tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN April 4, 2017 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
time to hand things over to "cnn tonight," and don lemon. >> russia bombshell, a member of the house intelligence committee warns somebody may go to jail. this is cnn tonight, i'm don lemon lemon. >> my impression is that people will probably be charged and i think people will probably go to jail. >> that is as president obama's national security adviser susan rice fights back, saying she never leaked any names, and never would. is this another distraction? but first i want to address something.
we are spending an awful lot of time on this show lately knocking down lies and here is one more lie we had to knock down today. today, bill o'reilly accused me of refusing to address the rice story, normally i would not address it, that is 100% false, and if you watched this show last night you know that is 100% false. and you saw, i began by laying out the various ways the white house has attempted to distract us from president trump's false wiretapping claims, the most recent being that the national security adviser susan rice unmarked the names of associates. i think brought a thing called facts. >> the unmasking by itself is not legal, i'm told by multiple officials. >> when you have a need to know and especially if you're the
national security adviser you have the right to ask for more context. >> so bill, we have covered a lot of the story, and tonight we'll cover it again tonight. another show we'll cover again tonight, the sexual harassment allegations against you. so let's get started. let's bring in march preston, kevin madden, and van jones, the host of "the messy truth." so we'll start with you, national security adviser, susan rice pushing back against allegations that she mishandled classified intel relating to the trump administration, here is how she responded. >> the allegation is somehow that the obama administration official s utilized intelligenc
for political purposes, that is absolutely false, there were occasions i would receive reports that a u.s. person is referred to, name not provided. just u.s. person. and sometimes in that context in order to understand the importance of the report and as assess the significance it was necessary to find out or request the information as to who that u.s. official was. >> but did you leak the name of michael flynn? >> i leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would. >> what is your take on these accusations from the white house and the right wing media and how ambassador wright is responding? >> one thing is, if she leaked the information or at least put it out there inappropriately we will find out. because the way it is described, it went far and wide within the intelligence circles here in washington, d.c. i will tell you i did speak to somebody involved in the intelligence-gathering operation back during the obama administration and they said
from at least their understanding that it was not true, that it was fault. and in many ways, susan rice can only say so much, based on what she does know. that is why perhaps we are not getting the full story that we would want to get from her. >> but also when you understand the procedure here and what it takes to unmask the name, might they be incriminating themselves? i want to bring in philip mudd? as ambassador might they incriminate themselves if they unmask the name? >> this is not that complicated, she is not under risk. this is how you do that information, that is when you see an intelligence product that says an american official is involved in undermining the president's initiative to establish sanctions against russia there is a standard question any national security adviser would have. who is that american official or
that american citizen who is undermining the president's initiative? don, this is not that difficult. it happens every day in the intelligence business. and this is what she should have done. who was involved in talking to the russians in a way that suggests that they want to undermine the sitting president's ability to establish sanctions against the russians? very simple. >> but mark, this is a diversion from the russia story, because so far we've seen no evidence she has done anything improper and it seems like an effort to tar and feather her to make the original truth a lie, with a tweet by the president. >> there is a simple question that we continue to lose track of is, what happened in the electoral process where a foreign government, in this case a foreign adverseary interfered
in the process, a valid question for the house and the fbi. there is a separate question happening for the past 100 years in washington, in the middle of that investigation who is leaking information. i think that is a significant question that the fbi will investigate. if you ask me as a former intelligence professional, compared to the question of russian intervention in the election, who leaked information is about third tier. that happens all the time on information leaked to security, if she leaked it she should be investigated. but we're losing sight of the number one question, can americans vote free and clear. >> i think if somebody leaked that should be investigated but that is a separate story. if there is a problem with the way that we collect information or we listen to americans or listen to phone calls that is a legitimate thing to investigate, and talk about. but that is a separate story and it should not be put into the
mix into this story. i'm going to bring you in, jason, but first i want to get kevin, the republican senator tom cotton weighed in on the accusations, i want you to listen. >> susan rice is the typhoid mary of the obama administration, every time something went wrong she seemed to turn up with it. whether it was the allegations of masking the names, or the benghazi situation, over the eight years of the obama administration. >> and you know that the controversy was a film or what have you, is that part of the reason why there is so much inclination to call for an investigation now that her name is coming up? >> yeah, well, that is, the typhoid mary reference is lost on a lot of people, but there is a lot of skepticism about the veracity of susan rice, i don't think that is with just
conservatives. the media has a right to be skeptical of susan rice, given her role, and pointing to the youtube video as the sole source of the benghazi attacks. so the question of her credibility, there is some skepticism, and some of it is warranted. and i think if you couple it with the fact that many days ago prior to the msnbc interview that susan rice conducted today she did indicate that she had no knowledge whatsoever about the unmasking allegations that were made by congressman nunes. when in fact today she seemed to allude that she did have knowledge about unmasking. so those are questions and doubts raised. as mark preston and philip mudd have alluded to it, that is why we have a senate investigation. >> today she spoke in generalities of the unmasking process. maybe she has no idea because
she doesn't know the information that is in the nunes information. it will be up to her whether she is telling the truth about that. but i understood those two interviews to be very different. van jones, go ahead. >> well, look, this is much ado about nathan, not even nothing, you got to go hood and say absolutely nathan. susan rice is being tarred, feathered and burned alive for doing her job. in a good way. what is she supposed to do? she is a national security adviser, she puts information on her desk that says somebody is trying to undermine the united states, the only thing she is supposed to do is say well gee, who is doing this? now that is all she did. and now she has this entire thing whipped up, and people are
doing back flips, because that is what they do when they don't want to talk about what is unmasked, not who. there are russian villains playing footsie with the president's team. can we talk about that? >> jason miller, i know you want to weigh in. here is your chance. >> thanks, don, well, i think today's interview with susan rice and andrea mitchell was a complete disaster, i couldn't believe how unprepared she was, about whether or not she would be willing to testify. a couple of weeks ago she said she knew nothing about the unmasking of names and it was not generality, very specific, she said she knew nothing. >> that was today, today was a generality, the other was she knew nothing about unmasking. but listen -- >> hold on, she doesn't know the information that devin nunes has so how would she know especially what he is talking about?
>> but it goes from well, i know nothing, to sometimes it was necessary as if she looked down and magically unmasked this document that would routinely get pinned to her lapel on her jacket before she left the house on a wintry morning. it was so absurd today, she was quick to say she was not doing any of the unmasking or the administration was not doing any of the unmasking for political purposes but still she was involved with the unmarking, not once or twice as we know from eli lake, it does -- >> they're supposed to do that. that is her job. >> even devin nunes in his original statement says there was nothing illegal done. the other jason is raring to get in -- do you think people understand exactly how the information is collected and i'll ask you the same thing i ask philip mudd, the actual process of having things
unmasked do you think they get it? >> no, shs t the other jason. >> look, this has been confidential for a long time because that is how the process is supposed to work. and the reason the trump administration is trying to open this up is for the same reason that since election day they have been conducting a misinformation campaign against the intelligence community. they know these investigations are going on. they know what they have done and they're very concerned about what happens when the american people find out so they want to make sure the american intelligence community doesn't have credibility, as a former intelligence officer i'm offended, as an american i'm frightened by it. >> i want to somebody who is not afraid to speak the truth. anna navarro. and here is what was told to wolf blitzer. >> there was a strong desire by
the white house that we lose our focus, that we not pursue the investigation of russia, particularly as it may impact the trump campaign, i think that is priority number one for the president and the administration. >> listen, anna, if she did something wrong, she did something wrong and should face the music for it. how much do you think the rice allegations will divert from the investigation of russia meddling. >> let's include it in the investigation, and you're right, there are two separate things but also there is some correlation. let's be clear about something, there are political and legal issues involved. the political issues, kevin madden was completely right. i would not have used typhoid mary, but i will tell you if you put five republicans in a room you will get ten opinions. one of the few things that
unifies us all is dislike and distrust of susan rice. i think she lends herself to being too political above all things and that makes this issue bigger. if it was practically anybody else in the white house, it wouldn't be that way, but it puts our hair on end, the issue she was asking questions about, was michael flynn, for the love of god give the woman a medal, if you're michael flynn, he even lied to the vice president of the united states. initiati anybody who is in a national security role should have been lawmak alarmed and asking questions, we're talking about michael flynn, she should ask questions and should have no qualms about
asking and answering to the committee. >> and investigate. >> not to make the excuse because that is the one laser focus, investigate, investigate, investigate. >> anna has spoken, mark. >> i just think whether you're a republican or democrat or journalist or a security analyst it comes down to this. as anna says, investigate, investigate, investigate, however, do not conflate the investigation into a russian hacking is a lot different than the unmasking. >> all right, stick around, everybody, a leading democrat on the house committee predicting trump associates will end up in jail over the russia investigation. let me talk to you about retirement. a 401(k) is the most sound way to go. let's talk asset allocation. -sure. you seem knowledgeable, professional. i'm actually a deejay. -[ laughing ] no way! -that really is you? if they're not a cfp pro, you just don't know. cfp. work with the highest standard.
gave us the power to turn this enemy into an ally? microsoft and its partners are using smart traps to capture mosquitoes and sequence their dna to fight disease. there are over 100 million pieces of dna in every sample. with the microsoft cloud, we can analyze the data faster than ever before. if we can detect new viruses before they spread, we may someday prevent outbreaks before they begin.
all right, and we're back as the house intelligence committee tries to get its russian investigation back on track, a protection by two of its members. so back with my panel now, i can't wait to hear about this. so a bombshell was dropped earlier, he said he would not be surprised if people ended up in jail after this russia investigation, that was on wolf blitzer's show.
his colleague spoke out about it as well. take a look. >> my impression is i would not be surprised after all of this is said and done that some people end up in jail. >> really? and how high does that go in your suspicion -- that is all we can call it right now. >> well, that is yet to be determined. >> but you think some people are going to wind up in jail, not just one individual, but people, plural, is that what you're saying? >> that is my impression, yes. >> do you want to elaborate on that and give us more information? that is obviously a very intriguing statement. >> at this point i can't, i we shall -- i wish i could. >> i want to respectfully disagree with my friend, he said he would not be surprised if people ended up going to jail. i will be surprised if people don't end up going to jail. >> wow.
so i mean, wolf is being generous saying intriguing, is this the first time that we've heard a sitting congressman say something like that? >> and this is unbelievable, i think for a member of the house intel committee out there throwing out such inflammatory rhetoric, i mean, if they're supposed to go with an honest and sincere investigation and throwing out comments out there. if he wants to go there, let's make extra room for those who are leaking out confidential information and these masked names. this is absolutely ridiculous and i can't believe he would go in there and say that and i have to think that other members of the committee when they got behind closed door, i think they would agree. >> we don't know what he has seen. >> i don't care what he has
seen, we have heard many saying he is giving information behind closed doors. now we have a democratic congressman saying before i see all the information i decided that people need to be jailed. vote all of these people out, don, that is inappropriate bias before you go in to what is supposed to be a nonpartisan investigation. and this is why people like me say listen to the senate, don't listen to the house, they're biassed. >> great point, van, do you agree with it even as a democrat? >> i see it somewhat differently. i didn't hear him saying that someone should go to jail. if he said that -- >> well, i think the second guy said that. >> well, i'm talking about castro. and the think about it, castro -- castro is usually very measured. he is not a bomb thrower in our part. so i was really -- it made me sit up and notice when he said it but i don't think he was
saying he thought it should happen, i think he made a prediction that it would happen. if he is saying it should happen without the evidence, it should not happen. >> i think it's an indication of prejudging, i think what people really need right now is a certain level of confidence that this will be an investigation that is not prejudged and there will be a full examination of the facts. when you make comments like that you start to you know put the partisan bias on display. and that is something that i think -- it's emblematic of how the committee has gotten to this point. i think people need to have confidence and they're starting to look more and more to the senate to find that a bit more of a transparent and a more bipartisan process focused on the facts. >> again, we don't know what he saw and for him to say something like that that has been the criticism, to take the politics out of this so there can be a
clean investigation. >> well, anna, go on, because i have another question for you. >> look, i just you know -- i think that when you takea look at how the senate is conducting the investigation and what the house is doing the house looks like key stone cops. you have on the one hand devin nunes who is a high-paid water boy for the trump administration and doing their wars, on the other hand you have these democrats who just can't shut up. loose lips sink ships. and these guys need to focus on the work at hand and take partisanship out of it. a lot of the american people are looking at the investigation just either on one side or the other think that it is not credible because there is just too much premature speculation. i said speculation, now. if anybody supports tweeting me. this premature speculation by the democrats is not a good
thing. and devin nunes being in bed with the white house is also not a good thing. the entire thing stinks to holy hell, doesn't pass the smell test. dear senate, america has its eyes on you and hopes that you can conduct a real full bipartisan investigation. >> we need an anna navarro reaction camera, because you should see the faces. >> yeah, i can imagine the guys getting uncomfortable, what can i tell you? >> jason, there is a lot of smoke, right, when it comes to this. so let's walk through it. we have trump donor, black water founder, eric prince who held a secret meeting to try to establish trunk back channel, we have the attorney general jeff sessions, michael flynn, former trump campaign manager paul manafort who have all had meetings and talked -- i mean, that is just a couple of people. >> it's just about everybody.
at some point you have to wonder whether or not they really need huntsman as an ambassador to russia, because in the trump white house, everybody is an ambassador. we are at the point where the people who are arguing it's all a coincidence they're the ones who sound like conspiracy theorists, because you have to make a whole lot of leaps and a bunch of hoops to get to the point where it's all just a coincidence. >> philip mudd, congressional source telling cnn the timing and proximity between these advisers and the trump administration is raising questions and whether the loosening of u.s. sanctions will be discussed. will we get those answers do you think? >> i think we will, we keep focusing on what the senate and house is doing, the critical investigation is one we're not talking about, the fbi. the critical entity that can walk across the street to the
department of justice and bring a file over here and say this is what we found, should we prosecute somebody? i don't think the house should continue the investigation, they're tainted. i think the senate, their question should be how do we secure elections in the future? there is only one entity that should look at individuals and say should we prosecute them? that is the fbi going to the department of justice and i'll tell you don, in the next few months we'll find the answers. >> this is a riveting conversation. >> kevin, i was going to ask you, i have another question for you, do you think the white house can just ignore this as just suspicion, as it's sort of coincidence? but it could be. >> look, it all could just be coincidence and be bad actors who have associated themselves with donald trump, we just don't know. let the investigation get us to
the point we need to be. but in many ways we have seen diversion by the white house to try to draw attention away from it or at least create a lot of white noise around issues they find to be a problem. i also think the honeymoon is over right now. we saw the trump administration lose a very big legislative battle. they're going into another one right now. >> oh, honey, they never had a honeymoon. >> i think it's more so -- >> honestly, the people i said that were around donald trump and donald trump himself who would know about himself, which speaks to his judgment. >> frankly his successes have all been done by executive order. >> so i don't know if you will be able to connect the president to this but the people around him have definitely done some things, you can see it, that are a little bit politic. i want to get this john mccain thing in here, listen to this,
kevin madden. >> this is a centipede, a shoe will drop in the next few days, the meeting in the seychelles, this is a requirement why we need a select committee to get through all this. there are a lot more things that will be dropped. >> what do you think? is it time for a select committee? >> look, i think that is up to the folks in the senate. but let me say why i think john mccain is making delivering remarks like that. this is the last thing folks in the senate want to talk about. they have a very big agenda about important things to the american committeconomy, health and every single day they're dealing with the distractions about russia. i think what john mccain is really focused on is trying to get some level of finality when it comes to these investigations and almost sort of take it off the congressional plate and put
it to a select committee so they can actually go about focusing on some of the bigger problems we have to address for the american people. i think if anything is emblemattic of the frustrations on capitol hill right now. >> okay, thank you, just to note the second congressman we used in the sound bite is democratic congressman denny hecht, so apologize for the incorrect name we put under there. and heading home this friday, can they get the job done? to sit idly by, or watch from the stands. we are here...for one reason. to leave...a mark. lexus high performance. with 5.0-liter v8s and sport direct-shift transmissions. experience a shift in the natural order.
okay, so house republicans still trying to come up with a health care bill that repeals and replaces obamacare, tonight, vice president mike pence on capitol hill. >> premature to say where we are, or what we're on because we're in the beginning stage right now. >> so my panel is back with me, mr. preston, we saw the vice president on the hill, the speaker of the house there. today is tuesday, congress goes on recess what? >> friday. >> end of the week, is there hope that this could get on the table -- >> absolutely not. >> i mean, is this a show? >> this is another strategiic
blunder by the republicans to get it done too fast, trying to move too fast. paul ryan is at least honest, a work in progress, and the white house saying we'll work with democrats if the republicans don't want to deal with us. i really think the trump administration needs a little help in diplomacy, not just overseas, but capitol hill, to get things done. >> diplomacy. >> correct, you need to be able to work, several guests on the panel can tell you the same thing that you need to work hand in glove with congress not try to work with them as adversaries. >> van jones, have you heard of humility as well? >> it might help, part of what i think, if he takes a big step back here what is bizarre is you know, trump could have just sort of taken that loss as a victory. i don't now have to own health care for the whole country, you guys have been fighting for this
for several years, i was not here. this is yours. but you could have actually moved on and things are much more popular whether you talk about tax cuts, infrastructure, all kind of stuff, try to burn some of his loss populous credentials, he had a terrible budget he put out. that budget was basically cat food for grandmother, just a horrible draconian budget, and couldn't get the health care done. but instead he does a u-turn and goes right back into the play pen with this broken health care problem. and when you look at his poll numbers now, 35, 34, listen, i know he can survive very low poll numbers but nobody can survive the 20s, and he is heading towards the 20s. >> so i don't know if kevin was on the panel or anna or mark, i know mark was on the panel, if he didn't get this passed it would be viewed as a loss for the gop and congress. >> i don't think that is right.
and i disagree with van, respectfully, to make the kind of promises that the president made and make the kind of promises that republicans made over the last several and a half years about repealing and replacing obamacare and to not deliver on it would have been a huge mistake. you can't just move the tax reform, you need to revenue in order to get the tax reform that you need. inside the revenue bill was a trillion that you needed to lower the rate -- >> kevin, you're good at this stuff, you can't get there, i mean, sure, it would be great if you could. they're not going to be able to cross that river, don't you think just politically, optically, it would be smarter to at least spend a couple of weeks on something behinds this? >> well, yeah, this is where i agree with mark, this is about the pageantry and the optics -- >> looks like they're trying to do something correct. >> they cannot wave the white flag on that because it's so
important to much of their base, but it's a mistake to mark preston's point, if we keep rolling up the hill and down, it looks like we have one failure after the next. >> is this pageantry, what do you think? >> the president has to get this right, but he doesn't have to get it right now. these things take time. we cannot afford another loss, i think it's important they continue work on this. there are millions suffering, and when they come up this fall, we'll have more seeing their premiums go through the roof, this is something the president talked about on the campaign trail and he talked about it during the process, but to rush into it -- the president is going to have a big meeting with gorsuch, and the summit with mar mar-a-lago, it will take time. get it right. >> anna navarro, you're a
republican strategist, last time i checked that is what you do. who is behind this big push? >> i don't know donald trump, but i wouldn't be surprised if it was him. he is impulsive, he comes from the real estate world, what do you do? if you don't get it accepted you make another offer and counter offers and you try to get to a deal. that is the kind of mind set that trump comes to everything frankly including policy battles. now, i don't think he is realizing what a big defeat and big loss this dealt him and dealt the entire republican party. i don't think he realizes the effect of picking a fight with the freedom caucus. there is 40 of them. they are principled ideaogues, something which he is not. they're not going to budge and
give in. donald trump is trying to be the art of the deal guy here. >> i was going to say quickly, the big difference this is not real estate where it's one party across the table, there are 535 parties across the table. coalition building is much harder than making a deal in real estate. >> but he doesn't know that, he has not done it. he has no experience in this, and a lot of the people around him don't either. >> this is something where you say this is my final offer, either you buy this building or apartment or not final offer is on the table. it doesn't work that way when you play in washington. >> he is learning that. >> especially when 57% of americans don't approve of the bill. even if they try to get something on consensus, the public is not on board with this. >> i think he should take the hint and go you know what, people don't want this. >> you broke up, just move on. >> probably, i'm not going to continue the analogy, but that
is where i think it should go, the fact is people don't like it because it's a bad idea. and the only direction he can go to get the freedom caucus on board is to go right, which is he can make it to where people like it less. forget the politics, it's a bad idea and he should quit doing it. >> okay, thanks everyone. listen i know when i have to read this van jones, you may be late coming to me tomorrow because here it is "a messy truth," a live town hall with former governor arnold schwarzenegger. we love van and we'll watch him tomorrow and we'll be right back. is to always keep track of your employees.r micromanage them. make sure they're producing. woo! employee of the month! you really shouldn't leave their side. vita coco coconut water, hydration comes naturally.
shock and outrage around the world in the wake of the suspected chemical attack in winner syria that killed scores of civilians. the video is very disturbing, but we're showing you it without blurring, so you can see the devastating attacks on adults and children. activists say the syrian regime was responsible. president trump condemning the attack, but also condemning president obama. joining me now. all of them with heavy expertise on this. thank you for joining us, it's horrible, heart wrenching, the white house didn't immediately respond, but they did nine hours later calling it reprehensible, saying the heinous actions by
the assad regime are a consequence of the relations between obama, saying he would establish a red line against the use of chemical weapons. what do you make of that? >> i do think there are many that think it gave assad license to carry on with his campaign of extermination, but the syrian people, he said will decide the fate of assad. that line was a euphemism used by him to say essentially he ain't going anywhere. one could argue this administration would say carry on, and i'm glad that trump used
those words, and -- >> it would be the prudent thing to do. >> we know dropped according to the european union, foreign minister dropped from helicopters, the only entity in syria is from the united states, the u.s. has now fingered the syrian regime. sarin gas is a chemical nerve agent that assad is no longer supposed to possess, this was the grand achievement of obama's brokerage with vladimir putin, how does assad still have sarin gas he have if he had a clean b health? >> as we talked about before, the situation in syria, i think we wondered openly whether this would be president obama's rwanda, much as bill clinton said he believes it's one of his
greatest failures. how does he have the sarin gas? >> the issue don is, what michael says is correct, from the perspective coming at it from a leadership challenge is that the president of the united states has to embrace this chaos, this is his. president obama is history, what was done or wasn't done reflects on our nation but our ability to move forward is based on the president's desire to try to get his arms around this. and the issue clearly is, president putin wants assad to stay, president obama acknowledged we could not get our arms around that incongruity, if you will. so assad is going to stick around. it is a reality. however we'll have to have a type of relationship with russia that allows us to apply the appropriate pressure. it's in our national security interest to resolve this issue
not because of the horrendous suffering, that is outrageous, it's because it becomes a breeding ground for more terrorism, and until we resolve this thing we have our focus that will be in there p perpetuity. >> can you explain why they have no understanding of vladimir putin's policies? >> if you're talking about syria right now, saying assad goes or doesn't go or maybe he should stay, is just one part of it. and i think that is maybe the easier part to really define, yes or no. but when you get into really the details of the policy and what should happen this is where you get these kind of head snapping statements by people let's say by secretary of state tillerson, who as was pointed out a few days ago said his fate will be
decided by the people. and then is talking about reprehensib reprehensible, or nikki haley, saying it's not our job, we're not going to sit here and wait him out. but also being very critical as she should be of these attacks. but in a broader sense president trump does not understand at all what motivates vladimir putin in syria, i mean, the important thing for the trump administration is they really hate iran, want to get rid of iran, get them out of syria, get them out of everything. and vladimir putin sees utility in using iran in syria. and they have -- they do other things. they sell weapons to iran, et cetera. so that is a really important dynamic, and for president trump not to understand that is pretty surprising at this point. because it is a major, major factor. >> okay, everyone stay with me, when we come right back we'll
talk about north korea launching yet another missile tonight. the latest on the u.s. response. you don't let anything keep you sidelined. that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you. as after a dvt blood clot,ital i sure had a lot to think about. what about the people i care about? ...including this little girl. and what if this happened again?
i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i asked my doctor. and he recommended eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. yes, eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. both made me turn around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily ...and it may take longer than usual for 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 treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis the right treatment for me.
ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you. z286oz zwtz y286oy ywty e*trade's powerful trading tools, give you access to in-depth analysis, and a team of experienced traders ready to help if you need it. it's like having the power of a trading floor, wherever you are. it's your trade. e*trade
north korea fired a projectile into the sea of japan tonight, officials say it was likely a ballistic missile, one of more recent ones fired this month. what about north korea? they are complflexing their mus and we saw north korea trying to assert themselves in the trump presidency. how worried are you about it? >> well, they have been flexing
their muscles for generations, since the '40s. this is a troubled problem, one of many things the administration needs to do things about. not to discuss, but galvanize real energy around it. and clearly to get north korea to do anything, we've never demonstrated the ability to modify the behavior in that regime. china has over the course of time to a certain degree, albeit over the course of certain years, it has backed away. and pyongyang has essentially shot the bird at them. and it could put real pressure on north korea, they buy their gas and oil from china, so there are also some economic benefits. but there will be a kinetic solution to the problem in north korea over the course of the next year and a half not because of this administration, but because this administration happens to be in place where
there is decreasing time when north korea has the weapon, they should probably have 60 to 100 of those, that is frightening. >> i want to hear the thoughts on the secretary of state statement, rex tillerson, this is a full statement saying north korea launched another ballistic missile. the united states has spoken on north korea, we have no further comment. >> what do you think? >> i think what he is saying, think what president trump is saying. you know if china doesn't solve it, we will. i'm not quite sure where they're headed with this. but i agree that it probably will be kinetic, in other words there could be some type of conflict, because president trump is setting it up in such -- let's say a stark black and white scenario, where either this stops or we do something.
and that doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. so i'm presuming that they are prepared to do something, militarily. and if they're prepared to do something militarily i would presume they know the consequences of some act like that, both with china and with south korea, so i think it is very worrisome. >> what is the position of russia when it comes to north korea developing nuclear weapons? >> well, they don't like it. they have worked with the united states on trying to put some pressure on north korea. but here, too, you know this idea -- and i think general marks was just talking about that. the idea that any one country can really, really change another, let's say china, with north korea. or let's say russia with assad, it's not as easy as that. and it's not always as predict
buildi -- predictable as that. so i think the administration comes in with a lot of pre conceived notions and ignorance and how diplomacy and tough diplomacy has been conducted so that we're in these situations where they're pushing the envelope and i'm not totally convinced knowing where they go if it really comes down to it. >> all right, we'll get you in next time. thank you very much, thank you, general, thank you, jill, all right, when we come back allegations between trump officials, can the white house get things back on track?
all the president's men, this is cnn tonight, i'm don lemon. the white house in turmoil, war with the press and the truth. a congressman saying some people may end up in jail. is president trump taking a page from the book. and o'reilly factor, five women accuse the fox news anchor of sexual harassment, and