tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC December 15, 2017 9:00pm-10:00pm PST
marine, army ranger and then fast forward to today. special counsel. that's our broadcast for tonight. thank you so much for being here as we come to a close for this week. goodnight from nbc head quarters in new york. thanks for joining us this hour. i'm doing something a little different. we're doing something special tonight and i think we have picked exactly it right night to do it. just in today's news the president went to the grounds of the fbi and as he was head hadding to fbi where he spoke at an fbi ceremony, declared the fbi to be a disgrace. he was asked about the prospect he might pardon his national security advisor. he said i don't want to talk about pardoning mike flynn yet. we then got a red flag thrown by
the top democrat on the intelligent committee who went public with his concerns that he believes it republicans in congress are trying to end the house intelligence committee into the russia scandal by the end of this month. he thinks they're trying to wrap it up now. he said he believes the republican's view is shutting down our investigation is a necessary prerequisite to shutting down bob mueller. thereafter we runner hadded the president's legal team is going to be meeting in person next week with robert mueller and his prosecutors. we're not exactly sure why. we then got conformation from the wall street journal that those subpoenas that had been reportedly sent to duch bank which the president's lawyers tried to throw cold water on, we got conformation they have in fact received multiple subpoenas from the mueller investigations. we got further reporting that wells fargo has also received at
least one subpoena from the mueller investigation perhaps as recently as last week. that may be important. it may also be the cause of anxiety in the white house because this president has described his business deal shz and financial deals as essentially a red line for the mueller investigation. one he would not expect the mueller investigation to cross. so all that happened today on the day we had planned to do a special thing. i think this means that one of my ancestors several generations back did something good one day because it's paying off for me right now. for me as a host of a news program we very often end up wishing we had had a lawyer or seven around who we could speak to for free who would help make sense of daily developments particularly in this scandal aflicting this presidency. and that's not just because it's a legal scandal that involves
prosecutors and defense teams. for are a lot of parts of it that seem to be news but for those of us without law degrees doesn't necessarily make sense. it feels difficult to figure out whether some legal action is a big deal or whether it's just what happens in cases like this. it's normal. don't get too excited. because of that ongoing desire, we have decided for this special rachel maddow show today to gather four of the best legal minds in the country who will answer our phone calls. we're sort of thinking of this as trms law school. trmsjd. trms esquire if we're feeling fancy. part of what we're going to do tonight is air out some of the questions we've had had as a staff about this scandal. but we've also solicited questions from you at home. got good set of viewer questions to ask as well. without further ado joining us
are our professors of the night. there will be a quiz. former u.s. attorney for it eastern district of virginia appointed by president bush. until a few months ago the administrator of the drug enforcement administration. president obama's u.s. appointee president trump and in addition to being a fake professor here tonight. edward stanton was the u.s. attorney under president obama. he's now in private practice and our point guard who was obama's u.s. attorney efor new jersey. he's now a real-life law professor at seton hall. as you can tell from the repeatedty of my speech, i'm glad you're here. i'm a rot of questions on my own and the viewers. but feel free to tell me if i'm asking a dumb question or to jump in on each other. i expect you all will not agree on all of these matters and so
feel free to fight it out if we find something we don't all feel the same way about. let's start with the way the president made news today. michael flynn has pled guilty to one count of lying to the fbi. the president said he did not want to talk about pardoning mike flynn yet. i'm really interested in that yet as a mat of strategy. if the president were to pardon mike flynn now, what would happen to the testimony that mike flynn has presumably already offered it mueller team as part of coming to this plea deal and am i right in assuming he's already given information to mueller's team? >> i think you should assume he's given a lot of information to the mueller team. if the president were to pardon mike flynn, that doesn't preclude it mueller team from continuing to use information that general flynn has. in other words it gets him off the hook for any crime he may have committed but doesn't
remove his obligation to give testimonyicide he be subpoenaed. >> in terms of him testifying i know the calculus mike flynn might have might change for him if he's pardoned. if he knows they can't prosecute him for anything anymore. would he end up testifying? he's already given them information. would it effect the value of that testimony? >> i say two things about that. one is you can compelhim to testify and require him to answer questions. but when somebody is being compell compelled, it's very different than with they have an incentive to operate. they could be connecting the dots for you. if if had stead you've got to pull teeth you might get yes, no answers. the other wrinkle is even if it president trump can pardon michael flynn, he couldn't pardon him from any state crimes he might be exposed to.
so they could use that for leverage as well potentially. >> that brings me to another question i've been wondering about with flynn's deal. a viewer named jim who said why would a defendant ever agree to a plea deal flynn did? it doesn't really protect him from much. i think what he's getting at is what's in the plea deal is not very much information. and maybe that means they just don't have very much on flynn. but it's my understanding with you get the guilty plea, you lay out every single thing you've got against them and expect those plea agreements to be juicy. this one's very thin. >> even if you don't write out everything in the plea agreement everything it person has admitted to. when this conversation happens between flynn or someone in flynn's position and a prosecutor. someone broechs the suckject of a plea agreement and
cooperation. if the government is interested in flynn's cooperation, they want to know what he's going to tell them before they sign the deal and so at some point my expectation is that general flynn first through his lawyers and directly face to face with the agents and the prosecutors gave them information that says here's what all the information i have, here's what i would say if i was called to testify. here's what i'm going to stay about my own conduct and everybody else's conduct. then the plea agreement is negotiated. what's weird about this plea agreement is in the contect of that conversation, ordinarily mike flynn would have been asked by bob mueller or the staff tell us everything you did. that's the first thing they ask and the reason is that's how they measure someone's capacity for being truthful. and so if he told them everything he did, now that he's told you everything, he wants to be protected from being prosecuted. >> from all it thing he's just
confessed to you. >> so sometimes the plea agreement will say what those things are and sometimes simply say the government will bring no further charges related to general flynn's conduct as of the date of this agreement. that phrase, those clauses are missing from this agreemth and i'm watching chuck nod. it's really change it's not there because he's not protected from being prosecuted from are the other stuff they've investigated him for. >> it's very possible there's nothing else there. the government feels -- special counsel feels there's nothing else. along those lines and i guess the 1,001. lying to the government, to the fbi. it was a tool back in -- when i served as u.s. attorney that we used. not freak wbtly but always a good resource to have, often times when you can't make a full
case where there's conspiracy but a good way to lock in a witness and get them to cooperate very early in a case. so i think a lot of that is what's go ogon. you see the two guilty pleas. they're both 1,001 claims. that's not something typically used are it time. but it's also a resource that in this case i think it special counsel has to lock in that testimony that to find out what's going on and to move forward with investigation. >> to your point if flynn were pardoned, that would be a federal pardon. the president can't pardon anybody for state crimes. there's also this line that says he has to cooperate with other federal, state and local law if forcement authorities in any and are matters. is that boiler plate? >> it's not. and i think you have correctly detected what could be telegraphing this could be for example alstate attorney general's investigation. we've heard reports that it had
new york attorney general might be investigating matters around paul manafort. i don't know there would be state jurisdiction over everything that's going on but certainly it parallels many things. most states have a computer fraud and abuse statute for example. so if they have to shift gears and move into that state realm to avoid a pardon scenario, i think robert mueller is seeing those chess moves on the board. >> let me ask you one other part about the flynn reporting that i just don't -- i get as a matter of drama but not law. a lot of people are saying general flynn as been acutely interested in protecting his son from being prosecuted. his son just his first child, worked with his father closely at the if telegroup. i get the human drama of this. what i don't get is how a person can trade their own information for somebody else's liberty.
can you pass your get out of jail free card to somebody else? >> not typically. i've seen it once or twice where i have so much information that a value to government that i might be able to trade it for barb's freedom. now it's not if had krjed, it's unusual. but can i make one other point about the flynn son? >> sure. >> i think this is important, rachel. a lot of people have been talking about how the mueller team was leveraging the son or using the son to get it father. they were playing one off it other. i don't think good prosecutors actually think that way. it poith be it case that 24 son committed a crime and the fact you're looking at him puts pressure on the father but you don't do it for that reason. you have to make an independent judgment about each defendant. let's say you charge them both and only charge the son to
leverage it father and then something happens to father. he's hit by a bus, not for for trial. can you bring that case against the son as a stand alone case in front of a jury of 12 sg the answer is no, you don't charge them. so i think sometimes the talk about using it son to leverage the father is glib. and bob mueller is a good prosecutor. you make independent judgments. it might have the effect ofputing pressure on the father but that's not why they did it. >> let me add two other quick points to that. sometimes it happens when someone comes in to cooperate and gets debriefed government, sometimes part of their cougher is by the way my son didn't know anything about this and so sometimes it decision not to prosecutor a family member is made reasonably by the prosecution team. that's one thing and i think it's important to keep that.
if in fact there is a an understanding unwritten in the plea agreement that general flynn's son will not be prosecuted because of this deal, the government will have to disclose that fact to any defendant against whoom general flynn might ultimately testify. so he can be cross dpamened. let's say general flynn ends up testifying in the paul manafort trial and paul manafort's words will be entitled to be told that part of flynn's deal is not actually in the agreement. part of the agreement is -- because that would geto the question of flynn's cull 3b89 and whether he's actually embellishing his had toimnt or hiding facts to protect his son. they would be entitled to know that. >> is that something he just does in a conference room with prosecutors? does he testify to the grand jury at any point?
>> he could. the first thing is a praufer and that can be used for certain things. it can't simply be introduced in a case as an admission or confession by michael flynn. this is what he's testified to, ladies and gentlemen and therefore you should convict him of "x". if he later testifies inconsistently they can cross examine him with the fact he said something different. my ecpeckitation. if i'm bob mueller and i just heard it president of the united states imply he's thinking about a pardon for mike flynn, i'm getting mike flynn in the grand jury to testify under oath as quickly as i can so whatever testimony he's going to give is locked down. >> all right. one last question for you on flynn and then we're going to take a quick break. viewer jean and jean wants to ask what, if any, are the liabilities incurred by white house staff, other than it president for failure to act
upon the security warnings with regard to flynn? so this is about the 18 days between the warning from acting attorney general sally yates, 18 days that elapsed before the white house apparently acted on that warning and asked for his resignation. i'm wondering specifically about his security clearance. if you are under fbi investigation, criminal investigation, aren't they supposed to yank your security clearance. once the white house was noti notified he was under investigation shouldn't more than pulled that. >> hate to be lawyer here. it depends on what he's under investigation for and what the justish department conveyed to the white house. so the answer is perhaps. not automatically, perhaps. and there are remedies in between. letting him keep his clearance and pulling it.
so you could exclude him from certain topics. he didn't get to sit in on "x." there's a whole range of things to do toop gene's question, would somebody in the white house have -- probably not criminal liability unless they're doing it to cover something else up and you could spin out a scenario where that might bow the case wut in the more typical case if someone failed to act, they too in theory could lose their clearance if they weren't doing all they could to protect national security information. good question, highly fact dependent. >> and there's one twist to it too. which i believe the public reporting hoo briefed the president it next day about it fact that sally yates said we believe general flynn was not telling the truth about his denying talking to the russians about sanctions. so if it people didn't yank it
security clearance and it was the president's decision, it's hard to imagine -- it's it president who ultimately gets to make that decision. >> the president has unilateral authority even if they're really bad decisions. >> they're stick around. much more of law school. we're not even to torts. stay with us. patrick woke up with back pain. but he has work to do. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain
very, very angry. >> the president also said he was going to rebuild the fbi after describeing it fbi as a disgrace said we're going to rebuild it. joining us is our all-star group of u.s. former attorneys -- thank you all for doing this. so the president did go hammer and tongs against the fbi. described it fbi as a disgrace. said we're going to rebuild the it fbi. i want to add to that the fact that republican congressman, head of the oversight committee. he said last night he would be quote a little bit surprised if fbi deputy director mccabe is still an employee of the fbi this time next week. he was asked about his expected testimony in congress and basically said he expects him to be fired before next week. with the fbi under this kind of political attack, i know they're always described as independent
but how independent are they? who could fire it fbi director, the fbi deputy director? who could influence decisions in the fbi from outside? >> i think they are truly independent. you can fire the director and keep going down the line but with 35,000 employees at some point the buck is going to stop. i work would fbi agents for more than 20 years and they are it most professional, dedicated people i've ever met. that's why i find this attack on the fbi to be so harmful. in self interest, president trump is trying to undermine the credibility of the fbi for this case. but the effect is to undermine credibility in every case. agents are going to say i have thick skin. i can take it. but in terms of bank robbery cases, white collar crime cases, the jury is hearing the president of the united states say the fbi is a disgrace. what does that do to their
confidence when they're deciding cases across it country? i think this is antilaw enforc enforcement and criminal. >> when barb says this is going to be nation wide implications, across law enforcement. this is not in a corridor conflict. does that ring for you? >> i'm concerned about the morale. as barb mentioned you have dedicated men and women that do a great job no matter who's in the white house. it's not a red or blue way to be an fbi agent. but to serve. it really strikes at it morale of going in every day and doing the great work on behalf of the country. when you hear these rumblings. who can fire the director? i mean obviously we've seen this. the president. >> could the attorney general fire the fbi director?
>> no, it wouldn't come to the president. and as you were probably going in this direction. the fbi is 35,000 plus strong. one of the strengths of the fbi is that its political layer is so remarkably thin. by that i mean how many of those 35,000 employees are political appointees. the answer is only one. every other man and woman is a career civil servient. so it's -- >> will you describe for our audience your role that fbi in the past. >> i had the privilege off working for two directors. bob mueller as counsel to director and from 19 -- 2013 to 2015. i'm not that old. i worked for jim comey as chief of staff. they're extraordinary. i can't prove to you here that the fbi is not in tatters. i can tell you they're not. i know they're not. but to barb's point i have a
potential solution. the court house doors of america are open to every citizen. every single court house is open to the public. go watch a trial. watch these men and women testify. you can decide for yourself. you don't have to believe us. you can decide for yourself whether or not the fbi is in tatters. i can tell you it's an extraordinary, bright, proud organization. >> so what happens when we get an attack like this on the fbi? obviously i hear you say you're worried about morale given the important national security work as an agency but what's it consequence? we all at this table agree it's a dangerous thing. but i don't know what happens because of it. and i don't know if i should be worried about what the fbi, as a very powerful agency, night do to stand up for itself when it
feels it's under attack like it hasn't been in generations. >> it fbi's relationship with other law enforcement organi organizati organizations. we tends to think of the fbi as investigating bank robberies and white collar crime. but the fbi has an enormous role in counterintelligence and counterterrorism. working with state and local governments all across it country and their counterparts across the world. and if those people think that the fbi's not going to get backed by the president of the united states, that's a problem. i'm hopeful, especially in the united states, where those are built on long personal relationships between cops and local sheriffs and special agents of the fbi, that those relationships will in fact remain quite strong and i hope you see those law enforcement agencies saying they're really talented, they're really helpful and really qualified to do what
they do. >> very pliticized controversy about text messages between -- lisa page was an fbi lawyer. fbi lawyer and a senior fbi counterintelligence official peter struck and lisa page ands it rr a lot of controversy as to why their personal texett messas to each other were made public. he was reportedly taken toff mueller investigation when the inh inspector general became aware of a these text messages, showed them to for had mueller and that was the end off peter struck's time on the investigation. what does a countersenior intelligence officer do? i've seen "the americans." so i think i'm a genius about these things. but being the number two official in the fbi in counterintelligence. what does he do?
how big a loss is it whether or not it was a good thingee was taking up the investigation. how big a loss is it? >> the fbi is a ulalso an intelligence agency. a lot of people don't appreciate they're dual hatted. they're also an intelligence agency. they're part of the intelligence community. they share that with other members of the intelligence community. so what does an fbi senior counterintelligence agent do? some of that. where do you get intelligence? lots of different sources. there's human intelligences. there's a bunch of different ways. and it job is to sinth size that intelligence. sometimes you give it to people in law enforcement to do their
jobs better and when it works well and it often works very well, are it iftelligence communities are enhancing each of their missions. so senior fbi officials would over see that process. it collection and disemination of intelligence. which is really gist a fancy word for information. >> but counterintelligence is about other countries, right? >> and i can't go into great detail but yes, it is and more than a responsibility for collecting intelligence from foreign governments. >> see this is important stuff. we'll be right back. barbara mcquaid, chuck rosenbering are here. you're not yet to your second year but we're getting there. when it comes to heartburn
each day justin at work... walk. and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move. ♪ when you have doctors working as a team for your health, you get the care you need to help you thrive. ♪ visit kp.org to learn more. kaiser permanente. thrive.
♪ this is the lightning round. chuck rosenberg, who plays mueller in the movie? >> kp back to me and i'll answer at the end. >> barb, you have to bet. does trump pard. flynn? >> no. >> edward? no, i got to come back to you. >> george clooney. >> yeah, i can see it. there's a cheekbones issue. >> george clooney. that's my answer. >> edward, you have to bet.
we have assembled the equivalent of a twister of magic 8 balls and we promise we won't shake them. we were talking about it prausz pect of the president trying to end mueller's investigation by firing the spelshz counsel. aside from the prospects of how exactly the president would have to go about that and who he would have to fire and are that stufr, if robert mueller was dismissed tomorrow, jeff wants to know what would happen to flynn's guilty plea thoorks manafort indictment thoorks ongoing sentencing with people brought up thus far? >> to the mere firing of robert mueller does not necessarily end the investigation. for one, he can only be fire ood for just cause, conflict of interest and the like. i suppose there could be some
reckoning to go along with that for the person who makes the firing decision. >> what do you mean by that to? >> i think for had were a lot of outrage if he was fired on a whim. >> rosensteen has said he's the one who hired him and he can fire him but he won't unless there's just cause. i think the investigation continues. it was going on in the eastern district of virginia. i think it would continue. the question is under whose jurisdingz? >> if it justice department hierarchy, rod rosensteen was persuaded that the whole investigation was bunk. he could end it, iffee wanted to, right? >> he could end the investigation. the deputy aturny general could end the investigation to end, i suppose. but i don't think -- that's not
what he's going to do here. if he's ordered to fire mueller and if he doesn't quit before he carries out that order, you're going have tease cases and investigations and it will be up to him to decide whether wr they go. or to new york to southern district or eastern district of new york, whether they get sent to the criminal decision of the department of justice but they're not going to go away just because bob mueller's not at the helm. >> when you said persuaded. knowing rosensteen like we do, having served as a u.s. attorney, rod is someone who is unquestionably has the character, the independence to serve. he served in two different administrations and so again i'm not sure -- i am sure that he cannot be persuaded. i think he would step down before being persuaded to direct an investigation one way or another. >> on that point were you at all
rattled given those feelings, were you lat rattled when he okayed the release of the fbi officials' personal texts? >> i'm not sure i'd say rattled. i think with the dep outy iturny general what he wants to do is the appearance of impruprity. i think he understood it was going to be leaked in front of members of congress and to assure public confidence that there was a wrinkle. it was dealt with and to get in front of it to avoid an even larger story of a cover up of activity untoward or even a cover up. >> i agree with that but there's something about that that troubled me. let me tell you why. the way we view our justice system sort of turns on two factors. one is outcomes are fair and
just. if you rob a bank and you're convicted for robbing a bank, that's a fair and just outcome. but there's a second way we measure our justice system. you rob a bank, you're convicted of robbing the bank but it prosecutor is talking about his disdain for tall, white women with dark hair and he's been doing flat 20 years. people doubt that the process has the inhad teg rety that it ought to have. so you need the perception of the cyst fweem fair and the system to actually be fair and here's the problem with the text messages. it answers one of those questions or pretends. it suggests the process is not fair. what i was hoping would happen is the inspector general would put out a report telling us about everything. there was a bad perception, perhaps they shouldn't have written what they wrote. i'm not convinced the first amendment argument gets us out of this thing meaning they can write whatever they want to
write when they want to write it. but if those texts come out in context, then he could also tell us that outcome was fair. in other words theyicide have been more circumspect, rachel. but there's no reason to think that outcome was tainted. and so that's the problem with just releasing the text twhout contectst for them. >> and without a sense of how this is going to impact the country even outside this case. i want to ask you a few one off questions from our viewers i think are super interesting and specific. rita wants to know about nondisclosure agreements in trump's world. it appears anyonal associated with donald trump has been forlsed to sign an all-encompassing nondisclosure agreement. >> i think in the context we're
talking about tonight which are federal grand jury investigations and potential federal criminal trials a federal subpoena will trump those. >> and wad person fight that out and have the court decide it? >> likely yes. >> another very specific question on the president's tax retu returns. can't the special counsel evidence the tax reforms? wloo does he have to convince of the germaneness? >> yes, there's a statute. we always refer to it as an eye order after sub"eye" of the code. you have oo apply to a magistrate judge and convince them there's a reasonable crime that's been committed. and that you can't get the had information you need by any other means and if you can satisfy a judge that standard has been met, then you get the
order for the tax returns. >> and does the target of the order find out with that happens? >> others with that would tamp wrr with the -- >> i would add this is an extraordinarily ordinary thing for white collar prosecutors to do. >> and no extra hurdles for being a president. >> it might cause her to sort of read it just a little more carefully and take more time. but the standard is the standard. it doesn't change for the president or you or me. and so i can tell you it's a very logical place to start. why? my colleagues all know this. where did the money come from, where did the money go? and do too whom do you issue subpoenas.
i know what federal prosecutors do with they get tax returns. follow the money. >> it's a very specific question. i think i know the answer but i talk myself out of it. jared kushmer has reportedly met with mueller's investigators. that is not true, as far as we know of donald trump jr., vice president pence or the president himself. does that mean, for are hof us observing this, that jared kushner likely has near worry about than the others do? do prosecutors sometimes bring charges against people without ever meeting them and questioning them first? >> are the time. because lawyers don't want to bring their clients in to talk to the proskurtz under those circumstances. if your client is someone likely to be indicted, almost nothing good can be done about it. and finding out what that
perspective defendant story is likely to be. >> his lawyer put him in with a prosecutor. >> in some cases i would say yes but here ied would say no. off. there are three people you just mentioned who can't say no if mueller asked. and the president. >> why can they not say no? >> legally they can say no but politically they can't. we've pledged full cooperation and decided we're not going to go. donald trump jr. may be slightly different and so for him the risks are a little less. but i think you can't really draw that conclusion at the moment. >> and we do know both the vice president's lawyers and the president's lawyers have met with mueller's team
. we're back with barbara mlk mcquaid, all former u.s. attorneys and justice department officials. this is from viewer kar eer car. i heard special counsel can't indict a sitting president. question what if the crime was commitd before he became president? say money laundering. if it president is guilty to money laundering or serious crimes before he took office --
specifically i want to know a h incarcerated? >> i think statute of limitations is the first place to look. >> what about money laundering? depends? >> five unless they've changed the statute. there's plenty of time for that. >> if it was within it statute of limitations. >> there's still that office of legal counsel opinion that says a sitting president cannot be indicted. we don't really know the legal limits but i would submit bob mueller who has agreed to follow all the rules and policies of the department of justice probably would not indict the sitting president for any crimes those that occurred before or during the administration. he could be charged after he leaves the white house so long as the statute of limitations has not expired. >> there is a legal opinion from
the office of legal counsel but ril it's not the in depth research they typically issue and the water gate independent counsel had had a different view on that question. and so while i tend to think bob mueller would like to follow that particular advice, that's the advice that came out of the advice of legal counsel, i wouldn't be surprised to see whether that is reasonable under the circumstances. >> around the issue of potentially indicting the president and around the issue of the president trying to end the mueller investigation somehow by firing people or doing something else. we got a lot of questions about what is a constitutional crisis? people use that as the go-to hihrbh high purbly.
>> i actually think the question of whether the president gets indicted or not is a constitutional crisis because it involves constitutional law, interpretation on which there are different views and well-thought out views on both sides. if bob mueller gets fired, if the president make as referral to the house judiciary committee for impeachment, i don't know if i would constitute that as a constitutional crisis. his fitness to lead is being questioned and congress is being called upon to undertake a particular remedy at a particular time. >> bob mueller issues an indictment and the president refuses to acknowledge its existence or validity, who settles that? >> constitutional crisis are subject to being settled. by the supreme court of the united states. maybe a better way of describing what we colloquially refer to is
a constitutional question and so far, including president nixon, everybody has abided by the rulings of the supreme court of it united states. that seems to be a fundamental principal of our country. i hope and even predict that we will continue to abide by the rule of law here. >> every time he stands underneath that andrew jackson portrait, you know that's what i worry about. >> crisis might be over blown here. it is susceptible to debate and resolution by the supreme court of the united states. >> we'll be right back.
( ♪ ) ♪ i feel like fire ( ♪ ) the 2018 cadillac xt5. ♪ worship me beauty, greater than the sum of its parts. come in for our season's best offers and drive out with the perfect 2018 cadillac xt5. get a low-mileage lease on this cadillac xt5 from around $379 per month. on this anyone ever have occasional y! constipation,diarrhea, gas or bloating? she does. she does. help defend against those digestive issues. take phillips' colon health probiotic caps daily with three types of good bacteria. 400 likes? wow! try phillips' colon health.
america's small business owners. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes, who use their expertise to keep those businesses covered. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes behind the heroes, who brought us delicious gyros. actually, the gyro hero owns vero's gyros, so he should have been with those first heroes. ha ha! that's better. so, to recap -- small business owners are heroes, and our heroes help heroes be heroes when they're not eating gyros delivered by -- ah, you know what i mean. 3 toddlers won't stop him.. and neither will lower back pain. because at a dr. scholl's kiosk he got a recommendation for our custom fit orthotic to relieve his foot, knee, or lower back pain,
from being on his feet. dr. scholl's. born to move. all right. one last question for our dream team here. paul fishman, i'm going to start with you. we know the president, because he's very bright and has great taste, he watch as lot of cable news. on the off chance he's watching right now, if the president is watching right now and you could give him one small piece of advice, what would you tell him? >> to lower the temperature. i would tell him to stop taking shots at it fbi and stop taking shots at the special counsel. i think it's not going to help him with the investigators and