i'm brianna keilar live from cnn's washington headquarters. we begin with new cnn reporting on a letter from the white house to attorney general bill barr after the release of the mueller report. i want to go live to cnn's senior white house correspondent pamela brown with this new reporting. tell us about it, pamela. >> reporter: well, brianna, this five-page letter obtained by cnn was sent by white house special counsel emmitt flood to attorney general barr the day after mueller's report was released pubically. this letter was to, quote, memorialize concerns about the special counsel team, and in the report, in the format of the report it lays out why the white house believes the special counsel acted politically, veering ridely from its stated mission rather than prosecutors following the law with the

letter saying the special counsel team made political statements saying as they couldn't exonerate the president and couldn't establish his innocence on obstruction. the letter says, quote, in the american justice system innocence is presumed. there's no need for prosecutors to conclusively to determine it saying the special counsel and his staff failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors. it goes on to blast the special counsel team for not doing what the regulations required it to do, provide a confidential report only explaining the prosecution or declination decisions. it didn't reach a decision on obstruction. the obstruction section was called part truth commission and part law school exam. now the special counsel did address this issue in the report, why it didn't reach a decision, us a know, saying one factor of not making a decision is that olc memo at doj saying

you cannot indict a sitting president. this letter from emmitt flood also addresses the idea that mueller's report was intended as a road map for congress as we've heard democrats say on capitol hill. the report says explicitly -- the letter i should say explicitly that it's not the business of officials in the executive branch to provide road maps for other branches of government, so that's the argument here at the white house on this matter. the letter also makes clear, brianna, that just because the president didn't exact a privilege before doesn't mean he won't moving forward. certainly, this is a strongly worded letter from the white house special counsel emmitt flood speaking on behalf of the president and his concerns with the special counsel team, and it's the first we're hearing, the legal argument in this letter. we, of course, have heard the president's reaction to the mueller report saying that he he's been totally exxon rated, but now we're actually hearing

the thinking behind the scenes from the white house special counsel lawyer emmitt flood and why there is a belief from them that special counsel mueller's team acted politically and didn't act only as prosecutors. again, this is the white house point of view. brianna. >> can we revisit that part about executive privilege. that's so important because legal experts, a lot of them, have said the white house isn't on very good ground here. the president, they are not standing on very solid ground legally to exert executive privilege when it comes to some of the folks who have already talked to the special counsel. the cat's out of the bag, they will say, so -- so what does this letter exactly say, that they are reserving the right? what does it say? >> that's right. the letter says that the president didn't waive it for the future, and it draws a distinction between the white house being fully cooperative and criminal investigations versus congressional investigations saying this is a difference, and, of course, this is laying the groundwork for the

ongoing battle, as we know, going on right now between the white house and house democrats on oversight issues over current and former white house aides' testimony, including former white house counsel don mcgahn, so this letter is making the case that, look, the president was transparent when it comes to the mueller report. the redacted version, the president chose not to assert executive privilege, but basically this was a different situation. this was having to do with a criminal investigation. the president thought it was best not to assert executive privilege in this case but a congressional investigation and a different part of government, a different branch of government is completely different, and the president still has the right to assert executive privilege over matters pertaining to former and current white house officials speaking to congressional committees and handing over materials and so forth. that, of course, is the white house view, but as you pointed out, it's not a settled issue, and that is why the white house special counsel emmitt flood wanted to put this on the record

with the white house view on, because there is this debate going on right now of whether the president can still do so since he didn't -- he didn't assert executive privilege on the mueller report. this is a brewing battle as we speak, brianna, between the white house and house democrats over this issue. brianna? >> it is, and we see the battle lines in this letter. pamela brown, great reporting. thank you so much. i want to bring in our panel to discuss this. we have laura coates, a former federal prosecutor and julian epstein, a former chief economic council and gloria borger our chief political analyst. all right. so what's the objective of having a letter like this sent from emmitt flood to bill barr? it's to memorialize something, but what's the objective here? >> well, there's a political objective, and you guys can speak to the legal objective. what they are basically saying, what emmitt flood is saying here is that the mueller report was a completely political document, that said things it did not need

to say. they are saying that everybody -- that the -- all they were required to do was to send something to the attorney general which said, you know, we can't -- we're not going to prosecute. we think he's not guilty of obstruction, collusion, whatever and leave it at that, and instead they say that there was no need for prosecutors to -- to say that, you know, we can't exonerate him because they didn't charge him so they are saying they went way beyond, and they are also saying and by the way while we cooperated with this -- this investigation, this legal investigation, we -- this doesn't mean we have to cooperate with a congressional investigation. they are two completely different things, so i think it's kind of putting their marker down saying we think this was a farce basically. we're not happy about it, and we're not going -- we're not going to work with those democrats. >> julian, you chuckled when she said farce.

>> gloria is absolutely right. there's a political and legal dimension. on a legal dimension they are on thin ground attack the mueller report and taking the position they are taking on executive privilege. on attacking the mueller report there's very well established in the history of the independent counsel and in the regulations, special counsel should make clear if they decide not to prosecute or bring an indictment why that is the case. and mueller was very clear here that the reason that he did not bring indictments on obstruction was because the president wouldn't have a day in court. there's nothing in the regulations that prohibit that. that's not a political statement. that's a legal statement. the bigger picture here is that, you know, trump was and the white house i think were on their way to winding this investigation down, and -- by the middle of summer, end of summer, but what they are doing now is digging in, and i think it's a very, very foolish political strategy. >> we talked about this before because it continues. >> what they are ensuring is

that this continues. if the barr had simply come out and been candid about what was in the mueller report and didn't try to hide what mueller was saying on obstruction and said, look, the underlying report here shows there was no conspiracy on the russia interference question, mueller and i disagree on the obstruction issue. i think you would have had a glide path for the white house to start winding this thing down by summertime, but the fact that barr kind of hid, played hide the ball on that fact has reinvigorated the democrats on the hill right now. many of them are calling -- >> they will say he didn't because he had the quote about it wasn't exonerating. >> the same thing with the flood letter and they are digging their heels are ensuring that this conflict will continue well into the fall and probably into election season. it's real -- it's real, really bad on the law and even worse on the politics. >> let's get this straight. they are arguing it's just too thorough, that they were too comprehension any of what they had to say and should have

streamlined and cherry picked sound bites that made everyone look good. notice who is writing this, the office of the white house counsel, not the personal attorney of the president of the united states. barr did not hand a cop toe them saying it was to rudy giuliani and jay sekulow and company, the weekend they received it in redacted form attate. so this is for tenure of the office. the delay tactics used by barr as you're talking about kicked the can down the road. it did not resolve the issue. it delayed it in a way that makes people focus on it more. on the issue of privilege, i'm chuckling to myself saying we may have cooperated with someone who could have put someone in prison but we're not going to cooperate with a co-equal branch of government saying you have oversight authority. once mueller's work was done,

congress should have been done as well but congress played second fiddle because they had to make sure that witnesses would come before them who would not risk having perjury or going to jail or having other legal jeopardy in front of robert mueller. they are supposed to delay it and now they are saying, we're all done here because mueller's book is closed. that's not the case. >> let -- let's just fact check this idea that it is political for mueller to say that he could not exonerate the president. this is what the white house is alleging. >> right. >> and also in the mueller report where mueller makes it clear that congress has an avenue in all of this, right, that congress can look at the facts of the situation and come to congress' conclusion, and that is what the road map is, the way democrats and republicans see it as well. are those political statements. are those unusual things. >> they are unusual.

they are absolutely unusual. i mean, i think we all acknowledge that because it's very clear from reading the mueller report as we've all done that the attorneys could not reach a decision, a conclusion. >> and gloria, i wonder, was it possible for robert mueller to do anything that did not become political considering the atmosphere that was yeasted around the report? >> good question. >> if he had done what emmitt flood wanted him toll do which is to say we can't charge him on obstruction. we can't charge him on collusion, book closed. no 488-page report. that would have been controversial as well. i think what their complaining about is this road map that mueller provided. i think they say this in the letter, that that's not your job, and it's also this controversial paragraph you just referred to where they say if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction, we would so

state. >> it's de facto. they can't state that. >> in most cases a prosecutor wouldn't say that, but in most cases there wouldn't be a regulation that says this individual, the president can't be indicted while in office. so this is an unusual situation. the independent counsel regulations are replacing the independent counsel statute which elapsed in 1999. the purpose of the statute that -- of the regulation which everyone will acknowledge is not just to look at whether criminal laws were violated but whether there were issues that relate to congress' oversight, particularly high crimes and misdemeanors that congress should be fully informed about on the investigation, so that's exactly what ken starr did with us. that's what gloria will remember. talked about that in 1988. ken starr made a referral and the referral was intended to go to the house for the house to determine whether high crimes and misdemeanors had occurred. so, again, i think that they are bark up the wrong tree if they

are trying to make an argument that mueller somehow overstepped. all they are going to do is antagonize mueller and make things worse for them. if they are trying to dig their heels in by having barr not come up and testify on the hill, all they are doing is dragging a process out and prolonging their agony. if they are going to dig their heels in on executive privilege, i think the legal case is weak. the bigger picture here is that bob barr and emmitt flood are supposed to be real pros, and there was a road map for them to get this russia matter i think concluded before the end of the summer, and what they are doing is they are stealing defeat from the jaws of victory. they are making decisions. barr's obfuscation of what the mueller report really was, flood's report, they are making decisions that are only going to put steel in the spine of the democrats on the hill, increase the narrative, buttress the narrative that this nation is corrupt and move the story line

along that the democrats need to continue investigate. impeachment was a dead issue a week ago and i'm not sure that's the case anymore. >> i think what emmitt flood did is provide his own road map for republicans in congress. >> yeah. >> because each of these talking points, right, laura, will be used by republicans. >> stand by for me. we have some other breaking news. house speaker nancy pelosi outright accusing the attorney general of committing a crime, lying to congress, she says, and it comes after had does not show up today for a hearing on the house side. this is cnn's special live coverage. and side effects. so job can stay strong for his family. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.

about medicare and 65, ysupplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything - only about 80% of your part b medicare costs, which means you may have to pay for the rest. that's where medicare supplement insurance comes in: to help pay for some of what medicare doesn't. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by united healthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? well, these are the only medicare supplement plans

endorsed by aarp and that's because they meet aarp's high standards of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. for example, with any medicare supplement plan you may choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan, there are no networks or referrals needed. also, a medicare supplement plan goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. a free decision guide will provide a breakdown of aarp medicare supplement plans, and help you determine the plan that works best for your needs and budget. call today to request yours. let's recap. there are 3 key things you should keep in mind. one: if you're turning 65, you may be eligible for medicare - but it only covers about 80% of your medicare part b costs. a medicare supplement plan may help pay for some of the rest.

two: this type of plan allows you to keep your doctor - as long as he or she accepts medicare patients. and three: these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. learn more about why you should choose an aarp medicare supplement plan. call today for a free guide. for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently.

studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®. the other big news today is a big allegation from house

speaker nancy pelosi questioning the motivations and the morals of the attorney general of the united states and outright accusing william brett favre committing a crime during his testimony to congress. let's listen. what is deadly serious about it is that the attorney general of the united states of america was not telling the truth to the congress of the united states. that's a crime. he lied to congress. he lied to congress. if anybody else did that it would be considered a crime. nobody is above the law, not the president of the united states and not the attorney general. >> speaker pelosi is reacting to two events, barr's contentious appearance before the senate judiciary committee yesterday and today's disappearing act. barr is refusing to appear before the house judiciary committee because he didn't like the format and while democrats

on the committee didn't get to question barr today they still had plenty to say. >> attorney general bill barr is now one of the most dangerous men in washington, d.c. >> chicken barr should have shown up today and answer questions. >> attorney general, what are you afraid of? >> as a former police chief it was painful and disgraceful. >> the so-called attorney general can run but he cannot hide. >> our sunlan serfaty is on capitol hill and it says this. >> the baseless attack on the attorney general is reckless, irresponsible and false. pelosi said the committee would do what it had to do for barr. but what about chairman nadler? >> chairman nadler is not ruling out the possibility of issuing a subpoena to get bill barr in

front of his committee to answer questions, ultimately holding him in contempt, but the chairman has also been very clear that his first priority, his priority right now, is getting the full unredacted mueller report and the underlying evidence. the doj last night, they missed that deadline to comply with the subpoena request from the committee to turn that over, and nadler clearly very agitated by that missed deadline saying he's going to push forward on this. he's going to give them a few more days. he says he's going to work with him over the next few days and see if a deal comes together over this issue, but if the attorney general does not hand over the full unredacted report and the underlying evidence he's threatened to hold him in contempt of congress just this morning. now they are saying they will have no choice but to move quickly to hold the attorney general in contempt if he stalls or fails to negotiate in good faith. nadler is saying potentially he'll give him to monday and we'll see how things work out over the next hours and days and potentially that sets up a very

big week on capitol hill again next week, potentially the start of contempt proceedings. brianna? >> sunlan serfaty on the hill, thank you. back here on the hill and to our experts on all things legal. gloria, speaker please says bill barr lied to congress. what is the lie that she is talking about here? >> well, i think what she is talking about is the fact that the attorney general was asked whether he knew about the staff's concerns that his four-page letter did not accurately reflect their report. >> but here it is. >> i have it in your hands. >> from the special counsel outlining their concerns. >> received march 28th. >> right. >> and that is a few days after -- four days after the barr summery. >> right. >> the mueller report.

>> and the letter notes we communicated, quote, that concern to the department on the morning of march 25th, and then this march 27th left basically member mallize this. it's in writing. >> is he hairsplitting because as he said, well, you know, i didn't know anything about the staff? now mule her sent him a left, but he wasn't -- you know, he wouldn't have -- his point was i didn't know about the staff, but -- >> and he also said he thought the major concern from the mueller team was they wanted more information out there which is what robert mule her stayed to him so you're getting into some parsing. >> which is what he said robert mueller said. >> chicken versus the egg argument here. the reason they wanted more information out there is because -- instead of actually providing not one but two substantive summaries, they provide that had were already scrubbed, he put out his own four-page left that was not comprehensive and pointed out the misleading aspects of the nature of why mueller could not reach a decision and in so doing

the media was reporting on what's out there, but that's not the same thing as saying i only have a problem, barr, with the way the media is reporting it. the issue is the media reports without what you provided >> i think it's a mistake to say barr is lying. i think that's the wrong place to go. i think the bigger place stoog ba is mischaracterize, which has miss served the president, put spine in the back of the democrats who were thinking this issue was going to go ahead and has renewed the interest and has made things much, much, much worse. >> so when speaker pelosi says this, then what is the effect? what's the effect of this? >> i don't know. it's interesting that she -- well, she's -- she's effectively echoing her presidential candidates at this point who have all said that barr ought to

resign. i don't know what the effect, is and honestly i don't know what the effect is of the empty chair at the judiciary. >> performance art. >> let me finish, please. it doesn't help the democrats i don't think to be engaging in performance art or any kind of a circus. they ought to come to some agreement with barr and have him up before the commit and i think they have lost an opportunity. >> they have, and congress actually has three mechanisms to try to comply -- get compliance here. one was a subpoena to try to get him there in the first place. they wanted a gentleman's agreement and said let's figure out how we can be inflexible and not have anything served and they have civil and criminal contempt at their disposal. criminal not going to happen because you have to have it referred through a u.s. attorney and that's barr and the president of the united states. either way there's a lot of gamesmanship and the american

people aren't really served by what was promised by barr, transparentsy. >> there's a lot of stuff for the things for the democrats to work with. by saying what barr said was a lie is an overstep. i wouldn't go there. the big picture for the democrats right now is to figure out where they want to enforce subpoenas. the une decency acted material in the mueller report, the underlying material and getting mueller to come up and testify. barr what he adds to the conversation before the house judiciary committee is marginal. i think he'll dance around the four obstruction issues which is the crux. debate i think he can figure out how to dance around that and he won't submit to staff questions. the democrats have a big opening with the mischaracterization of the mueller report by barr but they have to play it smart. if they overstep, it's not going serve them well so they have to figure it out. jerry nadler, i worked with jerry nadler during the 1998

clinton impeachment hearings, he's a very smart guy with a very smart staff and a very capable group and democratic caucus up there. i think they are going to get it right but they have to be careful. >> we'll see if they are able to focus as you suggest they do. thank you to all of you. the attorney general is also downplaying the trump campaign's contacts with rnchl the former director of national intelligence james clapper will be with us to react. also, they were once friends, but barr took multiple jabs at robert mueller. we're going to listen to them. ♪ limu emu and doug.

hmm. exactly. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? oh. well, we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance, because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. [ loud crash ] yeah. he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ hey allergy muddlers... achoo! ...do your sneezes turn heads? try zyrtec... ...it starts working hard at hour one... and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. zyrtec muddle no more.

so no hearing for attorney general william barr today. he chose to sit this one out, but really we had two hearings for barr yesterday, one by the democrats with questions about the mueller report and obstruction of justice and another by republicans on the committee who were much more interested in the clinton e-mails and taking aim at some of the fbi agents who were involved in the russia investigation. we have james clapper who is the director of national intelligence in the obama administration with us, and it was republican senator john cornyn who asked why didn't obama administration do more about russian interference starting back in 2014 when they were warned by the intel community that this was going to be an issue, that russia was going to try to influence the election? what do you say to that question? >> well, first of all, there's a

long, long history of soviet and then russian interference in our election process going back to at least 1960s, so, unfortunately, you know, there's a certain ambient level of russian activity that we kind of anticipated. for me, just speaking for me through '15 and '16 we began to see and by the way all truth isn't revealed in one day, that as this unfolded we gained more and more insight into what the russians were doing and the magnitude of it, and certainly by the summer of '16 it was very, very disturbing, certainly to me personally. i've seen a lot of bad stuff in 50 years in intelligence but nothing this bothered me as much as this, so, yeah, speaking personally, i would have -- i was an advocate for doing more earlier and more aggressive, but to say that the obama administration did nothing is not true. for one, the president, unlike our current president, directly

confronted very pointedly and putin and told him to cut it out. didn't ask him are you doing this because he accepted the intelligence that he was getting. we made an announcement about it, put out a public release. i say we, secretary of homeland security jeh johnson and i on the 27th of october 2017, and i got emasculated on the revelation of the "access hollywood" tapes and the dumping of john podesta e-mails so our message got lot. i do think -- and then, of course, the criticisms levied on the obama administration. what was the trump campaign doing at the same time with aiding and abetting the russians and having dozens of contacts with russians, some of whom were connected to officially russian intelligence. >> not meeting the legal definition of aiding and abetting. >> well, i'm using that in a

parochial or colloquial sense i guess. >> yeah. >> but -- and certainly the president candidate trump on the 27th of july exhorting the russians to go out, an adversary, an enemy of ours, to help him and his campaign against his opponent, and by the way the russians complied with that request about five hours later, so it's a bit much, and then the other thing, of course, is -- is probably -- the stiffest action that the obama administration took on the 29th of december with the sanctions, the expelling of 35 russian operatives and the closure of the two intelligence doches and what did the incoming administration do but undermine it by informing the russians disregard the sanctions. >> michael flynn, you mean? >> exactly. >> we've talked about this a few times and i want to see what you think now because barr addressed this in the hearing last month. he used the word spying which is

a pejorative and you feel this way and others in the intel community feel it's a way to talk about surveillance that was often repeated with kremlin lianged russians. he was asked about that. let's listen. >> have you ever referred to authorized department investigative activities officially or pubically as spying? i'm not asking for private conversations. >> i'm not going to abdure the use of the word spying. my first job was in cia and i don't think spying has any pejorative connotation at all. to me the question is always whether or not it's authorized and adequately predicated spying. i think spying is a good english word that in fact doesn't have synonyms because it is the broadest word incorporating really all forms of covert intelligence collection, so i'm not going to back off the word

spying except i will say -- i'm not suggesting any pejorative and i use it frequently as did it the print media. >> when did you decide to use it, was it off the cuff or did you go into the hearing -- >> it was actually off the cuff to tell you the truth. >> it was actually off the cuff he said. although to be clear, he paused, thought about -- you could tell he was thinking about what he was saying and used the word spying and seemed to double down on that, and i just want to be clear about that. he says i don't think it has a pejorative connotation at all. what do you say at all in. >> having spent 50 years in the intel business i would respectfully disagree with that. i do think it's a pejorative term. it connotes illegally, rogue operations this, sort of thing. it's not a term of art that's used within the intelligence community, and i always used to cringe whenever i would say my name in the headlines somewhere where head spy testifies or something.

it just -- i have an aversion to the word. >> and you think he knows that. >> i do. what made it pejorative particularly, of course, is in the context of what the president has been saying about spying on his campaign which in my view is -- is not true. >> because you hear him co-opting the language of the president which is clearly pejorative and you can't divorce those things. >> exactly. >> there were a couple questions raised about the trump campaign and offers of help from the russians. here's part of that. >> does the fact that mr. mueller found the trump campaign was receptive to some of the offers of assistance from russia or the fact that the trump campaign never reported it in -- reported any of this to the fbi, does that trouble you? >> what would they report to the fbi? >> that they were receptive to offers of assistance from russia. >> what do you mean by receptive? >> what about that exchange?

>> well, i thought it was a valid question on senator leahy's part, and i thought this is one of -- one example of the attorney general parsing words and hair-splitting, you know, quibbling over definitional issues which, you know, i don't think, you know -- you hope that he would rise above that. i will just say that during my time as dni we began to observe all these contacts with russians, not that we understood necessarily the content of any of these discussions, but it -- it certainly raised the yellow flag on my dashboard warnings were on, why all these contacts with russians which, of course, weren't being reported. >> should it have been reported? >> well, what would they report to the fbi? >> maybe i'm reflecting my -- my korean war experience, but one would think when the russians,

and so many times were trying to engage people connected with the trump camp that there might be an -- perhaps a logical explanation for it, but they were very numerous, and, again, we didn't fully understand why, but when valid russian intelligence targets, u.s. intelligence targets wrere engaging with members of the trump campaign that was concerning. >> director clapper, thanks so much. >> thank you. >> we always appreciate your perspective. >> just in, another federal pick is out. steve moore is out after his misogynistic comments from the past wrecks posed. plus, how much do you think an education at stanford costs? for one family it was $6.5 million, and they didn't pay it to the school. a new twist in the massive college admissions scandal. an incomplete job 't from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel.

flonase sensimist. you can barely feel. ♪ pardon the interruption but this is big! now at t-mobile buy any samsung galaxy s10 and get a galaxy s10e free! ♪ when you have nausea, ♪ heartburn, ♪ indigestion, ♪ upset stomach, ♪ diarrhea... girl, pepto ultra coating will treat your stomach right. ♪nausea, heartburn, ♪ indigestion, upset stomach, ♪ diarrhea... try pepto with ultra coating.

let's take a look at some numbers: 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable. and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more.

their medicare options...e people go to learn about before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! well, you've come to the right place. it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why... medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. only about 80% of your medical costs. this part is up to you... yeah, everyone's a little surprised to learn that one. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. that could help cut down on those out-of-your-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today to request this free, and very helpful, decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service.

this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. there are no networks or referrals to worry about. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! see? you're able to stick with him. like to travel? this kind of plan goes with you anywhere you travel in the country. so go ahead, spend winter somewhere warm. if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire, find out more about the plans that live up to their name. thumbs up to that! remember, the time to prepare is before you go on medicare! don't wait. get started today. call unitedhealthcare and ask for your free decision guide. learn more about aarp medicare supplement plan options and rates to fit your needs. oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance.

economic commentator stephen moore is out as a candidate for the federal reserve board of governors. moore's nomination was controversial from the start, and republican senators expressed growing doubts in recent days due to past disparaging comments that moore made about women extensively reported on by cnn's k-file. cnn's politics and politics report reporter cristina alesci joins us here from new york.

what is this all about. >> reporter: moore is withdrawing his nomination and i just want to read a little bit of moore's statement. he says i'm respectfully skug, the president, to withdraw my name from consideration. the unrelenting attacks on my character, i've become untenable for me and my family and three more months of this would be too hard on us. now he calls it attacks. we call it facts. as you noted one of our investigative units k-file uncovered these columns that stephen moore had written that basically were very sexist against women saying women shouldn't be ref religion men's basketball game and suggesting they shouldn't even be present at those games and that led to republican senators basically not being able to support moore's nomination. this is an embarrassment for the white house, especially because another nomination for the fed, another nominee for the fed, herman cain had to withdraw his nomination a couple weeks ago

after his previous allegations on sexual harassment came to light again, and this is just more evidence that the process at the white house, especially when it comes to the federal reserve nomination, is quite messy and doesn't -- and there's no system attached to it. aside from all of this controversy, conservative economists had questions about stephen moore because the federal reserve is supposed to be a place where politics is removed from the discussion, and a lot of economists saw stephen moore being more politically inclined than necessary for this very serious and prestigious position. >> thank you so much for that. we have more on our breaking news. cnn has obtained a letter from the white house to attorney general bill barr, and it's blasting special counsel robert mueller and his team. why they were so upset about his report, and hundreds of people quarantined on a scientology

cruise ship as the measles outbreak grows. introducing... smartdogs. the first dogs trained to train humans. stopping drivers from: liking. selfie-ing. and whatever this is. available to the public... never. smartdogs are not the answer. but geico has a simple tip. turn on "do not disturb while driving" mode. brought to you by geico. itso chantix can help you quit "slow turkey." along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away

if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking "slow turkey." talk to your doctor about chantix. britbox would like to say...sh style, "i'm so sorry" "please allow me to apologize" "sorry dear" "oh, i'm so sorry" for being irresistibly bingeable. "sorry about that darling" "sorry" and being the biggest streaming collection of british tv ever... now home to the uk's most watched detective. "dci vera stanhope" streaming same day as the uk. "well, well, well" escape to britbox. start your free trial today at britbox.com

travel and dining now kayak and opentable let you earn travel rewards every time you dine. with just one reservation on opentable, you can start saving money on hotels with kayak. get started at kayak.com/diningrewards. can we talk? we used to play so beautifully together. now we can barely play anything... even cards with the girls. if you have bent fingers, and can't lay your hand flat, talk to your doctor. it may be dupuytren's contracture. your hand is talking. isn't it time you listened? there are nonsurgical options. take the first step. and learn more about dupuytren's. at factsonhand.com ♪

a cruise ship like this one which is reportedly owned and operated by the church of scientology is under quarentine. health officials in st. lucia identified one confirmed case of measles on board and due to the highly infectious nature of the disease, no one is allowed to leave the ship. the church of scientology has not responded to the request for comment. right now the u.s. is in the middle of a huge outbreak with more than 700 cases reported in 22 states. and ahead of a damning report of sexual assaults in the military the defense department is taking

a step to criminalize bad behavior among the ranks, testifying before the house armed security committee, patrick shanahan announced a directive to make sexual harassment a stand-alone military crime. let's bring in barbara starr. tell us why the military is doing this. >> reporter: you only have to look at what happened here today at the pentagon. they released the annual report on sexual assault and the numbers were not good. one official telling me there is nothing good in this report. let's go right to the bottom line up front here, 38% increase in 2018 versus 2016 in sexual assault cases. and when you look just at women 17 to 24 years old, the numbers get even worse. 44%. earlier today on capitol hill senator kirsten gillibrand, a presidential candidate, was very passionate about her concerns

that the military simply isn't doing enough. have alience to what she had to say. >> the percentage of cases that are ending in conviction are going down. i am tired of excuses. i am tired of statements from commanders that say zero tolerance. i'm tired of the statement i get over and over from the chain of command, we got this, ma'am, we got this. you don't have it. you're failing us. the trajectory of every measurable are now going in the wrong direction. >> reporter: now let's be clear, very senior commanders in the u.s. military are extremely concerned about this. the commandant of the marine corp issuing a number of tweets to the marine corp force saying this has got to stop, leveling his very deep concerns about all of it. and as you said brianna, the acting defense secretary patrick shanahan trying to criminalize sexual harassment, ordering the pentagon to take a look into how to make this all happen and how

to make the programs they have even try, at least, to work better. brianna. >> barbara starr, thank you for that. an extraordinary accusation, the speaker of the house accusing the to-- the attorney general of a crime after he didn't show up to testify at a house hearing. the consequences of both ahead. plants capture co2. what if other kinds of plants captured it too? if these industrial plants had technology that captured carbon like trees we could help lower emissions. carbon capture is important technology - and experts agree.

that's why we're working on ways to improve it. so plants... can be a little more... like plants. ♪ you'when you barely the clip a passing car. minor accident -no big deal, right?

wrong. your insurance company is gonna raise your rate after the other car got a scratch so small you coulda fixed it with a pen. maybe you should take that pen and use it to sign up with a different insurance company. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7 with a strain of bacteria you can't get anywhere else. you could say align puts the pro in probiotic. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. and try align gummies, with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health.

. hello, i'm erica hill in today for brooke baldwin and we begin with breaking news. wire learning of a letter from a top white house lawyer to bill barr about the mueller report, in that letter complaining he suffered from an extraordinary legal defect that the white house lawyer emmet flood that it doesn't bold well for congress in the multi-front subpoena fight to get information from the president. let's get to correspondent pamela brown. before we get to the subpoenas, the letter from emmet flood accused the mueller team of playing politics in that report. >> reporter: yeah, it was a strongly-worded letter. five pages written by top white house lawyer emmet flood on behalf of the president blasting robert mueller and his team for acting politically and veering wildly from the stated mis