you were both very, very impressive and made me fell so good to see that. >> we, of course, wish the president a full and speedy recovery. to our viewers, thanks very much for watching. i'm wolf blitzer in "the situation room." erin burnett" out front starts right now. out front next, breaking news. just hours before historic televised impeachment hearings, president trump reportedly considered firing the man who helped spark the impeachment investigation. plus chaos concerning the white house, trump aggravated as his chief of staff mick mull vaugvad the white house council at odds and pete buttigieg in a new poll. let's go out front. good evening. i'm erin burnett. out front tonight the breaking news on the eve of what could be the biggest threat to trump's presidency, just hours before public impeachment hearings begin, and the president wants someone who is central to the entire impeachment investigation

out, fired. this is according to "the new york times" this hour which is reporting the president is targeting his intelligence community inspector general, michael atkinson. atkinson is the one who deemed that whistle-blower complaint urgent and credible. both urgent and credible, and because of that, according to the times, trump is accusing atkinson of being disloyal and of trying to sabotage his presidency. keep in mind atkinson is known as a serious professional and a career non-partisan. susan collins telling the hill newspaper, quote, i have a lot of regard for the inspector general and believe what he did what he thought was right and here ate national intelligence defending atkinson when the whistle-blower complaint came out. >> i have no reason to doubt that michael atkinson did anything, but his job. >> well, the president has a lot of doubts and is threatening now over how this investigation is

unfolding and his administration's response and all of it has him on pins and needles and tonight republicans and democrats are finalizing their strategy for those hearings tomorrow. just a short time ago republicans holding a mock impeachment hearing. they know the stakes are high and one of the first witnesses will be bill taylor, of course, who describe what he said was a quid pro quo and it was his understanding that, quote, security assistance money would not come until president zelensky proceeded to for sue the burisma investigation. burisma, of course, is the company where hunter biden served on the board and already some republicans are trying to tear taylor down. >> is he a credible witness? >>. >> no. second, third hand, in no hand information. you can't rely on third and fourth-hand information. >> it's important to just note the facts. taylor's testimony has been

corroborated under oath by four other officials who testified to a quid pro quo and then there will be george kent tomorrow who also will be toughering saying to the country what he said behind closed doors, that, quote, potus wanted nothing less than president zelensky to go to the microphone and say investigation, biden and clinton ahead of tomorrow's historic hearing, kaitlan collins is out front live in new york. what are you hearing about president trump's state of mind? we are hour away from these impeachment hearings being public. >>ier ir >> erin, publicly the president is not worried about this, but privately they're saying these testimonies could be damaging and we are waiting to see how damage the white house sees they are and seeing these current and former officials testify on camera about the actions and mick mulvaney's actions and the secretary of state and from there on down.

the president himself is keeping an eye personally on marie yovanovitch who testified on friday and they say bill taylor could prove the most damaging based on the transcript of his testimony that's been released so far. so they are watching this closely, and erin, the president is paying close attention to what the republicans are going to be doing tomorrow and he wants to be aggressive in the questioning of witnesses and so far he's been able to undermine the credibility and including those who worked for him and that's what he's counting on republicans do tomorrow and corey lewandowski's hearing and the question is whether or not which party will be more successful in shaping the message tomorrow. you've got to keep in mind and the president has a few hours waiting on the turkish president to get here and then that president is going to be here and the president will be hosting him in a series of meetings and dogs a press conference this afternoon and it could be the real sense of reaction from trump. >> kaitlan, thank you very much.

i want to go out front now to the former assistant fbi director greg brower. gop committee counsel sophia nelson and our chief investigative correspondent for yahoo news, isikoff, and rick santorum who voted to remove clinton from office during the mock trial. president trump has repeatedly discussed firing his own pick, his own hand-picked ig for the intelligence committee michael atkinson because atkinson determined the whistle-blower's complaint was credible and urgent. the president apparently believes he's disloyal and trying to sabotage his presidency. what does this tell you? >> well, it concerns me greatly, erin, as a former federal inspector general myself. this inspector general like all inspector generals was doing his

and for that he's drawn others who seem to have a commitment to finding the facts and the facts that the president may not like, but let me point out one thing that should also concern us and that is this idea that this ig or any ig should be loyal to the president. that's not how the system works. the igs -- >> right. -- are in place to root out waste, fraud and abuse and that is their sole mission. they don't play politics. they're not loyal to anybody. the only thing they're loyal to is the truth and that's how they do their job. >> so, senator, according to the times, people close to the president believe the political consequences of moving forward with this of trying to fire his inspector general would be devastating in the senate which, as you know, obviously is ultimately what decides whether a president of the united states is --?

and the mueller investigation. they'll fire bob mueller or get someone to fire bob muler and he never did. he talked about it and i'm not surprised that the president and anybody in the line of fire that did anything that the president see as detrimental to the president is going to want that guy removed. >> that's how he is. that's the way he is, and people sit down with him and talk it through and he weighs the plusses and minuses as to whether to remove them or not, and i think the plusses are greatly outweighed by the minuses here and you have to remember, you have to keep a majority of your majority in the senate happy and you don't want to do anything -- >> we heard from senator collins. that's not going to go over well. >> and what's the point? i mean, it's not like he's going to continue to do things that will harm the president and it's one and done and time to move on. >> sophia, the news coming hours

and george kents a and both of m will testify tomorrow and i want to give everyone a sense of how this will go, and opening statements will be from the southern district of new york, daniel goldman, and steve castor from the house oversight panel on who moved over to intelligence and they'll have 90 minutes and then the committee members will each get give minutes to question the witnesses. sophia, you were there for the last time there were public impeachment hearings. what do you make of this layout tomorrow and what do democrats need to do to have this not backfire on them. first and foremost, we all need a collective deep breath. when the founders designed impeachment, it was a device to remove a rogue executive. it was not meant to be this partisan football. so the first thing that the democrats will want to do tomorrow is to establish the seriousness of the underlying

act which is whether or not the president engaged in a quid pro quo and they'll do that with mr. taylor's testimony and other testimony, and of course, the republicans will have their turn, and if they're smart, erin, they're not going to go wild and not going to go on this name calling and demeaning like other hearings and they'll ask serious questions and they're going to show that they also want to get to the truth whatever that may be. and so the process should be very sober. i expect it to be. i expect chairman and ranking members have told their sides what they want them to do. i've been through this process as you mentioned on oversight and not on judiciary, but it's a very serious process when you have witnesses coming forward with sworn testimony and have members ask questions on a matter of consequence like this. so i expect it to be pretty sober tomorrow. >> jim nord an was moved over to the committee to defend trump and it is something he's done with vigor. jim jordan, if you don't know the face, you do when you see

this. >> the democrats just put us through three years of this phony russia collusion investigation and now on the heels of that they come right back with this. we've all seen the transcript. there's nothing there. >> i think he's got you guys all spun up. >> you're not answering it. >> because you -- i don't think he really meant go investigate. >> and michael, here he is questioning trump's personal attorney and jim jordan why he's been placed in this room when co know testified against the president. here's jordan. >> how long did you work in the white house? >> i never worked in the white house. >> that's the point isn't it, mr. cohen? >> no, sir. >> yes it is. >> you wanted to work in the white house. >> no, sir. >> you didn't get brought to the dance. >> how important could jordan be, michael? >> jim jordan plays very well to the trump base on fox news, but the audience that -- for tomorrow is a very different one.

this is really the opportunity for both sides to make a case to the american public. that of the american public that has not yet determined where they are on this matter, right? and so, i think, in many ways this is an entirely new phase of the impeachment saga. the democrats may have some of the same issues they've been playing, prosecutors playing to their base to the progressive base that wants to see the president impeached and they now have to shift to this more sorrow than anger mode that would probably play well to that broad sector of the american public. it's going to be really interesting to see if both sides can restrain themselves and conduct the kind of sober hearings that they were talking about. >> certainly, they understand the import of it and that there are professional questioners at the beginning and obviously

prove to be of use, and congressman zeldin and jordan have tried to suggest that bill taylor, the lead witness, and three decades and bronze star and vietnam and many other things and someone luded by both democrats and republicans, and they said that he is not credible and he and others that have testified negatively about the president are never trumpers. here they are. >> he's a never trumper and his lawyer's a never trumper. [ inaudible question ] >> we'll be showing that to you real soon. >> i think this is an opportunity. i've been hearing that from many people and other places that the stories of some of these witnesses under cross-examination don't hold up, and this is an opportunity for them to do -- i think they're going to be polite, but i think they'll be tough. they're going to go after the holes in the stories and --

>> so are you saying -- >> this is not first-hand information. >> but what you're saying and many you're want, are you saying that they're never trump e they're mrit sxpolitical and ly. >> they're telling their perspective on thing, but that's different than what people are saying, they're not credible and never trumpers and that's not the same thing. >> there is a whole realm on both sides as to where people are and how some assess this. some are dismissing this out of hand while others are taking it seriously and trying to poke holes. i think what you will see here is a little mix of both and primarily it was said earlier and they'll take it seriously. they'll know it isn't a moment and i went through the impeachment and it's an incredibly weighty experience and unlike anything else that you go through as a member of congress to know that, you know, this doesn't happen very often and it's a big deal and you know this is your moment and you don't want to blow it. so i don't think you'll see the histrionics that you've seen in

the past. >> please stay with me. white house kay o next. the president's white house chief of staff apparently at odds with the white house counsel and these are two people in charge, but on the eve of the big day, they're in a fight. >> plus chairman adam shifshgs the man bribery, and democrats rolling out a new plan to tax the rich? could it backfire in 2020? maybe not. fast. only thermacare ultra pain relieving cream has 4 active ingredients to fight pain 4 different ways. get powerful relief today, with thermacare.

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. that's what happens in golf nothiand in life.ily. i'm very fortunate i can lean on people, and that for me is what teamwork is all about. you can't do everything yourself. you need someone to guide you and help you make those tough decisions, that's morgan stanley. they're industry leaders, but the most important thing is they want to do it the right way. i'm really excited to be part of the morgan stanley team. i'm justin rose. we are morgan stanley.

till he signed up for unitedhealthcare medicare advantage. (bold music) now, it's like he has his own health entourage. he gets medicare's largest healthcare network, a free gym membership, vision, dental and more. there's so much to take advantage of. can't wait till i'm 65. a few more chairs, please. unitedhealthcare medicare advantage plans, including the only plans with the aarp name. free dental care and eye exams, and free designer eyewear. go ahead, take advantage. ( ♪ )

well you remember what happened last year. you can't bring a backup thanksgiving to my sister's house. it's not like we're going to walk in with it. we'll bring it in as we need it. ...phase it in. phase it in? yeah, phase it in. breaking news. just hour away from public impeachment hearings, the trump white house is mired in fighting with the president particularly aggravated with mick mulvaney, chief of staff. sources telling cnn that president trump's acting chief of staff stunned white house officials this week and frustrated the president because you know what he did, right? he asked a judge if he should comply with, you know, with what congress wanted him to do. if they issued him a subpoena

should he go testify? and executive privilege, and you work for me, so basically going to a court was thumbing his nose at trump, that's sure what it looked like and the washington post sais reporting that there a growing rift over who is in charge with the impeachment testimony. with a team like that on the eve of your biggest day you're going to score some big goals. all joke aside, everyone's back with me. greg, look, this is the eve of the first public hearings and this is this important night ask a day of import possibly weeks away from the vote in the house to impeach the president of the united states and yet in the white house you have a chief of staff who was in the lawsuit against his boss and now jumping out of that and now in a fight with the general counsel. it does seem chaotic. >> it does, erin, and it's -- you know, it's hard to know exactly what's going on in the white house unless you're trul oat inside, but from all outward

appearances, it does seem to be chaotic and certainly the acting chief of staff's recent conduct whether it's the press conference or the more recent a temp to join the lawsuit can't sit well with other staffers including the white house counsel, i'm sure. we have a white house that during the best of times wasn't too impressive to most outside observers in terms of its functionality and now as the president earns the worst possible thing that any president could face which is an inpeachment inquiry, dysfunction will not help the effort, but that appears to be what we have. >> sophia, it certainly appears to be what we have and perhaps the president, i guess, what he wants. he's the one calling the shots. forget the counsel. forget the chief of staff. what do thaw matter anyway? >> i think it sounds in any normal world absurd and yet often what he goes along and does ends up working even though nobody expects it to.

to the point that the president is calling his own shots and mr. president, how is that working for you and going back to mick mulvaney, it's an important point and the moment he had the press conference when you had the lawsuit with cupperman and bolton. he was a dead man walking and it was only time before head replace him about tru replace him, and you never represent yourself in a case or a trial because it turns out to be disastrous, erin. i'm not surprised that there's chaos. there's been chaos from day one, and my biggest concern, erin, if i'm being honest is i'm wondering how the public responds to this because we've gotten conditioned to so much drama, so much dysfunction and so much cast that i'm not sure people care and that's why the

republicans are doing what they've been doing for the last number of months. i'm just not sure how this is going to shake out. >> michael, it's how it plays with the american public and then also, i suppose, in a sense means the president is not just calling the shots himself, but in a sense ceding this to the jim jordans of the world. >> right. i think what happened with mulvaney is that he and his lawyers saw an opportunity to glomb on to that lawsuit that kupperman has filed as jon bolton because that was richard leone, a republican-appointed judge that was deemed to be favorable to what the trump white house was arguing and they thought they could score a quick point with judge leone and the really interesting rift is not so much between mulvaney and the president and everyone ends up angering him at some point and the rift between bolton and

mulvaney. bolton's lawyer cannot there and kupperman woo don't want him against the website because he's saying something that's relevant to the investigation and that will be the most important thing to watch here. whether we end up hearing from john bolton, if not in the house hearings in a senate trial. >> to that point, in what scenario would that happen? we're hearing this when it gets to the senate as the anticipation is that it will, putting aside that is the most important time in the democratic primary. >> what would be just the significance of how this plays out? do you get a john bolton out? do you get a trial? >> i don't think there's any guarantee at this point based upon the process that the house has used that the senate republicans are actually going to go ahead. i can tell you in 1999 and '98

during the clinton and there was a big effort on the part of the democrats to have just an up or down vote and there were a bunch of republicans who just said, you know what? >> they just vote and that's it? >> and the democrats wanted just to vote and they didn't want to hold nothing, just have a vote and get done with it, why? and the answer was tom daschle said look, we know how it's going to end so why are we wasting all this time? >> same as in this case, and republicans have the -- the one thing that the democrats didn't have in the '90s was that the republicans ran a very open and fair process. i think it was a respectable impeachment process and there was a vote and it was bipartisan. in this case, it is clearly much more partisan and much more limited and republicans can say, look, we don't want to -- to validate this type of impeachment inquiry because it is so overly politicized. i'm not saying they're going to do that, but there is a very

good chance they could. the other side of that coin is, the republicans are thinking, you know what? this is a legitimate impeachment and we have to handle it in a way that's proper, but ink the chance of a full trial in the united states senate is close to answer. >> erin, can i just push back on that? if republicans want to listen to all of the evidence in the senate trial and vote to acquit that's one thing. i respect the ability to properly digest the evidence and come to that conclusion based upon the fact, but this idea that the process has been unfair is simply just a republican talking point. we are about to embark on a series of public hearings during which all of the evidence that has been gathered so far is going to come out in public. republican members of the house will have a chance to cross examine all of the witnesses and only after that process will house members vote. so at the end of the day and at the end of the house process i think it will be awfully tough

for republican senators to say this was an unfair process. >> go ahead quickly, sophia. >> trump should tack a lesson from the clinton playbook. that white house hand told very differently from what this white house is handling this impeachment. he came out of it okay. >> he certainly felt exonerated. all right. thank you all very much. the top democrat leading tomorrow's impeachment hearings now says bribery could be added to articles of impeachment and why and what and joe biden not letting up on elizabeth warren. >> what, specifically, is elitist about how she's pursuing medicare for all. >> the attitude that we know better than ordinary people. i g a scientist at 3m is that i'm part of a community of problem solvers. we make ideas grow. from an everyday solution... to one that can take on a bigger challenge. we are solving problems that improve lives.

too shabby! too much! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com. i looitaly!avel. yaaaaass. with the united explorer card, i get rewarded wherever i go. going out for a bite. rewarded! going new places. rewarded! anytime. rewarded! getting more for getting away. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get... rewarded!

i'm off to college. i'm worried about my parents' retirement. don't worry. voya helps them to and through retirement... dealing with today's expenses ...while helping plan, invest and protect for the future. so they'll be okay? i think they'll be fine. voya. helping you to and through retirement. wh(fake gagging noises) ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win.

whether you're or here on a wifi hotspot. xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. switch now and see how you could save up to $400 a year. and get 50% off when you buy any new lg phone. xfinity mobile. click, call or visit a store today.

breaking news. house intelligence chairman adam schiff floating a new possible impeachment charge against president trump at this hour, bribery, on the eve of the first public impeachment hearing schiff telling reporters tonight, quote, the standard will have to evaluate whether these facts show bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. . obviously, high crimes and misdemeanors are the definition of impeachment and he included the word bribery. obviously, he does not do that by mistake or lightly. so what exactly is he talking

about? >> democrats are looking forward to tomorrow's hearings as monumental. this is the reality, democrats have the opportunity to tell the story to the american people from george kent and from the top diplomat in ukraine bill taylor. that all is coming together tomorrow and so basically, what he's saying here is that this is an opportunity for members as well to look at the charges and potentially decide on these articles of impeachment and he's not made his mind up yet about what exactly the house democrats should do and meanwhile, republicans are also preparing and they had a mock hearing today where i am told one of the president's top defenders on capitol hill and the chairman of the house intelligence committee and that's significant, of course, erin because we expect that zeldin will be out on tv, defending the president over the next couple of days and it just shows you that republicans and democrats realizes that tomorrow is a huge day and a big opportunity for both sides. >> thank you very much. i want to go out front now to

one of the democrats who will question democrats at those hearings and congresswoman jackie speier and a member of the intelligence committee and i appreciate your time as always. chairman schiff when he's listing out says bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors and bribery obviously notable here in its addition. obviously, it is a possible article of impeachment. have you seen any evidence of bribery so far? >> actually, erin, i have been speaking out about the potentiality of it being bribery for some time. the elements of bribery are there. you have a president using his official office using taxpayer money to demand from a foreign government that they bribed to do an investigation and dig up dirt on the president's opponent on the upcoming election. the corrupt intent is there, as well in many ways and probably the most obvious is that they put the transcript or the summary of that phone call on july 25th into a special server.

so that they could cover it up. not to mention the fact that there are many other evidence of corrupt intent in that the president has lied. he said that it was a verbatim transcript when, in fact, it was a summary and there is evidence now that things were kept out of that summary, but we have the corpus and the corpus is the summary of the telephone call which the president corroborated himself by releasing it. >> when you say something left out, do you mean more than what we understand? we understand there were obviously a few word, but none of them changed the meaning and none of them took away from the fundamental use of the word favor. are you aware of anything new? >> there were ellipses and certainly colonel vindman's testimony suggested the words like burisma and biden were left out and obviously that was the focus of it. >> right.

i'm just pointing out, those words were in elsewhere and i'm trying to understand if there was something that fundamentall. one key complaint ahead of tomorrow's first public hearing is that democrats have not scheduled hearings from any of the witnesses that republicans want to call congressman steve scalise. here he is. >> you can see chairman schiff denies our ability to bring out witnesses and he does not want the facts out. he wants to run his own version of an impeachment witch hunt. >> obviously, they've said they want hunter biden. they've said they want the whistle-blower. obviously those appear to be non-starters with democrat, but what about some of the other people they want. they want tim morrison, the top russia adviser, and kurt volker, state department special envoy and david heale and would you allow them to testify publicly? >> that list was provided to us on saturday, i believe, in terms

of the hearings moving forward i would recommend that they be allowed to testify. this tin foil hat idea that's been debunked over and over again about the server that was in ukraine that was associated with the dnc and the democratic national committee and the hunter biden are really irrelevant in that when we're looking at, did the president attempt to bribe a foreign government to engage in our elections. did he also ask a foreign government to investigate a u.s. citizen? those are pretty dramatic things and yet they're there in black and white and our republican colleagues are kempeled to cover the facts. >> what we've seen is secondhand and third hand so people that come out have said what they believe and no one ever talked to the president.

bill taylor who will testify tomorrow explicitly said i had no conversations with the president when republican congressman zeldin kept following up, he was very clear and he said no, i did not have first-hand knowledge of the president and kent will be testifying tomorrow and goes through a game of telephone talking about taylor. taylor indicated he talked to tim morrison and morrison talked to sondland and taylor talked to the president in shorthand and the president wanted this investigation. are you concerned about this issue of second and third hand and no one directlying from talked to the president of the united states? >> we don't have to have second or third persons or first persons talking to the president. the president released the transcript, the summary of the phone call which he specifically asks president zelensky to investigate and then all of a sudden there's a withholding of military aid which was illegal and the withholding of a meeting with the president.

so there's ample evidence there, and again, i think my colleagues on the republican side are doing their best to put up a good face for the president, but he has his hands and his fingerprints are all over this. >> the new york times, and i don't know if you saw, congresswoman and president trump has continuously raised the idea of firing michael atkinson the community intelligence inspector general that deemed it credible and urgent. what do you make of that? >> there are so many heroes, great patriots in the story that is being told. mr. atkinson is certainly one of them. i think that the ambassador that we're going to hear from tomorrow, taylor and mr. kent are all people who came forward even though they were told by the administration, you cannot talk to congress even after they were subpoenaed and we have yet to get any of the documentation from the state department. again, another example of a

cover-up. so we don't have to look very far to see all of the fingerprints of a crime. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your time congresswoman speier. >> thank you. s >> next pete buttigieg soaring in the state of iowa. what's behind his surge? hillary clinton's surprising new remarks about 2020. managing type 2 diabetes?

audrey's on it. eating right? on it! staying active? on it. audrey thinks she's doing all she can to manage her type 2 diabetes and heart disease but is her treatment doing enough to lower her heart risk? [sfx: crash of football players colliding off-camera.] maybe not. jardiance is the number 1 prescribed pill in its class. jardiance can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. that means jardiance can help save your life from a heart attack or stroke. plus, jardiance lowers a1c and it could help you lose some weight. jardiance can cause serious side effects

including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. lower a1c and lower risk of a fatal heart attack? on it... with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance. the type 2 diabetes pill that's on it. learn more at jardiance.com

new tonight, pete buttigieg surging up 14 points in a new poll of iowa voters today. in the top tier with biden and elizabeth warren. he's down seven points in since august and warren also down, but not by as much. up front now is patrick healy. this is obviously one snapshot, one day, one poll, but nonetheless, great news for pete buttigieg and 83 day away from the caucuses. in you look at history and the timing, what does he have to surge now? >> it's important momentum and it's important because it's happening organically. it's not that pete buttigieg is spending money. he's certainly traveling around iowa, but it's not because of strange gimmicks and it's not a flash in the pan debate performance that falls like what happened with kamala harris. pete buttigieg is spending a lot of time on a bus driving around iowa talking to reporters from

iowa, local press, tv, doing multiple events a day and he's winning iowa voters over. so there are questions about whether he might be peaking too early, but the reality is he's operating on a playbook that's led candidates to win in iowa. it happened with john kerry when he developed momentum against howard dean and barack obama. >> biden has been taking on warren thus far and we have pete buttigieg, and last night in the town hall very exbleplicitly go a very clear theme. let me show you. >> you talked about her medicare for all support last week. you attacked her. i think it's a fair word. the quote was from you it's just an exleetist attitude about you're either my way or the highway. >> let's get something straight. she attacked me. she said biden is a coward. >> what, specifically, is elitist about how she's pursuing 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. where i come from growing up in a middle-class neighborhood the last thing i liked is telling my family and me what we should know and what we should believe as though somehow we weren't informed that just because we didn't have money that we weren't knowledgeable. i resent that, and i wasn't talking about her, i was talking about the adtttitude with me, g in the other party. i'm more of a democrat from my shoe sole to my ears than about anybody running in this party, okay? >> including her? >> including everybody. imagine if i said to her, well, you should be in a republican -- you should be in a socialist primary. biden is say that. you know it. >> do you think she should? >> no. i'm not going to get in a fight. >> pat rec, here he is, he clearly believes labeling her as

an elitist and we saw it in several different ways there that it's going to work and he's on toing some, erin. there is real concern in the democratic party, moderate wing certainly, but also among some liberals that maybe medicare for all is not going to be a winner against donald trump, and he's certain look on to something that voters in iowa, voters in swing states don't like to be sort of told what is right for them in terms of how the government should provide services for them. the reality is, though, he's glombing on to a very personal attack, calling her an elitist, calling her an academic saying she's talking down to middle-class people. doing that against a female candidate could be pretty dangerous including someone like joe biden who has had high variables and even with opponents he says my good friend and there's some risk in him taking her on, and the reality

is joe biden is going after middle-class voters and you heard that callout in what he was saying to you and he's going after the center and there still is a lot of concern if about medicare for all. ? thank you very much, patrick healy and next, breaking news, democrats have just announced more witnesses that will testify publicly in impeachment hearings next week and who are they? do they give republicans their names and jeanne on biden's favorite come back. >> come on, man. come on, man. come on, man. standard of care. it's how we bring real hope to our cancer patients- like viola. when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, her team at ctca created a personalized care plan that treated her cancer and strengthened her spirit. their future. this is how we inspire hope. this is how we heal. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.

cancer treatment centers of america. 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. this piece is talking yeah?. so what do you see? i see an unbelievable opportunity. i see best-in-class platforms and education. i see award-winning service, and a trade desk full of experts, available to answer your toughest questions. and i see it with zero commissions on online trades.

i like what you're seeing. it's beautiful, isn't it? yeah. td ameritrade now offers zero commissions on online trades. ♪ choose the longest lasting thiaa battery...son (music) energizer ultimate lithium backed by science. matched by no one.

breaking news, house democrats just announcing eight additional witnesses who have agreed to testify publicly in the impeachment hearings and i want to go back out to lauren fox on capitol hill. this is very important. this is eight people, lauren, who's on the list? >> erin, this is obviously scoring a busy, busy week that's coming up next week on capitol hill. as you said, kurt volker expected on tuesday, alexander vindman also expected on tuesday and that, of course, is the nsc official and then tim morrison, a white house aid and jennifer williams and on wednesday we will hear testimony from gordon sondland, cooper and david hale. gordon sondland is very important because he amended his original deposition to say that upon recollection he did recall that u.s. military aid was tied to the announcement of investigations into president trump's enemies. of course, there also is going to be more on thursday. we're going to hear from fiona hill. she will be testifying alone and

that underscores the fact that democrats view her as a very important witness, the fact that they're going to have her testifying alone. also important to remember, erin is the fact that three of these witnesses on the list are individuals that the republicans requested. so democrats giving them an opportunitynot mentioned in the hunter biden or the whistle-blower individuals that republicans wanted to hear from that adam schiff the chairman of the house intelligence committee said would not be permissible. >> lauren, thank you very much. no doubt though as lauren points out, not get hunter biden but republicans did ask for kurt volker and david hale and continual morrison all three of whom democrats did invite to testify. and tonight a new plan from democrats to tax the rip. two lawmakers proposing taxing people who make over a million dollars. with an if additional 10% income tax and impact more people than the elizabeth warren proposal of a 2% tax on people with

$50 million. but it may have a way higher kans -- chance of becoming law. senator chris van hollen. it is good to have you back. >> good to be with you. >> the wealth tax applied to house with net worth of $50 million and your plan is more than a a million dollars and in top rates all in with go to up bo 60%. why do you think this is the best and right thing to do? >> well, erin, i think it is the best and right thing to do for a couple of reasons. number one, it is simple. it is very hard to game and the american public understands it and all of the polling shows that people support it. we're talking about a 10% surcharge on people who make a million dollars a year as individuals who $2 million a year as a couple. that is about .2%, it is .2% of

all taxpayers. and we would use that revenue to invest in trying to grow wages and income for other americans by investing in education and job training so that we can begin to close this huge wealth gap that we're seeing in the country right now. >> so, senator, elizabeth warren insists her plan is about taxing extreme wealth, right. she talked about billionaires and $50 million. obviously you agree the wealthy need to pay more but it is clear you don't think she could draw the line with she is. you think it needs to be a lot lower. $1 million versus $50 million. >> well, erin, no -- but look these are not inconsistent. we'll trying to give people a number of policy choices, about a year now from the election when we have to start moving the country forward again meaning we need to be investing in education and job training and so there is a lot of options out there for the best way to do

this. sherrod brown and i and don beyer in the house think this proposal which will raise about $635 billion over ten years to make those important investments in everybody else's success is a smart and effective way to go. we're not saying it is the only way to go. but we do think it is a -- a good proposal and i think it is going to get a lot of traction. >> so, look, i spoke to billionaire investor leon cooperman as you're well aware he has been sort of in a war of words with elizabeth warren and they've -- he's written her a long letter and spoken out about him. here is what he said last night. >> i think she's a politician in the worst sense of the word. okay. and what i mean by that is more poor people than rich people so these trying to appeal to the larger group. but the reality is what is the purpose of vilifying successful people that have done well for society? i don't get it.

>> is that what this is about? is that what democrats are doing? pandering to people? vilifying others? >> no, not at all. look, what elizabeth warren is trying to do and what others are trying to do is find a way where we can come up with a resources to invest in the country and in education in a way that will help grow incomes for every american not the folks at the very top. the trump tax giveaway ended up benefiting disproportionately people at the very, very top, while it added $2 trillion to our deficit. so what you see are a series of proposals to address that issue. we're not -- we're not trying to vilify anybody. we're trying to make sure that the country has a successful future, that means we need to invest in our future and we need to ask the folks who are doing very well to do more. >> for sure. and know your shorthanding to make your case so i'm not trying to imply that you don't have a

full plan. but when you say invest in jobs and retraining, we hear that a lot. and there is a new tax proposal or money raised and then the same words are used again to justify the next one. so what is it about another 10% tax that would you put that you would do differently than other job retraining programs that were put out, for example, by president obama? >> oh, erin, we're underfunded in every area of education. starting with early education and early head start. the number of kids who qualify for early huge. the amount of kids that actually get head start is very small. and you can take that right up the grade scale in terms of our investment at the federal level we're way underinvested in what the government itself has said is necessary to provide american kids with the quality education. so this is about trying to move the country forward, asking

people who have done very, very well, again the .2% of taxpayers to do more. and i should point out this is not just a tax on earned income. it also includes folks who make money off of money. and that is what makes this proposal different than many of the others as well. >> well, senator, i appreciate your time thanks as always. appreciate it. >> thank you. good to be with you. and next jeanne on what should be joe biden's campaign slogan. >> c'mon man. >> c'mon man. >> c'mon man.

tonight joe biden has a lot of people saying c'mon man.

wheer is jeanne. >> it is the ultimately joe biden come on. >> c'mon man. >> c'mon man. >> used to convey everything from sarcasm. >> my heartbreaks. come on, man. >> to enthuse ax. in just a single interview we counted four of them. >> what happens most. c'mon man. >> c'mon man. >> c'mon man. >> other bidenisms might be plentiful. >> looks. >> look, folks. >> >> it is all about around the clock -- c'mon man. >> whether he's challenging president trump to a push-up contest. >> come on, donld, come on, man, how much push-ups you want to do here pal. >> am least c'mon man is g-rated

for expressing exasperation and a handy alternative to stuff that needs bleeped. >> with ridiculous [ bleep ]. >> joe biden's former boss employed it. >> come on. come on, man. >> but did obama get it from biden or biden from obama? maybe one or the other got it from the espn sports segment -- >> c'mon man. >> joe biden's c'mon man has got to the point that right wingers have come to his defense. a "new york times" columnist wrote about the bro-yness of joe biden calling c'mon man a device that men use among themselves in locker rooms and barbershops. conservatives criticize the criticism for being pc. comic side andy richter credited biden when describing his dog crowding him in the car in the words of joe biden, come on,

man. an expression joe hangs on to like a dog with a bone. >> c'mon man. >> jeanne moos, cnn, new york. and thanks for joining us. ac 360 with anderson starts now. good evening. tomorrow for the first time in a generation and only the fourth time ever americans will hear testimony in the impeachment of a president. in a few moments we'll be joined by one of the lawmakers involved and talk about what to expect but we have new reporting on turmoil at the white house in advance of tomorrow's testimony. as well as president trump weighing in the possibility of firing the intelligence community inspector general who decides the whistle-blower's complaint had merit in the first place. but with you begin keeping them honest with a look at how president trump and his supporters may plan to battle back. the plan is outlined in a memo drafted by republican staffers on the hill and circulated to gop members on key committees. and it is important to look closely at this