for our u.s. viewers will president trump pull out of the paris climate accord. "new day" continues right now. >> james comey will testify before the senate. >> i think mr. comey will be direct and straightforward. >> you can't let trump and his allies be a diversion. they are a threat. >> all questions on these matters will be referred to outside counsel. >> seven new subpoenas were issued by chairman devon nunez. >> congressional investigators are examining whether attorney general jeff sessions had an additional meeting with russia's ambassador. >> i deny having communications with the russians. >> if it's true it's extremely disturbing. >> the president is poised to pull the u.s. out of the historic climate accord. >> if he does withdraw that's a definitive statement by the president that believes climate change is a hoax. >> announcer: this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> welcome to "new day" cnn
first to report that fired fbi director james comey will testify before the senate as early as next week and he's expected to level bomb shell accusations that president trump pressured him to end the investigation into one of his top aides. meanwhile the house intelligence committee issuing seven subpoenas in the russian probe, four of them from michael flynn and the president's attorney michael cohen. >> the chairman of the committee is devon nunez. you may remember he said he was stepping away and he named somebody else to oversee the work of the committee because of the mess that he had gotten himself in by apparently playing a role for the white house, was supposed to be a nonpartisan investigation. guess what? he's back. he signed three subpoenas that go not to the substance of flynn and anybody else around the president, but to the unmasking, and he subpoenas obama administration officials about that. now this raises huge questions not just about nunez and his
impartiality but what it means for this investigation. all this as president trump is telling us that he's going to make a major announcement in just hours on the paris climate accord. the speculation is that he's going to pull the plug. we have it all covered. let's begin with cnn joe johns live at the white house. joe? >> reporter: good morning, chris. this has the potential to be extraordinary even explosive testimony on capitol hill, the former fbi director james comey in his own words talking about the conversations he had with the president of the united states and the memos he wrote about those conversationsing. meanwhile the white house this morning showing signs of hunkering down referring all questions about the russia investigation to the president's lawyer. fired fbi director james comey now ready to tell his side of the story. first getting a legal green light from special counsel robert mueller, his testimony before the senate intelligence committee could come as early as next week.
a source tells cnn that comey appears eager to discuss details about tense private interactions he had with president trump, which he documented in peopleos including a dinner where he says the president asked him for a loyalty pledge. and an oval office meeting where comey says president trump pressured him to drop the investigation into his former national security advisor michael flynn. >> did the president engaging obstruction of justice? >> we're focused on the president's agenda and going forward all questions on these matters will be referred to outside counsel. >> reporter: this latest bomb shell development coming tass russia investigations are ramping up. house investigators issuing their first subpoenas to flynn and president trump's personal lawyer michael cohen seeking their testimony as business records. congressional investigators are examining whether attorney general jeff sessions had another undisclosed meeting with russian ambassador sergey kislyak. this time at a reception that sessions and kislyak attended in april when then candidate trump
delivered his first major foreign policy address at the mayflower hotel in washington. >> have you met with any other russian officials or folks connected to the russian government since you endorsed donald trump? >> i don't believe so. we meet a lot of people. >> reporter: sessions failing to disclose meetings with the russian ambassador twice before under oath during his confirmation hearing. >> i did not have communications with the russians. >> reporter: and, again, when he applied for a security clearance amid mounting pressure back in march sessions was forced to recuse himself from the russia probe. the justice department defending sessions denying any wrongdoing. meanwhile hillary clinton leveling a sharp accusation suggesting russia did not act alone in their election interference. >> the russians, in my opinion, and based on the intel and count near tell people i've talked to could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided.
>> reporter: the president reviving his favorite nickname for his former rival on twitter. all this as the white house offered a bizarre response to the bewilder covfefe twitter typo that was left online for hours. >> why did it step up for so long. is nobody watching this? >> the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant. >> reporter: the president also tweeted that he will announce his decision on the paris climate accord in the rose garden this afternoon here at the white house. sources tell cnn he's expected to withdraw the united states from that agreement, but as we all know it's not final until it comes out of the president's mouth. >> good point, joe. thank you very much. the house intelligence committee also issued three subpoenas seeking information about unmasking requests made by former obama administration officials. those subpoenas came from chairman devon nunez who had supposedly stepped aside from the russia investigation. cnn suzanne malveaux is live on
capitol hill with more. so how does this work? >> reporter: well there's a great deal of uncertainty now that the house intelligence committee can really, whether or not they can do a nonpartisan investigation. that's because the chairman devon nunez now in the center of yet another controversy and it is raising questions whether or not he has truly sidelined himself from this russian investigation. the new dispute stems from seven new subpoenas issued by the house intelligence committee on wednesday four seeking documents and testimony from michael flynn and president trump's private attorney michael cohen. they were approved by both parties for their russia meddling probe. but the three others were issued unilaterally by chairman devon nunez without democratic approval. the "wall street journal" says those subpoenas were issued to the fbi, cia and nsa for information about alleged unmasking by former obama administration officials.
seeking details about exactly what led to the unveiling of the names of trump aides who were in contact with russian officials and were caught up in surveillance of foreign officials. former national security adviser susan rice, former u.n. ambassador samantha power and former cia director john brennan all named in the sbs. senior aide claimed nunez was acting privately from the russian investigation and his aide stressed nunez never entirely recused himself but only temporarily stepped aside. >> can this investigation continue? >> why would it not. >> reporter: in april new fez said temporarily he was putting mike conway in charge of the russian probe. nunez faced a firestorm of criticism about how he handled classified materials but he obtained documents during a secret white house meeting without telling democrats on his own committee. >> i have seen intelligence reports that clearly show that
the president elect and his team were, i guess, at least monitored. >> i don't agree with the chairman's characterization. >> reporter: last month cnn learned nunez was still reviewing classified intelligence related to russian investigation and republicans were stressing nunez still had subpoena power but under house rules the chairman is allowed to issue subpoenas but only in consultation with the minority party in certain circumstances that did not happen. thank you for all of that reporting. so let's discuss it. we want to bring in our panel. david, let me start with you. the seven new subpoena, four for with ties to russia looking into those, three for unmasking,
those three unilaterally issued by devon nunez who should have stepped aside. what should we be focused on here? >> a couple of things. first nunez reinserting himself in this investigation. it sounds to me like they are cutting it a little bit fine by saying that this was separate from the russian investigation. if it's separate it's got to be because he's pursuing something else and my guess is and this is only a guess that it's the leaks, something else that he has talked about frequently. so by going after who unmasked the information, he may be trying to figure out who it was who revealed to reporters and others elements of these details. of course, this is where the white house and many in the republican party want to move this investigation away from the substance of what the russian contacts were, whether they added up to anything and towards the question of how the information got leaked out.
now wouldn't surprise you that reporters here will argue that the publication of these details are really what have driven both the congressional and for you the criminal investigation. >> so you have the politics at play which is nunez falsely saying that he would step away, clearly not and once again acting as far as we know without coordination of the rest of the committee. that's on nunez who seems pretty determined to become employee of the month for the white house and this is the second demonstration of that. then you have the substance of it. nune nunez's is unmasking, surveillance ever leaks and politics at play of that. what's the genuineness of that? >> they should be interested in that. let's be clear. this is not about looking at unmasking this is about diverting attention from a more substantial question.
he's on a committee look how russians meddled in an american election and he's issuing subpoenas for how the process works? you got to be kidding me. >> president of the united states says you are full of it phil mudd. he just tweeted the big story -- >> my name is not mud. >> the big story is unmasking and surveillance of people that took place during the obama administration. phil mudd are you hiding from the real story? >> let's have a conversation with the president because he doesn't understand how government works. we unmask all the time when i was at the fbi. last i checked that was george w. bush. they are asking people from the obama administration to come speak. why not ask people from multiple administrations. if you're looking at tension that suggests that somebody outside government is interfering in the president's ability to set foreign policy it is not only the right or the authority it is the
responsibility of the national security adviser in this case susan rice to say what's going on here. i hope to current national security adviser would do the same thing. you have to do natural you're the national security adviser, who is interfering in conversations with the russians, who is having side conversations maybe jared kushner but subverting american sanctions. perfectly appropriate. >> james comey, we understand, will be testifying in an open session at the senate intelligence committee and cnn has learned that he does plan to say that he was pressed by president trump to back off the michael flynn investigation. if that proves true, if he really does testify and isn't stopped by somebody, if he really does say that about the michael flynn investigation, where does that leave congress? what do they do with that information? >> well i think actually it's what robert mueller the special counsel will do with that information. robert mull certificate allowing james comey to come and tell the
story publicly because he believes it's in the public interest there's pressing questions about those meetings in which president trump asked the former fbi director for loyalty and then he simultaneously documented this in memos. it's become an issue that the public should have answers to. he could be doing this in private but choosing a public forum and robert mueller is working with james comey closely what exactly he can and cannot talk about. he's restrained from talking about the details of the russian investigation but wants to talk about whether or not the president tried typical paid his investigation, slow it down, stop it. what i think will be interesting is sort of the outcome and the impact of what he says. he will face many questions from republicans y-did he testify recently as the fbi director that he was not pressured to stop or slow any of this investigation, why did he not
share his memos more widely particularly with andrew mccabe. why did he not just take this to the members of congress like chairman burr in the senate, chairman warner in the senate intel who were investigating this or their house counterparts. why did he choose to do this the way he did it. so he'll come under some tough interrogation from republicans and we have to wait and see what his answers are and how damaging this might be to president trump or how explosive of a revelation it may be after his testimony. >> those are some tough questions about comey why he didn't do more if it was a big one. it will go to, he was being asked about the doj impeding any of his efforts not the president. he could have offered it up. david, to the last point which is about what would the political damage be, this is going to be a political question. we just had senator mike lee on
with a big smile on his face saying i don't think comey will testify he was pressured because he would have quit. no curiosity there. >> there's a lot of partisanship. you have to separate out what comey knew about the investigation itself which is not likely to talk about and what happened in the conversations with the president. but follow that thread for just a minute, chris. if comey was still in office and he was asked about his conversations with the president, what would he say? he would say look i serve the president, we have an agreement and an understanding and a tradition in this country that we don't discuss the conversations between the president and those who work for him. by firing him, president trump actually managed to loosen up what it is that comey could say.
now, what is it that the president could do between now and then to stop that? he could attempt to invoke executive privilege and prohibit comey from discussing -- >> even with all the talking that he's been doing it himself? >> chris, you've honed in rightly on just that. so the president has the authority to do this. now if he did it is what obviously would start up a firestorm and you make the right point which is he may have undercut his own ability to do this with the tweets and with his own comments about why he fired comey. so, you know, all of what's happened is president trump has created the conditions under which comey can actually go out and discuss these conversations. that's pretty remarkable. >> the president has never been known to shy away from the firestorm even one he creates.
we'll see what happens over the course of the next days. panel thank you very much. >> he did it just minutes ago. that's why he watches "new day," the president is and again just tweeted the big story is the unmasking and surveillance of people that took place during the obama administration. so once again he is has inviteed a news cycle to justify what questions are before this russia probe. that's what will happen. >> another big story should the u.s. stay in or pull out of the paris climate deal. president trump is set to announce his decision in hours. we discuss the implications either way next.
bp developed new, industry-leading software to monitor drilling operations in real-time, so our engineers can solve problems with the most precise data at their fingertips. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. i'm leaving you, wesley. but why? you haven't noticed me in two years. i was in a coma. well, i still deserve appreciation. who was there for you when you had amnesia? you know i can't remember that. stop this madness. if it's appreciation you want you should both get snapshot from progressive. it rewards good drivers with big discounts on car insurance. i have also awoken from my coma. ♪ it's called a nap, susan lucci. ♪
so one of the big things that will happen today the president says he'll announce his decision on the paris climate accord in the white house rose garden this afternoon. what is this? the agreement involved 195 countries and it aimed to lower greenhouse gas emissions through a collective of unilateral promises. each country saying we'll try to lower our own emissions. the greenhouse gas are those put
in the atmosphere when people burn fossil fuels. the hope is to keep the temperature from rising by more than 2 celsius. it was largely symbolic. if we can control the temperature of the world we may not be in this situation. nations got to set their own goals. under president obama the u.s. pledged to lower greenhouse gas emissions by more than 25% by 2025. the u.s. also pledged and this is a big part of why trump doesn't like the deal, $3 billion to help poorer countries tackle climate change. now should be noted there's no penalty. this isn't a treaty. if the u.s. or any country doesn't achieve its goal or want to leave there are procedures in place to walk away. that's like the basic things of what this deal did but it also did a lot of political things. created a lot of leverage for policy going forward and the risk is if you're not part of
the deal you're part of the leverage. >> let's talk about whether the u.s. should stay or go. we have a panel of experts with different opinions. let's bring in cnn's senior economic adviser. cnn senior military analyst. and cnn global economic analyst. great to see all of you. make your case for why the u.s. should stay in. >> you know, my case is really an economic case. you can talk about the warming of the planet and moral implications of this, the social implications. but green tack is one of the fastest growing and most strategic industries around. that's why you're seeing folks like elon musk and tim cook saying please stay in this agreement. this is where our competitiveness will come from. fossil fuels don't employ huge numbers of people and those cuts have been coming over decades.
>> the president says that staying in would shrink the u.s. gdp by something like $2.5 trillion. >> i don't see that math. i would be interested to hear that in more detail. if you look at the coal industry that's his base, these are people that voted for him. jobs in the coal industry were being cut dramatically even before the epa was created in the 1970s. those jobs were changing because of technology. got out of us pick and axe mining and strip mining. these jobs are not come back. they have been changed. this other industry that's growing. look at china employing eight times more people in the solar industry. this is an area we should grab and grow. >> can you help the president out here in terms of why this is a bad deal for america >> look, our studies show very clearly it's a huge economic loser for the united states. we have right now the lowest price electricity in the world. our costs are much lower than
europe and other asian countries that have gone quote green. look to say solar and wind power are the fuels of the future, how do we know that? if it's the case why does the government have to get involved? we're in the beginning stages of a shale, oil and gas that's changed the landscape. wind and solar costs are five to ten times higher than the cost from natural gas. we should use our natural gas. i went to these coal towns across america and i saw the devastation that these regulations have been put in place in states like virginia, west virginia, pennsylvania, ohio. that's a reason why, frankly, hillary clinton lost the election because liberals state that all of these manufacturing workers, steelworkers, coal workers are going to lose their jobs and be sacrificed at the altar of global warming. we should put jobs first because that's what voters clearly voted
for, jobs and economic growth. >> you think that by pulling out we'll be able to restore coal industry jobs? >> look, i don't know what the future is. i think what's funny for anyone to say we know what the future of energy is. if i were sitting in this chair eight or ten years ago and i told you that we were going to have the biggest oil and gas boom in the history nobody would believe it. did it happen. we had the shale revolution that's changed the face of the energy industry. i think one other point. if the liberals were concerned about global warming, changing the temperature of the earth then they should be celebrating the natural gas revolution. natural gas is a clean burning fuel and yet these groups like the sierra group are against fracturing. >> john kirby, your thoughts. >> first, i normally don't get involved in economic diminishes fr issues.
but according to the world bank for a million dollars invested in clean technology it creates two to three numbers of jobs, two to three times number of jobs that the same million dollars invested in fossil fuel would. i do think there's a future here for clean energy. let me focus on national security. the pentagon back in july of 2015 issued a report about the damages of climate change and the effect that's going to have on our national security, creating famine, drought, creating instability around the world as temperatures rise and water levels rise with it. if the president really wants to rebuild the military he'll have to spend a whole lot more money on defense spending in the future years if we pull out of this agreement and ignore the very real implications of climate change just on national security around the world. bigger military, more troops deployed. >> let me say something in response to that. people think this climate change deal will have anything to do
what the global temperature will be 20, 50, 100 years from now. most people don't understand, because chris you said it would change the temperature by 2 celsius. that's not close to the truth. even if we do this deal by the year 2100 the change in the global temperature would be .2 degrees. we'll spend trillions and trillions of dollars of money that could be spent on clean water and health on something that's not going to change the global temperature virtually at all. >> we are the second biggest emitter. if we pull out and leadership goes to china and others there's little accountability on countries meeting the standards. the deal goes forward. if he pulls out it's not like these other countries will pursue it. we can argue about 2 celsius. climate change is happening. china will take over as the
leader. >> what do you mean they will move forward. china and india which actually are in the paris accord agreement they are building dozens and dozens of coal plants. they won't abide by this agreement. watch what they do not what they say. they are investing in coal big time. >> it's amazing. the truth is the agreement will move ahead. you're already seeing china and europe reaffirming their pact -- >> they are not. they are not doing that. >> they are saying we'll work more closely together -- >> why is china building these coal plants. >> china has plenty of coal plants. also has one of the most strategically important green energy sectors in the world. it's growing that. again, we can argue all we want, people come at different sides of climate change. the science is there. it's an economic argument. this point -- come on, the jobs
of the future are in smart energy, they are not in fossil fuel. >> we have 500 years worth of coal, 200 of oil and gas. >> why does rex tillerson want to stay in the deal and why does exxon want to stay in the deal? >> the ceos of 300 other countries. >> it's pr campaign by these companies they want to act like they are good citizens. this is a totally voluntary deal. if these countries were going abide by this agreement why it is none of these european countries abided by the kyoto treaty made 15 years ago that none of them abided by that. >> you made a good point. you're right. it's voluntary. chris mentioned this in the intro. the president doesn't have to just pull out of this thing. we can adjust the targets. he has flexibility here to meet our agreement and stay a leader in the world and try to satisfy
southeast concerns of his base. doesn't have to immediately pull out. the other argument, look he talks about he's the president that will rebuild infrastructure. last year $30 billion to national infrastructure in this country was caused by extreme weather. 10 billion was in louisiana alone. >> we had hurricanes and floods before. >> not on the scale we're seeing these days. >> we have less damage today from hurricanes and floods and so on than we did 50, 60 years ago. >> that's not true. >> less property damage. insurance costs are lower because we have an economy that's capable of dealing with this. >> doesn't mean there's fewer hurricanes or fewer turns or fewer extreme weather. >> there are fewer. they are not more hurricanes today than there were 50 years ago. >> bigger superstorms. they got more extreme. >> we haven't had a major hurricane 2019 or three years. >> the point about infrastructure.
one of the arguments you hear from republicans and from the administration is, look, there is all of this home grown energy as steve is saying. that's true. we have the shale gas boom. one thing i have not heard from the administration is okay, how are you going to connect the dots between that home grown energy and manufacturing sector. i don't hear about any projects to bring more coal energy or more clean natural gas from the gulf. >> we need more pipelines. >> you need a 360 strategy. >> we need more pipelines and more terminals. the left is against building pipelines opinion you see them blocking it every where. >> panel, thank you. this has been a very, very lively discussion. great to have all of your perspectives. so, big headline. former fbi director james comey is going to testify as early as next week before a senate panel. what is he going to say? what do members of congress want to know?
and, can he be blocked from testifying by the president? we're going to talk to a lawmaker next. at tempurpedic.com.iler all umm...ed. you wouldn't want your painter to quit part way, i think you missed a spot. so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with just part of a day? aleve, live whole not part. you want this color over the whole house?
all right. big headline. fired fbi the director james comey is expected to testify before the senate intel committee as early as next week. source tells cnn comey is expected to confirm his account that president trump did pressure him to end his investigation into michael flynn. what would that mean? joining us now is democratic congressman from new york a member of the house judiciary committee. how big is this? >> well it's very big. if the president -- remember the president fired comey as head of fbi. first put out, they had the vice president go out and say untruth about why relating to comey's conduct with respect to hillary clinton investigation last year. then the president himself came out and said that wasn't the reason. did the president fired comey because he asked for loyalty and hadn't gotten it. he asked him to ease off on the investigation of flynn, because in fact he was asking him to lay
off, ease off on the investigation of possible collusion by the trump campaign with the russians in subverting the election that would be obstruction of justice which is an impeachable offense. >> would they? you would argue you didn't have an official process going on at the time because you didn't have a grand jury and a bad fact koem by his own reckoning was not affected by whatever the president did or didn't say to him. >> obstruction of justice doesn't have to be effective. >> it's an intent based crime. >> intent based crime. we're not talking about a criminal thing. we're talking about the process of obstruction of justice. and that would be a very, very serious thing to atry but to the president. >> my point is this one is being political not legal that if comey says yeah he asked me to do that i thought i could handle it. i didn't reach out to the doj or reach out to any of the operative congressional
committees. where does this really go? >> well depends first of all depends what else we find out. there's an investigation going on. there's a criminal investigation going on. one of the problems is the criminal investigation may or may not result in reports. may result in indictment, may not. we need and that's why we're calling for a special commission like the 9/11 commission to find out exactly what happened about the russian attempted subversion of our election, which americans cooperated with that and what we can do prevent that. that's why we need a 9/11 commission. but, again, if the president fired comey in order to try to subvert the investigation, that would be effectively, if not criminally, an obstruction of justice and that would figure into any subsequent proceedings. >> maybe. what happens if the president exerts immunity here and says you can't talk about this stuff. this was a private conversation
in the furtherance of my office as president i'll exercise my immunity here. >> some people have said on this show a little while ago he's in a very weak position to do that since he's talked about it so much already. number one. number, two comey has to judge that. comey is testifying in front of congress. he'll decide what questions he can answer and which one he can't. >> mueller has the ability to supersede that for his own purpos purposes. him testifying before congress comey helps mueller. we'll see what happens. nunez, he said he was stepping away. maybe the media used it but not him the word recusing himself but really in this context there's no difference. and his staffer comes out and says recusal is something very different. that's a real process. he said he was just stepping away. this is temporary. he comes out signing subpoenas, once again didn't work with his own committee and targeting obama administration officials. what do you make of that?
>> nunez violating the rules of his own committee. he's not supposed to usual subpoenas without consultation with the ranking democrat which didn't happen. this is entirely diversion. the president tweeted out based on no evidence whatsoever that president obama had bugged his campaign and him. nunez collaborated with the administration in trying to bring out information which they had. that's why he had to recuse himself in the first place. now he's subpoenaing information which will come up blank because everybody involved will say this didn't happen about whether, in fact, they unmasked agents, in effect, tried to wiretap the president. now, that apparently didn't happen. there's no evidence it happened except for the president's tweet. and this has nothing to do with the investigation into what really has to be investigated, which is the russian subversion
of the american electoral process. >> but you guys can't do this. you are too inherently partisan. you got to leave to it fbi and now to mueller and let them do it. you can't get the politics -- >> it makes -- i don't know congress can't inherently do it. maybe not. certainly this republican congress cannot do it and you see how partisan they have been. that doesn't mean you have to leave to it mueller. mull certificate conducting a criminal investigation. we have to get to the bottom of what happened. who colluded with the russians if anybody, whether the trump campaign colluded with the returns, whether the president colluded with the returns and make sure nothing like that happens again. that's why we need an independent commission. mueller who everybody thinks is a very good guy and i believe that too, he's conduct a criminal investigation. that will result in indictments, maybe not indictments. not intended to result in a report to say what happened. the country desperately needs
that. >> thank you very much. appreciate having you here. >> thank you. tiger woods unlike you have ever seen him before his dui arrest was captured on this startling dash cam video. we'll show it to you and break down all of the images next. there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. now i can start relaxing even before the vacation begins. your vacation is very important. that's why booking.com makes finding the right hotel for the right price easy. visit booking.com now to find out why we're booking.yeah! on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates.
we do have some breaking news. this is brand new video just into cnn brand new aerial. one person is dead, 11 injured after this explosion at an ethanol plant in camberria, wisconsin. two people are still unaccounted for. you can see the extent of the damage here, parts of this plant have been blown to shreds. at this point it's not clear what cause this explosion. authorities are, course, investigating. it's remarkable there isn't a higher death toll but obviously we'll keep on top of those two people who are unaccounted for the moment. you can imagine what chaos it is trying to put out this explosion. wow. so police in florida releasing dash cam video of tiger woods arrest on suspicion of dui.
now there's some good key facts coming out of here especially if you're a fan of tiger. they found him asleep at the wheel in the road early monday. tiger was not operating the vehicle at the time. woods had slurring speech, he was obviously disoriented not knowing what was happening around him. here's a sample. >> have you had anything to drink tonight? >> no. >> are you sure >> yes. >> 100%. >> have you taken any illegal drugs >> no. >> how far taken any medication >> yes. >> what have you taken? okay. do you remember what happened when my partner came up behind you >> no. >> do you remember being asleep in the car >> no. >> you don't. okay. >> so, there are two big things here. there's a lot of misinformation going on that tiger woods was drunk and he was driving and he was dangerous, he smashed his car. that is not what the video or we've heard from any of the
incident reports that it valleys. another reason. prescription medications. this is something that is going on in this society. we wait to see if tiger woods wants to own it as an issue and become the face of this problem. but it is real and affecting one of our heroes in sport now. so it is worthy of news. >> we just don't know the extent of it. we don't know if he has a problem with it or if this is an isolated incident where he had a bad combination or took too much and fell asleep at the wheel. we don't know that. >> all the consideration that feed a very popular ignorance. you think well the doctor gave to it me what can it do to me. these are powerful meds. >> and that video him looking so groggy. >> hillary clinton and president trump are feuding again. what are they fighting about now? we debate this nex
your insurance company won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $509 on auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
mattress firmness? fortunately there's a bed where you both get what you want every night. enter sleep number and the semi-annual sale going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. she likes the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store. now it's our lowest price ever on our temperature balancing i8 bed, save $700. ends sunday. go to sleepnumber.com for a store near you.
hillary clinton offering new insight into the 2016 election. at a conference in california she discussed why she believes she lost the race. >> i take responsibility forrer decision i make, but that's not why i lost. if you look at facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. they were connected to, as we now know, the 1,000 russian agents who were involved in delivering those messages. i inherit nothing from the
democratic party. >> what do you mean? >> i mean it was bankrupt. it was on the verge of insolvency. its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. i had to inject money into it. >> well, her comments fired up president trump, which we'll get to in a moment but let's discuss all of this with former michigan governor and former senator. good to see both of you. governor, that is interesting to hear her talk about why she thinks she lost. we'll all entitled to write our own histories and she blames james comey's letter and now the russian trolls putting out fake news. and i hadn't heard her say before that the dnc was so anemic that it didn't help her at all. what do you think? >> i think she's doing a deep autopsy into what happened and she has gained a lot of
information. she takes responsibility, she says, but honestly as more of this information keeps coming out every single day, the notion that the election was impacted significantly is not really a surprise. >> sure. they don't think she's taking full responsibility. she's not saying i didn't connect enough. i didn't go to the right places. i didn't hear people. >> she says she takes full responsibility and she's writing a book about it. let me just say i am so tired of people saying she doesn't take responsibili responsibility. not you. what rick san tor rum is about to say. nobody but her is getting the grief about saying that she's not falling on the sword. she's not stabbing herself with how terrible she was. there were huge circumstances surrounding it that impacted it. 17 intelligence agents --
because remember the intelligence community said it. >> rick, do you want to hear or see hillary clinton blush? >> she says i take responsibility and then she says but that's not why i lost. well then, okay. so she's not taking responsibility. >> maybe it is the russian trolls and maybe it was the dnc. >> i would say it's because that she didn't connect with the american public and she missed what donald trump seized upon, which is a lot of working people, a lot of folks that voted democrat in my state, in jennifer states and other midwest earn states that felt like neither party was connected with them, was understanding their plight and donald trump talked to them and put forth an agenda that was neither democrat or republican. it was a little bit of both. and that connected. and that's why she lost. that's the bottom line. >> then she's writing a book and we'll talk about the mistakes she made in that realm.
there wasn't enough emphasis on jobs, jobs, jobs. people are feeling pain. but you cannot deny that this of all presidential elections had this extraordinary intervention in the election by a foreign government who wanted to sway the election and as we continue to learn that had an impact. >> i mean, rick, look, the problem is it's unknowable. you can't put a numerical percentage on this. how much was the james comey letter. how much was her not connecting in michigan. >> there were all sorts of factors that contributed in this election. the overarching one is the one i talked about. look, james comey did not have an impact disproportionally in michigan, pennsylvania and wisconsin. >> oh, yes, yes, yes. >> she says that her poll numbers dipped after the october comey letter. >> there was a ten point drop in her poll numbers when that was released. >> you're missing my point, that
that issue didn't bite more of those three states than it did anywhere else in the country. the bottom line is it's because she didn't connect on these other things. so the fundamental flaw is what i described. there are a lot of things positive and negative that happened. >> donald trump also has a different opinion about all of this. he tweeted about this. crooked hillary clinton now blames everybody but herself. refuses to say she was a terrible candidate. >> she retorted, people in covfefe houses should not throw covfefe. >> i do want to ask you about it because just this week you said on state of the union that you think the president should stop tweeting, that it is a distraction that gets him in trouble. do you feel that covfefe is the
tipping point where other republicans in the white house will demand the same. >> i said the president should stop tweeting about the media being mean to him and on things that are a distraction from his agenda. he's got a very big announcement coming today that will be very big to my state. it has to do with climate. if he wants to get on message, then he has to pull out of the climate -- the parties climate accord or maybe even a halfway measure. >> no, no, no, no. >> send it to the united states senate. democrats many of them won't vote for it. that i'm talk a good game but they know it's devastating to working men and women. >> there are 3.3 million people in america who are working in that industry. for almost 90,000 jobs in clean energy right now in michigan. ohio 90,000.
it's going to devastate the economy if he pulls out. our state, our country not leading. these -- the number one job in america right now, the number one job, according to the bureau of labor is a technician. in ohio they are building turbines. scott walker in wisconsin just sent out an rfp. we should be building that stuff and sending it abroad. >> the american worker gets hurt when energy prices go up. germany pays twice what we do. we have a fracking revolution that is driving down costs. >> solar and wind are cheaper than coal. >> which is lowering emissions and creating jobs and