against donald j. trump. >> the president has admitted to asking the president of ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically. the actions of the trump presidency revealed dishonorable fact of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections. therefore, today i am announcing the house of representatives is 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 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 early 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 transcribe it. it can be reviewed. it can be changed. so it is good to have, in fact, 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 the 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 span berger from virginia. one of those seven freshmen house democrats in competitive swing districts who could no long early 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 impeach. you're saying you're ready to look at the facts with an eye toward impeachment. is that a fair clarification? >> that is exactly correct, yes.

>> and when you give the different ideas of why, all of the bolded phrases here 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 deem that these allegations as stand alone allegations demonstrate a grievous presence of potential corruption, 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, in that quest. >> allegedly is the keyword.

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, unless i'm wrong, 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. that's why i said let's be clear you're not ready to impeach, you're ready to look. what would be the threshold? what would you have to see in the call and in the complaint that would get you to what point? >> yeah, evidence. evidence and information related to what happened, what the president's motivation were, explicitly what his engagement of the president of ukraine in those conversations, what happened, any other facts in evidence that might be available. you mentioned i'm a former case officer with the cia. my whole job used to be to 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. and -- but what i thought was important, what those of us who

entered into this op-ed was important is that we had to clarify that these charges -- that these allegations against the president are of a different nature, are of a distinct nature -- >> yeah, why? >> they are impeachable. >> that's what i want to talk to you about, congresswoman. 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? so 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 say you can 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 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 everybody wants it to be true. it would be devastating for this country if these allegations are, in fact, 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 these allegations -- do they bear truth. so that we can move on as a country in whichever direction is necessary, pending the outcome. >> are you open to anything not related to ukraine? the efforts -- you know,

everything that you guys -- your party has been talking about the last year and a half. off and on this show, i say too big-time democrats, you know, 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 is 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, specific 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 i have -- when my colleagues on the committees of jurisdiction are ready to bring those before the larger house, i will weigh those facts in evidence as it's 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. with this circumstance it is cut and dry. the president allegedly sought to influence a foreign leader and he sought to use security to our detriment -- if the proof is there. >> let me ask you one last question, congresswoman. you are not in a home run district for you. >> that's right. >> that's why one of the reasons this needed to be a deliberative process. makes sense pragmatically. 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 you do 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. the evidence is profound. i want to make it clear to my constituents alongside my colleagues to the rest of the country, 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 in tandem, focus on the things that are important to the people babbling home. health care, infrastructure, trade, environment, gun violence prevention. we can do both. that's what i'm going to be focused on. but it is vitally, vitally important that we ensure we are protecting the -- our democracy that we are advocating for our democracy. i have sworn an oath multi38 times in my life to protect the constitution. this most recent -- this most recent oath when i was sworn into congress is no different. it's one i take very seriously. and i believe that my constituents respect that and

respect i will go through this procession in a thoughtful way with the best -- with the best intentions and with the best interests of the country in mind. >> i hear you. and 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. 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. we know what's happening in the senate. you have to believe resistance may be redoubled. congresswoman abigail spanberger. thank you very much for making your case to the audience. eight thank you. >> 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 with some review of what was said. that's why the whistleblower

complaint still matters a lot 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. [ orchestral music playing ] [ tires screech ] mom, you've got to get yourself a new car. the car's fine. [ car horn honks ] i wish i could save faster. you're making good choices. you'll get there. got it? yeah. ♪ thank you. bye. were you going to tell me about this? i know i can't afford to go. you can't even afford to get yourself a new car.

i still have this car so you can afford to go. [ music resumes ] i'm so proud of you. thank you, mom. principal. we can help you plan for that. start today at principal.com. new crest gum and sensitivity. ahh brain freeze! no, it's my teeth. your teeth hurt? just sensitivity. i should see my dentist. my teeth have been feeling really sensitive lately. well 80% of sensitivity starts at the gum line, so treat sensitivity at the source. new crest gum and sensitivity starts treating sensitivity immediately, at the gum line, for relief within days and wraps your teeth in sensitivity protection. ohh your teeth? no, it's brain freeze! new gum and sensitivity from crest. "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. tell him we're flexible. don't worry. my dutch 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.

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. iit's not "acceptable or nothing." and it's definitely not "close enough or nothing." mercedes-benz suvs were engineered with only one mission in mind. to be the best.

in the category, in the industry...in the world. lease the gla 250 suv for just $329 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. soon it looks like we'll know what is in the whistleblower's complaint. but how this 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. so we need the context. two reasons. one, because accountability and the constitutional check on potus by congress demands no less. and because this involves a lot more than a suddenly corruption-conscious commander in chief and a single phone

call. when you go step-by-step through what we already know, you see that multiple moves were made by at least half a dozen government and private 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 delays were part of a, quote, inter-agency process. in may potus and his personal lawyer started pushing their conspiracy theory over on fox and another conservative media.

as we have 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 vp biden's son. you've 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 name sake and others on the right called her out as part of their anti-biden narrative. then we noah round july 18th, potus ordered his acting chief of staff to freeze the aid money. then national security advisor john bolton and defense secretary mark esper were reportedly in on that conversation. on july 25th, potus talked with the 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 he melt wit with a ukrainian re. he suggested two things that countered each other. he did it as counsel to potus. then he said it was at the direction of the state department. ask yourself, 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 complaint reportedly involved several actions. in other words, more than just one phone call. august also saw bolton travel to kiev in ukraine, where he made news there by being out of sync with his boss, calling 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 the

pentagon. so then we get to september 1st. our vice-president had his own meeting with the ukrainian 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 in his own administration. congress felt the same way and started investigating. september 9th, that was. three days later, the money gets released to ukraine. what a coincidence. we need to know what was said and why, because none of the president's and his lash-out prone lawyers' excuses make sense. did the president subvert the will of congress to fund ukraine in order to pressure our ally

into digging up dirt on a political opponent? the answer is yes. that abuse of power could provide a lot of fuel to the flames of potential impeachment. now, 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 good en. he says he's fed up and that the person to move on is chairman nadler. what's his case? next. ♪ dealing with psoriatic arthritis pain was so frustrating. my skin... it was embarrassing. my joints... they hurt. the pain and swelling. the tenderness. the psoriasis. i had to find something that worked on all of this. i found cosentyx. now, watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are getting real relief with cosentyx. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. cosentyx treats more than just the joint pain of psoriatic arthritis. it even helps stop further joint damage.

don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms. if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i got real relief. i got clearer skin and feel better. now, watch me. get real relief with cosentyx.

(kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time. 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. with licensed agents availablep when 24-7,d it.

it's not just easy. it's having-jerome-bettis- on-your-flag-football-team easy. go get 'em, bus! ohhhh! [laughing] c'mon bus, c'mon! hey, wait, wait, wait! hey man, i got your flag! i got your flag, man! i got your flag! it's geico easy. with licensed agents available 24/7. 49 - nothing! woo!

all right. so what was the president's motive for withholding aid from ukraine? he keeps saying that he did it.

he just keeps giving different reasons. take a listen. >> we want to make sure that country is 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'd withhold again and continue to withhold until such time as europe and other nations contribute to ukraine because they're not doing it. just the united states. we're putting up the bulk of the money and i'm asking why is that? >> i wonder if the first lady was thinking there, huh, that wasn't your complaint yesterday when you said you were holding it back because they're corrupt. now he says he's holding it back so europe puts money in. let me ask you, does that make sense? would you keep money out as a way of insencentivizing someone investing in a place or put money into that? logic may not be the best part of the case. politics and numbers will be.

republican congressman lance gooden is here. welcome back to primetime. >> thanks. >> you've probably heard me many times say i 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 ask you this. the fundamental question of did the president 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 turnover the whistleblower complaint. they're going to turnover the transcript of the call. so the speculation that i've watched back and forth on this network for the last two hours will all be put to rest in about 12 hours if the white house does as they're saying they're going to do tonight. >> why?

>> because the last 12 hours or rather, the last 72 hours have been about what was discussed between these two presidents. what is in this whistleblower report. it sounds like, based on what we're hearing in the last two hours, a lot of time going on here, that tomorrow morning both the whistleblower complaint and the transcript of the call are going to be released. so all these great questions can finally have an answer and the speculation can stop. >> why does it end? the idea that -- let's say the president didn't really mention money in the call with the ukrainian president. i have to believe they wouldn't release the call if they thought it would damn him. >> or let's go to bed and wake up tomorrow and have answers to these questions. >> why do you think it will answer the questions if the complaint says i don't like what he said to the ukraine president, how does that answer -- >> 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 answered tomorrow morning. we can end speculation about what took place between the two. maybe what happens next is still under consideration. but at least we can stop questioning what happened between these two gentlemen. >> so you have no problem that the president gave two different explanations in two days for why he withheld the aid and they have nothing to do with one another? >> i've often done things and multiple reasons. i believe tomorrow we'll have answers to questions i've seen speculation run rampant on the weekend these last few days. >> but speculation suggests that you haven't known anything except that 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. and 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 question that i have heard the most over the last 72 hours are what's in the whistleblower complaint? what happened between these two gentlemen. >> yes, fundamental. >> fundamentally we'll have answers tomorrow and then let's talk. >> you want to say let's see what is pap 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. 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. i'm confident this time tomorrow you'll be talking about it no matter what we learn tomorrow. >> i would congratulate you for your benign outlook on all this

if it weren't for the fact you're moving to remove chairman nadler because you're so frustrated by the process. what is the legal base -- you don't need one, this is politics. actually think you should get rid of him? >> oddly enough, we're not just making this stuff up. the house rules say that the house determines whether or not there is an impeachment inquiry. we have to actually vote on that. what's been happening since july when chairman nadler just went forward for this investigation was, he was doing this on his own. he said, his words exactly, we are in the middle of impeachment. i am investigating. this is an inquiry. none of that's legal. house rules, which are determined via the constitution, the rule of law, says that the u.s. house of representatives has to vote on that and that's not happened. if you go back to july, we actually had a vote on impeachment, and it failed. democrats didn't like that so now they're saying let's investigate and investigate. nancy pelosi said today -- >> you're supposed to investigate. >> what nancy pelosi said today was no different than what's been happening this whole entire

time. >> i don't agree. here's what the constitution says. >> i appreciate that. >> you see these bags under my eyes? i've been reading it. >> makeup covers them well. >> i have to get on it. the constitution says the sole power to impeach rests with 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. >> let's have one. let's have one. if democrats want to impeach the president, it's fine, go 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 and wrong way to proceed with impeachment. there isn't even anything called the impeachment in the constitution. >> the house rules 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 actually move forward into this impeachment process,

which it sounds like we're going to get there, if you talk to nancy pelosi and the far-left caucus that's driving the agenda. if we actually get to that point, we need someone to at least be fair. schar m chairman nadler has not been. he's gone on his own and this is how we're going to do it. that's not what the house rules say. we've talked with parliame parliamentarians. >> i don't know that gets you to lose your chairmanship and the judiciary is where you're supposed to be doing this contemplating. you don't have to. >> someone who is actually fair and going to follow the law. not saying we're impeaching a president. >> i don't believe nadler ever said he's impeaching -- >> absolutely. he said -- before i go to bed tonight, he said we are in impeachment now. i will send you the quote. >> because his point is that it's all the same body of investigation. that anything you want to call it, you can call it. but until you call for a vote of the entire chamber, you're

investigating, as you should. and they better be able to make one hell of a case if they're going to bring articles of impeachment against the president. better not just be politics. >> democrats don't want to impeach the president. they want to be under an impeachment process throughout the next election cycle. democrats know if they vote for impeachment, even if they are able to muster up the votes, which by the way, they can't, they have 31 democrats in districts that went against trump in the last election cycle. they don't have enough votes for impeachment. let's assume they did. the senate will equip the president. >> i don't know that they'll try him. >> they may not. i'm with you. they may not. why waist the time and the resources? get to work for the american people. we took office. all my freshman colleagues across the aisle said, lance, i want to work with you -- >> you passed stuff and the senate won't put it on the floor. >> go call mitch mcconnell.

>> it's outrageous. >> why don't you call mitch mcconnell and say that? >> i will call mitch mcconnell and ask do you think it's wise for the democrats to take up the next three months -- >> why don't you ask him to put some votes on the floor on some of the bills that your house passed? >> some of these bills, most all of them actually, are bills the republicans wanted to work with democrats on, but democrats know that if we work across the aisle and actually have a bill, we're all in unison on the president might actually sign it. god forbid the house pass something the president signs. they won't go for that. the u.s./mexico trade agreement, it's bipartisan. the votes are there. if it passes the house, sails through the senate. the president signs tfrmt >> sad reality, they say the same thing on the other side. i'll agree, i'll welcome you back again. the more you figure out how to do things together, the better. will this move help that, i

doubt it. but i appreciate you being here. >> i want to make a quick prediction. >> you got it. >> on election night, donald trump gets reelected, and today -- today, today -- is a milestone democrats will regret. >> noted. i'll talk to you soon. >> thank you. thanks. >> be well. 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 buttiegieg is here. where is his head? where is his heart? next. maria ramirez? 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.

♪ mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! yes ♪ hey sean hey dan ♪ hey theo. cop: onstar, i have the stolen vehicle in sight. [police sirens] cop: onstar, slow it down. onstar advisor: mr. grantham, this is onstar. the police have your vehicle. mr. grantham: thank you so much.

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 buttiegieg. always a pleasure. good to have you. >> glad to be with you. >> surprised? >> i knew at some point we would hit a breaking point. 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 couldn't figure out how to deal with it. now the system is kicking in. the constitution is kicking in. and there's going to be a process that leads to some kind

of accountability on this. >> are you worried that you haven't seen the call, haven't seen the complaint? >> it's not just about the call. it's not just about the complaint. but we do know that we have seen in plain view the president of the united states confess to wrongdoing. 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. the real question is what standard are we going to hold the presidency to? this isn't just about this president. this is about the american presidency. because if a line is not drawn now, then future presidents, even long after our lifetimes, will have a different and lower bar for what they think they can get away with. >> now, the opposite in reverse, right? if we learned from andrew johnson, the precedent you're not supposed to go out after a president with impeachment for political disagreement. >> that's right. >> and if you set this as the

precedent, that just because you don't like what he he was saying to somebody else, you try to impeach him, impeachment will become every cycle. >> absolutely. this impeachment should be bipartisan. i say should be because i'm not getting my hopes up. look, this is also a moment of truth for the republican party. every republican in elected office, from representative jackie back home in south bend all the way to people like mitch mcconnell need to decide what they're going to go down in history for, because this is one of those moments, 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 in 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, that resonates with you. what are you hearing from people

about this? >> about? >> how important this is, accou accountability, sure. impeachment the mechanism? >> i am one of the candidates who has really not loved getting into this discussion because there are so many things on the ground that need attention. from health care to an economy that's not working for most of us. and i think if we hadn't failed as a country to handle those issues over recent decades, we never would have got a president like this one within cheating distance of the oval office in the first place. i'm the last one to be enthusiastic about this topic. but we have been forced into it. and what i'll say is, having just wrapped up a four-day bus tour of iowa, it used to be the number of times i would hear about this is approximately zero per day. now it's once per event. it's still not the top thing on the minds of most people that i meet. people want to know their kids are going to be okay in school with gun violence. they want to know how they're going to be able to afford health care. it's on people's minds more. i don't know what this will mean politically. this is one of those moments

that comes along where you have to state what the right thing is and figure out the politics around that rather than the other way around. i will say this is -- i was struck in my appearances the last couple days how much more this is starting to be on the minds of voters who, 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 that 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'll see where that leads. as i said to congresswoman spanberger, you're not going to get gun control done 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 to get him higher job approval numbers after he gets impeached than before. you're making a trade here as democrats. >> if the thing we're trading away is this president's

capacity to get things done on a bipartisan basis that the american ma jordan want, we're not trading much. none of the things -- even the things we thought he might do on a bipartisan basis, the brief moment he pretended to be for gun safety, a couple years ago thinking something may 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. even the things he promised that some of a majority of americans might have been for. we're not losing much when it comes to the idea this presidency won't be doing deals. what we are 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 once. 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 comes and goes. from gun safety to climate change to immigration to wages to health care. >> are you open to questions about the vp's son and what the

vp did and why in china or ukraine, do you believe any of those are open issues? >> no, and i don't think we should allow this kind of what about-ism that is clearly an egregious pattern of behavior by this president to turn into an excuse, to allow them to say, look over there, look at this thing that happened. we're talking about an extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented breach of the oath of office by the american president. if they try to change the subject, we have to make sure that can't happen. >> very interesting to hear. right now a political opponent closed 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. we also know what's at stake for the country. and this is a moment where, again, if things were working properly here, republicans would be right alongside the democrats demanding there be accountability and the rule of law be applied to this president the way it is everybody else in this country. >> ifs and buts, if not we'd

have a beautiful christmas. there are 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. >> thank you. good to be with you. >> it is a big gamble for democrats, we'll layout why. an impeachment inquiry doesn't 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. tell him we're flexible. don't worry. my dutch 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. [ [ tires screech ]playing ]

mom, you've got to get yourself a new car. the car's fine. [ car horn honks ] i wish i could save faster. you're making good choices. you'll get there. got it? yeah. ♪ thank you. bye. were you going to tell me about this? i know i can't afford to go. you can't even afford to get yourself a new car. i still have this car so you can afford to go. [ music resumes ] i'm so proud of you. thank you, mom. principal. we can help you plan for that. start today at principal.com.

"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. romance isn't dead! but it is here. 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. remember the day, september 24th, 2019. a day that will live in infa- -- 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. and 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 loath 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. what are you doing? isn't it obvious? nah. we're delivering live market coverage and offering expert analysis completely free. we're helping you make sense of the markets without cable or a subscription from anywhere you are. i get that. but what are you doing here? nice pajamas.

really? i say pajamas. pajamas, pajamas, whichever. good. yahoo finance live. stream free anywhere. welcome to the show. let's make finance make sense. 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. you have fast-acting power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength and speed of advil liqui-gels. what pain? could you email me the part great about geicon, tim. making it easy to switch and save hundreds? oh yeah, sure. um. you don't know my name, do you? (laughs nervously) of course i know your name. i just get you mixed up with the other guy.

what's his name? what's your name? switch to geico®. you could save 15% or more on car insurance. could you just tell me? i want this to be over. 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.

here, hello! starts with -hi!mple... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.

bolo. that means be on the lookout. house speaker nancy pelosi officially on board 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 investigating 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 on board 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 the 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, right? he got biden's name out there. he got biden in the stink. but the hostility, the hostility to the facts, the confusing the facts, the not owning the truth the first time, the suggestion about the president in a way that didn't make sense, now they're dealing with the outcome from that. where does it go? i think it's way more uncertain than we're hearing from some democrats tonight. >> yeah. but it's also obvious when you look at every single response. obviously someone got together and th