>> all right. leyla, thank you so much for bringing us the latest there from north carolina. and coming up on mon, err ip hosts a town hall with joe bidenen. thanks for joining us. "ac-360" starts now. good evening, john berman here in for anderson. mick mulvaney in the middle, and that might be a very uncomfortable place to be. the job of the white house chief of staff is to implement the president's policy. new testimony released today says it was mick mulvaney implaemt plementing the policy. newly release the transcripts from two top aids in the white house now tie mick mulvaney to a direct role in what has been called a quid pro quo, others call the shakedown, some call the bribely at the heart of the

impeachment inquiry, this an the day he ignored a subpoena. both fiona hill and another say gored ond sondlond told them during a july meeting he had spoken to them and there would be no meeting nor aid without investigations. colonel vindman said the hold came from the chief of staff's office. hill said we were told it actually came as a direction of the chief of staff's office. cone vin manned called the ects pecktations of ukraine a deliverable and ambassador sondlond's meeting he said there was no, no doubt. he also said this. he was calling for something calling for an investigation that didn't exist into the bidens and barris mau. hill says the superior john bolton called this an improper arrangement. also new today bolton's lawyer

made clear his client has extensive knowledge about relevant meetings and conversations that could be important but that he won't testify until and unless a federal judge rules on whether he must comply with a congressional subpoena. here to discuss all of this is danny heck a member of the committee which investigated the meetings in which next week will begin next week. thank you very much for being with us. these transcripts in the statements from if iena hill and -- do you think this brings him closer to the president himself? >> i don't think there's any doit. i served with mick mulvaney. i know mic. there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that he never would have implemented this had it not been at the direction of the president. secondly i have a bit of a unique perspective. i am a former chief of staff myself. i guarantee you no chief of staff is going to implement anything of that importance

without direction from their principle in this case the president of the united states. let's be clear and correct in our terminology john, he's the acting chief of staff and frankly i'm not very sure or confident he's going to be the acting chief of staff much longer, because i think what's about to happen here is that he and ambassador sondlond and perhaps rudy giuliani are all about to get thrown under the bus. >> you bring up the washington post report which does suggest they might be treated as fall guys from some supporters. in your mind you said this that doesn't hold any water. why? >> because again, it defies credibility that the president's personal lawyer, a large donor who had a ready access to the that's what ambassador sondlond did and his acting chief of staff would be carrying out these kinds of important acts without the direction of the president of the u.s.

and that's even before you consider the fact that of course we have the president's own confession in the form of the memorandum of call between him -- in which he actually attempted to shake down the president of ukraine, clearly. >> having read the transcripts of what colonel vin manned and if iena hill, they say they heard in sondlond who heard from mulvaney. what's the significance of that? >> here we are. you can either believe that all of these people that came forward mostly career diplomats, people across federal agencies, across continents, all of these people who have come forward and given depositions, every one of which has in every material way corroborated one another in their narrative and the set of facts that they've brought to light, you can either believe

they're not telling the truth and somehow they all got together, contrived all of this, you can believe they did that, or you can believe which frankly i think is common sense or likelier to be the case, the president is lying. >> mick mulvaney received a subpoena to testify today. he skipped it. obviously i'm sure you would like to hear from him directly what he has to say about it. but now that he hasn't shown up, your committee isn't going to fight it in court. why not? >> we're not going to play rope a doep. that's another delaying tactic. they'd like to see this extended for months if not years. it's a tried and true play out of the president's playbook even when he was in the private sectors. he would litigate sub contractors into owe blifbion. we don't need it. there's a mountain of evidence against the president beginning with his own confession, which again acting chief of staff mick

mulvaney signed in the form of that press conference in which he acknowledged there was a quid pro quo, and the text, and the testimony of all of these people we've deposed. they all point to the president. >> john bolton, who was the national security adviser, his lawyer wrote a letter to congress today saying bolton knows many relevant things that happened. it was part of many real vent meetings. if he did testify would have things to say that would shed more light in all of this. do you have any idea what he means? and i want to remind you and our viewers that he defied a subpoena to go testify. >> well, actually we didn't issue the subpoena yb john. >> correct, sorry. i misspoke. you invited him. he didn't show up. you made clear. >> i'd like to think that ambassador bolton would come

forward. i think it's the patriotic thing to do. he's acknowledged that he has relevant information. i think his responsibility to share it with us and with the american public. and in fact i wish that he would take a page out of the book of two of the people that work for him, colonel vindman and dr. if iena hill who had the courage to come forward and share with the committee, speak truth to power about what went on here. we're not going to subject ourselves to month after month after month of a protracted legal battle. >> i do want to ask about the testimony and depositions transcripts that have been released. you can look at this as if there were two buckets, one, did it happen? and the other, is it impeachable. the did it happen bucket is overflowing. you have this what you describe as a mountain of evidence about what took place. the is it impeachable bucket, how do you intend to prove that

next week? >> so john, that decision is really one of a matter of conscience of each of the 435 members of the house and the 100 members of the senate. that's a question of them engaging in personal reflex and i dare say prayerful reflection. if you believe that the president is shaking down ukraine, threatening to withhold critical military assistance to a vulnerable ally in ukraine who's trying to combat russian aggression, and let's remember that there are 13,000 ukrainians who have lost their lives on their homeland soil, if you believe that that betrayal of his oath of office and that abuse of power is impeachable, then you'll get to yes. but it's up to each of the members to consider the fact. but there is a mount toon of evidence. and yet the president has not

acknowledged it in any way, shape or form, nor anyone around him. i'd like for us to get to the point where the debate was is it or is it not impeachable but it is a fact. >> thanks for being with us tonight. i appreciate it. >> thank you, john. for more on mick mulvaney's role in all of this, i want to bring in jeffrey toobin and correspondent maggie haberman, thank you both for being here. based on what you know about how this white house works and what mick mulvaney's role in it, would he freelance on something like this? >> i'm loathe to speculate without having actually details about this instance but what we do know mulvaney has not been known to go do things outside of what the president is aware of. we knew even before this testimony that he was involved in terms of directing the freeze on the aid that he was acting on

orders from the president. that's basically what we knew. now we have heard his name come up in testimony. given the fact was this going on over a period of many months, it is hard to imagine this was happening with mulvaney on his own. mulvaney is going to be a key witness as you said for congress to get to come above them. i don't know that that's going to happen. but he holds the answers to a lot of this. >> the saying is always been, mick mulvaney wants to let trump be trump. it's never let mick be mick. his role is to implement donald trump's policies, wishes and whims? >> that is certainly how he has described his own role. i think there might be times he is pushing back more than he says. there is certainly nothing i have heard so far that sugds that he was trying to stop this or suggested that the president, this is a bad idea. remember, one of the things we don't have an answer to, who

came up with this idea to freeze the aid? did this come from giuliani, mulvaney, trump? i could see trump saying we send too much money and that's what mulvaney had suggested. looking with the president has questions all the time about sending aid to certain places. >> in fact you point out the one time we have heard mick mulvaney talk about this extensibly he said yes, yes, this all happened. >> at his famous/infamous press conference a couple weeks ago. i think the democrats are making a choice here which i don't know is the right choice. there are two witnesses who could really talk about what donald trump himself said about the relationship with ukraine. because they are the ones who saw him every day. remember the republican defense here is that all these lower lvel witnesses are just here. you have mick mulvaney the chief

of staff and john bolton, the national security adviser. and both of them have refused to testify so far. their legal position is somewhat different but in fact they have said they're not going to testify absent a court order. as you heard from congressman heck, they're not going to court. they are simply think they have enough without these two witnesses. maybe they do. maybe they don't. i don't know. that's a big sacrifice to given up thoeds two witnesses. >> he says we're not going to play rope a dope. >> he said that four times. >> it's timing. you go to court, this is weeks or months. >> it is. >> they don't have weeks or months in their mind. >> but you could also do two things at once. you could pursue this case while you are -- i mean the intelligence committee hearing is next week and probably the week after. you're going to have hearings before the judiciary committee sometime later in december. i don't know why you give up on

these witnesses without even trying to expedite a court hearing. maybe it is too slow. and maybe they're too risky. maybe they think these witnesses will turn on them. i think if you want to know the facts, you would really want to hear in mulvaney and bolton. >> on the very day that there are a lot of fingers pointing in the direction of mick mulvaney and a story in the washington post that would suggest that they might make giuliani, sondlond the fall guys here. >> we talked about this this morning. when i called you in the morning, no when we were on television this morning. i've been thinking about it a lot. i do think this there is a muddying of the water strategically that this who is has been effective of using. we've seen them use it durg the mueller investigation and others. it's proven right, people aren't paying that much -- voters aren't paying that much attention to the details. if we handle it that way it's

okay. it's so much harder to do that here. there's the president in the transcript of the call with zelensky. and one thing i'm struck by which is that giuliani -- this didn't get looked at much but when he tweeted he had hired a lawyer. he tweet the right before he tweeted the name of the lawyers that he was doing this at the essentially at the direction of his client. that was very specific wording. that was not, you know, in the general interests of my client. that was leading it right back to the president. so i think this is going to get more complicated than they might anticipate. >> let's talk about john bolton for a second, jeffrey. you brought him up, the national security adviser. this to me strange and tantalizing from this letter saying he's got relevant things to say if you want to have a judge say he has to testify. why dangle that? i don't understand why he's dangling that in front of congress? >> you know, he is in a

different legal position than the lower level white house aids who have testified. if the executive privilege exists at all it probably does for people at the level of national security adviser and chief of staff. and so charles cooper, his lawyer who is someone who's very knowledgeable about these suspects, he has said, look, we just want a court to decide this. we don't want to be in the position of making this decision. we will abide by whatever the sourts decide. now he could simply take a risk and go ahead and testify. but he doesn't want to do that. it's an unusual legal strategy. you know, and lawyers called it interpleader where you say i'll do whatever you want but i'm not taking a position. that's where he's going. but in fact the way the democrats are perceiving it means he's not going to testify. >> but you can do those things

legally without this letter announcing to the world and saying i know things. that's the part that seems strange. >> i had the same raegs you do. i don't understand the legal of it. i think it puts the white house and the president on notice reminding them that he knows a lot he could be sharing. i think again to go back to what with he said, it's not lost on them all that they could become scapegoats. i am sure they are going to make clear why this isn't so. >> maggie, jeffrey, stand by. we have president trump's reaction to this. we're going to talk to advisers about the role that president's chief of staff play in all of this. man: sneezes

skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast! ♪ 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. ♪ why are we doing this? why are we doing what? using my old spice moisturize with shea butter body wash... all i wanted was to use your body wash and all i wanted was to have a body wash.

at bayer, we're more than we help farmers like john. by developing digital tools, so he can use less water to grow crops. at bayer, this is why we science. woman: what does the word "partner" really mean? someone i can trust. (impact, click) who is with me for the long-term. who understands i'm dealing with lives, not only livelihoods. that in order to help people, i need more than products, i need quality support and insights. can i find someone who partners with me to achieve people's long-term success? with capital group, i can. talk to your advisor or consultant for investment risks and information.

talk to your advisor or consultant but he wanted snow for thelace holidays.. so we built a snow globe. i'll get that later. dylan! but the one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. what? switching and saving was really easy! i love you! what? sweetie! hands off the glass. ugh!! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be. i love her!

mic mulvaney the president's chief of staff under fire. two have testified he put the hold on both the military aid for ukraine and a meeting between the two heads of state. their source, the u.s. ambassador gordon sondlond. he's not just a presidential appointee. he also gave a million dollars towards the president's inauguration. last month he called him a really good man and a great american. today however, president trump acted like he hardly knew the guy. >> gordon sondlond said at the beginning of september he presumed there was a quid pro quo. then there was a telephone call to you on september the 9th. had he ever talked to you before? >> i hartly know the gentleman. >> back with us jeffrey toobin and maggie haberman. it was so predictable that this would happen.

we saw this before with person after person, barely know him. when does he start to do this and what does it sig nify? >> at minimum that he wants to suggest there was no proximity between the two where he would tell sondlond these things and he's trying to undermine his credibility which what we saw him do, manafort, it's never a good sign when that begins. usually when he says that he rarely uses the phrase i hardly new them. it's usually, i've met him once. i don't think that that bodes well. i don't know how significant it is in the grand scheme. what sondlond has done is amend his testimony. i think he's said what he was going to say. >> but it was after that president trump's used that phrase that only a bad screenwriter would use. >> he uses it again when he is trying to suggest that the

person couldn't know what they are talking about because he looks at who knows him personally. >> one person he has not used this with yet is rudy giuliani. yet. i don't know if it's yet or ever. it will be difficult but giuliani finds himself more centered for this. he hired lawyers because he -- >> i think it's possible to overstate his personal legal liability. people say, oh, is rudy going to be prosecuted by the u.s. office he used to run? it's a dramatic idea. if you look at giuliani's behavior, you can say it's unethical, improper. the number of actual possible criminal violations he's involved in seems to me almost none. i don't see the legal jeopardy he is in. possibly a failure to register as a lobbyist for ukraine. those cases have been rarely brought and even more rarely

successfully brought. a lot of people are very mad at rudy giuliani and they want to see the cops after him. i'm not sure there's anything there. >> i think people are doing wish casting of that. we've seen this play out, when federal prosecutors get under the hood of somebody's finances, it can go to different places. and we saw that with michael cohen and any number of people who have been investigated in the last few years. i don't think that it is a good thing for him that he's being investigated. >> let me play more of what the president said on the lawn today. >> i'm not concerned about anything, the testimony has all been fine. it seems that nobody has any firsthand knowledge, there is no firsthand knowledge. but in no cases i haven't heard in no cases that i see have i been heard. >> i want to talk about next week. the president says he's not concerned at all.

yet this will be historic. we don't have public televised impeachment hearings very much very often in this country. i'm wondering how the white house views that? >> there's a difference between the president and the white house and how they're viewing it. the white house is viewing it from the fact-based practical we've seen how they blue up before, the cory lune dowky and robert mueller didn't go the way they want. but what donald trump is uniquely aware of is the impact on television and people watching it and how they will take in the information and how a good witness can be compelling. i don't think he is thrilled with any of this, that he has to go through with this, i've heard this. he is just sort of dreading all of this. i think he he tells himself this will be fine, another political fight he has to go through. but he knows the power of televised hearings can be compelling.

>> you notice one thing he said yesterday, and earlier today, that you just showed, that i think you're going to hear a lot next week is, i didn't talk to these people. the leadoff witness is ambassador taylor and as he has acknowledged he did not have one-on-one conversations with president trump. and that i think will be a major republican talking point come wednesday. >> the democrats in congress our congressional team has done reporting, is preparing for these at a level they haven't done before. certainly more than the mueller hearings. it does seem, jeffrey, they're aware of what maggie describes as the tv moment that will be happening. >> absolutely. and if you think back to i mean all the way back to watergate, the sam irvin was the chairman of the committee, it was one of the defining moments of the '70s. the 1998 clinton hearings themselves weren't as dramatic. you didn't have john dean or

anyone equivalent. but this is going to be one of the things donald trump's presidency is remembered for, the fact that impeachment hearings took place and these witnesses testified. does he get impeached, con viced, really lected? beats the hell out of me but this is going to be a historic moment. >> maggie says he knows tv, he probably watched those hearings. >> he certainly watched -- the watergate? i have no idea but he certainly watched the mueller hearings and parts of the lewandowsky hearing. he will be paying attention. >> thank you very much for being with us tonight. coming up, more on the questions surrounding mick mulvaney. i'm going to see what david gurg gin who knows a lot inside the white house. 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.

so why haven't you started building? tyler's off to college. and mom's getting older. mhm, and eventually we would like to retire. td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade.

[ soft piano music playing ] mm, uh, what do you do for fun? -not this. ♪ -oh, what am i into? mostly progressive's name your price tool. helps people find coverage options based on their budget. flo has it, i want it, it's a whole thing, and she's right there. -yeah, she's my ride. this date's lame. he has pics of you on his phone. -they're very tasteful.

of the broadcast, a white house chief of staff is in charge of implementing white house policy. what were the transskrips released today who point to president trump's chief of staff mick mulvaney -- they say he made a great deal of maneuvering. few better to ask than david gergen. he is a senior political analyst. thanks so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> generally speaking in your vast experience inside these different administrations, do chiefs of staff freelance typically, do things on their own? >> no, no, even the strongest

don't. and mick mulvaney is i think the weakest chief of staff in modern history. he's still acting. both of his predecessors were fired. the president makes it clear on many occasions that he makes all the decisions. everybody reports to him. it really doesn't matter to him that a number of vacancies occur in government because he is the government. and so i think that mick mulvaney is in a situation where he would never go outside his lane. he would only act at the behest of the president. even strong chiefs of staff go to the president with a big issue. and al hague who had enormous power during the closing months of the nixon administration where the president essentially was off keel and hague had to hold things together, he would still go to the president. jim baker who i think was the most successful chief of staff working for ronald reagan, he would never go and act

independently of reagan. he would explore things with others. and one more thing, john. this decision about holding back money was a big deal. that's why so many people like bolton were in revoeld against it, the whole nsc opposed it. the chief of staff is not going to make a decision absent presidential direction of such weight and so controversial without taking it to the boss to start with. and so i think of course he got the information or he got the direction from the president. i just don't think there can be any doubt that ultimately he did that. and by the way, if he didn't, if he was a rogue player out there, he'd be gone by now. he'd be the scapegoat about all of this. we wouldn't be in all these hearings. >> i'm not sure this was necessary or you think this was necessary to prove, but you see

this as definitive proof now that the president was involved, was involved either directly or at least oversaw what has been described as a shakedown, forcing the ukrainian leader to investigate the bidens in order to get a meeting or in order to get this military aid? >> all signals point to this went into the oval office, the president was deeply involved. there's no signal to the contrary. i will say this because i want to reason force something to an argument jeffrey was making. the republicans cleverly have created a catch-22 for the democrats, and that is they're arguing there's nothing in any of these people that directly comes from the president, tlds no evidence that the president ordered this. these same republicans are blocking from testifying three men who know the truth, the full story that we've been denied. and that is obviously mulvaney, bolton and giuliani as well.

and it's, you know, the democrats i think have to fight harder to get their testimony. i think jeffrey was right. i don't understand the strategy they're on about saying, well, we'll just be rope a doech. they ought to be raising hell so when the final report comes out and the republicans argued, you never proved it, they can say there's only one reason. the key people wouldn't testify. >> that's one argument here, you don't have it directly even though all fingers point in another direction. the other is and i think you will hear this again, is yes it happened. yes, there is the evidence of all of this but it's not impeachable. i'm wondering if you think that the more evidence you have that it actually happened a certain way, if there's a point where that becomes an argument for it being impeachable? >> i do think that if you get the full story it's going to have a thuggish kind of fault to

at least one or two major players. and it's going to reveal some things about the white house that sort of fit our darkest interpretations of what it's like inside this team. yeah, so that it's important to get a more graphic story. i thought the taylor testimony, for example, which was the most important testimony we've heard so far, had a graphic quality to it that really made us understand how sort of ulgly this situation was. >> and william taylor will be the very first public witness in the impeachment inquiry tell vised next wednesday. >> can i make one last point? one of the reasons i think the democrats have got to pay attention right now is there is some slippage in national support for an impeachment. it's small, but it's gone from slightly above 50% to slightly below. >> that is something i know they are watching tonight. david gergern, thanks.

>> thanks. michael bloomberg files for a 2020 democratic primary. does this mean he's definitely running? iphone 11. and right now, t-mobile has the best deal on iphone. get 4 lines of unlimited with 4 iphone 11 included for only $35 a line. all on a signal that goes farther than ever before. that's right. get 4 unlimited lines and 4 iphone 11 for $35 a line. only at t-mobile.

performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result.

that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪

breaking news. michael bloomberg just filed to run in the alabama democratic presidential primary. the billionaire and former new york city mayor will also file

for the arkansas before tuesday's deadline. a spokesman says bloomberg has yet to make a final decision on a run. we do know bloomberg is worried that the current democratic candidates can't beat president trump. here's what joe biden had to say about that today. >> michael is a solid guy. and let's see where it goes. i have no problem with him getting in the race. and in terms of he's running because of me, last polls i looked at i'm pretty far ahead. >> i spoke about the potential run with democratic national committee chair tom perez. >> mr. chairman you spoke with michael bloomberg last night. what did you take away from that conversation? >>. well, i told the mayor exactly what i tell every candidate or potential candidate, we will welcome them, treat them fairly, make sure there's a level playing field and leave it up to the voters to decide. i appreciate the call.

and we will do exactly that if and when he enters the race. >> i know it's your job to say you treat him exactly the same, but his political adviser said the reason he's considering getting in is because he's concerned that the current field is not positioned to beat donald trump. what do you make of that statement? >> well, i think there is many people in the field. i think we have a really strong field. whoever emerges as our nominee is going to beat donald trump. i have confidence in that because everybody running for president believes that if you have a pre-existing condition you should be able to keep your health care, we should take on the pharmaceutic industry and fight to make sure people have access to the american dream, not just those in the 1%. the unit of values we have in the democratic party, what they have in common with the american

people, we're fighting for the fishes people care about. that's why we one at scale this past tuesday in kentucky, virginia and elsewhere and why we won in 2018 and 2017. i think the american people are on our side. our nominee whoever he or she is is going to win. >> if the premise is that the field is not positioned to beat donald trump, you do not agree with that statement? >> i don't. i think we have a great field. if other people decide they want to get in, i welcome them and we will continue to welcome them. i am absolutely confident that whoever emerges is going to win the race and that's because of all of the things i just said. people want a leader we can trust. they want to restore honor to the oval office. >> there have been a lot of candidates running for a long time spending time in iowa, new hampshire, meeting voters.

what are the challenges? >> you have to introduce yourself to voters and don't have a lot of time to do it. in so many of these states it's not just trying to get on television. it's really getting to know people. and so there's not that many days, less than 100 days until iowa, and a month after iowa is super tuesday. so this election cycle is going to be on us very soon. the candidates know that and that's why they are in over drive. >> do you think selling yourself to the primary electorate as a billionaire, what are the challenges there? >> those are the challenges that the mayor understands and will confront. and i think americans are going to judge the candidates on the content and quality of their ideas, their vision for america. whether they hawill fight for them, to restore honor to the oval office, going to have

access to health care, whether we truly address the climate change cat aftphy, truly take action to reduce gun violence and whether we make sure our leaders are looking out for everyday americans, not for female li people like donald trump. >> the way you have it set up, you have to receive donations from a certain number of people to get on the debate stage. if michael bloomberg doesn't bother raising money because he doesn't need to, how will he get on the debate stage? >> those are the rules we set. we didn't make any exceptions to those rules. i don't have any intention for the november and december debates. we haven't set the rules past december. but we've articulated the rules u7 to and including december and they include a grassroots fund raising. mr. steyer came in later in the

process. later in the process than others, and he understood the rules and he has complied. i'm sure the mayor, should he want to get on the debate stage, will understand those rules and do the same. >> even in he's at 10% at polls he's not going into the debate unless he meets that donor threshold? >> that's correct. >> thanks for being with us today. >> have a good day. still ahead for us, 360's randi kaye talks to a group of women to get their take on the 2020 race. what they said could be a worry to the trump team. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ever since you brought me home, that day. i've been plotting to destroy you.

sizing you up... calculating your every move. you think this is love? this is a billion years of tiger dna just ready to pounce. and if you have the wrong home insurance coverage, you could be coughing up the cash for this. so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like me-ow. a busy night. let's check in with chris to see what he's working on to "cuomo prime time" at the top of the hour. >> we have fareed zakaria on tonight. one of the items of inintrigue,t was with fareed that was supposed to announce the investigation into the bidens and others. he didn't know what plot was afoot. has he ever seen anything like

that before and what can he help us understand. and we have anthony scaramucci and tom steyer here. >> he's got a billion dollar, bloomberg's got about 50. did those democratic victories in tuesday's election mean president trump's support in the suburbs is eroding? we'll speak to voters in kentucky to get their take on the 2020 race. dchg because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there?

robinwithout the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. most people think of verizon as a reliable phone company. (woman) but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready. ♪

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.