The witness Trisha Newbold was afraid of retaliation. Shes crying out. Shes begging us to do something. You issue a big memo and a big press release after interviewing one witness. Ive been on this Committee Ten years and never seen anything like this. Oh, please. I mean, every day that we go on without getting to the bottom of this matter is a day that we are putting hundreds if not potentially thousand of americans at risk. I mean, really. What is next, putting Nuclear Codes in instagram dms . We remember going to talk with the attorney for whistleblower Trisha Newbold later this hour. First though, house judiciary chairman jerry nadler is planning to authorize a subpoena tomorrow to get access to the full unredacted Mueller Report. Of course at the heart of the case over obstruction is the former fbi director fired by President Trump, james comey. He led the investigation into alleged links between the Trump Campaign and russia, and he says that hes confused by the barr left and muellers decision to punt on obstruction. Lets go live now to christiane amanpour. Now all of this is detailed in his book a higher loyalty and the painback version comes out next month so let us now get some answers from the man himself, the former fbi director james comey joins me here in washington. Welcome to the program. Great to be with you. So can i just ask you, because yesterday which was april fools day you caused quite a stir saying and tweeting im in. You know, somebody in the middle needs i mean, do you need a stress buster . I mean, we all need to laugh from time to time. Especially today if you dont laugh youll cry so i was trying to be fun an prank people on april fools day. A big tradition in the states. Did anybody take you serious successfully. I dont know for sure. A whole lot of reporters called and getting me to confirm it and blaming their editors like they were in on it. You are given to quite dramatic interventions. Right after mueller dropped his report, and we heard the summary from the attorney general, you did tweet a pretty interesting picture of yourself in the woods, and you said so many questions. That was more than a week ago. Do you feel that youve had those questions answered in any more detail in the intervening days . No. Maybe with the exception of my question about will we get full transparency. I think i see more promise signs that have in the recent letter that the attorney general sent to congress. He says that hes going to put it out with some redactions by midapril, and the thing is hes also talked about these redactions and he says hell redact secret grand jury testimony, material the Intelligence Community identifies as potentially compromising, sensitive sources and methods, material that could affect other ongoing matters, information that would unduly infringe on personnel privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties. Democrats fear that there will be an attempt to redact issues and elements that might damage the president or be uncomfortable for him. What your perspective, do you have confidence that enough of this will come out to satisfy everybody who wants to see it . I cant say for sure until we see it. Those are reasonable concerns for democrats to have, but billback, our attorney general, deserves the benefit of the doubt. Give him a chance to show us what he feels like he cant show us. I have to imagine that former director mueller wrote the report with an eye towards it being public some day, so i cant imagine a lot needs to be cut off of it, but lets wait and see. The attorney general deserves that chance. What is normal redactions in cases like this . I mean, you must have seen a lot of this in your tenure and in all your positions. I mean, you know, the jokes are that it will all be redacted except for a couple of words. You just said give him the benefit of the doubt. What should one expect beyond what he just said . You should expect a good faith effort by the department of justice to protect things in those categories, you dont want to reveal classified information. You want to damage ongoing investigations and you dont want to smear people who had no part in the investigation and thats all easy to figure out if you know the case as mule ear people do. And the democrats promising to subpoena a full unredacted version, do you think they will win, that and should they and congress and Elections Officials be allowed to see it with no redactions . I dont know what would happen in a battle of speech a. I do know theres a long tradition of sharing classified sensitive material with the leaders in congress. Chairs of relevant committees, so its possible youll see one version go to most of the house and the public and a more full version go to selected leaders. Youvguess, look, where do ye down on the immediate sort of monday morning quarterbacking or analyzeding of the little we know of the Mueller Report . There are some who said well, you know, he punted. We dont know whats going on. There are others who say, you know, the attorney general took that that summary of his and scored, quote, a idt. What should we make of the fallout in the few days since the report has been, you know, delivered to the Justice Department . Well, monday morning quarterbacking to borrow your term is a natural thing. Theres been a whole lot of it done about decisions ive made. What we have to do is just keep an open mind and wait for the details. The attorney gene American People of the case but showies his work. Why did you make the decisions you made . Why did you handle it the way that you did . Im confident that he understands this. Hes an institutionalist and loves the department of justice and the only thing he those lose is his reputation and he deserves the benefit of the doubt and us uncharacteristically giving him some patience to show us. You worked for Robert Mueller. Hes a big presence in your life. You may have called him your mentor. Do were you surprised by what we know of what he came down with on the conspiracy and on the obstruction of justice, lets take the conspiracy first, where he said could not establish he didnt use the word collusion but conspiracy or crime in that regard. Yeah. Again, all i snow from the attorney generals letter that he could not the evidence did not establish a conspiracy and he defines conspiracy as a tacit or expressed agreement between an american and the russians. It doesnt surprise me. I didnt know what the result was going to be. Thats the reason we were investigating it when i got fired. I didnt know where it would end up. Im confident that if he reached that conclusion, thats reached in good faith, but ill be very interested as all of us will to see the details that have. You have said because many, including the president , called this for a long time a witch hunt, a hoax and all the rest of it. To those of his supporters who might say, look, it amounted to a hill of beans what we know so far. This never should have happened. Whats your answer to that . Two things. First, take aoohat happened to mueller and the mean being corrupt and evil and a nest of deep state traitors that they reached a conclusion that the president is the happy with. Just dont move front that. Your president tried to burn down the department of justice and take a look in the mirror and ask what you have learned from that experience, and second you have fired all of us if we didnt investigate what we learned in the summer of 2016, when we got smoke, not fire, but smoke that americans might have assisted the russian effort. We had to investigate, that and no serious person could think otherwise, and it was done in a serious way, and it reached a serious result, and now we all ought to get transparency on. So you were dish mean, you started as fbi director the the investigation into the russian interference in the election. It started as a counterintelligence investigation, right . Yes. Did you think that it would move into the criminal area, and i guess even on the counterintelligence, how worried were you and do you remain about the threat that russia continues to pose to Democratic Institutions, to american elections in the future . It started as a counterintelligence investigation, but every counterintelligence investigation potentially has a criminal element because if you discover someone was working with a foreign adversary to damage the United States, that is an important intelligence finding but it could also be evidence of a crime so they run together and so it was important to do, important to look at. Both from what should we know about what the adversary is doing, but also were americans involved, and remember this, there was a massive effort by the russians to interfere in this election, to hurt one candidate and to health over. The good news about what the attorney general said is thats been verified. There was such a thing. It wasnt a hoax. What we had to figure out starting in the summer of 16 was were any americans part of that, and we had good reason to think that, so the counterintelligence investigation had to be done. Apparently reached important conclusion, and i dont know what they say about the continuing threat. Look, russia succeeded in 2016 beyond its wildest dreams in its effort to damage our democracy, especially they will be back, especially given that the president not only hasnt criticized their effort, hes denied it. I saw some fool a majority of reasons cans dont think that the russians intervened in the election in 2016. Thats crazy stuff, but that tells the russians youll get away with it in 2020 so they will be back. Again, its almost difficult its actually difficult to have a conversation until we know whats in the whole report but i want to the ask you this because you heard many, many commentator, you know, former Administration Officials basically accusing the president of potentially being a russian asset. Now that youve seen the little that youve seen and the very important nut graphs, is it an important thing that america can see that so far the evidence suggests, according to Robert Mueller, that there wasnt a crime of collusion and conspiracy committed, or at least not enough to establish that . Theres two separate pieces to my reaction to that. The first is yes, its a very good thing that the special counsel appears to have concluded there isnt sufficient evidence to establish any americans were part of this effort. I dont care what party youre in. That should be good news to you as an american citizen. Thats that question. I dont know what the special counsels work was with respect to the continuing threat and whether there is some counterintelligence risk associated with this president or this administration and russia. As i understood his mandate is was there what do you know about the russian interference in 2016 and whether the americans were involved . I dont think he looked im not suggesting theres something there, but i dont think he looked at the question about is there something about this president s finances or personal affairs or something that creates a situation where hes reluctant to criticize russia . I dont think that was his mandate. I dont know the answer to that question. I ask it just because ive been struck during my time as fbi director and struck since about the president s reluctance to criticize russia, even if private, but i dont know if thats a question thats going to be answered by muellers work. You think we might never know . We might never know. On the obstruction of justice case which, again, everybody wants to get to the bottom of because in muellers own words, repeated by the attorney general william barr, can i not yet establish i cannot establish a crime, but im not exonerating the president or the president is not being exonerated. Would you agree obviously that the obstruction of justice question centers on you yourself and your firing. At least in part. Yeah, i think again, i dont know because i havent seen the work, that two of the episodes that involved me according to press reports were the subject of investigation. The question and direction by the president on valentines day of 2017 that we drop our investigation of michael flynn, and second his firing me and then telling the tv interviewer and i think the russians themselves in the oval office that he did it because of the russia investigation. I dont know where he ends up on those things. I didnt know the answer whether that was obstruction when i was director so i dont know what hes found. It appears hes found on some episodes that he investigated and it could be the ones that involved me, that theres substantial evidence that incullcates the president and theres evidence on the other side and for some reason he didnt call it. Hand what is your view of the fact that mueller didnt call that and some said punt it had to the attorney general, maybe punt it had to cook. What is your view . Should he have done given husband Counsel Title and his remitt and the parameters . I dont know and i cant tell from just what the attorney general said. Thats one of the pieces of work that we have to see. Why it was done that way . These are serious people and as with the attorney general bob mueller is entitled to the ben of the doubt but i cant tell from here because the design of special counsels is to release the Political Leadership of making those kinds of calls so that folks dont have doubts about whether it was done in an apolitical way, so there must be some very good reason why bob mueller did it this way. It could be there was some legal question that only attorney general could resolve tore could be he intended the attorney general just to pass the whole thing to congress and not decide it. I just cant tell. Well, on that issue, lawyer George Conway who wrote in the Washington Post shortly after it was dropped, its hard to escape the conclusion that mueller wrote the report to allow the American People and congress to decide what to make of the facts and thats what should and must happen right now. Do you think that the that it will be made public, and we touched on it a little bit before, but to the satisfaction of the Political Class and the public. Those are two different things. I think youll have transparency that satisfies the broad swath of the american public. Partisans i think do you think there will be transparents . I do. To satisfy the people. I do. I think republicans are now against transparency. I think if im keeping it right and democrats for it. It used to be different about that. Forget them. The American People will get substantial transparency. Im optimistic about this. So the issue apparently around obstruction of justice is intent and whether there can be, you know, corrupt intent, and you all know that william barr wrote a letter to congress in which he said in cataloguing the president s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that in our judgment cops tuite obstructive conduct and had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding and were done with corrupt intent, so the president says hes not guilty of conspireing with the russians. Mueller hasnt been able to accuse him of that and charge him. Thats possible that there was no corrupt intent, therefore. I think a prosecute orthowould express it this way. There was insufficient evidence of corrupt intent. I couldnt see inside his head when he told knee drop the flynn investigation. Was he doing it out of a humanitarian gesture for flynn, he felt sorry for the guy, he wanted a darker intention, that he wanted to keep this away from him in some fashion. I just dont know. Its interesting that you bring that up because obviously a lot of his supporters will say that. Ive spoken to people who are on his side and his advisory cabinet if you like who say that that you dont go public if youre not ready to make a prosecution and in fact you did go public just a very short time before the election in 2016 with yet another issue on those emails that you said you were going to look at them again. Do you accept that that was busting a norm, and do you think that maybe you shouldnt have done it. I know you talked about this a lot. Look, i get why people asked. It involves the collision of to you norms. I totally agree with the norm that if we can avoid it we take no action in the runup to the election that would have an impact on the election. Ive believed that my whole career and i also believe were honest and candid with tribunals and offer testimony. If it turns out its false we fix it, so what do you do 11 days before an election when you found a choice between those two norms. Do you break one and speak one that might have an impact on the election or do you console that what you told congress all summer long and that people were relying on that this thing is done is not true and and by the way i thought about it essentially lied to congress and the American People. Good reasonable people can see it that way. It wasnt a decision to take a flame thrower to norm but trying to figure now the an agonizing situation which is the least terrible option, and even in hindsight, as painful as it is, i think i chose the least terrible option. I rather would not have been involved frankly, but there we were. Clearly the democrats dont believer that and Hillary Clinton herself doesnt believe it was the least terrible on, i spoke to her several months after she lost and this is what she told me about your intervention. It wasnt a perfect campaign. There is no such thing. But i was on the way to winning until a combination of jim comeys letter on october 28th and russian wikileaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off, and the evidence for that intervenings event i think is compelling, persuasive. Do you ever thing that you might be responsible for the election of President Trump . Does that keep you up at night . Sure, and i hope some day somebody proves that what we did was irrelevant, but as i said when we were making the choice between the two paths we but it kind of it kind of was irrelevant because you came out and said its fine. Theres nothing there are. Well. It turned out that it didnt change our judgment with respect to secretary clinton. There was plenty there, but, yeah, it ended up not having an impact on our investigative judgment burks again, i hope we have no impact. I hope it proves it was irrelevant. It increases the pain and doesnt change what i think about the decision. God people can see this differently. My view and the view of this team was we cannot conceal from the American People that the investigation we told them and fought to tell them is done, is done, is done is not done, and the result could change. We just couldnt do that, but, look, i get i respect her view. I accept the criticism. It doesnt change hoy think about it though. Are you worried in hindsight that you didnt bust any norm or didnt people that you were investigating russian interference before the election . No. Because thats really dramatic. Sure, but now looking back through the lens of the conclusion from the special counsel that there apparently wasnt a case there, it just to my mind reinforces that we made the prudent decision. We didnt know whether he with anything in the summer of 2016. We werent investigating the candidate. We had indications that one of his Campaign Advisers had spoken to a russian operative months earlier about the fact that the russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. That was it. That was important basis to investigate, but we never considered making a disclosure. It was all class tied to begin with, but we didnt know if there was any fire to go along with the smoke. It would have been irresponsible in the extreme so i dont think thats a fair criticism of us, and important and fair discussion about whether we should have said more about the overarching russian effort but thats a separate question. Why didnt you say more about the overarching russian effort because thats a very, very big problem. President barack obama was in my view rightly concerned that if the russians primary concern was to damage our democracy and undermine faith in hour system, if he were to announce that the russians are coming for this election in the sum imer of 16 would he accomplish the goal and would he give donald trump an excuse to say that the election was rigged by president obama. In hindsight, the correct decision or wrong decision and well be discussing in our next segment that the incoming the chairman of the joint chiefs says russia will be the Main Extension threat to the United States for the foreseeable future. It was a mistake for the president and everybody not to highlight then russias interference . Could we have avoided so much pain and dissolution of our Democratic Institution . I dont know that we could have avoided significant portion of the dissolution of pain weve, and i think his decision was a reasonable one given what he had at the time, and and ultimately though, by october everybody knew what the russians were doing. Both candidates were talking about it. One candidates was calling upon them to do more and others were condemning it. People in congress were talking about it because we were briefing october and by october we all knew that the russians were messing with us. Going forward the president has said that, you know, i mean, you saw weve put a little bit what have what he was saying about you, all sorts of nasty names, et cetera, and that there will be counterinvestigations, sort of accounting for this hoax that exon rates him. You know what im saying, yeah. Toll investigate perhaps you, perhaps others. Do you fear that . Do you think thats coming down the pike . I dont fear it personally. I fear it as a citizen. Right . Investigate what . Investigate that investigations were conducted . What would be the crime youd be investigating . So its a terrible cycle to start. Hes already started it with calling for the locking up of his political opponents, including people like me and so it will just be more of that dangerous step and would i hope, though hell continue to disappoint me, the republicans would finally stand up and say that kind of thing, but me personally, ask me questions. Go ahead. I would like to answer them in the daylight, if i could. You just said lock her up. Or lock me up. Of course, lock her up was a feature of the 2016 Trump Campaign. Do you in retrospect wish that people like yourself, the head of the fbi, the people in charge of law and order had shut down that language, that it was dangerous potentially, that it could have created violence, that it kind of is hate speech . Should that have been allowed . Thats not a role for government to play. The beauty of this country is people can say what they want even if its misleading and its demagoguery. The people should have shut it down were republicans who understand the rule of law and the values that they claim to stand for. Shame on them, but it wasnt a role for government to play. James comey, former fbi director, thank you very much for joining me today. Great to be with you. Thank you. All right. Weve been listening to Christiane Amanpours interview with james comey, the former fbi director, and with me now to discuss it is former council to the u. S. Assistant attorney general Carrie Cordero and chief analyst Gloria Borger and senior White House Correspondent pamela brown. Pamela, one of the things that we really wanted to know and we got a little insight into this was what did the former fbi director james comey think about the obstruction, the potential obstruction piece of this because the attorney general bill barr having seen Robert Mueller punt the adjudication essentially of whether this happen, barr had said essentially theres no underlying crime of collusion, therefore, there cannot be obstruction. Im paraphrasing, but that was part of his argument. Right. What did you think about what comey said about this . Well, certainly a subtle jab from comey against the attorney general bill barr basically saying when i read his memo to congress i didnt understand his legal theory that there needed to be this underlying crime showing collusion hand thats what the president was obstructing. He basically was making a point that in a lot of prosecutions people are charged with obstructing an investigation for different reasons, because they are humiliated, various reasons even if they didnt commit an underlying crime so comey basically said he found that confusing. Now it is important to point out that in barrs letter he said along with rod rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney general, but that was one factor. They made clear to say it wasnt a determining factor, but it was a factor and it has caught a lot of attention from legal analysts and so forth that the have raised the question of why that was part of the equation for rod reasons ints and what also happened is former director comey is sort of confused like the rest of us about why Robert Mueller punted essentially to bill barr because the regular lagsds the reason there is a special counsel is to have someone who is not political, not a political appointee making prosecutioral decisions so were all kind of waiting just like comey is to find out why. And he he brought up the issue, carrie, of martha stewart, for instance, right. He was saying that people go to jail, and a lot of people go to jail without being convicted of the underlying crime. Martha stewart was not convicted of insider trading, for instance. Right. This was former u. S. Attorney jim comb who was giving that perspective himself as a former assistance u. S. Attorney and a u. S. Attorney having prosecuted many cases, including that one and talking about a different legal interpretation than the one that the attorney general and the president s lawyers i think are putting forth which is that there needs to be some underlying crime by the individual who is being accused of obstruction. I do think i know everybody is using this phrase that the that the special counsel is punting to the attorney general. I think were doing that because the attorney general wrote this fourpage letter that made the decision himself and gave his own interpretation, but until we see that underlying report from the special counsel we dont actually at least from my perspective, we dont know how the special counsel teed up the issue of obstruction as to whether or not he actually did deliver the report to the attorney general and said this is for you to decide or whether he simply laid out the facts as they were revealed in his investigation and perhaps was expecting that the report be delivered to congress. Or maybe he thought maybe he was making a decision that congress would do it. The question is whether he wanted the attorney general to make the decision was, again, you know, a political bhoern had writt or whether he intend it had for it to go to congress where it was to be decided by the elected officials. We dont know what mueller thought. I dont know if thats going to be outlined in his report or not. What we may know from his from his report is both sides, and why they couldnt come to a conclusion that, you know, definitively whether this was criminal or not and how he wasnt exonerated but maybe he wasnt guilty of anything criminal. Maybe it was abuse of power. We just dont we dont note answer to that, and comey was very careful about that fade. He said he was confused. Yes. He certainly we all are. He was certainly confused by what barr describes as mueller not taking the traditional step of making a call. He said that he didnt take in the letter. He used the word the idea of traditional, the traditional step. But overall, i mean, what was your impression of james comey in this interview . I think he was being really care from here . I think that he kept talking about giving people the benefit of the down the, giving mueller the benefit of the doubt, giving barth benefit of the doubt. I think like everybody else he wants to take a look at exactly what mueller wrote because he knows mueller very well and he knows how thorough he is, and he knows that if mueller could have come to a conclusion he probably would have dom a cloougs and so the big question is why . Why didnt he . Maybe there was disagreement among the lawyers. We just dont know, but i think in listening to comey today it was clear to me that he wants to know what mueller knew and doesnt want to come to any judgment about it just yet. Wants to know whats in the report as we all do. Where are we, carrie . Theres a difference between facts that would establish an indication that somebody was obstructing versus facts that would form the basis of a prosecutor being able to prosecute a case because under the department of justice guidelines which the special counsel would have been would have to follow, a prosecutor can only bring a case if they have a reasonable success on the merits of prosecuting that case, and so we just dont know sort of how many facts there were that would have established a prosecutable case. On the report, there is no time frame under the regulations that dictate how the attorney general has toss actually handle this, and so any time frames that are put on the attorney general really are somewhat arbitrary. Democrats want it. They do today. And he was asked by a reporter yesterday ross palumbo, bill barr was asked, what are you going to do about the democrat subpoena, and he just kind of smiled and said well follow your law. Not sure what that means, but he said he would release what hes going to release with the redactions midapril or sooner and that fight is going to continue after, its clear. Pamela brown, Gloria Borger and Carrie Cordero, thank you so much. The president punting often healthcare until after the 2020 election even though he along with the white house promised a plan soon. Were now learning why he changed course, plus drama on the hill over security clearance concerns at the white house. See what happened between democrats and republicans after a whistleblower came forward. Shes already seen what has gone on in the white house. She was scared to death. Its not like this process has led to classified emails being on an unsecured server. Folks are suggesting that we are conducting Foreign Relations with security clearances vie race, whatsapp. This is ridiculous. Tech at safelite autoglass, we really pride ourselves on making it easy to get your windshield fixed. With safelite, you can see exactly when well be there. Saving you time for what you love most. Kids whoa kids vo safelite repair, safelite replace youwhen you barely the clip a passing car. Minor accident no big deal, right . Wrong. Your Insurance Company is gonna raise your rate after the other car got a scratch so small you coulda fixed it with a pen. Maybe you should take that pen and use it to sign up with a different Insurance Company. For drivers with accident forgiveness, Liberty Mutual wont raise their rates because of their first accident. Liberty mutual insurance. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. For adults with moderately syto severely activeou . Crohns disease, stelara® works differently. Studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. Stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. Some serious infections require hospitalization. Before treatment, get tested for tb. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or flulike symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. Alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. These may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. Some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. Talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. Remission can start with stelara®. A cfp professional is trained, knowledgeable, and committed to Financial Planning in your best interest. Find your certified financial planner™ professional at letsmakeaplan. Org. A book that youre ready to share with the world . Get published now, call for your free publisher kit today President Trump now says his new Healthcare Plan will just have to wait until after the 2020 election. Cnn has learned that the chance the change came after several republican members of the house and senate spoke directly to President Trump trying to dissuade him. This is according to multiple sources. Just last week the president called for the courts to strike down obamacare and declare the gop will become the party of healthcare. Well, the president declared that the gp would become the party of healthcare as he promised that a new plan was in the works. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wasting no time in calling him out over the aboutface. Have a listen. Nixons secret plan in the war in vietnam. This is his secret plan. They are north going to pass it until after the 2020 election. I want to ask you if you can view it from maralago. All week. Pamela brown and Gloria Borger back with me now to talk about it. Were actually learning, gloria, that the Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell was among those. Oh, yeah. This may not be surprising. He doesnt want this to be the issue right now. He talked to the president , but i wonder what we think it is that he said that actually sort of got through the president. To summarize what our white house and hill teams are saying hes said to the president youre going to lose and by the way youre going to make us lose. What we ought to be focusing on is the democrats medicare for all plan that prescription drugs costs which are important to everyone and, by the way, do you want republicans to have a debate over healthcare yet again that will divide us and we could lose in the senate that wouldnt offer a plan that might not be able to pass the United States senate . I think you probably dont, mr. President , and i think he convinced him when he said losing. Losing. That was the thing. The president likes winning with, and that may have been the key. And for him personally as well, right . Not just for congress. Absolutely. Its a problem for both of them. This president has this habit where he promises a vote on something and promises something after the election, so right now what hes doing is hes promising theres going to be a vote on healthcare after the 2020 election. He did this actually with tax cuts before last years midterm elections and heres what he said. Its going to be a tax reduction of 10 for the middle class. Business will not enter into it, and this will be on top of the tax reduction that the middle class has already gotten, and were putting in a resolution probably this week. I think you nokes know about it, and and kevin brady has been working on it very xn real el for a couple of months. So many details there for something that just never happened. Somewhere that resolution . Exactly. The work by kevin brady, just disappeared into the ether. Yeah. What is to say when it comes to this healthcare thing that it doesnt just sort of, poof, its gone . Yeah. I mean, thats exactly right. I dont think that any voters are going to think okay right after the election theres going to be an unveiling of a republican Healthcare Plan. I mean, this is typical trump, right . He throws thing out there and then all of a sudden all these people come and try to dissuade him from that and say what are you doing here . Just this week. Lets look at just this week. We obviously have what weve talking with healthcare and hes backpedaling on that and then when he said hes going to clothes mention conborder hes backpedaling on that when aides have said this will be real bad for the economy and now hes saying now mexico is really coming to the table more, apprehending more people i mean, youre even seeing some of the change in tune after all the aides and have said its not a good idea. Hard to see how that was ever going to happen and perhaps the same can be said with healthcare. Pamela brown and Gloria Borger, thank you so much. Coming up, as tempers flare in a hearing on capitol hill on security clearances, democrats are taking first steps to issue subpoenas for several current and former white house officials. The attorney for the whistleblower who revealed the clearance questions will join us next. Choosing my Car Insurance was the easiest decision ever. I switched to geico and saved hundreds. Thats a win. But its not the only reason i switched. Geicos a company i can trust, with over 75 years of great savings and service. Now thats a winwin. Switch to geico. Its a winwin. I get to select my room from the floor plan. Free wifi. And the price match guarantee. So with hilton there is no catch. Yeah the only catch is im never leaving. No im serious, i live here now. Book at hilton. Com and get the hilton price match guarantee. Book at hhey n. Com uh, what did i come in here for again . Diapers. Diapers. Okay. Yep. Oh, sorry. Yep. No, the cart. Yeah, i almost hit a woman. The latest inisnt just a store. Ty its a save more with a new kind of Wireless Network store. Its a look what your wifi can do now store. A get your questions answered by awesome experts store. Its a now theres one store that connects your life like never before store. The xfinity store is here. And its simple, easy, awesome. Investigating new concerns about access to the countrys most sensitive secrets. The Oversight Committee is looking into a whistleblowers claim that 25 peoples applications have been denied. Elij Elijah Cummings praised the whistleblower for coming forward. This laid this lady was scared. Shes small in stature and already seen what is going on in the white house. She was scared to death. And she was afraid, sadly, of our republican colleagues. I am going to and i will do it and ive done it over and over again. And we have a history of doing it. I will protect whistleblowers, period. Ed passman is the attorney for tricia newbold. And you heard what Elijah Cummings saying your client was, quote, scared to death. What is she afraid might happen. Shes afraid she may lose her job. Shes a Civil Service employee with 19 years of service and never had any prior discipline but under this administration she received first a letter of expectation and then a twoweek suspension and more recently shes been removed from her position as supersizeory adjudication manager. And she tried to address the overturning of denial of security clearances internally before going externally and that is very but she spoke at length to the committee, there is ten pages outlining in a memo the summary of hours and hours of testimony, can you tell us who senior white house official number one and two is, two of the people who are overturned. These are senior white house officials who were issued denials by your client in a first line adjudicator after back Ground Investigation revealed significant disqualifying activities including personal misconduct. I cannot release that information and that are they still employed. I believe they are. So 25 people who are overruled. Do you know how many of the 25 are still working in the white house and in the administration . No. She didnt know exactly because you have to realize, when she was interviewed by Elijah Cummings and the committee, she didnt have the files with her and she probably adjudicated several hundred cases during the last couple of years. And without having the files in front of her, she would have no way of knowing which ones they were except several that stood out because they are very prem innoce prominent. So she started keeping a list of the reversals when the number got to 25 when these folks by the normal process should have gotten security clearances and then they were overruled and she was overruled. In the past, has she ever been overruled under other administrations . Just once or twice. She recalled one instance and when that happened her supervisor then set forth a rational why he did it and willing to mitigate the risks. She went along with that because it was understandable why he made the decision. She also outlines and we should be clear her boss is not a political appointee, hes a career person. So hes very familiar with the ins and outs of this process of security clearances. She talks about how laying out the reasons nor the disapproval or the recommendation of not giving a security clearance, normally what would happen is if it is reversed there a process of spelling out why the risks would be accepted and what has been done to mitigate it. In these instances, what happened . The supervisor just summarily overruled her and never gave her any explanation and refused to discuss with her his rational. What are the concerns that prompted her to come forward as a whistleblower. She was concerned about the risks to National Security. A number of reasons why it could be denied a clearance, including foreign contacts, foreign businesses, financial issues, criminal record, drug and alcohol use and im not saying all of these are applicable, but they all pose risks to National Security and that is the major concern, that is her job. She went back to work, which seems like an unusual step when this is someone who has shes pulled back the curtain on the very place where she works. What was that like for her . It was very difficult. She was really nervous. She went back to work yesterday after being off for a while and so far shes hanging in there, that is all i can say. Is it tough . It is. Very tough. Because, again, shes a Civil Service employee working in a political environment. It is a very difficult situation. Ed, thanks so much. Ed passman appreciate you coming in to chat with us. With a manhunt underway, police are releasing new details about the suspect in the murder of grammynominated rapper Nipsey Hussle and what were learning about their relationship next. From any one else. Why accept it from your allergy pills . Flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills dont. And all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. Flonase sensimist. Hi, im Brooke Baldwin and youre watching cnn. We begin with a whiplash policy maneuver in the white house, repeal and replace means repeal now and replace later. Like way later. Less than one week after making the promise of replacing obamacare, the president is punting to push Health Care Reform after the 2020 president ial election. A new tweet vowed this, quote, vote will be taken right after the election when republicans hold the senate and win back the house. So just like that, the president is once again toppling the work of his own administration which has spent the last week bolstering this belief a Republican Health care plan is in the works. Were going to get rid of obamacare. And i said it the other day. The republican
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.