this is why there was a thin thread that held democracy together as a civil society. there's actually truth to that and we've just lost that. >> george stevens, thank you. coming up, the news continues and we'll hand it over to chris for "prime timetime." >> i am chris cuomo. welcome to "primetime." let's get after it. nancy pelosi has launched an official impeachment inquiry against president donnald j. trump. >> the president has admitted to asking the president of you've crane to take actions that would benefit him politically. it's a betrayal of his oath of office and betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our

elections. therefore today, i'm announcing the house of representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. the president must be held accountable. no one is above the law. >> what does that mean? it means that the democrats are all now on the same page. it took a long time, but there's no new process that's started. this is about the politics of coming together for one side of the aisle. also tonight, an unusual development. our sources say the white house is preparing to cooperate, that they are going to release the whistleblower complaint at the center of this as recall as tomorrow. also tomorrow we are told from the president that he says he will release the unredacted transcript of his call with the president of ukraine. that call was only one of multiple alleged matters of concern. now, unredacted transcript, the call to our understanding was not recorded. there are people who tran scribe

it, it can be reviewed, it can be changed. it is necessary to have it with the complaint. now, the house intel committee may actually hear from the whistleblower directly at some point this week according to chairman schiff. that's not that easy. the general counsel for the dni is saying they don't think that should happen. so we'll have to see if a complaint comes out, what would be their objection. we'll be watching that. then what? what kind of case will they be able to make against the president? enough to persuade democrats? they're already close. they have like 180 something, they only need like 217. they'll probably get there. will they persuade you? then what? is a senate trial a given? we're going to go deep on that. you may be surprised. we have a lot of important voices here on both sides of the aisle to war game where we're all headed. let's begin with someone who may have helped prompt this major

decision by pelosi today, congresswoman abigail spanberger from virginia, one of those seven freshman house democrats in competitive swing districts who could no longer hold out and just joined the impeachment train. she is on the foreign affairs committee. welcome to "primetime." >> thank you for having me. >> to be clear, in reading the letter to people that you put out with your fellow members of congress, you're not saying you're ready to imimpeach, you' saying you're ready to look at the facts with an eye toward impeachment. is that a fair clarification? >> that is exactly correct, yes. >> when you give all the different ideas of why, all of the bolded phrases have to do with the instant circumstance surrounding ukraine. why? >> so these are the allegations that have recently surfaced in the past week that are deeply, deeply concerning to me and to the colleagues who i joined with to create this letter.

we deemed that these allegations, stand-alone allegations, demonstrate a grievous presence of potential corruption, a violation of the oath of office and what is really troubling here is the notion that we have a president who potentially pressured a foreign country to provide information about a political foe and his family and allegedly sought to use military assistance and security assistance dollars, taxpayer dollars as leverage in that quest. >> allegedly is the key word. just so the audience knows, if you google congressman spanberger, you'll see she was a case agent for the cia. she's not coming at this blindly. what would be your threshold? to be fair, you don't know what happened on the phone call yet. >> that's right. >> you don't know what the sum and substance of the complaint is yet, let's say you're not

ready to impecach, you're ready to look. what would get you to the point? >> evidence related to what happened, what the president's motivations were, explicitly what his engagement with the president of ukraine and those conversations, what happened. any other facts and evidence that might be available. you mention i'm a former case officer with the cia. my whole job used to be collect information that would allow informed policy. before that i was a federal agent. this is about potentially building a case to determine if there is something to charge the president with. but what i thought was important, what those of us who entered into this on-p-ed was important is that these allegations of the president are of a different, distinct nature and if they're true, they're impeachable. >> to me i see irony in this, that what the mueller probe was

all about was did anybody work with the russians in their efforts to interfere in the election and obviously there was a spotlight on the president and his campaign, there was no criminal behavior. some shady behavior but no criminal behavior. now that's exactly what this is. did the president go to a foreign power for help with his own election? let's say the call is squishy, he talks about you guys didn't look at biden, i can't believe that. you got real problems with corruption over there but money isn't mentioned. let's say the idea of him withholding the money while it seems plausible and let's see you even get some people to testify but it doesn't seem like a straight quid pro quo and what's in the complaint is a pattern of behavior where this president says things that this intelligence officer has never heard before that just sounds bad. is that enough to impeach? >> well, i think it depends. and, frankly, the whole purpose in beginning this investigation is to determine if these allegations against the president are true or false.

and, you know, i think that it would be a false line to walk down to assume that everybody wants it to be true. it would be devastating for this country if these allegations in fact are true. but we, as the american people, we as lawmakers and legislators, we as those who were sworn to protect our constitution need to know definitively yes or no is this what happened, are thee allegatia -- these allegations, do they bare truth so we can move forward in which ever direction is necessary pending the outcome. >> are you open to anything not related to ukraine, everything your party's been talking about for the last year and a half, you know, offered on this show. i say to big time democrats, if you believe what you're suggesting you believe, the constitution makes it clear that you are supposed to be going down the road of impeachment a long time ago. are you open to anything else? >> if there's evidence to be presented, you know, i have always been open to evidence that would speak to potential

impeachable offenses, but thus far i have not heard anyone describe specific allegations, certainly articles that would potentially be put forward apart from those that have been put in the past and never made it to the floor. >> so all the firing of comey and how the president handled the investigation and what he may have done that obstructed or not, you're not moved by that? >> it's not that i'm not moved by that, but when my colleagues on the committees of jurisdiction are ready to bring those before the larger house, i'll weigh those facts and evidence as presented. but as of right now there has not been a clear, concise allegation leveled against the president about what did happen or what didn't. people mention obstruction, people mention other allegations but the actual case is not clear. when this circumstance it is cut and dry. the president saw the to ought

influence a foreign leader -- >> if the evidence is there. >> if the evidence is there. >> if you go down this road as a party and you do not impeach, how bad do you think that is? and if you go down the road and you do impeach but do you not remove and you don't have a shot and there isn't even a trial, how worried are you about that? >> the voters in my district elected me, i hope and presume, because they trusted me to do my job with integrity and with principles and with them in mind. and i have been focused pretty much nonstop since i got here on health care and infrastructure and education and gun violence prevention, but i also have a duty to uphold the constitution and protect everything that is important in this country. these allegations are so profound, i wanted to make it clear to my constituents and alongside my colleagues to the rest of the country that these allegations do represent impeachable offenses.

congress should take them very, very seriously, focus on our duty and when we are going through that process, focus on the things that are important to the people back home, health care, infrastructure, trade, gun violence prevention. we can do both. that's what i'm going to be focused on. but it is vitally important to ensure we are protecting our democracy, that we are advocating for our democracy. i've sworn an oath multi-le times in my life to protect the constitution. this most recent oath is no different, it's one i take very seriously. and i believe my constituents respect that and respect i had go through this process in a thoughtful way with the best intentions and the best interests of the country in mind. >> i hear you. in the op-ed you guys say the flagrant disregard for the law cannot stand. will there be meat on the bones of that speculation remains to be seen but one thing's for sure, doesn't look likely to get a gun control deal done any time

soon. >> we passed a great bill in the house already. >> i know, but we know what's happening in the senate. now you have to believe resistance may be redoubled. congresswoman abigail spanberger, thank you very much for making your case to the audience. >> thank you so much. >> tomorrow is going to be another dizzying day because as we said at the top, the president says we'll see if he sticks to his word, that he's authorizing the release of the transcript of that call. now, remember it wasn't recorded. so this is going to be a written down reckoning of some review of what was said. that's why the whistleblower and news that it may get that to congress, that matters. so what are the questions that you need to answer in order for that proof to be there? let's take that on next. i get it all the time.

"have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro. you have fast-acting power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength and speed of advil liqui-gels.

what pain? mom you've got to [ get yourself a new car.g ] i wish i could save faster. you're making good choices. you'll get there. ♪ were you going to tell me about this? i know i can't afford to go. i still have this car so you can afford to go. i am so proud of you. thanks. principal. we can help you plan for that. start today at principal.com.

walking a dog can add thousands walking this many?day. that can be rough on pam's feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they relieve pain and give her the comfort to move more so she can keep up with all of her best friends. dr. scholl's. born to move. ♪ 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! ...barb! you left me hangin' on the high harmony there. if you ride, you get it. geico motorcycle. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more. t-mobile's newest signal reaches farther than ever before. with more engineers. more towers. more coverage! it's a network that gives you ♪freedom from big cities, to small towns, we're with you. because life can take you almost anywhere, t-mobile is with you. no signal goes farther or is more reliable in keeping you connected. soon it looks like we'll know what is in the

whistleblower's complaint. but how the situation has been handled and manipulated by the president and his lawyer to this point already raises serious concerns -- the conflicting explanations coming from the president, whether the money was held back from ukraine because of corruption or to increase european pressure. we need the context. the accountability in the constitutional check by congress on potus demands no less and because this involves a lot more than a suddenly corruption-conscious commander in chief in a single phone call. when you go step by step through what we already know, you see multiple moves were made by at least half a dozen private and government offices to achieve the president's desired political pressure on ukraine despite the will of congress. remember, this all started as a rare bipartisan stand against vladimir putin. this time last year we saw a

combined vote in the house and senate of 454-68. it was about defense appropriations and including military aid for ukraine to fight back against russia's intervention. twice this year congress was told the money was about to be released and then nothing came of it. the white house line? the a delays were part of a, quote, interagency process. in may potus and his personal lawyer started pushing their conspiracy theory over on fox and other conservative media. as we've shown multiple times here on the show, they have yet to produce proof to back up their talk. the facts do not support a connection between the u.s. government withholding aid to ukraine and any investigation of then v.p. biden's son. you got the proof, put it up. back to the month of may. that is also when the u.s. ambassador to ukraine was abruptly removed. that came after the president's

namesake and others on the right called her out as part of their anti-biden narrative. then we know around july 18th potus ordered his acting chief of staff to freeze the aid money. then national security adviser john bolton and defense secretary mark esper were reportedly in on that conversation. on july 25th, potus talked with a ukrainian leader on the phone. we'll hopefully see specifics in the transcript but we know that biden came up perhaps more than once. then things started picking up speed in august. that's when giuliani announced that he'd met with a ukrainian rep. he has suggested two things that counter each other. he did it only as counsel to potus. then he said it was at the direction of the state department. ask yourself exactly why would or how could the u.s. government

ask a president's personal counsel to do such a thing? it's also when someone in the intelligence community filed their complaint, which made it to the acting dni. the come plaplaint reportedly involved several action, in other words, more than just one phone call. august also saw bolton travel to key yiev in ukraine where he ca for more money to be spent. that's about the same time word broke that the president was moving to effectively block the money. this time it was despite the objections of bolton and thement gone. then we get to september 1st. the vice president had his own meeting with the ukraine president where, yes, the topic of corruption came up. we don't know if biden was discussed by pence. if it seems curious to you that this potus and his staff were suddenly really interested in corruption in ukraine, much more than they ever were in their own

administration, remember this president has never shown much interest in any of these scandals among his own picks and his own administration. congress felt the same way and started investigating. september 9th that was. three days later, the money gets released to you've crane. wh -- ukraine. what a coincidence. we need to know what was said and why because none of the presidents and his lash-out-prone lawyers' excuses seem to make sense. the president question is did t president subvert the will of congress in order to pressure an al lie to dig up dirt on a political opponent. if the answer is yes, that could provide a lot of fuel to the flames of potential impeachment. we're going to bring in someone trying to end what he calls all of that, a witch hunt, one of his backers in congress. lance gooden. he says he's fed up and that the person to move on is chairman

nadler. what's his case next. ♪ yes ♪ hey sean hey dan ♪

the amount of student loan debt i have i'm embarrassed to even say i felt like i was going to spend my whole adult life paying this off thanks to sofi, i can see the light at the end of the tunnel as of 12pm today, i am debt free ♪ not owing anyone anything is the best feeling in the world, i cannot stop smiling about it ♪ hashtag vacay. sonoma? i want wine with lunch... it's 11am, cindy. thanks, captain obvious. don't hate-like their trip, book yours with hotels.com and get rewarded basically everywhere. hotels.com. be there. do that. get rewarded. bleech! aww! awww! ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft for the win win.

do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back? about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

so what was the president's motive for withholding aid from ukraine? he keeps saying he did it but giving different reasons. take a listen. >> we want to make sure that country's honest. it's very important to talk about corruption. if you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt? but my complaint has always been and i withhold again and will continue to withhold until such time as europe and other nations

contribute to ukraine. they're not doing it, just the united states. we're putting up the bulk of the money. i'm asking why is that. >> i'm wondering if the first lady was thinking, hmm, that wasn't your complaint yesterday when you said you were holding it back because it's corrupt, now he says he's holding it back until europe puts it in. would you keep money out as a way of incentivizing someone else in a way you say matters? or would you put money in to that effect? logic may not be the best part of the case. politics and numbers will be. republican congressman lance goodin is here. welcome back to "primetime." as you've probably heard me say many times, congressman, i just don't see the reality in the senate. i don't even know if there's going to be a trial. i'll explain that to the audience later. let's put the pragmatism aside and let me ask you about this. the fundamental question of did the question put pressure on ukraine to look at biden and if

they didn't, was there any type of suggestion they wouldn't get aid, do you believe that that question has value? >> i believe that the question you're asking will be answered tomorrow based on what we've learned in the last hour and a half, and that is that the white house is going to turn over the whistleblower come plant, they'd -- complaint, turn over the transcript of the call so the speculation will all be put to rest in about 12 hours if the rou white house do what they say that i go going to do tonight. >> why? >> because the last 72 hours has been about what was discussed between these two presidents. it sounds like what was discussed in the last two hours, that tomorrow morning both the whistleblower complaint and the transcript of the call are going to be released so all the questions can finally have an answer and the speculation can

stop. >> why does it end? let's say the president didn't really mention money in the call with the ukrainian president. let's say the complaint isn't that specific. >> or let's go to bed and wake up tomorrow and have answers to these questions. >> but why do you think it will answer the questions? if the complaint says i don't like what he says to the ukraine president, how does that answer it? >> the question is what happened between the two of them and what's in the whistleblower complaint. those are the two primary questions we don't have answers to. everything you've seen happen today on capitol hill is all based on speculation. i'm saying that speculation of what took place between the two presidents should be ended tomorrow morning. we can end speculation about what took place between the two been. >> so you have no problem that the president gave two different explanations in two days for why he withheld the aid and that they have nothing to do with one another? >> i've often done things and had multiple reason foss are

doing them. i don't know why he withheld the aid but i believe tomorrow morning we'll have answers to questions i've seen speculation run rampant on across the week and these last few days. >> but speculation suggests you haven't known anything except fundamental question. we keep learning more and more. you'll remember, i think, rudy giuliani was on this show and he went both ways on whether or not biden was even in the offing when he went to ukraine. and he said that the president, he didn't know what he knew and that he knew nothing about what he did. then we find out that the president was forwarding the same goal by withholding the money. surely that's got to raise your ears a little bit. >> the questions that i've heard the most over the last 72 hours are what's in the whistleblower complaint, what happened between these two gentlemen? >> fundamental. >> fundamentally we'll have answers to those questions tomorrow and then let's talk. >> and so you want to say let's see what's in there. >> sure. >> do you have any reason to know what's in there? do you have any scoop for us?

>> that's above my pay grade. >> too bad. so if there are open questions after tomorrow, are you in favor of pursuing them? >> i'm in favor of coming back on this show and talking with you about it and let's move forward from there. i have a feeling that no matter what comes out tomorrow, just like if we go back in time to the mueller investigation and the hearing, no matter what democrats find out, we're going to still be talking about it. so i'm confident that this time tomorrow you'll still be talking about it no matter what we learn tomorrow morning. >> i would congratulate you for your benign outlook on all of this. if it weren't for the fact that you're moving to remove chairman nadler because you're so frustrated by the process. what is the legal basis -- or you don't need one, this is politics. why do you think you should get rid of him? >> oddly enough, it may surprise you, we're not making this stuff up. the house rules say that the house determines whether or not there's an impeachment inquiry. we have to actually vote on that. what's been happening since july

when chairman nadler went forward for this investigation, was he was doing this on his own. his words exactly, "we are in the middle of impeachment, i am investigating, this is an inquiry." none of that is legal. house rules, which are determined via the strugs, tcon, the rule of law says the u.s. house of representatives has to vote on it. >> no. >> we had a vote and it failed. now they're saying let's investigate and vet. >> you're supposed to investigate. >> what nancy pelosi said today was no different than what's been happening this whole entire congress. >> i don't disagree. here's what the constitution says. i don't know if you can see, congressman. you see these bags under my eyes -- >> the make-up covers them well. >> not well enough. i got to get on it. the idea is this -- the constitution says the sole power to impeach rests when you guys and the sole power to try for potential removal deals with the senate. there are no procedures. you are correct, you must have a

majority vote for there to be articles of impeachment -- >> then let's have one. if the democrats want to impeach the president, grow a spine, let's throw it out there and vote on it. >> you said you weren't making it up. i'm just saying there are no procedures in the constitution, there is no right way or wrong way to proceed with impeachment. there isn't even anything called an impeachment inquiry in the constituti constitution. >> i will e-mail to your producer the house rules that spell it out and that's not how it's being done right now. that's why i'm saying if we're going to move forward into this impeachment process, which it sounds like rewe're going to ge there if we talk to nancy pelosi, we need somebody to at least be fair. chairman nadler has not been. he's gone on his own and says this is how we're going to do it. we've talked to parliamentarians

and -- >> the judicial is where you're supposed to be doing this contemplating, although you don't have to. you can create a special panel. >> let's have someone who is fair -- >> i don't believe nadler has ever said he's impeaching. >> absolutely he says. i will shoot you the tape before i go to bed tonight. >> he says we're investigating. >> we are in impeachment. i'll send you the quote. >> it's all the same body of investigation. anything you want to call it, you can call it. but until you call for a vote for the entire chamber, you're investigating. as they should. they better be able to bring one hell of a case if they're going to bring a krticles of impeachmt against the president. >> democrats don't want to impeach the president. they want to be in an impeachment process throughout. election cycle. even if they're able to muster the votes, which they can't,

they have 31 democrats that went for trump in the last district cycle, but let's assume they did. when that goes to the senate, the senate will acquit the president. >> i don't even know that they'll try him. >> maybe not. i'm with you. maybe not. my point is why waste all this time and resources, why not get to work for the american people? >> because the senate won't do anything. >> all i heard from democrats when we took office, all my freshman colleagues across the aisle said i want to work with you and we want to get to work for the american people. >> and you passed a ton of stuff and the senate won't put any of it on the floor. >> why don't you call mitch mcconnell and say that? >> i will call mitch mcconnell and ask him do you think it's wise for the democrats to take up the next three months -- >> that's not what i'm asking. why don't you ask him to put some votes on the floor on some of the bills that your house passed? >> most all of them are bills that republicans wanted to work with democrats on but democrats know that if we work across the aisle and actually have a bill that we're all in unison on,

then the president might actually sign it. god forbid the president signs something the house passes because then we'd have to give the president a victory. democrats won't go for that. the u.s./mexico trade agreement, they won't even take it up because it's bipartisan and they know the votes are there. if it sails through the senate and the president signs it. >> the sad reality is they say the same things about the other side. the more you guys can figure out how to do things together, the better. will this move help that? i doubt it. but i appreciate you being hehere. >> i want to make a quick prediction. on election night donald trump gets reelected and today, today, today is a milestone that democrats will regret. >> noted. i'll talk to you soon. be well. >> thanks. >> how will all this impact the 2020 race? prescient notion from congressman gooden. we heard from joe biden today. are his democratic opponents uniting around him? how do they feel about this?

what are the stakes? mayor pete buttigieg is here. where is his head? where is his heart next. where an american icon uses the latest hr tools to stay true to the family recipe. where a music studio spends less time on hr and payroll, and more time crafting that perfect sound. where the nation's biggest party store can staff up quickly as soon as it's time for fun. this is the world of adp. hr, talent, time, benefits and payroll. designed for people.

the impeachment move in the house changes the equation for everyone, the left, the right, you guys, the reasonable ones and certainly the people who want to be president, including the man sitting next to me, mayor pete buttigieg.

always good to have you. >> good to be here. >> surprised? >> a little but we knew at some point we would hit a breaking point, and we are there. this is a moment of truth for the country. i think this is a moment of truth for the republican party. sooner or later it had to come because any one of these abuses that we've seen over recent years, any one of them could have been career ending for any other president. the issue is they all came at once and it shocked the system. the system koncouldn't figure o how to deal with it. the system is kicking in and the constitution is kicking in and there's going to be a process that's going to lead to accountability on this. >> you're worried that you haven't seen the call, the complaint? >> it's not just about the call, not just about the complaint. we've seen in plain view the president of the united states confess to wrong doing. he didn't look very guilty when he did it but that doesn't change the fact that it was a confession. and right now we see strong evidence that the american president may have sold out u.s. national security interests to go after a political opponent. that's just the latest in a

number of things, any one of which might be impeachable. but the question is what standard are we going to hold the presidency to? it's not about this president, it's about the american presidency. if a line is not drawn now, then future president, even long after our lifetimes will have a different and lower bar for what they think they can get away with. >> we land from andrew johnson that precedent you're not supposed to go out after a president with impeachment for political disagreement. and if you set this as the precedent, just because you don't like what he was saying to somebody else, you try to impeach him, then impeachment will become every cycle. >> absolutely. and this impeachment should be bipartisan. i say should be because i'm not getting my hopes up. but, look, this is also a moment of truth for the republican party. every republican from elected office from representatives back home in south bend all the way being up to people like mitch

mcconnell need to decide what they're going to go down in history for. this is one of those pivotal moments where republicans can decide whether to defend not just this country but their party from actions that fly in the face of their own values, not just mine. or whether they're going to make excuses for this president, like the fellow who was just on now. >> really poignant, you reconnecting this iowa with the 16-year-old who said, pete, you know, you helped me feel good with who i am. >> yeah. >> when you're out on the hustings, that kind of stuff resonates with you. what are you hearing from people about this? >> about? >> accountability, sure, bufft impeachment as the mechanism? >> i have not loved getting into this discussion because there are so many things on the ground that need attention, to health care, to an economy that is not working for most of us. i think if we hadn't failed, we never would have gotten a

president like this one within cheating distance to the oval office in the first place. but we have been forced into it. having just wrapped up a four-day bus tour of iowa, it used to be the number of tiemofi would hear about this is zero per day, now it's about one time an event. it's still not on the top minds of people i meet. people want to know if their kids are going to be okay in school, about gun violence, how they're going to afford health care but it's coming up more. i don't know what this will mean politically. this is one of those moments that comes along where i think you have to state what the right thing is and figure out the politics around that rather than the other way around. but i will say i was struck in my appearances the last couple days how much more this is starting to be on the mind of voters in communities where i don't usually hear very much about this. >> i think one of the things that worked for the president and for mr. giuliani is they put biden on the table. one of the things that didn't work was the hostility and the recklessness with the facts made

people look at the situation and you've seen momentum building that this is not what they sold it as originally. be that as it may, we see where that leads. as i said to congresswoman spanberger, you're not going to get gun control now. you're not going to get anything done once you go down this road. this man is not bill clinton. he cannot compartmentalize and start cutting deals that will get him higher job approval numbers after he's been impeached than before. ufr ma you're making a trade, democrats. >> we're not trading much. even the things we thought he might do on a bipartisan basis, that brief moment where he pretended to be for gun safety, you remember a couple years ago us thinking for just a minute that maybe something would at least happen on infrastructure because it would benefit him politically in addition to being the right thing to do, but other than a tax cut for corporations, this president has delivered on nothing. evens things he promised that a

majority of americans might have been for. what we are i think, though, going to have to do as a party on our side is to do two things at once. maybe this president can't do two things at once. we'll see if this congress can do two things at one, but right now the american people are deciding who our next president is going to be and the issues that got us here are going to be issues when this president komgs a -- comes and goes, from gun safety, to climate change, wages and health care. >> are you open to questions about the v.p.'s son and why ukraine and do you believe any of those are open issues? >> no. i don't think we should allow this what aboutism, by what is clearly an egregious behavior by our president to say look over there. we're talking about an extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented breach of the oath of office by the american office. if they try to changes subject,

we've got to make sure that can't happen. >> very interesting to hear right now a political opponent close the door on something that could be damaging to joe biden. you don't even want to go there? >> i'm going to use the word competitor rather than opponent. among democrats, we're competing for the same job but we also know what's at satake for the country. if things were working properly here, republicans would being working right alongside democrats demanding accountability and that the rules applied to everybody. >> we'll see what happens on this. 13 months to go before anybody starts to vote. a lot can happen in the race. we welcome you here all along the way. mayor pete, thank you very much. >> good to be with you. >> if is a big gamble for democrats. we'll lay out why. an impeachment inquiry doesn't even really exist. it's all about the end goal and how you get there. what is the plus/minus politically? all right? and we're going to take a trip back in time because you learn where you are today by where you have been before. next.

is ok. just ok? (in dutch) tell him we need this merger. (in dutch) it's happening..! just ok is not ok. especially when it comes to your network. at&t is america's best wireless network according to america's biggest test. now with 5g evolution. the first step to 5g. more for your thing. that's our thing. hi. maria ramirez! mom! maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams.

i mean, if you haven't thought abfrankly, you're missing out.! uh... the mobile app makes it easy to manage your policy, even way out here. your marshmallow's... get digital id cards, emergency roadside service, even file a... whoa. whoa. whoa. whoa. whoa. whoa! oops, that cheeky little thing got away from me. my bad. geico. it's easy to manage your policy whenever, wherever.

can i trouble you for another marshmallow? if ylittle thingsate tcan be a big deal., that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. 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.

they're america's bpursuing life-changing cures. in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

remember the day, september 24th, 2019. a day that will live in in -- well, let's see. let's see how it's remembered. the speaker of the house announced a formal impeachment inquiry against this president, making him only the fourth to face a serious impeachment threat. what a club to be a part of. think about it. andrew johnson, nixon, clinton, now trump. remember, nixon resigned before the full house had a chance to vote on articles of impeachment, so only johnson and clinton were actually impeached, neither removed. the argument is this is a massive test for both sides. for the president, the irony that after all the russian interference concern and all the insistence that this president would never go to a foreign power for help in his election, he's now potentially accused of exactly that.

but the constitution sets out this power not merely for political payback or pushback against policies. google the johnson impeachment for the true precedent. he was impeached on 11 counts. it was a laundry list of all the things they didn't like about him, a racist, a bully. he went after people. but the senate came up one vote short of removal twice. the message, this can't just be about politics. clinton, also a cautionary tale for both sides. certainly informs why this president was so wary of sitting under oath with mr. mueller, because that's what led to clinton getting caught in the lewinsky trap. but congress may also have misfired there. it's no doubt one reason the house speaker was so cautious about declaring an impeachment inquiry here, the prevailing logic had backfired on republicans with clinton. he wasn't removed. and, second, democrats picked up five house seats in the next election. but a republican won the white house in 2000 in a controversy of its own, so maybe the outrage helped both sides. we may see a new wrinkle in the

potential trump impeachment, a non-compliant senate. not only are republicans loathe to move against this president, but experts suggest that while a senate trial is contemplated in the constitution, it doesn't have to happen. mcconnell might just hold a vote, cancel the trial. but the ultimate test here is how each side views its duty to the people and the constitution as captured in their oath of office. principle must win out over pragmatism, facts over farce, high crimes over hype. the interests of the people over politics. easy to say, but as we've all seen, hard to do. they may hold a vote in the house, less likely in the senate. but all will be measured by what they do now in a vote next fall. so how many votes do they need to impeach? where do the numbers stand?

what about removal? what would even work in the senate? i have a special bolo for you about where we're headed next. with more engineers. more towers. more coverage! it's a network that gives you ♪freedom from big cities, to small towns, we're with you. because life can take you almost anywhere, t-mobile is with you. no signal goes farther or is more reliable in keeping you connected. welcome to fowler, indiana. one of the windiest places in america. and home to three bp wind farms. in the off-chance the wind ever stops blowing here... the lights can keep on shining. thanks to our natural gas. a smart partner to renewable energy. it's always ready when needed.

or... not. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing. another foodie trip. who even cares? 211 people. thanks, captain obvious. don't hate-like their trip, book yours with hotels.com and get rewarded basically everywhere. that fish is done, carol. hotels.com. be there. do that. get rewarded. "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick.

i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro. walking a dog can add thousands walking this many?day. that can be rough on pam's feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they relieve pain and give her the comfort to move more so she can keep up with all of her best friends. dr. scholl's. born to move. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

bolo. that means be on the lookout. house speaker nancy pelosi officially onboard with an impeachment inquiry. so what is that, and what does it mean going forward? well, the constitution gives the sole power to impeach to the house. but it doesn't really tell it how to do it, and there is no such formal step as an inquiry. there are house rules, but basically they're going to do it the way they want. it is necessary to do one thing. a simple majority vote on the ultimate accusations or articles of impeachment generated by a committee. six house committees are now formally investigating president trump on potential impeachable offenses. the constitution states the bar is high crimes or misdemeanors,

but the standard is whatever gets a majority vote. so here is the bolo for the next steps. more hearings, more opposition from potus, which opposition may not be treated as well by judges in light of the specter of impeachment. once the investigator is done, articles of impeachment can pass out of the judiciary committee or whatever committee does them by majority vote. but that doesn't have to happen. the only must again is the majority vote of the entire house to impeach. the numbers. about 195 out of 235 democrats are already onboard with the inquiry. they would eventually need 218 to pass the vote in the house. as we argued earlier, there may be no trial in the senate. but if there is, house representatives would prosecute. lawyers for this president would defend. and then the full senate votes. it takes two-thirds to give trump the "you're fired." but again, at this point, that

is unlikely because 54 of the 100 are gop, and you need 66, and you've seen their willingness to go against the president. so the next big step is how good a case can the house democrats make, and we're going to see that sooner than later. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon starts right now. >> so i missed you last night, right? i did a speech, and i was flying across country, and i was watching this on tv. and i said, i'm glad i didn't chastise chris about that giuliani interview the other night because look what happened. >> yep. >> i think this directly came from that because he admitted in that interview that he had asked -- that the president had asked to investigate a political rival. >> yeah. i mean, look, obviously you had people looking at this. but he achieved what he wanted on one level. he got