Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Heated Debate Inside Trump Cabinet Over Striking Down Obamacare; Trump Complains to Senators About Disaster Aid for Puerto Rico; Police Union in Chicago Demands Federal Probe into Smollett Case; Sen. Chris Coons (D), Delaware, is Interviewed About Trump's Stance on Healthcare. Aired 7-7:30ET

Aired March 27, 2019 - 07:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JUSSIE SMOLLETT, ACTOR: I would not be my mother's son if I was capable of one drop of what I'm accused of.

[07:00:06] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If he wanted to clear his name, the way to do that is in a court of law. Mr. Smollett committed this hoax, period.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Good morning and welcome to your NEW DAY. John Berman here in New York. Alisyn is in Washington where I miss her terribly.

And new this morning, the official position of the Trump administration is to throw out all of the Affordable Care Act essentially now. That is the position the White House is taking in federal court, and it puts healthcare for millions of Americans in some level of uncertainty and also jeopardy.

So what developed overnight is fascinating. CNN has learned that this decision sparked a heated debate inside the president's cabinet. Politico reports that Attorney General Bill Barr and Health Secretary Alex Azar, they are opposed to throwing out Obamacare without a viable alternative. And we don't know of one at this current moment.

Still, President Trump is declaring that the Republican Party will become the party of healthcare.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: John, I really miss you, too. And the only thing that's comforting me is all the fun I'm having down here.

BERMAN: It looks like fun. I can tell by the backdrop there. Looks like a wild party.

CAMEROTA: You'll see. You'll see in a minute the people that I'm hanging out with and how much fun I'm having.

But meanwhile, Democrats think the president has given them a gift after the Mueller report found no criminal conspiracy. Congressional leaders were eager to change the subject, and now it appears a new battle over Obamacare will take center stage in the 2020 race.

Russia, though, is still a focus for some. House Intelligence Committee chairman, for instance, Adam Schiff tells "The Washington Post" that, quote, "undoubtedly, there is collusion," end quote.

And overnight, another Trump critic, George Conway, husband of the president's counselor, Kellyanne Conway, flat-out declared the president guilty, guilty of being unfit for office.

So let's bring in our guests. We have Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator.

RICK SANTORUM, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Mr. Fun.

CAMEROTA: Mr. Fun -- how many people have said that about Rick Santorum?

SANTORUM: My kids all the time. Mr. Fun, that's what they call me.

CAMEROTA: CNN senior political commentator. And Kirsten Powers, columnist for "USA Today" and CNN political analyst. And we have Frank Bruni, also known in some circles as Mr. Fun, "New York Times" op-ed columnist and CNN contributor. And I don't mean to put you --

KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: What about me?

Obviously, you're Ms. Fun.

KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So fun.

CAMEROTA: Obviously.

OK, Rick Santorum, onto serious business of healthcare.

SANTORUM: Yes.

CAMEROTA: Are you comfortable with getting rid of all of Obamacare, even preexisting conditions?

SANTORUM: Well, preexisting conditions is not going to get taken -- getting rid of. I mean, whatever the Republicans propose, and I've been working very hard with a group of folks to get Republicans to propose something, an alternative. And the president and his team have been involved in that.

I think the president is stepping in front of this issue. Whether the president's people or not are going to push for the court to rule to get rid of all of Obamacare, it's a very distinct possibility that the court will rule that way.

And I think what the president is doing is actually wise, which is focusing Republicans' attention. Because if it does happen and Republicans aren't ready with anything, that's when they're in trouble. So I think the president is out there saying, "Look, we do have an option." It's an option to put more power back into the states and give it back into the local communities. CAMEROTA: But why didn't they do that before when they had both

houses?

SANTORUM: Well, they -- we did, after -- after the McConnell/Ryan experiment failed. There was an attempt, and the White House supported that attempt to try to get a block grant that gave this money back to the states, that gave them the flexibility.

CAMEROTA: Well, what went wrong?

SANTORUM: Well, John McCain went wrong. And that was one of those situations where we thought we had -- we were going to get the votes, even in September, and it fell short.

Having said that, we now have a stronger -- a stronger position in the United States Senate. And we have an idea that I think in -- if you were to propose this idea 20 years ago to Democrats; and you put the money that we're talking about behind this, I think there would have been substantial bipartisan support for this.

CAMEROTA: Are you talking about the Graham-Cassidy?

SANTORUM: It's like Graham-Cassidy. It's a little different. But yes, the idea of giving resources and power back to the states and let them design a program there that meets the needs of the people in their own states.

CAMEROTA: Kirsten, there's the plan, just spelled out. What do you think?

POWERS: Well, I think that shifting the conversation to healthcare just as a political issue is not a good issue for the Republicans.

And we saw the Democrats use this as a winning issue in the midterm elections. They want -- ran, you know, 900 plus ads, 50 percent of which mentioned healthcare. It was an issue in swing districts. It was an issue everywhere, basically.

And so, for the president to say that Republicans are going to be the party of healthcare, I think that's a heavy lift. I think that, you know, Democrats, it is an issue that they have staked out.

CAMEROTA: You don't think voters will believe him? Because I think sometimes the president says something and believes that then it's true. And so do his supporters, just by saying it. Sometimes he does take the mantle of it.

But you don't think that will work this time?

[07:05:06] POWERS: Well, I don't think that -- I mean, just traditionally speaking, healthcare has been an issue that the Democrats have been animated about for a long time. And we can go back further into when Republicans were controlling Republicans and the White House, and they really weren't doing anything on healthcare.

So it -- most of their plans are in response to Obamacare, right? So it's -- it is an issue where Democrats have taken the lead on it, and I think that people have -- whatever problems there are with Obamacare, people generally have moved to accept it and want just improvements to it.

SANTORUM: But that's not true, Kirsten. I mean, almost every Democrat running right now is running opposed to Obamacare and wanting to go to Medicare for all.

POWERS: No, they're not. A few of them are. That's not --

SANTORUM: Well, that's where the Democratic Party's going.

POWERS: I personally support healthcare for all, but I don't -- but that's not actually where the majority of the Democratic Party is. And I think that, you know, the more --

SANTORUM: But that's where it's going. There's clearly a movement in that direction.

POWERS: I don't think that it is. I think that, for political reasons, I don't think that's where it's going to go. I think that's where the energy is definitely among the progressive base.

CAMEROTA: Well, the polls say that it has gotten more popular, that Obamacare has gotten more popular and that Americans like it.

SANTORUM: First off, it's gotten more popular, in part because of some of the things the Trump camp -- Trump administration has done to make insurance more affordable. You've seen more than doubling of rates for -- under Obamacare when it was supposed to reduce rates. You've seen, actually, fewer people today on unsubsidized individual policies, which is what Obamacare was -- than you did when it started.

CAMEROTA: When they thought it was going away people rushed to sign up for it.

SANTORUM: Well, the reality is most people have not signed up for private insurance. Most have signed up for Medicaid. And Medicaid is insurance, but it's not care. And we've seen that over and over. People have a Medicaid card, but they can't go see the doctor. They can't go to the provider they want to go to.

So what Republicans are offering is real choice, is really the opportunity to get it back to the individual, give them the choice of private insurance, give them options that they don't have today and let it be tailored by folks who are closer to them who can take care of preexisting condition, can do something about -- I mean, look, I'll give you an example.

I have a daughter who's got a preexisting condition. My insurance right now is almost $40,000 a year. That's my premium. And you can say, "Well, you have insurance. Your daughter's covered." Yes, at $40,000 a year.

Yes, so Obamacare covers people with preexisting condition, if you can afford it. And if you're really low income, you get some help. But if you're not, if you're the middle class, you are screwed with Obamacare.

POWERS: Well, a lot of what he's saying is true, actually. I mean, I think that Obamacare for certain people, I mean, I have Obamacare, actually, and my -- my premium is, you know, I mean it's gone up, I mean, I think it was around $160, and now it's like $600. So --

CAMEROTA: So why do you like it?

POWERS: So I think that -- because I think it needs to be improved. I think it's a good start, and I do believe in universal coverage.

And so I think that what's happening is, you know, people like me are paying more to subsidize people who don't have as much money. And ultimately, I'm willing to do that.

But I think that you -- it's not sustainable. And so something needs to be done. Something much bigger needs to be done around healthcare, and this is where we'll disagree. I think something more like a Medicare for all kind of something of a single-payer system.

SANTORUM: And this is --

POWERS: That actually would address the underlying problem.

SANTORUM: And this is -- this is the debate. And it's a debate, whether you do want a single-payer system, have the federal government do everything, or you want to have the same type approach, which was to give the resources out into the community and to give people choices of different insurance products.

And I think it's a winning argument for Republicans, and I think Trump is actually being really wise in trying to get Republicans tuned up for this debate.

CAMEROTA: John and Frank, you've been patient.

BERMAN: So Frank, is this a big game of the nine-dimensional chess, as Senator Santorum says it is, or is it a failed tic-tac-toe?

FRANK BRUNI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: With all due respect to Senator Santorum, I have to take issue with a number of the things he said. He said he thinks the president's being wise.

The president has changed the conversation from his exoneration by Robert Mueller to a subject, healthcare, that as Kirsten very wisely said, has served Democrats well. It did well for them in the midterms.

Senator Santorum says a critique of Obamacare is warranted and he's correct, but not in the absence of an alternative. This idea, let's just leave it to the states, not knowing what the states would do is irresponsible.

Twenty million Americans could lose coverage and what happens in the stead of that? Also, the idea that Democrats, a majority of them, are opposed to Obamacare, because they want Medicare for all, they think we can do better than Obamacare.

They think Medicare for all would cover a wider number -- a bigger number of people, they're -- but they're not saying, "Let's junk Obamacare, period, and figure out what to replace it with later," which is the irresponsible position of Republicans right now.

CAMEROTA: OK. Go ahead, frank.

SANTORUM: Let's just deal with the reality. I'm happy to share this with you, and it would be lovely if "The New York Times" would actually write an article on this.

But we actually have the proposal that the president is talking about, which is the Healthcare Choices Act, scored by a nonpartisan group that has Democrats and Republicans in it. And they scored it that actually people -- one more million people would be insured under the Obamacare. And it would save 30 percent in premiums.

So your idea, your proposal, this 22 million people would actually be thrown off is false. That's not what this proposal is. This proposal actually has been scored by a reputable organization and actually comes out actually covering more people at a lower cost.

BERMAN: Senator, what I will say is the immediate thing isn't a proposal at all. The immediate issue is a court case which could strike down Obamacare instantly, all of it, and throw, you know, many people who now have expanded Medicaid off. It could do away with protections for preexisting conditions. That is exactly what the decision was overnight.

And I think that's what frank was speaking to in terms of the politics here, which is curious, to say the least. And there are many Republicans who also say that.

I do want to shift gears here, because there's another thing where the president has diverted his focus, another area which some other people are drawing questions to, and that's Puerto Rico, which was hit by a Category 5 hurricane, and the president behind closed doors, to Republicans, is complaining that Puerto Rico is getting too much help. I'm not sure there's any other way to interpret that.

"The Washington Post" is reporting that. "The New York Times" is reporting that, and he's putting up figures that Puerto Rico has received $91 billion in aid, and no one can figure out how the math adds up there.

Puerto Rico has reported they need that much or more, but there's no sum of money that adds up to that much that they've received here, Frank. So what do you make of this pitch?

BRUNI: I'm just astounded that -- from the time this happened, the president has been banging this drum about Puerto Rico. He's got this thing from Puerto Rico from the feuds with the mayor of San Juan. Do you remember those? Gratuitous fights, you know, on Twitter and elsewhere. I don't know what it is, this bugaboo of Puerto Rico for the

president. And when his critics wonder, you know, if this is driven by racism, it's hard not to, because he invents numbers. He keeps us this fight for reasons that are -- that are baffling to the rest of us. It's unkind. It's grounded in exaggerations, as you just said. So what is the point of this? What animates him here? I'm baffled by it.

BERMAN: Kirsten.

POWERS: Yes, well, I mean, I think that it's -- it is baffling. There's also an inspector general report looking into whether the White House has been interfering with aid going to Puerto Rico.

And so what is the obsession with denying money to Puerto Rico and being -- and being mystified about the fact that they were decimated, right? I mean, this is not -- the idea that they would need a lot of money shouldn't really be something that causes a lot of consternation because of what happened there. I mean, they were completely and utterly decimated and, of course, they're going to need a lot of money to rebuild.

CAMEROTA: I think this is the problem, Senator, with the president's imprecision with facts. So he doesn't know -- doesn't know the number. They need 91 billion. He thinks that they're getting 91 billion. He's angry about it. I think that they've gotten 1.5.

SANTORUM: I think the president's angry that the administration is being blamed for the failures in Puerto Rico, when I think there is certainly ample blame to be spread around, certainly, to the folks at the local level who -- who have not done a particularly good job. And he doesn't like being blamed for things that are not his fault.

CAMEROTA: Or that are.

SANTORUM: He gets blamed for things that are his fault. And so I think that's what's really going on.

CAMEROTA: All right. Senator, Kirsten, Frank, thank you all very much for the spirited policy debates on all of this. Thank you -- John.

BERMAN: All right. Chicago's police union, new this morning, is calling for a federal investigation after prosecutors abruptly dropped all charges against "Empire" actor, Jussie Smollett. This comes just weeks after a grand jury indicted Smollett on 16 felony counts for allegedly staging an attack on himself.

CNN's Ryan Young is live in Chicago with the very latest here -- Ryan.

RYAN YOUNG, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John, so many twists and turns in this story. If you remember how this all started, it was the coldest day in Chicago.

Apparently, the actor went to get a sandwich, and then he was attacked, but ever since then, the story just keeps unfolding. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

YOUNG (voice-over): The Chicago police union calling for a federal investigation into the handling of "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett's case after prosecutors abruptly dropped all 16 felony charges against Smollett for allegedly staging a hate crime against himself and filing a false police report.

KEVIN GRAHAM, PRESIDENT, CHICAGO FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE: We want to make sure that the Justice Department takes a very hard look at what went on with that case and also what has occurred today.

YOUNG: The union zeroing in on the state's attorney, Kim Fox, who recused herself from the case in February. Text messages obtained by CNN show Smollett's family friend and former chief of staff for Michelle Obama, Tina Chin, reached out to Fox about concerns about the investigation. Smollett's attorney denying that the actor's fame played any role in the dismissal.

[07:15:11] PATRICIA BROWN HOLMES, ATTORNEY FOR JUSSIE SMOLLETT: There was no political influence in this case.

YOUNG: Smollett maintains his innocence.

JUSSIE SMOLLETT, ACTOR: I've been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one. I would not be my mother's son if I was capable of one drop of what I had been accused of.

YOUNG: But the stunning decision to essentially let him off the hook drawing immediate backlash from Chicago's mayor and police department.

RAHM EMANUEL, MAYOR OF CHICAGO: This is a whitewash of justice. A grand jury could not have been clearer.

EDDIE JOHNSON, SUPERINTENDENT, CHICAGO POLICE: Do I think justice was served? No. What do I think justice is? I think this city is still owed an apology.

YOUNG: Prosecutors have not given a detailed explanation for why they abandoned the case, saying in a statement the decision was made "after reviewing all the facts and circumstances of the case."

JOSEPH MAGATS, PROSECUTOR: We dropped all charges based on the fact that he has -- did community service and that he forfeited his bail.

YOUNG: Lead prosecutor Joseph Magats later said that Smollett had no previous criminal record.

MAGATS: Our priority is violent crimes and the drivers of violence. Jussie Smollett is neither one of those.

YOUNG: But Magats also stressing that dropping the charges did not exonerate the actor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think Mr. Smollett did what he was charged with doing? MAGATS: Yes. We stand behind the CPD's investigation in this case,

the great work, the tremendous work that they did in investigating this case. We stand behind the decision to charge Mr. Smollett and to indict him.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

YOUNG: John, when you think about this case, all the hours that were spent on it, you had 12 detectives working around the clock to find the men who apparently did this or didn't do this. That is the big question here now.

Of course those two brothers, the Osundairo brothers, have never given an interview. And John, if you could only imagine, they gave over those text messages that, apparently, police have. That might be the only way we can see parts of this case, because of course, the file has now been sealed -- John.

BERMAN: All right. Ryan Young for us in Chicago.

Let's try to understand this more, if it's possible.

We're joined by Joey Jackson. He is a criminal defense attorney and a CNN legal analyst. Let's take baby steps here, Joey.

First of all, there is such a thing as alternative disposition, alternative prosecution. Prosecutors can decide to do something other than take a case to court. It happened more than 5,000 times in Illinois. But how does it normally happen?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, look, here's the point. Let's talk about what did happen here. What happened here is that he did it, and to your point, the prosecution felt, well, they believe he did it.

BERMAN: They believe he did it.

JACKSON: They said that they stand by the grand jury. They believe strongly that they could have prevailed. They believe and support the Chicago Police Department's investigation, but they've opted, instead of moving forward, to offer an alternative disposition to your point.

An alternative disposition is, look, let us allow reasonable minds to prevail. We believe that, in the interest of justice, pursuing 16 counts in a felony indictment is not appropriate.

How it normally works is you go in, usually prior to indictment, and say, "Don't indict. Let's look at something like community service. Let's look at what we can do with my client in order to restore him into the community, rehabilitate him and not have him have a criminal record."

I should point out, John, very significant, there is a federal investigation under way inasmuch as it's alleged that he sent something to himself, which was in the form of a threat by way of using the mails. In the event the federal government investigates that, Chicago locally will have no jurisdiction, and that will be a federal issue. So he's not completely out of the legal woods yet.

BERMAN: So Smollett's attorney claims his celebrity had nothing to do with this.

JACKSON: That's ridiculous. Right? So let's just call it for what it is.

What I would have had a lot of respect for is if the county attorney came out and said what I said to you: "Listen, we believe that he's responsible for what occurred here. We also believe that reasonable minds should prevail. He is a young African-American man who's done significant things for his community. He has a bright future ahead of himself. We believe he is rehabilitated. We believe he's a good person, and as a result of that, we're not moving forward. It happens every day and twice on Sunday. This is such a case. He's not a violent guy, and that's how we're resolving it."

Instead, you don't alert the superintendent, you don't alert the mayor. The mayor comes out and says, "It's ridiculous. We want a federal investigation."

The superintendent says, "Hey, he did it. We only showed a sliver of evidence to the grand jury."

Transparency, right? Remember that word, John? Where has it gone? Just be honest: "We want an alternate disposition. We think it's time to heal this city, and as a result, we're moving forward." That didn't happen, and that's a shame.

BERMAN: And there are two things also that happened here. No. 1, did blindside the police and law enforcement.

And No. 2, and I don't know whether prosecutors saw this coming or not, but to have Jussie Smollett come out after and still maintain his innocence.

JACKSON: I mean, let's call it for what it is. That's ridiculous. Right? And so the point is, is that you heard, we just heard the interview of the person who made the decision to drop it: "We believe he did it. Yes, he did. We believe in the investigation that was done. We believe in the grand jury finding, but we also believe that he's not violent, that he's a guy who can go out and do great things; and we're going to allow him to do that."

[07:23:56] Just say that and we're all good with it, not cause this mass confusion of what happened, who called who. Look, celebrity matters in this country.

BERMAN: Joey Jackson, great to have you with us. Thank you.

JACKSON: Thank you, John.

BERMAN: Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: All right, John. President Trump says the GOP will soon be the party of healthcare. What do Democrats think about that? We ask Chris Coons next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Let me just tell you exactly what my message is. The Republican Party will soon be known as the party of healthcare.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right. That was President Trump trying to rebrand the GOP as a party of healthcare, despite the fact that his administration is asking a federal appeals court to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act with no other plan in place.

Joining me now is Democratic Senator Chris Coons. Good morning, Senator.

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D), DELAWARE: Good morning, Alisyn. That's really a striking assertion on the part of President Trump that the Republican Party is now going to be the party of healthcare. I'd say with his leadership, it will be the party of taking healthcare away.

[07:25:11] CAMEROTA: Well, let's talk about this, because we just had former senator, former GOP senator Rick Santorum on, who is pretty bullish about the Republicans seizing an opportunity here.

He cited what he calls the Healthcare Choices Act and basically, I think, it would give states block grants or a lump sum of money -- I mean, I may be butchering this, but from what I understood from what he just said -- from the federal government, put control back in the states. He thinks that it will have lower premiums and cover more people than, currently, Obamacare does.

COONS: Well, that's great that former Senator Santorum thinks that. I'll tell you, the most important thing about the Affordable Care Act for more than 150 million Americans, who get their healthcare through their employer, is that it protects you against discrimination by an insurance company if you have a preexisting condition.

In my little state of Delaware, we have 900,000 people; 400,000 of us have a preexisting condition. And one of the worst parts about how health insurance worked before Obamacare was that you'd get health insurance through your employer and think it was strong and reliable, right up until you needed it. And then, insurance companies were very adept at finding ways to deny coverage, in particular, if you had a preexisting condition.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

COONS: I don't think Americans want to go back to the day of trapdoor healthcare policies like that. I think the Affordable Care Act, that protection in particular is widely popular.

And the Republicans will find that, since they don't really have a replacement bill that does what the Affordable Care Act does, stripping away that key protection through legal action by the Trump administration will prove wildly unpopular.

CAMEROTA: I think you've captured the problem and what people wrestled with before the Affordable Care Act very well.

However, as you know, premiums have gone up. Costs have gone up. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect. And so is there a window of opportunity for the Republicans to make it better than what currently exists?

COONS: There is. I've proposed several bills to try to improve on the Affordable Care Act, in particular to make it more affordable for small businesses. Unfortunately, it's been really different to find bipartisan cosponsors.

Senator Toomey of Pennsylvania and I actually did introduce and get passed, I think, the only statutory revision to the Affordable Care Act. We worked with a dozen other members, House and Senate, but it was a very small piece of improving the Affordable Care Act. He's also a good partner with me in legislating on background checks for guns, something we just introduced yesterday.

But on healthcare, it's been difficult to find bipartisan partners really willing to strengthen the foundation of the Affordable Care Act, rather than what the Trump administration is trying to do, which is to strip it away and replace it with something that would literally just hand block grants to states.

CAMEROTA: And I do want to get to your gun policy. It's really important, particularly on this anniversary week of the march. And I did have a chance to talk to the Parkland students yesterday, so we'll get to that in a moment.

But first, I just want to talk Democratic strategy, because you know there's this debate about whether or not to continue talking about collusion and conspiracy and whatever wrongdoing, if there was any, was done by President Trump's campaign. Or move on to healthcare.

And so Adam Schiff, as you know, the chair, of course, of the Intelligence Committee, said to the "Washington Post" yesterday, he's sticking with his collusion fight. He says, "Undoubtedly, there is collusion. We will continue to investigate the counterintelligence issues. That is, is the president or people around him, are they compromised in any way by a hostile foreign power? It doesn't appear that was any part of Mueller's report."

Are you comfortable with Chairman Schiff digging in in that way?

COONS: Well, I think we're capable of addressing two different issues at the same time. And if the Intelligence Committee and the House wants to continue the counterintelligence aspect of this issue, I think that's fine.

It's undisputable now, particularly given Mueller's report on this topic, that the Russians interfered in our 2016 election. I think likely from what we're hearing from the intelligence community, they will try to do so again in 2020. So I do think Congress has a role, in particular, looking forward,

making sure our next election is not at risk of being interfered with or interrupted by any hostile powers.

But what I hear from folks up and down Delaware, Alisyn, is that they're concerned about healthcare. They're concerned about healthcare, about better jobs, about the opioid crisis, and they want to see us find ways to work together to deal with those issues.

CAMEROTA: So, Senator, I'm here in D.C. on assignment, because I came down yesterday to talk to some of the Parkland students. You know, they put up this big art installation just outside of the Capitol, because they wanted to get all of your attention. They wanted lawmakers to have to look out the window and see all of this very dramatic bullseye that they put out there.