tv Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN December 15, 2019 7:00am-8:00am PST
, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today. save hundreds of thousands of lives. but after the emergency, time and again, insurance companies deny coverage, second guessing doctors, nurses and first responders... now "big insurance" is lobbying congress. asking for restrictions on air medical services. eliminating patients' access to life-saving care and destroying jobs all in exchange for bigger profits for insurance companies. tell congress, put patients first, not big insurance. this is gps, the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. today on the show, boris brexit
and the future of britain. >> this one nation conservative government has been given a powerful new mandate. and what message was johnson's victory send to donald trump? also, impeachment, a trade deal with china and more with an all star panel. then. communist china and democratic india. two systems with the same problem. persecuting religious minorities. we'll take a look at china's treatment, locking of large numbers of people in what some u.s. officials are calling concentration camps. and india's controversial new law and its handling of cashmere. finally, forget who wants to be a millionaire. the question is who has the most millionaires in the world. china, the u.s., japan, germany?
find out later in the show. first, here's my take. on its face, the impeachment proceedings against donald trump might seem to be a specifically and narrowly american matter. but if you look around the world, you will see this is taking place amidst a deeply worrying global trend. in country after country we're witnessing an astonishing wave of attacks on the constitution, institutions, norms and values that have given democracy strength and meaning. consider what has been happening just this week around the world as congress debated charges against the president. in india, the world's largest democracy, the ruling party passed an unprecedented citizenship bill that privileges certain religions over others. a move that one indian implek chul described as a giant step to convert a democracy into an
unconstitutional ethnocracy. india appears polarized heading into the third election in one year. benjamin netanyahu has launched an extraordinarily vicious attack on the israeli judicial system which he claims has been plotting against him. in fact, netanyahu faces indictment because the attorney general who is from benjamin netanyahu's party and was chosen by netanyahu was following existing laws and procedures. in hungary, victor or bonn who has spoken about building an ill liberal democracy has pushed for laws to make it harder for opposition lawmakers to ban together and protest. at the international court of justice, nearly 30 years after she was awarded the nobel peace
prize as a pro democracy disdent, a woman staunchly defended her government against charges of genocide against a muslim minority group, the rohingya. there have been evidence of gang rape and arson with genocide intent. and this is all just in this week. if you broaden the lens, we're living through what larry diamond has called a democratic recession. international human rights watchdog group freedom house registered global declines in political rights and civil liberties for 13 consecutive years. this is the context in which to consider america's impeachment crisis. the fact of the case are blindingly clear. president trump pressured the new ukrainian government to investigate the bidens as has been described in sworn testimony by 17 witnesses. many of them sitting senior government officials with each
person's account confirming the others and emails, texts and the rough call transcript documenting it. the republican's defense is that this elaborate campaign to help trump's reelection was actually a big misunderstanding. trump had never asked for it. all the officials working feverishly for months across contents for all simultaneously diluted. call it the walter mitty defense. in fact, the real defense is offense. this week the president called members of the fbi scum and attorney general william barr dismissed the con krugss of his own justice department's inspector general. the president and his followers routinely attack the foreign service, the intelligence agencies and the justice department. the white house has refused to honor congressional subpoenas or request for documents to an extent unprecedented in american history. across the democratic world, the institutions of liberty and law
are under attack. if they give way, the framed democratic fabric of our societies will ultimately tear apart. for more go to cnn.com/fareed and read my washington post column this week. let's get started. prime minister boris johnson won a resounding victory on thursday, giving him what he called a powerful new mandate to get brexit done. we'll start there with today's panel, david melvin was the foreign secretary of the uk. he's now the president and c ceo -- and ann marie slugter was the director of policy and planning. she's now the ceo of the think tank new america. you were out campaigning, you're
a former labor leader in your formal capacity. what do you think was going on? why did johnson get what was the largest majority since margaret thatcher in 198 7. >> labor corbin was -- the unpaletable mixtufixture of the election, johnson. corbyn was simply unelectable, and i saw that on the doorstep. labor to my core, my dad will turn in hi grave, but i can't vote for you, not even when you have a good local candidate. >> my theory is when you present voters with clarity or murkiness, if you wanted a vote for brexit, you voted for the conservative party. if you didn't, do you -- corbyn
was one of two minds? everything was muddy on one side and clear for boris johnson. >> essentially you can see it as a vote for certainty and sovereignty. because johnson got an awful lot of the people who had voted for brexit. they now flipped to toris. i think we voted for brexit. we want to get brexit done, sovereignty, certainty and change. >> and markets reacted positively saying the uncertainty three years of being in limbo is over. >> they want to get through this, and it's very clear that boris johnson gave them that. he said i'm going to get brexit done by the end of the year. corbyn certainly was not going to do that. if corbyn had won, this would have been the most meaningful negative election in europe for decades. let's keep in mind, this also means the scotts, scottish national party, they want out. right?
and that costs them an awful lot of money. it's not clear how easy it is for them to get into the eu. they're demanding a referendum. when their parliamently comes up in 2021, there's a strong mandate. this could be the beginning of the long-term unwind of the united kingdom. >> people voted for the end of brexit, but it's not the end of brexit. it's the easy bit of brexit, getting out of the european union. what's the scientific, political relationship with the union, they haven't started on. that's why there's trouble on the european front as well as on the domestic front. >> let me ask you what do you think of the lessons for american politics, because you've really now had the toris have become the populist nationalist party. the left is trying to figure out what they do. what did you hear? >> if you confuse your twitter sphere with the real world, you're in trouble.
if your policy program is incredible, people won't vote for it. the more radical change you want, the more detailed and credible you have to be about how you'll make it happen, and finally, and most importantly, you need a very clear vision of the future. the offer that corbyn made, a better yesterday, was not going to deliver for the united kingdom. you've got to be able to unite the country to go forward, not look back. >> it struck me also that, again, immigration. you know, the left is incredible on immigration. the country feels what? we're not supposed to have borders or control the flow, we or anyone who wants to come in? that i find, it's a common sense level voters say yeah, we need borders and we need more of a control over our destiny. >> i think that's right. although, actually i think in the u.s. election immigration is going to be less important this time. but i definitely think the u.s.
electorate or the republicans are going to say this is 2016 all over again. britain voted for brexit in june of 2016. nobody thought that was going to happen. nobody thought trump was going to get elected. those two things were tied and trump will now say and again the elites are just -- as david puts it a better yesterday. we are the future. we are change. >> i would bet you trump will say if you vote for the democratic party, they're going to let anyone in across the southern border and they can all get free health care and education, and that frankly is what a lot of democrats in the primary debates have been saying. >> the lesson for the democrats is yunity and a broad tent. we don't see anybody among the democratic candidates who can do that. >> what do you think is the danger here that we're missing this larger replay that just as brexit forshadowed trump getting
elected? >> i don't think there are big lessons for the u.s. election 2020 simply because corbyn is such a uniquely bad candidate. he makes bernie sanders look like tony blair, but i do think that boris johnson is as a governing figure much more normal than trump is internationally. you saw that he was one of those european leaders and justin trudeau that was mocking the american president. didn't want to have the meeting with trump during the nato summit on climate, immigration and a bunch of issues. boris johnson is closer to other leaders around the world than trump. i think that will play out. >> final thought on british elections? the labor party leadership might be open. would you consider running for leader of the labor party? >> obviously this is here to set up the campaign team. no. you've got to be a member of parliament. i've got my job. there needs to be a vacancy
filled by someone in parliament. but there's a deep thing here. corbynism without corbyn is still unelectable. you have to take out the man, but you've got the change the approach. >> you heard it here. he's running. next on gps, we'll come back and talk about what to make of the new trade agreement between the united states and china. pharmacist-recommended s te memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
deal. how amazing is it? let me bring the panel in. ian, you had been predicting there would be a trade deal. it's pretty much what people thought, or is it bigger? >> to. i mean, in terms of the chinese are going to buy american ag again more than they were before we started escalating on tariffs. the americans are not going to increase escalation. that would hurt american consumers j especially in the runup to christmas season. it's going to reduce some of the additional tariffs by a bit. but if you've been watching chinese twitter feeds since we're talking about twitter feed and they've gotten on in a big way in the last few weeks, they're coming after the americans hard. on technology issues, on governance issues, on the uyghurs on hong kong. this government has a lot of confidence and big issues for them are coming up in the coming months. hong kong is not going away, and the cfo of huawei is facing
extradition in canada. i think next year's u.s. canada relationship is in a different phase despite the phase one deal. i wrote this piece in foreign affairs in which i try to lay out what it seems to me is almost a bipartisan consensus now that we need something like a cold war with china. what strikes me is there's so many democrats signing on because they don't want to be outflanked by trump. is it a side show to what is really a pretty tough new cold war with china? >> i do think the trade deal is a side show. i think your piece is exactly right in that this is very like the late 40s and the early 50s when a lot of groups had every incentive to widen the split between the soviet union and the united states. the military wanted the enemy. various other groups were pushing their agendas. and i see that now also. we have lots of tensions with
china. but we're also deeply interconnected with china, and there's no reason we can't, in fact, continue engaging them and deterring them as you argue. but for political reasons and for each side has an inseptemberive -- incentive to play up the antagonism of the other. it's like watching a train wreck. >> one of the big questions people have if there's a new cold war with china, where will europe sit? the europeans have a difficult time. because in a way, my experience around the world is everybody would like to be with china economically, but the united states politically. but increasingly both countries are saying no, it's not a la cart. you can't choose. >> you're right. europeans will be the meat in this sandwich in a difficult position. i think the conversation of engagement, trying to make the wins on climate policy is a big play for the european union.
when it comes to the geopolitical issues, there's real difficult if i for europeans. it was significant the nato summit should have concluded with a such strong statement. it said this is a whole new international geopolitical ball game. and i thought that was a significant signal that the europeans are going to really kleve toward the traditional values alliance with the u.s. however, they're not going to be a pushover. and you say about the politics drawing europeans to america, i think europeans are thinking on a 20-year horizon, america's unpredictable, and that sharpens the dilemma for them. >> the technology piece is the bigger piece here. that's where with the huawei ban, the u.s. is trying to decouple with china. the chinese must get this message and say we're going to great our own technology universe, and that train has already left the station. >> i would argue the bigger decisions have been made by the chinese, not the americans and the trump administration has pushed that along.
the speech when president xi says we want to be dominant in these areas in technology, ones critical to american security, that tells me me need to act does that mean cold war or containment? to me it means we need to be sure we're continuing to be better and our allies see it and want to align not just out of fear, but also because they see the united states is going to win, and right now when you talk to people who know technology in the united states, they think we're losing on 5 g. they're not convinced we're going to win in technology in five or ten years? >> isn't that the problem, it's hard to reinvest in american science and technology, hard to rebuild your infrastructure. it's easy to have a -- to have a cold war. it's much easier to blame the outsider than to go through the kind of national renewal at home and compete. >> yeah. i think that's right. and again, what we ought to be
doing is continuing to engage, continuing to educate chinese students and bringing them here, not sending them home. increasing these ties. there are big technological divides, we should be approaching this as china is a country that has to be engaged and deterred at the same time. and our biggest strength should be that we have far more allies than china does and we should be building those alliances and that's exactly where from my point of view the biggest danger is trump is doing everything he can to alienate the allies at a time when china is all too happy to pick up ones. >> final, you tweeted you don't usually tweet on domestic policy. you tweeted on impeachment, that you supported it? >> yeah. >> why? >> because i believe the abuse of power by president trump to move the elections in his favor personally and -- undermine
national security is an impeachable defense. >> thank you all. next we'll talk about china's treatment of the uyghurs. the president's national security adviser says beijing is putting them in concentration camps. we'll tell you what you need to know. nyquil severe gives you powerful relief for your worst cold and flu symptoms, on sunday night and every night. nyquil severe. the nightime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine.
i felt gross. it was kind of a shock after i started cosentyx. four years clear. real people with psoriasis look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. i was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric toothbrush.
but my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gum line. for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada for its effectiveness and safety. what an amazing clean! i'll only use an oral-b! oral-b. brush like a pro. wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome.
president trump's new national security adviser accuses china of locking people up in concentration camps. yes, he uses that phrase that conjures up images of the nazis and the holocaust. specifically he was pointing his finger at the northwest corner. turkey muslims living in the province, primarily the uyghurs. a bill passed almost unanimously earlier this month calling out china's gross human rights violations. it's a story we all need to understand. to help us do so, i want to bring on james parma, an expert on china who knows the issue intimately. james, who are the uyghurs to begin with? >> about 10 million of them. most of them are muslims.
they look different from what we think of as chinese people as pan chinese. the history goes back a long way to the wieguyghurs empire. they look toward central asia instead of china as their cultural homeland, but they're controlled by china. >> so people talk about concentration camps and talk about the uyghurs being put into concentration camps. explain just from what best we can tell what is going on. >> there's a mass crackdown on uyghurs' rights, on their ability to travel outside of the region, on their freedom of expression, on their culture and their language. a big part of that has been these so-called reeducation camps into which something like a million, maybe a million and a half uyghurs have disappeared. some have reemerged.
about 10% of the population as a whole. and these tend to be people who are either young and potentially in the eyes of chinese state her gent or often middle age people who have a travel life, traveled abroad, a lot of business people, professors, and even more uyghurs outside the camp, increasing the government is dictating what they can and can't do, where they can work. the government has installed chinese in the homes of uyghurs people who spy on them to make sure they conform to chinese models of behavior. >> the way the chinese have generally dealt with the problems is to essentially send a lot of chinese into the areas to kind of make them less distinct and separate. why are they taking this much more draconian measure with the uyghurs? >> the history of this goes back to 2009 when there were mass riots in one of the major cities
in the region. in the riots about 200 innocent people were killed by young uyghurs men. there was retaliatory violence by the state, by the people's armed police in which an unknown numb of uyghurs were killed. a cycle of violence began. it worsened in 2014 when there was an attack in a long way. this killed about 31 people. there was a huge public outcry against this. one of the results from that was that uyghurs began to be pushed out of the rest of china. so suddenly you had this huge influx of people coming back into an already volatile region. this is also about the time that president kxi is really consolidating his power. as he consolidates his power, one of the things he does is to
set much harder ideological boundaries. the uyghurs began to be described and even islam itself is described by an infection, a cancer, a fundamental danger to the party. >> you were based in beijing for 15 years. you've studied this issue. you have a lot of uyghurs friends. what are you hearing from the ground? >> well, i had a lot of uyghurs friends. now i have almost no contact with uyghurs i knew in china because either they've disappeared or they've broken off contact. a couple of people have successfully made it to other countries. and i think it's a source of distress for a lot of u who work on this issue that our friends or contacts have been forced to cut off contact with us, because even having a western reporter or western academic in your contact list in your phone has been something that has got people sent to their camps. on the ground among -- i can only speak to the uyghurs
diaspera. there's a huge amount of fear and worry that there's a determination to destroy the uyghurs as a people whether through the breaking of the culture or through physical extermination. now, i don't think that second is really on the table, but of course, if your family is being disappeared into camps and people are dying, people are dying of abuse or neglect or beatings or whatever, then you can't rule it out altogether, and it's natural people are terrified. >> james, pleasure. thank you so much for coming on. >> thank you. next on gps, another major minorities controversy in the east. india's new citizenship bill that offers a road to indian citizenship for immigrants from neighboring countries but not if they're muslim. [♪]
and improves 7 key areas of visibly healthy skin. try olay total effects. i'm just back from india. my country of origin is the world's largest democracy. but it did something this week that my next guest describes as an assault on the foundational principles of indian democracy. at issue is the country's citizenship amendment bill passed into law on thursday with an assent from the president. the bill offers a road to indian citizenship for pakistaniins bu not if they're muslim. protests have broken out.
india has deployed troops to try to quell the violence. expla explain what you mean when you say this bill is against the idea of india. >> well, you see basically, when our nationalist movement against the british split, it didn't split on ideological grounds or geographical grounds. it split on one principal, should religion be the determination of nation hood. people who believe that, that was the idea of pakistan and they created pakistan out of the division of india. but other muslim leaders said no, our freedom struggle is for everybody of every religion and we'll create a free india for all. and the constitution of india reflects that sense of equality, of nondiscrimination, freedom of religion has been built into the constitution as a fundamental
right. including the freedom of worship and the freedom to pros latize. it's a democratic constitution, and for 70 odd years india has been run on the basis of such a constitution. what's happened, however, is for the first time in 2014 a movement has come to par and come to power with its own majority. it was earlier in power in a larger coalition where it didn't come close to a majority. here it's come to power with a majority in parliament, and it believes profoundly that india was wrong to be a secular liberal pluralist society, that it should be a hindu, and their logic is because pakistan was created for muslims, what remained as india should be a country for hindus, and this philosophy is antithetical to everything our country was founded on. >> this is happening in an atmosphere over the last few years of this hind due
nationalism, for example, there have been dozens of if not hundreds of cities and towns with historically muslim names dating back to the 16th century which have been renamed. there have been vigilantes, mobs who killed muslims and the police has done nothing. is the situation getting worse? >> we've been through all you mentioned, and what bothers me about this as a hindu myself is that hinduism traditionally, the hinduism is a religion that accepts difference that says to other, i will respect what you understand to be the truth, please respect what i understand to be the truth and we can live and let live. that's how india has flourished. that's why we've had a country of fewer than a dozen members of isis or al qaeda. that's the strength of india that's being attacked at the roots by the people entrusted with the safety and security of
our country. >> finally, the reporting out of a long new york article, the other stuff by ranah, out of kashmir it describes what can only be described as a police state. this is the only muslim majority state in india. >> i'm hearing the same sort of thing. though the indian media has been fairly shamefully quiet. i think the new yorker piece by dexter fillkins was sound but under cover reporting. he wasn't there openly going around speaking. that's the sad thing that an indian state even of the worst of the terrorist troubles, the sectarian violence, the militants being sent across the border from pakistan, even at that time, the press was able to go and see and observe and report. and the indian media as well. whereas today there is almost a
silence of the graveyard coming out of the media and out of kashmir. it's worrying. many have said why don't you allow an all party parliament to go. it has not been agreed to by the government. other politicians attempting to go up have been turned back at the airport. we don't have firsthand insights. what we're hearing in bits and pieces from people is dismaying and worrying and at some point they'll have to lift the lid. you cannot keep a state under this kind of de facto lockdown for so many months. when they left the lid, i think they'll have to face up to the consequences of their arbitrary action. >> always a pleasure to have you on. up next, an interesting call from an unusual source.
mie microsoft's president says we need more government regulation of the tech sector. is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports. i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't. by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business. ♪ music
book about it. it's called tools and weapons. the promise and the peril of the dij cal age. welcome to the show. >> thank you. nice to be here. >> first, let me ask you a bigger question about technology than the tools and weapons part which is i think americans are having a kind of different relationship with technology today than they were 10 or 15 years ago. it used to be people said it's all fine because the consumer is getting a free product or cheap products, but it does feel weird whether you have an industry and the digital economy is loudest, essentially the economy, where you have a number one player like amazon, and essentially no number two. i mean, it's a real winner take all system or a social network in facebook, and there's no plausible number two. shouldn't government have a role in figuring out these things? i mean, microsoft had a famous
anti-trust case 20 years ago, but it feels like the europeans are more -- ahead of the role in the issue saying maybe there's a role for government. >> the europeans are ahead. i would say there's a number of countries that have moved faster than the united states government to address the technology issues of our time. and having lived through, worked through the anti-trust issueses that we experienced at mierkt two decades ago, i do believe government has a role to play. i think that if you look at the healthy markets that we all take for granted, whether it's the ability to pick up something in the grocery store and read the kn nutrition label, go to the pharmacy and not worry that the drug is safe, it's because we have balanced and healthy regulation. digital has gone unregulated than any technology in the
history of technology. whether it's competition law or privacy or security, one of the fundamental points in our book is we need the tech sector to step up. we need governments to move faster. >> what about on privacy? you know, the argument is made that we have become the products, the company -- this is less miercrosoft but companies e selling our information where we browse, where we shop, and profiting off of it. we don't get anything in return. we get the free product, but we don't get royalties from it. and we don't know how much of our privacy is invaded. should there be changes on both lines? we should have more control and we should get reimbursed some kind of almost royalty payment? >> i think there needs to be a real reform, and the strengthening of privacy laws. in this country, and i think around the world, even in places like europe where there's strong private protection already.
we call this a company for national privacy legislation, the united states in 20 05. and we did that because we believed that a healthy market is one in which consumers have confidence in the control of their data, the kind of confidence that only comes in part by protection under the law. so as we look today, we would say it is time to finally bring to the united states many of the best elements of strong privacy laws from europe. that's what we've done voluntarily, and applying across the united states not just the european principals, but california's new law. i think we should also recognize in the decade ahead, there is a new generation of privacy issues already looming. we have data brokers in the country that are almost completely unregulated. we have -- >> explain what a data broker is. >> basically someone who buys data from someone else. you might have provided your data initially to a company you
were doing business with and perhaps because there was no restriction on that company's ability to sell your data, it turns out they have, and the data breakers aring a gaiting this data, they're using it to learn more about you, to market new things to you. they may be reselling it to someone else. and so we need to start thinking about how to frankly regulate all of the businesses that are dealing in data, and we need to identify the kinds of abuses whether it's unfair marketing to children, deceptive prakties or saying what is fundamentally potentially exploitation of disadvantaged people and have the kinds of laws that will prevent that if happening. >> brad smith, pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. >> we'll be back. i recently spoke to a group of students about being a scientist at 3m. i wanted them to know that innovation is not just
at 3m, we're in pursuit of solutions even after you clean, odors are still trapped in your fabrics. febreze fabric eliminates those odors. and try febreze unstopables with twice the fresh-scent power. tackle tough odors with irresistible freshness. la la la la la doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
so that early retirement we planned. it's going ok? great. now i'm spending more time with the kids. i'm introducing them to crab. crab!? they love it. so, you mentioned that that money we set aside. yeah. the kids and i want to build our own crab shack. ♪ ♪ ahhh, you're finally building that outdoor kitchen. yup - with room for the whole gang. ♪ ♪ see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch.
the world's millionaires currently hold $158 trillion of wealth. put another way, roughly 1% of the global population now accounts for nearly 50% of the world's wealth. that's one of the many illuminating findings from 2019 global report that brings me to think question. according to the report, which of the following nations has the most millionaires? japan, china, the united kingdom, or the united states? my book of the week is the january issue of foreign affairs. it's got the mind on america's relationship with china but it has pieces on the fun of capitalism, something that is being debated across the world as governments get more interventionist. you can buy the issue or subscribe to foreign affairs which is a great deal for a great publication that will keep you informed about the world out there. the answer to my challenge this week is d, of the world's
46.8 million millionaires, 40% reside in the united states. the u.s. holds its lead by a considerable margin and credits swiss found that to be true in other metrics of global wealth as well. according to the report, the number of millionaires worldwide increased by 1.1 million from 2018. the u.s. alone accounted for more than half that increase, exceeding the number of new millionaires from the next nine countries combined. the u.s. has the most members of the top 1% and for the past decade, it's been a leading driver of wealth creation, but for the first time china eclipsed the u.s. as the nation with the most members of the top 10%. and here's another statistic that may surprise you from the 2018 report. chinese people account for nearly half of the world's middle class. what's more, the world bank found that china has now lifted over 850 million people out of poverty in the 40 plus years since the end of the cultural
the ones that make a truebeen difference in people's lives. and mike's won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. all against big odds you can beat him. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.
welcome to reliable sources. this is our weekly look at the story behind the story with big guests coming up today. including jim lair who covered the nixon and clinton impeachments. hear was view of the trump impeachment coming up. plus gretchen carlson is here to share her anti-nda initiative and react to nicole kidman playing her in bomb shell. and later craig whitwell is here with lessons learned from this century ice version of the pentagon's papers. we're starting with how did we get here? how did trump get
IN COLLECTIONSCNN (San Francisco) Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on