tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN June 19, 2017 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT
any time, anywhere. we'll see you back here tomorrow night. "ac 360" with anderson cooper begins right now. good evening. thanks for joining us. we begin with the culmination of the nightmare that began more than a year and a half ago when otto warmbier was sentenced in north korea. he came home last week. he died this afternoon. he was just 22 years old. the questions surrounding his reported illness show no signs of fading. the latest now from miguel marquez who joins us. >> reporter: good evening. the body of otto warmbier is in the hands of the hamilton county medical examiner. the family of otto warmbier is certainly livid with the north korean government. president trump took a hand in getting him back himself.
and tonight, a u.s. senator, marco rubio, has called his death murder. back on american soil, inka pass tated after 17 months in a north korean prison. his father's first words to his son. >> what did i say to my son? i knelt down by his side and i hugged him and i told him i missed him and i was so glad he made it home. >> reporter: but the 22-year-old was in a state of unresponsiveness waitfulness, damaged throughout his brain, rendering him able to brink and at times move, but there was nothing left of the adventurous young than that had departed nearly two years earlier. >> otto, i love you and i'm so crazy about you, and i'm so glad you're home. you are such a great guy. >> reporter: the north korean government claimed that warmbier contracted botulism, took a sleeping pill and fell into what they call a coma. a north korean mri confirmed the
damage occurred around march of 2016, shortly after his conviction. doctors from the university of cincinnati found no indication of botulism or physical trauma that caused the injury. >> among the battery of tests we performed, we examined all the long bones of the body, a skeletal survey. those scans, we see no evidence of a healing fracture, including the skull. >> reporter: a statement by the family read in part -- >> reporter: the last time fred warmbier saw his son in good health, 17 months ago, giving this emotional and likely forced statement in north korea, admitting his guilt.
he was accused and tried for hostile acts after the north korean government claimed he took down a propaganda poster in the hotel where he was staying on the night before he was to depart the country. this video provided to cnn by the warmbier family shows otto in north korea with his tour group, no indication of any hostile acts toward north korea. just a young man experiencing the world. >> miguel, any reaction from the trump administration? and do we know at this point any retaliatory actions are being considered? >> reporter: the president spoke about it, called it brutality what the north koreans did, and hopes to keep this from happening to anyone else. interestingly, the secretary of state tillerson said he holds the north koreans accountable for the unjust imprisonment but stopped short of saying that they were responsible for his death. this administration it does not
appear wants to go to war over otto warmbier. >> thank you very much. there were no cameras today at the white house press briefing or microphones either. however, whether on camera or off, there was no answer to a very simple question. >> mr. president, are you under investigation by the special counsel? mr. president, are you under investigation by the special counsel? >> the president said nothing. but that's okay, because he didn't have. we already know the answer. "i am being investigated for firing the fbi director by the man who told me the fbi director. witch hunt." it seems clear, by "i am being investigated" it would appear that he means i am being investigated. unless perhaps he really meant something very different, like, i don't know, maybe the exact opposite. >> it was 141 characters. there's a limitation on twitter. and the president is a very ekttive utilization of social media. so the president issued that social media statement based on
a fake report, a report with no documented sources, from "the washington post." there should be no confusion, that the president is not under investigation. >> so that's one of the president's new lawyers, jay sekulow, making the rounds on the sunday news programs. that was the line. it was the president practicing media criticism, not actually saying he's under investigation, which he's not, unless of course he is. but who would dare contradict jay sekulow about this claim he says there should be no confusion. who i ask you? how about jay sekulow himself. >> now he's being investigated by the department of justice, so he's being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general, deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency, who recommended the termination. >> okay. so if you're keeping score, according to jay sekulow, the president both was not and was under investigation. that was just sunday. what about today?
>> do you think that bob mueller is looking at the circumstances surrounding comey's firing? do you think that's part of the purview of his probe? >> i have no idea if he's looking at that or not. >> now, jay sekulow is a very influential attorney and advocate and a distinguished member of the supreme court bar and appeared on this broadcast many times over the years. perhaps he's not the guy to ask on this. in fact, it's almost as if we've all been warned against it, almost like we've been told again and again and again, what's that phrase? >> i think the president's tweets stand for themselves. i'm going to let the tweet speak for itself. the president's tweets speak for themselves. i think his comments and tweets speak for themselves with respect to how he feels and why. >> they speak for themselves, which would mean "i am being investigated for firing the fbi director by the man who told me
to fire the fbi director. witch hunt. maybe instead of meaning he's under investigation or he's commenting on a "washington post" story, maybe it's none of those things. maybe it's something else entirely. >> that's the president with his social media platform telling everybody look at the irony here. >> i honestly do not know what that means. i do not know what that means. cnn's jim acosta joins us from the white house to clear up any irony there may be. jim, this seems to be another example of the president simply -- i don't know, not being on the same page with those that represent him is. that what it is? >> reporter: i'm not sure they're on the same planet, anderson, and i don't understand that east whatever you just played. not only have we heard the white house say, well, the president's tweets speak for themselves, we've already heard the president say he likes to use social media because it goes over the filter of the main
stream news media. so that would come with the suggestion that you should believe his tweets as they're written, as they're posted. so to have jay sekulow go on the sunday talk shows and the morning talk shows this morning and explain this away you have to come back to the simple truth, and that is when the president tweets something, the white house believes that is the gospel around here. i will tell you today that we tried to get answers to other questions, whether he has recordings of his conversations. we did not get an answer to that. the president said we would get an answer to that shortly. and also this question of whether or not he believes he can fire robert mueller, the special counsel. that question was asked time and time again today and we did not get an answer. >> the briefing today was off camera, there was no recording of audio actually allowed. what is the reasoning behind that? what justification is there? >> reporter: the reason today, and keep in mind the reason today may not be the reason
we're given tomorrow. but today they said the president was going to be speaking in front of the cameras when he was with the president of panama, and also later in the day when he made those comments about the death of otto warmbier. but as you played at the beginning of this broadcast, the president was asked are you under investigation? and he didn't answer the question. so we have a situation, anderson, where they're simply stonewalling us. and you have to say it the way it is. when you have a press briefing here at the white house, we have pen and pad opportunities from time to time, and we don't record those meetings. they're there basically for editorial purposes. but when you drag the report sboers the briefing room and insist they can't record via audio what is said in that briefing from the white house press secretary, you are taking us into a strange new world where accountability doesn't exist. and it removes the possibility that we could ask followup
questions to some important inquiries. that's something that happened today. we allowed it to happen, and something we shouldn't allow to happen again. if we continue to allow this stonewalling to go on, they're just going to do it time and again, where the new normal will be we just don't have press briefings on camera anymore. in the united states, they do it at city hall with the mayor and your statehouse with your governor or other elected officials, why can't the president? >> i've got to ask this, what are they afraid about being on camera? clearly we've seen time and time again, they say things which turn out to be not true or the president declares not to be true the next day. is that the concern, they can -- in the past they've said this president is so fast, i don't want -- i can't remember the exact quote, but he's so on the go, that his spokes people can't keep up with him to get factual information, which makes no sense. >> reporter: it doesn't make sense. there was one instance today
where sean spicer, the press secretary was asked, does the president believe in climate change? you said you would get back to us. that question was asked again today, and the white house press secretary, sean spicer, did not have an answer to the question whether or not the president believes in climate change. the president said a month ago that he was going to have a news conference in two weeks on isis. he said two weeks ago that he was going to have a news conference on isis. i think we're just getting to the point, anderson, where not only can we not believe the president when he makes a claim about when he's going to talk to us, but what the white house press office is saying in these briefing room it is they're not willing to deal with this on the up and up. i think that is the problem right now that we're dealing with, and i hate to say it, but these press briefings aren't going to serve much of a purpose if we don't go back to the old rules where we're allowed to videotape. i could have held up my phone today, anderson, and tried to
record the press secretary sean spicer speaking to us, and play for you what would have happened to me had i done that? would they have hauled us off? taken our press credentials? i don't know. that's just the upside down world we're living in right now where they refuse to answer these questions on camera or audio. >> and seemingly refuse to ask the president a question, does he believe in climate change, is he recording conversations in the oval office. there's a host of things they seem --- >> reporter: lots of yes and no questions. more breaking news involving michael flynn whose contact with the russians are already under investigation. jim acosta joins us now. what have you learned? >> reporter: jim sciutto this time. >> how many times have i done that to you? >> reporter: that's right. i'm not taking it personally. this is a letter from the ranking democrat on the house oversight committee and the
ranking democrat on the house foreign affairs committee, drawing attention to two foreign trips that michael flynn took in 2015. one in the summer, the other in october of 2015. they say the first he did not report at all on his security clearance form. and the second one he omitted key information as to why he went, who he traveled with, et cetera. this coming on the heels of previous nondisclosures by flynn of meetings. and they're looking at it now because russia involved again, the trip was to saudi arabia, but general flynn went to saudi arabia to help broker a deal between russia and saudi arabia for building a number of nuclear power plants there. i reached out to flynn's lawyer. he did say they received this letter, and i reached out to republicans on the committee to see why they didn't sign onto this letter. i'm told by democrats on the oversight committee that republicans declined the chance
to sign on. i'm told by a gop aide on the foreign affairs committee they did not hear of this letter until i came to them for comment on it. >> and not reporting foreign travel on a security clearance form, is that considered a crime? >> reporter: it is. it's right there, a u.s. code title 18, section 1001, knowingly falsifying or concealing such foreign travel is a felony, punishable up to five years. it's clear on these forms when you read them, it says right there at the top, report all your travel, and also crucially your meetings with foreign officials during these trips. this is something else that the ranking democrats on these committees are drawing attention to, that seven years before general flynn applied to regain his security clearance before entering the trump administration, he did not list a single meeting with a foreign official for seven years prior to then. so they are raising questions here, not just about a couple of
trips but multiple meetings with foreign officials that he did not report. >> maybe there's an innocent explanation, but there does seem to be a pattern, flynn, kushner, sessions, of nondisclosure on security clearance forms. >> reporter: we had this with jared kushner for his first form, did not list any of the meetings. he later, under questioning from members of the media and others, supplied that information on the security clearance form. and attorney general jeff sessions did not supply -- his initial explanation was that a retired fbi agent said that travel while he was a senator was not relevant. very hard questions about that, because no such exceptions are made in the u.s. law. he later supplied some of that information. but you have a pattern here. it could be an innocent omission. but the fact is, it becomes the subject of these continuing congressional investigations. and many of those questions,
particularly from general flynn, remain unanswered. >> jim sciutto, thank you very much. sean spicer wasn't on camera today. is his job on the line? new details of what could be in store for him. and later, we'll bring you up to date on the attacks in pashg rid london. more ahead. will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. and get medical help right away. lobster and shrimp are teaming up in so many new dishes.fest,
like coastal lobster and shrimp, with shrimp crusted with kettle chips. or new, over-the-top lobster and shrimp overboard. but it can't last, so hurry in. mone hundredts thousand times a day, sending oxygen to my muscles. again! so i can lift even the most demanding weight. take care of all your most important parts with centrum. now verified non gmo and gluten free. pcountries thatk mewe traveled,t
what is your nationality and i would always answer hispanic. so when i got my ancestry dna results it was a shocker. i'm everything. i'm from all nations. i would look at forms now and wonder what do i mark? because i'm everything. and i marked other. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com. i just saved a bunch of money on my car insurhuh. with geico. i should take a closer look at geico... geico can help with way more than car insurance. boats, homes, motorcycles... even umbrella coverage. this guy's gonna wish he brought his umbrella. fire at will! how'd you know the guy's name is will? yeah? it's an expression, ya know? fire at will? you never heard of that? oh, there goes will! bye, will! that's not his name! take a closer look at geico. great savings. and a whole lot more. ♪
sean spicer's off camera press briefing came with buzz he might be moving further off camera. they're thinking of a new roll for him. a busy night for jim acosta who joins us once again. what kind of a different role is being thought up for sean spicer, do we know? >> reporter: i'm being hold tolt this role would oversee the communications department and the press shop. so he would oversee the white house press secretary and the communications director for the white house. that is one of the options being looked at. no matter how you slice it, he is being looked at in terms of moving out of this job as white house press secretary, a job that's earned him a lot of fame and infamy, into a different position in the west wing. the question is, what is that job going to be? the bigger question is, who would fill his shoes as the white house press secretary? some of the names being floated around, laura ingram, her name
has surfaced. but it's unclear whether or not she would want to leave that kind of job to take the position as white house press secretary. so my guess is, anderson, you're going to see a lot of names surface during the course of this process, because these are very, very big shoes to fill. and you have a very important person often watching these briefings, and that's the president. >> to that point, if sean spicer can't get basic questions answered by the president, based on reporters, are there tapes about climate change, is it real or not, why would he be in a more elevated overseeing role, which you would think he would have more interaction with the president. but if the president doesn't have confidence in him, why would he want him in an overseeing role? >> reporter: that's a very good question. i was talking to a different source here today, anderson, who said this process is very fluid, cautioning we have had these palace intrigue stories before about reince priebus, the white house chief of staff.
how many times have we heard he was going to be leaving and he didn't leave? so i do think we have to take some of the speculation with a grape of salt. as the president changes his mind in one direction, he could go in another direction. and what we're hearing tonight may not be the case a week from now. but that's an excellent question, because it does raise this question of what is going on inside this white house? why can't we get basic answers to questions that are very important right now. sean spicer couldn't deliver those answers. so why would he be in charge of an operation that might not be able to answer those questions. >> what sit liis it like in the wing? it seems like it has to be chaotic is one word. >> reporter: i hear that word a lot, chaotic. that is the atmosphere that president trump, that donald trump as you know, anderson, thrives on. he likes having these different factions fighting, because he
feels like it results in a better process, in better decision making. you can take issue with that, obviously a lot of people do. but it fedepends on who you tal to. there is an atmosphere that the president can do no wrong. you saw that happen at the cabinet meeting where he went around the table asking people to compliment them. it was a bizarre scene. so i think there is a culture here at the white house that creates that sort of environment where people have to tell the president what he wants to hear. the question becomes, can he bring people in that tell him what he doesn't want to hear? >> jim, thanks. i want to bring in our panel now. i only want to hear things i want to hear. so charles? can you remember another time
when the fate of the white house press secretary was so sort of publicly discussed? >> yeah, no, i can't. and it's somewhat odd, because almost every senior adviser since they started has gone through a phase where it was leaked that they were imminently on their way out. remember when steve bannon was going to be fired, reince priebus was going to be fired. >> kellyanne conway disappeared for a while and she came back. >> and sean spicer and his associates have been leaking that his job has been on the line. it does seem he has gotten a little control over the story now, because the story is he is now being the one who is going to find his own replacement. so that suggests he's not being pushed out but will retain this title of communications director, which is above the press secretary. and he's going to find someone to be the face of the white house. frankly, i don't think it matters who the press secretary
is. they could have jeffrey lord as their press secretary. i'm floating that. what matters is, can the person do the job that the press and the public requires? do they have access to the president and do they get reliable, timely, and honest, truthful information to the public on a daily basis? that's not been the pattern so far. >> kirsten, no matter what the title is, unless they have access to the president and the president starts being honest with them, they're going to continue to come out and say stuff that's not true. >> he's basically said he's just so fast moving, there's no way for them to keep up with them. it's no more fast moving than any other president. so other presidents have been able to make sure people are informed and have a sense of responsibility about that. but the only thing that might
change it a little bit is somebody that is not going to put up with donald trump's crap, and laura ingram is that kind of person. i think it wouldn't be a particularly enjoyable experience for reporters, but she is somebody who would not -- i think she has more self-respect than some of the people going out and just saying i can't give you this information. i don't see her going out day after day not knowing what's going on. she's somebody that trump does respect, because he likes people that is on tv. she's very smart and bright. >> i've been on her show in the past. but would she want to give up -- >> i don't know. she said -- she's indicated she would be open to it. so i think that -- but i do think what is missing are people who are -- you need somebody who is not going to just accept they're uninformed and they're going to walk out and humiliate themselves every day. >> can you give a good explanation why the white house
would bar reporters from even recording audio of a briefing from shawn spiceer? >> the only reason i can think of, and i'm sort of reaching here, would be -- obviously there is such a thing as having like a gaggle where you would want to talk to people off the record and not for attribution. >> notebook only gaggle. >> right. where i want you to know what i'm thinking, what i think might be happening. that's perfectly legitimate. but that is not what this was. there really is no rational for doing this. i would say very quickly to the laura ingram report. she would have the leverage, right? we've all been this that position or seen people in that position. sean spicer was kind of lucky to get the gig as press secretary. laura would have -- she would have the gravitas and the juice, so to speak, to demand access in a way that someone like spicer couldn't. >> one more point about the role of the press secretary. one thing that has changed,
jeffrey lord talks about ronald reagan. marlin fitzwater was a bridge between the press and the president. that's not how the trump white house sees that role. >> jeffrey, you said you were a big first amendment guy. are you comfortable with the role that the press secretaries have so far in these off camera, no audio? >> no. i've been a press secretary for a congressman and senator. you have to inform the press. if you don't want to say something, don't say something. but don't cut them off that's a mistake. one thing i would say, i do remember a press secretary who had this problem, and i don't know whether he had the formal title, but in the clinton administration, george stephanopoulos began briefing the press in that role, although i think dee dee myers held the title. but they pulled him off and gave
him the title senior adviser. but i think george felt humiliated needlessly. you know -- >> it's a similar question. >> i have to say, outside of washington and media folks, the only people -- we're the only people that care about this. out in america, they care about who the president is, but the staff, they couldn't care less. >> charles, does -- i mean, does the president have anyone but himself to blame if he's not happy with the message that's getting out? >> of course not. what these people are willing asked to do is impossible. you cannot deliver truth if the man who is talking to you is lying. so they have to try to make rational something that is not rational. they have to try to make sense of something that simply does not make sense. and they have to make him look good,continues to make himself look bad.
they try to put a good face on this, so they're trying to do something that cannot be done. and in the west wing, maybe that works, that everybody simply flatters the king. but in the real world, when you're facing real reporters who have done this for their entire lives, it doesn't fly. when you're facing the american public and they know you're lying, it simply doesn't fly. so it doesn't matter who it is. even if it's laura age ra aa in don't like her at all. she's not all that smart or that much of an honorable person, and anybody who has to step into this role, you have to go out and convince somebody who is lying, and that's a problem. there's no way to get around that. >> we're going to continue this discussion. more breaking news. the senate judiciary committee has reached an agreement about the scope of its investigation and may look at obstruction of justice.
more breaking news, this time from capitol hill. the leaders of the senate judiciary committee have reached an agreement about the scope of their investigation that can explore whether the president obstructed justice and look at any political interference with the fbi under the trump and barack obama administrations. so this news notwithstanding, it is difficult where the obstruction of justice investigation stands when you have the president tweeting one thing, that he's under investigation, and his new attorney, jay sekulow, saying both things. >> yeah, right. i mean, we do know some facts.
we do know that comey handed over his contemporaneous memos that documented his conversations with donald trump, right? and if james comey, if the special counsel, mueller, wanted those documents and wanted to see them, as far as i can tell, there's only one reason he would want them, to understand whether there was some kind of obstruction. so we know he's scratching the surface of that case. it's very interesting that the senate judiciary committee is looking into this, because it's an fbi matter, right? it's a criminal probe. but that suggests there are some senators who think at the end of the day, if there is a case that he did obstruct justice, the president is not going to be indicted. this is getting into the realm of politics and impeachment. >> charles, how many times have we had this story out, the president tweets something, and he's tweeted blatantly, i'm
under investigation, now his attorneys are saying no, he's not, yes, he is. then you have kellyanne conway saying he was being ironic. again, is the president kind of -- >> make sense? they can't do it. there's no way -- they're trying to make it better. he makes mistakes. he gets in his huff, probably before he even meets with his staff. i'll have to check the time on the tweet. they start at 6:00, but they trickle throughout the day. and even after he's coming off same, i'm realizing that the time stamp is right after he gets off stage, giving a real speech. so you realize nobody can keep up with it. so they're basically just responding. not that i have any sympathy for them, i have none. >> you sure? >> no, zero. but i do understand what's happening. there's no way for them to keep it straight really.
but i understand why the senate would be looking at that. if nothing comes out of this, nothing that compels him to issue a public report. the senate committees would do that. they might just want the american people to know the extent of whatever it is, they might want the american people to know. >> one thing that my friend marvin on his radio show in his earlier life was a chief of staff to the attorney general, says there's a memo from 1973 from the justice department that says the sitting president cannot be indicted. and that "the new york times" had a story not long ago which they quoted all sorts of legal experts. so the question is not that at all, nor can it be. >> it's still not settled, but all memos can be overwritten at any time. but this has never been settled
by the supreme court. a lot of constitutional scholars know the president can't be indicted. ken starr of the independent counsel was considering indicting president clinton, but he decided not to. >> i do want to play this that a senator said to wolf blitzer said earlier today, that he believes michael flynn is a cooperating witness with the fbi. take a listen. >> all the signals are suggesting that he's already cooperating with the fbi, and may have been for some time. this would be just another bit of leverage for the prosecutors to make sure that he was cooperating and giving truthful testimony in order to avoid lengthy imprisonment. that's the conclusion from all of the evidence and experience from dealing with this. >> if that is the case, that's big. >> it's very big, and you have to wonder about other people making similar deals. if you're the trump people, you have to worry about that, that
these are people that have to save their own hides. >> we have to take a quick break. ahead, more job creation for lawyers in washington, d.c. and son-in-law jared kushner seeks additional legal counsel because his current lawyer works at the firm that employs robert mueller. more on that ahead. i was thinking around 70. and before that? you mean after that? no, i'm talking before that. do you have things you want to do before you retire? i'd really like to run with the bulls. wow. hope you're fast. i am. get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change with investment management services.
jared kushner is looking to beef up his legal representation. president trump's son-in-law and senior adviser has reached out to criminal lawyers to see if they would represent him in the federal investigation into alleged ties between the trump campaign and russia during the 2016 presidential race. our justice correspondent jessica schneider joins us with more. what do we know about this legal revach? >> it's twofold. jared kushner has contacted some high power criminal attorneys who could potentially step in and represent him as these investigations continue to unfold according to "the new york times", who said some big names are being considered, including abby noel. and second of all, any change in attorney is being signed off by kushner's current attorney. she released this statement saying, after and then continue
the fact that kushner is considering adding on a well respected or trading a well respected washington attorney for a tough litigator. >> we don't know why jamie wrote the letter that she did. there are a couple possible reasons here. one is even though it doesn't rise to the level of a formal conflict that would require her to recede from the case, nonetheless the appearance of impropriety with connections to mueller may be disturbing to kushner. there mofore he may want someon without that tie. and there's been public criticism from her. she is a liberal lawyer and received a lot of criticism for representing mr. kushner and ivanka trump. that may have played some role in this, too. you just never know.
but whatever the case may be, there's nothing wrong with kushner seeking good representation. anybody who is being investigated by the doj should be advised to do so. >> and frankly, it speaks well of his current attorney that she would point out potential conflicts or the potential appearances of conflict. that seems like a good thing. the notion put forward by the president's lawyer over the weekend that a, the president is not under investigation for obstruction of justice, and b, he would know it if it were, is that the case? would the president be told that he was under investigation somebody >> no. it would belie logic, if the nib or the justice department was trying to conduct an investigation that was covert, trying to add as much information as they could before they alerted someone. you would not have the courtesy of being informed but you would know if you got a subpoena or
>> i think there's a serious legal issue here whether mueller could investigate the president for obstruction of justice under his appointment letter. special counsel mueller is a special counsel. he's not the same thing as an independent counsel. that statute expired in 1999. congress didn't want to reauthorize it, because everybody got burned. they started out
and london, both involved in vehicles used as weapons. the latest on the investigations, next. as unfathomable as the universe. a world that doesn't exist outside you... ...but within you. where breakthrough science is replacing chemotherapy with immunotherapy. where we can now attack the causes of disease, not just the symptoms. where medicines once produced for all, are now designed to fit you. today 140,000 biopharmaceutical researchers go bodly to discover treatments and cures unimaginable ten years ago... ...and are on the verge of more tomorrow.
speak now. (coughs) so sorry. oh no... it's just that your friend daryl here is supposed to be live streaming the wedding and he's not getting any service. i missed, like, the whole thing. what? and i just got an unlimited plan. it's the right plan, wrong network. you see, verizon has the largest, most reliable 4g lte network in america. it's built to work better in cities. tell you what, just use mine. thanks. no problem. all right, let's go live. say hi to everybody who wasn't invited! (vo) when it really, really matters, you need the best network and the best unlimited. just $45 per line for four lines. yet up 90% fall short in getting key nutrients from food alone. let's do more. add one a day women's complete with key nutrients we may need. plus it supports bone health with calcium and vitamin d. one a day women's in gummies and tablets. i wish you were here. i miss home. ♪
so we sent that sample i doff to ancestry. i was from ethnically. my ancestry dna results are that i am 26% nigerian. i am just trying to learn as much as i can about my culture. i put the gele on my head and i looked into the mirror and i was trying not to cry. because it's a hat, but it's like the most important hat i've ever owned. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com.
explosives and weapons inside his car. in north london, one dead and several others injured after a van plowed them over outside a mosque. >> here's a 47-year-old man from cardiff in wales. some distance from london, but it looks like he hired a van and dro drove here north of the city. a crowd was involved. he drove into people and they collapsed into people. it ran on to run over other people as well. the man who collapsed was dead on the scene and eight other people were taken to the hospital. >> i understand the public actually played a role in saving
lives there. >> indeed. they actually grabbed the man from behind the wheel, pulled him out of the ground and wrestled him out of the car. he was scratching and biting the whole time saying, you guys deserve this, you guys deserve this. this is why the community believes they were targeted specifically, and it's a big part of why british officials from the prime minister down today were describing this as an isla islamapho birks islamaphobic terror attack. >> what about the attack in paris? >> after the van hit people in paris, it exploded into flames. there was one person inside. police say they broke windows, pulled the person out, but that person later died. no one else was hurt, but the man in the car was known to authorities. one of thousands of people on a watch list of suspected extremists. it's notable because it's yet another attack against french
security forces, the fifth in four months, and officials there say it is yet another sign that the terror threats level there remains very high. >> phil black, thank you very much. appreciate the update. up next, is the president under investigation or is he not and why can't the white house settle on one answer to that very question? we'll explain ahead. and we will have you on your way. ♪ runway models on the runway? surprising. what's not surprising? how much money evan saved by switching to geico. i would not wear that lace. hmm, i don't know? fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.
the energy conscious whopeople among usle? say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear. who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing.
as we continue to follow the twists and turns in the russian investigation, we also continue to follow the twists and turns into what the president and others have said about it. and lately those twists and turns have gotten, well, twistier. or maybe it's turnier, i'm not sure. friday the president tweeted that he was under investigation for firing james comey. then his spokesperson and attorneys said, no, that's not what he said. then someone else said something else again. the result, as you know, was confusion and didn't clear it up at all. here's more from mr. acost a. >> reporter: no surprise the president didn't have answers regarding the russia investigation. however, he had this to say. >> i think we did a very good job, didn't we? we did a very good job. >> reporter: he tweeted, i am being investigated by the