tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBC October 1, 2018 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
reason to investigate the actual assault allegations against brett kavanaugh, new are they? senators seem confused. nine senate democrats sent a letter suggesting a list of 24 people and entities they believe the fbi should speak to in order to try to get to the truth. the white house has limited the scope of the inquiry and the number of people the frk biis all -- fbi is allowed the talk to. they pressed him about that reporting earlier today. >> why don't you just -- we'll do the kavanaugh questions. >> thank you. >> now this you've answered several questions on trade. >> don't do that. do you have a question on trade? we'll do one or two more
questions. >> should the fbi interview all three of brett kavanaugh's accusers? >> it wouldn't bother me at all. i don't know all three. i imagine they are going to interview two. the third one i don't know much about. it wouldn't bother me at all. i've heard the third one has, i have no idea if this is true, has very little credibility. i think fbi should interview anybody that they want within reason. you have to say within reason. they should binterview and be guided. i'm being guidesed eguided by senators are looking for. >> the lingering question is why the white house has not authorized the fbi to interview key witnesses like kavanaugh's yale classmates or his high school peers who could provide insight into dr. christine
blasey ford allegations or julie swetnick. the third woman who accused kavanaugh of misconduct back in the 1980s. the president said the fbi should interview they want to within reason. our big question is what's within reason. ron clain and former u.s. assistant district attorney and msnbc legal analyst. ken, i kick it to you. what exactly does the president mean when he says within reason and what has the fbi been authorized to do? >> the president's playing a
game with the american public here. i've rarely seen him do it so blatantly. that was a deeply misleading statement. he knows or his white house counsel knows the fbi has been given a very limited witness of four people to talk to. it's one thing to say we only want to have a discreet set of allegations to investigate. it's another thing to limit their investigation. they're not allowed to reconstruct the possible house where the alleged innocent that dr. ford took place or to pull records. they are only authorized to talk to four people. the president may say i think the fbi should talk to whatever they want the the fbi is not interpreting their instruction from the white house counsel. they were made in consultation with senate republican.
democrats are suggesting they want to have an fbi investigation that's just enough to cover their vote. >> i'm sorry so interrupt you. jeff flake is talking in boston. >> a lot of my colleague on both sides of the aisle have had the same experience. what dr. ford said really emboele emboldened a lot of women to come forward. i'm not sure that any of my colleagues had one quite like that but all of us have had experiences like this in the last week. >> after you found drchl fo. fo credible. how can you vote to confirm judge kavanaugh? >> those who heard dr. ford,
everybody, said she offered compelling credible testimony. then brett kavanaugh came on and made an impassioned, very raw defense and rebuttal to what was going on. that was seen as effective as well. some people were turned off by the rawness of it, the anger. i said, at the time, had i been what felt was unjustly accused, that's probably how i would have responded as well. i said the day before on the senate, we may not have anymore certainty after the hearing and that's how i felt. there's a lot of doubt still. that's why it was important to have the fbi do more investigating and have more information, not less.
>> let's talk about the fbi investigation. new york times has reported that there might be limited in terms of how many people are interv , interviewed. the new yorker just published a story last night. about how some people want to speak to the fbi can't do it. does that concern you? >> we want the fbi to do a real investigation. we're working to make sure that that happens. i've had discussions with my colleagues, my staff is following up as well. i had one of those conversations just five minutes ago to make sure that any current, credible allegation that's been made is fully investigated. >> will you continue to say
you'll vote no if the fbi investigation is not to your liking? >> in the next couple of days we'll be having dialogue with the white house counsel office making sure that it is up to standard. we need to find out what we can find out. we may not be able to find out everything that happened. this is something that was a while ago. some potential witnesses may not want to cooperate. >> obviously judge cavs flaw was quite angry during his testimony.
did his partisanship worry you? he mentioned the clintons. did that bother you? >> i didn't like some of the more partisan references and the tone. with amy klobuchar he came back and apologized after break. i don't like to see that. you feel that maybe you give him a little more leeway. i think i did was a he was being accused of. if i felt i was unjustly accused, i can't imagine i would act differently than that. i don't want to politicize the court. the supreme court is one of last bastions of trust of an institution with which americans have trust. the senate, as an institution, is having issues as well.
it's a same. it really is. you have to reach across the aisle. we just haven't done it. i felt so strongly a few years ago about it that we needed to prove the republicans and democrats can get along. i literally marooned myself on sdea deserted ie loonsland in the mif the pa sirveg. this was in 2024.c sirveg. this was in 2024.i sirveg. this was in 2024.f sirveg. this was in 2024.i sirveg. this was in 2024.c sirveg. this was in 2024.sirveg. this was in 2024.. this was in 2024. he said jeff flakes moved they could get along.124.
he said jeff flakes moved they could get along.4. he said jeff flakes moved they could get along. it's far too little of it in the senate. >> you did not support president trump. you did not vote for him. the republicans aren't happy with you. democrats aren't happy with you. what does that feel like to be kind of the man without a country? >> that's what it feels like. i could never warm to the president. long before he ran he talked about president obama not being a citizen. i thought that itself is disqualifying. you cannot do that. talked about john mccain in a derogatory way. then talked about mexicans in a derogatory way. i think we have got to do better
than that. we can't refer to our political opponents on the other side of the aisle as losers and clowns. we have too big of issues to solve in this country than to just be partisan all the time. >> i don't think anybody would disagree with you. n in the audience, people under 30. they have seen nothing but government dysfunction. what can you tell them about whiwhy they should have faith in u.s. government? >> i think young people have to engage. when you look at the issues we have to solve. social security, health care, it's the thing that young people need to be concerned with. >> that's senator jeff flake speaking at the forbes under 30 summit in massachusetts. asked some of the questions that anybody would be asking. number one, is he satisfied by the scope of the fbi
investigation. number two, if he's not satisfied by the scope, would he still vote no for brett kavanaugh. he was a bit wishy washy on that. it seems like the president is working hand in hand with senate republicans to limit to a degree. are people like jeff flake still undecide or is this moving ahead regardless of what happens to the same conclusion it was before jeff flake put a wrench in things last week? >> reporter: i think that's the central question. this is aimed toward five senators.
all undecided reps and duoundecide eduoutwo undecided investigations. the question is whether the investigation will be full enough. if they turn up the names of other people, he would like them to do that. president trump says he wants the investigation to be conducted within reason. what is within reason? what are krecredible allegation. these are things that are ill defined. i think we'll have to wait and see when the fbi comes back whether or not it's enough to satisfy flake and those others. >> you worked hand in hand with the fbi. when you consider what they are allowed and not allowed to do, according to reporting that's out there, do you think it's an
adequate way of going about, finding out the truth. >> i think the truth is we don't know what they are allowed to do. it's very confused picture. the bottom line is of course you say they should pursue all credibility allegations. who is deciding what's krecredi? the fbi can do that. i don't see how they can look at that affidavit and not decide that. if someone is telling them, don't interview her because she's not credible. the problem is the fbi is being dictated about who is credible and who isn't. >> mark judge, leland keyser,
p.j. smyth and deborah ramirez. the classmate who said that kavanaugh exposed himself to her. the president said they should re-interview dr. ford, re-brett kavanaugh. he said the fbi feels it's been severely limited. >> do you have information that it is that limited? >> owe, i'm sitting here this morning telling you they are severely limited. i know they are. i know there's frustration and i know that the bureau will have to come back for every request they want to add to a very, very short list. the fbi has been handcuffed and the clock is ticking on this artificial one week deadline.
sf fra >> trafrank, is that based on y sourcing? >> yes. >> what do you think? >> this isn't an investigation. it's a fig leaf. we never told them they could only taublk to four people and couldn't look for documentary evidence. you have people on twitter saying i believe brett kavanaugh lied. please call me and they are not hear fing from the fbi. that's an investigation. if you're going to undermine the effort to find the truth, then what's the point of doing it. >> he said the democrats is going to ask for more, more. do you think he has a point? the democrats will want a much bigger investigation than the republicans will have or they will want a longer investigation, as of now allotted for going back into brett kavanaugh's past.
>> this can be done. the fbi is a huge law enforcement agency. democrats identified 24 specific things to be looked at. this is an appointment for life. brett kavanaugh will be on the supreme court for lifer. it needs to be gotten right now. otherwise we'll live with consequences for decades to come. >> is that lined up with what you've been hearing from the fbi? >> 100%. you heard jeff flake say heed been in conversations in the last five minutes about expanding the scope of this investigation. the new york times is out with a report that the white house issued a new directive to the fbi saying they should talk to whoever they deem fit. nbc news, i'm sitting here now so we have not confirmed this
independently. as soon as i get off the air, i'm going to try to do that. it seems credible given what jeff flake said there. he didn't appear to be satisfied and what frank said is 100% what i've been hearing until this moment. it seems the white house has buckled to pressure and is saying they can interview whoever seems appropriate. >> ken, i'm going to let you go. go try to confirm this reporting. thank you for sitting and being so patient. cheryl, to you. this sort of pressure the white house felt in order to change this directive. we should say peter baker and michael schimdt on this byline. do you something there was some republicans on board with this too? maybe jeff flake, maybe others saying they need to expand this? >> i don't think the white house is paying much attention to pressure from democrats. democrats have this long list of
like 20 people they want interviewed. i think the white house is responding, i would suspect, to questions from republicans and most likely senator flake. we just heard him say he had been in discussions with the wlo white house all day yesterday. he was on the phone with them five minutes ago. the white house needs to produce an investigation that will satisfy him so they can get his vote. i think that's what's at work. they know they can't produce a sham investigation. you're seeing a lot of democrats saying it's a sham. it's a railroad job. it's a farce. >> i wonder if this has come into consideration with anybody in the white house but the approval ratings for judge kavanaugh among the public are extraordinarily low for people who want to see him confirmed it's somewhere in the 30 something percent. that's extraordinarily and historically low for a supreme
court nominee. what is the fbi going to be able to positively determine? >> nothing is positive in this business. there's a lot of interviews that they can do. talk to the people who can refute kavanaugh's claim or confirm his claims he did not drink to excess such that he might have done this. talk the people who says this happened.
talk to the people who sperv specifically named to the fbi. nothing will be certain. that's not unusual. that's what people have to remember. nothing is ever certain. these kind of determinations are made all the time. i think we can get much closer to the truth if they let them do a real investigation. >> thanks for rocking and rolling with us this monday. we appreciate it. still to come, the actual reason the president was in the rose garden today. he struck a new deal on trade, but what's new about it? migrant children were moved in the dead of the night to tents in texas. we'll reveal what's been happening at the border while
you weren't looking. right after this break, did judge kavanaugh law under oath to senate judiciary committee and if so, will he be held accountable? pl you're headed down the highway when the guy in front slams on his brakes out of nowhere. you do, too, but not in time. hey, no big deal. you've got a good record and liberty mutual won't hold a grudge by raising your rates over one mistake. you hear that, karen? liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges... how mature of them. for drivers with accident forgiveness liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ in them therr hills on your guarantevacation.find gold but we can guarantee
we distributeus, i'm the owner environmentally-friendly packaging for restaurants. and we've grown substantially. so i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. that's right, $36,000. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. my unlimited 2% cash back is more than just a perk, it's our healthcare. can i say it? what's in your wallet?
rj you're aware of the jury instruction instruction, are you not? you're aware of that jury instruction? >> i am. s >> you know what it means. >> false in one thing. false in everything. >> that exchange during thursday hearing underscored one of the big lingering questions about kavanaugh's fitness for the supreme court. is he, himself, a credible person. the fbi opens a new probe into the sexual assault and misconduct allegations against kavanaugh. new questions are being raised about his past drinking habits. something he repeatedly down played last week. >> i drank beer with my friends. almost every one did. sometimes i had too many beers. sometimes others did.
i liked beer. i still like beer. >> kavanaugh drinking in high school is not really at issue. it's did kavanaugh lie about drinking in high school or college. he was trying to shrug off his exploits back then before the senate judiciary and the american public. some of those there to witness his college days had a different memory of what kavanaugh was like at yale. >> i was appalled. he was clearly lying and it was i credibly disturbing to see somebody perjuring himself who is in line to be a supreme court justice. >> when he gave the fox news interview and as i said in the washington post, tried to paint himself as a choir boy where all he did was study and play sports and every once in a while he would have a boy and that's not consistent with the brett kavanaugh that i knew in college. >> joining me is msnbc capitol
hill correspondent. amber, di do want to start with you. nobody is talking about maybe this man was too much of drinker in high school or condemning him for drinking in high school unless it led to something like what dr. ford described. there are questions about how he describes himself and how others would have described him back in that time. there's questions about the way he described his yearbook. here is what is at issue. he was claiming that all of them refute dr. ford's testimony but they don't do that. all the people at the house party that she said were there, said they don't remember such party or don't recall.
kavanaugh's drinking habits, was he a heavy drinker. was he not. drinking limit, age limit at the time of the incident. he said 18. it was 21. regardless he was 17. what boof and devil's triangle mean. i don't want to get into that and who he socialized with in high school. all of these things are being disputed right now. that's a lot of stuff for somebody who is trying to acts a judge on the supreme court. >> you're right. it's a lot of stuff. kavanaugh's defenders argue it's a lot of little stuff. every one had their own slang for whatever x term meant in high school versus what it means now. this matters in the context of kavanaugh's credibility because when he went before the senate
judiciary committee is his defense was i'm normal. i was just being a boy being a boy. a lot of what he got misleading or wrong raises questions about whether there's something sinister he was trying to cover up. the credibility on a lot of this little stuff matters. it builds up to is he fit to be a supreme court justice as a credible person. >> is he krecredible? is he credible on the little things.
senator flake and coons was on "60 minutes," he said if he was lying, that would be disqualified. are these lies of what he was like in college or mischaracterizing the reputations. are these enough to pull someone like jennifer -- jennifer flake. >> start it over. >> jeff flake, to pull him away from kavanaugh. gosh. i don't know what's up with me today. >> let me try to help you out. i don't think we're going to get a definitive reading on what devil's triangle means from this fbi report. these are some of the smaumer lies of judge kavanaugh are the things difficult to disprove.sm lies of judge kavanaugh are the things difficult to disprove.ms lies of judge kavanaugh are the
things difficult to disprove.asr lies of judge kavanaugh are the things difficult to disprove.sm kavanaugh are the things difficult to disprove.lsmaumer kavanaugh are the things difficult to disprove.smaller lies of judge kavanaugh are the things difficult to disprove. the democrats already felt he wasn't being honest and ready to fudge what was on his record. what he really felt on roe v wade or some of these bush era judgments. the idea that judge kavanaugh would come out all these little tiny false statements about things that don't matter all that much many grand scheme of things. if you're willing to lie about little things, you would be willing to lie about everything. whatever they think about him as being across the board dishonest, that's a problem.
we don't know how they feel on that issue of trustworthiness yet. they've not had to say so. if the fbi suggests they have been dishonest on these small things, it could weigh on that decision. >> whether or not he lied about knowing about the treatment of detainees at gitmo. there are democrats who say he did and the allegations of senator lehey saying kavanaugh was not truthful about whether or not he saw democratic documents and knew they were stolen documents when he was testifying about a decade ago. this is all compoundsing with the democrats. big question is does it matter to any republicans.ing with the democrats. big question is does it matter to any republicans.
thank you for joining us. appreciate it. one last thing, we were talking about credibility. i think it's important to bring up something the president did earlier today. he seemed to threaten some senators. let me play that sound. >> i happen to know some united states senators. one who is pretty aggressive. i've seen that person in very bad situations. i've seen that person in very, very bad situations. some what compromising. i think it's very unfair to bring up things like that. >> after that he mentioned senator booker and senator blumenthal. unclear if hefrs ref was referr either one. fact check. he was claiming he said he
served in vietnam and bragged about serving in vietnam but was lying about it and got caught. senator blumenthal did say in 2010, that he served in vietnam. not that he served in any particular province. he served in vietnam. when confronted with the fact he didn't serve in vietnam he was only in the marine reserve at time. he said i meant the vietnam era but took full responsibility for what he called a few misplaced words. the president also said and also claimed that senator blumenthal dropped out of his initial senate race but won any way because democrats always win in connectic connecticut. he did not drop out. i covered that race. he stayed in the whole time. it's important to point out the
president didn't get that right. next, whatever you do, don't wall it nafta. machine atever you do, don't wall it nafta. machin it's for my family, its for my self, its for my future. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retire your risk dot org. their medicare options...e people go to learn about before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! well, you've come to the right place. it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why... medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. only about 80% of your medical costs. this part is up to you... yeah, everyone's a little surprised to learn that one. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. that could help cut down on those out-of-your-pocket medical costs.
call unitedhealthcare insurance company today to request this free, and very helpful, decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. there are no networks or referrals to worry about. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! see? you're able to stick with him. like to travel? this kind of plan goes with you anywhere you travel in the country. so go ahead, spend winter somewhere warm. if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire, find out more about the plans that live up to their name. thumbs up to that! remember, the time to prepare is before you go on medicare! don't wait. get started today.
take your razor, yup. up and down, never side to side, shaquem, you got it? come on stay focused. hard work baby, it gonna pay off. . we have nafta which is a total and complete disaster. we will terminate nafta. if we don't get the deal we want, we will begin immediately renegotiating nafta. a trump administration will renegotiate nafta. if we don't get the deal we want we will terminate nafta and get a much better deal for our
workers and companies. >> nafta, nafta, nafta. donald trump spent a lot of time on the campaign trial trash talking the trade agreement. today the president crossed the campaign pledge off his list. >> it's my great honor to announce we have successfully completed negotiations on a brand fnew deal to terminate an replace nafta and the nafta trade agreements with an incredible new mexico-u.s.-canada agreement. it's called mca. it just works. >> besides the name change what's the difference and is it the big winner the president says it is?
i'm going to start with you. what's dift here whferent here? >> i was trying to figure out how to do that village people thing with ymca. i couldn't do the s. the name is different. there's some slightly significant differences. it's not that much of a change. what are those differences? one of them is that the rules of other begin, meaning the required levels of production that have to take place within the trade zone, the three countries for cars has been kicked up from 62.5 to 75%. that's a pretty big change if it sticks. it means there could be more regional production of autos.
at the same time and this is a significant change for mexico, 30% of auto production rising to 40 after a number of years has to be done at $16 per hour which is three or four times what mexican workers have been paid. that raises the issue of enforcement. you write down ideas like that that really do help workers on both sides of the borders relative to investigators which these deals have favored but if you don't enforce them, they don't mean very much. >> is it a big winner like the president says it is? >> it's only a big winner because it gets rid of a level of kind of trumpian induced chaos in international trade that never needed to be there in first the place.
end up pretty close to where you started and call it a big win. it's only a victory in the sense it dampens a lot of the uncertainty that he generated. >> if there's not that many significant changes to this, why not keep it called nafta? why change the name? >> you know the president cares more about branding than the names of things and the substance. this does not stand up to skr scrutiny. economists can tell you a close look at the comparison side by side will tell you that. what he said downsided lisounde they wanted him to deliver.
the president made a point of saying this started out because he imposed tariffs. that sort of brash toughness that he likes to project out there, his base likes that. it's not what you would expect from a u.s. president. that's the way this president did it. it's an instance of a foreign policy driven by domestic and police concerns. that base, they do like it. >> do you think there's more people than just the base. the tax cut, the tax whatever bill was supposed to appeal to a wide swath of people. the poll numbers for the tax cut are pretty low. do you think this tariff thing will help expand the president's tent going into the midterms? >> not too much, no.
the polling has been pretty static throughout the entire presidency so far. the country is incredibly divided. i think people will see this accomplishment through the same kind of partisan lens that they view the tack cuts. >> there's one group you may see come out more supportive of this than you might expect and that's labor. mexican unions can form real unions. not management unions. once again, if that's not enforced and implemented and we've had problems with impleme
implementation of labor rights in mexico, it won't mean anything. it may be more positive that you might expect. >> thank you very much. on the first day of the new supreissusupreme court term, ha been a more political nominee than brett kavanaugh? l nominee than brett kavanaugh chevy also won a j.d. power dependability award for its light-duty truck the chevy silverado. oh, and since the chevy equinox and traverse also won chevy is the only brand to earn the j.d. power dependability award across cars, trucks and suvs-three years in a row. phew. third time's the charm... you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed? let's say it in a really low voice. carl? lowest price, guaranteed. just stick with badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
. it is the first day of a new term for the supreme court and they begin this new term minus one justice because the seat that belonged to anthony kennedy remains vacant with brett kavanaugh's confirmation still up in the air. if he's actually seated, what will that mean? joining me outside the supreme court, pete williams and robert costa. bob, you want to start with you. the republicans are banding together on this and it seems like they're being led by the president and the white house and his supporters who say dig in your heels, we're going to get kavanaugh through. what is your reporting show? >> at this point republicans are pretty dug in. they think senator flake's decision to move for that delay has actually protected the nomination in some respects by
giving people in the side the republican party more cover to support kavanaugh perhaps later in the week. there is still concern that judge kavanaugh's answers has already raised questions among many democrats about possible perjury and the process itself, of the fbi investigation is continuing to come under scrutiny which could raise some alarms with people like senator murkowski or collins. >> here is what steve bannon said according to politico. there's no walking this thing back. you get kavanaugh, you're going to get turnout. you get turnout, you're going to get victory. this is march or die. how much water does someone like steve bannon still hold in this argument? >> steve bannon's comments are really reflective of where the republican base and the republican leadership is at this moment. they know that the base is looking for a supreme court nominee to be put into the high court as soon as possible but
behind the scenes, they say this whole process has actually stoked grievance among republican voters and the rage and outrage about the process on the right could be there regardless of how this actually plays out this week. >> interesting. pete, let's talk about the court itself. you have an argue talking about where the court is going and you interviewed a gentleman of georgetown law of how far right the kavanaugh nomination if he is confirmed will take the courts. lay that out for me. this is one of the more partisan supreme court nominees we've seen and it was certainly under scored last week when he started off his opening statement by pointing to the democrats and calling it clinton's revenge, et cetera. >> if brett kavanaugh is confirmed, there's no question he would move the court to the right but that has less to do with him and everything to do with anthony kennedy.
he's the seat that's being vacanted just as kennedy often voted with the liberals giving them some of their biggest victories, those days are over. that's why he's talking about. if it's not brett kavanaugh, if it's some other trump nominee substituting a republican nominee for anthony kennedy, that's what will move the court to the right. we're off to a bit of a slow start here at the court. this was the first day of the new term. a case, an environmental case, involving an endangered species. there are no real hot button issues for the first couple months, but when the court does move to the right as it will with any trump nominee, in the coming months or years, we'll see new restrictions on access to abortion, greater tolerance on religion in public life. that's the kind of momentum that will be under way for at least the next couple years whether
its brett kavanaugh or some other nominee from donald trump. >> what about the concerns of partisanship? the way in which brett kavanaugh opened his opening statement last week talking about clinton's revenge, the fact that he served in the bush white house, the fact that he served with kenneth starr, the difference between him and clarence thomas is, although clarence thomas said this was a national disgrace, he didn't specifically point to the democrats the way that brett kavanaugh did. the other day justice kagen was at ucla and she said the court's strength as an institution of american governance depends on people believing it has a certain kind of legitimacy. if people don't believe that, they have no reason to accept what the court does. pete? >> so you're talking about two separate things, one is what the court does, the decisions of the court and how they change the law, what you're talking about now is whether the partisan
attacks from judge kavanaugh will change the perception of the supreme court. another factor there is that for the first time now when we get this new nominee in place, we're going to have five conservative votes and four liberal votes that were put on the court by democratic presidents. >> pete williams and robert costa, gentlemen, thank you very much. we'll be right back. discover has no annual fees. really? yeah. we just don't believe in them. oh nice. you would not believe how long i've been rehearsing that. no annual fee on any card. only from discover. you may be learning about, medicare
and supplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything ...only about 80% of your part b medicare costs. a medicare supplement insurance plan may help cover some of the rest. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp because they meet aarp's high standards of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. you may choose any doctor that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan there are no networks or referrals needed. also, a medicare supplement plan... ...goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. call today for a free guide.
howdoing great dad!r does this thing got? looking good babe! are you filming. at booking.com, we can't guarantee you'll be any good at that water jet thingy... but we can guarantee the best price on a hotel, like this one. or any home, boat, treehouse, yurt, whatever. get the best price on homes, hotels and so much more. booking.com, booking.yeah ...ancestrydna can pinpoint where your ancestors are from... ...and the paths they took, to a new home. could their journey inspire yours? order your kit at ancestrydna.com.
thankfully for all of you, that will wrap things up for me this hour. ali velshi is in washington, d.c. and he takes it over. >> just add to the confusion because i've been watching you for the last hour. i thought i would mess you up by being in a completely different city. >> my team has pointed something very significant out to me. i have a thing for j names. it was jake, jonathan, jennifer. i called somebody named lucy juicy once on the air. >> i guess garrett could have been a jarrett. >> i was thinking of jake sherman. >> you have so many strengths katie, if that's the biggest problem you face, we'll take it happily. >> i love you. >> thank you. good afternoon. as you can see i'm ali velshi coming to you from washington this afternoon. the most exciting thing you can