the reason for the rehabilitation. but it's still very much in the early stages after the operation. i think we'll have more information in the next few hours or so. >> it's always so good to have you here on anything like this, and we all send our best wishes to the president and his family. thank you so much, sanjay. >> thank you. thank you so much for joining me today. "inside politics" with john king starts right now. thank you, kate, and welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. final preparations for dramatic public impeachment hearings. president trump attacks the lead witnesses saying they have second or thirdhand information. they say they will prove the president's abuse of power. the supreme court is hearing arguments about whether to embrace or reject president trump's decision to end those

obama protections for d.r.e.a.m.ers. she attacked me. she went out and said, biden shouldn't use my name. it's not about her. i wasn't talking about her, i was talking about the attitude. it's not about her, it's about the attitude that's out there. >> back to that and 2020 politics a bit later, but we begin this hour for a moderate impeachment 180 from the president's chief of staff. mick mulvaney now says he will not testify. rather, he will rely on the direction of the president, as supported by an opinion of the office of legal counsel of the utes use department much justice, in not appearing for the relevant deposition. president trump taking to twitter to attack the process

and to question the knowledge of the lead witnesses, this as both republicans and democrats work right up to the last minute fine-tuning their plans for these televised hearings. beginning impeachment proceedings seven weeks before the calendar turneds to electio year, and both parties holding meetings with their full caucus. phil mattingly on capitol hill. phil, a big day. let us know about the strategies. >> reporter: i think there is unusual recognition across party lines of the gravity of the moment. we've seen hearings the last couple years turn into youtube-made moments for campaigns. this is not that. there is a recognition for both democrats and republicans, whether it's closed door meetings, whether it's lengthy memos, whether it's walking through how this process will actually work that they recognize the stakes here. i want to start with the democrats. first and foremost, the democrats' talked to say what they've heard behind closed doors they believe is enough for

an impeachable offense. the one tomorrow, the one on friday will paint that picture, the one they saw behind closed doors and walk through in an orderly fashion. not being repeatedly interrupted but actually walk through why they thought there was significant problems with the ukraine-u.s. policy, why there were concerns with what rudy giuliani was doing and why these various individuals thought there were significant problems with the policies president trump was pursuing. that's the goal. paint that picture to what we've seen behind closed doors. it's different but it's started to unify and coalesce. they've been poring through the transcripts trying to poke holes in the witnesses' testimony, the republicans have. they want to point out how career officials never had any talks with the president at all, that they can't presume to know what the president was directing if they didn't talk to him.

you also had an 18-page memo from republican staff, from the three committees investigating impeachment, that they gave to members that really laid out probably the most robust defense of the president you've seen up to this point. there were many holes in it and a lot of areas democrats would quibble with, but in that defense are a couple key points, and they really focus on that july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky, saying in that call there was no evidence of any pressure, there was no evidence of any conditionality by what president trump was saying. and that was backed up by what both president trump and president zelensky said in the wake of that call, that there was no quid pro quo from it. also they were not aware that the u.s. security aid had been withheld or suspended at that point. the hold on it was eventually lifted, on september 11. the background of why that occurred, that's not really addressed in the memo. but you're seeing the idea that no one can prove during that call, for which a transcript was there, that the president had any ulterior motive. the democrats have evidence to

push back on that, but going into this tomorrow and next week, both parties are coalescing behind the idea of what they want. will they actually get there? that's an open question. we've seen hearings spin out of control in the past. several meetings throughout the course of the day today, more tomorrow morning before that hearing. this is a unified effort on both sides. both sides recognize what's at stake here. >> appreciate the live reporting. with me in the studio, julie pace with the associated press, cnn's jeff zeleny, nippa with the "washington post" and tol toluse olirunnipa. there was an impeachment with bill clinton and he walked. he raised his hand in a deposition admitting he lied. it was about personal conduct,

some said that shouldn't have been impeachable, but you had the president on tape saying, i lied, essentially. the democrats don't have that. they have three trusted, honorable public servants. can those lead witnesses make the case on day one make the american people pay attention? >> i think the democrats have a challenge. one of the challenges they have is to simply make the american people really pay attention to this. if you think about where we are right now, we have lived through some really chaotic years in the trump presidency, and we have also had big moments on capitol hill. we've had bob mueller go to capitol hill, we've had the kavanaugh hearings. how did the democrats convince voters, americans, that this is different, that they should tune in and pay attention and that this is not a partisan exercise when everything leading up to this so far has shown democrats and republicans completely split? how do they try to bring over some people from the other side. i think without that smoking gun or that really one compelling moment that directly points to the president, that is going to be a tough challenge for them. >> if you look, phil mentioned the republican memo.

you can find it at cnn.com, you can find it at other news organizations. read it. you can fact check this yourself, you don't have to trust me. however, it is a strategy to make it just about the july 25 call. there were things before, things weeks after, too, and you get a strategy, but you can poke holes in that strategy quickly. one, ukraine didn't know. how can you have a quid pro quo if ukraine didn't know? this is laura cooper, her transcript was released yesterday, deputy defense secretary. i knew from my kurt volker conversation and also from sort of the alarm bells that were coming from ambassador taylor and his team that the ukranians who knew about this. their goal is to keep the republicans. impeachment is critical. democrats feel they can impeach the president in the house and not suffer in the electorate. the republican goal was have no republicans defect.

keep them from the senate so they don't convict. >> they want to make the facts more difficult to understand. this is a complicated issue, right? very few americans know much about ukraine. people didn't know about this aid package we've been talking about for weeks, but this is not a big topic of awareness on the part of the american people, how foreign aid works, how congress has ruled, how the white house held this back. somehow it didn't have anything to do with foreign policy. so i agree with julie that they have a challenge there to make it understandable and to keep the facts front and center, given that the republicans' whole play here will be to muddy up the waters. yes, the president did this, is basically what that memo lays out, but there was nothing wrong with it. this was him exercising his prerogatives as president, he was concerned about corruption and you can't prove otherwise. they're going to continue to hammer at that message and it's going to be difficult for democrats to break through, even though they will have people now testifying in public which matters, you know. it's going to be the first

opportunity for people to hear in the voices of these diplomats and administration officials, yeah, i thought there was something really wrong with this. this is not the way things are supposed to work and we understood in various degrees of certainty that it came from president trump. >> and so to the point, the president says the call was perfect. republicans want you to just focus on the july 25th call, which was not perfect. here's something that hurts the republican case. she's not a witness, but condoleezza rice, the former bush security adviser, someone who with the first bush administration was a russian hand. she knows yavonovitch well. she said, the call is murky. it's really murky. i don't like for the president of the united states to mention an american citizen for investigation in a foreign leader. of bounds. >> and others have seconded that saying the call was not appropriate, it wasn't right. >> they won't go there because the president has told them not to. >> exactly. that is the question here.

this does sound very similar, but it is not similar. this is not about the 2016 election at all. this is about a conversation that the president had and a policy about ukraine. so it is the challenge of democrats, no question, to separate this and rise a little bit higher above this moment and not let this evolve into a screaming match which we've seen many in that storied ways and means committee chamber on the house side, but i think that's probably what will happen. it probably will be a screaming match, except the lawyers at the beginning will be presenting their case. this is not going to be like any other hearing, this is going to be different. but i do think the president, in trying to discredit all of this, they are also worried at the white house, a, how he's going to react to this and how he's going to react to the fact, you know, watching these three government officials testify, and sort of what devolves from

there. i don't think there are many minds made up in the senate, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. leet watch the hearing tomorrow and see. >> not getting ahead of yourself, things change from day to day, sometimes hour to hour, minute to minute. what's up with mick mulvaney? he's still the director of office, management and budget. he's the chief of staff. he's novel in saying the president said exist. catherine croft, a state department partner for said this yesterday. what was the concern about the russian reaction? that russia would react negatively to the provision of javelins to ukraine. he went to court.

he says i want a judge to tell me if i need to testify. now he pulls it back and says, i'm not going to testify. >> he had this press conference a few weeks ago where he admitted to the quid pro quo. that set off alarm bells within the white house, saying why would you do this, why would you undercut the strategy and the message we've been putting forward? now it sounds like he's concerned about whether or not he should be complying with this subpoena, even though he and the white house counsel have said this whole process is illegitimate and there is no reason white house officials should be participating and some of his underlings have not been participating, so it is a legal strategy leaving a lot of people scratching their heads and there is a lot of question about the president's standing because of that. >> he's certainly listening to the president here after hesitating. he's listening to the president now. we'll see when we come back. more on this story. including, the three diplomats will be introduced to the public in open impeachment hearings. but they're all quite familiar with each other. >> george, in my view, is one of

the best diplomats that the state department has. we've worked together on several occasions and i've learned incredible amounts. you're about to learn an incredible amount from him as well. me say it isn't real milk. i guess those cows must actually be big dogs. sit! i said sit!

where people go to learn about their medicare options before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why...medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. this part is up to you. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today to request this free decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement

plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! so call unitedhealthcare today and ask for your free decision guide. oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance. here hold this. follow that spud. [ tires screech ] the big idaho potato truck is touring america telling folks about idaho potatoes. and i want it back. what is it with you and that truck?

plaque psoriasis uncoverth clearer skin that can last. in fact, tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last. janssen can help you explore cost support options.

republican source revealing to cnn today how the gop hopes to undercut the quid pro quo narrative and discredit witnesses as the impeachment inquiry goes public. the first two witnesses, bill taylor, the top diplomat in

ukraine, and george kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state both testify tomorrow. then friday it's marie yavonovitch. they will try to show that the president of ukraine never understood what president trump wanted. they say that's ludicrous and they can detail the conversations that trace all the way back to the west wing. that fight about facts is one big part of the impeachment drama. the presentation of the case, though, is also critical. and the three lead witnesses are hardly household names or voices. >> i think we should support ukraine very strongly financially. i think we should support ukraine very strongly militarily. >> regardless of the outcome in the upcoming elections, our commitment to ukraine and its people will remain unwavering. >> ukraine must continue to pursue economic reforms in line with european standards and

fully keep up with its institutions. i say this as a friend and as a representative of a country that i believe is ukraine's best partner. >> i wanted to show that, to add it, because i assume most americans -- i don't mean this at all disrespectfully. unless you watch c-span hearings in the middle of the night, you don't know these people. they are people doing great government work all the time. they are viewed, by the way, by all their colleagues over several administrations. it's very meticulous, very credible, very honorable public servants. but the democrats don't know them and they're counting on them out of the box to make the case that aid was abuse of power. if you watch from day one, you should stay with us till the end here. >> the president discredits anyone who speaks against his line here. the three people we are going to see this week are not never trumpers. they are government officials serving the trump administration at the moment.

these are what the government is made of. not deep staters, these are people who have served honorably, no different than people in the bush administration, obama administration, et cetera. i think the president has been successful defining this. i think when we see the witnesses tomorrow, i believe it will be hard to view them as, you know, having a dog in this fight other than to tell the truth. >> so republicans will try to make the case that it's a misunderstanding or they heard it from ambassador x, not from president trump, and maybe rudy giuliani or ambassador sondland. i think we'll hear some of that. the question is can they deliver in a compelling way the damaging testimony they delivered in private. this is bill taylor, currently the top u.s. diplomat in ukraine. gordon sondland said everything for an announcement, that announcement looking into the bidens. he said, i had concerns that there was an effort to act

judicially. if marie yavonovitch said, i was told to watch my back. at that time rudy giuliani was planning to fire her. >> this didn't come from the president himself. fair. but in this call he had with president zelensky, he raised the same investigations that he was interested in, burisma, which is the company that hunter biden served on the board of, he raised the dnc and this discredited notion that the server was hiding in ukraine. trump used those words himself in a transcript that is out there. so there is a direct link between -- >> and he said rudy is the guy. >> he said rudy is the guy. work with rudy giuliani. those three pieces of evidence came out of the president's mouth and are also the same things these officials were hearing from people in very close proximity to the

president. there is a linkage there for sure. >> there are no republican witnesses who can say they spoke directly with president trump and that he did not hold up the aid because of these investigations. there is no credible explanation as to why the aid was held up. mick mulvaney is not testifying, no one is saying we held up the aid for xyz reasons that are not connected to these politically motivated reasons, and no one in the state department, in the defense department as we've seen from these witnesses knew why the aid was being held up. so there are no sort of alibi witnesses for the president. it will make it harder for the republicans to make their case that all these people just came up with this lack of direct connection with the president and came up with why this aid was being held up and they are all wrong. >> they can't disprove what these diplomats said in private. the problem for the democrats is can they prove without mick mulvaney or the lmv, half the people the white house has blocked from testifying, can they connect the dots back?

one of the names on the list they can't call back was kurt volker, who did have a conversation with gordon sondland. they want to call him as a republican witness and say, why didn't the democrats put him on theirs? >> why on earth would volker not be there? he was the special envoy to ukraine. we're having the top people in the state department who handled ukraine and now the acting ambassador. why would you not have volker on the same panel? >> does he not have a point in the sense -- you know, democrats should have known republicans were going to call him. if you read volker's transcript, and it is voluminous, there are times when he said he was not personally aware of any quid pro quo. so the republicans say, there you go, he's a special envoy. he's incredibly critical of giuliani. he said the policy was off the rails. but aren't the democrats being defensive by not putting him on their list because he said a couple things that at least if you're trying to make the case

for the president are helpful. >> he had to know he was being called by the republicans, because one of the things that's clear from the accounts we've heard, aside from volker's account himself, he reacted differently to giuliani than the others. his approach was, yes, giuliani should not be in this mix, this is not appropriate necessarily, but what would be the harm in asking for these investigations. we know giuliani is pushing for this, we know he has the blessing of the president, so what would be the harm in asking for them. other people like bill taylor and george kent were saying even just raising these issues were completely inappropriate. he had a different approach and republicans may feel that's useful to them, and democrats want to lead with people they think will be their best witnesses. but i do think republicans recognize on some level the inconsistency in their argument about these democratic witnesses, because another thing in this memo is a call for unelected bureaucrats and say they were trying to substitute their own judgment for the president. the president is the one who was

elected and they have no business disagreeing with him openly. i think what you'll hear in these initial hearings is they're not voicing their own opinions, they're voicing sort of decades of american foreign policy and what the approach was and should have been in a situation like this. it will be for the american people to decide whether that is discredited or not. >> and russian aggression was happening inside ukraine and they needed the military assistance if you cared about that. we'll come back to this conversation, but first, the south carolina governor ask congressman, mark sanford, is now ending his 2020 republican challenge against president trump. the post and currier quotes him as saying, you have to be a realist and what i didn't anticipate was an impeachment. you have to focus on deficit spending. we'll be right back. don't miss the final days to save $1,000 on the new sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, now only $1,799. ends sunday.

of millions of americans during the recession. so, my wife kat and i took action. we started a non-profit community bank with a simple theory - give people a fair deal and real economic power. invest in the community, in businesses owned by women and people of color, in affordable housing. the difference between words and actions matters. that's a lesson politicians in washington could use right now. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message.

doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. $$9.95? no way.? $9.95? that's impossible. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company, to tell you it is possible. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get life insurance with options starting at just $9.95 a month. okay, jonathan, i'm listening. tell me more. just $9.95 a month for colonial penn's number one most popular whole life insurance plan. there are no health questions to answer and there are no medical exams to take. your acceptance is guaranteed. guaranteed acceptance? i like guarantees. keep going.

and with this plan, your rate is locked in for your lifetime, so it will never go up. sounds good to me, but at my age, i need the security of knowing it won't get cancelled as i get older. this is lifetime coverage as long as you pay your premiums. it can never be cancelled, call now for free information. you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. use this valuable guide to record your important information and give helpful direction about your final wishes to your loved ones. and it's yours free. it's our way of saying thank you just for calling. so call now.

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.

sto dramatic and heated day today in the district court where they're arguing to the supreme court daca. d.r.e.a.m.ers rallying outside in the rain today, chanting and singing. the trump administration ended the daca program back in 2017 arguing it was unlawful and unconstitutional. it's become, of course, a very heated political flashpoint and that was clear today. the liberal justice hammering the administration on how it ended the program and its

justification for doing so. take us inside the courtroom. often you listen to the justices. you get clues. sometimes they deliberately confuse you. what did you learn? >> a lot of drama in the supreme court. there was clarity from two sides of the bench. there were a couple justices on the far right and a couple justices on the left who made clear where they stand. they were predictable, justices like ruth bader ginsberg and sotomayor not liking how they were trying to rescind this obama program. then you have justices on the far right, gorsuch, and joined presumably by clarence thomas who already has shown that he's on that side. and right smack in the middle, when you go in and look up, it's john roberts. john roberts voted against a

version of this program back in 2016 when it was parents of u.s. citizens whose deportation was being deferred. in a couple different turns, he mentioned the fact that the administration might have been right to believe that this childhood arrivals program known as daca would be unlawful the way the parental program was. but he didn't fully tip his hand. he asked questions about latitude in general and the agency heads in this, and about consequences. he asked questions about consequences. one other caution i would give here is that the chief doesn't fully show his hand. and last term, at the end of the census case, we were all ready to say he was siding with the trump administration about the citizenship query, and, indeed, he was, but he changed his vote at the last minute. so in the immortal words of some justices and sports figures, it ain't over till it's over. >> so we wait until june. this is about 7 or0 or 80,000

people entered the united states before their 16th birthday, continued to reside in the united states until 2007, physically present in the u.s. on june 15, 2012. in school, graduated or honorably discharged from the military. this goes on and on and on. as we wait for the court decision, there's some irony in your book and you covered this story that jeff sessions, the attorney general who is trying to make a comeback, was central to this. let's go back in time and listen. >> the executive branch through daca deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. such an open-ended circumvention was an exercise against the authority branch. >> what you heard there was the

central argument that the trump administration initially made for ending daca which was purely it was unconstitutional. that was partly because of elaine duke, acting head of security, was against ending the program, and that was one of the weaknesses in the heart of the trump administration's case, and in the end if the justices do end up saying the trump administration was wrong to rescind it, it could be because of that. because it wasn't until the following june, june of 2018, that they put forth actual policy reasons for ending the program. so that will be interesting to see, whether that is at all persuasive to the justices. >> and one point i have to say, the majority appeared to agree that if they go back -- say they do send it back, which is a really big "if." but if they do, the majority says that the administration can roll this back, it just has to do it the proper way. >> it's about how they did it. >> the president said this in a tweet that if the court rules against him, he'll find a

solution against the democrats. a solution on this one has proven more than elusive. coming up, brand new revelations in the roger stone trial today from a former trump campaign aide. about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room.

you may be learning about, medicare and supplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything ...only about 80% of your part b medicare costs. a medicare supplement insurance plan may help cover some of the rest. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp because they meet aarp's high standards of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. you may choose any doctor that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan there are no networks or referrals needed.

also, a medicare supplement plan... ...goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. call today for a free guide. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months after just 2 doses. 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.

topping our political radar today, former president jimmy carter recovering from a brain operation today in atlanta. the doctors said the procedure was necessary to relieve pressure causing bleeding, that bleeding related to recent falls. president carter fell last month, breaking his hip. the prosecution rested his case after a morning of heavy testimony. rick gates, the former chairman of the trump campaign, dumped some information from wikileaks. that testimony flying in the face of repeated denials by both roger stone and president trump that they had ever discussed wikileaks. shimon prokupecz joins us live from outside the courthouse. it sounds like a wild day before the prosecution rests. >> reporter: it really was, and he was the key witness for the

prosecution and essentially they ended their case by having him testify, john. and what it essentially did is linked donald trump right to the conversations concerning wikileaks. what rick gates testified to, and let me go ahead and show you some of this, he said that basically trump and roger stone were having conversations about wikileaks, the prosecutor asking rick gates, after mr. trump got off the phone with mr. stone, what did trump say? and gates said he indicated more information would be coming. now, this was a conversation that happened back in july of 2016, july 31st, in an suv with rick gates, donald trump and secret service agents on their way to la guardia airport, and that is when donald trump received a call from roger stone that indicated that there was going to be more dumps coming,

more information out of wikileaks. that is what rick gates testified to. i want to just recall for everyone, bring everyone back to the mueller investigation. this was a key point in the mueller investigation. in fact, it was a question that mueller had asked donald trump, writing in a question to donald trump, asking if he had any conversations with roger stone or anyone else regarding wikileaks? and basically donald trump says that he did not recall having those conversations. rick gates, on the other hand, said, yeah, these conversations did take place. donald trump in the written questions that he submitted and the answers that he submitted to mueller, said, i don't recall those conversations. this trial essentially ending on that note. the prosecution and the defense now is expected to rest this afternoon. stone is not expected to testify, but obviously the big thing here now is that we have donald trump being linked

directly to the conversations concerning wikileaks. john? >> the issue that appears will never go away. shimon prokupecz, i appreciate the live reporting. keep us up to date. obama's case against elitism and the rival he has as he makes it. you know that old saying about flattery? >> come on, man. >> come on, man. off family linesat's why we'r% for military, veterans and first responders. so they can stay connected, on our newest, most powerful signal ever. and now, we are also offering half off our top samsung phones for military, veterans and first responders. our service is just one way we say thank you... for theirs.

with medicare advantage plans that offer health coaching

and fitness memberships. plus hospital, medical and prescription drug coverage in one simple plan. with monthly plan premiums starting at $0. and wide provider networks, including doctors and hospitals you know and trust. aetna medicare advantage plans call today. we'll send you a $10 visa reward card with no obligation to enroll. medicare annual enrollment ends december 7th.

>> announcer: this is cnn town hall brought to you by shrm, creating better workplaces for a better world. more information and resources from shrm. joe biden drawing on his blue collar routes to draw a sharp contrast with rival elizabeth warren. at a cnn town hall last night, biden on one hand insisting this isn't personal. on the other saying warren in his view risks alienating critical voters when she said they should run instead to a government medicare for all. >> the attitude that we know better than ordinary people what's in their interest. i know more than you, let me tell you what to do. and it wasn't elitist, the

attitude was elitist. when i was growing up in a middle class neighborhood, the last thing i liked was people telling our family what we should know, what we should have believed. that just because we didn't have money, we weren't knowledgeable. i resent that. >> it was a much more personal way to get at the argument to give people a choice. and a lot of people think this is one of the reasons donald trump is president. they think, no politician will listen to me, they think they're smarter than me, they want to tell me what to do. is he on to something? >> i do think he's tapping into a sentiment that certainly resonated with voters who moved from democrats to trump. what's interesting about it, they looked at some of the arguments the obama administration was making about obamacare and look at it the same way biden is looking at medicare for all. biden is doing this strategically because some of his argument on electability is

what he believes is needed to bring some of those voters back. elizabeth warren thinks her plan will bring voters back. it's all focused on this one pack of voters, but i think biden is trying to find the right way to make this argument without looking like he's too personal against warren. >> how do you do that? he says it's not about her, it's about her attitude, i'm talking about elitism, not her. but you're talking about her as he is again here. >> imagine if i said to her, you should be in a socialist primary. biden is bum, bum, bum, bum, bum. y'all would say that. >> do you think she should? >> no. look, i think the plan that's being offered is not a rational plan, but tell us what it means for people.

>> i don't like your plan, i don't think you're selling it to people. it's personal. >> it is personal, but if you like joe biden, some of his supporters have wanted to see a little more fight from him, a little more fire from him. that's what we're seeing here, and i didn't expect -- i'm not sure the biden campaign expected this would crystallize around medicare for all. it has a variety of things. he's talking about saving the obama legacy, he's talking about not taking anything from you, and he's drawing a distinction between senator warren and himself. i could see it have just a drip of condescension of, you're likable enough, hillary. we all remember that from 2008. but at the same time it may resonate from some voters in iowa and other places who have deep questions about elizabeth warren's plan here. it's fascinating to watch this play out. i think that will be front and center next week on the debate stage when once again they're

standing side by side. we've not seen them side by side since this conversation began at the last debate. >> on the flip side, she says, look, it's hard to have big structural change. i'm willing to take the fight and i'm willing to take the harpoons that come with it, i think we need this structural change. that's the argument she makes knowing it's risky. she said yesterday, so sad, so sad, they might have to pay two cents out of their gazillion dollars. last night amari cooper said, easy. >> what is the point to vilify successful people that have done well for society? i don't get it. she can say wealthy people should pay more in taxes. i happen to agree with that. i believe strongly in the income tax structure. i believe rich people should pay more, but why she criticize the wealthy is for political gain. >> you have michael bloomberg, warren buffett, right there. mr. cooper is saying, we ought

to pay more, but we have great jobs. quit beating us up. >> i think he should make an inkind donation to her campaign because he's using this as a strategy to say the billionaires don't like me because i'm going to make life a little harder so i can give the vast majority of americans free health care and free education and free pre-k. she's talking about what she can do with that money and less about hurt feelings of billionaires who have to pay more. yes, more democrats considering jumping in to the 2020 race. another caste gets smaller. sean spicer eliminated from "dancing with the stars." listen to the lyrics. oh yeah - it's back. crispy shrimp... ...tossed in a spicy rub... ...and drizzled with sweet amber honey. more shrimp more ways. endless shrimp's fifteen ninety nine. hurry, it ends november 17th

wwithout it, i cannot write myl tremors wouldname.xtreme. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. and we won't stop. join us in fighting for what's right. gimme one minute... and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80% - medicare will pay for. what's left is on you. that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't.

these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement for meeting their high standards of quality and service. so call unitedhealthcare insurance company today and ask for your free decision guide. with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and when you travel, your plan will go with you - anywhere in the country. whew! call unitedhealthcare today and ask for your free decision guide.

some 2020 lightning round developments before we go. michael bloomberg in little rock, arkansas this hour, and he just tweeted us to tell us why he he's there. officially signed up on the democratde arkansas ballot for the democratic primary. we must defeat trump. he has rallied about this. >> michael bloomberg has been thinking about being president for a long time. he didn't have to go to arkansas

today. he could have sent his aides as he did on friday in alabama, but he wanted to make the point that he is almost serious -- he is serious about it, but almost in. he's having lunch later this afternoon with the mayor of little rock, african-american mayor, the city's first, so certainly that's an interesting development. patrick, we think he will announce by thursday if he's going to do this and be in new hampshire by friday because that's the deadline. >> we're in a situation now where these candidates have to deal with reality, and that's that these filing dates are upon us so they have to jump ahead in the decision-making process. >> so bloomberg and patrick both thinking it's too liberal? >> this moderate lane by klobuchar and warren and sanders, but nobody thinks they can win against warren and

sanders, so they want to come in and win it moderately. >> the fact he's actually on the road and on camera tells me he's really serious. we shall see. thanks for joining me on "inside politics." don't go away. brianna keilar starts right now. have a great afternoon. i'm brianna keilar live from cnn's washington headquarters. underway right now. on the eve of the public impeachment hearings, the president and republicans ready a dubious offense, most of which can be easily debunked but could it still work? in the roger stone trial, a former aide said the president got a heads up with information that could help his 2016 campaign and it appears to be a wikileaks drop. and the struggle today with whether to end