>> should be hearings on t obviously that's what should happen. >> got it. gentlemen, thank you. brian, bill, thank you very much. thanks to our international viewers. for you, cnn "newsroom" is next. for our u.s. viewers, "new day" continues now. >> obamacare would amount to the biggest reform in the last 20 years. >> the biggest concern i have, will it lower health care costs and premiums? >> i'm confident we're going to pass this. >> this executive order responsibly provides a needed pause. >> it's not a muslim ban. probably other countries we will look at. >> the president firmly believes that the obama administration may have tapped into the phone. >> fbi chief james comey is reportedly incredulous over president trump's allegation. >> he is trying to distract us. >> the president must have his

reasons. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to "new day." house republicans finally revealing their plan for the future of their health care. chris has it right here. he is combing through it. it's heavy. >> good beach reading. >> critics pouncing, saying it will likely leave millions of people uninsured. >> 53 pages of your futures. you should read it. you need to understand it to judge it. all this going on as president trump is refusing to back down from his unproven claim that former president barack obama wiretapped him during the campaign. the fbi chief swrim comey is said to be incredulous. co comey has not said anything directly or formally. will he? day 47 of the trump administration. we begin our coverage with sunlen serfaty on capitol hill.

>> reporter: repealing and replacing obamacare, already some major fault lines are emerging within the republican party within hours. criticism and concern coming from republicans and even the white house isn't yet fully endorsing this bill. simply calling it an important step forward. >> it is obamacare gone. >> house republicans unveiling their long-awaited replacement of obamacare. >> when we repeal and replace obamacare, it will amount to the biggest entitlement reform. >> central to the health care act, individual and employer mandate, tax penalty for people without insurance. the replacement, a continuous coverage incentive, 30% surcharge on premiums for consumers for one year who let their coverage lapse. levied by insurers. phasing out expansion of medicaid, capping federal funds

to the program for each state in 2020. obamacare subsidies replaced by refundable tax credits, determined by age and income. what will stay? obamacare's protections of those with pre-existing conditions. adult children can remain on their parents' plan until the age of 26. some republicans are already divided, calling the bill obamacare 2.0. >> i've already heard from constituents who are upset about you're creating another entitlement program. we're calling it tax credits that we actually send people checks. >> house republicans proposing the bill did not offer any estimate of how much their plan would cost or how many people would lose coverage. >> will it lower health care costs and premiums to those people i serve? >> the plans will be much less expensive than obamacare. it will be unbelievable. >> reporter: the white house releasing a statement, calling the bill an important step

toward restoring health care choices in affordability. democrats are now gearing up for a fight, rallying against the bill's provision to strip all federal funding to planned parenthood, arguing millions of poor and working class individuals will lose or be unable to afford health insurance under the plan. democratic leader nancy pelosi calling it the make america sick again bill. >> to have this out of committee and on the floor some time in the next few weeks. chris? >> the bill is out there. if you want to read it for yourself, it's 120 pages, things are numbered weird because there are different, competing versions of it. get in there and read it. you'll know for yourself. president trump unveiling his new travel ban as well, and refusing to back down from his evidence-free claim at this point that president obama wiretapped trump tower.

that allegation leaving the fbi director, we're told, in disbelief. let's bring in cnn's joe johns. joe? >> chris, an unsubstantiated charge by the president and the president's aides, who have been working hard to try to either defend it or call for it to be investigated. but the focus this morning is on the swrus department, under increasing pressure to say something about it. fbi director james comey was, quote, incredulous, after president trump's weekend twitter tirade, accusing former president obama of wiretapping his phones during the 2016 election. a person familiar with the matter told cnn. comey, concerned that the president's unfounded allegation would make the fbi look bad directed staff members to reach out to the justice department, asking them to publicly knock down the president's story.

the silence on the matter now frustrating comey. >> i don't think director comey has actually commented. >> reporter: press secretary sean spicer doubling down president trump's allegation, but he, like the president, offering no proof. >> there's no question that something happened. the question is, is it surveillance, a wiretap or whatever, but there's been enough reporting that strongly suggests that something occurred. >> as for the fate of president trump's relationship with the fbi director -- >> i haven't asked him that yet. obviously he's focused today first and foremost on this effort to keep the country safe. >> homeland security secretary john kelly says he doesn't know anything about the president's charge but he, too, is backing trump's explosive claims. >> if the president of the united states said that, he has his reasons to say that, some convincing evidence that that took place. >> meanwhile, the president circumventing cameras for the rollout of travel ban 2.0.

>> this will bolster the security of the united states. >> signing his executive order behind closed doors, the white house releasing one photo. the revised 90-day ban includes six instead of seven muslim majority countries. iraq, a crucial partner in the fight against isis, is now off the list, after the president's advisers urged him to remove it. the order now clearly stating that current visa holders and those with a green card from the six countries can travel to the u.s. and syrian refugees are no longer banned indefinitely. >> this executive order responsibly provides a needed pause so we can carefully review how we scrutinize people coming here from these countries of concer concern. >> this morning, the russian

investigation, deputy attorney general nominee is expected to be pressed on naming a special prosecutor to investigate the russia issues. also will be very interesting to hear what he has to say about the president's wiretapping claims. chris and alison? >> yes, it will, joe. thank you for all that reporting. joining us now, republican congressman jason chaffetz, a member of the judiciary committee. congressman, thanks for being here in studio. >> good morning. >> great to have you here. let's start with the president's accusations of wiretapping. do you believe that president obama illegally wiretapped president trump? >> well, we don't know. the president asked for an investigation and he's going to get it. that will be led by the house intelligence committee. we'll play a supporting role in the oversight government and reform committee. i'm not going to presuppose the conclusion of this. we'll look at the evidence. >> have you seen any evidence? >> we just are starting that process and we'll look closely at it. >> does it require an

investigation? can you as chairman of the oversight house committee pick up the phone and call the fbi, department of justice and say, hey, was there a fisa warrant for this? >> i wish it was that easy. i did contact director comey over the weekend and he did not call me back. i hear these reports of what he believes. i find them with no credibility. >> this is interesting. you called him. >> i texted him. >> to find out if he is, in fact, incredulous? >> i said please call me if you can. i would like to know that. >> you got no response? >> no response. but that's not atypical. there's not out of the ordinary. sometimes he calls me back, sometimes he doesn't. he has been very accessible to members of congress. he was just up on capitol hill talking to the house intelligence committee. they're in the best position. they will lead out on this. we can support them in that effort. >> is there a way to circumvent an entire committee investigation? can the president, for instance, pick up the phone and call the department of justice and say

was there a fisa warrant issued when i was running my campaign? >> we have the whole spectrum here, right? the democrats flailing, saying russian ties are in collusion with the trump campaign. give us some evidence. i don't see any evidence on that. and on other end of the spectrum -- >> what about the michael flynn conversations? what about the paul manneforte having resigned? isn't that evidence? >> the house intelligence committee will lead out on that. it's flimsy at best. there's incidental contact. but to make that leap and say that there was some degree of collusion, we haven't seen anything yet that would lead you to believe, yes, indeed, other than incidental contact, that there was some sort of collusion. on the other end of the spectrum, to be fair, what president trump has said, we're at the very beginning of that. that happened, i think, on saturday. we want to see evidence of that. anybody in the government can come forward particularly to house intelligence but also the oversight government reform

committee and provide us that evidence. we would like to see it. >> how often do you wake up in the morning and read a president trump tweet and go uh-oh? >> you have to get up kind of early. well, it is interesting. it's a different and new dynamic. he chooses how he wants to communicate. but he does certainly make it interesting, yes. >> yes, but, i mean, as the chairman of the oversight committee then there has to be action. do you think -- >> not on everything. not on everything. the president said that he thought there was widespread, you know, voter fraud. i don't see any evidence of that. we're not doing an investigation into that. sometimes it is, sometimes -- >> i thought there was an investigation into voter fraud. you're not doing that? >> i'm not doing that. i haven't seen any evidence of that. >> the federal government has 2 million plus employees. we have 70. we have to jchl udiciously look

at everything we have to pick and choose. >> you've seen no evidence of the voter fraud or no evidence that president obama illegally wiretapped president trump. why investigate that one? >> the president is calling for that. i talked with devon nunez. they're leading out on that and we're going to look into it. >> do you think that president obama was illegally wiretapping? >> i've learned long enough that you don't presuppose the outcome. when you look around the corner, sometimes you find something you didn't expect to find. so i think it's a legitimate question. the president is emphatic about it. we're going to look at it and try to figure it out. >> let's talk about the republican replacement plan for the affordable care act. >> yeah. >> do you like what you've seen? >> i do like what i see. we campaigned on this, sured the american people if you put republicans in charge we would fix what is in a death spiral. the premiums are going up. i think 25% on average across the board. in arizona some of them are as close as 100%.

deductibles have gone up. choice has gone down, a third. almost one-third of the counties in this country have only one choice. so, we've got to save health care in this country for the american people and they elected us to solve and tackle difficult problems. >> some of the experts who looked at the republican replacement plan see problems with it. here is the kaiser foundation, what they say about it yesterday. with medicaid reductions and smaller tax credits, this bill would clearly result in fewer people insured than under the affordable care act. the house gop proposal seeks to reduce what the federal government spends on health care, inevitably means more people uninsured. does that worry you? >> we're always worried. we want to make sure that people have access to the quality health care they want. this does push it more out of washington, d.c. and back to the american people. it does align financial incentives, it cannily through health sasks accounts. it does limit and cap what we're doing with the states but gives

them more flexibility, which is what we heard the governors in town literally last week, they told us we want more flexibility. there's a lot to like about this. do you know what i really like about it? we're going to do it in an open and transparent way, unlike what the democrats did with the affordable care act where they slammed it through in less than 24 hours, it's going to go through a mark-up. you've got two committees of jurisdiction that will offer amendments and we'll have this debate over the next several weeks. >> what if it leaves lower income americans uninsured? >> we want them to be able to provide, have a method to get access to it. there are things we like, for instance, with pre-existing conditions, people allow iing -i think there's a lot of good things. >> but access for lower income americans doesn't equal coverage. >> well, we're getting rid of the individual mandate. we're getting rid of those things that people said that they don't want. americans have choices.

and they've got to make a choice. so rather than getting that new iphone that they just love and want to go spend hundreds of dollars in that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. they've got to make those decisions themselves. >> for lower income americans, you're saying this will require some sacrifice on their part? >> we have to be able to lower the cost of health care. one of the things we're concerned about is health care inflation is consuming the american budget, both in the families and at the federal government. we have to be able to drive those cost curves down and provide good, quality access. we do think that with more choice, that you will get a better product at a lower price. and that will be good for everybody on the entire spectrum of income. >> you're not willing to say that more people won't become uninsured? >> we lost, i think it was, 4.7 million people or so, actually lost the doctor that they had last year. the access is way down. when the cost and deductibles go up, you're not serving the american people well.

we have heard definitively that people know that this is not working. so, we're going to try something different. we do think we can expand the coverage so that people have access to a quality health care product that they want. >> more access, but possibly less coverage? that might be the byproduct? >> well, yes. i think that's fair. but we're just now consuming this. so, more of the analysis has to happen. that's premature. we just saw the bill as of yesterday. we're just starting to consume it. we will have to look at how that analysis moves forward. >> fair enough. congressman jason chaffetz, thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> chris? the white house doubling down on the president's wiretapping claims. democratic reaction from richard blumenthal next. see me. see me. don't stare at me. see me. see me. see me to know that psoriasis is just something that i have.

i'm not contagious. see me to know that... ...i won't stop until i find what works. discover cosentyx, a different kind of medicine for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. proven to help the majority of people find clear or almost clear skin. 8 out of 10 people saw 75% skin clearance at 3 months. while the majority saw 90% clearance. do not use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting, you should be tested for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur... ...tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms... ...such as fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. see me. see me. see me. on my way. find clear skin... and a clearer path forward. for a different kind of medicine, ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. i tell them the thickness of your enamel determines patients they ask me about whitening all of the time. essentially how white your teeth are going to be. the strength of your teeth needs to be there in order

for that whiteness to last. i would definitely recommend the new pronamel strong and bright to my patients to keep their enamel strong, help to keep stains away, and polish the enamel. they're going to get whiter, brighter teeth. this is going to be a really great product for my patients. ♪ companies across the state are york sgrowing the economy,otion. with the help of the lowest taxes in decades, a talented workforce, and world-class innovations. like in plattsburgh, where the most advanced transportation is already en route. and in corning, where the future is materializing. let us help grow your company's tomorrow - today at esd.ny.gov

incredulous, that is the word that sources used to describe fbi director jim comey's reaction to president trump's tweets, claiming his

predecessor had bugged the phones at trump tower. let's get reaction from connecticut senator richard blumenthal. you had a very strong tweet yourself that plays into the political tug of war over accountability there in washington. there's your tweet for the audience to digest. i'll use every possible tool to block doj deputy ag nominee unless he commits to appoint independent special prosecutor. the president can answer his own question, can he not? >> he can, because he has access to the intelligence and there would have to be a warrant for any wire tap to be imposed and incredulous is the right word to

describe the reaction many of us had. >> if it's so baseless and bizarre, do you think jim comey should have said that to everybody and not behind closed doors? >> my preference would have been director comey to actually issue a statement and directly con troe vertical this unfounded claim. at least there's no evidence that anyone can see for the allegation that there was wire tapping by former president obama. remember, this allegation is very, very serious because there are specific legal restrictions on how a wiretap can be requested from the court, and so my preference would have been for a clearer statement. >> their pushback on this is all right, maybe the president misspoke and overshot the claim of it being president obama. but now sean spicer is saying, well, something happened.

there was something that happened. and, obviously, they're going to be searching for anything to justify this. but will that be satisfying to you if they show something? >> the something is really only a matter of imagination at this point and speculation is no substitute for hard facts, especially when we're dealing with something so serious, so ve very, very fundamental of a wiretap that goes against the constitution of privacy and statutory restrictions on how and when a warrant can be obtained. >> would you be that shocked if something had been done? we do see in the obama administration legacy that they did do tons of surveillance. they did often target people that they saw as oppositional, journalists included. is it outside the realmm of possibility that something like this happened? >> there is certainly the possibility that surveillance of russian agents could have picked

up contacts and ties between trump officials and the russians. in fact, one of the reasons why i think there ought to be a special prosecutor is because of those connections and even possible collusion between the trump team before or after the election. it is incontrovertable at this point that the russians interfered with our elections, bedrock of our democracy. that investigation could well have picked up some contacts between the trump transition team or even the election team before the election. >> right. two things, one, the obama administration had some americans in their sights, not just foreign entities. but wanting a special prosecutor, why is that a premature request? you just started looking at this. you have the fbi looking at it. why go for a special prosecutor now? >> that's a key question, chris.

only a special prosecutor can pursue criminal wrongdoing. there's an intelligence committee doing its investigation and i support it. largely out of the public view. there should be a select committee that can findings, reports. but criminal wrongdoing has to be pursued by a prosecutor and only an independent special prosecutor can do it without the potential political influence that we see in the turmoil that you just recited going to the wire taps and the tweets. independent special prosecutor has a precedent. when elliott richardson was designated as attorney general during the watergate era, he was required as a condition of his nomination as attorney general to say he would appoint a special prosecutor, and he did. >> right. but it was very different -- at this point, you had an

underlying felony there in watergate, right? you had the burglary that all of this grew out of. and a lot of good reporting also. but this is not that yet, right? you don't have this underlying crime to base this all on. yet you said in your tweet and elsewhere that rod rosenstein, who is going to be put up for confirmation hearing, as basically the functional number two under sessions at the ag, you're going to hold that up unless he makes the same pledge that you're referring to during the watergate era. do you expect him to do that? >> he has the obligation as the deputy. only he can do it. attorney general, jeff sessions, has recused himself. now it falls to him, irrefutably. >> right but do you expect him to say, yes, i will definitely

do it as soon as i get in there? he would be criticized from legal minds on both sides of the political aisle if he said that. what would be the basis for doing that at this point? he has to have a jurisdictional mandate for that prosecutor as to why. you know there's a whole test involved. do you think this situation meets that test? >> i do. very good question, chris i think that it does there are very serious facts that show russian interference. not just a little bit. but a massive campaign of cyber attack, cyber warfare on our nation, massive propaganda and misinformation and potential ties between trump officials and the russians, which have come to light and are growing in number and seriousness. and the danger of cover-up.

if there is not a special prosecutor. and it has to be done early. not later. because facts and evidence have a way of, unfortunately, disappearing. members can fade. process prosecutor has to supervise the ongoing investigation. remember, there is an ongoing fbi investigation. >> senator blumenthal, thanks for making the can a as always. alison? house republicans rolling out their long-awaited obamacare replacement plan. part of it are already creating rifts within the gop. who does the plan help? who does it hurt? precise data at their fingertips. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. except when it comes to retirement. at fidelity, you get a retirement score in just 60 seconds. and we'll help you make decisions for your plan... to keep you on track. it's your retirement. know where you stand.

on your phone and online.s. a modern way to pay. so you don't miss his first birthday. tickets, i need to see your tickets sir. i masterpassed it. feeling like father of the year: priceless masterpass, the secure way to pay from your bank don't just buy it. masterpass it.

on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. oh, how waso good!en house? did you apply? oh, i'll do it later today. your credit score must be amazing. my credit score? credit karma. it's free. that's great! um hm. just whip bam boom, it's done. that apartment is mine! credit karma. give yourself some credit.

house republicans finally unveiling their plan to repeal and replace obamacare. the plan keeps the most popular features of the affordable care act, but loses the mandate. will this work? joining us now, cnn political analyst and usa today columnist, kerstin powers. what's the political power

brewing as you see it now? >> the biggest issue will be with republicans. four senators have come out and said they have issues regarding the medicaid expansion. you have this battle shaping up from senators from states tho w.h.o. have the medicare expansion versus those who didn't. right there out of the gate that means that this can't pass unless they can do something to win them over. on the house side you have conservative republicans saying that they want a full repeal of obamacare. they see this as congressman justin amash had said, this is obamacare 2.0, not what they think they were running on, that they were running on a full repeal. i think there will be a lot of work that will have to be done to win over a lot of republicans on this bill. >> compromise, matt, nobody is happy. everybody feels like they lost something. obviously, that's where you want to wind up. the president in his tweet about the plan did suggest this is a first draft, something to be debated. he also said that, remember,

obamacare is imploding fast, in complete disaster, which is, of course, a very qualified opinion of the ongoing state of health insurance. but do you think that the republicans need to own one basic proposition in order to have any chance of buy-in from democrats? under their proposal, fewer people will be covered. people will lose their insurance under this plan. >> right. and i think that's actually part of the problem, is that this is really -- look, if you're a liberal, you hate this plan because it probably won't cover as many people. so it's not as generous, let's say, as obamacare. but if you're a conservative, you don't like this plan because it's basically just like obamacare except maybe a little more free market and a little less generous. so, really, it's pleasing nobody. nobody is going to be happy with this. i'm not sure that is actually where you want to come down on

politics. it's really a conundrum, a predictable one. it's a mess right now. of course, it's going to go to committee and be marked up. i don't see how you fix this. >> republicans talk a lot about access. >> right. >> that more people will have access to health insurance. i don't know who said it. maybe it was you. but somebody likening access to americans also have access to bmws. if you can afford a bmw, you have access to it. it doesn't mean you can afford health care coverage. we saw congressman jason chaffetz on, who all but admitted people will lose their coverage. >> we do think we can expand coverage so people have access to a quality health care product they want. >> more access but less coverage? that might be the byproduct? >> well, yes. >> so, is that going to fly?

>> ultimately whether this is seen as being successful is whether or not people's health insurance premiums will go down and whether people have coverage. i do think it's a problem to have fewer people covered. but this is an ideological disagreement. when i talked to republicans on the hill about this, they will push back against the idea, just like you saw with chaffetz, basically the idea that there is some sort of moral responsibility to have more people insured. they'll say, no, we think when you talk about health insurance, you should also just be talking about access, the quality of the insurance plans that people have access to. it's not just about covering more people. so, there's just a gap in terms of what people believe in terms of what you want to accomplish with something like this. so i think the republicans would say we want to have more access and bring down costs. democrats would say the same but we also want to make sure that poor people are covered.

>> we don't know if it will be cheaper because they skipped a major step. >> i don't think it will be cheaper. >> this hasn't been cbo qualified yet, congressional budget office. >> right. >> as messy as the obamacare process was, they were getting it scored along the way so you would be able to see what it costs and what it didn't. with obamacare, there was nothing to compare it against. now you have something to compare this plan to. even our reckoning, it's too gentle. there is no possibly fewer people, there is no maybe. you'll have millions of people kicked off the roles either by the state or by the way the subsidy structure now works, now called a tax credit or because of medicaid dollars. that's just a reality. they'll have to get straight with that and find a reason to sell it. no? matt? >> here is the problem. they're trying to have it both ways. you could have a free market plan where people -- where the free market drives coverage. where i go to my doctor and fwosh how much i'm going to pay. if he charges me too much, i go

to a different doctor who has a better price and then poor people could be taken care of through medicaid. that's a really free market idea. or you can have something that looks more like obamacare. what republicans are trying to do is sort of have it both ways. and i just don't know how you can get rid of the mandate which forces young, healthy people to pay and yet keep the other things that we like, like you can't be denied if you have a pre-existing condition. i don't see how you can do those two things and not have the prices go up. they'll try to tinker around, do some things to fix it. my guess is that when the cbo does score this, it's going to be more expensive and cover fewer people. and that's obviously not where you want to be if you're a republican. >> right. those are not good selling points. matt, kirsten, thank you. >> go to the center on budget and policy priorities. they've taken a look at what changing medicaid expansion would mean. 11 million adults in 32 states

will lose kovenlg. check it for yourself. trump travel ban 2.0, will it be as controversial as the original? legally probably not. does that end the debate? new information next. can see inside patients,d tt can also detect early signs of corrosion at our refineries. high-tech military cameras that see through walls, can inspect our pipelines to prevent leaks. remote-controlled aircraft, can help us identify potential problems and stop them in their tracks. at bp, safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.

won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call

for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

president trump signing a revised version of his travel ban. it covers six muslim majority nations. iraq is out. why? a couple of reasons. so, we'll discuss those. the new executive order, is it going to have the same legal pitfalls? probably not. let's discuss that right now. dan ste. n, president for the federation of immigration reform or f.a.i.r. he favors trump's moves on immigration.

he says the first plan was fine so certainly the second one will be as well. and andre segouris, staff attorney for aclu. he opposes the ban. do you oppose this one just as much? >> we do. >> because? >> first we need to stop and think what this means. the trump administration basically admitted that the first order was indefensible. they scrapped that and moved on to the new one. just because the first order was banned because it did a, b and c, he can't issue a new order that doesn't do a but does b and c and think everything will be fine. it goes back to the establishment clause. >> why? because they took out that a minority religion might be given preference. that's out. it's temporary. and shouldn't that relieve some of the feelings about it? or do you believe at the end of the day it's still muslim even though that word is nowhere in the ban? >> it's nowhere in the ban. that wasn't there before. it still suffers from the same problems. the district court judge in

virginia looked at the trump administration's campaign statements and that's been very clear from the beginning. he called for a muslim ban. the trump administration would have to build a time machine, go back in time and basically change everything that he said about muslim ban. >> dan stein, rebut that presumption, that the second version is just a nicer version of the first with the same fundamental problem that it will ultimately target muslims. >> look, this so-called travel ban -- not a muslim ban. it's a temporary travel ban until they can review procedures, laid out by the secretary of state, homeland security and attorney general. it is constitutional, a lawful exercise under the statutes of the president's authority and, frankly, the new draft, there's nobody who has article iii legal standing in the united states to challenge it in federal court anyway under 150 years of legal precedent of the law of standing. and so now it's moving into the

realm of ideological disputes. i remember the day when the trade center bomb buildings came down with tears in my eyes and said maybe people will stop listening to the aclu's politicized agenda in trying to manipulate immigration policy in a way that jeopardizes national security. the courts have no business getting involved in these kinds of issues because they're discretionary to the president. it is not a muslim ban. obviously, most muslims in this world are not affected. it is something where it involves foreign policy and these are traditionally areas delegated to the president and not amendable to judiciary review any more than military engagements are. >> one of the problems you will deal with in court, the underlying reasons of this, lens for the constitutionality, you just had to cite something from back in the early '90s to justice what has been sold as an urgent need of imminent threat protection with this ban. doesn't that kind of prove the point of why you're going to be

challenged in the first place? you can't point to a lot of attacks attributable to this group you want to keep out of the country right now. answer that, please. >> chris, the basic argument of the aclu is that it's a violation of the first amendment establishment clause because it appears to disproportionately affect muslim because they're muslim majority nations. that simply doesn't hold up on the element of the law and ultimately discriminating on the basis of the religion is the core part of the refugee act of 1980. if you're providing protection on sectarian basis for persecuted religious minorities. this stuff is simply not judicially cogniz wrabl. >> i like that phrase. i'll have to explain it to myself later on. let me ask this. the 1980 act does talk about these groups of people the same way the ban does but was doing it in the context of protecting them from known risk. this group is being targeted. i don't know that the legal rationale works the way dan wants it to.

you do have a fundamental problem of who can challenge this. they took out of the ban green card holders, visa holders. they're out now, all okay. who would you be suing on behalf of? >> we still have, for example, organizational plaintiffs affected by this, organizations working on these issues. ninth circuit talked about families who are here in america who have an interest in people coming over and applying for visas. family members seeking visas, students, universities seeking students, professors. >> why would someone who here legally have standing to challenge in court a restriction of someone who is not a citizen? >> because that, primarily -- that restriction can't be based on religious discrimination. when there is that religious motivation that mr. trump has made very clear from the beginning of his campaign, all this is held to a higher standard. >> do you have precedent of that ever being judicially cognizable before. >> about? >> standing based on somebody

wanting to fight for the rights of somebody wanting to come in? >> we're taking a close look at that. we have no precedent for what mr. trump is doing right now. >> dan stein, final word? >> they have to -- >> that's a lot of n's. >> you worked hard on that. >> so is spiro agney. under the constitution, on question of authority -- >> i don't know what authority mr. stein wouldn't give the president on immigration. >> i've been studying immigration policy for 40 years. there's no standing. >> dan stein, agney said it. who wrote it for him? >> william sapphire. >> thank you very much to both of you guys. this will continue when you see what happens when it goes to court, we'll bring you back on. thank you, alison. >> no nattering of negativity

here. we're digging deeper on a couple of very specific can as that are bubbling up. that's next. y28cny ywty on your phone and online.s a modern way to pay. so you don't miss his first birthday. tickets, i need to see your tickets sir. i masterpassed it. feeling like father of the year: priceless masterpass, the secure way to pay from your bank don't just buy it. masterpass it.

the markets change... at t. rowe price... our disciplined approach remains. global markets may be uncertain... but you can feel confident in our investment experience around the world. call us or your advisor... t. rowe price. invest with confidence.

why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. presidency, and there are new

questions about his business conflicts. david, cnn contributor and reporter for the "washington post." great to see both of you. david, let's start with your reporting. you are reporting mr. trump's sons, don jr. and eric are trying to par lay the business adventure into a lucrative deal for themselves. >> the trump company is trying to expand a new level of hotels called scion, and it's not going to be trump branded. what donald trump, jr., told us, he wants to put those in second-tier cities where trump had a surprising amount of political success, and it's not clear if that will work, because the economic stress that fueled

mr. trump's rise, so we'll see if the more hotel business went out. >> there's intrigue, tim, surrounding the deals that have gone on tkaduring and one after and there's one that involved ivanka and a plan that is called the bacu deal. what do you make of those situations? >> they are one in the same, and the question with that deal was the trumps got into a partnership with people with questionable back grounds and they have been known to benefit with questionable deals, and there were allegations that public pension funds were used to construct that, and we sad the trump soho in manhattan, and

the partners there had a connection to organized crime. >> does that mean there's something going on with the job he is supposed to be doing for us that is compromised because of that? >> what is going on, this raises questions at the very minimum about his judgment, however whatever conclusions you want to draw about themselves, you can't escape the fact he exercised bad judgment pursuing deals -- >> i thought the whole point was he was walking away. >> that's true, he has pulled out of brazil, and he is still in trump soho but his partners are gone. >> so if the deals are dead, should that be satisfying? >> the reason the people are looking at the deals now is a fact pattern and history in

terms of trump the businessman to get a handle on his business making decisions. >> what you are talking about, where the sons might open a hotel in dallas. or nashville, or something like that. is there anything illegal or unethical about what they are doing? >> well, there's nothing unelt k -- unelt kul about the plan they have. they will just license the trump or scion game, and the question is who are those people and are they using the deal they set up with trump's sons to influence president trump, and there is scrutiny about who those partners will be, and we don't have anything to say about how those deals will look. >> when you are looking at the reporting, what is the concern driving the digging right now, david. we know there are always questions to be asked but that doesn't mean you will get

satisfying answers or they are important enough to wind up making a big part of the scrutiny of the president, so what is driving you right now? >> my concern here is that we don't really know what role the president is going to have in his business, and we don't know how much attention he will pay. >> you have found any of the filings yet? remember when he came out with the big stacks, and we were not allowed them see them, and a lot of them would have required filing with different states of registry? has the paperwork been done to put into effect what he said would be the cure for conflicts? >> yes and no. there's paperwork in that shows he has been taken off as an officer of the project or companies, and the ownership is still in his hands and it reports to a trust that he controls and benefits from, and he can choose not to exercise the control over the trust but

the legal control is his no matter who is the leader in the operation, and there's a chance to benefit from these deals. >> we have a picture of ivanka at one of the high end hotels in bough cue, and it's a cool picture, and do we know what ivanka's role is in the company and the business deals versus the white house? >> painting? jack hammer? what is she doing? >> she did lead the hotel construction projects in bough cue, and brazil, and soho. ivanka has said she has taken a leave of absence from her businesses, but i have not seen paperwork that shows she parted ways, and there's what they said, we would never cross that

line and you get shades of this all the time the way they are operating that. >> thank you so much. we are following a lot of news this morning, so let's get right to it. it is obamacare gone. we repeal all those taxes and mandates and subsidies. >> we have seen some republican opposition to it saying it doesn't go far enough. >> they are going to come far short of the coverage numbers that obamacare provides. >> no question something happened. is it surveillance or a tire tap. >> if it's true, it's earth shattering. >> and there's no reason for us not to have trust and confidence in director comey. >> unregulated, unvetted travel is not a universal privilege when national security is at stake. >> announcer: this is "new day"

with chris cuomo, and alisyn camerota. good morning, it's 8:00 in the east. let the health care battle begin again. house republicans finally turning their repeal and replace talk into something concrete. the first draft of their plan to replace obamacare. critics pouncing from their own parties and democrats saying it doesn't go far enough or it goes too far, and the reality is millions may lose their coverage. >> and this is as president trump continues his unsubstantiated claims that president obama wiretapped him during the campaign, and comey, will he speak out about trump's claims? we begin our coverage with sunland. >> unveiling their plan to replace and