the house, you might be hearing tonight in washington come from just about a number of directions. supporters of the senate republican bill to replace the affordable care act. they're angry at the congressional budget office for estimating the proposal would leave 22 million fewer americans with coverage. they're questioning the assessment. but they're also latching on to parts of it that they like, like the estimated deficit reduction. women's health advocates, you name it. just in the past hour and a half or so, two key republicans have broken ranks with their party.

dana bash has late word on that and joins us now. first on the cbo score. what impact is that going to have on the support for the health care bill, especially among moderates? >> it's already having a big impact. you mentioned a couple of republicans already breaking ranks. the first was a couple of hours ago, senator susan collins, moderate republican of maine tweeting explicitly that it was the report saying that 22 million americans would lose coverage, and a few other things that she saw as bad for her constituents in maine that leads her to the decision to vote no on a motion to even proceed to this bill. and secondly, anderson, just a few moemts ago, walking by my, senator ron johnson of wisconsin who has been very outspoken about the process here, saying that there needs to be more time. i asked him if and when the senate republican leadership moved to this bill this week, if he, too, would vote against a motion to proceed. and he said he would also vote against it. now, this is a really big deal for a lot of reasons.

because just historically, the way things tend to work here on capitol hill is that even when rank and file republicans don't agree with the substance of a bill, they tend to go along with their leadership on procedural measures to at least start debate. the fact that we have already two republicans saying they don't agree with even going to the debate, breaking ranks with the leadership on that, is very bad sign for where this is going to go. and questions whether or not even -- it even can get to the floor of the senate. so that's number one. then, of course, on the whole substance, which is what's driving this, we have other moderate republicans who we're talking to here who are saying that they're very concerned about what this means for their constituents. listen to lisa murkowski who is undecided as well. i spoke to her earlier today. >> i don't think it's asking too much to say give us the time to fairly and critically analyze these numbers.

and if you have -- if you're saying, cbo numbers don't matter, then let's look at the numbers that you do think matter. but it really does -- it does make a difference. >> so she's concerned about the rural constituents. she has a lot of those in the state of alaska who she is afraid are going to lose coverage and this their premiums will go even higher that they are now in order to get and maintain health care coverage. that's just sort of the left side of the republican spectrum in the senate. anderson, then, of course, you have those on the right, conservatives from rand paul, to mike lee, to ted cruz, who say that this bill doesn't go far enough in reducing obamacare regulations. they want to be loosened. and although the leadership says they're okay with some of those changes, it's a question of technically whether they can even do that on this legislation. again, the leadership is being squeezed on both sides. i can tell you that president

trump is making calls. i ran into mike lee just a short while ago who said he got a call from the president today, hearing out mike lee's concerns, saying that he hopes that they're going to be able to address them. unclear if that's possible. >> president working the phones. dana bash, thank you very much. more now on the cbo report which not only outlines the human cost, but the budget. tom foreman joins us now. what do we know, tom? >> anderson, the headline that has the democrats howling and republicans hesitating is this one from the cbo, the notion that simply by slashing the individual mandate, you're going to start a soaring in the number of unemployed people out there. next year alone, they say this alone will put 15 million more people on the uninsured rates. and it will go up from there. let's put this in context a little bit. think about this. back when barack obama and the democrats passed obamacare, about 18.2% of the population was uninsured. that is now down to about 10%.

if you want raw numbers, we had about 48 million people uninsured back then. we have it down to about 28 million now. the cbo says if you go through with the senate plan, this is where you're going to wind up, somewhere around 49 million people uninsured. more than what you started out with. by the way, we're talking about older folks, we're not including older folks here, covered under other plans. what about your premiums. one of the promises is it would keep your premiums down. for all of us out there. the kaiser family foundation has studied it and said yes, health care premiums are not growing as fast as they were, but they say that's largely because of market forces. the way, for example, that employers are handling this, not so much from what happened with obamacare. nonetheless, the cbo report says if you look at individual, if you look at a benchmark plan out there and say what's going to happen to the individuals under this plan, 2018 it would go up about 20%. the next year it would go up as well.

and then they say it would drop pretty dramatically, about 30% and continue dropping from there. bear in mind, anderson, even if you talk about the drops in individual premiums out there, people are getting something very different for that money than what they're currently getting under the obamacare plan. anderson? >> this is not all apples to apples. no matter what it costs, the senate plan would offer something different than obamacare anyway, right? >> exactly. and that's why these numbers are a little hard to follow. look at this. some of the things that would be changing in the equation, under the senate health care bill it would cut back on federal support for medicaid, it would eliminate obamacare taxes on the wealthy and some insurers out there. it would defund planned parenthood for one year, lower the maximum range for who gets tax credits. all sorts of this in this. money moving up and down and back and forth. it's hard to sort through that all. even the cbo says that. this is the part that has fiscal conservatives happy about all this. when you add all those numbers up, what you come up with $321

billion in deficit reduction over the next ten years. some people do like that. anderson? >> all right. tom foreman, thanks. two opposing points of view now, former clinton labor secretary robert reich, who is in favor of saving capitalism for the many, not the few. and steven moore, economics analyst and former adviser to the trump campaign. secretary reich, the president called the house bill mean. does it have heart? >> no. the senate bill as we just said removes 22 million people from health care. the house bill, according to the congressional budget office, removed 23 million. to that extent, the senate bill is better. if you think having hearts, being less mean, means going from 23 million people to 22 million people losing health care, you don't have much heart to begin with. this is a bombshell, anderson. this is the kind of thing that shakes members of congress up,

because they have to face voters, many of whom are going to lose, or have already by the time you have the 2018 midterm elections, have already lost their health care. this is not only immoral, this is also something that is politically very, very damaging for the republicans. >> steve, if this is such a good bill, why isn't it a slam dunk for republicans, if every senate republican was on board with it, the bill would pass. >> well, they do have to get 50 senators, no question about that. so they can only lose two. the math is there. but look, i want to get back to the issue of people losing their insurance. i think the thing that's surreal about this whole discussion is while we're having a discussion, what would happen under the republican plan, as we've talked about many times on your show, in the previous weeks, obamacare is melting down right before our very eyes, where we see insurers moving out of the market, where we had a report that showed that the premiums have doubled for vast numbers of millions of americans.

i mean, i would ask my friend robert reich how is that not mean to make americans pay more and more for health insurance. >> are those the only two options? either no obamacare or this plan? isn't there another way to change obamacare and give some confidence to the market? >> i don't think so, anderson. i don't think -- the democrats say yeah, sure, it's broken, but we can just put some band-aids on it. no. when you've got one-third of americans living in counties now that don't have any obamacare insurer, when you've got people's insurance premiums doubling, what is this health care bill called? it's called the affordable care act. but the insurance under the affordable care act isn't affordable to millions of americans. let me make one other quick point that i think is important in terms of your viewers understanding this number about 22 million people losing their insurance. the majority of people are going to lose their insurance because the individual mandate goes

away. basically what the report is saying, unless you stick a gun to people's heads and force them to buy insurance that they don't want, and that they can't afford, then they're going to lose their insurance. how are you doing a favor to somebody forcing them to buy insurance they don't want, robert reich? >> steve moore, you are a good friend, but you are absolutely full of baloney with regard to all of this. the major problem here is that you're eliminating taxes. you're repealing taxes on the rich, something on the order of $365 billion of taxes that would have gone to subsidizing health care. once you give that big tax cut to the wealthy, and this is really -- this republican bill is not a health care bill, it's a tax cut for the wealthy bill. once you give those taxes, $365 billion that were -- that was supporting health care, back to the wealthiest members of our society, obviously you're not

going to have enough to provide subsidies for the 80% of people on obamacare, on the affordable care act who need subsidies. you know, steve moore -- let me just finish this thought. >> okay. >> you keep on talking about the fact that obamacare, or the affordable care act is unraveling. number one, part of the reason it's unraveling is because the trump administration has not given insurers any reassurance that they are going to be those subsidies there. the other issue is that you can fix it. why not fix what's maybe slightly, slightly broken rather than removing insurance for 22 million people. and also undermine medicaid? we haven't even talked about medicaid. >> but steve, let me just ask you, though, the 22 million, 23 million, whatever the number is, people who will lose insurance according to the cbo, if they

show up in emergency rooms, they were still going to have to get coverage, or get medical attention. that's going to come out of taxpayers' pockets. >> in some cases it does. but the point is you're forcing the people to buy the insurance packages that are too expensive. one of the real drawbacks of the obamacare bill is forcing people to buy a package that's called the essential health benefits. a lot of people can't afford those benefits that get loaded on, especially young people. by the way, robert reich, the people that are the big victims of obamacare are young people. without obamacare they could buy an insurance package that would cost half as much. even with the subsidiesubsidies. but robert reich never really answered my question. why it is if this is such a good deal for people that you're going to have something like 10 or 15 million people are going to drop their coverage if you don't force them to buy it? in other words, i don't understand the argument that it's a really great thing for people, but they don't want it, so you have to force them to buy it. >> all right, so secretary reich, what about that?

>> well, it's very, very simple. if you want poor and disabled people and people with preexisting conditions to have affordable insurance, then you've got to have in the same insurance pool with them people who are younger and healthier. you've got to say younger and healthier people, you know, this is part of what it means to be in the same insurance pool, what it means to be part of our health insurance system. that's what we do with social security. that's what we do with medicare. we pool our risks. that's the idea of social insurance. but on top of that, we also have this huge subsidy, this tax shift that is transferred to the wealthy that is going to happen if those republican bill becomes law. >> bob, those tax increases hurt the economy. we increase the capital gains tax, we have less jobs. >> oh, please. steve moore, you are just blowing smoke. i'm sorry. >> to be continued.

>> we've talked about it for years. you don't know what you're talking about. >> to be continued. steven moore, robert reich, thank you very much. breaking news. in the russia investigation. carter page, you remember him, we interviewed him on this program, he's been interviewed extensively by the fbi. and trying to make sense of the supreme court's decision on the president's travel ban. a partial victory for president trump. we'll take a look hat the court actually ruled. (baby crying) ♪ fly ♪ me to the moon (elegant music) ♪ and let me play (bell rings)

adapted to my weight and shape, has so i sleep deeply, and wake up ready to perform. right now, save up to $500 on select tempur-pedic mattress sets at our july 4th event. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com dale! oh, hey, rob. what's with the minivan? it's not mine. i don't -- dale, honey, is your tummy still hurting, or are you feeling better to ride in the front seat? oh! is this one of your motorcycling friends? hey, chin up there, dale. lots of bikers also drive cars. in fact, you can save big if you bundle them both with progressive. i'd like that. great.

whoo. you've got soft hands. he uses my moisturizer. see you, dale. bye, rob. at johnsonville, naturally hardwood smoked. 100% premium pork. no fillers. period. i'm nick, that's my brother brett and we're proud to say it's made the johnsonville way.

choicehotels.com. badda book. 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 breaking news, revealing the "washington post" reporting carter page has been repeatedly questioned in the fbi's probe five times totalling for about ten hours. page was on candidate trump's national security team. although it's unclear, though, they actually ever met. he admits he never did shake hands with the president. page confirms he declined he's spoken to investigators since then. meantime, the president is tweeting on russia again. quote, the real story is that

president obama did nothing after being informed in august about russian meddling with four months looking at russia under a magnifying glass, they have zero tapes of people colluding there is no collusion and no obstruction. i should be given an apology. joining us now van jones and gloria borger. gloria, how big of a deal is this "washington post" story about page? >> it is a natural progression. as you point out, anderson, you can't find anybody in the campaign who says that carter page had a large, or important role, or ever briefed donald trump on anything relating to russia or foreign policy. the reason i think this is interesting is that it tells you probably a little bit about what the fbi is looking at. and they probably want to find out from carter page what the russians were asking him. and how the russians may have been courting him. and what the russians perhaps thought they could get out of him. if he was somebody who was

connected in any way to donald trump. and so i think this is interesting, because it may tell you a little bit more about what the russians were looking for. and that gives us a hint of what the fbi is looking at. >> jeffrey, you communicated from time to time with carter page. i understand you just heard from him about this new report. what's he saying? >> i have. let me quickly summarize, anderson. first of all, he's been watching your show tonight and he said he's having a good laugh at tony blinken who is on with you right now. he said he believes the obama administration's backs are against the wall, and that things that members of the obama administration have allegedly done haven't even been fully exposed yet. it should be interesting, he says, as the real truth continues to come out and he insists he is absolutely innocent, that he is telling the truth and seeks every forum he can to tell the truth. so there you go. >> we should point out part of

what his criticism to the obama administration, also hillary clinton, is that he believes that there was a -- basically hate crimes against him, using his words, because he was -- or that they were anti-catholic, and also because he was a man, that there were hate crimes against him. i think that was in his filing. >> he does use the word crimes in here. >> right. so van, the pushback from the president's supporters, essentially if all the fbi has is carter page, they really don't have much in their investigation. when you hear that, i wonder what your response is. carter page, you know, didn't shake donald trump's hand. trump mentioned his name once. but never was even in a meeting with him other than a giant rally with thousands of other people. >> well, i think a couple of things. first of all, donald trump says he is owed an apology. he is owed an apology. he needs to apologize to himself for making such a big mess of this whole situation. in his tweet he talks about tapes.

the only person who ever raised the question of tapes is donald trump. who said he hoped that there are no tapes. which it turned out there were no tapes. that they were going to be his tapes that he didn't have. he should apologize to himself, and the country, for making such a big mess of everything. if in fact he is correct, that there's nothing to see here but some weirdo named carter page, he should not have fired the fbi director. he should not have tweeted all the time. he should have let the system work the way that it was working. i do not know, nor does anyone on this panel or anyone watching, if carter page is the first domino, the last domino or just a weirdo. but what we do know is donald trump behaved in a way to make this whole thing much worse. >> gloria, the president going on a tweet storm about obstruction of russia. is it helping him in the court of public opinion? >> look, it may help him with his supporters. it doesn't affect the investigation one way or another. you have a special counsel. the special counsel, i would venture to say, is not paying

one wit of attention to donald trump's tweets. and that is the person who matters right now. and so i think while donald trump feels the need to defend himself, and why not, go have at it, in your tweets, and criticize the obama administration for being lax on the russia investigation, that he wasn't even sure needed to be done himself. so, you know, does it help him? >> jeffrey, one of the things about carter page, it would be interesting to know if the fbi was able to get more details out of him than, myself included, about exactly who he talked about meeting with scholars in moscow when he went there to make a speech. never really talked about who exactly the scholars were. just the actual -- pinning him down on actual deals. i assume in ten hours of interviews with the fbi, that they were able to get a level of detail that he was not giving in

any television interviews. >> i think that's right. i don't know. but anderson, i think you're right. i think the main thing here is his mind-set. he believes completely he's done absolutely nothing wrong. therefore, the business of, for example, showing up to talk to the fbi without a lawyer, i think he really thinks, i have absolutely nothing to hide, nothing to fear and i'll do it. he'll answer any and every question put to him, i really believe that's his mind-set here. i'm sure the fbi, from the fbi's standpoint, had a field day, because he would talk openly. >> and maybe they think he did nothing wrong but they want to find out what the russians were doing. >> right. thanks, everyone, appreciate it. coming up, the russian ambassador who everybody seems to meet with but no one can seem to recall is finally being recalled by moscow. we'll talk about why he is going home, next. ♪ buried just under the surface, the answer to it all.

♪ we want to need each other. ♪ you're searching for something. like the perfect deal... ...on the perfect hotel. so wouldn't it be perfect if there was a single site where you could find the right hotel for you at the best price? there is. because tripadvisor now compares prices from over 200 booking sites... ...to save you up to 30%... ...on the hotel you want. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress.

who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®.

and it's also a story mail aabout 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

in the russia white house, no matter which thread you follow, russian am bors sergey kislyak. now he is apparently leaving his

post. his contacts with trump apparently had nothing to do with that, according to the russian foreign ministry. it's just part of a regular rotation. randi kay tonight has more. >> reporter: he trained as an engineer but long thought to have a different skill set, that of a russian spy. russian ambassador sergey kislyak's web of intrigue dates back to last year when then senator jeff session met with him during the republican national convention. a meeting sessions failed to recall during his confirmation hearing for attorney general. >> i did not have communications with the russians. >> reporter: later after explaining he did meet with kislyak, sessions promised to recuse himself from the russia investigation. >> i should not be involved investigating a campaign i had a role in. >> reporter: months later sessions was also asked about another possible undisclosed meeting with kislyak at washington's mayflower hotel. session and kislyak were both there in april 2016 for donald

trump's foreign policy speech. sessions said he did not recall talking to kislyak there, despite the ousted fbi director saying they intercepted russian communications suggesting the two men had talked. kislyak who's been ambassador for nine years also met with trump transition team member general michael flynn. flynn met with kislyak last december. later flynn misrepresented the nature of his conversations with kislyak to the white house, including the vice president. >> i talked to general flynn yesterday. and the conversations that took place at that time were not in any way related to new u.s. sanctions. >> reporter: that wasn't true. transcripts show flynn did discuss sanctions with kislyak. he was fired for misleading the vice president. joining flynn and ambassador kislyak at the trump tower meeting was the president's son-in-law, jared kushner met

with kislyak just a month after his father-in-law was elected president. that meeting has put kushner under intense scrutiny, a source telling cnn that kushner was asking the russian ambassador for back channel communications with the kremlin. the "washington post" had reported that in december, kislyak told his superiors that kushner wanted to use russian diplomatic facilities for off-the-record communications to evade u.s. intelligence monitoring. even after all of this, not to mention unanimous agreement from intelligence agencies that russia meddled in the 2016 election, in may president trump welcomed ambassador kislyak, not only to the white house, but actually into the oval office. it was there the president confided in kislyak that firing fbi director james comey who had been heading up the russia investigation had relieved great pressure.

kislyak once said in response to claims that russia meddled in the u.s. elections, quote, we have become collateral damage in the fight between two t two parties. as he heads out, he may be part of it now. randi kay, cnn, new york. joining me now, two longtime russia hands, former moscow bureau chief jill dougherty and steve hall. jill, moscow calls what happened to the ambassador routine rotation. is that true? do you buy that? >> well, it is true that it was known in the diplomatic community that ambassador kislyak would be leaving, probably about a year ago. then it's understood that he extended for another year. so, yeah, i think this has been in the train for quite a long time. and he was in his position for a very long time. the interesting thing to me is, it was also known in the diplomatic community that he was a candidate, possible candidate

for a new position at the united nations. anti-terrorism position. which he is not going to be taking. so i think that's an interesting question, why he didn't do that. but as far as washington, yeah, i think, you know, we expected that he would be leaving. >> steve, i've heard conflicting things on whether or not he does have a role in intelligence, or not. how do you see ambassador kislyak? >> anderson, it might be a little bit of a distinction without a difference when you're talking about whether or not kislyak is an intelligence officer. my personal assessment is, during the course of my career i've rarely seen a case where you have an ambassador who's a formal staff offer of the russian intelligence services. that does not mean that he's not the eyes and ears of vladimir putin on the ground in washington. any diplomat, whether it's russian or western diplomat, part of their job is the collection of information, just like an intelligence officer. of course, an intelligence

officer talks to different people and does it under different circumstances. i don't think he was actually a formal spy master as sometimes he has been described. but he certainly was on the ground and his job was to collect information for vladimir putin, or one of his jobs was. >> steve, do you see his recall as just routine? >> i never take what the russian ministry of foreign affairs says on its face. it's difficult for me to imagine how he has been treated. he must be somewhat radioactive these days in washington. didn't play a role. that said, jill's right, he's been in washington for a long time. longer than many ambassadors. and this was in the works. so it's probably a little bit of both. >> jill, do we know what he's going to be doing now? >> we don't. and there's no confirmation, it's important to point out, from the foreign ministry officially that he is leaving washington. i mean, what they're saying is, this is a procedure, it usually

takes a long time. they have not formally said he is leaving washington. they're not saying what he is going to do. i think, anderson, it's really important to point out that word "recall" is being bandied about. you know, recalled is a technical term, a diplomatic term which simply means he is going back, presumably, to moscow. but it doesn't mean that he's being whisked out of there because of some, let's say, you know, russia investigation, et cetera. all i'm saying is, it's important to be really precise in these things. >> yeah, i mean, there's nothing seemingly untoward or certainly in the use of that term. steve, the process for russia gathering information in the u.s., how large is it? obviously it goes well beyond the ambassador, and we often hear about china spying on the u.s.

but obviously russia has active collection going on. >> absolutely. it's definitely larger than just the standard diplomats in not only the embassy in washington, but we have to remember there's a large number of consulates -- russian consulates throughout the united states, new york, san francisco, places like that. so all of those places have russian diplomats, and one would imagine russian intelligence officers as well. look, the thing is that these closed societies like china, like russia, that are governed by authoritarian regimes like vladimir putin's, they take advantage of open societies like ours. they try to get as many intelligence officers in the united states as they can, and try to take advantage of the openness of our society to be able to travel. there are some restrictions supposedly that are sometimes enforced on the russians, but they try to take advantage. it's a big operation. they do their best to collect all sorts of different intelligence here in the united states. >> steve hall, appreciate it. jill dougherty as well, thank

you very much. the white house calling this morning's supreme court decision on the presidents's travel ban vindication kai vindication, despite the it's not a full endorsement, not permanent. the details in a moment. hey! you know, progressive is america's number-one motorcycle insurer. yeah, she does purr! best bike i ever owned! no, you're never alone, because our claims reps are available 24/7. we even cover accessories and custom parts. we diget an early start! took the kids to soccer practice. you want me to jump that cactus? all right. aah! that lady's awesome. i don't see a possum!

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.

yeah, and i can watch thee bgame with directv now.? oh, sorry, most broadcast and sports channels aren't included. and you can only stream on two devices at once. this is fun, we're having fun. yeah, we are. no, you're not jimmy. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. xfinity gives you more to stream to more screens.

part of president trump's travel ban is back in effect with the supreme court partially allowing it to stand until this justices hear the case this fall. the fact this is just temporary and the court could still rule the ban unconstitutional has not stopped the trump administration from celebrating. it is a partial victory for them after all. cnn's jeff zeleny joins us with more. so talk to me more about the response from the white house tonight. >> anderson, no question, the president responded so differently than we've seen him respond in previous rulings. for one, he won. there was at least, i would say more than a partial victory, a substantial victory, something this white house is not really expecting. because all of those ninth circuit rulings. the white house was certainly taking a more measured tone than we've seen them take before. the president, though, simply was not reacting in the way he normally does. we could see that in his statement, and simply he did not call it a travel ban as he had

before. i think we have that statement here. let's take a look at it. he said this. he said it was a clear victory for our national security. it allows travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries, and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. a couple of weeks ago, he called it a travel ban. he said we're not -- >> that sounds like a lawyer wrote that. >> it sounds like a lawyer wrote that, and he stuck to it. so far. we'll have to see how he handles it in social media coming forward here. but he did not specifically respond to this calling it a travel ban. the reason is, the oral arguments, the arguments that have to happen this fall to continue to further win this case if the white house would like to do that, they know that anything the president does now, says now, tweets now can be used against him. but no question about it tonight, the president's travel ban, travel suspension, whatever you want to call it, is in far better shape than any other moment of his presidency. >> we should point out the president tweeted, i think he said it was unanimous.

what is unanimous is it's moving forward to the fall. but the actual ruling was not unanimous. >> right. the ruling was not unanimous, but it was still the idea that three justices, you know, simply were endorsing this travel ban completely. the others said, let's re-hear it. it is not unanimous, that's true. not 9-0 here. but it was more supportive and more surprising to this white house that has become so used to this travel ban being assailed. but everything he says about it, the intent of it, spirit of it can still be used against him. you can bet all these old tweets will be once it's reargued this fall. >> jeff zeleny, thanks. joining us jeffrey toobin, laura coates, mike rogers and leon rodriguez.

the white house touting this is a clear victory in their words for national security. does this improve national security? >> well, you know, it's interesting. some notion that this is trump against the democrats or something i think is completely wrong. we have to look at what are the underpinnings of why we got to where we were. and i disagreed with his first ban. i thought it was too broad. i don't think it was well thought through. i think they made big mistakes. but when you look at countries where our law enforcement intelligence services cannot properly vet people, there is no way to vet people from countries that we know are recruiting. you know, el shabaab in somalia, al qaeda in the arabia peninsula and in yemen. a whole host of groups in syria. all of those are realities. what the real debate should be is, is there a proper way to allow citizens from those countries to come in through a proper vetting process, and i would argue, and i saw this when i was german, absolutely not from these countries. a little bit of it is a wing and a prayer when these folks come in.

in this time between when the supreme court hears it and today, if they go through and honestly give this a good scrub about, is there a proper way you can vet people from these countries in which we have intelligence that says they want to send people to the united states and europe, then i think we've done something for national security. if this turns into some political food fight, i think we've lost sight of what's important in this decision by the supreme court. >> jeffrey, president trump has been obviously frustrated with the lower court rulings. jeff zeleny saying it's more than just a partial victory. >> it is a victory, there is no question that this is a very different result in a very different court. a more important court than any of the ones before. it is not a complete victory. but the fact is, all nine justices allow some of the plan to remain in effect. the most controversial part is not in effect.

the people who have relatives in the country, who have university appointments, who have jobs, they will be able to presumably, according to the supreme court, continue to be allowed in the country. but tourists, refugees will not. and this is a very important part of president trump's goal. and it looks like the supreme court -- this lineup is likely to recur when the court hears the case in the fall. so i think that this is a very good day for the trump administration. >> you say the supreme court sent a clear message to the lower courts they theyover stepped here? >> yeah, i think that's right. when you have unanimously, the court pushing back on these stays, the stays went so far beyond what the case is saying. as justice thomas pointed out, most of the time you have a stay that is really limited to the actual litigants in the case. they just didn't say it applies

to people similarly situated, admitted to a university, et cetera, they just said we're going to cut it down all together. that's something not even the most liberal justice on the court was willing to stand for. i think that's a real rebuke to the ninth circuit and the fourth circuit in this case. >> laura, do you agree it's a big victory? >> i don't. to call it a victory is quite a qualified one. one, to call it a victory is quite premature. look at the procedures in this case. they have not ruled on the constitutionality of it, or the statutory guidance the fourth circuit put through. they have to wait until october. i think the supreme court is more nuanced and sophisticated in the analysis of this issue. it never discussed the constitutionality, but it did put in place certain caveats to allow the president and his administration to be able to say, listen, certain bona fide, people with connections to the united states can come in. what does that do? invites probably more litigation about what that's actually going to look like. what it will probably do is you have the 90-day period which may take effect which may ultimately

show this travel ban is moot before october comes into play, it keeps it right before the court. they're trying to find a way to figure out how they can still navigate this issue, and allow the president in a hat tip to do what they should do. >> we've got to take a quick break. when we come back, i want to hear from leon rodriguez. we'll take a closer look at what jeff zellney spoke about a moment ago. what the supreme court might consider when it takes up the case this fall. ♪ i'm living that yacht life life life life ♪ top speed fifty knots life ♪ on the caribbean seas ♪ it's a champagne and models potpourri ♪ on my yacht made of cuban mahogany ♪ gany, gany, gany ♪ watch this you're searching for something. like the perfect deal... ...on the perfect hotel.

so wouldn't it be perfect if there was a single site where you could find the right hotel for you at the best price? there is. because tripadvisor now compares prices from over 200 booking sites... ...to save you up to 30%... ...on the hotel you want. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.

♪ ♪you are loved ♪

for 10 years, my tempur-pedic has adapted to my weight and shape, so i sleep deeply and wake up ready to perform. right now, save up to $500 on select tempur-pedic mattress sets at our july 4th event. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com. at our july 4th event. megan's smile is getting a lot because she uses act® mouthwash. act® strengthens enamel, protects teeth from harmful acids, and helps prevent cavities. go beyond brushing with act®. . again the supreme court partially upheld president trump's travel ban today. mentioned moments ago the president's previous words might come back to haunt him. it's already happened back many march when it was put on hold

saying there was evidence of quote, religious analyst. take a listen. >> i think islam hates us, but there is a tremendous hatred and we have to be very vigilant. we have to be very careful and we can't allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the united states, and of people that are not muslim. >> i guess the question is is there a war in the west between radical and islam or is there a war -- >> it's radical but it's hard to define and sprae because you don't foe whose who. >> that interview was used to say trump's sbnt to target muslims because of religion. the question is will the supreme court make the same call. how is this going to work? >> that's part of where the challenge is. this is going to be something that skuconsul officers will ne

to deal with, custom's officers need to deal with. and what that bonafide relationship means is an point open question, family relationships are obvious, student and competent employees are obvious but there are a number of relationships that are going to cause some complications. there's one thing that i share with the disinterest here is i wish there would have been a black line. >> carey, just from a legal standpoint, the supreme court made mention of the president's past in the campaign, that was something that the other courts, the lower courts did, is that something they're going to have to look at when they look at this in the fall in. >> i think that's the legal standard where the coastal play. we're seeing the court applying the legal standards they would have applied to any executive order. that's not what we saw below, we saw a political approach to it. the thing of bringing if

candidate six months to beforehand is -- what court said in this order is we look at the national security as an urgent objective of highest importance and the president has -- importance on that. when there are people that don't have links with the united states, so, those are -- that's carrying out the normal legal standard. the supreme court simply following these standards and as the court continues to do so i think the president has a good shot in october. >> there was confusion when the executive order was originally put in place, do you think that's going to take place as well, or because immigration officers have a -- you know, overseas can look at whether or not there was a legitimate reason for coming here or connection -- >> i think they're moving that anderson to the right place which are people who are trained to do this. just because by the way, you get a student visa doesn't

necessarily mean you should be here, i don't care what country you're from. remember the 9/11 hijackers some of those were student here on student visas. you want the people that are trained making those decisions. i think what the supreme court did today was saying that. all of the rhetoric recording emotion six months ago if you don't really like trump should be relevant on the ruling. what the court did is they continued to nibble away at it to what you have now is a suspension from countries, and remember this is the root cause of this where our trained professionals cannot properly vet individuals on what their intent is when it comes to the united states. places that intelligence says, hey, guess what recruiting there to send them to places like european and the united states. that's really what i saw the

supreme court rule on today. >> and the last point -- that points to a big question here which is where is this examination of the vetting process that was in the president's order? there was supposed to be reports at 50 days, 100 days, that time has long gone. if there's been challenges that i have been incremental and there's been no report as to what examination this administration has followed. what the white house says it's learned about syria, chemical weapons and possibly another attack. are you done yet? does it look like i'm done? shouldn't you be at work? [ mockingly ] "shouldn't you be at work?" todd. hold on. [ engine revs ] arcade game: fist pump! your real bike's all fixed. man, you guys are good! well, we are the number-one motorcycle insurer in the country. -wait.

you have a real motorcycle? and real insurance, with 24-hour customer support. arcade game: wipeout! oh! well... i retire as champion. game hog! champion. on

. we end tonight with the wous just into cnn is a statement that reads the united states has identified potential preparations for another chemical welcome attack by assad regime. the activities are spectacular in preparations the regime made

before in the 2017 attack. we previously stated the united states is in syria to eliminate, if however this assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons he and his military will pay a price. time to head things over to don lemon in "cnn tonight." >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >> breaking news on the gop healthcare bill. this cnn tonight, i'm don lemon. a fourth gop senator says he'll vote no on the motion to let his own part's healthcare bill go forward. can mitch mcconnell get trump healthcare across the finish line. the president says he wants a bill with heart, but with 22 more millions with no health insurance, is this that bill. plus ivanka trump says she tries to stay out of politics which seems like a really odd thing. one of the president top advisers saybe