BURNETT: All right. Brian, thank you very much.

And next, President Trump's tax returns may be released, whether he likes it or not. New York's attorney general is my guest.

And Madeleine McCann dominated headlines. If you remember the sweet face when she disappeared decades ago. Will new witness details reveal what happened?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They saw what they described what they called an ugly, pockmarked or spotty skinned man watching apartment 5A.



BURNETT: New tonight, a plan to take down Trumpcare. It's only been a day since the House bill to replace Obamacare passed, but already, the New York attorney general is threatening a lawsuit against the president's bill.

OUTFRONT tonight, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

Attorney General, unconstitutional?

ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: If the bill's passed in its present form, yes. I hope the Senate will stop it. It's bad policy. It doesn't protect people with preexisting conditions. It will cost millions of people healthcare.

But if they pass the bill in the form the House passed it, it is unconstitutional. It includes an unconstitutional attack on women's right to reproductive health services, including abortion. It's drafted in a way that really in a tricky way tries to wipe out Planned Parenthood, goes after prohibitive -- states funding prohibitive entities with federal Medicaid funds, but prohibitive entities defined in a way that only thing in the country that qualifies is Planned Parenthood.

[19:50:10] So, it's an effort to kill off Planned Parenthood, which would impose an undue burden on women's constitutionally protected rights to abortion.

BURNETT: Because, of course, currently, according to the Supreme Court, it is still the law of the land.

SCHNEIDERMAN: It is still a constitutional right. And it would also say that you can't be a qualified health plan if you provide a certain constitutionally protected abortion services. If you can't be a qualified health plan, you're off the health care exchange, you can't qualify for subsidies.

So, all of this offends the Constitution in two ways. You can't impose an undue burden on a constitutionally protected right. And clearly, there are areas in the country where the only provider is Planned Parenthood. And this would impose an undue burden on women in that area.

And you can't impose unconstitutional conditions on a state, you can't require a state to stop funding breast cancer screenings because they also fund a constitutional protected fund. This is an earth to cut off funding for breast cancer screenings, because they also fund a constitutionally protected right with separate funds. Federal funds aren't used for abortions now.

This is an effort to cut off funding for breast cancer screenings, education on sexually transmitted disease. It imposes an undue burden on women's constitutional rights.

BURNETT: Now, though, this is not the law of the land, right? This just went through the House. It could change dramatically in the Senate.


BURNETT: You are not filing this lawsuit, right? You are not going to go ahead and file it until it's a law.

SCHNEIDERMAN: We are beseeching the Senate to make sure this never becomes the law of the land. It's also unconstitutional in that it would -- it has a provision that's targeted directly at New York state to intervene improperly, because the federal government has no interest in intervening in the sovereign interest of a state, and how we provide our Medicaid funding for health care that we now divide the funding between state government and local governments.

There is no legitimate federal interest in interfering with that. That's just an effort by some New York congressman. They wanted this in return for their votes. It's really a cynical ploy and it's unconstitutional in both those respects.

But as you say, I hope it will never become law. I hope we'll able to save a lot of time and trouble and not have to bring this litigation.

BURNETT: So, you're also moving perhaps to force President Trump to release his taxes. The New York Democrats have introduced legislation, right? Legislations, as far as I understand, it would require elected officials in the state to release their tax returns, which would theoretically apply to President Trump?

SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, it would apply to a lot of us. It would apply to me. And we released --

BURNETT: Right. Now, I know you've released some of your taxes.

SCHNEIDERMAN: We released our tax returns already. We've been relying on convention for people to release their returns. Obviously, that's not working anymore. If we have to require it by statute, I think that's something that the overwhelming majority of the American people would support. People want to know what conflicts a candidate for higher office have. BURNETT: Could you really do that, though? Because I guess the

question is, you can't constitutionally target at just him. And if you make it so every elected official has to do it, a lot of them aren't going to want to do either. It might not even pass in that regard. You think you can get this --


SCHNEIDERMAN: I don't -- I think so. I think most people in public life have accepted the fact that in today's world, transparency is important. I support transparency and people release their tax returns voluntarily all the time, really down to a fairly low --

BURNETT: So, you think you can get a bipartisan agreement and push this bill through and push him to release his New York state returns?

SCHNEIDERMAN: I think that's something that's possible. Obviously, I favor disclosure. The best way to do it is to voluntarily disclose. But this is the kind of thing that happens when the failure to divest, the failure to disclose is going to be a problem for this president, as long as he keeps this up. People are concerned about conflicts. Other things that have the appearance of impropriety will come out. So, I think sooner or later this is going to come to head.

BURNETT: Do you think there's some smoking gun in there?

SCHNEIDERMAN: I don't know about a smoking gun. But I think that -- I think that you've got to disclose your interest. You've got -- you can't start amending the tax laws without people knowing how it will affect your taxes. It's just not something that's going to pass with the American people.

BURNETT: All right. Attorney General Schneiderman, thank you so much for your time. Good to see you.


BURNETT: And OUTFRONT next, the unsolved mystery of Madeleine McCann. Is there a breakthrough ten years after she vanished with a trace? Our CNN special report is nxt.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Despite how difficult these days are, just keeping in mind how actually much progress we have made.



[19:57:43] BURNETT: Ten years later, could Madeleine McCann still be alive? It's been a decade since the 3-year-old little girl at the time mysteriously disappeared during a family vacation to Portugal.

Her parents sat down with our Randi Kaye for a new CNN special report. They are holding out hope that they will see her again. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Back home in England, a decade after their ordeal began, the McCanns face another somber milestone, ten years come and gone without any sign of their daughter.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And anniversaries, these are by far the hardest days, by far.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's important, though, because despite how difficult these days are, just keeping in mind actually how much progress we have made and while there's no evidence to give us any negative news, you know, that hope is still there.


BURNETT: And Randi Kaye is with me now.

And, Randi, you know, they have that hope. Do investigators think she could still be alive?

KAYE: They do, simply because nothing is telling them that she's not. They haven't found a body. There isn't any evidence to say Madeleine McCann is dead. So, they're holding out hope, especially when there's zero evidence. Kate McCann certainly holding out hope, she still continues to buy Madeleine McCain Christmas presents every year, hoping that she will return home.

But the question is, if she is alive, where is she? Could she have been taken for some type of black market adoption ring where they have given her, sold her to a family that wanted a child or perhaps some type of sex trafficking ring, it's all very possible. But the answer is --

BURNETT: And you report that others are watching that apartment, they were out to dinner, had left their little girl alone, they were downstairs, they had done that several nights in a row.

KAYE: Every night.

BURNETT: So, it's conceivable that somebody saw their pattern and actually took her.

KAYE: Absolutely. If someone was watching that apartment, which was very exposed. We walked around with Spanish investigator who worked the case. He said it was expose. If someone was watching, he would have known their plan. Every night, they went to this restaurant about 60 yards from apartment 5A and left their children asleep. So, they would have known how to get in and out and how much time they had.

BURNETT: How much -- they went every half hour to check, how they have known to actually --

KAYE: They did these listening checks, even though there was child care available at the resort, they did the listening checks every hour so the children could stay in their beds.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you so much, Randi. This report, excellent, tonight, special report, Madeleine McCann's disappearance tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern.

Thanks for joining us. Have a good weekend.

Anderson is next.