tv Erin Burnett Out Front CNN October 25, 2019 4:00pm-5:00pm PDT
li elijah cummings was honorable before he was elected to office. there's a difference. >> very good man, indeed. may he rest in peace. may his memory be a blessing. erin burnett "out front" starts right now. "out front" next, breaking news, a major setback for trump and a federal judge ruling the impeachment is legal giving democrats a formal boost for drafting articles of impeachment. rudy giuliani, new tapes surfacing of him talking about the bidens. it's on tape. trump standing by him and a congresswoman fighting for her political survival after explicit pictures of her and a campaign staffer come to light. what are voters saying in a crucial swing district. let's go out front. good evening. i'm erin burnett. out front tonight, breaking
news. a judge ruling the impeachment investigation into donald trump is legal. it is a big victory for democrats and a big blow for president trump. today's ruling giving democrats access to secret evidence obtained by robert mueller in the grand jury. before the news broke, trump went to his tried and true defense, trying to dismiss the entire impeachment inquiry as a -- >> this was the worst hoax in the history of our country. this is a hoax. it's a hoax. this phony witch hunt. >> of course, every piece of information has shown the president of the united states tried to link military aid to a foreign country to getting dirt on a political opponent. republicans' best defense, therefore, has not been on the facts and it has been on the process to slam it as unfair. lindsay graham has been the standard bearer for trump on all of this, demanding the house to formally begin an impeachment inquiry and that would completely muddy the water and mick this all about hunter
biden. the problem is that argument has lost its legal steam. the judge ruling, and i quote, even in cases of presidential impeachment a house resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry. from a legal perspective, they're done, right? that inquiry can go on. that loses graham's argument, and it is coming at a very important turning point. the president's former national security adviser john bolton is now in talks to testify according to a source. if a testimony about a quid pro quo from trump's diplomat in ukraine, bill taylor was a game changer from some republicans, the testimony could be game over for others. remember that bolton and trump had a contentious relationship and they had a disagreement and he let bolton come to work the next morning and they were going to talk it through and he informed him by tweet and i informed bolton his services were no longer needed at the
white house and he matters big time now. he was in the know and he was in the room and he was on the call. bolton was concerned that a call between trump and the ukrainian president would be, quote, a disaster. it makes it clear his first-hand account could be what trump claims again and again and again. here he was today. >> a perfect conversation with the president of ukraine. this was a perfect conversation. i have a perfect conversation. the conversation has been perfect. it's one conversation that i had with the president of ukraine that was perfect. this was a perfect conversation. i had a perfect conversation with the president of ukraine. perfect. >> i mean, you know, how many times do you need to say it before you think somebody might believe it's true? it wasn't perfect. everybody knows that and while democrats try and nail down details with bolton, they're working around the clock because they're holding a rare deposition tomorrow with philip reeker who was a career foreign
service officer as the deposition's schedule continues. abby philip is live outside the white house. abby, any response from the white house about this court ruling which obviously is a significant victory for democrats and a blow for the president? >> it is very much so, but so far, nothing yet from the white house on this ruling that came just hours ago, but you can see how it further undermines the argument that they've been making that came directly from the white house's office -- the white house counsel's office essentially saying to house democrats that they do not believe the impeachment inquiry is valid and that, as a result of that, all these witnesses who work in the federal government and work at the state department did not have to comply with these requests to make depositions. so far even that letter have been unable to prevent those key witnesses from giving their testimony under subpoena. this delivers a blow to that rationale and makes it much more difficult at a particularly
challenging time for this white house. they have struggled to figure out how to deal with this, particularly from a communications perspective and there are still ongoing disputes between the president's aides about how to approach this and whether to have a war room and whether more than the president's tweets are needed in this case and this ruling perhaps makes it more likely that this impeachment inquiry will continue to move and move quickly. the white house has not resolved a major issue which how are they going to respond and they seem content with president trump responding where he repeats over and over again that he did nothing wrong. >> thank you very much, abby. it was jarring to hear how many times he said the same thing today. out front now, democratic congressman jamie raskin who was on the oversight committee. i appreciate your time. the judge ruling you to go ahead and you don't need the formal
vote in the house oofb though it was done in the prior two impeachments -- >> actually, the court corrected. >> go ahead. >> the court corrected that misimpression which was circulated by the republicans. the whole opinion is a devastating reputation of everything that the republicans have been saying over the last few weeks. first of all, the question of whether or not it's an impeachment inquiry is not up to the courts. it's up to the house of representatives. >> yes. >> under our rules. we set the rules for impeachment and we set the rules of the house, and so we've declared this an impeachment inquiry and we are proceeding to that, so it is not up to the republicans to second guess it in court and as a legal proceeding -- >> in terms of -- there's no way there's going to be a vote, now, right? now that you have this. you're just not going to do it. >> we may or we may not. the point is it's up to the house of representatives because of article 1 which provides that we get to define the rules of our own proceedings and we are the -- we have the sole power of impeachment.
it's not up to the senate. it's not up to the minority and it's not up to the courts and it's up to the house of representatives and it is conducting an impeachment inquiry. so, look, we know that all of these process complaints are a massive distraction from what america has learned which is that the president undertook a campaign with the president of ukraine to try to shake him down for cooperation in his campaign, giving him dirt on the bidens and going back and reviving a discredited conspiracy theory about what happened in the 2016 camp cam. t >> the whole country can now see the republicans are just trying to obstruct the progress of justice. >> so let me ask you -- >> i just want to ask you one thing about that, though, because yes, we know what the packs have pointsed ed to in th testimony thus far, and the republicans are talking about those facts. that's fair, but you have the
legal court and you have the court of public opinion, and republican senator lindsay graham, as you know, you know, was trying to go ahead with his resolution condemns your whole process. he's got 50 co-sponsors in the senate which means a lot of people are supporting what he's doing who really think what the president did was wrong. president trump bragged about it today. here he is, congressman. >> i haven't even made a phone call. 50 out of 53 and they said you get to 40, that's pretty good or you haven't done anything and we're up to 50. >> even republicans who have slammed it, even mitt romney says he would like to see a vote in the house and a more open process. so in the court of public opinion would you do better to have this more be in the light of day as you are. >> as long as everyone is conceding that it's perfectly lawful and constitutional what we're doing, undoubtedly there will be votes on the house floor. that's the only way that you get
a resolution of impeachment and it's the only way that you get articles of impeachment moving forward. remember, it was the department of justice that made the decision that there was nothing there to see in the whistle-blower's complaint which is why there was no fact all investigation done by the department of justice. that investigation was done by archibald cox and it was done in the clinton case by kenneth starr and all of those materials were turned over and we are doing the front line factual investigation and all they're trying to do is throw pizza parties and blockade the process. this case along with several others makes clear that we're doing precisely what we should be doing in order to pursue the impeachment of the president for high crimes and misdemeanors and they're rather than trying to shut it down. there are dozens of republicans who were trying to be in that room trying to ask questions
when these guys barged in and had their fake, civil disobedience which compromised national security likely. >> so let me ask you about john bolton and i know you all are having saturday depositions and it seems certainly from the schedule it's moving quickly and it's accelerating. we know they'veec spoken with commits about the deposition. can you update us on when this might happen? will he testify? >> i'm sorry, erin. i cannot update you on that, but i wanted to finish answering your question about what -- senator lindsay graham did in terms of getting a statement by 50 of the republicans. >> yes. >> go a head. >> 50 or 53. you'd think he'd be measuring 50 of a hundred because that's the jury that operates and not just the republican member, but in any event the fascinating thing to me now is rather than hurrying to get it over in the senate so they can act, the republicans seem to be very nervous about what might happen
in the senate and they're trying to slow everything down in the house and put the pressure on us, i think, to slow our proceedings down. we're moving at a very rapid, deliberate pace to get the evidence and to keep them from sandbagging us and it seems there are the republican senators who are getting extremely nervous precisely about the shifts in public opinion where even fox news want to see the president impeached or removed going forward. >> i appreciate your time on this friday night. >> you bet. >> rudy giuliani calling a reporter pocket dialing and leaving minutes of messages from private conversations he was having. what did he reveal? president trump slamming one of the top diplomats who laid out evidence of the quid pro quo. >> here's the problem. he's a never trumper. >> no evidence of that. and a congresswoman admits to a relationship with a campaign staffer, explicit pictures have surfaced. she has a crucial swing
district. will voters turn her out? when did you see the sign? when i needed to jumpstart sales. build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage. ...and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com. we make aspirin to help save lives during a heart attack... so it never stops the heart of a family. at bayer, this is why we science.
unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? new tonight, the criminal investigation into president trump's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani is getting bigger. politico reporting that the criminal division of the justice department in washington is now looking into giuliani. this as a source tells cnn investigators literally had to blow the door off of a safe to get its contents in the criminal probe into two of giuliani's associates, associates who, important to note, were helping giuliani get dirt on the bidens in ukraine. president trump, knowing about this, doors blowing off of safe says he doesn't think he needs to be worried. >> are you worried about the
criminal investigation into rudy giuliani? >> i don't think so. i think rudy is a great gentleman. he's been a great crimefighter. >> out front now, former republican senator rick santorum, greg bower and a republican state senator in nevada, former assistant secretary for the department of homeland security giuliett qayyim and patrick healy. how concerned should giuliani be and trump be about this investigation which is now broadening in its criminal tenets? >> well, erin, giuliani certainly should be concerned. he is clearly the subject, if not the target of an ongoing federal criminal investigation and at a minimum, i guess he ought to be a little more careful about what he is saying to people and accidentally e-mailing or texting to reporters. so, yeah, he ought to be very worried. the president, i guess, will be
in denial about giuliani until he decides that he no longer remembers giuliani and we'll hear that from him, but again, as a former federal prosecutor, i would be the first to admit that if you're not on the inside of the investigation you really don't know exactly what's going on or what the government's looking at, but clearly the government is looking at giuliani for something right now. >> all right which, look, it's a pretty incredible thing when you think of giuliani himself and what his role used to be. juliette, greg just referenced it. giuliani had his phone in his pocket and unknowingly dials a reporter multiple times and he wasn't expecting to hear. here's an excerpt from one of those calls from last week. >> tomorrow i've got to get you to get on bahrain.
you got to call -- the problem is we need some money. we need a few hundred thousand. >> giuliani tells our dana bash, juliette, that the voice mail doesn't show anything dishonest. it's not about ukraine or the president. look, who knows? but let's just cut to the chase. this is the personal lawyer of the president of the united states who is operating as a shadow secretary of state at the president's behest in ukraine and perhaps elsewhere, talking about needing hundreds of thousands of dollars related to foreign countries. whoa. >> yes, exactly. first of all, let's just remind everyone that giuliani was put in charge of cybersecurity at the white house so everything is starting to make sense. giuliani's carelessness both in his public statements and just moves like this and it may have been accidental shows, i think, a defendant or a president's counsel not quite in control of
what his own narrative is, and that's important because obviously, trump is very dependent on giuliani not switching, not turning and not saying anything against him? look, sometimes when things sound bad, they are bad and sometimes when things are bad they're going to get worse and i think giuliani doesn't quite get the bull's-eye that's on him rate now with the federal prosecutors and continues to insist that he, you know, go out to these other countries and talk to the department of justice and there will be a light bulb at some moment with giuliani and then the question what does trump do with that? >> senator santorum, i have to say, when you have to take the basic things just hearing things, the personal lawyer of the president going around conducting foreign approximately see on his behalf in some country, talking about some countries, maybe different country, but other countries when a lot of people around the world know what his role is and who he speaks for, and he's -- he's making money and conducting
deals. i mean, it -- it sounds wrong, doesn't it? >> look, i've known rudy for a long time and for a long time since he really got out of the last presidential race he was in back in '08, he's been a business guy. he's giuliani partners and they've done a lot of business in this country and a lot of business overseas and a lot of security business and they've dealt with a lot of money. when i heard that conversation that's probably a conversation that rudy's had a hundred times in the last several years. so i -- >> yeah, but what about now when he's the president of the united states -- >> he's still in business. >> that's okay? >> yeah, i mean, absolutely that's okay. he's got to make a living. i don't see that as an issue. he's been asked by the president to help him out on this particular thing. i don't know whether he's getting paid for it or not getting paid for it. it's certainly within his right and the president's right to ask
him and his right to do something, but it shouldn't stop him from doing this other business and he said this has nothing to do with it, and i believe him. >> am i being fair here or not? it seems that i would hope i would not do that. i would hope that people would do business with me and i would be wrong. >> then half of the people in this town wouldn't work when the president comes into office and that's just the way it is in this town. >> out of context it's hard to know exactly what is going on in that conversation. it doesn't sound good, but it doesn't -- we just don't know exactly what it means. there are's lot of other rudy giuliani conversations and statements in context that when you put it all together it doesn't look good. >> patrick, the other context here is you've got rudy giuliani, the president's lawyer whose phone is in his pocket, pocket dialing a reporter and
multiple private conversations are being picked up on voice mail. at the very least that's a -- >> i'll agree with that. >> yeah, you know, this is not a discreet situation, and the president of the united states you would think his personal lawyer to be a lot more careful than this, but i think what you're seeing and what's really important here and what we can't forget here is that the president has empowered rudy giuliani to such a stature as an adviser without portfolio to be making and pressing foreign policy with foreign governments that he may well have business in front of business interests and the ability to make, you know, a few hundred thousand dollars here and a few hundred thousand dollars there. you have to ask where do ethics come in to play here and where the conflicts of interest come in and the appearance of
conflicts of interest and who is minding the store on that. who is regulating rudy giuliani, and at least from the evidence we've seen and from what john bolton and from what people in the state department have indicated is that he was sort of running around doing the government's business as he saw fit and the question was was he doing his own business at the same time. >> all of you, please stay with me. president trump coming down hard on his own formal secretary of state. >> everybody makes mistakes. mike pompeo, everybody makes mistakes. >> okay. so what did mike pompeo say? plus the new york times anonymous op ed writer, the one promising to reveal private conversations with the president, directly from the president. so is this anonymous writer, a person who still may work for the president a hero or a coward? us excellent customer service, every time. our 18 year old was in an accident.
usaa took care of her car rental, and getting her car towed. all i had to take care of was making sure that my daughter was ok. if i met another veteran, and they were with another insurance company, i would tell them, you need to join usaa because they have better rates, and better service. we're the gomez family... we're the rivera family... we're the kirby family, and we are usaa members for life. get your auto insurance quote today. i am royalty of racing, i am alfa romeo. i've always been i'm still going for my best... even though i live with a higher risk of stroke
due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'll go for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? sharing my roots. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. t-mobile's newest signal reaches farther than ever before...
with more engineers, more towers, more coverage. it's a network that gives you... with coverage from big cities, to small towns. introducing t-mobile's 600mhz signal. no signal reaches farther or is more reliable. and it's built 5g ready. man: how can i deliver superior long-term results? it begins with a distinctive approach to managing money. that for over 85 years has focused on keeping confidence up when markets are down. an approach where portfolio managers work well independently. and even better together. who don't just invest, but are personally invested. can i find a proven approach designed to deliver results? with capital group, i can. talk to your advisor or consultant for investment risks and information.
new tonight, president trump blaming secretary of state mike pompeo for hiring bill taylor. bill taylor, of course, is the top u.s. diplomat to ukraine, you know, the one who testified this week that trump had a quid pro quo for nearly $400 million in u.s. military aid for ukraine in exchange for investigating the bidens. >> he's a never trumper, and his lawyer's a never trumper and the other problem is -- hey, everybody makes mistakes. mike pompeo, everybody makes mistakes. >> okay. so he says mike pompeo made a mistake in hiring bill taylor. it's interesting that mike
pompeo gave an interview in which he stuck with bill taylor. here's what he said. >> i have talked about ukrainian policy at some length and to take down corruption and how do you help the new leader there. president zelensky, how do we deliver on america's national security interests and he and i were full accord on that. >> full accord even though the president says he made a mistake. this coming as another top member of trump's national security council tim morrison is supposed to testify next week and back up taylor's story about the quid pro quo. manu raju is out front. these next few days will be very important for the president. this week there were a couple of days because of elijah cummings and there were not depositions, but we are fast and furious from here on. >> no question about it. we are told from multiple sources will back up key claims
from bill taylor's testimony from earlier this week, those claims that you mentioned that he said that he was told that president trump sought to withhold ukrainian military aid in exchange for investing in a public announcement that there be an investigation into a company that hunter biden, the former vice president's son served on the board of as well as to look into election interference, an investigation that could undercut the president hoped the russian interference findings that the russians helped president trump in 2016. we are also told from multiple sources that he may not raise concerns about what the president did and there may be nuance in his testimony and he will corroborate what taylor said. taylor referenced his name about 15 times throughout his testimony even at one point saying that he had a sinking feeling after relaying a phone conversation the president had with the ambassador of the
european union in which he wanted the ukrainian president zelensky to go to the microphones and announce those investigations just as the push to release that aid to ukraine was intensifying as there were concerns that aid was needed to combat russian aggression and you mentioned, erin, a busy week ahead, even tomorrow, saturday behind closed door, a top state department official, he will be deposed to wrap up the fine parts of the closed-door depositions. >> thank you very much, manu and everyone is back with me. so juliette, morrison, as manu mentioned was cited 15 times in taylor's opening statement. we understand he is going to corroborate what taylor said. morrison was on the call between president trump and the ukrainian president zelensky. he is an important person. how significant is it that he will back taylor? >> i think it's significant just because we've seen from taylor, taylor's impressions of things that were occurring so morrison
sort of corroborates what taylor said which seems really bad for the president as well as his team. at some stage our framing of what's going on sort of leads us in the wrong direction. we always -- we keep talking about smoking guns. we have so many smoking guns at this stage, it's, like, we're smoking, right? at this stage it's just everyone's corroborating. i think the more interesting story about morrison is his willingness to testify despite being told not to. it means that pompeo has no control over the appointees. defying com p defying pompeo and why did he do what he did in terms of defending taylor? the reason why is because taylor talked about regular and irregular diplomatic lying when it comes to ukraine. the regular one is pompeo and the state department people and that's what pompeo hopes we
believe and the irregular line is pompeo is essentially throwing giuliani under the bus at this stage. he wants to be in the regular, legal path and not the irregular one. >> so part of what taylor says involving morrison in his opening statement. on september 7th, i had a conversation with mr. morrison in which he described a phone conversation earlier that day between ambassador sondland. according to mr. morrison, the president told ambassador sondland that he was not asking for a quid pro quo and he asked him to go to a microphone say he was opening investigations of biden and 2016 elections interference and that president zelensky should want to do this himself. how damaging is this for trump that morrison would back this? >> very. as if ambassador taylor's statement and testimony wasn't
clear enough, morrison clearly was in the middle of this and will be able to connect whatever dots are not clearly connected already and of course, you know, getting back to the president's comment about taylor, was there no mistake. ambassador taylor has served his country with distinction for 50 years. he has done an outstanding job as most recently as acting ambassador to ukraine, and last i checked, he's still the acting ambassador. so clearly, the secretary of state does not think it was a mistake to put him in that position, and so there's a huge disconnect, it seems to me, between the president and the secretary of state and that's really not sustainable. something's got to break there. >> what do you make of that, senator santorum? here's the reality. mike pompeo is taking taylor's side. the president keeps trying to demean bill taylor and act as what he's saying is not true because he's a never trumper. what do you make of that? this is a guy that served in vietnam in the 101st airborne.
this is a guy who has served under every president since ronald reagan and he goes in with his detailed statements and his notes and all the president says is he's a never trumper trying to impugn his honesty. >> i don't think we would expect anything less from the president to do that, but what we heard from mike pompeo is that he's a good public servant and what they were trying to effectuate was that bill taylor was onboard and i don't think that's vouching for everything bill taylor says with respect to this situation. we talked about smoking guns and everyone says there are all these smoking guns and forgive me for being a little bit suspicious. we've been hearing about smoking guns for two and a half years and so far we haven't seen any shots fired. all i'm saying is we have testimony that has not been cross examined or -- we haven't been drilled down as to why he feels the way he does and as the
prosecutor knows -- >> let me just interject there --? rick, i just want to interject there and i'm not trying to are trying to push out the republican party line. it is happening behind closed doors and there are republicans in the room. >> we haven't seen those questions. >> i know, but they've been asking them. every republican in there is able to ask that. i just want the implication is not out there that there isn't a republican inside because that's false. >> it is not their job. this is the intel committee. >> they've got lawyers in there doing their questioning. >> again, i'm just sayingthe administration, if this impeachment goes forward which i believe it will, will have their opportunity to question these witnesses and i think you might see a little different story come forward. >> patrick, john bolton, i want to get you in on this because he could be important. taylor testified about a call that other members of the administration were on and he says that on this call, the call
came up about there's going to be an oval office meeting with president zelensky and it so irritated ambassador bolton according to taylor that there was a connection between an oval office meeting with zelensky that ambassador bolton abruptly entered the meeting and directed dr. hill to brief the lawyers. how important is bolton? will he be the john dean or not? >> he's very important, and when those of us who covered john bolton over the years and watched him on fox news and other outlets, tell be very interesting to see kind of which john bolton shows up here. the reality is that from what we've heard from the other witnesses that it sounds like john bolton had grave concerns about what rudy giuliani was doing and was willing to be explicit about that and whether he was willing to connect dots and how explicit he is with the committees will be very significant. he'd be one of the major
witnesses to be deposed. >> thank you all very much. as the depositions continue tomorrow. next, the senior trump official behind the anonymous op ed has vowed to expose him in his own words. who could anonymous be? plus, a rising star admits to an affair and explicit photos and this could boil down to a swing district turning republican? we'll be back. forget about vacuuming for months. the roomba i7+ with clean base automatic dirt disposal and allergenlock™ bags that trap 99% of allergens, so they don't escape back into the air. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™
fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
>> tonight, the anonymous op ed writer who worked or works in the trump administration, the person who called trump petty and ineffective has a lot more detail including personal conversations with the president. the back cover of the book that anonymous is putting out called a warning states you will not just hear from me. you will hear a great deal of donald trump directly for there is no better witness to his character than his own words and no better evidence of the danger he poses than his own conduct. former secretary of veteran affairs and the president fired him via tweet last year. shulkin has a new book, it shouldn't be this hard to serve your country. and i start there, secretary shulkin because your book has your name on it. you wrote it. you have publicly criticized things in this administration.
you know, we have seen multiple officials come forward and testify and they've all done so with their names other than the whistle-blower who should not have their name out there. we don't know if this anonymous author still works for the white house or not, but i will caveat this or not. you put your name on your book. is this person brave, or a coward? >> believe it's your duty to speak up and particularly with governments as broke as it is. we need people to come forward and talk about what's happening so we can find solutions to return washington so it works for the people and i believe part of that is putting your name on something and when i wrote my book i had to go through it and make sure that every word in that was something they believe immediate and i believe that's what we need. >> do you have a guess as to who anonymous might be? i'm sure you talk about it with
your colleagues. >> i was in the oval office and there were many people that would come in and out, but i would hope that if there's something important in this book that needs to be said that somebody would stand up and put their name behind it. >> so one thing that this person wrote, obviously, we don't know the book yet, but in the op ed, the one just over a year ago, this person writes about trump, the root of the problem is the president's amorality and the person goes on to describe trump's leadership style as adversarial, petty and ineffective and the meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails and he engages in repetitive rants with half-baked and ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back. do you agree? >> i don't think there's any doubt that the president's mind moves quickly and the conversations change very rapidly and one of the concerns that i always had when i worked in the administration was to make sure that he was getting the right information and that the information he had was
accurate because he is able to act on that information so quickly and often will make decisions very quickly and so if he gets the wrong information that's where i'm most concerned. >> so you write about the events in charlottesville. you wanted to condemn hate and you didn't want to become the target of the president's ire and you were torn and you ultimately decided to speak out and you decided to say something even if it was to be fired and it was a tough moral decision. my question for you, mr. secretary, if one of the people you respect and one of the five cabinet positions currently open or with an acting, would you tell this poerson to take that job? >> i can't imagine not wanting somebody who could help this government not going. i would tell them i'm proud if they would be going.
but i would give them this advice, when you work for the president you work at mhis pleasure and any day you could be relieved and you have to be prepared to stand up for your principles and you simply can't be subjected to the political gamesmanship that's going on, and so if you're not prepared to stand up for what you believe? then i don't believe you belong there in this environment. >> to be prepared to quit or be fired? >> absolutely. you have to be prepared for both and you have to be focused on the reason why you went there or if it means you quit or were fired so be it. >> thank you very much, secretary shulkin. your book "it shouldn't be so hard to serve your country." your name is on it and you own everything you say. she's a rising star that flipped a district. now there's news of an affair and pictures. it is all very sordid. will it put that district back in republican hands and remembering the man called the
♪ ♪ at bayer, we're into the golden years. with better heart treatments, advanced brain disease research, and better ways to age gracefully. at bayer, this is why we science. fun fact: 1 in 4 of us millennials have debt we might die with. and most of that debt is actually from credit cards. it's just not right. but with sofi, you can get your credit cards right - by consolidating your credit card debt into one monthly payment. you can get your interest rate right - by locking in a fixed low rate today. and you can get your money right. with sofi. check your rate in 2 minutes or less.
my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems.
her. the freshman democrat admitted to having a relationship with a campaign staffer and is facing allegations that she had an inappropriate relationship with a congressional staffer. look, obviously this whole thing is sort of sorted and salacious and there is all that aspect to it. but what it boils down to is her district. she turned
announcer: 5 million kids use e-cigarettes. it's an epidemic fueled by juul with their kid-friendly flavors. san francisco voters stopped the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. but then juul, backed by big tobacco, wrote prop c to weaken e-cigarette protections. the san francisco chronicle reports prop c is an audacious overreach, threatening to overturn the ban on flavored products approved by voters. prop c means more kids vaping. that's a dangerous idea. vote no on