tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN October 9, 2019 12:00am-1:00am PDT
president. we'll see if that continues to happen as we move forward. appreciate you joining us. >> thank you, don. >> and thank you for watching. our live coverage continues with laura coats. laura. what do you have in store? >> we're going to try to actually apseer some of the questions people are wanting to know about. what does this mean? and a lot of the why nots. like why can't you have somebody testify in front of the hill? why was the pursesen not allowed to do so? i think people want to understand what this all means and where we are in this really important moment in history and y i'm going to try to do that tonight. >> you were breaking down what happens. it seems everying iss single da there's something and sometimes it's difficult for the public to understand but it comes at us with a fire hose like drinking
from a fire hose. >> it's why we have this, the idea of all the developments during the day. verses 6 verses 7 and on. if you look away for a second, you might miss history in the making. we were here twice before in modern times and here we are again in 2019 and we've got to understand what's going on, even though -- thank you. let's get straight to the news. ♪ this is a cnn special hour "the white house in crisis: the impeachment inquiry." i'm laura coates and i'm going to take you through the late-breaking news on the impeachment inquiry into donald trump. the white house sending a letter to speaker nancy pelosi refusing to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.
democrats fighting back with subpoenas for ambassador gordon sondeland to turn over documents on the ukrain call by monday and to appear in person by wednesday. and now a source telling cnn of the ukrain whistleblower wrote a memo describing the reaction of a white house official who actually listened to that now infamous call. quote crazy and frightening. we'll get into all of it tonight with cnn legal analyst and former d and, i james clapper. and first cnn's alex takes us through tonight's big developments. we got a lot of fast moving developments. tell us how are democrats responding to this scathing letter from the white house? >> like you said so much going on throughout to the course of the day. the battle lines quickly being drawn in this impeach nmtquir
nmtquiry the white house making it it clear they have no intention of playing nice, makinging it easy for the democrats uncongress. one of the first examples of that we saw earlier was when the white house shut down and blocked testimony by a key player at the center of the ukrain scandal. >> tonight the white house declaring war with congressional democrats over impeachment. a letterer to congressional leadership accusingthem of a proceeding that violates the constitution, the rule of law and every past precedent. so seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 election. writing your unprecedented actions have left the president with no choice. president trump and his administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances. the letter coming at the end of a dramatic day that saw the
white house blocking the testimony of one of the president's point men on ukrain. u.s. ambassador to the european union. democrats firing back can demanding his presence and documents. >> by preventing us from haring from thes witness and obtaining the documents, the president and secretary of state are taking actions that prevent us from getting the facts needed to protection the nation's security. >> reporter: sondeland was supposed to be deposed this morning about what he knows about the request that ukrain investigate joe biden and his sup. but just after midnight the state department sent word to his lawyer he wasn't allowed to go to the hill. three house committees had planned to grill him, zeerroingn on text messages in which he clearly understood the president wanted ukrain to investigate the bidens. >> not only is the american
people being deprived of of his testimony but we're aware the ambassador has text messages or emails on a personal device which have been provided to the state department. >> reporter: his lawyer says the ambassador was profoundly disappointed to not be allowed to appear and stands ready to testify on short notice. the president's allies uncongress pounced. >> this whole thing is a fairy tale. adam schiff is misleading you and you're playing along with it and the american public is getting deceived. >> reporter: sources tell cnn that before the president agreed to meet with his counterpart, he told his top ukrain aids, including sondeland and energy secretary they would have to convince his personal atourney rudy giuliani who was trumps was man. if they can satisfy rudy, they can satisfy the president, an
indication of how intertwined u.s. policy towards ukrain was with trump's personal agenda. and a clear circumvention of official channels. that meeting was may 23rd. two months beerfore trump's call with president zelinsky where he made it clear he wanted ukrain to investigate the bidens and after the president's phone call with ukrain's it president in july, at least one national security official alerting white house lawyers who put the transcript in a highly classified and restricted serverer. that call was so disturbing to a white house official that they called it it crazy and frightening to the whistleblowerer who reported it. adding the white house aid was shaken. now despite the white house insisting they will not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry they are gearing up for it.
sources te sources saying that they hired trey gowdy for an attorney. he met with mick mulvaney. erse >> huh. i want to bring in cnn legal analyst and cnn political analyst to talk about all of this crazy and frightening and now trey gowdy has made an entrance. remember the reprieve when they handed over a transcript and whistleblower can complaint and they said stone walling done full stop. is that going to stop the bleeding now? >> i don't think so. they're trying one too, prevent the democrats from having any additional facts because they do
realize, as you point out, that the facts they did release, the reads out of the phone calls on a full transcript and the whusal blower complaint really did open up -- i think they thought that might stop impeachment from going forward and quite the opposite happened. new people came forward and a new amount of facts came forward for the democrats to investigate. and this letter tonight which i've read as many smart legal commentators i have made. doesn't sound like a legally sound letter where it's clear to go forward with the inquiry. i assume this is headed to the u.s. supreme court. in the meantime i don't think it's going to stop the democrats from going forward with their investigation although it makes it a whole lot more difficult
without any cooperation whatsoever. >> it didn't become a legal document when they used the word constitution 50 times? the white house claims right now that house democrats are the one whose are abusing power. they're violating the constitution. they're violating the rule of law and every past precedent of impeachment. can dud you find any legal basis for any of that? >> no. in fact just the opposite. this is easy. i think letter is what i dwd describe as fake law. it's a very weak document and makes mostly political points and the legal points are crazy and frightening to quote somebody earlier. the gist is that the president can dictate how impeachment is done, the procedures and decide what he shares and doesn't share with anyone. he's not accountable to the law and the criminal process.
that pretty much sounds like the presidents is saying he's above the law and that's incan consist pt with the kaupgsitution. >> we went to fake news fake law. but for the american people not as intimately aware of what impeachment looks like behind the scenes, what's next? how should the impeachment inquiry work? it can't just be spout out fake law and that's it. >> you're right. the ball is in the house's court so to speak. so the house will proceed as you're seeing the process unfold in front of you. and so the house will continue to try and investigate and can get facts. keep in mind the president's direction nobed ashare information and all his aids defy subpoenas and even he himself defy as subpoena. that be construed, perhaps quite credibly as an obstruction of
justice or an attempt to under9 impeachment process. they have the sole powerer to impeach. it doesn't say the president gets a say. it's up to the house how they proceed. >> i want to hear from you as well. why shouldn't the house have a formal vote on the the impeachment inquiry? and why not let rudy giuliani testify? i'll make my case next. (client's voice) remember that degree you got in taxation?
(danny) of course you don't because you didn't! your job isn't doing hard work... ...it's making them do hard work... ...and getting paid for it. (vo) snap and sort your expenses to save over $4,600 at tax time. quickbooks. backing you. they use stamps.com all the services of the post office only cheaper get a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.
both parties have retreated to their corners of the ring and to quote mike tyson everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. ever after today both parties have a black eye. a key witness refused to appear for a congressional hearing and the white house is fight itting for a legal leg to stand on. so what's their plan now? let's break it down by answering the right questions. we already know the why. why is there an impeachment inquiry? because off abuse of power. why doesn't trump want an impeachment inquiry? because he wants to stay president of the united states. we got that. but the better question is why not? three key questions for tonight. first, why doesn't pelosi just ask for a full vote on whether to have an impeachment inquiry. afterall they did just that before the impeachment
proceedings of nixon and of clinton. >> first of all there's no requirement that there be a floor vote. >> well with, i hope we're not back on this are we in the impeachment or not discussion. but to be fair look, congress has held a full vote before beginning impeachment inquiries before nixon, clinton. now democrats, they don't want to have a vote for plolitical ad practical reasons. according to the constitution they don't have to. so in their minds why subject representatives to more votes than necessary, especially if you're a congressman who is politically vulnerable. now second the precedent of nixon and clinton, that happened. but house rules have changed since both of those inquiries. before they needed a vote to get
subpoena power but now with the new rules the majoritiall ry al has it. the republican minority want that power but the democrats don't have to give it to them and why don't they want to? there's a very real chance the republicans might just try to use the subpoena power they could get to investigate the tan jenningsal issue of the bidens or even use the authority to call witnesses that may make a mockery of of the proceedings rather than constructively counter any of the arguments and speaking of witnesses. question number two. why not let ambassador sondeland testify? especially when it can give democrats more ammunition to say you're obstructing congress. >> the failure to produce witness, these documents, we
consider yet additional strong evidence of obstruction of the constitutional functions of congress. a coequal branch of government. >> and articles of impeachment tell you that? there's a risk here. but if you're congress, you want to hear what he knew about the president's motive for with holding congressional aid to ukrain. you want to know why call me he said. and why did he call the it president before responding to his fellow diplomat about the old quid pro quo? if you're the president you want a muzzle on anyone who can potentially imp lllicate and tro explain your init tensions. but one of the chief defenders says there's no need for anyone to testify. >> there is no wrong doing. remember ambassador -- why not
release the transcript so you can see what he told us. there is no wrong doing. he was as clear as could be. no quid pro quo whatsoever. >> if that's the case, then why not let him testify? say that very thing and prove your case? and finally today senate judiciary committee chairman lindsey graham invited the president's personal lawyer and one-man show, rudy giuliani to say his piece before his senate judiciary committee, which brings me to my final why not. why not let giuliani testify? let me pause for a second and say that question was actually not meant to be rhetorical. although we all know what a giuliani hearing might just look like. >> i know what happened. >> you were just repeating spin. >> but you don't. >> and you wunt to cover a
ridiculous charge that i urged the ukrainian government to investigate corruption. well, i did and i'm proud of it. >> then it's not a ridiculous allegation. you admit it. >> what is reported is true. doesn't make a dam. it'ser the president of the united states said to the president of ukrain investigate the corruption in your country that has a bearing on our 2016 election, isn't that what he's supposed to do? >> so it wasn't rhetorical but if you're a democrat giuliani could turn the proceedings into a circus or what he did there and the conspiracy theory he's been peddling about joe biden. if you're the president here, giuliani could also implicate you with reckless admission. the letter introduce as third party interest not often talked about here.
future presidents. if giuliani testifies, he potentially risks the court of law, setting harsh puramteres on the the attorney/client protection. and for the it first time the court could definitively rule on the limits of executive privilege. well, the bell for the next round is about to sound and both sides better be ready because you know what? we'll be watching. back again with michael gerhart and ryan lizza. what do you see as a down side for speaker pelosi on holding the vote on the impeachment inquiry? >> i think you nailed it. it's really about giving the minority in the house the right to issue subpoenas and i assume that democrats in the house
don't want the minority on the three main committees to turn the to a circus with periferal witnesses. now my understanding is the way it would work is the committees would vote and at the end of the it day would be able to vote down can any kind of frivolous subpoenas or things they felt were outside of the investigation. but i think that's the main issue and now a matter of principal that house does not get to duckitate how the house of representatives goes about its business of an impeachment inquiry. it's not his role. and if they do do a full vote, i think there's a sense that trump's just going to move the goal posts after that and so they won't have any benefit.
>> that's a great point about moving the goal post. is it fair? i mean on the flip side doesn't holding a formal vote actually strengthen democrat's hands and takes away what -- that talking point that impeachment is illegitimate. >> i dont think so. i thought your description of of the issues was really quite excellent. and i agree with ryan and everything he said. you point out that rules have hachged. we also have a statute that gives power to chairs to issue subpoenas. so the rules and procedures are different now. the house is fall eoing them. i also think the focuses of of the white house letter on process is intended in part to shift our attention from what really might be more
embarrassing for the president and that's the facts. notice anybody in possession of the facts the president tries to keepthem from testifying or appearing and that just raises suspicions further can which is why you see the polling an interest in resetting the inquiry increase. >> well, thank you. obviously you're both mike tyson fans which is why you loved my commentary about it. so cnn is learning that a white house official who listens to the infamous ukrain call said it was kracrazy and frightening. what james clapper had to say about it? tremfya® helps adults with moderate
to severe plaque psoriasis get clearer. and tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. don't use if you're allergic to tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya®. get clearer. janssen can help you explore cost support options. $$9.95? no way.? janssen can help you explore $9.95? that's impossible. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company, to tell you it is possible. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get life insurance with options starting
at just $9.95 a month. okay, jonathan, i'm listening. tell me more. just $9.95 a month for colonial penn's number one most popular whole life insurance plan. there are no health questions to answer and there are no medical exams to take. your acceptance is guaranteed. guaranteed acceptance? i like guarantees. keep going. and with this plan, your rate is locked in for your lifetime, so it will never go up. sounds good to me, but at my age, i need the security of knowing it won't get cancelled as i get older. this is lifetime coverage as long as you pay your premiums. it can never be cancelled, call now for free information. you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. use this valuable guide to record your important information and give helpful direction about your final wishes to your loved ones. and it's yours free. it's our way of saying thank you just for calling. so call now.
so now weir are learning more about the timeline of events with the president trump's call with ukrainian president zelinsky. according to the "new york times" the whistleblower at the center of this wrote a memo with a white house official the very next day. cnn is reporting the whistleblower wrote that the white house official appeared to be shaken and described the call between trump and zelinsky as crazy and frightening. and cnn is reporting in the hours and days after the call word began to spread among the national security aids about what was discussed on the call. in fact three sources now telling cnn that at least one
official on the national security consal alerted the white house's national security lawyer's about their concerns. those same lawyers would go on to order the transcript of the call be moved to the highly classified code-word level servererer to keep it hush hush. we're also learning about what happened. in that almost five-hour gap between senior diplomat's text questioning what he perceiveds as holding and ambassador sondeland 's actual answer and a source saying that sondeland actual spoke to the president about the situation. that led to his reply of bill, i believe you were incorrect about president trump's intentions. the president has been crystal clear no quid pro quos of any kind. a lot to discuss here and we
have the perfect man for the job. james clapper, the former director off national intelligence joins me now. can't think of a better person than you. you know when you hear director clapper, that white house official that hped inform the whistleblower's report was shaken and that they described the call as crazy and frightening, what's your gut reaction? >> well, i couldn't help but go back to the memos of phone calls that president obama engaged with. i never sat in on any calls that the president made live but i did get sumries as did the other cabinet-level officials where it was relevant. these calls and they would kp come to me some weeks later. i found them uniformly boring. they were good to know what the
policy calls were and all that sort of thing. but as an intelligence guy, wasn't all that important to me. and now when i'm just trying to imagine what it would be like to be privy to a phone call involving the president of the united states where there is -- it's certainly inappropriate if not illegality. and what a shock that had to be. so that had to have created a stir among staffers in the white house and -- specifically in the national security counsel. so and of of course this adds further corroboration and at least in my mind, to the origin original whistleblower complaint. i mean there seems to be a consistent pattern here and jurmonju
germane. to your last segment, it seems to me the democrats already have a lot of facts. the whistleblower complapt, the memorandum of of the fon call itself which surprised me that white house would issue that and now we're seeing more and more corroboration and of course the curious sequence of events involving the ambassador the european union parenthetically one might ask why is he involved? obviously he's a political appointee as opposed to taylor, who is a professional foreign service officer. >> not to mention the fact that the european union ambassador having ties to ukrain, which last i checked not a part of the eu, first of all. but on the issue one source told cnn it was possible that
johnizenberg ordered it to be placed in the code word serverer to quote preserve record because it could become a legal issue. was there an adult in the room or you're trying to hide it? >> that was an effort to cloiser ther record of this phone call. i can't read it in any other way. to make an attempt at restricting access and exposure. >> so is it a misuse of the classified system you would be using as well? >> some have said that and i suppose technically you could make that cases. but storing items of lesser classification on a system capable of accommodating higher classification is fairly common practice. so the important thing here is what was the motive for doing that? and that to me is what's really critical. not so much was this a technical
inquiry, refusing to cooperate and claiming in a letter that the democrats quote have denied the president the right to cross examine witnesses too, call witnesses too, receive transcripts of testimony too, have access to evidence, to have counsel president and many basic rights guaranteed to all americans. joining mew now congressman a member of of the house oversight committee. good to have you with us today, congressman. the white house is saying they will not cooperate, as you know. what are democrats going to do about it? >> we're going to move forward. and lindsey graham's clip in the clinton impeachment hearing is worth watching. he stood up and said in nixon's case one of the articles of impeachment was the it white house refusing to cooperate with congress and that was uncalled for, unconstitutional. so where is the outrage from people like lindsey graham
today. the judiciary committee is going to move forward and as speaker pelosi has said the president is doing no favors by this kind of obstruction. >> what does it mean they're going to move forward? are there witnesses you're looking to hear from more than tb the subpoenas that have been issued? >> we're going to look at ambassadors involved and we're going to continue to ask who at the state department can knew but ultimately is going to the judiciary committee. nadler is going to draw up articles. and i expect the house before the end of the year will have a vote on impeachment. >> are you limiting the inquiry to the ukrainian call or can be more expansive as the evidence kp comes in? >> it will be more expansive. a lot of committees have already
documents obstruction of justice in this administration. but what has been the final straw is the president admitting on national television that he's asking foreign leaders to having his political rivals and people are saying if we don't do something now, are we setting a precedent that they can ask foreign leaders to dig up dirt on their rivals. >> speaking of the precedent sent, the president did fight the mueller investigation every step of the way and saw the outcome can in his mind as a win and even said he was kpaexonera to use his own words. have you learned any lessons from his handling of that? >> he hasn't because the mueller investigation was about interference and now we know he's continuing to try to get foreign countries to interfere. i guess the less on we've learned is we have to act as a house. we tried every way bending over backwards to have the white house cooperate.
i now expect that judiciary committee will act on articles of impeachment. it's not a positive thing for this country. impeachment is a process that's very divisive. but he's left the judiciary committee and the speaker with no choice. >> one of the choices she seems to be exercising is holding a full house vote. she said if we want to do it, we will if we don't, we don't. but year not going to do it because of the president. what is the down side? why not just hold the vote and take away one of the president's newest excuses for stonewalling you? >> the president would just have a different excuse. it has nothing to do with whether we have a vote or not. the president has been obstinant in not cooperating his entire administration. the it reality is the president
is very clear in the house. the judiciary chair as the power along with the speaker to open an impeachment inquiry. they've done that in the case of judges and when it can comes to actual can impeachment we are go having to a vote. i think the speaker wants tuse have the vote once we've made the case so members can cast that vote after we've had a chance to make the case to the public. >> is one of the drawbacks the house is not going to hold a vote because it might open in the opportunity for republicans to have subpoena power. >> it really isn't. that isn't the it calculation. the calculation is the speaker wants members to go on the it record once after a full case has been made after we have collected whatever evidence we can and i think that's reasonable. they'll go on the record once they're referred but we're not going to do can it people arema
and not on the president's timeline especially when the rules are clear that chair can start this inquiry. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you for having me. president trump getting help for his impeachment battle from a familiar face. how former republican trey gowdy. when we started our business
i remember setting up shipstation. one or two clicks and everything was up and running. i was printing out labels and saving money. shipstation saves us so much time. it makes it really easy and seamless. pick an order, print everything you need, slap the label onto the box, and it's ready to go. our costs for shipping were cut in half. just like that. shipstation. the #1 choice of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get 2 months free. to severe plaque psoriasis get clearer. and tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. don't use if you're allergic to tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya®. get clearer. janssen can help you explore cost support options.
so president trump is getting outside help from his impeachment battle. former fox news contributor, trey gowdy. he is going to work with the white house as outside counsel. there discuss alice smith and keith bicyclen. since he over saw the benghazi investigation that ended in no can convictions. in fact in 2015 here's gowdy. >> a country is strong enough to happenedth handle the truth and our fellow citizens expect tuse pursue the truth wherever the facts take us. so this committee is deeing to do what we pledged to do and what frankly should have been done a long time ago which is interview all relevant witnesses, examine all relevant
evidence and access all relevant documents and we're going to pursue the truth in a manner worthy of the memory of the four people who lost their lives and worthy of the respect of our follow citizens. >> so it's hard to hear that and say he's going to be the guy who helps the white house essentially stonewall congress? >> i expect him to come can in and do what he talked about there, pursuing the truth. pursuing the letter of the law and making sure we ghoot answer. and you being an attorney and expert on law, let me submit to you for my argument is i do think what the president has done inappropriate. ill advised. >> the stonewalling or -- which part is ill advised? >> the conversation with the president of ukrain in which he talked about doing a favor with regard to past election
interference and that is something that i do think does need to be investigated and looked into. but that being said let's do the right process. let's go about it the right way. if you want to do an impeachment inquiry, let's have a vote and do this the right way. one thing trey gowdy did say was there is no statute of limitations on the truth and that should be held here. there's no rush. there's no reason to try this in the cort of public opinion. let's do it the right way and this has nothing to do with democrats having fear that republicans are going to gain subpoena power and get a leg up here. this has everything to do with democrats do not want to go on the line and vote for something that will not result in impeachment ultimately. >> i mean realistically what you said is illogical in thakt you didn't address the trey gowdy
issue. the hypocrisy that the leader of the benghazi hearings, hearing after hearing in can which the obama administration fully cooperated. hillary clinton testified for 11 hours and now he's helping the white house not to cooperate but to stonewall the investigation. the president of the united states today announced through his attorneys he will not be cooperating with the lawful impeachment inquiry that is taking place under the constitution because he thinks it's unconstitutional. he's declared war on the constitution. how elsz is he supposed to be investigated if they don't have the oversight to do so? and trey gowdy of all people knows that and it shows you the hypocrisy going back before donald trump became in office. they were never apparently concerned about good government. only about getting back at democrats and allowing republicans like donald trump to run over the -- run over the constitution without any regard
for how -- for the respect that it's due. >> i hear you. i'm not going to give either of you the last word. i'm going to give cong tlsz last word because they'll have it tomorrow. we'll wait and see what happens next. fine points on both sides. we'll see what actually happens. thank you for watching. our coverage continues. $9.95 at my age? $9.95? no way. $9.95? that's impossible. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company, to tell you it is possible. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get life insurance with options starting at just $9.95 a month. okay, jonathan, i'm listening. tell me more.
just $9.95 a month for colonial penn's number one most popular whole life insurance plan. there are no health questions to answer and there are no medical exams to take. your acceptance is guaranteed. guaranteed acceptance? i like guarantees. keep going. and with this plan, your rate is locked in for your lifetime, so it will never go up. sounds good to me, but at my age, i need the security of knowing it won't get cancelled as i get older. this is lifetime coverage as long as you pay your premiums. it can never be cancelled, call now for free information. you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. use this valuable guide to record your important information and give helpful direction about your final wishes to your loved ones. and it's yours free. it's our way of saying thank you just for calling. so call now.
i didn't have to call 911.help. and i didn't have to come get you. because you didn't have another heart attack. not today. you took our conversation about your chronic coronary artery disease to heart. even with a stent procedure, your condition can get worse over time, and keep you at risk of blood clots. so you added xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto®, when taken with low-dose aspirin, is proven to further reduce the risk of blood clots that can cause heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death in people with chronic cad. that's because while aspirin can help, it may not be enough to manage your risk of blood clots. in a clinical trial, almost 96% of people taking xarelto® did not have a cardiovascular event. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death. while taking, a spinal injection increases the risk of blood clots which may cause paralysis- the inability to move. you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop.
xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. enjoy every moment-and help protect yourself from an unexpected one, like a cardiovascular event. are you doing enough? ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com.
a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! the white house will not cooperate with the house democrats' impeachment inquiry calling the investigation unconstitutional. the turkish military gearing up for a planned military operation in syria. president trump in sifting the u.s. has not abandoned their allies in the region. >> we do not apologize for daryl exercising his freedom of expression. >> nba commissioner adam silver headed to
Uploaded by TV Archive on