can't end the argument by going to break. >> we'll be right back. >> you'll be exposed for your treason. >> new york. >> and thanks so much for joining us. ac 360 begins right now. good evening. for all or part of five centuries, for the third time ever a president will be impeached, in all likelihood this week, possibly wednesday. that, alone, makes this week historic. so, too, are the decisions that they make along the way. they are possibly precedent setting for future generations, but also for the minds of voters come next november, and we have new and exclusive cnn polling that shows what those voters are thinking and how some of their minds are changing. we'll show you how in just a moment. the polls book end a day that saw back and forth over what witnesses might or might not appear during the senate trial.

democrat democrats want to hear from four witnesses, including john bolton, mick mulvaney, present prevented by the white house of. minority chuck schumer made the case this afternoon. >> trials have witnesses. that's what trials are all about. these people know better than anybody else the facts, there is no reason on god's green earth why they shouldn't be called and testify unless you're afraid of what they might say. >> senate republican leader mitch mcconnell has provided no details of his thinking, only that on everything he does, quote, i will be coordinating with the white house counsel. that's according to a fox news interview he did last week. again, who is right and who is wrong is not something our leaders will decide. rather that's something that will be decided in less than 11 month at the polls by the voters. joining me now with breaking news on impeachment, david, what are we learning?

>> 45% of americans in this poll support the impeachment and removal of office from president trump, 47% do not. that compares to 50% is where we had it last month. we've seen a drop in support for impeachment and removal. in the last 24 hours, four polls out all ranging between 45 and 50% for support of impeachment and removal. take a look over time here. you'll see 50% last month, 50% before. 47% when the ukraine story first broke out. so you can see that it has remained pretty steady. and, as i said, all the polls out there show it in that range of 45 to 50%. no small thing that nearly half the country wants to see the president removed from office. but it's obviously a very split and divided country. >> and what about among democrats, where do they stand in the poll? >> anderson, that's actually where we see most of the movement in this poll, away from

supporting impeachment. take a look. democrats were at 90% in favor of impeachment and removal. now they're down to 77%. independents, roughly about the same and a little decline there for republicans. but it is the democrats that are driving much of that move away from impeachment that we're seeing. >> that's interesting. david chalian, thank you very much. we want to talk to david a bit more including how support for impeachment is tracking specifically in battleground states. of course that's where this election may be decided. white house is keeping tabs on polls like this new one, including trying to shape voter sentiment. chief white house correspondent jim acosta is at the white house for us. how do they respond to senator schumer or did they? >> pretty predictable response, anderson. stephanie grisham said it was laughable, this request from chuck schumer, asking for officials like the former national security adviser john

bolton, acting chief of staff mick mulvaney to testify. the white house saying this is a sign that the democrats don't have a case to convict and remove the president from office. one thing that the white house did not say is, yes, you can have your witnesses, which is why people like chuck schumer is saying what does the white house have to hide? talking to my source this is evening, there is a view inside the white house that what chuck schumer did earlier today was essentially respond to the president and other republicans saying they want to see hunter biden, the whistle-blower testify as if chuck shoomer is saying if you want to bring in your witnesses we'll want to bring in our witnesses, which means it will be in the interest of both sides to have a speedier trial. >> any sense that the president wants a longer, more drawn-out trial or a shorter one? we've heard conflicting things. >> yeah. anderson, i think he pines for one. i think he would like to see one. i think he is starting to listen to advisers who are cautioning him and allies on capitol hill

like lindsey graham, that this would essentially open up pandora's box and rudy giuliani walking around the grounds of the white house after a trip to ukraine, he is a walking, talking pandora's box, something that people inside the white house don't want to see. there's a lot of time between now and a potential senate trial for jockeying to go on. essentially what you're hearing from the white house right now when we talk to our sources is that they would prefer to see a shorter trial at this point. perhaps, you know, they will reserve this right to have and ask for a longer trial if things start to get dicey and they feel that they want to exonerate the president. a lot of will be driven by the president, anderson. he has been wildly unpredictable between the last 24 to 72 hours, tweeting about nancy pelosi's teeth and so on. so, just when people inside the white house think, okay, the president has settled on a shorter trial, they're also on the edge of their seat. anderson? >> it bears repeating.

we all know this. it's remarkable there are still not any white house press briefings. those used to be a daily occurrence in most administrations, where people get to hear and see their officials asking, answering questions from reporters of all stripes. >> it is astounding. it raises the question whether or not the white house believes it has things to hide. if we had daily briefings or regular briefings inside the white house briefing room where officials would come in and take our questions, we would be able to get to the bottom of a lot of things. there just isn't that kind of opportunity anymore. they've shut that down at the white house. the president occasionally will take questions. he wasn't taking questions on impeachment. when he took a question about rudy giuliani, it was to say he was the greatest mayor ever and a proven crime fighter and they shushed all the white house reporters out of the room. >> when stephanie grisham takes questions it's over at the mothership at fox & friends or

fox news. >> without waiting for any of us after that interview is over, that's right. >> bob menendez in new jersey about the fight ahead in the senate as well as what voters are saying about whether impeachment and removal of president trump is the appropriate course of action. >> senator, i want to talk to you about the senate trial in a moment. first i want to get your reaction to the new cnn polling, public support for impeachment and removal is down overall since last month, down among democrats. i'm wondering, does that concern you? >> well, anderson, i've seen other polls that have a majority who seek the president's impeachment and removal, but we don't do impeachment by poll. only members of the united states senate will cast a vote on guilt or innocence. and they will have to do so based upon their constitution oath as well as the information that they'll have from the house

managers. and so for me, it's not a question as to whether or not the poll suggests the president should or should not be impeached. the question is, what are the facts and abiding by your constitutional obligation. you know, when you take an oath to the constitution, you don't say i take an oath of office to defend the constitution of the united states only when it's politically convenient. >> minority leader schumer is pushing for witnesses from the president's inner circle. house democrats couldn't get, obviously, those witnesses with a majority in the chamber in the house. do you have any reason to think that they would have better luck in the senate? >> well, i think that subpoenas under an impeachment trial from the senate would be hard to ultimately avoid, which is why probably the majority leader is not going to allow it to happen because, you know, at the end of the day, you would think that

those who know the most at the issues at hand, did the president use the power of his office and abuse it to help himself politically to invite a foreign country to get involved in our elections? did he ultimately obstruct the congress of the united states by providing no witnesses and no documents? those who know those answers the best are people like former ambassador bolton, former nsc director, mick mulvaney and others. if, in fact, the president has nothing to hide, you would think he would have them forget coming to make the case for him. shouldn't even have to subpoena them at the end of the day. the fact that they have critics from them, it tells you volumes about why they would not come forward. their information would be incriminating to the president. >> mcconnell is not likely to do that but do you think there's moderate republicans who would back the idea of senator

schumer's plan? he doesn't sound like it bodes well for democrats from her in terms of and well, look. i think that for all centers and certainly senate republicans, they have to make sure that this process doesn't seem like a sham, like a slam dunk as senator mcconnell has said, he will be in absolute sync with the white house counsel and the president. that's not -- you know, that's like the defense attorney being in cahoots with the judge and the jury. that doesn't work. that's not going to have any credibility. >> yeah. to the point you just made with mcconnell saying he's coordinating with the white house, do you think despite that, that there can be a fair trial? >> well, look, the majority

leader has said there's no way that the senate will convict the president. he hasn't heard all the evidence. he doesn't know all of the facts, other than what we have publicly seen. he hasn't seen the presentation of those facts in a way that can make a powerful case for a verdict of guilt. and so the fact that he's already declared the outcome leaves it very -- there's no doubt that this won't be a fair process. >> you're on the -- lastly, you're on the foreign relations committee. there's a piece in "the new yorker," splring among other things, rudy giuliani's ukraine connection, the dirt he's been trying to dig up on the bidens. talking about marie yovanovitch, i believe i needed yovanovitch out of the way. she was going to make the investigation difficult for everybody. i wonder what your reaction is to that. >> well, this is another example of the hard truth staring us in the face. you know, the president didn't want to go after corruption in

ukraine. rudy giuliani didn't want to go after corruption in ukraine. if you wanted to go after corruption, you wanted marie yovanovitch to ultimately be there. her reputation is impeccable, fighting corruption in ukraine and other posts she has had. you didn't want a corruption fighter. you wanted someone to cover up the corruption you were pursuing, which was to try to get a foreign government and hold them hostage to ultimately get involved in our democratic elections. the reason this should matter to your viewers, to every american, if we allow a foreign country to get involved in our elections, we don't know that the sanctity of our vote will ultimately be realized and those that get elected will be doing our bidding versus some foreign entity's bidding. >> senator menendez, thank you for your time. >> thank you. over key witnesses the white how has refused to let testify.

cnn poll numbers to get a sense of which direction voters in battleground states are headed. is it playing big in battleground states? we'll take a look at that.

at the beginning of the program, jim acosta reported about the impeachment trial, four witnesses including mick mulvaney, john bolton, who once did serve at the top reaches of the white house and were prevented by the white house from testifying during the house investigation. chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin, and cnn contributor john dean, who knows a thing or two about congressional testimony. what do you make of senator menendez before the break saying do you believe republican also get on board? he essentially said no. >> i think senator menendez has it exactly right. you know, the republican

position here is we've got the votes. screw you. they don't have the votes to remove the president. on procedural votes like witnesses, the republicans almost always stick together. if you look at the actual vots,s not the expression of concern that you used to hear from senator flake or senator corker or senator collins, they vote with the president all the time on every issue except a couple of them on obama care. that was a long time ago. it's one vote. he has the vote, mcconnell does. >> the saying that these should have been dealt with in the house and fact finding is not for the senate. >> that's just a mock point because they know that the house couldn't get them and that's one of the reasons they think

they're important to fill in some gaps. not that they couldn't prove their case on the senate floor without those witnesses but the whole letter that schumer sent is very reasonable. it's based on the 1999 arrangement in the senate for the clinton impeachment. the parsing of time. it's a speedy trial. i'm surprised the white house is treating it as laughable. >> you have senator susan collins, republican, who said it was unfortunate. >> yeah. i mean, look, i just -- i think that it's one thing, as jeffrey was saying, sometimes you look to the moderates and think they'll behavior differently but in the end they end up going with the president. there's something different than a mitt romney or susan collins criticizing the president versus

supporting removing him from office. we can play this game where we all watch susan collins. let's say they did decide to do that. it's not going to substantially change the trajectory. >> it's not that they usually support the president. they always support the president. and, you know, if you actually -- look, these made-up arguments that the house shid do the fact finding, they're having a trial. if you have a trial, you find facts. they invent things to justify what they're going to do anyway, which is fine if they want to do it. don't pretend there's some principled reason for it. >> the resolution that schumer is putting forward is the resolution used with clinton. it's something that passed unanimously in the senate with some of the same people, including mitch mcconnell, who is now pretending like this is outrageou

outrageous. >> it's even the same number of witnesses. >> would there be any. for democrats or republicans for having witnesses? >> the condition that schumer put in his letter that they had to be relevant to the fact finding of the trial, which actually would exclude people like hunter biden, joe biden. that sort of show trial is not what anyone wants, i would think. anders anderson, the private trials in the senate, going back to andrew johnson, which i read the history of and was there to watch the clinton was, as was jeff and i suspect you were, too it was all very fair, well done and reasonable. why are we going on this whole different tact now is kind of surprising to the institutional nature of that body. >> the idea essentially that senate republicans are saying is that the case has already

been -- everybody's opinion has been baked in. people saw what happened in the house and the trial won't change anybody's mind. >> we dent know that, first of all. i don't know that really matters. they're not called to do a trial to change people's minds but to get the best facts and make a determination about whether the president should be impeached. it seems like a reasonable thing to want to have. to say -- to blame democrats for not going to court to get these people is crazy making when they could just come and testify like other presidents have had their staff do when they've been in an impeachment process. >> do you think that john bolton isn'ts refusing to testify because he's writing a book and it will make it hard to sell? >> it's hard to think of any other explanation when you consider his own staff members agreed to testify.

there's not some principle that applies to him that not to his staff members. there is the issue of he has direct communication with the president. he could claim a higher level of executive privilege. it would be one thing if he was saying i'm never going to disclose this. but if he's getting $2 million for a book, which a publisher is not going to play unless he's going to talk about his conversations with the president, then it's completely unprincipled and that's how it seems to be. >> john dean, jeff toobin, kirsten powers. man: sneezes 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! (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...

the holidays are here and so is t-mobile's newest, most powerful signal. and we want to keep you connected with the new iphone 11. so t-mobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. for yourself, your family or your small business. keep everyone connected and hurry into t-mobile today, to get up to 4 iphone 11s on us. only at t-mobile. 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.

breaking news. again, support for impeachment of president trump and removal from office stands at 45%. and opposition for both is at 47%. breakdown from battleground states that could decide the race, david chalian is back with those numbers. what are you learning about support for impeachment? >> we wanted to look at the subset where each campaign, get rid of the most liberal and conservative states and here is what we find. there's not much of a

difference. in the battleground states, they say yes, impeach and remove the president from office. 45% say no. i found this surprising. it looks like the picture overall. it doesn't really move one way or the other. 43% approval, 53% disapproval. and take a look at that approval rating over the course of 2019. he operates in a very narrow band. look at that. it's remarkably existent well before anybody knew about the ukraine matter or right now on the eve, if you will, of the president being peach, the third in history to do so t hasn't moved that approval rating.

15 most competitive states, he's at 45% approval in the battleground, 50% disapprove. that's where he is nationally as well, anderson. >> any indication of how impeachment is playing out? we're at the start of 2020 very shortly, how the inquiry will impact the president's chances for re-election? >> we asked if the impeachment matter will help, hurt him or not make any difference. the plurality, 37%. at the bottom saying no difference. among those who say it is going to make a difference, more people think it's going to help the president's chances than hurt. 32% say it will help. 25% say will hurt. i will note that republicans think it will help more than democrats think it will hurt, which i thought was pretty interesting as well.

this poll hurts my hetd. i'm in that percent of people. i don't know what to believe. >> i believe polls are always best read in the aggregate of everything that's out there and in the understanding that is it is a snapshot in time. it isn't predictive of the future. these numbers sort of match-up with the numbers we're seeing out there. it is a locked-in, divided country because we live in polarized times. >> kierstin, are you surprised? support has gone down among democrats. >> that's very surprising. it's a pretty big drop-off, from 90% to 77% in this poll. >> yeah. >> and it doesn't -- that doesn't make sense really. my first rack was i was thinking the number one concern for democrats right now is, of course, they don't want donald trump to get re-elected.

maybe they thought somehow this would help him get re-elected. 78% said it would hurt him or make no difference. so, yeah, it doesn't -- that doesn't make sense to me. i would still say it's not a smal number. bill clinton, a small number of the country supported impeaching him. if you look at an aggregate of all the polls, we're looking at 45, 50% report it. >> as my younger identical twin brother, david chalian, said, the polls don't change. the only time the polls have ever really changed is after the ukraine story broke, support for impeachment really did jump, like over 10%. from the mueller report, it was -- >> among republicans you're talking? >> no, among everyone. and then since then, though, it stayed the same.

it's not just the last year it's stayed the same. it's stayed the same his entire presidency. it's just indicative of what a polarizing figure he is. people made up their mind about hi him. >> to kierstin's point there's a small number of people that want this. >> republicans are overwhelmingly against i peachment and don't want him removed and democrats are overwhelmingly for impeachment and want him removed. that's what you're going to see. there's a bunch of followers down here, not a bunch of leaders. the public is squarely in two camps and they're squarely in two camps here. >> senator, do you think the senate trial makes a difference one way or another in terms of

how the country views this or is this just baked in and there won't be other blips based on what happens in the senate trial? >> when i was in the senate and we were debating this issue, there were cross currents involved in how to conduct a trial. we want witnesses but only witnesses that we think are relevant. they don't control the process. they tried to find a bipartisan solution because the senate was beggar than this solution. in 1998 and 1999, we were not holding hands and singing kumbaya, but we did rise above and decided we needed to do

something and work together. >> rick, you were part that have amazing scene in the old senate chamber. >> yeah. >> when all 100 senators threw out all the staff. they didn't have any rules of evidence, usual parliamentary rules, and you decided on the rules. what was that like? >> again it goes back to the fact that we took setting precedent very seriously and we thought that the country was very divided. there was a lot of rancor. we felt this was an opportunity to begin. we knew that the president wasn't going to be convicted but at the same time we thought that we wanted to make sure that the trial was fair, there was an an opportunity to be heard, understanding that conviction was going to fail. that's not the case here. an election is coming up. everyone has keyed on how do we position ourselves for election?

that wasn't the case in '99. the president was in his last few years of a term and we were looking beyond president clinton. everybody is focused on what they can do to help trump or hurt him. that was not the case in '99. >> everybody, hold on. up next, democratic congresswoman from a swing district makes her decision on impeachment. it's easy to move forward when you're ready for what comes next. at fidelity, we make sure you have a clear plan to cover the essentials in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. and on the way, you'll get timely investment help to keep you on the right track, without the unnecessary fees you might expect from so many financial firms. because when you have a partner

who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. who gives you clarity at every step, oh, come on. flo: don't worry. you're covered. (dramatic music) and you're saving money, because you bundled home and auto. sarah, get in the house. we're all here for you. all: all day, all night. (dramatic music) great job speaking calmly and clearly everyone. that's how you put a customer at ease.

hey, did anyone else hear weird voices while they were in the corn? no. no. me either. whispering voice: jamie. what? 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!

i got this mountain bike for only $11. dealdash.com, the fair and honest bidding site. an ipad worth $505, was sold for less than $24; a playstation 4 for less than $16; and a schultz 4k television for less than $2. i won these bluetooth headphones for $20. i got these three suitcases for less than $40. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save.

facing a critical decision on whether to vote for the president's impeachment. at a raucus town hall this is what she told her constituents. >> this basic idea that the president of the united states would reach out to a foreign power and ask for investigation for personal, political gain. while we may not agree, i hope you believe me when i tell you

that i made this to protect and defend our constitution and i will stick to that, regardless of what it does to me politically, because this is bigger than politics. >> democracy in action. i love that. >> it's an interesting situation. there are, kierstin, several democrats in vulnerable districts who remain undecided on impeachment. it remains to be seen which way they'll go. >> a lot of these people are in districts that would be hard anyway, even if you didn't have impeachment in the picture. and so i thiching a lot of them have indicated they're going to vote their conscious and lence things fall where they fall. if you look at the polls, about the economy, things they're

doing to get done for their constituents which, by the way, is what they're doing. most of these people are saying impeachment isn't coming up with the voters. you have to bear in mind even if impeachment isn't involved they would still be having a hard race. >> no matter how they vote, these democrats, it's going to pass anyway. it's likely the president will be impeached in the house. >> no coincidence that nancy pelosi is bringing up the fair trade deal with mexico and canada the next day so that those moderates are saying we're giving this very serious, important trade deal an affirmative vote that the president supports which is a very good talking point for these vulnerable talking points. >> as a former senator, do you think it's going to be a fair process? many of the jurors, including

majority leader mcconnell, say they've made up their mind or know how it's going to go. democrats hear that and think that's unfair. republican also say that's the way it was in the house. >> if gu back to 1999, the democrats were very, very clear. tom daschle stood up and said there's not a single vote to impeach -- to convict the president. when we went into the chamber jeffrey was talking about, it was very clear everybody had made up their mind on the other side. and many of us were saying we want to hear the evidence. so the shoe was on the other foot. the reality is that the party of the president stands by their person. that's what happened 20 years ago and it's happening again now. >> but that's somewhat different. it's one thing to make up your own mind about how you're going to vote. it's another thing for the majority leader to say i'm not going to do anything regarding how this trial unfolds without clearing it with the president

first. that's a degree of todying. >> go back to 1999. i guarantee you tom daschle and the democratic leaders were working hand in glove with the president and did not want a trial at all. bob bird moved to shut this thing down and have a vote. that's what the president wanted. i understand you like to make the rks the bad guys. they're doing the same thing that democrats did 20 years ago. >> there was a trial. there's not going to be a trial here. there were witnesses. there's not witnesses here. that's the difference. >> those rules have not been decided. and i can tell you with certainty that the democrats wanted no witnesses and no trial. we agreed on a compromise, four

witnesses that did not come to the united states senate. let me assure you, they were squeeze i squeezing every bit they could to try to preeviate this trial and move it forward. >> because of what's happening right now they're saying that impeachment will be weaponized in the future by presidents against they don't like whachlt about not electing someone who veers toward lies and misconduct? one of the articles bothers me and that's the second one on obstruction. every single president i'm familiar with, has exerted, basically rebuffed subpoenas and said no to the congress if you're going to impeach someone because you don't want to wait for time for the court to decide whether to enforce these subpoenas or not that's a big problem. that's a very dangerous step.

>> but bill clinton allowed his staff to testify. nixon allowed his staff to testify. why should they go to court to get that? >> again, precedent aside, there is always opportunities for the congress and the president to fight about what each demands from the other. >> that doesn't answer my question. i don't understand why, when past presidents have done this, why won't trump just let them come testify? >> the president in this case is not going to stick with the precedent. that's not the issue. the issue is do you impeach someone because they don't comply with a subpoena? if that's the standard that's a very slippery slope, very dangerous one. >> senator santorum, jeffrey toobin, kierstin powers as well. >> planning to switch parties from republican to democrat.

you can imagine that the president is thrilled. what about his district?

diarrhea? pepto diarrhea to the rescue. it's 3x concentrated liquid formula coats and kills bacteria to relieve diarrhea. the leading competitor only treats symptoms it does nothing to kill the bacteria. treat diarrhea at its source with pepto diarrhea. ♪ ladies and gentlemen mini is a different kind of car. for a different kind of drive. ♪ ladies and gentlemen for the drive to create a new kind of family car, that became a new kind of race car. for the drive to rebel, zag. for the drive that's inside you. and inside us. that's the drive under the hood of every mini. because every mini is... for the drive. ♪ [sneezing] ♪ you don't want to cancel your plans. [sneezing] cancel your cold. the 1-pill power of advil multi-symptom cold & flu knocks out your worst symptoms. cancel your cold, not your plans. advil multi-symptom cold & flu.

1 in 4 of us millennials have debt we might die with. and most of that debt is actually from credit cards. it's just not right. but with sofi, you can get your credit cards right by consolidating your credit card debt into one monthly payment. including your interest rate right by locking in a fixed low rate today. and you can get your money right with sofi. check your rate in two minutes or less. get a no-fee personal loan up to $100k.

let's check in with chris, see what he's working on for "cuomo prime time." >> i was listening to the conversation with rick and why the senate is trying to do the right thing here. it's all political hypocrisy. the democrats wanted to control witnesses when they were controlling the house, pu thbut had a ton more, you can count up to 24. the senate is now in control and they don't want any. the bigger question is what is fairness for you, for the rest of america, for the left and the right? i think they should all wind up in the same place in a senate trial. i'll argue that tonight. >> i like that you use fugazi.

>> it comes from my upbringing. google it. >> i will. >> he says he won't vote for impeachment. what do his constituents think who voted for him? that's next. th the new iphone 1. so t-mobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. for yourself, your family or your small business. keep everyone connected and hurry into t-mobile today, to get up to 4 iphone 11s on us. only at t-mobile. 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! hi. maria ramirez! mom! maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams.

uh, "fifteen minutes mocould save you 15%ain?ez!!! 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.

♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.

jeff van drew is on the border officially abandoning his party to become a republican. the impending house impeachment of president trump is the reason. the district had been hold by a republican for 24 years before he won as a democrat in 2019. what do his constituents who voted for him as a democrat think? randi kaye traveled there to find out. >> disappointed in him. that's the word for it,

disappointed. how could he switch? >> reporter: to democratic voters, congressman jeff van drew is persona non grata. >> that upsets me. i feel like i was betrayed. >> reporter: betrayed and misled because she thought van drew shared her same values. >> helping the middle class people instead of the people that are very wealthy. republicans seem to support more of the wealthy people. >> reporter: do you regret voting for him? >> at this point yes. >> reporter: they are both registered democrats. both voted for van drew. >> i'm just not a fan anymore. >> reporter: since speaking out against the impeachment, he's been losing support in his southern new jersey district. >> reporter: did van drew lose your support when he said he was against impeachment? >> yes. >> reporter: she had voted for jeff van drew but now -- >> i feel like who kind of sold

out. he made a poor choose. the people have stood by him and whatever decisions he has made up to this point and i do think it's wrong. >> reporter: van drew's support from democrats has dropped off so significantly, he's at risk of losing his seat. switching parties would hope him avoid a democratic primary challenge. meanwhile, this republican who did not vote for van drew is ready to welcome him to the gop. would you support him as a republican? >> if he was a republican candidate, i would support him. i think he's a man of his convictions and he was pretty set on the impeachment thing and he just isn't going to change his mind. for the party or for anybody

else. >> reporter: do you think it's a smart move? >> i think it's a smart move. >> reporter: try convincing the democrats of that. are you going to still support him if he switches to the republican party? >> absolutely not, no. because he's let us down so why should i support him? >> we're joined live now from the congressman's district in new jersey. >> reporter: at least sectiix os staff has resigned. they said his decision to join the gop does not align with their valueswe got a statement from a sixth member of his staff who resigned, c.c. doherty, the former director of constituency relations and she told us

"defeating trump has and always had be the main goal for me, it's the reason i got involved in politics. i could not continue to support him. >> thanks very much. don't miss "full circle." it's you our digital news show. today we focus on the historic world in the pageant world. i spoke about it on "full circle" today with the new miss universe. she's 26 years old from south africa. she's awesome. fascinating to talk to her. you can watch it on "full circle." she encouraging women to love themselves as they are. she wore her hair natural in a short tile for the competition. recalls she ignored calls to

wear a wig during her pageant career. here's why. >> people are asking me to change my hair because they don't feel my hair is beautiful. if i did put on artificial hair, that means i believe i'm not beautiful and women who look like me are not beautiful. which is why i'm going to go full on the way that i am because i see myself as beautiful as any other women. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> look, i'm gay but yes. >> she is awesome in so many ways. you can watch more of the interview. i want to hand things over to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> thank you. that was great. welcome to "people tirime time." we have a house newsmaker with us who just revealed her upcoming vote. she'd been on the fence until now. why?