this country's history, impeachment proceedings against an american president are under way. andrew johnson, richard 96, bill clinton. donald j. trump joined that list. there's no overstating the significance of the moment itself. those two buildings you see there, which have seen and made and embody so much history

between them, are about to make more. what happened today in one chamber of the bigger of the two has set the stage for so much yet to come. tonight we will of course bring you reporting on the testimony today of a former senior white house official who, despite saying he did not believe what he saw was illegal, did not dispute the problematic effect so far acting to the picture of a president using the power of his office to extract personal political assistance from a foreign government. we'll bring you the latest on two court hearings which could decide when or whether certain other key witnesses will testify. because this is primarily a political battle, we'll speak to the president's former chief strategist steve bannon. we begin with this remarkable historic moment. >> on this vote, the yeas are 232. the nays are 196. the resolution is adopted without objection. the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

>> joining us for that, three people who have seen a lot, cnn seen why are political commentator david axelrod, host of "the axe files" and former senior adviser to president obama. gloria borger, and david gergen who in addition to being a senior cnn political analyst has also served as republican and democrat president, bill clinton, ronald reagan, gerald ford and richard nixon. david gergen, the significance of this moment, what do you -- at the end of this historic day, what do you make of it? >> i think the bad news here but good news as well. the bad news is how much more partisan the impeachment process has become. when republican richard nixon was in the white house, over 180 members of his own party voted to open impeachment proceedings, in his own party, over 180. when bill clinton, a democrat, was in the white house, 31 members of his own party bolted and voted to begin the impeachment proceedings. today republican trump is in the white house. zero members of his party broke.

i think that's a really interesting, important distinction. one more thing -- two more quick things. the other thing is the weaponization of impeachment proceedings that has gone so far in our country. the founders didn't want to do this very often. and the first 36 presidents of our country, only one, only one, andrew johnson, faced serious impeachment proceedings. of our nine presidents since, three, one out of three has faced serious impeachment proceedings. that's a real change in our politics. the good news is i think as you back away from this and look at it from a long way away, it is also true, the good news, is that checks and balances still work in our system. no president is above the law. presidents who do things that are right on the boundaries or violate things are going to get investigated, and they may have impeachment proceedings against them. >> david axelrod, did it surprise you at all? i don't imagine it did that no republicans broke ranks on this. >> no, it didn't. look, i think this is the --

there are two elements to the republican strategy here. because they're not really able to argue the substance very effectively. the facts are pretty damning, starting with the transcript or the memo of a transcript that we've seen. so the first tactic is to partisanize this to the nth degree. we're a very polarized country. they want the make this a test of partisan loyalty. and that's very important to keep their people on board. so i wasn't surprised about that. i think later you're going to hear the argument, particularly if it gets to the senate as it appears likely that we're in an election year now. let the people decide. let's put this case before them. so they're going to argue process. they're going to try and polarize, and they're going to argue timing. but we haven't heard a whole lot of arguments about substance just yet. >> though the president says that's what he wants the argument to be. and kevin mccarthy said they will start doing that.

gloria, how important is it going to be for democrats to get some republican support as impeachment proceedings play out? if this just continues along partisan lines, you know, whether -- obviously, some people will believe it. some people won't. but it certainly -- it doesn't look good for democrats if it's all just, again, along partisan lines. >> right. it doesn't. i think they know that. you've already stated the history. about 31 democrats in the clinton years voted to open an impeachment inquiry. the president said i want all my republicans to stick together, and they decided they would stick together. not only is this entrenched partisanship, as we've been talking about, but these are members of congress in the house who are afraid of this president. they're afraid that he will support primary challengers. and remember, there aren't a lot of moderate republicans left in the house now, because those seats were taken by democrats.

and, in fact, what the white house is now arguing today is that the democrats were the ones who defected, because there were two democrats who said, you know, we don't want to go along with this inquiry at this point. and at some point, anderson, they're going to have to start talking about what was in these hearings. they're going to have public hearings. we're going see transcripts. and then what they're banking on, i think, is that public opinion may start to shift once they see people testify. and the democrats i think are taking a risk obviously because now they have decided that they're unafraid of being the pro-impeachment party of donald trump. and i think that's a risk, but a risk they're clearly willing to take. >> david gergen, i seem to recall an awful lot of democrats putting a lot of faith in the public testimony of robert mueller as that was going to be the dam breaking.

>> yes. >> you know, for those who believe in such a thing. kevin mccarthy today argued we democrats should let voters make the decision at the ballot box, follow the principles of our constitution, he said. the counterargument is that the impeachment process is expressly laid out by the constitution. >> well, it's true. but i think it's well understood now. a very, very high likelihood there will be a pro-impeachment vote coming out of the majority in the house, but then it will be defeated in the senate. there will be an acquittal as happened under when bill clinton was impeached. and the argument we made, but this is not where it will be settled. it will be settled at the ballot box. however this comes out. but that's what we're pointing toward. and at this moment, donald trump still is a very formidable candidate still. >> no doubt about that. hold that. we're going to take a quick pause. i want to quickly bring in jim's acosta at the white house with some late reporting on how they see the vote today and the testimony. jim, what's the reaction?

>> anderson, i talked to a source familiar with the meeting the president had with republican senators at the white house. you know, the president, white house aides, they've been reaching out to these republican senator, concerned about these news reports that perhaps the senate won't play out the same way that it played out in the house. and according to the source familiar with what happened in this meeting, the president was very pleased as your guests were just talking about a few moments ago that no republicans broke ranks with the president in the house. the president was very pleased by that and he was also continuing to hang his hat on the released transcript -- not the complete transcript, the summary transcript with his phone call with the leader of ukraine, as if it's somehow exonerating for him. one other big takeaway from this meeting earlier today, there is a growing sense i guess among senate republicans that perhaps they will stay home, they will stay loyal to this president once the process gets out of the house and makes its way over to the senate for trial. i talked to a source familiar to what happened in this meeting

today who said if this person were a betting man, he would say that the only person who would break from the president at this point is mitt romney. now i did talk to another republican official up on capitol hill, high-ranking republican official on capitol hill, anderson, who said hang on, it's way too early for that. they haven't even seen the articles of impeachment at this point. but there is a growing confidence that these republicans, like what we saw in the house, will stay loyal to the president over in the senate. >> and tim morrison, national nsc official at the white house, just wrapped up his testimony. what is the white house saying about that, about what's essentially come out? >> yeah, my colleagues here and i in the white house unit, we've been reaching out to our sources on this. and it sounds at this point that the white house is pretty happy with what tim morrison said in his testimony earlier today. while he did essentially agree that what taylor testified in all of this, bill taylor testified in all of this was accurate, and that there was some kind of quid pro quo, according to the white house, they feel pretty comfortable in

all of this because morrison explained to the lawmakers earlier today that he didn't see this as a legal problem for the president. he saw this as more of a political problem for the president. if it's a political problem, obviously they feel like they can survive all of this. now that flies in the house -- that is white house spin because that flies in the face what was we've been seek the last couple of weeks, which is administration official after administration official testifying and just offering damaging information to these lawmakers, saying that the president was essentially engaged in a quid pro quo with the president of ukraine. the question i think over the next week, anderson, is whether or not we see more damaging testimony that matches up with what alexander vindman and bill taylor said and so on, and it may all come down to, anderson, what john bolton has to say. if he indeed testifies, that could be the super bowl in all of this. >> jim acosta, thanks very much. back with david axelrod, gloria borger, david gergen. gloria , the idea of it all comes down to bolton, that's an incredible roll of the dice.

i don't know that anybody really has any idea of his perspective. there was that story he said compared something that he was hearing from sondland and others as a drug deal. what he actually testifies to, it's kind of amazing that it could possibly come down to that. >> yeah, i think so. look, it's very clear from the testimony we've seen that bolton was completely unhappy with what was going on vis-a-vis ukraine. he referred to it as a drug deal. he thought that it was a rogue policy that was being directed by rudy giuliani, and he referred to giuliani and mick mulvaney when he was talking about that drug deal. the question that i have is how are they going to get him up there and what venue. you know, his attorney is also the attorney representing somebody else who wants it to go to court first to see if he can -- if he can testify. seems to me they're going to subpoena him the same way they've subpoenaed everyone else.

would he just say, you know, i'm going to fight this, i'll only testify behind closed doors but not in public. he has a real story to tell here. he was not on the phone call, but he can tell you a lot about this policy and what upset him about it, and whether he thought it was rogue and improper for a president to be conducting foreign policy this way. trump can always say well, you know, i fired him. he is disgruntled. but he is a conservative and a hero to conservatives in many ways. i agree with jim. he is completely key in all of this. i'm just not sure whether we're going to hear him. >> david gergen, what do you think? >> well, my bet is that he will be more protective of the president than the democrats would like, but he'll be very severe with rudy giuliani. it's clear he detests giuliani and what he stood for. but if he does exactly what morrison said, i thought it was

inappropriate in rome, but i didn't think it was illegal, that does take some of the force out of it. by the way, morrison is not a lawyer. he is not being asked to give his views on the law here. he was asked is there a quid pro quo? i think he made it very clear today from his perspective there was a quid pro quo. if i can just add one other point, anderson, about where we are in this impeachment stuff. there was a very disturbing news story out today about what's happening in the republican senate where there are candidates who are in very close races and whether the president is shoving money in their direction at the very time the white house would really like to have their loyalty. >> david axelrod, formalizing this inquiry means public hearings can now happen, which is obviously something republicans have said they wanted for some time. >> yeah. >> do you -- do you believe that this is what they wanted for some time? >> well, look, no, i think they wanted it until they got it. now they have it.

i don't think they're that keen on it. they wanted to -- they wanted to suggest that the process was unfair because it was behind closed doors. now it's not going to be behind closed doors. they're unhappy about that. but let me make a larger point that ties some of all of this together. and gloria kind of referenced this before. 90% of republicans approve of this president. republicans are terrified about the base and how he impacts on the base. john bolton, you know, there is no doubt that john bolton went to the president. he was a national security adviser and said why are we holding up military aid to ukraine? it is impossible to believe that he didn't ask them that question. but i don't think he is going to want to look like the guy who is eager to tell this story. so if he ever testifies, he is going to have to get dragged there so that that base of the republican party doesn't think that he has gone rogue on them. >> yeah. >> and betrayed the president.

>> david axelrod, gloria borger, david gergen. thanks. next, one of the democratic lawmakers who heard tim morrison's testimony today, what he expects to see and hear as the proceedings go public. and later, the man who says he has yet to see any intensity, his words in defense of the president. steve bannon on the war room he says he is building and why he believes this president deserves defending. with esri location technology, you can see relationships. connections. patterns. you can see what others can't. ♪ we make aspirin to help save lives during a heart attack... so it never stops the heart of a family. at bayer, this is why we science.

they can save you these. in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save. the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. when insurance is affordable, here's the thing about managing for your business.s when you've got public clouds, and private clouds, and hybrid clouds- things can get a bit cloudy for you. but now, there's the dell technologies cloud, powered by vmware. a single hub for a consistent operating experience across all your clouds. that should clear things up.

if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. 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. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now.

humira. only roomba i7+ uses two multi-surface rubber brushes. ♪ and picks up more pet hair than other robot vacuums. and the filter captures 99% of dog and cat allergens. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™. dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere.

as the house was voting on the rules for the upcoming public impeachment proceedings, outgoing white house adviser tim morrison was testifying behind doors. as jim acosta reported, the white house is viewing it as a win for the day in that he told lawmakers he did not see anything illegal in the president's july 25th call with his ukrainian counterpart. he also corroborated the elements of a quid pro quo, which not surprisingly the white house is not talking about. in his opening statement which cnn just obtained, morrison said

he was concerned about three things. first, how it would play out in washington's polarized environment. second, how a leak would affect the bipartisan support of ukrainian partners currently experienced in congress, and third, how it would affect the ukrainian perceptions of the u.s./ukraine relationship. i want to be clear, he said. i was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed. so there is that. at the same time, as we mentioned, he did apparently corroborate the key facts that diplomat william taylor laid out in his testimony, namely, that congressionally approved military aid would not flow to ukraine until the government there committed to investigating burisma, the company where hunter biden once served on the board. morrison differed slightly in that the deal as he understood it only required the prosecutor general to announce the probe, not president zelensky. he also took minor issue on where a meeting he had with ukraine's national security adviser took place. ambassador taylor said hotel room, morrison said a hotel business center.

we're joined by new york democratic member sean patrick maloney, member of the house intelligence committee. so the white house is saying that they see morrison's testimony as helpful to their case. was it? >> you know, without commenting on the specifics, i can't -- that sounds a lot like whistling past the graveyard to me. i think, you know, i have no reason to dispute the reporting you just did, the statement that's been released. and it lays it out pretty clearly, that he confirms ambassador taylor's version of the events. that's extremely damning for the president. >> but if morrison didn't think there was anything wrong with the call legally, that his only concern was how it would play out in a polarizing environment, polarized environment, isn't that good news for the white house? >> no. i think that's code for i knew something was really wrong, and i don't want to say it, would be my interpretation of that. but i think the reason we're moving this to a public forum is because we're going to lay all this out for folks to see and they can make their own judgments. i think what i give -- what i

give mr. morrison credit for is responding to a lawful subpoena coming in, testifying under oath, and together with the other evidence we've gathered in just a very short period of time, i think you will see -- you'll get a very clear picture of what happened. >> would you want morrison to come back and testify publicly? >> you know, that's up to the chairman. i'm not sure i would view that as necessary. i think there are other witnesses that would be more important, but i think the way you judge that is will the public get all the facts they need to understand what happened? >> obviously republicans hearing that would say, well, look, you probably want taylor to testify. you probably want vindman to testify. but why not call back morrison if he is corroborating things. it sounds if you don't want him back, maybe he doesn't tell the story that you're hoping he does. >> that wasn't my point. my point is i think we're going to be under some pressure to tell a crisp story and to really make that compelling.

i do not -- >> you think public testimony is critical? >> what i can tell you is i think republicans' interpretation of that is not going hold up. that's not going to wear very well. look, these guys come out every day. they say something that blows up 24 hours later. when mark meadows and jim morgan say something, i take it with a grain of salt. i do not view this testimony as helpful to the president. i view it as another significant piece of the puzzle that will paint an overall picture that will demonstrate clearly an abuse of power that is extremely damning to the president. >> cnn is reporting, and i can't confirm stuff, but cnn is reporting that at various times today morrison's attorney instructed his client not to answer questions about his interactions with the president. can you say if there were specific questions that the committee had for morrison that remain unanswered, or were you satisfied overall with what you heard in terms of its totality? >> i'm satisfied overall that i understand the role that mr. morrison played in this. i understand where it's coming

from. he was helpful in filling in some gaps. but the big picture is the big picture. i think you will find that on the core set of events, there is not going to be a big dispute about what happened here. i think there will be an interpretation of how much you care about it, and people can differ on that. but i don't think the core facts are going to be in dispute. for me, it paints a pretty serious abuse of power, and one for which the president needs to be accountable. >> the timeline, a lot of democrats are saying or floating this idea that they want this done by the new year. they don't want to go into the election year, that it's going to suck up all the oxygen, it's going to occupy the time of senators who are on the campaign trail. that comes at the expense, if that is true, that comes at the expense of potentially getting other witnesses that might involve a court battle, rudy giuliani obviously foremost comes to mind. are you okay with that kind of a

timeline? >> right, i'm okay with the chairman's judgment on that. i think what you're going to see is that the yardstick is going to be are we getting the core facts to the american public. if you can the that with the witnesses you got, then you do that. i think that there is diminishing curve there of return when you start engaging in litigation to chase down maybe minor details or additional information when you've got the core facts. remember, this may be a case where the most important evidence came out first, where the call memorandum, the whistle-blower complaint, which as far as i can tell has been confirmed in every respect by independent evidence and the white house admissions, the chief of staff, the president, the text messages, i mean, there is a mountain of evidence that paints a clear picture of presidential abuse of authority. so i don't know that it would be worth the time to spend months and months chasing down all the details. >> do you see this as being one charge? obviously you're not there yet. but do you see this as being one charge or there is people talking about going -- including obstruction of justice from the mueller report. >> for me personally, and it's above my pay grade, but for me

personally, i think we should keep it narrowly focused on the strongest evidence of presidential abuse of power. if you look at the historic practice, it tends to be pretty high-level, the articles of impeachment. i think that's the precedent we should follow. and i think we should explain in detail to the american public why we think this extraordinary step is necessary. it's right to have a high bar for this 13 months before an election. for me, it's been satisfied because the president's conduct is inexcusable, and it cannot be tolerated. we have to take a stand and hold them accountable. >> congressman maloney, appreciate your time. >> thank you very much. coming up, more breaking news on today's testimony by tim morrison and where our legal team believes it could lead. biopharmaceutical researchers.

pursuing life-changing cures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells...

because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. this melting pot of impacted species. everywhere is going to get touched by climate change.

rowithout the commission fees and account minimums. so, you can start investing today, wherever you are even on the bus. ooh, like this guy. yeah, i bet he's investing right now. he's taking charge. he's grabbing the bull by the horns! and he - just missed his stop, yeah. it's time to do money, so what are you waiting for. download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. that could allow hackers devices into your home.ys and like all doors, they're safer when locked. that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know.

xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today.

today's closed-door session with tim morrison, the outgoing security council official, is another part of what appears to be a brick by brick collection of testimony that house democrats hope will build a solid wall of evidence against president trump. we want to get some perspective from jeffrey toobin, former federal prosecutor, cnn's chief legal an test, and preet bharara, who served as u.s. district attorney for the new york southern district and senior cnn legal analyst and author of "doing justice: a prosecutor's thoughts on crime, punishment, and the rule of law." saying he didn't see any legal problem with the president's july 25th phone call. the white house obviously sees that as a win. >> right. and that is a good fact for them. remember, though, he's not there as a lawyer evaluating what's level, what's appropriate, what's a high crime and misdemeanor. he's there to talk about what happened. he is a fact witness. and as far as his facts went, as far as i can tell based on what's been disclosed, he has

ratified, confirmed, what the other witnesses have said, that there was this quid pro quo engineered by rudy giuliani. >> that aid was being held up in order to effect an investigation into the bidens? >> which is in the view of many people, including republicans in the senate, wildly improper, if not impeachable. >> although how many republicans in the senate are really saying that? >> none of them have said, as the president has said, that phone call was perfect. i haven't heard one. mitt romney is the only one who went out and said it's actually improper, but you have not heard great endorsements of it. >> preet, the white house is already saying that the testimony was good development. do you see any illegality in that phone call? >> illegality? >> yeah. >> look, depending on what the other evidence shows with there respect to there being a quid pro quo that could amount to extortion like a lot of other witnesses said, it may amount to

criminality. the important thing to remember here that we've for hogotten, t president is not going to be charged with a crime, what matters now is impeachment. and there is no document in the sort of curriculum of the founders or in the constitution that makes it necessary for something to be a technical violation of a criminal statute. it can be an abuse of power, because only the president can abuse his power in a way that you and i could not possibly. only the president can call the leader of another country and ask him to do something for the president's own personal aggrandizement. whether or not it's illegal, what matters here, because it's a political process and always has been, is whether or not a sufficient number of members of congress think he abused his power by asking -- not just asking, putting the arm on a foreign leader to help him politically with respect to an investigation of a rival. >> but, jeff, supporters of the president can in the end in the senate, when it get downs to there, essentially say, look, i wish he hadn't -- you know, i thought it was not a good thing

for him to do, i wouldn't have done it myself, but i don't think it's illegal, i don't think it rises to the level of impeachment. >> and impeachment is above all a political process. and these senators, if it comes to a trial in the senate, will make an evaluation of the evidence, but they will also look at their own political situation, and they will -- as you mentioned earlier, and as we all know, the president remains enormously popular within the republican party. these republican senators, they don't want to offend the president, court a primary in their own elections. so it's entirely possible that they will say, look, i wouldn't have handled it this way, but it is not something we're going to overturn an election over. however, the country has to decide whether this is an abuse of power, whether it is acceptable to go to a foreign leader as president and say help me on my political campaign or you'll lose money appropriated by congress. that's the core of this

question. but i don't think there is any clear -- necessarily clear answer of how it's going to turn out at this point. >> it's very hard for senators to do this thing. there is a rational, reasonable way to defend the president to say, you know what, it was inappropriate, shouldn't have been done, it's not the way we should be conducting foreign policy. this weird thing with rudy giuliani doing the shadow thing was terrible, but you know what, doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. i haven't heard a lot of people saying that either, you know why? because the president of the united states keeps insisting the phone call was beautiful and perfect and has signaled very clearly he wants everyone to be saying the same thing he is. he is not giving a lot of room to the senators wiggle room to say not great, not good. a lot of members did that with respect to bill clinton. they said the relationship he had was not good. the way he spoke about it and lied about it was not good, but are we really going to derail a presidency over something like this? that's more credible and i think has more ability to shape public sentiment. but this president insists that everything he did was perfect and beautiful and that's what everyone else should say too.

and that's a problem i think for folks. >> just these other federal court hearings today, one was about former white house counsel don mcgahn, whether he has to testify, the other was about this former deputy national security adviser charles kupperman who's refusing to testify. >> let's talk about this kupperman hearing and let's talk about federal judges. it makes me insane. i admire the federal judiciary a great deal. but here we have an impeachment, perhaps the most important thing the congress can deal with. we have an important witness, charles kupperman, the deputy national security adviser also represented by charles cooper who represents john bolton, an even more important witness. and the question is, and it's not a simple question, should they be forced to testify. and what does judge richard leon do in the federal district court? he says i'm not even going to hold a hearing until december 10th. get off his behind and decide this case. the idea that he is not even going to hold a hearing for six weeks? it's a disgrace. >> why?

what's the reasoning behind that? >> got me. i think it's just disgraceful. these federal judges, they serve for life, and they think they can decide everything on their own terms, in their own timetable, and i think it's awful. >> other judges have been deciding things more quickly, this is not one of those cases. >> thank you very much. i'm going to talk to steve bannon about the 2020 election, his advice to the president, and his allies, about the looming impeachment fight. chevy's the only brand... to earn j.d. power dependability awards... across cars... trucks... and suvs. four years in a row. since more than 32,000 real people... just like me. and me. and me. took the survey that decided these awards. it was only right that you hear the good news from real people...

like us. i'm daniel. i'm casey. i'm julio. only chevy has earned j.d. power dependability awards across cars, trucks and suvs. four years in a row. says they can save you dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. cheerio! esurance is built to save you dollars. and when they save dollars, you save dollars. so get a quote. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.

when insurance is affordable, the amazing new iphone has arrived. and so has t-mobile's newest signal. no signal goes farther or is more reliable. so you can get more out of the new iphone. better battery life, new ultra-wide camera. and at t-mobile get unlimited for only $30/line for 4 lines on a network that goes farther than ever before. and right now, switch at a t-mobile store and get the new iphone 11 on us! only at t-mobile.

the white house is still not hiring communication specialists to spearhead their response nor have they brought on any lawyers to front the legal strategy. cnn reports that some aides inside the administration view this as a serious error. the white house is ramping up its outreach to senate republicans. today as we reported earlier, several had lunch with president trump. one senator said the subject of needing republicans to better defend him did not come up. this after majority leader mitch mcconnell advised the president to stop attacking senate republicans. one of his staunchest reporters is his former white house chief strategist steve bannon. even though he left the administration he's begun a

daily syndicated radio podcast called "war room impeachment" which gives you an idea of the kind of political combat he expects and is participating in right now. he joins us here. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> first of all, what do you make of the white house's strategy thus far? >> look, it has a strategy. president trump believes he didn't do anything wrong. he is adamant about that. i think he is busy running the country. he has usmca, the chinese, what's happening in syria. he's got a day job. i think he feels he's got the team, a solid team, it's a good team. >> you think he is not focused on this? you think he is running -- he seems very focused on this in the twitter world. >> i think he focuses on this the way he focuses on it. he didn't feel he needs a war room. he doesn't feel like he needs additional personnel right now. i think that's fine. i think it's incumbent on people. that's why we start this outside war room. one of the people is jason miller, former cnn contributor, was our communications director on the campaign in the transition. other people are starting to volunteer and come in. we have reince priebus on our show tomorrow, former head of the rnc.

we're going to have bossey and corey come do hits on this. i think it's incumbent i think for people who support president trump's program and president trump to gather around and do this. the campaign is doing things. the rnc is doing things. i think he's got enough cover. >> do you believe that phone conversation with the ukrainian president was perfect? >> here's the -- the bid in the ask is he says it's perfect, morrison says it could have been better. it's either perfect or could have been better. >> other people say -- >> i know, morrison -- >> -- totally inappropriate -- >> but morrison is fiona hill's relief. >> fiona hill, though, does not see it the same as morrison. >> reasonable people can disagree because this is a policy, to me, this is a policy difference. i think when you look at president trump, i haven't seen anything in the transcript. i haven't seen anything in the drive. i looked to mike pompeo's speech today. i haven't seen anything that the he has done that is wrong or inappropriate. >> in general, is it okay for a president, any president to ask a foreign leader of a country fighting a war against our

adversaries in need of aid to do a political favor and investigate his political opponent and hold aid over it. >> this is where your premise is wrong. number one, one of the things that started this was "secret empires," the book that peter schweizer did. that went after the permanent political class. this is where biden and mitch mcconnell and others talked about where they get their money from. and biden -- hold on, and china and ukraine, and the issues were when he was vice president. i don't buy the assumption -- see you have this premise that it's about a political opponent. what they're investigating is the corruption overall -- >> oh, come on, give me a break. you know very well that that is bull. >> it's not. >> it is. >> no, as a constitutional office -- >> if you're concerned about -- >> joe biden -- anderson, should be more investigated i think about china and what he did the time in china with his son, how he got -- >> the president agrees with you and has asked china to investigate. >> hold it. now islands in the south china sea. >> but on the question -- >> so i don't buy your premise.

and i'm not putting you on. i'm not kidding. i don't buy the premise. >> but how can you say -- if you're concerned about corruption -- you're concerned about corruption in ukraine, i've been there. there is a lot of corruption. the only example of corruption in the ukraine the president can say is joe biden, the guy he happens to be running against? >> no, no. >> and this conspiracy theory about -- >> he talked about the 2016 campaign. >> right, conspiracy theory. the strike and the server being in ukraine. >> what pompeo talked about today that nothing that the president has done is outside -- >> but you haven't addressed what i just said which is he's talking about a conspiracy theory and joe biden. that's conspiracy. >> ernst & young says ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in world. >> right, yes, yes. but you're saying joe biden and cloudstrike, that's ukraine? the president has access -- >> by the way, he had no earthly idea -- >> we do have a lot of earthly idea who's corrupting ukraine -- >> no, no -- >> we actually have diplomats who have been working on it, ba

us that's been u.s. policy, and the president cannot name any other ukrainian official who's corrupt he wants investigated? >> hold it -- >> the only one he can name is joe biden? >> that's where this process is starting now. now we're going to have an impeachment process, and you're not going to have a star chamber -- >> it doesn't make any sense. >> i was there for 20 hours. >> the president has access to we have corruption fighters in the treasury department. he could have called up steve mnuchin and said give me a list of the most corrupt players in ukraine. i'll talk to the president about it. he didn't. the only thing he cites as a favor is cloudstrike server, biden. >> you've seen a select curated group of witnesses and you haven't seen the transcripts. we don't know what they said. >> we've seen the transcripts. >> of their opening statements. >> we see in the transcript of the president's phone call and it says a favor for us. the favor is servers, and another one, biden. >> we're going to get in this process, you're going get to see all the information. it will all be laid out. >> let me tell you honestly what i believe. i think you're an incredibly smart guy.

i think you believe -- >> that's not a compliment. >> no, i'm not saying that as -- and i respect your positions. but i think you believe you got to circle the wagons, just like after the "access hollywood" tape, you're either with us or against us. >> you're so cynical. >> but it's not. >> here is the thing. >> i think this overlooks -- he is doing good things in your mind and you support him. >> anderson. >> why can't people argue that? that i understand. >> i am arguing the fact that i don't think he has done anything wrong here. i think this is a huge opportunity cause for the country. now we're going spend the next 12 weeks instead of focusing on hong kong, instead of -- >> that's a valid argument. >> this is going to engulf. you know your show. this whole network is going to be overwhelmed in a firestorm covering this between now and the end of when they impeach him. and they're going to impeach him. they're going to bring two charges. then we go to trial. it's going to consume much of the political world. to hurting the united states, which could be doing other things right now. all i'm saying is that i've set

up a war room so we can get the information and people can weigh and measure. we're going have democrats on there. >> democrats would argue with you saying you know what hurts the united states is using taxpayer money as a weapon against an ally who's fighting our enemy, and it's not like it's donald trump's money buying information about the bidens. >> was joe biden a constitutional officer when china happened and when it happened in ukraine? was he not the point man for president obama in ukraine? >> yes, yes, he was. >> should china and that not be investigated before you give money, of corruption, at least american corruption in ukraine? helping corruption? >> you cite some specific thing -- there's no evidence. the president hasn't cited evidence, he's just throwing this out, he said, oh, and in china too, he hasn't cited anything, there's no facts. >> i'm sure that will come over time. in china we have the facts. >> all right. >> the private equity firm which your son was not an expert in got funded around the time of 2013. >> no.

>> i'm not defending -- >> i think a kid being on the board, i think it's shady, i think it makes no sense -- >> it's shady? it's corrupt. >> i don't see joe biden benefiting anywhere -- >> no, this is where his son -- >> you can give evidence. but nobody has given evidence so far. >> have you read "second empire"? >> i have not. >> we have to sit down and talk about it. >> you do not agree with the premise of my question. let me give you just in general. i think in general. >> it's not circling the wagons. >> okay. in general, if a president does in fact have a quid pro quo for a counterpart in a country that's badly in need of aid, fighting a war, and says -- i'm not asking about trump. is it okay for a president of the united states to ask a foreign president to investigate a political rival? >> there is no evidence at all that there is a quid pro quo here. >> okay, i'm not saying -- >> and if there was a quid pro quo -- >> you won't just a

hypothetical, is it okay for a president, any president, to ask a foreign president to investigate a political rival -- >> andy mccarthy and other constitutional scholars are coming out now and saying, and saying this whole concept of not making your foreign aid or your >> i don't understand why republicans will not ever answer that question that i just asked you. okay, any president asking another president investigate my rival and i'll give you aid. is that okay? >> it's not a rival. he's a constitutional officer at the time. >> so that's okay? you have no problem? >> american involvement and corruption in either china, ukraine or anywhere in the world should be investigated. >> all right. >> i'd love to come back here and walk you through the evidence on china and ukraine. >> all right. nobody's presented real evidence. steve bannon, i appreciate it. >> thanks. >> up next, we premier a spinoff of the ridiculous franchise. we'll be right back. i...decided to take the dna test. and i...was...shocked. i'm from cameroon, congo, and... the bantu people.

greater details. richer stories. and now with health insights. get your dna kit at ancestry.com. at bayer, we're into the golden years. with better heart treatments, advanced brain disease research, and better ways to age gracefully. at bayer, this is why we science. i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything

skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪ rowithout the commission fees and account minimums. so, you can start investing today, wherever you are even hanging with your dog. ooh, like her. she's probably investing right now... taking charge of her money, making it happen. she's - not going to be happy about that pillow. it's time to do money, so what are you waiting for. download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. -excuse me. uh...

do you mind...being a mo-tour? -what could be better than being a mo-tour? the real question is... do you mind not being a mo-tour? -i do. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

-i do. it takes a village to raise to build a bridge. to throw a baseball... to throw yourself into the unknown. to lose fear, to create hope. we believe that it takes a village of over 200-thousand dedicated, passionate, driven medical and non-medical professionals to deliver on our belief in total health for all. we are kaiser permanente. thrive. it's been another slow news day. i want to check in with chris to see what he's tried to find something to fill an hour with. chris? >> i liked your interview with steve bannon. >> no one will answer that question. you do this as well.

you do this better than anyone. no one will just say is it okay? >> it's not okay. they know it okay. we're going to try to show people that unlike bannon, bannon's here to spin and you did a beautiful job of exposing the weaknesses in the spin but we will show that the president knows it was wrong. you can tell not because i'm inside the mind of the man, that's too spooky even for halloween, but you see it in his actions. we also have adam schiff here to talk about the reality of what has been fair in impeachments past, what he thinks the likelihood of how this ends and his take on the republican arguments of what's wrong with the process. we'll lay it out with his side. i also have one of the acolytes of bannon on the though tonight, kelly armstrong, one of the president's defenders in congress, to ask the same questions we ask every night. is it okay to ask a foreign

power to help you in an election? they'll say he didn't do that. not only did he do it, he inserted his own lawyer into the diplomatic process without any portfolio to do only that and we know it because mr. giuliani admitted, screaming and -- >> it wasn't one phone call. this was a lengthy campaign. anyway, chris, we'll be watching four minutes from now. >> well done, brother. happy halloween. >> to you, too. donald trump jr. on hunter biden. it's "the ridiculist" without comment. (amber jagger) if we don't give students from an underserved background the technology that they need in school,

they're not going to be competitive in the workforce that's waiting for them. since verizon innovative learning, students have hardware, connectivity, and quality curriculum. the jobs of tomorrow will involve technology. now students are truly hopeful for what they may achieve. they can save you these. in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save. the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.

when insurance is affordable, it's got all my favorite shows turn oright there.boom,

i wish my trading platform worked like that. well have you tried thinkorswim? this is totally customizable, so you focus only on what you want. okay, it's got screeners and watchlists. and you can even see how your predictions might affect the value of the stocks you're interested in. now this is what i'm talking about. yeah, it'll free up more time for your... uh, true crime shows? british baking competitions. hm. didn't peg you for a crumpet guy. focus on what matters to you with thinkorswim. ♪

♪ ladies and gentlemen mini is a different kind of car. for a different kind of drive. ♪ ladies and gentlemen for the drive to create a new kind of family car, that became a new kind of race car. for the drive to rebel, zag. for the drive that's inside you. and inside us. that's the drive under the hood of every mini. because every mini is... for the drive. ♪ chris and i were yammering. we ran out of time for "the ridiculist," so we'll go to chris cuomo. >> we're ridiculous enough. but i was looking forward to it. anderson, great interview and thank you. happy valhalloween and thank yo. we have the top investigator leading the impeachment push to sum up what mattered most, the rightness of today's votes and his counter to arguments from the other side. it's a new phase, we have new evidence so let's get after it.