tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN March 22, 2017 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
furious. cnn has learned the fbi has information to indicate trump associates communicated with suspected russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to hillary clinton's campaign. according to u.s. officials. get to breaking news. joining me, they broke the story with evan perez. pamela, what are you learning? >> we learned that fbi has information that indicates associates of president donald trump communicated with suspected russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging hillary clinton's campaign, according to u.s. officials. fbi director james comey made his bombshell announcement as you recall on monday before congress that the fbi is investigating the trump campaign's ties to russia. fbi is now reviewing this information that includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings according to officials.
information is raising suspicions of counterintelligence operatives that coordination could have taken place but information is not conclusive and investigation is ongoing. the fbi would not comment nor would the white house, though. trump officials have denied there's any evidence of cuclusion. don. >> this gives us insight into what comey knew when he spoke on monday correct? >> absolutely don. it certainly does. if you recall in addition to comey saying the investigation includes looking at connections to trump associates, he also explained what investigators are looking at, what exactly they're doing and how they come to this point. take a listen. >> don't you need some action or some information besides just attending a meeting, paid to attend a conference, or a picture was taken or you traveled to country before you're open to investigation for counterintelligence by the fbi?
>> the standard is i think there's a couple of different at play. credible accusation of wrong doing or reasonable reason to believe american may be acting as agent of a foreign power. >> well, that's right, don. well, one laufrt official said thainformation they have said quote people connected to the campaign were in contact and appeared to be giving thumbs up to release information when it was ready. we're told by sources. but other officials say it's premature to gather that inference from the information they've gathered so far. largely circumstantial and fbi can't prove collusion took place. but the information suggesting collusion -- this information is now suggesting that collusion is a large focus of their investigation, the officials said. >> okay, pamela, i want to get back to you now.
and ask you what sort of coordination is under investigation here? >> so we're told, don, that most of the fbi has spoke with the stolen and published e-mails by wikileaks including the dnc and those that started in july. the dossier also suggested coordination between trump campaign associate said and russian operatives. >> simone, do we know exactly who is being investigated? >> we don't. our sources and the officials that we spoke to who are familiar with this investigation have not told us. but we do know that four people, some of the people who have been scrutinized that were sort of the trump campaign and sort of the trump world, mike flynn,
paul manafort, roger stone, and obviously carter page, they have had some contacts with the russians we're told by u.s. officials. and the counter intelligence community sort of became concerned about it. and their communications, their contact with those folks are now being scrutinized. all foufr have denied proper contacts. and i also want to say some of the issues that fbi investigators are now facing is that it's become a little more difficult to learn what the russians are doing. some of the intelligence gathering has become more difficult because folks within the russian committee sort of outed in russia have changed the way they're communicating with each other and some of the folks here. so that's creating some problems for investigators. we're trying to gather more intelligence, figure out what was going on here. >> simone, pamela, and perez, thank you.
i appreciate it. cnn political kmenitator and philip mudd. my goodness, so much to impact here. david, why don't i start with you? the lingering question now on all of this is afghanistan did the president, president trump know and when did he know it? >> well, there's are certainly two key questions that we'll sort of be going at for the long duration of this regz. there's no doubt about that, don. but it is a significant story tonight because this entire story since its started has been about has there been kward nagsz between trump campaign officials, trump associates and russia geared at russia's interference to defeat hillary clinton and get donald trump elected? this is the first step in really seeing that some of that potential coordination is indeed
under investigation. we learned from comey on maentd this was what they're looking at. but this goes a step further to say they have some information that potentially could exist. this is veriy early in the process. there's a long dulles tole road to go here, but i think you're right that each drip, drip of information begs the question what did president trump or then candidate trump know if anything at all and when did he know of it? >> i'm going to go to you paul. what kind of trouble may they be in? >> let's step back here. let's look at both sides of the coin depending on which side of the political alley you're on. people connected with the campaign, information that suggests something, information that suggests that people may have coordinated, very loose language, don. >> right. >> if you're going to poke a hole in this you're going to say i need evidence, i don't need
supposition. on the other hand let's talk about something people haven't been talking about. this investigation has been going on for many months. the fbi director got burned in the fall. now he goes back to the hill months after this investigation has been opened and again says we have information that we have to tell you has led us to open an investigation against president trump's team. i look at that and say there is no way he did that unless after months he looked at the information they're collecting and saying this is pretty ugly. there's smoke here, but he does not reveal that unless he's saying this has to be exposed to the american public. that's serious. >> ryan, the fall back for the white house and the administration has been to the leakers. how do you think they're going to respond to this? they can't just simply blame the leakers this time.
>> i think they're going to respond, well, this is nothing new. all week they've basically been dismissing any kind of reports. i have a sort of naive and maybe counter intuitive question to this. if you're the person the fbi is looking at at what point do your actions move from just being normal political activities to collusion with a foreign power that is illegal? in other words, i'm not going to name any names because just throwing out a theory, but if you did have prior knowledge that the russians were going to release those e-mails, is that illegal? when does it trigger -- when do you trip into outright collusion and espionage? as a journalist if i had published the famous e-mails i
don't think anyone would have said that would have been a chargeable offense. you're getting into some tricky areas into what exactly the line is. >> let's have philip respond to that. >> let me not play a lawyer on tv. i've got a brother and father who are lawyers. let's go inside this for just a moment and let's flip it. i think it's appropriately for members of the trump campaign to speak with russian officials. can you imagine if the trump campaign had come into the office and said we were nervous of talking to russians because of potential wiretaps on the russians and so we don't know how they think, completely inappropriate. i think they should have talked to russians. here's the rub. if they were involved in conversations that involved passing russian information to gusfer, one of the people involved in revealing the e-mails, or participating in conversations with russians
about how to influence the election, that's an agent of a foreign power. you can't do that. conversation is fine. influencing election, not fine. >> okay, i want to get to congressman and pearson. so congress you've heard there's no evidence to suspect collusion took place. the fbi can't prove collusion took place yet. is that troubling to you, though? >> well, i think at this point we have clapper who was very clear and he said there's no evidence of collusion. mueral said there's no evidence of collusion. as i listened to comey and if you listened to him he kind of was all over the place. when he wanted to talk he seemed to have no problem talking. other times he said, no, i can't answer that. i think he may have at one point
said yet to probably please some of the gallery. but, you know -- >> congressman i don't think what you're saying here -- >> the question might be who are the u.s. officials and why are the u.s. officials talking to the press and not to the committee of jurisdiction? and let me say another thing -- >> you know what, it's interesting that you would say that because a lot of people are saying that about nunes today. why wasn't he talking to officials? but that's a whole naurgt show. >> don, can i just say one thing? >> go ahead. >> he has said -- >> he's said so far he hasn't found any. >> the whole point is investigating collusion. he has not ruled it out. >> it's about investigating links, too. >> it is. he made that clear, too. >> the whole investigation started about collusion, not
about leaks. so kirsten does this white house have to find a way to deal with this in a better manner? >> i think this is probably the best they can do? i mean they don't want to acknowledge that any of this is happening and so the only thing they can do is sort of attacking the messenger, complaining about aanonymous leaks, pretending that paul manafort and general flynn were -- i mean they were people not integral to donald trump's campaign. and it's all kind of pruposterous, you know. if they were doing what pamela brown was reporting what does that mean in terms of was there a quid quo pro? russia was working -- if the
allegations were right and they're sort of helping with this disruption of the election, was russia getting something in turn for it? why did general flynn indicate they were going to lift the sanctions? was there something going on with the quid pro quo? >> does the circumstantial evidence mean there's absolutely nothing there? we'll talk about that more when we come back. unlimited data for a hundred bucks. taxes and fees included! two lines, a hundred dollars, all in, all unlimited. switch today.
that's because hep c can hide in your body silently for years, even decades, without symptoms and it's not tested for in routine blood work. if left untreated, hep c can cause liver damage, even liver cancer. but there's important information for us: the cdc recommends all baby boomers get tested for hep c. all it takes is a simple one-time blood test. and if you have hep c, it can be cured. be sure to ask your doctor to get tested for hep c. for us it's time to get tested. it's the only way to know for sure. chairman of the house
intelligence committee going rogue today with unexpected white house meeting and what he claims is new information on surveillance of the trump transition team. david nunes surprised everyone by running to white house to inform them some trump communications were picked up through normal incidental collection before speaking to his own committee. schiff and others were fuming. to be clear not wiretapping or related to russia. so bring us up to speed on what took place today. >> not just democrats, even jeff lake, senator from arizona said this seemed to be against protocol. nunes caught everyone by surprise but got a hold of information from a source. we don't know what is the content of that information other than he says it was completely legal. fisa court approved surveilling of foreign entity and american gets caught up in that
conversation, incidental collection, that person is usually not known unless somebody goes and asked for that person to be unmasked. he seemed to think that either donald trump or some family members or other people pertaining to trump were involved in this and got caught up and wanted to get that information to the white house. as you know, donald trump took this as he felt somewhat vindicated by this information from devin nunes, even though it doesn't vindicate. nothing to do -- >> doesn't vindicate him at all. >> not what donald trump was tweeting about in early march. >> i keep hearing this. infuriates me. none of this information, not even nunes says that trump people or u.s. citizens were being targeted. it says incidental collection of
information. that someone else, a foreign agent was a subject, and that other people's information was incidentally collected or listened to, which is not illegal. it happens all the time. so i'm trying to figure out what is new about this and how is it pertinent to the investigation? >> well, don, if you go back and listen to his tape he said yesterday at the beginning of our hearing i asked people to come forward if they had any information on surveillance of american citizens. that was a warning shot to the fbi because i believe they had things they had told the intel committee privately that were acceptable to be told publicly but comey did not say that. >> there's nothing that shows in this information, congressman, with all due respect that u.s. citizens were being targeted. >> he said it has nothing to do with russia. he said the information he has
seen has nothing to do with russia. >> but also -- he said the information he has seen has nothing to do with u.s. citizens being targeted or surveilled. >> yes, they do. >> it was incidental communications. mr. mudd can you please explain this to people? it's not that difficult. and, jack, you're spinning. that's not what he said. go ahead, joel. >> do you mind if i break down in tears? the president of the united states indicated two weeks ago that his predecessor collected information illegally from trump tower. that involves directoring federal agencies that people like me would resign over. okay, let's stop for a moment. for decades -- when that
individual is intercepted that is occasionally approved depending on the circumstances by a u.s. fisa court. when that interception of a foreign individual takes place, occasional occasionally they're talking about a u.s. citizens. >> they don't get unmasked. >> that's correct. >> they don't get unmasked, though. >> yes, they do. yes, they do. >> jack, let him go ahead and explain please. >> the fbi is obviously going to say who was that russian, chinese, iranian official talking to? as part of the investigation we have to know. that process is formal. it's called unmasking. i now need to know the name of that u.s. person, and that happens, don, all the time. >> philip, but why would they
need to be unmasked if it has nothing to do with russia because supposedly this is about russia. >> well, time-out. >> nunes said they were unmasked. >> no. >> maybe he didn't unmask them because no one knew this information. >> can we just stand back a second and look at the absurdity of the chairman of the house intelligence committee going to white house and making a public statement and making all of this public today? i mean this is not how you conduct an investigation when you're the head of the house intelligence committee. >> it's not. well, what about the head of the fbi going publicly with all the stuff he's been doing frankly starting with hillary clinton. >> is that what you're upset about? >> i got to say it's not like the ranking member and other
members democratic and republicans aren't going out and talking about -- >> well, even if that's true, two wrongs don't make a right. >> i think a member of congress is going to be on this show tonight is on the intel committee. >> standby, everyone. here's john mccain. >> what i think the reason why i'm calling for this select committee or a special committee is i think that this back and forth and what the american people have found out so far that no longer does the congress have credibility to handle this alone. and i don't say that lightly. david chalian. >> i mean that is a man of authority, obviously, who perhaps can begin to sway his own party. i still think it's going to be a tough sell for a lot of republicans who want to protect trump in the white house on this still right now to call for a
special committee or somehow outside independent investigator because that goes in ways they can't always control. but i do think what devin nunes did today was -- i think it's very hard for an american citizen at home watching all this unfold after seeing the an tks today to actually trust any of it as an impartial arbiter. >> i was watching it and sort of cringing for the guy. you know us kids saying he played himself. >> well, don, i really think it goes back to the fact he was extremely irritated comey didn't go forward. >> so why would he go to the investigating committee first and going to the white house and going to the press, which the trump administration and his urgts always say oh, this stuff gets in the media, why is everybody spreading this? whyp not going to his investigating committee and say
to mr. schiff hey we have this information, we need to discuss it, and how do we move forward for from here? instead he left everybody in the dark. >> i'm going to assume that adam schiff and all the committee members already knew this information. >> they did not. i'm going to tell you they did not know. >> each and every one of them said they did not know this information. what's mind-boggling to me is that the man who's sitting in the white house, who's the led leader of the free world did not have this information, did not pick up the phone and -- >> and he interferes. if gaegs. >> you don't think he see interfering in american business by tweeting out a false tweet of illegally acts by a former president? >> i think a tweet that goes out publicly is not the same as
calling someone privately as the attorney general or the fbi or the intel. >> it's much worse. it's misinformation. isn't that much worse? >> i have spoken to a senior member of the intel committee after the hearing yesterday and they were very -- >> did they leak classified information to you? >> no, i don't want to be a felon. and i've been accused of all other things already, but what they were very displeads with was that comey were disclosing some things privately that he could have said publicly for reasons unknown. comey is a very clever guy. one week he's a democrats guy and next week he's a republicans guy. >> but what does that have to do with -- >> nunes and others are upset
because they got a private briefing from comey -- excuse me. nunes and schiff had a private briefing from comey. they know in a lot of detail what the investigation is all about. and i think nunes was a little miffed on monday that comey when he was asked questions would not rule in or rule out certain subjects of the investigation, how high up it went. and i think nunes obviously couldn't say what he knew because he had a private briefing from comey. and i think that's what you're talking about, jack, right? >> yes. >> okay, but how does that justify what he did today? >> it made him look like a show for the white house. >> i believe that devin nunes is a man of honor. i think right now -- and i say the same for adam schiff. but i do believe the whole intel committee -- the political bay is out there, you know, that
opportunity to go out and talk about something. i know how it is. i've seen it go on over and over again in all kinds of committees. and i think they should be sequestered into a quiet room -- >> okay, i'm wondering if all the timing in all of this seems a bit shifty, the timing of this. and let's talk about that when we come back. so this is going to come out in a comof weeks. what's going on here? you know who likes to be in control? this guy. check it out! self-appendectomy! oh, that's really attached. that's why i rent from national. where i get the control to choose any car in the aisle i want, not some car they choose for me. which makes me one smooth operator. ah! still a little tender. (vo) go national. go like a pro.
did you know slow internet can actually hold your business back? say goodbye to slow downloads, slow backups, slow everything. comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet that's over 6 times faster than slow internet from the phone company. say hello to internet speeds up to 250 mbps.
and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more a month. call today. comcast business. built for business. and we're back. a new headache for the white house. this time about president trump's former campaign chairman. back with my panel. kirsten before we move to paul manafort, talk about the timing. in interview president said in the next couple weeks see what will be released. sean spicer said see how the week ends. >> that's first thing i thought, interview with tucker carlson where he said that. then all this information comes out. we don't know where the information came from. all we ever hear about is how terrible anonymous information is. let us know how did you come to
get this information now? where was this information before? >> you think this is coordinated? >> i don't know but it seems very suspicious. now he acts like it has vindicated him. but somehow all the trump supporters are taking this as a vindication. and so i guess maybe someone should ask sean spicer tomorrow was this information what you were referencing in. >> people are saying they think it looks like a coordination between the white house and devin nunes. is that an allegation? >> i can understand why people would make that allegation. when the president says some information is going to come out, and he actually doesn't have information -- >> this is the trump transition
team. >> yeah, and he said there is now a great cloud hanging over this white house. that generated a slew of -- so watching them run-down and clean that up for them, i don't think it goes beyond the realm of possibility for the white house could have been in on this. >> and i don't think nunes meant to mean it the way we all interpreted it. i think nunes meant that -- >> on the quick closure of this that he wanted comey to move on quickly, right? >> exactly. i think he was basically saying this is unfair to the white house, that there's this cloud around them. when just reading between the lines i think nunes was sort of hinting that this is an investigation about people outside the white house. but comey would not even confirm that, so it creates this cloud. >> i wonder if today we misunderstood, too, that maybe the information may be so
damning. i'm just guessing here that maybe the white house should know about it. maybe he went to white house first. i've got to get to pul manafort here. pushing back against the associated press report that he used millions to help vladimir putin. here's what the white house said on that today. >> nothing on this report references any action from the president. the report is entirely focus on actions that paul took a decade ago regarding he's a form advisor of the campaign, and the actions that came to light this morning are about a client he had last decade. >> philip how serious is this report? >> i think incredibly serious. but i think mr. spicer is right on this. i don't see that as a significant problem.
but let's be clear. months into an investigation that is highly sensitive, the most sensitive things i saw at the fbi were political investigations. the fbi director chooses to speak publicly about it and acknowledges he's investigating this. he doesn't do this unless he has information over the course of months. it's not a week or two in this, over the course of months that suggests he has to talk to the american people. i read into this reading the tea leaves they've got a lot at the fbi that says there's more fire here and it's not just smoke. i would be worried if i were at the white house. >> thank you, philip mudd. we'll continue our conversation when we come right back. mid-siz. ...if these are your wingtips... ...if this is your gourmet latte... then these are your vans. vans for professionals.
so we're hearing the president on the phone tonight personally calling members of the house freedom caucus, trying to persuade them to support the gop health care bill with the scheduled vote hours away. can he make the deal? back with the panel. david i understand may be some moment because working with the caucus to work on some bill. this is big 24 hours to work up
some changes of compromise, right? nonstop meetings with gop lawmakers for the past few days, frankically lobbying for this gop back bill. is there a sign a deal might be in the works? >> as they say they're certainly working for it, don. i don't think we can overstate how big this vote is for trump. i think we're on the eve of one of the real definitional days of this trump presidency. because if he is on the eve of a victory here, it is going to be a hard fought won victory. even though i know it's got to go through the senate, and bill will have problems there, but if he's able to piece this together and get this through the house, it will be a demonstration he can do the job. he can cut these deals and he can move his goal forward.
that is no small thing. i do think it's going to be a body blow to the president. >> i get the feeling this is important thoopresident. it's going to be important to republicans, and if they can come to some sort of compromise, i think he could get this passed. but i could be wrong. the elimination of health service benefits -- if they get this done and they come to some sort of compromise about this, how important do you think that will be to win these votes over? >> well, that's one of two issues my understanding that the house freedom caucus old outs are demanding, and that's already been settled. and they've sort of given them that. there's another issue on some other regilations that is before i came on-air and talking to someone in the freedom caucus that is still up in the air
they're going to work on overnight. but just on the policy think about what they're talking about here, right? this was an obamacare provision that required insurers to provide a bottom-line package of benefits, right? now, conservatives don't like that because they think the insurance company should be able to design whatever insurance package they want and as a consumer you should be able to buy it. but there will be some modern republicans and democrats that vumentally oppose that. if you low too many young hlgty folks to buy basic packages like that, it will shoot-up the premiums for people who are much sicker. anyways, that's the policy part of that. i think you're partly right, don, that they're going to do it
takes. >> i think they're going to make whatever changes and compromises because they can't let the president's first bill -- >> the problem is that what the house freedom caucus is, some of the things they're asking for then they're going to lose moderators. so they have this problem. so the houseterous freedom caucus is saying they now have 28 nos and they will not move on some of these title 1 regilations. so leadership is basically seeing this as a no-go. i think the white house sees it as a no. depot. but the house freedom caucus guys say they won't move on it. it's basically between the white
house, the caucus, and the house freedom people saying what they think. there are a couple that are already nos. but then there's also a calculation if they could get all the house freedom caucus, then they might get it through. >> listen, jack, i want you to weigh in on this because you know this. you worked there before, right? so this is according to our ongoing web which could have changed. 23 say they will vote against the current bill. four more say they're likely to oppose it. then you have kirsten saying they may lose some moderates now. what is your gut saying to you? >> i think they'll get it pass said. i think it'll be a come home to your team moment.
>> right. i agree with you. >> i do think what kirsten is saying is right. there's a net gain and there's a loss. the other thing that she's right about is there's a certain element of chicken that's going to be played. often we had a five-vote muskrort, we would go on the floor with big pieces of legislation not actually knowing if we had the votes or not and then you'd leave the clock open. you'd get 17 minutes to vote. we, famously republicans and democrats have often left the clock open for sometimes an hour so you can get the last vote. and you try to win all those by two votes so somebody's not accused of being the vote that broke the tie. but you don't know who's going to come home until you get up there. and then there's a senior who's
been there eight ear nine terms and you say, look, you're going to make them walk the plank -- i've seen those conversations over and over again where people switch back. >> okay, i've got to go, everyone. ♪ for millions of baby boomers there's a virus out there. a virus that's serious, like hiv, but it hasn't been talked about much. a virus that's been almost forgotten. it's hepatitis c. one in 30 boomers has hep c, yet most don't even know it. that's because hep c can hide in your body silently for years, even decades, without symptoms and it's not tested for in routine blood work. if left untreated, hep c can cause liver damage, even liver cancer. but there's important information for us: the cdc recommends all baby boomers
get tested for hep c. all it takes is a simple one-time blood test. and if you have hep c, it can be cured. be sure to ask your doctor to get tested for hep c. for us it's time to get tested. it's the only way to know for sure. announcer: get on your feet for the nastiest bull in the state of texas. ♪ ♪
breaking news. freedom caucus chair mark meadows saying tonight he is really optimistic a deal can be reached on the gop health care plan. he says they are not there yet, but they have come to an agreement in principle on issues. he sounded optimistic that could be worked out tomorrow. there are signs tonight that there is a deal in principle. this could mean the end of obamacare as we know it. and as republicans promised voters years ago. what's your reaction? >> well, i think, foirst of all this is a first step. this is a republican house who's going to jam republican members
to vote to take away about 24 million people's health insurance while they enjoy their own government health insurance. i find it a really troubling time in this country. i listen to the discussion a little bit ago that you all had and i gathered one of the issues is whether or not they would allow insurance companies to once again sell health insurance that doesn't fully cover somebody when they get sick. and that's a very dangerous place for a person to be. millions of policies in the individual market didn't have maternity coverage, which you can't buy once you get pregnant. millions of policies had no mental health coverage. opioid overdose is a huge issue in this country. lots of people had no substance abuse. they didn't have hospital coverage. they couldn't take an ambulance. they didn't know that. they were sold something that said it was health insurance but
it did not have the benefits you would get in your workplace. that's their deal. now, that isn't the health insurance they have. they and their families have full benefits, full coverage. but they're saying that should be really what's marketed to the american public. and i have to go a step further. as a former insurance commissioner, you might say that we no longer will let companies deny people on preexisting condition. but if you begin to pick and choose packages of benefits, if i'm 26 years old and totally healthy, i buy very skinny benefits at a very low cost. if i'm 55 years old and have a chronic heart condition and i'm a cancer survivor, i'm desperate for the full package. so that way the insurance companies actually market different plans to different populations based on their health. >> yeah. so what they're saying, though, is why do i need these services
if they don't pertain to me, why should i be forced to buy these services? >> they fundamentally don't understand insurance. insurance is about a pool. it's about risk bearing where some people use it. why do i have fire insurance if my house has never burned down, or i've never been hit by a tornado? why do i have car insurance if i'm a safe driver? it's about protecting you from the unexpected. it's about a policy where everybody pays a share. everyone is in. when the lottery comes up with your number and you get hit by a bus or get a cancer diagnosis or have a child with a special need, you have a pool of coverage to rely on. it's what happens in a workplace every day to people. they're in a health plan. they don't pick and choose based on they may have bad genes for
their heart or they might have torn a ligament. they're in an employee health plan. that was what the goal was for the individual market. >> they're choosing cost rather than what they cover. >> you bet. >> the obamacare exchanges are in trouble, secretary n soin so states. in some states premiums have skyrocketed. do you think that's a legitimate problem with obamacare and does that need to be fixed? >> the kind of stability pool the republicans have just announced would be part of this act would have been great to have in place four years ago. we would have loved that, to allow states without a lot of competition to open a new market to stabilize their competitors to help insurance companies pay high costs. this republican congress would not work to do that. there are ways to do that without taking away insurance from 14 million people next year
and 24 million people eventually and shifting the cost to older, sicker, poorer workers in america. that's just a really bad deal. >> all right. secretary, thank you. i appreciate your time. >> sure. good to talk to you. >> we'll be right back. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection, or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment.
breaking news on the fbi's russia investigation. i'm don lemon. cnn has learned the fbi has information that indicates associates of donald trump communicated with suspected russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to hillary clinton's campaign. that is according to u.s. officials. now with unexplained ties between trump associates and russia and new questions about paul manafort, the white house
is scrambling to change the subject. what will happen if americans lose their faith in their president? could there be a deal on the gop's bill to repeal and replace obamacare? we've got the latest from capitol hill for you. cnn learning new details on the fbi investigation into potential links between individuals associated with the trump campaign and the russian government. pamela brown joins me now. they broke the story along with evan perez. >> we're learning the fbi has information, intelligence that indicates associates of president trump communicated with suspected russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to hillary clinton's campaign, according to u.s. officials we've spoken with. fbi director james comey made his bombshell announcement monday before congress that the fbi is investigating the trump campaign's