tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN December 16, 2019 5:00am-6:00am PST
up the old joe friday on "drag net" just the facts. we don't need fishing expa digses. we're trying to have the kind of justice america is known for which is swift, but fair justice. >> these four individuals are individuals who did not testify in the house impeachment inquiry. their testimony would be new. you mentioned you're going to send this letter to all republicans. you can do almost anything you want in a senate impeachment trial if you can get 51 votes. you would need four republican vote snooze correct. >> what kind of discussions have you had? >> there's been lots of discussions. a lot of our republican members are troubled by what the president did. >> like who? >> i'm not going to get into names. some of them have said we need to see more facts. no one has given a single -- make two points here. of the facts the house has preptsd not one has been rebutted. there have been a lot of wild goose chases and conspiracy theorys that some of our republican friends, not many, have talked about, but not one of these facts has been rebutsds
nor has there been a single good reason why these folks can't testify. they say the chief of staff shouldn't testify. chiefs of staff testify before congress all the time. there's no executive privilege. >> in your letter to mitch mcconnell you say, and i quote, we would, of course, be open to hearing the testimony of additional witnesses having direct knowledge of the administration's decisions regarding the delay in security assistance funds to the government of ukraine. we would be open to hearings the testimony of additional witnesses. >> yes. >> does that mean if the republican said to you, we want to hear from hunter biden. >> look, if no one -- not a single person i've heard, even those who want hunter biden v had -- have even alleged he has knowledge of the fact case the house is presenting. this shouldn't be for democrats to bring in their favorite conspiracy theories and republicans to bring in theirs. this is a solemn proceeding. it's a very important
proceeding. these four witnesses have all direct knowledge of the facts. if mitch mcconnell or any other republican says, witness y or witness z might also have specific knowledge as to what happened, of course i would think they should be able to testify. >> witness y or witness z does not include hunter biden? >> they have not shown -- i agree, they have not shown a single bit of evidence that hunter biden can answer any of these facts. he's a distraction. let me say this, john, the american people want to know of each of us as senators, do we want all the facts to come out in this proceeding, whatever we think of president trump, or do we want to get -- be engaged in a cover-up. no one has given a reason why these shouldn't testify. if president trump is so certain that he did nothing wrong, why -- what is he afraid of and hiding when he says mulvaney or bolton or other two witnesses shouldn't testify. he hasn't given a single answer
other than to tweet show trial and all this. that doesn't answer the fact snooze if the testimony from these four individuals is so important to you and you're confident that hunter biden doesn't have anything to hide why not make that trade? if you want to get these four guys and the only way the republicans will do it is say hunter biden, why not make that deal? >> i hope they won't. i don't think they should. they know that the american people would see that as a total political distraction. so i think we should focus on having a fair trial, not dilatory, both sides treated equally, balanced but getting all the facts to come out. hunter biden doesn't add to that. he's basically the people who advocated hunter biden, lindsey graham advocates, he said i've made up my mind already. >> joe manchin suggested he would be open to the idea of hunter biden. all i'm saying if it's the only way to get these four people, if it's the only way to get the four people -- >> i'm not going to negotiate in public but the bottom line i haven't seen a single bit, a sin till la of evidence that hunter
biden would add anything other than show, circus, distraction. george washington, james madison, the people who set this stuff up they wouldn't want a hunter biden thing to happen at an impeachment hearing. >> i'm not suggesting that he has any evidence that would be helpful. >> exactly. >> i was saying as a mere political matter if you wanted to get these four witnesses how far -- >> let's not make this into a circus. just the facts. >> if there were to be a subpoena from a senate trial and the chief justice of the united states signing off on it, there is any way someone could resist such a subpoena, do you think? >> i hope they wouldn't. i hope the chief justice would understand the need for the facts but i also hope our senate republicans -- let me tell you a goodp number of senate republicans troubled by this, that's in private conversations, who say i would like to see all the facts. all we need is four. we're not asking them to -- they shouldn't make up their minds on how they're going to vote, but they should be making up their minds on getting the facts out. what is the reason? what is the only reason mulvaney
should not testify? the only one i can imagine is they're afraid of what he might say, president trump is. >> what kind of pressure does your letter and does this request for these four witnesses, what kind of pressure does that put on republicans? >> look, i went to mitch mcconnell two weeks ago and said let's negotiate and sit down and try to come up with a fair process. mitch mcconnell did not come and call me and ask to do that. instead, he first spun out his own theory of what a trial should be and then he said, well he's going to do just what president wants. this letter is an attempt to get it back in the middle to a fair and balanced trial that's appropriate. we use the 1999 mod until a lot of ways and we're not trying to delay, not trying to bring in extraneous people. we're trying to get to the bottom of what actually happened. the house has made a very strong case. there's sort of a burden on the president to rebut that case and he's done none of that. >> do you have a meeting set up with leader mcconnell? >> he hasn't asked.
>> he said in response to your letter last night, it's coming. >> you imagine it's coming. >> i would love to sit down and talk to him and my hope, either him, if not him, a number of republicans will support something along these lines so that we can actually get a fair trial and the facts to come out. >> let me ask you, mitch mcconnell did say he is in roughly lockstep with the white house on planning the impeachment trial and a number of republicans have said they've made up their minds. let's listen to that. >> everything i do during this, i'm coordinating with the white house counsel. >> i am trying to give a pretty clear signal i have made up my mind. i'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here. >> senators are not required like jurors in a criminal trial to be sequestered, not to talk to anyone or coordinate. there's no prohibition. >> you were shaking your head, why? >> what lindsey graham said speaks not of the fairness of the trial or the facts, it speaks of him. and it demeans him.
it will not go down as a great moment in history for lindsey graham. >> haven't you made up your mind on whether you think -- >> i have not. i am seeking the facts. again, i don't know what these four witnesses will say. maybe they'll help president trump. they're his allies and appointees. want to get the facts under oath. >> you, of course, in 1998 granted you were in a unique situation you were in the house for the impeachment process. you voted for impeachment and then you became a senator. >> yes. >> and voted to a quit president clinton. >> i'm a historical foot note, having been to the house side and then the senate side. >> however you did make clear you had made up your mind, a vote for chuck schumer for the senate is a vote for acquittal, you said yes. you had predetermined tbefore. >> that was about something that president clinton did, not as president, but as a human being and failing as a human being.
this is about the president's overreach of power. i was so touched, still am, by those seven house members all of whom served in the military or the cia, all of whom were in districts that trump won, who said, we don't know what the effect will be electorally. i heard one of them did a poll and it said that person might lose. but they said, if we don't do this, this president will overreach more and future presidents will overreach more and our tuesday wiconstitution shambles. this is different than in 1999. >> that's one of the key questions and we've heard it and will hear it to say do you think it's okay for a president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival. the answer to that question is fundamental to all this. historically speaking, you also voted against admitting new evidence into the senate trial in 1999. >> well, that's because they jammed it. >> look, but you -- >> no.
>> what's different, saying in 1999 i don't want any evidence, new evidence, no witnesses. you said no new witnesses in '99. >> the republicans could not negotiate a fair bunch of witnesses with the democrats and just there was a 55-45 vote because it wasn't a bipartisan negotiation. it should be now. >> again, you voted no for new evidence then. now you're asking for new evidence and new witnesses. >> what i'm asking is there be a fair negotiation, focused on the facts between mcconnell and i that i would expect democrats and republicans to support. i expect some of my republican colleagues when they see this letter will say that's fair. they don't want to be a part of a cover-up. >> is there a difference between ' 99 and now? >> there's a difference in the whole basis of the situation but we should have the facts come out. there was a whole report done. the fact situation, leading up situation with ken starr, totally different than now.
>> how long, in addition to asking for these four witnesses and documents, you lay out a timeline. how long do you envision this lasting total? >> the bottom line, i'm not going to set an amount of time. we don't want it dilatory. we want it fair and speedy. we should have the facts come out. it shouldn't be rushed sort of truncated to avoid facts from coming out but it shouldn't be prolonged any longer than it has to be. >> you have five democratic senators running for president. how do you intend to protect them? >> what i've said. this is a solemn and serious obligation that the constitution imposes on us. their schedules are of much less importance. we should do what's right for the trial and they should be there. >> even if it means missing a debate in iowa. >> one isn't close to the other. >> tough cookies. >> one isn't close to the others. >> the white house has responded this morning in real time to your letter, an official hang on, an official involved in the matter says, they will review your proposal today.
>> good. >> that's -- i'm glad it's different than some of the tweets that just say show trial, everything is perfect, et cetera. let's see. let's hope. i expect any fair-minded person, by the way, i think the american people, democrat or republican, when they hear about this, we have another obligation. you know, people have to believe this government's on the level. we have an obligation to the american people that they believe that this has been done in a fair way, not in a rushed way, not in a circus style way, and not in a dilatory way, but a fair way. >> the polls have been interesting. the polls haven't moved. granted the most recent poll from fox news, 50% in favor of impeaching and removing the president, historically high number. >> can i be honest with you, john? polls should have nothing to do with this. i know polls are out there and this is reality. this is a solemn responsibility and i didn't write this letter because of polls. i wrote this letter because mitch mcconnell seemed to be going off in his own direction
and no semblance of even discussing a fair, balanced trial where the facts come out. >> you want a deal with mcconnell? you don't want this to get to an impeachment trial with no deal, right? >> what i want is a fair trial. i hope mitch mcconnell, i expect mitch mcconnell, will help us create that. if he doesn't, we'll have to see where to go from there. >> what do you see as the chief justice role in this? >> the chief justice has presided in a very i think rehnquist said, i did nothing and i did it very well, and i suppose, i don't know this, that the chief justice -- look, you would think -- in a regular trial if the prosecution, these would be the house managers, when they are appointed, ask for witnesses, the judge would give them a benefit of the doubt. in this situation he will probably, my guess, send it over to the state and we depend on a number of republicans to vote with us and make it fair. >> what happens if there is no deal? >> let's hope there is. this letter is an attempt to
create a fair deal, not simply i'm going to do what white house wants or i'm going to do what i want, which is what mitch mcconnell has been doing up until now. >> and do you think there are still minds to be changed in america. >> yes. >> and in the usa? >> yes. particularly on what a trial is like, i think the american people have -- when you ask them, do you think that these witnesses should testify, factual witnesses, will say they should and they will think, if the president is resisting, say to themselves, lots, not just democrats, what is the president hiding. >> i asked you before, what happens if mick mulvaney resist or john bolton was not subpoenaed, did not receive a subpoena, indicated he would fight it, what if he says i would resist it here, could that lead to a delay? are you willing to wait in this case? >> let's not presume. let us hope fairness will prevail. >> are you convinced mitch mcconnell -- >> i expect it to.
the constitution demands it. >> one other note here, did you have an issue with mitch mcconnell saying he was coordinating the trial with the white house? >> you know, for him to talk to the president is one thing, for him to say i'm going to do just what the president wants is totally out of line? tom daschle told us in 1998 he had no personal discussions with the president, that's because they were fighting at the time, personal issues there, but his staff was in constant contact with the white house. >> as i said discussion in this kind of situation is not out of the question at all. saying you're going to do just what the president wants is totally out of line and mitch mcconnell has received a lot of justified criticism for that. >> senator chuck schumer, we appreciate you being with us this morning. please keep us posted as you enter these negotiations in the next few weeks and months. >> i will keep you posted. >> appreciate it. we have a lot to discuss about everything we just learned. stay with us. let's be honest,
we have a lot to discuss isn choose the longest lasting aa battery... (music) energizer ultimate lithium backed by science. matched by no one. is skincare from around the wobetter than olay? olay regenerist faced 131 premium products, from 12 countries, over 10 years. olay's hydration was unbeaten every time. olay, face anything. here's the story of green mountain coffee roasters costa rica paraíso. meet sergio. and his daughter, maria. sergio's coffee tastes spectacular. because costa rica is spectacular.
we just heard from senate minority leader chuck schumer who wants a senate impeachment trial with witness testimony in contrast to the shorter trial senate republicans favor. joining us now to discuss cnn political commentator joe lockhart, president clinton's press secretary during his impeachment, cnn national security and legal analyst susan hennessey and political analyst david gregory. good to have all of you with us. great interview. as we're hashing over everything, this comes out of the letter chuck schumer sent to mitch mcconnell outlying the four witnesses he wants to hear from and saying clearly, if you have other people you think we should hear from who have firsthand knowledge of what we're talking about here, withholding aid to ukraine, let us know. i'm curious based on your history, as you sat there and listened to senator schumer lay out th out his case, what do you think the chances are we are going to see witnesses, some sort of real negotiation with mitch
mcconnell? >> you know, i think the real negotiation is not going to go on between schumer and mcconnell. i think in 1999, there was legitimate negotiations where tom daschle and trent lott went off and worked on a deal and the deal they put together made everyone angry. at the end of the day meant a pretty good deal. i think chuck schumer is going to put pressure on four or five republican senators who have political vulnerabilities or maybe still have a conscience, whatever, you know -- pick your reason there for, but that's where. i think what stood out for me was i think he made a powerful case for this, and when it came to the issue of hunter biden and joe biden, he didn't say absolutely not. he said, they have no reason to be there, so i think you'll see that negotiation playing out. ultimately i don't think it will come to fruition because i don't
think president trump will make the deal. i think he is he is desperate to keep mick mulvaney from opening his mouth on this, given what he knows. >> this is the problem joe is hitting on. the president may say he wants a big show of this and big trial, what lawyers understand is that when you start calling witnesses bad things can happen because there can be multiple stories and they can say things understand cross-examination that they may not want them to say. that can be true of hunter biden and mick mulvaney. i think it's interesting senator schumer is focused on the aid piece of this, the holding up of the aid, it's narrow and focused and knows democrats and republicans agreed on the importance of aid flowing to ukraine for defensive purposes. it's a way to go in an area more bipartisan. but i still think there's going to be the inclination on the part of republicans to do less rather than more. >> i thought it was really interesting to hear him identify
a political pressure point here, susan. up until the last few weeks everyone has been talking about oh, there are moderate democrats in the house who feel pressure to vote yes on impeachment. schumer flippeds the script and identified a sore spot for three, maybe four republicans in the senate, mitt romney, susan collins, lisa murkowski, if you don't want to hear from john bolton, a fact witness who may have firsthand knowledge or mick mulvaney, you have to explain why. >> yeah. i think he's smart to be zeroing in on one of the issues with the republican talking point, they said this has been a rushed process, hasn't been sufficient fact finding, hard to square that with a desire to not call these witnesses in. keep in mind in the context of an impeachment trial, mitch mcconnell does not have the same kind of control over the senate. he doesn't have the same kind of control over what happens in that trial and so i do think that schumer is smart to sort of
focus on those few senators who might at least be committed in this notion of wanting to have a sense of legitimacy, wanting to be able to look their voters in the eye and say look, even if i voted ultimately to acquit, i did care about this, i was concerned by it, i wanted to hear the evidence and see what it said. that's a pretty different method than what we're hearing from people like lindsey graham or mitch mcconnell basically saying we've made up our minds, we don't think there's any real issue or question of needing to hear witnesses at this point of obviously they feel politically secure enough to sort of make that representation, but obviously there is that sort of core group of senators. keep in mind similar to what we saw in the kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the questions came up and senators like jeff flake were able to essentially use their concerns in order to force the hand of their colleagues to at least investigate issues further. >> joe, i'm very fascinated by the fact that you did not hear
no, never, on hunter biden. just to be clear, i'm going to get beat up on liberal twitter for this, i'm not suggesting that hunter biden has any facts here pertaining to this case. it's a political issue here. but what i was trying to get to, if democrats want these four witnesses and think that they may make the case that the president withheld aid, they have direct knowledge of it, how far would they be willing to go and what might they be willing to give? you didn't hear a no. >> i didn't hear a no. in 1999, there were real institutionalists in the senate who put the aura of the senate and the history of the senate above all else. tom daschle had to deal with robert byrd every day and robert byrd cared more about the senate than he did about bill clinton, trust me on that. that doesn't exist now. so what now we're going to have is publicly negotiated political deals and i think the democrats might show some willingness to bring in extraneous people to
try to force the president's hand. again, it's not mcconnell's hand. again, i think at the end of the day this collapses under the president's unwillingness to. but if you're playing a political game here, and i don't mean game as in something that's not important, then you play this out and this could have an impact on the public. if the public sees the democrats going to great lengths and, you know, putting this out there and the president still saying, you know, doing lucy and the football, then that could have an impact. the other thing i would say is, you know, there's a lot of different equities in the senate right now. not all of them are joe bidens on the democratic side. i think, you know, again, it's not going to happen, but joe biden and hunter biden telling the story of their lives on the senate floor and everything they've gone through and what they've been able to do with their lives and what family has been able to do with their lives
will create a contrast with rudy giuliani and, you know, lev parnas and all of these crazy characters running around, running an alternative foreign snoo policy. >> john, we have to call senator schumer out for his disingenuousness and you brought this out about impeachment in 1998. you asked him, wait a minute, you weren't for new evidence back then, you are for now. new witnesses no, now yes. that's different because that was basically an illegitimate impeachment. >> his behavior versus today, he is saying, it has to do with the president's behavior. >> can i jump in. there is a difference. in 1998, everyone who was a fact witness senate a grand jury and testified under oath with the starr investigation. there were no new witnesses. there were no new facts. >> that's fair. >> we haven't heard from most of the people who have firsthand information. >> that's fair, joe, but what he's arguing here is, i didn't
hear him -- well, he said that was different in terms of the starr report coming out, but here he's saying that back then, it was fundamentally different. he's really casting aspersions on the legitimacy of impeachment back then as comparing it to now and the truth is that these are political arguments. republicans have a different vision of what it was in 1998. >> i just don't think he used his strongest argument there. >> susan, we want to give you the last word here. a closing thought on what we've seen today. >> look, i think the key testimony of individuals like mick mulvaney, somebody who is actually in the room and understand what happened with regard to this aid, you know, the american people still have real questions about the extent of the abuse of power, the possibility that the president of the united states committed a crime. remember mick mulvaney has given that initial press conference and he has created the perception this was about political maneuvering withholding this aid and it is incumbent on the white house to produce him to answer those very
serious questions. >> david, susan, joe, thank you all very much. staffers quitting on on a democratic congressman because of the big switch he is expected to announce. that's next. matter how much lie pushes us around... ...she keeps us centered. love you. introducing the center of me collection. because every 'your love keeps me centered' begins with kay. iseaonly abreva cany to help sget rid of it in... ...as little as 2 1/2 days when used at the first sign. abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. abreva acts on it. so you can too. we need a solution.ut their phones down. introducing... smartdogs. the first dogs trained to train humans. stopping drivers from: liking. selfie-ing. and whatever this is. available to the public... never.
smartdogs are not the answer. but geico has a simple tip. turn on "do not disturb while driving" mode. brought to you by geico. you may have gingivitis. when you brush, and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums, and possibly... tooth loss. help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. leave bleeding gums behind. parodontax. at t-mobile, we're lighting up 5g, and when you buy a samsung note 10+ 5g, you get one free. plus you can experience it on the nation's largest 5g network. so you can stay connected like this. score a last minute this. get home easier, like this. and share all of this... with that. so do this. on that. with us. and now, buy a samsung note 10+ 5g and get one free when you add a line. ♪
six aides for freshman congressman jeff van drew quitting after sources said the new jersey democrat who strongly opposes impeachment is getting ready to switch parties. five of the staffers signing a resignation letter saying, quote, sadly congressman van drew's decision to join the ranks of the republican party led by donald trump does not align with values we brought to
this job when we joined his office. joining us is mitch landrieu, political analyst and democratic mayor of new orleans. i'm curious what you make of this coming not only from the staffers resigning but the fact that we are essentially waiting to hear from congressman van drew that he is, in fact, going to move over to the republican party? >> well, i don't think it's a surprise what he's going to do. he's been telegraphing it a couple days. it's not a surprise that his staffers quit. i mean i don't know them, but my sense is they think he betrayed a trust, you know, that they put him in when he declared he was going to run as a democrat and caucus as a democrat. neither one of these is surprising and i'm not sure his switching parties is cups quenshal. >> not very consequential for the state? for the country? i mean -- >> for the stakes and for the balance of power in congress. my sense is there's going to be a lot of turmoil in his district. i don't know what his re-elect will look like. if this is a one off in terms of how the impeachment process goes
or what happens post that, i think is for the most part inkwungsal. >> let's move on to 2020 as we know, including this letter, from cory booker, where he makes the case that the current rules to qualify for a debate, that there has to be a certain threshold of donors in addition to as we know polling numbers, he's saying it needs to be one or the other. signed by eight of his fellow candidates including front runners, the dnc says the rules are fair and this is what they are, you didn't object this year. where do you stand? >> actually i have really mixed feelings about this. i think senator booker makes a good point. diversity on the stage is important, openness is important. on the other hand the rules seem to have been applied to everybody fairly and we have had a gigantic number of debates. at some point in time the reality is the field has to be called. you know, my instinct if i were making the rules, keep it open until the first folks vote, but you could go either way on this
one. >> you mention the diversity and that is central to his argument. and that he says there needs to be more diversity and blames the dnc rules for this saying he knows it was an unintended consequence of the dnc's actions but the unintended result doesn't live up to the values of the democratic party. as you say you're conflicted and brought that up, how much of a focus should that be for the dnc? >> i think it's an important issue and it's one that we ought to look at and obviously diversity is always a strength, not a weakness. be that as it may, all of the candidates started off all on the same foot, all the same rules applied to all of them and the voters or the polling are the ones making those decisions. all things being equal i would open it up but understand the position of the dnc. i would love to see him on that stage as long as he can be there. but we'll see. >> that being said, there has been no shortage of discussion about how crowded the stage can be and while it's important to
hear from everybody, how difficult it can be for candidates to get their message out. joe biden talked a little bit about that back in september. here's what he had to say. >> there's still ten people. there's still one minute. tell me your life story in a minute. >> i'm here talking to you. >> i'm being facetious. i think everybody knows these aren't debates, these are one-minute assertions. >> is there a better way to do this so you continue to hear from the candidates, but it's more substantive? >> well, i think that's the other side of it. somebody who has been through a large number of debates, it is really impossible for the public to know who the candidates are if you only have 30-second responses. the field at some point in time has to get culled. when that is, who knows. i think after iowa and new hampshire, the field by definition is going to get reduced to four or five candidates, whether this month is the right time or next month, who knows. seems to me we've had a large number of debates already and i'm not sure the public is going
to keep watching, and at some point the debates have to stop and we have to start getting a vote. i think everybody is ready to get after it at this point and all things being equal, it's time to get to who the top candidates are going to be. >> well we will be watching to see how it does narrow down and when to your point, mitch, always good to have you with us. >> thank you. and you can catch the next debate, the pbs news hour politico democratic debate live from los angeles, watch it right here on cnn, also your local pbs station. our coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern thursday. >> you must watch it. not just can. you must. >> not like kissing up to the bosses or something? >> i'm saying. people need to watch. >> it is important to watch. >> absolutely. infighting on president trump's health care team. two top officials called to the white house and told to work it out. the story behind this genuinely astounding bitter public feud. that's next. julie means more to me than anything...
shop neal lane diamond engagement rings. dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives
everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. this story is something. a month's long spat between two of president trump's top health care officials is boiling over. both, it seems for now, have managed to keep their jobs after a meeting mediated by vice president mike pence and the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney last week. rene marsh has the latest. >> thank you all for joining us and i'll hand things over to administrator verma. >> reporter: the bitter battle between two of president trump's top health care officials is now out in the open. health secretary alex azar and the medicare/medicaid head seema verma. >> i think it's extraordinarily unusual for two top-level people
in the health space to do so. we've heard of these battles before, usually in the national security space between state or -- and d.o.d. or the nsc. >> reporter: it's been a series of tit for tat incidents. a source close to verma described the clash. azar undercut her plan to replace obamacare. verma slammed his plan to lower drug costs in front of the president. then azar tried to keep her from flying on air force one to this medicare announcement championed by her team. >> we are making your medicare even better. >> reporter: azar's aides, according to politico, said there was no room on the plane. the two also feuded over who would become verma's chief of staff. that prompted a gender discrimination investigation by outside counsel that found no evidence of wrongdoing, the source said. verma reports to azar and her allies believe he undermined her decisions in ways he would not for a man. one criticism of verma is she
had no prior experience running a large government agency. a former department official who speaks with current staff says verma is also criticized because she prioritizes her brand and sidelines key staff from decision making. the department of health and human services would not respond to specific questions about the feud, but said, quote, secretary azar and administrator verma's top priority is to advance the president's top agenda. adding fuel a series of embarrassing headlines about verma spending $3 million on public relations firms to boost her profile. and a request for $47,000 in reimbursement for stolen jewelry and belongings while on a work trip. the department defended verma, but an internal audit is under way. >> the fact that these two people who are charged with implementing health care policy are at odds with one another
isn't helping the administration. >> reporter: and that's the larger problem for the trump administration. >> wow. we're going to win with health care, repeal and replace that garbage known as obama care. >> reporter: trump's most ambitious health care promises like replacing obamacare and lowering drug costs are stalled. a former agency official and a verma ally told cnn they partially blame the feud. >> in that meeting moderated by white house chief of staff mick mulvaney and vice president mike pence, a senior administration official tells cnn it was made clear the feud between the two must end and that official believes the feud is now in the past. we'll wait and see. back to you guys. >> what a feud. thank you. a source tells cnn boeing could make a key announcement today about its troubled 737 max jets. head we'll speak with a factory manager who raised concerns about the planes long before the two deadly air disasters. that's next.
hour 36 in the stakeout. shop neal lane diamond ♪ limu emu & doug ings. as soon as the homeowners arrive, we'll inform them that liberty mutual customizes home insurance, so they'll only pay for what they need. your turn to keep watch, limu. wake me up if you see anything. [ snoring ] [ loud squawking and siren blaring ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
most people think as a reliable phone company. but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. (second man) virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. (second woman) we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready. as a home instead caregiver, for everything that i give, i get so much in return. hearing all of stanley's stories about his home, and everything that he's learned over the years, it reminds me that this is as much for him as it is for me.
join our family of home instead caregivers and help make a world of difference. home instead senior care. apply today. home instead senior care. here's the story of green mountain coffee roasters sumatra reserve. let's go to sumatra. the coffee here is amazing. because the volcanic soil is amazing. so we give farmers like win more plants. to grow more delicious coffee. which helps provide for win's family. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters. quitting smoking is freaking hard.st, like quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette
cnn has learned that boeing may suspend or reduce production of its troubled 737 max jet and could announce that decision after the stock market closes today. the planes were grounded worldwide in march after two fatal crashes that killed 346 people. months before those crashes, a senior factory manager warned boeing management of problems in the production line. joining me ed pierson former senior manager at the boeing factory in washington, and joining us, his attorney, and ed, i want to start with you, because you worked in the factory that made all the planes of the 737 program for over ten years. you testified to congress since late 2017 you saw problems build up because of a delay in parts, employee fatigue, out of sequence work, breakdown in communications and schedule pressures. that's a lot more than just the faulty software which what is boeing blames for these crashes.
so explain your concerns and how boeing responded to them. >> sure. just to be clear, i actually worked at the factory for three years and worked for boeing ten years total and as far as what i saw was a factory in disarray and a lot of things going on as i mentioned to congress and those problems just continued to cascade for many months and that's when i brought my concerns to the attention of the senior management. >> what did they tell you when you brought that concern? >> i sent e-mails and met in person with the general manager and explained my concerns and asked him to consider shutting down the factory because i felt like it was just not worth the risk and i didn't really get that support. >> we did reach out to boeing for this story and their statement is boeing, the suggestion by mr. pierson of a link between his concerns and
the recent max accidents is completely unfounded. mr. pierson raises issues about the production of the 737 max, yet none of the authorities investigating these accidents have found production conditions in the 737 factory contributed in any way to these accidents. what do you say to that? >> well, i respectfully disagree. without investigating a factory where two brand new airplanes were built you can't make a statement like that. i would refer boeing back to the final accident report. there's mention repeatedly in the report of airplane issues with the flight control system, maintenance messaging, pilot messages, speed altitude and flags on their primary display. a lot of things going on and actually if you look at page 37 and 284 on the report, they talk in detail about a part that was installed originally by boeing. >> eric, you say in your 25 years of experiencing representing whistleblowers, the response to ed's concern was the worst you have seen.
why? >> well, because he was extremely credible, he had very specific information. we sent binders of information to the federal regulators and normally when we provide that sort of information on behalf of our whistleblower clients the federal agencies will jump at it because they have insider information they usually didn't know before. here all we got was stonewalling, the ntsb, we had to keep hounding them and they finally agreed to give him a 15-minute interview which ended up stretching to an hour, an hour and 15 minutes because we were covolling them to do an investigation. the faa wouldn't speak to us at all. finally congress after all this time, basically directed them at the hearing we just held, representative maloney and representative meadows from opposite sides of the aisle, directed the faa finally to interview production people and to interview our client to get
to the bottom of these production problems. but it took -- it took, you know, over a year of arguing with these regulators and finally it had to be congress that told them they should do their job. >> ed, what do you make of the decision which does seem imminent that by the close of today there could be an announcement from boeing to halt or reduce production of the 737 max jets? >> you know, i really don't have a comment on that. i say i'm really encouraged as eric mentioned that congress got faa to agree to do an investigation. talking to the employees, you know, that worked in the factory in the front line that's pretty important. i'm encouraged by that and don't have comments about their production plan at this point. >> thank you for joining us. eric, thank you very much for being here as well. this is what happens when people come forward and speak their minds. appreciate both of you. >> thank you. the good stuff is next. searching for a way to help stop your cold sore?
only abreva can get rid of it in... ...as little as 2 1/2 days when used at the first sign. abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. abreva acts on it. so you can too. (loud fan noise) (children playing) ♪ (music building) experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event.
sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. ( ♪ ) you may have gingivitis. when you brush, and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums, and possibly... tooth loss. help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. leave bleeding gums behind. parodontax.
the good stuff brought to you by theraflu. the power is in your hands. time now for the good stuff. a wrong number turns out to be the right call in new mexico. bernice thought she was calling a medical supply company trying to get a walker before her grandson's wedding. turns out she was calling the county d.a.'s office, off by a digit. the people who got it didn't brush it off and they decided to help, surprising bernice with a new walker. >> might have purchased three walkers before we got it right. >> how much do i owe you? >> zero. >> brought me lots of hugs. >> how about that. three walkers before they got it right. kept at it. i think that's lovely. >> that's awesome. i want to know if i call the d.a.'s office by mistake and say
i want ice cream will they bring me ice cream. >> there's only one way to find out. in a couple hours if you want to give it a shot, let me show. >> that is awesome. this is the beginning of a historic week in washington and the country. "newsroom" with poppy harlow and jim sciutto starts right now. >> all rightp in. >> good morning. i'm jim sciutto. >> i'm poppy harlow. very awake this monday morning, a week for the history books, that is what this is. we are days away from a full house vote on impeachment, and this morning, the judiciary committee released its report explaining their decision to charge president trump with two articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of congress. also today, a preview of the coming showdown that is headed for the senate. minority leader chuck schumer just laying out democrats' requests for the