this is a major gut punch for uber. if this ban winds up sticking, some analysts are saying this could be a seismic blow to uber's european operations. right now, we're not seeing a huge movement in the stock. >> a huge account. good to see you, thank you so much. i really appreciate it. and thank you so much for joining me today. "inside politics" with john king starts right now. thank you, kate. and welcome to "inside politics" i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. big turmoil at the pent impagon navy secretary is forced out of. plus, your turn mr. president, what about the e-mails, there's a deep white house paper trail about an issue central to the impeachment debate, why did the president install aid to ukraine. michael bloomberg is running for president his way, skipping the

early contest, spending $40 million on tv ads just this week, and taking your questions. >> taylor asks, what made you decide to run for president. well, taylor, i decided to run because i think it's time for a change at the top in the white house, donald trump's not been a good president. who's your hero? that's easy, both my daughters. keith wants to know, what's my favorite pizza. thin crust, very well done, even burnt with pepperoni on it. isn't even close. >> back to 2020 politics, a bit later, but we begin the hour with a dramatic dust up over chain of command, accountability and the navy secretary richard spencer out of a job after he tried to enforce military justice and reportedly tried to broker a secret white house deal to subvert it. the secret deal would have let eddie gallagher keep his trident

pin. that is the defense department's story. mark esper telling reporters just last hour, he fired spencer after the navy chief broke chain of command by going around his back to ensure gallagher could keep the trident pin. the president says he cut loose after the handling over the trial for war crimes, charged with murdering an isis prisoner in u.s. custody, and for cost over runs on important navy contracts. spencer's version frames the decision as his own, driven by what he calls good conscience, refusing to obey an order he thought was wrong. barbara, competing stories, what really happened here? >> you know, that's a really good question to which nobody is offering a clear answer because you do have these three competing versionins of events. perhaps it's instructive to know in the resignation letter acknowledging he was fired, he

never mentioned this back channel communication he was working on with the white house. he talks about not being able to follow the president's orders, but he had gone around his own boss, mark esper, the defense secretary to get a deal for eddie gallagher. so, you know, that is one touch point on all of this. es per meeting with pentagon reporters a short time ago, and esper says a couple of interesting things. let me read you some quotes. he says i spoke to the president on sunday, he gave me an order that eddie gallagher will retain his trident. that means there will be no review. gallagher will keep his status as a navy seal and retire at the end of the month as planned. esper went on to say he had spoken to spencer and spencer told him the following. he told me that he would likely probably, i don't want to put exact words in his mouth but certainly indicated he was probably going to resign if he had to do this, this was as of thursday or so.

still not clear, john, why the navy secretary was standing on this point of resignation and still believing he could work a back channel deal with the white house that would have essentially meant what was supposed to be an impartial review of gallagher's status as a seal would have had a precooked outcome that still would have kept -- allowed him to keep that status. so look, what's the bottom line. eddie gallagher wins, gets to love the navy as a seal. the president wins, he got exactly what he wanted, spencer paid the price and the real price, confusion in the ranks about good order and discipline and chain of command. john. >> not sure anybody wins there with confusion in the ranks. barbara starr live at the pentagon, appreciate you trying to sort that out. with me in studio to share their reporting, manu raju, john kirby, and jackie with the

"daily beast." >> this is not the first case, the president has done this repeatedly. what does it do? what does it do? it's done in the case of ed gee gallagher but what does this do inside the pentagon when there's another case coming up the chain of command that might catch the attention of fox news. >> you have major goldstein who was pardoned by the president, and the army is looking at whether he can keep the ranger tab and the silver star in the engagement that brought him up on court martial charges and as barbara indicated, confusion inside the seal community. there are three other navy seals going through the same review process as gallagher was for the same offense, posing with war dead. t those guys haven't gone public and the president hasn't weighed in publicly. it's a valid question. there's a lot of confusion. >> sometimes the president in prime time gives ukraine advice

from scene hannity, and military advice from pete on fox news. like this. >> he's the commander in chief, he won the election, you didn't. you served at his pleasure and he has set a progreerogative, i giving him the benefit of the doubt, if you're a navy secretary or army secretary who doesn't understand that, then you can see the door. >> that's how they teach it at war. >> you can't really take away how much pete hexit has been involved in this process since very early this year. the "daily beast" wrote about how hegstead had the presidency or had been pushing gallagher's case along with others, and how he was treated unfairly. it was the same narrative we have heard from the president, causing the president to tweet about gallagher in march. so this has been a sustained pressure campaign on part of hegstead and some of his allies to make sure that gallagher was

not punished as the military wanted him to be. >> how many times too john have we seen the president tweet something and lead to chaos within the ranks, something that seemed to be moving in a certain direction and the president comes in and up ends things by simply issuing a tweet, and all of a sudden behind the scenes, it creates scrambling in the highest levels of the u.s. government and this time leading the ouster of the navy secretary, we have seen that not just for personnel, but on policy, too, dealing with syria and the like, this is what the president does, he'll spout off and that creates a whole set of issues in his own government. >> we'll come back to several examples later in the program. to that point in the case of the pentagon. there have been military justice cases he has intervened in or expressed his views on, and the transgender ban which the president did in a tweet, and secretary mattis at the time said i'm not going to take that as an order, i'm going take as advice. >> i think this is goes to the point we're trying to understand the question of why in the system where the chain of

command is so important would the secretary of a branch of the military bypass the head of the pentagon and try to work out a side deal with the white house if that is in fact what happened, and the answer is because it works sometimes. like, if you are desperate to stop something from happening that you think would send a terrible message throughout your ranks, send a confusing message to governments abroad, perhaps create a resistance or almost like an intrinsic violence among the peoples of a country where you are sent to engage in military maneuvers, if you were trying to stop that from happening, and you didn't think your pentagon chief was going to be able to do it, it's entirely believable that even though everything in your training and customs of military service tell you not to do it, that you would try to do a work around and be the last voice in the president's head and that may be what happened. >> and you see more of the extraordinary part of this. when people get fired or forced

out, they go quietly, put their head down and they go. secretary spencer on the way out says i no longer share the same understanding with the commander in chief who appointed me in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline. that's a shot at the commander in chief on the way out the door. >> no question. it almost reads to me like a letter that was written days before he got fired, you know, the date was scrawled on top, and he acknowledges the termination. clearly that's a shot at trump, akin to the way mattis described his decision ostto resign as we. hegstead isn't completely wrong. you have to be aligned with the president's visions if you're going to be on the cabinet. what is worrisome here is on friday, spencer was likely saying i support this process but according to esper he was looking to undermine the process with a fix at the end. >> so that point, and help us understand, those who haven't served why this matters in the

military process. you have spencer saying, you know, we're going to support the process but understanding where he works, and understanding what's happening, maybe trying to do an end around at the same time, what does that do throughout the system? >> it erodes trust and confidence in what should be a very straightforward impartial system of determining what an individual's qualifications are to serve in the military. so now you're going to have other seals wondering if they're decisions about their tridents are going to be determined fairly and in other warfare communities, the other thing it done, john, is connotes to our allies and partners that we don't have our stuff in one socket, if you were, and we can't be held properly accountable to hold our troops accountable to laws of war and values and basic modes of conduct when we're operating in their countries. >> as he prepares to retire, eddie gallagher saying this, president trump you have my deepest gratitude and thanks, you have stepped in numerous times and showed true emotional

fiber but correcting the wrong done to you. god bless you and your family. gallagher making the case that this process in his view was not fair to him, but to john's point about the other cases in the system, if you have a grievance and you think the normal process is not working well, you try to get media attention, get on the president's radar. >> a certain type of media attention. some presidents have kitchen cabinets and this guy is a cable cabinet, and that's worrisome for the way the military's institutions are supposed to operate. now we have to get pete of fox news to take up a case to get the president's attention. >> it's not the first time it's happened, people lobby to get on fox news to get the president's attention. >> the president's advisers have gone on fox news to push an agenda. >> and gallagher had lawyers connected to the trump white house. there's a couple of different channels, things could have played out here. reporting about a flurry of e-mails that could impact the impeachment investigation. if you have medicare, listen up.

the medicare enrollment deadline is only days away. having the wrong plan may cost you thousands of dollars out of pocket. that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. with their new fitscore, they compare thousands of plans from national insurance companies to find the right medicare plan that fits you. in minutes, you can find out if your current plan is the right fit. does your plan have $0 copays, $0 deductibles, and $0 premiums? if not, maybe it's not the right fit. does it include dental and vision coverage? if not, maybe there's a better fit for you.

call healthmarkets now or visit healthmarkets.com for your free fitscore. compare thousands of medicare plans with all of these benefits and more. they work to help you and they do it all for free. only healthmarkets has the free fitscore. call before the deadline. call the number on your screen now.

new questions today about a government paper trail on a central impeachment question. was it routine, or was it a race to justify an abuse of power. "the washington post" reporting that a white house council review uncovered e-mails, a lot of e-mails between administration officials that show a rushed debate over the legality of that freeze on military aid to ukraine. that freeze one-half of what the democrats in congress call an extortion scheme by the president to pressure ukraine into investigating his political rival, joe biden. the e-mails show an after the

fact clash between office of management and budget officials and the national security council. omb arguing the freeze is legal, nfc said it broke the law. the documents include e-mails to and from the acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney and his deputy office of management and budget chief ross fot. alex thomas of politico joins the conversation. the e-mails which the counsel's office dug up, once the impeachment area was launched, let's find out what happened here, for now, the white house says not sharing. >> skpand that's been part of t issue with the impeachment investigation to begin with, the documents that the democrats have subpoenaed, have been demanding have not been turned over to capitol hill, and those documents that would be part of the review ordinarily presumably would if they were to comply with the subpoena. that's why there are still some questions about exactly what happened with the freezing of the aid. we do know from all the witness testimony that there was a conference call that happened in

mid july in which omb officials told senior officials in the government that they were putting a hold on the aid and it came as a direction from the president to mick mulvaney, but there was no clear explanation as to why, other than to learn about how it could align with administration priorities and after the fact, clearly there has been a lot of discussions that continued from mid july on about why that was withheld and a lot of belief that the president had tied this directly to the demand that ukraine move forward with the investigations but you can see a scrambling of sorts and that's been part of the investigation too, how they apparently tried to cover their tracks or at least explain what happened here, and there are questions about what the explanation actually is. >> and there was witness testimony last week about how unusual it was that the omb political folks were getting involved to this level. and omb is usually involved in some of these funding issues in different ways, but the fact there was so much involvement as you said on the political level, i think really took back some of

these career public servants. >> to that point, ross and mick mulvaney's chaief of staff, all refusing to testify. they know the back and forth, they know what happened. >> there's an interesting timing question for the democrats. as you noted, they aren't turning over all the documents. do democrats wait, try and get every document they can. if they do this impeachment inquiry could extend into the democratic primaries, you have five senators running, the longer they wait, you could end up with several senators off the campaign trail in the final stretch of the presidential primary. >> and when these things happen in the white house, "the washington post" was first to report this story, cnn matching most of the reporting and looking into it, senior administration official says seems like amateur hour in the white house counsel's office. >> i wonder who said that. we know these lines of demarcation. we know that the white house

council's office and the chief of staff, are at odds with each other, and the former head of the nsc wanted to blow the entire shop up because he was outraged at what was happening. you can begin to get a glimpse, and knowing what we know about what might have been, john bolton is like you can't do this, congress has appropriated money and you have to spend it. and then what follows, which will eventually come out, but probably not in time. >> what follows is, and again, we talked about this in the last block, an administration deciding, the president deciding he can make his own rules when it comes to military justice, maybe the documents would prove it otherwise, i can hold up the money, even though i signed a congressionally passed law, which says i must give ukraine the money. this is part of the mick mulvaney briefing, where he said, sure, there's a quid pro quo, get over it, this issue did come up there too. >> there's a report, we worried if we didn't pay out the money,

it would be illegal. okay, it would be unlawful. that is one of those things that has a little shred of truth in it that makes it looks worse than it is. we knew the money had to go out the door by the end of september or we had to have a really good reason not to do it. that was the legality of the issue. >> all true, except why did you stop it. he left that part out. he says we had to spend it by september 30th, end of the fiscal year, it would have been gone if you didn't stop it. >> he acknowledged of course that same press conference very famously that he said that the reason why there was a delay was that, seek that investigation into the 2016 conspiracy theory that is ukraine that meddled in the presidential election to help hillary clinton, he walked that back as well. so and that of course is also key in this investigation. democrats say there is a direct link. mick mulvaney admitted to that in the white house briefing room. >> you know who could shed all the light in the world on this,

john bolton, he spent all weekend tweeting everybody on twitter, something big is coming, he's not going to do it unless compelled to. we'll see the don mcgahn ruling may be forthcoming, there's a lot of what ifs, at this point, just like alex said, democrats are decided they're not going to wait. >> as of now, proceed ahead, and maybe some democrats hope there's a possibility by the time you get to the senate. we will see. as we go to break, outgoing energy secretary rick perry praises the president. let's just put it he didn't always view it this way. >> i said mr. president, i know there are people who say you said you were the chosen one, and i said you were. >> my fellow republicans, beware of false prophets. do not let itching ears be tickled by messengers who appeal to anger, division, resentment.

♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home. $$9.95? no way.? $9.95? that's impossible. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company, to tell you it is possible. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get life insurance with options starting at just $9.95 a month. okay, jonathan, i'm listening. tell me more. just $9.95 a month for colonial penn's number one most popular whole life insurance plan. there are no health questions to answer and there are no medical exams to take. your acceptance is guaranteed. guaranteed acceptance? i like guarantees. keep going. and with this plan, your rate is locked in for your lifetime, so it will never go up. sounds good to me,

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

the top republican on the house intelligence committee now threatening to sue news organizations including cnn after being accused of meeting last year with a former ukrainian prosecutor to discuss getting dirt on joe biden. that accusation comes from rudy giuliani associate lev parnas. par nas lawyer telling cnn that he's willing to tell congress what he knows about this meeting and that he has documentary

evidence. now parnas is under indictment and there are questions about his credibility. democrats who are not fans of nunes are choosing their words carefully when asked if there's a big ethics issue here. >> i don't want to comment on what the ethics committee should do. this is the ranking member of my committee. >> that congressionally paid taxpayer trip was used to investigate the bidens, that might be an issue. >> unlike the president's situation, there's too much we don't know. there's too much to make definitive conclusions on that. >> congressman nunes, you know especially is a loyal trump defender, with credibility issues of his own. he told breitbart this allegation is false, but when asked a direct yes-or-no question on fox, he demonstrably dodged. >> were you in vienna with shokin. >> i really want to answer all of these questions, and i

promise you i absolutely will come back on the show and answer these questions, but because there is criminal activity here, we're working with the appropriate law enforcement agency. but i think you can understand that i can't compete by trying to debate this out with the public media when 90% of the media are totally corrupt. >> forgive me, but horse shit. this is easy. this is easy. he was on a plane with staff that went somewhere during this time frame. there are either passports stamped or if they did it on a classified basis, there's a crew on the plane. there's the crew of his staff. he could go into a meeting with a group of 8, including the speaker nancy pelosi saying this didn't happen and force a democratic speaker to issue a statement. he demonstrated this is demonstrably false, if it's demonstrab demonstrably false, demonstrate it. >> very clearly he could. it's been interesting to see the shift of nunes over the years.

during the banner year when he was the speaker, when banner was the speaker, he was a close ally to john boehner, critical of the tea party as they pushed for a government shut down. in the beginning of the trump era, he worked on a bipartisan basis with adam schiff in the initial part of the russia investigation in his committee but after he went and briefed the president in the aftermath of learning the allegations within that own probe, the democrats were furious, they called for him to step aside, an ethics investigation was launched into this which was later dismissed. he was forced to step aside, and he got angry at the way he was treated by both the media, democrats, he became much of a loaner loner in congress, pushing his own investigations into the start of the russia investigation, which you heard last week in this hearing was him over and over again calling for investigations to the other things and not any concern whatsoever into the central aspects of what has been uncovered in this impeachment inquiry. >> and again, sorry congressman,

there are ways to demonstrate if you were somewhere or weren't somewhere, if you met with someone or didn't meet with someone, that's easy. now, in congressman nunes's defense as well, lev parnas has serious credibility issues, under federal indictment for conspiracy to violate the ban on foreign donations, federal elections, making false statements, he would certainly like to make friends with somebody who might help him with a federal case against him so you have to question him as well. >> it's been really interesting not just his embrace of trump but in the way he's helped some of these media reports, he has also embraced trump tactics, really, calling them corrupt, threatening lawsuits, he's done lawsuits against twitter or threatened them against the fresno beat. in the last year he has really embraced this sort of approach to the media, if you don't like a story or you're frustrated by a story, you attack and try to undermine their credibility. >> and we did see if you're paying attention at the impeachment hearing, nunes, important and valuable to the president, someone who

constantly defends. >> glad you're here. >> i'm really not glad you're here, but welcome to the 5th day of this circus. you are here today to be smeared. we need to subpoena hunter biden and the whistleblower for closed door depositions as well as relevant documents from the dnc, they are the actions of partisan extremists who hi jacked the intelligence committee, transformed into the impeachment committee. >> effective in your own way if you're playing to the trump base and the fox news base and the breitbart base, not on many cashes did denver nunes challenge the facts. >> left that to other people on the committee, elise stefanik, jim jordan, they really pushed that. he instead decided to tell an alternate story. the entire time through his, i think, it was seven opening statements, and largely, it was

the same story over and over again. as manu pointed out in ignoring what was going on actually in front of him. >> and in the case, and if congressman, you know the number, if we're wrong about this, but in the case of breitbart, it's demonstrably false, when maria asked the question, he said i would love to answer, but he wouldn't. we have not gotten a no, this didn't happen. correct? >> that's absolutely correct and there are two important things to keep in mind, the democrat's impeachment case is being built around president trump and what president trump did, and so however tempting it may be figure out what other people did, their focus, secondarily, because denver nunes is sort of this ultimate congressional example of coordination with the president on messages and facts and what to do if some of the details around this were confirmed to show this, you

know, to be looking at ukraine, to be looking for dirt on biden, it would demonstrably change the way we understand this case, and so i think there's both a concern not to get it wrong because of respect for the institution of congress, but also a concern not to get it wrong because if you get it right, and it is what some people think it is, it could be really bad for the president. >> we will continue to try to figure out what the truth is. that's what we're interested in. still ahead a federal court ruling coming shortly that could compel white house insiders to become congressional witnesses. tom steyer: wall street banks took advantage

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

use right now. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message.

topping our political radar today, a federal court ruling due any moment that could be pivotal for the impeachment proceedings. a d.c. district court judge will decide if don mcghan must testify before congress about possible obstruction. the house judiciary committee subpoenaed mcgahn in april before. a ruling today ordering mcgahn to testify could encourage other resistant witnesses from the administration to decide they

should testify. and republican senator john kennedy of louisiana raising lot of eye blows with his answer to this question from chris wallace. >> senator kennedy, who do you believe was responsible for hacking the dnc and clinton campai campaign computers, their e-mails, was it russia or ukraine? >> i don't know. nor do you. nor do any of us. >> actually, we do know, senator, kennedy, right there despite overwhelming evidence trying to cast doubt on testimony from all of the experts at last week's impeachment hearings from the intelligence findings made earlier this year. listen. >> is it the consensus of the entire intelligent committee that the russians interfered in the u.s. elections in 2015. >> some of you on this committee appear to believe that russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country. this is fictional narrative. >> up next, the president gets

another 2020 challenger, michael bloomberg is officially in, and he's got a lot of money to spend. .95 at my age? $9.95? no way. $9.95? that's impossible. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company, to tell you it is possible. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get life insurance with options starting at just $9.95 a month. okay, jonathan, i'm listening. tell me more. just $9.95 a month for colonial penn's number one most popular whole life insurance plan. there are no health questions to answer and there are no medical exams to take. your acceptance is guaranteed. guaranteed acceptance? i like guarantees. keep going. and with this plan, your rate is locked in for your lifetime, so it will never go up. sounds good to me, but at my age, i need the security of knowing it won't get cancelled as i get older. this is lifetime coverage

as long as you pay your premiums. it can never be cancelled, call now for free information. you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. use this valuable guide to record your important information and give helpful direction about your final wishes to your loved ones. and it's yours free. it's our way of saying thank you just for calling. so call now.

. most of you are going to be seeing a lot of mike bloomberg this week even if you can't make his first official presidential campaign event down in norfolk,

virginia. embarking on a dangerous and risky strategy. he won't contest the first four states on the nominating calendar but spending a record shattering $35 million of tv ads in the next few weeks, to introduce himself to voters in the states where he does plan to complete. >> he could have just been the middle class kid that made good. mike bloomberg became the guy who did good and now he's taking on him. >> the 77-year-old billionaire is banking on a joe biden collapse, and clearly believes none of the other moderates in the race can win. pete buttigieg is on the list. the south bend, indiana, mayor, unveiling a plan to help with long-term care and retirement savings, including new benefits that would supplement social security. the exact cost not laid out but buttigieg said the funding would come from stricter tax collection from the wealthy. let's do the buttigieg plan in the first, you know bloomberg is

in the race. if you're buttigieg you're confident about iowa, but you have this guy coming in spending a ton of money, and so buttigieg, what's he trying to do here? he's had trouble getting african-american votes, older voters the most reliable voters in any primary. >> there's a lot of millennials who are taking care of their older parents at this point, so it targets a wide swath of the electorate, and people that all the candidates want to get on board. i don't know that this is going to help buttigieg solve some of the other problems with his candidacy, but this is certainly something that really speaks to people's every day lives that they deal with every single day. >> and as we wait to see whether bloomberg can pull this off, and it is just outside of the box audacious, skip the first four contests, spend your own money. if you're someone else in the race, you have to keep your blinders on and do your own thing. >> he's on pace to spend almost $300 million before iowa if he keeps this up. he could end up spending a billion dollars just in the primary alone to try to win. we have never seen this influx of cash ever. and there's a real question like

if you're joe biden, does bloomberg also start going on the attack. we just don't know, there's so many things that are unprecedented about his canvassing, and it's unlike bernie and warren are sort of embracing it and embracing him as a foil, see this is evidence of how rigged the system is against you. it's unclear what it means for all of these other candidates. >> and how will voters take to the fact that this is someone who may not make it on any of the debate stages but will be spending this level of money to introduce himself to voters. clearly ha he's banking on too is a split decision for states, not a clear front runner and him to come in as a savior of sorts in the super tuesday states. that is an incredibly risky strategy because you have seen in years past, one candidate catches fire, they get more momentum, and a lot of other candidates fall by the wayside, clearly he's hoping the picture will be muddy enough that you can jump in. >> he's advertising everywhere

after the first four, putting big money into big states. a lot of delegates in big states. a big part is he's banking on a joe there are folks who say they don't think that you are in the shame. one is mayor bloomberg. >> come on. the idea that i'm not in better shape than mayor bloomberg physically and otherwise? trump is so bad as a president, been so corrupt as president, that everybody in america especially if they have a billion dollars think that they can beat trump. >> i'll just say this. $37 million sounds like a lot of money. but he spent a billion dollars or committed a billion already to fighting global warming. a lot of this is i think that he wants to win. he wouldn't be running if he did

not want to win. he is trying to beat donald trump, he is trying to get any democrat beat donald trump and long after he is done spending all this, he is committed to spending hundreds of thousands no matter who the nominee is. >> and we live in an age where we never thought could happen could happen. so up next, the president's policy impulses leave his own administration often struggling to keep up. for everything that i give, i get so much in return. join our family of home instead caregivers and help make a world of difference. home instead senior care. apply today. gimme one minute... and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80% - medicare will pay for.

what's left is on you. that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement for meeting their high standards of quality and service. so call unitedhealthcare insurance company today and ask for your free decision guide. with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and when you travel, your plan will go with you - anywhere in the country. whew! call unitedhealthcare today and ask for your free decision guide. audrey's on it. eating right and staying active? on it! audrey thinks she's doing all she can to manage her type 2 diabetes and heart disease, but is her treatment doing enough to lower her heart risk? [sfx: crash of football players colliding off-camera.] maybe not. jardiance can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease.

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

billions of problems. dry mouth? parched mouth? cotton mouth? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath oral rinse and lozenges. help relieve dry mouth using natural enzymes to soothe and moisturize. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart.

♪'cause no matter how far away for you roam.♪ys.♪ ♪when you pine for the sunshine of a friendly gaze.♪ ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ the united states postal service goes the extra mile to bring your holidays home.

navy secretary is out of a job today because of something we have seen from the earliest days of the trump administration, policies by tweet that sometimes getting them into trouble with the boss. this is a tweet by the president on sunday essentially saying that he was unhappy with the way the military was handling the eddie gallagher case. we've seen this throughout the trump administration. very early on back in july of 2017, the president without give willing the pentagon a heads up tweeting the united states government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. blind siding the pentagon by tweet. we saw in the middle of 2018 and into march, the president threatening to close the southern border even though he was told that was impossible. we will build a wall or close the border. immigration is often an area where the president tries to do

policy by tweet. and hire ere is another one. i.c.e. will begin the process of removing a million illegal aliens. this in june of 2019. those who serve the administration, after they lee, they are willing to talk about their frustration. >> when the president says here's what i want to do and here is how i want to do it and i'd have to say i understand, but you can't do it that way. it violates the law, it violates treaty, you know. he got really frustrated. >> and concern stiwe were still someone to take my place. i said whatever you do, don't hire a yems man, someone that won't at the time you tof of lifelif life -- tell you, because if you

do, you will be impeached. >> the president denies that last part .bbut the latest cases the president essentially using to wit her to tell the government this is what i want to do, either stop pushing back or just do it. >> we talk a lot about how we test institutions. the president, the court, congress. but sort of the ultimate test is the test of the power of the executive. and trump because he is the executive believes in the strong power of the executive and his view of this has been if you don't think i can, prove that i can't. and that requires ultimately going to court. and in case after case, there are some things that you can't go to court for, other things that you can. none of it happens quickly. a presidential term is four years. and so if congress is not the checks and balance and courts are not, and the public so far

has continued to -- the next test is the next election and that ultimately is the test on his executive power. >> and among these examples, there was a fabulous book about immigration and they talk about privately the president often talked about fortifying a border wall with a water filled trench stocked with snakes orally gaal g alligators. he wanted it electrified. and his staff told him that was illegal but later suggested that they shoot migrants in the legs to show them down. that will is not be allowed either. kirstjen nielsen explained this way. >> what led me to resign is there were a lot of things that there were those in the administration who thought that we should do and just as i spoke truth to power from the very

beginning, it became clear that saying no and refusing to do it myself was not going to be enough. >> it has become very clear that trump has not changed. he is still running the federal government like he ran the trump organize a organization and he is trying to make the government change around him. >> and you can't overstate the level of frustration is the way he tweets, his style leads to members of his own party, they are so hamstrung about what he says. he says something, surprises them, they are forced to react, they don't want to upset him if they were to break from him on a tweet, then he will tweet against them and it creates this disfunction al environment but it doesn't seem like -- he's heard the warnings but he doesn't seem to care. >> and when they leave, tillerson and nielsen both essentially said that we were

told to do things illegal and he wouldn't listen. all right. hope to see you back here tomorrow. have a great afternoon. under way right now, the anatomy of a possible coverup. reported email show how the white house scrambled to justify the hold on aid to ukraine. was it legal? and the navy second says he was ousted because he can't obey the president's unlawful orders. but that is not what his superiors are saying. so who is telling the truth? plus republican lawmakers in charge of keeping america safe are now embracing the president's debunked conspiracy theories that benefit russia. and why rick perry believes donald trump was sent by god as the, quote, chosen one.