tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN June 14, 2018 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. good evening. we begin with breaking news about the long awaited inspector's report about the conduct of james comey and the investigation into hillary clinton's e-mail server. it's already being seen through different partisan lenses. hillary clinton supporters say comey cost her the white house. before we get to any of that, we want to try to clear away the smoke and take care of the
takeaways from the report. the inspector general found that comey deviated from norms about the case and in his letter to congress reopening the case days before the election. investigators uncovered another text exchange between lisa page and struck who was fired from mueller's team. in it, paige asked struck if trump would be president. no, no, he's not. we'll stop it. the inspector general did not have confidence that struck was free from bias when he prioritized the russia investigation over the anthony weiner e-mails. overall the inspector general report found there was no conspiracy against president trump in the 2016 clinton investigation. but it detailed a consequence of events that created the
ingredients for a conspiracy or appearance of impropriety. as to james comey, the report concludes even though he was facing difficult decisions, he made the wrong choices, not because he was biassed or crooked, he just got it wrong. jim acosta joins us now. explain what the white house reaction has been to the report. >> we heard from the white house press secretary earlier today, she said this report confirms the president's belief that there were biases inside the investigation. we've been reporting, there was no political bias in the investigation, although it did say what you were referring to that these fbi agents were exchanging these anti-trump texts. although that one fbi lawyer lisa paige has already left the bureau. >> you mention sarah sanders encouraging people to tune in to christopher ray's press conference which lapped late
today. talk about what ray said. it was a full throated defense of the fbi but also saying, they accepted the ig report? >> he was asked at one point if he could give a one word reaction to the report, what would it be? he said disappointed. the fbi director who was picked by president trump is disappointed in the outcome of this investigation and what the investigation found. it was interesting toward the end of this press conference with the fbi director who we don't see in front of the cameras often. he was asked to comment on the president's tweets. he said, i only want to comment on opinions that i care about. it sounded like a dig somewhat at the president. it may have been the fbi director's attempts to sidestep the issue. he didn't want to talk about the president's opinion on all of this we're waiting for the president to weigh-in on all of this. it's his birthday, he's not
weighed in, perhaps he's waiting until the day after his birthday to weigh-in. >> it was only days before the 2016 presidential election, that comey disclosed the agency was reopening an investigation into hillary clinton's e-mail server. let's dispense with this right away, at times, comey himself used his personal e-mail for government business. comey said in was nothing classified, i know clinton supporters pointed to this as hypocrisy. just because comey used a personal e-mail, does that make it right? >> no. and hillary said on the campaign trail, it was a mistake to have the personal e-mail server. i think what's -- just in retrospect, incredibly ironic and deeply frustrating to a lot of us, is that director comey felt entitled to go in front of the country unauthorized and lecture secretary clinton about her use, when it turns out he was doing the same thing at this point i don't think it's something we should spend a lot of time dwelling on. it speaks to the larger issue here about comey's judgment that
he never should have done this in the first place. >> the inspector general blasted comey's handling of the case, they found no evidence that comey's july statement tearing into clinton's e-mail habits was careless. do you accept that comey wasn't biassed or trying to tip the scales? >> i do. i think he's a patriotic person. i would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe he was doing at the time what he thought was right but it was a mistake, and his belief that there was an exception to the rule really proved the rule. these protocols are in place to prevent the fbi from inadvertently or advertently influencing an election. this is a case where he did influence the election. i wish he would be more candid. i think he believes it was a mistake too, i really do. and this report is helpful in
that the information is out there, and i hope it gives the professional men and women at the fbi a chance to reflect on why this really should never happen again. >> what do you make of the next text messages that were revealed? the ig investigation is looking at peter strzok's e-mails, text messages with lisa page, and also three other fbi employees that included statements of hostility toward candidate trump. don't president trump supporters have reason to be suspicious and angry about that particular text exchange? >> well, they were certainly inappropriate statements. and i think that this report is
an important moment for the fbi. it's probably a good gut check for all of them, that the things they say matter their institution is incredibly powerful, but that means they're held to an incredibly high standard. the other thing that was in that report is how much people were leaking constantly. you even see in the messages there, an acknowledgement by the staff that the leaks that they are putting out, the information that they're shuffling around could have a real impact on the election, i think this is a really important cautionary story to everybody working at the fbi. they just have to -- they have to follow the line. and there are examples here up and down the chain where that didn't happen. >> stand by, i want to talk a little bit to chris stewart, and then i'll bring you back in. we'll all discuss this. congressman stewart is a member of the house intelligence committee. >> the ig's report said they found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by
bias or other improper considerations. does this report put to bed any belief or concerns that may have been about the fbi's investigation to hillary clinton? >> some of it, i guess. it's hard to read some of the texts that were exchanged between these fbi officials and not realize there is enormous political an mouse there. the ig said it didn't. still makes many of us uncomfortable. i want to say thanks to the ig for what seems to be a very thorough work. i think mr. ray said it right, it leaves many of us disappointed. loretta lynch was called on her actions. no one in this turns out looking good at the end of the day. >> it was interesting, no bias was found, in one case in peter struck's decision to prioritize the investigation, looking into
anthony weiner's e-mails until later that they could not determine whether or not there was bias in that decision. >> i think it's important to note that there's clearly bias in their political views. there's no question about that. very emotional bias. the inspector general said that was not reflected in the outcome of the investigation or in their conclusions. once again, i don't dispute that, i think it makes most americans uncomfortable to look at senior fbi officials who have strong emotional political views against one candidate, knowing they are investigating at the time, although for different reasons, both of these candidates. it doesn't make the fbi senior leadership, it does not cast them in a positive light. >> the rationale he used not to
investigate hillary clinton. was the same rationale that the fbi used in 2008 when they decided not to charge alberto gonzalez with mishandling classified documents. >> if that was okay in 2008, do you believe that was okay to use the same standard? >> i've never disputed the conclusion that the director came to. i think most of us dispute and have trouble with how he publicly presented it. the inspector general did as well. he did it so that he wouldn't convey that decision on to his boss the attorney general loretta lynch, who may have had a different opinion on that. it was her decision whether to prosecute or not, not the fbi's. so i don't necessarily disagree with his conclusion whether it was prosecutable or not. it was the public way he presented that decision that
many people have a real problem with. >> i want to bring ravi back into the discussion. we've heard from democrats and republicans that both sides sort of see different things in this, or there's enough in this report that both sides have valid points and raise valid arguments. >> yeah, i -- i appreciate that, but let's be clear about something. i did not hear a single republican speaking out against director comey, until the president chose to fire him, i want to be very clear from my standpoint, the finding in this report was absolutely -- should not be something that president
trump tries to hide behind as an excuse for why he fired director comey. he fired director comey because he wanted to stop the russia investigation. this is the same campaign that was leading chants of lock her up. >> i worry these are a false equivalency developing where an opinion that i and other people who were working with secretary clinton have held consistently. and the president who decided he didn't like director comey, when he was the one facing heat for the potential relationship his campaign had with russia. >> i have to counter that quickly. there were some republicans who were critical of director comey before he was fired, and i was one of them. i was fairly public, although gentle, if you will, in my criticism of some of the things we were seeing from the director in intelligence committee. and some of his testimony before the committee. it wasn't directly related to secretary clinton and the e-mail situation. there were things we were becoming uncomfortable with. and we were open about that.
>> do you agree that james comey did more damage to hillary clinton, costing her the election, than he ever did to president trump? >> i think it's impossible to know. it truly is impossible to know. >> is there damage to president trump that comey's investigation did? >> no, i understand why he would say that. if you can conclude that's why she lost the election. it's fair to phone point out, at the end of the day, she's responsible for that, she's the one that decided to use this e-mail server, she's the one who hid it, destroyed 30,000 of her e-mails that should have been saved and protected. >> there's a number of things she did that led us to this point. i know there's criticism in the
way that the fbi director handled that, there's no question it had some impact on the election, i don't think anyone can conclude that donald trump is a president because of that, i think there's many more explanations and reasons for that. >> i want you to be able to respond to that. >> look, i've been pretty clear in the past, i don't think it's possible to quantify the impact, and from my standpoint. i don't think that's a productive discussion. the fact is, the director of the fbi made a bad judgment. i think this report has a lot for everyone at the fbi to think about. i don't want this to be a shield for president trump to obstruct an investigation. we did hear a lot of leaks about hillary clinton, so i just -- i don't want this false narrative that democrats say one thing, republicans say another. >> we've been saying for months and years, even that the fbi was mishandling this, that is no excuse for donald trump to turn
around today and say, that the people have no right to get to the bottom of what his campaign may or may not have done with russia. >> do you confidence in director wray that he's going to write -- right the wrongs? >> well, i do. and unlike director comey, he seems to be much less interested in his public perception than he is in managing and leading the fbi. we don't see him much before the cameras. he wants to work behind the scenes. i believe he's sincere in his comments today. we can do better than this. he's united republicans and democrats, we both are frustrated with some of the decisions he's made. >> thank you both for your time. >> just ahead, james comey has already responded to the inspector general's report.
contentious back and forth over the trump administration separating children from their parents at the mexico border illegally. applebee's to go. order online and get 20% off $20. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. proven to protect street skaters and freestylers. stops up to 97% uv. lasts through heat. through sweat. coppertone. proven to protect. feeclaritin and relief fromwsy symptoms caused by over 200 allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones.
experience amazing at your lexus dealer. turning to our breaking news, the justice department's inspector general saying james comey did not follow department procedures when he announced that reopening of the investigation into hillary clinton's e-mail server. there was no political bias in comey's actions, not surprisingly, james comey is disagreeing with some of the conclusions that were reached. the former fbi director says,
nothing in the report makes me think we did the wrong thing. he continued, my team believed the damage of concealing the reopening of our investigation would have been catastrophic to the institution. the inspector general weighs it differently, that's okay. even though i respectfully disagree. this administration said comey was fired over the handling of the investigation. the president said he fired comey for the russia thing to lester holt. how does this play into the overall russia investigation? >> first of all i think that lester holt interview is going to become more and more important in this investigation. the president's attorneys were meeting in washington today. i'm told this subject came up, i think what ravi was talking about and said he feared is
going to be one of their arguments against the special counsel, which is, look at what the inspector general said, we were right to fire james comey. you can't say it's because of obstruction. also there's something else they're likely to use in the report. there was a visceral bias they -- from people like peter strzok and they will therefore claim that it was completely tainted from the outset. >> i mean, the ig report did say they couldn't determine whether bias played a role in peter
strzok's decision to prioritize the russia investigation over the investigation into anthony weiner's e-mails. >> you know, peter strzok's e-mails are really bad. they're really bad for the fbi. i am familiar with how fbi investigations work. even though he was a high ranking fbi official. he had no authority over this case, he didn't decide whether this case went forward or not, i can't blame the trump people for being upset about that. i mean, they are very upsetting e-mails, they are probably not influential in how this whole story unfolded. there are lots of layers involved here, but -- and certainly compared to comey's decision to reopen the investigation on the eve of the investigation. it's a bad set of e-mails. i don't blame the trump people for calling a lot of attention
to it. >> as someone who used to work at the fbi knows the institution well, i'm wondering what you took away from this report? >> boy, dodged bullet. i looked at the previous year of conversations we had about the text messages. we knew a lot about strzok and his lover, we knew about the other elements questions about the appropriateness of james comey's activities. i looked at this and said, the other shoe is going to fall. the inspector general is going to come back and say, we saw all this bias among individuals and we saw that reflected in the investigation. i kept looking for it in the summary today and said, we didn't see this reflected in the investigation. i think they dodged a bullet today, it could have been much worse. >> the fbi director said he cares about the opinions of the people who know us. and know us through our work. he named juries, judges victims. law enforcement personnel. absent there was the president who's attacked the fbi. i don't know if one can read too much into that, do you think that was intentional? was it a dig against the
president? >> i think it was a very mild dig. chris wray doesn't want to wind up like james comey. he doesn't want to get fired as well. and i know fbi agents. i've worked with fbi agents. there is a considerable amount of resentment against the president for dismissing the whole bureau because he doesn't like the russia investigation, and ray has to walk that line defend the bureau and protect himself with his boss, and i think that line was an extremely gentle way of differentiating himself from the president but it was hardly an attack on donald trump. >> the report as we talked about found that comey was using or did use his personal gmail account while investigating clinton. and criticizing her for also doing that. obviously irony for democrats
here is pretty rich. >> yeah, irony is not dead. when we all read that line we went, really? obviously you could say, and comey would say, i wasn't using my gmail account for classified information, maybe that's the difference. i think if you're a former hillary clinton adviser you would be saying wait a minute, he went out there and said that hillary clinton was extremely careless about her personal e-mail account being used for state department business, and here he was doing the same thing? i mean, that's pretty rich. >> even though the investigation found out the political bias did not affect the investigation. it found political bias among fbi agents, which feeds into people's skepticism and certainly reporters of the president as a whole.
chris wray pointed out, there's tens of thousands of fbi employees many do you think ray is taking this seriously enough in terms of the changes he says that he accepts that were recommended in this report? >> oh, yes. >> how many -- i mean, i had an fbi issued blackberry back when we had blackberries. can you believe how many people with a smart phone now are exchanging messages let's be clear about what's going on? this is not about inappropriate text messages. 150 million or 200 million americans hated hillary clinton or hated donald trump. and they talked about it over thanksgiving dinner or while fishing for bass. you think 35,000 fbi people don't have views on trump or clinton? i was there, we had views on that, you just wouldn't talk
about it at work. you can't anticipate that people involved in an investigation don't have a view. they need to separate it from work and they can never use a work computer or cell phone to talk about it. that's the problem here. >> coming up next, the heartache of families being separated at the border. the administration says its only following a law. and there's a reason for it. i got it. and sometimes those experts need experts. on it. [ crash ] and sometimes the expert the expert needed needs insurance expertise. it's all good. steve, you're covered for general liability. and, paul, we got your back with workers' comp. wow, it's like a party in here. where are the hors d'oeuvres, right? [ clanking ] tartlets? we cover commercial vehicles, too. i think there's something wrong with your sink.
i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done...
dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. the trump administration today fired back at critics of its immigration policy, which has separated hundreds of children from their parents. according to sara sanders, there's no choice in the matter, only the letter of the law. >> because it's the law. and that's what the law states. it's a policy to follow and enforce the law. the laws are the ones that have been on the books for over a decade, and the president is
simply enforcing them. again, the laws have been on the books for over a decade and the president is only enforcing them. >> our administration has had the same position since we started on day one that we were going to force the law we're a country of law and order and we're enforcing the law and protecting our borders. >> responding to criticism from u.n. catholic bishops, attorney general sessions invoked the bible in his defense. >> i would cite you to the apostle paul and his clear command in romans 13 to obey the laws of the government, because god has ordained the government for his purposes. >> keeping them honest, though, there's nothing on the federal books requiring family separation. there is a law making illegal border crossing a misdemeanor which this administration is choosing to uphold with no
exception. they're choosing to prosecute them instead of in immigration court. it's a critical difference because it means the parents are placed in jail, their kids are taken away from them. prior to this, adults were released pending cases, you're thinking separating families was unexpected fallout, you'd be mistaken. listen to the attorney general announcing the new policy last month. >> if you cross the border. unlawfully, even a first offense, we're going to prosecute you. if you smuggle an illegal alien across the border, we'll prosecute you for smuggling. if you're smuggling a child across the border, we'll prosecutor you and that child will be separated from you as a
consequence of law. if you don't want your child separated in you, don't bring him across the border illegally. >> the administration saw this coming. now, you can agree or disagree with the policy, that's a policy matter. you can't simply blame it on preexisting law. some say long term it's going to deter parents from endangering their kids by coming to the u.s. illegally. some were saying, separating kids from adults was a feature of the policy. we're trying to find ways to deter the use of children. this official framed it as a way of deterring child smuggling by nonparents. he was unable to say how border agents could determine relationships. >> ed lavandera joins us tonight from mcallen, texas. >> your team was able to get in one of these detention centers
housing kids. what did they find? >> well, you know, it was a strange, surreal experience to be honest, just overall. this is one of the hundred facilities across 17 states that is housing thousands of undocumented immigrant children. many of them who have been separated from their families over the last month. from what we saw and our colleagues saw inside that. it was a clean place. there was a strangeness to it, this particular unit was a 250,000 square foot old walmart that had been converted into this detention center. the children have rooms where the five kids sleep. they have recreation abilities. pool tables and that sort of
thing, but when you kind of take all that into account. it is still a strange feeling when you're walking around there. >> how consistent is the zero tolerance policy being applied to people crossing over? >> ed, how consistent is the zero tolerance policy being applied to people crossing over? >> well, this is the interesting thing, anderson, is that all of this is -- seems to be applied arbitrarily, as the administration talks about this zero tolerance policy and everyone is going to be prosecuted for this illegal entry, what we have found along the border, it's much more haphazard. literally across the street from the federal courthouse here in plk allen, where hundreds of undocumented immigrants have been brought into a courtroom here, there is a shelter that caters to immigrants who have been released. it's a place for them to grab food, take a shower, clean up and wait for their bus ticket out of town. ne next -- for weakness. do not misjudge quiet tranquility
pg&e prunes and removes over a million trees every year to ensure that hazardous trees can't impact power lines. and since the onset of the drought we've doubled our efforts. i grew up in the forests out in this area and honestly it's heartbreaking to see all these trees dying. what guides me is ensuring that the public is going to be safer and that these forests can be sustained and enjoyed by the community in the future. president trump is facing a new lawsuit tonight. this one involves his family. new york's attorney general is suing the president and his three oldest children alleging they repeatedly and illegally used the trump foundation charity to benefit personal and business interests, including the 2016 presidential campaign. the attorney general accuses them of using foundation money in several transactions, among
them $100,000 to settle legal claims against mar-a-lago, $158,000 to settle claims against trump national golf club and $10,000 from the foundation to purchase this painting of donald trump. the nearly 2-year investigation was started under the previous attorney general and the president went after him today on twitter. >> the sleazily democrats and eric schneiderman are doing everything they can to sue me on a foundation that gave out to charity more than it took in. i won't settle this case. mr. schneiderman resigned last month. after allegations of physical assault by multiple women. he's denied those allegations. the new attorney general said there is nothing sleazy or political about the lawsuit. joining me for his take the former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. >> just in terms of the law, what could this mean for
president trump, this investigation of the foundation? >> it's another legal headache on top of a whole bunch of other legal headaches, some directed at michael cohen and paul manafort. repeatedly in the petition, the new york a.g.'s office makes the point of saying that donald trump himself signed documents under penalty of perjury. he made represent tragss the way it was done. >> she said was involved in politics. >> correct. and then it looks like he does. this is a civil case. they've done some investigation obviously because they have a lot of information and details in the document. but they get discovery.
>> so if there's one charge, that unlike so many other things that we've been reading about respect to the president's legal troubles, we're done at the behe of the. >> but if it's just a civil matter, to focus on the way that the foundation was run and have you run as the part and process of many other things. there was no board of directors that had met in 19 years. the head of the brebtors ran the
foundation on win as kids were on the board for a time, he was sort of making that a selling point about the foundation saying there was no overhead, which some foundations do have a lot of overhead. the flip side of that is the reason you have a board and the reason you. >> people like to ma lien lawyers but they do help you stay on the straight and narrow. it looked like the president ent just using. >> did but it looked like and more seriously, as everyone
knows, wundin tram tesss pd in allegation after allegation, afterle gaegs pon was made it was business my the fop. >> you're supposed to keep those things separate. here clearly -- i don't see how you defend at least that allegation, clearly they were not kept separate. >> the trump organization has said basically politics are involved in this. they say it's politics at its very worst. obviously the president has been very critical of the former attorney general. i just want to miss his hatewood.
-- heywood. i don't know what her politics are. she's well respected by all sides. she took over the investigation into the case. the problem is if you can always use the argument that it's a political argument, you can use that all the time. >> and there's continued speculation you may run for the office of attorney general. have you made a decision? >> i have not. >> anything else you want to say about that? >> i do not. >> all right. preet bharara, thank you. >> chris? >> first we're going to tackle the heart, then we're going to tackle the head. does god really want the law
enforced the way it being done by the government on the border right now? families separated, children sometimes taken from mothers,mothers and then we're going to look at the good facts and the bad facts in the i.q. report. partisans are seeing what they want to in this i.d. report. we'll show what the facts and conclusions we came with big appetites. with expedia, you could book a flight, hotel, car, and activity all in one place. ♪
the background. sarah sanders called it a common courtesy. a u.s. official told cnn the president was briefed on the protocol which is to not salute other countries. what was agreed on at the summit continues to come in. we're joined by our guest. ambassador, as you know the president tweeted everybody can now feel much safer than the day i took office. there's no longer a nuclear threat from north korea. can the president actually say there's no longer a threat from north korea, nuclear threat? >> well, he can say it and he did. it has the problem it's not accurate. that's a goal, but in no way it's reality. what happened and didn't happen in singapore did nothing to eliminate the nuclear threat from north korea. >> is that fair? the president and supporters say at least the two sides are talking and talking is better than the alternative. >> i don't argue that, but all
talking is and the agreement is aspirational. the real question is what if anything happens? look, i'd love nothing more than to come on your show in six months or two years and say singapore was the first step of what turned out to be a diplomatic success. and we can point to a north korea that's dramatically reduced or eliminated its nuclear and missile capabilities. we've had the access we need to verify they've done that. that would be fantastic. i'm saying that remains to be done. >> the language in the joint statement was that north korea, quote, commits to work toward complete denuclearization to the korean peninsula and kim jong-un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment toward working toward the denuclearization. that's different, working towards. >> there's nothing that defines the denuclearization. it doesn't mention the missiles.
you can't verify anything unless you first have the details of what it is you have. people need to understand that verification doesn't mean you go searching around the country with a flashlight and a magnifying glass looking for things. you have a comprehensive, accurate inventory of everything that's relevant and go into basically corroborate it. >> there's the argument that, look, it hasn't worked in the past all the things u.s. and various administrations, republican and democrat have tried haven't worked. perhaps this kind of top down approach where rather than having bilateral meetings or multicountry meetings initially, having the two leaders meet off the get go might break it in? >> from your mouth to god's ear. i would love that to be so. everyone ought to hope this happens. to simply base it all on trust and a personal relationship seems to me extraordinarily optimistic to say the least. to commit to working toward
something without a time line and without a definition doesn't seem to me to accomplish a whole lot. mike pompeo essentially has all the work cut out for him. >> a lot of work. i want to ask about president trump's salute to the north korean general. sarah sanders called it a common courtesy. do you see a problem with it? president obama was criticized for sort of bowing to in saudi arabia, also to the emperor of japan. >> it's not something i would have recommended had i been staffing the president of the united states, not something i would personally do, given everything from his position to the nature of the north korean military. but given what we've just been talking about, i would say that's symbolic choice he made, which, again, i think is probably not ideal, that pales in comparison to the issues we've been talking about. >> i want to ask about the president's comments on kim jong-un and human rights abuses.
he said kim has done terrible thing. he said he's, quote, a tough guy. he praised him for saying very few people could have done what he did in terms of coming into power at age 26 and ruling things toughly in the way that he did. and that a lot of other people have done really bad things. is that an argument of moral equivalence? which is what president obama used to be criticized for. >> pretty much. it seems to be almost slightly admiring of what kim jong-un has done over the years. i can understand why human rights, we're not part of the agreement. agreements don't have to cover everything under the sun. it would be more than enough to succeed in dealing with the nuclear missile challenge, but i didn't understand this -- those words. clearly the president is making an investment in kim jong-un. clearly he believes, anderson, that flattery and personal relationships and chemistry somehow hold the key to what's going to happen here.
i, for one, am dubious of that. i believe leaders reflect their national interests, are constrained by their own politics. i don't believe charm and flattery is going to work. the president has his way of doing business. i hope he's right, but i'm profoundly skeptical. >> appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. when we continue, the annual congressional baseball game is underway in washington. it comes on the one-year anniversary of the shooting during the republican practice for the game.
woman: it felt great not having hepatitis c. it's like a load off my shoulders. i was just excited for it to be over. harvoni is a revolutionary treatment for the most common type of chronic hepatitis c. it's been prescribed to more than a quarter million people and is proven to cure up to 99% of patients who have had no prior treatment with 12 weeks. certain patients can be cured with just 8 weeks of harvoni. before starting harvoni your doctor will test to see if you've ever had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after harvoni treatment. tell your doctor if you've ever had hepatitis b, a liver transplant, other liver or kidney problems, hiv or any other medical conditions and about all the medicines you take including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with harvoni can cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects of harvoni include tiredness, headache and weakness. ready to let go of hep c?
ask your hep c specialist about harvoni. red lobster's lobster & shrimp hesummerfest is back!h. get all the lobster and shrimp you crave, together in so many new ways. there's new cedar plank seafood bake. tender maine lobster and shrimp, cedar roasted to perfection. or new caribbean lobster and shrimp. sweet pineapple salsa on grilled rock lobster, paired with jumbo coconut shrimp. and wait. there's lobster & shrimp overboard! it's a seafood party on a plate. so hurry in. 'cause lobster & shrimp summerfest won't last.
it can grow out of control, disrupting business and taking on a life of its own. its multi-cloud complexity creating friction... and slowing innovation. with software-defined solutions, like hpe onesphere, you can tame the it monster. hewlett packard enterprise. clouds, apps, and insights faster. (burke) so we know how to seen cover almost anything. even a "cactus calamity". (man 1) i read that the saguaro can live to be two hundred years old. (woman) how old do you think that one is? (man 1) my guess would be, about...
(man 2) i'd say about two hundred. (man 1) yeah... (burke) gives houseplant a whole new meaning. and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ the annual congressional game is being played tonight. a traditional between democrats and republicans. for one night parties and differences are supposed to vanish. this game is special. it's played on the first anniversary of the shooting a year ago in suburban virginia where republican members of the team were practicing. steve scalise was seriously wounded and was among four people shot when a man opened fire during the practice. tonight just before the game he tweeted a picture of himself in uniform. there's the picture. his twitter message read. i'm back in the game. once the game started, a special
moment scalise recorded the first out and there were hugs all around. >> the entire infield, the entire field goes over to congratulate him and give him a big hug. how about that? >> a great moment for the congressman and everyone there. we're glad he's back. >> time to hand it over to chris cuomo. with cuomo "prime time" >> i am chris cuomo. welcome to prime time. kids taken from their mothers at the border. is jeff sessions right that god wants the law enforced this way? the white house is, of course, backing that up, but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are backing off this harsh practice. the question is will they do something about it? we have jim jordan here. we'll see what the ohio republican has to say about it. i'm also going to bring in another hard liner well known for his immigrant roundups, joe arpaio. former arizona sheriff. pardon pd by the president. and now running