two-faced, the president had to face taunts like, well someone likes both his faces. jeanne moos cnn. ♪ laughing all the way. >> new york. >> he cancelled the press conference after this. okay thanks for joining us. anderson starts now. good evening, welcome to the next and pivot alin a drama about to consume the trump presidency and if the founding father had to right tap no the fundamental notions of what the country is how and president should behave. day one of impeachment hearings in the house judiciary committee. four distinguished law professor testifying to what the framers of the constitution considered impeachable offenses and whether this president meets the test. in short did the president's demands on ukraine constitute bribery or other crimes and misdemeanors were there abuses of office? this is what the law professors were asked to consider. but it's hardly all that's on

the table. the hearing was also a venue for republicans to make the case there is no case. it was as you might imagine also an opportunity for lawmakers in both parties to play to the cameras and to the voters back home. as this was all unfolds one central figure rudy giuliani is apparently continuing his mission for the president which has lended his boss in the kind of trouble only three presidents faced before. we will talk about that sahr are murrays steps to the scene. >> if what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. >> three legal scholars invited by democrats told lawmakers today the president's conduct isworthy of impeachment. >> did president trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power based on that evidence and knows findings? based that evidence and those findings the president did commit an impeachable abuse of office. >> professor carlin same question. >> same answer. >> and professor gerhardt did

president trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power. >> we three are unanimous, yes. >> the hearing before the mouse judiciary committee on the legal foundation for impeachment kicks off the next phase of the investigation into president trump which largely focuses on trump's push for ukraine to investigate his political rival joe biden and the 2016 election. in exchange for a white house meeting and military aid. while republicans took shots at the democrats' witnesses. >> unless you're good on tv and watching the hearings the last couple weeks you couldn't have possibly actually digested the adam schiff report from yesterday or the republican response in any real way. >> mr. collins i would like to say to you, sir that i he had ray read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who i'm insulted by the suggestion that is as a law professor i don't care about those facts. >> democrats sounded the alarm ahead of the 2020 election. >> if we do not act to hold him in check now president trump will almost certainly try again

to solicit interference in the election for his personal political gain. >> the scholars expressed the importance of holding presidents to account. >> if we cannot impeach a president mo abuses his office for personal advantage, we know longer live in democracy. we live in a monarchy or under a dictatorship that's why the framers created the possibility of impeachment. >> i'll give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king which is the constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. while the president can name his son barron he can't make him a barron. >> later she apologized for the kmebt about the president's son. >> the democratic witnesses lid out legal reasoning why they believe he abused power and obstructed congress and committed broibry. the lone witness for the republicans argued that democrats were rushing the process. >> i'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a

pausety of evidence and abundance of anger. >> claiming insufficient evidence to impeach trump for bribery or any other misdeed. >> this is an improfessional jazz. close enough is not good enough. if you accuse a president of bribery you need to make it stick. >> he advocated for letting courts sort out challenges over whether witnesses must test or the administration must hand over dualities and encouraged lawmakers to gather evidence before moving forward. >> in isn't of an impulse buy item. you are trying to remove a dually elected president of the united states. and that takes time and work. >> but democrats are pressing on, preparing for a possible impeachment vote on the house floor by the end of the year. >> the hearing is adjourned. >> sara murray, cnn, "wealthtrack." well there wwashington. >> we're going to try over the next hour to get to it. the legal team he wille hone ig. robert ray. impeach president specialist

david ross. dana, who do you think bchted most from today's hearings. >> it's hard to say if anybody really did if you are are talking about the ultimate goal of mouse democrats in having the hearing in the first place, which is the broader goal in general moving public opinion towards what they want to do which is impeaching the president. and listening to the law professors for us was, you know, was really interesting but for the public i'm not so sure that any of these four swayed them in in re point of view. it could possibly that jonathan turly the one republican witness making arguments not on the substance that what the president did was right but on the reasons that the process. >> when you say republican witness -- he said knows not a supporter of president trump. >> precisely but he was brought by the republican side by the

minority because they understood that he was going to testify differently than the other three, which he did. so he gave republicans maybe not so much in the house but later in the senate potential road map for things that they can say about the why they're not ready to say yes on impeaching the president of the united states about moving too fast, other issues not on substance but more about process, and his read of how impeachment should go constitutionally. >> one of the arguments professor turly has mad and we had him on the show for years is that there is not enough evidence. democrats then say there is not enough evidence -- if there is not enough evidence is because the white house has successfully not given over documents and witnesses. >> well that's true. and listen, i thought that the republicans made some gains on arguments about fairness. and they're not being treated fairly. i thought it was a mistake, a symbolic mistake to have three lawyers out there for the democrats and only one lawyer

for the republicans. it seemed that sent an automatic signal this is rigged in favor of the democrats. having said that i thought the lawyers they brought did an excellent job. they were well-spoken especially -- well all three were actually very good. but i think they helped to bring light on the central questions of the day. and, you know, that essentially the republicans have been arguing this is of a illegitimate exercise. i thought they showed and were compelling on the point that this case rests about solid legal foundations. i thought they put that away. i also thought that they brought in the conversation that there are parallels between how the president handled this and how he handled the mueller report. and in both cases, you know, he defied, denied, made up fictions, came up with narratives but basically stone walled and refused to participate in the process. and i think they laid out that case very, very well and the

republican members did. i thought that worked out well. the last thing i would say briefly is i think they introduced the notion that if you don't stop in now, if checks and balances don't work this president will assume he can get away with it in the 20 election and looking to for foreign countries to help him. >> carl that's one of the points the chairman made, which is that this phone call to the ukraine president was made the day after mueller testified, and that was an example of if the president feels he is vindicated on one thing he then will do it again. >> well that's true. and i think what the democrats are trying to do is show an evidentiary case, and show how the facts stack up against the president of the united states, what the republicans are trying to do is say the process is unfair. one of the things is we have seen no attempt by the republicans from the beginning going back to mueller to try and learn the facts about this

presidency. at every turn they have tried to obstruct fact and truth. and that's what we're watching again today. if you watch the lawyers, if you watch particularly the first lawyer that the democrats brought up, it was as if james madison had conjured donald trump when the impeachment claus was being argued and madison was laying down who should be impeached and why it was a box right around donald trump. and his conduct. >> ross gasher with, you're the impeachment expert what did you make of the testimony. >> i thought it was interesting in the way they set the table. brought everybody back to the notion that it isn't about voicing disapproval for a president, not about condemning conduct. this is about the potential for removing a president from office. and the standard has to be high. i thought it was interesting there was some agreement among witnesses, all of them, about the fact that you don't need a crime for impeachment, if a about the founders and

framersers of the constitution's kbern foreign flurns and abuse of power backup. but the distinctions were also very interesting. one of the points that i think jonathan turly made which i think is -- is going to be where there is a lot of the action is is the evidence there and is it there yet? and if it's not there then what do you do about it? i think that's -- that's going to be a good point. the democrats released a long report. going through the report you see there are some holes there, in particular i think with respect to the president's state of mind. and then you get to the question about what to do about it. >> elliott do you see the holes. >> i don't think he articulated a specific standard for what the evidence must be other than he didn't think it was enough. and i don't think that's particularly helpful from a constitutional law scholar. one thing that came through today, i think the democrat's strategy is criticalized it's

clear they are focusing on abuse of power. gotten away isn't that rightly from terminology bribery quid pro quo, extortion that was a difficult or losing battle. they made clear it was abuse of power. i don't know how you look at the evidence, the dozen witnesses, the july 25th phone call. and declare it wouldn't be enough to charge criminally. >> robert did you think there was -- >> no, no surprise. look, despite whatever the four stayed i have said from the outset and the testimony of these four witnesses doesn't change my view, although i think it's presumptious anybody know what james madison thought all i can glean is what nepd in the constitution and to the limited degree that there is explanation in the federalist papers that's about all we have to go on plus prior experience. but i remain of the view that it

must be treason, bribery or other high crime and misdemeanor and high mean that is that only certain crimes that -- that also constitute an abuse of power past the high threshold of impeachment. i don't think that this threshold will be met. and however we got here and for you know whatever reason and whoever is to blame for it, we do have to deal with the statement of the evidence as it is now or at least as it will be maybe for the next two things. to think otherwise is ridiculous. this thing is on a training going down the track for an impeachment vote before the house before the end of the year, feared, full stop. whatever the evidence is at that time that's what it is. >> and millgram what do you think of the evidence. >> i think there is a couple of points worth making. my read of the 300 page intelligence committee report is there is substantial amount offest evidence and substantial evidence on the abe of power and question of bribery and particularly the obstruction of congress and justice.

do i think it's legally stuff to move forward? yes. the big are purpose today and the law proveser is going into impeachment it's not just a conversation about the facts and evidence. it's a conversation about how it applies to the law and fall under the law and how should we think about it? and because bribery is written in the constitution but before the federal bribery statute existed, there are real questions around what it means we talk about in a lot but it was worth having the conversation today with the scholars. i think to set this forward to talk about foreign interference, talk about bribery and talk about elections. >> we have to take a quick break we'll have more. and dig deep ner the white house decision to not cooperate with the investigation at all. what chairman nadler called a level of obstruction without precedent and later a lawmaker doing questioning eric swalwell joins us. >> announcer: anderson cooper 360. with advil liqui-gels,

you have fast-acting power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength and speed of advil liqui-gels. what pain? i looitaly!avel. yaaaaass. with the united explorer card, i get rewarded wherever i go. going out for a bite. rewarded! going new places. rewarded! anytime. rewarded! getting more for getting away. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get... rewarded!

we need a solution.ut their phones down. introducing... smartdogs. the first dogs trained to train humans. stopping drivers from: liking. selfie-ing. and whatever this is. available to the public... never. smartdogs are not the answer. but geico has a simple tip. turn on "do not disturb while driving" mode. brought to you by geico. (children playing) (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.

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. ♪

in his testimony law professor jonathan turly criticized congress for what he called a facially incomplete and inadequate record in order to impeach a president. there is of course a reason the record is incomplete, as we said before. the president want to do that way. acting chief of staff mick muffle yes and don mcgahn refused to it testify. john bolt isn't not talking more is rudy giuliani. and then there are the documents the white house has refused to turn over any including briefing feerls for the trump zelensky phone call and staff notes relating to it. they did release a summary of the call. the august 15th presidential decision memo prepared by alexander veinman. and staff summaries and conclusions from ukraine meetings, a white house review of the aid freeze revealing according to the "washington post" empties to craft an after the fact justification for it. also withhold called records before gordon sondland, emails

and messages between sondland and senior white house officials including mulvaney and bolton. the administration refused to turn over materials and memos relating to vice president pence back now with the team. should that be taken into account -- i mean, though -- the fact the white house is not turning over documents? >> i think there are two places that might come up. one is a potential impeachment charge of obstruction. >> obstruction. >> there, what jonathan turlly said is presidents back since washington asserted privileges and immunities. that's what trump is doing. you don't impeach apartment for doing that. the democrats could go to court. they haven't. the second place it might come up is adam schiff threatened non-compliance with subpoenas could be considered adverse inference. which means we don't turn it over we are assume it's bad for you and find against you. knows are the two places it might come up. >> dana you exchanged text

messages with rudy giuliani where is he. >> that he wouldn't -- "the new york times" reported that he is in ukraine. apparently working on a documentary to try to prove the innocence of his client, the president of the united states. he wouldn't confirm that's where he was. one thing he did say is on the question of the -- the intelligence impeachment report that kim out yesterday, suggesting that giuliani made several phone calls to the office of management and budget. i asked about that. and he said that that is -- that he doesn't remember calling omb, and not about military aid, never knew anything about it. and one thing i will add on the house intelligence report, they got their information from verizonen a at&t. bus of what you were just talking about. they didn't information from the white house because they are not playing ball. they did some -- they had some information in the report on the ranking member werdly, devin

nunes. didn't get it from him. these are general numbers and this is the tip of iceberg about what the phone calls were and who they were to. >> david you said during the break if president trump was a different kind of president explain what you were -- >> i was suggesting if early a normal upstanding president seen to be obeying laws a appreciating the traditions of the country, and this -- and then this happened and he made this phone call, i think we wouldn't be impeaching him. i think -- it's lake if somebody is arrested for a crime and they're 45 or 50 years old and never had anything on the record, the judge goes light on them. >> well, so that sounds -- if that is your belief, that's -- that would be an argument against impeaching, that the evidence is. >> no, no, no -- it is i think that when you look at the totality of who he is he is a walking abuse of power. >> that's right. >> it's almost every day he is doing something that offends or

takes advantage of the system exploits things. and i think that -- that this is the first time we've had something that's a blockbuster that's not going to work but it's right to call him on it. >> robert, is that a fair criteria to. >> i don't know of the walking abuse of power standard under the constitution whatever james madison might think about it, you know, seriously. with regard to the phone call, i even watched it play out today. evidence at some point does matter. as much as i hear about trying to turn what was in the face of the call a request for assistance with regard to an investigation as equivalent to a demand that was coercive, that had conditions in order to dig dirt up on a political opponent, they are not the same thing. >> but what it wasn't a quid pro quo. >> and an attempt to try to make them the same thing i would suggest to you respectfully if the object here is to garner

what is necessary in order to impeach and remove a president from office which is bipartisan support, today's effort frankly was dead on arrival. >> elliott, the counterargument is, well if you are extorting somebody you don't have dr. have to say i'm now extorting you, you can have two statements of fact, which is this person wants aid, i want you to do me a favor, and isn't -- i mean, you can make an argument there is of an implied. >> right, very much not the way it works in real life. people do not say i hereby extort you i've done more extortion cases than i can remember. it's always implied and the power dynamic is so important. colonel vein vindman said the 10% of the aid is. and president zelensky reaffirmed that. he said in a diplomatic way i had no choice. we're engaged in the war with russia and we need this. and i think to the point that david was making before, about

this call, this is where the mueller report -- the mueller findings play in. because trump was on notice -- this went just some naive person new to the office and didn't understand how it worked. he got a warning, got away for the most part with mueller. that's how we see this play into the larger picture. he got the mueller report and the next day he makes in call. >> i got to take a quick break. weal have more, elliott, robert and russ. everyone else sticking around. member of the both the judiciary and intelligence committee eric swalwell talks about what comes neck after today's hearing. we'll be right back.

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.

wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute.

you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. today we get a look at

republican's latest arguments against impeaching president trump. doug collin complained about the process and called it a railroad job. the law professor republicans tapped to rebut democratic arguments kept come back to the idea was one of the problems were things were happening too quickly. professor turly, fast is not good. what we heard and what he heard where we go from here. democratic congressman eric swalwell sitting on the jshd and intelligence committees. what do you think was accomplished today or hope accomplished today. >> well the american people saw, anderson, serious scholars lay out the president's abuse of power by using his office your taxpayer dollars to ask a foreign government to help him cheat in an election. and we're not helpless to that. in a kingdom you might be helpless. in a dictatorship you might be helpless. but our framers of the constitution gave us the remedy of impeachment. >> and to the point that professor tur canny made and he

is respected and not a supporter of the president. he said basically because of how grave a charge impeachment is, you know, why not give the inquiry more time why not at least try to get the additional evidence that's been withheld. >> well and professor turly, perfect world, the president is an honest broker and he would not invoked an upcoming election where the clock is running. and would abide by court rulings. he is neither of those. we have overwhelming evidence right now. and it would be nice to have more evidence. but we can't assume the president would follow a supreme court order. he has never said oh if this goes to the courts i'll follow the courts. and most of the matters that professor turly is referring to it's settled precedent in the supreme court. they decided in u.s. v nixon case there are limits to executive privilege. it seems it's a delay tactic by the president. and we have a duty to protect an upcoming election.

>> is is it -- for you is it bribery, obstruction of justice, some other high crime. >> i think they're all on the table, anderson. and to most people watching at home what it is is that if your hometown mayor called the police chief and said i know you need more police officers to keep the streets safe, however, before i'm giving that you money i need you to investigate my political opponent. most would say you don't do that. that's abusing your office. that's what the president did on a larger scale. >> did democrats and chairman nadler miss of an opportunity to say to republican wanting more time in exchange we want all the documents we requested all the witnesses we subpoenaed to come testify. would that have been possible? >> he did make that point. but you reference the professor turly earlier. i do respect the fact in his opening statement he said he thought the call was anything but perfect. and said, that this issue wasworthy of investigation. what's interesting about that is

that is not what the republicans are saying. if our republican colleagues would say the call was not perfect and we will join the democrats to investigate this maybe we could get the white house to move and provide documents and allow the witnesses to come forward. they have not done that. and yet we have been able to receive powerful evidence of abuse of power. >> chairman nadler specifically mentioned five incidents from the mueller report as evidence that the president committed obstruction of justice. will, do you think there will be an article of impeachment related to the obstruction of justice in the russia investigation? >> it shows a pattern of conduct, meaning the president in the past invited foreign governments to involve themselves in our elections and obstructed justice. in this case he asks the day after mueller testified a foreign government to investigate his opponent and obstructing congress. i can't say right now anderson if that's a part of it. but it will certainly a part of explaining the president's intent. >> what is next? is there a working time line for when democrats begin drafting articles of impeachment when they'd be introduced and voted

on. >> all of that and anderson we are working on a prescription drug bill. we have to fund the government before december 20. but we will receive the report from the intelligence committee next week. a presentation will be made to the judiciary committee and then we have to make a decision, how do you hold the president accountable for what he has done. >> congressman swalwell thanks very much. >> thank you anderson. >> when we lock at how the republicans on the judiciary spent time condemn the impeachment process and attempting to undermine the exact's witnesses and later president trump left the nato meeting in a huff after some of the leaders appeared to bee moon his tactics. mike bloomberg's never been afraid of tough fights,

the ones that make a true difference in people's lives. and mike's won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. all against big odds you can beat him. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. i'm mitintroducing the new approbraava jet m6 robot mop. with an adjustable precision jet spray and advanced pad system braava jet breaks up messes and gets deep in corners. braava jet. only from irobot. skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

the politics of the day the republicans on the judiciary committee the expressed apparent disbelief and talking points about the process and at the end sahr donnic acrimony. take a look. >> we are here, no plan, no fact witnesses, simply being a rubber stamp for what we have but, hey, fwoe got law professor here. what a start of a party. >> the facts on the president's side. four key facts will not change, have not changed will never change. we have the transcript there was no quid pro quo in the transcript. >> you gave 1,200 bucks to barack obama?

>> i have no reason to question that. >> and you gave $2,000 to hillary clinton? >> that's correct. >> why so much more hillary than the other two. >> because i've been giving a lot of money to charity recently because of all the poor people in the united states. >> i yield back thanks for bringing down the gavel hard that was nice. >> back now with the legal and political team joining the group scott jenning as former assistant to president george w. bush. and paul bee dahlia how do you think the republicans did today. >> you could see the two strategies, the democrat strategy to elevate. they had the terrific i think constitutional law professors and the more you hear about james madison the better it is for democrats. elevates this into something large and important. and the republicans have the opposite if the democrats want to elevate the republicans want to denigrate. you gave money to barack obama. and your mother dresses you funny. that's what they want to do. i think each executed on strategies. >> scott, is that how you see

it. >> your mother dresses you empeckably by the way. >> recent development for me. >> number one, i thought turly was excellent today. i thought it was smart for the republicans to call a republican law professor who could say, look with, i didn't photo vote for donald trump didn't support him all the time this is why impeachment rushed is wrong. i thought that was smart. whereas the democrats called three people who have been on the band wagon some time. i thought professor carlin was hurtful because i thought she was petty in cases isn't that correcty and vit reelic and the others were more scholarly. number three i don't think the ball moved today. number four based on people in the white house and the congress tonight there are going to be legitimate questions raised about the intelligence committee report that didn't get brought up today but brought up in the next few days we didn't cover that ground today. my thought -- i agree with paul.

both sides executed the strategy but for democrats struck knee as a lost day i'm not sure what they gantd out of the day. >> into truth the process -- what does -- what happens next? you have staffers testifying next week. >> next week staffers from the intelligence committee. i think very much similar to why they wanted mueller to testify about the 2016 investigation. nobody is necessarily going to read. i've read the 30 oh pages most people aren't reading it. it's a conversation about what's happened. if i could just say two things about today that i think are worth touching on. pam carlin is one of the preeminent legal scholars i had an opportunity to work with her and another on a brief and she is extraordinary and she did a good job of explaining constitutional law i would disagree. >> a lot of people pointing -- she brought up the president's son. >> and later apologized. i think the right thing to do not to engage in those kinds of conversations at all. but the second thing i would say

about turly i want us to pause on this it's an argument about speed that makes sense when you hear it because why are we moving so quickly this is so important. but i also personally think on behalf of american people mueller went on a long time there is a an argument to move quickly. in some ways the president is a victim of his success. he was able to push off a lot of the mueller investigation. didn't answer questions in person. he dragged it out for months. and the house democrats watched that. and they saw it drag on without a resolution. and they're now deciding you're going to categorically say no documents no witnesses we're going to keep moving. >> if i could add to what anne was saying on the process. next week ob maybe hear tonight an official notice of another hearing in the judiciary committee next week where the staff council, the ones we saw asking questions in the intelligence committee they will come and testify and present findings. that's a time when the members are going to try to poke holes in what their findings are.

but after that it's moving very, very quickly if any stay on track and if nancy pelosi doesn't change things. which is very well could be that at the end of next week the house judiciary committee could begin to start to vote on articles of impeachment. maybe not until the beginning of the next we can but that happens quickly. after that it's going to the house floor. and there will be votes on each of the articles on house floor by christmas probably by the weekend. so that's the 20th and the 21st. we're talking believe it or not christmas is only three weeks away. it's happening very, very fast unless nancy pelosi who is looking at this and talking to her members as we speak, i believe, is -- unless she changes the time line. >> do you think there is any chance of the house not moving forward with in. >> no, the house is moving forward they're going to impeach and we're seeing new information. there is a cover-up going on. there's been a cover-up going on going back to the first questions about the president,

his campaign, and russia, context with -- contact with russia, that's what the mueller report is partly about. s it that's what the obstruction charges in the mueller report are about. and the two fit together. context is everything, both in finding the truth and also figures in in impeachment. the nixon impeachment was very much about the context of all of his criminal acts. this impeachment is about cover-up and the actions that the president has taken both in public and in private, and what he has done to undermine the free electoral process. but it also goes to all of the lying that we have seen. david is trying to make this point, too, i think that you can't isolate everything. and the reason that we are watching the republicans refuse to have real investigations is because they know there is a cover-up. they don't want the facts to come out. and there has been that kind of obstruction from the very beginning of the investigation

of this president of the united states. >> david? >> i keep thinking, what if mueller had actually resolved whether there had been obstruction of justice instead of leaving it open so they could have the second or third count come straight out of the obstruction materials. that's why i think they are going back to the mueller think. i think it strengthens their hand for this. >> i thought. >> i think swalwell told you they may refer to it. but i think just raw politics if they broaden this it becomes too complicated looks like they are trying to get him by any means they can. i think what happens is this continues add seriatim. >> you mean by that. >> one after the other. >> a lot of latin there. >> i went to law school. >> texas latin. >> only subject i was good at. it's also the catholic background we always fall back and latin. what happens is i think they have to continue an open

impeachment investigation. >> that's right. >> if you believe as the democrats do that the president is a recidivist. >> you think that -- the democrats keep an open impeachment investigation a rolling -- >> even in the senate trial -- even in a senate trial it's very possible we are going to see evidence come in from the press, from trump's own mouth. >> right. >> politically. >> exactly. >> it's like joe louis the great boxer be he said fighters fight. criminals commit crimes. this guy won't quit. >> ongoing trials? >> i think that this would -- you know what, i hope they do it. i hope all next year they show a complete lack of confidence in whoever they nominate for president of the united states by trying to throw this president out up until election day. part of what's going on here is this isn't just about ukraine.

it's about everything they wanted to get him for from the beginning. and they're scratching this itch of a political base. i agree with you they're going to keep it open. because they have to keep scratching that itch a and i just think a lot of people who don't follow in day after day are like why don't we try to beat him in the election. >> prosecutors go after john gaddy trial after trial and didn't public support -- i was a kid at the time didn't support potter people kind of appreciated that john gaddy was getting away with stuff. >> but they don't appreciate trump donald trump. >> he did end up in jail. >> 50%. unpress deputied every% has 30% that want to impeachment. clinton never got above 30. 50% want to remove him. where that moves is when he defies a supreme court order to comply with the subpoenas if or when he does that. >> scott i think the republicans are coming up with new things. >> oh, yeah. >> into the trial phase.

it's not just the democrats. >> i'm watching tomorrow. >> to be continued a lot to sort stlu coming up, president trump just arrived back at the white house from london. did he leave the nature of meetings in london abruptly because of this leader, the world leaders talking about him behind his back? you'll hear what they have to say. (alarm beeping) welcome to our busy world. where we all want more energy. but with less carbon footprint. can we have both? at bp, we're working every day to make energy that's cleaner and better. and we see possibilities everywhere.

to make energy that's cleaner and better. 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. ♪

can a banana peel fuel your flight. bp and fulcrum bioenergy think so. together we'll reduce emissions and landfill waste by turning garbage into jet fuel. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere.

by turning garbage into jet fuel. so that early retirement we planned. it's going ok? great. now i'm spending more time with the kids. i'm introducing them to crab. crab!? they love it. so, you mentioned that that money we set aside. yeah. the kids and i want to build our own crab shack.

♪ ♪ ahhh, you're finally building that outdoor kitchen. yup - with room for the whole gang. ♪ ♪ see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch. president trump arrived back at the white house. over the course of his three-day trip, the british prime minister would only meet with the president off camera. the tripp ended after canada's prime minister was caught talking about the president on a hot mic. the president left london. take a look.

>> the person you heard talking about president trump's team's jaws dropping to the floor was justin trudeau. president trump was asked about those comments this morning. here's what he said. >> did you hear the prime minister talking about you last night? >> well, he's two-faced. >> do you think the -- >> and trudeau, i find him to be a very nice guy. >> after that he cancelled his planned press conference and took off. he's back at the white house. justin trudeau according to the president both two-faced and a very nice guy. >> reporter: those two things don't necessarily go together. these two leaders have had a very rocky relationship from the

beginning. i'm told by a source familiar who has recently spoken to the president that he was annoyed and bothered by that exchange that you just played there, that hot mic moment where justin trudeau seems to be mocking the president, laughing about the press conference, the lengthy press conference he had there. that really seemed to bother the president. this source said these two men will probably work through it as they worked through other issues in the past but it certainly, anderson, is something that was just another layer to this rocky nato trip for the president in london. as you pointed out, he also had some strong words over french president macron saying that nato is brain dead and saying they should take on more isis fighters. and for trudeau's part, he has not walked back what we saw in that video. in fact, he talked about it and

made light of it saying that, yes, the president did hold this impromptu press conference before they met. and that it was notable but he didn't apologize or express any regret publicly. what remains to be seen here, what we don't know about is privately whether the two men have spoken, anderson. >> it's interesting because president trump has over the course of several years said countries are laughing at us. that couldn't seem to be the refrain anymore. in that video they're not laughing in that moment, they're laughing in that grouping. that would seem to at least feed into his concerns that people are laughing at him. how much did the video have to do with him cancelling the press conference and flying away? >> reporter: it seems based on

timing it would have had some impact on the president to make that decision. i did speak to someone tonight who is familiar with the situation who said the president made that decision on his own, that it didn't have to do with that in particular. the president felt he had given so much time to the press. he had macron and trudeau and had many press availability. this person seemed to suggest it didn't play a role. it's hard to believe if the president had seen that before he made that decision that that did not get under his skin to call it off. we should note this was all happening during the hearing in washington today with the judiciary committee and we're told that the president did watch some of that on his flight from air force i back here to washington, anderson. >> thank you very much. coming up next, reports of a shooting at pearl harbor in hawaii. we'll have the latest in a moment. [farmers bell] ♪ (burke) a "rock and wreck."

seen it. covered it. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ i waited to get treated. thought surgery was my only option. but then i found out about nonsurgical treatments. it was a total game changer. learn more about the condition at factsonhand.com it was a total creais back at red lobster.ast with new creations to choose from; like rich, butter-poached maine lobster and crispy crab-stuffed shrimp rangoon.

how will you pick just 4 of 10? it won't be easy. better hurry in. [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. (shaq) (chime) magenta? i hate cartridges! not magenta! not magenta. i'm not going back to the store. magenta! cartridges are so... (buzzer) (vo) the epson ecotank. no more cartridges. it comes with an incredible amount of ink that can save you a lot of frustration. ♪

the epson ecotank. just fill and chill! available at...

quick breaking news out of

hawaii. live pictures of joint base pearl harbor. they're responding to reports of gun fire on the base. the local hospital telling us it has received one patient. no word whether there will be more. we'll update you throughout the night. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> thank you, anderson. tonight we you is a brawl in the judiciary and they are just talking to historians. what comes next? we have two judiciary members here and also one of the professors who testified before them today. the main question is can this process ever yield any progress? and the gop is doing its best to ignore the obvious, but how do they hide from rudy giuliani maybe back in ukraine digging for the same dirt that is all over the president. our investigators are on the case. what do you say, let's get after it.