>> reporter: very rich, but not very punctual. jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> thank you so much for joining us. "ac 360" with anderson starts right now. good evening. thanks for joining us. breaking news tonight in the russia investigation. new reporting how interested the fbi seems to be in carter page. the story detailing how many times page has been questioned already, what he's been asked about and told investigators. page himself, calling the encounters extensive. in a moment, the correspondent who broke the story. but we begin with the health care replacement billion. 22 million fewer people with insurance by 2026. that, according to the congressional budget office. also big deficit reduction. however, it's that 22 million estimate that could be politically toxic to some republican moderates, one of

whom weighed in late tonight. so a lot to get to, starting with phil mattingly. what else is in the cbo report? >> reporter: you start with that tom line number, anderson. you know it's important, particularly for moderate senator. several pointed to the coverage number before the cbo report released and said their vote may be contingent on that. 22 million fewer would have insurance over the course of a ten-year period. the senate bill takes a different approach than the house bill to try and address the house bill's coverage problems. the house bill had 23 million. the senate has a more robust tax credit. they phase out medicaid over a slower amount of time. you also need to hook at the medicaid cuts or the reductions in medicaid spending based on dramatic reforms in the medicaid program. $772 billion will be spent over the course of ten years. you noted the deficit reduction. this is very important.

3 $321 billion the deficit reduction in this bill. the house bill has a baseline of about $133 billion. the senate has to at least match that. so they have matched that about they have about $220 billion to work with. when you look at moderates who are concerned how deeply this bill comes back on things like medicaid, mitch mcconnell has a pot of money to work with. but as is always the case here, there's a push and a pull. if you start spending such of that money on say opioid recovery grants, you have conservatives who are concerned about the spending and the medicaid phaseout as is. they might revolt. one other quick item, conservatives have been very keen on one specific issue, lowering premiums. that's their be all, end all. if you look at the cbo report, there is good news on that front. by 2020, premiums for individual plans would drop by 30%.

but the rational for that is changing the types of coverage that these plans allow, which again on the regulatory side is what conservatives want to do, but the cbo making clear, some individuals just before they're eligible for medicaid would possibly lose coverage or be priced out. so there are a lot of problems with this report and it throws a bill that leaders want to finish by the end of this week in major flux. what is's the reaction on capitol hill? >> reporter: not great. i talked about susan collins. i want to read a series of tweets she put out. she says, i want to work with my gop and dem colleagues to fix the flaws in the aca. cbo analysis shows the senate bill won't do it. i will vote no on the motion to proceed. the senate bill doesn't fix aca problems for rural maine.

one of five mainers are on medicaid. so her insistence she'll vote no on the ability to move forward on this senate bill, a vote we're expecting tomorrow or wednesday is problematic. she becomes the third republican senator to say they won't even vote to get to the votes on the bill itself. so that throws kind of a wrinkle into the process. but also if you think about what senator dean heller of nevada said friday, what senator rand paul has been saying now for weeks and then you put into context what senator collins said in those tweets, they are taking apart piece by piece by piece very central components of this bill saying they are not good enough, they need major changes. do they have the time to try and get these senators back in the fold by the time this week is out? that is an open question right now. they still want to get a vote by the end of this week, but there's no question, there is a lot of work to do and the cbo report didn't help. >> phil, thank you very much for

the update. the white house put out a statement, critical of the cbo, reading the cbo has consistently proven it cannot accurately predict how legislation will predict insurance coverage. i want to bring in my panel. gloria, the big headline, 22 million more people being left uninsured if the bill passes. is that too much for some republicans to swallow? >> you haven't heard republicans say the cbo is so great, i'm going to support the bill. it obviously makes them nervous and shows that in ten years, you're going to have 15 million fewer medicaid enrollees, and you saw the tweet from susan collins where she's worried about that in the state of maine. this affects older people. it affects lower income people. and i think that what you see here are republicans getting more and more nervous about voting for this bill. and i spoke with one senator today who said look, why are we

in such a rush to do this? we know that mitch mcconnell wants to get this done before the recess, so we don't go home to angry constituents. but this senator said, i think i need to hear from my constituents. >> maggie, what is the rush? >> i think gloria is right in terms of the position that senators are finding themselves in. the rush comes from the fact that as time drags on, as we know with this type of legislation, if you look at where things are and how hard sit to get one vote that we're talking about from those three possibly movable senators, the longer things go, the harder it becomes. this is why you see senate majority leadership trying to shove this through. it's also what the white house would like to see. the white house made the calculation that republicans have campaigned for several cycles on repealing obamacare. they now have control of both houses of congress. they have legislation with which to do it. but make no mistake, it is very difficult to take away an

entitlement program. that is what you are seeing here. i'm using the word "entitlement" in quotes, but it is difficult to take it away and explain it to them as anything other than that. and that's what the senators are facing. >> there are six senators who are no votes right now. senator graham said if you're on the fence, this score is not going to push you towards the bill. others are saying the cbo is is not reliable. is he right, though? >> the score melee out some places where negotiations could take place this week. i'm looking at this from a conservative republican perspective that ran on repealing and replacing obamacare. we said these things during elections and campaigns and said we wanted to cut premiums. this cbo score says it does. we said we want to cut the deficit. the cbo score says it does. we said we want to cut taxes, the cbo says it does, as well. so there's some things you can

hang your hat on, and there's room to negotiate now. mcconnell now has some room to run with the individual senators. so it was not unexpected that the cbo score would set off a round of hand wringing. but there's room to negotiate, and i really hope republicans remember what we ran on, which is cut taxes, cut the deficit, cut premiums, and the bill right now under the current framework does that. >> van, what about that? to the point, the president did say he's not going to cut medicaid, but is this what republicans ran on? >> i don't think it's what donald trump ran on. part of the thing that goes wrong is we talk about this in a partisan prism. it's republican thing, a democratic thing. this is not going to be a republican policy. it's not going to be a democratic policy. it's going to be the american policy when it comes to health care. and what we're going to be saying is, if you are poor, and you get sick, we just don't care

that much about you. that is a fundamental message from this bill. and it's basically saying we're going to give huge tax breaks to rich people and the savings are going to come from taking health care, taking doctors away from poor babies. now, i don't understand why a president trump, who ran on such a populist agenda, who said he wasn't going to do anything bad to medicaid, he was going to look out for everybody, is let thing go through under his name. but donald trump is betraying his base and his promises with this bill. >> scott, the president said that the house bill was "mean" and that bill left, according to the cbo 23 mill more people uninsur uninsured. again, you can say the cbo is not accurate. but if the president believed that version was mean, how is this not? >> well, it's one thing to say the cbo is not accurate, and it may or may not be here.

they do have a history of inaccuracy. but let's pretend they're 100% right. there's some percentage of this 22 million that would have never gotten coverage in the first place, including some people who signed up for medicaid that might not otherwise have signed up if it was not forced upon them by the government. so that is a fact that we have to deal with here. there's some people in this country that just wouldn't want to buy health insurance. so you can call it mean, and if that's what the president said, and i know that's what he said he said. but again, there's a group of people that it's not being mean to, because they wouldn't have bought nit the first place. >> but those same people, the moocher caucus who say if we're not going to buy this, but if they slip on a banana peel, they go to the emergency room and we all pay for that. so obamacare said you just can't be a moocher, you have to pay in if you want to pull out. now the republicans have become

the pro-moocher party. they love the fact that you've got a bunch of people that want to believe free riders in the system. i don't understand, the republican party has literally flipped upside down under trump. makes no sense at all. >> under van's argument, anderson, he's assuming that every single person who signed up actually paid their premiums. it is true, a bunch of people signed up and never paid in. so you can pretend like there's no moochers on the system right now, but a whole bunch of people signed up and never paid their premiums after they signed up. >> go ahead, gloria. >> i want to add to maggie's good point earlier. what you are doing here, whether people paid their premium or didn't pay their premium, they believe they have health insurance, whether they -- medicaid expansion gave them health insurance or not. what you're asking members of congress to do is take something

away. that's very difficult. once people have it, they don't want to get rid of it, which is why we call it entitlement programs. on top of that, you add in the fact that the major stake holders, the american medical association, the hospital association, the aarp, they're all opposed to this. they can go out and campaign against it. and i think it makes it very difficult for a republican senator, no matter how conservative and what your argument is, or if you're susan colins in the state of mairne, o go to your older voters and say we're taking away health care. >> an additional point i would make is that you have a president who has been, as he often is, he treats everything like it's an open ended negotiation. so he's been on various sides of his own bill essentially. it is my bill, it's not my bill. you're asking members of congress to go out now and essentially campaign on and risk campaigning for 2018 on votes

over these bill where is there's going to be audio of the president saying on fox news, yes, obama stole my term that this is mean. that is a calculation for a lot of these senators and members of congress. >> to that point, scott, i want to play what van mentioned about candidate trump mentioned on the campaign trail. >> every republican wants to do a big number on social security, they want to do it on medicare, they want to do it on medicaid. and we can't do that. save medicare, medicaid, and social security without cuts. i'm not going to cut medicare or medicaid. i'm going to save your medicare. you're going to end up with great health care for a fraction of the price. >> so scott, is he breaking that promise? >> well, the bill says we're going to spend $500 billion on medicaid by 2027. today, we spend $389 billion. so that's more spending on

medicaid. one thing that we are viewing this bill through the prism of, we're taking away, but maybe we ought to view it through the prism of we overextended ourselves and promised something we can't afford and now we're having to do reforms to bring it in alignment of what we can deliver. another issue is this. under the current medicaid system, you get more reimbersment for covering able bodied people than disabled people. under the way medicaid works, it is disadvantaging people who have disabilities in favor of people on the reimbursement rates that are able bodied. some reform is necessary to save medicaid for the people who actually need it the most. >> he did say there would be no more cuts, and we're talking over $700 billion. go ahead, van. >> i agree that there are all kinds of ways to improve our system. but play thing fuzzy math where we're spending a whole bunch of

money, i think we're spending too much money on the health care system because i think we have too many big private insurance companies that are ripping us off. there are other solutions, like single payer. there are other countries doing a better job. i'm all for reform. what i'm not for is giving massive tax breaks, massive give aways to rich people and throwing poor people under the bus. you're going to have to deal with the fact that a lot of people voted for trump because he said he was going to bring the premiums down. the premiums that are coming down are coming down because you're going to be paying less for crappier coverage. that's not what people wanted. and so listen, we're now in a situation where the reformers, who have good ideas, are being drowned out by the people who are just hard core against programs to help poor people and it will come back to bite you guys. more breaking news to talk about in the russia probe. the fbi has questioned carter

page extensively. the question is why? i'll talk to the reporter who broke the story. choicehotels.com. badda book. badda boom. that's it? he means book direct at choicehotels.com for the lowest price on our rooms guaranteed. plus earn free nights and instant rewards at check-in. yeah. like i said. book now at choicehotels.com

finding the best hotel price is now a safe bet. because tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites - so you save up to 30% on the hotel you want. lock it in. tripadvisor. but with my back pain i couldn't sleep or get up in time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. and now. i'm back! aleve pm for a better am. it's not just a car, (work sfx) it's your daily retreat. the es and es hybrid. lease the 2017 es 350 for $329 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. working my canister off to clean and shine and give proven protection against fading and aging. he won't use those copycat wipes. hi...doing anything later? ooh, the quiet type. i like that. armor all original protectant. it's easy to look good.

yet up 90% fall short in getting key nutrients from food alone. let's do more. add one a day men's complete with key nutrients we may need. plus heart-health support with b vitamins. one a day men's in gummies and tablets. i just saved a bunch of money on my car insurhuh. with geico. i should take a closer look at geico... geico can help with way more than car insurance. boats, homes, motorcycles... even umbrella coverage. this guy's gonna wish he brought his umbrella. fire at will! how'd you know the guy's name is will? yeah? it's an expression, ya know? fire at will? you never heard of that? oh, there goes will! bye, will! that's not his name! take a closer look at geico. great savings. and a whole lot more. more breaking news tonight as we said, it involves carter page. we've had him on the program. safe to say the program as was interesting as it was at times baffling. page was on candidate trump's

national security advisory team, but seems to have little actual contact with him. it seems he may have never even met president trump or even candidate trump. however, the washington post is reporting he's had plenty of contact with the fbi. joining us now is devlin barrett. so you reported that carter page, the one-time foreign policy adviser to the trump campaign, has been interviewed several times by the fbi. do we know what they were talking to him about and how detailed it got? >> it got very detailed as has been described to us, and lasted for some total of about ten hours. that's spread out over five separate meetings, but that's extensive questioning, you know, a lot of lawyers would certainly be surprised to hear that the questioning went on that long. and we nona they talked about, for example, some of the allegations in the dossier that everyone has been obsessed with over the last six months. page's position, he denies the

accusations that are made against him, and more generally, he denies that he was any kind of konaconduit between the trum campaign and the russian government. >> and page confirmed to you that the interviews had taken place. what else did he say? >> that's right. it was interesting, because he did these interviews with the fbi without a lawyer. a lot of lawyers would short of shutter at that frankly, because it is a crime to lie to the fbi. and i asked him about that, and he basically said look, i'm telling the truth. i've been telling the truth this whole time. so i'm not frankly, his words obviously, he just expressed that he wasn't concerned about any legal jeopardy for him, because in his mind, the facts will bear out his version of events. >> devlin, if you could, stay with us. i want to bring in gloria and maggie. maggie, what do you make of this? >> i would trust devlin's reporting always, and i assume

that he was questioned extensively, but i don't know what carter page knows and what he can provide them. i watched his interview with you, you know, several weeks back, and it was mystifying in terms of what he was trying to communicate. he did a couple of other tv interviews around that time. you know, the trump campaign did name him, did identify him as somebody working with them during the campaign, but then they distanced himself. i have no indication he had any interaction with president trump, but he's become somebody that authorities are interested in questioning, and it adds to the drip, drip nature of what we're seeing with this probe. >> gloria, i interviewed carter page back in march and his role or lack of role how he advised candidate trump. i want to play some of that. did you ever brief donald trump as a candidate or president-elect? >> president trump, i never

briefed him. in reality -- >> did you ever meet him if >> i never shook his hand. i've been in many rallies with him from arizona to north dakota to many in new york. >> rallies? >> which is meetings. >> so the hundreds of thousands of people who have been to rallies -- >> i've been in smaller rallies -- >> so hundreds of thousands of people who have been to donald trump rallies, can they say they've been to meetings with donald trump? >> i've been in smaller ones, as well. >> it's possible that he was -- he was named at one point when donald trump needed to name some foreign policy people, but it doesn't seem like he had much of a role. i think he attended one dinner, not that the president was even there, for other people associated with the campaign. and maybe he sort of talked up his credentials in moscow when

he was there in front of reporters by saying he had been in meetings with the president. but his definition of meetings are rallies that thousands of people attended. >> well, it's very clear from your interview, and from watching carter page in other interviews, that he wasn't a confidant of donald trump. he didn't advise him ever one on one on foreign policy. so it's interesting that the fbi is spending so much time talking to him. so i bet what they're looking at is what his relationship with the russians was, and whether the russians thought that he would be more of a conduit than he actually was. and maybe they, you know, maybe they took a look at him and said oh, he's on this list, and we've known him over the years, and we have a relationship with him, and maybe he could be helpful to us. with donald trump at some point

in the future. i don't know if that's what you think the fbi might be interested in, but it seems to me his relationship with the russians would be a lot of interest. >> and in your article, to carter page, he seemed happy with the end result of these interviews. he said to you that it restored his faith in some of the people in the fbi. >> right. and i think that's how he approaches this whole issue. he feels that he's being smeared publicly, and he feels like he can explain himself adequately. so in his mind, there's nothing to quoshlworry about. you have to remember that carter page is one of the first investigative issues in this whole russia question, going back to the summer. so he's one of the people that the fbi is interested in first. he's also one of the -- we reported previously that there was a fisa warrant out on his communications precisely because

of what gloria mentioned, which was this concern that he may be in regular contact with russian officials who are maybe steering him in some way or manipulating him in some way. all of which he denies by the way, but that was the concern. and i think frankly the questioning shows it was still a concern then. >> interesting. thanks to everybody. coming up, the white house saying another washington post article makes it clear there was no collusion between russia and the president and his associates and the obama administration knew there was no collusion. to put it bluntly, that's not what the article says at all. we're keeping them honest on that. and another strange press briefing, next. now you drive 300 miles to watch this. yes, nice pop toss! flag dancing? we've been there. and with free hot breakfast and a warm welcome, we'll be there for you. hampton by hilton.

somewhere along of self-discovery: a breakthrough. ♪ it's in our nature to need each other. ♪ i have age-related maculare degeneration, amd, he told me to look at this grid every day. and we came up with a plan to help reduce my risk of progression, including preservision areds 2. my doctor said preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula the national eye institute recommends to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd after 15 years of clinical studies.

preservision areds 2. because my eyes are everything.

well, another day, another mystery surrounding the white house press briefing. today's briefing was once again off camera. there is audio of it, which includes jim acosta asking why the cameras was turned off. there was one remarkable thing, sean spicer attempting to answer questions about the president's tweet storm. so what was the interaction you had with shawn spiceer? >> reporter: we once again got our nonanswers off camera today. it was another restriction placed on us by the white house. and unfortunately, we all went along with it. here's one example of -- one exchange where i tried to ask sean spicer to turn the cameras back on and here's what happened. sean, can you answer whether -- >> there's no camera on, jim. >> maybe we should turn the cameras on, sean?

>> i'm sorry, jen. jen? >> the lights are on. there is a room. >> reporter: there was another exchange later on in the press briefing where we tried again. during that exchange, sean spicer ignored my question about why the cameras were off, but a report we are the conservative outlet, oann, went ahead and asked sean spicer the same question, and he said basically we're going to have days where we have the cameras on and where we don't have the cameras on. but if you look at the last several gaggles and briefings here at the white house, anderson, they've nearly been all off camera. so the question becomes, is this part of a new normal here at the white house where the press freedoms are being taken away, to have these spokes people for the president of the united states answer our questions in front of the cameras. >> the president took to twitter to criticize former president obama for his response to the alleged russian interference in the 2016 election. i want to read some of those.

the reason that president obama did nothing about russia after being notified by the cia of meddling is that he expected clinton would win and did not want to rock the boat. he didn't choke, he colluded or obstructed and it did the dems and crooky hillary no good. the real story is president obama did nothing after being informed of russian meddling in august. they have zero tapes of t., people chuding. there is no collusion and no obstruction. i should be given an apology. what did the white house have to say about all that? >> the white house was asked about some of this today, and there was one interesting exchange that occurred during the briefing where sfipicer was reminded where it was during the campaign where candidate trump invited the russians to hack into the server and find the e-mails. sean spicer said that was a joke, and that is what we were told during the election last july, i believe it was.

but one thing we should point out about these tweets from the president, anderson. one is, the president is alleging that former president obama was somehow colluding with the russians because he did nothing after finding out about the russian meddling. president obama confronted vladamir putin at a g20 summit in september of last year. so to say he did nothing is inaccurate, even though there are some democrats, like the house intelligence committee chair adam schiff who said president obama should have done more. but it's inaccurate to say president obama did nothing. this is another attempt by the president, by this white house to shift the story on the russia investigation to say that it's president obama's fault, is just another example of this white house trying to escape accountability on a very important question. anderson? >> jim acosta, keeping them honest. thank you very much. now we're keeping them honest on one other point that spicer made in today's briefing. he said this about an article in "the washington post." he said if you believe the story

that is written, that means from august to november 8, two things. one, that if you believe then they did know about this and there are some serious questions about what they did or did not do in terms of acting. and the second is clear, they knew all along, talking about the obama white house, that there was no collusion, and this is very helpful to the president. now, we read "the washington post" article and did not get that at all from "the washington post" article in question. so we thought we would go to the guy who wrote the article, reporter adam entes. adam, what is your reaction to sean spicer says your story shows there was no collusion, and the obama administration knew that? >> i'm not sure where he's drawing that conclusion from. that's something we did not address in the story. in fact, what really was going on was this compartmentalization took place within the u.s. government. when the fbi launched its counterintelligence investigation, looking at

possible coordination between the russians and members of the trump campaign, that was started in july before the intelligence arrives at the white house in either late july or the first few days of august, from the cia, which pointed to putin's direct involvement in ordering this operation. so there's no -- there's no intelligence that's being received at that point by anyone in the administration about these contacts. >> i reread your story from friday, and to me i just could not find anything that was talking about collusion. i mean, there is a part in the story where you mention almost in passing the fbi investigation of contact between the russians and trump associates. that investigation is still ongoing. so the idea that the white house uses your article to draw a conclusion, it just doesn't make sense. >> yeah. not only that, we didn't put this in the story. in the first few lines of the piece, we talked about a meeting that takes place at the white

house in early august. and comey is in attendance at this meeting, along with the president. but according to the people we spoke to, comey did not mention that there was an fbi investigation that had just been launched, looking into possible coordination between the trump campaign officials and the russians. so comey was withholding that information from the obama administration at that point. we learned that later on, around december, some information began to filter out. in part because obama asked the intelligence community to go through all of their reports that had not been distributed. these are intelligence intercepts in particular, that were picked up by the national security agency. so some of those, when they started to relook back through some of their previous intercepts, they began to see some information that was about some of these contacts. and so that's information that they only begin to learn about in december, which is around the same time frankly that we at

"the washington post" and other newspapers, and at cnn were beginning to hear about the same things. >> this is a certain irony in sean spicer citing your article. because obviously the president and sean spicer and allies routinely sham t lly slam "the post" and cnn and others for stories they don't like. here they are pointing to your story as vindication to the president and your story does rely on anonymous sources. >> yeah. trump said in some tweets that obama was basically sitting on this and didn't respond. and he should have responded more aggressively. the irony of that, one of the reasons that obama denieds to the to respond more aggressively is concern anything he did would be used by trump when he was at that point a candidate to basically make the case that this election was rigged. that was part of the reason that obama decided not to respond. >> hmm.

adam, appreciate you being here. thanks. >> pleasure. coming up, with the current president trying to blame the former president for not doing anything about the russian meddling, the web gets more tangled. we'll try to sort it out. also, the supreme court lets parts of the president's travel ban go into effect. they're going to hear the full case in a few months. we'll take a look at what it means for people trying to come to theite. this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you so we sent that sample i doff to ancestry. i was from ethnically. my ancestry dna results are that i am 26% nigerian.

i am just trying to learn as much as i can about my culture. i put the gele on my head and i looked into the mirror and i was trying not to cry. because it's a hat, but it's like the most important hat i've ever owned. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com. we believe in food that's anaturally beautiful,, fresh and nutritious. so there are no artificial colors, no artificial flavors, no artificial preservatives in any of the food we sell. we believe in real food. whole foods market. looking for a hotel that fits... ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over 200 sites to find you the hotel you want at the lowest price. grazie, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor. my doctor recommended i switch laxatives. stimulant laxatives make your body go by forcefully stimulating the nerves in your colon.

miralax is different. it works with the water in your body to hydrate and soften. unblocking your system naturally. miralax. the energy conscious whopeople among usle? say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear. who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing.

one of the simplest questions of president at the white house seems to be giving a straight answer to is this, does the president believe that russia interfered in the election. reporters tried again today. here's what sean spicer said. >> he believes that russia probably was involved, potentially some other countries as well could have been equally involved.

>> today the president inched closer to what multiple agencies have confirmed. but the president is now trying to blame the obama administration for not doing anything about it. from whom he wants an apology, that's not clear. former obama administration tony blinken joins me now with david gergen. tony, "the washington post" article quoted a senior obama official involved in the russia deliberations. they said it was "the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend, i feel like we sort of choked." how does the obama administration absolve themselves for waiting until december before enacting punishment on russia? >> we didn't wait, anderson. when this information came to light in the summer, we thought the primary objective that russia was pursuing was to hack into the elections and disrupt

them, or at least create doubt in the american public about the legitimacy of the elections. so the first thing we did is made sure the elections were massive defended. and we had to take into consideration what the russians were trying to do and thinking how do we present this? we didn't want to play into russia's hands by creating the perception of a problem. that would have been doing russia's work for it. at the same time, president obama confronted president putin, warned him starkly to knock it off, and that was that extraordinary statement by the director of homeland security in early october, the very same day that the access hollywood tapes came out. so there was a lot of action taken. at the same time we were doing that, mr. trump was calling on the russians to hack more and to release more. so you've got to wonder where his criticism is coming from

now. >> tony, in that washington post article, which interviewed according to "the washington post" two dozen or so or maybe like 22 former officials and folks, if my tell memory serves correct, they seem to intimate that the white house, at that point, also believed that it was likely hillary clinton was going to get elected and they could deal with it more after hillary clinton was elected, and that they didn't sort of want to upset or play into the notions that candidate trump was saying about this being a rigged election. >> look, we didn't want to politicize things. there was concern about being perceived as putting or thumbs on the scales. we went to congressional leadership thinking if we could speak about one voice, that would de-politicize it. and we needed cooperation from election officials throughout the states to make sure the election systems themselves were

secured. one of the things that was shocking, when we went to the republican leadership on the hill, john brennan and others, they believed or said they believed that we were actually politicizing things, that there wasn't a threat, and that they weren't going to join us in issuing a sort of joint statement. so that was very, very disappointing. i think it might have made a difference, had we all been able to get on the same page early on. >> david, president trump is going after the obama administration. he says the real story is that president obama did nothing after being informed in august about russian meddling with four months, looking at russia and did not want to rock the boat. just from a political standpoint, how unprecedented is this finger pointing towards a former president? >> well, it's been continuous, hasn't it? going all the way back to how obama bugged him and we found that wasn't true.

listen, anderson, i think it's important to separate out, there are two different stories here, one is about president obama, the other is about president trump. it's legitimate question whether president obama acted properly. some democrats are saying he was too soft on the russians. but that's very different from the question of what donald trump is doing and that the fbi is doing. they're investigating was there meddling and was there collusion? and there's nothing in "the washington post" story that suggests there was absence of collusion. it's just not conclusive. but more importantly, what donald trump is doing is what we've seen him do before. and that is he discredits and diverts. it's a clear strategy. he's discrediting the whole special counsel investigation and everything that's gone on on this issue. and he's trying to divert attention away from the central questions, and that whether his

own team colluded, and we don't know that yet. we need to be cautious. but i think that president trump is entirely misleading us once again about the nature of reality. i mean, he for months said there was no meddling, nothing to be worried about, folks. today he says look at all this meddling and obama is responsible. >> we'll have to leave it there. more happening tonight. the supreme court allowing part of president trump's travel ban to take effect temporarily. the court will hear arguments in the case this fall. and there's confusion over who is allowed into the u.s. and who will be turned away. we'll sort out the details ahead.

♪ if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients

achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. afi sure had a lot on my mind. my 30-year marriage... ...my 3-month old business... plus...what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i made a point to talk to my doctor. he told me about eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. not only does eliquis treat dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding

than the standard treatment. eliquis had both... ...and that turned around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis right for me. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you. it's not just a car, (work sfx) it's your daily retreat. the es and es hybrid. lease the 2017 es 350 for $329 a month for 36 months.

experience amazing at your lexus dealer. partial victory for president trump. the supreme court today is allowing parts of the president's travel ban to go into effect. they'll hear arguments on the case this fall. the ban is on six majority muslim nations. but it's unclear who exactly will be let in and who will be kept out. jessica schneider joins us now with more. >> part of the travel ban that goes into effect includes the foreign nationals from the six majority muslim countries. if the foreign nationals cannot prove they have a bona fide connection to a person in this

country, they can still be banned. but if you can prove a family connection here, proven admitted to university or have a job offer here, those people will be let in. the question amounts to, what exactly is the bona fide connection that will determine that. will this in fact create some of an onnerus thing for the travel officials. the question now becomes when does this go into effect. the trump administration has said that 72 hours from the court's decision, it will in fact take effect. we're not exactly clear when exactly the clock began running. however, the department of homeland security said that they will be giving clear and adequate notice to all travelers when this does in fact go into effect. the portions of it allowed by the supreme court. anderson? >> and this case, though, continues to the supreme court in the fall? >> right. it does. the supreme court said that yes,

it can go into effect in part. however, the arguments on the merits of this case as to whether or not it complies with immigration law, those arguments will be next term. so the supreme court will hear this. some watchers, some supreme court watchers are wondering, will this case even have any effect considering that the executive order says that immigrants would be banned for 90 days. refugees banned for 120 days. so the question is, that time will essentially have run by the time the supreme court will hear this case in the fall. so what exactly will the supreme court do? that remains to be seen as we approach october. >> jessica schneider, thank you for the update. jeffrey toobin, and neil represented hawaii. one of the states challenging the president's travel ban. neil, what's your reaction to the supreme court not only agreeing to hear the case, but ruling foreign nationals, some foreign nationals can in fact be

prevented from entering the u.s.? >> yeah, i was really surprised to hear president trump declare a unanimous victory today, because in reality, he lost 6-3. the supreme court let stand the district court's injunction blocking major sections of both his travel ban and his refugee ban. and to be sure, you know, some of the technical stuff about non-connected u.s. persons, the heart of the lawsuit that hawaii has brought has been -- remained intact by the supreme court today. we're very much looking forward to oral arguments in october. >> jeff, is that how you see it? >> not really. you know, this has been an un-ending series of defeats for the president in the lower courts. he did get all nine justices, liberals and conservatives alike, to let some of the travel ban, this executive order go into effect. neil is right that a lot of the individuals who brought these cases, the people who wanted

their in-laws to be allowed in, the students, the business people with job offers, they are not covered by it. but this was a heck of a lot better than donald trump has been doing. and he has three justices who wanted to uphold the whole executive order. and who look like certain votes once the case comes to be argued in the fall. so i can understand, you know, why neil says what he says, but i also think the president was right, that he did have a unanimous ruling on part of it in his favor. >> well, jeff is certainly right that there was a kind of -- that the president won something today, unlike all of his times in the lower courts. that's such a low bar. i think the most important thing to understand is that, you know, i don't know of any president in u.s. history in the first 150 days has had this number of federal court injunctions upheld by the u.s. supreme court. you can look over the 200-plus

years of american history, you won't find that. yes, jeff's absolutely right. he got three justices. three. it takes five to get a majority. he didn't get that. i think that's a pretty telling sign that what president trump has done here is really aberrational. >> jeff, to your point, the court said the travel ban could not be imposed on anybody who had a credible claim with a bona fide connection to someone here in the united states, a job offer or relatives here. how is that actually going to be worked out? i mean, is it -- it seems like a difficult thing to kind of figure out for those who already have visas coming here. >> it might be difficult at the margins. but remember, immigration officials do this kind of thing for a living. they make value judgments about people's fitness to be in the united states. and it is not all that complicated to see if someone has been admitted to a university, who has a job offer,

who has a close relative. i am sure there will be cases that wind up in court. but it is also true, i think, that the court gave reasonably clear instructions to the lower courts in how to determine who should get in and who shouldn't. >> neil, the fact that the court allowed some parts of the ban to move forward, does that give you any indication when the supreme court hears it in october? >> i don't think it gives much of an indication with respect to that. what they left in and allow the president to do is a very, very narrow slice. they rejected the trump administration's request to limit the injunctions only to the individual plaintiffs. instead, they said if there's someone like the individual plaintiffs, that's fine. most notably, on the refugee part, they said you don't have to be a close relative, slong you have a connection to an entity in the united states, that's enough. all the refugees in the pipeline right now do have that. remember, this order is only supposed to last 120 days. all the folks, the refugees

swept up by that order do have the u.s. connection. so, you know, at the margins, jeff is right, there will be a few people like tourists from somalia and yemen who have no connection to the united states. the order goes into effect with respect to them. i don't know if that's a class of zero or one or something like that, but not something that the president is doing that it's going to change the national security apparatus and keep the country safe and all that. >> thank you. next, more republican voices weighing in against the gop senate obamacare replacement. sorry about the holdup, folks. we have some congestion on the runway and i'm being told it'll be another 15, maybe 20 minutes, and we will have you on your way. ♪ runway models on the runway? surprising. what's not surprising?

how much money evan saved by switching to geico. i would not wear that lace. hmm, i don't know? fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. finding the best hotel price is now a safe bet. because tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites - so you save up to 30% on the hotel you want. lock it in. tripadvisor. working my canister off to clean and shine and give proven protection against fading and aging. he won't use those copycat wipes.

hi...doing anything later? ooh, the quiet type. i like that. armor all original protectant. it's easy to look good.