morning and hitting a moving object. now we're going to play the entire clip, but because it could show the final seconds of those 176 lives, we're only going to show it very sparingly tonight and only when necessary to illustrate a particular point. with that, here it is. you're going to first see what appears to be the missile moving toward the plane, and then what appears to be an impact. about ten seconds later you'll hear the sound of the strike catching up to the location where the photographer is standing. again, 176 people were aboard the boeing 737. 63 of them were canadians. we should point out that cnn cannot independently confirm that video, but the buildings in it appear similar to ones in the area where the plane went down. multiple u.s. officials are now telling cnn that the growing

belief is that iran did, in fact, shoot it down apparently by mistake. they say intelligence indicates that two russian-made sa-15 anti-aircraft missiles were used and radar signals locking onto the plane were picked up at the time and were discovered the morning after. but the data took another day to verify. we do not know whether president trump is aware of the intelligence or the assessment when he spoke just before noon today, but his words hinted at something. >> it was flying at a pretty rough neighborhood and somebody could have made a mistake. some people say it was mechanical. i personally don't think that's even a question personally. so we'll see what happens. >> do you think it was shot down by accident? >> i don't know. i really don't know. i don't want to get into -- that's up to them. i have a feeling -- it's just some very terrible -- something very terrible happened. very devastating. >> in a moment we'll get the latest from teheran and speak as well with experts in the aviation and intelligence field buchlt first let's go to cnn's

jim accosta at the white house. you heard the president, jim. what's the the white house's latest thinking on what caused the crash? >> reporter: anderson, they're pointing to the intelligence community. as you were saying, the belief inside the u.s. intelligence community is that iran used russian-made surface-to-air missiles and shot down that ukrainian airliner. now canadian and british officials are saying their intelligence agencies are telling them with certainty that that is, in fact, what happened. the u.s. is not going as far as the canadians and the british at this point, but it doesn't taken tell jens take intelligence officials to tell you when you have the consequence of military conflict. >> there is a new rationale by the president of judge general soleimani was killed. >> reporter: yes, this caught our attention earlier today, anderson. when the president was talking with reporters some of the same video you were showing a few moments ago, the president told reporters that soleimani was essentially taken out because the iranians were plotting, what

he said -- he described as a plot to blow up the embassy in baghdad. now, earlier in the day administration officials were telling us, telling other news outlets that, no, the president was talking about the storming of the baghdad embassy at the end of last year, and then late today just before 6:00, pentagon officials were telling reporters, no, in fact, they have intelligence that leads them to believe that the iranians were actively plotting to blow up an embassy to use explosives to harm u.s. diplomatic personnel. anderson, we should point out the president is having a rally right now where he was just telling supporters in ohio that he suspects that the iranians were looking at what he called embassies, not just an embassy. and so he's using a plural use of the term there. so at this point, anderson, tonight it is very difficult to sort out what is coming from the intelligence community and what is coming just from the rhetoric

from the president. but obviously there was a contradiction coming out of this administration earlier today. the administration at one point saying, new york city no, this is just what the president was referring to. he was talking about this embassy storming that happened late last year. and then the defense department said almost the exact opposite, that they believe soleimani was plotting to blow up an embassy, anderson. >> jim accosta, thank you very much. breaking news out of iran, a break in u.s./iranian. what more are you learning, fred? >> reporter: anderson, they said they are not going to let any u.s. entity be involved in the investigation. the ntsb is going to get involved in the investigation. the ntsb put out a statement saying they wouldn't speculate on any of the causes of the incident. they are saying they are going to send what they call an accredited representative to take part in this investigation. this obviously coming as the iranians earlier were saying

that is absolutely not going to happen. now the iranians are saying they are allowing boeing and also the ntsb to participate in this investigation. that certainly is welcome news. obviously try and move this investigation forward and also, anderson, to make it more transparent. >> you talked with the head of iran's civilian aviation authority. what did he have to say? >> reporter: yeah, that was something that was a stroke of luck. he talked to us and he told us that he did not deny potentially or possibly that airliner was shot down by an iranian missile. however, he did say he doubted it. he said that the airline took off, it flew for about five minutes, and then he said it turned around and tried to make its way back to imam khomeini airport not far from where i'm standing now. he said if the missile hit the plane it would have plunged to the ground immediately rather than move to go back to the airport. as we just saw that video that we were seeing there before, it

does seem to indicate something may have been fired at the airline. of course, you have the various intelligence services including the u.s., canada and other allied intelligence services saying they do believe it could very well have been a surface-to-air missile that took down that airliner. the iranians by the way, anderson, now saying they are going to tomorrow try and decipher the black boxes of that plane. they say there is a team of ukrainians here, it was the ukrainian airline that was shot down. they say one of the black boxes is pretty badly damaged. they're not sure whether or not they're going to be able to get the information out of that black box. they say they might have to ask other countries as well. that's another reason why it's such welcome news that apparently now they are allowing the ntsb to get on board as well, anderson. >> to be clear, the ntsb, will they be allowed to examine the black box itself? earlier the iranians were saying nobody else would be able to look at it. >> reporter: that's unclear whether or not they'll be able to see the black box. essentially what we heard --

this is also coming direct from the head of the civil aviation authority. they say that they have the technology to read out the black boxes. however, they also say in the blacks boxes, as badly damaged as they think, they are not sure whether their technology will be sufficient. they say they don't necessarily want to give it to the u.s. they would like the french, the canadians help read that data out. however, they also said that all the data, as they put it, that's on that black box that can be retrieved from that black box if none of it has been lost, will be made public for the world to see. that's the exact words of the head of iran's aviation civil authority. >> fred, thank you very much. cnn aviation analyst, correspondent richard quest and national security analyst steve hall. richard, there is this video which we haven't been able to independently verify. there is wreckage on the ground, the black boxes we were just talking about. perhaps radar data. what's the most important at this point in the investigation?

>> the most important is the wreckage to some extent. the black boxes, well, you might have comments on the cockpit voice recorder and the telemetry on the black boxes will show sudden loss of power. they will show the aircraft responding as a result of whatever happened. you will see engine parameters. you'll see all sorts of things like that within the black box. but they won't tell you what you need to know, which is what actually happened. and that will rest on the wreckage. the wreckage, you will be able to tell if the aircraft was pulled apart through various forces, whether or not there is explosive residue. and unfortunately, sad to say to put it in these terms, the remains much those who were on board. they will also tell you what happened. so, getting to the wreckage, independently, and being able to verify that will be crucial. >> steve, as i've said, you know, we're only showing this video very sparingly.

but the -- i'm wondering what you make of the video. again, we haven't been able to independently verify it. when you look at it, what do you see? >> you know, anderson, at this point it is indeed a little hard to tell exactly what's going on. we won't know probably until a couple of days at least down the road. the imagery that we saw does seem to support a narrative that a missile was fired and that it did indeed take the plane down. the one thing that i think is sure, anderson, is that, you know, we have so many western intelligence services that are looking very, very closely at this area of the world given the events that have transpired over the past couple of days. you know, really there is no doubt in my mind that we have a whole lot of intelligence, we have an extremely close relationship with the canadian intelligence services. a very special relationship also with the u.k. intelligence services. of course, we have our own capabilities. all of those services would be looking at signals intelligence,

who was calling who, emailing and using official channels. electronic intelligence, what is the d. lemtelemetry of what mige been launched, what was going on with the airplane. and human services who down the road can give us a more complete picture of what happened. one thing we won't be able to rely on, i'm afraid, is the iranian government which is, of course, not a transparent government. and so we have to be very cautious, i think, as to what they say. but i think the intelligence services know what the real story is. >> miles, is there anything, a commercial pilot could -- would a commercial pilot be aware of a missile heading in their direction? there's not, i assume there is not kind of warning systems in commercial airlines for that kind of thing. >> no, the 737-800 was an advanced airliner. this one was three years or so old. a well experienced crew, but nothing on board that aircraft would let them know that they had become a target or that somebody was homing in on them with a missile.

the system is built, anderson, to have radar make the determination. in other words, the transponder on the aircraft is sending out specific codes which tell the world what it is and what it is not. where the disconnect comes is the separation between the civilian air traffic control authorities all over the world and the military itself. and that particular surface-to-air missile battery that may have been involved in this or looks like it was involved in this, probably didn't have access to a lot of that data. it's as if they're watching a black and white 1960s tv as opposed to high-definition television at air traffic control. and so in that context, with that hair trigger alert, and that lack of data, mistakes can happen. >> and, richard, i mean, i guess it sort of -- i was unaware that planes would be allowed to fly given the circumstances of what was happening in the region and only hours after missiles had been launched.

>> this is something that clearly will be closely investigated. look, most major airlines have been avoiding iranian and iraqi air space. u.s. carriers have been banned from going across there. i saw one confidential document from a european airline which talked about how they were going to circumvent those particular countries. and the implications and where they were going to have to land and put fuel stops and extra staffing on all of those sort of things. now, why did ukrainian international airlines decide to fly that flight only a few hours after the missiles? that is an unknown. that is a risky operation by that airline and will go to the core on one side of it. but, you know, when you talk about what happened in this particular incident, was it a missile or was it not? there is a very simple way the iranians can tell us.

i mean, the iranians know. did they or did they not shoot it down? and i suspect investigators all around the world are going to spend a lot of time trying to analyze third-party evidence when really the iranians have the answer, pure and simple. >> miles, is it known at this point whether -- i'm not exactly sure how that particular surface-to-air missile works. i don't know it would actually hit a plane or it would explode nearby and send shrapnel into an aircraft. or do we know if the aircraft itself -- i mean, essentially exploded in the sky? or if it, if it -- you know, continued to fly or at least was sort of intact as it headsed to the ground? >> the sa-15 is designed to explode in proximity of the aircraft, and that's what we saw with that malaysian triple 7 that was shot down by the same sort of surface-to-air missile system in ukraine in 2014.

and interestingly, they were able to triangulate the exact location of the explosion using the different microphones in the cockpit voice recordings. the speed at which they approached those microphones allowed them to define exactly where it blew up, which was about a meter away from the cockpit. so that's the way these weapons are designed. it is a very sudden and catastrophic event and that's why no radio call came from this particular aircraft, or why we can suppose no radio call occurred in this case. if it had been a simple mechanical failure, an engine failure, the crew would most certainly have gotten a radio call out. >> miles o'brien, richard quest, steve hall, thank you very much. republican lawmakers have launched anyone who questions the president's decision in iraq and iran will be supporting terrorists overseas. we're going to talk about it with one former law enforcement official who has had enough.

and later new reporting on how soon we could see the president's impeachment trial begin. ♪ see how to keep people moving, to keep a city moving. with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪

(whistling) that's why it's important to be prepared for anything life brings. at fidelity, we'll help you build a clear plan for retirement. one that covers health care costs, taxes, and any other uncertainties while still giving you the flexibility to make changes to your plan as often as you need. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. ♪ here's wishing you the bluest sky ♪

there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15%ain? or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service.

more breaking news tonight. the house passing resolution limiting the president's ability to take military action without congressional approval. three republicans crossed party lines to support it. eight democrats voted no. sponsored by michigan elissa slot kin who joins us momentarily calls on the president to end the use of u.s. armed forces and hostilities in or against iran unless congress either declares war specifically authorizes the action. meantime, the president speaking out again tonight on his decision to kill the iranian general qassem soleimani without prior approval. >> so, you know, these are split-second decisions. you have to make a decision. so they don't want me to make that decision.

they want me to call up, maybe go over there -- let me go over to congress. come on over to the white house, let's talk about it. when can you make it? well, i won't be able to make it today, sir. how about let's say in a couple days? oh, sure, come on over. no, we got a call, we heard where he was, we knew the way he was getting there, and we had to make a decision. we didn't have time to call up nancy, who is not operating with a full deck. [ laughter ] >> that's the speaker of the house, second in line of succession he's talking about with us now for the 360 interview, congresswoman elissa slotkin. you were in the resolution that voted in the house. what do you think of those who voted against it? >> listen, everyone has to make their own decisions. all this thing tried to do was say if the president is going to keep forces in the region that are focused on iran and be in a

protracted war with iran, he's going to have to come back to congress. what he just said right now is factually incorrect. the president always has the right to act in self-defense. the president always has the right to act when he sees fit as long as he notifies us afterwards within 48 hours. but after 60 days, if those troops are still there, he's got to come back to us and say, you know what, we're now not in immediate moment, we're in war. and i need authorization from congress. and that's just the constitution. that's not something new that we made up. this bill today was just something to remind everybody that we should be debating things like war and peace, and we should be following the constitution and authorizing war if that's what we're going to end up doing. so the president, he always has the right to self-defense. and i'm a big believer in that. >> sarah sanders, the former white house secretary, she criticized the resolution today saying, quote, she, quote, can't think of anything dumber than allowing congress to take over our foreign policy. that was an end quote. she doesn't think anything can be worse for america than that.

does that -- what you're doing, as you said, is about the constitution. >> yeah, i mean, i guess i just feel like maybe for some people this is a theoretical exercise. my husband was in the army for 30 years. we actually met in baghdad when i was a c.i.a. officer. my stepdaughter is a brand-new army officer. my son-in-law is a brand-new army officer. when we're talking about sending young men and women into war, we should be having a debate. we should be having a robust conversation. we should be talking about authorization of military force. this isn't a radical thing. so for me we were just reinforcing what the constitution says. and anyone who says, you know, all this political stuff, they either don't have skin in the game or they don't understand people's lives are involved here. >> today the president has said that the reason he decided to kill soleimani was back the general was, quote, looking to blow up our embassy, and then at a rally tonight said it was actually multiple embassies.

obviously no public evidence has been provided. a number of senators, mike lee and rand paul on the republican side, were clearly unhappy with the briefing they received just yesterday. is this a plot you were aware of before the president mentioned it today, if this was a plot? >> i can't speak to what the president was speaking to. yesterday we had a briefing from secretary pompeo and secretary of defense esper, from the director of the c.i.a.. the same briefing the senate had. they walked over to the house and gave the same classified briefing. and i can't talk about the details. all i can tell you is that it was a bit thin. it did provide some new information, but it was a bit thin. many of us were asking for follow-up, for more documents, for something we could read. and, you know, i hope that that's forthcoming. that's the way things should work. so i can't speak to the specifics of what the president is talking about, but to me this was about looking forward, right? we have been having a back and

forth with iran seven or eight months now. the killing of qassem soleimani was a very new step. so were ballistic missiles fired on from iran on u.s. forces in iraq. that's totally unprecedented. we obviously had a really, really tough week. this conversation with iran has been going on for a while. that's why i thought it was important to put down a marc. if you're going to get us into protracted war, you have to come back to congress and ask for authority. >> i want to play something republican doug collins said attacking democrats about their questioning of the events of the last week. let's take a look. >> nancy pelosi does it again and her democrats fall right in line. one, they're in love with terrorists. we see that. they mourn soleimani more than they mourn our gold star families who are the ones who suffered under soleimani. that's a problem. >> obviously, you know, just factually what he said is not true. and also as somebody who was a pastor and i believe still is a pastor, it's kind of amazing

that he would say that. but when you hear a fellow member of congress, high-ranking official on the judiciary committee nonetheless, accusing your fellow democrats of that, i'm just wondering what do you make of that? >> i mean, it's offensive. i don't know what else to say about it. i served three tours in iraq as a shi'a militia analyst. i have been in the embassy when we've taken incoming fire from iranian rockets. i have watched qassem soleimani in particular, who has just been the architect of this horrible, horrible approach to the united states trying to get us kicked out of iraq and trying to sow destabilizing activities all over the region. so i don't -- to me, it's beyond political speak. it's offensive. and i don't know what to say other than it isn't consistent with being a leader. >> congresswoman elissa slotkin, i appreciate your time tonight. thanks so much. >> thank you. >> we're going to have reaction

to the comments about congresswoman collins. house speaker nancy pelosi spoke today about when she will release the articles of impeachment to the senate. her strategy when we return.

i can. the two words whispered at the start of every race. every new job. and attempt to parallel park. (electrical current buzzing) each new draft of every novel. (typing clicks) the finishing touch on every masterpiece. (newborn cries) it is humanity's official two-word war cry. words that move us all forward. the same two words that capital group believes have the power to improve lives. and that, for over 85 years,

have inspired us to help people achieve their financial goals. talk to your advisor or consultant for investment risks and information.

just a moment ago you heard congresswoman elissa slotkin did a tour in iraq. they were accused of being unpatriot unpatriotic. she called it offensive. kevin mccarthy said house speaker pelosi was defending soleimani. this is what the ranking memg ber of the house judiciary

committee, doug collins said. >> i did not think she could become more hypocritical than she was during impeachment. but guess what, surprise, surprise, nancy pelosi does it again in and her democrats fall right in line. one, they're in love with terrorists. we see that. they mourn sole money more than they mourn our gold star families who suffered under soleimani. >> my next guest preet bharara said this was a shocking new low for the georgia congressman. you are not a talk radio host or carnival barker. you are a pastor, an attorney, and sitting member of congress. therefore the evidence would suggest you know better. to utter such garbage to be false and defamatory goes against the training and teaching you received. but you got your cheap shot across and perhaps that's all that matters to you. joining us is senior analyst former attorney for the southern district, preet bharara. you were really -- about what he said. >> there's been a lot of rhetoric, poisonous rhetoric, a lot of barbs. i know politics is a tough game

as i said in the piece. i worked for a scrappy tough politician when i was in the senate four years. something about that, equating people who are of a particular ideology or political persuasion as being lovers of terrorists based on nothing, i think just crossed a different line. i don't think i've been that angry about something -- i try to be measured here on cnn and in my twitter account. and i kind of lost it a little bit yesterday because it's a bridge too far. it was stupid, it was self-defeating. it borders on pathological. you don't need to say that to make a point and be persuasive. it's debasing to himself, debasing to democracy and debasing to his party. >> if somebody is in a bar drunk and yelling that -- >> that is the kind of thing somebody might yell drunk in a bar somewhere. this guy is the ranking member of -- republican member on a judiciary committee. he's a pastor who -- >> and an attorney. >> and, by the way, a pastor who has served, i believe, one tour in iraq. i looked him up because i didn't know much about his background.

you know, in the air force, and i believe in the navy prior to that in the '80s. and i assume had counseled democrats, soldiers who were democrats. he's saying democrats love terrorists. >> i think the bottom has fallen out. i just think -- it would be one thing if it's in the heat of argument and then you step back and you apologize. i'm waiting for an apology. >> he's not going to apologize. >> i understand that's weak. what i say in the piece -- >> it's not actually weak. i think apologizing -- >> i agree. it's perceived as weak in this environment we're in and because of the standard the president has laid down. but he says the thing he says and i don't know that he has any contrition about it at all. just say, you know what, it was in the heat of conversation. i shouldn't have said it. everyone in america -- if there is one thing we can agree on is everyone in america, democrat, republican, independent does not like terrorism because we're all

victims of it. as i also wrote, when terrorists target americans, they target americans. they don't target democrats or republicans. and when the families of victims of terrorism grieve, they don't grieve as democrats or as republicans. they grieve as americans. >> we should point out we invited the congressman on the program tonight. we never heard back from his office. obviously the invitation stands. but you also write about -- you prosecuted cases -- >> that's what i did. our most important job when i was united states attorney was to keep the homeland safe and to prosecute terrorism. i know that -- terrorism is a terrible thing. >> soleimani -- >> when i was a prosecuting attorney, i was prosecuting the plot by soleimani and the quds force and the irg to assassinate the sitting ambassador to the united states at a restaurant called cafe milano in dc. maybe that's why i took umbrage as somebody who happens to be a democrat and cares about the country and terrorism and prosecuted terrorism and know the good heroes, men and women

whose party affiliation i don't care that stuff to know. to score a cheap political point that democrats love terrorists was just too much. >> preet bharara, thank you very much. still to come, the senate waits for the house to release the articles of impeachment, nancy pelosi indicated her impasse with republican mcconnell may, may be close to an end. details ahead.

house speaker nancy pelosi today said she would send the articles of impeachment to the senate so it could begin the trial of president trump, quote, when i'm ready. that would be, quote, soon. several senate democrats have said they are ready to begin the trial tomorrow, according to connecticut's richard blumenthal. people close to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said the move to hold back the articles of impeachment has been a boon for republicans in senate. joining me is cnn political correspondent dana bash and john dean. you've been talking to sources on capitol hill. what are you hearing about where things stand? >> that the speaker is continuing to keep her cards extremely close to her vest.

the indication that people who are, you know, sort of in her presence, not before the cameras today, got was that when she said soon she meant soon. people were told to stay close, in the next day or so. but it doesn't mean that it is definitely -- and when i say "it" i mean a vote to send the articles of impeachment to the senate. and along with it, an announcement, perhaps a vote on who the house managers will be. meaning who the democrats will be who will prosecute the case in the trial. we still don't know, but the pressure on her, as you alluded to, is getting stronger and stronger, greater and greater from her fellow democrats, never mind republicans. >> john, according to time magazine, speaker pelosi actually got the idea of holding the articles of impeachment from you on cnn last month. you were the first person when i interviewed you on "full circle" online, you mentioned that. it was the first time i heard it, too. i want to play the time speaker

pelosi saw you on. >> i think nancy pelosi has some real leverage in this. she doesn't have to send articles of impeachment to the senate. what happens, don, after there is a vote on the articles, they adopt a resolution where they select managers, and then they decide when they're going to send the managers over to the senate. so there is a flexibility in the process where she could say, listen, let's just hold these articles here until the senate gets its act together. and that could last right through the campaign as far as her powers. >> so, john, do you think it's wise for her to keep holding them? >> i think what she's done has been very effective. what it's done, one of the things i had in mind in suggesting it after checking the rules that it was permissible and something she could do, is that she is focused on the fact that the senate is unlikely to

provide a fair trial. so that issue is now going to be before the american public. it may be something that democrats can campaign on this fall in states where republicans are part of the process to rush this thing through and try to exonerate trump somehow from what the house has charged him with. so i think it has worked. and i think she's got the flexibility of doing it whenever she wants to up to and through the campaign. >> dana, talk about the pressure that she's under. where is it coming from? >> well, it's coming from several places. first and foremost from the very democrats we've been talking about since the democrats took the house. but in particular, during this impeachment process, the so-called front-liners, those in trump districts who want this over and done with and they want to move on. and they are hearing rhetoric

from their republican opponents that, oh, not only did the house democrats, you know, impeach the president, but now they're playing political games and they're holding the articles of impeachment in the house. those kinds of things, according to the democrats who matter most, when it comes to keeping the house majority are potentially hurtful. dee sfi despite what john said, that's the other side of the coin. and the other side -- you heard from the speaker today, anderson, that she clearly feels the need to articulate why she's done what she's done and why she thinks it's beneficial. she actually coined a term. she said it's the collateral benefit. and she listed a whole bunch of things that have happened between when the house voted and now, including john bolton saying that he would be willing to testify in the senate. but it will come a time, probably very shortly, when that benefit has run out if it was

there at all, and it is an open question depending on who you talk to. >> just briefly, john, do you think there is any chance bolton actually would testify? the president today said he had no problem bolton doing it, but he'd like to protect the presidential privilege. that's like saying he'd like to talk to mueller, but his lawyers -- he has to check with the lawyers. >> i think he's got some pressure on himself to testify because he's writing a book about all this. if what he had or should have said in front of the congress is said in the book, he's going to have backlash. so i think he should testify and he should testify in the house, maybe informally first if they go forward with a senate trial, so they know what it's all about. >> interesting. john dean, thank you. dana bash, appreciate it. coming up white house press secretary stephanie grisham making her second appearance of the week on the ridiculist. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis,

little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes.

it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain, and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity.

(whistling)

let's check on chris, see what he's working on for cuomo primetime. chris? >> hi, anderson. we have new video that seems to have happened to the plane that took off in teheran. 176 people gone. apparently not an accident, meaning this was about the plane and being self-contained. the evidence as you reported very well on the show tonight suggests that this was done by surface-to-air missiles by iran. why? we'll take a look at this new video. we'll have experts tell us what this is and then what it means. how do you get accountability. what does it mean for the iran and u.s. relationship. and the war powers act. the president said more in a rally tonight about why they had to take out this general than he said in his address to the nation and yet congress didn't vote unanimously to take back its power. why it must and what comes next.

>> nine minutes from now. just ahead, secretary grisham the second time returning this week to the ridiculist. cancel your cold. the 1-pill power of advil multi-symptom cold & flu knocks out your worst symptoms. cancel your cold, not your plans. advil multi-symptom cold & flu.

it took plenty of work to get here. but it's still important to be prepared for what's next. at fidelity, we can help you build a clear plan for retirement without the unnecessary fees you might expect from so many financial firms. we'll make sure you can cover the essentials, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you have a retirement partner who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. ♪ here's wishing you the bluest sky ♪ i think the house is changing him... -[ gasps ] -up and at 'em! ...into his father.

[ eerie music plays ] is it scary? -[ gasps ] -it's in eco mode. so don't touch it. mm-hmm. i can't stop this from swinging. must be a draft in here. but he did save a bunch of money bundling our home and auto with progressive. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. -hello? -sorry, honey. [ telephone beeps ] butt dial. i feelbusiness cards...new logo...outdoor sign. you always get me. this week, buy one hp ink, get one 30% off at office depot, officemax and officedepot.com you have a brother in the secyes sir.alion. they're walking into a trap. your orders are to deliver a message calling off tomorrow morning's attack. [ orchestral music playing ] why in god's name did you have to choose me? if you don't get there in time, it will be a massacre. we will lose 1,600 men.

your brother among them. and don't call it a comeback. but for the second time this week stephanie griffith is back on the ridiculous. you didn't think i meant in the white house briefing room?

no. she may have walked through it or gaggaled or something but never an actual formal press briefing. there hasn't been one of those in hundreds of days. democracy, tweets. >> grigsm doesn't have time to sit around in the dank room with all the free press. even though possible war with iran is on hold. she's still firing on all cylinders. by which i mean she continues to say things at the appear meant to defend the president but point out the president's own failings. i'm starting to think grisham is trying to secretly and subtly subvert the president. a few days ago she was on fox and asked if she could talk

about the threats. here's what she said. >> no, it was an intel based decision and it saved american lives. i know a lot of people are now questioning intel >> she seems to be defending the president's decision but then she ends it without attacking anyone who questioned u.s. intelligence. here's the genius of at the. what's the biggest question of u.s. intelligence? her boss. >> i've dealt with some people that aren't very intelligent having to do with intel. i have great confidence in my intelligence people. but i will tell you that president putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. >> you disagree with the assessment? >> as i think you've all learned the intelligence agencies have

run amuck. >> when we waste our time with intelligence that hurts our country because we had poor leadership at the top, that's not good. my people came to me, they said we think it's russia. i have president putin, he just said it's not russia. i will say this i don't see any reason why it would be. >> and that's unfortunate. intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dacngers of ira. perhaps they should go back to school. that is actually unintentionally ironic. back to grisham, it seems we are the only ones concerned over the lack of press briefings. take a look at this tweet.

to press secretary stephanie grisham, i'm upping my offer. we will donate 175,000 to st. jude in your name if you will take questions for one hour in the white house briefing room. she replied, and listen to this f you have $200,000 to play with, why not just help children because it's a good thing to do? donations to charity should never come with strings attached. it's brilliant. donations to charity should never come with strings attached. guess who views charity in exactly a strings attached kind of way? the president. >> i have a deal for the president a deal that i don't believe he can refuse and i hope he doesn't. if barack obama opens up and

gives his college records and applications and if he gives his passport applications and records, i will give to a charity of his choice inner city children in chicago, american cancer society, aids research. anything he wants. a check a immediately for $5 million. >> yes, the champion of the more likely racist and debunked conspiracy theory. president obama was willing to donate money to inner city kids to chicago if president obama would play along with the more than likely racist and i think we can say racist and now debunked, conspiracy theory. >> i absolutely would be the most happy of all if i did in fact make this contribution through the president to these charities. one caveat. the records must be given by

october 31st at 5:00 in the afternoon. >> that is called strings attached. so, it has been a big week for you. i see your long game. i see what you're doing. that's why you were so quick to echo the president. you're like a deep cover asset for the resistance inside the white house. president trump never watches cnn. so keep sending us messages on fox. news continues when i hand over news to chris. >> when i was at abc, i jumped off the taj mahal with this stunt device. we're supposed to be facing our fears. and the president, then citizen trump, donated 20 grand to charity for me jumping it off. i was told he offered double the next day if i did it without the rope attached.

it's true. he was charitable. it was literally a string attached that time. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "primetime". 176 innocent people were killed taking off from iran on their way to ukraine. and we have new evidence that most likely missiles shot from and by iran are to blame. we had the forensics and the analysts to make sense of it. and the minds to tell us what this means for the united states. and the president said more at a rally tonight about why he had to take out soleimani than he did in his national address about imminency. he has yet to prove any good reason why it had to be done at that time and yet the house voted nowhere near close to unanimously on taking back the power this president used without basis.