time. well, what am i supposed to believe? >> what should we believe? who can we trust? >> just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. >> "all the president's lies" airs at 9:00 p.m. eastern tonight animal on cnn. fareed zakaria starts right now. have a great thanksgiving. this is gps the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live from new york. >> i want no quid pro quo! >> today on the show -- >> do you swear or affirm? >> vindman, volcker, sondland and hill. this week's star witnesses in the impeachment inquiry. >> we followed the president's orders. >> what did we learn from them about how america conducts its foreign policy? >> mr. president, thank you very much. >> under president trump. also, iran's protests,

netanyahu's indictment, and more. i will talk to tom friedman, emily slaughter, and ian brennan. also, russia's response to the impeachment inquiry. president putin this week said he was happy to see the blame for the 2016 election interference shifting to another nation, ukraine. fiona hill says this is all russian disinformation. >> this is a fictional narrative that's being perpetrated and propagated by the russian security officials themselves. >> is it? i'll ask one of moscow's top foreign policy analysts. then, in germany, you can't publish hate speech on the internet. in america, you can. but does america need to become more like germany? first, here's my take. while impeachment had been dominating the headlines, we're missing a set of stories about

american foreign policy that might prove equally sequenti ll consequential. the trump administration has been doubling down on a policy of unilateralism and isolationism, a combination that is furthering the abdication of american leadership and the creation of a much more unstable world. this week, talks between washington and seoul broke down after the administration demanded a 400% increase in what south korea pays for the stations of american troops in that country. the annual operating cost of the u.s. military presence there is approximately $2 billion. so pay a little less than have that. trump is asking for $4.7 bill n billion. the frictions with south korea will likely be replicated with america's staunchest ally in the pacific, japan. according to foreign policy magazine, trump has also asked japan for a significant hike in its payments to the u.s. these demands are not simply damaging to the ties between key allies, they are also based on

bad economics. if american troops were to withdrawn from south korea and japan, they would have to be housed somewhere in the united states, where there would be no burden sharing and no contributions from seoul and tokyo. >> the trump administration has also given up on support for broad-based norms and volumes. it withdrew from the u.n. human rights counsel, ceding the feel. trump's tariffs have rocked the free tad systerade system. this week, the administration reversed the long-standing u.s. position that israeli settlements in the west bank violate international law. french president emmanuel macron was criticized for his recent statement that nato is experience i experiencing brain deaf, but he explained, pointing that trump's policy on syria was undertaken with no coordination with its fellow nato members. europe's interests in the middle east are potentially greater than washington's, refugees

flood into europe, not america, and yet the trump administration blindsided its allies across the atlantic. macron believes that europe faces an unprecedented challenge in trump. we find ourselves for the first time with an american president who does not share our idea of the european project. he notes that trump often distances himself from europe's defense, even against islamic terror. when he says, it's their problem, not mine, we must hear what he's saying. i am no longer prepared to pay for and guarantee a security system for them. and so just wake up. it's ironic and tragic that europeans now believe that they are alone in their fight against islamic terrorism given that the only time in history that nato invoked article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all, was in response to the 9/11 attacks on new york and washington. it's also said that iran,

russia, and china are rogue regimes whose actions are destroying the rules-based international system that the u.s. built and maintained over the last 75 years. but the greatest threat to the liberal international order right now is surely the trump administration, which is systemically weakening the alliances that have maintained peace and stability and rejecting the rules and norms that have helped set some standards in international life. for more, go to cnn.com/fareed and read my "washington post" column this week. and let's get started. all right. we now know that the 2020 presidential race officially has a new wild card. former new york city mayor michael bloomberg has announced

his candidacy for the president on his website. let's bring in the panel to discuss that and more. anne-marie slaughter is the former director of policy planning at the state department. she is the president and the ceo of the the tank, new america. tom friedman is the foreign affairs columnist for "the new york times" and the author of the best seller, "thank you for being late." and ian bremmer is the founder and president of the oeurasia group. tom, let me start with you. you wrote a column, an echo of "i like ike," 1950s button. "why i like mike." you say in that, and i assume you've talked to mike bloomberg, that he knows that it's a long shot. why is mike bloomberg running m. >> i think, fareed, first and foremost, mayor bloomberg understands that four more years of donald trump will be a disaster for this country.

when you see how trump has behaved, imagine how he would behave if he didn't have to get re-elected again. that has led him to believe, i believe, is that the only way to defeat trump is to be able to appeal to the modern republicans, the suburban women who flipped into the democratic camp in the 2018 elections for congress and the senate. i think he believes the best way to appeal to them is with a broad centrist democratic agenda that appeals not just to redividing the pie, but also growing the pie. that's pro-business, strong on climate, strong on gun control, and that he can really put together the kind of package of issues that will appeal to the broadest constituency to defeat donald trump. i think he knows it's a long shot, but if biden were to stumble or buttigieg were stumble or the democrats couldn't coalesce around a candidate at the center that could deliver that agenda, i think he feels it's such an important moment, it's a worth

to try to put himself forward. >> so anne-marie, there are a lot of people i know and i would include myself, whether or not he can get elected, he would probably be the best president -- if you could wave a wand, this is a guy who ran the city well, sort of the anti-trump, he's skpldisciplinee doesn't hog the limelight, but is that going to excite passion in the democratic base? what does he need to do to excite passion? >> i think his best bet by a mile would be to line up stacey abrams as his vice president now and say this is an unconventional presidency. i'm going to unite old america and new america. we now have a new debate between which of the 70-year-olds can line up the youth. and the west thing he can do is to do something dramatic, which is to say, i'm not just your grandparent's candidate or your parent's candidate. i want a new america. >> very briefly, bloomberg could spend money on a scale nobody

else. presidential candidates basically spend a billion dollars. mike bloomberg could spend $10 billion and still be one of the 20 richest men in the world. >> easily. >> would that make a difference? >> it matters in terms of picking up del gaegates on supe tuesday. if it's a democratic process that has to go state by state. the four of us would clearly vote for him in a hot second. over trump. we also reflect one of the narrowest demographics in the united states. i don't think this is emblematic of where the democratic base is going. >> great point. next, when we come back, we will talk about the foreign policy fa fallout of impeachment and the politicization of the state department. have been delayed." t-mobile makes the holidays easier... ...like this. because right now when you buy one of the latest samsung phones you get one free. on that. so you can post this... ...score this... ...be there like this... ...and share all of this...

...with that. so do this, on that, with us. now, buy a samsung galaxy s10 or note 10 and get one free.

so what did the impeachment hearings tell us about america's relations with the world and things like that. the panel is back with me. anne-marie slaughter, tom friedman and ian brenner. anne, you were at the state department. what strikes me about all of this is mike pompeo comes across at not just as the center of this whole strategy to persuade or pressure ukraine, but a chief enabler of trump in this kind of political agenda, but also somebody who ran roughshod over the state department in order to do it. >> it's really amazing, he came in after tillerson, who was so unpopular, saying, i'm going to restore the swagger of the state department. i'm going to stand up for the state department.

and he has thrown everybody under the bus, essentially, so that he could stay close to trump. the other thing, though, is he is deeply political and planning a run for the senate in kansas. and what's interesting is the conservative news outlets are reporting he's looking for a way out sooner than he thought, which tells us he thinks being caught up in this impeachment stuff is actually going to hurt him with the republican voters of kansas. >> oh, fascinating. tom, you wrote a terrific column on mike pompeo. talk about that, but broaden it out to tell me, what is the effect of all of this, you know, in the world. what is this doing to america's standing in the world. you know, how should we think about this kind of at the level of the big picture? >> fareed, i was talking to bill burns, the former deputy secretary of state the other day, and he was making the point, he's not worried about the deep state, he's worried about the weak state. what happens when all of our institutions get hol lolowed ou

namely the state department. fareed, about a decade ago, you wrote a book about the post-american world, about how the rest of the world was rising up and equal to us and we would have to live in a more balance of power world. i'm worried about a different post-american world today. a world where america is no longer the arbitrator of truth and trust. that basically the world has always looked to us as the arbiter of what is good and right and trust. altogether, over the last 70 years, that's worked out really well for us. what happens if we have a post-american world where america is no longer that generator of the arbitrator of truth or that generator of trust. >> ian, you gave a speech at this big china conference sponsored by bloomberg, the company, not mike, personally. you said something similar. you said, welcome to the end of the american order. >> that's right. and i recognize that a piece of that is because trump is

withdrawing from so many of these international agreements. some of which we cobbled together ourself. but a lot more, it's because xi jinping is creating an alternative. it's beltin road. it's the decision by the chinese consciously to decouple from u.s. technology and data and 5g. and that moves us. as kissinger said at the same conference from the foothills of a cold war. and if we look about the last 70 years, it's not just an american order, it's also globalization, we've had goods and service, thoughts and people moving faster and faster across borders. and when you take data and say, that's not globalized anymore. it's going to be split into two, that tells us something very negative about the way that humanity is actually heading and the geopolitical order will be much more dangerous. >> do you think that's true, anne-marie, a bipolar world, particularly bipolar in technology. every country having to choose, do we go huawei or with cisco and erickson?

>> i think it's true with technology, yes. that there are these two different visions of what technology should be. open versus closed. but i think that order was not just an american order. it's a rule-based order. it's a multi-lateral order. and in your column, you point out, trump and his allies around the world are actively pursuing unilateralism, tear down anything that smacks of constraining sovereignty with rules. and that to me is just as big a danger. >> tom, i noticed robert o'brien, the new national security adviser gave a talk, i think, in halifax, in which he said he compared, sort of compared china's internment of the uighurs to nazi germany or gave some very dark comparison. and sit struck me that -- did this signal, do you think, that the trump administration has decided that it is, in a sense, prosecuting a cold war against china? >> you know, fareed, the words decided and the trump administration have become an

oxymoron. because what one guy says can be overtaken by a tweet the next day. i think it's one of the most confusing things we have is to think of this as normal administration, normal people, actually consider policies and then articulate them, and then follow up on them. that said, i'm glad you spoke out against what the chinese are doing, against the uighurs there. this is horrendous, what's going on there. and so horrendous that a senior chinese official leaked to "the new york times" a huge trove of documents showing the debate inside china about this. but at the same time, fareed, this relationship we have with china is incredibly complicated. they're rivals, they're opponents, they're partners, they're suppliers, they're a source of intellectual capital. and we've got to find a way to manage all of these at the same time. and i think that's the real challenge. and that's what worries you about those people. who knows? trump may have had o'brien do that just to get some leverage in the trade talks. and if china decides to buy some more soybeans from us, he might

say, oh, no problem, what you're doing with the uighurs. >> in fact, his point is exactly right, trump a couple of days ago tweeted, i'm not going to pressure them on hong kong. by the way, xi jinping is a great man and a great friend of mine. so one part of the administration compares to the nazis, the other -- is there going to be a trade deal? >> i think there will be this phase 1 trade deal and i think it's going to matter not a wit. it's because trump is looking in mode, with the iranians saying please take my phone call at the united nations, they all gone nowhere. so he is prepared to give away the store for anything that looks like a deal with the chinese. but xi jinping made very clear at this meeting in beijing that he is not in the mood to take lessons from the americans, that if anyone should be giving lessons on economic development, he said, it should be the chinese. that's not a message that either trump or anyone in foreign

policy circles in washington right now really wants to hear. >> when we come back, we're going to talk about what tom friedman calls the offbr-broadw version of donald trump, benjamin netanyahu's upcoming indictments and his response to his legal troubles, which was very trumpian. let's be honest, every insurance company says

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.

too shabby! too much! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com.

bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. those are the charges announced on thursday that have been leveled against benjamin netanyahu. the israeli prime minister in return said he was the victim of a witch hunt and called on israel to investigate the investigators. sounds familiar? let me bring in the panel. ian bremmer, anne-marie slaughter, and tom friedman. anne-marie, do you think there are parallels between netanyahu and trump? >> it's remarkable just how parallel it is. in the first place, bribery, fraud, those are like the

article of impeachment, but equally the tactics, deny, attack, pretend you're the victim, say it's a witch hunt. but even more, there's this choice in both places between going the route or the political route. so effectively, netanyahu's best hope is to actually get a resolution through the knesset that will get him prime minister. >> and similarly here, trump is playing a political strategy and the democrats are trying to uphold the law. >> the defense at core is the same as a trump defense, an attack on elites and the establishment saying, these guys have always hated me and they found some maneuver with their fancy-pants lawyers and media allies to bring me down. in trump's case, it does seem to be working. the hatred of the establishment is greater than the concern

about corruption. >> fareed, you alluded to it. i believe as israeli politics is, what offbroadway is to broadway. so i follow it very closely. and if you look there, trump should be a little concerned. netanyahu ran a openly racist campaign against israeli arabs and they all turned out and voted the next time and created the third largest party in israel. netanyahu was all over twitter and facebook, his opponent, benny gantz was not. turned out israelis got sick of it. at the same time, benny gantz was really not just an opponent to netanyahu. he was actually an anecdote in the eyes of a lot of israelis. they understood that netanyahu and his politics said they were putting toxins into the veins of society. there's one big difference between israeli and america now, fareed. you see now in the likud, demands for a primary happening this morning to run against netanyahu.

you see the likud ministers not defending trump. it turns out likud ministers, at least a few of them seem to have a little more spine, self-respect, and integrity than the entire republican caucus in the house and the senate where other than one exception basically are not ready to challenge trump. that may be a diversion in israel, but that itself might be a warning sign to trump as well. >> ian, do you think that as long as benjamin netanyahu is prime minister, he can't be unindicted. even if he were to go into a coalition government and become deputy prime minister, he can't be indicted. his initiative is to string this out as long as he can, maybe have a third election. if that happens, could he somehow overcome all of these problems? >> he's holding on by his fingernails, but it turns out he has really long fingernails. we're heading into a third election here, and they're even talking about a potential where there would be a unity

coalition, where gantz and netanyahu would switch off but that would give netanyahu another year. he's playing kick the can. this is a day-by-day scenario for him. while it's happening, let's keep in mind that gantz has the same policy on things that matter to the united states, the region, and the world as netanyahu does. at some point he's going to be gone and at some point that indictment is going to stick in my view. but israel's governance isn't going to change one itoe ya, from a regional perspective, that's very important. >> very quickly, do you think that the american recognition of israeli settlements, the recognition of the golan heights, does all of this -- has this helped netanyahu? because trump is doing all of this as favors to bibi, trying to get him more votes. >> i think it doesn't make a difference up-to-that this poin. it's so clear that he's 100%

behind netanyahu that i don't think the additional recognition of these things would make a difference to the israeli public. what it is doing, though, is announcing to the rest of the world that the united states will have no role going forward in any eventual israeli palestinian negotiation, because we have now taken a position that says, we are completely, firmly on the hard right israeli side. >> tom, let me ask you your final thoughts on. you know, you mentioned the republican party, just, you know, completely awol on this impeachment issue. that -- is that a response to where they see their voters? how should we think about this in terms of why is the republican party so bereft of the howard bakers, you know, the people who are saying, you know, look, this is a real problem? >> well, you have entire ecosystem of fox news, basically constantly arousing the base, sometimes with real news, sometimes with fake news. that then creates a disciplining

force that trump can activate to use against republican legislators, that said, though, free, my god, just one, maybe if i really dream, just two, might actually say, you know what, i'm going to stand up for truth and the right thing here. and our enlisting a foreign leader to intervene in our elections and affect it using american aid appropriated by the congress, that's just not on -- you think you would find just one or two. and the fact that you don't really says to me that our conservative party is sick here, fareed. and that's why you're not going to persuade these people or change these people. you can only defeat these people. and it seems to me defeating this version of the republican party is the necessary but not sufficient thing to produce what the country needs, which is a healthy, conservative movement that can balance the liberal movement and give us the right kind of government we need. right now, we have a sick wib,

would say conservative movement in this country and that is not good for our future. >> all right. we've got to wrap it up. fascinating conversation. thank you all. last week we brought you ukraine's response to the impeachment inquiry. this week, we will bring you russia. [ song: johnny cash, "these are my people." ] ♪ these are my people ♪ ♪ these are the ones ♪ ♪ who will reach for the stars ♪ ♪ these are my people ♪ by the light of the earth, ♪ ♪ you can tell they are ours ♪ ♪ a new step to take ♪ and a new day will break ♪ yes, these are my people ♪

most people think of verizon as a reliable phone company. (woman) but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. we also keep them ready

for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready. ♪ on wednesday in moscow, russia's president vladimir putin said on stage at an event, thank god no one is accusing russia of interfering in the

u.s. elections anymore. now they are accusing ukraine. it made me wonder, what do russians make of the impeachment inquiry? to answer that question, i wanted to bring in andray k cortunov, the director general of a top think tank based in moscow. andre, what is your sense of how russians are reacting to what they are watching or witnessing or hearing about in washington? >> well, i think that if you take the ukrainian dimension, many in moscow might be happy that finally the u.s. attention has turned away from russia. it doesn't mean that it has turned away forever, but for the time being, it might be a break. on the other hand, i don't think that many in moscow are happy about the impeachment procedure in washington, because they understand perfectly well that all the strong u.s. president

can fix problems with moscow. a weakp is n president is not i position to mobilize political support inside his own country to deal with moscow successfully. >> but to what extent is the feeling that ukraine now properly being, you know, accused by some republicans of disliking the president? the president says it himself. >> the relations are very emotional and there's a lot of animosity. the predominant perception in moscow is that these people are not honest, they use schemes and i think in this story, they see a confirmation of how they saw

the former ukrainian leadership. it is not necessarily related to mr. zelensky, but definitely related to his predecessor. and fiona hill says the idea that ukraine was involved in the hacking of the 2016 election is a fiction and it's essentially disinformation that is being propagated by russia, by the russian government. what's your response? >> well, i know fiona hill, and i have a lot of respect towards fiona hill. but i'm not sure that the russian government has been directly engaged in this ukrainian story. i don't think that it has the capacity or the interest, directly, however, definitely, the russian propaganda will make and is already making full use of this story and definitely it

tries to turn the public attention away from the russian interference into elections of 2016 in the united states. >> you say "alleged." do you feel that in russia people think there was no russian information campaign, information war in 2016? because, you know, most -- it's not just the united states, most western intelligence agencies believe it happened. most independent observers believe it happened. >> well, you know, i think that there is the official narrative in moscow. we never interfered, we never do -- we will never do. but there is a footnote to that. and in small print, you can read the -- that basically everybody interferes. everybody use information, information wars in this world of post-truth, everybody

distorts facts or at least puts accents in a certain way. so basically, if everybody is guilty, than no one is guilty. i think this is the hidden narrative that you can find here in moscow. >> in his annual press conference, president putin was asked, what would he do to try to fix relations with the united states. and he sounded pretty pessimistic. he didn't think there was much that could be done. >> i agree. and actually, i heard mr. putin making his speech at the club and he said exactly that. he said that the election campaign in the united states is not the best time to try fixing the relationship and essentially, everything that we could have proposed, we already proposed. all of our ideas, all of our proposals on the table, so it's now up to americans to decide

whether they're going to go for any of them. i think that basically in russia, they are so used to summitry as the only mechanism that can fix this relationship, it has always been this way. since the early days of the cold war the two leaders had the chance to get, but it didn't work with trump. putin met trump in helsinki and after the summit meeting, the relationship didn't get any better, it got really worse, so right now, there's a confusion of we can do in order to fix this relationship. >> i think a lot of the world is confused about how to deal president trump and it's fascinating to hear the feeling

is true even in moscow. >> i would say so. i think that they might like president trump, but they understand that he is very constrained in what we -- in what he can do toward moscow. moscow remains a toxic asset for trump. and this situation is not likely to change, even if trump gets re-elected. andrey, a pleasure to have you on. it's always, always so interesting to hear your perspective. >> thank you, fareed. up next, in america, you can wave a nazi flag or post a picture of one on the internet. in germany, you can't. it's illegal. does america need laws like germany? when we come back.

hate speech. there's a lot of it in america today, on the streets, on the airwaves, on the internet. but should it be policed? should, for instance, walking around charlottesville carrying a nazi flag or chanting "jews will not replace us" be in some way illegal. our next guest says the first amendment should not stop us from asking that question. and rick stengel was the editor in chief of "time" magazine then the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. his new book is "information wars: how we lost the global battle against disinformation and what we can do about it." pleasure to have you, rick.

>> great to be with you. >> so you are one of the most storied journalists in america. you had one of the great positions in american journalism, the editor of "time" magazine, and in that capacity, you were always an absolutist on free speech. you always talked about the oliver wendel holmes line which is, we protect speech, not just the speech that we love, but the speech that we hate. but you've sort of changed your mind now? >> well, i was a free speech absolutist and i was on the front lines of it, as you know. you know what those phone calls are like when the white house calls you and says, we don't want you to publish something, and you have to make those decisions, because it's about government interfering with speech. but as i traveled around the state and they couldn't understand that we would protect the speech that we hate it, it made me rethink it. >> give an example of something you just found difficult to

defend. >> i found it difficult to defend to muslims around the world why would allow a pastor in florida to burn a koran. i found it difficult to understand why we would protect hate speech, speech that accuses someone on the basis of religion or sex or gender or sexual orientation of something that's just awful. i mean, what is the -- did the framers really want to protect that? i've just started to rethink it. >> europe has some laws like that. do you think we should go in that direction? >> i think we should explore that direction. they're more stringent than i would be. i'm just suggesting we have this debate. you would be surprised at all of the protectors of the first amendment who don't think i should be able to debate whether we should even talk about the first amendment. but i think we should look at some hate speech laws. look at -- at the state level, laws that penalize it, not putting people into jail, but fine it. and also giving the platform companies more liability. right now, they have complete immunity for publishing hate

speech. let them have some liability about that. i think that would change the nature of the debate. >> let me ask you about something fiona hill said during her testimony. she talked about how the idea that ukraine was actually a country that had hacked the 2016 election, was part of a kind of russian disinformation campaign. it was fiction. and yet it has taken hold in a large part of the american public. a lot of people on the hill, republicans believe it. a lot of people who watch fox news believe it. what does one do about that kind of disinformation? >> by the way, there are decades of russian disinformation, that the cia caused aids. the cia shot john f. kennedy. all of these things get embedded in our psyches. that's why disinformation is so dangerous. it's hard to abutt it. it gets stuck in our brains. the russians are very good at it. i think the other reason that

addition information works is people want to believe it. if the republicans are looking for a conspiracy theory to help donald trump, of course they're going to be more receptive to it. that's why disinformation works. it's not just a supply problem, it's a demand problem. >> and it seems to me the demand problem is almost at the heart of it, because as you said, there weren't conspiracy theories in the past, but you didn't have a third of, you know, sometimes half, sometimes more of republicans believing it. if you have a desire to want to believe this, it becomes -- >> yes. i mean, we may have something in our dna to believe conspiracy theories. maybe it's evolutionary, you know, effective behavior. but i mean, a third of voters during the last campaign believed that hillary clinton was running a child sex trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor in another cognitive bias is the backfire effect when you try to disabuse somebody of a strongly held believe, it makes them double down in that belief. that's a problem. >> so what is the solution,

then? >> the solution is human beings evolving faster, i think. you know, maybe as fast as technology. but i do think education. i mean, one of the things i've said for a long time, we don't have a fake news problem y. we have a media literacy problem. we have to help people figure out the difference between fact or fiction. people have to be taught to do that. we need to teach it in the schools. and the platform companies should pay for the programs in the schools. >> do you think that part of the problem is that so much media narrow casting. people choose -- >> yes. >> the place they want to hear from, and in a sense, they want to go to church? they don't want to be educated. they want to hear the catechism and reaffirm their beliefs? >> yes. >> rather than exposing themselves to contrary views? >> yes. and in our era in journalism, it was pushed journalism. now people can pull what they want. that's one reason conspiracy theories and disinformation have so much power is because people are pulling them in to confirm

what they already believe. that's also a design problem. >> all right. this is a terrific book even if you haven't solved the every problem. >> i haven't. >> rick, pleasure to have you on. >> thank you, fareed. >> we'll be back. [airport pa]"all flights have been delayed." t-mobile makes the holidays easier... ...like this. because right now when you buy one of the latest samsung phones you get one free. on that. so you can post this... ...score this... ...be there like this...

...and share all of this... ...with that. so do this, on that, with us. now, buy a samsung galaxy s10 or note 10 and get one free. 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.

some things are too important to do yourself. ♪ get customized security with 24/7 monitoring from xfinity home. awarded the best professionally installed system by cnet. simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today.

a new brookings report this week uses ai to analyze how ai will disrupt the job market. really. it brings me to my question. occupations in what income percentile are the most vulnerable to artificial intelligence? the 10th percentile. 30 th, 70th, or 90th percentile? stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. my book of the week is a podcast. as you watch the 2020 race, you will get amazing perspective by listening to american elections wicked gain. the host, lindsey grarm, no, not that lindsey graham, tells the story of every american election starting in 1789. it's very well done. it is now my favorite podcast to listen to when i workout. >> the answer to the gps challenge is d, the report points out that while automation threatens jobs like manufacturing, artificial intelligence threatens white collar jobs j especially at the

upper end of income. these fields utilize the same pattern recognition and forecasting that machine learning does most successfully. the authors emphasize that just because the job function could be computerized doesn't mean it will. but think back to after the 2016 election when so much ink was spilled on economic anxiety of the white working class, minerers across the country. if it taught us anything, it is that shifts in one job sector can be felt by the entire country. thanks to all i don't have you for being part of my program this week. i'll see you next week. ecital. new depend® fit-flex underwear offers your best comfort and protection guaranteed. because, perfect or not, life's better when you're in it. be there with depend®.

too shabby! too much! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com. (children playing) it's just right! (dog barking) ♪ (music building) 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.

hello. thank you for joining me. i'm martin savidge in for fr fredricka whitfield. breaking news, the breaking news now is in new york city where we're talking about the former new york city businessman michael bloomberg making it official, announcing that he is running for president. he is a late entry into a crowded field of democratic candidates that now number, if you're keeping count, 18. in his campaign ad he he lights his political background and vows he is the candidate that could beat donald trump and rebuild america. take a listen. >> after