tv CNN Tonight CNN September 29, 2023 12:00am-1:01am PDT
12:01 am
this is the video that britney spears posted to social media. she's there dancing and as you can see, she's got two large chef's knives. that prompted police in southern california to knock on her door in a wellness check. police say someone close to the singer was so concerned about her safety and well-being they alerted authorities, but officers never got the chance to speak with spears. her reps turned them away saying that she's fine. we certainly hope that she is. cnn tonight with pamela brown starts right now. >> hey, i can see why they're concerned. thanks so much for that. good evening, everyone. i'm pamela brown. votes going on at the moment on capitol hill. you're looking live at the house floor where members are voting on appropriation bills, the last one expected to fail and it's just another example of the dysfunction pushing this country that much closer to a government shutdown saturday at midnight. amid this parade of
12:02 am
dysfunction, it's real americans who will be paying the price while the elected representatives who are supposed to be working for you, they aren't doing that. if there is a shutdown, 4 million federal employees and more than 1 million active duty troops won't get paid until it's over and there could be massive disruption to air travel as tens of thousands of air traffic controllers would be forced to work without pay. talk about a waste of time, what were house republicans doing today when they could have been trying to resolve all of this? they held the first hearing in the impeachment inquiry of president joe biden and one of the witnesses called directly undercut the gop narrative by admitting there is no evidence yet that president biden has committed impeachable offenses. let's go right to cnn's melanie zinona on capitol hill >> reporter: house republicans are voting on a package of four
12:03 am
different long term spending bills. they passed two. we expect the fourth one to fail potentially by a pretty large margin which would be an embarrassing defeat for kevin mccarthy and his leadership team. all these bills will be dead on arrival in the senate anyway, but it was an important part of kevin mccarthy's strategy to keep the government open hoping it would rally conservative hardliners around a stopgap bill, including boosting the border and cutting spending. however, there are no signs hardliners opposed to that measure are backing down. in fact, they are digging in and threatening kevin mccarthy in the process. we'll see how kevin mccarthy decides to proceed tomorrow, whether he decides to go through likely what would be another failed vote on the house floor or does he try to cut a deal with the senate where they are working on a bipartisan plan? that carries risks as well because the speaker does not want to be ousted by his hard
12:04 am
line members, as they threatened to do if he works with democrats. so a lot on the line for kevin mccarthy and government funding is hanging in the balance, pam. >> she was asking him about working with democrats earlier and he would not commit to. that we'll have to see how it plays out. melanie zanona, thank you so much. joining us now, congressman ryan zinke of montana, secretary of the interior under then president trump. congressman, thanks for your time. the bills tonight voted on are dead on arrival in the senate. why is speaker mccarthy going through these motions? what's the point? >> i'm not sure they would be dead on arrival because what we're talking about is our border and our defense. i can't think of two more important issues right now to make sure we have defense to defend our country. ukraine is set aside and secondly, the border. a lot of people may not see ukraine every day, but everyone sees the border and this bill addresses the problem, puts the
12:05 am
wall in place and gives the border patrol and i.c.e. the authority to do their job. >> what about the senate's plan that is advancing, is that dead on arrival? that includes funding for ukraine. >> it's interesting because the senate has yet to pass any appropriations and we're passing them grudgingly so one by one, but at the end of the day the senate is a different body than the house. our position is we're going to curb spending overall. we'll get rid of the woke and on defense we set aside ukraine because quite honestly, i think we need a discussion with ukraine. what are the objectives? what's the plan? i'm a former seal and have been in a lot of operations and haven't been on a mission where i didn't have an objective and a plan, $130 billion all in. i think it's time for the president of the united states to tell us what the plan is on ukraine. >> you want ukraine handled separately. the freedom caucus wants
12:06 am
speaker mccarthy to "urgently reveal the details of his short term spending bill expected tomorrow on the floor." what do you know about the bill? will you vote for it based on what you know now? >> there's nothing more important i think than defense of our country and securing our border and, of course, protecting our veterans. those bills moving forward, i'm for a small funding stopgap, but it also has to have policy and actually has to have things done with our border. we'll see. we'll do our part, get the appropriation bills out as we said we would. hopefully the senate gets theirs out. two different bodies will come together and hopefully in the interest of the country come up with a solution so we don't have to shut the government down. >> but if the cr fails, as is expected, do you think mccarthy should work with democrats to strike a deal to avert a government shutdown? >> this is an american issue. what we're seeing is there are a handful of republicans, but every democrat is voting
12:07 am
against this, too. i've heard the rumor well, it's a republican -- >> how is there anyone else to blame other than the conference republicans? >> certainly we have the majority. hopefully we pass the appropriation bills and the senate picks them up, but you're right. this is a defining moment for me. i look at what the consequences of a shutdown. i secretary and the secretary has a lot of latitude to deal what's essential. i didn't shut down the parks, nor did i shut down permitting inspection. in a shutdown our troops won't get paid. that's the petty officer and corporal aren't getting a check and it's a break of a contract. we have a contract with our enlisted if they serve and give an oath to the constitution, we'll train you. we'll put you in a position to fight and win, but we'll give you a paycheck. >> right. on that note in a minute we'll speak to the wife of an active
12:08 am
duty service member. the reality is there are a lot of people in the u.s. military who are living paycheck to paycheck. what is your message to them as they are watching this play out and are concerned about how they're going to feed their families if the government shuts down, which it certainly looks like it's a strong possibility of that? >> well, all this should be concerned and here's the irony. if the government shuts down, the troops in ukraine and pensioners in ukraine are being paid by the u.s. taxpayer dollars and our troops aren't. so something is really, really wrong in washington, d.c. let's hope americans get together and pass two important bills on defending our country and securing our border. >> the gop hard liners have always been able to vote to oust the speaker if the government shuts down. if that's brought up to the floor, how would you vote? have you thought about that? >> i have and no. what we said we would do is this. we said we'd go to regular
12:09 am
appropriations. we'd work to get all these bills. we'd let every member have their voice, put them on the floor, curb spending and get rid of the woke and there's a lot of woke. when i say woke in the military, the military is paying for sex change operations and hormone therapy to young recruits and no one would have believed it except it's true. so status quo as it is, which i think the worst outcome is status quo. so we need to change the way we're thinking about our budget and also we need to defend our country and secure our borders and this is a challenge for the republican party to rally together, but also america to understand what's at risk. >> congressman ryan zinke, thanks for coming on and sharing your perspective. we we appreciate it. >> thank you and god bless. it seems less and less likely anybody will put the brakes on the runaway train hurdling toward a government shutdown leaving americans to pay the price. if congress fails to take action to keep the lights on, nearly 4 million federal
12:10 am
employees will go without paychecks until the shutdown is over even though social media workers will have to remain on the job. air traffic controllers and tsa workers will also be working without pay and many may have to call out for work while they try to find other ways to make enough to put food on the table and perhaps most disturbing, 1.3 million active duty troops across the country and around the world will be forced to work without pay. now i'm going to bring in kate marshall-lord, a military spouse and communications director of the secure our families initiative. kate, you say military families are tired of paying the price of congressional dysfunction. talk to us about that. >> yes, absolutely. congress has failed to pass a budget and we're now facing the shutdown and the families that will pay the price are military families. when a service member pledges service to this country, they expect sacrifices. they don't expect to sacrifice a paycheck.
12:11 am
there's really no excuse for politicians putting their personal agendas over the well- being and livelihoods of military families. >> you say nearly one quarter of military families face food insecurity in recent years. many are living paycheck to paycheck. what happens to those families if even one paycheck is missed? >> that's true. nearly a quarter. you have to say it multiple times because it is pretty shocking active duty families are struggling so much to put food on the table and worrying to put food on the table when they're getting regular paychecks. missing a single paycheck could be devastating. >> what kind of guidance are these families getting from within the military? do you think the messaging is adequate giving them guidance on the next steps? >> unfortunately i don't. i think there's a lot of confusion in the military community we're hearing almost daily, hourly of folks not aware the shutdown is so likely to happen and second, what it
12:12 am
means for military families, that at this point they will not get a paycheck. i think part of that is it's just sort of so shocking we don't expect it to be this way. we expect congress to do their job, to pay service members. to this point there has not been adequate messaging for military leaders. people are sort of finding information from elsewhere outside the military community. >> also wic and s.n.a.p. benefits, those who receive those benefits would be affected by the shutdown. tell us about the impact of that because there's many in the military who use those benefits. >> that's true. military families, nearly a quarter, face food insecurity. families rely on federal services like wec and s.n.a.p. to make ends meet, to get food on the table for families. we know one in three military families have less than $3,000 in savings. so missing a single paycheck could really be devastating to families. >> the white house has warned that the shutdown could undermine national security forcing service members around the world to work without pay. what could that do to a service
12:13 am
member serving on the front lines in harm's way? >> i heard from one commander who is serving overseas i have enough to worry about. the last thing i need to worry about is whether my troops can afford to miss a paycheck. so they're already worried about this and not to mention all the civilians they work side by side with that will be furloughed. they'll be missing key
12:19 am
12:20 am
and also with us attorney and d.c. democratic party chair scott boldin. great to have you with us tonight. norm, trump and his lawyers decided they will not move forward to try to move the criminal charges into federal court. does that surprise you? >> it does because they told the court, the state court, that they were going to remove. the thing that changed, pam, is that mark meadows has been a trailblazer on removal and he lost and it makes sense that he lost because you only get to go from state to federal court if you were doing official action and attempting to overturn an election as scott well knows cannot be an official act. in fact, under federal law the hatch act, those kinds of political activities are by definition unofficial. trump didn't want another big loss like he's faced in d.c. federal court, in new york state court. so he pulled the plug. >> it won't work under any circumstances under any court
12:21 am
undermining democracy and trying to change elections and stuff. >> we should point out a big difference between federal and local court is federal court you don't have cameras in the courtroom. local court, that's going to be a different case. >> you have a broader jury pool, too, pull from different jurisdictions and the state court, be fulton county, which is a big democratic stronghold, not that politics will invade the criminal justice system, but you're pulling jurors from that voting electorate and that's really important. you'll have the cameras. one of the interesting things is this trial will play out during 2024. whether you're a maga supporter or republican or democrat, you'll see the criminal justice system at work, constitutional issues, but more importantly you'll hear the facts in real terms with witnesses as to what happened and how they tried to undermine this election. it's going to educate a lot of voters i think whether they want to be educated or not. the criminal justice system will work and it won't be a
12:22 am
political process. you're going to see facts that show how dangerous these acts were. >> we could see trump testifying live on television, right? that's a possibility. >> it is. >> i don't think he could testify. >> scott has been telling clients for a lot of years do not testify. it's very unusual. >> he's been known not to listen to his lawyers. >> that is part of the reason actually, the testimony question. i think it's part of the reason he opted not to remove because if he removed when mark meadows testified, he injured his case very badly with some of the things he said trump would have had to testify. his lawyers, pretty smart, said well, we're not going to do that yet. >> it gets even worse with donald trump because whether it's the atlanta trial or the federal trial or new york trial, trump's public statements, the attacks on the judges, attacks on the prosecutors, his interviews with the media, he talks about these cases and makes these
12:23 am
party admissions. i think in federal court you can get those party admissions admitted. i don't think there's any way he gets on the stand because it will take three days just to cross-examine him on his prior inconsistent statements. he's got to do that because he's running for president. >> i want to talk about a situation where he could testify. that is that $250 million civil fraud trial in new york set to begin monday. the new york attorney general released a list of witnesses, including trump himself and his children, ivanka, eric and don jr. how do you all see this playing out? >> well, the situation is different in a civil case because unlike in a criminal case where donald trump has the right to take the fifth amendment without injuring his own case, in a civil case you get what is called an adverse inference. that means if donald trump refuses to testify, if he's called, he takes the fifth amendment. under certain circumstances the judge can say i'm going to hold
12:24 am
that against you, mr. trump. we will see how these issues play out. i think trump this is a world of hurt in this civil fraud case. what is more important to him, pam, than his businesses, his brand and his name? that is being taken away from him it seems by the judge in this case. >> the receivership is really going to be harmful. it's up on appeal is how they're still operating. this hits the pocket books of not only the companies, but the individuals and the civil justice system, he's got to testify. i know there are exceptions, but the kids have to testify because if their testimony is deemed to be relative, probative and material, they'll take the stand. they're parties to the lawsuit. the civil justice system won't
12:25 am
allow any shortcuts to discovery and sworn testimony. they testify, look for that testimony to find its way into the criminal trials. >> great to have you on here and your perspectives. thanks so much. the government could be facing a shutdown this weekend. congress still took the time to hold its first biden impeachment inquiry hearing. congressman eric swalwell is next.
12:28 am
you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? it's true. plus, when you buy your first line of mobile, you get a second line free. there are no term contracts or line activation fees.
12:29 am
and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible. it's happening. goli, taste your goals. house republicans holding their first hearing in the impeachment inquiry of president biden. you might expect the witnesses republicans called would come
12:30 am
armed with some evidence. not so much. >> i do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment. that is something that an inquiry has to establish. >> i'm not here today to even suggest there was corruption, fraud or any wrongdoing. in my opinion, more information needs to be gathered and assessed before i would make such an assessment. >> joining me now, congressman eric swalwell, a democrat from california who sits on the house judiciary committee. hi, congressman. thanks for coming on. >> my pleasure. >> they testified they don't know of any direct evidence implicating joe biden yet at least. oversight chair congressman james comer, for his part, says hey, this wasn't about fireworks. what was it about in your view? >> this hearing was not about the american people who are just hours away from a shutdown where our troops will not get paid, border agents will not get paid, fbi agents, air traffic controllers will not get paid, but instead we got a
12:31 am
show today where the american people saw the titanic of congressional hearings where the republicans who called witnesses said there is nothing there. it was really for one single american, none other than the former president because this congress has become the insurrection llp law firm where they work every day on behalf of one client. it was embarrassing. i had secondhand embarrassment for comer and jordan and the ways and means chair because they had nothing. their own witnesses said they had nothing and again, the cost is the american people who want their government to work for them saw a complete show that went nowhere and no progress on keeping the government open. >> republicans say there is enough smoke to justify an inquiry. they are looking into whether president biden took any action related to payments his son received or if the president obstructed investigations into his son. they say getting to the bottom
12:32 am
of those accusations is a worthy endeavor. in your view, why wouldn't it be? >> again, there's just zero evidence. they can call every witness in the world. they've got thousands of documents and their own witnesses say there's no evidence for impeachment, but they have never accepted joe biden as president. in fact, they rooted for an insurrection that tried to throw him out. they visit the insurrectionists jailed at the d.c. jail and this is just a continuation of the insurrection while democrats are working for working people. we want to keep people working so people get their social security benefits, veterans benefits so troops get paid. we're trying to show the contrast where they are chaotic. we are confident. they are for corruption. we are for the community. that couldn't have been on bigger display than today in that hearing. >> to be clear, this hearing was full of falsities like this
12:33 am
one from congresswoman nancy mays. let's listen. >> the president took bribes from burisma. i also want to add betraying your country is treason. >> again, that claim is false. at a time when polls show americans are divided about whether joe biden committed wrongdoing and a lot of that is on party lines, are you concerned americans will hear that and believe it? >> it's a great point. i'm just concerned that democrats are on defense too often. we need to play on their side of the field. that's first discrediting them from the beginning. jim jordan who led this hearing is 500 plus days into violating his own subpoena. we don't need a lecture from jim jordan on lawlessness. we need to defend these allegations where they come in. yesterday the ways and means chair jason smith said i'm not really clear on the timeline here.
12:34 am
guess what, pal? you better get clear on the timeline if you're going to try and impeach the president. then we pivot always to if we were given the keys to government, what would we deliver? discredit, defend and deliver. we would focus on keeping kids safe in classrooms, working on securing the border from fentanyl, which means keeping the government open, and every single day in america a troop who serves this country should be paid. >> you're saying keep the border patrol on duty. >> they want to shut down security at the border. >> they'll continue working, though their paycheck may be delayed. i want to note chairman james comer's statement tonight. he says, "as the bidens were sealing deals around the world, joe biden showed up, met with, talk with, shook hands with and had meetings with the foreign nationals sending money to his family." biden, as you know, has said he
12:35 am
never discussed business with his family, but do you think he should have been more transparent to at least avoid the perception that something unseemly was going on? >> again, there's no evidence. first, there's no evidence any deal that hunter biden had done broke the law, right? there's no indictment of hunter biden for any foreign deal he did. one of the leading presidential candidates on the republican side was doing deals with the chinese the same time hunter had done a deal with the chinese. that in and of itself is not illegal. they have not even connected that dot yet and there's certainly no evidence joe biden received any of the money that his son was working on. we shouldn't accept that anything in this premise is even wrong until they prove it's wrong, but most importantly, again this is because they do not accept that joe biden is the president. it's actually laughable they would want to have an impeachment of someone they won't even acknowledge if you ask them is joe biden the
12:36 am
president, they won't say he's the president because they tried to run an insurrection on the guy. they don't accept the outcome of the 2020 election but yet want to impeach him. the american people want to us work for them and they did not see that today. >> congressman eric swalwell, thank you. >> my pleasure. thanks, pam. while republicans were holding impeachment hearings on the hill, president biden was warning about the maga movement, what he said about the threat it poses up next.
12:41 am
democracy is in danger. listen. >> i'm here to speak about another threat to our democracy that we all too often ignore. the threat to our political institutions, to our constitution itself, the very character of our nation. democracy's maintained by adhering to the constitution and the march to perfecting our union by protecting and expanding rights with each successive generation. >> biden warning against the threats that former president and current republican frontrunner donald trump and his maga movement pose to american democracy and institutions. joining us now, harvard professor of government daniel zebla, co-author of the book "how democracies die." so you've written and spoken out extensively on threats to our democracy, the attack on institutions, the undermining of the constitution. where do you see the biggest threat now? just remind our viewers just
12:42 am
how fragile the american experiment is. >> certainly correct and i think president biden really described it pretty aptly today. in our book we've just published we make the case to be a party or politician committed to democracy, you have to do three basic things. you have to accept elections whether you win or lose. you have to not lose violence when gaining power or holding onto power. if you're a mainstream party or politician, you have to call out and disassociate yourself from your own allies who engage in those kinds of behaviors. what we've seen and provide account of this in our book, over the course of the 20th century in latin america and '60s and '70s europe, the 1920s and '30s, it's when politicians turn a blind eye to abuses like this democracy really gets into trouble. >> president biden, for his part, has made the threat to democracy a cornerstone to his campaign. do you think his messaging about this is compelling enough to reach the people who may not
12:43 am
see it or even care? >> well, i think there are large majorities of americans who do, of course, support democracy, liberal democracy, and what's kind of striking about the current moment, what makes it so difficult is when you're in a two-party system, we have two parties and one of the parties is going off the rails in large portions of it, this could be very dangerous. it's hard to sustain a democracy. i think the historical record is very clear if you don't have at least two parties committed to democracy. i think what president biden is trying to call out is that there are elements and certainly not all elements within the republican party, but there are elements who don't accept election results and are engaging in violence. this is certainly a kind of basic threat. in order for democracy to fight, we need two parties competing for majorities, willing to turn out voters and try to win power through legitimate means. >> yeah. president biden really focused on republicans and their
12:44 am
silence he said is deafening. what in your view do these republicans need to be saying now about this? what would you like to hear from them? >> i think it really goes back to the events of january 6th where there was a moment where there's a clear assault on the constitutional process, transition of power, and i think most republican leaders really regarded this as unacceptable, what happened, but there's really been an effort to kind of downplay it and not really recognize the threat there and essentially now the republicans find themselves in the situation where they're back to square one and republican leaders have a candidate who they don't necessarily wish for. this represents a threat because if you have parties making threats about when they come into office, all of the assaults they're going to carry out, one of things we've
12:45 am
learned studying historical cases is authoritarians, if they advertise what they're going to do, they usually do it. >> in your view, what does a second trump term look like? >> again, we've begun to see the outlines of this. it's pretty clear before 2016 candidate trump said he might not accept election results if he lost. we saw this came to fruition in 2020. i think we have to take the threats he's making today and the last several days very seriously, this effort to pack and purge the bureaucracy to go after the national security apparatus. these are things that are deeply, deeply worrying because they're totally destabilizing of a democracy. what we've seen in more contemporary cases of democracy is political leaders often come into power elected. in that sense it seems kind of democratic, but they tilt the playing field to make it impossible to get them out of office. >> thank you for coming on and offering your perspective. >> thanks so much.
12:46 am
12:50 am
tonight senator bob menendez doubling down telling fellow senate democrats he will not resign after pleading not guilty to allegations he took bribes and passed sensitive information to the egyptian government. the senator has repeatedly said prosecutors misrepresented the normal work of a congressional official. >> i firmly believe when all the facts are presented, not only will i be exonerated, but i still will be the new
12:51 am
jersey's senior senator. i have withdrawn thousands of dollars in cash from my personal savings account, which i have kept for emergencies and because of the history of my family facing confiscation in cuba. this may seem old-fashioned, but these were moneys drawn from my personal savings account based on the income that i have lawfully derived over those 30 years. >> less than a decade ago justices reviewed a case that echoed today's menendez scandal that involved former virginia governor bob mcdonnell whom a federal jury found guilty on 11 corruption counts for accepting lavish gifts from a businessman in exchange for favorable actions from the government. in 2016 supreme court justices unanimously overturned his corruption conviction on the grounds those actions were permissible. joining us now is former governor bob mcdonnell. thank you so much for joining us, governor. >> yeah, pamela.
12:52 am
thanks for having me on. >> more than two dozen senators have called on menendez to resign. i want to know your view. do you think he should step down based on what we know from the indictment, these allegations? >> it's a tough call. first of all, you have the presumption of innocence, hallmark of the american legal system and secondly, you hate to try these cases in the press because you only have a small amount of the evidence. on the surface when you see gold bars and major cash envelopes with the fingerprints of egyptian businessmen on it and mercedes and mortgage payments, it certainly doesn't look good on the surface and then apparently we're hearing there's a treasure trough of emails between his wife and these egyptian business people and not to mention as head of the senate foreign relations committee actually helping unlock a whole state department funds for human rights issues, it doesn't look good at all and
12:53 am
very different from the facts from which he was exonerated back in 2017 and '18. pamela, i think it's a political decision first as to whether or not he believes he can do the job and whether or not he has the trust of the people in new jersey. >> your case from the supreme court was huge. it was monumental in defining the legal parameters of these corruption cases and what an official act is. senator menendez for his part is claiming the accusations against him are really part of his official duties. they are official acts. as i said, during the supreme court, the ruling said the accusations of corruption had to involve more than just setting up meetings. based on the indictment, what do you think about mr. menendez's case? do you agree with him this was just normal work of the government that he was engaged in? >> you have to prove it quid pro quo, as you know, pamela.
12:54 am
there's plenty of quid here, obviously the list of gifts, cash, gold, et cetera. the question is there a pro? in other words, did he get the gifts in exchange for doing those actions and that can be implied or direct evidence. those texts from the wife are pretty troubling, but if these are official acts under the lawn, the things he did to try to influence the state department to help the egyptian government or these egyptian business people by putting his thumb on the scales of influence of government, that's the way it's been defined an official act, then that completes the crime. >> i do want to note jack smith was the prosecutor of your trial. he is also prosecuting donald trump's election interference and mar-a-lago documents case. i'm wondering if you have any thoughts on the government's cases there and how smith is perceiving this? you have a unique perspective on jack smith. >> i do.
12:55 am
jack smith is a remarkably talented lawyer, given decades of his time to public service and for many years and many of the doj jobs i think he did well. my concern about mr. smith is during the five years that he was head of the public integrity section, pamela, he just consistently used bad judgment to go after high profile officials showing to me that he'd rather win than get it right. not only bob menendez, not only john edwards, in other words, it was bipartisan, but in my case where he was unanimously wrong as the supreme court said and wrote a very stinging opinion in rebuke of the government's expansive theory that basically criminalized normal things that legislators and government officials do. that was the supreme court opinion in my case. >> i have to ask you before you go, as you reflect back on your own case and again, the supreme court threw out your conviction, but as you look back on it, do you have any
12:56 am
regrets about some of the actions you took? how do you see it now, years later? >> of course, pamela, i played that back a thousand times in my mind. i spent 38 years in my life from public service from an army lieutenant in germany to governor of virginia and try to do my best every step of the way. of course, i look back and think there were things i absolutely would have done differently in the haste of decision making and a busy office. there were some things i should have done differently, nothing that was remotely illegal under state or federal law. >> governor bob mcconnell, thank you so much for your time. >> pamela, great to be on with you. thank you. thanks for watching! our coverage continues.
12:59 am
1:00 am
more speed for your business? it's not just possible. it's happening. get started for $59.99 a month for 12 months. plus, ask how to get an $800 prepaid card with a qualifying internet bundle. (car engine revs), powering possibilities. (engine accelerating) (texting clicks) (tires squeal) (glass shattering) (loose gravel clanking)
76 Views
Uploaded by TV Archive on