tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN October 2, 2019 4:00am-5:00am PDT
based on my experience with her. >> that's really helpful. >> secretary of state mike pompeo is taking questions right now. let's reset top of the hour, bring you more of this news conference in just a second. >> all right. welcome to our viewers in the united states and all around the world. this is "new day." secretary of state mike pompeo taking questions in rome. let's listen in. >> translator: the u.s. attempt to support italy's approach when it comes to ending the violence and to promote a cease-fire. which do you intend to work with and how? >> so we had extensive discussions today. we had had them as well about libya. our mission set is similar. we -- >> we'll hear from him as well. we will come back to this if and when the secretary faces questions on the issue of the
impeachment investigation. obviously democrats say he is a fact witness to this investigation now because the reporting is that mike pompeo listened in on the phone call where president trump leaned on the ukrainian president to dig up dirt on joe biden. joining us now is cnn political analyst maggie haberman. she is the white house correspondent for "the new york times." great to see you this morning. a flurry of developments not only mike pompeo talking. the president speaks this afternoon. and also we've learned that mike pompeo wants to block state department officials from talking to congress. what do you see as the single most important development over the last 12 hours? >> boy, john, i don't know how to separate them. i think the most important development is one we don't yet know about which is this briefing that the state department inspector general is going to give members of congress today. we don't know the specifics. we don't know what it is. but it's been described as urgent and this is highly unusual according to members of
congress that i've spoken with. so we will see what that emerges as, but it happens as we are hearing all these questions about whether mike pompeo will be willing to submit to questions and his efforts to block other witnesses at the state department from participating in the congressional oversight and the question that has been raised by democrats in congress is doesn't mike pompeo have a conflict of interest here since he himself is a witness? >> so maggie, giuliani is at the center of so much of this, you know, in the whistle-blower complaint he's all over the place. he has inserted himself into these diplomatic dealings or been inserted by the president into these dealings. so do you have a sense of what's happening inside the white house and how president trump and people around him feel about giuliani as well as how mike pompeo feels about all of this with giuliani? >> i do. and they're not all the same. the president is very happy with rudy giuliani. still there is trepidation among trump advisers as giuliani headed out to sunday shows this
past weekend and the president was very happy with how he did. and remember, giuliani has been playing for an audience of one this whole time. the president's aides, however, not all of them but most of them are not happy with giuliani. they wish he would stop talking. they don't find him helpful. and mike pompeo according to multiple people i've spoken with is very frustrated with rudy giuliani. mostly we the fact he keeps talking publicly and inserting ideas in the president's head as it's been put to me. i do think the complaints about giuliani and what he says to the president tends to absolve the president of having responsibility here. he is the one telling giuliani to go ahead with certain things. giuliani is not freelancing. that's become clear. and that phone call makes that clear. >> again, we are waiting to hear if secretary mike pompeo is asked anything about the investigation. steve llinick, all of a sudden e could be an important player here. he was appointed during the
obama administration. he is seen as a straight shooter concerned mostly just about the facts. and you talk about the mystery surrounding what he'll say. again, the idea that he is independent from the state department political apparatus. talk to me about the range of opportunities here. we've already got a range that went through the inspector general. there is some speculation that we don't know that the state department ig is coming forward with something else here. >> we don't know if this is another whistle-blower. we don't know if this is about documents. we don't know if this is about efforts to keep people from testifying or cooperating with these congressional investigations. it could be any of those. it could be none of those. but what it reminds us, john, i think, is that as much as people want to sort of game out what they think is going to happen politically to the president
based on this impeachment inquiry, there's so much yet to happen. there is so much we don't know out there. one of the big risks for the president that every adviser of his that i have spoken with is that more will come out. there will be either additional whistle-blowers, additional information, additional evidence he was involved in something beyond just that phone call. and look, it's a phone call the white house put out. but there certainly are other phone calls with foreign leaders that could emerge. and there is a concern that there are just additional facts that will essentially swamp the presidency as he's trying to get re-elected and ignore this impeachment inquiry. >> there's also text messages that rudy giuliani keeps talking about. in fact, he keeps waving around his cell phone to show, these are the text messages i've gotten so many of them from the state department. he keeps saying on national television. do we know who those were from? do we know what they said? >> my -- i don't. my sense in my conversations with him and just what i have
seen is that these are some kind of exchanges with kurt volker about what he was doing in terms of ukraine and in terms of his own contacts. i think what he had been hoping to show was that state department officials and this gets to part of what pompeo has been frustrated by, that state department officials knew what giuliani was doing. there was some effort not by the president but by others in the government to try to act like he was doing this on his own for awhile. i think giuliani who has seen any number of people around the president get cut off and described as they were acting on their own is trying to make clear that was not the case. and it is clear that's not the case. now, whether he was leading people and whether they felt pressured to participate or whether everybody was on the same page, i think we're going to hear more in the coming days. but there's no question that giuliani had other people working with him in the government. >> all right. i want to take the 30,000 foot view here. i think you probably have more sources inside this white house than most reporters in america.
germ l generally speaking, what's the mood inside the white house? is there a sense that the president understands how serious this is? that this very well, very likely perhaps might lead to impeachment. and who exactly is he listening to? >> he's listening to a couple people but frankly himself and a couple of his outside lawyers. will be a key player again. the president is listening to giuliani. he is listening to some members of congress and he is obviously takie ining counsel from his fa as he always does. but the end of the day, i don't think the president has processed what this could look like if he is impeached. and i think his aides are not in agreement that this is a problem. >> hey, maggie, sorry to interrupt. he's getting a question right now about all of this. >> -- of it including the transcript or the partial
transcript from the white house accurate and complete. and if you were on the call, did you hear anything on that in the conversation that raised a red flag? anything inappropriate or anything that gave you any concerns? and then secondly, you told -- you said last week that you -- as far as you knew, everyone at the state department had acted appropriately in regards to ukraine including yourself. so is that still the case? is that still your belief? if it is, why object to the demand for deposition from the house committees on the hill? and then do you have any concerns at all about what the state department inspector general is going to be briefing to hill staffers later today? thank you very much. >> thanks. i'll try to answer questions four through seven first and then one through three after that. back to first principleprincipl. the predicate of your final
question about objecting to what the folks on capitol hill have asked is fundamentally not true. what we objected to was the demands that were put that are -- deeply violate fundamental principles of separation of powers. they contacted state department employees directly. told them not to contact legal counsel at the state department. that's been reported to us. they said that the state department wouldn't be able to be present. there are important constitutional prerogatives that the executive branch asked to be present so we could protect the important information. so our partners, countries like italy can have confidence that the information that they provide the state department will continue to be protected. and so the response that i provided to them was one that acknowledged that we will, of course, do our constitutional duty to cooperate with this
co-equal branch. but we are going to do so in a way that is consistent with the fundamental values of the american system. and we won't tolerate folks on capitol hill bullying, intimidating state department employees. it's not permissible. it's not something i'm going to permit to happen. as for was i on the phone call? t i was on the phone call. it was the context of i'd been a secretary of state for coming on a year and a half. i know what the american policy is with respect to ukraine. it's been remarkably consistent and we will continue to try to drive those set of outcomes. it's what our team was focused on taking down the threat there. it was about helping ukrainians to get graft out and corruption outside of their government and
to help now this new government in the ukraine build a successful thriving economy. it's what the state department officials that i had the privilege to lead had been engaged in. and it's what we will continue to do. even while all this noise was going on. >> okay. chris o'day, national review. >> thank you, both, for being here. i'd like to, i guess, address the question to both of you, you can kind of take it in which ever order. whoever wants to kind of go first. primarily oriented towards i guess what is conveniently termed the belt and road these days. but on a somewhat broader basis, not just with huawei but does the u.s. have any specific plans in terms of how to counter -- >> okay. you've just been listening to secretary of state mike pompeo speaking in rome. he was asked the burning questions of the day about the
phone call between president of ukraine and president trump and whether or not he was actually on the phone call and what he thought of that phone call. and it was the first time, we think, that he said, quote, i was on the phone call. but then he pivoted to say it was about the mission, our mission with ukraine has been clear. that's what ambassador volke had been working on. he didn't talk about president trump pressuring the president of ukraine. so we're joined by admiral kirby and maggie haberman. does that answer your questions? >> that answers the question of whether he was on the call or not. multipart it was about whether he heard anything he thought was inappropriate, any red flags raised about this conversation. and he simply went right back to policy. he said, look. it was about policy.
he completely sort of glanced over any potential mention of giuliani or volker or ambassador yovan yovanovitch. he went back to process just again like we talked about before the break. that this was about executive branch privilege. again, i don't think we gained a lot other than him admitting he was on the call. basically he was in the defensive crouch for the rest of those answers. that said, anybody that stood at the state department podium knows matt. he's a tough questioner. he didn't have to take a question. i do give him kudos for knowing the question was coming and having it come from matt lee. >> i was on the phone call was the answer to the question
martha raddatz asked. ten days later he says i was on the phone call to matt lee. doesn't tell us anything he thought or what he thought. definitely did not talk about any of the details that might come up in the impeachment investigation. >> i agree that matt lee is a good questioner to go to. and he's a real reporter and he asked tough questions. but i took it frankly as a recognition that pompeo knew he could not avoid this anymore after what happened with martha raddatz. but he didn't answer the main question matt asked whether he heard anything inappropriate. whether he faces members of the house for questioning, he is going to get asked. and it is, you know, a legitimate question within the oversight function that the members of congress play republican or democrat of the executive branch.
i think his answer there is only going to raise more questions about why he wasn't more forthcoming the first time and why they have handled things the way they have over the last ten days. >> okay. so many developments happening really every moment here. so admiral kirby, thank you very much. maggie haberman, thank you. "new day" will bring you all of the latest developments when we come reich back. [confetti cannon popping] energizer. backed by science. matched by no one.
>> vo: my car is more than four wheels.y? it's my after-work decompression zone. so when my windshield broke... >> woman: what?! >> vo: ...i searched for someone who really knew my car. i found the experts at safelite autoglass. >> woman: hi! >> vo: with their exclusive technology, they fixed my windshield... then recalibrated the camera attached to my glass so my safety systems still work. who knew that was a thing?! >> woman: safelite has service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ you're stronger than you know. so strong. you power through chronic migraine, 15 or more headache or migraine days a month.
one tough mother. you're bad enough for botox®. botox® has been preventing headaches and migraines before they even start for almost 10 years, and is the #1 prescribed branded chronic migraine treatment. botox® is for adults with chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting 4 hours or more. effects of botox® may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. go on with your bad self. you may pay as little as zero dollars for botox®. ask your doctor about botox® for chronic migraine. you got this. thand find inspiration who win new places.ct... leading them to discover: we're woven together
download your dvr'd shows and movies on the fly. even record from right where you are. keep what you watch with you. download the xfinity stream app today and get ready for xfinity stream tv week. watch shows like south park and the walking dead october 7th through 13th. a lot of republicans helped build this nation's proud history of protecting whistle-blowers. to say that they've changed their tune today is an
understatement. john avalon has our reality check. john? >> that's right, guys. whistle-blowers and the intimidation game at the heart of a lot of debate right now. whistle-blowers being attacked be i the president, branded a saboteur by senior adviser. newt gingrich is now calling an attempted coup. language being echoed by the president. so bipartisan that the last whistle-blower act passed with unanimous support including those like lindsey gram and congressman mike pompeo. how did we go from unanimous support going to talking about treason? just two years after the declaration of independence when we got the first whistle-blower law. it said it's the duty to give information of any misconduct or
frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or service of these states which may come to their knowledge. this came about because ten sailors blew the whistle on a km commodore. congress immediately relieved the commodore of duty. allowing to sue on the government's behalf. in other words, blow the whistle. so given this proud american history of protecting whistle-blowers and the legal requirement that they're deemed urgent and credible with congress, it was a little galling to hear this. >> if there really was nothing there, why shouldn't the white house just let congress look at this whistle-blower complaint. that will clear it all up. i think that will be a terrible precedent. >> terrible precedent? it's one of the oldest in the united states. of course that didn't stop this outburst from senior policy adviser steven miller.
>> this is a deep state operative pure and simple. and this individual is a saboteur trying to undermine a democratically elected government. >> not even a little bit there, pal. whistle-blowers have outed saboteurs and other bad actors. then we have president trump. >> the spies and treason, right? we used to handle them a little differently than we do now. >> yes, we did, which is why we have these laws in the first place. today's whistle-blower already fears for their safety and who could blame them. where you stand is often where you sit in washington. which is why chuck grassley deserves praise for sticking to his principles saying yesterday the whistle-blower appears to have followed the laws and ought to be heard out and protected. we need to strengthen the laws if anything. but don't take my word for it. listen to this guy. >> the united nations must hold every level of management
accountable, protect whistle-blowers, and focus on results rather than on process. >> protect whistle-blowers. i give you president trump at the united nations just two years ago. and that's your reality check. >> it's important words to hear, john. i have to say, it's a stunning place that we've come to where it's a profile in courage for senator chuck grassley to stand up and say a whistle-blower who follows the whistle-blower process, maybe we should listen. >> but it is. it is. >> it shouldn't be but here we are. all right. moments ago, you heard secretary of state mike pompeo make an admission he has avoided for ten days. he said, i was on the phone call. he gave a dishonest answer about this ten days ago. why the change? what does it tell us about what's going on inside the trump administration? that's next. ♪ (dramatic orchestra)
all right. the breaking news just moments ago. secretary of state mike pompeo admitted he was on the phone call where president trump leaned on the leader of ukraine to dig up dirt on joe biden. this is a vast evolution from where he was ten days ago. let's walk down memory lane. this is how mike pompeo responded when martha raddatz asked him about that call. >> what do you know about those conversations? >> you just gave me a report about a ic whistle-blower complaint. none of which i've seen. >> not so honest. this morning, the honest answer. listen.
>> as for was i on the phone call? i was on the phone call. had the phone call was in the context of now i'd been the secretary of state for a year and a half. i know precisely what the american policy is with respect to ukraine. >> i was on the phone call. would have been a sufficient answer to martha raddatz. >> seems easy enough. joining us now michael sheir. michael, i mean -- we still don't know why he didn't give that one sentence answer to martha raddatz ten days a ego. >> it's the honest answer but evasive answer. the part of his question was not just were you on the phone call but it was, you know, what did you think of it? did it hit you? did it strike you at the time that the president had said something inappropriate? and the secretary of state completely didn't answer that question. and the problem for him is that
that question will not go away. those kinds of formal press conferences that you just saw a piece of are a difficult place to have follow-up questions. but members of congress are going to be able to follow up when they -- you know, if they get him before them or if they put that question to him over and over again. as our reporters are over and over again. so he's going to have to answer kind of the more important questions that follow from the admission that he was on the call. >> michael, i think he also -- at least what i took from it, he clarified what he meant that the state department is being bullied and harassed by house democrats when he said that they're being called -- he said state department staffers are being called directly and being told not to contact counsel. do we have any reporting on that? >> that was the first i'd heard of that. although clearly the tenor of the response he gave to congress indicated he was annoyed. i mean, more than the normal kind of trying to dispute between the executive branch and
congress over subpoenas like that. there was definitely something that happened that annoyed the secretary of state and made him write the kind of letter that he did. that's, again, going to play out over the next hours and days as i think congress is in no mood to let that be the final word. >> i want to talk to you about your book with julie davis which is getting a lot of play right now. there was an exert in the times yesterday. border waur wrs. let me read the passage everyone is talking about this morning. privately the president had often talked about fortifying a border wall with water-filled trenches stocked with snakes alligators. he wanted the wall electrified with spikes on top that could pierce human flesh after publicly suggesting that soldiers shoot immigrants if they threw rocks. the president backed off when the staff told him it was illegal. but later in the meeting aides recalled he suggested they shoot migrants in the legs to slow them down. that's not allowed either, they
told him. shoot them in the legs. michael, what does that tell you about the president's thinking? >> well, look. i mean, what that passage is part of is a broader effort that started, frankly, in rhetoric form as he was campaigning for the presidency. then the minute he got into the oval office, this president has tried every which way to slow the flow of migrants in this country to stop them if he could and slow them down. and what our story suggests and our book goes into more detail about is the ways in which the people around him were -- are continually forced to confront ever more extreme ideas that he throws out there. often telling him that they're not practical or they're illegal or they're immoral. and that sense of always being told no by his staff has led to growing frustration over the last three years.
that, you know, some of the things actually go through. he manages to convince them to do that. but other things he gets talked off the ledge that we described a meeting in the story in which he ordered the entire border with mexico to be shut down at noon the following day. that ultimately didn't happen because the staff succeeded in talking him out of those things in particular. but that is a constant tension in this white house as he sort of reaches for ever more dramatic ideas and ways to stop people from coming into the country. >> i like this passage you have from when at that time secretary kirstjen nielsen tried to push back on him. you have the president you quote saying, you didn't hear me the first time honey mr. trump said according to two people familiar with the conversation. shoot 'em down, sweetheart. just shoot them out of the sky, okay? got it, toots? he didn't say that, but he may as well have. get me some coffee, toots.
>> she was trying to convince the president to support some legislation that they were promoting that would give the government some authority to take down drones that they might see as a potential threat. and i think what that underscores, too, is the way in which the president talks to people. that conversation was not an isolated one from what we were told. that's the way he often would talk to her and others in the administration. and i think it's sort of emblematic of the kind of thing we see happening in public, the kind of rhetoric in public that is repeated in private conversations as well. >> perhaps talks to women, for sure. that's emblematic of that. i want to note, the shooting migrants in the leg, that's an outrageous suggestion to begin with. but as you say, it's the kind that received pushback within the administration. talk to me about kirstjen nielsen who was the secretary of homeland security. because she seems to have a lot to say and finds herself in a
position now of trying to explain her role inside the trump administration. >> she's a -- emerges at a complicated figure over the last year and a half or so. on the one hand, she was a central character in the separation of families at the border which we all remember got so much attention. she was the person who made the decision inside the department of homeland security to refer families. that led to the families being separated. so on the one hand, you know, she takes a lot of the blame and is seen by people as sort of a villain in that story. on the other hand, she was among the people in the administration that repeatedly pushed back at the president, repeatedly said to him you can't do this or that regarding the border, regarding the deployment of the military, regarding, you know, ways that he wanted to stop people from coming in and claiming asylum. and you know, she's a complicated figure. i think that people will
hopefully our book will do this but also that people will see kind of how things play out, they'll make their assessment about her. >> michael sheir, the book again is "border wars: inside trump's assault on immigration." thank you for sharing it with us. >> thanks, guys. americans have only faced impeachment of a president a handful of times. we're joined next on how history could give us a road map for what lies ahead or not. saturdays happen. pain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven better on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong.
if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems,
serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira.
how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today. all right. only two u.s. presidents have ever been impeached. richard nixon resigned before he would have been impeached and probably removed. house democrats, they are increasing the pressure in their impeachment inquiry this week. so how will this impeachment
investigation differ from the others? joining us now for some perspectives is doris kerns goodw goodwin. her book is out now in paperback. great to have you here. >> great to be here. >> why is this impeachment different from any other? because we recline at the table? no. what do you see as being unique here? >> the interesting thing is we do turn to history to understand this impeachment. because it's so great when the framers come out and they're alive and they're walking around. and to try to figure out what is different in this one and before. it seems to me that's the real question. how is it going to come out different from before? you have two models particularly in terms of nixon and in terms of clinton. with the nixon impeachment, by the time he almost was impeached and he resigned, the countries thought it was the right thing to do. the hearings had worked. john dean's testimony had taken place. the saturday night massacre had
considered. there was obstruction of justice and a healing process at the end of that. when gerald ford came out and said the national nightmare is over. with clinton it ended up being regarded as a partisan exercise. at the beginning people were upset about the fact that he had had an affair, but then 20e60% them approved his behavior throughout the entire thing. and when the impeachment came in the house, his public opinion polls went up. in a certain sense, it started partisan and ended partisan. then there's old andrew johnson. and that's the one that has the most incredibly echoing -- i didn't even realize -- >> that one has the most parallels. >> i had forgotten about it but there's a new book be i a woman named brenda wineapple, i think. and it's about the impeachment of johnson. he talks about number one, he was saying that the members of congress should be hanged. he had his own attorney general
that was acting as a propagandist rather than the attorney general of the country. he was abusing his power. he had obstructed justice. >> this is all ringing a bell. >> somehow it does have many o the charges that are here. again, the way it turned out, he was impeached in the house and not convicted in the senate by one vote. and it was encouraged that john kennedy wrote about. i'm not sure now it would be considered that. because he's a problem, andrew johnson, in terms of going back on the civil war and freedom of the blacks. >> it's interesting you talk about the parallels witharound rue johnson. one would be norm busting. in article ten, i believe, if my memory serves -- >> see how great this is? article ten. >> it was article ten. did attempt to bring into disgracing with ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach the congress of the united states. he said bad things, basically, congress said of andrew johnson.
could you say the same with the president now? >> indeed he said they should be hanged. and then there was a "new york times" editorial saying how did we get to this madman? we've never seen such a mad man before. i think the language being used on all sides is pretty bad right now. lincoln used to talk about the fact once you throw out denunciations, it's met by denunciations. think of where we are. treason on one hand. a mob boss on the other hand. nothing helps by labeling. we have to figure out, i think the country does, what is the story that's going to be believable by the american people? >> let's talk about that. because we happen to have a transcript of this call between the ukrainian president and president trump. this is what sparked the whistle-blower complaint. and if nixon is any parallel, there were tapes. and now there's this talking transcript or at least telling transcript. do you see any parallels there in. >> it still shows that words matter, right? that in the end you can say what you said. but if nobody has evidence of
it, when you have the written thing, this for us as historians is you want the transcript, you want to hear that tape. i think the question still is, i think it's incumbent upon the democrats in the impeachment process to put that transcript into context, to see what they can do to find out whether or not there's more evidence that the military aid was part of it, not just an indirect quid pro quo. maybe they'll be able to find that out. that becomes more of a smoking gun. but more importantly, they have to explain what does abuse of power mean? this is a time when you have to bring the old constitution back so the country at the end, i keep saying if only -- if going to work, then the country has to be able to explain to the person sitting next to them at the bar, this is why this had to happen now rather than waiting for the election. if they can't do that, then we're going to end up more divided than ever before. >> we have some public opinion. which is how the public opinion this time around compares to
others. the first number we have is that the 55% now support an impeachment inquiry. and then impeach and remove which is the most consistently asked question. the situation for donald trump actually most closely mirrors richard nixon, not bill clinton. the country here seems fairly far along. it might just be attitudes here, but bill clinton had it better. >> the country at the time of nixon interestingly, only 19% favored impeachment when that process started. and then by the time it was moving along, 57% favored impeachment. that's the educational power of the hearings. and again, that's what you have to want to happen. so that it doesn't appear as if it's just one party going after another party. >> doris kerns goodwin, we always appreciate having you give us context here on "new day." the book again out in paperbook.
"leadership in turbulent times". it's a fantastic read as all of your books are. >> i think these may qualify as turbulent times. >> i chose the title six years ago, i had no idea we were in this turbulent time. >> that just shows how you are, the genius of being able to predict. the youngest victims of the vaping epidemics are also the most vulnerable to getting hooked. dr. sanjay gupta joins us with questions to ask your children next. because energizer ultimate lithium is the longest lasting aa battery in the world. [confetti cannon popping] energizer. backed by science. matched by no one.
if you have moderate or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection
and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. thand find inspiration who win new places.ct... leading them to discover: we're woven together by the moments we share. everything you need, all in one place. expedia. >> vo: my car is more than four wheels.y? it's my after-work decompression zone. so when my windshield broke... >> woman: what?! >> vo: ...i searched for someone who really knew my car. i found the experts at safelite autoglass. >> woman: hi! >> vo: with their exclusive technology, they fixed my windshield... then recalibrated the camera attached to my glass so my safety systems still work. who knew that was a thing?! >> woman: safelite has service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪
♪ ♪ if you're a parents, you will not want to miss this next segment. dr. sanjay gupta is back with the third installment of his special series investigating the roots of the vaping epidemic and today he's taking a more personal look along with his three daughters. dr. gupta, cnn's chief medical correspondent. this sounds very personal, sanjay. >> look, it's topic conversation number one when i get together with other parents lately, vaping, what exactly is going on, how at risk are my kids? it's interesting. we talk about these things as reporters. i wanted to talk to my own kids and get a little bit of their insights, as well and it's amazing when you stop and listen what you can learn. all across the country parents are starting to have tough, but
necessary conversations about vaping. >> thanks for being here. >> i decided to learn from my own kids and their friends. >> how would you describe the vaping situation in your school? >> it got kind of bad last year. some people did it too much, like, a lot too much, and it escalated, i think. >> last year, she was in eighth grade. this year, early results from the cdc's annual survey of tobacco use found 27.5% of high school kids admit to vaping. >> you're in high school. you're a senior in high school. does it sound too high? does it sound too low? >> probably sounds too low. >> really? >> i think it's pretty common and even though not everyone, like, owns them people still probably use them. >> what did you think was in these vapes, saloy? >> i thought it was a lot of chemicals and some chemicals can, like, damage you. >> are you comfortable with this
conversation? >> no. >> why not? >> because i'm only 10. >> any age too young to be having this conversation? >> i don't think it's ever too young. >> i have a 10-year-old. >> i would have the conversation. >> this is where the magic happens. >> dr. laura knows a thing or two about young people and she answers her questions in dr. offutt. >> in the whole spectrum of risk-taking behavior that young people can take maybe this one isn't a bad one. >> despite cigarette use dropping significantly since 2011, vaping has erased a lot of the recent progress. today the cdc estimates that over 3.5 million teens are vaping and that number is climbing. >> the nicotine level in recent products, recent e-cigarette products is extremely high and
very addictive. >> anne schuchat is principal director of the cdc. >> the results in the e-cigarettes make the product very palatable and easy to enjoy and so we think that addictive products are addictive. >> then you take one of the midwest addictive chemical substances on the planet and marry it with social media. >> it just is, like, keeps being brought up again in social media, and so i think that it's kind of hard not to hear about it. >> instagram, youtube, #juul. it has taken actions to prevent youth vaping like scaling back its social media accounts and platforms that critics say had particular appeal among teenagers. >> it's been very well documented that e-cigarette companies have been using the playbook of the tobacco companies from the '60s and '70s and even earlier on starting
with the health message appealing to interest in and being sexually appealing to being strong to being part of a group to being trendy and to being a little bit of a rebel and the whole type of identity piece has been pulled into advertising for these products. >> i want to show you guys some pictures. i want you to read the last one. >> strong people smoke less. intelligent people vape. >> what do you think they're trying to convey there, audrey. >> they're trying to say vaping is a smarter version of smoking and if you want to be smarter stop smoking and, like, vape. >> what do you think of that? >> i think that's still kind of dumb. >> i feel like it's a tough hill to climb as a parent. i'm going up against peer pressure and feelings of being in the in group and feeling cool and social media advertising where kids live. >> i think that one thing is that really challenging as a parent and we all fear for our
kids because that's what our job is to protect our children, but sometimes if we let our fear come to the surface we inadvertently close the door on our kids coming to us when they need something. >> what would i tell you to make sure you never do this. >> i think you should scare people out of it. >> do you think scaring works? >> yes. >> is that why you wouldn't do it? >> yes. >> is it the same for you, colin? >> yes. >> sky? >> i agree. sometimes if you just say, like, you'll be a lot happier if you don't do this instead of saying what you should do. >> it's a good point, telling kids not just what shay shouldn't do, but what they should do, instead. >> it's based on safety, specially long-term safety. that's always been a challenge. i think sometimes appealing to things that can affect them now can be more powerful. >> these people who are using
it, do you think they think it's dangerous? >> people in the more recent time have started to think it's dangerous because i know a lot of people, like, seeing people throwing them out windows now. >> a social media movement in the right direction. so alisyn and john, as much as we talk about the concerns about social media, you see that it can be a powerful force for good, as well and some of these changes that we want in our kid, sometimes they're the ones that will lead the way and that's what we're seeing now on social media kind of makes that point. >> thank you for sharing all of that with us. >> thank you. >> and for staying on this important topic. >> all right, thank you to our international viewers for watching. for you, "cnn newsroom" with christina mcfarland is next. we have breaking news. secretary of state mike pompeo changing his story. newsroom continues right now. this is cnn breaking news.
good morning, everyone, welcome to your new day. 8:00 in the east. we do begin with breaking news because secretary of state mike pompeo admitting for the first time that he was on that july phone call between president trump and ukraine's leader when mr. trump repeatedly pressed him to investigate joe biden and his son. as for was i in the phone call and the phone call, and i was secretary of state coming on a year and a half. i know precisely what the american policy is with respect to ukraine. >> about ten days ago you'll remember the secretary of state gave a different and evasive answer to abc's martha raddatz. >> what do you know about those conversations? >> so you just gave me a report about a whistle-blower campaign none of which i've seen. >> all right. staggeringly different answer.
quite an evolution. also new this morning the state department inspector general will hold an urgent briefing with congressional staff on to turn over documents in the ukraine. he actually asked, and he told congress he has something that he wants to tell them. what could that be as we sit here this morning. that much remains a mystery. joining me now is cnn national security analyst james clapper and he's the former director of national intelligence and director thank you very much for being with us. i want to start with mike pompeo and let's call it an evolution from dodging martha raddatz's very direct question. what do you know about this phone call ten days ago to this morning i was on that phone call? carl bernstein and bob woodward famously say follow the lies and it will bring you to the answer. what do you make of that evolution from mike pompeo? >> john, to be