2018. although the fbi already knew that british intelligence and fbi officials discussed litigation with director comey, the fbi never got steel's statement in that litigation until we provided them. the fbi also never considered updating the court on these statements. why d when did the court learn about these contradictory statements about whether steel did or didn't have contact with the media? and did anyone in the fbi seem concerned at all that it was not updating the fisk, the court, it was knowingly providing a court with incorrect and misleading information? >> so the fisa court first learned of it, at least as i understand it, in a letter sent

june 2018, a year after the last fisa authorization when the juptd lawyers sent a letter informing them of new information they had learned including from the litigation that mr. steel had acknowledged he was a direct contact for yahoo news in that story. that was the first time the court was told about it. >> would you look at footnote 461 for me? >> yes. >> that footnote states that a former fbi confidential human source contacted an fbi agent in an fbi field office in late july 2016 to report information from, quote, a colleague who runs an investigative firm hired by two entities, the democratic national committee as well as another individual who was not named to explore donald trump's longstanding ties to russian

entities. was that investigative firm fusion gps or did the dnc hire another firm to peddle anti-trump information to obama's fbi? >> i don't know which it is but i can certainly follow up and get back to you on that. >> but it is a question you can answer? >> i don't know. i have to double check. >> if you couldn't, would that be a case of privacy or something? >> no. i just don't know if we've ultimately figured out the answer to that question because it was in a different field office with different people to have to interview and that sort of thing. i'm not sure how much we went down that road. >> thank you. i've been asking questions since september 2017 about what kind of defensive briefings the fbi provided to the trump campaign. the fbi told me its briefings to both campaigns were similar and that it wasn't aware of action that it took as a result. chairman johnson and i wrote

again to the fbi two months ago. we noted that text messages between strzok and page indicated that the fbi may have used defensive briefings not to warn the trump campaign but to investigate it. four questions along this line. question number one, would you agree that with respect to the defensive briefings, the trump campaign's briefings were treated differently than those provided to the clinton campaign? >> if i could, they were called -- it was not an fbi briefing if they went to a office of the director of national intelligence briefing. it was a strategic counter intelligence briefing. i mention that because it precisely wasn't a defensive briefing. it was an intelligence briefing. and they were treated differently in that the agent wrote it up to the file and put the information in the file. the briefings were identical but

one was for investigative purposes and one was purely for the intelligence briefing. >> in this case, the agency at the trump campaign briefing documented statements and interactions of michael flynn and candidate trump for the fbi's investigative files. is it normal for the counter intelligence briefers to document statements of individual that they're briefing for investigative purposes? >> it was documented in one and not in the other as you said and based on what we saw, there's actually no policy on it. but based on the reaction of the current leadership and director wray's response where he under like e underlined the word this will not happen going forward, it's clear what his state of mind is, this should not have occurred.

>> did the fbi make any investigative use from the information garnered to inform its later interview with michael flynn? >> i don't know whether that did occur but that was certainly the stated purpose for the agent being present. >> okay. lastly, campaigns place trust in the fbi to provide an environment of cooperation and honest assessments about the risk of foreign threats. how can the fbi repair that trust after abusing the briefing process? >> well, that's where we make the recommendation. we think the fbi has to clearly state what its policy is. it does these kind of strategic briefings for members of congress, for private citizens, companies when they get attacked on their computer systems for example. for transition purposes as was the case here.

and there needs to be clear guidance and rules so those getting the briefings understand. >> on another point, according to your report bruce or told the fbi that steel's reporting had gone to the clinton campaign november 2016. by january 11th, 2017, key investigators knew the dossier was prepared in part for the dnc. and by february and march 2017, quote, unquote, it was broadly known in the fbi and by senior justice department officials that den simpson was working for the party. how many knew the steel dossier was political opposition research funded by the democrats and who were they and did any of them approve information in the fisa or any of its renewals while knowing who was paying for

it? >> so on the fbi side as we layout in the report it's page 258 forward, there were a number of people who knew. it's challenging to know precisely what was known at the very highest levels of the fbi and when, the director, deputy director levels, because of the lack of any direct record of entire briefings. but there certainly was much information as we layout here known at the fbi. at the justice department, much of that information was not known. in fact, one of the concerns we note in the information about what mr. orr did is, mr. orr was passing along information from mr. steel to the fbi. that information was not being given back by the fbi to the justice department. the colleagues of mr. or's at the justice department didn't know that their colleague had passed along that information to the fbi.

>> we'll go with senator leahy. then we'll break for lunch and come back at 1:00 and go vote. >> thank you. mr. horowitz, it's good to see you again. i read an awful lot of i.g. reports in my years here. am i correct that when the justice department or a component disagrees or has comments about a report, the general practice is to provide with a written response to publish along with your report, is that correct? >> that is correct. we would always include that in our appendix to our reports. >> my staff looked at 797 inspected tor gener inspector general reports since your tenure began. how many i.g. reports under your

name involve the justice department arguing that in fact committed more misconduct than your investigation uncovered? >> i don't recall that happening before. >> i tell you right now. none. none. that's why i find it very unusual that attorney general barr didn't send you anything to go in the report. he just went to the television cameras to talk about it. there was a lot about the personal text messages involved in your 2018 report involving fbi lawyer and agent involved in these investigations personal animus toward president trump. you also, didn't you, in your investigation find pro trump text messages from agents who worked on the russia

investigation, including one that was an expletive ridden exchange where the agents were enthusiastic ally talking about trump's election and their desire to investigate the clinton foundation. you found that too, didn't you? >> that is correct. that's in the report. >> i think it was potentially problematic whether they're pro trump or pro clinton. i assume the fbi investigators can have strong views on motorcycle politics, but the question is does it impact their work. >> they should never be using their government devices to have political discussions whether they're working on a sensitive matter or not. in our view we were not holding or referring people for performance failures simply

because they expressed support or lack of support. >> thank you. there was one occasion where i think bias did impact russian work. the fbi appropriately kept quiet about the trump russia investigation during the 2016 election. the same can't be said about the clinton administration. rudy giuliani and others appeared to receive highly sensitive leaks from the new york fbi field office, leaks that likely contributed to director comey's public announcement that he was reopening the clinton investigation just days before the election. i asked then director comey about these leaks. he said he was investigating. now, we know that a number of

these leaks to mr. giuliani, which he then ran to the cameras and actually bragged about, what can you tell us about the new york field office's leaks to rudy giuliani and others? >> as we noted publicly last year in our report, we were very concerned about that. we put in the appendix charts showing all the different contacts. and subsequent to that report and this continues to this day, we are investigating those contacts. we've issued a couple of public summaries so far about people we found violated fbi policy. we have other investigations ongoing that when we conclude it, we will also post summaries of. what's proving to be very hard is to prove the actual substance of the communications between the agents and the reporter or the individuals, but we can

prove the contacts. under fbi policy you need authorization if you're going to disclose information and have certain contacts. >> thank you. one of your central findings is that the fbi's investigation into russian ties in the trump campaign was not influenced by political bias, is that correct? >> the opening of the investigation, we found, was not connected to any of the biassed texts that we identified. >> now there's an alpha in the room, maybe a herd of them. at the president's direction the attorney general has been combing europe to find support for fringe theories to cast doubt on the russia investigation. i'm not clear what legitimate law enforcement purpose it serves. how do we know that politics is not driving the barr durham

investigation? >> i'm not sure how anybody knows what you don't know unless you do an investigation or you review it or somebody looks through as we did for example here a million records and an exhaustive effort. >> would you agree that justice department investigations have to be free of improper political motivation? >> absolutely, 1000%. i did public corruption investigations. i ran the public corruption unit in the southern district of new york. you had to be straight down the yellow line in the middle of the road on anything you touched. >> does it concern you the attorney general is running around europe to find any kind of theories that might cast doubt on the russian investigation? >> think you have to ask the attorney general about those meetings. i don't know what those meetings were about. obviously haven't done any

investigating. >> i am concerned because he did not follow the procedure normally if they have a question or disagreement with the inspector general's report by letting you know before it comes out so you can include and would include any disagreements. it just went to the press with it. i think about when glenn fine investigated the politically motivated firing of nine bush administration officials. in this case for the first time they are not sent to you by the attorney general but instead given to the press, correct?

in your experience? >> i don't know of another situation that we didn't get those attached to our appendix to our report. >> thank you senator leahy. we will adjourn, recess until 1:00. welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. you've been watching live coverage of michael horowitz, the subject the investigation into the 2016 counter intelligence investigation. mr. horowitz saying he found no political bias in the interviews or the documents of the top fbi leadership but just as importantly he also detailed some damming conduct by mid level fbi agents who he said repeatedly violated agency procedures and rules and common

sense and ethics as they proceeded through that investigation. shimon pork pez. >> he's standing by this report, by his findings despite what the attorney general said yesterday, despite what the u.s. attorney who is overseeing this other aspect. that's a key thing. the other thing was that there was legitimate factual basis to suspect that crimes had occurred. the fbi had the right to open this investigation, to look into members of the campaign they looked into because of concerns that crimes were being committed. obviously the other thing is all the mistakes here made by the fbi. it all has to do with the fisa, that secret warrant on carter page.

that's where all the mistakes came. that's where there were screwups on the part of fbi agents, analysts, people who were putting this together, information that was not provided to the fisa court that he said should have been provided. what happens now? he stands behind the current fbi director who said that he stood behind this report. essentially the issues now continue. you're going to have people on the republicans who are going to feel that the fbi was biassed in this, in the way they handled this investigation. ultimately horowitz here saying he did not find any political bias. mistakes were made but the fbi had the right to go ahead based on the low legal threshold that exists in order to open these kind of investigations. based on everything he has found, the fbi was right in opening this investigation.

at mr. horowitz is saying there was probable cause to start this investigation. trump says the deep state was after him from the get-go. he says no probable cause. a million pages that shows this part is damning. senator lindsey graham is talking about carter page and the foreign intelligence surveillance warrant that allowed the fbi to have surveillance on an american citizen. mr. horowitz said yes they had probable cause to get the initial warrant. but then as the investigation continued, they came into possession of other information that cast doubt on some of that

information, other information that cast carter page in a more favorable light. >> what i want you to know is that in january 2017, the whole foundation for surveilling carter page collapses, exculpatory information is ignored. they high to the court about what the interview was all about. is that a fair summary so far? >> it was misleading to the court. >> fair enough. in january about six months later when they find more information that could be helpful to mr. page, they lie about it. do you feel like mr. page was treated fairly by the department of justice and the fbi? >> i don't think the department of justice fairly treated these fisa's and he was on the receiving end.

>> it is striking because jim comey would say we had other evidence by this point so it wasn't just based on the carter page warrant. why were you misleading the foreign intelligence? that is a very legitimate beef that law enforcement officials facting not john q. public out there but a presidential campaign, now a president-elect of the united states didn't say we have a problem here. >> this is a very bad fact set that's laid out here. the problem with this i.g.'s report is it doesn't neatly acquit anybody's version of the events. it also does not suggest the jim comey version of events that we were headed in this direction anyway and so who cares.

the fisa courts have been shrouded in secrecy since they came about. they are not accountable to anybody. this is a reason why you have heard people make complaints like that and usually they fall on deaf ears because the national security import has outweighed it. >> if by then you knew donald trump jr. brought russians into the trump tower, papadopoulos was under scrutiny, contacts with wikileaks. if you had a whole lot of other stuff to continue your information and you were confident in your investigation, why wouldn't you go to a dourtd protect your own credibility. >> what it shows is that if you go back and sort of dig into the origins of any of these wiretapping orders may be likely to find similar mistakes, instances where people are mislead, instances where one part of the investigation is

moving forward and another part is not aware of what may be new facts that may provide a different set of avenues for information. i think this gives each side something to hang onto. president trump has already said this shows there was immense wrongdoing, people were out to get him. yet the finding of the report overall is that there was reason to go forward on a lot of these ' other things and this set of facts doesn't necessarily blow up all the findings of the russian investigation. >> you're hoping for clarity. listen to the chairman and the ranking member. nope. >> what happened here is not a few irregularities.

what happened here is the system failed. people at the highest level of our government took the law in their own hands. >> the i.g.'s report conclusively refutes these claims. this was not a politically motivated investigation. there is no deep state. simply put, the fbi investigation was motivated by facts, not bias. >> it is remarkable and i guess it's just today's washington that intelligent people read the same 437 pages and come away with apples and oranges. >> it's also a symptom of the kind of way in which we as a society cannot hold two thoughts in our mind at the same time. it is possible that there were irregularities in carter page's fisa warrant and also that it doesn't point to some kind of systemic deep state problem within the fbi.

the fisa program clearly is in need of some re-evaluation but that's been true for quite some time. it's not just a trump phenomenon. it's probably for the best that suddenly lindsey graham wants to reevaluate this and some of the democrats might be interested in doing that now. yes, this is not going to button any of this up. on top of that we're going to have the durham report when that comes out that is going to throw this into a further political avenue. despite all the commentary from barr and durham about what they believe and don't believe is true, the view of durham is

broader. >> if it's transparent because they have opened themselves up to legitimate suspicion by the way they have publicly commented on others, including the attorney general already trashing the work of the inspector general. mr. horowitz saying this has never happened before in all his investigations. he says, quote, we stand by our finding. >> i'm not surprised to hair he's standing by his findings. we saw this with the mueller report, another 400-page huge document. you had republicans see complete vindication for trump out of it. you saw democrats seeing that mueller laid out pretty damn in things for the trump administration. we saw the same thing with the ukraine scandal. we saw the transcript from the call. republicans eventually came to the position. at first some of them said it

was a sign of misconduct but not impeachable. now they're all on board saying it's perfect the way the president is. democrats said this is the basis for an impeachment injury. i'm not sure this will become another rorschach test. the president may have seen some things wrong with the way his company operated. democrats may have seen some reasons to criticize civil liberties issues using the report to undercut president trump's claims that he was spied upon and all this legal stuff happened. i'm not surprised both side are going into their corners less than 11 months from a campaign. >> i'm not surprised either but it would be nice to live in a world when some facts are facts. a big day looking back at the russia report. also a big day looking forward.

have you ever worked with dr. francis? oh yeah, he's ok. just ok? guess who just got reinstated! well, not officially. nervous? yeah. yeah me too.

don't worry about it, we'll figure it out. i'll see ya in there! just ok is not ok. at&t has america's best network, now with our best plans, at our best prices, starting at $35 a line for 4 lines. new from at&t.

uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15%ain? or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service.

oh no,... ...a cougher. welcome to flu season, karen. is a regular flu shot strong enough... ...to help prevent flu in someone your age? there are standard-dose flu shots. and then there's the superior flu protection... ...of fluzone high-dose. it's the only 65 plus flu shot... ...with 4 times the standard dose. and it's free with medicare part b. fluzone high-dose is not for those who've had a severe allergic reaction... ...to any vaccine component, including... ...eggs, egg products,... or after a previous dose of flu vaccine. tell your healthcare professional if you've ever experienced severe muscle weakness... ...after receiving a flu shot. if you notice ...other problems or symptoms following vaccination,... ...contact your healthcare professional immediately. side effects include pain, swelling... ...and redness where the shot was given. other side effects may occur. vaccination may not protect everyone. if you're 65 plus, don't settle for a standard-dose flu shot. influenza...going down. move up to fluzone high-dose. see your doctor or pharmacist

and ask for it by name. an important day on capitol hill. markup day for the articles of impeachment against the president of the united states. opening statements slated for 7:00 p.m. tonight. debate in the judiciary committee starts tomorrow. expect a final committee vote by the end of this year. democrats want the full house to vote by next friday.

that's the last legislative day. democrats see no point of waiting trying to win more gop impeachment votes. there are small signs of potential democratic jitters. from members getting pummelled by anti-impeachment ads back home. the speaker's view is to get a full floor vote as soon as possible. what is the state of play as we prepare for this important hearing tonight? >> reporter: democrats are moving quickly to have this vote in the house. opening statements in the house judiciary committee tonight. expect republicans to object to that not having witnesses come forward. also tomorrow the votes a very messy day long affair over the articles of impeachment in the house. those two articles sending them to house floor for action probably by midweek. that's where some of the key votes will take place. people who come from swing districts, democrats in

particular, who did not come here or campaign on impeachment but now have to cast these critical votes about whether or not to impeach the president on two counts. i lot of them still are holding their card closely to their vest contending they're still looking at all the evidence. they want to hear from their constituents. they're hearing a lot from both sides. >> are you ready to vote for them? >> no. what i'm going to do right now is to do what i was trained to do as a cia officer which is sit by myself with a full body of information, the articles, reports on both sides, the rebuttal. i'm going to sit with the house rules. i'm going to sit with the articles of impeachment from prior impeachments. i think it was the possible way to go to limit it to two articles. i'm going to seriously look at the two that were put in front of me. >> that last point critical

because she came aboard getting behind an impeachment inquiry after it was announced the speaker would focus on the ukraine matter, whether the president abused the power of his office in pushing for investigations into his political rivals. she was glad they focused on those two. we'll see how other freshmen like her in difficult districts come down. not seeing how they'll vote. >> will be fascinating to watch. there have been a small number of democrats having conversation amongst themselves about should we consider censure, is there another way to go here. more hib ral democrats saying absolutely not. >> todiminish it with a censure i think would create a lot of --

i think it's a most where we need to get clear about right and wrong. just do the right thing. >> how deep, if any, is the speaker ne eer nervous about hu democrats? we know a couple did not vote just to provide. how far is she likely to go? >> i don't think it's likely to go much further. but i do think this decision is is a sign of the times that we're in, that that discussion among that small group of democratic moderates about whether they could potentially steer away from the road of impeachment and instead do a censure vote. republicans could have a chance

to vote to impeach. they recognize there are few if any republicans who will be willing to do that. this conversation during the clinton impeachment was a much more life discussion. it didn't end up happening but there was some actual momentum behind that. i think many of the people who are thinking of that are likely to vote for these articles of impeachment. >> whether you're watching at home, whether you agree with the president or not, the president has done a very good job politically keeping the republicans in line. right now there's zero evidence of any house republicans breaking. there's no where is near enough

suppo support. >> you saw their so-called articles of impeachment today. people are saying they're not even a crime. what happened? all of these horrible things. remember, bribery and this and that. where are they? not even a crime. this is the lightest, weakest impeachment. >> again, it's just the world we live in. the democrats say we kept it narrow, we kept its focused to make it strong. the president says only two? must be weak. >> i think that the president and his team have been basically moving on a pretty incremental time period response. they're taking things hour by hour. so it is not a surprise that they're taking the fact that there are fewer articles of impeachment than there might have been.

they feel like that is a saving grace to them. but at the end of the day, i saw this a lot. don't confuse what the president is saying publicly which is this is tweweek to him being okay wi this process. he does not want to be an impeached president. >> no president wants to be impeached. every president then has to try to turn it politically, especially a president heading into an election. that's an comment point. up next, some encouraging news for former vice president biden and some cnn polling looking at the two biggest super tuesday prizes. macist-recommendd memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

at t-mobile, we're lighting up 5g, and when you buy a samsung note 10+ 5g, you get one free. plus you can experience it on the nation's largest 5g network. so you can stay connected like this. score a last minute this. get home easier, like this. and share all of this... with that. so do this. on that. with us. and now, buy a samsung note 10+ 5g and get one free when you add a line. i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms

of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

at chevy, we're all about bringing families together. this time of year, that's really important. so we're making it easier than ever to become part of our family. man: that's why our chevy employee discount is now available to everyone. the chevy price you pay is what we pay. not a cent more. family is important to us. and we'd like you to be part of ours. so happy holidays. and welcome to the family. the chevy family! get the chevy employee discount for everyone today.

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.

new cnn polls releasing this hour give a glimpse down the 2020 nominating road a bit when it shifts to convention delegates. march 3rd is 2020 super tuesday. california and texas the two biggest prizes. as you look at the map, 14 states vote on the first big super tuesday. 415 in california, 228 in texas.

the candidates will be competing heavily in those. let's look at california. biden, sanders, warren very tightly packed. mayor buttigieg at 9, yang at 6, bloomberg at 5%. let's break it down. one reason bernie sanders is running strong in california and nevada, his support among latino voters. the electorate gets more diverse past iowa and new hampshire especially in california. former vice president biden struggles among younger voters. among those over 45 biden has the edge. warren, sanders, buttigieg rounding out the pack there.

texas, the candidates aren't in texas as much just yet but familiarity seems to be at may here. the former vice president with a much bigger lead. you look at nonwhite voters. biden has a healthy lead in texas. bloomberg still way down here. joe biden way up here in the state of texas. joe biden says keep spending, mike, i'm not worried. >> monmouth and quinnipiac have you as the clear front runner and michael bloomberg at 5%. what does that tell you about what democrats are looking for? >> michael, keep spending. it has been a party that's decided that everybody deserves an equal shot. when people think that somebody is in a position where they have a distinct or unfair advantage,

they're not happy about it. >> all these later state polls will change once somebody starts winning. it is a reminder especially as you get to the more crowded 14 states including california. tv markets are expensive. b, you get to a place where the electorate is so much more diverse, which makes it complicated for the candidates. >> the bloomberg and tom steyer show there is something money can buy. it's a little bit but maybe not enough over the long haul of this race. i think the challenge is going to be that some of these candidates are going to have to figure out -- if you're bloomberg and you want to spend $100 million now, we should note that a lot of that is further out in the primary process because he's not competing in these first four states. at some point he has to interact

with the other candidates. if he's not raising money for voters, it's going to be hard for him to get on the debate stage. maybe he doesn't want to be. joe biden is the candidate to beat when you're talking about black and hispanic voters. some of these candidates are going to have to figure out how to chip away at that. it's not going to happen by osmosis. >> elizabeth warren a bit of a plateau, is that a fair way to put it? >> she's really been hurt by this debate over medicare for all. she put out her plan and her numbers have not gone up since then. biden has had a pretty strong run of polls over the last few weeks. last time he put out fund-raising numbers they were a

little bit weak. because he wants to compete in some of these later states to secure the nomination, he's going to need strong fund-raising. >> he has proven resilient in the polls to his credit, but you get into that, you're going to compete in california in a contested race, that's a lot of money. and he has been behind warren, sanders and even buttigieg. i don't want to overobsess about polls. as candidates are out there and you're on the track for a while, you get scraped up. you mentioned the medicare for all debate for senator warren. i'm not making over significance of this but watch the trajectory of your unfavorable ratings to

be doing that way as we get closer to the actual vote. >> since 2014 we have seen almost every official is upside down in a purple rating. any candidate who's getting a lot of media attention their negatives are going to go up. it gets into a danger zone but i think it's a little different in an era -- in 2016 we had two candidates running against each other hillary clinton and donald trump who were upside down in approval ratings. i'm not sure it's as priedictiv as it once was. >> you do see a spike. everybody went up in august. they didn't want their summer vacation interrupted. the democratic race is getting

chippy because we're getting closer to the votes. when that happens it's called bruised. >> we've seen more debates play out of each candidate criticizing the other's policies. you're likely to see that continue. the question to maggie's point is whether that ends up affecting the choices that voters start to make when the primaries start to actually take place. >> the president's campaign spending some big money as you push through some of these issues on television. he's got a new ad package up now. in september 2019 team trump $4 million on impeachment related tv ads. that's in addition to some digital spending the president has done on this issue, a little sample of what you're seeing on tv. >> the democrats would rather focus on impeachment and phony

investigations, ignoring the real issues. but that's not stopping donald trump. the democrats are trying to overthrow president trump, undo the 2016 election and silence our voices. don't let them. >> we have a map. i there's two goals here. one is to help the president in the impeachment fight and then to help him in his reelection campaign. if you look at some of these states, maine is one for example, to keep republicans anti-impeachment, to give her cover or incentive to not go anywhere. these are battleground states. that's where the president is going to be worried about his reelection. >> i think you're seeing the campaign exam cross currents. those biden ads they were airing aimed at bringing biden's numbers down, those actually

speak to the limits of what these ads can do. so we'll see. >> it does strike me that the other thing that the trump campaign tends to focus on and that they understand pretty well about how trump has been so successful as a political figure is that the fer vevenferventcy too. how excited are people about the candidates they're backing? that's how trump remains so sturdy with his relatively small base because they keep egging him on with these ads saying your guy is under attack. i think it does fwhork that space. on the democratic side they've got to figure that out too.

>> that's an interesting point. the president's numbers are not great. his approval rating is underwater in texas which is a state that's reliably red. he's way underwater in california. on the issue of extremely excited about voting, the republican numbers are higher. the democratic numbers are not in any warning zone yet but republicans are stoked. >> abby makes a great point. the intensity is something that the president's folks are relying on. i think that may change when there is actually a nominee. impeachment gave them a coat hanger to hang all of these other things on. i think you are going to see that for as long as possible.

we have no idea whether voters are going to be talking about impeachment in ten months. they may or may not. >> he gets to target general election states. we're ready for the senate judiciary committee to return. great riches will find you when liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar?

thanks, lady. taxi! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ 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.

♪for the holidays you can't beat apprhome sweet home.♪♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home.

i'm brianna keilar live from cnn's washington headquarters. another historic moment as the house begins debating the articles of impeachment against president trump, beginning a crucial week for the fate of his presidency. the president argues that abusing his power and obstructing congress are, quote, not even a crime, calling it impeachment lite. plus being enabled by his favorite network, his party and now the attorney general. it comes as senators grill the justice department's watchdog