Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump Administration Supports Lawsuit to Strike Down Affordable Care Act; Transportation Officials to Testify before Congress on Safety of Boeing 737 MAX Fleet. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired March 27, 2019 - 8:00   ET

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

[08:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This city is owed an apology.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY. It is Wednesday, March 27th, 8:00 here in Washington where I am on assignment and John is in New York. CNN has learned there is a heated debate about among the Trump team concerning the administration's push to strike down the Affordable Care Act. "Politico" reports that Attorney General Bill Barr and health secretary Alex Azar are opposed to invalidating Obamacare without a viable alternative plan. The president, though, appears to be moving full steam ahead, trying to declare the GOP will become the party of healthcare.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: There is so many at stake here for so many Americans, 53 million Americans with preexisting conditions, maybe 20 million more with health care because of Medicaid expansion. What would happen to them if the White House gets its way in court? Democrats pounced on the White House decision. Congressional leadership was already looking to pivot from the Russia investigation to pocketbook issues. Still, there is focus on Russia in Congress and the fact that no one has actually seen the Mueller report. No one here either. Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, tells "The Washington Post" that undoubtedly there is collusion. That is his view even though the special counsel said there is not enough evidence to establish a criminal case.

Then we heard overnight from fierce Trump critic George Conway, the husband of the president's counselor Kellyanne Conway. He flat out declared that the president is guilty, guilty of being unfit for officer.

We want to bring in Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent for "The New York Times" and a CNN political analyst who gets to share the table with Alisyn in Washington.

CAMEROTA: She's very lucky.

BERMAN: Maggie, let me ask you. You've done reporting on what happened behind closed doors yesterday. The president was with Republican members of the Senate, and those senators said, yes, he was ebullient and enthusiastic post-Mueller. But he also was talking about a number of things, and one of them was healthcare, because we woke up yesterday, shocked, frankly, that the White House signed on to this legal argument saying that Obamacare should be invalidated immediately. But the president dove in with these Republican senators. Explain.

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: The president was not demure, John, as you say, and he often isn't in these moments. Look, I think the president is mindful that Republicans had campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act, including him in 2016, and there is this existing suit. And I think the White House is trying to figure out how you deal with that.

That said, there were a number of people who did not favor this move. It was favored by the chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who is the first ideologue the president has had in the chief of staff role. John Kelly and Reince Priebus, not ideologues. Mick Mulvaney had protested the Affordable Care Act while he was in Congress. He was very much for this.

On the other side is Pat Cipollone, the White House Counsel. Pat Cipollone told others that Bill Barr and Alex Azar objected to this move as well. The president, however, liked the idea going forward with it and has been pretty celebratory about it. And you saw that, or at least we heard that that happened in this Senate luncheon yesterday.

CAMEROTA: Look, Republicans have been wanting to do away with Obamacare for years. What's different this time around? Does the president have a plan up his sleeve?

HABERMAN: No. This is basically something, a suit that most people in the administration -- and there was a reason the White House counsel was objected to joining this. Most of them said privately said they don't think this is really going to go anywhere. And the main objection that others had in the White House is this is going to be seen largely as a political move because legally it probably doesn't have much ground. And if it is a political move, why would you want to do this two days after the president's arguably best day of the last --

CAMEROTA: I'm not sure.

HABERMAN: Right. I don't a lot of people in the White House were either. They felt as if this had not been perhaps thought out completely. One administration official when I asked why this now, their response was, and they were obviously being sarcastic, and clearly, it's a serious subject matter about millions of people's healthcare, but this person said essentially there was too much good news, we had to change the subject. And this White House does have a history over two years of when they start to have a bit of momentum, they step on it. They have pivoted to an issue the Democrats love talking about, that they won 2018 on in the House midterms. And so this is a bit confounding.

BERMAN: And it's putting some Republicans in a bind. Susan Collins is already out saying this concerns her. All kind of Democrats, Republicans who might be in more purple districts, Tom Reed in New York out here expressing concern on this. It just surprised a lot of people, and they don't know what to do next.

HABERMAN: Right. And we'll see what happens next. Again, this White House, as we discussed, is pretty good at changing the subject. Something else might happen. And I think what they do next will depend to some extent on where this legal case goes. Again, there is a sense within the administration that it does not necessarily have the strongest ground that it is standing only, but we'll see.

CAMEROTA: Let's talk about Puerto Rico, because there was this closed-door luncheon, policy luncheon with the president yesterday that you have some reporting only.

[08:05:05] And the president was, I guess, venting his spleen about giving too much, or not wanting to give too much aid to Puerto Rico after hurricane Maria. But he was using the wrong numbers.

HABERMAN: He was using the wrong numbers and he was numbers that justify his own case, which is that we shouldn't be doing this. This is a waste. These folks are not using it correctly. He uses it to highlight the Puerto Rico debt crisis which, I can't help but thing is it part not only to justify what is he is saying, but it distracts from the fact that there is a ballooning national debt, and he does not like talking about that, and that's not helpful to him running into his election. This has been a bugaboo of his that he has fought in starkly personal terms increasingly in fight with officials in Puerto Rico. And I think he thinks this plays well, again, with his base. That is what a lot of yesterday was about. You were talking about many, many, U.S. citizens who are suffering after a hurricane and devastation, and he is sort of comparing one set of victims to others unfavorably.

BERMAN: Yes, again, with the wrong numbers. He is saying that Puerto Rico has received $91 billion, which sent a lot of people scurrying to try to figure out what he is talking about.

HABERMAN: You could set that statement to repeat. He often says figures that are questionable. And we go and we looked at it to figure out what he is talking about. He chose figures that, as you say, were inaccurate and also skewed to make Puerto Rico look bad, skewed to make them look at if they were takers. And I think that this is clearly not a theme he is ready to drop. We will hear more about it going forward.

BERMAN: And again, what is also interested is where this took place, once again, which was in this closed-door meeting where he had the floor to talk about what he wanted in front of people that support him. And it just is head-scratching again why this would be an area he would go.

HABERMAN: Again, I think this is an area that he goes because he thinks that it plays well politically. He knew that everything he was saying -- I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that's what he thinks. In this luncheon he knew that everything that he was going to say was going to leak out. He made some joke at one point about how he hoped there would be no leaks from the luncheon and then said the best way to make sure are leaks is to say I hope there's no leaks. These were not statements that he was hoping would stay secret.

CAMEROTA: Let's talk about George Conway, the husband of, of course, the counsellor to the president, Kellyanne Conway. I am, I admit, fascinated by the love triangle of George Conway, the president, and Kellyanne Conway. George Conway is coming out and, again, talking about -- we don't know what's in the Mueller report, of course, but what his conclusions, he is a state attorney. He thinks that there must be some dirt in there that Bill Barr has whitewashed a little bit, and then we'll see when it comes out. It could be embarrassing for the president. That's what he wrote in an op-ed.

HABERMAN: It certainly could be. We don't know what is in this report. I do think George Conway is an esteemed attorney in his field. He was never a public figure until his wife was in the White House, at which point He suddenly started speaking out more. I do have to -- he is not a psychiatrist. He spends a lot of time diagnosing the president. But he also, it is hard to divorce this from what feels like a very deeply personal fight he is having with his wife in public. I do have to wonder of George Conway and other people who criticize the president after supporting him in 2016, what was the moment they think he was suddenly different? What new fact did they not have in 2016 when they wanted him to be president? Why was he fit for office then and he's not fit for office now? And I think that that is a bit of a vexing issue for people who are coming out and saying, I liked him before but now I don't.

BERMAN: George Conway did pick up on what was one of the most interesting sentences in the Barr summary here, which he related that Robert Mueller said that his report didn't convict the president but didn't exonerate him either. That is what Conway was hung up on, and also Rudy Giuliani in interviews over the last few days, has said he felt that was a cheap shot. So when I heard Giuliani say that, Maggie, that he thought that Mueller was not exonerating the president, it was a cheap shot, it made me wonder if they are laying the groundwork, if they're trying to prepare people for the possibility that there is something there that we will all learn. Do you have a sense of what Giuliani is doing?

HABERMAN: No. I think, look, my sense of it from my conversations with the legal team has been that they are arguing that the president, saying it didn't exonerate him is typical of what you have in a criminal proceeding, because that's all you are supposed to be doing is convicting. So, of course, it says it doesn't exonerate him. It just says there's not enough facts. That is what former prosecutor have said to me.

The standard by which we elect presidents in this country is not usually were they convicted of a crime, or charged with a crime. That's not the standard that Republicans used about Hillary Clinton in 2016 when she was under federal investigation, and it's a different standard here. I do think -- I don't know that they're laying the groundwork for something specific.

[08:10:00] I do think, and if I were them, I would be celebrating, too. I totally understand that this has been a cloud on the presidency since the they that he took office. That said, I do think that they want to be mindful or should be mindful that there will be some version of the report that will be made public, and we don't know what's in it. And it might support what they're saying and it might support what they're saying, but everyone, including all of us who are talking about it, we haven't seen it yet, we don't know.

BERMAN: We absolutely haven't seen it yet and Congress hasn't seen it yet.

HABERMAN: And the White House hasn't seen it yet as far as we understand.

BERMAN: And until we do, who knows? Maggie, thank you very much.

A critical day on Capitol Hill for Boeing. Transportation officials are getting set for a grilling from senators about the safety of the 737 MAX 8 fleet. And this comes less than 24 hours after another emergency involving one of the jets, this time here in the United States. Jessica Schneider live in Washington with more. And this was the last thing, I am sure, that Boeing ever wanted to see.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It probably was, John. That emergency landing last night really sure to add another layer of scrutiny for Boeing. But it turns out Boeing actually won't be front and center at today's Senate hearing. Instead, senators will be hearing from the acting FAA administrator along with officials from the Department of Transportation and NTSB.

We've seen the remarks for the opening statements from the acting FAA administrator. He's expected to acknowledge that the agencies oversight approach really needs to evolve after those two fatal crashes involving the Boeing 737 MAX. And we also anticipate that he will defend that whole certification process, which has been heavily scrutinized for the so-called self-certification that Boeing is allowed to conduct.

And no doubt, lawmakers are expected to press the FAA on why exactly it waited several days to ground the 737 MAX planes in the U.S., and the FAA should defend that decision, we expect, because the agency said it wasn't seeing any systemic performance issues. So, as all of this is happening in the Senate, Boeing is also inviting 200 pilots and industry stake holders in their facility outside of Seattle where they assembled the 737 MAX. and this is really all an effort to begin restoring industry confidence in this product.

So we know that the session, it will center on the 737 MAX as well as Boeing's planned software update. And the company plans to submit that update to the FAA by the end of the week we have learned. This is a software update that is set to resolve issues that aviation authorities believe led to that crash of the Lion Air jet back in October. And John, we do know that while Boeing won't be at the Senate hearing today, senators do plan to call them to Capitol Hill soon to answer all of these questions. Alisyn?

CAMEROTA: Jessica, that will be important to hear the answers to those, thank you very much.

So there's this stunning development in the Jussie Smollett case. Why did prosecutors drop all of the charges? We discuss that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:16:38] BERMAN: So, prosecutors abruptly dropped all 16 felony charges against Jussie Smollett after a grand jury indicted him for allegedly staging a hate crime and filing a false police report. The move left Chicago's mayor and police superintendent really upset and left people in the country confused.

Also, more confused when Smollett maintains his innocence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSSIE SMOLLETT, ACTOR: I have 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 was accused of.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Joining me now, John Fritchey, former Cook County commissioner and former Illinois state legislator, and Charles Blow, "The New York Times" op-ed columnist and a CNN political commentator.

Commissioner Fritchey, I want to start with you because you are out there. Just give me a sense of the first reaction you and others had. Is this anything you were expecting?

JOHN FRITCHEY, FORMER COOK COUNTY COMMISSIONER: This is not a city that stuns easily and I will tell you across the board, people are shocked, regardless of age, ethnicity, race, whatever it may be, nobody saw this coming. Nobody can understand it. Everybody is still waiting for a real explanation about what happened. And this has left a lasting impact on the city. It really has.

BERMAN: And, Charles, I want to quote from your twitter feed, which was roughly, wait, what?

CHARLES BLOW, OP-ED COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: That's right. I mean, well, no one expected them to drop the charges, number one. Also, the case is sealed, which means that, you know, they interrogated Jussie more than once, all that's recorded these days.

We'll never see it. We'll never see a transcript. They talked to the brothers. We will never see a transcript. We will never see those interrogations. We will never see what the superintendent said was all this evidence that they had gathered that said that Jussie had done this, we'll never see it.

So, now, we're left in a six, we have more questions than answers. And we will never know the answers to that, and it allows everybody involved in that case to go out and say whatever they want, because we will never have any everyday to contradict it. BERMAN: And Jussie Smollett as we heard before he said he is innocent

and the mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel was on Wolf Blitzer yesterday and he's really upset. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAHM EMANUEL, CHICAGO MAYOR: What happens to the young man who wants to in the future come forward because he has been the victim of a hate crime or somebody of a place of employment where there is actual la noose left at their desk or locker? They're going to be not willing to come forward because they're going to be questioned, all because of who he is that caught everybody by surprise, and he, all of a sudden, gets off with two days of service.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Because of who he is, what the mayor there was implying, elsewhere outright, Commissioner, this was a matter of celebrity. He was treated differently. In the end, that was because he was a celebrity. Do you see that?

FRITCHEY: Yes, there is no question about it. There is nobody that can come off of the street and have the treatment that Jussie Smollett got.

Let's be clear about something. Over the week, we had an off duty Chicago police officer get executed in what was a real hate crime. By contrast, we have Jussie Smollett pay people to put a noose around his neck, stage a hate crime.

And now, he plays the victim trifecta. He was a supposed victim when he was attacked. He was a victim again when he got prosecuted. Shockingly he is claiming me is a victim now by having gone through all of this.

[08:20:03] The police interviewed over 100 people. They had over I think 60 cameras that they used in this. You will not see a case that is this nice and neat on a television "Law and Order" show.

There is no question in anybody's mind and, in fact, the prosecutor who handled this case said point plank that he believes that Jussie is guilty. Everybody believes that Jussie is guilty except somehow he's convinced himself he is not. So to say he got special treatment is without question, as Charles said, we'll never know the full story about what happened. There is no reason for or this case to be sealed.

The damage continues to be done. There will be a long-term strain between the Chicago police department who did a fantastic job in resolving this case and finding a quick solution, putting countless hours into it. And now their trust between the police department and the state attorney's officer about whether or not they can trust this case to be prosecuted or the state's attorney can pick and choose who gets what type of justice.

BERMAN: Charles, do you agree with that? Do you see the police department as a victim here?

BLOW: Well, to a degree -- the Chicago police department has a lot to answer for in cases other than this. So it is hard to be sympathetic to their case. Although in this case, I would like to at least see what they have uncovered.

That said, I do agree we what he said. I think that all of us, including the mayor have to acknowledge something, which is that people get breaks all the time and it is very often people who are wealthy or powerful. And that is very often correlated to race in America.

And people who are poor, very often black and brown, do not get those breaks. What's happened here is that the glove was turned inside out, and the person with the wealth and the power was black. It was ticking people off for that reason and also because he invoked a political, the Trump supporters.

But there are hundreds of thousands of people right now in local jails because they have never been convicted of any crime. They don't have enough money to bail themselves out, right?

So, Jussie had the privilege of being able to say I had $10,000, I'm going home and also the privilege of being able to say, the case is over. You keep it. I don't even need it. No poor person could do that, right?

So the whole system is a kind of a mockery because it is corrupted by money and power. And so, we have to step back and at least acknowledge that fact. This is not a Jussie corruption. This is a corruption that we, that goes from the base all the way up to the presidency, where you have enough power, and you have enough money, you can fight hard enough and you might catch a break that poor people often black people will never, ever catch.

BERMAN: You think someone was pulling strings behind the scenes, Commissioner?

FRITCHEY: All right, something obviously happened. Charlotte hit it on the head. This doesn't happen to the person off of the street.

And, you know, for them to say there was no deem. Nobody walks away from their $10,000. This was a part of a deal. There is no two ways about that.

You know, Charles is lavishing compliments on him today. He is right as usual here.

This is a situation, it's interesting, you are seeing a lot of backlash from within the African-American community here saying, wait a second, you are making everybody look bad. You are making the system look bad.

And then you are turning it around, rather than saying, hey, let's all move on, this has been a tragic situation. Let's all get on with our lives. He has the audacity to come out here and proclaim his innocence again. It's a slap in the face.

And while you do have poor people, mostly black and brown sitting in Cook County jail awaiting far less serious offenses than this one was. So this, as I said, it does damage to the justice system. It's done damage to the city of Chicago who has had enough problems already.

You know, Jussie Smollett got on the national and international stage and said, hey, I can't even walk the streets of the city of Chicago. Jussie Smollett lied.

Go ahead.

BERMAN: Right. Go ahead.

I didn't mean to interrupt. All I was going to say to Charles, though, as we close here, again, we were all shocked, we didn't think it was going to happen. We thought it would go to trial. I don't know what will happen at trial, I don't know.

I talked to plenty of attorneys who say it wasn't as much a close and shut case as we think it might have been because the two brothers will remain witnesses. You know, their stories have changed over time. Still, from the case that we've seen and the police laid out, it did appear to be a strong case, Charles, and given that there was this alternative disposition to have Jussie Smollett come out at the end of the day and say, oh, I'm innocent. I have always been innocent here -- that came to a shock to me.

BLOW: Well, I said from the very beginning I needed to see what the police were basing this case out they laid it on. So, they presented a narrative he sent a letter to himself. I need to see who is that based on.

[08:25:00] I don't know. That he had paid them money to beat him up. What is the evidence of that?

So, all of that would have come out in a trial. The public would have been able to look at that and evaluate whether or not they believe, which side they believe or not. At this point, though, we have no way of verifying any of what the police said or what Jussie said and the way our system of justice is set up, it is independent until proven guilty. Because they are not going to try to prove it, you are left with Jussie being able to say that I am innocent and who are we to squabble with it at this point?

BERMAN: There are all these questions. This is on a serious issue. Hate crimes such a serious issue, and to have all this ancillary debate now and confusion over it is baffling.

All right, Charles Blow, John Fritchey, thank you so much for being with us.

The Trump administration is asking a court to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act with as of now no alternative to replace it. So what would that do to people in the healthcare system? How would that work? We are joined by the former secretary of health and human services,

next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: The White House official tells CNN, there has been a heated debate inside the Trump administration over whether the Justice Department should support a ruling.

[08:30:00]