but so especially now is saving. that's why america's best includes a free eye exam when you buy two pairs of glasses for just $79.95, that's a savings of at least sixty nine bucks. two pairs for $79.95. includes a free exam. that's not just a better deal, it's america's best. book an exam online today at america's best.com. ann, you're on mute.

right now on "ana cabrera reports" on capitol hill, facing a grilling on capitol hill, looking to faceback, he said the words, i will not be intimidated. and now, we have learned of a shake-up on the jury just literally minutes ago. and president biden is expected to take new direction on immigration. and a executive order he is expected to sign. and ratcheting up the 2024 race, and new words of president biden calling former president trump a felon who snapped.

it is 10:00 eastern and i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york, and thank you for joining us. we are beginning the news on capitol hill where merrick garland is going to be testifying, and there is a house resolution of contempt against garland, and there is a historic verdict against trump, and there is expected to be a pushback of the doj in which garland is saying that he will not be intimidated. we are joined by our analysts. so, ali, set the stage for the

hearing. what can we expect? >> well, buckle up, this is going to be intense and fiery, and we know that the judiciary committee is one of two who have recently voted to hold the attorney general in contempt. he is now going to stand before them in defiant fashion according to the early excerpts that garland is going to tell the committee here in reference to that he expected this contempt referral, but he is not going to be intimidated. he said, that i view this contempt as a serious matter, but i will not jeopardize the agents to do their jobs ineffectively in future investigations. and so this is also pertaining to why he will not turn over the audio of the investigation by

special council hur of president biden. and he said that the audio would have a chilling effect on future investigation, and that is what he is going to say as he stands before the chief antagonists here on capitol hill, and they have gone so far as to hold him in contempt. i asked speaker johnson about the fate of the contempt vote, and we have seen this before, and we have seen several because of the january 6th committee, and the number of referrals that they have sent if they did not comply with their requests, but considering the fate of the vote on the house floor, and they are contemplaing this because they

may not have the number of votes they need to hold him in contempt. and this contempt they have for him personally for the attorney general, as we expect the floor committee chairman jim jordan to start this committee hearing. >> we will look for the opening statements when that begins. carol, how likely do you hold merrick garland to be held in contempt? >> well, politics and businessmen do not make good bedfellows. there has to be compromise with political and executive branches with this. the courts have said, work this among yourself, because you do

not want to have a judicial decision here. but merrick garland reached the breaking point with the attack on the mar-a-lago search warrant and the misrepresentation that fbi agents were authorized to go in to kill people, and this is a bridge too far for him, and he came out to give a press conference to refute that, and very unusual for him to come out the refute that. >> and now, ali, president biden has claimed executive privilege with that interview by brian hur who had released of course, and so when the justice department says that releasing those will

and compromise future investigation, do you agree with that? >> i do. president biden sat for the interview, and provided candid answer, and what that requires is that the targets of those investigations feel like they can be speaking candidly, but if the audio is released, it will not make people want to cooperate or voluntaily sit for that to be turned back on them. >> but that is different from seeing the transcript than hearing the audio? >> we know it is different, then this transcript would be sufficient for people to know they will be using that to

attack the current president. we can speak that it will be for the investigation, and the line agents have to interview people, and have that done without fear of political reservations litter on. >> and now garland is prepared to call out the department of certain doj investigations like the jack smith investigation, and others that he calls extremely dangeroused and other, and so robert, what is the rhetoric coming from the political leaders as it is to the rule of law?

>> well, carol raises a very good point as to how it is released. >> i have served in the house for a long time, and there is an institutional view that the committee is provided certain things, and the fact that there is okay a politics, but i am concerned that you r release that, but to and all of this talk of impeach, and more, it is easy for garland to go on the

some now as he is making a opening statement, and ali, i may have to come back to you, but you know capitol hill as to what is making him hesitate or delay? >> i have have to hold that mantle for a moment, briann and i am going to go with. >> and i really don't know, and those kinds of political votes on cabinet members are not necessarily the most popular things for more moderate members in swing districts to take back home to their voters. instead, those voters might want to see them prioritizing and so,

i am talking about inflation, talking about prik frek and that is one from an and sglaun. some of the members that i have spoken to believe that the foundation of holding the attorney general in contempt in the first place is flimsy. you will hear from the committee chairman jim jordan as to why they are holding him in contempt, and the party's intention to do so, but this is one of the long strands toward the compatibility. >> and i want to read a little bit more from the excerpt of.

>> and pirm and in a state trial brought by a local district attorney florng and so, no, jeradiah, what is your reaction to that? >> well, they have attacked the department of justice since trump lost the election, and they have attacked both physically and legislatively, the faith that people have that is the bedrock of the society. i think it is incredibly

dangerous. i believe it is filled with people who are solving and so what it does is to unts, and so these two institutions must be respected in order for justice and honor to be operating in our society. >> and when the president is using the threatening to use the justice department should he be re-elected. and i don't see how the president's son is currently in a felony trial right now in

delaware, the president's home state, and he is currently being tried on and rnlgt and i will have retribution on all of the folk, and so it is such a retribution gains all of the american people. >> and once the a.g. starts to talk, we will be back with you, ali, and carol and jedidiah, and we will be back with you as soon as he begins to speak. and now we go ken dilanian, and we will get to the jury in a few minutes, but let's get to opening statements just under

way. >> erica, the judge started by saying no one is above the law regardless of your name, and a defendant is on trial because of the choices that the defendant made. and he said that we are also here because of choices and also here because the defendant decided to lie. and he also said that he was not using drugs when he went to buy that cold reand hope to single out hunter biden who is a well known defendant well known here in the state of delaware and he is looking for for face of the

jurors. >> yes, we lost a juror, and that juror is unemployed and lives one hour from the courthouse. she said that she did not realize that she has to come to trial everyday. so, they have released her with and so, all of this is remaining of a jury of six men, and six women, and two of the jurors have had experience with drug addiction, and 26 of the 20-something jurors have had experience with drug addiction in their family. and that is pointing to what a huge problem it is with the american society.

>> and we will keep an eye on that capitol hill hearing. and then a move by president biden to tamp down on the movement at the southern bord. that is teeing off some democrats. and now, president biden is leaning into the news and calling president trump a felon. we will be back with 60 seconds. i just scrape... load... and i'm done. in that dishwasher? in that dishwasher. only platinum plus is packed with more dawn to remove up to 100% of grease and food residue. get the highest standard of clean, even in your machine. clean enough for ya? yeah. scrape, load, done. cascade platinum plus. dare to dish differently.

(aaron) i own a lot of businesses... so i wear a lot of hats. my restaurants, my tattoo shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (waitress) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. man, the fish tacos are blowing up! so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on.

all eyes are on the white house today where president biden is expected to make the most aggressive unilateral move yet to address immigration. we are learning that the president's executive action would temporary close the u.s./mexico border when daily encounters reach 2,500, and reopening when they fall below 1,500. but is this move going to be enough to appease either side of the aisle, and will it make a difference? let's bring in dave gutierrez and cnn political analyst sophia guerra. what are we learning now, gabe? >> well, you will remember that former president donald trump

urged americans to kill that bipartisan border funding deal. here we are, and the white house is saying that it needs to take action now, and you mentioned some of the details here that once the crossings of port of entry cross 500, it will give the president action to temporarily shut down the border, and remain closed until the average illegal crossings go back to 1,500, and a it is impeachment and trump tried to do the same thing with similar restrictions in 2018, but he was struck down by the court, and the biden administration is expecting challenges. >> and looking now, the average crosses are looking at 4,000 a day, and this is down from 10,000 a day, and the last time

they dipped below 1,500 was at the height of the pandemic. does that mean that the shutdown would happen immediately? >> yes, ana. the temporary shutdown would happen quickly, and the department of and yet, this is a major and this is days before the major political mexican election, and still, president biden is trailing president trump in immigration according to polls. >> and maria, you have spent time on both sides of the border. if people are coming at unauthor

sized crossings already, will this change anything practically? >> well, yeah, it is going to make it worse. when i heard that he is going to make an executive change, i thought well, he is going to do something fresh and make things better. but instead, joe biden who has been in politics for dekids, this is unrealistic, ana. human flows of people throughout the world, and especially to the united states, and in our last which and now they say, we are going to shut the border. there is no logic around this, and it is going to create more

vacations at and because we know that snoormgt and many of them are refugees, the international law says that we must accept, you actually find a way to bring people in >>, and more than any others they show up. >> and the asylum seekers. >> nrnlgt -- and we will bring you in everyday, and our economy will be stronger and brighter, and president biden has to do something fresher, and not say that we will shutdown.

he is not going to get the voters by doing this, and he is not. >> and standby, please. because we have merrick garland delivering his opening statement to the committee. >> and now, individuals who terrorize entire communities. we have brought justice to the perpetrators to the crimes. like the defendant in florida who attacked two women in florida because of the color of their skin. the defendant in michigan who defaced the synagogues with swastikas. and the defendant who set fire to a civic center. and the defendant who targeted methodist and catholic and sgrrp and so, to protect the right of

vote, and to have that vote counted. we successfully challenged the counting vote in galveston, texas. it violated the second right and violating the black and latino voters' rights to participate in the voting process and elect a representative of their choice. we have challenged the mon operating. and that is when it monopolized a concert industry and apple in the smartphone industry, and we have looked at all of the work to uphold the rule of law. that is why we are rising up against the threats of public. that includes the targeting of

members of congress, police officer s, judges, kus tis -- justice employees. so let me be clear, if you bring violence, we will hold you responsible. we will bring those responsible for the january 6th attack to justice. as the special and i will continue to and nothing is going to prevent me from fulfilling the rule of law, and making sure

that the department of justice respects the role of law to our democracy. that is why we are going through the committee to be primary council transcripts, but we will not provide audio recordings of the transcripts which you have. the audio recordings could influence witnesses' answers if they thought that the audio of the law enforcement officers.

and now, for this committee, you are seeking this information for no legitimate purpose except to harm the integrity of future investigations. seeking this is only the recent in the long line of attacks of the long line of investigations. it threatens to end it comes along false claims that a jury verdict in a state trial brought by a local district attorney was somehow controlled by the justice department. that conspiracy theory is an attack on a wild sglifrmt it comes as some have been carried out just for doing their job.

it comes as falsehoods have been carried out for being spread for falsehoods by the fbi, and it is coming as we are seeing the heinous threats of the career civil servants. these repeated attacks against the justice department are unprecedented and unfounded. these attacks will not continue, and i view contempt as a serious matter, but i will not allow the agents to have their jobs jeopardized in future imdated. we will continue to do our jobs free from intimidation, and we

will not back down. >> we will now take questions, and i recognize the ranking member. >> i ask for unanimous request -- >> does it have to happen now? >> yes. there is a request that the fbi was somehow involved on johnware -- january 6th. >> i ask for unanimous consent to have it entered into the transcript with steve dantano who refuses to agree that the fbi was involved. and i ask for unanimous consent that the boston field office explains that the conspiracies about the fbi causing the

capitol insurrection are concerning. >> admitted. >> and i asked for unanimous consent that i will say that the notion that the capitol on january 6th was part of some operation orchestrated by the fbi agents was ludicrous and is -- and i ask for unanimous consent to be admitted. >> without exception. >> and now, you said this is without the influence of trum, and will you give all of the correspondence and documents from fani willis and --

>> it is between -- >> i do not need a history lesson. >> and we do not control the -- >> the question is if you communicate with them -- >> you make a request, and we will refer to it to the -- >> you see, here is the thing, and you come in here to lodge this conspiracy theory that it is all against thump, and we say, fine, give us the documents, and then we will -- but then you come in here and say, make a request, and then it will take a little work through, and so, you are advancing it. and you were a highest judge in the country, and now, did you make political donations to partisan candidates? >> no. >> and you didn't, because it would create the potential

appearance of impropriety? >> no, i did it because there is a federal rule barring judges from doing so. >> and so, wouldn't someone be owed a jury of their peers and nonbiased rather than getting a judge from your political -- >> i am knowing this is not a hypothetical, and it is from -- i will not comment on it, because that case is still going on. >> and i have not asked you about the verdict, but i was asking you about the judge. so, let me ask you about your time as a judge. was there a time when you were a judge, and you had a family judge who was personally profiting off of the notoriety of a case before your court? >> i will say very clear, you are asking you to comment on a

case -- >> no, mr. attorney general, did you have a person who -- >> you are asking me to -- >> well, it seems that you are connecting to dots, mr. attorney general, but you are aware that judge marshan's daughter was making a profit off of this case, and there is a rule that prohibits judges to make donations, because -- >> i do not agree with anything that you just said, so -- >> so, you will not comment on it, but you had no problem dispatching matthew coanglo -- >> that is false. >> and mr. matthew coanglo, and without being confirmed, he goes

replacing gupto, and makes a remarkable downstream journey from the justice department in washington, d.c., and pops up in alvin bragg's office to go help prosecute trump, and -- >> i am saying that is false, and i did not dispatch mr. coanglo anywhere. i am telling you that i had nothing to do with it. >> and you may not have had anything to do with it, but we have contemporaneous evidence from his book who said, we put together these legal eagles to go get trump, and so when we have to look at the facts and the law that are not being followed, and target is acquired

here, trump, and then you assembled the legal talent from doj and mr. pomerance to go get to him, and -- >> i will not comment on that. >> well, you won't comment on it, and that i see that it is going to do damage well beyond our time here. and i see that my time is expired. >> and mr. garland, would you like to comment on anything that mr. gaetz commented on?

>> well, i do not know any reason that he would have been there, but i have no knowledge of how he went there. >> okay. the case was brought by the manhattan d.a., and so it is a state case and not a federal case, but since the majority is confused, can you explain the difference of a state case and federal case. >> yes, the manhattan district attorney has jurisdiction over cases involving new york state law, and completely independent of the justice department which has jurisdiction cases involving federal law. we do not control manhattan district attorney, and manhattan district attorney does not report to us. and the manhattan district attorney makes its own decisions about cases that he wants to bring under his state law.

>> thank you. my republican colleagues want to believe that the department of justice is secretly coordinating to prosecute trump in new york, and what is your thought about this allegation? >> the case in new york is brought by the manhattan district attorney independently on his own volition and independently of what he believed was a violation of state law. >> mr. attorney general, this committee made the decision to ty to petition you, and now, this is more than the documents that the trump administration

has given to this committee. and as far as audio recordings, the trump administration has not provided to the department of justice. is that true? >> true. >> have these been altered in this way? >> there is a senior person who filed under oath that he had compared the audio to the transcript, and that it is an accurate transcript is accurate with the exceptions of ughs and ahs and repetitions of words like i and and. and with the consultants in the room who agreed that the transcript was an accurate tran

transcript. >> thank you. now, the republicans have made bogus allegations that the department of justice is weaponized. is the department of justice authorized to kill the former president? what type of accusation does this have on the agents at the department of justice? >> it is dangerous. it is raising the threats of violence against the prosecutors and career agents. the allegation is false. the fbi has explined that the document being discussed is the standard use of form protocol which is a limitation on the use of force and routinely a part of the package for the search warrant, and was used in president biden's home as well. >> and so, president trump alleges that this is an assassination attempt against him, and he is not telling the

truth knowingly or as often is the case with him unknowingly? >> i am just saying that the allegation is not true. this is the standard use of force policy that limits the use of force that agents can use and used in a routine search, and it accompanied the package as routinely does. >> and in other words, when president trump makes that case, he deliberately or as often is the case, he is deliberately lying or not knowing what he is talking about. thank you, and i yield back. >> thank you. mr. attorney general, no blanking the fact that for the first time in history, we do have a presidential opponent who

is working to put his opponent in jail. and as i understand it, jack smith is a principal player in the tea party, and well part of the record of prosecutorial abuse, and yet you appointed him to prosecute the president of the united states, and he happens to be running against your boss, and this is entirely your work, and the unprecedented search of his home, and you just maintained that they are independent, but it is a fact, that the third-ranking official in your department left it to join the local office in new york to spearhead the office, and strategize with the atlanta office to prosecute that office, and you refused mr. gaets' request to tell us what the

employees have with those offices. what are we to make of this? >> i disagree with the characterizations that you have made. and if you want to put them in writing, we will be getting to write with them. >> which part of them? >> that this person was sent by my office. >> i did not say that he was sent, but it is odd that the third-ranking person in your office leaves it to go to local office to prosecute this case. >> justice department had nothing to do with that person going. he was the principle deputy. >> but like ceasar's wife, it is important that your department be above reproach, and it is not. and for counsel hur, he said that biden had willfully

disclosed classified information, and he said that president biden is a well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. and do you agree with that? >> i did not comment on that, and i did not comment on mr. durham's special report or mr. hur's. he testified for five hours before this committee. >> this is a department of justice matter, and there is no prosecution with this. >> mr. hur explained the rational for that case, and he explained the differences of that case, and the case involving the former president. >> well, i do want to thank you for your testimony expressing concern for terrorist attacks, because we have had 5 million illegal immigrants released into our country with little vetting,

and also, we have had 2 million entered without vetting. and your predecessor said this is a massive national security threat, and do you agree? >> i will not disagree with the fbi director, and we will do everything that we can to make sure that the country is protected. >> we can do that with great detail, but we can face a coordinated attack from the millions who have entered the country in the last three years illegally. is this fear justified? >> i am worried about a terrorist attack in the country after october 7th. the threat is something that we track every morning to track

anyone who might be wanting to hurt the country. >> and now, you have millions and millions who have been allowed to come into the country, or coming in while the millions are invading in, and i worry about the stage is set for something coming in the near future, because of your administration's policies. it is important to say that the president is going to be using 22-f of the immigration act to turn back immigrants once they reach 2,500 a day, and that is not closing the barn door, but propping it open. and that is a lower number than you have tolerated, but for the last 3 1/2 years, the president has maintained that he has had no such authority, and what has changed other than we have

nearing the election? >> i will have to refer you to the homeland security, because the best way to protect the border is to pass the bi-partisan -- >> well, it would have forbidden future presidents to use that authority until it reached 4,000 a day. >> the gentleman's time has expired, and they have called the votes on the floor, and we will do a couple more question, and we will break for 15 minutes and then we will vote and be back. i recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you for your attendance here, mr. garland. they have raised the fact that this is the first time that there is a president who has allegedly gone after his opponent. has there ever been another time in american history when there is an insurrection when a president has tried to overthrow

the government other than january 6th. >> i do not intend to comment on the charges of the former president anymore than i will comment on mr. hur's report, and i will not comment on the matters before the courts. >> thank you. >> it was said that there is no indictment of president biden on records, classified records, was because he was considered a sympathetic character. in the trump case, did anybody consider him a sympathetic character? >> again, i will fall back on the fact that -- i will not, and i cannot comment -- >> mr. jordan's opening comments said the execution of the search warrant was different in all of

these ways, and how many classified documents were found pursuant to those search warrant, and they had been refused to be returned? >> i don't have in my head the number, and that is all on the public record, including the number of times that efforts were made to obtain through the legal process the legal documents. >> this whole hearing is about the weaponization of the justice department, and somehow your department is involved in the prosecution of donald trump and the state court in new york. as far as weaponization of the state department goes, did the justice department indict senator menendez? >> it is a matter of public record, yes. >> he is a democrat, right? >> i would assume yes. >> and senator cuellar?

>> i would assume. >> and hunter biden is under trial, the son of the president, is under trial in delaware, and you have not weaponized the justice department in me mendez, cuellar and hunter biden? >> we prosecute like cases alike, and others in different ways. we do not let the political party or the ethnicity or the religion or the race or the wealth or the influence of someone we are investigating to make a difference in our charging decisions. >> i a difference in our charging decisions. >> i noticed mr. gaetz who took you on first is not here now, and that's unfortunate because

he's a living testament that you have not weaponized the justice department, and you chose not to execute this active republican. is that true? >> i am not sure what is in the public report and what is not, so i will not comment on that. >> violent crime in urban areas is decreasing, and i thank you for that. memphis is not one of the cities where we are seeing violent crime reduced but we are working on it, and it was the second city to join the crime initiative, and i thank you for getting -- your department involved in trying to reduce violent crimes and murder in my city. resources have been helpful based on the conversations with the district attorney and i thank you for that. can you share some of the

department's successes in tackling crime? >> yes. as i said in my opening -- and let me be clear, this is not just the department's successes, but it's the state's success, and we operate in support of them and in our ability to bring technological tools and stat chutes to the fight that they may not have available. >> i read one thing yesterday, that the chairman of the committee wants to reduce funding to the justice department and certain areas, and that would be defunding the justice department and defunding the opportunity to go into reducing crime, and i am shocked. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the votes have been going on for a while, and we will be back,

give or take, 15 minutes or less. with that, the committee will stand in recess. >> they are in break right now, and you are watching a hearing with merrick garland answering questions, and back with us to discuss what we just saw is ali vitali on capitol hill, and former u.s. attorney and state judge, carol lan, and we will keep an eye on the hearing for when it reconvenes. your reaction to what we just witnessed, carol? >> one of the more fiery lines of attack came from representative gaetz, but the suggestion that the justice department is using alvin bragg to carry out the justice department's will is absurd. i can tell you as the former u.s. attorney for the southern district of california that the

idea that the justice department can tell an elected district attorney what to do and have them carry out the justice department's will is truly absurd. it's ridiculous. they have their own mandates. they have their own cases that they want to bring, and although there is sometimes cooperated in tasc force settings and such, and garland said i did not dispatch anybody and there was no directive to alvin bragg and no evidence of that has been produced. it's a tough position for merrick garland because he's drawing a hard line that he's not going to comment about ongoing cases, and that's the correct position to take. you can see his insistence that there was absolutely no directive from the department of justice to alvin bragg.

>> we heard from a couple lawmakers on the republican side there trying to suggest that the department of justice under merrick garland had its thumb on the scale in the new york hush-money case or was directing that prosecution when garland pushed back on saying these were completely separate entities, and this was a local city prosecutor who was enforcing state law which is separate than the department of justice, but obviously republicans must think this works with their voters, no? >> yeah. matt gaetz know what he's doing and he was the first person republicans brought up and they asked garland to prove a negative in a way he would not be able to do so the conspiracy can hang out there longer. and the different sort of cast of characters you have to be

keeping up with, and it speaks to the number of different threads that republicans have been trying to pull on and come up with something, anything. there's a lot of information flowing that a lot of republican voters are seeing that are frankly not familiar with in the mainstream, because they are pulling any thread they can find to prove a direct line to something, and whether or not there's any direct evidence is almost helpful to them because it allows there to be a cloud of ambiguity over everything. it's a situation where they are throwing everything against the wall, and it certainly does in some ways undermine their ability to prosecute a case against him because it's confusing, and we talked earlier if they would have the votes to hold him in contempt, and a lot of members are not sure what they are trying to do with him.

>> steve right before the break pointed out the department of justice has indictments against members of the democratic party, too, menendez and cuellar and hunter biden. >> it's an example of the ways the democrats are trying to show and completely rebut the idea that republicans often say that there's a two-tiered system of justice here and that is a freak frame that has no basis in fact, and the reason they are bringing up the two instances against menendez and cuellar is to show that justice is blind to party affiliation when the justice department is bringing these different cases. you look at the multiple players that are at play here in this hearing. there's a layer from the january 6th insurrection, and there's a layer of trump's prosecutions,

and the doj's own investigation of the january 6th insurrection, and so many different threads here to pull on that we will watch when they come up. >> thank you for that discuss. coming up in the next hour, more updates on the hill, and an update from the southern border as president biden prepares to take executive action on immigration. stay right there. just a quick break. with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. with so many choices on booking.com there are so many tina feys i could be. so i hired body doubles. 30,000 followers tina in a boutique hotel. or 30,000 steps tina in a mountain cabin.

ooh! booking.com booking.yeah power e*trade's easy-to-use tools, like dynamic charting and risk-reward analysis, help make trading feel effortless. and its customizable scans with social sentiment help you find and unlock opportunities in the market. e*trade from morgan stanley with powerful, easy-to-use tools, power e*trade makes complex trading easier. react to fast-moving markets with dynamic charting and a futures ladder that lets you place, flatten, or reverse orders so you won't miss an opportunity. e*trade from morgan stanley her uncle's unhappy. or reverse orders so you won't miss an opportunity. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”.

you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for.