or any hearings after that. that will be news tomorrow. we mentioned on monday we have the i.g. report. so we'll be in the cycle for some time. >> sandra: did we mention it would be a few hours and we would take you through it? we did. we'll see you >> fox news alert. you just heard house minority leader kevin mccarthy firing back after the speaker. the speaker formally requested house chairman draft articles of impeachment against president trump. all this ahead of a planned house hearing monday were lawyers from both to judiciary judiciary and intelligence committee will present evidence the panels of collected so far. we will have the cow to react to the speaker pelosi's statement but first chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel's life on capitol hill. speakable is a good afternoon. next monday will be the next hearing, a critical step when the relevant communities will

share what they have uncovered and what they have investigated over the past couple of months and present them to the house judiciary committee. that is speaker nancy pelosi made the case for moving forwa forward. >> the president's actions in sending, taking these things to court and then bumping them up in court is an obstruction of justice. we are not going to be an accomplice to obstruction of justice. we have our constitutional responsibility, we have our facts, and we will act upon th them. >> today i house judiciary committee republican fired back at the speaker. >> when she says the facts are not contested, she is flat out not telling the truth. the facts are highly contested here. we have not had fact witnesses in the committee of jurisdiction that's going to be marking up articles of impeachment. >> president trump offering his reaction on twitter, saying this

will mean the beyond important and seldom used active impeachment will be used routinely to attack future presidents. that is not what our founders had in mind. good thing is that the republicans have never been more united. we will win. the announcement about moving forward came hours after the first hearing in the house judiciary featuring constitutional law experts, three scholars from harvard, stanford, and the university of north carolina making the case for why president trump could be impeached while george washington university law professor jonathan turley who says while he did not vote for president trump warned against rushing for impeachment. tension is clearly building here on capitol hill and we just heard from the house republican leader kevin mccarthy who says this is all about democrats fearing they will lose the next presidential election. >> melissa: mike emanuel thank you. this is "outnumbered" and i'm melissa francis.

today here is dagen mcdowell, iona college political science professor and tom dupree. he is outnumbered. let me ask you right out of the gate. that point that was made by speaker pelosi saying that by going to court, by challenging all of these things rather than handing over the documents that in and of itself is obstruction. with your legal opinion on that? >> my legal opinion is that it is nonsense. it cannot be obstruction to go to a judge and say we have a constitutional clash. the legislative branch is to many one thing, the executive branch is demanding another thing so we are going to use some of the third branch, the judiciary committed to sort it out in figure two is right and who is wrong. >> melissa: the democrats say the facts are undisputed. jonathan turley a lot of republicans quoting him today

signet what is out there is opinion basically on you have to make a lot of supposition about what you thought the president was thinking, what his intent was. facts are things like the number of people killed, the amount of money spent. opinions are things like what did he mean when he said that? what was his intention? is that a good argument or air are the democrats right? >> i think it's a good argument. only someone who was totally ignored all of the evidence that is come out what's side effects are undisputed. they are obviously disputed. people can draw different conclusions. opinions, i would say legal conclusions, from the same set of facts. that doesn't mean everything is undisputed. the other thing i would say is i absolutely love a good robust discussion perhaps more than anyone. yesterday i thought the republicans did a really good job of showing that a lot of these law professors, i love law professors, a lot of times they harbor political biases. they come with agendas that i

think undercuts the idea they are offering an independent neutral version of the law. that's one aspect of perez dominic professor turley's testimony that was so powerful. he didn't vote for trump but here is what the constitution says. >> melissa: lasts ask jeannie committee professors have political opinions? >> yes we do, melissa. i think i too love that yesterday, i think the more professors talking about what the founding fathers want and what madison said the better. in my mind this is a very sober moment. you don't do this lightly and so what i think jonathan turley was saying and i think he is right, is that you can't be dictated by an electoral or a political timeline. that's what it feels like it is happening here. if anybody was surprised that i would nancy pelosi came out and said they were moving forward, well gosh we all knew this from the start. the problem is you moving forward on something you have to

watch out. the next time the republicans have the majority of the house you can bet the democrats are going to be on the defending edge of this. >> melissa: nancy pelosi says this has been in the making for a long time. you can listen to that and respond. >> i'll hear from the president is i'm moving so swiftly it's like a blur. this is been a couple of years since the initial investigation. this is about russia. who benefited by our withholding of the military assistance? russia. >> melissa: she is literally going back to collusion, which was shot down by the taxpayer funded mueller report, no conspiracy, no cooperation between the trump campaign and russia. in fact she is really pulling back the curtain on what is afoot here come of this is a purely political event to where

you have democrats packing up talking points and opposition research for the presidential candidates and for anybody running next year. it goes to the point, tom, that democrats all along have wanted this president impeached. i said it the other day, that more than three quarters of democrats, according to a tracking pool by 5:30 eight, more than three quarters of democrats wanted the president impeached before the meal or report came out in march. now do so turned against the democrats with the republican base that it is below double digits, it's less than 10%. >> that's a great point. one thing the command of the hearings yesterday is that the framers envisioned impeachment not as a tool to remove a president that you disagree with on political grounds and the fact that so many democrats from the moment this president was inaugurated set impeach, impeached, and shows you that a

lot of the support for impeachment simply because they disagree with the policy views of the president. >> policy and politics. when nancy pelosi says this has absolutely nothing to do with politics, that in and of itself is completely laughable. of course it does. all you have to do is look at some of the statements that adam schiff has made when he is having a press conference or when he has the gavel. and he has one of the impeachment inquiry hearings in full effect. you can tell by the questions that republicans and democrats ask very's witnesses. it's not like any other congressional hearings. i should say it is like every other congressional hearing and that they are also hyper politicized and not democrats have to decide whether or not they're going to laser focus on ukraine and as that is the best way to move forward with impeachment or if they are going to broaden it. those of the types of discussions you should be having when you're talking about political ads because that's essentially what they are putting together. they are putting together a munition to defeat next year because that's what is going to

come down to. >> really quick, along those points, this is a minority leader doug collins talking about republicans today. listen to this. >> before you gavel this hearing could come up before you start your statement, before you go any further, i would like to know two things. number one, when do you plan on scheduling our minority hearing day? and number two, when nobody actually going to have real witnesses here that i fact witnesses in this case? when? speak up close to my point, that it is a political proceeding and clearly not a legal one. the kennedy's point, it seemed the witnesses yesterday raised the issues of whether some of the articles of impeachment would be based on obstruction of justice from the mueller report. why not wait for the decision to allow don mccann, former white house counsel, to testify or not. when i wait for that to wind its

way through the legal system. i think the next hearing is scheduled for january 3rd, it's a three panel judge hearing about relative to this day. bagel can i just say come at the kennedy and david's point, if you listen to nancy pelosi today she says this is been going on two and half years and when you poll people they say way, is this about the ukraine phone call or is does this go back to the election? does this go back to mueller and the russian collusion question mike democrats have to be very careful there. i've been saying a long time the need to focus narrowly on the phone call if that's what you are impeaching about. for her to come out and say this has been going on two and half years, says that this has much more to do with that. >> she clearly drew it back to russia, this is basically an ongoing conspiracy. >> chum for the liberal lemmin lemmings. to answer my question, why not wait for don mccann to testify quick like >> i if you honestly interested in gathering as many

relevant facts as he could before making a decision that's exactly what you would do but if you are living listing in a political calendar and trying to jam us through and get it to the sonnet and allow the democratic presidential candidates to get out of him of the spine then you're going to expedite and that's what i expect they are proceeding as quickly as they can. >> we will see how it all plays out. in the meantime firestorm in the hill after adam schiff releases the phone records of the president's lawyer, a member of the press, and a fellow lawmaker, devon nguyen yes why republicans like devin nunes says this could set a dangerous precedent. >> if adam schiff wants to go out and subpoena they know set a precedent where adam schiff gets any phone number they asked and some of the at&t and at&t is going to comply ♪ limu emu & doug

and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ]

it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

we make aspirin to help save lives during a heart attack... so it never stops the heart of a family. at bayer, this is why we science.

>> meant the democrats marked to impeachment, adam schiff is under fire from republicans and some in the media for obtaining and releasing the phone records of th the presidents personal attorneys, members of the media command fellow lawmaker, devon nunez, ranking republican allows intelligence committee. critics asking his actions a serious breach of power. the democrats may have run afoul of house rules. >> i'm pretty sure you have to notify the net minority. it's possible that chairman schiff violated house rules in order to get those and we are certainly looking at those. i don't think it's appropriate and less adam schiff wants to give us all of his phone records. >> tom commit to you first on this. "wall street journal" has this incredible editorial on shifts surveillance state. this is unprecedented and looks

like an abuse of authority. democrats were caught using the steele dossier are in order to coat hooks democrats into snooping in the trump campaign. now we have members of congress to use secret subpoenas to obtain and release the call records of political opponents by letting attorney-client privilege, may be violating house rules for devon nunes and may be the first amendment was snooping in a reporter. >> there's a lot wrong in my judgment with what congressman shifted here. the fact is congressmen wields immense powers with subpoenas, they can access amounts of personal information including call logs showing when you are receiving a call. there is no dispute that from what we know now even if he acquired this information lawfully come at something quite different all of a sudden just dropping it without warning in a public report. from what we heard he didn't give republicans the courtesy of a heads up that he was doing this, he didn't take, mainly used steps to reject personal information or to up exercise

judgment for putting all of this private information out there for public display. >> kennedy i know this must set your pants and your hair on fire. >> it's frustrating because you were talking about the chairman of the intelligence committee. he has access to all sorts of sensitive information that doesn't give him the right to publish that. some would say maybe the attorney-client privilege line hasn't been crossed but there are certainly some ethical issues here. you know that he can go into the cookie jar and grab a lot more than civilians can or other members of congress. is the fact that he made a public without reduction that is so offensive and if republicans had done this to democrats, "the new york times" and "washington post," they would be on fire. it does smack of political retribution. when nancy pelosi says this has nothing to do with politics, i call malarkey. >> what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

why don't they go look at congressman shifts records and see when the whistle-blower called him and what where the phone calls going back and forth they are? he claims that there wasn't coordination before the whistle-blower went and raised it to his superiors, why don't we go look at the phone logs. if that's what he wants to do let's pull the mall and say where to the phone calls go between this whistle-blower and his, whether it's his office, his committee, himself, let's look at those. >> we may look get to that point and they mentioned that in "the wall street journal." where have we come when congresspeople are looking at each other's phone records and releasing those without even apparently getting any indication to the person that they are getting those from. one of the things that strikes me is that democrats who have long since touted themselves as being very much in favor of protection of said bullet liberties in this case and a variety of ways and this is one example, have turned to the other way. now you see them gathering

metadata phone records. that something democrats have long said they didn't want to do. >> outrage of the nsa program of collecting metadata but now you've got, why wasn't at&t challenged a subpoena in court? why would a company, again may be under the threat of regulation, rule over for a partisan exercise? >> we don't know what at&t or other providers may have done, it's possible that the helps. in a lot of cases companies will often cooperate at least with valid subpoenas either from law enforcement or from congress simply as a matter of business they get a lot of these every day in it would put them in a difficult position to try and sort through the million subpoenas they get from law enforcement every day did decide which ones might go up at the liner which ones might be motivated for political purposes. >> the phone companies if you

remember the nsa law shifted so the nsa wasn't holding onto that information, the phone companies are. they do in the vast majority of cases tend to comply with subpoenas. >> although this request would stick out like a sore thumb i would think. >> asking the question from a highly regulated company, does not smell like extortion? it smells like cronyism if nothing else. >> new fallout after a hot mike cott canadian prime minister justin trudeau talking about president trump with fellow world leaders. with the president is saying about the state of their relationship. plus hillary clinton once again fueling rule tell mike rumors of a 2020 bid. what her latest comments on the howard stern show could mean. with va mortgage rates near record lows, i want to tell as many veterans as possible

about newday's va streamline refi. it's the closest thing to automatic savings that we've ever offered. at newday, veterans can refinance their mortgage with no income verification, no appraisal and no out of pocket expenses. and we've extended our call center hours so that every veteran can take advantage of these near record low rates. mdoprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

o♪ ozempic®! ♪ oh! oh! (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7 and maintained it. oh! under 7? (announcer) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds.

oh! up to 12 pounds? (announcer) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®.

♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) if eligible, you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. wwithout it, i cannot write myl tremors wouldname.xtreme. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. and we won't stop. join us in fighting for what's right. - [woman] with my shark, i deep clean messes like this, this, and even this. but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans now cleans itself.

>> there she is, hillary clinton speaking out once again under 2016 election laws. her first ever interview on the howard stern show yesterday clinton said she believed she probably could have had more stops on the campaign trail. watched. >> did you feel like maybe if you had gone to some diners somewhere in the middle of nowhere and shook somebody's hand it would've made a difference? >> you never know that.

i did go to a lot of the places. not enough, but i did. i think this election turned on other factors. >> clinton went on to say that she would support whoever can win in 2020. that in the timing of the interview fueling speculation that she is still considering jumping into the race, which i think is fantastic. you never know, meeting someone face-to-face is going to influence whether or not they like you and can potentially vote for you. some nosed with other certain me that facebook ad stink her candidacy. >> i think democrats are going bananas. hillary clinton, she also was on bbc i think it was the day before, and she was selling books obviously i know that's what she is doing out the here and if you want to get noted and

you want to get picked up you have to say something insane when you're trying to sell your books as so many people do. either her acting is getting a whole lot better or she is actually considering this. before it sounded like she was trolling but now if you replay the interview as it sounds like she is really thinking about this. it just shows you that democrats have no idea how to deal with president trump. you have jumping income you have jumping out, they are trying to impeach, it is like bedlam. just to try and stop president trump, they are all over the map. she sees michael bloomberg get into the rest, he is already at 6%. kamala harris is out. if she elbows elizabeth warren out of the way she's going to have to use some mighty sharp joints, but she is showing at least a personality and that's what was missing. people from the outside looking in would talk to people who knew hillary clinton, who worked on the campaign and have been

associated with her, and they loved her. they couldn't see what people who don't run in those circles could see, regular voters in the hinterlands for a lack a better phrase, stern said in may if she had come on my show, the way i helped donald was i let him come on and be a personality whether you like him or not. people related to them as a human being. the calls after she was on stern were astonishing. the reaction after that interview people were saying things like ice finally saw the human side of hillary. listening to her now i think she should run again. i think it was in early october. >> we don't have enough candidates. i think it would be fantastic be fantastic. >> in early october she was asked what's the guts this thing you've ever done and she said stay in my marriage. by the way she won't run again because of two words, jeffrey epstein. she didn't get asked about that. >> this helps nobody in the

democratic party. the only people benefiting if she runs her donald trump, the republicans come in the media who would have a field day. >> amen. >> there is no democrat who wants her to do this again. twice she ran, twice she lost, and for them to go back to something like this you could see their heads explode. because they could makes no difference. 536,000 candidates on the democratic side right now, what's 5,361? i want to raise this and you touched on this, actually dagen touched on this, there's a couple of things different. her husband is much more about liability. even from ronan farrow's book and reporting. not only the me too movement but its association with jeffrey epstein, that could take on the monarchy. it certainly isn't going to support a president. >> i think of hillary clinton had to go through the normal process of getting the democratic nomination and running and caucuses she would have virtually no chance of winning. i think maybe what he's trying

to do now is position herself in the event that either is a brokered convention or the democrats implode, everybody has to come together and find a compromise candidate. lo and behold how about hillary clinton? her appearance and howard stern is exactly what is she has been conducting itself. she's always been calculating and trying to figure out how she can position itself as the savior of the democratic party. this is absolutely her way of trying to maintain relevancy. >> she would not say that this insanity. >> speaking of the party she still has plenty of blame to go around. in fact, she's blaming misogyny and facebook and farms and also bernie sanders delaying his endorsement, that is still an issue. watch. >> do we hate bernie sanders? >> i don't anybody. >> bernie could have endorsed you quicker. >> he could have. he hurt me, there's no denying

that. >> have you talked to them question mike >> know we haven't talked. i'm disappointed. >> he hurt me. he hurt me. that's what she sing about bernie sanders. how to think pretty supporters are going to react? >> she pulled out during the 2016 campaign when they were debating and he used the word we can keep chatting about guns but nothing, i'm paraphrasing, nothing is going to change. she turned that were chatting after the fact into a sexist remark. >> nobody cares about your emails. >> even though we know that clinton was controlling the dnc and bernie sanders never had a shot against her. i want to point out, i don't think stern asked her about jeffrey epstein, it was a two hour interview. i think we would've heard about it. >> you're absolutely right. i also think this isn't as much about her being a likable candidate as it is about howard stern being a brilliant

interviewer. he was able to ask her questions in a way that nobody else can ask. >> maybe she's just jealous of michelle obama with the best-selling book selling out arenas. >> i would rather hang out with michelle obama than hillary but i would much rather see hillary run. controversy in capitol hill. after a democratic impeachment witness invokes the name of president trump's 13-year-old son during her testimony committed that remark crossed a line question mike that is next at bayer, we're helping put more gold into the golden years. with better heart treatments, advanced brain disease research, and better ways to age gracefully. at bayer, this is why we science.

for a limited time, get a outb4-course meal your holidays even better! starting at $15.99. treat yourself to the perfect gift today, because the aussie 4-course won't last long! and try our everyday lunch combo starting at $7.99! i feelbusiness cards...new logo...outdoor sign. you always get me. get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up. shopping season solved at office depot officemax ...or officedepot.com. same time next week. yes! there are lots of people who are confused about which medicare plan is right for them. hey, that's me. i barely know where to start. well, start here with me, karen. i'm a licensed humana sales agent. well, it's nice to meet you, karen. i'm john smith. hi, john. at humana, we know you're unique. so you have

different needs from other john smiths. yeah, i've always thought so. and together, we can find a plan that's right for you. great! i go to the doctor a couple of times a year. and i have some prescriptions. but i'm never fully sure of what's covered and what's not. with humana's all-in-one medicare advantage plans, you get coverage for hospital stays, doctor visits, and part d prescription drug benefits. all for an affordable, and sometimes, no monthly plan premium. do you have any more information? sure. i'll get a decision guide in the mail to you today. they're free. finally. someone who understands the real me. your health and happiness is important to us. call or go online now to get your free decision guide. call a licensed humana sales agent today.

>> lots of headlines coming out of yesterday's house judiciary committee hearing in the impeachment inquiry, including when one of the democrats witnesses, stanford law professor, pamela karlan, made in apparent joke using the names of president trump son. >> contrary to what president trump is set, article two does not give him the power to do anything he wants, i'll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is the constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. while the president can name his son, baron, he can't make him a baron.

>> first lady melania trump blasted the remark tweeting a minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. pamela karlan come you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased pandering and using a child to do that. she apologized later on but added that she was the president herself would apologize for the things that he has done wrong. this is one of the things that is too cute by half. you can imagine her writing this, rehearsing this, this is a joke that they tell each other, and you would stop yourself from actually saying it because you would say this is a minor child who didn't bring themselves into it. to make fun of their name at the very least it was a lot more than that but at the very least you're making fun of the name he was given. >> it's also a huge distraction. these are some of the most serious people in the country, some of the most serious academics. they are here because the

situation actually has an incredible amount of gravity. they're making the case to the president of the united states should be removed from office through impeachment, not by an election. they. therefore they have to give us so much more to contemplate and they have to do it objectively. what she did come i had more of an issue with her temperament and her tone, because when i watch these hearings i am ready to be swayed. if you have information i would love to give into it. i don't mind the back-and-forth like an episode of law and order, however she gave into her own emotion and anger and even her apology was very snarky. >> the thing that jumped out at me and i made the same reaction, as she was up there testifying in her capacity as a neutral capacity law enforcer, she was going to deliver up the history of the constitution and that sort of thing. she couldn't restrain herself from taking a personal day got the president. for a lot of people they saw may be a bit of an agenda looking not too far below the surface

because it wasn't like an off-the-cuff remark, it was clearly a prescripted joke with a set up, a delivery, and a punch line that wasn't very funny. it's because i was one of most fascinating things i thought about yesterday was the way everybody decided to comport themselves and to argue. you had two of the professors who seemed almost a little bit nervous. she was sort of yelling at us the whole time which is going for emphasis. jonathan turley took what i thought was the more obvious route where you would try and disarm the audience by showing how supposedly neutral you are, that seems like the most obvious route if you're trying to sway the crowd because she was really excited to hear, i'm a nerd, i want to hear the back-and-forth. what advice would you give them as a professor and somebody was out there trying to sway the crowd, who did you think did a great job are what would you tell them about the way to go about things? >> i think democrats have to be kicking themselves at that point because they were there to do

the work of swing opinions. they can't do it if they show themselves to have an agenda. that i think is the problem. why do people want and why kennedy would say i am open, let me know what you have to say and let me think about it, you don't walk into those kinds of things. you don't make those kinds of off-the-cuff remarks that shown agenda. democrats cited out. >> that was the apology of a child that was being told to apologize by their parents, it was not heartfelt. she pivoted immediately to take a shot i president trump just as sonia sotomayor is sitting on the supreme court but not her because she didn't make president obama's short list to replace david souter, now she is auditioning for a job at msnbc. >> she probably scolded president obama. listen i have a resting i am going to chew nails phase and i know you have to work on it.

you can say biting tough things but you have to at least look in a way that people are going to listen to you. >> we know everybody has an agenda commits how you make it more palatable. >> president trump speaking out about his relation with world leaders in that hot mike moment about canada's prime minister, justin trudeau. what the president is sank now and what all this says about his role in the global stage we made usaa insurance for members like martin. an air force veteran made of doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for.

usaa billions of problems. sore gums? bleeding gums? painful flossing? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath healthy gums oral rinse fights gingivitis and plaque and prevents gum disease for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart.

>> my partner come harris faulkner come is not on the couch today but she is up on the mats gearing up for "outnumbered overtime." what's up, harris?

>> actually democrats are invited on impeachment in someone to see limited articles but others like the whole kitchen sink strategy. if it comes to a senate trail the white house says bring it on, we will look at their strategy plus three former obama administration officials are endorsing pete buttigieg, otherwise known as not joe biden. brian kilmeade joins us to talk about is really cool book. "outnumbered overtime" top of the hour. back to you guys. >> president trump defending his relationship with world leaders following the nato summit in london. despite calling canadian prime minister justin trudeau two-faced after a hot mike got trudeau dissing president trump with other world leaders. he joked about the president being late to meetings earlier in the day. watch this.

in the meantime the president tweeting the fake news media is doing everything possible to belittle my successful trip to london for nato. i got along great with the nato leaders, even getting them to pay $130 billion a year more, and $400 billion of more in three years. no increase for u.s., only deep respect. i consider myself a student of mean girls behavior and having overheard people talking about me that just wasn't that bad. >> it really wasn't. >> he was like dude it was 40 minutes come on. simply because trudeau got caught talking by the president but what he said was pretty tame. >> it was totally tame. the thing that took away from this whole episode as you can be up among the most powerful leaders in the world and yet you're still not out of

high school. people talking and laughing behind your back. the fact is that i think president trump is totally comfortable being in that role. let the cool kids talk about him or make silly remarks or things like that, he is 100% comfortable being the guy who is excluded from that little cabal. >> i'm also watching that and i thought it odd it wasn't that bad. you have people standing together at a party, we all know how uncomfortable it is. you're trying to do jokes or say something funny can be your standing with all the popular kids so what is the easiest thing to make a joke about? president trump. they sit there and they making themselves laugh nervously. i also thought when the world is laughing at president trump we are laughing at america. come on. they are doing jokes trying to entertain that each other. >> i'll sit don't like we need d to be obsessed with how the world sees the united states. if something actually got done

at this summit and more countries like germany and france are going to contribute more to nato and whether or not it should still exist i think that is a very valid exercise. it might not have been that bad but it's very funny. one of those faces is quite da dark. >> i was just thinking that. i was like two-faced might be a better costume for him to wear than the other face he was caught wearing recently. we have a piece of sound from trudeau and what he had to say. can we listen to that? >> i think everyone's team from every different leader has teams who every now and then have their jaws drop out unscheduled surprises like that video itself or that it. >> like that video itself. i like that line. >> i think he's absolutely right on that because he was saying stuff about tromp team.

i wasn't sure if the other people and is studio. how did they not know they were cameras there. just because you'll be in buckingham palace. it's great britain, that's what they do. >> i guess president trump is no problem, he gets more money for nato. >> boris johnson had a look on his face like i have an election coming up i don't want to be here. i don't need trim tweeting about me. >> the president love that everyone was sitting around talking but him when he wasn't there. he loved it. >> center of attention always. in the meantime twitter outrage is one thing but now peloton stock is crashing after a

idiotic response to a holiday commercial. critics say they are peddling a sexist message. what the company is saying about it. the newday va streamline refi is the reason why. it lets you shortcut the loan process and refinance with no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. one call can save you $2000 every year. call my team at newday usa right now. px]xri g at bayer, we're more than we help farmers like john. by developing digital tools, so he can use less water to grow crops. at bayer, this is why we science. 1 in 5 people you meet wear yeah. that many! but right now, is not the time to talk about it. so when you're ready, search 'my denture care'.

poligrip and polident. fixed. fresh. and just between us.

(kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time.

>> peloton talk quickly peddling downhill, dropping $942 million in a single day amidst the uproar over and add that critics say sends a sexist message featuring a slim mom keeping a year-long video diary after her husband surprises her with a peloton bike for christmas. twitter shreds the ad by saying maybe you should shred some pounds after you give your rail thin wife a peloton.

peloton stands by the ads and says it was misinterpreted aimed at selling that fitness and wellness journey. dagen if they are worried about misinterpretation than they have failed. if there is a broad interpretation of the ad, then they missed the mark. >> that stock is tanking commits down another 5% today. maybe for other reasons. here is the wisdom in it, if somebody gave me a bike worth two or three grand, i would send it back. who is upset about getting gifts that's worth several thousand dollars? >> i don't know if they worried about the gift, i think the woman's face shows so much pain i think she is transmitting something that may be the company didn't intend. >> i wonder did they do any focus group testing in 2019 to

see whether this was going to go over big? it's fascinating because when you look at the risks the company has taken down as far as they are because people can simply tweet these kinds of reactions and you can't lose that much money in one day as a result of an ad like this. that wouldn't of happened ten or 20 years ago. >> it can't just be the ad. >> i didn't share the negative reaction that apparently many of those in the twitter universe did better because that may be for me a very high percentage of the christmas gifts i get following the self improvement category and i don't take it personally. if somebody gave me in exercise i will do it and that sort of thing. >> what about bourbon? >> i can always accept all sorts of gifts. no husband can get those wives a peloton by? >> i think it's fine. people who have the bike and use the bike they ask leah love it. >> maybe they will do the sequel where they get the husband on

the bike. >> that would be great. >> that would unite america, i see it all now. >> don't people have bigger problems in life that they can weigh in on something that's relevant? >> they do that's why making funny this is so much better than getting better. >> there is "usa today" column that says this woman doesn't need a peloton, she needs a good therapist and a divorce lawyer. >> there's something about the reaction of the more intending than the ad itself. i don't think people are reacting to the ad they are reacting to the reactions now people want to have the best comment in the most vicious burns. >> we are talking about it because that stocks tanked. i can't just be one ad. they can go ahead and make another. tom dupree gets a much. >> i'm gonna go out and have a great bike ride. >> we are going to be back on the couch tomorrow at noon

eastern. now it is "outnumbered overtime." ♪ >> not bake showdown looming as nancy pelosi announced the house democrats will move ahead with the impeachment. this is "outnumbered overtime," i'm melissa francis in for harris faulkner, who you may have heard is a little under the weather. feel better, harris. speaker pelosi during a dramatic press conference today accused president trump of abusing his power for political gain and violating the u.s. constitution. pelosi said she asked committee chairs to draft articles of impeachment. she said