this is gps, the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. today on the show. >> i think we have a vote coming. >> a remarkable day in america. >> article one is adopted. >> for only the third time in history, a president of the united states is impeached. how does this one differ?

and how does it wok to historians? i'll talk to a panel. and iran has weathered what some have called it most significant protest since 1979. but have the protesters been silenced for good? i'll talk to the iranian activists in exile, masi. a good news for this holiday season. this husband and wife won the nobel prize in economics together. and their ground breaking work is on alleviating poverty. will extreme poverty soon become a thing of the past. first, here's my take. impeachment is big news. justifiably so. but the battle cries around it have drowned out another momentous event with important lessons for the 2020 campaign.

last week's seismic british elections. the simplest way to understand the uk results is to look at one fact. even though the conservatives ended up with their largest majority in parliament since 1987, the overall vote for the party went up from 2017 by just one percentage point. the labor party, however, dropped from 2017 by 8 points. a collapse of historic proportions. labor ended up with the fewest seats in 84 years. there are several reasons for labor's collapse. the party was led by jeremy corbyn who was an uncaharismati. the opponent is colorful and lively. but johnson's victory was brought by more than personality. it had to do with strategic

decisions. he made the election a referendum on brexit. he said vote tory to get brexit done. labor's position on brexit was totally muddled. in politics a simple, clear message will always trump a complex murky one. remember build the wall? three words. johnson's second decision was shifting the party positions on economic policy. under cameron an may the tories were cutting spending through us a tori measures. johnson promised to increase government spending on everything from the national health service to schools to potholes. that second bet worked spectacularly. conservatives won the working class, voters who might have shared the skepticism about europe but could never vote for

an economic was resolutely free market. in 2016 trump similarly campaigned as an economic populist, embracing left wing positions on trade, social security, and medicare. hefrs able to gain working class votes in democratic states while keeping traditional republican voters with him. the trump republican party is now a coalition of free market types and working class popul s populous. there's a tension between the groups but polarization and party loyalty is so -- now, the democrats have a larger base than britain's labor party. but because of the electoral college, they face the same vulnerable, losing socially conservative working class voters in a number of crucial states and they're doing little to address this vulnerability. democrats keep arguing over economic policy leveraging left. but the public is largely

supportive of the party's existing positions. allow people to buy into medicare, fix america's infrastructure, tax the rich more, increase the minimum wage. the party's akilly's heel is immigration. half the democratic candidates want to decriminalize illegal border crossings and give free health care. large majority of the country disagrees and you can expect trump to turn this into a wedge issue. the irony is the republican party like the tories has become a bigger tent party while the democrats historically described by a large coalition are narrow on the issues that might well define the 2020 election. for more go to cnn.com/fareed and read my washington post column this week. let's get started.

february 24th, 1868, andrew johnson. december 16th, 199 8, bill clinton. december 18th, 2019,, donald trump. these are the three impeachments of american presidents. joining me are three historians who have studied presidents who have been impeached or almost impeached. annette gordon reed is the author of many books, one called andrew johnson. tim neftelli is a professor at nyu and a cnn presidential historian. and john meacham is a contributing editor at time. he's written the introduction to "the impeachment report". it details the house

investigation that led to this impeachment. when we look at impeachment, we think it doesn't seal to be working right now. but when you go back and think about the clinton, andrew johnson, it's always seemed somewhat messy, even broken. why? >> well, it's hard to impeach a president. the gold standard i think for an impeachment process is what happened in 19 74. and there you had clear and convincing evidence of the president's involvement in a criminal conspiracy. in addition, you had a lot of evidence about the president's abuse of power and even then, the republican leadership was putting pressure on republicans on the judicial committee not to vote on the president. one of the differences today is in addition to the historical obstacles to impeachment and removal, we have for the first time in history, two parties sharing control of congress.

never -- it's never happened before in an impeachment crisis. in every previous impeachment crisis the same party has controlled both houses of congress. that's one reason why we've never seen the house retain the articles of impeachment to put pressure on the senate to determine the rules of the trial. because -- >> and nixon, it was both houses were democratic and clinton both houses were republican. and andrew johnson, both houses were one party. >> one party. national union, however you want to describe it. so this kind of political gamesmanship has never had to happen before. and as americans we like to play political games. sadly, even in impeachment crises. that's something new, and that's a wrinkle to add even more room for politics in this case. >> annette, when we look at the andrew johnson trial, andrew johnson was a terrible guy, vicious, racist, but what he was impeached for is now generally

seen as not right. he was basically impeached for firing his secretary of defense. something presidents are allowed to do. how to think about that impeachment -- was it a mistake? was it a process gone awry? >> i don't think it was a mistake. we look at the tenure of office act, the violation of that that prompted the impeachment. there were other things. he was a rekals gent president. he was not executing the laws. he was a vicious racist. his whole purpose was to make -- he said this is a white man's government and as long as i'm president, i'm going to be a white man's president. all the things he was doing was in service of the ideal. the tender of office act eventually was declared unconstitutional, but it was a law at the time and he broke it. alexander hamilton knew this would be a political process and

partisanship would enter into it, but the senate, it would be measured and actually have the country's best interest at heart in dealing with the matter. so the johnson one was a tricky one. after civil war, after the death of a president, it was a unique kind of time. it separates it from where we are right now. >> john meacham, when we look at it now, it seems obvious that you're going to have these parties that are going to line up with their president or against. but in a way, impeachment was set up by founders who really didn't think we would have a party system. i mean, you wrote a bieg if i about jefferson where the party emerges. does have political parties make an impartial impeachment process impossible? >> well, it's never going to be

impartial. it's a human undertaking. i think that's one of the things we have to remember is the founders were attempting as w d woodrow wilson once observed a newtonian government. a harmonious whole. when, in fact, this is a more darwinian system. it's a struggle against all. we hope we progress. jury is still out on that. but it's a -- the tension within the republican lower case r structure was present from the beginning. madison, jefferson, washington, hamilton, i don't think would have foreseen the absolute nature of this party structure, but they fully understood faction and that there would be coalitions of interest that would fight against each other. what they hoped for by dividing sovereignty so definitively and

we're seeing it right now, there was a line of thought, they took it more directly from monteskew. there was a study of it in the months before the constitutional convention. what they saw was that we had to make things incredibly difficult to do because we we were as human beings more likely to do the wrong thing than the right thing. and the fruits of that system, however frustrating it might be to one side or the other at a given moment is something we're seeing right now. >> tim, you mentioned something that basically most of the processes have been seen as tarnished except nixons, but you pointed out clear and convincing evidence is what did it, until the tapes. until people knew they had on record the voice of the president actually speaking of a criminal conspiracy. republicans were not willing to

vote against nixon. it was really the tapes that did it. >> it's -- without the tapes, you wouldn't have had an impeachment process. one thing to keep in mind is that people talked about impeachment after the senate water gate hearings. by the way, to remind everyone, the senate water gate gives you john dean's testimony that says the president learned about criminal conspiracy and you learned he had a taping system and the dirty tricks. you learned that there was a stench rising from the administration. even after that, democrats didn't want the leadership didn't want an impeachment process. it's when nixon fires the special prosecutor to prevent access to his tapes that not only democrats but republicans say we at least have to start an inquiry, an impeachment inquiry. i believe without the tapes, richard nixon a, would never have been impeached. the process wouldn't have started and b, he never would have left office before the end of his term.

that sets a very high bar for how you impeach someone using a broad theory of impeachment. >> when we come back, more on impeachment. john meacham has startling statistics on how it actually isn't that risky to be courageous.

do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. 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.

sleep this amazing? that's a zzzquil pure zzzs sleep. our liquid has a unique botanical blend, while an optimal melatonin level means no next-day grogginess. zzzquil pure zzzs. naturally superior sleep. we are back talking about impeachment and the legacy in american history with annette gordon reed, tim, and john. when you look at the impeachment

today, does it seem to you that it is deeply more partisan than before? that there is something special and different this time? >> well, other than what was said before about the fact that you have two different parties who are involved in this process. the partisan -- johnson time was incredibly partisan. we had just come off a civil war. 700,000 people had died in a battle about a vision of america. so this was a very partisan time, and people saw this as a matter of life and death to figure out how you were going to bring all the african americans into citizenship. this is different because of social media, the development of the strong development of a party system that takes in people through social media. it's just a different technology of all of it is different. i think the passions and the partisanship were there in all the ones we've seen. >> i'm often struck by some of the heros of the water gate

hearing, is there, these are southern segregationists. >> absolutely. and they become heros. i was watching this as a kid with my grandparents and the voice and the accent, signalled one particular thing. we were kind of on his side. he was a person who saw himself as upholding the constitution. despite how -- whatever he felt about nixon, he believed in the process. >> john, you have something interesting you were telling me about the idea of republicans, for example, finding the courage to put country above party. that historically when people have -- when senators, congressmen have put country above party, they have not paid the political price that many people think they -- they feared they would. >> it's remarkable when you look at the data on the high profile votes really beginning in the modern era which i would date from '64 and '65 the civil

rights act, the voting right act, the immigration act of 1965. if you look at republicans who voted for medicare and medicaid, if you look at southern democrats like in the ethos of earvin from north carolina. if you look at the southern democrats who voted for the civil rights act, you see that those who sought reelection tend to win. almost universally. and then you would say well, but that means they preemptively retire or there's some other factor. actually, no. the political science on this is pretty clear. the republicans who voted against the iraq war resolution in 2003 /2004, 2002, 2003, all won reelection. republicans who voted for the brady bill and is assault weapons bill won reelection.

if you pass the aisle, you're politically dead. one of the things we have to look at is are there facts to support that? now, i've never run for office or faced voters. it's easy for me to say. but when you look back at the people who decided to defy their party's basic conventional wisdom, you find their political futures were not automatically pushed to the side. >> one of the things that i wonder, tim, about all this, is you have this extraordinary -- trump's own officials saying look, we were pressing the ukrainian government and trying to get this quid pro quo. it seems to me pretty compelling. otherwise, they were all simultaneously diluted. i mean, you had dozens of american officials trying to prez the ukrainian government, and the republican defense is it's all a misunderstanding. trump never wanted this. but it is about ukraine. i mean, is that part of the

problem here? >> well, two things. first, this is the first time we've had an impeachment based on misconduct in foreign policy. foreign policy is a very e sewer the -- esoteric part of our government. they think about security. will we be attacked? this was not an issue about russia or ukraine attacking the united states. there's a second issue here. you have two theories of impeachment. one is the broad theory which is an understanding of a threat to our constitutional system which does not necessarily involve a violation of the law. and a very narrow theory which is that presidents should not be removed except for criminal violations bribery and freeztre being two. the argument this time is an abuse of power. it's a broad theory of impeachment.

making that argument on foreign policy to which most americans don't have an emotional attachment is not hard. that's not to say you shouldn't make it. there's a constitutional obligation on the part of the article one congress to defend the constitutional system, but it's much harder when it's on the basis of an abuse of power connected to foreign policy. >> makes a lot of sense. thank you all. fascinating conversation. next on gps, which do you think will have a bigger effect on donald trump's kmanss fchanc reelection? impeachment or the state of the economy on election day? stay tuned and we'll explore the great power of the wallet in elections around the world.

hey, our worker's comp insurance is expiring. should i just renew it? yeah, sure. hey there, small business owner. pie insurance here with some sweet advice to stop you from overpaying on worker's comp. try pie instead and save up to 30%. thirty percent? really? sure! get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. that is easy. so, need another reminder? no, i'm good. reminder for what? oh. ho ho, yeah! need worker's comp insurance? get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. hi, i'm joan lunden. when my mother began forgetting things, we didn't know where to turn for more information.

that's why i recommend a free service called a place for mom. we have local senior living advisors who can answer your questions about dementia or memory care and, if necessary, help you find the right place for your mom or dad. we all want what's best for our parents, so call today. nyquil severe gives you powerful relief

for your worst cold and flu symptoms, on sunday night and every night. nyquil severe. the nightime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine.

now for our what in the world segment. for everyone breathlessly following the democratic primary, i have some potentially

deflating news. if the economy holds up through next year, a number of forecasting models that have worked well historically project that president trump will be reelected. the reason is simple. americans usually vote on the economy and the american economy is doing well. >> people are making money. >> but let me show you an important exception to the economy rule. india. the second quarter of this fiscal year gdp growth slowed to just 4 .5%, the lowest in more than six years. consumer spending has fallen dramatically. but as the undoumts and foreign affai affairs, something strange accompanied the trends. even as the economy has turned down, the prime minister remains popular. he sailed to a second term in may with an even bigger mandate than the one five years earlier. opinion polls show his approval ratings continue to be high. there are a number of reasons why voters might not be inclined

to punish modi for the economy. perhaps they understand india's economic problems predate him. the question remains, how does he remain so popular as the economy keeps faltering? it's noted in a book, democracy on the road, unlike americans, indians don't primarily vote based on the economy. he finds from 1990 to 2019, 32 indian state leaders delivered economic growth of 8% or more in the first temples but 53% of the time they've lost their reelection bid. that's because the economy gets dwarfed among a raft of other concerns, perhaps most prom mentally, culture and identity. that's why modi, a self-avowed hindu nationalist has pursued the politics of sectarianism. legendary or notorious for having presided over a state government when it experienced a

wave of anti-muslim massacres, he has never apologized for the events. on the eve of the last election, modi seized on an act of terror to accuse the opposition of being propakistan, a charge he had to know would rouse anti- -- critics say it violates the secular nature of india's constitution by specifying for the first time a religious basis for granting citizenship to migrants. though this policy was pushed through in his second term. modi was never shy about signaling his intent. his reelection was in part a mandate for his party's cultural agenda. so focus on that agenda while bad for india's foundational principle of diversity, might be good for him as a politician. and that might be true for more than just india. after all, donald trump ran the last time around by sounding the alarm against mexicans. >> they're bringing drugs.

>> the chinese. >> china. >> and muslims. we may be in a age where culture trumps economics. next, last month iran saw significant protests that toppled the shaw. what happened to the protests? where did the protesters go? stay tuned. when we see you enter through our doors, we don't see who you're against, or for, whether tomorrow will be light or dark, all we see in you, is a spark we see your spark in each nod, each smile, we see sparks in every aisle. we see you find a hidden gem, and buying diapers at 3am. we see your kindness and humanity. the strength of each community. we've seen more sparks than we can say.

about 20 million just yesterday. the more we look the more we find, the sparks that make america shine.

creais back at red lobster.ast with new creations to choose from; like rich, butter-poached maine lobster and crispy crab-stuffed shrimp rangoon. how will you pick just 4 of 10? it won't be easy. better hurry in. iran's president announced earlier this week his nation was testing new advanced centrifuges

that would allow it to enrich uranium at a faster pace. iran is not only at odds with the outside world, it's facing considerable internal dissent. last month protests "the new york times" called the worst unrest since the 1979 revolution that toppled the shah. the crackdown was also historic in the force. a u.s. official says as many as 1,000 people may have died. what is next for the opposition? let me bring in an iranian activist in exile. masih, one of the things you've been able to do is get a lot of the videos that people were sending out even though there were internet bans and such. from what you can tell from the internet recordings, what is going on now? >> you know, i have to say the

level of crackdown was unbelievable. so that's why the government actually managed to push people back home, but trust me, they are preparing to get back to the street, because the anger is there. you know, in three days, only three days, massacre happened. so that is why people right now, they got back home. but they are angry. they are fed up with these government. the main thing that i am hearing from people, especially on being in touch with the family of those people who lost their beloved one, the family of the prisoners, they are looking for an occasion to get back to the street. >> this -- the group has been very clever in using a mixture of patronage and oppression, and has been able to survive. do you think it will be able to survive these protests? >> i don't think so. let me give you an example. a young woman sent me a video in the middle of crackdown. she was filming two people got

killed in front of her eyes. and she was talking on the video saying that i cannot believe it myself. that they are killing people. she got back home. she send me the video, and what she said to me, it's your answer. she said that masih, i'm going to go back to the street again. i don't understand why i'm fearless. the reason is this. because i saw the fear in the eyes of the security forces. so for 40 years we the people of iran have been scared of them. now they are scared to the people. >> let me ask you about your own movement and your own story. you have -- you started a movement. >> sure. the movement that i have started was about compulsory hijab. a lot of people say why? there's so many bigger problems? why you care so much about small piece of cloth? i want to say compulsory hijab, forced, it's the main pillar of

religious dictatorship. it's something the government used to control the whole society. when i move -- when i started the movement, myself freedom and the campaign, i didn't know. i didn't expect it was going to go beyond compulsory hijab. in iran protests i was receiving videos from women before joining white wednesdays movement. >> what's white wednesdays? >> it's a platform where women wear a white -- or walk unveiled in public. it's a crime. six women received 109 years' prison sentence. >> just for not wearing the hijab. >> yes. >> what's happened to your family who live in iran? >> they did anything to keep me -- to punish me. from the beginning they said that i was raped by three men. it was a big lie, but in their

mind set, it means if you're a woman and you get raped, it's your fault. then they wanted to keep me silent. that didn't work. then they went after my family. they brought my sister on iranian national television to disown me publicly. like, i was watching 20 minute show. my sister was disowning me publicly. 20 minutes on iranian national television. they went to my mother, my 70-year-old mother who wears hijab. you know? she has nothing to do with my campaign, but they interrogated her for two hours to keep me silent. i didn't. and then on july, the head of revolutionary cult went on iranian national television, a cleric, saying that any woman who send videos to masih will be charged up to ten years prison. the government find out they cannot keep me silent, they went after my brother. they arrested my brother in front of his two small children. they handcuffed him, blindfolded

him. it is called hostage taking because he has nothing to do with my campaign, or he was not involved in political activities. they arrested him to punish me. to break me. i don't want to keep silent. and i don't want to show them that they are going to win if they punish me my by arresting my family. >> with well, you are definitely not broken. thank you for coming. >> thank you for having me. next, a feel good story, sort of, as we enter the peek of the holiday season. my next guest, a husband and wife who just won the nobel prize in economics together are making even more progress possible. when we come back.

even after you clean, odors are still trapped in your fabrics. febreze fabric eliminates those odors. and try febreze unstopables with twice the fresh-scent power. tackle tough odors with irresistible freshness. la la la la la ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪

♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪

dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere.

less than 1.90 a day. i'm sure your morning coffee or tea costs more than that. but there's great news on this front. in 1981, 42% of the world's population was living in extreme poverty. today it is just 10%. and if my next guests continue their ground breaking work, that number could get close to zero. abhijit banerjee and esther duflo are a husband and wife team and also joint winners of this nobel prize in economics

along with michael kremer. we recently had a chance to talk about their prize winning work. abhijit banerjee and esther duflo, pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. >> what is it like to be married and simultaneously win the nobel economics prize? >> i suppose it's two good things for the price of one. >> but did it at the time it happened, what i noticed was there were a few headlines that said things like, and there's one that said indian/american mit professor and wife wins the nobel prize. what did you think? and there were a few more like that. >> i didn't have time to get offended because the french press said my name and two people including husband win the economics prize. >> all right. what is fascinating about your work is that there's so many things to talk about, but i want

to start by talking about the fact that you up end one of the kind of central assumptions of economics. economics is about economic man or woman, rational man or woman. the basic idea is we all as human beings respond to economic incentives if you pay us more money, we work. if you don't pay us -- and your work basically says actually, when you observe it, that's not true. give me -- expand on this. >> well, i mean, there are many versions of this. for example, i think the one that's politically perhaps more salient is rich people, unless you give them huge tax breaks, they're going to take a vacation. there's no evidence for it. it's hard to imagine that somebody like bill gates suddenly going on vacation. i don't think he could do it if he tried, actually. i don't think there is any evidence that corporate tax cuts are necessary to get growth or to the other myths that are there.

on the other end, the poor, if you give them free money, they're going to retire. there's no evidence for it. if anything, some of the -- especially in developing countries, there's evidence if you give them money, they may be cheered up and might work a little harder. >> and one of the methods that you really pioneer second down the idea of going in and observing what people do, tinkering with some of the things you give one -- you do one thing for one group and one thing for another group. what does it reveal in terms of the idea that we are all bound by economic incentives? >> yes. so one, for example, one series of experiments, not just one, but maybe a dozen experiments that revealed very much that the poor don't get discouragedd fro working when they receive free money is a series of things that happened in latin america, even in the u.s. for a while.

so the people get some money as long as their kids go to school and they get the basic um m immunization and preventive care for their children. one can then look at what happened to the people who get the money and the people who don't. and then a are strictly equivalent because they were chosen randomly. you never see a difference in the probabilities that people are working or in how many hours they work. if anything, whenever you see a small difference, it's actually the people who receive money work a little more. >> you also work in some of the poorest parts of the world. you work in a part of india that is pretty poor. what is the -- is there a simple answer to the question of what does one do about that kind of extreme poverty? for a government that doesn't have the resources of the united states? >> well, i think in our book we make the case that it's

probably -- that is exactly where you may want to go for something like universal basic income. maybe kind of an ultra basic income. not very much, but the government's attempt to help the poor has always been a little bit colored by this idea that if you give them free money, they'll be a bunch of lazy people who will -- it's just take it. so you basically have a scheme where what happens if you have to go to work to get the money. it's not clear that that's how you help the poorest people. we worked with some women who were -- who had been abandoned by their husbands, and had small children. how do they go to work? where do the children go? they were not using these schemes. and as a result, they were instead begging, basically. and the loss of dignity from that seems extraordinarily costly. nobody will have to be at that -- nobody needs to be begging. i think that's not -- that --

that i think most countries can achieve. and we should try to achieve. >> you're the youngest nobel r laureate in economics. were you surprised when this happened or people had been talking about it, but were you surprised when you got the call? >> surprised might be an understatement of the year. i was flabbergasted. i was like what? i'm much too young for this. >> what about you? >> well, i mean, you know, i -- i also thought, i also thought i was too young. >> what is the only reason this could happen is that this is not a prize just for the three of us, the two of us and michael kremer but a prize for a whole movement of people who have tried to go back to the field and understand the problem of the poor in detail and try solutions without being too convinced they might work in the

absence of data and move from the day to to the next solution. that's broader than us. hundreds and hundreds of projects, and i think that is a little bit what the nobel prize committee tries to reward other than just any of us individually. >> abhijit banerjee and esther duflo, pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. >> we will be back. ging? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. 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. [ chuckles ] so, what are some key takeaways from this commercial? did any of you hear the "bundle your home and auto" part? -i like that, just not when it comes out of her mouth. -yeah, as a mother, i wouldn't want my kids to see that. -good mom. -to see -- wait. i'm sorry. what? -don't kids see enough violence as it is? -i've seen violence. -maybe we turn the word "bundle" into a character, like mr. bundles. -top o' the bundle to you. [ laughter ] bundle, bundle, bundle. -my kids would love that. -yeah.

my book of the week is impeachment, a handbook by charles black. this brief book really just an essay, was written by a law professor during nixon's downfall but is the best guide for the layperson mixing deep constitutional knowledge be common sense. my favorite example of the latter is when explaining why something that is not technically a crime could still be an impeachable offense, black explains if the president were to move to saudi arabia to have four wives, this would not be a

crime, but it would be grounds for impeachment. now, i want to tell you about two upcoming chances to see my documentaries on monday. tune in to cnn at 1 1:00 p.m. eastern to see "presidents on trial an inside look at impeachment". it's a timely look at the historic week we just witnessed and an in depth examination of our past, clinton, nixon, and even andrew johnson. and next sunday viewers in the u.s. should tune into regular gps time when you can catch scheme and scandal inside the college admissions crisis. international viewers catch it at 7:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m., 10:00 p.m. eastern. happy holidays. i'll see you in the new year. .m 10:00 p.m. eastern. happy holidays. i'll see you in the new year. a.

10:00 p.m. eastern. happy holidays. i'll see you in the new year. hey, our worker's comp insurance is expiring. should i just renew it? yeah, sure. hey there, pie insurance here to stop you from overpaying for worker's comp. try pie and save up to 30%. it's easy. sweet! get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. nyquil severe gives you powerful relief for your worst cold and flu symptoms, on sunday night and every night. nyquil severe. the nightime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine.

♪the beat goes onp for heart failure look like? it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪the beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪la-di-la-di-di entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure yeah! entrust your heart to entresto.

♪the beat goes on i'm brian stelter. it's time for "reliable sources". in this hour we have not one but two of america's top editors joining me. marty baron and david remnick are here. plus us si cup and others are here. i'm going to propose a new diagnosis for the whoas of the news media. are we all experiencing memory loss? and later, with the movie "bomb shell" in theaters, i'll speak to the director to see why he decided to make a film about the darkest days