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.

i use herpecin l.re, it penetrates deep to treat. it soothes, moisturizes, and creates an spf 30 barrier, to protect against flare-ups caused by the sun. herpecin l. good evening. welcome to the next and pivotal act in a drama that's about to consume the trump presidency and if the founding fathers had it right, tap into fundamental notions of what the country is and how presidents should behave. day one of impeachment hearings in the house judiciary committee. four law professors testifying to what the framers of the constitution considered impeachable offenses and whether this president meets their test. in short, did the president's demands on ukraine constitute bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors? were there any 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 that 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. and as this was all unfolding, one of the central figures, rudy giuliani, is apparently continuing his mission for the president, which has landed his boss in the kind of trouble that only three presidents have faced before. cnn's sara murray sets the scene. >> if what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. >> reporter: three legal scholars invited by democrats told lawmakers today the president's conduct is worthy of impeachment. >> did president trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power based on that evidence and those findings? >> based on that evidence and those findings, the president did commit an impeachable abuse of office. >> professor karlan, 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. >> reporter: the hearing before the house 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 really good on tv and watching the hearings the last couple weeks you couldn't have possibly digested the report in any real way. >> mr. collins, i would like to say to you, sir, that i read transcripts of every one of the witnesses, so i'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor, i don't care about those facts. >> reporter: 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. >> reporter: the scholars expressed the importance of holding presidents to account. >> if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. we live in a monarchy, or we live under a dictatorship. that's why the framers created the possibility of impeachment. >> i'll just 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. so while the president can name his son barron, he can't make him a baron. >> reporter: later she apologized for her comment about the president's son. the democratic witnesses laid out their legal reasoning for why they believed president trump abused his power, obstructed congress, and may have even committed bribery. the lone witness for republicans argued today that democrats were rushing the process. >> i'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a

paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. >> reporter: claiming there is insufficient evidence to impeach trump for bribery or any other misdeed. >> this isn't improvizationle jazz. close enough is not good enough. if you're going to accuse a president of bribery, you need to make it stick. >> reporter: he advocated for letting courts sort out challenges over whether witnesses must testify or the administration must hand over documents. and encouraged lawmakers to gather more evidence before moving forward. >> this isn't an impulse buy item. you're trying to remove a duly elected president of the united states. that takes time. it takes work. >> reporter: 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. >> reporter: sara murray, cnn, washington. >> there was of course more to the day and more surrounding the hearings and that almost too much to get to but we're going to try over the next hourment joining us, elie honig, anne

milgram, robert ray, ross garber, dana bash, carl bernstein and david gergen. dana, who do you think benefited most from today's hearings? >> it's hard to say if anybody really did if you're talking about the ultimate goal of the house democrats in having this hearing in the first place, which is their broader goal, in general moving public opinion towards what they want to do, which is impeaching the president. and listening to these 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 their point of view. you know, it could possibly be that jonathan turley, for example, the one republican witness who was 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 is not a -- he said he's not a supporter of president trump. >> right, 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 a potential roadmap for things they can say about why they're not ready to say yes on impeaching the president of the united states, about moving too fast, about other issues. again, not on substance but more about process and his read of how impeachment should go constitutionally. >> david gergen, one of the arguments that professor turley made and we've had him on the show for years, is that there's not enough evidence. of course the democrats then say, well, there's not enough evidence -- if there's not enough evidence, it's because the white house has successfully not given over documents and witnesses. >> right. well, that's true. 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. it's a symbolic mistake to have

three lawyers out there for the democrats and only one lawyer for the republicans. it seemed to me 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're well spoken, especially, you know -- well, all three were actually very good. but i think they helped to bring light on the central questions of the day. you know, that essentially the republicans have been arguing this is an illegitimate exercise. i thought they showed and were compelling on the point that this case rests upon solid legal foundations. >> mm-hmm. >> i thought they put that away. i also thought that they brought in the conversation that there are parallels between how the president has handled this and how he handled the mueller report. and in both cases, you know, he denied, denied, made up fictions, came up with narratives, but basically stonewalled and refused to

participate in the process. i think they laid out that case very well and 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 this now, if the checks and balances don't work, this president will assume he can get away with it in the 2020 election, and he will be looking for foreign countries to help him. >> well carl, that's one of the points chairman nadler 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's vindicated on one thing, he then will do it again. >> well, that's true. 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've 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 clause 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 garber, 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 this isn't just about voicing disapproval for a president. this isn't just 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 that there was some agreement among the witnesses, all of them, about the fact that you don't need a crime for

impeachment, about the founders and the framers of the constitution's concern about foreign influence and abuse of power. but then i thought the differences, the distinctions, were also very interesting. one of the points that i think jonathan turley made, which i think is going to be where there's going to be a lot of 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 going to be a good point. the democrats released a long report and as you go through the report, you see there are some holes there. and 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. >> elie, do you see those holes as well? >> i disagree with professor turley. i don't think he articulated first of all a specific standard for what the evidence must be other than he didn't think it was enough. i don't think that's particularly helpful from a constitutional law scholar. and, look, one thing that came through today, i think the

democrats' strategy here has crystallized. it's becoming clear they are focusing on abuse of power. they've gotten away from terminologically bribery, quid pro quo, extortion. that was going to be ultimately a losing or difficult battle. they've made clear this is about abuse of power. i don't know how you look at those dozen witnesses, the july 25th phone call and just declare it's not enough for me. i was a prosecutor for 14 years. it wa be enough for me to charge criminally. >> robert, did you think that there was -- >> no. no surprise. look, despite whatever the four said, i have said from the outset and the testimony of these four witnesses doesn't change my own view, although i do think it's presumptuous that anybody would know what james madison thought. all i can glean is what they said in the constitution and to the limited degree there's 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" means that only certain crimes that also constitute an abuse of power pass the high threshold of impeachment. i don't think that that 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 state of the evidence as it is now or at least as it will be maybe for the next two weeks. to think otherwise is ridiculous. this thing is on a train going down the track for an impeachment vote before the house, before the end of the year, period, full stop. so whatever the evidence is at that time, that's what it is. >> anne milgram, what do you think of the evidence as it is now? >> i think there's a couple points worth making. first of all, my read of the 300-page intelligence committee report is there is a substantial amount of evidence and there's a substantial amount of evidence on the abuse of power, bribery

and particularly the obstruction of congress and the obstruction of justice. so do i think it's legally sufficient to move forward? i think the answer is yes. when they go into impeachment, it's not just a conversation about the fact and the etched, it's a conversation about how does this apply to the law and how does this fall under the law and how should we be thinking about it? because bribery is written in the constitution but was before the federal bribery statute existed, there are real questions about what does it mean. we talk about it a lot. but it was worth having this conversation today with the scholars to set this forward, to talk about foreign interference, to talk about bribery and to talk about elections. >> we're going to dig deeper into the white house's decision to not cooperate with the investigation at all. what committee chairman nadler called today a level of destruction without precedence. later democratic congressman eric swalwell joins us. >> announcer: anderson cooper 360, brought to you by advil,

the world's number one choice for relief that's fast. strength that lasts. you'll ask what pain with advil. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain? (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. 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. when we were looking he wanted someone super quiet. yeah, and he wanted someone to help out with chores. so, we got jean-pierre. but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with renters insurance. ♪ yeah, geico did make it easy to switch and save. ♪ oh no. there's a wall there now. that's too bad. visit geico.com and see how easy

saving on renters insurance can be. 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.

professor jonathan turley criticized congress for what he called, quote, a facially incomplete and inadequate record in order to impeach a president. there's a reason the record is incomplete. as we said before, the president wanted it that way. mick mulvaney and don mcgahn refused to testify. john bolton is not talking either, nor is rudy giuliani. then there are the documents. the white house has so far refused to turn over any including briefing materials for the july 25th trump/zelensky phone call as well as staff notes relating to it though they did release a summary of the call. the august 15th presidential decision memo prepared by lieutenant colonel alexander vindman conveying that aid be released. national security staff council summaries. white house review of the aid freeze revealing according to "the washington post" efforts to craft an after the fact justification for it. also withheld, call records

between president trump and ambassador gordon sondland. emails and messages between sondland and senior white house officials including mulvaney and bolton. the administration has also refused to turn over memos relating to vice president pence. back now with the team. should that be taken into account, i mean, the fact that the white house is not turning over documents? >> i think there are two places it might come up. one is a potential impeachment charge of obstruction. there, you know, what jonathan turley said is, wait a minute. presidents back since washington have asserted privileges and immunities. that's what trump is doing. you don't impeach a president for doing that. the democrats could go to court. they haven't. the second place that might come up is that adam schiff threatened that noncompliance with these subpoenas could be considered an adverse inference, which means if you don't turn the stuff over, we're going to assume it's bad for you and find facts against you. i think that's an appropriate -- those are the two places it

might come up. >> dana, you exchanged, i think, text messages with rudy giuliani today. 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 would not confirm that that's where he was. but one thing he did say is on the question of the intelligence impeachment report that came 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 just add on the house intelligence report, they got their information from verizon and at&t because of what you were just talking about. they didn't get information, phone records from the white house because they're not playing ball. they did some -- they had some information in their report on the ranking member weirdly,

devin nunes. they didn't get it from him. so these are general numbers, and so this is kind of the tip of the iceberg about what the phone calls really were and who they were to because -- >> david, during the break, you were saying that you thought if president trump was a different kind of president -- exmain wpl what -- >> i was suggesting if he was a normal president who was seeming to obey the laws and appreciating the traditions of the country and then this happened and he made this phone call, i think we wouldn't be impeaching him. i think, you know, it's like if somebody is arrested for a crime and they're 45, 50 years old and they've never had anything on their record, the judge goes very light on them. >> that sounds -- i mean if that is your belief, that would be an argument against impeaching. >> no, no, no. i think that when you look at the totality of who he is, he's a walking abuse of power. >> that's right. >> i mean it's almost every day

he's doing something that offends or takes advantage of the system, exploits things. and i think that this is the first time we've ever had -- it's a blockbuster that's not going to work, but i think it's right to call him on it. >> robert, is that a fair criteria? >> 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, you know, 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 if 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. >> elie, the counter argument to that is if you are extorting somebody, you don't have to say "i am now extorting you." you can just, you know, 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, i guess, that there's an implied -- >> right. very much not the way it works in real life. people do not say, i hereby extort you. it's always implied. the power dynamic is so important here. we had testimony, lieutenant colonel vindman said 10% of their military budget that ukraine gets is our foreign aid. and the comment by president zelensky yesterday or two days ago i think reaffirmed that. he essentially said in a diplomatic way, i really had no choice. we're engaged in this war with

russia and we need this. 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 wasn't just some naive person who was new to the office and didn't understand how things work. he got a warning basically. he got away for the most part with mueller and that's how i think we're going to see this play into the larger picture here. he got the mueller report, and the next day he makes this call. >> i got to take a quick break. we're going to have more. eric swalwell joins us next to talk about what happened at today's hearing. we'll be right back.

♪ ♪ 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. 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. ♪ us. it's what this country is made of. but right now, our bond is fraying. how do we get back to "us"? the y fills the gaps. and bridges our divides. donate to your local y today. because where there's a y, there's an us.

here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today.

i use herpecin l.re, it penetrates deep to treat. it soothes, moisturizes, and creates an spf 30 barrier, to protect against flare-ups caused by the sun. herpecin l. today we got a look at republicans' latest arguments

against impeaching trump. doug collins complained about the process and called today's hearing, quote, a railroad job. the law professor kept coming back to the idea that one of the problems was things were happening too quickly. quoting from professor turley, fast is not good. here to talk about what we heard and what he heard and where we go from here, someone who was there, democratic congressman eric swalwell. congressman, what do you think? what do you think was accomplished today or hope was 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 an election and that we're not helpless to that. in a kingdom you might be helpless. in a dictatorship you might be helpless. thankfully our framers weren't prophets but they did foresee someone may do this and gave us the remedy of impeachment. >> to the point, though, that professor turley, and he's

respected. >> yep. >> 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 has been withheld? >> yeah. well, in professor turley's perfect world, the president is an honest broker and he would not have invoked an upcoming election where the clock is running, and he would abide by court rulings. and he's neither of those. and so, you know, we have overwhelming evidence right now, and yes, of course, it would always be nice to have more evidence. but we can't assume that the president would follow a supreme court order. he's never said, oh, if this goes to the courts, i'll follow what the courts do. and most of these matters that professor turley is referring to, it's settled precedent in the supreme court. they decided in the u.s. v. nixon case that there are limits to executive privilege. it just seems it's a delay tactic by the president, and we have a duty to protect an yum coming election.

>> so for you, is it bribery? is it obstruction of justice? is it some other high crime? >> i think they're all on the table, anderson. 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 going to give you that money, i need you to investigate my political opponent, most of us would say, you know what? you just don't do that. that's abusing your office. that's exactly what the president did on a much larger scale. >> did democrats and chairman nadler miss an opportunity to say to republicans who want more time, sure, we'll do that. in exchange we want all the documents we've requested and all the witnesses we've subpoenaed to come testify? would that have been possible? >> he did make that point, but i think, you know, you referenced professor turley earlier. i thought it was interesting and i do respect the fact in his opening statement, he said he thought the call was, in his words, anything but perfect. and, second, that this issue was worthy 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 these documents and allow these witnesses to come forward. they have not done that and we've been able to receive powerful evidence. >> chairman nadler mentioned five elements from the mueller report as evidence the president committed obstruction of justice. >> it certainly shows a pattern of conduct, meaning that the president in the past has invited foreign governments to involve themselves in our elections and he has obstructed justice. in this case he's asking the day after mueller testified a foreign government to investigate his opponent, and he's obstructing congress. i can't say right now, anderson, if that will be a part of it, but it will certainly be a part of explaining the president's intent. >> so what is next? is there a working time line for when democrats are going to begin work on drafting articles of impeachment? when would they be introduced and voted on? >> all of that and, anderson,

we're working on a prescription drug bill. we have to fund the government before december 20. but we will receive the report next week from the intelligence committee, so 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's done? >> congressman swalwell, thanks very much. >> my pleasure. when we continue, a look at how the republicans on the judiciary committee spent their time condemning the impeachment process. later, did president trump leave the nato meetings in a huff after some leaders appeared to bemoan his tactics? >> announcer: the 360 interview, brought to you by movement. join the movement. i am all about living joyfully.

♪ hello. the united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. rewarded! going new places and tasting new flavors. rewarded! traveling lighter. rewarded. haha, boom! getting settled. rewarded. learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get... rewarded!

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 amount of student loan debt i have,

i'm embarrassed to even say. we just decided we didn't want debt any longer. ♪ i didn't realize how easy investing could be. i'm picking companies that i believe in. ♪ i think sofi money is amazing. ♪ thank you sofi. sofi thank you, we love you. ♪ more now on the raw politics of the day. republicans on the judiciary committee often expressed apparent disbelief as well as similar talking points about the process and at the end, some sardonic acrimony. take a look. >> so we are here, no plan, no fact witnesses, simply being a rubber stamp for what we have. but, hey, we got law professors here. what a start of a party. >> the facts are 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 bucks to hillary clinton? >> that's correct. >> why so much more for hillary than the other two? >> because i've been giving a lot of money to charity recently because of all of the poor people in the united states. >> i yield back. thanks for bringing down the gavel hard. that was nice. >> back now with our legal and political team. joining the group, scott jennings and paul begala, both cnn political commentators. paul, obviously you're a democrat. how do you think the republicans did today? >> you could see the two strategies. the democrat strategy is to elevate. so they had these terrific constitutional law professors and the more you hear about james madison, the better it is for democrats. this elevates this into something large and important. and the republicans had the opposite. if the democrats want to elevate, the republicans want to

denigrate. you gave money to barack obama and, you know, your mother dresses you funny. it's just like that's what they want to do. i think each of them executed on their strategies. >> scott, is that how you see it? your mother dresses you impeccably by the way. >> it's a recent development for me. number one, i thought turley was excellent today. i thought it was smart for the republicans to call a republican law professor who could say, look, i didn't vote for donald trump. i didn't even support him all the time. but this is why impeachment being rushed is wrong. i thought that was smart where as the democrats called three people who have been on this bandwagon for quite some time. number two, i thought professor karlan was particularly hurtful to the democrats today because i thought he was petty in some cases, a little snarky. number three, i don't think the ball really moved today. number four, based on what i've heard from people in the white house and in the congress tonight, there are going to be some legitimate questions raised about the intelligence committee

report that didn't get brought up today but are going to be brought up in the next few days. we didn't cover any of that ground today. so my thoughts are, as paul -- i agree with paul. i think both sides executed their strategy but for the democrats, it struck me as a lost day. i'm not sure what they gained out of the whole day today. >> in terms of process, what happens next? you have staffers testifying next week. >> next week there are going to be staffers from the intelligence committee. similar to why they wanted mueller to testify about the 2016 investigation. i think most people are not going to read the 300 pages. if i could say two things about today. first of all, pam karlan is one of the preeminent legal scholars in the united states of america. i had the opportunity to work with her on an amicus brief in a supreme court case. i think she's extraordinary and i thought she did a very good job explaining constitutional law today so i would disagree with scott respectfully on that.

>> she brought up the president's son. >> and she later apologized. i think the right thing to do not to engage in those conversations at all. the second thing i would say about turley is i think it's one of those arguments about speed that makes sense when you hear it because why are we moving so quickly. this is such an important thing. but, look, i also personally think on behalf of the american people, mueller went on for a long time. there's a real argument to move this quickly, and in some ways the president is a victim of his own success, right? he was able to push off a lot of the mueller investigation. he didn't answer questions in person. he dragged it out for months, and the house democrats watched that, and they saw it drag on and on without a resolution. so they're now deciding, you're going to categorically say no documents, no witnesses, we're going to deep moving. >> if i could just add to what anne was saying on the process, yeah, next week -- we're maybe going to hear tonight an official notice of another hearing in the judiciary committee next week where the staff counsels, the ones that we saw asking the questions in the

intelligence committee, they will come and testify and present their findings. that's going to be a time when the members are going to try to poke holes in what their findings are. but after that, it's going to move very, very quickly if they stay on track and if nancy pelosi doesn't change things, which is -- it 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 week, but that's going to happen pretty quickly. and then after that, it's going to go to the house floor, and there will be votes on each of the articles on the 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. so it is going to happen very, very fast unless nancy pelosi, who is looking at this and talking to her members as we speak, i believe, unless she changes the time line. >> do you think there's any chance of the house not moving forward with this? >> no. the house is going to move

forward. they're going to impeach, and we're going to see new information. there's 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, contacts with russia. that's what the mueller report is partly about. 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 it also figures 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 can see. 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 investigation 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 that they could have that second or third count? you know, come straight out of the obstruction materials. that's why i think they're going to go back to the mueller thing. i think it greatly strengthens their hand for this pattern. >> i think swalwell told you that they may refer to it, but i think just raw politics, if they broaden this, it becomes too complicated. it looks like they're trying to get him by any means they can. i think what will happen is this will continue ad seriatum. >> a lot of latin.

>> one after the other. >> so what's going to happen is i think they're going to have to continue an open impeachment investigation if you believe as the democrats do that this president is a recidivist. it's not a coincidence that the day after mueller testified, he was on the phone -- >> you think that democrats will keep an open impeachment investigation. >> yes. >> even in a senate trial, even in a senate trial, it is very possible we are going to see evidence come in from the press, from trump's own mouth. >> right. >> politically does that make any sense? >> it's like joe lewis, the great boxer. they asked him why he kept fighting past his prime. he said fighters fight. criminals commit crime. >> ongoing trials. >> i think 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 right up until election day because part of what's going on here is this isn't just about ukraine. it's about everything they've wanted to get him for from the beginning, and they're scratching this itch of a political base. i agree with you they're maybe going to keep it open because they have to keep scratching that itch. i think a lot of people who don't follow this day after day after day are like, why don't we just try to beat him in the election? >> didn't prosecutors go after john gotti for like trial after trial after trial, and didn't public support -- i was a kid at the time, but didn't public support sort of -- people kind of appreciated that john gotti was getting away with stuff. >> i don't know. but they don't appreciate that donald trump is getting away with it. you do have 50%. this is unprecedented. every president has about 30% that want to impeach him. clinton never got above 30%. 50% of the country want to not just impeach him but remove him.

i think when that will move is when he defies a supreme court order to comply with these subpoenas. >> scott, i think the republicans are going to come up with some new things to into the trial phase. it's not just the democrats. >> i'd watch it tomorrow. >> to be continued. a lot to sort through. coming up, president trump has just arrived back at the white house from london. did he leave the nato meetings in london abruptly because of this video of other world leaders talking about him behind his back? you'll hear what they have to say. [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. and everyone has dad's eyebrows!

we chose eleanor. it was great-grandma's name. so apparently, we come from a long line of haberdashers, which is a fancy word for... they left everyone, and everything so they could get here. and start this family. every family has a unique story. this holiday season, help your family discover theirs.

the amount of student loan debt i have, i'm embarrassed to even say. we just decided we didn't want debt any longer. ♪ i didn't realize how easy investing could be. i'm picking companies that i believe in. ♪ i think sofi money is amazing. ♪ thank you sofi. sofi thank you, we love you. ♪

just a few moments ago, 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. france's president as they sat side by side. the trip ended abruptly 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. tension with those two. and then this interaction with trudeau. 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 seems to be a common refrain. 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 ♪

the ones that make a truebeen 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 mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

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. ♪

itintroducing the new braava 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. quick breaking news out of hawaii. live pictures of joint base pearl harbor. hickham currently on lockdown. they're reonng