ar 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?

and we have brand new numbers on where we stand on impeachment as a country. and how can you not stand for a fair trial if you want to prove the president's innocence. big questions, let's get after it. >> the toughest situation is unknown. will we ever hear from the people with the most direct knowledge of this ukraine fiasco snz mulvaney, bolton, a couple others. they should know a lot about why aid to ukraine was held up and they've all been silenced by this president and they may be kept quiet by senate republicans who seem intent to hold a trial with no witnesses. nevertheless, the house judiciary committee found enough to send up two articles of impeachment and in their new 658-page report out just today, they describe the behavior underlying thing alleged abuse of power as part of a criminal plot involving this president

and crimes of bribery and wire fraud. now, the big vote in the full house on both articles of impeachment is just days away. today another moderate democrat announced what her vote will be, impeach. let's bring in chrissy houlahan from pennsylvania, a foreign affairs committee member. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> why declare tonight? why did it take you so long to decide? >> sure. it took me a long time to decide. none of us want to be here making this decision. i'm a veteran and an engineer. i take my oath of office very, very seriously and i'm very, very deliberative and make sure i have understood all of the evidence or the scientific evidence from front of me. it took me quite some time to

get through all of the data, all of the testimony and make a good choice. it got to the end of the line where there was no other choice other than to impeach this president on these two articles. particularly the evidence is overwhelming and it is my constitutional responsibility to make that difficult vote. >> reporter: now, your district was redrawn. you won it, clinton won it by a point. she could have won they say by maybe as nine if it was drawn the way it was when you won it. a lot of your fellow party members came out sooner than you. to what do you attribute the difference in timing? >> my district is 40% republican, 40% democrat and 20% independent. this was a decision i needed to make to represent everybody in our community and i shouldn't

feel pushed. you should want me to make the best decision that i can and this of the time that i needed to make it. >> so when they say to you when you're home like you were recently and like you will be again soon and they say why? i didn't send you there for this. what a mess. you're not getting anything done. or they say what took you so long? what are you that much of a scaredy cat? you're looking at the polls and you see the nation is divided and you take your sweet time? how do you address those polar opposite feelings in one district? >> we just had our 14th town hall. it was online or telephone town hall, though the vast majority have been in person. we had 4,000 people on the line and talking about these pressing issues and some had questions about impeachment and agreed or disagreed with me with that very important decision, but we were also able to talk about the hundreds bills we've pushed through in this congress and many, many have been bipartisan.

the vote that will take play this week on mca and last week on farmers, making sure they had visa availability, we made sure we pushed through the mdaa. i'm on the foreign fairs committee but also on the armed services committee. my office was instrument an in pushing forward parental leave as a result of the armed services of that we pushed forward. that is a remarkable experience of bipartisanship in the face it have situation. >> in the house you've gotten some things half done. and i don't mean it as criticism. i'm saying as a function of process. but this permeates everything. this division when the president does that. so mcconnell is not given any votes. a lot of these things won't get vote because of the environment. >> i beg to disagree. there are a large number i'm disappointed will never see the light the day. the mdaa is another. the farm bill i believe will be another.

>> the budget extension will be one. >> exactly. three dozen republican congressmen. so there is progress. there is work being done. and the vast, vast majority of our every day existence in congress is pushing forward the people's agenda, what we worry about health care, jobs, education, the plan peplanet, a those -- everybody should agree we should be working on those. >> they do matter, every one of them gravely, certainly in the campaigns they do. but nothing is happening on any of them. independent not blaming you i'm blaiming the atmosphere. some of the things i've plirnl done is work to create bipartisan caulk uses. i'm a part of something called noncountry, nondemocrats and nonrepublicans, working to find

common ground. we have worked to push forward things like the parental leave. and as a consequence 2.1 million people will have family leave available. >> it's a huge deal, it's important. you got the president's daughter on your side as well. that's helpful in this particular white house. i appreciate you being with us on such an important night for your constituents. would you be okay -- i know this is a senate decision but all democrats matter. if you were to trade bolton and mulvaney for biden and schiff, would you make that deal? >> so of course i look to the senate to make those decisions. i believe that my responsibility is what i have effectively done or will do this week, which is to deliver with a ppd to the senate, it will be their responsibility -- >> no question.

but the voices matter. this is about energy. there is a potential chance here you'll have no witnesses in a trial. as silly as that is to anyone who considers justice fairness. >> in my opinion the senate's responsibility is to weigh the evidence for the commander in chief, for this president. it is not their responsibility to dig into these other areas. that is the responsibility of the fbi as a result and the judiciary of the nation as well. if there is corruption, if there is something to see, then we should definitely see it, but i don't necessarily believe that the place to see it is in the senate. >> strong point. thank you very much, representative, for being with us tonight. >> thank you. >> that's an interesting take, that some of these things will continue to be investigated. it's not all going to be over and done with in just in impeachment process. it's also a little bit of a daunting idea as well. we know where most members of

congress are. how about us as a country? divided, we know that. but there's a way to look at the most recent polls in the all-important court of public opinion. and you will see some truths in there about who we are and where we are heading into the next phase. the whiz of odds next. the wait is over. t-mobile is lighting up 5g nationwide. while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. now, millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. and this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network. little things can be a big deal. psoriasis,

that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. 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. -well, audrey's expecting... -twins! grandparents! we want to put money aside for them, so...change in plans. alright, let's see what we can adjust. ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. okay. mom, are you painting again? you could sell these. lemme guess, change in plans? at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan.

skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. lemme guess, change in plans? now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast! cnn's latest poll suggests 45% favor impeachment and removal, 48% against it. what a situation, almost half the country thinks the president should go out like this. the question we need apesed is why? despite all that has been learned are people in the same place. the polls have looked like this for a while. how do i know?

the whiz. thank you, brother. shalom in advance of hanukkah and the holy days for you. >> one of the things that i think is so important is we had a number of polls come out over the last 24, 36 hours and they basically show the same thing, cnn, fox news, quinnipiac university 45%. overall that average of where the nation is so evenly divided, the electorate. so evenly divided, 47% to 48%. it's basically split dead even. >> and it's been like that for a while. very unusual in polling that people stay stuck in the same place despite developments. even before ukraine and post ukraine, about the same place. why? >> one major reason why, what is a major reason?

among those who support impeachment, 72% is because trump's done a bad job running the country. this is very much in line with their partisanship. among those who pose impeachment, 78% trump's done a good job running the country. people are choosing impeachment positions based upon how they already feel. >> that's always true with presidents. obama had that, too. it's only about in the 30s for most people. >> apples for apples, clinton getting impeached. >> you were saying how historic it is. clinton at his high water mark in december of '98, only 40% said yes, 59% said no in an abc news/"washington post" poll. this number is significant higher. even if the numbers are static, it still really, really high. >> it's also a reflection of he's got a much higher negative index and this is a much more serious set of facts.

that was like a culture war. this is literally about national security. now, likely to change. this is the most impressive one to me about why we are where we are. >> very likely that the senate trial changes your mind on removing trump from office. among those who support removing him, only 11% say they're likely to change their minds, among those who oppose it, only 5% say that anything will likely change it. these numbers suggest that perhaps the support for impeachment may drop a little bit but overall very, very static. >> this is why mitch mcconnell is saying let's rush through and get past it, you're not going to change any minds, let's go. it's no the going to be as easy as he thinks. party. >> if democrats will move the dial, of the 45 who favor impeachment and removal, the

vast majority are leaning democratic independents. but of those 12% who don't favor impeach and remove but disapprove of the job trump is doing, just 55%. they have to reach out to the independence and few republicans who don't like trump but aren't in the impeach and remove. >> don't favor impeach but do disapprove. that's why she went so slowly. this is a dicey proposition. whiz, as always, thank you for taking us inside the numbers. >> shalom. go buffalo bills. >> senator mcconnell was so straight forward about letting the white house run the president's pending trial in the senate. he made it sound routine. is it? what about the separation of powers? we have president obama's white

house counsel here. he's got valuable insight on what's right and wrong next. go buffalo bills. did have

did have introducing new vicks vapopatch easy to wear, with soothing vicks vapors for her, for you, for the whole family. new vicks vapopatch. breathe easy.

are likely to be defended on the basis that the president was within his powers to do what he did and that he didn't go rogue. he was advised about how to leverage the aid and how to push back against congressional subpoenas and requests specifically by his white house counsel. so what's right? what's wrong? one person who held that job for perspective, bob bauer. he was in the white house under president obama. it's good to have you. >> thank you very much. good to be here. >> let's talk substance, then

we'll talk process. obstruction of congress. the president's defense is, listen, administrations always push back against congress. they don't like a lot of the requests and it should be settled in the courts. if they don't want to take the time, that's on congress, not on the executive. >> that's somewhat of a significant misstatement of the position that the administration actually took. it wasn't going about quarrelling with particular subpoenas or agreeing to cooperate but then sort of picking its battles, if you will, over particular testimonies or documents. it launched a broadside attack on the process. the white house counsel wrote an extraordinary letter saying the peeflt pr impeachment process in itself was unconstitution al, a sham ad that the president wouldn't cooperate with it at all. to treat the president's conflict with the congress as a relatively ordinary course tug and pull is a real

misrepresentation of the position the administration in fact took here. >> even if it going to be about what the premise was versus how was performance came from it, it would still be the same basic point, wouldn't it, counselor, which is they don't believe this is a righteous ask. this is a bad ask and they're not going to indulge it unless the courts say so. one argument is now you're making the judiciary co-equal will the executive. what should matter to people and why is it wrong? >> you would expect the president takes the constitutional process seriously. no president relish the thought of an impeachment battle, that is for sure. it's perfectly open to presidents to defend themselves vigorously. the question is are they going to engage with the congress and recognize congress's power to people and address it responsibly by offering if you will accommodations on some testimony and fighting

vigorously over others. this administration took the extraordinary position -- nixon didn't take this position, clinton didn't take this position, that it would have nothing whatsoever to do with the impeachment process, it simply swept it off the board entirely and that is what i think led to article 2 and distinguishes this impeachment case from others in the past. >> the idea of impeachment fundamentally was meant as a process where left and right come together because they are overwhelmed by what the executive is doing to them. in the case of a president especially, that what's ever happening is so bad that there are going to be two-thirds of you in the senate that see it that way and that that is not this situation. there will be zero buy-in from the republicans, they don't accept the premise, they don't accept the facts. so this can never be an effective mechanism of impeachment for the democrats, no matter how good faith they're

acting in. >> it's possible to decide an impeachment process shouldn't be conducted but that doesn't seem consistent with the constitutional process at all. the house makes a determination of whether the president is fit to retain office and i'm come back to that in a minute and the senate is obligated to try the charges. but impeachment raises the constitutional stakes. this is often falsely believed to be a punitive act by the house. in fact, it's a prophylactic measure. the whole notion behind impeachment is that the president has disqualified himself or herself from holding office and something in the president's behavior or character, pattern of conduct of the office raises the threat that that president will continue to misuse his or her powers. and that is, by the way, a

pronounced point in the house judiciary committee report on impeachment that if the president has not stopped here, could do it again. >> well, he's said as much. >> i get you on the continuing threat point. i don't get you on the senate point. mitch mcconnell said he's going to do what the white house wants and he has a beautiful way of saying things that are completely radical but saying them with a straight face and somehow making them acceptable. i've never heard of this before. we actually went back to the democrats to see what daschle would say about this and of course they weren't in power but the idea of letting the white house decide how the trial of the white house in essence goes, how is that fairness? >> if mitch mcconnell meant in that statement that the white house was in effect going to run the -- >> he said it three times, bob. three times he said it. >> well, and i'm not disputing it, i'm going to the question of whether it's appropriate for the majority leader to say and what is not. it would be one thing for the

majority leader to say the administration would consult on process. it's another to turn the senate into a vessel into the president pours whatever it is that he chooses. the latter is clearly an abdication of the senate's ability to try this case, no question about it. >> can you have a fair trial with no witnesses? >> pardon me? >> can you have a fair trial if there are no witnesses? >> the house of course conducted -- well, the house conducted a trial and built a record. and much like 191999, the bette part of the trial could be conducted on the record. >> the senate in clinton had witnesses, bob. >> the senate in clinton conducted three depositions it was limited fact finding. the better part of the case rested on ken starr's independent counsel record. as we know, senator schumer said there's a limited number of

witnesses and limited number of requests for documents that he believes is necessary to supplement the house record. he's already made that clear in the letter that he put forward. at least that's his opening proposal to the senate majority lead leader. >> it's interesting the way this is supposed to size you that what the house does by impaefing bring forward an indictment and the particulars are supposed to be tried in the senate. i don't see how they do that without witnesses. i don't know why they'd want to. i don't know that they don't have an expectation that bolton and mulvaney wouldn't be -- the idea that he would have an ax to grind with a man who -- in a trade the senate could say give us biden and give us schiff. if i'm the democrats, i make that trade to the extent i control it. >> let me speak to the constitutional issue here for a second. >> that's much easier, bob. go ahead. >> well, i just want to speak to

what i know. that's what i'd like to do here if at all possible. it can conduct a trial on the basis of the house record, can conduct a trial or with a limited number of witnesses, o are a good number of witnesses. it can depose witnesses and not bring them to the floor or perhaps bring them to the floor. the senate has an enormous amount of flexibility. as for administration witnesses that senator schumer has discussed calling. you may be confident that they will do right or however you put it, by president trump, president trump may have questions whether that's at case and so they would have a sense that this impeachment record in the house that's been built has been built on the testimony of administration witnesses. i don't know that that was anticipated at the time. so it may be that the president

is not eager -- this president is not eager to have an encore of that performance? >> you must be right because he has kept them from testifying to this point. if there's one thing we know about this president, if he thinks it's good for him, he'd be pushing to are it. thank you so much to are bringing to bear your understanding of the law as it applies in this case. >> thank you. >> so the president made really ugly comments -- i know you're shocked -- about another woman -- i know you're shocked. >> this time it's nancy pelosi. i know you're shocked. and he made an age crack about her teeth. now that's something you haven't heard of before. but here's the troubling thing for me. we know what this president's capable of or not capable of. what are his defenders thinking by never calling him out for what he does? time to test next. did have

when we were looking for a roommate, 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.

up here at the dewar's distillery, all our whiskies are aged, blended and aged again. it's the reason our whisky is so extraordinarily smooth. dewar's. double aged for extra smoothness.

. one of the reasons it's hard to defend trump is he demands you defend everything he does and says. that raises what we call the defender's dilemma. should you be defending a man when you know it will force you to own the ugliness that he spe spits out that you can't possibly agree with. for example, attacking nancy pelosi with a tweet about her teeth falling out.

unorthodox, they say. and he's frustrated, they say. what they don't say is what they would say immediately if anyone else said anything like this. so the question becomes how do you keep your credibility with this kind of silence? let's bring in former republican congressman sean duffy. blessings for christmas for you and the family. >> you, too. merry christmas. >> you get the question, telling the president he's right is a follower, telling him he's wrong is being a leader and nobody seems to want to do that in your party. >> president trump says some pretty rough and tumble things. but if you also look at nancy pelosi, she's called him an imposter, called his manhood into question. if you're sitting in donald trump's seat, you'll say people have been coming after me from the point i ran for office. snoop dog did a video with a gun to his head and you have democrats who are going to impeach but they call him a

racist, a sexist, a nazi, two-year impeachment, colludkoc with russia. what i hear people saying there is i might not love all of the fights that he's in but i love that he's fighting and pushing back against people, whether it the media or democrats who are unfair to him. otherwise he just gets railroaded. >> i hear you. i don't think he gets railroaded, he's the most powerful people in the world, he pulls the strings, which is why we haven't heard from the people most in the know about the ukraine situation. he's doing fine. i don't believe the president has to act like who his critics are. the president is the biggest man in the room. did you ever hear the expressions the lion is not concerned by the complaints of the she. the second thing is you guys will say you don't like what he

says. none of you say he should not have said that about nancy pelosi, it was an ugly remark that is beneath the presidency. none of you have said it. >> but, chris, i think what you don't recognize is that the the thakt and frankly the median democrats are the lion and they're going after the president nonstop. >> why don't you say nancy pelosi's teeth are falling out. >> when do i stop pointing the fingers or what about saying it's our responsibility, whether we're in our homes or our communities or in our conversations to be more respectful with one another. >> because why would i take that message from you when to call out the person who says the ugliest things most constantly. >> i don't know if you called out maxine waters when she said go after them in gas stations

and in restaurants. or liberals were banging down the doors of supreme court. a conservative can't speak on a college campus. i think when you take the picture as a whole, republicans and conservatives are angry with the way they've been treated. and so that the president is fighting back against at least a perceived unfairness. i mean, they're happy about it because if you don't fight back, you just get punched in the head day after day after day and you lose pb. >> sean, we're not in a bar. and i don't have someone copping at me in front of my kid of day. and i can't believe that your argument is there are people who support the president who feel that he's taking too much okay

with him saying that nancy pelosi's teeth are falling o put. where is your high ground morally if you don't call it out? >> do you think it okay for nancy pelosi to call out his manhood in. >> she said she prays for him every kay and can't say now you're saying i'll doing. so -- >> so let me ask you, sean -- >> we should have started with nancy pelosi. >> i have the answer to your question when you're ready for it. >> when she won the speakership, remind me, are you a christian? >> i think i am, yeah. >> and your party basically

wants to make christianity the religion of this country but certainly the guiding light of it's party. >> we want the freedom to practice which ever -- >> which if you want to hold yourself as a christian, you can't make any of the arguments you're hearing right now. for the he's got to come back the same way. knuckle up, lady. he should talk about her teeth falling out. i don't about pelosi being wrong, by the way. >> i haven't. but if you're fair looking at the whole picture -- >> it's still wrong what he said about nancy pelosi. >> i would love to say let's do a segment of all the terrible thing -- >> how does it make one they did

a doesn't it mean something to you that i'm toll fwr and my bosses, remember, i know what he said, you got o be what does that tell you about how he basis? >> what i say, though, chris, if we're going to oo. >> would see the left getting called out on the and it's wrong when it happens. if they're not eti -- they're rivals and thugs.

if nancy pelosi made a joke there j it's wrong, it's too far. it not funny. >> i don't think if i look at the other networks and other shows they've done what you've done. you're a standout who has been a straight shooter on this stuff where the others have turned a blind eye to it. my point to you is i don't like any of this, i'm a catholic like you are. i like peace and civility. i love her to death. we did but we, except for one thing. you're a much better catholic than i didn't mean. >> i just think that the credibility comes with saying what's wrong, not just why it's okaythat's my argument.

i hear yours seaing no to the need for witnesses whenoften upon both sides. i think the loser is the president. if i big boys don't tiff i think all sides lks. next. did have.

can a trial be fair if it allows for no witnesses in that should be a rhetorical witness. the reality is raw power plays and that's why after a dozen live witnesses in the house, the senate may want none. bad? yes. for whom? everybody. prove it? okay. we need them because we need the information. the house duty was to dig and

deliver accusations, not conclusions. they did that. the senate job is to lold this is where the most information will be needed. you all say you want the facts and the truth. you can't get it without hearing from the people who know the most. the democrats want the people at the top, who do know the most and who have been hidden from in process by trump, mick mulvaney condition staultoned. they might present extulltory point that leds bay gave an order to mick mulvaney. did that what?

and we know ex-national security adviser john boat and testified see they be them to wrong the a and bolton a lawyer says his client has information that has not been shared. so it's good for justice, which is fairness understand law. good for you -- truth, facts. good for the democrats, who see these players as key to their findings of abuse of power, but here's a big part of the argument. i think the person it could be the best for is trump, and he may get that. >> i'd love to have mick go up frankly. i think he'd do great. i'd love to have him go up. i'd love to have almost every person go up. >> now, his credibility is in question, full stop. but on this specifically, he's twice bluffed about wanting to testify himself. in fact, he backed off that statement. he said, but it's a witch hunt

and a sham. look, here his credibility is especially so because he's the one keeping all these people from the process. all that house gop belly aching about the lack of firsthand witnesses was fugazi. they knew their boss was the one pulling the strings. mitch mcconnell made it clear what the president wants, he gets. >> well, exactly how we go forward, i'm going to coordinate with the president's lawyers, so there won't be any difference between us on how to do this. you raised the issue of what if you have witnesses. the president's counsel may or anyway not decide they want to have witnesses. >> he has a gift of saying things bold-faced that make it seem okay. you're letting the white house decide how it gets tried. think about that. what a gross violation of separation of powers. put it aside. now, the best that they can do here is listen to what the

president wants. the best what we can do is listen to what he just said in this piece. there are two arguments for witnesses that help the president and therefore his proxies and his party. schumer is right. we don't really know what mulvaney and bolton will say. in fact, i argue that mulvaney, despite his little slip of the truth earlier this year, would be totally on team trump and cover in a way that would be unprovable that he's doing that, and that's good for the president. bolton may have a book to sell, but does he really have an ax to grind. trump gave him a front row seat, a title he can earn off for years, and he may not know anything. second, this is a great chance to give to get. if the white house did decide to want to have witnesses, as ridiculous as that is that they'den in control, we'd know who they want, the whistle-blower, house intel chairman adam schiff. if the -- and was trying to root it out, that's all he wanted to do, look, i argue i don't believe that justifies how this president went about pressuring

ukraine. but if his lawyers slice up biden, it would help the politics of acquittal. and finally, the hypocrisy of the current situation is going to be part of the stain of this event on history. mcconnell will be haunted by what he's saying now based on what he said the last time. remember this. >> it's not unusual to have a witness in a trial. it's certainly not unusual to have a witness in an impeachment trial. >> you see what i'm saying? monica lewinsky, vernon jordan, sidney plume enthaul. they all testified for the senate trial. and while i'm talking about the clinton impeachment, there's an entire universe of information separating what we knew thaen versus what we know now. we had that starr report. bill clinton handed over his dna and he did something that trump apparently doesn't have the stones to do. clinton testified himself. >> it depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.

>> now, that reminds you that this was basically about a sex act, but i'll remind you of something else. this current situation is about national security and election security. it's a much bigger deal in terms of the worries of abuse of office. but what you just remember that is/is, that's the reason you're not going to see witnesses and likely never see trump anywhere near taking an oath to tell the truth. it can hurt you. it hurt clinton. and trump is about finding ways to beat the truth, not admitting it. that's the argument. now, this president's predecessor is dropping hints of who should be leading the country. it's a bolo, next. beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people.

now, millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. and this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network.

enjoy your prime rib! anyone ever call you, "meat santa"? no, that's... weird. happy holidays. enjoy. next customer?

enjoy. when it comes to using data, which is why xfinity mobile is a different kind of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control

compared to other top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, unwrap $250 off a new samsung phone. click, call or visit a store today. bolo means be on the lookout. former president obama is making the case for a new kind of

leadership, more women. this is according to the bbc. he told an audience in singapore women are, quote, pretty indisputably better leaders than men. he wasn't saying that about hillary clinton when he was running against her, that's for sure. he continued, i'm absolutely confident that if for two years every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything. and if that wasn't clear enough, he also said if utd look at the world and its problems, it's, quote, usually old people, usually old men not getting out of the way. woops, what is that supposed to mean? all right. let's get to "cnn tonight" with d. lemon right now. >> who used to say this all the time? come on, man. >> no, they say it now. deion sanders started saying it, and now they have a whole segment on it. >> that was president obama. he used to say it all the time. he must have been watching me

when tmz caught up with me, and i said that to them, i think it was a year ago, and i got eaten up by the right. cnn host says more women should run for president because they are the smartest of the sexes. i've been saying that forever. did you see that headline? >> you think that you are the originator of the idea that women have advantages in leadership over men? >> women are the more evolved, the most evolved of the sexes. >> you said it to be p.c. obama said it with integrity. >> they are the smartest. just ask christina cuomo. she will tell you. >> i think what they do better is the more important the decision, very often how you feel and how you think have to be married in a way that i don't think men do as well as women. i think what we've learned is the more opportunity you give women, the more they show that what we used to think were masculine advantages don't really exist. if women are exposed to stems, you know, to science and technology, they do just as well or better than men. >> well, i happen to havero