behind the attacks. and of course the question that looms, is this the work of a serial bomber? cnn's ed lavandara is live in austin with the breaking details. ed >> reporter: good morning, erica. authorities are waiting for the sun to come can up so they can begin processing the scene of this latest explosion. it happened last night. two men in their 20s were injured. they are being treated in a local hospital. not life atlantaing injuries. they are expected to be okay. this latest explosion a little bit different than the three previous we have seen since march 2nd. the three previous explosions taking place on the east side of the austin area. this particular location in southwest austin. so quite a ways away from where the previous explosions had taken place. also, authorities believe that a trip wire is what detonated the latest explosion. that also very different from the other three explosions. that is why the police chief here in austin is telling residents across the city to be highly vigilant about their surroundings. >> it is very possible that this device was a device that was activated by someone either handling, kicking or coming in contact with a trip wire that activated the device. so that changes things. we now need the community to have an extra level of vigilance and pay attention to any suspicious device, whether it be a package, a bag, a backpack, anything that looks out of place, and do not approach it. >> reporter: as you can see behind me, this area has been cordoned off by police. they have issued warnings into a half mile radius from where this explosion took place to remain in their homes until they are done with the processing of the area. school buses won't be allowed in this area. that is what this particular neighborhood in southwest austin is dealing with this morning. >> thanks, ed. a former fbi special agent joins us this morning. thank you for joining us this morning. >> thank you. >> just to put this in context, just before this bombing, local police had reached out to whoever is responsible for this. we have police chief manley. here's what he put out as a call. >> we believe the recent explosive incidents that have occurred in the city of austin were meant to send a message. the person or persons understands what that message is and are responsible for constructing or delivering these devices. and we hope this person or persons is watching and will reach out to us before anyone else is injured or anyone else is killed. we want to understand what brought you to this point, and we want to listen to you. >> so in terms of how you conduct these investigations, what's the significance of that kind of plea. what does it tell us about where pleas pleases's heads are and how do you rational tphaoeuz what happened after that? >> there are a couple of reasons for the police to put out that kind of plea. first, when you have a pattern of violence like this that they believe is tied to one person, it could be this person is looking for attention. and having that acknowledgment that they are paying attention, that there is another way for this person to be heard can offer another avenue for this person to express themselves. the other thing is if this person does reach out with a message with their ideology, it can offer a clue on the profile of this person. if we look back to ted kaczynski, the unabomber, that was a 17-year investigation, chris, the longest and most expensive in the fbi's history. and janet reno, the attorney general at the time, actually encouraged newspapers to publish his manifesto, which was against modern technology or something. it was ted kaczynski's brother who identified the beliefs is and the style of writing and was able to help point the fbi in the right direction to eventually apprehend him. so there are a couple of reasons there. >> in terms of -- to your second point, chris. in terms of this plea of let us know what's behind this and give us your message, and a short time after that, this next bombing. a little bit different. likely a trip wire. not a package in this case. it is tough to miss that significance there. it is sort of looking into a crystal ball. the chance that that itself could have been a message? >> it could be. so you have this, you know, another violent response after this plea who presumably this person has heard. remember this is happening in a fairly contained geographic area. again, if we compare it to the unabomber, which was happening nationwide, that is a much harder investigation to conduct can. this is happening in ajee graphic area. we presume this bomber is able to hear what the police are saying. so he's responded with violence. he's actually changed a little bit of the technique he's using. so one of the things that the bomb experts look for is a signature, a particular way that this bomb is being put together, the materials that can also help them identify who this person is. he's changing it up a little bit. it could be that he believes he can outsmart the authorities. that is a significant thing to consider with the most recent bombing. >> right. and people are saying how come nobody is talking about terrorism? we always remind people in these investigations, the authorities need to know why somebody did something before they will call terror, even when it's obvious to everybody else. it's not in this situation. until they know why this is being done, you will not hear that from investigators. stay with us. president trump escalating his attacks on the russia probe, this time calling out bob mueller by name in a series of weekend tweets. the president's first tweet argues special counsel's probe would have never been started -- should have never been started is what he said, while a second focus using on the political affiliation of members of mueller's team. republicans are raising concerns about whether trump would try to motivate mueller's outer. good to have you both. david, help me understand this. if you are president trump, why don't you want this probe to continue the most if only because then and only then when bob mueller's report to rosenstein, however we find out about it, says trump, people close to him, no proof of any crime in connection to russian tphfrbs, that ends the questions. then it's over. anybody who wants to criticize the president after that, he can point to that conclusion. why isn't that his thinking on this? >> i'm sure that's part of his thinking. if he believes he's innocent of everything around him and the people around him are, he can scream at the top of his lungs this was all for naught. he wants to delegitimize everyone involved from the special prosecutor himself, attacking his motives, to really making the claim that this is a deep state conspiracy, that there was no crime here, that it was the fbi and elsewhere and the intelligence community, people who had it out for him. it includes andrew mccabe in his comments to the inspector general. he has gone after comey. that will be an ugly fight when comey's book comes out. and another element that may have set the president off. we know from reporting over the weekend and the "new york times" that there are now questions that the special prosecutor has put forward to the president's lawyer saying these are some of the things we want to ask him about. it's clear that that set him off for some reason, probably because of the nature of the questions, which may have to do a lot more with what happened when he was president. the firing of comey, the drafting of a response to the meeting with don jr. and russians than it does with whatever happened in terms of russian interference. so i think you have to look at all that and look at where the president's head is, what he's afraid of. and trey gowdy said if he's innocent, why doesn't he act innocent? >> to your point, we're hearing if you're innocent, then act like it. i believe that's what you were saying, which is what trey gowdy was saying over the weekend. as we look at all of this, does this narrative undermine the investigation in any way? >> the president -- what the president says is not going to impact how mueller approaches this investigation. he has a job to do. he's going to continue doing it. and i just don't think he or his team are distracted. and i think you have seen that with the efficiency with which they conducted the investigation, with the number of indictments that have come down. it is important to also point that out that when the president wants mueller to go away, we need to look at what mueller is investigating. he's indicted 13 russians and three russian nationals. he is as interested in covering what russia was doing in our election interference as he is with fighting people in the campaign. what's trouble to go me is in wanting to stop this investigation the president is also wanting to not find out what russia did or protect the people who were doing this on russia's behalf. and i think that should concern all americans regardless of their party or what they think about, you know, mueller's investigation into the president himself. >> you know what's bizarre about these tweets on one level, we're talking about the president of the united states. there's an obvious conversation how he should conduct himself. his base doesn't care. we know where people are on it. he has the best access to information than anybody. he could say come over here with this fisa application on carter page. i want to see it. explain this to me. he insists on relying on right wing propaganda. isn't that odd? that he has access to the information. >> it is hackery, which is really disappointing in the president of the united states who should be bigger, try to meet the obligations of the office. but he doesn't engage in that. this is the self destructive part. when you talk to supporters of the president, they make a convincing case about how unorthodox he is, how unconventional he is and how that led to certain results. allow him to break some china and see if we don't get a different result. that is a fair argument to advance. a lot of what we see here is just self destructive. he is not relying on information. people are supportive of him. in this media, he will listen to conspiracy theories and get spun up on that to where we can't agree on certain facts. the president is stoking that, going after partisan implications of the investigation without pointing out that special counsel himself is a republican. that is a thing that information warfare makes all of us poorer as a result. we're not operating on the same facts. >> and all of this coming out, too, what happened on friday with andrew mccabe and how he was fired. they called it the mccabe march madness. i want to throw this to you. there was a system and a finding, and this happened with andrew mccabe. it was his lack of candor that led to his firing. both sides have picked up and run with this. that's where you get this microcosm of american politics today. in terms of the facts of that firing, is there anything political there? >> we can't know what all the facts are until we read the full report. but, you know, lack of candor is taken incredibly seriously in the bureau. i think the merits of that can't be separated from the climate in which all of this happened. you had the president of the united states tweeting and advocating for this person to be fired. and this person happens to be a potentially very strong witness against him in mueller's investigation. so even if there was a real basis for the firing to take place, the president has called the entire process into question, which is unfortunate. >> there is no meat on the bones to the president's allegation in that report. the lack of candor sometimes under oath, we would have to know what and specifically why andrew mccabe came out with his own things on this. thank you very much. appreciate your perspective on this. the white house is trying to calm fears of another shakeup in the west wing. how does this type of chaos affect those inside the white house? we have former clinton press secretary joe lockhart joining us next. [man] woah. ugh, i don't have my wallet, so - [girl 1] perfect! you can send a digital payment. [man] uhh, i don't have one of those payment apps. [girl 2] perfect! you have a us-based bank account, right? [man] i have wells fargo. [girl 3] perfect! then you should have zelle! [man] perfect. [girls] perfect! [vo] the number one mobile banking app just got better. [man] does your coach use zelle, too? [boy] of course! [vo] another way we're building better every day. ♪ the fastest samsung ever demands t-mobile, the fastest network ever. right now get the new samsung galaxy s9 for half off. ♪ oh! there's one.a "the sea cow"" manatees in novelty ts? surprising. what's "come at me bro?" it's something you say to a friend. what's not surprising? how much money matt saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. internet providers promise business owners a lot. let's see who delivers more. comcast business offers fast gig-speeds across our network. at&t doesn't. we offer more complete reliability with up to 8 hours of 4g wireless network backup. at&t, no way. we offer 35 voice features and solutions that grow with your business. at&t, not so much. we give you 75 mbps for $59.95. that's more speed than at&t's comparable bundle, for less. call today. joe, welcome to the tank. thanks for being with us. you thought you had it bad in terms of speculation and what was going on and angry executives demanding better. how does it size up with what we are seeing in the trump white house. >> there are critical differences. one is technology. we didn't have twitter, thank god. and we had a president i think who understood what a political strategy point of view in gauging in the back and forth on an investigation wasn't in his best interest. >> quick thing. do you think clinton, if he had twitter during that time, do you think he would have taken up his own advocacy. >> i don't think so. listen, i think the fundamental difference between the two strategies is the president and on down through the team in the clinton investigation the strategy was to focus on everything else. i am never going to talk about this publicly. i am not r never going to become a victim. trump has taken the opposite approach. making it all permanent. making himself the ultimate victim here. to his base, that has worked until now. to the rest of the country, it doesn't. >> so did the right wing conspiracy. >> sure. >> ken starr, it was beyond his purview. we may hear some of that here. >> yeah. >> this is not new. how did you handle dealing with us when you had a reason to believe that clinton was telling the truth? we see it play out in real-time every day here. >> sure. >> sarah sanders go out, our surrogates go out and they were they're backing someone who just lied. how did you deal with that? >> one of the things you learn as independent counsel you don't become a fact finder on the issues of the investigation. you tell it from the white house podium. we were told from the beginning not to be fact finders. i think this white house tends to try to take a couple of different strings, put it together in a story. and then they find out a day later that it's not true. >> what would you do? i went back last night to try to remember. that's kind of when i got into this. i was brought in to do legal analysis. when you knew this happened with monica lewinsky, we weren't getting the truth out of it, how did you go to the podium and deal with it? >> we as staff found out when the country found out, when he testified. we didn't go in and say is this story true. >> what did it do for morale? we are dealing with that also. not to that level. because of what clinton went through, i would be shocked if donald trump sit down with mueller certainly in front of a grand jury. what does that do to morale? >> it's tough. you're in for the right reasons, to try to move the country in the direction that you personally believe in. you get caught up in it. all the good work you're doing is not getting covered or not moving as quickly as it could because people are playing politics. there is a fundamental difference between these white houses. the impeachment proceedings for clinton brought the staff together rather than tore it apart. we saw it as a fundamental overreach and political process primarily in part by counsel and senate republicans. if you're a white house staffer now, you have to be out for yourself because the president isn't out for you. your job isn't to serve the country, it is to please your president and do things that please him. even if you do the right thing, you are likely to get thrown under the bus, whether you're in his cabinet, his senior staff. if you think "new day" anything you could do could get you fired, you will start taking care of yourself. >> this is a magnified example of what you dealt with. phupbd fennelly, unless you had something to do with covering up with what the president did, this is all about bill clinton and his decision to lie in front of a grand jury. with trump, all of these questions are going about who spoke to whom, what information you kept quiet, who wasn't truthful in their disclosures. so there is a lot of stink to go around. how do you see that being handled in this white house? >> you're right. there is a fundamental difference. one was wrong by the president. >> the perjury think stands apart. he made it easy to impeachment. that's why he was impeached. >> you talk to republican leaders he was political weak and they wanted to impeach him. >> you give them something they can use. it comes down to votes is, which is why do you think this optimism from some who are against the president, well, mueller is going to end it. now he will get impeachment. it is not that simple, is it? >> it is not that simple at all. mueller, there's two differences between what ken starr did and mueller did. ken starr's strategy was to leak enough information to force the president to resign, weaken him politically. it didn't work. by the time it got into politics, the politics outran him. when he issued his report, there was no news in it. it was all leaked out. mueller is doing the exact opposite. we don't know what mueller knows. it is what witnesses coming out of the grand jury wants to tell us. when he issues his reports, it's going to contain lots of new news. maybe it will be good for trump, maybe it will be bad for trump. we don't know. trump doesn't know. i think that is behind some of his behavior because he is getting quite worried about what mueller may know or not. there are implications here that go far beyond one person's behavior. we have a foreign adversary who attacked our country. and our policy now does not reflect the fact that we have been attacked. this goes to our credibility around the world. it is not one person on, you know, one bad behavior and one case. so i think this is legitimately the most important thing that he wants to tweet. >> you have kellyanne who comes out, anthony scaramucci, mulvaney. they stay in their rubric, except for sarah. we had the notion introduced, she gets unfair criticism that men don't get. >> sure. >> but she is uniquely positioned to have to voice the president's thoughts in a way that nobody else is because they can stick to what their bailiwick is. her bailiwick is defending the president. >> i think she is doing a great job for her boss. >> defined as what? >> pleasing her boss. i think her boss likes the fact that she goes in and speaks the facts as he sees them, even when they're not true. and consistently attacks the questioners. in one respect she is doing exactly what her boss wants. the second thing she's doing well is speaking only to the base. trump is only governing for the people who voted for him. he doesn't care about the rest of us. he only cares about those people, his people. the problem comes with the third. she does politically have some responsibility to try to speak is to the rest of the country. he can't win with 38% of the vote next time. secondly, there is a civic obligation here to get up there and tell the truth and to be forth coming where you can. it is the first time i have publicly criticized another press secretary. but i think that's happening there is corroding the entire system. it's not all her fault, but she is playing her part in it. >> sean spicer got beaten like a pinata unfor good reason. i mention that for context of the notion that sarah sanders is getting unfair criticism. do you think she is being treated unfairly and if it were a guy in there it wouldn't? that's why i bring up spicer. he certainly got beat around as much and more than she is. >> i think it is a fascinating side question. she is aggressive. she goes after reporters. she goes after political opponents in a direct, aggressive way. that makes a lot of men uncomfortable. it is an interesting question. i'm not sure i know what the answer is. it may be unfair. >> you have to look at how she's criticized. if it's for what she says, it's one thing. "saturday night live", when they went after what she eats, how she looks, that was a dirty pool. >> anything that has to do with personal life, appearance, all of those things are out of bounds. i don't think someone should be criticized for being aggressive if it's truthful. i think it is a fair point that when a woman gets aggressive, they are held to a different standard than say sean spicer was or how i was. i was often very aggressive. that's not fair. it doesn't obscure some of the broader issues. but i think some of that criticism is unfair. >> take them on the basis of what they say, not who is saying it. nothing wrong than being aggressive. welcome to the team. >> thank you. >> congratulations. good to have you. erica. >> president trump's lawyer joining the legal battle involving stormy daniels. will adding his name to the lawsuit change this case? we discuss, next. so lionel, what does being able to trade 24/5 mean to you? well, it means i can trade after the market closes. it's true. so all... evening long. ooh, so close. yes, but also all... night through its entirety. come on, all... the time from sunset to sunrise. right. but you can trade... from, from... from darkness to light. ♪ you're not gonna say it are you? it wi called usaarst and the first thing they asked was 'are you ok?' they always thank you for your service, which is nice because as a spouse you serve too. we're the hayles and we're usaa members for life. all right. another story. an attorney for president trump has joined the legal battle against stormy daniels. this is a little bit of a dicey propositi proposition. we have a guest to discuss this. he is joining attorneys for trump organization lawyer michael cohen and claiming stormy daniels could owe more than 20 million bucks to them. why? because she has repeatedly violated her nondisclosure agreement. here to discuss is the perfect guest, nancy erica smith, representing gretchen carlson. you know this area of law so well. let's talk strategy here, right? cohen's essential claim is that you came, you said, i'm going to talk unless we cut a deal. i cut a deal. i paid it out of my own money to insulate the president. that's the end of this. we had a bargain for exchange. how you want to make more money and you're going to try to find ways out of this. that's his case. she has a different view. her counsel avenatti is on all the time talking about it. now we have representatives joining michael cohen in the suit over the nda. how does that complicate matters? >> the president's representatives said he had nothing to do with it, he didn't know her. and he said that publicly, not in an arbitration proceeding. after he said it publicly, then he wanted to go to arbitration in late february. i would say he waived his claim that he gets to go to a secret court system. >> he being cohen? >> he being the president. because cohen was acting on his behalf. unless cohen had some individual relationship with stormy daniels that he paid her for, he has been acting as a representative of the president, including what he has said. he is speaking for the president. >> so you don't buy the idea that i love this guy, i work for him, i don't believe this story. she's even said it will not true. but it will hurt him anyway because of the way the media will run with it. i'm paying this just to keep it quiet just to help him. >> i don't believe it for one second. now we know donald trump has gone to court, trying to move the whole case to federal court and then to a secret court. secret courts are iran, russia. in our cup, our democracy is based on a public open court system. so we all see how the law is applied. >> what is this secret court? >> it is arbitration. >> that's a little bit of a black eye you give arbitration. >> it deserves a black eye. >> well, that's because you're a litigator. people make deals. often in part of the deals if this goes bad, we will go to an arbitrator. >> this is the president of the united states. he had a press conference with all the women who claimed that bill clinton had sexually harassed them. now he is not claiming defamation. he is not claiming that stormy daniels is lying. >> that's true. there is no defamation action at this time. >> he is claiming she is talking to the president about what happened. and i also don't think it is right to characterize it as stormy daniels said give me money and i won't talk. >> that is cohen's version of what happened. >> right. >> that she was talking to media outlets and came to him through counsel and said i'm going to talk to somebody. >> i think she was talking to media outlets and they said what do we have to pay you to shut you up. and it was a month before the election. as a public democracy, shouldn't we say that's wrong no matter what is? the president of the united states should not go around paying money to people to shut up about him. he's not claiming it's false. he's claiming i wanted you to shut up. >> i was subject to one of those threats. i understand that is a tactical favorite of his. let's touch on this for one second. one of the questions, should we be upset that the president pays people not to talk about him in noncriminal matters. we make the case all the time, should we care that much about the private lives of these people? are we creating a false standard of who we have in there? are we thinning the pool of people who want to run? >> i think we're entitled to know as much as possible about the president of the united states. >> doesn't he have legal rights like everyone else? >> he does. and he should use the court system not secret courts. our declaration of independence talks about public jury trials. our constitution talks about public. >> you have the right to a public trial. >> you have an absolute right. dragging things into a secret court for the president of the united states. >> i think context matters. arbitration, mediation, they are accepted things. it is case by case. let me let you end on a point that goes case by case. the idea of signing an agreement when you work in the white house not to betray secrets or processes that could compromise justice or government, we understand. but signing one that if you talk about trump, you're in trouble. >> right. >> even if the money goes to the federal government. is it is okay, yes or no? >> no. absolutely not. >> because? >> because it's not his house. it's the people's house. and if there's corruption going on, we have a right to know. certainly there are confidential things that go on that should not be public. just like in corporations there are confidential things. but we cannot tell people you can't complain in a corporation if you see some corruption, some wrongdoing, something dangerous going to the public you should not be able to say in the white house that you can't complain, you can't go to a congressman, a prosecutor if you see illegality. that's wrong. >> true. and you probably would get out of it anyway. but it is an unusual practice. that's why i'm asking you for your take. well argued as always. nancy, thank you, as always. nancy erika smith. the trial of one of the largest antitrust cases set to begin. the face of a massive media merger hanging in the balance, next. only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol® almost $800 when we switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey! oh, that's my robe. is it? when you switch to liberty mutual, you could save $782 on auto and home insurance. and still get great coverage for you and your family. call for a free quote today. you could save $782 when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. if your adventure keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips you may have overactive bladder, or oab. ohhhh... enough already! we need to see a doctor. ask your doctor about myrbetriq® (mirabegron). it treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions. if you experience swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or difficulty breathing... stop taking myrbetriq and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may affect or be affected by other medications. before taking myrbetriq, tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold symptoms urinary tract infection, constipation, diarrhea, dizziness, and headache. need some help managing your oab symptoms along the way? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you, and visit myrbetriq.com to learn more. if you'd have told me three years ago... that we'd be downloading in seconds, what used to take... minutes. that guests would compliment our wifi. that we could video conference... and do it like that. (snaps) if you'd have told me that i could afford... a gig-speed. a gig-speed network. it's like 20 times faster than what most people have. i'd of said... i'd of said you're dreaming. dreaming! definitely dreaming. then again, dreaming is how i got this far. now more businesses in more places can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. one of the biggest anti-trust battles in decades goes to trial this week. the federal government is suing to stop the merger with at&t and time warner. jessica schneider is live with more. jessica, good morning. >> good morning, erica. this trial will be followed closely by companies wondering what the futures may look like and how they may be scrutinizing business deals. the at&t/time warner merger has been in the cross-hairs of this president in particular. it's the proposed media merger that's been a talking point for donald trump since the campaign deal. >> at&t is buying time warner and thus cnn, a deal we will not approve in my administration, because it is too much concentration of power in the hands of too few. >> a huge historic media deal. >> when at&t announced plans to buy time warner in 2016, most media analysts thought it would win approval despite the president's disapproval. they are not direct competitors. at&t is the largest of communications company that bought directv to boost subscribership in 2015. and time warn ser warner, hbo, and turner, including cnn. >> it is not unheard of but it doesn't happen every day. the government has taken a vertical merger case to trial in the last 40 years. >> in november, the justice department sued to block the bid, shocking the media industry. >> when the government suddenly and without notice or any due process discards legal press department, businesses are left with no guidepost. >> at&t pointed this out from the antitrust division months before he won senate confirmation. he told bnn i don't see this as a major antitrust problem. two months after confirmed, the government filed suit, arguing content was so valuable they might threaten to charge higher subscription fees at&t pointing to political bias. >> i want to address the elephant in the room here. there's been a lot of reporting whether this is all about cnn. frankly, i don't know. but nobody should be surprised if the question keeps coming up. >> fake news, folks, fake news. >> the president's comments one day after the doj's suit. >> personally i always felt that was a deal not good for the country. >> richard leon ruled they could not force a hanover of communication between the attorney general that could have showed whether the president played a rule in blocking the legislation. at&t is focusing its defense on arguing it will not black out for charge more for time warner programming and at&t needs to add content to compete with newer entities like netflix, amazon, and google. >> i think a lot of content distributors like at&t and comcast and also other types of content distributors are really thinking how they can be more competitive in a market that is changing a lot. >> and that is exactly why at&t and time warner aren't the only companies who are watching this trial and block by the justice department closely. other media giants like disney and 21st century fox, they are also following this closely. they may have a stake in this as well. it may further influence business decisions. if the government does block this merger, some see is a sign of new era of government scrutiny. the media companies try to 1/2 gate the media landscape. chris? >> thank you very much. appreciate the reporting. so how will this blockbuster trial affect you? we're going to have our media experts take you through it next. now that karen's taking osteo bi-flex, she's noticing a real difference in her joint comfort... karen: "she's single." ...and high levels of humiliation in her daughter. in just 7 days, your joint comfort can be your kid's discomfort. osteo bi-flex. made to move. of being there for my son's winning shot. that was it for me. that's why i'm quitting with nicorette. only nicorette mini has a patented fast dissolving formula. it starts to relieve sudden cravings fast. every great why needs a great how. every great why ahh, a h...and a half.... but they can relax. they got an unbeatable price on a suite. with an extra bed. no one looks out for you, like travelocity. with price match guarantee, you'll always wander wisely. [girl 1] perfect! you can send a digital payment. [man] uhh, i don't have one of those payment apps. [girl 2] perfect! you have a us-based bank account, right? [man] i have wells fargo. [girl 3] perfect! then you should have zelle! [man] perfect. [girls] perfect! [vo] the number one mobile banking app just got better. [man] does your coach use zelle, too? [boy] of course! [vo] another way we're building better every day. for all the noses that stuff up around daisies. for all the eyes that get itchy and watery near pugs. for all the people who sneeze around dust. there's flonase sensimist allergy relief. it relieves all your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it's more complete allergy relief. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. and 6 is greater than 1. flonase sensimist. if you have moderate to severe 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. and 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. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. 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. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. in a matter of hours the trial pitting the justice department between attorneys for a merger between at&t will take place. so what does that mean for you? as we look at all of this, we're learning that at&t no longer plans to argue a political bias here. why the change? >> because the judge won't allow that part of the conversation, won't let the companies seek evidenof possible department of justice. all of a sudden you have the a.g. as department, the department of justice looking into this case, its anti-trust experts deciding to pursue this case. these are career officials who are building the case. the fact that it is jeff sessions doing this, that's why there's going to be a whiff of politics. >> tough to avoid that whiff of politics, especially involving this. >> that's when the prz tweets, when he speaks out at rallies, it does have consequences. >> we have the president talking about this. >> at&t is buying time warner and thus cnn, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it too much concentration of power in the hands of too few. >> so the president's assessment there, too much concentration of power. brian mentioned the judge isn't going to allow the political component here but what will be interesting to see is the judge and his views on the media landscape in 2015 because people consume media very differently. >> you're completely right. everything is changing how people consume media. that's at the crux of the opposing side in this case. the government is argue that there are still millions that pay for cable and they say it will raise your bill 45 cents a month. at&t argues that assessment is incorrect and it's not clear l those prices would pass on to consumes are and at&t is saying they may even see a decrease in their monthly bill. at&t is saying they're just going to do this by acquisition instead and this is how they have to compete with the new companies by creating their on content. the judge has to decide what his interpretation of what the media landscape looks like. >> not a lot to see here, shouldn't be that many issues because they're not direct competitors. how has that view change? >> the expectation was normally deals like this get reviewed, there are conditions attached and they get approval. every other country they have been approved and blessed by the government. the u.s. is the on place where there's a been a lawsuit now. i think if you're the head of at&t or the head of time warner or teak out these two companies are the head of fox or comcast, you're looking out to silicon valley, you're looking at netflix, facebook, google you're saying how am i going to compete five, tn, 15 years down the loon? hbo was part of this deal but they are more and more bidding out to netflix and apple. even though these companies are big, they look small compared to ne netflix. >> a will the of fox will point to the merger of comcast and at&t. is that a fair comparison? >> it's actually the same judge who helped rule on that settlement. now the justice department has sort of changed their tactic. they no longer like these behavioral remedies. the justice department now wants structural remedies, complete sales, complete cutting off. that's why we're seeing this lawsuit. >> and why we're all following it so closely. >> busy monday morning. let's get to it. >> another explosion in austin, raising fears about a possible serial bomber. >> do not touch any packages or anything that looks look a package. >> this is concerning. it's a big deal. >> he is determined to shut this investigation down. >> i think the president is expressing his frustration. >> if he tried to do that, that would be the beginning of his presidency to end. >> if you have an innocent client, mr. dowd, prove it. >> to have firings like this happening at the top does not speak well for what's going on. >> this is "new day." >> good morning. allison is off erica hill joins us. another explosion in austin, two people hurt this time. people are operating under the session it could be connected to the bombings this month. the latest explosion could have been triggered by a trip wire on the road. >> this after the police made a public appeal to the bomber or bombs are to reveal the reason behind the attacks. ed lavandera is live with those detail. ed? >> a great deal of activity here in this neighborhood in southwest austin. dozens and dozens of fbi and atf agents descending upon this neighborhood, waiting for the sun to come so they can begin looking