this sunday, the impeachment trial begins. >> he has been impeached. he's been impeached forever. they can never erase. >> this is all they wanted. it was a political impeachment. >> the trial kicks off in earnest this week. democrats and republicans attacking each other's motives. >> saw the justification for running the fastest, thinnest, and weakest impeachment in the american history crumble. >> the trial without evidence, without witnesses is no trial at all but a cover-up. >> this as new evidence emerges from a guiliani associate. >> president trump knew exactly what was going on. he was aware of all of my

movements. >> my guests this morning, senator minority whip democrat dick durbin of illinois and republican senator david purdue of georgia. plus, elizabeth warren's refusal to shake hands with bernie sanders. >> i think you called me a liar on national tv. >> let's not do it right now. >> has stirred fear in the left that this threatens the chances of securing a democratic nominee. and the nbc news county-to-county project. >> you have to speak to us. >> but i've been hearing people will change and get behind the nominee no matter what. >> we talk to african-american voters in milwaukee about 2020. joining me for insight and analysis are hugh hewitt, formed maryland congresswoman donna edwards, and the authors of a new book on president trump, phil rucker, white house bureau chief for "the washington post" and carol leonnig, also of "the washington post." welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press."

>> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good morning, everyone. last week we witnessed the dignified and solemn rituals that played out on capitol hill with terms like hear ye, hear ye, do impartial justice and on pain of imprisonment marking the occasion. but beneath the 18th century rules and 19th century pageantry was corrosive 21st century partisan politics. republicans accuse democrats of doing everything they can to remove a president they demise. democrats akuds republicans of dwengds a president no matter the things against him. a source working with the president's impeachment team says they will argue the articles of impeachment allege no violation of law, that impeachment is the result of what they believe is a flawed process in the house and they insist that the democrats' case

collapses on the actual facts. we will take it head on, this source claims. still, we're left to wonder about another jury, similarly divided between supporters and opponents of mr. trump. that's the one watching at home. that jury remains as divided as the senate, and the question is, are they still open to being persuaded one way or the other. >> a lot of presidents, some good, some not so good. but you've got a good one now, even though they're trying to impeach the son of a bitch, can you believe that? >> late on saturday house democrats outlined their case, arguing he used his official powers to pressure a foreign government to interfere in a u.s. election for his personal political gain and then attempted to cover up his scheme by obstructing congress' investigation into his misconduct. >> president trump put his own personal interests above the national interests, above our national security, and if not stopped, he will do it again. >> the president's lawyers

issued a six-page letter, calling impeachment a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and arguing the president broke no laws. also this weekend, new documents from lev parnas, the guiliani associate that is facing federal campaign finance charges. they include what'sapp messages showing parnas was working with an aide to the top republican on the intelligence committee devin nunes to set up calls to federal prosecutors for guiliani to feed information about joe biden. the messages also show the possible surveillance of marie yovanovitch, the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine. >> president trump knew exactly what was going on. he was aware of all of my movements. i wouldn't do anything without the consent of rudy giuliani or the president. >> i don't know him. i don't know parnas other than i guess i had pictures taken, which i do with thousands of people. >> as the senate trial begins -- >> you will do impartial

justice, according to the constitution and laws, so help you god. >> many senators have already signalled how they will vote. >> i'm not an impartial juror. >> the facts are that he committed an impeachable act and i will vote to convict him. >> the showdown over whether to call witnesses, including former national security advisor john bolton is likely at least a week away. democrats will need at least four republican votes. >> if i determine that i do not have enough, i will vote to accept additional information by way of additional witness. >> i think that if they wanted witnesses, they should have called them in the house. >> on friday, the president unveiled additions to his legal team, including harvard constitutional lawyer alan dershowitz. >> abuse of power even if proved is not an impeachable offense. >> and former independent counsel ken starr, who once argued the case against bill clinton. collectively, the president's

defense team has made over 350 appearances on fox news in the last year. and joining me now is the number two democrat in the united states senate, it's dick durbin of illinois. welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> good morning, chuck. >> before i get to what tuesday will look like, let me ask this. are there any active negotiations happening right now between your leadership, yourself and senator schumer, and senator mcconnell, senator cornyn and the republican leadership team? >> i checked and as of late last night there really had not been exchange, for instance, of the mcconnell memo which is supposed to kick off this entire trial. you know, we're less than a little over 48 hours away from the trial actually commencing and there hasn't been the most basic information or exchange of information. >> so instead of having the debate behind the scenes, you're going to have the debate in front of us on tuesday. so you know it looks like senator mcconnell is going to outline rules that while similar to clinton, what do you make of

this reporting that indicates he's thinking of doubling the amount of trial time per day to speed up this trial? >> chuck, as you said in the opening here, donald trump is on trial for impeachment. and the jury, of course, will be 100 senators. but the senate itself is on trial as far as i'm concerned, and the jury is the american people. the question is whether or not we are going to have a fair trial. whether members of the senate are going to be loyal to the constitution or loyal to the president. a fair trial, everyone understands, involves evidence. evidence would be documents and witnesses. we know the president has refused to provide documentation beyond the july 25th telephone memo and he's refused to provide basic witnesses who actually heard what happened on that conversation and saw what happened afterwards. so at this point, you know, the senate is on trial. i hope at the end of the day enough republican senators will understand history will find you. make certain that you make a

decision that you can live with in terms of our constitution and your own professional career. >> so explain what you're going to try to do on tuesday. he's going to introduce rules outlining this. there's going to be some debate. what power do you have other than rhetoric? >> well, it's an interesting situation. the senate members, by and large, are silenced. we can make motions. we can amend motions that are made before the senate. the argument for those positions will be made by house managers on the democratic side and the president's legal team on his side. there may be some rulings by the chief justice presiding over this. but ultimately the decision is made by a majority vote of the united states senate as to the process we follow. >> does this mean you have to be working with adam schiff, jerry nadler, the house impeachment managers, on certain senate rules that you're going to debate since they have to do the debating on your behalf? >> well, it goes without saying

that on both sides giving a heads up and fair notice to the managers as well as the president's defense team on the republican side is necessary if they're going to have to argue the position of the motions that we make. >> so that means you have to essentially work with adam schiff to make these -- let me ask you this. what motions are you going to call for on tuesday that you know mitch mcconnell will try to stop? >> i don't know exactly what will transpire. as i mentioned, we don't know what the mcconnell memo or resolution includes as we start out. we've been very open about this. chuck schumer and the democrats in the senate have said let's bring in the witnesses, let's put the truth before the american people and let them join us in judgment. i would assume the early motions made by chuck schumer on what of democrats will go right to that point. >> let me get you to respond to something from the president's legal team. it was more of their official response so more of a statement than a legal document right now. but this is what they write. house democrats abuse of power claim would do lasting damage to

the separation of powers under the constitution. the essential argument they're making is that this is very subjective. it's a partisan decision that was made in the house. it's not a bipartisan decision. and abuse of power -- there isn't a defined -- it isn't defined anywhere in law. so how do you respond to that critique? >> just ask those who criticize it to take a look at federalist 65. alexander hamilton, not the musical, the real alexander hamilton, actually spoke out about what this trial gets down to. they were saying they beginning that the standards of treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors and it goes beyond the commission of a crime. alan dershowitz takes a unique position saying your crime must have been committed. when it comes to abuse of power of the office, you know, the president misused the office for personal, political gain. that to me is in the realm of what they considered in high

crimes and misdemeanors in the abuse of power. >> the accusations and the documents that lev parnas, the guiliani associatie that is now cooperating with the southern district of new york, looking perhaps for leniency here, we don't know what his motive is to release all this information, how do you plan to get that evidence into this trial since it's not clear there's an avenue for it? >> well, i think it all depends on four republican senators. they have to join us in really the pursuit of truth to make sure the american people hear the whole story. whether that includes mr. parnas or not, i can't say. we have four witnesses we believe are essential to start this conversation and put the evidence before the american people. he has confirmed many of the suspicions we had about this guiliani effort on behalf of the president and how far it went. he has now implicated, for example, a member of the house of representatives on the republican side. there's a lot of issues that he's raised. but in terms of whether or not

he or anyone associated with him is called as a witness, most of us believe the trial should start with the four basic witnesses we called for. >> i understand that. but if you get four or more republican senators to agree with you on that, but they basically say yes, but, the president gets to call a set of witnesses that they want to call too, are you comfortable with that outcome if it means one of those witnesses may have the last name of biden? >> well, listen, i don't know what the republicans will suggest. but we've been told even within their caucus there's a dispute as to whether or not that is really in their best interest, whether that's more theater than it should be. the bottom line is this, the four republican senators who will initiate -- could initiate calling witnesses will really open the negotiation between the republicans and democrats in the senate. the bottom line, is there going to be a fair trial? are we going to have evidence, documents and witnesses? to this point senator mcconnell has said no, not necessary. he's made up his mind long ago.

but i think the american people expect a real trial to have real documents and evidence. >> is the outcome in doubt even if you get your witnesses? >> in terms of the ultimate case, i can't say. i can tell you there was a moment when the chief justice arrived and we each raised our right hand, you could feel a change in the united states senate. i saw 20 years ago with the impeachment trial of bill clinton and i've seen it now in this impeachment trial of donald trump. there is a feeling that we have a separate and awesome responsibility under the constitution. not to let the american people down and to make sure we do the right thing so the ultimate outcome i can't predict. >> one final question on the obstruction article. should the house have made more of an effort in the courts before they filed that obstruction article? >> i can tell you that the courts' process is a long one. it would have gone way beyond the current time into some period right before the election.

but don't forget that the house judiciary chairman, jerry nadler, offered to the president of the united states the opportunity to bring his attorney into their judiciary committee hearing to ask questions, to produce evidence. they refused. if there's evidence out there that exonerates the president, we're still waiting to see it. >> senator durbin, i will leave it there. democrat from illinois, number two in the senate leadership. thank you for coming on and sharing your views. >> good to be with you. >> now for a viewpoint from the other side, david perdue of georgia, welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> good morning, chuck. >> let me start with the basic this week. you said this week that the senate should not consider new evidence. there's a lot out there with lev parnas. why not? >> chuck, what i said was no evidence within the scope. what we are obliged to do is to look at the case presented to us from the house. but i think it's very rich to hear people talk about, well, what the senate needs to do is have a fair trial.

we're purposed to do that, but where was that outcry during 116 days of investigation and trial in the house? what we are proposing to do right now is exactly what we did during the clinton hearing and that is to hear both sides present their cases. when you talk about how long that might take here in a minute. and then let every senator ask a question or several questions and then we'll go to a decision point at that point, which they did in the clinton case, about whether or not we have further information or more witnesses come to the u.s. senate. but let me remind everybody, chuck, that in the clinton case they decided to have more witnesses come in but the only three witnesses they approved to come in had already given testimony in the house. they just wanted clarification. >> let me ask you this. it does sound like you don't want to see this dismissed immediately, but you're not yet open on witnesses. are you still open-minded on witnesses? >> well, i am, only within the scope of these two articles of

impeachment. my personal preference, chuck, would be to see this dismissed out of hand because i think it's an illegitimate process in the house. they did not give this president due process. however, what mitch mcconnell has decided to do i fully support. he has all 53 republican senators backing him on this, and that is to do this exactly like we did during the clinton impeachment hearing. >> okay. so when -- let me ask you this. what is tuesday going to look like? we're going to have this back and forth. are you looking to speed up this trial daywise? are we going to have instead of five hours of trial a day double the amount of time? what is it that you guys are going to be proposing on tuesday? >> well, we'll see how the vote comes out on tuesday, but what we're proposing and we have tried to enter these negotiations with the other side but they won't have any conversation until we deal with witnesses up front and that's not what we did during the clinton trial. so what will happen tuesday is mitch mcconnell will put forward his proposal. we'll have a vote on that. that proposal right now will look very similar to 24 hours of

presentation by the house managers over two days, then 24 hours of presentation by the president's team over two days and then 16 hours of questions submitted by the members in writing to the chief justice. the chief justice decides whether or not they get asked and how they get asked and what sequenc sequence. and then we have the opportunity to do exactly what we did after phase one in the clinton trial and that is to decide where we go from here. do we have more witnesses, do we need clarification, whatever. those motions will be done then. that's our proposal. >> why shouldn't the senate hear from lev parnas under oath? this is somebody who is an associate of rudy giuliani who was at the center of this. why not have the united states senate put this man under oath and hear what he has to say? >> again, secondhand information. this is a distraction. this is a person that's been indicted right now. he's out on bail. he's been meeting with the house intel committee. if the house felt like this

information was pertinent, i would think they would have included him and his testimony in this -- >> how is it secondhand? he was in ukraine, he was doing the bidding. >> he wasn't on the phone -- >> he's got material -- he seems to have some material evidence that might be helpful in connecting some dots. >> well, that's the deal he's trying to get to get his sentence reduced. i'm not sure he does at all personally. >> why do you think folks like mr. parnas end up so close to the presidentpresident? >> the president says he doesn't know who he was. i don't accept that at all. >> why did he get so close to rudy giuliani? why is rudy giuliani bringing people like him so close to the president? does that bother you? >> what he was trying to do was get access into the government of ukraine. that was one way to do it. let's put this in perspective, chuck. the headlines of "the washington post" on the day president trump was inaugurated said the campaign to impeach this president has already begun. this is an impeachment looking for reasons. they want to undo the 2016 election and in fact the 2020

election i believe. i really think what happened in the house was not a fair trial. it's illegitimate because of that. they denied due process to the president. we're going to have a fair trial in the senate. can you imagine, chuck, if in the senate we were to not allow the house managers to present their side of the case, that we could make the decision and we could vote this with 51 senators to only hear from the president. can you imagine the outcry we'd have over that? that's exactedly what happened in the house. >> let me ask you this. i know you don't believe this rises to ousting the president of the united states. do you think what the president did with ukraine and the asking for assistance from a foreign government was a legitimate use of presidential power? >> answer this, chuck. the president of the united states is responsible for routing out corruption. we are giving money to a country we are afraid is going to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. he is asking for help to rout out this corruption. he asked president zelensky to talk to the attorney general about it. you can characterize that as talking about a political

opponent. what he's talking about is an american citizen that was potentially involved in corruption. that's what this president was doing on that phone call. it was a congratulato gracongra congratulatory phone call. >> if president obama was calling hong kong asking about you and your business career and your time living in foreign country, going this guy wants to be a united states senator, we just want to make sure he's on the up and up, would that be a legitimate use of presidential power? >> that's a totally improper characterization. what happened here was there was evidence of potential corruption. what the president was following up on was that. but i come back to this as well. it seems to me that what we're talking about here are the details, but we have -- people no less than jonathan turley, who testified in the house, he's a constitutional law professor at your alma mater there at george washington has said neither of these articles rise to the level of impeachment. besides that, they have not proven either one of these in

the house case. we'll see when they presenting it to the senate next week. >> jeff flake wrote it this week -- >> who's that? >> jeff flake, a former senator. >> who? >> okay, touche. he basically wrote in an op-ed, if president obama did this exact same thing, would you be sitting here as comfortable defending what he did as you are president trump? >> in "fast and furious" he did exactly this. he withheld evidence from the house of representatives and the republicans decided that it was not obstruction of congress. the democrats agreed and we did not pursue it. nancy pelosi, nadler all said that was not obstruction. yet in this case when the president decides to use executive privilege, they now all of a sudden say, oh, no, that is obstruction of congress. so it's a little bit hypocritical i think to see some of the comments that are coming out now versus what happened back in '98. >> would you like to see the president be more forthcoming

deciding his side of the story because right now it's more rhetoric than evidence that he uses to defend itself. >> this has all been tried out in the media. he has not had an opportunity. remember, next week is going to be the first time america gets to hear president trump's defense. he hasn't had an opportunity to do that. we did not have due process in the house. it's clear. and so now for the first time we're going to have that. it's ironic to me, chuck, that with all the success we had last week with the china trade deal and usmca being passed in the united states senate that this overshadows all of that. yet we have not heard the president's defense. >> how is the president, though, denied due process if he denied witnesses going in front of the house that might have had exculpatory privilege? >> he used his executive privilege and every president has used that. president obama used it, president clinton used it back in the day. he was well within his rights in my opinion. jonathan turley agrees with that.

>> i have a feeling the debate about executive privilege is going to be one we'll hear a lot about perhaps over the next couple of weeks as everybody has this debate. senator david perdue, republican from georgia, thank you for coming on and sharing your views, i appreciate it. >> thanks, chuck. when we come back, the impeachment trial. what are the chances the retirement income is complicated. as your broker, i've solved it. that's great, carl. but we need something better. that's easily adjustable has no penalties or advisory fee. and we can monitor to see that we're on track. like schwab intelligent income. schwab! introducing schwab intelligent income. a simple, modern way to pay yourself from your portfolio. oh, that's cool... i mean, we don't have that. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.

♪ limu emu [ siren ] give me your hand! i can save you... ...lots of money with liberty mutual. we customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need! [ grunting ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ ♪ 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. welcome back. the panel is here. hugh hewitt, host on the salem radio network, former congresswoman donna edwards, carol leonnig, and phil rucker, and carol and phil's new book is "a very stable genius, donald trump's testing of america" comes out on tuesday. excerpts have been floating around. you guys have gotten quite a bit of buzz here. congrats on that. i want to get to sort of how the book and impeachment converge here a little bit. donna and hugh, i want you guys to deal with this statement from the president's legal team that's not a legal response yet,

this is the summons. house democrats -- excuse me. articles of impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face. they fail to allege any crime on violation of law, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors as required by the constitution. hugh, you're a lawyer. technically this sentence is not accurate. the house impeached. you may not like what you did, it's constitutionally valid, you just may not like what they did. >> i think they were trying to convey exactly that. i read last night the house managers trial memorandum and their entire statement of material facts. i do not believe they have presented a case that rise to the level of an offense that is impeachable, much less any offense at all. in fact i looked with a little bit of stunned amazement at material allegation 73, which is on page 25 of the second submission, in which they contradict their own allegation, which is at the beginning the president was attempting to influence the 2020 election. they cite in their own statement of material facts, it was about

the 2016 election, a volker to yermak text. i don't think we're going to get the witnesses now. they do not have a case. on article 2 i think it was absolutely silly. there was no impeachable offense. >> donna edwards, is that how you see it? >> it isn't how i see it at all. i'm a lawyer, maybe not as good as hugh. but my reading of the house's brief is that they state really clearly, i think, a strong constitutional argument in the beginning of the brief that lays out the history of impeachment, really reminding us that high crimes and misdemeanors was left to the definition of the legislators. it doesn't mean the breaking of the law. they talk specifically about the abuse -- abuse of power allegations and that the abuse of power is exactly the kind of abuse of public trust that the founders had in mind. and so i think it's a really strong and compelling argument.

and the question is whether there's going to be a fair trial so that democrats can really present the argument against the president. >> one quick question on the obstruction article. in hindsight should they have waited longer to file that one and fought in the courts or use mueller's obstructions to strengthen that article? >> no, i actually think that the article is strong on its face with the evidence. would it have been bolstered if witnesses were not obstructed by this president of the united states and prevented from giving testimony, would it have been bolstered if documents were produced? no documents have been produced to the house of representatives, and so i think that they made the case that they could. now it's really important to focus on what kind of trial this is going to be and whether it's going to be the kind of trial that the american people expect. >> the wild card in this trial, guys, is the fact that unlike the clinton impeachment, there's new characters, new information and that's what this week has. here's one of the potential new characters, lev parnas.

>> president trump knew exactly what was going on. he was aware of all of my movements. i wouldn't do anything without the consent of rudy giuliani or the president. >> okay. you guys have covered this not just in the book very well, phil, carol, phil, start with you. lev parnas, how's the president handling somebody who's -- another person who's turned on him? >> it's like michael cohen, the president's personal attorney turning on the president. lev parnas is somebody who tried so hard to get into the trump orbit. there are photos all over the internet with him posing with the president, with his allies at mar-a-lago, a lot of thumbs up. now he's turning completely. he's providing this new evidence. those notes that were scribbled on the hotel stationery and he wants to tell his story. the question, i think, becomes whether the senate republicans, enough of them, want to hear witnesses to bring him forwardly and importantly john bolton, the former national security advisor, who's head he would be

willing to testify if asked. >> what do you make of the president's relationship now with rudy if the people rudy was bringing into this thing are now causing political problems for the president? >> from our reporting it's really shocking inside the white house and the president's closest confidants are all saying, oh, my gosh, where has rudy led us essentially. he wanted to be secretary of state and he was essentially operating as a uber secretary of state, going around the country, making some money and also trying to do things leading our foreign policy. now there are advisers to the president who said he led us down a path that really makes the president vulnerable. >> hugh, why isn't there more anger at rudy? i'm surprised there isn't. do you think we'd be here without rudy giuliani? >> no. but i also believe there's not much anger at rudy because not anyone on my side of the aisle believes an impeachable offense occurred. i can't stress this enough. you're on to it with your question about article 2. this is about future presidents, not just president trump.

not only do i think he did not commit an impeachable offense or any offense, i'm also concerned that this rushed job, especially on article 2, is a horrible precedent for future presidents. when the issue of witnesses comes before the senate this week or next, i think a lot of democrats may be tempted to vote on behalf of future presidents. >> what's the worst -- going back to abuse of power, donna, what's the worse precedent? if the president doesn't believe what he did with ukraine was wrong, then future presidents may do the same thing. >> well, i think going back to the constitution and the framers, this is exactly the kind of violation of public trust, and particularly around foreign interference in an election. we had come off of a king. we didn't want that. we wanted a democratic republic. what the president has done really goes right squarely at its constitutional responsibility in making sure there's not foreign interference in our elections. >> it strikes me, and your book chronicles this well and we'll

get to more of the excerpts a little later in the show, but do you think, carol, and phil, that the president would be here if his first or second teams were still around him in the west wing? >> you know, what we found in our reporting is that the guardrails are gone. the trajectory of this presidency is escalating towards a presidency of one. more chaos, less discipline in decision-making. the people who tried to hem him in are out. he drove them out of the room. he has a lot of people around him who view themselves and their mission as telling him yes. >> is there a single person left that tries to restrain? >> the people in power left, like mike pompeo, the secretary of state, mick mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, they see their job as trying to get the president to a yes of executing what he wants done in a way they can defend publicly and in a way that is somewhat legal but they're not trying to challenge him. they're trying to execute his

orders and placate his conspiracies to smp degree. >> you had robert o'brien on. i completely reject the idea that team three, which this is, is somehow less able to tell the president hard facts. in fact i think team three is the best team he's had. >> but hugh, what about the part where mick mulvaney agrees to withhold the aid which turns out to be against the law, the aid to ukraine. >> i don't know that it is against the law. i don't believe that to be the case. i don't think they made that case. >> well the gao does. >> i do not believe that's been shown in the managers' brief. >> congress is part of the government too. we're going to pause it here. when we come back, hoping to make up some lost ground. >> what i've been hearing that people will change this time and get behind the nominee no matter wha needles. essential for the sea urchin, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™".

xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". doprevagen 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. most people think as a reliable phone company. but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. (second man) virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. (second woman) we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready. 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! welcome back. throughout the year as part of our county-to-county project, we're following five key counties in five swing states that we believe will help us tell the most about where the presidential election is head had. these counties represent

different voting groups. they're not all 50-50 counties, some of these are turnout counties. our project includes a largely white working class county, a majority hispanic county and this week we talked to milwaukee county. in 2016 donald trump won 3500 fewer votes than mitt romney did in 2012 and yet he took the state because hillary clinton won 231,000 fewer votes than president obama. much of that fall-off came among african-american voters in milwaukee county. so we asked my colleague to go to milwaukee county. she cat down with five african-american voters to discuss how they're feeling about the 2020 election so far including the lack of candidates of color still in this race. >> i think we've relied on identity politics in the past. we've relied on how to attract black voters to get a black candidate, how to attract women voters is to get a woman candidate. folks are really struggling. they want someone that's going

to raise wages, they want someone that's going to address student debt and affordable housing and affordable schooling and prison reform. some of our minority candidates weren't speaking about those issues. that goes to show no one is going to vote for you because they don't look like you or identify with you, they're going to vote with you if you fight on their behalf. >> the candidate that can beat the current president. the important issues and qualifications now, who can beat the current candidate or the current president. we have kind of pushed aside the other candidates and qualifications. initially people were excited about the wide scope of candidates, those of color, although that's not always the key. at least we have some choices. but now i think our voice has been limited. >> look, in milwaukee they didn't get the turnout it needed or the turnout democrats wanted in 2016 to win the state. that's one of the reasons hillary clinton lost wisconsin,

she didn't come here. does it make a difference who the candidate is in terms of getting the vote out? >> at this point it may be centered on who the candidate's running mate will be because the assumption is it's going to be biden who stood up on the stage. the only time they mentioned anything black, they were each trying to outdo each other saying i have black support, i have black support. biden stood there and said i have more black support than any of you or all of you combined. i think older black voters will heavily lean towards biden, you know. black people have been protesting against warren. mayor pete doesn't even have support in his own community. you can go down the line on that. so if you want to engage and excite the black vote, biden needs to bring in a black running mate. >> i don't know.

>> okay, okay, no. i wouldn't necessarily -- i respectfully disagree with that. i think it's going to come down who speaks to our issues. you have to speak to our issues. around this country in black communities, it's void of investment, it's void of redevelopment, and when you look at the central city and you realize if any of those people in that community want to go to the movies, they have to leave that community. if they want to go bowling, they have to leave that community. if they want to go roller skating, they have to leave that community. if they want to go to a nice restaurant, they have to leave that community. when you talk about real robust economic development, where that plan is. that's what you need to speak to for the black vote, not just in milwaukee, but in central cities around this country. >> and i think that's why bernie sanders does so well here. more specifically when he talks about issues like health care, affordable health care, when you're speaking about black

businesses, a lot of folks aren't able to start businesses or willing to leave their jobs to start businesses because they can't afford to pay for their own health care. they can't afford to pay for their employees' health care. when i talk about issues being more important, i don't think it's going to be a black vp that's going to engage the voter. >> i'm still praying. >> i think it's going to be someone that's absolutely speaking to the issues and showing the true vision on how to improve people's every day lives. >> it sounds like you're not hearing from from any of the democratic candidates. >> put castro in there. he was talking about police brutality. he was talking about some of those concrete issues. some of the other candidates just come up being leaders, looking down. but the key is going to be will there be enthusiasm to pull that turnout, to pull those black men millenials and those people that

usually don't vote that barack obama did -- >> i think i see something different. instead of waiting for a candidate to speak to our issues, we need a candidate that's going to listen to us when we speak because we are living the life and see the disparity. a candidate that's going to take black voices as credible ones and take what we say when they come to our cities and do their rallies, are they going to take what we've been saying for generations and put that into policy until waiting for someone to echo what we already know. that's what i'm waiting for. the thing about biden who's the candidate that i'm more likely to support is he angers the progressives. i'm so nervous that biden becomes the nominee, which it appears he will be, there's going to be a lot of people will stay home. everybody says vote blue, no matter who. they're not going to. >> people are fearful of what's going to happen but what i've been hearing is it will change this time and get behind the nominee no matter what, the democratic nominee. so we've been pushing from the angle that please just vote. we can fix things later, but get

behind the nominee right now. >> president trump says he has growing support among african-american voters. you're here, you're in the community. what do you see? what do you hear? >> he had 4 and now he has five. >> i think it's stronger than that. i also hear a lot of folks talking about the economy. look, i know it does not work for everybody, but somebody bought a house in the last four years. somebody got a promotion in the last four years. somebody got a raise in the last four years. so they attribute any economic success to this current president. i think that's troublesome for the democratic nominee because a strong economy is really, really tough to beat. >> and for transparency sake, the entire focus group interview is on our website, meetthepress.com. when we come back, this is not new york state is building for the future of your business. with a nation-leading $150 billion commitment to infrastructure, we're creating state of the art, 21st century transportation hubs, constructing new bridges,

bringing high-speed internet to every corner of the state, and committing to low-cost clean energy. with infrastructure built for the future, the companies of tomorrow can thrive here today. see your future at esd.ny.gov we do things differently and aother money managers, don't understand why. because our way works great for us! but not for your clients. that's why we're a fiduciary, obligated to put clients first. so, what do you provide? cookie cutter portfolios? nope. we tailor portfolios to our client's needs. but you do sell investments that earn you high commissions, right? we don't have those. so, what's in it for you? our fees are structured so we do better when our clients do better. at fisher investments we're clearly different.

non-gmo, made with naturally sundown vitamins are all sourced colors and flavors and are gluten & dairy free. they're all clean. all the time. even if sometimes we're not. sundown vitamins. all clean. all the time. when we see you enter through our doors. we don't see who you're against, or for. whether tomorrow will be light or dark. all we see in you, is a spark. we see your kindness and humanity.

the strength of each community. the more we look the more we find the sparks that make america shine. ♪ welcome back. data download time. if the last decade felt like one political earthquake after another, you may be surprised to hear that there technically hasn't been much change in the overall numbers of the two political parties, but it is underneath those top line numbers that there has been a massive political realignment

that will carry us through this new decade and possibly beyond. let us take you back to 2010. that's when the nbc news/wall street journal poll found 37% of voters identified as republican compared to 42% who said they were democrat. the end of 2019, the numbers are exactly the same. pretty remarkable stability. has it felt stable, though? let's look below the surface at who those republicans and democrats were and now are. first, the education gap. we always talk about it. in 2010 voters with a high school diploma or less were much more likely to identify as democrat by an 11-point margin compared to republicans who had a 2-point edge with college educated number. a decade later those numbers filmed. republicans lead with voters with a high school diploma or less, democrats have a wide lead in college educated voters. then there's the other gap we talked a lot about during the 2018 midterms, the gender divide, specifically when it comes to suburban women. 2010 they lean democratic but it was by a very small three-point

margin. by 2019 that margin has grown to 13 points. compare that with men aged 50 or older. they lean republican in 2010, but now that advantage has gone well above double digits. look, all of these big double-digit swings are ultimately about a lot more than education or ethnicity, geography or gender. they show a hardening of views among socioeconomic lines. voters on opposite sides lead opposite lives making it harder to relate to each other and see eye to eye on policy. that's how you compromise. these shifts and others are remaking the parties on a fundamental level changing what it means to be a democrat or republican and the process likely isn't over yet. when we come back -- >> i think you called me a liar on national tv. >> what? >> i think you called me a liar on national tv. >> let's not do it right now. you want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion. listening and observing are critical skills for scientists at 3m. one of the products i helped develop was a softer, more secure diaper closure.

as a mom, i knew it had to work. there were babies involved... and they weren't saying much. i envisioned what it's like for babies to have diapers around them. that's what we do at 3m, we listen to people, even those who don't have a voice. at the end of the day, we are people helping people. seefrom today's weather tong, tomorrow's business trends. even those who don't have a voice. with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪ 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. ♪ doprevagen 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. 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.

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. america's getting sicker. sick of donald trump, there are one million more uninsured americans every year under trump. and he's repeatedly tried to repeal obamacare. mike bloomberg will make sure everyone without health coverage can get it, and everyone who likes theirs, keep it.

while capping fees to lower costs. as mayor, he helped expand coverage to seven hundred thousand more people. and championed women's reproductive health. as president, he'll give access to everyone. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. back now with end game and what we teased before. donna edwards, this issue of a woman nominee, though, has been something that even joe biden has talked about regarding hillary clinton, and i think -- take a listen to the last thing

biden says here and tell me if this is probably what elizabeth warren in general is responding to when it came to whether it was bernie sanders or somebody else. take a listen. >> i think there's a lot of sexism after hillary. i think it's unfair, a lot of it. well, that's not going to happen with me. >> well, i think that elizabeth warren, joe biden, have actually given voice to at least what democratic women feel happened to hillary. some of that has been in hindsight, looking at the overall scope of the coverage and the attacks. i see it on social media. and i think that it was a voicing of acknowledging up front that sexism and even within our party and certainly in the electorate is there. and i think elizabeth warren actually did a good job of saying, you know what, here's how you prove electability and then she made her argument.

>> carol? >> you know, i think the sexism element is something that is good for us to all discuss, whether it's in the republican party, the democratic party or journalists. but hillary clinton had other problems too with the electorate. i mean she had a toxicity that came with her that had nothing to do with her gender and had everything to do with the baggage people associated with her husband and her time in the white house. so we need to be careful about just saying it's about sexism. that may have been a big part of it. >> phil rucker, this is also about the progressive being divided on the left, which is a gift potentially to joe biden. the sanders campaign worried about it, even floating through their favorite publication, they researched this elizabeth warren could be treasury secretary and vice president. hmm, that seems a bit hamhanded. >> both the warren campaign and sanders campaign have a similar base of these voters and if united could win the nomination. this division we're seeing is so dangerous to both of them. if bernie sanders takes off in iowa, which the polling there

seems to suggested may be happening on the ground, how is he going to win other those warren supporters if they're in this feud right now. >> hugh, what are you hoping for as a conservative that wants to see the democrats lose? this split here? this split might actually help biden who might be the tougher foe. >> i thought the winner of the split was pete buttigieg. because either the warren voter or the sanders voter who is turned off, they're not going to go to joe biden, they have already committed to a progressive. i can tell you one thing, because virginia allows early voting and i don't know where nbc or salem will have me on then, i vote this week and i'm voting for bernie sanders. i think a lot of people will because he's authentic. >> going to do calculated voting? >> no, because i think he's authentic. >> are you going to vote for bernie sanders over donald trump? >> no, i'm voting for donald trump. but i want a clear choice between the authentic traditional socialist and all the people who just pretend to be. >> oh, wow. let me go back to your book, guys. i say this, it was interesting you had a whole bunch of former

staffers and they all seemed to say the same thing to you. a long-term and immediate danger to the country, at times dangerously uninformed. this is a presidency of one, it's trump unleashed, unchained, unhinged. these are people that work for him. a lot of people will look at this book and say no, no, no, no, you're just picking the bad stuff. >> absolutely not. phil and i were really careful and rigorous. we did not want a salacious book of cool little sound bites. we wanted to understand this presidency, hit the pause button amid all the crises, amid all of the hour-by-hour news flashes and make sense of this presidency and figure out what motivates donald trump. what we learned is how distraught and frightened some of his senior aides were. and some of his current aides who broke their silence with us for the first time because they wanted history to be right and they wanted us to get it right. >> what's that explanation? there was some heroic anecdotes where the person giving you the

anecdote seemed to put themselves in a heroic thing and i half tease. what's their explanation for not standing up to trump more? >> some of these people feel honor bound not to criticize a president while still in office. others are still serving him, still working for him and are afraid of losing their jobs or being retaliated against by the president. one thing we know about donald trump, he nurses these grudges and strikes back and punches back and could very easily fire people if he finds out who their sources are. that's why carol and i were so rigorous in reporting more than 200 sources in the administration and close to the president, to make sure that we're careful to protect them. >> hugh, all of these books do have one thing in common. the president doesn't seem to know the story of america as well as perhaps other presidents have. does that bother you? >> i don't agree with that. i think he has a intuition that is manifested at the rallies that he knows especially the white working class. i'm going to read "a very stable genius" but there's a book out

called "tight rope" about what has happened to working white america and it's been a disaster. i think he speaks to that and intuitively knows about that better than any of the democrats i watched this week. >> i buy that, but it's our history, that's what feels like is missing with him. >> right. and it's the arc of our history and the way that that story hugh is talking about is actually connected to a story of people of color in this country who have suffered tremendously. he also seems not to have a grasp of world history and where the united states sits in that. >> all right. the book is "a very stable genius." i think the president tweeted and so that's good for all authors. that's all that we have for today. thank you for watching. i'm going to be erring on the side of rooting with the packers. go, pack, go. we'll see you next week, because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." the biggest series a ven

capital round perhaps in silicon valley history, and forget top 40. america's music tastes are changing. our reporters from dow jones, john schwartz and katie of "the wall street journal" this week on "press:here." good morning. i'm scott mcgrew. when someone starts a company they may hit the streets looking for money starting with seed