as is so often the case in the trump presidency, today's story was told in tweets. another attack on attorney general jeff sessions, we'll talk about that throughout the hour. but there was one big difference. a policy announcement that transgender people would be banned from serving in the military. no public announcement, no explanation as to how it will affect currently serving troops. just three tweets and nothing but the tweets. jeff zeleny is at the white house with the latest. what do we know about this ban other than what was tweeted? >> reporter: anderson, that's all we know this evening. the president sent out those urgent messages early this morning saying, look, you know, the military service will not be

allowed -- any transgender member of the service will not be allowed to be an active member of the military. beyond that, it was left at that. there were background briefings today on what's going on in venezuela, a background briefing for administration officials on what's going on in the job announcement in wisconsin. anderson, for a major policy change like this, there was not a single background briefing. administration officials we talked to were, quite frankly, caught off guard, they could not answer basic questions, like what happens to active members of the military who may be serving in afghanistan or elsewhere, who are transgender individuals. it was clear this was an announcement that happened abruptly. it took people here on surprise, on capitol hill by surprise, and certainly at the pentagon by surprise. >> do we know which generals if any the president actually consulted about this?

he says in one of his tweets this came about after consultation with his generals. >> reporter: the president says "his generals" a lot. some people in the military bristle by the words "his generals," but anderson, we don't know which generals he's talking about. this has been discussed in meetings and other things with the national securikurecurity as part of the military readiness. but it was not on anyone's radar necessarily until this morning. so again, it took people by surprise. there was -- at the white house briefing today, incoming new press secretary sarah huckabee sanders simply didn't have answers to the questions about what the next steps of these policies are or who these general generals were. anderson, for such a big policy announcement, it was small in the details. >> if you're transgender and currently serving in the military, obviously you're wondering what does this mean for your position. are you going to get fired, are

you going to get removed? >> reporter: it's a great question. it's a question that went unanswered today. imagine if you're a transgendered marine or soldier or airman, you know, in kabul or irbil. there is no specific answer as to what happens. but there is an interesting reaction i think on capitol hill. senator john mccain, of course he's back in washington, battling brain cancer, chairman of the armed services committee. he said, look, an announcement of this magnitude should not be done by twitter. he also said any able-bodied legal american who wants to serve their country should be able to do so. so anderson, as this goes forward here, i expect considerable pushback on capitol hill, as this is decided. this may be president trump's version of don't ask, don't tell, but it's a slightly different time from, you know, more than two decades ago here. so this is not the end of this today. i think it's the beginning of a long discussion here. >> jeff zeleny, thanks a lot. we're at all it with dana bash,

is this just about politics, diversion from the russian investigation or jeff sessions or red meat to the base, because he's been criticized by folks from the base about sessions? >> it seems like it could be all of that, we don't know. he didn't make a public statement about this. but in any case, look at it both ways, either this is just something that he felt really passionate about and he wanted to do, which is an incredible thing to do to those servicemen, or if it is in fact a diversion, he's willing to play with those people's lives. there are right now thousands of transgender people putting their life on the line for this country. even the explanations that he offers in the tweets about you being a burden, that we can't pay for the medical -- those thousands of people are already receiving medical attention that they need and require, already. it's already baked in, right?

this idea of bathrooms that people keep bringing up, they're already going to the bathroom. all of this is a canard. the rand corporation has studied this, found that it would have a minimal impact both in readiness and in cost. they're already there. we sometimes think about military deployment as people just thinking, i'm going to go for two years and i'm going to leave, i'll go to four years and leave and go to college. a lot of people make the military their career. that is all they do. that is what they wanted to do. lgbt people are just like everybody else. they're patriotic just like anybody else. some of them want to serve in the military, just like anybody else. to tell them -- and particularly this president, who received five draft deferments, to 10 somebody else who volunteers to go, you can't do it, it's just outrageous to me. >> scott? >> i'm not a military

strategist. i talked to an old friend of mine who has been in the military for 21 years. he did say there are some legitimate people on the ground who would say there are readiness issue. but i look at the world through the issue of politics, i'm a political strategist. these issues around transgender rights, the transgender bathroom issue from the last election, this is at the core of what i think is the defining moment in our politics, the massive chasm that's opened up between urban and rural america. the outrage from urban america is what we're hearing. and what you're hearing privately from rural america is, i think the president was right about this. and i think this is all wrapped up in what we're seeing in the two parties. one party in the last election identified with nonurban america and one party identified almost exclusively inside urban america. and issues like this help explain it. and i think issues like this really help explain pennsylvania, wisconsin, ohio. >> given the fact that the president is from urban america and during the campaign talked a

lot about, you know, equal rights for all citizens and talked about the lgbt community, is this then just about politics? i mean, it sounds like you're saying this is -- i mean, one way to look at what you're saying is it's a play to the base. >> it's about politics if you consider that even though the president is from urban america, the reason he's in the white house is not urban america. if you went to that rally last night in ohio, there were a lot of democrats there, and you asked any one of them about this decision today, i bet you wouldn't find too many objections. >> we can't start believing that lgbt people don't exist in the south. >> exactly. >> that they don't exist in rural america. i'm from rural america in the south. the majority of parents, of gay parents, of children, do not live in san francisco. they live in the south. part of that reason is they delay coming out, they get married first or have relationships first and end up having kids, but they stay

there. they don't try to escape. the raging hiv epidemic right now is not happening in new york. it's not happening in san francisco. it's happening in the south. >> can i just say -- >> the idea that they don't exist there is just not true. >> i might be the only one at this table maybe besides you who has been at the trump rally and went to lots of them during the campaign. your point is dead on about, when wisconsin and michigan and pennsylvania changed from blue to red, some of it was just -- people couldn't articulate it, but the country was moving and changing way too fast, and faster than -- and it was a country that they didn't recognize. and that whether it was gay rights or other things that contributed to it. however, having said that, on the flip side, you have a lot of public servants who, like john mccain seven years ago was against the don't ask, don't tell repeal, and he's for this. >> scott's point is accurate

about the divide. but isn't this just a wedge issue -- >> yes. >> -- that's being used to stoke that divide? >> by the president of the united states. i mean, it is bad when any politician does this or any, you know, quote unquote leader in america. that's bad. and it's dangerous. i used to run the crime victims agency. after hate like this comes out, we see hate crimes rise against the lgbt community, you can track it. this is the president. he should never be throwing entire groups of americans under the bus and saying they're less than other people. he should be or she should be the one who is bridging the divide, closing the -- bringing us together. this is the opposite. for pure political gain. leadership in elected officials is being defined by being a leader. all the president here is doing is playing, you know, to the cheap seats, and doesn't care at all who he hurts.

and maybe no mistake, transgender children are one of the highest suicide groups in the country, so to speak. this will make transgendered children go to sleep feeling less than. and god knows what will happen. and let me just say lastly, god forbid there is some type of military tragedy today or the next few days. one of the last things transgender service members might have heard from their commander in chief is that they are unworthy. that is un-american and a g goddamned disgrace. >> president obama and his transgendered policies are no longer in effect. we have a new president and he is changing those policies. how we got to this point is, we have conservatives that have represented these states, that helped elect the president, to scott's point. vickie hartzler in missouri, mark meadows in north carolina, members of the values action team, conservatives who are

representing and listening to the voices of the people in their state. they are saying we don't want to pay for this type of procedure for our military. >> but -- >> the appropriations bill that uses money that way, this is not going to pass. and -- >> there was reporting, there was axios reporting today that this originated, this argument in the house over paying for transition surgery for transgendered service members among some republicans, and they approached the president about it. the president has gone far beyond the idea of should surgeries be paid for. >> joan walsh reported that as well, on capitol hill it was about -- in the short term it was about the money for the -- taxpayer money that could or couldn't be used for surgeries and for transitioning and all of a sudden they looked up and saw the president tweeting about a complete reversal of policy. >> regardless of what you think about the policy, there's the the procedural way the president went about doing it.

we have to take a break, let's talk about that when we come back. we'll continue the organization and hear what senator tammy duckworth told me tonight about her military service and the president's lack thereof. later, just what is the president's strategy when it comes to his attorney general? another day, another tweet. is there another shoe about to drop? at panera, a salad is so much more than one thing. more than one flavor, or texture, or color. a good clean salad is so much more than green. and with panera catering, more for your event. panera. food as it should be. so you miss the big city? i don't miss much... definitely not the traffic. excuse me, doctor... the genomic data came in. thank you. you can do that kind of analysis? yeah, watson. i can quickly analyze millions of clinical and scientific reports to help you tailor treatment options for the patient's genomic profile. you can do that? even way out here? yes. even way out here.

even way out here? what's critical thinking like? a basketball costs $14. what's team spirit worth? (cheers) what's it worth to talk to your mom? what's the value of a walk in the woods? the value of capital is to create, not just wealth, but things that matter. morgan stanley

ykeep you sidelined.ng that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you. problem is, you'reith neterrible with names. there's pam, donny, comet and blitzen. wait, pretty sure those last two were reindeer. nice to see you, phabitha? is that even a real name? okay, this is the boss. you got this. anna!...yes! thank goodness for name tags. new clients? we've been there. and with breakfast on the run, we'll be there for you. book direct for a guaranteed discount. hampton by hilton. president trump's surprise ban on transgender military service members got a swift reaction from some veterans, some of whom now serve in congress.

i spoke with democratic senator tammy duckworth who was a lieutenant colonel in the army, earned a purple heart. she noted the president had never served in the military and had this to say. >> when i was bleeding to death in my helicopter and an american came to save my life, it didn't matter to me if they were gay, if they were straight, if they were transgendered. it only mattered that they wore the uniform of the united states military. and i will always remember that. if you're willing to serve this country in unform and you're willing to lay down your life to protect it, you deserve to be able to do that. and so many more americans, including our president, has never worn the uniform. he needs to back off, because i will fight for our transgendered and all military men and women. >> the ban came as a surprise to many in washington including the conservatives who lobbied the president on transgendered policy. they say they were pushing to prevent the pentagon from paying for transgender surgery, not to

ban them from the military. scott, putting aside whether or not you agree with a ban, just how the president went about it, it is a major policy change from the previous administration. the previous administration basically encouraged by allowing this, encouraged transgender in the military who were hidden to come forward and identify themselves. now people have done that, and it seems like they're going to be fired. is three tweets the way this should have been handled? >> probably not. and i think at this point the white house needs to bring forward a cabinet officer, a military adviser, or advisers, to give a briefing to the press on, a, how it's going to be handled right now and b, how it's going to be handled in the future, c, what does this mean, is there a time period under which we're going to enact this, and finally, how they arrived at the decisions, what were the policy discussions that went on to get to the decision. back to the politics for just one moment, one thing we didn't discuss in the first segment but i think is important, there's really only one transgendered soldier anybody in america knows, and that's the traitor,

chelsea manning. you wonder how this conversation would have unfolded today if chelsea manning had not done what she did, leaking all the information, putting american soldiers and allies at risk. if that hadn't happened, we might not be having this conversation today. >> that's what happens to all minority groups, you transfer the sin of one to the sin of all. that's wrong to do. there is no hierarchy of humanity. this idea that we're somehow assigning these people a lesser way of being and therefore we can now decide as a political matter or as a vote or, you know, that we have the ability to govern their bodies, govern the way that they articulate themselves in the world, is just outright wrong. and in addition to that, i just have to bring up this point. this is the 69th anniversary of president harry truman signing an executive order to desegregate the military. on that day, this president would make these tweets

basically moving backward, away from more integration, more openness, more honesty in the military. and in the other direction. he stands in stark contrast in historical terminates s to othe presidents. for him to stand up last night and say i deserve to be on mt. rushmore, you may deserve to be behind bars somewhere but you do not deserve to be on mt. rushmore. >> beyond the irony about the anniversary, the arguments about unit cohesion, by allowing african-americans -- >> we heard it with african-americans. we heard it with women in the military, you know, in combat, et cetera. we heard it with lgbt, lesbian and gay people, around don't ask, don't tell. we hear it every time there is an attempt to move the military forward to be fully embracing of who americans are. and it's the same arguments at their core, you know,

characterizations, groups, et cetera change, but they're the same. i just want to add, on top of all of the other things that were wrong about these tweets and this decision, it's yet another issue where president trump is just a complete hypocrite. he said during the campaign that he stood with the lgbt community. as we saw earlier on your show, he literally just about wrapped himself in a rainbow flag, saying that gays and lesbians loved him. >> that he was holding upside down, by the way. >> correct. >> just for the record. >> that's a whole other level that we won't go into. you're so political, you'll bring people in by lying to them and then wake up, and you're saying they're basically less than other human americans. >> from a communications at some point, i'll be the first to say this rollout for such a major policy initiative was not done properly. all these questions we're still talking about and were brought up in the press briefing today -- >> they had no answers.

>> there are no anniversaswers. they should have had some military people on the podium. but there was a background. they see lgbt and using our tax dollars for services that they need, conservatives in the religious right and people across the country in mainstream america take issue with that. that was the impetus for them even bringing this up with him. >> it's interesting, though, the degree to which things have changed. as i came of age during the don't ask, don't tell time, and even before that, during the ban, back to scott's point, we haven't seen many transgendered service members publicly except chelsea manning, when i was a kid, you didn't see many gay service members, there are a few during the '70s whose names we knew and it wasn't until people started coming forward that that started to change.

>> are there people who supported racial desegregation in the military who opposed this? i'm sure there are some. but i think it's very careful, we want to be very clear that people shouldn't misinterpret what you said, i don't think it's what you meant, but to in any way say the leadership of the african-american and caribbean-american and latino-american community does not stand squarely with the lgbt community. we have seen those communities come together in the most powerful ways. leaders of the '60s civil rights movement who stood with king, standing at the gay marriage rally at the mall speaking out. i'm not saying you can't find an example, but in reality, we are together in a fight for human rights for all. >> because i've done research on this, language is exactly the same, literally exactly the same. that black people were genetically inferior, that they would not fight, right, that you

could not expend the same amount of energy and money on them as you would other soldiers, so they didn't train them the same way. my grandfather fought in world war ii, the first person to receive a medal from his group. but that racist commander of that group refused to approve any of those people who got injured on that trip. it was the same language. i'm just saying, they may resist the comparison, but the comparison is legitimate. >> i totally get that. let me just say this one quick thing. from a conservative standpoint, the religious right, they view this completely different. everyone has a different opinion. they view this as you're born black, that's how you were born and raised. but they view transgender and lgbtq, a lot of these issues, as a choice. i'm not saying i agree with it. i'm saying that's how christian conservatives view that issue. >> last hour, jeffrey lord said the military shouldn't pay for

viagra. studies show that sexual dysfunction is actually a major problem for soldiers who suffer from ptsd and there's other medical reasons people could be issued viagra in the military. attorney general jeff sessions is not backing down, i'll talk it over with maine senator angus king. is this a phone?

or a little internet machine? [ phone ringing ] hi mom. it makes you wonder... shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. [ laughing ] so all you pay for is data.

see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. call or go to xfinitymobile.com introducing xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. the president is not backing down from his one-sided feud with his attorney general, jeff sessions. i spoke with maine senator angus king about that. we started out speaking about the transgender ban and how the military branches were caught off guard by the decision. we learned that secretary of defense mattis learned about the decision before trump went public with it. >> senator, the military chiefs were caught off guard on the president's announcement.

how concerning is it? >> he's concerning because he mentioned in his tweets some reference to the generals. i think it's a fair question who he was consulting with. there is an ongoing study on this issue, and everybody was surprised including john mccain, joni ernst, members of the armed services committee along with me. yeah, i think the white house should be asked, who did he consult with? >> do you believe that transgendered service members cause disruption, that it hurts military readiness, that it's an undo you burden or expense? >> number one, that's exactly what's now being studied. number two, there was a study on th this subject a couple of years ago by the rand corporation. they found there wasn't substantial either disruption or additional expense. my reaction immediately when i saw the tweets was, if we've got brave people that want to defend this country, they should be allowed to do so. >> so the white house wouldn't say what happens to service members who are transgendered who are currently serving.

do you have any idea? is there anything that your committee would do to try to review this or prevent a ban, if possible, from going into effect? >> i'm sure the committee is going to follow up on this, no question of that. again, the problem here is policy by tweet. there was no detail, there was no explanation. there was no background, no sources. and i just think it's not a very good way to make public policy. and yes, we are going to look into it, but to simply announce something like this with no consultation with the committee, i can assure you of that, and apparently -- well, i won't say apparently no consultation with the military. >> what do you think he is

trying to accomplish by doing that? >> first let me say, the nub of this seems to be the attorney general's recusing himself early on in his tenure. there is absolutely no question, anderson, under the regulations of the justice department, that he had to do so. if you're investigating a political campaign of which you are a staff member or otherwise involved, you have to recuse yourself. if you read it, you say, oh, this sounds like it was written for this situation. so he had to recuse himself. i don't know the motivation, it doesn't make sense to me, because this is a guy who was one of president trump's most loyal supporters. the supposition is that this is a way to line up the ducks so that bob mueller, robert mueller can be fired. boy, i think that would be a terrible mistake both for the country and the president. >> if the president did end up firing mueller, what would actually happen? could you see a special

prosecutor statute being passed? >> i could. >> what would that mean, exactly? >> well, i think the congress would have to pass a statute authorizing a special prosecutor and some kind of special appointment process by veto-proof majorities. then we would be exactly where we are now, without the president having the power to make this kind of decision. nobody in our country is above the law. i mean, that's been established for, you know, since the very beginning. that includes the president of the united states. but i think you would have a pretty strong consensus around here that firing of robert mueller is not something that could be just said, okay, we're going to move on from here. >> angus king, senator king, appreciate it. >> yes, sir. >> back now with the panel. i mean, this continues. obviously the president believes there is some benefit for him to do this. it's not a complete lack of impulse control. >> i honestly don't know if that's true.

>> really? >> i don't know. but i think it's entirely possible and plausible that it is his impulse, that he is so mad at this guy that he wants him to go. and he doesn't want to fire him. which is a whole different question. there's a lot of criticism of the president among his fellow republicans on capitol hill for, you know, the way that he's basically trying to bully jeff sessions into quitting instead of just, if he wants him to go, just firing him. i'm not sure if there really is a strategy behind this. you know, we have been reporting for the past day or so about a concerted effort among those who are closest to jeff sessions, who are inside the white house. steve bannon and others among them, desperately trying to get the president to stop, not only because they are allies of jeff sessions, but because they realize that this is bad politics and policy for the president. and just tonight, chuck grass y

grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee in the senate who would be in charge of a confirmation hearing if there were to be one for another attorney general, specifically said, without prompting, specifically in a tweet, the agenda for the judiciary committee is set for the rest of the year including no ag. so that just kind of shows you the pushback from republicans. >> i want to play something that lindsey graham told manu raju earlier about the president's attacks on sessions. >> i think anybody who is strong would use the power they have and be confident in their decision. so strong people say, i've decided that this man or woman can't serve me well and i'm going to -- accordingly, and take the consequence. to me, weakness is when you play around the edges and you don't use the power you have. >> it sounds like he's calling the president weak. >> mm-hmm. >> and i think what jeff sessions has been saying through his actions and public communications is, look, you can fire me if you want to, otherwise, i'm going to be at

the office enacting your agenda and doing a pretty darn good job of it. i've been asking these guys to clear the air on behalf of all republicans for days now. i hope jeff sessions and the president do clear the air, because i think sessions was one of the best cabinet choices he made, conservatives love jeff sessions, they love what he's doing in office. for this to drag on and on is detrimental to enacting the president's agenda, which ultimately is what all republicans want to see happen. >> whether you like what jeff sessions is doing or not, he's doing a good job enacting the president's agenda at the justice department. >> a phenomenal job. one of the reasons why bannon put him on the radar for ag is his strong position on immigration. he's working night and day to execute those policies. certainly with taking away funding for sanctuary cities, civil asset forfeiture program, these are key issues that he continues to execute even as being trashed by the president. in addition to lindsey graham, other strong conservatives out

there have spoken on behalf of sessions. we have mike lee, ted cruz, and otherwise saying he's a man of dignity and honor. people wonder how in the world can sessions still stay with all the constanter abo er abouberat president. he's got the support of his peers. >> the president said if i knew he was going to recuse himself on russia, i wouldn't have appointed him. but it's the same president who said there's nothing going on with russia, there's nothing to worry about. so if there's nothing to worry about, why does he care if the ag recuses himself? >> "the new york times" published an article on this by peter baker, it is visceral agitation, his aides are telling him to cut this out and he won't do it. part of the agitation is the family members who are now being dragged into the investigation. so if he recused himself months

ago, if trump really had a problem with it, he would have been making a fuss months ago. but it is since trump junior, since kushner have had to be called up to the senate, that's when he's really gotten upset about it. >> dana? >> i think that's right. he has been saying privately, since sessions recused himself, that he's upset about it. there's no question, as it's gotten closer, he's been more public about wanting jeff sessions to recuse himself. one thing i do want to add, another thing that is happening behind the scenes in the white house, is people, ted barrett and i reporting today people are urging the president to consider what's known as a recess appointment, trying to wait until the senate goes into recess, and put somebody in there which could last until the next congress. the only problem with that is that the senate, the past ten years, hasn't gone to recess for this exact reason. and democrats are on to this, and they are already strategizing about ways to make

sure the senate stays in session. when we come back, breaking news on the health care front, senate democrats trying some political maneuvering, more on the new tactic, next.

more breaking news on the health care front tonight. the so-called vote-a-ram a is o hold for now. seven republicans defected to vote against a straight repeal plan this afternoon. ryan nobles joins us from capitol hill. what are we learning about the new strategy from democrats? >> reporter: as late as this afternoon, anderson, we were getting reports from a number of different senators that they had hundreds of amendments to be offered up for an up or down vote as soon as the 20 hours of debate concludes tomorrow afternoon. but then late tonight, chuck schumer, the minority leader of the senate, went to the senate floor and said that they planned to not offer up any amendments until they see the specifics behind the republican plan to offer up this so-called skinny repeal. now, it's important to keep in mind, anderson, we've heard about this skinny repeal, but at this point it's really just theory, it's a conceptual plan that republicans have talked about, but they haven't offered

up any specific language. so democrats say they're not going to play this game, they want to see exactly what is in this bill before they move forward. and at this point, we could end up in somewhat of a staring contest tomorrow evening after that 20 hours of debate finishes up. >> and republicans couldn't pass a straight repeal of obamacare today. was that any surprise? >> reporter: it wasn't really a surprise that they didn't have the votes to pass the straight repeal. but it was a bit of a surprise that so many republicans voted against it. seven republicans in total, including some surprises like lamar alexander of tennessee, rob portman of ohio, and john mccain of arizona. so when you have seven republicans right now that say they can't support a straight repeal, that means that mitch mcconnell needs to pull back at least five of them for this skinny repeal, whatever it turns out to be, if they hope to get the 50 votes necessary to get this bill to a conference. the senate republicans still feel that they is possible. but right now, we don't know exactly how they're going to pull it off.

>> ryan nobles, thanks very much. i want to bring back in the panel. for a lot of people the details get in the weeds and mind-boggling, your head starts to swim. do you have a sense for what's going to happen? >> that so-called skinny plan to repeal and replace obamacare is probably the only that has a snowball's chance in you-know-where to actually pass. that's why the democrats are doing this tactic, because we do only have concepts, it's really basic, to get richard md of thee and get rid of the medical device tax. >> what's the benefit of the tactic? >> to force republicans to actually -- >> come up with something. >> come up with something, but to actually put it in legislative language so they can have a real debate on it and not just surprise everybody at the end of the debate. >> you can't blame them for that. certainly they should see what they're voting on, unlike what we did with obamacare.

i think dana is right, the skinny version will be the one that is going to be on the table. talk is that it will include the consumer freedom aspect which is ted cruz's version, whether you're shopping or selling insurance, you can have more choices. portman's amendment will be included. >> on opioids? >> yes, exactly. they want to make sure they also protect the medicaid funding, which the states want, that's critical, because the senators are going to do what their governors want to do, a lot of them are up for reelection. >> the cbo came out with scoring on the skinny repeal, and it could, according to the congressional budget office, raise premiums by 20%, and 13 million americans, which is certainly less than 31 or 22 but a lot of americans, 16 million americans, could lose insurance. so i think it is very smart of minority leader schumer and the other democrats to force the facts out there. because going from a total repeal to the skinny repeal sounds like, oh, it's not so

significant, who doesn't want to lose a few pounds? but by doing this we're getting the real facts out there. 16 million americans. 20% increase in premiums. those are all things americans, we know from polling throughout this process, don't want. >> except that before we actually have legislative language, the cbo is just guessing based on reports. we don't actually have the hard numbers. that's the standard state of affairs. >> regardless of where you stand on the ideological spectrum, that's the thing that irritates people about washington, the idea you're going to be dealing with a sixth of the economy and nobody knows at this point, you're going to vote tomorrow but nobody knows at this point what the language is? how is it even possible? this concept of like, you were referring to, trying to rebrand things to euphemism, it's like trying to rebrand neo-nazis as alt-right.

it may be skinny to somebody, but to somebody who needs help, it's not skinny. >> republicans hate the taxes. they hate the individual mandate. they hate the lies that this bill was sold on all these years ago. they hate the concept that failure to act here is leaving all of that stuff that they hate in place. and so getting over the motion to proceed was a huge deal, because had they not done that, that would have been an epic political failure. and now they can actually address some of these things republicans have been screaming about for all these years. i don't know what the perfect spruci solution is but getting to the place where they can debate any solutions is a huge win this week. >> if they didn't have something to show for all this talk over so many years, that would be worse than having something that's bad? >> absolutely. you promise people for seven years, we're going to repeal obamacare, it's terrible, you know it, i know it, and you show up and you have full control of the government, and you fail on the core campaign promise that gave you the majorities in congress and the white house? oh, my gosh, that would be --

>> part of the reason they're failing is because they were lying. they kept saying that they can give it better, cheaper, it would be easy to do, president trump said this over and over again. he was just lying. he had no plan for it. he could not do it more cheaply. he could not ensure the same amount of people, or even more people which is what he said. he was just lying. the reason they're failing is because they were lying in the first place. >> we're going to take a quick break. president trump announcing a new jobs deal in wisconsin, that's next. when this bell rings... ...it starts a chain reaction... ...that's heard throughout the connected business world. at&t network security helps protect business, from the largest financial markets to the smallest transactions, by sensing cyber-attacks in near real time and automatically deploying countermeasures. keeping the world of business connected and protected. that's the power of and.

juswho own them,ople every business is different. but every one of those businesses will need legal help as they age and grow. whether it be help starting your business, vendor contracts or employment agreements. legalzoom's network of attorneys can help you every step of the way so you can focus on what you do. we'll handle the legal stuff that comes up along the way. legalzoom. legal help is here.

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.

president trump is proclaiming a win on jobs today. at the white house he announced a major new technology manufacturing plan will come to wisconsin. the factory will be foxconn who makes parts for apples and other companies. >> this is a great day for foxconn and other manufacturers, and for everybody who believes in the label "made in the usa." >> dana, the president is clearly touting this as a big victory. >> he should. this is what he campaigned among other things, but in terms of the economy, one of the main

things he campaigned on and one of the biggest applause lines all over america was i'm going to bring the jobs back. and the notion of having the very first plant in america to make these l.e.d. screens and to do it in wisconsin which he wasn't supposed to win and did win. not surprising it was in the 11th district. paul ryan was probably a big part of this. he gets a lot of flak for things that he does that are wrong and the fact that he was part of something that could be very good for american jobs should be applaud applauded. >> a lot of democrats in the state are pointing to a lot of tax incentives that were given to this company that was there. the owners of the factory aren't complaining at all because it's going to bring jobs to the area. >> this is a huge win for the president. it's exactly why the people in the midwest that had previously voted for obama and other

democratic presidential candidates rolled the dice on donald trump, because he appeared to be the most responsive to their issue, which is, we need jobs. i guarantee tonight if you're sitting at the white house, most of political washington is talking about the transgender ban and everybody out in the midwest is talking about the thousands of jobs going to wisconsin. that is a conversation matrix that i'm sure the strategists are thinking, this is okay. >> and in reality, that's how it works. i worked in a governor office, and that's what you do. you court businesses, you provide tax incentives and you provide reasons for them to come build in your state. this company is investing $10 billion in this state and they're going to create up to 13,000 jobs. it's really difficult and defies my imagination how someone can find fault in a country creating 13,000 jobs. that's what he campaigned on. >> any time somebody gets more jobs, that's great. but it is a legitimate concern to know that the sweeteners are

up front and the milwaukee journal sentinel said it could be as many as $3 billion. it is an unprecedented number -- amount of sweetness for any company. that's not even an american company. it may bring jobs to america but that's not an american company. it's an unprecedented amount of money we're giving away, and the conservatives are always really upset about welfare, right? this is another form of that. and we do it all the time. and there is a transference of tax collected dollars to somewhere where they want to score political gains. people will have jobs, but don't mistake this is also a form of wealth, and we're doing it for them to have political gains. >> if a lot of jobs come out of this, you weigh that against the benefits, it is also important,

and i don't know if this is the case in this, if the jobs don't come in any deal you get the money back. what i heard from manufacturing leaders is this company has a very bad track record. i hope it doesn't prove so in this case, of making promises of jobs and not delivering. i have to go back to what you said. you're probably right. people in the white house are probably sitting around with their feet up with a cup of coffee or beer or whatever, saying this is a great day. he thinks he's won the media. it's a tragic day for the fundamentals of our country. >> we have to take a break. we'll be right back.

hey you've gotta see this. c'mon. no. alright, see you down there. mmm, fine. okay, what do we got? okay, watch this. do the thing we talked about. what do we say? it's going to be great. watch. remember what we were just saying? go irish! see that? yes!

i'm gonna just go back to doing what i was doing. find your awesome with the xfinity x1 voice remote. . "cnn tonight" starts now. president trump is not done trashing his own attorney general and a lot of people in washington are worried. if it could happen to jeff sessions, could it happen to them? this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. welcome to the age of vendetta politics. even if you're loyal, even if you're just doing your job, ask attorney general jeff sessions. ask the president's other targets including dean he