Return to Transcripts main page


FBI Director: We Still Have Grave Concerns About Nunes Memo; U.S. Intel Chiefs Say Russia Is Targeting 2018 Elections; One-On-One With Goldman Sachs CEO; NYT Editorial: Trump Infrastructure Plan Is A Scam. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired February 14, 2018 - 07:30   ET


[07:30:00] CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: What kind of caper is this? Now, this is what they came up to hurt President Trump is to put a surveillance on Carter Page? A guy who had almost no real connection to Trump in his own -- you know, to his own understanding, and they do it just a few weeks before the election and they think it's going to affect the outcome of the race? It's preposterous.

REP. JIM JORDAN (D-OH), FORMER CHAIRMAN, FREEDOM CAUCUS, MEMBER, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Chris, the guy who started the Russian investigation at the FBI, Peter Strzok --


JORDAN: -- talked about an insurance policy. That is the guy. He was deputy --

CUOMO: Out of context. You don't even know what he was talking about.

JORDAN: He was talking about the election -- the campaign. That text message comes from the middle of August, right, when he was a campaign --

CUOMO: How do you know? You thought me meant there was a secret society. You thought he meant a lot of things that wound up being bogus.

JORDAN: I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I'm talking about that one text message.

Then, I'm also talking about the text message we saw last week where Lisa Page says that president -- the President of the United States -- POTUS wants to know everything we're doing.

CUOMO: About what?

JORDAN: About everything. You tell me.


JORDAN: The same people who ran the Clinton --

CUOMO: And then he meets with Putin -- JORDAN: -- investigation. The same people who launched --

CUOMO: And then he meets with Putin two days later.

JORDAN: -- the Russia-Trump investigation. The president wants to know everything we're doing.

CUOMO: And then he meets with Putin two days later and he doesn't mention --

JORDAN: And --

CUOMO: -- the e-mail situation?

JORDAN: Chris, here's the significance of that text message last week from Lisa Page about President Obama.

It's the timing of it. July fifth, they clear Clinton. No charges are going to be brought.

End of July, Peter Strzok, the agent who ran the Clinton investigation, opens the Russian investigation.

Middle of August, they have a text message that says we need an insurance policy.

September second, they have the text message that said POTUS wants to know everything we're doing.

What are they doing? They ran the Clinton investigation, they ran the Trump-Russia investigation.

CUOMO: And he meets with Putin two days later.

JORDAN: All those -- all those things happened --

CUOMO: What about that?

JORDAN: -- within eight weeks.

CUOMO: What about him meeting with Putin --

JORDAN: All those things --

CUOMO: -- two days later and has a conversation with him about stop what you're doing, cut it out? How come you don't factor that into why they were saying Obama wanted to know things?

JORDAN: It can be factored in. I -- it can be -- it can be factored in.

CUOMO: Maybe that's exactly what it was about, Jim.

JORDAN: I'm telling you, I --

CUOMO: It was exactly about tell me what I need to know about what their interference is.

JORDAN: I'm telling you those --

CUOMO: I'm about to talk to the guy.

JORDAN: Those four things that happened within the 8-week time period when Clinton is no -- not going to be charged. Comey does his big announcement to -- when they opened the Russia investigation to when we see those text messages, to the September second -- the President of the United States wants to know everything we're up to.

CUOMO: Peter Strzok wrote the letter about reopening the case. Jim Comey coming out about that investigation crushed Hillary Clinton. This is crazy unless Dan Brown is writing it --

JORDAN: Peter Strzok --

CUOMO: -- and putting it in a book.

JORDAN: Peter Strzok also is the guy who changed the exoneration letter from gross negligence to criminal --

CUOMO: Because they couldn't make a case.

JORDAN: Peter --

CUOMO: Why would you --

JORDAN: Peter --

CUOMO: Why would you put language in a letter that will presume that it triggers a statute if you're not going to make a case? Why would you do that to yourself? It makes you look incompetent.

JORDAN: No, it makes you look like you -- the fix was in like we all suspected. And now that we see --

CUOMO: No, that's what you want it to be and that's what I don't understand.

JORDAN: No. Now that we've seen the text messages you know the fix was in.

CUOMO: Why are you -- Jim, let's end on this and then you have to come back another day because I want to talk to you about what's going to happen with Paul Ryan and what's going to happen with all this because I know you're not --


CUOMO: -- happy. I know leadership is in question there, so we've got to talk about that but this is more ripe right now.

I don't understand why you're willing to die on this hill, Jim Jordan. This insatiable appetite --

JORDAN: Chris --

CUOMO: -- to paint the FBI as dirty and trying to manipulate --

JORDAN: I'm not. It's just --

CUOMO: -- the election to help Trump. It just wreaks of false equivalency --

JORDAN: Jim Comey is gone. Jim Comey is gone.

CUOMO: -- to offset the Russia probe.

JORDAN: Jim Comey is gone, Andrew McCabe is gone. Jim Baker, general counsel, has been demoted and reassigned.

Peter Strzok has been demoted and reassigned. Lisa Page has been demoted and reassigned. Jim Rybicki, chief of staff for Comey, is leaving the FBI.

That's the top people at the FBI. That's who I'm focused on.

And you know why we know the fix was in? Because there was a -- there was the e-mail from Page and Strzok where they said when Loretta Lynch said Jim Comey's going to make the decision, Lisa Page says well, that's no profile in courage because she already knows we're not going to bring charges.

That tells you the fix was in --

CUOMO: But, Jim --

JORDAN: -- before they even interviewed Clinton.

CUOMO: Jim --

JORDAN: And we know the attorney general knows they're not going to bring charges and they haven't even interviewed the main person in the case, Sec. Clinton, give me a break.

CUOMO: Jim, I --

JORDAN: Everyone sees the fix was in.

CUOMO: No, no, not everybody. You, and that's OK.

But I don't understand why you have such confidence in something when you cannot find prosecutors -- real prosecutors, not people who just want to be on T.V. and talk -- who will say oh yes, there was an obvious case against Clinton. They have to have a case they can prosecute and win, especially in those circumstances.

Why do you dress it up and make it into this nefarious thing? The idea that this is what they came up with --

JORDAN: So, Chris -- CUOMO: Let's get fake surveillance on a guy named Carter Page who has almost nothing to do with Trump and we're going to do it just a couple of weeks before the end of the election, but we'll affect its outcome --

JORDAN: Chris --

CUOMO: -- when nothing came from the surveillance for weeks and weeks later.

JORDAN: Do you think it's normal --

CUOMO: It doesn't make sense.

JORDAN: -- for the -- do you think it's normal for the attorney general of the United States to meet with the husband of the subject of the investigation of the United States --

CUOMO: No, no --

JORDAN: -- on a tarmac at the airport.

CUOMO: -- and it was wrong.

JORDAN: And then -- and then that --

CUOMO: And it was wrong.

JORDAN: -- attorney general to have to recuse herself? But that recusal is not big act of -- no profile in courage because she already knows they're not --

CUOMO: You're talking about a person -- look --

JORDAN: -- they're not going to press charges. That's what that says.

CUOMO: The dialogue -- the dialogue between two lovers is not relevant to me as suggestive of an entire FBI operation.

JORDAN: I've never talked about that aspect of their --

CUOMO: Was it wrong for Lynch to meet with Clinton?

JORDAN: I've never talked about --

[07:35:00] CUOMO: Absolutely, it was wrong.

JORDAN: I've never talked about that aspect of the -- I've never talked about that aspect of the Page-Strzok relationship. All I've talked about is --

CUOMO: I know, it doesn't suit your narrative.

JORDAN: -- he would have --

CUOMO: If you write them as lovers who are just banding about B.S., your story doesn't stand up so well.

JORDAN: No, he was -- no, he was deputy head of counterintelligence at the Federal Bureau of Investigation --

CUOMO: I know.

JORDAN -- and he was talking about an insurance policy and he opened the Russia investigation.

CUOMO: You don't know what he meant by an insurance policy and it's just as out of context as a secret society and all of the stupid other things that you guys were advancing.

JORDAN: I've never talked about the secret -- I've never talked about the secret society text messages.

CUOMO: Well, you guys were bringing it up.

All right, Jim --

JORDAN: I have not.

CUOMO: I've got to leave it there. I appreciate you doing this, especially on Valentine's Day. Please come back so we can talk about --

JORDAN: All right.

CUOMO: -- the state of these policy plans around the budget and what it means for the leadership in your party, all right?

JORDAN: Thanks.

CUOMO: All right, appreciate it.

JORDAN: Thanks, Chris. Take care.

CUOMO: Alisyn --

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: OK, Chris, now to this.

The nation's top intelligence chiefs trying to sound the alarm on Russian election interference that they say will happen in the upcoming midterm elections.

Senator Angus King made an appeal to these intel leaders to try to convince the president that the threat is real.


SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME), MEMBER, SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: I just wish you all could persuade the president as a matter of national security to separate these two issues. The collusion issue is over here, unresolved. We'll get to the bottom of that. But there's no doubt, as you all have testified today, and we cannot confront this threat, which is a serious one, with a whole of government response when the leader of the government continues to deny that it exists.


CAMEROTA: Senator Angus King joins us now. He's a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Good morning, Senator.

KING: Good morning.

CAMEROTA: What was their response when you asked them can you all make a personal appeal to the president and try to convince him that the election meddling was real and they will do it again in the midterms?

KING: Well, I can only report body language. There was no real verbal response. I think they understood the point.

These are all the leaders of the Intelligence Community. Four out of six were appointed by President Trump.

In their testimony -- in their prepared testimony and what they said to the committee, they said what the Russians did was real. It was an attack on our democracy. And most importantly, they're winding up to do it again this fall and in 2020.

And the point I was making is I understand the president's concern and sensitivity about whether his campaign was involved. That's a side -- that's a different issue than what did the Russians do.

And I just wish he could separate those two, announce that he agrees with the unanimous view of the Intelligence Community, and then we can start to have a whole of government response to it.

The other piece and I mentioned this in my question yesterday, is the public reaction. I still hear -- I talk to people in Maine and they say, you know, we don't believe this. The president says this is a witch hunt, it's a hoax, it never happened.

And we'll never get this solved until there's a consensus in our country that what the Russians did -- that a) they did it, and b) that it was wrong, and that c) we have to prevent it from happening again, and I think the president could help us with this.

CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, you weren't alone. There were Democrats on the committee yesterday who were asking the intel chiefs if the president has even given them any directive to try to look into this -- to try to stop the Russian meddling before the midterms. To try to do anything about this.

So, here's Sen. Jack Reed on that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JACK REED (D), RHODE ISLAND: Has the president directed you and your agency to take specific actions to confront and blunt Russian influence activities that are ongoing?

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, DIRECTOR, FBI: We're talking a lot of specific efforts to blunt Russian efforts --

REED: Directed by the president?

WRAY: Not specifically directed by the president.


CAMEROTA: Is that a big deal, Senator? Do they need to be directed by the president? I mean, it sounds like Chris Wray was saying they don't, and they're taking their own actions.

KING: Well, they are taking actions, that's true. But we're talking about a major attack on our democracy that's ongoing, that's going to continue.

And this is a place where you need presidential leadership to call the agencies together, to set out a time line, to set out deadlines to have interim reports. And for the president to just say well, I'm just not going to talk about that, you guys take care it, relegates it to a sort of minor place that it doesn't belong.

This is a -- this is a serious threat. It's one of the most serious attacks on our country since September 11th and we've got to respond to it. And that's why -- and again, I understand the president's reluctance about this because it affects his election and I fully understand that. And I started my comments yesterday by saying this is more in sorrow than in anger.

I'm not berating the president. I'm urging the president because I think he could separate these two issues, say to the American people this was wrong and we're going to deal with it, and it would unify the government and unify the public.

[07:40:07] CAMEROTA: During that same hearing, the director -- Chris Wray of the FBI -- Chris Wray was also asked about Rob Porter and basically, he revealed how many times the FBI tried to alert the White House to Rob Porter's background. Four separate times they gave reports to the White House -- some of them partial, some of them completed -- about Rob Porter and the accusations from his ex-wives of violence against them.

How do you think it is possible that Rob Porter worked in the White House for a year --

KING: Well --

CAMEROTA: -- while that was happening?

KING: Well, I think there's an aspect of this that hasn't gotten a lot of -- a lot of publicity. This isn't about whether Rob Porter -- what actually happened and

those kinds of things. This is about a high-level official in the White House who has access to classified documents, who is subject to blackmail.

That's what -- that's why you do security checks. A) you want to see if somebody's a spy -- very unlikely. But, b) if there are issues like this that could be used to pressure them to supply information or otherwise compromise national security, that's why this is a concern.

And it's very troubling, as Director Wray testified yesterday. The final report was to the White House in July and this fellow was still working there in late January or early February.


KING: That's a -- that raises really serious concerns, again, about national security because they knew they had a problem. Somebody knew they had a problem and it's hard for me to believe that -- you know, the White House isn't the Pentagon -- it's not 30,000 people -- that somebody didn't realize hey, this is a red flag. We've got to deal with this one way or the other.

Now, they might have brought it in, made it public, said we're going -- we're going to go ahead with this. As somebody pointed out earlier today, the president can do that.


KING: But to just ignore it, I think raises really serious issues --


KING: -- both about national security and about management.

CAMEROTA: CNN's reporting is that many people knew about this, including Don McGahn, the White House chief counsel -- including John Kelly, the chief of staff.

Should John Kelly keep his job?

KING: Well, that's up to the president and I'm going to give the same answer Jim Jordan gave. That's the president's call. He's going to have to make that decision.

I worked with John Kelly when he was the commander of South Comm when he was in the military. I have a great deal of respect for him.

I think he does need to be clear about how all this happened, what did he know, and when did he know it --

CAMEROTA: Right, but I mean, Senator --

KING: -- and report that to the president.

CAMEROTA: I'm sorry to interrupt, but given that he has not been clear. Given that he, as recently as yesterday, is reported to have said we handled everything just right -- I know it's the president's decision to make but are you confident in John Kelly being chief of staff?

KING: That's not my call. It really isn't. Through some oversight, I'm not the president. I think the president has to make that call.

I think it raises serious questions and if I were the president I would ask about what happened here, why this wasn't handled more promptly, and he may have to make a decision to make a change. But if he has confidence in John Kelly and is willing to get to the bottom of this, and if there's a problem, overlook it -- or if there's a problem, try to rectify it.

I'm not prepared to say from here -- 20/20 hindsight across Washington and say the president should dismiss someone.

CAMEROTA: Senator Angus King, we appreciate you being here with your perspective on all of this.

KING: Yes, sir.


KING: Yes, ma'am.

CUOMO: The CEO of Goldman Sachs talks to our Christine Romans. What he's saying about the economy, the strength of it, and where you should and should not put your money, next.


[07:47:00] CAMEROTA: OK, now to the economy. Goldman Sachs CEO says the U.S. economy is strong, but the Trump administration wants to go on a spending spree ballooning the deficit.

Chief business correspondent Christine Romans asked CEO Lloyd Blankfein if that puts the economy at risk and what it means for all of our money, and she's here to report the findings. Hi, Christine.


You know, what a difference a decade makes. A decade ago we were talking about the viability of the American financial system and today, we're talking about an economy that's really, really strong -- a roaring economy if you look at gauges of Main Street. The unemployment rate is four percent.

And the Republican Congress is spending money -- deficit spending -- a $1.1 trillion deficit expected next year.

What does that mean?


LLOYD BLANKFEIN, CEO, GOLDMAN SACHS: What could possibly go wrong?

ROMANS: What could go wrong, Lloyd Blankfein?

BLANKFEIN: I haven't felt this way -- I haven't felt this good since 2006.

ROMANS: Yes, that's not what I want to hear.

BLANKFEIN: Yes, exactly.

ROMANS: It could --

BLANKFEIN: Well, that's true. We have to have that in mind.

ROMANS: Is there a risk of overheating here?

BLANKFEIN: Yes, of course, there is. I would say the conditions are not just benign, they're highly supportive of a good economy.

ROMANS: Right.

BLANKFEIN: The economy was good before. On top of it we put in a trillion and a half dollars of tax cuts, then $100 billion of spending over -- additional spending. Maybe even an infrastructure bill.

ROMANS: Right.

BLANKFEIN: And so, the sentiment is very positive and interest rates are relatively low for where we are in the growth cycle. The issue could be potentially -- I'm not saying this is -- this is certainly not my base case but I'm in the business of worrying about small but adverse probabilities --

ROMANS: Right.

BLANKFEIN: -- is too much of a good thing.

And I would say that the odds of a bad outcome have gone up.


ROMANS: So, that got my attention. It's one of the reasons you've seen the stock market and the bond market moving so much in the past couple of weeks.

I asked him, you know, was the stock market a bubble? He has said there was some froth in the market. Was that a bubble, has it popped, and what should regular investors do?


BLANKFEIN: At this particular time, I would say don't throw all in. You know, people are saying gosh, you should buy more at the lows. Yes, if you're really rich and you have a lot of excess capital.

But I wouldn't -- I wouldn't throw on. I'd be planning for the continuancy if this turns out to be a worst tide for the people thinking.

I wouldn't be more audacious today with the Fed on a raising rate, with the budget wide -- deficit widening out.

ROMANS: Right.

BLANKFEIN: I wouldn't say this is the time I would max out on my risk as opposed to a year ago.


ROMANS: And that's his advice. I said regular investors. I'm not talking about bankers, I'm not talking about hedge fund managers.

For regular people who have their money in the stock market, what is your advice? He said this is not the time to max out on your risk.

I think it's going to be a really interesting year, Alisyn, when you're running deficits, with an economy that's running hot. Chris, with the -- with the Fed starting to raise interest rates.

Stayed tuned. This could be a really interesting year for investors in the markets.

CUOMO: Now that is an important perspective to have. Christine, thank you for bringing us the interview.

ROMANS: You're welcome.

CUOMO: Appreciate it. All right.

So, President Trump's new budget plan is out, as you were just hearing the head of Goldman Sachs discuss with Christine Romans. Mr. Trump is set to spend serious moula.

[07:50:00] The budget includes the infrastructure plan which is the subject of a critical "New York Times" editorial this morning you may want to look at.

Columnist Paul Krugman writes quote, "It's not a plan, it's a scam. The $1.5 trillion number is just made up. He's only proposing federal spending of $200 billion, which is somehow supposed to magically induce a vastly bigger overall increase in infrastructure investment mainly paid for either by state and local governments (which are not exactly rolling in cash, but whatever) or by the private sector."

Let's discuss. CNN global economic analyst Rana Foroohar and CNN senior economics analyst Stephen Moore.

Stephen, I will allow you to respond both to what we heard from the head of Goldman Sachs and there from Krugman. You guys are spending too much and you're faking the numbers when it comes to infrastructure.


I mean, first of all, why in the world would anyone listen to Paul Krugman. He's been about the wrongest (sic) economist in the last 10 years.

He was the one who said a week before the Trump election that if Trump was elected he was cause a massive meltdown in the market. Of course, just the opposite happened.

But, with respect to what Christine was saying, I think she's, of course, right. You know, you always want to be a very patient investor and times are good. There's no question about it.

We have seen a big, big ramp-up in the growth rate of the economy since Trump was elected. The latest indicator is that we might see four to five percent growth in the first half of this year. We haven't seen that in a long, long time. So, I still remain pretty bullish.

Now, on your fundamental point, are Republicans spending too much money? Yes, they are.

CUOMO: All right. So, Rana, Stephen may say that they see green shoots of that kind of growth --


CUOMO: -- but we have not seen revolutionary growth in the economy since --


CUOMO: -- President Trump has come into office. We have seen a big stock market and a -- and it's kept getting bigger, right?

FOROOHAR: Yes, yes.

CUOMO: It's at the base it was but that's a trend.

So, then you get into the nitty-gritty. Krugman may be wrong about a million things. He ain't wrong that it's only $200 billion that they're putting up.

FOROOHAR: Absolutely true.

CUOMO: And it seems to be cannibalized from other existing infrastructure projects and it puts a lot on states --


CUOMO: -- that are getting hit with that SALT problem that they have right now.

FOROOHAR: Exactly. CUOMO: I hear about this at home all the time that you are saying to them you can't have as much money coming in --


CUOMO: -- but now you're asking them to have more money coming out to have the infrastructure plan. Your take?

FOROOHAR: Yes, oh, absolutely. I mean, I worry that this is kind of a magical number.

I mean, to be putting this on state and municipalities that already have plenty of budget problems to begin with right now is -- I think it's cynical, to be honest.

And, you know, the entire plan at the end of a recovery -- we're at the end of a recovery cycle. You know, we've been in a recovery for 10 years. It doesn't feel like it to most of us but we're actually due for slower growth.

So, to be by these artificial means -- tax cuts, really trying to bolster asset prices, kind of throw kerosene on an economy, and then expect somebody else to come up with the infrastructure spending which is what you really need at this stage to bolster mid- to long-term growth, I think that's very cynical.

CUOMO: Are you cynical?

MOORE: I think you can't -- well, I mean, you're going to -- Trump is getting hit from both sides here.

One the one hand, you're saying -- I think we all agree this budget spends too much money. Too much money on the military, too much money --

CUOMO: I don't agree with anything. I'm just asking you guys to justify the money you spend.

MOORE: Well, I think most people have been criticizing this budget for spending too much on the budget deal that was passed last year.

CUOMO: Well, then why are they doing it?

MOORE: Because they love to play Santa Claus. Look, that's what -- that's what -- that's what politicians do whether they're Republicans or Democrats.

CUOMO: But these are the Republicans, Stephen. They're supposed to be --

MOORE: I know they are.

CUOMO: -- the deficit hawks and --

MOORE: Look, I'm embarrassed by it. Look, I think that they've been fiscal frauds here and I'm very embarrassed by their behavior. Republicans are supposed to be the fiscal responsible party and they haven't been here.

But, on the other hand, then you can't turn around and say he's not spending enough on the infrastructure plan. I mean, where's the money going to come from?

Now, I happen to think the best way to -- we do need to modernize our infrastructure. We need a lot of -- and by the way, a lot of this could be paid for, in my opinion, with private sector dollars. We need more L&G terminals, we need pipelines, we need more roads and bridges fixed.

You know, I live in Virginia. We have a lot of private toll roads here, Rana, that they work very well.

FOROOHAR: Oh, I have --

MOORE: There's a lot of compulsive --

FOROOHAR: I have never -- you know, you and I agree on the need for infrastructure spending.

MOORE: Right.

FOROOHAR: I just think that the federal government -- this is the area the federal government should have been actually putting --

MOORE: No, no.

FOROOHAR: -- the dollars up for up.

But now, listen, Stephen, for real because the private sector -- they're going to come in and they're going to cream the very profitable projects off the top. They're not necessarily going to do the projects that you need.

MOORE: Like what?


MOORE: Like what?

FOROOHAR: You know, I -- look, the next time I got to the airport and I'm on the BQE in New York here and I feel like I'm in Moldavia or something, you know, is that going to get fixed? I'm not so sure. I think that --

MOORE: Look, why don't -- why can't -- why can't a private company run -- look, the state of our airports is dismal. Why can't we have --

CUOMO: Well, hold on a second. So, here -- and here's -- and here's the answer.

MOORE: You know --

CUOMO: -- OK -- MOORE: Yes, OK?

CUOMO: -- because we've seen this before. We saw it with prisons --


CUOMO: -- and what did the private industry do? They came in --


CUOMO: -- and they creamed the top.


[07:55:00] CUOMO: They took the medium and the low security and the most expensive job -- the most important job which is keeping people like us and our families safe from the maximum-security prisoners -- those they didn't want to touch.


CUOMO: And that becomes --

MOORE: Well --

CUOMO: -- the concern is that you wind up helping private businesses make money but not getting the job done from an efficiency standpoint.

MOORE: We have a lot of examples -- we have a lot of examples of privatization of infrastructure that worked incredibly well. We have a lot of private roads in this country that are funded by tolls. That's a good way --

Look, I believe in --

CUOMO: All right.

MOORE: -- the user-pay systems -- system -- where the people who use the infrastructure have to pay for it.

And I'll give you an example why you don't want the federal government funding these things. You know, one of the -- you know, you've got this absurd $60 billion high-speed rail system in California that nobody's going to ride. It's the biggest white elephant.

Why should the federal government -- why should federal taxpayers pay for something they're not even going to use?

CUOMO: All right, so let's leave it there because I'm short on time. This is an ongoing conversation.

FOROOHAR: We'll be back to this, believe me.

CUOMO: Things are going to come up and we'll keep talking about it as we see more meat on the bones --

MOORE: You've got it.

CUOMO: -- of the policy proposals.

Rana, Stephen, thank you very much -- Alisyn.

MOORE: Thank you very much.


Will chief of staff John Kelly survive the fallout of the Rob Porter scandal? What CNN has learned about who can replace him.