inspector general just for following the law with the whistleblower? we are on the precipice, my friends, of the most telling period of this presidency. it's only one option, let's get after it. here we are. this day was all but inevitable for months, the eve of the first public impeachment hearings of president donald j. trump. "the new york times" reports on this night trump considered canning michael atkinson. he is the intelligence community inspector general. but the story is why. here's the full screen from their source. he has said he believes mr. atkinson has been disloyal. how? for finding the whistleblower credible and doing what his job is, to move that complaint to people who can read it and assess it and act on it. this is the backdrop as we begin

the most difficult weeks for this president. you will hear for the first time from people who knew what was going on, describe what happened and why. an impeachment hangs in the balance, a permanent asterisk of disgrace next othe the name trump if it goes that way. this is heavy. so let's look at how those loyal to this president will shape what comes next, what do they want you to weigh in his favor? matt schlapp, head of a major lobbying firm called cove strategies, welcome back to "prime time." >> good to be with you, chris. >> matt, let's deal with the news. why would it be okay for the president to go after the inspector general for dealing with the whistleblower? >> because the inspector general serves at the pleasure of the president. >> true. he can get rid of whom he wants. >> whoever he wants.

whoever serves at the pleasure of the president, the president can get rid of him at any time. as a matter of fact, at the state department during obama's presidency, he didn't even bother to pick an ig. >> so, does the reason why you get rid of somebody -- if it's because he's seen as disloyal for finding the whistleblower credible which is what the reporting is, does that color your determination? >> no, when you serve at the pleasure of the president, the president has the right to remove you for whatever reason he wants. it's the reason the president made public the transcript so that every american can read what went down in that conversation. he's going to release the first conversation he had with the president of ukraine later this week. so, there's complete transparency about what happened in the conversation. >> but you don't believe mr. atkinson mishandled the whistleblower situation? >> i think he did what rod rosenstein did. it was easier to send to doj for further action.

i don't know if he has an misagainst the president. >> versus what? >> to look at the conversation to see if any crimes were committed. for those of us that read the transcript with a fair mind, it is not as some people made it out to be, including the whistleblower. >> just to be clear and fair to mr. atkinson, that's not his job. his job is to assess the credit nlt, see if he can corroborate it, and give it to the doj. it is their job, and they passed on this. imagine if they hadn't and they investigated this claim, we may not be here right now. >> if rod rosenstein was over at the doj lord only knows what can happen. this is one of the things -- >> rosenstein was put there by republicans. >> he was. he was. big mistake. this is one of the problems that the republicans have when they win the presidency -- and i'm a veteran of the bush administration -- is those folks who make up the career ranks of

these big white buildings in washington, d.c. are 80% for the democrats. >> you think rod rosenstein was for the democrats after what he did at the end of the mueller situation? >> i think rod rosenstein was incredibly compromised and had an mist toward the president. >> he didn't like comey either. it didn't mean he was a backer of it. rod rosen stone was picked by jeff sessions. jeff sessions believed if he picked somebody as his deputy who the career bureaucrats adored and respected, it would earn him street credit. a big mistake on the part of jeff sessions and the president should have said no to it. >> but he didn't know at the time that jeff sessions is a complete loyalist. and the whistleblower by all accounts has all been corroborated already. that's why i don't understand this push about you know making the whistleblower a boogey man

and now making the person who assessed his credibility a bogey man. >> maybe i have the tu herty to agree with you. >> don't do that. they'll throw you out of the club. >> that's right. we have one transcript. we'll have another transcript this week. the american people can read it. they can in a fair minded way determine whether they think the president committed any crimes with that transcript. and what i think the problem with this impeachment process is, chris, that they just announced something like eight more witnesses next week and republicans haven't gotten any of their witnesses. so, this is not how we ran when i was a staffer on the republican side of the house during clinton's impeachment. that's not how we ran it. >> how so? how is it different? >> well, the president's counsel had a right to have a role in all of the impeachment process, and republicans -- >> not all of it. they had depositions in private, the first round of hearings. >> if i can finish my answer. >> just to clarify the record. >> he had his private part.

let's not talk about it anymore. he had these private depositions and he had -- >> just like henry hyde. >> i'm not arguing that. i'm saying from this point forward as the cameras are there, i think it would accrue to the benefit of the democrats if it looked like they were being more even handed -- >> it's the same rules the republicans had. >> no, it's not. the republicans gave the democrats coequal subpoena ability. >> subject to the vote of the committee. matt, you know that. >> in fact the republicans have been denied every single witness they put forward. >> let's flush this out for me. >> yeah. >> here's how it worked under clinton, the same way they just laid it out. you can say who you want and if i disagree with you, if i'm the head on the right and you're the head on the left -- bear with me for a second -- and you say you want something but you're in the minority and i say i don't want that. now we go to the committee for a vote. that's what you did in clinton. that's what they're doing here. you'll just never win the vote

because you don't have the numbers. that's the same thing. i can argue you don't like the process but it's the same process. >> the difference is the democrats have the ability to call witnesses and the republicans -- >> if the republicans didn't disagree. >> not one single witness that the republicans want to put forward. >> we're just starting tomorrow. i've got to tell you i don't get it at all. >> i talked to jim jordan today and several republicans -- >> ask them to come on the show. >> he's a tiger. >> i'd love him to come on. >> i don't know any show he says no to. >> this is one. >> i think it's a mistake. i think if the impeachment process looks like it's not even handed and the republicans don't get -- >> i think you're saying that. i don't know that that's the reality. we'll see how it goes forward. let me ask you about something else. >> let me make one point. >> please. >> no witness the republicans have asked be a part of this process will be on peoples' television sets tomorrow. >> but you can't expect to have

adam schiff or the bidens put on trial in impeachment process for this president. >> it's not just a question of hunter biden's potential illegality. it's also the question about the people that schiff talked to and that republicans didn't get a chance to cross examine in private. >> have your own proceedings. let me ask you this. >> they're not being allowed to testify tomorrow so all your viewers understand. >> i want all my viewers to understand that that's not how the rules are set up and the way that you get that right of full counsel -- >> not one republican witness will testify. >> you're going to get a bagel if you're asking as witnesses the person who's bringing the proceeding or this phantom of the bidens has having done things that you'll acknowledge in the bidens but not in the president. >> let me be clear, even if you take joe biden and hunter biden's potential wrong doing out of the question, just the

people at state who had positive evidence to put forward in their depositions, they are not being allowed to testify tomorrow. >> we have not had anybody come forward as part of this process who has countered the obvious notion that this was wrong and the president made it that way. >> what? >> this entire ask that rudy giuliani was inserted into the diplomatic process to ensure much to the horror and fright of career professionals who are not disloyal to this president. he did this for this reason. >> i don't agree with you, but if it was wrong for the president of the united states to talk to the opt of ukraine -- >> it was not wrong to talk to the president of ukraine -- >> -- to have if him find dirt of a political, was it wrong for obama to talk to the ukraine government in a way to harm trump in 2016. >> if you have proof of that? >> how do we have proof without

having witnesses? >> because like you guys always say, you don't investigate in search of a crime. you have proof of a crime and then investigate. >> and that's what adam schiff is doing. he has a crime? i would like someone tell me what that crime is. you said you don't need a crime. >> i don't think you need a crime but attempted bribery is a crime. we'll talk about that next time. you're always welcome. >> thank you, chris. >> just quick for the rest of you, go read federalist paper 65. it'll take you six minutes and answer that question and you'll know that alexander hamilton said it was this type of behavior by a politician, not big crimes, big corruption. breaking news, "washington post," two of mr. giuliani's ukrainian associates shs the ones arrested at the airport, they spoke to mr. trump about the u.s. ambassador to ukraine way back in april of 2018. i thought he didn't know these guys. new details next. [sneeze and sniffles]

are you ok? yah, it's just a cold. it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure. coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. at verizon, we're building the most powerful 5g experience for america. that's why the nfl chose verizon. because they need the massive capacity of 5g with ultra wideband, so more screaming, streaming, posting fans... can experience 5g all at once. this is happening in 13 stadiums all across the country. now if verizon 5g can do this for the nfl...

imagine what it can do for you. tothe problem is corporationsfix anything. and the people who run and own them have purchased our democracy. here's the difference between me and the other candidates. i don't think we can fix our democracy from the inside. i don't believe washington politicians and big corporations will let that happen. the only way we can make change happen is from the outside. for me, this comes down to whether you trust the politicians or the people. and if you say you trust the people, are you willing to stand up to the insiders and the big corporations, and give the people the tools they need to fix our democracy. a national referendum. term limits. eliminating corporate money in politics. making it easy to vote. i trust the people. and as president, i will give you tools

we need to fix our democracy. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. month after month i'm doing it all. the supplements... the veggies... the water. but i still have recurring constipation, belly pain, straining and bloating. my doctor said i could have a real medical condition called ibs-c. for my recurring constipation and belly pain from ibs-c... i said "yes" to linzess. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation. linzess is not a laxative. it works differently. it helps relieve belly pain and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements. do not give to children less than six. and it should not be given to children six to less than 18. it may harm them. do not take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain. especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea. sometimes severe. if it's severe, stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach area pain and swelling.

i'm doing it all. and i said "yes" to linzess. ask your doctor about linzess. ♪ ♪ you don't let a cold ruin your day. you take dayquil severe liquicaps and crush it. dayquil severe. the daytime, coughing, aching, stuffy-head, fever, sore throat, power through your day, medicine. this melting pot of impacted species. everywhere is going to get touched by climate change. 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! we got breaking news from the "washington post" and it's going to bear on the impeachment process. let's bring in my guests. i want you to hear this report in real time. here's the headline. lev parnas, one of the giuliani associates under indictment. now, remember his lawyer was chirping and we were trying to understand why does he keep antagonizing the president saying oh, he knew the president. oh, the president knows him. i couldn't make sense of it at the time. but now i get what the play is and i'll take you through it. they're going to try to make this man an agent of the president and say he wasn't some dirty freelancer, he's working with that fiat, with that power

of the president so give him that respect. i don't know how it helps in terms of the indictment for the campaign contributions, but just listen. so, april 2018, okay, parnas and his fellow indicted associate igor fruman, both working with giuliani, are at a big donor dinner with president trump. they promised to make a big donation so they got to go. we don't know they gave big money. that has been reported but it's not part of this story. here's the main part. parnas says that they get up to the president, okay, and they say that they tell him that they think the u.s. ambassador to ukraine, yovanovitch was unfriendly to the president and his interests. according to parnas -- think about this for a second. this is president of the united states. the president reacts strongly to the news and suggests that yovanovitch, who had been in

foreign service for 32 years by the way, should be fired. the sourcing is people familiar with his account. oh, it's anonymous sourcing. forget that. if it weren't for anonymous sourcing, you wouldn't know anything that happens in the government. it's about the strength of the sourcing. and by the way, parnas can confirm this story and that's what his lawyer has been teeing up. why does this matter? well, the small point is really the president relies on some guy he just met at a donor thing about making a move on an ambassador. it's almost impossible to believe. but what is possible to believe is that the president said he didn't know who this guy is, jimmy. and yeah, he takes pictures with everybody. he took multiple pictures with this guy. and if this conversation happened, how can the president say he doesn't know the man and what is the impact of that? >> chris, i've been in politics a long time and i've been to a lot of political fund-raisers

and i've met a lot of politicians. a lot of them are going to remember me as good looking as i am. >> certainly. >> i think it's a far cry to say that the president has a relationship with this person just because he's met him at a fund-raiser. and maybe he said something during that fund-raiser about this individual and the president already had some preconceived notion about that person and said she needs to be fired. the president has the right to hire and fire. in this instance, the bureaucracy -- the president doesn't work for the bureaucracy. the bureaucracy works for the president and the president works for the people. >> 100%. so, why get rid of someone, jimmy, matters in the context of understanding the bigger situation. let me bounce to asha. >> this reminds me of comey. this is the same argument with comey. all of a sudden comey had a right to be in that position.

>> no, no, no, you can get rid of somebody. but why you get rid of somebody matters. >> that was con if you remembered confirmed by the process we were just through. more than one photo, they're buddies. that's ridiculous. >> you're missing the context and i understand why, well argued. parnas was part of this process of getting the president's value as he saw it out of ukraine. they worked with giuliani. giuliani was constantly guiding the president. he says he did everything that he did for his client and they wanted to get the bidens and get people who wouldn't help them to do that out of the way. what is the relevance of a lev parnas saying he doesn't know me. i went up to him at this donor dinner and told him about yovanovitch and he was really upset about it. wouldn't that be something you would remember? >> yeah, the relevance here, chris, is that giuliani was acting in the president's private interests, not in the

interest of the united states. when you bring furman and parnas into the equation who are even twice removed from the president, that only puts the nail in the coffin that this was all being done for his private benefit. it was not being done through official channels for for foreign policy or national interest of any kind. further in that reporting, what i found most interesting, chris, is that it was parnas who floated the idea that the ukrainians make this announcement about investigating the bidens and looking into the basis of the 2016 election interference. again, this is twice removed. this is some rando off to the side who has no connection to the u.s. government and this completely undercuts any defense that the president has that what he was seeking when he had that phone call was something that was fulfilling his duty to advance the interest of the united states. >> i have two more questions. i'm going to come to you --

jimmy, i'm going to come to you. >> it's ridiculous to say that all of a sudden lev parnas says it is. >> i'm saying forget about parnas. i don't know that he's right about that. i think it was probably rudy's idea or someone around the president to get the announcement because that would put the stink on biden. if you really cared about corruption you don't want some announcement from a guy you don't trust in a guy you think is corrupt. you would want to see the action. but if he wanted action on biden, he would go to the doj. we do not have and you do not anticipate getting anyone to put the words in the mouth of the president i'm not giving them the aid until they give me the investigation. can he argue and people argue in good faith he didn't mean it that way? that was the other people. he had no corrupt intent, and that could save him. >> so, ralph waldo emerson once said actions speak so loudly i

can't hear a word you're saying. so, what we have to look at are the actions that were taking place in the context of this phone call. with e know that by the time this phone call had taken place, the aid had already been withheld. people at the omb say it came at the order of the president. and the ukrainians understood this this aid was being withheld. they were on the brink of actually making this announcement under duress, presumably bill tailor's opening statement when he testified states that he had to actually confirm, call them and make sure they weren't going to make this announcement he was so concerned about it. so, you don't have to have the words right out of his mouth. we very rarely have people -- you know, the president does confess to crimes, but in this case we don't need him to confess to crimes because there's a lot of context taking place in addition to what he's saying. >> but if you're going to want to make it an attempted prescribe, you want to tie it as

closely as possible. starting tomorrow do you think you're going to arrive at a point where you guys will have to accept what happened and why it happened and then make the argument of consequence? that yeah, okay, with e ge get l these people say, they're saying the same thing, this is what happened, this is why it happened, but it's not worthy of removal and here is why. do you think you're going to get to that point? >> i think you get to that point only to the extent that one, you made the point succinctly chris, there's no tie to words coming out of the president's mouth. and there's no indication that the president gave that specific order relative to quid pro quo. and in the transcript itself, i think what the republicans are going to try and do is bring this back to the transcript itself which there is no quid pro quo. and there's also, there's no indication -- what he asked for was an investigation. he didn't ask for them to find him guilty without a trial or without due process.

he didn't ask them to dig dirt. >> that is the dirt. that is the dirt. as soon as i hear -- >> hold on. >> -- that the source is under investigation, he's got stink on him. i've got to go. >> a lot of people have a lot of problems with what hunter biden was engaged in. >> that's fine. you should have gone to the doj and not had your lawyer do a shadow situation. i don't think giuliani should be the fall guy for what this president wants him to do. i've got to jump. i appreciate the arguments. >> we'll see what the american people think. >> 100%. but they don't make the votes. and people have to do their duty on principle. we'll see how it goes. >> they've got to live with those votes. >> you've got to get the last word and i'll give it to you. i'll see you soon. thank you. all right. crucial movement for one democrat in the race for president. polls or snapshots of where you are in a moment in time and this is some moment. we're also getting the first

look at what bloomberg faces if he jumps in. the wizard of odds deep diving into the numbers and the hurdles. what did he come up with? anybody knows. next. at bayer, we make aspirin to help save lives during a heart attack... so it never stops the heart of a family. at bayer, this is why we science.

they can save you these. in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save. the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.

when insurance is affordable, 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. hey look, the democratic race is no longer about one or two people. it's about a group of four at the top and mayor pete just busted into that specifically in iowa. he's up 14 points since august. that puts him alongside former vp biden, senator warren, and sanders, the same names all at the top in new hampshire as

well. but with buttigieg, the question becomes why. why is he making this move? let's bring in the whiz. he gives us the answers. what do you see and how is it going? >> i think this is rather key in terms of understanding why certain things are happening. these are the net favorability ratings. we see the most popular guy in iowa is buttigieg with plus 63 point net favorability rating. that's up from september. here is also key. look at the warren line here. she was the most favorite, now he's down to plus 46. so, it's pretty clear as i look underneath the numbers that warren is losing popularity while buttigieg is gaining. >> sanders also takes a bump and that's interesting because help me understand this. so, you're getting a bump for senator sanders up 10 points -- >> in popularity. >> -- but she's going down but they're making the same message.

why does she go down and he goes up? >> because she's been attacked more recently. this is a good indication. she basically has -- what's going on is they're carrying that attack on medicare for all and it's having real emphasis. you see biden going after warren on the elitist message. >> whose lunch is buttigieg eating? >> basically we know elizabeth warren is doing best with those with a college degree or more. now buttigieg is slightly ahead. biden is best with moderates and conservatives. now we see a tie between warren and buttigieg. >> so, he's taking from both. >> yes. who is their second choice, even split between biden and warren. >> so, politics is a snap judgment. it's going to wind up being this guy as likely as anybody. you say maybe not. >> maybe not.

>> this is a lot of moe we're talking about, within the margin of error. they're really just bunched up. >> the best way i would categorize iowa is a three way race between buttigieg, biden, and warren and maybe even sanders as well. >> you don't see that across the nation. >> exactly. this is the average of the top choices for president. what do we see? we see biden is still up nationally and warren is at second. look attribu buttigieg, all the down here. there's something else interesting. warren has fallen back. she was at 27%, basically tied with biden from september 20th to october 14th. over the last month we see biden is holding while warren is falling back. >> skip the next one because the headline is the same as it's always been. mr. mayor pete has problems with african-americans. if that doesn't change, he's got a problem. they spelled it right. we got it right. >> we got it right. >> this is what i want to focus

on. bloomberg. we funlly got as taste at what he's looking at. the tea is bitter. >> the tea is very, very bitter. this is rather key here. look at this. in iowa top choice for nominee. he's getting less than 1%. i guess that's better than 0 but it's very, very bad. and that net favorability rating, that favorable minus unfavorable, multiply nuns 31 percentage points. this is in a democratic primary. this is an awful number. i rarely see this. i think the last time i saw a number similar to that was anthony weiner after the scandals in 2013. >> we've got to go. you think he gets in or not? >> i would lean towards yes, but maybe i tell him no. >> thank you. be well. there it is. all right. michael bloomberg may not be the only democrat who suddenly sees an opening. you just saw what the whiz showed you. why are these other names popping up less than 90 days

away. let's put that and what impeachment means to the democrats to dnc chair tom perez next. introducing new vicks vapopatch easy to wear, with soothing vicks vapors for her, for you, for the whole family. new vicks vapopatch. breathe easy.

it's rukmini here from the new york times .

hey, you see this?

dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere.

the public impeachment hearings, an historic moment for americans and the world, but what will they mean for democrats as we approach 2020? some perspective from dnc chair tom perez. mr. perez, thank you so much for joining us as always. >> always a pleasure to be with you, chris. >> it is a big start to a big week tomorrow. success is what, failure is what for the democrats? >> well, success is exposing the truth. this president engaged in an abuse of power. i think we're going to see three things tomorrow. number one, we'll see the

professionalism of adam schiff and others who are doing i think a bang-up job. number two, the witnesses, ambassador taylor, i think this whole case came down to something he said long ago and i quote, i think it's crazy to withhold security for help with a political campaign. it's not only crazy, it's illegal, it potentially impeachable and what you will see with ambassador taylor and other witnesses is that they are straight shooters. and i think the american people will see that for themselves. and then, thirdly, and this is what i don't know the answer to is will republicans put country before party or party before country? >> well, with the combination of different factors going on politically, there's a good chance, we don't know what we don't know, but there's a good chance republicans will say putting country first here means protecting this president. if at the end of the day there

is no removal because of numbers in the senate assuming articles of impeachment happen and the country stays where it is, specifically independents, we're about 50/50 on this, if it doesn't move the needle with the american people, are you worried it becomes seen as a waste of time and it hurts? >> well, chris, for me and i know for speaker pelosi and every democrat involved, it's not about polling, it's not about politics, it's about the principle. the principle of the matter is when you have a president of the united states who is threatening to withhold foreign aid so that he can get help in a political election, interference in the 2020 campaign, that's a principle that transcends anything else. >> i hear you, let's put your very apt and adept legal mind to work. it's not a republican president. it's a democrat as president.

it's hillary clinton as president and they have this against her. you went to ukraine. you tried to get dirt on this person who was going to come from you and you think that they were dirty but the way you did it was dirty and you inserted your lawyer in there and you've been ducking us every turn there is. do you think the democrats would be lined up to take her down right now? >> i think the democrats understand that the truth matters and that's why i think -- i think that's a really interesting question you are raise. i think a variant of that question is if this were hillary clinton who had that done, which she never would have done that because she's a person of integrity, these republicans, look at how many hearings we had on benghazi, chris? geez, we'd have 58 hearings here. i get the tenor of your question and i understand that, but actually the american people can walk and chew gum. they understand that the members of the congress and the senate have an obligation to uphold the

constitution and laws of the united states. and they've seen with speaker pelosi and democrats in the house, they need to make sure we take care of health care, that we pass a bill to stabilize affordable care. >> we're not passing any laws and the question becomes does that help or hurt that process? i hear you are on it. i appreciate you taking that question, tricky as it is. let's go back to the meat and potatoes of the election. why are these people saying they want to get in all of a sudden? bloomberg, deval patrick, maybe a third. how do you read this? >> that's up to them and if they get in, chris, one thing is clear, we will welcome them in. another thing is clear, if they don't get in, we have a great field. >> why do you think they need to get in, a deval patrick, a bloomberg. he said two months ago he couldn't win. what do you think they're picking up on? >> i think you'll have to ask them that question. we have a great deep bench now. you look at least three or four of the candidates are already beating donald trump in the

polling. if we have additional candidates i welcome them. if we don't, i am absolutely confident about the candidates we have right now. they're taking it to donald trump, we're leading with our values, we're talking about the issues that people care about. so, i'm not part of the hand wringing. i'm very excited about our candidates. >> so i remember that clinton situation back there in '92. there was some italian that nominated him at the convention, funny guy, big nose, weird smile, i think he was from new york. >> great speech giver, too, by the way. >> he could. he read them and really owned them. god rest his soul. this idea of a new bunching up in iowa, it was all about biden, then biden and warren and then biden, warren and sanders, now it's about four at the top. margin of error makes this pretty well dead even. yes, the buttigieg campaign has every right to bang their chest and say look how far we've come. but look at the jump with

buttigieg. but you basically have a four-way tie in iowa. what does that mean to you? >> well, it means that we're at mile nine of a 26-mile marathon. i used to run marathons and i have no idea who was ahead at mile nine of all the marathons that i ran and watched. we have a deep field. when you have a deep field of really talented people, you're going to see these ups and downs. i mean, this time in 2003 i think john kerry was 4%, 5% and governor dean was ahead and things changed. there's a lot of energy out there. the polling i read says that a lot of the folks, not just in iowa but elsewhere are still kicking the tires. the reason i think there's so many people undecided is because every time they go to an event with a candidate, they're super impressed. so they're trying to make a judgment about who among a field of really qualified folks, who is the best qualified? who is the person whose values

match mine and can win? i think those are the basic questions people are asking. >> i really believe more and more for your party, this is becoming a criterion, not criteria. it's one thing. will he or she stand up to the heat in the crucible of an election with this president and will they come out of it on top? tom perez, i really do appreciate you taking us along different moments in this process. we are on the precipice of a big moment tonight. be well. >> thank you. >> so, here's the good news. tomorrow this impeachment deal finally becomes about you. testimony in realtime for the first time. the argument is actually a set of tips for your testing. next.

with advil, you have power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain? man 1 vo: proof of less joint pain woman 1 oc: this is my body of proof. and clearer skin. man 2 vo: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2 vo: ...with humira. woman 3 vo: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: 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. man 3 vo: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4 vo: go to humira.com to see proof in action. at verizon, we're building the most powerful 5g experience for america. that's why the nfl chose verizon. because they need the massive capacity of 5g with ultra wideband, so more screaming, streaming, posting fans... can experience 5g all at once. this is happening in 13 stadiums all across the country. now if verizon 5g can do this for the nfl... imagine what it can do for you. diarrhea?! new pepto diarrhea to the rescue! its three times concentrated liquid formula coats and kills bacteria to relieve diarrhea. the leading competitor only treats symptoms. it does nothing to kill the bacteria.

treat diarrhea at its source with new pepto diarrhea. do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back? about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra.

if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. some farms grow food. this one grows fuel. ♪ exxonmobil is growing algae for biofuels. that could one day power planes, propel ships, and fuel trucks... and cut their greenhouse gas emissions in half. algae. its potential just keeps growing. ♪ impeachment begins tomorrow.

you will finally get to judge for yourself. here are some tips. first, boekt sides are going to say they're acting out of the highest principle, but this is politics. both are actually pursuing advantage. the republicans are let's start with the democrats. they have a more defined task. they have to show you a wrong that the president is directly responsible for that is such an obvious abuse of office that it warrants considering the ultimate political penalty. here is chairman schiff on that today. >> but on the basis of what the witnesses have had to say so far there are any number of potentially impeachable offenses including bribery, including high crimes and nis demeanors. >> let's see if you agree starting tomorrow. now, an attempted bribe, corruptedly soliciting a thing of value in exchange for

official action. it's right there in the constitution. it's about time they stopped speaking latin. the defense. the president didn't have corrupt intent. meaning he didn't do any of this for his sake. it was an act of lawful duty. tomorrow, first up, the top u.s. diplomat in ukraine and another official. the first is going to talk to you about how sneaky this all was, how troubling it was, that it seemed to be about get biden for the election. the second, mr. kent, will say he was on a call when it was announced that the aid to ukraine was frozen at the direction of the president by way of chief of staff mick mulvaney. now, how do you assess? do you find them believable? do they remember clearly? have they been consistent? have they changed? and what did they say then? do they have a dog in this fight? is what they are describing troubling to you and, if so, how troubling? that is worth dedicated listening unlike distractions

that are going to come when each side has a block of 45 minutes at their disposal. exhibit a, the gop just placed representative jim jordan on the intel committee. i ask him on the show all the time -- don't say i freeze him out. it's not true. he is fiercely loyal to the president, and he is an attacker of this process. but the process is a done deal. it takes us to exhibit b, their witness list wish list. they want joe biden's son on there. they want the whistle-blower on there. it's absurd in an impeachment of this president, especially when they ignore in the president exactly what they accuse biden of. but heed their biggest weapon, and it is definitely worthy of attention. the way they come at witnesses. exhibit c, their treatment of bill taylor. he's a career diplomat. he was the senior diplomat in ukraine. he was brought on by secretary of state mike pompeo to do this job. regardless, the president says he's a never trumper.

that's probably because in his closed-door testimony, he confirmed this pressure campaign on ukraine to announce the bidens were dirty essentially before they could get the aid from congress or a meeting with this president. this wasn't one conversation. it's not just about this transcript. it's about months of an ongoing theme with a lot of different people and parts. a source tells cnn republicans are going to argue taylor didn't have a clear understanding of what trump wanted because everything he knew about trump and ukraine is based on a game of telephone. dismiss any noise from right and left on this score. focus on the real contest. can you get a sense of the truth? remember the moments that matter, not the lawmakers, except in big moments like this one in 1973. >> what did the president know, and when did he know it? >> remember that from baker? republican by the way, a nixon

ally. he said at first he thought the whole watergate thing was a ploy by the democrats. but as the weeks wore on, he realized there was more to this scandal than he thought at first. now, on that score there are a lot of players here. but the story is actually pretty simple. as i've argued before, what happened and why it happened is pretty evident from the people you're going to hear from this week and next. here's the hard part. what is the right consequence? lawmakers are going to decide that. but those who can still see clear of party enough to glimpse the power of principle, they may well look to you for what resonated, how bad you think it was, how intentional. what do you think of why this seemed to happen? and what will happen if a message is not sent that it won't be tolerated? will it happen again? that's a mind-set for you starting tomorrow, and we'll be with you every step of the way, okay?

that's the argument. i've got a bolo for you. you've got to be on the lookout of what we just learned in terms of who's been added to the witness list. some big names including one who is going to have to explain a big reversal, next. t-mobile's newest signal reaches farther than ever before... with more engineers, more towers, more coverage. it's a network that gives you... with coverage from big cities, to small towns. introducing t-mobile's 600mhz signal. no signal reaches farther or is more reliable. and it's built 5g ready. this melting pot of impacted species. everywhere is going to get touched by climate change.

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! when we were looking he wanted someone super quiet. yeah, and he wanted someone to help out with chores. so, we got jean-pierre. but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with renters insurance. ♪ yeah, geico did make it easy to switch and save. ♪ oh no. there's a wall there now. that's too bad. visit geico.com and see how easy saving on renters insurance can be.

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.

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.

bolo, be on the lookout. you know the three impeachment witnesses for this week. we'll put them up here for you. thank you. but now we know next week. eight more major players, lieutenant colonel vindman, kurt volker. by next thursday, you will have heard from 11 key players. now, we also have a bolo in a bolo. be on the lookout for this. special attention to gordon sondland. remember him? u.s. ambassador to the eu. why? well, the dems are going to jump on his revisions. he told one story.

then last week he confirmed what we've heard from other witnesses, an arguable attempted bribe, linking aid to ukraine to an investigation into the bidens. sources tell us the white house and republican lawmakers are in frequent talks ahead of the hearings. how will their defenses hold up against what may seem to be obvious? be on the lookout. it all begins tomorrow. thank you very much for watching. and remember we'll be with you every step of the way at night to make sense of the day that has passed. right now "cnn tonight" with d. lemon. >> i had to change my tie because we would have been twins again today. i had on a dark tie, and i said i can't do it because i look like chris. but listen, i sit in my office and i watch you, and i feel like sometimes i need to be your anger translator. you know how obama had keegan key was -- >> why?