the news continues. i will hand it over to chris cuomo for cuomo prime time. all yours. >> erica, pointing out the president not telling the truth is easy. the mystery is what it will take for someone to beat him. we're going to get into tonight why he's still looking very good for the upcoming election. thanks to you, best to your family for the new year. i'll see you soon. i am chris cuomo. welcome to prime time. we also have new video tonight of the navy s.e.a.l.s who turned in their own platoon leader. we' what does it tell us not so much about the case because he was acquitted but the politics around it? the president's choice specifically. this is our last show of the year. in fact, it's the last show of the decade. so be on the lookout for a special 2020 bolo ahead and a warning about resolutions. what do you say? let's get after it.

>> these are interview obtained by the "new york times" of alpha platoon s.e.a.l. team 7 members, breaking an unwritten code of silence in 2018 by taking on their chief of their platoon, who was eventually tried for war crimes. here's a taste. >> he's a psychopath. the guy got crazier and crazier. >> the guy was toxic. >> we can't let this continue. >> it's [ bleep ] up. that's frickin' evil, man. >> these are not from now, not sworn, not cross-examined. it was an early part of the investigation. but they're still going to hold relevance. what is also relevant is mr. gal ber was acquitted of multiple war crimes including killing a young isis prisoner. he was only convicted of a single and lesser charge in ul j, posing for photos with the body of that dead isis fighter. now, after the trial, gallagher was demoted in rank because of the photo. that's when the president intervened. why? he reversed the demotion and let gallagher retire honorably.

navy secretary richard spencer strongly objected. some say it cost him his job, but it did not silence him. he wrote in "the washington post," this president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically, or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices. now, gallagher responded to news of the release of the tapes, and here's the response. quote, my first reaction to seeing the videos was surprise and disgust that they would make up blatant lies about me. but i quickly realized that they were scared that the truth would come out of how cowardly they acted on deployment. the videos also gave me confidence because i knew that their lives woues would never h under real questioning. the jury would see through it. gallagher, recently photographed with president trump just last weekend at mar-a-lago, and that's as much of this story, although that may be unfair to gallagher, right, because gallagher didn't do what he did for political reasons as far as we know, but he has become a

political chess piece. let's bring in cnn military analyst major james spider marx, and phillip carter. thank you both. spider, as always, thank you for being of such use to my audience all year long. phillip, you're new, but i thank you in advance. so these videos, again, timing matters. they're not new. these aren't people adding to what we've already known. but in terms of context, what do they raise for issues, spider? >> the big thing is this really demonstra demonstrates a break in terms of the cohesion specifically within this team. i don't know that i can extrapolate and say, look, across the board the s.e.a.l.s have got a real challenge. let's be frank. the entire service has been at war for 18 years. they're going to be stresses, and especially the special ops community. these young men and women just rotate in and out. they go back in.

they continue to stand back up. they go back in. so you have these pressures on these teams. but when you look at that video, i have to assume that a priori, any mission, that there was a conversation inside the platoon that said, look, guys, we've got some challenges. let's address those. if those conversations were heated, i got it, it sounds like people didn't follow that input in terms of execution on the mission. but if they didn't have those conversations, you have more than just a fractured cohesion within that team. you've got a real breakdown in terms of leadership challenges and, again, as i said, i can't extrapolate out to the force. >> sure. >> this needs to be addressed. >> to keep it specific, phillip, you know, we're not used to harihar hearing s.e.a.l. team members talk about one another this way. of course this was a piece of litigation. the lawyers' response is pretty obvious. he says, look, these guys weren't sworn, and these are the

same kinds of statements that i cut up like cheese at the trial. so these are of no meaning. what's your take? >> we don't often seen the inside of a s.e.a.l. team room. this is the inside of a dysfunctional s.e.a.l. team room. it shows the breakdown of unit cohesion. i think we should take these videos seriously because these s.e.a.l.s would have faced pretty serious repercussions if they lied to investigators. they may not have been formally sworn or under oath or cross-examined, but these s.e.a.l.s weren't cavalierly making these statements. you can imagine what it takes for such well trained, elite service members to get to the breaking point where seven of them are going to go to ncis and tell them these kinds of things about their chief. >> now, then it becomes political. so gallagher is acquitted. he is found guilty of taking the photo in front of the dead body. they want to demote him. the president says no.

what did you make of that decision then, and what do you make of it now, spider, in terms of what may have motivated, why it was right or wrong? >> well, we're talking about this now, chris, and we've taken our eye off the other 8,000-plus soldier, sailors, airmen that continue to deploy in afghanistan. we're talking about this, and i must say frankly the president got involved way too soon. he could have waited for this thing to entirely wrap itself up, tied with ribbon, gone through the entire process. it could have been presented to the sec-def, could have been a done deal and the president says thank you very much. then he can take action. the fact he reached in so soon, he clearly has the authority to do that. i mean the president is cloaked in immense power. we know that. but that just kind of got this thing spinning. then the secretary of the navy, as you've indicated, ended up having to resign because he was trying to walk a line both

between, you know, kind of what i would call honor to the navy and also trying to honor the direction of the president. >> right. >> he was ill adroit. i didn't make that happen. >> we can assume it is not a coincidence that mr. gallagher wound up in a photo op with the president down at mar-a-lago, phillip. there's obviously some thinking that helping this man, mr. gallagher, the platoon chief, was of benefit to the president because there's no other basis for any other reckoning. we have no reason to believe he understood anything about the case. he has no connection to the military. he has no connection to this branch of service. so there's no reason for him to have been invested. what do you think was the political plus-minus for the president? >> it's hard to judge other than i think what you've said. but it is more broadly about the civil military relationship between the president and the military and what do we want that to be. in this case you had reportedly the secretary of the navy, the chairman of the joint chiefs, the secretary of defendant, and the secretary of army and other cases recommending one thing and

the president did another. now, that's clearly his constitutional prerogative, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. and one has to wonder how fractured that civil military relationship is now going forward on afghanistan, on russia, on the budget, and everything else that comes through the oval office. >> and is it a nod to the president endorsing harshness even if it is just about the photograph? you know, we have rules. i know people will debate this, you know, war is war. you know, americans try to do things differently. is this a nod, maybe not anymore? spider to your point, i wanted to get your guys' take on a situation i believe we've ignored. 235,000 people the latest count of the number displaced as a result of an escalation of violence over the last two weeks in northwest syria. now, you get quick disclaimers from the military and defenders of the president who say, whoa, we were never there. this has nothing to do with our

decision to leave the united states. this is just stuff that happens. what's your take? >> we were the sinew that held all those loose parts together in terms of our relationship with the kurds. again, you can be very agnostic and say, look, the turks are our ally through nato. we've got a longstanding relationship with them. it dates back to the early '50s, albeit it's a troubled relationship in many cases. the kurds, that was a marriage of convenience. what we didn't do was establish what the prenup was going to look like before that marriage, and we suddenly ended it, and we didn't give them any opportunity to better position themselves and get ready for this. so the fact that we've had that type of displacement, the main thing in my mind is turkey now is taking advantage of this vacuum, and they've created a buffer zone. look, i'm not a lawyer, but the issue is you don't create a buffer zone unless there's some type of a recognition on the multiple sides that that gunfbu exists. >> right. >> this is called taking land. this issen ainvasion of

sovereign land albeit syria is a pretty screwed up place. but trying to create this strip of land so that erdogan can now displace refugees in turkey into this strip of land in syria. >> right. it's not 23, it's not 2,300. you know. >> it's 235,000 people. the conditions are not great this time of year. the services aren't going to be great. the safety's not going to be great. general spider marks, best for the new year to you. phillip carter welcome to the show. best for the new year. >> thank you, chris. topic shift. one point of frustration for many of you is the sense that the two political parties are reading from the same script when it comes to impeachment. they just change roles from when it was clinton's impeachment to trump's. well, there is new tape being circulated of senate minority leader schumer that plays on this point. in fact, it's being used by the

president and his defenders to do exactly that because he was saying something very different -- mr. schumer -- decades ago from what he's arguing now. what is its relevance? let's take it on with an influential house player next. ee of yourself. but nature's bounty has innovative ways to help you maintain balance and help keep you active and well-rested. because hey, tomorrow's coming up fast. nature's bounty. because you're better off healthy. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia. for everyone you love. 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. uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15%ain? or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that.

pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service. a president who abuses power. and obstructs justice. the impeachment of donald j. trump. he was supposed to protect our constitution. not trample on it by asking foreign countries to undermine our democracy for his personal political gain.

trump broke his oath to america. members of the house and senate must now do their constitutional duty. if you agree, sign our petition at need to impeach.com need to impeach is responsible for the content of this advertising. this president's christmas message calling for more christlike behavior aside, he continues railing against house speaker nancy pelosi. one of his latest offerings, so interesting to see nancy pelosi demanding fairness from senate majority leader mcconnell when she presided over the most unfair hearing in the history of the united states congress. as we say often on this show, just because the president says it a lot does not make it true. in fact, this statement has never been close to true. the procedures in this situation are those echoed from the clinton situation. the obvious difference is that the house did the investigating here and not a special secret

council like ken starr or a grand jury like with nixon. but, you know, in politics reality is often about perception, and that makes the question of how this plays for the democrats a real one, especially in an election year. so let's bring in democratic congressman lloyd doggett here. best to your families for the holidays, the holy days, and the new year. >> and to you, chris. good to be with you on this final show of the decade. >> it sounds so big. so the idea of state of play, the idea that nancy pelosi is negotiating with mcconnell over the rules of the senate trial, is that true to your understanding? >> well, i think what she has done is to take a little time to thoroughly look at this and to recognize what mr. mcconnell said. each of these senators takes an oath. they raise their hand and swear that they will do impartial

justice in accordance with the constitution. and mr. mcconnell has said instead of that, he'll do a cover-up in accordance with trump. and in view of that, the house, as the sole authority for impeachment, has every right to take its time in forwarding these articles to the senate in an effort to try to ensure that precedent is followed, that witnesses are called, and that there is an impartial justice that is done there. >> so one of the reasons we pleaded with you to come on the show is some people won't know, but it's an easy google search away. you're also a judge. you were a judge, texas state supreme court. it's interesting to get your idea of fairness in this process. of course it's political. it's not a judicial process, but still. there are two salvos being used against your side in terms of the legitimacy of your desire for fairness. one of them is from senator schumer from back during the

last iteration of impeachment with clinton. let me just play it for you because it's making the rounds. >> surely. >> the republican leader said proudly, quote, i'm not an impartial juror. i'm not impartial about this at all. this is an astonishing admission of partisanship. anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion. it's not a jury box. many do. this is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the founding fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics. >> now, people are using this to say, you see? they're all the same, lloyd. you know, it's just about what works for them in the moment. you know, then the democrats were saying impeachment is so bad. now they're saying it's okay. impartiality was bad. now it's okay or vice versa. what's your response? >> well, i think there are inconsistencies on both sides, but it's important to look at the precedent that was set by the clinton trial. republican majority leader lott and minority leader daschle

agreed on the process by which the senate would proceed. it was approved unanimously by the senate, not with the republicans saying we'll have it all our way. >> fair point. >> second and even more important is the fact that witnesses were summoned, not the 40 witnesses that testified in the impeachment trial of andrew johnson, but three witnesses, and it was senator lott who said that he wanted it done by deposition rather than live testimony. so those are the precedents that i think are really significant here. certainly these senators will come with their own views. >> right. >> but it's critical that they comply with the oath and attempt to engage in impartial justice, and they cannot do that if this is the first trial in american history of impeachment where there are no witnesses even summoned. one wonders what is the purpose of the gathering, perhaps just to hear another round of

inconsistent speeches? you would think that this president, if he really made a perfect call, would want people, all the president's men, to come there and testify about the level of his perfection. >> that is the weakness. that is the weakness of the argument, which is if everything was good and everybody can defend him and excuse him and exonerate him, why is he keeping them from testifying? all right. but then we bounce back to the idea of what is being asked for vr versus what is being offered on the democrats. you brought up the issue of witnesses. it's the perfect pivot. former v.p. joe biden obviously running for the democratic nomination in 2020 for president. he was asked about, well, what if you're called? that's one of the horse trading arguments here. the democrats are going to have to give if they want to get anybody. they don't have the numbers. here's what he said. >> do you stand by your earlier statements that you wouldn't comply if you were subpoenaed to testify in an impeachment trial before the senate? >> correct. and the reason i wouldn't is

because it's all designed to deal with trump doing what he's done his whole life, trying to take the focus off him. the grounds for them to call me would be overwhelmingly specious. let's say a voluntarily just said let me go make my case. what are you going to cover? you're going to cover for three weeks anything i said, and he's going to get away. >> first, your honor, the idea of what joe biden is arguing here is exactly what you just impeached the president for, his feelings about the subpoena process and congressional oversight made him feel like not complying because he didn't like why you were asking. how is that any different than what joe biden is saying? >> well, it's significantly different. first i think that joe biden or anyone else would be subject to subpoena power and could be compelled to come to this

proceeding, but there's nothing that joe biden or any of the other witnesses republicans have talked about have to say about what the president is being impeached for. the only purpose of bringing them is for distraction urged by the master of distraction, donald trump. >> but why? if their argument is, you can't say the president had corrupt intent, which you would need for abuse or any type of what we call in the law sigh enter, malice aforethought because he has a legitimate belief that biden raises significant issues that ukraine and the servers, so we want to put on testimony to prove that there's something there. >> well, i think the president's corrupt intent is shown by his conduct. this was not just one phone call though we now do know from one of the documents that has been discovered that they began their action to terminate aid within an hour and a half of the phone conversation. but this was a pattern of

conduct perhaps as your earlier shows have demonstrated, perhaps over two presidencies in the ukraine. so we have plenty of evidence of this pattern of conduct and of his intent and his desire to "do me a favor, though." there's no need and no justification for calling joe biden or any of the other witnesses that have been discussed, but they're all subject to subpoena. so that would be up to the senate. better to have more witnesses than to have no witnesses. >> all right. and quickly, congressman, take off the judge hat and put back on the politician hat for a second. just a straight texas card player, would you give a biden to get a mulvaney? >> oh, i -- i would not begin to engage in that kind of horse trading. i think that the senators will have an opportunity to consider the witness list. it strikes me as a very poor trade in that regard to get the

president's chief of staff to come out and tell what actually happened instead of to hide and in this case to hide behind the call for joe biden. >> the strong part of the argument they'll have to overcome, mcconnell is going to have to explain how he can take the oath after what he said. and two, what does biden have to do with why he was impeached to the specific facts of the instance. congressman, thank you for arguing compellingly and cogently as always. appreciate it. >> thank you. happy new year, chris. >> happy new year. best for the new year. the presidential candidates are now fanned out in the early voting states. remember what i keep telling you. everything starts when the voting starts. i know that sounds silly, but, no, the whole narrative is going to change by who does well there, who does better than expected, does worse than expected. 38 days away. we probably have a ton of data to go through about iowa and the state of play, right? wrong. why do we know nothing about

iowa? the ifwizard of oz will have to explain to all of us, next. what did you do, wiz? we're reld to them? we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian. can you tell me that story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered. this holiday, start the journey with a dna kit from ancestry.

this holiday, start the journey with a dna kit (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... steven could only imaginem 24hr to trenjoying a spicy taco.burn, now, his world explodes with flavor.

nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day all-night protection. can you imagine 24-hours without heartburn? here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today.

mr. biden, are you feeling the pressure here in iowa? >> no, i'm feeling good in iowa. i'm feeling the heat in iowa, the weather. >> and that's no malarkey. the former v.p. making his way around the hawkeye state 38 days until the iowa democratic caucuses. joe biden says he's feeling no pressure. he's got to be feeling pressure. they all do. the polls tell a different story to the point that they tell a story at all. harry enten, wizard of odds and

lightness. harry, how the heck do we not know with like crazy precision the state of the race in iowa, and it's the first state? >> sure. look, the fact is there have been only two polls conducted over the last month in the state of iowa. i've gone back since the 2000 election. that's the fewest polls we've had at this point in the race since 2000. i think there are two key reasons. number one, the cost of polls have been skyrocketing, and, number two, let's think about this, right? what has been the big news story over the last month? it's been impeachment. the fact is you're not going to spend a ton of money on polls you're not going to be frequently discussing. >> well, those two reasons stink, so let's try to find a third, which is what do we know about polls in iowa in general that inform us as to why you've got to be careful about doing any horse race? >> i think this is rather important. take a look at where the iowa caucus winners were polling one to two months before the iowa caucuses. we have the polling averages here, the results here and the differences between the two in

this column. the difference between the person ended up winning iowa was polling and their result, nine percentage points, the median, since the election in 2000. >> so the polls were off almost ten points. >> on the median, yes. the average is in fact a little bit higher. there's some years where it's closer, but many years -- look at this, 2004 and the democrats, john kerry was only at 18%. he ended up getting 37% in those caucuses. >> is iowa different that way or do we have that kind of variability in state to state polls or because it's first, it doesn't get the benefit of any momentum? >> primaries are difficult to poll. but in iowa, it's particularly difficult and there's no doubt this may be one of your years. >> let's go to approvals. >> look, i just want to point out one thing. >> harry does not like constructive criticism by the way. >> i don't like criticism from you necessarily. look, here's the deal. i just want to point this out, in iowa, another reason why we don't know what's going on, look how close these are.

a very, very tight race. >> you made a great point the last time you were on that one of the things to be of concern for buttigieg and warren fans is the durability of the support. so if people who say they want pete or elizabeth warren are like, yeah, but there's a good chance i'd like somebody else, how do you read that into his standing at 21 in iowa? >> the way that i would say it is both these two candidates have been the one who's have been switching the most, right? so warren was up in iowa a few months ago. then she dropped all the way down now to only 15%. buttigieg was way down. now he's jumped up. the fact is with so few polling, it could be the case that buttigieg is lower now or even higher. we just don't know with just two polls over the last month. >> you wanted to talk about unfavorables. you see that as part of the read. how? >> yeah. i just want to talk about jumping ahead to 2020 and one of the key things in terms of looking where the president's going to be going in terms of his election campaign. >> oh, good. >> i think this is rather important. look, we've spoken a lot this year about the president's low approval ratings but we also

know generally speaking the year out doesn't really mean much. but in the mid-march before the election, that's when those approval ratings really begin to mean something. this is where the presidents were polling and whether or not they got re-elected. the green is, yes, they won the election. the black is, no, they didn't win the election. look at this. if you're polling at 47% or above, normally those people win re-election, right or win election in the case of a few of these folks. but if you're polling at 47% or below, those people, ford, carter, bush, all those did not go on to win that full term. >> throw out the highest and the lowest and that's more than random here because they were both dealing with huge exigencies, right? he had the war and he had the tax issue. >> sure. >> johnson had civil strife like nowhere else, and he was dealing with the civil rights act, which really helped because that was such a momentum builder for the administration at that time. you really don't have a huge sample. >> we don't have a huge sample. but the fact is when you're looking at this and the president's been polling down in the low 40s, i think that is a very bad sign given that is where the two people who didn't

end up winning those elections were generally poll, even a little bit above it there. >> do you read more into approval and how does that play into unfavorables? >> i think one of the key facets of the 2016 election -- remember, donald trump was not a popular guy back in 2016. but hirllary clinton was also nt a popular candidate. the key thing was he won by 17 points among the 18 pierce of the electorate who liked neither one of them. you see that right here. among those who have an unfavorable view of both candidates, i looked at the biden versus trump matchup in our latest polling. this is the key difference. remember trump won those voters by 17 points. but in our latest polling, biden is leading among those by 63 points. the fact is if the president has an approval rating in the low 40s, the big question is can he win those people who don't like biden or trump because he's going to try and drive biden's negatives. this polling suggests he'll have a very difficult time doing so. it will not be a repeat of 2016.

>> now, if we had more appreciation for the president's sense of strategy, someone would think, well, this is exactly why he's attacking biden. it's exactly why he did what he did in ukraine. he knows the vulnerability in this particular way with this particular person. but sometimes we don't know why he does anything. harry, this was very helpful, especially going into iowa. the unknown is going to take people by surprise. but if you watched the show tonight, maybe you want be surprised. >> i want to wish you a happy new year. becoming a friend with you this year has been a high light. >> i believe you said that on the morning show also. >> i didn't say that to them about that. i knew them long before that. >> you are the best. thank you for being with us for this last show of the decade. we share an office. it's a whole thing that's going on. i'll tell but it later. 2020 is going to be a big year, not just elections. some more soothsayers are coming in for a special bolo. be on the lookout. what do they say you have to watch for in the upcoming year? oh, look at these smart people, next.

2020 is going to be a yuge year. so what are the main things to look out for that you may not be looking for? let's bring in the experts. to each and all, the best for the new year. thank you for helping me out on the show. i appreciate it. so, charlie, let's start with you. your take is a brexit warning. >> it is indeed. >> hold on, charlie. how am i messing this up already? it says charlie goes first. okay. i screwed it up. sorry, charlie. everybody, let's start over again. they'll never notice it.

yours is the death rattle of whi white supremacy? >> bolo for the death rattle of white supremacy, what i mean by that is it has turned into a death march. specifically we're talking about an ideology and system, chris, that says white men are superior and must be at the top. what we saw from 2016 with the election of trump, every study has shown that the predominant factor f-- what we'll see in 2020, is the mainstreaming and further popularization of white supremacist conspiracy theories by the republican party. we already saw in 2018 with the midterms, invasion funded by george soros, the jewish globalist, and we've seen this mainstreaming by now right wing politicians and fox news. this will increase. we already saw matt shea being accused of domestic terrorism in

washington. finally we'll see the increase in white supremacist terrorist plots as christopher wray warned about in 2019. >> before i put it to the panel for a vote as to whether or not they are equally concerned, how is it a death rattle if you're worried about the increase of this malignancy? >> because the death rattle has caused a death march because of the anxiety, because people are feeling replaced, because of the emancipation and elevation of people of color, you're seeing this reaction. just like trump was a reaction to obama, just like we're seeing the reaction of more men and women of color emerging, we're seeing this anxiety. it has been exploited by the republican party, so what we're seeing is this violent death rat we le which will get more mainstream before it's finally put to bed.

>> neera, what do we do about something like that? this is actually part of the subject of the closing argument i have tonight is what we learned about what is really in this country, no the that it's a terrible country. it's the opposite of that. but how you deal with your ills. insight? >> well, you have to name it, right? name it and shame it and acknowledge. it pretending and giving it terms of economic terms of anxiety isn't going to help anybody. the challenge we're seeing in the trump administration, this has become part of government policy as well. we know we have a rising domestic terror threat in the united states, but in 2017, the department of homeland security shut down the interagency task force that was dealing with domestic terror networks, specifically right wing extremism. so the government is no longer targeting this. i heard an fbi agent, a former domestic terror supervisor say part of the challenge they're facing culturally is they don't feel comfortable going after people that might be with the

president's base. >> right. so your point kind of dovetails into this, which is forced inequality. nayerra, you say be on the lookout for voter suppression. where and how so? >> oh t is becoming increasingly apparent as we try to figure out whether or not you're going to vote for a bernie or a biden or a trump, we need to also make sure that we can actually vote when we get to the polls. 17 million people were purged from voter records in the last two years alone. you look at georgia, which just today announced that 100,000 people would not be allowed back on. florida, where the entire state voted 1.5 million people who paid their debt to society, former felons, they wanted them to have the right to vote, and the republican state legislature said, we need to actually put some other restrictions on them. they sound like poll taxes, which is what it used to be in the civil rights era. it comes up as states are

looking to make sure their records are clean and accurate, but it's much more insidious. it tends to focus on areas that are democratic, that are minority, and it puts restrictions on voting that frankly we haven't seen since the 1960s. >> some of this, especially when we talk about gerrymandering and talk about voter i.d.s, there's an argument that goes back and forth. felons voting, not so easy an argument. we saw at one of the town halls bernie sanders said on the spot, yeah, i think even if you're in jail for the worst things, i think you got to be able to vote because you're either for it or you're not. tough sell. >> it is. >> how do you focus on what matters without getting into the realm of where people are going to push back? >> i would say two things. voting is a fundamental right as a citizen of the united states, so it has to be a very low threshold to deny somebody the ability to do that because that is the way you get to determine who represents you in your government. second, the people of florida -- these are state rules -- they spoke. they said, this is how they want their state to be constructed, and the legislature tried to

override the will of the people. so i think the state by state, the will of the people, people need to mobilize and activate, and if nothing else, check your registration. make you're that you're still able to vote. >> now, charlie, i knew i was right to get to you at some point here. all right. so you say brexit. why? why should people here in america be thinking about brexit at all? >> well, there is a brexit warning, chris. i'll tell you why. look what happened there. boris johnson came out with a pretty simple expression. you know, get it done. get brexit done. donald trump says keep america great. very simple expressions, but i think there's a lesson for the democratic party in particular. a revolutionary candidate, an angry, in this case in jeremy corbyn, socialist, some would call it marxist, anti-semitic. this type of rhetoric is not what people are looking for in the uk. they're not looking for it here in the united states. so i warned people. bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, if your goal is to beat

donald trump, a lot of americans don't want to replace a right-wing culturally based populism with an angry left-wing economically based populism. i think voters are much more interested in incremental change, more measured statements. this country i think does better that way rather than some type of a revolutionary movement. >> i hear you on the hunger for normal, but trump is the one who is doing a lot of the baiting that you caution about in terms of playing with race, playing with divisions, playing with diversity. do you see that on the left, or do you see that as a warning for him and his? >> well, look, for donald trump, he's simply going to say, yeah -- he won't say it himself but people who support him will say, yes, he has many faults i don't like but i cannot accept that, pointing to this type of warren or sanders populism. this is not excusing any of trump's racially incendiary

rhetoric, which is despicable. but i tell you it will make it easier for people to justify their votes for donald trump if they see an angry left-wing populism to replace trumpism. >> if boris johnson had actually run on killing the national health care program of the uk, he would lose. so something to think about. >> all right. listen, you gave us all a lot to think about. thank you very, very much. waj, the best to you and the family. nayerra, thank you so much. charlie, always a pleasure. thank you for helping us on the show. >> thanks. this is the time of year, right? we make resolutions. not a fan. but it's not as simple as me just saying don't do it. i argue that you have to be careful about making a mistake that i hear a lot of us about to make, all right? it's the last argument of the decade, next. verizon's important to us

because we facetime with her grandparents all the time. (vo) when you have the best network, you want to give the best network. feliz navidad! (laughs) (vo) this holiday, you can gift america's most reliable network and the latest iphone. i would probably give it to her grandparents, so they can take tons of photos. my mom is amazing. if i got her one of these for christmas, she'd be freakin' out. (vo) now, buy the latest iphone and get iphone 11 on us. and apple music is included. with plans starting at just $35. (shrieks) yeah, exciting. (vo) happy holidays from the network that gives you more.

-excuse me. uh... do you mind...being a mo-tour? -what could be better than being a mo-tour? the real question is... do you mind not being a mo-tour? -i do. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. -i do. but in my mind i'm still 25. that's why i take osteo bi-flex, to keep me moving the way i was made to. it nourishes and strengthens my joints for the long term. osteo bi-flex - now in triple strength plus magnesium.

what happened, to wish for a fresh start. it's not always the right thing. we learn little from success. think about it in your own life about what doing well helped you do the next time. failure, however, is an excellent teacher. hardship is an excellent teacher. things that we don't like are often instructive. so we ignore them at our own peril. and if the goal is to get better, then you got to get square with the past. like what? all right. some of you on the left including on tv assumed way too much would come of the mueller probe. now, congress isn't really even including all they argued was

impeachable during that probe. why? don't wish it away. don't pretend it didn't happen. learn from it. so what did we see with impeachment? it's gone differently. however, theres a lot more information that points to the president. but the lesson of the importance of bipartisan buy-in, has that been learned? not a single gop yer crosser cr line. but you can't just wish the whole situation away because you have to look for ways to create some semblance of bipartisanship in the senate. otherwise you're just going to prepare for more of the same of what you saw in the house. another low that you should not lose in the new year. >> our country is full, our area's full. the sector is full. can't take anymore, i'm sorry. >> first, we know trump wasn't sorry because he was in favor of

the harshness and words and in actions where immigrants are concerned. he misled you about only limiting illegal immigration. he took legal immigration levels back to what we thought was a bygone era. but we were able to counter his false information. we were able to expose what i call the brown menace b.s. what they were going to do, who would come here, what would happen, what they did to kids by choice. because we exposed it, because we dealt with it, a lot of it had to stop. so don't wish that away, or it's going to happen again. keep the frustrating realities fresh or they will come again when the hiring season comes again. how do we know? because of guys like this, steve king. he told the "new york times" in january white nationalist, white supremacist, western civilization, how did that language become offensive? then he said we got him wrong.

the gop stripped him of committee seats but the president said nothing. he knows king. he may have gotten some of his rhetoric for certain parts of his base from king. so, as painful as it is to hear this trash offered as truth, don't wish it away, don't pretend it didn't happen. the point is not that bad things are actually good. i don't even believe in that. test faith to be honest. but it defies reason when we see things like hurricane dorian, it bothers us. remember that 70 people killed in the bahamas? what good is there from this? this is unmitigated tragedy, so many are still missing. billions in damage, life is nowhere near back to normal. but as we he would from many down there, those who survived, they were thankful at least for that, and many here who never felt connected to people there gave and gave. they're traveling there this holiday season if they can to feed that economy. there is a gift in that, not in

the storm, not in the hardship, but in what we did after it reminds me of this kid i love so much, i miss him so much, mattie stepanik. please google his poetry. we must remember to play after every storm. that means we have to use tragedy as a reminder of the must of relishing life when you can, the ability to go on, appreciate what we have. but then my argument's going to take a hit because the idea that hardship can birth heroics and change that we can live and learn. and it's defied by the plague of mass shootings in this country. 22 killed in el paso, more than two dozen injured by a hateful man with access to weapons. now that community there, el paso, wowed me. their ability to come together and to reach out after being targeted themselves. this woman gave me a phrase there. nos reteniamos mucho.

we hold each other. she gave me that stone. when times are tough, you hold on, you remember the connection. but do we learn from it? dayton, ohio, nine killed. tons of others hit after a gunman fired. 41 shots in 30 seconds. new zealand 51 killed. two islamic houses of worship, another 49 injured. as of last week officials collected about 49,000 guns as part of a buy-back program. not here. the sickness of the sameness, it's never been met with a real response, even a dialogue. look, i pray that we can get to a better place. but this false standard that they use with only mass shootings. think about it. if you can't name one thing that'll stop them all, then do nothing. and yet i claim to the need to remember, to not wish away even

the worst that you experience. and this isn't just advice. this isn't even professional. for me it's profoundly personal. i fight with more than i can express when it comes to this. every new year is as much a marker of who and what is gone as it is about what's to come in the year. this year is five years that my pop left this earth. and i thought that because i've been around so much death, so much loss, i've seen so many cope with so much that i got what this was about, and he had a good life, and we were great to have him in our family. but i was wrong, and i learned the lesson that you don't really become an adult until you lose a parent. i cling to memories now of my father, what he said when he was angry, you know, what he wrote, how he corrected me. i stare at pictures trying to find that connection, desperate for his counsel, and even his corrections. but it's not there. and, yet, the loss has made me

hone in on what my father taught me like i never could or at least never did when he was alive. so for 2020, i wish you all the best and only the best. i thank you again for the gift of your attention in allowing us to report for you and to you. and i wish that you remember the bad along with the good, because that is the way to make sure this year will be better than the last. thank you for watching, and please stay tuned. tom foreman is going to take a look back at the biggest moments of the year, all the best, all the worst 2019, next. ♪

at t-mobile, we're lighting up 5g, and when you buy a samsung note 10+ 5g, you get one free. plus you can experience it on the nation's largest 5g network. so you can stay connected like this. score a last minute this. get home easier, like this. and share all of this... with that. so do this. on that. with us. and now, buy a samsung note 10+ 5g and get one free when you add a line.

prepare to be amazed, mystified, and mesmerized by the biggest stories of the whole year in politics, sports, music, movies, pop culture, and more. we'll cover it all with our guests, comedians and actors gilbert gottfried, judy gold, helen hong, owen smith, and conservative political analyst carrie sheffield. it's "all the best, all the worst: 2019." welcome. i'm tom foreman and this year really did feel like a wickedly