♪ this sunday impeachment showdown. >> everybody will come to order. >> hear arings begin with tying president trump closer to events in ukraine. >> that president trump cares more about the investigations with biden which giuliani was pressing for. >> and evidence of intimidation by president trump of a career diplomat even during her testimony. >> i mean, i can't speak to what the president is trying to do. >> democrats say their case is clear. >> if this is not impeachable conduct, what is. >> republicans defend the

president. >> where is the impeachable offense in that call? >> the president seems consumed by the hearings tweeting well over 100 times last week alone about impeachment. my guests this morning two senators who travel together to ukraine while military aid was withheld. democrat chris murphy of connecticut and republican ron johnson of wisconsin. plus, deval patrick gets in the race. >> i am not trying to climb up by pulling anybody else down. >> this morning i will talk to the former massachusetts governor about getting into the 2020 campaign as joe biden and elizabeth warren are slipping in iowa. and county to county. our first look at five counties that we believe hold the key to the 2020 election. joining me for insight and analysis are eugene robinson columnist for "the washington post." danielle letical of the american enterprise institute. reuters white house correspondent jeff mason and

"wall street journal" columnist peggy noonan. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. if republicans were hoping for a robert mueller-like disappointment, that didn't happen. if democrats were looking for that galvanizing watergate-like moment that hasn't happened yet either. still the witnesses at last week's impeachment hearings succeeded in portraying a president as less interested in helping ukraine than improving his own political fortunes. and one who engaged in intimidation even committing the unforced error of attacking a witness during her televised testimony. moreover the hearings only heightened anticipation for this week's appearance by ambassador gordon sondland who may feel revised to his story for the second time, some of which came to light just yesterday. perhaps most important last week revealed just how consumed president trump is with the

hearings despite his repeated claims to the contrary. how much will it all matter? there is little indication that republicans or democrats in congress were moved to change their minds one way or the other. but it is possible that while hearings may have little effect on impeachment, they may have done more to damage president trump's re-election chances next year. >> whoever heard impeachment to me is a dirty word? >> president trump appears rattled as the impeachment inquiry consumes his attention and his presidency. >> impeachment. >> impeachment. >> impeachment. >> impeachment. >> impeachment. >> reporter: the presidents is tweeted about impeachment more than 140 times just this week even as he denies he is watching. >> i hear it's a joke. i haven't watched. i've been watching today for the first time i started watching, and it's really sad -- >> reporter: on friday the president attacked the former ambassador to ukraine on twitter as she was testifying. everywhere marie yovanovitch went turned bad. she started off in somalia.

how did that go? then fast forward to ukraine. >> and now the president realtime is attacking you. what effect do you think that has on other witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing? >> well, it's very intimidating. >> i have the right to speak. i have freedom of speech just as other people do. >> reporter: yovanovitch argued the president's conduct represents an immediate threat to u.s. interests. >> what foreign official, corrupt or not, could be blamed for wondering whether the u.s. ambassador represents the president's views? and what u.s. ambassador could be blamed for harboring the fear that they can't count on our government to support them as they implement stated u.s. policy and protect and defend u.s. interests? >> reporter: and witnesses this week have described the president's attempts to use his office for personal political gain, pressing for an investigation into the bidens while withholding military aid

and a white house meeting from ukraine. on wednesday the acting ambassador to ukraine bill taylor broke the news of a phone call overheard by his aid david holmes between e.u. ambassador gordon sondland and president trump. >> what your staff member could overhear was president trump asking ambassador sondland about, quote, the investigations. is that right? >> that's correct. >> reporter: behind closed doors on friday, holmes described the july cell phone call one day after the president's call with ukraine president zelensky saying sondland told trump that president zelensky loves your [ bleep ]. holmes said i then heard president trump ask so he's going to do the investigation. ambassador sondland replied that he's going to do it. holmes testified that sondland told him the president did not give an expletive about ukraine but only cared about big stuff like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing.

>> do you recall having a conversation -- >> i don't recall at all, not each a little bit. >> and joining me now two senators who traveled to ukraine in september spoke to zelensky. it's democrat chris murphy of connecticut and republican senator ron johnson. i know you're at home there in oshkosh center. welcome back to "meet the press." let me just start with your reaction to what the president tweeted about ambassador yovanovitch on friday. >> good morning, chuck. well, it's always kind of interesting when president trump was going to the white house leaving atlanta. he said my behavior is caused by you, the constant torment, the investigation. so, listen, i would prefer he not provide that type of tweet. but my concern -- and let me start out with something else here, chuck, because i don't want to argue every point. something we agree on.

we want a safe and secure america. we care about each other. generally we solve our political differences at the ballot box not in the streets or through impeachment. and i think that is really -- as we talked the other day, that's the divide that is tearing this country apart. and that's what i'm primarily concerned about. >> i want to get into a little bit of the specifics. i want to get you to react to something that the ambassador said about particularly about what rudy giuliani was doing. take a listen to her testimony. >> i obviously don't dispute that the president has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any time for any reason. but what i do wonder is why it was necessary to smear my reputation. >> it's a fair question for her to ask. >> sure it is. and again i have no problem with the ambassador.

she hosted me when i made one of my trips over there. but one thing i want to point out is the damage is being done to our country through this entire impeachment process. it's going to be very difficult for future presidents to have a candid conversation with a world leader because now we have set the precedent of leaking transcripts. the weakening of executive privilege is not good. by the way those individuals that leaked this, you know, if their interest was a strong relationship with ukraine, they didn't accomplish this. having this all come out into public has weakened that relationship, has exposed things that didn't need to be exposed. when i was in ukraine with senator murphy, one of the points i was trying to make as we left that meeting, let's talk about this is a timing difference in terms of funding. senator murphy's on the appropriations committee. we will restore the funding. senator durham offered an amendment. that same day the funding was released. so this would have been far better off if we would have just taken care of this behind the scenes. we have two branches of

government. most people want to support ukraine. i listen to "the washington post" article lionizing this whistle-blower. listen, if the whistle-blower's goal is to improve our relationship with ukraine, he utterly or she utterly failed. -- >> all right. >> go ahead. >> let me pick up on what you said there about all of this going public. because you actually raise an interesting question about this. why was the president so insistent that president zelensky had to be public about announcing an investigation? and i ask that because one of the foundations of due process in this country is actually not to publicly announce who you're investigating because you may be investigating somebody who's innocent. and yet the president wanted ukraine to violate one of our great protections in the rule of law and publicly announce an investigation regardless of whether there's guilt or not. why did he want to go public? >> i'm not sure that's the case. i certainly understand that president trump wanted to find out what was happening in 2016

and how did this false narrative about russian collusion of this campaign occur? that i know from that's from my first hand testimony. what i also know is that when i sprung that on president trump in the august 21st phone call, he completely denied that there was any arrangement that ukraine had to do anything before funding was released. pretty long phone call. we talked about a bunch of other things. but at the very end rae wrapped it up by saying i have a hurricane i have to deal with. but i hear what you are saying, i think you are going to like my decision. so he's already leaning toward providing that funding on august 31st. my guess is this never would've been exposed, that funding would've been restored and our relationship with ukraine would be far better off than it is today. >> you seem to blame this on everybody but the president. >> it was the president's actions. >> i'm not blaming anybody chuck. >> well, you are. you are blaming everybody else for the reason we are in this situation. isn't the president's own

behavior which raised all of these yellow and red flags, isn't that why we're here? >> again, i'm sympathetic with president trump as he has been tormented from the day after the election. a quick little quote from the lawyer of the whistle-blower. this is ten days after his inauguration. coup has started. first of many steps. rebellion. impeachment will follow ultimately. if this whistle-blower was, you know, is to be lionized by "the washington post," maybe we ought to take a look at who he hired. he could have hired an unbiased officer of the court. instead he hired mark ziad. that's not an unbiased officer of the court. there is something going on here, chuck. that's my point. something's going on that's dividing this country. >> you're the one that brought up this idea that impeachment was something that the left wanted to do immediately. i'm going to quote from you, sir. november 1st, 2016.

you're asked about hillary clinton. and you said this before the election. she purposely circumum vented the law. high crime or misdemeanor. you were talking about impeachment before that election with hillary clinton. how should i not -- how should viewer s not look at what you're doing and you are just reacting as partisan that if trump were a democrat you'd be ready to convict him? >> first of all understand that's before an election. i am trying to hammer out the political differences before an election. and by the way i completely agree with that. we've been investigating the whole hillary clinton email scandal, the exoneration of her. that was not an investigation to really dig out the truth. -- >> i think it was legit to advocate impeachment before -- you're criticizing democrats for advocating impeachment days after the inauguration. >> you'd have to listen to what the question -- i don't think i said impeachment right there at

all, chuck. i was just pointing out what hillary clinton had done, and i was hoping that people would not elect her, and they didn't. and that's i think one of the main reasons that she was not elected is what she did with that private server, which is completely intentional. it baffles me that she was not indicted quite honestly. but now that we know based on the struck page text. >> let me ask you about partisanship. why shouldn't viewers assume that you are looking at president trump through republican lens here because you were already much tougher ready to go to impeachment on hillary clinton with no evidence that anything that happened with that server somehow got into foreigners' hands when we actually had evidence regarding what happened at the dnc. >> so i guess what i suggest, chuck, is i got a letter last night from representative jordan nunes asking basically of my telling of events. i will be working on that day. i will lay out what i know in terms of this. >> are you going to testify?

>> -- from my perspective. they are not going to call me because certainly adam schiff wouldn't want to be called by the senate. there's going to be a separation there. but i think i will reply to that. and i will supply my telling of events which is difficult to do in eight or ten minutes of a show like this. >> fair enough. but going back to we are a divided nation. we are highly concerned about that. i am highly concerned about that, i know you are as well. we need to start providing the other perspective. >> thank you for coming on and sharing your views. i appreciate it. >> have a good day. >> when it came to trying to get aid for ukraine, chris murphy of connecticut. chris murphy, welcome back. >> sure. >> first of all, what have we learned so far this week that says -- and this to me is the bar the democrats have to meet that what the president did was so egregious he should be disqualified from being able to seek a second term. >> it's an extraordinary measure

to try to impeach a president. and you can only use it under extraordinary circumstances. but these are extraordinary circumstances. what we know is that the president of the united states was using the massive powers entrusted to him to try to use tax bayer dollars as leverage to get a foreign country to interfere in an election. you can't do that as an american president. if there were no consequences, then the message would be clear that this president and any other president can use the power of the oval office in order to try to advance themselves politically or financially. and so i think representative schiff is right. if you don't use impeachment for this type of offense, then i'm not sure what you use it for. and if the president was able to get away with this, if senator johnson got what he was asking for, then he would have just continued to try to use the power of his office to rig the 2020 election in his favor. >> senator johnson just volunteered that he's going to apparently speak with at least the republican side of the house intelligence impeachment inquiry right now. and he referenced jordan and

nunes. how should the two of you give your information -- i mean, i say this. there is a speech and debate clause issue. this is legally a little complicated and i apologize for the constitutional lesson here. how should you and senator johnson give your information about what you knew and saw? >> well, i think what we knew and saw is pretty clear. we have been public about this from the beginning. i'm not sure that anything is necessary other than what we've said. president zelensky dispensed with the formalities of the meeting. he started to immediately talk about the fact that this aid had been suspended. it was that important to him because his soldiers were dying on the front without american aid. and he knew his aid was suspended at this point in time. when is this meeting? >> this was on september 5th. he had clearly been communicated to at that point that he needed to get these investigations started in order for the aid to be turned back on at the end of the meeting i told him it would be a bad idea for him to accede to rudy giuliani's corrupt request and he agreed.

but at the time we didn't know all of these back channels. or at least i didn't know all of these back channels regarding this extortion campaign. >> at what point basically senator johnson's basic argument is the following. leave this up to the -- this should be a political discussion and a political argument and a political debate. he's not alone in thinking that. and that's not just a partisan defense. there are some in the middle of watching this show going i don't like what he did, but it's too close to the election. what do you say? >> so let me tell you why this is different. the president was trying to use the power of his office to influence the upcoming election, right? he was attempting to get a foreign power to destroy a candidate for office who was running against him in 2020. and so this is directly relevant to the sanctity of american elections. if you don't stop a president from trying to rig an upcoming election, then i don't know how we live in a democracy anymore. this is why you had to use this

means right now. >> i noticed you used the word extortion. "the washington post" recorded earlier this week that several democrats have stopped using the term quid pro quo. instead describing bribery as a more direct summation of trump's alleged conduct. the shift came after the democratic. among the question put to participants was weather quid pro quo, extortion, or bribery was a more compelling description of trump's conduct. it looks like democrats are looking for the most politically effective language here. this campaign stuff. should you be using campaign tactics to move impeachment? >> i think we need to explain to the american people why this is so serious. and i don't think there's anything among with trying to -- >> you're on house battlegrounds though. i would get it if you told me it was all of america. but it's clearly about house. >> i don't read house campaign memos. what i know is that my job is to try to explain to the american

people why this is so serious. and i think a lot of americans are more concerned with the president's sabotaged campaign against the affordable care act than they are with this impeachment inquiry. >> two things. ambassador yovanovitch, what president trump did, should that be added to the impeachment article? is that an article? >> i think that's an interesting question, and maybe the house should consider it. because, remember, ambassador yovanovitch is still working at the state department. so what the president is basically telling her during her testimony is that there may be consequences to you and your family and your family check if you don't shut up. and the message that is being sent to everybody else who is thinking about testifying is chilling as well. i thought from the beginning that the impeachment inquiry should be narrow so that we can get it to the senate as quickly as possible. but this is really serious. >> gordon sondland, is he a credible witness? >> his story continues to change. and i think he's got to decide this weekend whether he's an

american first or a trump loyalist. i am not sure that we can trust his testimony given the fact that we know it's already changed. >> are you comfortable that you've made up your mind as a juror? >> i think it's okay with the facts on the table -- >> you think there's enough to convict? >> i think that if this isn't impeachable, i don't know what is. but the conduct that i have seen has to be impeachable in a democracy. >> chris murphy, democrat from >> chris murphy, democrat from connecticut, thank you if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis

and a high risk for fracture now might not be the best time to ask yourself are my bones strong? life is full of make or break moments. that's why it's so important to help reduce your risk of fracture with prolia®. only prolia® is proven to help strengthen and protect bones from fracture with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it or take xgeva® serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip, or tongue swelling rash; itching; or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia® as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone joint, or muscle pain. are you ready? ask your doctor how prolia® can help strengthen your bones.

(mom) oh, so cute! (fozzie) ma! (mom) oh honeybear! (fozzie) hey, i'm trying some new material. you think i can run one past you? (mom) oh of course, dear... (fozzie) good good good. [clears throat] so, why do bears wear fur coats? because we'd look silly in sweaters! ahhhh! (mom) wocka wocka. (fozzie) wocka wocka, ma. (fozzie vo) portal. from facebook.

. welcome back. panelists here, right errors john mason. peggy noonan, danielle pletka, eugene robinson, jeff, the president is your day-to-day beat. >> it is. >> he claims he's not watching this. we did a little twitter, you can monitor his feelings looking at the number of tweets he sends. the line of demarcation, the impeachment inquiry begins september 24th. he didn't average over 200 before then, he now does an average under 200 after. you have seen an increase. is that the best what i to monitor the president's temperament these days? >> absolutely. if you talk to people in the

white house and i did in the last few days, people will say, oh, he's fine, he's happy, he's pleased with how things are going in the impeachment trial f. you watch his stream of consciousness twitter feed, you can tell he's rattled. >> that exposed itself, really, with his tweet about the informer ambassador in the mild of the testimony friday. >> peggy, that is what struck me about all this week. you sort of realized, it's consumed him. he can't compartmentalize, bill clinton compartmentalized in ways people are like how do you do that? almost overly so. this guy can't to the point he had to force himself -- >> in the hearings owe glow what he did at the shaerg what authoritarian people do. that was just a rough moment. >> i think it was also very embarrassing and discomforting for his republican defenders in the house and on that panel. look, of course this thing is in his head. the president has said previously i think we had it on the show, impeachment is like a

dirty word for presidents. this is a big drama. i think he sees a house impeachment coming. if he watched part of this week, he knows, he knows tv, the testimony was compelling for anybody watching closely. the people who testified were people of stature and accomplishment. what they said was believable, brick by brick, they made a case backing the charge that the president muscled an ally to get a political gift that he wanted. so this was not good for him. and to the extent that everybody in politics is fighting over the middle 10% or 20% of voters, those in that group who were watching would not come away thinking more of donald trump. >> in fact, danny, i have been of the sense that okay, let me play some of the republican defense of the president. because i think they've only been effective at defending impeachment, not for promoting

re-election. take a look at this. >> they've had three hearings, three witnesses with no first-hand knowledge. >> the two important facts are number one ukraine received the aid. number two, there was, in fact, no investigation into biden. >> we're less than a year away from the election. but these democrats do not trust the american public. >> they can't defend the actions, i get it. that's their best defense. but that doesn't help the president's re-elect. >> no, you got two things opposing each other. one is he didn't do it. and he didn't do it and you can't convict him and the other is, and you can't because, in fact, he's kind of an idiot. you know. >> incompetence defense, how is that helpful, i don't know. >> exactly. >> that is absolutely devastating, eli wrote a great column in bloomberg the one is in opposition to the other. the biggest thing going for the president is at the end of the day it's persuasive. >> that 10%, they're not watching this they're not tuned

in. i agree, these are very credible people. this was in some ways a brick-by-brick devastating. but people have already decided. >> jane, that's what democrats have to meet, that high, much higher bar. i thought for the first time the ambassador explained why we should be troubled by this, if ambassadors don't have the backing of their president, this is damaging. will it penetrate? >> well, how can we know at this point? we have had two days of public testimony and it seems like it's a lot longer and the temptation to decide, is this having an impact? is this not having an impact? >> we don't know yet, we don't know if this will move public opinion to the extent. but i thought those were two pretty devastating days of testimony. again for those who are paying attention. they, you know, they saw two things happening.

they saw, you know, these public servants testifying in a very credible way, especially ambassador yovanovitch, who had the emotional impact as well. thanks, in part, to the president's tweet. and they also saw the republicans moving the goal posts at an incredible pace, i mean, i think the goal posts were last seen crossing the mississippi. they're somewhere out over the great plains by now. >> you know, wednesday is going to be a big day with gordon sondland. i think are you right, when we say we're only at two hearings. a part of seems to me like, they have been revelatory i want to see what's next. gordon sondland, how nervous is the white house? >> number one the criticism last week is the witnesses were hearsay. sondland is somebody who spoke directly to the president. one of the sources i spoke to at the white house said they have spoken to republicans and things that go well in those swing districts are the following three arguments. number one, the president did

nothinging wrong, number two, this process is not fair. number three, the president is working for the american people while democrats are obsessed with impeachment. all of those arguments could be hit by sondland testimony. >> it feels like gordon sondland is somebody that it just feels very pivotal. >> how does he assess his legal situation at this point is my question? sondland is supposed to appear on wednesday. he's already changed his story twice. now, he's got to change it again. >> somebody said, though, who says which side asked this question first, did we align then or are you aligned now? he is now in that situation potentially. >> all of there is only interesting because the president has staked hess defense on this idea that there was no quid pro kworks did i say that right? >> bribery, extortion. that's the real reason they changed it, it's hard to say. >> what's the word of the week? if he wants to stick his game on that, the answer is no one believes it. but the bottom line is, he did

it and do people care? i think the answer is no. >> i think, i'm still opened to the idea but particular kind of drama, if it turns out somebody like john bolton comes forward n and has testified. this is a man who was known to american conservatives, who is a fox news thinker and talker. who has been a serious person in the administration and all of the ukraine charges happened around him and he's a colorful speaker. if he decides, i'm going to go for it here and give you my full candid assessment of what i've witnessed, that really could be big. >> that for the 10 or 20% in the middle that can make them shake a little. >> you are describing john bolton as john dean. and i'll leave it there. >> what kind of look is it for bolt on the make a big money book deem for presumably a tell-all book and not tell all to the american people first.

to the american people first. that's not a g i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪ and my lack of impulse control,, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey! my focus is on the road,

and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby! 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.

welcome back. there's been some big news out of iowa, a new poll shows mayor pete buttigieg surging to the top in iowa. buttigieg is at 25%. nearly a double-digit lead over his nearest competitor. he's gained 16 points in scent. elizabeth warren and joe biden have slipped significantly. the polls suggest the democrats at least in iowa may be searching for an alternative to warn sanders and biden. perhaps a more moderate one. which is exactly the case duval

patrick would like to occupy when he joined the race last week. he joins me from san diego. he is learning the rigors of this presidential contest. welcome back to "meet the press." >> indeed i am. i know it's early. thanks for having me. >> let me start with that. pete buttigieg i would argue sui essentially making similar arguments you had about bringing the country together, that this is a bigger moment than a specific moment here, nostalgia over there. when you hear your message. i hear what i've heard from pete buttigieg, i think, all right, subpoena your message already represented? >> well, first of all, i want to -- thank you very much, chuck, for having me on. i was just listening to your previous segments. it feels jarring talking about politic mr. s during the gravity of what's going on. >> it is. >> i have tremendous respect for pete and senator warren and the vice president and the other

candidates who are friend of mine, whom i talk with in the course of the race. my entry into the race isn't about them. ite not trying to climb on top of them in order to do what i want to do and what i think i can do. i think that i have a record of being a bridge builder. i think that's pretty important at a time when not just the party in some respects but the nation is deeply divided and divided, frankly, around issues that where we have remarkably -- a remarkable amount of overlap in terms of economic anxiety and social tensions, with i we have experienced at different times in our history. i also have a range of life experience and professional experience which enables me to come at problem solving from a bunch of different perspectives and you've seen that and i want to tell the american people about that in ma massachusetts.

>> you come. are you a preparation guys, though, you strike he as somebody that you want to plan in advance. you didn't get in. you were asked in june. you had no regrets. you were asked in ought. my wife looks at it and says, i'm so glad you didn't run. in october you, you suggest an 11th hour bid is unlikely. i have been aware of efforts to recruit you for years. it is always my understanding you didn't want to put your family through this. so what changed? >> well, first of all, you may know, chuck, we were really close a week or two from announcing a year ago and just at the eve, literally, my wife was diagnosed with uterine cancer and that had to be first prayerty. we celebrated our 35th wedding anniversary in june and i'm delighted to say that she is cancer-free, praise god. >> excellent. >> she follows every put and take. it is, really.

she follows every put and take every news story much more closely than i and you are right, she has said, watching the debates and so many of our friends compete and contest and the friction that comes from that, that she was glad i was not involved at that time. but she has also been one of the ones listening closely and responding to folks who have said, there is a lane for you, more to the point that the nation needs experience not just a sensibility around bridge building but actually some results in that respect. and you know we are in crisis in many respects here in america and we used a crisis in massachusetts to come out stronger economically, stronger social lid and more fair. i'd like to see if those experiences and that aptitude and that skill set can be offered in service to our nation.

>> it's not lost on people that here you are jumping in when there is a fellow massachusetts democrat in the race. and it certainly seems if you don't see eye-to-eye on ideology necessarily. why shouldn't your entry be seen as a bit of a vote of no confidence in elizabeth warren? >> well, i don't want to go there. senator warren is a friend of mine and you know she and her husband bruce and diane and i have spent time together privately and socially and i am enormously fond of her and incredibly proud of the campaign she's run. it's been enormously disciplined, i think. but i think you know, we have to -- we have to keep our eye on our shared goals and not get so hardened around our means and i'll just use healthcare as an example. every single democrat believes and is committed to delivering quality affordable healthcare to

every single american, republican leadership or not, that's the point. how we get there, there will be and should be robust debate about that. you know, we've delivered in massachusetts healthcare to over 98% of our residents. i still don't think there is another state in america that has gotten that far and the whole business of trying to get system costs down is a national challenge. you can get there a couple of different ways and certainly having a public option, which is my preferred approach, maybe medicare is that public option. that's a way. but the fact is, we can't -- no one party, no one candidate has a corner on all the best ideas and if you want to make a reform that lasts. then you have to make room for other points of view to accomplish that ambitious goal. >> i don't know if you are as independently wealthy as michael

bloom bemplth i-- bloomberg. >> is anyone? >> are you going to accept supper pac support or money? there is some information that your friends may be putting together a super pac. not a lot of democrats are crazy about super pac money. are you going to swear it off or not? >> i'm not crazy about super ac money either. i'm not sure if i understand the rules correctly, i don't have a say about that. >> you can publicly discourage it. >> i think we need to do catch up. we need to follow and find above source strategies. >> so are you saying if there is a super pac that supports you, are you not going to tell them to stop? >> no, i'm not. i will say that i would like to see any contributions to any pac fully disclosed. dark money, first of all there is too much money in the system. i will have something to say about that as policy point of view as we get a little further along. but if there is going to be

super pac money that supports me, it should all be, the sources should be fully disclosed. >> duval patrick, former governor of massachusetts. crowded field. welcome to it. getting up in california. that's all right. i recently spoke to a group of students about being a scientist at 3m. i wanted them to know that innovation is not just about that one 'a-ha' moment. science is a process. it takes time, dedication. it's a journey. we're constantly asking ourselves, 'how can we do things better and better?' what we make has to work. we strive to protect you. at 3m, we're in pursuit of solutions that make people's lives better.

itso chantix can help you quit pursslow turkey.ions along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery.

tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix. . welcome back. day to download time. we are introducing a new edition we are calling county to county. we will spend time in five counties, maricopa, arizona, kent county, michigan, beaver county, pennsylvania and miami daddy, florida. you will find a better

understanding of where the electorate is headed. they're not all five counties, they are crucial. we traveled to two, milwaukee and wisconsin and kent county in micht. in wisconsin, whether or not the state stays red will likely come out to turnout, especially black voter turnout, the vast majority live in milwaukee county, well, turnout in the state overall is down by 3% in 2016 compared with 2012, in fact, mitt romney earned more votes in wisconsin when he lost the state to obama than mr. trump did when he beat people there. that's how low the state's turnout was. the biggest decline, milwaukee county, it dropped by a whopping 10%. state wide the african-american vote whereas down 19%. then there is the story in kent county, michigan. obama carried the state that year. kent's biggest city is grand rapids, hometown of gerald ford, avatar of many traditional republican voters who associate

themselves more with ford's moderate republicanism than with donald trump. kent is chamber of commerce country with a higher percentage of college educated voters than state wide. so what happened in 2016? well, mr. trump improved on romney's 2012 performance by almost three percentage points in michigan state wide. but in kent county, mr. trump lost ground by 5.5 percentage points so will these establishment republicans return to the fold and support president trump. >> i am joined by two of our county to county reporters. vaughan hilliard and sash sa burns in kent county, michigan. devon, what are you seeing so far in milwaukee? >> reporter: good morning, cluck. we are called back in 2016, donald trump won the state by 22,000 votes. last year's governor's race, the democrat tony evers beat scott walker by 30,000 votes, here in milwaukee county, it's the most diverse county in the state.

it's not lost on folk's memories around here that hillary clinton as the party's nominee in 2016 didn't visit the state a single time. more so i have been repeatedly told it's what that state represented, a lack of acknowledgement of the city and its people. voters say they want their economic sixes to be understood and for the candidates to offer real economic remedies. chuck. >> vaughan, thanks very much. if african-american turnout is up there may mean it's up in other states as well, tell me about kent county. >> hey, chuck. here in kent county, we have been talking to life long republicans who are now deeply conflicted him. some have described a political homelessness to me. many said they don't recognize this republican party as a party that they grew up with. and that's in large part due to donald trump. now, some are following in the footsteps of representative justin amash. kent county is home to that congressman who left the

republican party earlier this year is now running for re-election here as an independent. others say they still identify as republicans, but they would actually consider voting for a democrat in 2020. so that will heavily depend on who that nominee actually is. so we'll be staying in very close touch with voters here, chuck. >> look, i'm a believer as kent (burke) at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. even a- (ernie) lost rubber duckie? (burke) you mean this one? (ernie) rubber duckie! (cookie) what about a broken cookie jar? (burke) again, cookie? (cookie) yeah. me bad. (grover) yoooooow! oh! what about monsters having accidents? i am okay by the way! (burke) depends. did you cause the accident, grover? (grover) cause an accident? maybe... (bert) how do you know all this stuff? (burke) just comes with experience. (all muppets) yup. ♪ we are farmers. ♪ bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ ♪ i've been a caregiver for 20 years. no two patients are the same.

predicting the next step for them can be challenging. today we're using the ibm cloud to run new analytics tools that help us better predict and plan a patient's recovery. ♪ ♪ ultimately, it's helping thousands of patients return home. and who doesn't love going home. of millions of americans during the recession. so, my wife kat and i took action. we started a non-profit community bank with a simple theory - give people a fair deal and real economic power. invest in the community, in businesses owned by women and people of color, in affordable housing. the difference between words and actions matters. that's a lesson politicians in washington could use right now. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. the one thing you learn pretty quickly, is that there's a lot to learn. grow with google is here to help you

with turning ideas into action. putting your business on the map, connecting with customers, and getting the skills to use new tools. so, in case you're looking, we've put all the ways we can help in one place. free training, tools, and small business resources are now available at google.com/grow

and as for the president, god bless his heart. >> all right. a little]!southern slang there from the now re-elected governor

of louisiana. we put up the vote board there, gene robinson, john bel edwards, the old school social conservative economic populist liberal that used to be a big chunk of the democratic party. he still sort of has hung onto it and the president didn't have coat tails and he begged for him. listen to this sound byte. >> the headlines the next day, trump took a loss. they lift him up a lot so trump took a loss so you got to give me a big win, please, okay? okay? >> well, he made it about him. so it was about him and he lost again, he lost in kentucky, he lost in louisiana. you know, hose, you can make an argument that donald trump not good for the republican party. >> what? >> or politically in any sense.

>> there is not in fact a data point that supports him being an improve thetment a republican party. whether it's the off year election, mid-term election, not a single data point supports the party. >> democrats stay on in louisiana, a state that reliably went for trump. he is poison to suburban white voters around, across the country and his numbers there seem to be heading shot and that means the party will head south. look at what happened in 2018, look at what happened in all the off, off year specials and elections. it's bad for republicans. >> but that doesn't, isn't there a lesson here,als, for the democrats? i know our job is to see absolutely everything through the prism of donald trump? >> he wants you to see everything. the person that actually pushes it is him. >> that's true.

this tells us something, this speech, we haven't talked about in. this speech given from barack obama and the democratic party. >> about the play. >> john bel edwards, i don't want to -- >> you are a producer. >> thank you. john bel edwards, is that a part of the democratic party we don't see anymore? that's the kind of guy that can win in louisiana. those people aren't represented in the democratic race any more. >> we sometimes forget we always see the republican party shattering or bending under various pressures. the fact is we have been witnessing for about five years the democratic party dividing and shattering also, debating what it stand for, that's what 2020 is really about. how far left are we going? >> now e, it's interesting, barack obama says this on friday, this is still a country less revolutionary that it is interested in improvement. they like seeing things improve. the african-american doesn't think we have to tear down the

system and remake it. jeff mason felt like an obvious shot a bit at the left. but it's i think you hear him saying that and it's not lost on me that it's the most pragmatic candidate running so far. pete buttigieg now serving if iowa. >> somebody who is marveling himself in many ways against obama in terms of strategy. it's hard not to strategize it as a hit and bernie sanders, it wasn't a full endorsement of joe biden either. he has been working on that by tying himself to his former boss. >> it did it. the rise of pete i think is basically it's because democrats aren't looking for what obama is saying. somebody a little more small seat conservative about him. >> look. if you look at edwards and beshear and 2018, you see that you'll these things are very much alive in the democratic party. in fact, those candidates are

winning. exactly. what you are seeing in the presidential campaign, i think, is the difficulty of sort of malga mating that in a statement or a party philosophy and that's a process that the party is, it's having some difficulty working through. and thus finding the right candidate. >> is the rise of buttigieg mean that bloomberg and patrick were both right and wrong, meaning they were right about the room between warren, sanders and biden, but they're wrong there was no candidate campaigning for it? >> yeah. they were right to think at a certain point it was fluid. anything could happen. anybody who wants that job should be rolling the dice at this point. i'm very interested in joe biden as a figure who does stand for i think a sort of john bel edwards moderate democratic liberal approach.

about whom so many people seem to have doubts, so that's not going to work, so i will go elsewhere. i will try pete. that's how i look at it. >> you can't look at the rise and not forget about the electorate. a source in the biden campaign told me yesterday they're very confident they can still win three out of the four early states f. pete buttigieg wins iowa, they don't necessarily see that as a blow that they can't overcome. >> i think they would prefer pete over warren in iowa. basically that i buy. >> they appreciate taking south carolina. before we go, a quick programing note. this wednesday, msnbc and the wag post will host the fifth democratic presidential debate. ashley parker will be moderating. by the way, that's the same day as the gordon sondland hearing. so let's just say on wednesday if work is kind of slow, just sit yourself in front of

television, because will you have a lot of popcorn to pop and watch. that's all we have for today. thank you for watching. thank you for watching. we'll be 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.

break news overnight a mass casualty shooting at a family's backyard gathering. at least ten people are shot with multiple casualties we'll have the latest. in one of the worst clashes in months, anti-government protesters launched fire bombs at police as police fired back with tear bombs. now the fallout for prince andrew following a discussion about jeffrey epstein. more record-breaking flooding in venice that some are likening to a canary in a coal mine when it comes to climate change. as we brin