scandal? >> i think everyone is wondering that. is it discipline to her players, something else we don't know. i think we would see it if it was tied to the scandal. not clear yet. >> thank you. thank you all for joining us. i'm poppy harlow. >> i'm jim sciutto. "at this hour with kate bolduan" starts right now. hello, i'm erica hill in for kate bolduan. tempers flare. sparks fly in a pivotal hearing happening right now on capitol hill. house democrats taking the first steps toward issuing subpoenas for several white house officials over serious allegations involving security clearances. and soon, the house oversight committee is expected to hold a vote on whether to authorize those subpoenas after a whistleblower claimed 25 people were granted clearances, despite being denied over a range of disqualifying issues. the division among lawmakers, bitter and split along party lines. >> she came forward because the

system at the white house is so dysfunctional that she believes that congress needs to intervene. in other words, she's crying out. she's begging us to do something. >> yesterday, you issued a press release hand-picked, cherry-picked parts of her testimony. and you issue a big memo and a big press release after interviewing one witness. that's how we're going to do investigations in the oversight committee? i have been on this committee ten years. i have never seen anything like this. never seen anything like this. i haven't. >> cnn's manu raju is on capitol hill. that's just a small taste, manu, of the energy inside those rooms. >> yeah, fireworks in this room right behind me. democrats and republicans squaring off over one of the key issues that this committee plans to investigate in the weeks ahead. security clearances at the white house. underlying a lot of this is the

concerns among the democrats that two current white house officials received security clearance and they shouldn't have. there have been reports from cnn and others about jared kushner, concerns about his security clearance and the president overriding those concerns. ivanka trump, the president's daughter and senior adviser, concerns about her security clearance, also overridden by the president. that's part of this investigation, but this whistleblower raising concerns about systemic problems that she believes that occurred in this white house about how the security clearance process works. just in a matter of moments, we expect this committee along party lines to vote to authorize a subpoena for interview with carl klein, who is a former head of personal security at the white house and the woman, trisha nubold, who cummings called a whistleblower, raised concerns than mr. klein overruled her on a number of concerns she raised about individuals, 25 or so, who should not have gotten security

clearances in her view. this committee wants to talk to mr. klein. mr. klein's attorney has sent a letter to this committee saying he would cooperate voluntarily, but democrats say that's not enough because he's not agreed to answer questions that they want, which is why they've moving forward to authorize this subpoena. one of several areas of fighting and expect in a matter of moments, subpoenas from the committee demanding answers to the immigration question on the census. >> you also have new information on the growing effort to get to the mueller report. >> yeah, that's right. we expect tomorrow at the house judiciary committee that they will authorize the subpoenas for the full mueller report, the underlying evidence, and to five former white house officials about documents they may have received from the white house pertinent to the mueller investigation. but we do not expect those subpoenas to actually be issued tomorrow.

essentially, the chairman of the committee, jerry nadler, will have those in his back pocket to issue any time. they're trying to build a case that they believe the justice department has not been compliant to their request. i had a chance to speak to adam schiff this morning about the president's attacks against schiff and nadler. the president saying these two men will stop at nothing, and the president also calling him shifty schiff. schiff responded. >> the house voted 420-0 to release the entire mueller report. i certainly strongly support it. it looks like the president, though, is concerned about that. he ought to live up to what he said earlier. he ought to support the full release. none of that should be redacted, but clearly, he's concerned about that coming out. >> and i asked him about that nickname the president gave him, shifty schiff. he said this is nothing new. we have seen these childish nicknames for a year, but the cardinal rule of childish nicknames is when you choose

one, stick with it. erica. >> manu raju, thank you. joining me now, cnn chief political correspondent dana bash. legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, eli honing. we're seeing something we have been seeing play out for some time. the back and forth of dems wanting to do oversight, the white house saying this is an overreach. when we look at the subpoena issue, can the white house fight that? >> yeah, ultimately, we're seeing a fundamental battle between separate branches of government. this is the fundamental questions to what extent can the legislative branch force information from the executive branch. one of these issues and it might be the background check, it might be the mueller report, is going to land both branches in the third branch, the court, which is going to have to decide. the way i think the courts will decide it, these are core congressional legislative functions. if it's too far afield, too overbroad, the subpoena request,

then i think a court may say no good, but generally speaking, as long as congress stays in it lane and provides core oversight, i think they'll support congress. >> the fact jared kushner gave an interview last night, he doesn't speak out often. he sat down with fox. he didn't answer all of the questions fully, but the fact the white house is putting him out there, letting him do an interview, does that tell us they're taking these accusations more seriously? >> yes, i think so. also, seriously and it shows their posture, their strategic posture, which is, you know, we have nothing to hide here. and more importantly, what they have seen from the past two years in the administration and then before that in the campaign, that there's not a lot of consequences for them doing things that other administrations, both democrat and republican, would never do. and on this issue, we're talking about the question of his

security clearance. and you know, what is remarkable is the fight that you just saw play out, that you just showed with manu. this should be bipartisan. it should be a bipartisan question, whether or not people in any administration, republican or democrat, are getting access to the nation's most classified information, the top, top, top secret information, when they necessarily shouldn't be. or whether it's questionable. whether it's jared kushner or anybody else. and the fact that there is such a partisan fight about it, instead of what we actually did used to see not that long ago, now it seems like, you know, ancient history, a coming together of that oversight responsibility, constitutional responsibility that congress has over something as fundamental as that, that really shouldn't be political, but it's political as everything else is now. >> i was going to say everything is these days, no matter what,

unfortunately. elie, you touched on it, and this is the white house playbook, this back and forth and what we know the white house response will be, but the fact things get pushed into the courts to play out there. and i would argue, too, to drag out there, to let this drag out as long as possible. what are we looking at then potentially? >> this could be a political play. part of what the administration may want is the fight itself, just to say we stood our ground, we went to the courts. if they lose, they say there you go, they're liberal activist judges and judges are a popular talking point for this administration. dana is right, this is high-stakes stuff, this background check stuff. it's not a throw-away thing. i went through at the lowest level when i was a rookie federal prosecutor, and they check on your finances, your family, any drug or alcohol history. they talked to my college room mates, my parents, neighbors, and i was at the lowest level of law enforcement. compare that to the highest levels of the white house. that's how important it is that these be done and done correctly. this is really high stakes here.

>> stay with us because we want your take on the next story as well. the president punting just one week after saying the gop would become the party of health care. president trump clarifying that will happen after the next election. the president claiming in a tweet a vote on the mystery gop plan to replace obamacare will, quote, be taken right after the election when republicans hold the senate and win back the house. now, of course, there's no guarantee that any of those things will happen, and this new claim comes after republicans in congress signaled they didn't want anything to do with a new effort to take on the affordable care act. cnn's abby phillip is at the white house. abby, where do we stand on all this? >> well, erica, it's really not clear what the political strategy is behind these tweets from the president, but it does seem that president trump is now acknowledging that it's not likely that there will be any kind of vote in a divided congress on a republican health care plan. this is after two of his top aides came out in recent days saying that by the end of this

year, there might be a plan. our reporting found that there was no plan. the white house aides acknowledging privately that they didn't have anything ready to go on health care. and in fact, members of congress on the hill, republicans, were saying they had no plans to go forward with anything related to health care this year, and they didn't believe it was a good politics for them to get into this issue ahead of the 2020 election. now, the question becomes now, will there ever be a plan before voters go to the polls in 2020? the president is saying the vote will happen after the election, but will there be something presented to voters before then? white house aides this morning won't say. they won't say whether or not anyone will have anything to look at before they go to the polls in november 2020, and i think that will now become the question for republicans. will they have a plan to put up against what democrats are putting out there? i think the messaging you're hearing from the white house this morning has a lot to do with being against medicare for all but you're not hearing much in the way of specifics of what

president trump is proposing to solve the issue of health care. especially if obamacare is ruled unconstitutional. >> abby phillip with the latest from the white house. dana, as we dive back in on this and looking at what the president is putting out there, this is a strategy that worked for him in 2016. trust me, i don't need to give you specifics, but i'm going to make it work. democrats may be looking at this as a gift, but maybe this actually does work for the president. that whole trust me line from 2016. >> it could. the difference between 2016 and now is 2018 happened. and although it was the whole concept of health care was probably negligible in these big senate races where a lot of democrats in red states lost, it certainly wasn't with regard to the house. i mean, republicans who were upset, as abby was talking about, late last week as they watched the president bring their national nightmare back in their laps was that they saw so many of their colleagues lose

because the democrats just whacked them over the head rhetorically with the notion of pre-existing conditions. and republicans had nothing to fall back on. they didn't have a specific plan. and that's, you know, that was kind of the story line of the first two years, certainly the first year and a half, of the trump presidency. and it did hurt him. so what happened, i'm told, according to a source in the administration, is that they kind of got caught up in what happened in your wheelhouse, which is the court. and they felt politically last week when it came up whether or not the justice department was going to fight against obamacare in the courts, they felt they had to do that because they had no choice, because they had been running against obamacare for so long, and the president took that and, you know, in a private meeting and then publicly elsewhere, made it more of a political issue than any republican on the hill and a lot of republicans in his own

administration were comfortable with, and the thing we're still reporting out right now is who got to him last night that made him send the tweets to make clear we're not doing this right now. >> which is what we would all like to know. >> we're working on it. >> we'll get it. >> i see you keep checking your phone. legally, when we look at this, there's also the potential, so if this does get struck down, and all of a sudden you're left with millions of americans who don't know what they're doing, the president can claim in a tweet that pre-existing conditions are protected but that's not going to happen if everything is thrown out. it throws everything up in the air. that is a legal and it is also a personal and health care nightmare for millions of americans. >> the existence of the legal fight really complicates this even further. the administration has now taken a very extreme position that the entire affordable care act is unconstitutional. that's a change from even this own administration's prior position under a.g. sessions. now that william barr is there, the position is the entire thing needs to go, but the problem is

there's no plan in place if they win. what's going to happen? what's going to replace this complex system that's been in pla place? if i'm arguing that in the court, i make sure the judge knows that. legally, it's not all that relevant, but judges are human beings and think about how is this going to play practically. if they struck down obamacare, the aca, back years ago when it came up, okay, you're not deeply invested in this system. if you strike it down now, we'll have complete chaos. i would try to use this as an argumentative point. the trial level judge said the whole thing has to go. that's on hold pending the appeal. it's going to the fifth circuit, which is timesly conservative, then it will end up in the supreme court. last time, it was 5-4. chief roberts was the swing vote. the thing he rested on was the individual mandate, which is now out. there's real jeopardy in the courts. >> now you have someone named brett kavanaugh in the court, and gorsuch, it's a much more conservative court.

>> thank you both. >> thank you. just ahead, new reporting that the president is still deciding whether to shut down the southern border, as officials warn that move would be catastrophic. so will the president carry out his threat? plus, senator bernie sanders just releasing his new fund-raising numbers for the 2020 race, and they're big. how his campaign bank account compares to the competition and why that matters, ahead. ninety-six hundred roads arr named 'park' in the u.s. it's america's most popular street name. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands?

border with mexico is still open despite president trump's threat to close it. so will he make good on that threat? at this point, kind of anybody's guess. a senior trump adviser stephen

miller said the border status depends on just how much help the u.s. gets from central and south america to prevent an onslaught of what he called meritless asylum claims. while other officials say closing the southern border would be catastrophic. joining me, a congressman who travelled as part of the congregation. these are conflicting messages, put stephen miller telling supporters the president may not in fact close the border. what's your reaction to that? >> well, that's a wise decision. i think closing the border would not only hurt but perhaps help cripple the econom in some of our border states. yesterday, erica, i met with president lopez, and he's very enthusiastic about creating what he called curtains of economic development. reforestation for the southern border of mexico.

a rail line in the maya coast, and infrastructure at the northern border, all of which will create jobs in mexico and reduce immigration. immigration going back, folks going back to mexico are less than 12% mexicans. the real issue of immigration is not even any longer in el salvador who has seen a 50% drop in homicides. it's really about honduras and guatemala. we should do in honduras and guatemala what we have done in el salvador where we have seen a young president implement and run on ending corruption and ending violence, and we see some major progress there, and that's what we should be focusing on. the root cause of these immigration patterns. >> is that the message you're bringing back and a message you're going to share with the white house? >> that's the message i'm bringing back. to cut funding for those countries would be devastating. i met with fbi agents and law enforcement agents on the ground in el salvador who will be

compromised. in fact, we may put their lives in danger if wi cut the funding. i met with young men that were in programs to deter them from joining gangs. i have seen people looking forward to getting jobs in el salvador. these are the kinds of things we should do in guatemala and honduras. these are the efforts that have reduced migration in el salvador. they should also work in guatemala and honduras. and of course, shutting border will create chaos not only in the u.s. but also in mexico. by the way, the new else salva r salvadorian president is looking to review their recent agreement with china. if we leave a vacuum, believe me, china will step in and take full control of the vacuum of leadership. >> there's talk about the economic impacts. bringing china into the mix raises ears and makes people perk up. you talk about some of theefts in mexico, in central america.

what about the efforts in the u.s. you were candid with my colleague chris cuomo in talking about the need for hearings to deal with this. there aren't any. the need for comprehensive immigration reform. you told chris it's not a winning poll issue. is that how things are being -- is that how lawmakers are governing these days, based on what will and will not win at the polls? >> i'm glad to see that hearings will be called next week on the issue of shutting down the border and cutting help to the triangle countries. i think this is a smart hearing. it will get to the root of the problem, as i said. nobody likes to leave their homeland unless they're fleeing violence, unless they don't have a job. of course, poverty and unemployment are deeply connected to violence. no one likes to leave their home country, their families behind and come to a new adventure, if you may, unless they're facing violence or unemployment, unless they have been hurpt by a natural disaster. having hearings on these issues

for are the root causes of migration is smart. acting on polls, i have been against it. i think this is a humanitarian crisis. if someone is not motivated to do the right thing when they see a mom and her 3-year-old baby sleeping on a cold floor of a cell, looking like packed like sardines, like the bottom deck of a sliv ship, i don't know what will motivate you. >> we'll look for more of that. i want to get your take, too. there's been a lot of back and forth specifically this week, even yesterday, democrats on voting about this bill, not happy about the amount of money allocated for food stamps in mexico, when we look at disaster relief efforts, when we look at funding, it has become such a partisan political issue. this can't be winning for any politician. how do you get beyond that? when does it stop? >> well, i don't think it should be a partisan issue. i think that puerto rico needs funding, of course. if you look at the patterns of

funding, in fact, if you look at the personnel, the emergency personnel that got to puerto rico versus florida, versus texas, you'll see a disparity there. i have a piece of legislation that will do away with all the bureaucratic tie-up that often makes it impossible for someone to get, let's say, funding or a grant to fix their roof. this would apply not only to puerto rico. it would apply to any area hit by a natural disaster. these are the kinds of issues we should be working on. >> we appreciate you joining us today. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> stay with us. the fireworks continue to fly with the house oversight committee talking now about security clearances and the white house. we have the latest next. ♪ here i go again on my own ♪ goin' down the only road i've ever known ♪ ♪ like a drifter i was-- ♪ born to walk alone! keep goin' man!

you got it! if you ride, you get it. ♪ here i go again geico motorcycle. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more.

the biggest week in television is almost here. xfinity watchathon week. starting april 8th, enjoy free access to the best shows and movies from hbo, showtime, epix and more. what! whether it's more jaw droppers, standing o's upon standing o's or tv's biggest show stoppers.

get more into what you're into. get ready to watch with xfinity x1 or the xfinity stream app. xfinity watchathon week. free starting april 8th. boop! certainly not a dull moment or dull morning on capitol hill. cnn's manu raju is there where the fireworks continue to fly at this house oversight committee meeting dealing with security clearances. what more are we hearing? >> yeah, very intense back and forth between democrats and republicans about the security clearance issue. democrats pointing to the information that they got from this white house official, trisha nubold, who is raising significant concerns about the white house's security

processing, saying they are lax. and democratic chairman elijah cummings said she came forward at great personal risk. she was worried about retaliation, worried about frankly what republicans may do learning about her coming forward. republicans pushing back saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they're hearing. nothing like what happened with the hillary clinton e-mail situation. and they're saying that the way that elijah cummings handled this was completely reckless. we have back and forth from the hearing just moments ago where fireworks erupted. >> i mean, every day that we go on without getting to the bottom of this matter is a day that we're putting hundreds if not potentially thousands of americans at risk. i mean, really. what is next? putting nuclear codes in instagram dms? this is ridiculous. we need to get to the bottom of this. and in order to do that, we have

to issue subpoenas because people in this administration are not cooperating. and every day that there is an insecure line of communication that could be leaked, that could be hacked, that could be screenshotted without proper channels is a day that we are putting our national security at risk. so the reason why we have to conduct and have these accommodations is because we are a committee that is committed to protecting whistleblowers. i do have to commend the ranking member and to see the coordination between the ranking member and the chair in a commitment to whistleblowers not just in respecting them but in protecting them is really admirable and important. i wanted to note that because this is -- this is what protecting whistleblowers looks like. when they need a certain accommodation because they fear retaliation, we have to make accommodations. this committee in particular, as

the oversight committee in the house of representatives, we have a unique responsibility to protect those that have thecourage to come out and say when something is wrong, regardless of the administration. even in prior administrations, you know, it doesn't matter the party. when something is going wrong in government, when there is overreach, when there is an abuse or a misconduct of process, we have an obligation to see and investigate it out. so it is so serious. especially as a new yorker, especially as anyone who cares about the security of what happens on american soil, every day that we have an insecure line of communication, we have a responsibility to investigate and make sure that is -- that we get to the bottom of it. i just needed to put that note in. >> so one of the big questions this committee is investigating is jared kushner and ivanka

trump and whether or not they were given security clearances properly in light of reports that the president overrode concerns about internally about whether they should have actually gotten these clearances. now, i had a chance to act alexandra ocasio-cortez about whether she believes they should have the clearances. >> did that process get overridden through the proper channels? i think the answer to that will determine whether they should have a security clearance or not. >> republicans are saying this is not even anywhere near as bad as the hillary clinton e-mail situation. what's your response? >> well, it's like i said in committee. we're getting reports that there's communication happening with saudi officials via whatsapp. i mean, like i said in that, what's next, instagram dms? this is completely insecure. and issue with that as we saw in

the lead-up, you know, to so many attacks and so many issues is that when we have insecure channels of communication, anything can get hacked. and if we don't know what hostile forces know about us, we are putting thousands of lives at risk. >> do you think jared kushner should come before -- >> so what's going to happen just moments from now, the house oversight committee will authorize subpoenas for the former director of personal security at the white house, carl klein. demand an interview from him about apparently what this woman, trisha nubold, alleges, that he overrode her concerns and issued roughly 25 or so security clearances for individuals she said should not have happened. klein's attorney said he is willing to come voluntarily, but democrats say that's not enough because he's not agreed to answer their questions. so that's going to all come to a

head later this afternoon, erica. >> manu raju with the latest. thank you. just ahead, senator bernie sanders revealing what he now has in his 2020 war chest. he's got money. a lot of it. we'll break down those numbers, next. just go together.

now kayak and opentable let you earn travel rewards every time you dine. with just one reservation on opentable, you can start saving money on hotels with kayak. get started at kayak.com/diningrewards. after my ...i wondered,... is another one around the corner. or could it be different than i thought? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot...

almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. ...and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be surprising. ask your doctor about eliquis.

smile dad. i take medication for high blood pressure and cholesterol. but they might not be enough to protect my heart. adding bayer aspirin can further reduce the risk of another heart attack. because my second chance matters. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

sarah sanders just speaking with reporters. a gaggle, and let's bring you more of what she had to say, addressing questions on the mueller report and also health

care. take a listen. >> we don't. we know that it's a failure. we know it's a disaster, we know it doesn't work and americans don't want it. we also know democrats are unwilling to work with this president to fix the broken system we have, whether it's on health care, whether it's on immigration. if they want to get serious about sitting down and solving problems over the next two years, we would be more than happy to do that. so far, all we have seen from them is they want to play political games and not do their jobs. >> joe. >> on the mueller report, the president previously said he has no problem with it being released. he wanted all of it released. now, he's saying that releasing it would not satisfy congressman nadler and congressman schiff. did he receive any information on the contents of the report that would make him decide that maybe he doesn't want that information released? >> no, the president hasn't been briefed on the report. the president is still allowing the attorney general to make that decision. but we know by the actions that we have seen from nadler and other democrats in congress is

that the president's right. they will never be satisfied. they're sore losers. they lost in 2016. they lost because they tried to convince all of america of something that we all knew was untrue, that the president had colluded with russia. it was a total lie then. it's a total lie now. and they continue to lose on this issue. at some point, they have to decide they're ready to move on like the rest of the country. >> the president consider any carve-outs or exceptions -- >> sarah sanders talking there about the mueller report. also answering a brief question on health care. cnn politics reporter chris cillizza joining me now. hearing a little bit, not necessarily perhaps new but certainly continuing to tout a familiar line, chris. >> yeah, that's right. this is not new, erica, but it is both the line from sarah sanders, the white house, and donald trump in particular, and we'll hear it from now until election day, which is something that is frankly not true. what is true is that the mueller report as summarized by attorney

general william barr said that bob mueller did not establish collusion, and essentially offered no opinion on whether donald trump had obstructed the investigation. the idea that this was a witch hunt, a hoax organized by democrats and the media, i would point people to the 199 criminal charges that robert mueller filed as part of his special counsel investigation. the 37 people and entities charged, the 7 people who pled guilty, all of whom have ties, some closer than others, but ties to donald trump. the five people sentenced to prison and the one person, paul manafort, convicted by a jury of his peers of wrong doing. yes, collusion was not established. no, that is not a broad brush way to say that the investigation was politically motivated and pointless. >> oh, chris cillizza, you and your ever important facts. you know, i'm with you. i like to side with the facts. here's the other thing. i do want to also get your take on this.

we're getting new fund-raising numbers when it comes to 2020 for democrats. why is the money important? obviously, it allows for the campaign to move forward and get bigger. bernie sanders bringing in quite a big haul. what is not only the overall number tell us but also the other numbers associated with the number of donors? >> one other point about why fund-raising is important. it lets the campaign grow and continue. it also speaks to real investment in a candidate. but writing a check, pushing a button, donating money means that you have real stake in a candidate. it's a hard decision to make. parting people with their money. so it matters. i would say mostly we should not be surprised by what the three people were showing on the screen have raised with pete buttigieg being a little exception. we expected bernie sanders to be at the front of the pack here. he is, $18 million, with that number of donors in 41 states. it's hugely impressive. again, it's not surprising, but it's impressive.

kamala harris, first-time presidential candidate, doesn't have the list that bernie sanders has, but is from california and was regarded as -- is regarded as a top-tier candidate. easier to raise money, still $12 million is $12 million more than i ever raised. >> you and me both. >> buttigieg, $7 million. clearly, he's not in the same category as those other two or beto o'rourke, but he's the mayor of south bent, indiana. until three weeks ago, no one had ever heard of him, so he's raised a lot of that money in the last couple weeks and he's clearly a momentum candidate, worth keeping an eye on. >> chris cillizza, always good to talk to you. thank you. coming up, a major delay for boeing. a software fix for the 737 max that was supposed to take days, we're learning will now take weeks. so then what happens at this point? and what is the faa saying about all of this? we have more on that next.

named 'park' in the u.s. ninety-six hundred roads it's america's most popular street name. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands?

boeing's worldwide fleet of 737 max jets is facing several more weeks of mapped try grounding. the plane-maker continues to work on a software fix after similar crashes in indonesia and ethiopia killed nearly 350 people. cnn's tom foreman is in washington. tom, what more are you hearing this morning? >> reporter: well, this was something that we thought might be taking days before these updates were in place, and the plane's presumably are approved by the faa and back up in the air. then at the 11th hour boeing apparently discovered something in their internal procedures that said we need to fix something more, and the faa issued a statement that says time is needed for additional

work by boeing as a result of an ongoing review of the 737 max flight control system to ensure that boeing has identified and appropriately addressed all pertinent issues. upon receipt the faa will subject pogue's completed submission to a rigorous safety review. you can read this in a lot of different ways, if you wanted to, erica, but simply what it comes down to is this. with the problems, the lion air crash and the ethiopian air crash and the possibility that the mcas system, the stabilizing system was involved in both systems neither the faa nor boeing wants to make another mistake, so it looks like they are simply saying, look, if we found anything at all, push it back a week, two weeks, three weeks, whatever it takes and get it right because if they did not get it right at this point, especially since they are under investigation by the justice department and others over the approval process, if they didn't get it right at this point, it could essentially destroy the future of this airplane which is

largely the future of their company. erica? >> we're also waiting for more information for a preliminary report about the crash of that ethiopian airplane. when is that expected? >> well, that also is delayed. we thought we might get it on monday. now it's not quite clear when it will come out. maybe later on this week, and, remember, these are preliminary results. these things typically take months, sometimes even years to get to the bottom line, and, again, i wonder if the driving force here isn't a sense that the ethiopian authorities are saying we also don't want to jump out and say anything that we can't support moving forward because truthfully, erica, worldwide air travel hats been affected because of this. worldwide concerns have been raised, and -- and nobody wants to precipitously say something now that makes it worse and then takes the blame for that, especially when you will never forget when hundreds of lives were lost for some reason out there, and we need to make sure what that reason was before

these planes take off again. >> travelers want answers, but most important lit families of those hundreds of people deserve those answers. >> absolutely. >> tom foreman, thank you. >> the family of a fifth grader is demanding answers after a 10-year-old died following a classroom fight. more on that story next. making my dreams a reality takes more than just investment advice. from insurance to savings to retirement, it takes someone with experience and knowledge who can help me build a complete plan. brian, my certified financial planner™ professional, is committed to working in my best interest. i call it my "comfortable future plan," and it's all possible with a cfp® professional. find your certified financial planner™ professional at letsmakeaplan.org. ♪ hey!

uh, what did i come in here for again? diapers. diapers. okay. yep. oh, sorry. yep. no, the cart... yeah, i almost hit a woman. hmm. exactly. and doug. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? oh. well, we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance, because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. [ loud crash ] yeah. he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ ♪ ♪ i can do more to lower my a1c. because my body can still make its own insulin. and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it starts acting in my body from the first dose

and continues to work when i need it, 24/7. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i choose once-weekly trulicity to activate my within. if you need help lowering your a1c, ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.

the family of a fifth grader who died after a classroom fight is demanding answers. 10-year-old raniya wright died last week. she died two days after that fight at her school in south carolina. autopsy results could still be weeks away, and her parents say authorities at this point aren't giving them any information about what happened. cnn's diane gallagher is in south carolina. so parents are not getting any information. what are officials saying, diane? >> reporter: yeah. not much, erica. in fact, we know about as much as her parents do which really is the problem. in a situation that is multi-layered, on top of the fact that have you a 10-year-old girl that these parents are preparing to bury tomorrow, they say that they have received little to no information about what led up to her death. it might be easier to list what we do know.

authorities say that there was some form of altercation inside her fifth grade classroom last month, so eight days ago at this point. she died from her injuries two days later, but her parents say that they have received no information on what led up to that altercation, exactly what may have happened during it, and -- and they have been trying to get information. now, we've just spoken with the attorney for her father, and the attorney tells us, erica, there's no video from inside the classroom, but he says there is video from inside the hallway, and the parents actually went down to try to view that video just recently, and they didn't end up getting to see it. they say more than anything, on top of the pain of losing a 10-year-old in a fight in a school, they want to know what happened and what led up to this. >> it's amazing that we don't know, and you would think that the community, too, would also be demanding answers as they are sending their children to school. >> yeah, and they are. i'll tell you, erica, that the parents of other students who were in the classroom, the teachers, they -- they are going

to meet with these parents and what they are calling their own separate investigation to try and figure out what happened. >> it's a disturbing story to say the least, diane. we know you'll stay on top of it for us, thank you. thanks to all of you for joining us here tate. "inside politics" with john king starts right now. thanks, erica, and welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thanks for sharing your day with us. a heated day on capitol hill as democratsous subpoena power to demand answers about trump administration officials, including the president's daughter and his son-in-law, who received security clearances over the objections of career experts. plus, president trump lashes out at the government of puerto rico, his own staff and concedes the president used bad numbers, get this, in a tweet questioning the competence of puerto rico's leaders. and new fund-raising numbers show bernie sanders is a powerful force in the 2020