harbor in dc december 17th. the cid ic, our podcast is fantastic. it is on youtube or wherever we get your podcasts. now go watch over time on neutral. thank you very much.

hello and welcome to our viewers joining us in the united states. this is cnn newsroom. it's official. donald trump won all seven swing states in tuesday's election. is projected win of arizona called earlier tonight is the former president 312 elect relates. plus, who or what is to blame for kamala harris's striking loss in the presidential race. a look at what democrats are saying, days after the stinging defeat. and world leaders are bracing for a tectonic shift in u.s. foreign policy when donald trump returns to the white house. ahead we'll hear how they are repairing for the next four years. >> we begin with the final to be called in tuesday's presidential election. cnn can project that donald trump will

win the state of arizona. that means he has swept the seven battleground states that were the main focus of the campaign for both parties. it was his total electoral votes at 312 against kamala harris's 226 and it comes as the president-elect 's transition process is in full swing. we now know at least two major players from trump's last term who will not have roles in this new cabinet. trump says that he is not inviting his former rival nikki haley or his former secretary of state mike pompeo to join his administration. in the meantime, the president-elect is set to meet president joe biden at the white house on wednesday. the meeting is a political tradition that projects a peaceful transfer of power. the last one was between trump and barack obama in 2016 point >> most of all, i want to emphasize to you, mr. president-elect, that we now are going to want to do everything we can to help you

succeed because if you succeed, then the country succeeds. >> i very much look forward to dealing with the president in the future, including counsel. he explained some of the difficulties, some of the highflying assets and some of the really great things that he's achieved. so mr. president, it was a great honor to be with you and i look forward to being with you [ inaudible ]. >> here is cnn's arlette symes with more. >> president biden is looking to bring back a white house tradition as he hosts president-elect donald trump in the oval office wednesday morning. biden extended this invitation to trump in their

phone call on wednesday, when the president congratulated the former president on his victory in the 2024 election. biden has said that he directly told trump that he is committed to a peaceful and orderly transition, which is not something that occurred when biden beat trump back in 2020. at the time, trump put up many roadblocks in the transition process, never conceded the race, and did not extend the same invitation to biden. now trump did come to the white house in 2016, days after he had beaten hillary clinton, and he was hosted by then resident barack obama in the oval office. we are also told that an invitation was extended to first lady melania trump to come to the white house to meet with first lady jill biden. it's unclear if and when that meeting will take place but this is all part of the biden white house's efforts to try to show that they will assist in this transition. it could be an interesting meeting between the two men, given the fact that one of their last substantive in-person engagements was back on that debate stage in june, which really derailed biden's

candidacy and eventually prompted him to drop out. the two men had spoken since then. biden called trump following the assassination attempts against him and they were both at the same new york city 9/11 event a bit earlier this fall. but this will be an interesting meeting as the two men are set to meet face to face in the oval office. biden is now facing this reality where the man who preceded him, who he had beaten the 2020 election, will now be returning to the white house in january. arlette signs, cnn, washington. cnn has learned that trump's team has not submitted a series of transition agreements with the biden administration. the source is the holdup revolves, in part, around the mandatory agreement over ethics issues. meantime, we are learning more about who may be trump's next u.s. attorney general. the list so far includes a senator, a former intelligence official, and three state attorneys general. cnn's alayna treene has more. >> reporter: president-elect donald trump spent his saturday locked down at mar-a-lago, meeting with his transition team and going through a series of candidates that he is considering selecting for top cabinet rolls as well as white

house positions. on saturday he did not announce new people that will be serving in his second administration, but he did announce who would not be . he talked about not wanting his former secretary of state, mike pompeo, or his former u.n. ambassador, nikki haley, to have any part in his second term . i'm going to read for you some of what he wrote. he said, quote, i will not be inviting former ambassador nikki haley or former secretary of state mike pompeo to join the trump administration, which is forwardly in our nation. i enjoyed and appreciated working with them previously and would like to thank them for their service to our country. make america again. now to give you a little bit of context on where some of this is coming from, mike pompeo is someone who many people in donald trump's inner orbit still are close to and believe that he did a good job as secretary of state. however, his relationship with donald trump has really soured in recent years, particularly because pompeo had in many ways

distanced himself from the former president after he had left office in january of 2021. i remind you, as well, that pompeo did not endorse donald trump until after the republican primaries this year, something that, as we know, donald trump viewed as not being as loyal to him, and in my conversations with senior advisors they argued that in private conversations over the past few days now, donald trump had asked them whether or not pompeo would be loyal to him or whether he could trust him in a second term. now as for haley's part, donald trump has said that he appreciates that she had gotten up on stage at the republican national convention in july, called for unity, and also remember she had actually been in discussions with the trump campaign in the final weeks before election day about potentially meeting for a joint appearance and helping him campaign. that never materialized , but again, donald trump had said he appreciates that on some level. however, i am told that the

president-elect still harbors a lot of animosity toward haley for the attacks that she had lobbed at him during the republican primary. but also that she had remained in the primary for so long. donald trump has remarked that he believes she hung on longer than was appropriate. alayna treene, cnn, west palm beach, florida. joining us now from washington is our good friend scott jennings, cnn senior political commentator and former special assistant to president george w. bush. thank you so much for staying late on a saturday night to speak with me. we want keep you too long. i do want to ask you about this news today from president-elect trump, that he will not be including nikki haley and mike pompeo in his new cabinet or as advisors in his new administration. obviously he is free to appoint whoever he wants to advise him and to work with him and his cabinet. obviously that would like we have to be senate confirmed but

is it a mistake, in your view, to not include someone like nikki haley, who was so popular in the primaries, and someone like mike pompeo, who was so well renowned in his position in his first administration? >> i don't think it's a mistake. first of all, donald trump just won a mandate from the american people, and that includes appointing whoever he wants. i don't think he needs either one of them, not that i think either are particularly bad people, it's just trump has the mandate to build the kind of government that he wants to build. he doesn't really need to put together coalitions here. he won the national popular vote and overwhelmingly in the electoral college, so there's plenty of good people who support donald trump's agenda, who can fill some of the kinds of roles that haley and pompeo could have filled so no, i don't think it's a mistake and from what i've heard, there are plenty of very talented people in national security and diplomatic space, and from a lot of other areas who are really talking to trump and his team about coming on board in senior roles, so i'm really

optimistic about what they are doing with the transition. the fact he chose a chief of staff, susie wiles, so quickly tells me he's in a decisive mood and that building the administration quickly will allow him to get off the ground quickly, which will allow them to pursue the agenda quickly. so i've got no concerns about this. >> a lot of people praised the decision to name susie wiles his chief of staff, really the gatekeeper for this administration to the president. he has worked with her as she ran his campaign over this last year and a half. he had four chiefs of staff in his previous administration. are you concerned that her time and tenure may not be that lasting, if past is prologue, in the second term? >> i think it would be good to look at susie wiles are with donald trump . she's been with him for several years. she was with him from soup to nuts in this particular campaign. remembered he hired susie wiles and chris loss evita, another seasoned republican operative, there he is on the screen now, to comanage this campaign at the beginning. and they were

there the whole time. he didn't make any changes at the top of his campaign leadership, and susie in particular is credited with running an expert in a really organized and disciplined operation, and he was obviously very appreciative of her on election night. number one, i think she earned this job. number two, i think she's proven she knows how to adjust in and around donald trump in a way that he believes adds value and it gives her staying power. number three, they obviously trust each other. these are the kinds of things you need in the office of chief of staff every republican that i know is excited that while these coming in. if she runs the same kind of organized, disciplined white house that she did in the campaign, trump is going to have no trouble standing his administration and getting his policy agenda off the ground quickly. i think it was a really good pic and really

getting it done fast, he picked her just a couple of days after he had won, that allows everything to move forward so trump is not letting any moss grow on this stone as he gets ready to take over. >> for all of our reporting, she had set some parameters that she wanted to maintain that discipline in this new role and that she, too also quote her, would keep the clown car from getting close to donald trump in the oval office. you mentioned the mandate that donald trump won and we announced today it is official he won all seven battleground states. i want to read you some sound we just heard in the last hour on real time with bill marr, from sarah's car, who was a former trump spokesperson in the justice department and she gave this warning to republicans. she said republicans have a risk of over reading what this election was. the first western is did trump win or did harris lose. the party in power in every western democracy lost support over this past year. it wasn't his campaign strategy. it was the american people who voted for biden four years ago because they were promised normalcy and competency, and they didn't get that over the course of these past four years. do you think that there is some sense in what she is saying here 2 >> i think that donald trump

did win a mandate. i think the american people looked at two very different paths for our future, the biden/harris path and the trump path and they said we want to do the trump path. the reason they were so easily able to make that decision was because they experienced it before. before the election, the retrospective pulls on donald trump's job approval from when he was first in office, he had gotten over 50% and biden had trouble cracking 40%. so the american people had a chance to compare in real-time two vision for the presidency, trump and what biden and harris were doing. they wanted to go back to trump so i actually believe he does have a mandate. extended to the senate. the republicans are going to wind up with i think 53 senate seats and i do believe they're going to ultimately hold onto a majority in the u.s. house of representatives. so i think the american people voted. they want the republican party with trump at the top of it to have a chance to implement the

program on which they ran and then we'll judge that at the mid-terms two years from now and the party will stand in judgment four years from now. so i think that he does have a mandate. i don't think harris ran a particularly great campaign. i do think biden was unpopular but obviously trump is getting better. he's never been more popular. he's never been more powerful and he didn't win the popular vote in two previous tries, but he did in this one. that tells me there are people gravitating towards trump, and you can see in the numbers, it's working-class americans, it's hispanics, it's african-american men. trump put together a true multiracial working-class coalition to win this election. he needs to act on their behalf and he has a mandate to do it go >> no doubt he expanded his base. i think that he saw positive gains in nearly every single county in this country, no doubt. when you and i spoke earlier this week, you were really highlighting the point that the country and specifically democrats need to let this man breathe, and to give him space in his first few months in office. what can we expect to see in terms of any sort of policy and acted in his

first few months in office? >> right out of the gate he has to build a government, so you are going to have a slew of nominations that are going to go up and be acted on in the senate, and winning a senate majority. that shouldn't be too much of a trouble. they're going to extend the 2017 trump tax cuts. that's coming up pretty soon so there is some economic policy that has to be dealt with, and i would think on immigration, the republicans are going to want to do something in getting the border under control. trump has obviously expressed an interest in deportations, getting people out of the country who are here illegally. there are millions of people, over 1 million people who are here who have already been ordered to leave the country. you can start there. there are other people in the country who have committed violent offenses. there's easy places to start on the agenda that he laid out. the good news for trump is with republicans in charge of both chambers, he shouldn't have any trouble dictating to them

what he wants to do and when he wants to do it. it's really a good chance to hit the ground running. he's not going to have to haggle too much with the democrats to get rolling on his top agenda item. i would think the economy and immigration, right out of the gate, is going to be where he's in it. >> and the chaos. the chaos we saw ensued in the first term. i'm not just talking about pushback that he got from democrats. on talking about self-inflicted tales. do you expect to see that, especially on an issue as controversial and as heated as mass deportations? >> i think it will be treated controversially by some people but if you look at the polling on it, all throughout the election it was a very popular idea. even among hispanic americans they supported the idea of deporting people who were here illegally and again, there are populations here who already received deportation orders or who are here that have committed violent offenses. i think most people would agree that's where we should start. i don't think he's going to get much pushback on that so while i think it will be treated controversially among the

american people, i don't really think it's that controversial and it was a big part of the campaign, and he did win the national popular vote. he's the president and i do think democrats ought to give him the space to execute because this is what the american people just voted for. >> scott jennings, always good to see you, my friend. with the economy one of the most pressing issues in the election, donald trump articulated an agenda of tariffs and tax cuts. cuts include extending some that are due to expire, as scott just noted, and removing federal tax from sources of income including tips, overtime pay, and social security benefits. the also wants to cut the corporate rate but experts estimate his proposed tariffs could cost a typical american household about $2600 a year. this would interfere with his other goals of cutting costs and making life more affordable generally. meanwhile, u.s. stocks closed at record highs on friday. analysts say investors were responding to the clarity provided by trump's swift victory, which they hope avoids uncertainty. i'm joined now by adam pozen, president at peterson institute for international economics.

adam, welcome to the program. we now know that one of the biggest fact there's for voter dissatisfaction in this year's election was inflation. current annual inflation rate is at 2.4%. that's a steep decline from the 9.1% that we saw at the high in june of 2022 point still not something that voters are comfortable with. your analysis suggests that trump's policies could in fact raise inflation in 2026 by 4% to 7%. what explains that? >> thank you for having me, breanna. that analysis is a solid one using a very standard economic model that was established very well before the campaign. but it is the scenario in which the trump administration, president-elect trump, fulfills everything he said he was going to do on the campaign trail, except for the crazy stuff the last week. so

deporting 1 million migrant workers, putting tariffs across the board on most of the world's economies, and potentially threatening the federal reserve with pressure. if they do all of that and get 4% to 7%, people on the campaign are likely to be, officials in the trump administration say these are just threats or these are negotiating tactics. we won't really have to do all that. so if you take a portion of it you get less, but that still is going to raise inflation 2%, 3% over the next couple of years. additionally, this isn't talking about tax cuts, like if you do the kind of large tax cuts he's proposing, initially you'll get some money back for tariffs but the whole point of tariffs is to switch out of those things, so that revenue will go away. meanwhile the tax cuts revenue and raise inflation, too. >> we know there is no love lost between donald trump and fed chair jerome powell.

earlier this week powell was asked point blank if he would resign if then president trump, incoming president trump, would ask him to, and he said no, that he doesn't have to and that he is planning to stay until his tenure ends in 2026 point do you think that trump would actually pose a threat to the stability and independence of the federal reserve? how do you view this relationship going forward? >> there is a long history of presidents of various stripes, notably richard nixon, who donald trump seeks to model himself on in various ways, putting a lot of pressure on fed chairs. there has never been a fed chair forced to resign in that way and i'm very confident of fed powell, if his health allows, which he seems perfectly fine, will serve out his term but with a politician you have a fixed term so he has to leave by i believe may of 2026. so then you start, in forward-looking financial markets, trying to figure in what would the new appointee by

a trump administration do? you could also do some things that probably wouldn't be that effective but at the margin would put pressure on the fed. a hedge fund manager has been named as a potential treasury secretary in the trump administration floated an idea a few weeks ago creating a shadow, not a fed person but somebody who will sit in the white house and say what they think the fomc should be doing. again, that's not likely to change the mind of federal market committee voters but it might change the mind of markets moving forward. >> to that point, it does appear from everything we are hearing from sources close to trumping the transition team is that he is more open to bringing on the business types and financial leaders as opposed to economists that we traditionally see as advisors, and some of the people who hold the top positions in terms of economic advisors in his white house. do you think that could

benefit, perhaps, the economy, or does that cause more concern for you, to have less economic experts and more sort of business friendly, wall street savvy people? >> i think as you imply, breanna, there's two aspects. there's one which is how business friendly, is a place to friendly to the national interests are , those are not always the same, sometimes they are not always. and then just how aware they are of how economies work. now economists, some of them who serving big government positions, i have not, sometimes are good, sometimes don't understand markets. so there is room to have people who understand markets. but if you go ahead and have people who are either serving a business interest that the expense of the national interest or you have people who don't understand that the evidence is you can't tax cut and deregulate yourself to growth when the u.s. is

already a little tax, low regulation country. if you are france in 1986, yes. if you are the u.s. in 1976 you probably can, but not today. >> thanks to adam pozen, president of the peterson institute for international economics. trump will kick off his second term at a turbulent time in the middle east. when we come back we'll look into his potential policies and what they could mean for israel and other countries in the region.

will

qatar is pressing a pause button on its effort to mediate a cease-fire in gaza. the kingdom has reportedly concluded that neither hamas and israel are serious about thoughts anymore. one diplomat says qatar has also decided to close the hamas office there but it could be reopened if talks start again. earlier u.s. and qatar resources told cnn that qatar is kicking hamas out after a request from the u.s., which hamas denied. sources did not give a timeline for when they believed hamas officials would actually depart. the fighting in gaza and lebanon is raging just as the u.s. prepares to usher in a new administration. as cnn's math you chance reports, a second trump term will meet with high expectations in israel but concerns elsewhere. >> history's greatest comeback. that's how the

israeli prime minister described donald trump's win. his first presidency is remembered here for a series of policies favorable to israel, like moving the u.s. embassy to jerusalem. from a second trump term, israelis are expecting full throated support for military action in gaza, in lebanon, and of course in iran. president-elect trump said he wants peace in the middle east, but of course, much of the region there's trepidation for what his presidency will bring. in iran, firmer u.s. support for israel is likely to be a major concern and meanwhile, amidst the rubble of gaza, where more than 100 hostages are being held, some palestinians have expressed hope that trump will help bring the conflict to a close while many others doubt the next u.s. president will do much to make their lives any better.

>> for more analysis we are joined by mark dew points, ceo of the nonprofit foundation for defense of democracy. he's speaking with us from washington. welcome to the program. one of the most pressing questions when it comes to mideast policy is the question of the u.s. approach to iran. we haven't heard a specific iran policy from president-elect trump yet but brian cook, who was special envoy for iran in the first trumpet ministration, is expected to lead the transition team now at the state department, said in an interview with cnn earlier this week that trump has pledged, quote, to isolate iran diplomatically and weakened them economically so they can't fund all of the violence perpetrated by its proxies. walk us through some of those potential options on the table. >> i think you're going to see a return to the trump administration's campaign of maximum pressure against the regimes. we saw the first trumpet ministration, severe economic sanctions, going after the resources that the regime has now as a result of four years of significant sanctions relief and access to hundreds

of billions of dollars with which to fund their regional aggression and their internal repression. so i think returning to maximum pressure. i also think you will see something we haven't seen for many ministration, which is maximum support for the iranian people, the majority of whom despises the resume, have been on the streets repeatedly since 2009. maximum pressure on the regime. maximum for support for the people. i don't think i a whole a common a is welcoming the idea of another trump administration. >> regime change is not on the table for the trump administration at this point. this maximum pressure policy is something that the wall street journal had been reporting on, as well, including potentially choking off iran's oil income including going after foreign ports and traders who handle iranian oil, even going as far as saying they would support an israeli strike on iran's nuclear and energy facilities do we recall that is something that president biden really urged israel not to do in their

recent strike. is there concern that going after their oil infrastructures could see a spike in oil prices at a time when donald trump is promising stability around the world as his second administration term begins? >> if you remember that under the trump administration the sanctions had driven iran's oil exports from 2.5 million barrels a day under about 100,000. its bites back up to 2 million. most of that 2 million goes to china so it's almost glenda stein and covert barrels in another part of the world market. i think what the trump administration did very well, and honestly president obama did this very well back in his first and second terms, that working with the saudi's to flood the market with extra barrels kept oil prices down. i imagine in riyadh they are very happy that donald trump is coming back in and i would be willing to play oil ball again.

>> i know that you were concerned particularly about what could happen in the lame-duck between the biden administration, perhaps even at the u.n., a repeat of what you said happened before donald trump began his first term in office, when it was president obama who was leaving office. why the concern? >> i have two concerns. one is on the iranian side, i worry that ayatollah hohman a will use the lame duck to breakout to a nuclear weapon. obviously very close. most of the nuclear expansion has occurred since joe biden's election. i'm also worried because the biden administration in february put in place an executive order that essentially creates a sanctions regime to sanction israelis. it's the first time the united states has ever done that against an ally and they started as designations. i worry there will be more designations against israel and there will be another un security council resolution the way president obama did in 2016 that actually drives this economic and financial work as part of a un security council

resolution, making it much more difficult for is trump to revoke or rescind >> we'll be watching in the weeks to come. thank you so much for your time, for staying late for us. we'll be right back.

what if your mobile network wasn't just built to work out here... ...but was designed differently to also give you blazing fast wifi where you are most of the time? reliable 5g, plus wifi speeds up to a gig where you need it most. xfinity mobile. now xfinity internet customers can buy one line of unlimited and get one free for a year.

former house speaker nancy pelosi says president biden should have withdrawn sooner so the democrats could have a competitive primary. pelosi suggested it was a fact that hampered immigrants ability to beat trump, in an interview with the new york times podcast. take a listen. >> had the president gotten out sooner, there may had been other candidates in the race. the anticipation was that if the president were to step aside, that there would be an

open primary. and as i say, kamala may have -- i think she may have done well in that and been stronger going forward. but we don't know that. that didn't happen. we live with what happened, and because the president endorsed kamala harris immediately, that really made it almost impossible to have a primary at that time. if it had been much earlier it would have been different. >> joining us now from los angeles is peter's about nick . he is senior editor for the free press. just want to get your reaction to what we heard there from the former speaker. there had been some criticism early on after joe biden endorsed kamala harris for the nomination, that there should have been an open primary and others said that there was just no time for that. do you think we would've seen a radically different outcome if that had been the case, perhaps six

months, a year ago? i know starting this interview on a counterfactual is probably not ideal, but just putting it out there. >> of course. in a robust primary with lots and lots of competition, voices, people from all across the political spectrum weighing in, you would've had, i think, a much stronger nominee ultimately. there's almost no chance that it would've been kamala harris and this person would have been tested, and would have been much better prepared to respond to whatever trump and vance threw their way. and of course that's not what happened because that's not what the democratic party is. i don't think -- that kind of process, that's unfortunate for the democrats and unfortunate for the america but yes, the former speaker is correct. had there been a primary i think you would've had a competitive process and democrats would've had a much better chance.

>> you wrote a provocative piece for the free press shortly after kamala harris lost, titled we blewett, joe, a play on their words in a win four years ago when she set on a phone call to president-elect biden, we did it, joe. let me read from this piece. you said the democrats didn't lose because they didn't spend enough money. they didn't lose because they failed to trot out enough celebrity influences. they lost because they were consumed by their own self flattery, their own sense of self-importance. they should've spent the past eight years learning from the republicans very honest and flawed conversation about the plight of america, but they insisted on talking to themselves about the things that made them feel morally superior. i'm wondering how you came to this conclusion so quickly after the results of the election. >> look, i think that was apparent for a long time. the democrats are not talking about the things that americans want to talk about. what is happening to the country, american decline, the american hinterland, american

manufacturing , our status in the world, the opioid crisis, the southern border, inflation, they go on and on, and if they had spent any time at the republican convention, and really listened to delegates, instead of just trying to caricature and try to impose their own assumptions on them, they would've heard the same story. it's a variation on a theme, over and over, just what is happening to us and why is no one in washington apparently doing anything to reverse that? >> i remember this summer listening to a podcast interview with you on the free press where you talked about your time at the republican convention and played some sound interviews that you conducted there. and i have to say, the people you spoke with were saying things that i wasn't hearing much in other interviews and conversations and i thought it was quite interesting and striking some of the conversations that you had. that being said, you also said that there is no mandate

for a particular republican agenda, that what we saw in this election was voters basically saying to the democratic party, we hate you, so how do republicans start with their mandate? how does the trump administration start with the mandate that they received from the majority of the country now, to work off of a, okay, where the opposite of the hated but we don't really have a mandates, either? >> i think the danger the republicans are facing now is they have been running on a series of angers, furies, kind of this bundle of emotions that leak up, america first, the economic policies that are bandied about are still very inchoate, and not, in my mind, terribly, terribly thought through. the same could be said of their foreign policy. the ideas they have there, right? you can't support, in my eyes it's impossible to support wholeheartedly israel's effort in wiping out hamas and at the same time be opposed to ukraine

resisting russian aggression, russian aggression, invasion of ukraine. so there's a lot of contradiction baked into that and the point being that this is not a party right now that really has a very clearly etched or defined idea of exactly what it wants to do. it knows what ails it or i should say what ails america. it's this all-consuming idea of decline but i don't think the policies are really worked through. >> we'll see. we'll see what these specific policies will be in the weeks and obviously months to come. peter's about nick, thank you so much. really thoughtful piece. would love to have you back on. >> thank you. still to come for us, several states put the issue of abortion care directly on their ballots this year. we'll tell you what comes next in those

states.

there's a strong showing of support for reproductive rights in 10 states were abortion protections were on the ballot this week. so what does that mean overall for abortion access in the u.s. under the new trump administration? cnn's jaclyn howard has the details.

>> these are the states that voted this week to protect abortion rights -- arizona, colorado, maryland, missouri, montana, nevada and new york. but in most of those states, five total, carolina, in those states abortion is already legal and the ballot measures maintain access under the state's restitution. voters in only two states, arizona and missouri, approved measures to expand abortion access. and keep in mind, even if the ballot measures in arizona and missouri improve access in those states, about 40% of women of reproductive age will still be living in states where abortion is either banned or restricted. now it's not clear what the new trump administration's strategy will be around abortion. we no-trump's campaign has said he will veto a federal abortion ban if elected we have also seen his position on the issue shift many times over the years. back to you. >> our thanks to jaclyn howard for that report. straight ahead, how leonel massey and his inter-miami squad fell short in the mls playoffs.

leonel massey and inter-miami are out of the mls playoffs after a stunning loss to ninth seeded atlanta united. though messi and miami had a record-breaking regular season, they lost 3-2 on saturday night, ending their hopes in

the best-of-three series. atlanta united moves on to face orlando city in the eastern conference semifinal. thanks so much for joining me here on cnn newsroom. i'm bianna golodryga. we'll back with more news after a quick break.

your business needs a network it can count on... even during the unexpected. power's out! -power's out! comcast business has you covered, with wifi backup to help keep you up and running. wifi's up. let's power on! let's power on! -let's power on! it's from the company with 99.9% network reliability. let's power on! power on with the leader in connectivity. stay connected with comcast business internet and wifi back-up or get started for $49.99 a month.

plus ask how to get up to a $500 prepaid card. call today! dad: hey boss. you okay? son: i said i'm fine. ♪ dad: you can talk to me. son: it's been really, really hard for me.