procedure here, is to consult with the white house counsel, et cetera. he made another choice. and again, he was trying to dot right thing. >> director clapper, i appreciate it. quick reminder. join me and jake tapper 11:00 p.m. eastern tonight for cnbc special report the impeachment inquiry. news continues right now with chris. chris? >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time." what do you say? let's get after it. all right. now, we now know the whistle-blower didn't just worry about that ukraine call but all the people and all the effort that came over the course of months before that call in order to get ukraine's help to investigate former vp biden. the other shocker was what came after the call, this accusation that people around this president worked to cover up records of that call and others. "white house officials told me that they were directed by white

house lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored. instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system. and this was not the first time under this administration that a presidential transcript was placed into this codeword level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive rather than national security sensitive information." the president says it was a perfect call. then why move mountains to conceal the sflord and if it's all fine, why call the whistle-blower basically a spy and suggest they should be killed? yes, that's where we are. so let's talk to players on both sides about where we're going. congresswoman maxine waters, chair of the house finance committee. it's good to see you. >> good to be here. thank you. delighted to be with you this evening. >> very important moment.

>> yes. >> after today where were you left in terms of the strength of conviction you have about what you're dealing with? >> well, i have for a long time paid a lot of attention to this president, even before the inauguration of the president, watched him very closely during his campaign, and i decided based on everything that he revealed about himself that he was someone with a flawed character and that he was not deserving of the presidency and he was going to be a problem. and so he has turned out to be everything that i suspected he would be, and he has dishonored the office of the presidency. and so with all of this new revelation about his conversation with the president of ukraine, it rings true. >> do you think you know enough at this point, congresswoman, to say there is enough here for articles of impeachment? >> absolutely. >> already? >> the president himself admitted that he had a telephone conversation with the president

of ukraine. he also said he did talk to him about biden. and i believe that in that conversation he did exactly what is being said about the conversation by others, that he was asking this president to help him with the kind of investigation that would lead to dirt on biden. >> you would accept no other explanation? >> there is no other explanation. what did he do, just call him to say congratulations? >> i'm conducting foreign powers, i'm trying to create a relationship, we're worried about corruption, we're worried about the integrity of our elections, and i'm making sure that the president of ukraine knows that and does everything he can. >> absolutely not. that would not be consistent with the character of this president. this president has basically refused to condemn putin knowing that russia interfered with our election, undermined our democracy in the last presidential election, and really was setting up a way for ukraine to undermine our

elections by getting dirt on biden -- >> he says i'm not dumb, i know people are listening. you think i'm dumb enough to say something like that knowing everybody's listening? >> no, but i think he's brazen enough. i think he's got anne way with enough that he does not believe that we can do anything to stop him. he has discovered the awesome powers of the presidency. the constitution of the united states never anticipated that a president would use his powers this way. and he has learned that he can get away with it. he's brazen. >> how did you take what i thought was one of the more surprising things we've heard from him, especially in the context and the timing of today, this is what he said in reaction to what was exposed in the hearing today. >> who's the bhoerns gave the whistle-blower the information? because that's close to a spy. you know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? right? the spies and treason. we used to handle it a little differently than we do now. >> he seems to be suggesting a very dark fate. >> this is consistent with the

way the president has conducted himself don't forget at some of his rallies. he encouraged, you know, beating up on folks who were out there opposing him. he's done this several times. he said that he could stand up in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody and get away with it. >> a lot of people in his party today, though, seem very concerned about leaks and that there was almost equal animus about them as to anything the president did on the phone call. how do you feel about that? >> well, i don't see the whistle-blower as leaking. i see these people as being concerned about this country and about the security of this country. i think they saw and heard and experienced something that made them believe that the president of the united states was moving in a very dangerous way and that it was urgent and they had the responsibility to say something, to do something about it, and this whistle-blower talked to a number of people as i understand it and they all were worried and concerned that the president had conducted himself in a way that was not in the best interests of

this country. >> do you believe that you have to have hearings that develop all of the different aspects of what led to that conversation? because the conversation in itself arguably is or is not enough to meet the standard of impeachment, which is a very gross abuse of power. you know the standard. i don't have to tell you. but who knew? who helped in the state department? who told you people in congress the different stories about why the money wasn't being released -- >> absolutely. >> -- giuliani's role, the a.g.'s role. don't you need to know that first? >> i think that's a part of the impeachment proceedings that will go on. if you can recall, in clinton there were hearings and that we had witnesses come in, we had people talk about various aspects of the accusations. that will be a part of what we do. >> you're saying you're ready to go now. >> oh, well, i think we will be ready to go very shortly because as you know, the way the speaker has talked about it, the six committees that have been doing the investigations will come together and the speaker's

already said the latest revelations about the telephone conversation, the president with the president of ukraine has caused us to be focused and understand that something has gone on here that absolutely rises to the level of possible impeachment. >> so two hurdles in making the case to some of the democrats that aren't on board and frankly the american people. one, all that other stuff we've been hearing about for all these months, actually over a year that was so important that maybe you had to impeach, that's all gone. is the suggestion that it didn't really matter that much to begin with? >> well, it's not all gone. what we are saying is this will be the focus. it is so recent. and i think people understand it a lot better now. and i think that all of the other things may be considered. and with this being the focus, maybe one or two other things. that we have not decided is exactly what's going to go into the impeachment resolution. but we do think that this will

be high on the agenda. >> and the key part will be once you know everything you know, the idea of why it reaches the standard of impeachment. >> yes. >> and obviously we'll have to wait until you have everything in front you have that you feel confident to make that case. congresswoman, thank you so much. such an important night. >> delighted to be here. >> you always have an invitation on this show in these important times to explain to the american people what's going on and why. >> i appreciate that. and thank you for having me this evening. >> pleasure. be well. >> thank you. >> ahead, clearly the democrats have a tall task and it's made all the tougher by the fact that the other side of the aisle could not be more opposed to their efforts. we saw that today. we have a republican who questioned the president's acting dni in that hearing this morning. you have to hear what the democrats are up against. next.

thanks to priceline working with top airlines to turn their unsold seats into amazing deals, family reunion attendance is up. we're all related! yeah, i see it. and because priceline offers great deals by comparing thousands of prices in real time, sports fans are seeing more away games.

various: yeah-h-h! is that safe? oh, y... ahh! not at all. no, ma'am. nope. and more people than ever are enjoying romantic getaways. (romantic music) that's gross priceline. every trip is a big deal. that's gross 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. 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. it's my special friend, antonio. his luxurious fur calms my nerves when i'm worried about moving into our new apartment. why don't we just ask geico for help with renters insurance? i didn't know geico helps with renters insurance.

yeah, and we could save a bunch too. antonio! fetch computer! antonio? i'll get it. get to know geico and see how much you could save on renters insurance. "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. no surprise. there was a house divided at the hearing today. representative chris stewart, republican from utah, was in today's house hearing. he questioned the acting dni.

now we have him here with us. congressman, welcome to "prime time." >> good to be with you. >> it's good to be with you. just at outset you know you are always welcome on this show, not just to talk about this but what matters to the american people. i want you as part of the conversation. >> i appreciate that. and you've always said that and i really believe you're sincere. >> especially now we need it. we need to have as many different voices showing this country. one of the things i thought was interesting today in your questioning of the acting dni, you went out of your way to say don't dishonor mr. maguire because of his record of service. >> yeah. >> fair point. i always thought it was interesting you that didn't ask him anything about what happened in the phone call or the surrounding. you are not curious about any aspects of the phone call or the implications of it? >> well, for one, i've read the transcript. so i don't think he could cast any light on it. and the other is that he'd been asked by i don't know, half a dozen other people already and they had asked those questions. so there really wasn't anything new that i could have asked that hadn't been asked already or that i didn't feel like i already knew. >> are you bothered by the call or the surrounding

circumstances? >> i want to back up if i could, chris, just because i think it's so important. and this is a man who served his country for 36 years. and in the last week or ten days he's been accused of breaking the law. he's been accused of being a political stooge for the president. he's been accused of protecting the president without any evidence at all. and i just think it was fair and important to dpif him a chance to respond to that. >> would have been nice for him to answer some of the procedural issues also. i get that he was in a tough spot. >> he was. >> the statute frankly, fair reading, with a lawyer background, is it's designed for the intelligence community. >> yeah. >> i get that. >> but the idea that when you are faced with it you go to the white house and the a.g. when you know that they're both implicated in the complaint, it's going to raise questions. >> well, but he had no choice. and general clapper, who was a former dni, who is no friend to this president as you know, was on just moments ago, and i had a chance to hear him and he said exactly what i've been saying. he had no choice. mr. maguire and the i.g. were both caught in a very difficult

circumstance. i've had a chance to spend hours with him now. i believe they're both sincere individuals trying to serve their country. the law seemed to be deficient or as you said it was mute on this. and they just didn't know what to do. >> i think it was designed for the intel community. clapper told me on the show he didn't think he had any latitude, meaning that whenever he got a complaint he had to deliver it over. >> well, he also said just previously that he had to go to the office of legal counsel for advice because there was this discrepancy. and i think that's what you're alluding to about him going -- >> so that's the acting dni. we heard from him today. maybe we'll hear from him again. you have to see where the situation takes you. but the idea of what's in that complaint, the phone call is not the sum total of the situation. it's just a window into a process that had been going on for over a year that involved mr. giuliani, the president, and who knows in the state department and the white house dealing with you guys in congress about the funding. what are you concerned about in any of that? >> well, the essence of the complaint is only the phone call. everything else is just public reporting.

things that we -- >> we've talked to lots of officials, congressman, who said they have concerns about how the transcript was stored, about what was being done with the ukraine relationship and for whose benefit. >> the essence of this report was about the phone call. i mean, anyone can read it. now, they can talk about well, they had concerns about whether it was -- what computer it was stored. but you can't tell me that that's going to be the essence of an impeachment hearing. it has to be the essence of this phone call. that's 90-something per-cent of our concerns. >> well, when you say the phone call, is the question for you did the president of the united states solicit information about an potent that could be helpful to him in his election from a foreign power? >> he clearly asked the foreign opponent to -- or the foreign government to do an investigation of what he felt was corruption. now, i've got to tell you to be honest, i don't think i would have said that. it makes me uncomfortable. but presidents do things that make me uncomfortable all the time. and you dent impeach them for it. when president obama said to the

russian president, president medvedev, give me after the election and i'll have more latitude. or the thing we've been talking about more recently, when vice president obama went there and demanded they fire this prosecutor and threatened to withhold aid -- >> biden. >> i'm sorry. vice president biden. that made me uncomfortable. but i didn't call for impeachment on either one of them. >> but you have something that is clearly in contravention of a statute here. if you ask a foreign power for anything of value in your election, you break the law. >> no. that's just not true. look, there's been all sorts of analysis on this, including legal counsel at the department of justice regarding this phone call. and they looked at it and said we don't even think it's an f.e.c. violation. >> i know. but they were looking at it when the i.g. mentioned in the situation. shouldn't he have recused himself? >> your presumption is every one of them is corrupt. >> no, no. if anything we were hearing way too much about those people being corrupt from people on your side of the aisle for the last year and a half. i don't believe that. i'm saying the a.g. being

mentioned maybe would have create aid disposition of carefulness inside the d.o.j. in reviewing a matter that he's involved in. >> therefore they had a corrupt decision? >> no, i'm saying you create just like with biden, you create the appearance of impropriety by him not saying i've got to recuse myself from this. i'm mentioned here. >> but chris, you stated definitively that he broke the law. this was a violation of the law. >> no, not the a.g. i'm saying the president soliciting -- look, we have the statute up on the screen for people. that's what the law says. it's not what i say. >> and i'm telling you there are attorneys that -- very intelligent attorneys who specialize in this area of law who say that's absolutely not true. >> so you can ask a foreign power -- let's say stewart and cuomo are running against each other. i can say i'm running against stewart, do you know anything about him when he was there? and they say yeah, look at this, we have this whatever. oh, thank you. and i use it in our election. you're okay with that? >> what i'm saying is there's two things that are very important. what i'm saying is what the president did here, many attorneys who specialize in this area of law say it's not a

violation of law. but the more important thing is i've been this before. then you'd never, never do it. and i say it depends. and surely you agree it would depend. let me give you a very easy example. let's say a very close ally, the united kingdom, came to you, this is someone you trust, they're a friend and they came to you with clear evidence saying one of your opponents was involved with, say, the molestation or the sexual assault of a child. are you telling me you wouldn't do something with that? >> i'd say go to the fbi. >> that's exactly right. but you would do something with it. >> no, no, no. i'd say go to the fbi, i can't have anything to do with this. >> but you wouldn't just sit on it. you'd do something with it. >> that's the opposite of what the president did. i'm saying that you would make it go to the right authorities. i wouldn't try to get it for my own advantage. >> but that's what some people have suggested, is that you couldn't do anything with it. and i just think that's nuts. i've been criticized for saying of course you would do something -- >> they say when someone comes to you -- look, you know what we're talking about here. if you go to a foreign entity and say help me, you're not

supposed to ask. i thought we all agreed on that after mueller, that one thing that we all don't want is a foreign power messing with our elections or people going to a foreign power to mess with the election. >> i think we agree with that actually. and maybe you misunderstood me because we do agree on that. i said it makes me uncomfortable. i said some of the things that other presidents have done have made me uncomfortable. the question is, and i think this is a real central thing that we need to talk about here now, is does it rise to a level high crime and misdemeanor and should that individual be impeached? i gave you examples of things president obama, vice president biden -- >> you think either of those stack up to this? >> i think they're very, very similar. of course. >> how is what vp biden did the same as this? >> because he went there and said you fire that prosecutor and he threatened to withhold a billion dollars worth of aid and his son was associated with a company that was being investigated. are you telling me that's not concerning? but let me make my other point because i really think this is key. it doesn't matter what i think. it doesn't matter what 217

democrats think. it matters what the american people think. and when president nixon, when he was impeached, everyone knew that he violated -- he went into -- he broke into -- >> it was a felony. >> then he covered it up. and there was obstruction of justice. when president clinton was involved with a intern, someone half his age, and lied to the grand jury, in both of those circumstances the american people looked at it and they just intuitively know that's wrong. >> so you think that you only do what the american people say you should do? >> i'm saying if you're going to impeach, the american people have to support it. >> really? >> of course. >> what if they don't understand the circumstances the way that you do? >> then you have to convince them. you have to convince the american people. >> then why haven't you guys done gun reform when 90% of the people want it? >> that's a completely different -- >> no, it isn't. it's the same principle. >> if you want o'talk guns -- >> no, i'm saying the president does too -- >> i'm saying if you're going to impeach a president you have to convince the american people -- >> so if 50% of the american

people say they want it then you're okay with it? >> i think you have to convince -- i don't want to say it's based on polling. but if we don't -- >> how would you know? >> if we don't do that, then the next president's going to be impeached. and the president after that. because there is no perfect presidency. and if you don't have a high threshold for impaecht where the majority and i would say the vast majority of americans support that there will never be a president who serves his time in office again. >> and you don't see any difference between -- >> you think this -- >> -- this president what he did, what vp biden did, and what president obama did? you see them all as equal? >> i actually think vice president biden's is much worse. >> really? acting under the color and authority of the united states government -- >> how could it not be worse? >> with the eu, the ukraine parliament voting and other western democracies and ngos all asking for the ouster of the same prosecutor. he acts openly as the vp, holding back money, trying to get rid of the prosecutor. the president said he bragged about getting rid of a prosecution.

that's not true. he got rid of a prosecutor. the guy started an investigation before his son worked there. after that prosecutor left the next prosecutor looked at it even more and cleared the guy. and you think that's the same as calling the ukraine president and saying investigate my opponent? >> i feel -- again, i actually think it's worse. >> really? >> yes, of course. and i don't know how you could argue with that. he is the vice president -- >> we are equally shocked, congressman. >> he's the viefrpt of the united states who went there and demanded that they fire a prosecutor who was investigating the company his son was being paid by. and threatened to withhold aid from that company -- or that country if he did not. you're okay with that -- >> he was acting under the color and authority -- absolutely there's a quid pro quo because he said if you don't get rid of this prosecutor the united states isn't giving you the money. you're forgetting the main element. personal gain. you have to show that -- >> his son -- you don't think his son's well-being, financial well-being -- >> they opened the investigation before the son got there. he was investigated more after

the prosecutor left and cleared. >> you don't think that his son's financial well-being was for his personal gain? because i think it clearly was. >> i know. but what i'm saying -- i know what you think. what i'm saying is how was it in biden's interest to do that the way it was in this president's interest to do that? i guess, look, i guess that's the question you guys are going to have to pursue -- >> i think most americans -- i can see how it's in his personal interest to protect his son's financial -- >> but you don't see this as being in this president's personal interest? >> no, i said i see them very clearly in parallel. but you asked me which i thought was worse. i don't know, you tell me. but you can't say this one's okay and this one's bad. they're very, very similar. >> i think you can make the argument that it is but that's the course going forward and you are always welcome here. as we go along the process to make your case to the people. i want them to hear it. thank you, congressman. i appreciate it. all right. the attorney general as we were just discussing is named in the whistle-blower report. he was named on the phone call. what does that mean? does he have any exposure here? was there any responsibility put

on him because of that? so we're going to look into with a couple of people with investigative backgrounds that go deep into the functioning of the doj, what is the exposure, what are the questions? next. lunch... with 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. is that...? quesadillas?

gordon ramsay? handing out samples? seems like just an ok use of your culinary talents, dude. yeah it is smart guy. almost like having a brand new iphone but not pairing it with at&t. that's true... gordon ramsay. oi, fingers, it's not a buffet! use the cocktail stick. use a cocktail stick. get the most from your amazing new iphone 11 pro on at&t, america's fastest network for iphones. more for your thing. that's our thing. "fine. no one leaves the table "fine! we'll sleep here."."

"it's the easiest, because it's the cheesiest" kraft. for the win win. 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. 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. hey. ♪hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant someone new joins your network... only with xfinity xfi. download the xfi app today.

all right. we have three quick questions that came up in important ways this morning. two experts, an investigation handled them. jim achor and andrew mccabe. welcome back, gentlemen. andrew, let me start with you. what the president said about guys like, this the guys that talked to this whistle-blower, maybe even the whistle-blower, they're basically spies. you know what we used to do with them. your take?

>> yeah. horrendous. horrendous, chris. this is -- first of all, it's the president doing exactly what the whistle-blower protection statutes say you can't do, which is attempting to retaliate against somebody for filing a complaint using proper channels. i will also tell you that having experienced a very similar baseless charge from the president, it is absolutely chilling. even though it's president trump and he frequently says things that are baseless and absolutely wrong, to hear the president of the united states call you treasonous and call for your execution is absolutely terrifying. so that is a message that i'm sure all those u.s. government employees in his presence this morning received loud and clear. >> jim, give me a thumbnail sketch of the operative and legal distinction between what we're dealing with on the president of this call with the president of ukraine and that solicitation and what vp biden did with ukraine in his capacity as vice president. >> well, they're completely different. and i think one of the things

that concerns me the most is people keep talking about these criminal statutes and whether they apply to the president and who violated what and so on. i think you need to forget that. what you need to focus on is the constitution and whether the president violated his oath of office and abused his power. and to me the thing that is the most alarming about the phone call and what i think is really at the foundation of what people should be concerned about is that the phone call evidences an effort by the president to use the power of his office to keep himself in power. that's really what this is about. and with all due respect to the congressman from a few minutes ago i disagree because these other cases that he was trying to bring up don't -- are not about somebody trying to use their power to stay in power. that's really what this is about. and that's about the constitution and not about a criminal statute per se. >> and the idea that you can solicit a foreign power for information that is beneficial to you in an election under some circumstances, what

circumstances? >> none. >> no, you can't. you should not be able to. yeah, none. exactly. >> because he says there tha there are legal experts who say sometimes it's okay. do you know of any case where it's okay? >> well, you know, in the mueller report they got concerned about whether some of the activities qualified under the particulars of the statute because they had a hard time putting a value on opposition research. and that's why i'm saying like with respect to the president, forget all the other people, forget the statutes, it's the question is whether he violated his duties and responsibilities under the constitution. >> it just lets you know what you're dealing with here in terms of partisanship about how far people will go on one side to justify being against this analysis. but at the same time that side feels that the left is going way too far in making this happen. the idea of the storage of the information, andrew, that this would have been put into a different password-protected directory, the congressman referred to it as another computer. it's not another computer.

it's an entirely different system. what is the concern and what is the occasion where you've heard of this being done before? >> well, i've never heard of it being done in this sort of circumstance. the system that's been referred to is one that's created specifically for our absolutely most sensitive secrets, codeword-protected information, things of that nature. and therefore, it is designed to hold information to the smallest possible audience, the smallest possible group of highly vetted people are the only folks that can see what's in there. so the effort to put the transcripts of these calls or evidence of these communications into that system is clearly an effort to limit the availability of -- the opportunity for folks to see what took place on this call. the call itself does not call for that sort of treatment. it is not classified at the level, it's certainly not compartmented information that would require it being put in that system. >> jim, what do you believe are the big boxes that need to be checked going forward for this

to rise to the level of something that might be impeachable? >> i am not sure that we're not there already. i mean, i think that transcript is quite alarming. it's not actually a literal transcript, right? but the substance of the call, that's alarming enough. if that kind of activity is acceptable, then i don't really know where we are as a country. of course, the congress has to conduct some amount of logical investigation, figure out who else might be willing to come forward, whether there's data and facts and circumstances that might corroborate that. but they're going to be investigating the president directly and trying to get information from the white house. that's going to be pretty tough. so i'm not really sure where they're going to go. i think the question is whether on its face this transcript is an impeach -- constitutes an impeachable offense or not. and they can try to do other investigation but i don't really know where they're going to go with it. >> andrew, chance out of 10 that mr. giuliani winds up being right and that he comes out a

hero because of what we discover about the bidens or about the interference that happened in ukraine? >> minus 10. i don't think there's any chance of that happening. i think rudy's done an incredible job of once again casting up a conspiracy theory that's attracted a lot of attention. it's served his purposes of creating a counternarrative to distract folks away from what is some very serious allegations about the president and mr. giuliani's conduct. but that doesn't make any of those conspiracy theories true. there's still yet to be a single piece of evidence that anybody's uncovered that indicates that vice president biden or his son were found to have done anything wrong. in fact, the ukrainians have said repeatedly that they didn't find anything there. so yeah, i really don't see that there's much at the end of that road. >> still an open question. there's no question that he got biden into the question, but it also seems that everything picked up a lot of momentum

against the president and him after his outbursts and his making of that case. jim, thank you very much. andrew, as always. appreciate it, fellas. democrats are hovering at the threshold number of votes for articles of impeachment already. but what about the holdouts? we have one. congressman connor lamb from pennsylvania. what did he think of today? what does he need to do? what does he need to see to get anywhere near impeachment? find out next. man: i've been diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration, which could lead to vision loss. so today i made a plan with my doctor, which includes preservision. because it's my vision, my love of the game, my open road, my little artist. vo: only preservision areds 2 contains the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute

to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. man: because it's my sunset, it's how i see my life. it's my vision. preservision. 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. the police have your vehicle. (door bell rings) it's ohey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, are you okay? even when i was there, i never knew when my symptoms would keep us apart. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira can help get, and keep uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough.

and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.

the numbers. the numbers are a big part of this story. just over the past three days more than 75 democratic house members have thrown their support behind an impeachment investigation. the democrats now have more than 200 behind the probe. we don't know how they might actually vote at the end of all this, but there are still about 16 house democrats who have not been persuaded. one of them is congressman connor lamb of pennsylvania. good to have you on the show. >> thank you for having me. >> how'd you feel about today? >> i thought today was a historic day, an historic week. the facts have clearly changed. but one thing that i feet about today is it kind of shows the important thing about the american system and it shows that that system is working. a person came forward following the procedures laid out in the law. they were protected. and it is allowing us to finally start to get to some of the facts that people have been wondering about for a while. and that wouldn't have happened in a lot of place as round the world. certainly wouldn't have happened in russia.

i think we can take some pride in that today. >> the president says this guy, the people who talked to him, bunch of spies. and we used to take care of them in a very different way. what does that mean to you? >> it's just not accurate. this person literally followed the letter of the law from beginning to end. the complaint is one of the more carefully drafted documents i've seen in my time in washington. and in fact, we've all thought that it was wrong when people do things the other way, you know, the snowdens and the mannings who just leaked out into the public when they wanted to. this person really took care to do it the right way. and the i.g. and the dni sort of recognized that. so that's why i do think it shows that the system can work right. >> what do you need to see in order to believe that any of this is worthy for articles of impeachment? >> well, i think there are a lot of questions raised by this whistle-blower complaint. you've talked about some of them on your show. the whistle-blower talks about speaking to other people in the white house about this separate server, about giuliani and his role in all this and how it could have affected our policy in ukraine. and i think i and the american

people want answers to all those questions. but this is clearly we're in a different place today than we were last week because of these allegations and i think that's going to ramp up the urgency behind this investigation a lot and i support that. >> what does it mean to people in the country that the democrats are saying we just want to focus on this and ukraine, forget about all the other stuff? might that make people feel like all that other stuff you were saying was so important, now it isn't anymore, only this matters? why? >> i'm not sure, but i think the important thing about this week is we have become very focused as a group on making sure this is first and foremost in the investigation and that we stay locked in on that and we follow the facts wherever they lead. not in a partisan way, in a way that is just about uncovering evidence and taking this thing step by step. and that's what many of us tried to do this week. i waited until the last couple of days to speak more publicly about it because i wanted to see the actual evidence first. >> where are you now? are you in favor of what you guys are calling an impeachment inquiry? you believe it's warranted? >> i absolutely support chairman schiff's investigation,

everything he's doing. the speaker put the impeachment inquiry label on that on monday. so that's what it is. i never thought that was the most important question. what people ask me about when i go home are the facts. what happened and why. especially given the situation in the ukraine. right? that is an urgent national security threat. we are there because any russian invasion in eastern europe is bad for our allies and bad for us. and i think people are wondering now. how many parents in my district send their children to serve in the military thinking that the commander in chief will always look out for them and everyone else? and that's in question after a complaint like this. so -- >> so congressman lamb is one of the number now who is invested in an impeachment inquiry but you don't know how you're going to vote yet. >> i don't know anyone knows how they're going to vote get because we're in the -- >> i hear democrats -- chairman waters said she's ready to go tonight. but you're not. but you are now among those -- you're not a holdout from impeachment inquiry at all. >> right. i guess what i'm trying to say

is those two categories have really been driven by the media and it's been a very washington question this week. whereas i think on the ground those of us who are experiencing this moment by moment, we're just trying to find out the facts. we didn't really care whether it was called an impeachment inquiry or regular inquiry. chairman schiff has been investigating this for years at this point. and it didn't look a whole lot different last week from this week. what changed is that a courageous american stepped forward willing to tell the truth as they experienced it. and now it's on us to corroborate that, to investigate it, to find out what's behind it. >> you think you'll be able to get to the bottom of it? or you think the white house is just going to hold you up like it's done to this point? >> well, the whistle-blower broke through. right? we got the complaint. and the white house released the transcript. the american people i think are invested in this now. and we owe it to them to get to the bottom of it. so we're not going to give up. >> congressman lamb, thank you very much. >> thank you for having me on. >> appreciate the candor. you're always welcome here to make the case to the american people. >> thank you. >> all right. be well. so look, we've been here before. and today did seem in some ways like a foul blast from the past.

an argument about where we are but more importantly how we must proceed. next. what are you thinking? ♪ 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 ♪ 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. there are three words when you live with migraine... "i am here." aim to say that more with aimovig. a preventive treatment for migraine in adults that reduces the number of monthly migraine days. for some, that number can be cut in half or more. don't take aimovig if you're allergic to it. allergic reactions like rash or swelling can happen hours to days after use. common side effects include injection site reactions and constipation.

aim to be there more. talk to your doctor about aimovig. thenot actors, people, who've got their eczema under control. with less eczema, you can show more skin. so roll up those sleeves. and help heal your skin from within with dupixent. dupixent is the first treatment of its kind that continuously treats moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, even between flare ups.

dupixent is a biologic, and not a cream or steroid. many people taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin. and, had significantly less itch. that's a difference you can feel. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. so help heal your skin from within, and talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent. "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. saw the hearing? i know, deja vu. a sneaking suspicion if you flipped the roles of the republicans and democrats, you'd hear the exact same arguments, just rewind 20 years. >> you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic because impeachment is not about punishment. impeachment is about cleansing the office. impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office. >> where have you gone lindsey graham? now shooting, "no quid pro quo, nothing here if there's no

crime." he's not the only one giving us whiplash. it works both ways. here's house judiciary chair jerry nadler back then. >> impeachment of a president is an undoing of a national election. they are ripping asunder our votes, telling us our votes don't count. >> i feel your frustration. there is an argument to discontinue the connivinconnivi. the message, foreign powers messing with our country is bad. this president contacted a foreign power and asked for help that would give him an advantage in an election period. he's offered no excuse or explanation. his defense is that biden is

worse and the whistle-blower and the people who express their concerns around him are spies that we would have had meet a dark fate back in the days when america was great. the problem is what this president and his followers accuse biden of without proof is actually present in what this president did and we have proof. you can't use words like coverup and abuse of power without making a very strong case of the same. remember that. this phone call is not enough. it's a window into a wild episode, but one that was months in the making. that will take time to show. democrats have to overcome the political problem that they've been saying they had enough to impeach before this. they don't want to talk about it anymore. what about the other stuff? does it matter anymore? this can't just be about how the president basis either. it can't just be not liking what he's about. it has to be about overwhelming proof that he abused his office and enlisted the help of so many

in such ways that he should forfeit what the people gave him. the bar is high. only two things matter. first, answers to questions like this, who are the people the whistle-blower spoke to? who dealt with ukraine and gave the impression that dealing with biden was a precondition to dealing with trump? who hid the transcripts? why? who at the state department worked with rudy? why? who at the white house gave different and inaccurate explanations for withholding funds that congress approved for ukraine? why? also, those answers to those questions, why do they matter and how much? is it wrong or illegal? what is sufficient a grave abuse that it all combines to meet the standard the framers gave us. it is only enough if what we can know by what congress can show, facts, facts and facts alone, they must force impeachment. yes, force. because if it's not that compelling, then it is for an

election. if it is not unavoidable, it must be avoided. if we can't recognize at the end of this that the outcome kbikoc us the best obtainable version of the truth, then we lose. worse, we'll be dangerously close to a dystopian reality that orwell thought was wild fiction in 1948, where all that matters is the duplicity of double thereto spe doublespeak and group think. another caution of the proximity of fact and fiction these days. orwell in that book in 1984 said that the final work of big brother wouldn't be finished until the first couple of decades of the 21st century, like right where we are now. we're already too close to what was supposed to be parity. take us forward on fact. make arguments that are too strong to avoid and remember that we will all be remembered for the choices we make now. again, i ask how do you want to

be remembered? now, looking forward there are some signs of hope. bolo, be on the lookout. there are some cracks in what we see as the contagion of partisanship. i'm show you next. they help restore my natural barrier, so i can lock in moisture. we've got to have each other's backs... cerave. now the #1 dermatologist recommended skincare brand. you have fast-acting power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength and speed of advil liqui-gels. what pain?

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.

juul record. they took $12.8 billion from big tobacco. juul marketed mango, mint, and menthol flavors, addicting kids to nicotine. five million kids now using e-cigarettes. the fda said juul ignored the law with misleading health claims. now juul is pushing prop c, to overturn san francisco's e-cigarette protections. say no to juul, no to big tobacco, no to prop c.

bolo, it's an acronym for be on the lookout while this ukraine drama unfolds. the trump administration is still intent on raiding military coffers to fund the border wall, $3.6 million from hundreds of projects across the country. in a rare step, though, away from potus, in fact, republicans in the senate voted for a second time yesterday to end trump's national emergency declaration. 54-41. 11 gop'ers crossing the aisle. it's not a veto-proof majority but it is a sign.

maybe the gop is not fully in lock step with trump. on the ukraine call and whistle-blower report, some republican senators are uncharacteristically speaking up, romney calling it deeply troubling, ben sass very troubling. toomey, inappropriate, portman and hurd also voicing their dissent. those are house members. if after the investigation the findings prove so damning that you can argue they demand impeachment and a removal trial and vote in the senate, it's a big if. the question is what will republicans do? and for us that's something to be on the lookout for. that's all for us tonight. thank you very much for watching. there's a lot of news. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon right now. >> a lot of news. there are very few republicans coming out and voicing some concern about it, but there are some at least at this point. so we shall see where that goes. >> uncharacteristic with what we've seen. i do think, though, this is a

tough one. there is so much flagsti rancy that phone call. i think it's also false equivalents. the idea to hear them at all i think is a reflection of how wild that phone call is and the suggestions of how long they worked with how many different tentacles to get to that point of that call to begin with. >> i saw your interview with i can't remember the congressman -- >> chris stewart? >> yes, chris stewart. earlier. it's just shocking to me -- listen, nothing personal against him, but how he can condone one and not condone the other and saying one is worse than the other when the investigation wasn't even going on when hunter biden was part of the company and then it was done by the time it was -- i mean, it's just -- i -- i don't understand it.