tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN July 18, 2018 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
>> is voter suppression included with that? >> if we can go on. >> if you choose not to call on me, is voter suppression part of that election practice that the president's trying to look for? you're not going to answer that. >> if i call on you, i'll be happy to answer. >> you're not going to answer me. >> john, go ahead. >> fine. >> sarah, thank you. i want to ask you about the immediate reaction to the president's comments that he made at that press conference in helsinki? every cable channel, fox, nbc, cnn, reacted immediately to the suggestion made that he did not believe that russia interfered in the u.s. presidential election. i got my in box inundated with e-mails from republican members of congress with their reaction immediately. and 24 hours -- took 24 hours for the president to correct the record. why did it take so long for the president to clarify the comments that he made at that press conference?
>> look, the president put out an initial tweet after boarding air force one. that clarified his comments. on the intelligence community, he wanted to make sure that was clear and in the very first chance he had in a public setting the very next day he clarified his comments. i don't think that it was that long for that to be the very first public appearance he had after arriving back in the united states. >> actually, it is a pretty long time. and it was out there for quite -- >> it wasn't actually 24 horse before he responded at all. again, he put out an initial tweet from air force one. >> to clarify his remarks and change from "would" to "wouldn't." i think a lot of people would argue there is ample time for the president. he tweets all the time from air %-p. >> -- for him to put out a statement which clarified what he meant to say during the joint news conference and he didn't do that. why? what took so long, is my
question. >> once he would have viewed the transcript, he wanted to publicly address the clarification, and which he did. >> is there any effort in congress to impeach deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. is that something the president would support? >> the president has made clear he would like ul documents to be turned over but we continue to work with our department of justice. i don't have anything further. >> follow up? follow up on that. would the white house denounce that effort then? do they have confidence within the deputy attorney general? >> the president would like to see the documents turned over. when the president no longer has confidence in someone in his administration, we'll let you know. >> on the friday of the press conference with prime minister may i asked the president when he was leaving if he would stem cell vladimir putin to stay out of u.s. elections.
as he was leaving with the prime minister, he said yes. did the president tell vladimir putin at their summit in helsinki to stay out of u.s. elections? >> certainly the president, as both he and president putin said, discussed election meddling. i think we've made it very clear what our position is on that front. >> not saying they discussed election meddling, but did the president of the united states tell the president of russia to stay out of u.s. elections? >> the president has made clear to vladimir putin that he should stay out of u.s. elections. sorry, i'm going to keep moving. april, go ahead. >> was there recordings -- was there a recording made of their one-on-one meeting? >> i'm not aware of one. >> sarah, since you keep saying that the president is very concerned about the election process, can you talk about what he's doing? you did not mention voter suppression in there. voter suppression's been an issue for decades. and particularly in these last few elections. is voter suppression now on the table? when he was talking about voter fraud, people were talking about
vote suppression as well. is voter suppression on the table as well? >> we want to do everything within our power to protect the integrity of elections. the reason i address these specific issues is because of russia's involvement from our elections in the past. one last question. >> i want to change topic, if i may, and go south. >> sure, think that would be fine. >> thank you. so the incoming president of mexico has made two very bold suggestions. number one, he's looking at giving amnesty to the drug cartels operating within there. today they come out and say they're seriously looking at legalizing all drugs in mexico. now if they do that, it is obviously going to have a tremendous impact of the incoming drugs into the united states. what is the president's position on that and are they going to do anything to stop that from
happening in mexico? >> certainly we're going to continue engaging with our mexican partners. i don't have a specific policy announcement on that front. however, i can say we would not support the legalization of all drugs anywhere and certainly wouldn't want to do anything that would allow more drugs to come in to this country. thanks so much. have a great day. >> what's the administration doing about disinformation -- >> let's back up. yesterday was about "would and wouldn't." today it is about this word "no." i have a great panel standing by to digest what we just saw. it is a six-box day. plus one. that's what we're dealing with. the key question when the president was sitting in his cabinet meeting, and was earlier asked, is russia still targeting the united states. you hear the word no. let's watch. and we'll hear sarah sanders's response to the word "no."
>> thank you all very much. appreciate it. >> is russia still targeting the u.s., mr. president? >> thank you very much. no. >> earlier, the president was asked is russia still targeting the u.s. he said no. did the president understand the question? and is it still his position that, no, russia didn't do anything to interfere in the 2016 election? >> the president said thank you very much. he was saying no to answer the question. the president and his administration are working very hard to make sure russia is unable to meddle in our elections as they have done in the past and as we have stated. >> despite the video that shows the president looking at her and answering no to this question about whether russia is still targeting the u.s. and despite multiple people in the room understanding the president was
replying to that question, and the president never before said no no repeatedly to usher reporters out of the room -- >> after the question was asked, the president said thank you very much. he said, no, i'm not answering your question. even further, i think eastern cecelia didn't realize what the question was so she asked for clarification and he wouldn't answer the follow-up. because she wasn't sure. i talked to the president. he wasn't answering that question. he was saying no, he's not taking questions. i've stated with a our position is. >> all right. dana bash, you're at bat first. we're back today with two little letters. this matters because if you listen to the director of national intelligence and others, they say, without a doubt, russia is still interfering. to hear the president say, no and then continue to take questions, does that add up to you? this explanation from sarah
sanders? >> you know, i have to say, this one is a little bit more murky than the press conference where the entire theme of that press conference was sort of i want to say bowing to vladimir putin, bowing to his will and to his wishes on these issues. but, i think the important question to focus on, the important issue to focus on here is that it is even a question that has to be asked to this president whether or not there is currently an effort by russia to affect this year's election. and that it is even a question whether he would say no or yes. and that speaks to where we are right now. and it speaks to where his colleagues on capitol hill are right now. working on legislation, maybe in some cases, some of them are looking at it in the future. if we find out that russia has
done something in 2018, they will be sanctioned. others looking at it more immediately. and the fact of the matter is, this should not even be on the table because his own director of national intelligence has said definitively, it is happening, and it is happening now. it's a snapshot and a real indicator of the concern that a lot of people have about the president's real desire and his administration or at his direction, their desire to deal with the here and the now and to really confront russia. never mind about the past, but about what's happening now. >> gloria? how did you see it? >> here we are talking about words again. i looked at the videotape, if you did, to see if to me he was answering her question. and i think that's why sarah sanders had to go back to him and then he explained what he
apparently thought he was doing. i can't get into the president's head here. nor can i get into sarah sanders' head. but just in watching it, it seemed to me he was saying no. and then he, of course, went on today to talk about how strong the administration has been against russia. and, yes, they have done things, as sarah sanders was careful to point out today, because she knew that she was going to get this question. but there should not and cannot be any confusion about the president's answer to that simple question. and yet there is. it is kind of stunning. i mean we could rerack it many times. i still heard him say no. i wasn't in the room. >> right. right. we weren't in the room. but obviously other reporters were in the room. it is confounding.
lindsey graham tweeted earlier he noted in his own interpretation the president was saying no on russia versus, no, i'm not answering more questions. the thing is you can understand if he's saying, no, get out of the room, press, like i'm not answering question, but he keeps -- brian stelter, i wanted to ask you about this if we can pop up another box on the screen. he does keep answering questions. >> he did. i think we should go back to a question he was asked on saturday. cbs news, jeff glore, said to the president, your dna says this country is su susceptible to an attack. it is similar to pre-9/11. do you agree with that? president trump said i don't know if i'd agree with that. even back on saturday the president was wishy washy about whether he really bleeshz the russi believes the russians and others are continuing to meddle in our election.
his answer on saturday was i don't know if i would agree. this is the president's first real interview since that disaster in helsinki. he has a lot to answer for. this is going to have to be one of the questions he's asked right now. >> david gergen, from your perspective in all your years with various administrations, the wishy-washiness, to use brian's term. how dangerous is that for a president to be perceived as wishy-washy, walking back, the need to clarify? >> i think it is very dangerous in the sense of two things. one is, the declining trust people have in what he is saying, especially because he appears back and forth and you are never sure which interpretation is the right one. secondly, the white house, even sarah sanders' interview, i must say, i found the conversation on tape from a distance to be m
muddy. i don't think it is was clear the president was saying no to a particular issue. but knowing that that question is in controversy for the white house, knowing that is in play, would come in at this press briefing and say the president believed emphatically in what the dni said, and that is that the russians are targeting us now, the red lights are blinking, we take it seeress se. but there is a cyber security position in the white house that's vacant. my understanding is there's been a resignation at the fbi in that area that is vacant. if he really thought they were anything close to a n9/11 position, you would fill those jobs, be aggressive. they make up these wordy answers that they create this cloud of
words that you can't really tell what they're saying sometimes as opposed to taking quick, simple, decisive action which is more credible an these word games. >> i think they think they learned the right lesson with idea with the would/wouldn't. let's just play a little bit linguistic olympics here. if you want proof that he was really answering the question, look at what sanders said. she never answered the question -- is the threat ongoing. she talked about what they're doing to counter it. she said, we believe the threat exists. but she never actually in the present tense said the threat was ongoing. to me that's proof that's exactly what he meant to say. >> not only did she say we all think a threat exists, when jim acosta got in a question, asking did he tell putin to stay out of u.s. elections, flat out, and she said, he and putin discussed election meddling. right? she doubled down on that. wouldn't all-out say -- >> as a former press secretary,
one of the tricks of the trade is, when you don't want to talk about the content, you simply give the list of the chapters of the book. they talked about ukraine and -- you don't talk about -- because you don't want to talk about the content, because she can't talk about the content, because they don't know. >> let's not forget, the president came out in helsinki and said that vladimir putin made what he called a powerful case that they did not -- >> very powerful. >> very strong, very powerful. so the reason all these questions are being asked, and the reason we're parsing words today and the reason we're parsing words yesterday is because of the president's own words in helsinki that everybody heard. so that is the reap that we're trying to figure out what "no" means. and again, we can watch it, we can watch it, we can watch it. she knew that it was going to come up. she went to the president and asked about it because she knew
that reporters were writing stories about it, saying that the president was disagreeing with his intelligence community yet again. >> i'll bet the question she asked the president wasn't, what did you mean, sir? it was, how do you want me to spin this? how do you want me to square this circle is. >> exactly. >> david gergen, final word from you, sir. >> i just think he's -- the president's back in hot water again today. it is lukewarm xaurd to wh compe it was coming out of helsinki. but it is a mess and they need to clean things up. it is important for american foreign policy and american leadership to be firm in commitment to nato, to clear up that question of whether the red light is really blinking on these attacks, to clear up what actually happened in that meeting and were their secret agreements. all of those issues right now are in play and confusion. i think it is bad for the country. >> all right.
everyone, thank you so much for all of that. also part of the back and forth with jim acosta, he was asking was there a recording made between putin and trump, and her response -- i'm not aware of one, which brings us to this idea that's gaining a bit of traction up on capitol hill, whether to subpoena the interpreter had was in the room, the u.s. interpreter, who was there part of that conversation for two-plus hours. stay tuned for that. you're watching cnn, i'm broome baldwin. across the country, we walk. carrying flowers that signify why we want to end alzheimer's disease. but what if, one day, there was a white flower for alzheimer's first survivor? what if there were millions of them? join us for the alzheimer's association walk to end alzheimer's. register today at alz.org/walk. i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i literally say ahh. introducing
the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize air flow to keep you cool. today is gonna be great. read our reviews then try the leesa mattress in your own home. order now and get $150 off, and free shipping, too. go to buyleesa.com today. you need this bed. the first meeting with the doctor at ctca went really well. his goal was remission. i started taking a drug based on the genomic testing. it has been three plus years. my longest remission to date. learn more at cancercenter.com. here's a trip tip: when you search hotels on tripadvisor... enter your destination and the dates of your stay. tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to find the best deal on the right hotel for you. tripadvisor.
tap one little bumper and up go your rates. what good is your insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ hello. let's go for a ride on a peloton. let's go grab a couple thousand friends and chase each
other up a hill. let's go make a personal best, then beat it with your personal better than best. let's go bring the world's best instructors right to you. better yet, let's go bring the entire new york studio - live. let's go anytime, anywhere, with anyone who's willing. and let's go do it all right here. ready to go? peloton. concerns about brett kavanaugh, president trump's nominee for supreme court justice. speaking to conservative group two years ago, kavanaugh said if he could overturn any supreme court ruling, it would be
morrison v. olson which upholds the constitutional of an independent counsel. . >> can you thing of a case that deserves to be overturned? >> yes. [ laughter ] >> would you volunteer one? >> no. [ laughter ] >> pending confirmation hearing. yes, sir, right here. [ laughter ] >> thank you. i was going to say one. morrison v. olson. >> that's the independent counsel statute case. >> it's been effectively overruled but i would put the final nail in. >> these comments will certai y ly come up in kavanaugh's confirmation hearing expelater morning. manu, since kavanaugh was nominated, we know democrats have been very concerned about
his view on executive power. how will what we just listened to play in all that? >> democrats want more answers, in particular because judge cavanaugh has expressed other concerns about whether or not the press himself could be indicted, believing the president perhaps cannot be indicted. that's an issue that presumably could come up before the court if he were a justice and he could potentially rule on other matters relating to the mueller probe, if there is a subpoena, for instance, issued forcing the president to testify and the president's legal team fought it all the way to the supreme court, how would he rule on this key issue. we wants to overturn is that case, morrison v. olson, it refers to the independent counsel. that's different than the special counsel which is governed under a different set of guidelines. but if a supreme court precedent were overturn it could have implications for a special counsel like mueller. so democrats pushing back today asking more questions. >> in many instances now, he has
come down on the side of a strong executive who would somehow be protected from the ordinary investigation and prosecution which ordinary americans are subjected to. >> we are talking about a dangerously an potentially profoundly damaging appointee to the high court. he believes the president is above the law and can in effect override the supreme court. >> i don't think it carries much weight at this point. >> in that last comment coming from senate judiciary committee chuck grassley, aligning himself with other republicans who do not believe this is as significant as democrats so far are saying. they say, look, this independent counsel law has already expired. there are other concerns about the constitutionality of the independent counsel. it has nothing to do with the special counsel. but as i mentioned, it could have potential impact on the mueller probe if that supreme court ruling was overturned. you are already hearing some
democra democrats, chuck schumer, saying judge kavanaugh needs to recuse himself before any matter involving the mueller investigation. expect that to be a line of criticism from the democrats going forward. >> we will. those confirmation hearings expected later this month. manu, thank you so much. still ahead here on cnn, president trump's summit with vladimir putin was part of with a led the republican chair in one ohio county to quit his job. he'll join me live to explain why this was his breaking point. later we hear for the first time from the 12 boys rescued from the cave in thailand and their coach. why he says they were there in the first place and how they survived for days without food. as you get older. s but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
bottom of the hour. you're watching cnn, i'm brooke baldwin. moments ago the white house deferred over to the state department if asked if it would support lawmakers' questioning of the translator uses in the meeting with president putin. lawmakers say that person should be subpoenaed before congress to understand exactly what transpired in that meeting. a number of republican lawmakers are also weighing in, saying let's get a hold of her notes,
that coming from head of the senate foreign relations committee. >> i don't want us to do is to end up at a place that actually lowers our own credibility in dealing with it. we're looking at it. i can understand the request. i'm not sure it is appropriate to subpoena the translation notes. but if it is, wale's certainly look at it. >> with me now, former federal prosecutor joseph moreno, and global affairs correspondent, eli elise, what's the role of an interpreter? would he or see ever had had notes and is there precedent? >> in recent memory there is no precedent for congress to
subpoena a tharanslator's notes. sometimes in a terrorism case those translation notes are called into question and the state department and department of justice vigorously protect the translator. why do they do that? because the translator is really an extension of the principal that they are translating for. in this case, she was the extension of the president. she's really speaking for the president. and if he spoke dplaeenglish, i meeting, for instance, there would be no need to translate. i spoke were a real veteran of the state department. not only did he work with the office of translation services is here, but he was a middle east interpreter and senior advisor to four presidents. seven secretaries of state. a little bit different than this woman's case. i think he really tried to negotiate to give meaning to what the president was going to say before they even got in the
room. but in any event, he says we're an extension of the principal. only the president has the right and the privilege of sharing what he said with someone else. and so he said there's no precedent for congress to do it. if he was asked, he would vigorously object to it because presidents really need to be free in the room in a one-on-one meeting to say what they're going to say to the world leader. if these notes were subpoenaed, two set a horrible precedent for presidents to come and feeling free to speak their mind with a world leader. >> how tricky is this? >> again, there is a legal implication and there is the practical implications. legally, you can probably do this. i don't see any executive privilege, legal privilege, classification -- >> you don't think executive privilege would come into play? >> no, because that usually deals with advice being given to a president by staffers. in this case that's not advice, it is simply a translation of spoken words in front of a for rib leader.
there's no privilege concern there. might be classified, but congress can get around that by having a closed hearing. purely from a legal perspective, if congress was determined to subpoena this interpreter, they could do it. whether they should do it -- to elise's point, you would set a terrible precedent to start subpoenaing interpreters, protocol officers, military and secret service agents. you would literally make it so the president had no ability to have private conversations. we all want to get to the bottom of this, absolutely know what happened. but we want to be careful what we are doing as it relates to future events. >> elise, what about the notion -- some folks up on capitol hill have said, maybe if you can't get a subpoena for the interpreter, how about the if the interpreter has notes? is that a possibility? do they is even have notes? >> they have notes, brooke. but most of the time those are kind of like symbols and taking it in a language, if you will,
that only they can understand so that they can interpret the phrase or paragraph. occasionally, the middle east translator told me, the principal or president will ask the translator to serve as a note taker, also, in a one-on-one meeting. afterwards they would ask the translator to put together some notes or even if it is not verbatim, but a kind of read-out based on what happened. then again they would be the right and privilege -- i don't use it in a legal term -- but privilege of whoever was speaking to share that with whomever. >> do we even know if that happened? we know somebody was taking notes on putin's side because he's had a whole conversation with his staff about military possibilities. >> i would assume that the president did not. i've spoken to some former ambassadors who said that's probably a pretty good bet, whether it is john bolton or chief of staff kelly or someone in the nsc has talk to the
translator to get an idea of what happened in the meeting. but for a verbatim or transcript of notes, those notes are the property, i would say, of the president. >> got it. elise, thank you. joe, thank you. next we'll talk to the man who says president trump's summit with putin was essentially the final straw for him. why he resigned from his job as a republican county chair in one county in ohio. for years i've trained dogs for the marines -
the woman accused of acting as a russian agent. she will be held in jail without bond until her trial. we are talking about maria butina, a russian graduate student charged with conspiring against the u.s. sarah murray's been in court for us. sar sarah, what have you learned? >> reporter: that's right, brooke. the judge made the decision. maria butina will await trial in jail with no bond. she entered a plea of not guilty and it was a fight between the government, as well as her lawyers, over whether she was actually a flight risk. argument the government was making is she's essentially a russian spy operating here in the u.s., and that if she was allowed out of that courtroom, she could get in a diplomatic vehicle, seek refuge at the russian embassy and nothing u.s. laws could do to keep her in the country and ensure she showed up in court. her attorney has said she's already faced a number of inquiries from a number of government agencies. they say they are apartment was raided in apartment, and she
still stuck around. he was unsuccessfully trying to make the case she is not a government spy and should have been released on her own recognizance. but that did not appear convincing to the judge who has decided maria butina is going to await trial in a jail cell. >> sarah, thank you. to ohio now, a long-time ohio republican party official calling it quit over president trump's handling of russia's vladimir putin at that historic summit. chris gagan. he was, until monday, the chairman of rural ohio's bellmont county republicans nestled in the heart of ohio's coal industry. he said he was sitting in his law office monday watching the trump/putin news conference when he saw trump siding with vladimir putin over the u.s. intelligence community. then he said, quote, something just snapped. chris geoghan is with me now.
let me hear it from you. why did you resign? >> well, i was sitting in this very seat, book. rememb remember the news cycle. we had the run-up to the nato summit. problem with theresa may in the united kingdom. the breached protocol with the queen. mueller dropped the indictment on the 12 russians just before the meeting in helsinki. and i'm sitting here watching this and there just cannot be any confusion. when the president of the united states, who has the sworn duty to protect and defend the united states is there on swoforeign s, three feet from vladimir putin and he is openly taking the position of the russian president over our intel community. it was a point at which, as i said, something snapped and i don't hold a political or policy position. i thought that my only recourse, my duty as my conscience told me, was that i needed to simply resign because could i not, in effect, be the front man for the
president here in belmont county any longer. >> wow. that's a big deal that you have resigned because of this and as a republican. you tweeted you remain a proud conservative, remain a republican. but i know that there are a lot of republicans out there who are struggling with the party who they've been boil to their whole lives. a conservative columnist wrote a whole piece in the "washington post" how he's now rooting for a democrat. i'm just curious, have you had particular thoughts about not only resigning from your post but turning your back on your party? >> no, i honestly don't think that's the right thing to do. because it is important for the republicans to have that larger conversation within the family. for example, i'm not trying to destroy the party. i think in ohio, there are --
congressman bill johnson from ohio's 6th congressional district has done a phenomenal job. senator corker. it is not about destroying the party. i've never seen somebody in the president that is such a great connecter to people, he has such difficulty actually communicating. look at what we had today in the white house. we had -- because i heard it. they had a tremendous workforce development meeting. should have been great. economic information, how we'll retrain people. thought it was fabulous. then we get into the question of russia targeting, whether he answered the question or not. that's all now that's going to be talked about. trump is going to essentially complain that nobody's giving him coverage. it is that continual cycle and that language of grievance that db i don't have any illusions that my resignation's going to change the base. it is not. what i think national republicans have to think about, if you have moderate to establishment republicans and certainly those on the
independent side that have conservative views, if the president starts to lose us -- i'm not saying that's where it is at the moment. but i'm saying if he starts to lose us, then the base alone is not going to be enough to carry him through. >> i'm wondering if he might -- if you left your important post in your county because of what you witnessed on the world stage in helsinki, last question to you. i know you voted for trump in 2016. do you have regrets? would you vote for him in 2020 if he ran again? >> first, i don't regret -- i would have not an able to support hillary clinton really under any situation. so, tho,no, i don't regret that vote. i was one who voted because of kneel gorsu neil gorsuch. i think brett kavanaugh will be a good addition. >> how about 2020? >> we'll have to see how the rest of this plays out.
>> all right. chris gagin in ohio. coming up next, those 12 boys rescued from a thai cave speak out for the very first time. they talk about how they survive and what they are doing to honor that diver who lost his life trying to save them. (vo) this is not a video game. this is not a screensaver. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪
between rocks. here's how one of them described the miracle moment when the first diver found them. >> translator: when they got out from the water, i was a little surprised. so i just greeted them. i thought, this is really a miracle and i didn't know how to respond to them. >> let's go straight to the asia correspondent jonathan miller still in chiang rai, thailand. talk to me about what those boys shared and paid tribute to the diver who died. >> reporter: well, brooke, you know, in a world of relentlessly bad news it is absolutely wonderful to be able to bring you this great news story and those boys who some had virtually given up for dead because they were stuck in that chamber for nine days before they were even found. and then, it took 17 days to extract them all. against the odds, even the thai
navy s.e.a.l. divers tonight said they didn't think that they'd be able to dive them out but they did and not only get them out it proved in hospital that all of them were in pretty good physical condition considering and mental condition, too. and they were released discharged from the hospital in chiang rai tonight in amazing form and they told their stories of daring and how they had realized that they were trapped down in there, how the initial panic had turned to how to survive and great tales of comradely a comradery and trying to explore out of the cave system and then as you mentioned they turned their attention to that thai former navy s.e.a.l. diver that died. and they were only told of this two days ago and they stood in front of a portrait of this man tonight and the youngest, the smallest of them all, a little 11-year-old said, sir, thank you for giving your life up so that
we could live ours. it was very moving, very touching and tonight the wild bore football team is alive and kicking. >> so wonderful. looking at that little boy staring at that diver, oh! ugh. it's beautiful. we are so thrilled they're all, the boys and coach, a-okay and heading home. jonathan miller, thank you so much for covering this from the very beginning for us. still ahead here, president trump appears to say russia is not trying to attack the election system. the white house trying to clarify. hear it for yourself coming up. billions of mouths.
billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy. there's therabreath at walmart. just for a shot. with neulasta onpro patients get their dayr back to be with family, or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving
strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $25 per dose with copay card.
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. just in to cnn, trump's
military parade, two u.s. defense officials revealing how much it will cost. remember, that parade scheduled to take place december 10th, day before veterans day. ryan brown is all over this for us at the pentagon. what is the price tag? >> reporter: we're told the initial planning figure for the military parade about $12 million. we are told that's how much the parade is expected to cost. it's as it is planned right now. now, that of course, could be subject to change if they decide to add additional units or things like that but that's the planning figure they're using as they plan this parade and interesting about the figure, very close to the cost of the pentagon put the cost on war exercises with south korea that were recently canceled, $14 million. president trump said it cost a fortune and used the cost as a rationale to cancel them as after his talks with north korean leader kim jong-un. so very interesting symmetry of the cost of the military parade
and these exercises with south korea that president trump once labeled tremendously expensive. >> tremendously expensive. ryan brown, thank you, at the pentagon. that will do it for me today. thank you so much for being with me. let's go to washington. "the lead" with jake tapper starts right now. >> thanks, brooke. the white house just said that president trump really meant yes when he said no. this is one day after he said he meant wouldn't when he said would. "the lead" starts right now. oops, he did it again! president trump saying no when asked if russia is still targeting the democratic process. when all the evidence in his own experts point to a mountain of interference. the white house today saying he was saying no a question that the reporter hadn't even asked. tale of the interpreter. lawmakers now trying to get the only other american in the room with president trump and vladimir putin to spill what was said. what does she know? plus, sex,