is real? check out all these snowflakes in florida. that is our broadcast on this wednesday night. with our thanks for being with us on behalf of all my colleagues at the networks of nbc news, good night. f nbc news, good night ,. i know this looks a little different, i am at my home studio. i am appearing at my home studio with no notice because -- this is not one of those times. nothing is really wrong. there is nothing serious going on. we just have a little bit of technical difficulty, something about the internet not working

and an ice storm. it's technical gremlins. this is always been our back a plan in case the studio -- nothing to worry about, other than the fact that i look like nick -- aside from that we are basically all -- forgive me. as you know, president biden held a news conference about his second year in all this. it was a couple of hours almost, which is almost twice the length of the press conference before this one. he warmed president vladimir putin that he will regret the consequences if they launch a war against the ukraine. purple octave lee, he also says that ukraine will -- putin will try it in the ukraine, which will cause headlines around the world.

again, putin will regret it if he does it, but if we guess he will. president biden said that he is not giving up on voting rights. he says it was unthinkable, that republicans do not support voting rights anymore. it is not a bipartisan thing. what's republicans are trying to do with election subversion efforts, delegitimizes future all actions. interesting lee, he also said this about the recent reporting on republicans and mueller to pull states, forging fake elector tickets and trying to get them reported to the electoral college. he referred to it today in his press conference. >> i never thought we'd get into a place where we were talking about being able to. what they actually tried to do.

is sent different electors to the state legislative bodies to represent who won the election. saying that i did not win but a republican candidate won. i doubt anyone thought that would happen. it's happening. good >> but it's happening. president biden today saying in fact no one would believe that they would do this to our elections. sending multiple electors to the states to cast ballots for a candidate who did not win that state. today, it's not as possible as it would've been as recently, and it's therefore where we are. the senate debate on voting rights has been frenetic today. including an interesting decision, a spectacle.

in which joe manchin, and two other senators who are blocking the -- he got up, and made his anti voting speech while president biden was doing his press conference. i'm sure the timing was purely coincidental. i don't know. tonight, in just a moment, we will have to make a link. in addition to having me broadcast from home, tonight we did get a big kang in ball of news. in an 8 to 1 ruling against former president donald trump, and his efforts to prevent the january six investigation of accessing document, in an 8 to 1 ruling, only justice clarence thomas decided with trump. they decided that they all came

down against him on this. on its face, this is a pretty straightforward thing. i know you may not trust me entirely on this, we will get an expert for whom you can really trust, but the basic line here is pretty straightforward. i will happily stand corrected if i oversimplify this. this past summer, august last year, the january six investigation started a big significant request of documents from trump. hundreds, potentially thousands, of pages. we know because of court filings that the documents they wanted to see where drafts, speeches, and talking points about the election. one of the requested documents that was wearing to me, was a

draft executive order concerning election integrity. trump may have drafted in executive order on election integrity. really? and they documents containing presidential findings concerning the security of the 2020 election after occurred, and ordering various actions. i don't know with that means. ordering various actions? i would like to see it. well i would love the january six investigators to see it. llin some cases, fairly descriptive -- court filings >> former president trump, you know what happened next, he invoked the concept of executive privilege. these documents should not be handed over to them. that it, it's only the sitting

president who gets to wield that privilege when it's important to do so. the white house only has a view -- no, it is not privileged, it can be handed over to the january six investigation. it is them that trump sued to stop the documents from being able to be given to the investigation. the timeline was remarkably moving for the -- in november, the first judge voted against him. again he sued in october, the judge in d.c. ruled in november, trump then appeal that to a three judge panel in that court, that also ruled against him unanimously. that was in december. first filed in october, then in

november it was ruled against him, then he appealed, then in december it was ruled against him. now, after that three judge flannel in the d.c. court of appeals, heat they turned him down. he could've appealed on bank. which is to ask not only the three judge panel but the whole d.c. court to take a look. but he skipped that step, and went straight to the united supreme court. he also filed an emergency application with it. to try to get them, even before it was handled, to block the release of these documents to the investigation. well, it is that emergency application, that got the 8 to 1 no sir ruling from the supreme court tonight. moments like this, one of the people who writes very quickly around us is josh at politico

.com. he described tonight's rolling as the most significant one yet for the january six investigation for the attack on the capital. i want to know why they think that. i'm no lawyer, and i have to tell you, what we are literally talking about here is the court's ruling on. the title of the document is an application for state of mandate an injunction pending review. those are all words individually, alone. i do not understand them in that order. i think the basics here are pretty straightforward. i do have some questions, for which we will need expert help. first question is, is the set? is this? it i mean trump filed a supreme

court deal, the january six investigation is going to get a handle the documents he's trying to keep from them. what we have here is a clear 8 to 1 no to trump. but an emergency application for stay? which is a different -- then ruling on his case. how should we understand that? particularly as non lawyers. just because this is a ruling on the emergency for a stay, it's limited for an emergency or the documents it applies to. is this gonna be the last word from the united states supreme court on this issue? or is there is something else that could go in donald trump's question? that is the first question we need advice on. is this it? the justice put out a statement tonight saying the select quid

committee has already begun to receive letters, that hunch that trump tried to keep hidden. in a short amount of time, having elapsed these rulings, they say they are filing these documents. are we gonna get some selection of them? are the rulings yet to be made on the rest of them? if they are gonna get them all, when? how fast does this happen? especially since it looks like it's starting to happen tonight? joining us now to help me sort out these issues is -- she is a longtime reporter at the u new york times, and an author. her book is, justice on the brink. linda greenhouse. linda, i'm always grateful for you making the time to be here on short notice tonight. thank you. >> no problem rachel.

>> let me just ask you -- . >> please. >> it is always been the -- taken a position that, yes this stuff is releasable. but i am not going to release it until i am sure that a court is not gonna stop me. so this is it. for that bunch of documents, i think it is -- other bunches of documents, to understand the argument this has not gone through them yet. the unsigned opinion, it's just one paragraph. it's one paragraph long. it could be in one of those one paragraphs, that we have seen in a long time from the court. >> and as you mentioned, this appears to apply to some 700 pages. it will come up to those

offices handling it. the types of claims that he has made in the courts to block the handing over these documents, does this cover the release of them all? the archivist may have some things that they need to go through with the biden administration and some other processes unrelated to this. as it matters, in terms of the presidents plan, will it apply to all of the documents? >> i think that is a fair guess. it is a technical matter, not yet. what does a court do when it's asked for an emergency action like this? it balances the two sides. you're telling me that the applicant moving forward, and trump saying it's my right as a president, as a privilege candidate. and you see the other side.

and the official ruling by the judge is that there is compelling on the other side, the fact that congress is asking for this material. and the incumbent president has waived any presidential -- so it was the combination of, the entire of, architecture of the government. the house anyway. the current white house saying, yes, this is admissible. the supreme did something kind of interesting. an unsigned opinion. it took one way of reading the d.c. circuit opinion, which was that, it does not really matter that trump is a former president, not being commit, and that the uncovered is waving any type of privilege. it matters in what way, the

former or current president is making this kind of privilege. it would not hold up. it is not strong enough or compelling enough to make what it would need to get this deal. deciding whether trump had more or less the right than the president is not the case. leave intact the d.c. circuits finding that he did not have a right to get it, no matter what title he was -- when he made the claim. tle he was - when he made the claim

cascading implications who have sued the committees? >> i would certainly think so. if i was any of those people. now, i suppose, some of them can make a claim there was a compelling public need for the kind of public -- i'm just a little fish, there's nothing compelling about my rule of this. the subpoena is not justified. certainly, we see the -- as you said the district court, all the way up, eight justices taking a very thin view of any kind of claim of privilege. i think this will turn on the faucet knew of being able to

find out more about what happened on january 6th. >> linda greenhouse, analyst for the new york times, lecturer at liu law school. again, i really appreciate you making the time on short notice. thanks for being here. all right, all day long, yesterday, and all day long, today, and live right now, the united states senate has been debating democratic legislation to establish federal protections for voting rights, and to block the subversion of election results. with republicans, unanimously, opposed to that legislation, the question at hand is whether democrats would go nuclear. allowing themselves to pass these voting rights protections with the majority vote. i'm telling, you just looking back today, that when republicans were in the majority and president trump

was in office. during that time, republican senate leader, mitch mcconnell and the senate republicans, when nuclear, deciding you would be a majority vote only. doing that to confirm it would only -- be nuclear another, time deciding it would be a majority vote only, it would be 50 votes only, for a lower lever executive branch nominees. then he went nuclear third time, deciding he would change the filibuster rule. it would only have to be a majority full, a 50 vote threshold, for federal district court judges. even since president biden has been president, the united states senate has the cloud to go nuclear, as they say, to require just a majority vote on a bill to fund the government last year. they also did it, they went nuclear, they decided to do just a majority vote for a random vote that didn't go anywhere about vaccine

requirements. we use the phrase go nuclear, because it's pose to be the end of the. world's supposed to be mutually assured destruction, turns out they go to nuclear all the time. turn they go nuclear and find out that a 50 vote majority is enough, that we can't have a 60 vote threshold for a particular type of action, or legislation, or amendment. they do that all the time. even in the senate, even when the republicans were in control. it happens all the time. but, democratic senators, joe manchin and kyrsten sinema, keep saying that this would be an unprecedented thing to do. even though, that's absolutely not true. they just keep saying they won't do it for voting rights. tonight, in the senate, they're not even voting to go nuclear, like they have on so many other issues. tonight, they're voting on the narrow -- a rule just to require a

talking filibuster. a physical effort to actually be there and speak, holding the floor for a long time, if you want to filibuster voting right. presumably, senator manchin and senator sinema, will vote against making that change. just in case, vice president kamala harris is presiding in the senate right now, and she is available to cast that 51st vote, to pass voting rights legislation, if it comes to that. all day long, senators have gone back and forth about voting rights, and whether to change senate rules so that there can be a 50 vote margin to protect them. republican senator, tom cotton, of arkansas, at one, point tried to say the democrats were hypocrites, because he read a letter from 2017, in which several democratic senators said they supported keeping the filibuster, as it is. one of the senators, who signed that letter is new hampshire -- maggie hassan, who has talked here on the show, including last night, about how her view

on the filibuster has evolved. after senator cotton invoked her -- senator hassan got up for an impromptu response, which is really interesting. watch. >> i know i was not scheduled to speak, but i do want to respond as one of the signatories of the letter. i associate myself with everything that the other signatories have talked about, in terms of wanting to restore the sentence tradition of extended debate on issues of great importance to the american people. let me be clear about the reason that i now support an adjustment to the long-standing rules of the senate. it is because i never imagined, when i signed that letter, that not a single member of the republican party would stand up for our democracy. since january 6th, when we saw

an acceleration of state laws, that would allow partisans to overturn the impartial count of an election. but, if we do not have a functioning democracy, where people know that when they vote, that vote will be impartially counted, and upheld. and the people who are defeated, will accept defeat, so that they can have unaccountable elected representation in washington, then there is no democracy. when i signed that letter, i never imagined that today's republican party would fail to stand up for democracy. >> new hampshire senator, maggie hassan, with impassioned remarks you. i never imagined that the tase republican party would fail to stand up for democracy. when president biden was giving his press conference, this afternoon, as i mentioned

earlier, democratic senator, joe manchin, chose that moment to get up on the senate floor and defend his decision to block voting rights. an interesting lee, he gave that speech in front of a big signed his staff made that said, the united states and it has never been able to end debate with a simple majority. implying that what democrats are trying to do, in terms of having majority vote on voting rights, is implying that is completely unheard of. this thing has never been done before. that is deeply, deeply wrong. deeply, a historical, and wrong. it's just not true. don't take it for me, here was senator amy klobuchar, with the response. >> there are 160 exceptions. 160 exceptions to the filibuster rule. things have been changed to

benefit my colleagues, from the other side of the aisle. somehow it only takes 51 votes to put in place the trump tax cuts. the bush tax cuts. somehow, it only took 51 votes to put amy coney barrett on the supreme court of the united states. a change made by them. somehow, it only takes 51 votes to try and overturn a regulation, or try to mess around with the affordable care act. but then, when it comes to something like voting rights, suddenly, everyone on the other side of the aisle is hugging that filibuster tight. knowing that so many times in history, including most recently with the debt ceiling, changes have been made to allow a vote with less than 60 votes. the national gas policy act in 1977, in 1995 the endangered species act. in 1996, a change to the

reconciliation process. 160 times. i think, by voting this down, by not allowing us to even debate this, to get to the conclusion of a vote, that is silencing the people of america. all in the name of an archaic senate rule, that isn't even in the constitution. that's just wrong. >> all in the name of an archaic rule that isn't even in the constitution. joining us live, the senior senator from minnesota, andy klobuchar. senator, i know you're in the thick of things, thanks for joining us. thanks for taking a moment to show perspective. tell us about how this happened today, and internet tonight. >> first of all, i love that you played that clip of maggie hassan. i love maggie. i just want to say that. she's so strong. she made the case that nobody ever could. secondly, what's happened tonight, is we had a first vote

and it just occurred to get on the bill. both senator manchin and sinema, who are co-sponsors of the bill that we -- work with them all summer, on the freedom to vote act, that i've been leading. and they did vote for that, because they do support the bill. i think that's important for people to know. now, it's going to be the second vote. that is where the argument really pivots. to me, if you're serious about voting rights, and you saw well pointed out rachel, how many times has been exceptions. 160 times we've changed a process. -- compensation for victims of space accidents that we changed the numbers for. you can go through history, it's full of examples. why, because senators wanted to get things done. they came to washington to do things. when they saw an obstacle in their path, still a fouling the

filibuster to stand, they made practical changes to get things done. sometimes on small things, but sometimes on really big things. such as, supreme court justices, which mitch mcconnell did. like the bush interim tax cuts. the recent ones for the wealthy, all on 51 vote margins. >> senator klobuchar, you have been telling this history in various ways throughout the debate. particularly, as the debate has become more heated and more focused on this point. i find myself frustrated by the assertions from senator manchin, and from senator sinema, that it would be unprecedented. that it's never been done before. that there's nothing in history that suggests you could have 51 vote threshold for voting on a bill like this. as if it would be something that would -- you have to move mountains. i'm wondering if you have any perspective on that. clearly, you know the history.

clearly, senator manchin didn't just say it, he put up aboard on the floor of the senate, giving in a historical statement about these things. have you in your colleagues are handling this. >> we keep making the case, i think we're pretty sure though this is going to end. but, what's been important for me, is that we have every other senator on board. your viewers should know, we have an election coming up. neither of those two are up, but there are strong possibilities for taking over senate seats across the country. if we get to 52, that's a whole different ball game, when it comes to the senate rules and getting this done. your viewers should know that we have a justice department, filled with people like vinita gupta, who are committed to enforcing the voting rights act, and the bills that are right now on the books. we are going to be mobilizing in state legislatures across the country. we're going to be working to

fund elections, with mail-in ballots. there is so much work that we can do, including fixing the electoral college,. but, none of it, i want to make clear, will be a replacement to the freedom to vote act. i would've finally put the standards into law. everyone knows what's happening here. yeah rid of same-day registration, in montana. 8000 people use that in the last election. get rid of registration during the last month, the runoff period in georgia. 70,000 people register that time. that was put into law, with what we're describing as another voting rights suppression law, as surgical precision. we're going to continue to see that, and i will not give up this fight. minnesota senator amy klobuchar. we're excited for you and your colleagues. thank you for helping us understand it. >> rachel, dr. martin luther king once said.

support is finite, but hope is infinite. let's not forget that. >> i have nothing to say in response. thank you senator. >> we have much more to get to here on this busy night. again, i apologize for the set here tonight. it looks a little bit different because it is not a set, it is my house. there is nothing going on other than technical gremlins. lots going on, supreme court, breaking ruling, the trump family business case that is being pursued as a civil matter in new york state. lots going on, big show, stay with us. sta

with us. ♪ limu emu ♪ and doug. we gotta tell people that liberty mutual customizes car insurance so you only pay for what you need, and we gotta do it fast. [limu emu squawks] woo! thirty-four miles per hour! new personal record, limu! [limu emu squawks] he'll be back. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ napoleon was born and raised to conquer.

but he was just kind of over it, you know. watching prime video he realized he should follow his dreams. so he ordered a microphone with prime next day delivery. now the only thing he cared about conquering was his audience. prime changes everything. going to quote here, i suspect

growing up, bilal was obsessed, obsessed with superman! not because he could fly, but because superman stood up for people. maybe it's because of our family's own immigrant story, or he's just that nerdy. throughout his career in the obama administration and the private sector, bilal has never stopped helping others. we don't need a superhero to solve san francisco's biggest problems like crime and homelessness, just the innovation and courage to lead. join me.

that mr. trump stripe lacks in trump tower, the attorney general has found that this acid, we're base it on the assertion that it was 30,000 square feet in size. the actual size of trump's try plex apartment was only 10, 000, 996 square feet. he has lied about the square footage of his hands -- of his pocket. of his apartment. he said it was three times as

big as it was. he said maybe it was just a lie, maybe he was just mistaken. how many square feet? is it i don't know. demonstrating what the actual size a was of his apartments was easily accessible by the trump administration -- organization. and easily accessible by trump. of courting to the 2015 financial statement, reported by the value of the justice department, was -- supporting damon from the 2016 financial statement. the value of the trump's plight -- was overstated own most by three times. in a test to the attorney generals office, mr. trump said that the a valuation of trump's

personal apartment value to an overstatement of, give or take a couple million dollars. the statements overvalued was give or take 20 dollar million dollars. the most expensive department not only in new york city, but in the entire nation, the most important -- expensive apartments. year after year on financial statements, he said it was more than twice then the most expensive department in new york. and he said it was -- it is wild, and fragrance, and very dishonest. it does make you think back to bragging about his hand size at the debate. it is two on the nose. but according to the attorney

general, it is not just an interesting pathology, it was part of a pattern of behavior by donald trump and his company that is potentially illegal. to quote, -- the office of the attorney general has collected significant evidence indicating that the trump administration had -- to have a boast of benefits including loans, insurance -- and tax deductions. they have been investigating these fraudulent practices for three years. insurance fraud, tax fraud. there is a parallel criminal investigation by state legislators in the manhattan office, but this investigation by the attend knee general is significant because she can bring a lull charge against the

organization -- after all they have succeeded in shutting down in trump's university and charity, now they have sights on his family business. miss james says in these new filings, that her office is yet to have -- but it may be nearing its and, because they are going after the big fish, if you well. the reason that we got this filing late last night is because they are asking the court to compel testimony from donald trump, his son, and his daughter who were intimately involved in running his business. it lays out the most detailed allegations we have yet seen against these -- not just about the family business, that the a.g. is investigating. if you don't know, and look at

the patterns more broadly, you can just look at this one for example. the trump family business owns an estate north of -- the places called -- springs. watch the money associated with -- springs. in 2004, trump said it was worth $80 million. three years later, he said it was worth $200 million. a few years later it was worth $290 million. it's almost like a flock of geese have moved in, and they are laying golding eggs. where are all this money coming from? then they brought in a -- to value the party or -- they said it was worth a maximum of $50 million. i thought it was worth $281 million?

the trump organization insisted that it was actually worth $291 million. how did they come up with that evaluation? the basis of that evaluation was a telephone conversation with eric trump. that was the basis for the trump organization's assertion that it was worth $291 million, despite an appraisal that said it was only worth $50 million. they asked eric, and eric said that it was definitely worth $291 million, how can you argue with? that seems legit. the new york -- as to explain to the 2012 and 2013 valuations, trump invoked his privilege. he invoked the fifth more than -- million times. and crucially, the attorney general alleges all of this

asset inflation is not just bragging rights and puffery, she says it is the trump organization in some cases, using this information to actively lied to banks and insurance companies about where this is coming from. for the purposes of doing business with them. quote, representation's to a company was -- by professional appraisal firms, the valuations were false. they were prepared by trump organization staff, contrary to what the company was told. so it is one thing to make up fantastical valuations for your companies, it is another thing to go to an insurance company to do business on the fantastical evaluations given, and to tell them that the

appraisal came from a pro. in fact, it was not. it was a call to erik, or someone else in the trump organization for these things. they also allege that donald trump and his company may have liar to the irs. spring's estate has been apparently based on a wild evaluation based on what the trump organization asserted was -- that did not exist. that is just one example. that is one trump -- the attorney general has filed many -- other stories like this one. this is still just an investigation. is it gonna lead to charges? is it gonna lead to the kind of civil suit that will take down the trump family business? what's kind of valuations, what

kind of filings, what kind of cases do these things add up to? i have just the person to ask about this. she joins us next. stay with us. about this she joins us next. stay with us

in late night legal filings last night, new york attorney general, letitia james, asserted that a ongoing civil investigation into donald trump's business has evidence that the trump's organization used fraudulent or misleading asset valuations to obtain a host of economic benefits, including loans, insurance coverage, and tax deductions. my next guest has been covering donald trump's taxes since 2015. she was part of the pulitzer prize-winning team and new york times, that obtained decades of donald trump's tax information, and berners-lee translated them for public understanding them. suzanne, thank you for being with us, i appreciate your time. >> thanks for having me. >> did you learn anything in

these filings that you did not know, or that you did not anticipate, from what you and your colleagues already turned up? >> i was intrigued by one of the legal arguments that surfaced in the documents. which is, these cases are difficult, because people like donald trump, and others often say, when i'm in the situation i rely on the advice of experts. i hire accountants, lawyers, and i are rely on their advice. often, that can help navigate, or is a shield against these charges. last night, we saw that the attorney general is going -- she said, and i'll just read from it, she said that they misstated the purported involvement of outside professionals and reaching evaluations. which he saying there, they were much more involved in sending these evaluations then we may have thought. i think she's going to use that to say, they have some

liability potential. it wasn't that they were phoning the lawyers and accountants, they certainly have those, but they were very involved in the valuations, that ended up in banks and insurance companies. >> that's interesting. it occurred to me, then making those misrepresentations to a bank or insurance company, would itself be a problem. in terms of your duty to be honest with those institutions, when you're trying to get money from them. it would also, as you, say undercut any claim that they could've made that they were counting on professional advice, in order to -- >> we don't know right now. both could be true. you know, it depends on the evidence has brought forward. it's one thing for donald trump to sign off on a document, and say okay, on a post-it note. it's another thing for him to be heavily involved. it seems like they're building towards a case that would say that they were heavily involved, and were a direct link to

donald trump's form would-ing information to a bank, or ellen weisselberg, former cfo. they were deeply involved in discussions on this. they had contact with these final lanterns to shuns, and that's the contact that could get them in trouble. >> in terms of the documents, like you mentioned, one of the things that surprised me is this reference to a filing cabinet. trump, the defame is sly, doesn't use email, cabinets, or put his thoughts in a replica format, that investigators would like to see. but, there is some sort of filing cabinet with his papers and correspondence that the attorney general knows about. disaster iq is important? >> i'm not a lawyer, but i would be -- that would be one of the first things i would look at if i was an investigator. apparently, there's a filing cabinet, where everything is

chronological. they've kept all mr. trump's post it notes, handwritten notes for years. we don't know what's in there, all volunteer if they need a look. wow, i'd really like to see that. that can go to what we're talking about. millions of documents have been turned over already, according to the filings, but this filing cabinet is still one of the things that there's a lot of tension over. they haven't seen it yet, there's other documents but this one when -- i'd love to see it. i'm sure the investigators would. >> suzanne craig, investigative reporter for the new york times. suzanne, i really appreciate you making time. this is a fascinating step. >> yeah it is. >> we'll be right back.

so heads up tonight, this is a

story where we really don't

know what's happening yet, but something is. this afternoon, news outlets in texas are reporting that fbi agents have been seen near the home of a congressman. democratic congressman, henry cuellar, in texas. cuellar is a conservative democrat. he was texas secretary of state, before he was first elected to state in 2004. as for why the fbi was at his home today, we don't know. the fbi is saying that this is only a court authorized, ongoing investigation, and they will not provide any further comments. his office released a statement saying the congressman will fully cooperate in any investigation. but, nobody knows what investigation this is. he was not known to be under vest again for anything, this is all very new and quite mysterious. clearly, something is going on. we'll keep an eye on this story, as it continues to unfold. watch this.

that we did not know existed. you finally have a face to a name. we're discovering together... it's been an amazing gift. ♪ i see trees of green ♪ ♪ red roses too ♪ ♪ i see them bloom ♪ ♪ for me and you ♪ ♪ and i think to myself ♪ ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ a rich life is about more than just money. that's why at vanguard, you're more than just an investor, you're an owner so you can build a future for those you love. vanguard. become an owner. it's our january sale on the sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to relieve pressure points.

and it's temperature balancing so you both sleep just right. save $1,000 on the sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, queen now $1,999. plus, 0% interest for 24 months. [upbeat acoustic music throughout] [upbeat acoustic music throughout] [upbeat acoustic music throughout] one of my favorite supplements is qunol turmeric. turmeric helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. unlike regular turmeric supplements qunol's superior absorption helps me get the full benefits of turmeric. the brand i trust is qunol. that's gonna do it for us,

tonight. for the show, that we have unexpectedly had to shoot for my house, because we had technical gremlins. nothing weirder than that is where the is going on. this is always the backup plan. we just had technical trouble, so this is where i've been. any rumor that suzanne craig was in a different room in my house, is not at all true. i know it looked like we w