his flight attendant. now, that's an impeachable expression. jeanne moos, cnn, new york. ♪ >> thank you for joining us, anderson starts now. the president's own justice department on the president's own orders investigating the president's own conspiracy theories about the 2016 russia probe and largely debunks them. john berman in for anderson. it is breaking news and it is big. the justice department inspector general's report on the fbi's cross fire hurricane investigation is done. cnn was first to learn that a former fbi lawyer is under criminal investigation for allegedly altering a document related to the 2016 surveillance of trump campaign adviser carter page. tonight, there's more. much more. in "the new york times," this is the lead, a highly anticipated report by the justice

department's inspector general is expected to sharply criticize lower-level fbi officials as well as bureau leaders involved in the early stages of the trump/rust investigation, but to absolve the top ranks of abusing their powers out of bias against president trump, that's according to people briefed on a draft, according to "the times" it concludes the fbi met the legal standard for opening the investigation and that none of the evidence to launch the investigation came from the controversial steele dossier. the report which is expected to arrive early next month came up in what was described as in what appeared to be a tense oval office meeting late last week caught on camera between attorney general barr, the president and others. according to "the times," the draft debunks a series of trump conspiracy theories and insin weighings about the fbi. fired fbi director james comey and fired acting director andrew mccabe and these two mentioned just this morning. >> and when you look at strzok

and page with the insurance policy where, you know, the two lovers, the two great lovers from the fbi, where he's saying, oh, she's going to win 100 million-0 but just in case she loses we have an insurance policy. well, that means, you know, we're going to take him down. we're going to take down the president. you wouldn't -- >> even as the president was saying that this morning, it's likely he already knew that it wasn't true. he likely has already been told perhaps in that oval office meeting that the investigation that he himself ordered while it does identify a number of mistakes, real mistake, a measure of sloppiness and perhaps wrongdoing on the part of the lower level fbi attorney. it debunks most if not all of the big stuff. joining us with details is adam goldman who shares a byline on "the times" story. thanks for being with us. let's start which might be the bigger headline here of what the report doesn't or doesn't find.

go ahead. >> well, one of the maintainingaways is the report doesn't say that the fbi in particular its leadership weaponized this surveillance tool, right, the fisa to spy on the trump campaign. what it does say is that while putting together the application to obtain this secret wiretap they made a number of, you know, serious mistakes, omissions, it was basically unprofessionalism by the agents and officials and lawyers putting this thing together. >> what is the difference in this case between violations of procedures, serious though they may be and what would amount to a finding of political bias, which they did not find in this case. >> i mean if they had found that the fbi had moved forward and gotten this wiretap, this fisa because of political bias, that would have been extremely damaging to the fbi.

i mean, it would have been a major black mark on the fbi's history right up there with some of its worst -- >> and it is my understanding from your reporting that this report will find that the investigation, the launch of the investigation met the legal standard, correct? >> yeah, it's going to debunk a number of republican conspiracy -- right wing conspiracy theories that have asserted that this investigation, the opening of the russia investigation in july of 2016 code name cross fire hurricane used information from an ex-british spy he compiled. they said that is false. they also said that the information used to open that investigation didn't come from the cia, right, it wasn't being done by john brennan the puppet master according to some of these conspiracy theories and also two other important points,

you know, well, in particular, one, also that the fbi wasn't working with this multiprofessor named joseph massoud who made a contribution to george p papadopoul papadopoulos. >> what does it say about delorean? steele? >> it's our understanding the ig isn't going to say that the fbi shouldn't, you know, have used this political research. but i think what will come out is that, you know -- you know, the way that steele was portrayed in this application, this warrant, you know, this surveillance application was misleading. some of the information was just flat out wrong. >> adam, stick around, if you will. i want to bring in jeffrey toobin.

former cia counterterrorism official phil and our counter terrorism analyst. a lot of titles for you, phil. still you have to wait. jeffrey first. what do you make of this? i mean this, is one of the things the president and allies have talked about for some time. this campaign was launched on false premises, this report does not find that. >> including during the impeachment hearings. and the phrase that keeps -- that i think of when i read adam's brilliant reporting here is deep state. because the -- one of the main hypothesis of the entire trump presidency has been that the deep state, the fbi, the cia, the state department people who are apparently according to the president secret liberals have been out to get him from the beginning and using their powers to discredit the trump campaign and now discredit the trump presidency and what this report does, it seems based on adam's

reporting in a conscientious way to say that's not true. that didn't happen. >> phil, you know, michael horowitz is seen as a straight shooter and hard hitter. if he finds wrongdoing he calls it out. what does it say to you in this case that when it comes to the senior levels of the fbi, he says there was no political bias here. >> boy, i'm with jeffrey on this. i've been watching this thinking there will be a sledgehammer come down. i went to catholic skood in grade school. you can't do this anymore but the nuns would slap you on the back of the head if you did anything wrong. they won't bring a sledgehammer down unless it's a serious offense though i don't remember a sledgehammer in grade school. this is not saying there is a deep state that the leadership of the fbi did something wrong, this is a slap on the back of the head saying you guys really screwed this up. i'll take it a step further. you mentioned the ig, the

inspector general. i never met an ig i liked. the ig is known for saying if you didn't shine your shoes right today you'll get whacked. i'm not saying that the fbi didn't do something embarrassing among my colleagues -- this report is really embarrassing but it is not what many people would have expected, that is at the leadership levels of the fbi there is a deep state effort to take down the presidency with an investigation. this is actually in my world of inspector general investigations relatively modest. >> adam, the major finding that has gotten all the attention so far was that this line attorney falsified a document, that is the allegation and that's a serious charge and there is a criminal referral for that. but to be clear on what it was, it was falsifying a document on a renewal for the fisa application, not even the original fisa application and would the fisa application still have been accepted even if that hadn't been altered?

>> yeah, let's not minimize that, right? this is a false statement. it's a serious charge. i'm not certain whether what he did during the renewal process was actually material to the application and whether or not, you know, a judge would have determined there was probable cause. i want to hit on something, though, what's important -- one of the important takeaways here is that the president and his allies have been calling this a witch-hunt, a hoax, right? this was a legitimate properly predicated law enforcement investigation. let's remember that. they had -- they had articulated reasons to investigate. and the ig has backed that up. and like many, many, many investigations and you have a former one on tv with me, will tell you not all investigations end in charges, right? and this is what we're seeing now. so this idea that somehow it was

a hoax is false. the other important takeaway here is, look, this was maybe the most important fisa ever done in the history of the fbi, right? and they screwed it up, okay. they couldn't get this one wrong and they got it wrong, okay. so let's remember that and that raises questions about what do the other fisas look like. >> let's also remember how much donald trump has invested in the idea that the fbi improperly investigated him. going way back to the beginning of the administration where remember he said obama wiretapped my campaign. i mean, that's out of this investigation. total lie. total lie that the president told and all -- we now know that all of his claims about how the deep state were out to get him total lies. >> go ahead, adam. >> i was going to say, you can see this and trump has already pivoted we have to wait for durh durham, right?

i don't know what sureham is going to find. it sounds like this kevin klinesmith, the lawyer who is accused of wrongdoing, the false statement is an add on to what sureham is doing, looking at the intelligence community assessment of russian interference. you know, it's not clear where this is going to head and let's be frank, is any of this going to matter? the inspector general of the department of justice is going to put out a report with facts but the truth has been so eroded the last few years, you know, what is the public going to take away from this. >> you've been on the inside here. is it embarrassing? for these fbi officials who will be named as being clumsy at best and criminally at worst? >> oh, hell, yeah. if that lawyer and i gather that lawyer has left his position in the government. if that lawyer was in government i think he should be fired

immediately, not like last minute, i mean like now, that person needs to go. that said, there's a difference between mistakes on the periphery. they are significant. i agree with adam. this cannot happen in a fisa application. i don't agree this is the most important ever. it may be the most public. that said this is embarrassing, but if you compare it to the core of the investigation, what did the leadership of the fbi say and do? what happened in terms of roger stone's interaction with wikileaks? why did don junior suggest that he wanted to accept information from a russian lawyer? this is embarrassing on the inside and the outside i think it's chump change. >> ki make one point? i think -- for the most part i agree with phil. let's remember this fisa application, the investigation into carter page was a small part of a massive sprawling

investigation into russian interference. this fisa, you know, somebody said, you know, it was 10% even less, i mean carter page was not a big player in this so let's not magnify the significance of this. this was a huge investigation and that's part -- i think that's part of what will be the criticisms that, you know, the fbi didn't bring more people into this, right? because they were afraid -- actually were afraid he was going to leak which it didn't. >> adam goldman, thanks for your reporting, phil mud, thanks and jeffrey toobin, thanks for sitting next to me. facts and the impact, remember yesterday when fiona hill warned against embracing another conspiracy which also happens to be russia's cover story about the 2016 election? well, the president must have been tweeting at the time and missed it because when it comes to embracing, he is all arms and all in. what he said today and why he should know better, why lawmakers should too, keeping them honest and later, the next

steps in the impeachment of a president. what they are and new reporting on how soon they might happen. . >> announcer: "anderson cooper 360" brought to you by alka selzer plus for fast cold relief. w with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast! geico would like to take a moment to say thank you to our military service members at home and abroad for all their hard work and sacrifice. we all sleep easier knowing you're out there

keeping us safe. and on a personal note... sfx: jet engines ... i just needed to get that off my chest. thank you. geico: proudly supporting the military for over 75 years. i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪

the pain and swelling.. the psoriasis. cosentyx treats more than just the joint pain of active psoriatic arthritis. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. get real relief, with cosentyx.

at to cover the essentialsyou have in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward. - [narrator] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row.

if it's not a shark, it's just a robot. tonight's breaking thus that the justice department's investigation of the 2016 russia investigation has debunked a number of president trump's conspiracy theories about it comes at what you might call an apt moment. a moment when the president and his supporters are pushing yet another conspiracy theory that, yes, also happens to absolve russia of meddling in the 2016 election despite being told this too is nonsense and remind you the u.s. intelligence community determined in late 2016 and 2017 that russia was to blame in a very big, very systemic top down way. first candidate then president

trump was briefed on it. his own intelligence officials have testified to it. yet the president has never bought it. instead embracing conspiracy theories about the fbi and deep state and for months now he's also been pushing a conspiracy theory blaming ukraine. he talked about it again today during that nearly hour-long phone call on fox and made at least 18 false statements. this is what he said about ukraine, the russian hacking of the dnc and the company crowdstrike the democrats hired to investigate it. >> it's very interesting. they have the server, right, from the dnc, democratic national committee -- >> who has the server. >> the fbi went in and told them get out of here. we're not giving it to you. they gave the server to crowdstrike or whatever it's called which is a country -- which is a company owned by a very wealthy ukrainian. and i still want to see that server. you know, the fbi's never gotten that server. that's a big part of this whole thing. why did they give it to a

ukrainian company? >> are you -- >> that's just a lie. so keeping them honest, crowdstrike is an american company co-founded by an american citizen who was born in russia, not ukraine. there is no single server and the dnc did not give any server to anybody. that's not the way it works. the president provided no evidence only that's what the word is. his own top former russia expert says the word, that word he was talking about comes from russia. >> there's some questions and statements i've heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that russia and its security service dis not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps somehow for some reason ukraine did. this is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the russian security services themselves. >> a fictional narrative, she says. the woman who literally wrote the book on vladimir putin, who has spent her entire career

studying russia who's had access to all intelligence on russian interference in the 2016 election said the ukraine allegations are part of the kremlin's cover story and a leader of the free world is embracing it so are republican lawmakers despite many of them being told otherwise. cnn has learned intelligence officials have in recent months briefed senators and their aides, reit righting the case that fiona hill made yesterday that blaming ukraine is part of the russian effort to deflect flame for 2016. and so far the most powerful individual on earth is convinced. joining us now is denny heck who serves on the house intelligence committee, congressman, thanks so much for being with us. you know, president trump has long said this claim ukraine meddled in the 2016 election. are you surprised to see your republican colleagues especially those with an intelligence background and those who were presumably briefed by the

intelligence committee get on board with this lie. >> at times i can't tell if they're self-deluded or that cynical. it's got to be one or the other. the facts are what they are. they all seem to have remembered that old expression about the big lie, if you tell a big lie enough and keep repeating it people will come to believe it. what i said is what they should consult is the more enduring wisdom by abraham lincoln, you can fool some of the people all the people and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. facts matter, john. >> this briefing that "the new york times" reported cnn reporting that members of congress were briefed by the intelligence committee that this is a russian effort to blame ukraine. were you aware of these intelligence briefings? >> yes. >> and were they convincing and should they have been convincing to the republican members who were also briefed?

>> it's no longer arguable, john. this is all a fiction that is being propagated by them as a part of the big lie theory. they're going to tell this big lie and they're going to repeat it until enough people believe it that it will help provide them for a defense for president trump for his misdeeds. that's what this is about. that's what the motivation is or they're just incredibly as i suggested self-deluded. >> let's talk about the next week of your life, congressman. we understand that the house intelligence committee which you're a member of will spend the next week drafting this report which will go to the judiciary committee laying out what you have found as part of this inquiry. will it stick to the testimony that you heard, what we all heard in the public hearings or will there be more we haven't seen? >> john, just to be clear the next week of my life is going to involve an awful lot of giving of thanks for the many blessings and sleep because the fact is it's been an incredibly long and

order use two weeks, our able staff is in the process as you and i speak of drafting the report which will then be shared with the members and have an opportunity to review it at that point and i am presuming but it has not yet been confirmed we will take it up the week we get back and mark it up and the intelligence committee which is a term that means we'll vote upon it. >> the president said in an interview today that he doesn't expect to be impeached and white house officials in briefings were claiming they didn't think that the president was going to be impeached. do you believe that's wishful thinking at this point? >> so we have to clarify our terms here. for somebody to be impeached means for the house to pass it. >> that's whey mean. that's what i mean. that's all i mean. i mean that the house will vote to impeach the president. the president said he did not think the house would vote to impeach him and white house officials are suggesting the same thing.

are they deluded? >> tbd. s the fact of the matter, we haven't written the report. while many were paying close attention to the exceedingly dramatic events, others were busy at work on their legislative business so they're going to have to digest all this. we will transition this to the judiciary committee at some point in the near future where they will be responsible for crafting articles of impeachment should they decide to do that. in the meantime, john, let's not forget there can be other developments, obviously today ambassador bolton felt as though he had an irresistible urge to tease the public through his twitter account that he had information. i have called upon ambassador bolton time and time again, do your patriotic duty, come forward just like three other people who work for you did, journal vindman, dr. hill and tim morrison. do what they did. have the courage to put country first. >> so far it's just a tease,

though. congressman, heck, thank you for being with us. we'll join you next week in giving thanks. wish i could join you in getting some sleep. a quick programming note. this sunday be sure to watch the special report "all the president's lies" hosted by jake tapper at 9:00 p.m. eastern and it's just one hour. still ahead, more on the next steps in the impeachment process and what sources are telling cnn is one of the big n unresolved questions about the potential vote on president trump's fate. get ready for the insurance-themed experience

of a lifetime. it's "progressive on ice." everything you love about car insurance -- the discounts... the rate comparisons... and flo in a boat. ♪ insurance adventure awaits at "progressive on ice."

tickets not available now or ever.

at "progressive on ice." the holidays are here and so is t-mobile's newest, most powerful signal. and we want to keep you connected to those you love, with the new iphone 11. so t-mobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. for yourself, or up to a family of four. keep your family connected, and hurry into t-mobile today, to get up to four iphone 11's on us. only at t-mobile. what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct.

been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing. democratic sources tell cnn

the impeachment of president trump could come before christmas. as we mentioned just moments ago, aides and leaders plan to hammer out a report next week to spell out the case for impeachment. back with me is jeffrey toobin and another cnn legal analyst jennifer rogers and david gergen who has served four presidents, republican and democrat, including one who has been impeached and one who resigned so knows a lot about this type of thing. jeffrey, i want -- >> i'm batting .500. >> jeffrey, how do you see this process playing out? we know the intelligence committee is going to write this report. then it goes to judiciary. do you think we'll still be getting new information as this goes on? >> probably some but i think there's one big question that the democrats have yet to resolve, which is how to structure the impeachment. there are really two broad options, one is that it's just ukraine, that it's just the abuse of power in connection with the president's int interactions with ukraine. the other option includes the

obstruction of justice discussed in the mueller report and the obstruction of congress in terms of the failure to respond to subpoenas, allow witnesses to testify. so a narrow impeachment based on ukraine, a broader impeachment with obstruction, that's a question nancy pelosi, jerry nadler and adam schiff largely are going to have to resolve. >> david gergen, because i'll ask you, david, politically speaking, what's the wise move, do you think, from democrats, more limited or broader as jeffrey was just describing? >> i used to think it would be the more limited option because that -- i thought that would be easier to understand. i think it's been harder to explain it to people. there are so many different figures who are introduced over these hearings. the democrats did an awfully good job amassing the evidence but i'm not sure they got through to the public on giving them a convincing narrative of what happened. under those circumstances i would be exploring whether you bring in the obstruction questions as jeffrey said or not

and i would lean toward bringing in obstruction because i think there are additional elements that have been forgotten and there's a path -- there's a narrative about the president's entire activities as president. the trail that we have seen, the amount of obstruction, the amount of dismissal of the rule of law, i think that's a pretty powerful case if you can make it simply with great clarity i would lean in that direction. >> so procedurally, jennifer, it's interesting, the house intelligence committee is writing a report but the judiciary committee will write the articles of impeachment. i was told this morning they'll hold hearings on what constitutes an impeachable offense. the rules say that the president can have his own lawyers there. they can participate in those hearings if they're open hearings. do you think that the white house should do that? do you think that would behoove the president to have his people there or keep their powder dry

until the senate trial. >> i think they will participate but the rules say if they block witnesses and documents and information that the democrats want to put on, then they might not be able to participate so we'll see how that shakes out. i have yet to meet a lawyer who can stop talking so i think they will want to go ahead and make their case whether it's through cross-examination or making speeches or something. i find it impossible to believe that they will just sit there quietly while the information comes in. >> this monday, just days from now there is a ruling on don mcgahn, the president's former white house counsel about whether he needs to comply to subpoenas, you know, from months and months ago having to do with the mueller investigation back when we were all in our early 30s. what happens there, jennifer? if, if this judge said mcgahn has to testify what does that mean for john bolton or some other figures. >> i'm not exactly sure. that was a subpoena about testifying because of the mueller investigation out of a different committee. you know, look, all of these case, every time the administration or a witness

who's complying with their stonewalling request loses in court it does send a message other people will lose but is not binding. if he is subpoenaed to testify presumably they'll set something up and he will do that i don't know that bolton will. >> i don't think mcgahn will do that. if congress wins on monday is the administration will appeal and they're entitled to appeal and this thing is back on a slow boat to nowhere and this is the reason why adam schiff decided in the intelligence committee that we're not going to court because we just don't have time. now that's a decision that i don't know that was correct, but it is true that the very act of going to court is a guarantee of a multimonth delay to a real resolution. so, yes, monday will be important. but it certainly will not resolve this question once and for all.

>> john bolton, david, do you think that is a witness worth fighting for for the democrats? >> absolutely. absolutely. it's clear from the last few days that he has a story to tell. there's a part of him that would like to tell it. he's sort of dangling it in front of us. i think it's worth exploring. it may be a boat to nowhere jeffrey says. it may not lead anywhere but i certainly think it's worth exploring because, listen, we've gone through this so many times that the president is stonewalling and refuses to let any of the star witnesses come testify and he's run over the committee like that and then they claim, well, the committee doesn't have enough direct evidence. you know, the republicans claim there's not enough direct evidence. john bolton can provide the direct evidence and may be the most honest man of all in this. >> he can do it if he wanted to and hasn't done it yet. >> he may find it, you know, but mcdan, people think the mcgahn

result may influence bolton's decision. >> yep. we'll see. we'll see. he wants to sell books. that much is clear. david gergen, jennifer rogers and jeffrey toobin, thanks for being here. the politics of all this, right or wrong, how would the potential impeachment of president trump affect voters' attitudes towards the two partys? r] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot. he borrowed billions donald trump failed as a businessman. and left a trail of bankruptcy and broken promises. he hasn't changed. i started a tiny investment business, and over 27 years, grew it successfully to 36 billion dollars. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message. i'm running for president because unlike other candidates, i can go head to head with donald trump on the economy,

and expose him fo what he is: a fraud and a failure.

there's a company that's talked than me: jd power.people 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room.

all right. we've been talking about the future of the impeachment proceedings with the senate possibly holding a trial next year during the prime early months of 2020 campaigning after the trial concludes, if the president is not removed, it will ultimately be the voters who have a final say in all this, not to mention those conspiracy theories about ukraine that the president won't let go, today president trump said democrats, quote, look like fools. democrats, however, clearly believe this is worth it. joining us today, "usa today" columnist kirsten powers and former ted cruz communications director amanda carpenter, author of "gasp lighting america." kirsten, i want to start with you. four democrats. they think it's worth it and made the decision after resisting this for a long time that they had to go through this process. but what do you see as the politics of this? is this winning support for the

democratic party? >> well, i think it's risky and i felt that way from the beginning. i think the democrats did the right thing. i don't think you can ignore this kind of behavior. it absolutely required the hearings that we've had and i think that -- i think the democrats have actually done a very good job with this. the problem is is that i think when there's chaos, that is where donald trump thrives, right? chaos and disorder is really where he thrives and the republicans have made it clear that they didn't have any interest in actually hearing any of the facts and actually holding him accountable for anything and instead they're also sowing chaos and discord so that does work to the president's advantage. that doesn't mean -- we still don't know, there are some polls that have come out that have shown that independents aren't looking kindly at this but, you know, we need to give it a little more time. we're not all the way through the process so i think it still remains to be seen how voters

react. >> amanda, do you recognize the republican party that you grew up in and that you worked in for a long time? do you feel as if they are looking at the facts here? >> i mean, they've made a decision to get in line behind trump. in some ways i saw echoes of this when people got in line behind bush in regard to the iraq war, but this is totally different. this isn't to serve national security interests. this is to serve one person's ego and so i am very interested to see how this will be handled in the senate because you are movely from firmly democratic territory into trump's wheelhouse, so to speak. mitch mcconnell is going to control this process and so this will be legacy-making stuff for republican senators to take that vote for the lawyers who try it and how they prosecute and try that case. i mean i don't know how this is

going to come out. what is adam schiff and nancy pelosi going to send over, something narrowly tailored to what we heard presented in the impeachment hearings or is this going to be a kitchen sink and what happens when it gets into mcconnell's hands? do they make it quick and turn it inside out and call huntsmaner biden to testify and becomes another one of donald trump's expanded conspiracy theories. if trump wins re-election based on how this is handled that's how it's going to be for a long, long time. >> but there is some risk for the republicans too as you say in how they handle it. i think there is some risk in them looking at the facts right now and saying they don't care or it's not enough. it's not without risk for everyone. kirsten, there are a lot of democratic senators. i think six but to be honest i've lost count democratic senators running for president

who would have to leave the trail and participate in this impeachment trial. how will that affect them? >> that would be bad. i mean you want to be out on the trail obviously and i think that the timing of this just isn't great. the way this is coinciding when people would be campaigning an coinciding with debates. the democratic debate the other night was completely overshadowed by the impeachment news and so i think that while it's true, you know, for the early states you're trying to reach people mostly through retail politic, you know, you also need to be in people's living rooms, you know, people need to hear the democrats are talking about more than just impeachment, you know, otherwise they get the sense that that's all they care about when, of course, they care about a lot of other issues. the other thing is just to your sort of overall question is right now impeachment doesn't rank very high on what people are voting on so that's another thing to watch, you know, so people have feelings about it

but is it going to influence their vote. >> one of the things democrat also say in defense of the president, well, his behavior may have been bad, but it's not impeachable. will hurd said a version of that yesterday. will said it's not good foreign policy. he didn't say it's dangerous. is there a way for republicans who might not vote for impeachment to actually say something that has teeth critical enough to make an impact. >> yeah, i mean i guess there's a possibility of censure. i don't see that happening in the senate though that would be historymaking but republicans shouldn't be let off the hook on this question, if you believe it was bad but not impeachable, what are you willing to do to stop it from happening again in the 2020 election because we must always remember this is not the first but the second time that the president solicited foreign interference in election to benefit himself. >> yeah, furrowed eyebrow and expressing concerns probably not enough to stop it the next time. amanda, kirsten, thanks for being with us.

still ahead the back story of how ukraine's president almost appeared on cnn and then didn't and why it's a part of the impeachment inquiry. i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪

like very high triglycerides, can be tough. you diet. exercise. but if you're also taking fish oil supplements, you should know, they are not fda-approved, they may have saturated fat and may even raise bad cholesterol. to treat very high triglycerides, discover the science of prescription vascepa. proven in multiple clinical trials, vascepa, along with diet, is the only prescription epa treatment, approved by the fda to lower very high triglycerides by 33%, without raising bad cholesterol. look. it's clear. there's only one prescription epa vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish or shellfish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take,

especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. ask your doctor about vascepa. prescription power. proven to work. look, it's just like when i tell people abbe confident.th geico. stand up straight. and speak with purpose. yeah? go on, give it a practice run. kelsey. kelsey. marriage? oh. okay. look maybe you should just show her this beautiful helzberg diamond ring? that's a better idea. yeah, maybe not in the bathroom. oooh! oh my word! geico. it's easy to switch and save.

time to check in with chris to see what he's working on for "cuomo prime time" at the top of the hour. >> how are you, handsome? >> very good. >> i am thankful to have you in my life as always. you're a great man, great journalist and even better fr friend and husband. not to me, though. >> what are you telling people? >> the inspector general has his report out. trump's defenders ignored what's in the rest of the report. they're not going to like what's in it but the american people should. if we don't have faith in our

institutions, what the heck are we doing in a democracy in the first place? second, we have new information about devin nunez that is going to shock people about ukraine. >> i have to wait. have a great weekend and great thanksgiving. up next, i'll speak with fareed zakaria but how he's a key part of the impeachment story. too much! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com.

hi honey, we got in early. it's just right! yeah, and we brought steve and mark. ♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. - [narrator] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month.

and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot. the holidays are here and so is t-mobile's newest, most powerful signal. and we want to keep you connected to those you love, with the new iphone 11. so t-mobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. for yourself, or up to a family of four. keep your family connected, and hurry into t-mobile today,

to get up to four iphone 11's on us. only at t-mobile. 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. ♪ its potential just keeps growing. at bayer, we're more than we help farmers like john. by developing digital tools, so he can use less water to grow crops. at bayer, this is why we science.

he joins us now. fareed, it was going to be an interview with you where the second half of the quid pro quo was announced. >> right. we had been trying to get an interview with zelensky anyway because he's this fascinating

character, complete newcomer, standup comic, sitcom actor, also a businessman but a newcomer, totally outside politics, sweeps the parliament elections, talks about making a deal with russia, fascinating character. we're getting somewhere. i interviewed the previous president three times. then it gets very, very close and i get there in early september for a conference i happen to be going to and i said can i meet him to seal the deal? that's the september 13th meeting that apparently the u.s. embassy was frightened he was going to give the interview that day and do the second half of the quid pro quo, announce the investigations into biden and burisma. they had not confirmed it with us they were still playing, you know. but it looked very good. we were getting down to the logistics, when will he do it, new york, around the time of the u.n. general assembly, which was ten days later. and then the whistle-blower story breaks.

the whistle-blower story breaks to congress two days before i get to key yef aiev because the republicans on the committee presumably told them. the aid was released the day i get there. when you talked to ukrainian official, they were delighted but a little puzzled and weren't sure what was happening. thinking back they were probably thinking do we still have to do the quid pro quo? we got the aid, are we now meant to deliver? then when it blew open, "the washington post" reported it, they went radio silent and said there's no interview. >> i think it's what the kids call ghosting. >> just for a while. they were actually very nice and very professional but for a few days they ghosted us and then they said it's off. >> then i want to ask you another thing which you have a particular expertise in, life experience, which has been remarkable in that so many of these witnesses were not born in the united states. they're americans and now working on behalf of america,

ambassador yovanovitch, lieutenant colonel vindman, fiona hill. americans by voice, as you are. what do you make of all this? >> i think it's something people don't understand enough. i'm glad fiona hill used that phrase, american by choice. most americans are american by birth. you don't have much of a choice of it whereas an immigrant is choosing to come to america or to make america his or her home. you know, we sometimes celebrate immigration as this wonderful thing, it's all, you know, milk and honey. it's not. it's a very hard choice. u you're leaving behind your family, your culture, lots of deep ties so the attraction to america is very deep and very profound and i go one step further, then you have these immigrants who decide to make america their home and to make

it the place they're going to put their stake in but then they work for the american government. that's to my mind an even higher order of devotion to the united states. and to have these people have their patriotism criticized and have right-wing talk show hosts saying when will some real american testify -- >> that's horrible. >> fareed zakaria, great to have you with us and we're glad you're american by choice. the news continues and i hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> j.b., my man, have a great weekend. welcome to "prime time" we have two big truth bombs to unpack with you. you know how potus and pals were screaming just yesterday that the inspector general found proof that the russia probe was just a hoax? why are they so quiet now? wait until you hear about what he concluded about the idea