makes more holiday deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ with one notable exception. ♪ this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments

in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. next, a rep house leader explains why the handling of the clinton e-mail probe must go on, but does it amount to political payback? also ahead, how ivanka trump's use of personal e-mail may only add to the president's problem. >> i expect her to be called to testify. >> the democrats will go after this. a humanitarian crisis unfolds, as stranded migrants move closer to the border. hey, everybody.

i'm alex witt. we begin this breaking news involving the asylum seekers. geoff bennett has the details from florida. this has just broken in the last 45 minutes or so. what can you tell us? >> reporter: this reporting is coming from mexican officials and senior members of the transsession team for the new president-elect. nbc news has not independently confirmed this. the white house isn't commenting, but this plan that's helpfully titled "remain in mexico." it would allow central american migrants to stay in mexico why the asylum claims are being processed. previously mexican officials had been happy to let illegal immigration to be an issue that the u.s. handle alone.

given this reporting, we understand the president's decision to deploy troops, that was the tip point to mexican officials when they met with the senior of state and the department of homeland security senior kiersten nielsen. the white house isn't commenting, but you can imagine this could be warmly embraced by president trump, who has been intensely focused on this caravan, and it was the focus of that rhetorical back and forth with the president and john roberts. this plan is tentative, not yet final, but again would call for allowing migrants to stay in mexico while asylum claims are being processed. >> this has just broken, i've been given a copy of the article. what i have yet to see is what

does mexico get out of this? is there any sense of that yet, according to the reporting? >> reporter: no, not yet. i would note that the president-elect of mexico and president trump have been exchanging pleasantries. there was a thought they may have a confrontational relationship, but that's not yet materialized. this could pave the way for a decent working relationship. we're not entirely sure yet, but this is a major break on the side of mexico, which for decades really has not really stepped into this issue of migrants making their way to the mexican border. we are also following a partisan showdown. in just weeks the democrats take control of the house, but a last-minute effort, a top republican defending his decision to compel james comey and loretta lynch to testify in

private. they were subpoenaed, calling them to testify in early december. the subject of the hearing, how comey and lynch handled the investigation into clinton's emoil. comey says he's happy to answer all questions, but only in public. goodlate says they had last long after he's chairman. >> lindsey graham, expected to be the next chairman, and ron johnson, senate of the oversight committee said they're going to pick up on our work, take the information we have gathered, and move forward on this. ultimately i hope a special counsel will be appointed. i guarantee that special counsel will interview james comey.

>> welcome to you both. i want your reaction from "the washington post" breaking news about the asylum deal, remain in mexico. i want to stress we have not received confirmation from the white house. this is just "the washington post" reporting, but what do you think about what happens to be a deal struck for this caravan to remain in mexico? >> it's really fascinating that the mexican president has managed his relationship with trump. as you said, everyone expected him to be fire and brimstone, just a constant ballots with the white house. this looks like another carrot he's deploying, and i expect that president trump will, you know, spin this as a huge win for his policy of getting tough on migrants from central america. these are a huge burden on the mexican government.

it relies on aid from the united states to manage both migrants from central america, but also its own drug problem that interacts in interesting ways with migrant issue. so we'll have to see what the details look like when other outlets confirm it, but right now it looks like somebody trump will be able to crow about for the next few weeks. >> john, your reaction? obredor is something of an outsider what ran for president in the past, and nearly defeated. he's transitioning into office, and you may see some change, but i would like to hear more from him about this. everyone is talking about how donald trump will respond to this. i am very interested in what president obredor says as he

steps up into this role. i would be very careful about making a lot of assumptions. at the end of the day, however, a lot will change over the next few years. this is someone who was something of an outsider coming to power. he will undoubtedly change things. and i don't think you can unlink this from their need to deal with the internal drug wars. let's get to the e-mails. blake, why bring this up now? is there anything to this timing?

>> i they there's probably two over-arching factors. the republicans are about to lose the house, so they're using all the tools they have in the remaining month where they have power. now that the midterm elections is over, everyone is expecting mueller to come out with thinks next move. so i expect those developments will probably be damaging to president trump, and so republicans in the house are looking to create a diversion, create an alternate narrative for trump supporters to latch on to, because what's going to come down the pike from mueller could be trouble. >> that may well be, but john, do you think a lot of this is about the republicans in this lame-duck session doing the bidding for the president here? >> absolutely.

100%, i don't think there's any question. this is maintaining a distraction. remember, hillary clinton is not the president of the united states. she is a -- somebody who ran for president a couple years ago. so, you know, i don't mind dotting is and crossing ts, that's fine. you do that with either party, but the fact of the matter is this is coming up at this point to create distractions and to create a counter-narrative, which i think is really rooted in the concept of everybody does it, i.e., all these people are bad players, they all have controversies, they all have scandals. the fact of the matter is that the republicans had the ability to take this investigation as far as they want to do go long ago, and they did. they pursued it aggressively. i do also think that we should all be up in arms about the idea

that chairman goodlatte is trying to compel these people to testify in private. why? if indeed this is a serious issue and such an important thing for the country to know about, former direct ore comey says he wants to testify in public, why would you not do it in public? goodlatte says they don't want other coming after to possibly be influenced. but if you're testifying before congress, don't you have to do it truthfully? right? how would that change anybody's opinions or what they know to be true. >> i agree, but let's go to the core concept here. again, they are telling us, this is such an urgent issue, it has to be raised in a lame-duck

session, and it's not as if the world is in perfect harmony and everybody is going great. the fact of the matter is to take this into a private session, where it will just be used for interpretations back and forth, that's absurd. they should have it in public. the fact of the matter is you're right, if someone else is called to testify, they swear an owes to tell the truth. if they won't dao that, that's another whole issue. i really don't like the smell of trying to do something in private. >> i'm curious, blake, with the situation of ivanka trump and her e-mails, and trey gowdy, he wants to see ivanka's e-mails as well. what is behind that? what's the motivation there? >> gowdy is an interesting guy. he's obviously very partisan, but he's also made some morse counter-productive to the republican narrative.

there is a fight several months ago over the house intelligence report and the memos and the gowdy contradicted the line. he said there was nothing untoward about the carter on page fisa warrant. he bucks the gop line on occasion, perhaps he's doing that now. he's got nothing to lose. now, on the other hand, he's not likely to be super-aggressive. the other thing that happens is when elijah cummings takes over in january, he will be very aggressive, so perhaps the thinking is let's get the sting out now. >> perhaps, thank you guys so much. good to talk with both of you. up next how the migrant crisis hits home for a congressman-elect, and what he wants for all americans. why did i walk away?

well, not because it was easy. i mean, the game is all i know. you think back to your draft. it felt like a fantasy. but the second you know you can't compete anymore, you owe it to yourself, to your team, to find a fresh start. so, yeah, that's why i did it. that's why i walked away... from my fantasy league. (announcer) redeem your season on fanduel. play free until you win. fanduel. more ways to win.

"the washington post" reporting that the trump administration has won the support of mexico's incoming government with the plan to remake border policy by requiring asylum seekers to wait in mexico while their claims move through u.s. courts. congressman-elect, welcome, sir, nice to meet you on television

and congratulations on your victory. regarding this issue, sir, so far no comment from the white house here, but on the face of it, what is your reaction? is this a policy you can get behind? >> well, thank you for having me, alex. i appreciate by on the show. this is the first i've heard about it, so i want to take time to read through the policy and see what they're proposing. what i would say is this administration's policies, for the better part of the last two weeks have been draconian toward immigrants, as the son of immigrants, i am very passionate about this. i obviously don't trust this administration with how it's handles or policies as a country. that will permeate my judgment on this proposal. >> i do appreciate you taking this breaking news question right out of gate here.

but to your point, sir, both of your parents emigrated, i believe from eritrea. well, i mean, look, my family has lived the american dream because of the incredible tines and freedoms we have in the united states, and of course, could come to this country as refugees, and 35 years later see their son be elected to the united states congress, which i think is quint essentially the american story. i'm deeply concerned about an administration that is clearly trying to dismantle our asylum system. we have asylum for a reason. the vast majority of folks are trying to rebuild their shattered lives. fleeing political violence and religious percent views, so a

country that recognizes the contributions that immigrants make to this nation. >> the president is not, as you know, not ruling out a government shutdown over border security. one you're sworn in, do you think they'll meet halfway in order to get something done of a bipartisan fashion? >> you know, i don't believe that's the case, but i also don't believe that would be properly described as halfway. i think most folks agree that a border wall is a wrong choice for the american people. it is an imprudent move, it is costly, and then ultimately it wouldn't work. so i just fundamentally for me, i think there is consensus for the american people that comprehensive reform is something we ought to push for,

the immigration system, as sipped, that's humane, that recognizes the folks living in the shadows, obviously border security funding can be part of that conversation, as it has been in the past. but fundamentally i certainly won't be supporting a border wall, and i suspect the vast majority of my colleagues won't, either. i want to ask about the playbook, if you will. there is no shortage of investigations for democrats to launch. for investigation purposes, which issue should priority number one, in your mind? >> they're tough to rank, right? there are a lot of scandals that have occurred over the better part of the last two years that merit investigation.

you i suspect the democratic majority will be ready to take on the important work of investigating a variety of different really critical issues this administration has been slough in. obviously i would think that the russia investigation, the potentially collusion with a foreign government in a 2016 presidential election, dovetails with the work, i imagine that that would be very near the top of our list, but look, also, the various ethical mishaps and violations by the former epa administrator, what's happens right now in the department of the interior, there's a lot for our koening to ultimately begin engaging in investigations. congressman-elect neguse, congratulation and welcome to the national conversation. we look forward to having you back on the broadcast. >> thank you, alex. how far will the president go to stand by the saudi prince?

this isn't just any moving day.

this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. are you concerned that -- sends a message to orlando world leaders that they can do what they please? >> not at all.

frankly if we went by in standard, we wouldn't have anybody as an ally. maybe the world should be held accountable. the world is a vicious place. >> a measured response about the killing of jamal khashoggi. he's dismissed the cia assessment that the crown prince ordered his killing. what your take of his position so far? >> it's disturbing. the president has made clear to the world that he doesn't care about human lights. i think that's bad for the world and the united states. secondly he looks weak when he makes these statements. the saudis need us to deter iran. ed saudis need us to buy their oil. when he makes it sound like

we're dependent on them, it makes america look weak. i don't think that's a good position to be in for the united states. >> to the point that you believe weakness, is that a message he's sending? >> of course. he's saying we need them for jobs, so wire not going to criticize them. and by the way, for decades democrats and republicans alike have defined advancing human rights and democracy, as in america's national interests, because democracies are our closest allies. we don't go to war with democracies, and democracies don't kill journalists in consulates. he's not right empirically when he says everybody does it. no, the british doesn't do this, the germans, the mexicans, the canadians, they don't kill journalists in consulates. they act differently because they're democracies. it sully is in america's

national interest to talk about and promote -- >> is that what you meant when you said on twitter that the president is giving away our leverage? is that what you mean? relative to democracies around the world? >> thanks for asking. there are two parts to this. one just generically we're at a better place when there's more democracy in our world. just leave the normative part aside, it's better for prosperity. if you believe in a real politique world, and even in that world, i don't understand what the united states has achieved by the president's remarks. what tangible outcome has made it more prosperous. there's been many other times in

history where we've had to deal with autocrats during our history, but we've always done it to advance our national interest. here i don't see how america hayes interests are being advanced. >> interestingly the president said on tuesday he's willing to immediate with the crown pretty next weeks, though it's unclear if he'll be attending, but what is the significance if they do meet. what kind of message does that send? >> i just think it's really unwise for him to meet, to draw more attention to this very, you know, decision again i think is morally wrong, but i also think it's not in the american national interest. of all the leaders to meet -- remember there's all kinds of interesting there and leaders we should meet there. . what do you think of the president dismissing the cia's

assessment? >> again, horrible. i can't think of a more diplomatic world. for him to again throw the intelligence committee under the bus, as he did standing with vladimir putin, just underscores he doesn't understand the job. he can maybe say i agree with the intelligence, but where he need to engage. that would be an argument i could understand, but wouldn't approve of. but he goes the extra leg. i just think that is horrible for morale in the cia, but also a horrible message to the world. it suggests that facts don't matter and if you charm the president, he'll give you a pass on anything, including assassinating a journalist in a third country. >> if you were able to get the president's ear and advise him, what would you say to him? handling this situation? >> i would remind him of other periods in history where home

court presidents dealt with autocrats. they didn't embrace autocrats. they didn't say he's a great friend of the united states. they did it, knowing this was a difficult relationship that had to be managed. you can walk and chew gum at the same time. you can criticize a country for human rights and still do business with them. there's lots of historic examples of that, including the soviet union, by the way. if there's one thing i would do, i would ask him to read more about ronald reagan. ronald reagan wasn't knew eve about dealing with autocrats, but he always talked about democracy as being in america's national interest. he talked about that nasty world that trump did, same diagnosis, but the prescription was different. if i could do one thing, i would ask him read more about ronald reagan. that would be a great instruction for how to conduct diplomacy in the 21st severalry. >> a greats place to start.

micha michael mcfaul, always good to see you. >> thanks for having me. a possible government shutout? that's next. okay, i never thought i'd say this, but i found bladder leak underwear that's actually pretty. surprised? it's called always discreet boutique. it looks and fits like my underwear. i know what you're thinking. how can something this pretty protect? hidden inside is a super absorbent core that quickly turns liquid to gel for incredible protection. so i feel protected and pretty.

always discreet boutique. new color. new size.

whenshe was pregnant,ter failed, in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life.

usaa. get your insurance quote today. have you talked to ivanka about her e-mails? >> i have, actually. very innocent, a short period of time, very early on, there was no deletion of e-mails like the 33,000 plus probably another 100,000 that hillary clinton did

after she got a subpoena. there was no bleach bit. there was no anything. >> the president trying to downplayed an explosive report from "the washington post," that his daughter ivanka used a private e-mail to do government business. with a welcome to all four of you, kayleigh, i'll start with you first. you'll come from the position what ivanka is being criticized for is different, but former white house communication director anithen scaramucci at the very least is hypocritical? would you agree? >> no, i wouldn't. the only common is the word "e-mail." when you look at every single details of these two situations, they are entirely different.

as the president said, she used bleach bit. there were hammers taken to her devices, a private server, 110 classified information e-mails. none of that was the case with ivanka. that was before she was ever briefed on any of the rules. but tomb about hackering, he hammered amp at hillary clinton about this. why would she even do something that would potentially put her father in a hypothetical hypothetically-appearing position. >> it was a very, very different situation. no violation of the espionage act. that's what hillary clinton was accused of. i know we like to play this up

as the same, but when you draw down into the details, there's no there there. >> are democrats trying to draw more comparisons that are unfair? >> there are distinct differences. i appreciate that kayleigh and the rnc have had a slow news days to workshop some solution. you go to a personal e-mail to avoid the sunshine and necessary disclosures that you have to make with the government e-mails. that's why it's done. the fact of the matter is that ivanka trump took white house business to her personal e-mail after it was a central theme of her father's campaign. that's done for one reason. >> that's not true.

these were foia request. it was a public record. >> i appreciate you going through the workshoped solution, and i didn't interrupt you, but at the end of the day once go to personal e-mail and not the white house e-mail to avoid public scrutiny. frankly the rest of the distinctions really don't make a difference. one goes to personal e-mail for one reason. >> you know he send a request for more information to john kelly after this report came out. so is the white house taking this seriously enough? do they have reason to be worried? or not? >> a couple things. first of all, this is more do what we say and not what with he do, coming from the white house. point number two is trey gowdy is absolutely correct. what we have seen over the last two years since the 2016 election and the coming forward of the information about hillary's e-mails is hillary has

done it, comey has done it and now ivanka has done it. what i suspect is a whole lot of other people are using the integration of personal e-mails and work e-mails, which gets tricky. the only people who could tell us if there's a security violation are the people that trey gowdy says we need more information. we're going to have to look at this in the context of was there a violation of national security. and i don't trust ivanka's lawyers or ivanka or president trump to tell me how there hasn't been such a violation. it need to be looked at. it seems to be reviewed in the same way they called jim comey up to testify. you say him on thanksgiving day. he got a request from the house to testify, and i suspect they'll do the same from ivanka, which is correct, and let's let the chips fall after they're looked at in the proirp light.

>> peter, is this just about optics and the potential of people saying -- >> probably at the end of the day you're right, it's probably et primarily hypocritical, but it's interesting to note we don't know the facts. what they do very well is in the void between knowing the truth and the facts, they can makeup stuff. at the moment we don't know the full breadth of this. all i know is this is a deliberate, deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. it's a pattern in the history of the trump family when they were in real estate. consequently, there's no question in my mind that she knew the rules, she decided to break them because they're above the rules, they're above the law, unlike the rest of us. i think this could be problematic, but at the end of

the day, it will probably take a backseat. >> i have another topic to get to, but last word, kayleigh. >> this was before she was ever briefed on the rules, so to say it was deliberate is just inaccurate. she hadn't been briefed on the rules. this was not a deliberate cover-up. what a deliberate cover-up looks like is having a server in the basement, bleach bit and hammers to your devices. >> can i just ask you, do you think it speaks well of ivanka trump where she didn't just say this was a huge problem. my father talked about this all the time on the campaign trail, i've got to be honest, i wouldn't have needed to be briefed. i would say -- do you think it was just a lapse of judgment? does that speak well about ivanka? >> i think when she's juggling ten things at once and making child care plans that happen to touch on official business, she wasn't thinking about the public

records act. >> alex, i'm sorry i got to jump in here. hillary clinton was making wedding plans on her e-mails. does she get a pass? no. she gets chants of "lock her up." kayleigh, you're a smart person. this is bad optics for the white house. we don't know if they're classified or nod yet, because we have to wait for the investigation. >> we know there's 110 e-mails, and by the way, sophia -- >> everyone wants to talk about gaps. what about the 33,000 missing hillary clinton e-mails? >> hillary is not president. hillary has gone off the public page. let's that you can about ivanka trump's e-mails. let's move on to this.

i'll start with you, kayleigh. the time is running out for congress. there's like ten working day schedule before december 7th. the president says we could see a government shutdown if his border security demands are not met. let's listen. >> it could happen, yeah, over border security. the wall is just a part, probably the most important part, but could there be a shutdown? there certainly could. it would be about border security. >> should the president shut down the government? >> it's a serious problem when 17,000 criminals are apprehended on our border this year alone, is,000 gang members this year alone, 2,000 pounds of fentanyl. so when he talk about a government shutdown, he's merely

acknowledges the problem of a porous, open border. >> don is shaking his head. the answer to the question is no, the president should not shut down the government other not getting border wall funding. first of all, the president's job is to work with congress to legislate. there's a lot of things that should be accomplished before the end of this congress. the operation we survive on, roads, highways, federal facilities, need to remain open. just because you don't get one thing in a package, you don't shut down the government over one thing. another central theme was mexico was going to pay for the border wall. you shut down the government overed border which at your rallies you said mexico was going to pay for. >> sophia, your responsible and

then to peter. >> i would agree with kayleigh that it's a serious issue. the challenge of shutting down the government is not the right answer. i agree with your last guest and his analysis was spot on. >> peter, how do the democrats respond to this threat? this is coming december 7. they don't get to turn the tide, if you will, until january 3. >> from a political standpoint, for trump to shut down the government when he owns it, might be a mistake. second, i have a list of over ten legislative items that senator mcconnell, a republican, wants to accomplish before the new congress comes in in january. that would put that in jeopardy. there's a lot of issues that go to this. quite frankly when you have a government, this president, who is allows more illegal immigration that i any president

in recent history, it's hypocritical to talk about solving it when he helped to create it. >> thank you all so much. look forward to seeing you again. the one big question that robert mueller has yet to ask the president and the chance he may ask it in personal. and is the president pushing the limits of the law with his use of the military? and saying, "really?" so capital one is building something completely new. capital one cafes. inviting places with people here to help you, not sell you. and savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. because that's how it should be. you can open one from right here or anywhere in 5 minutes. seriously, 5 minutes... this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet? jimmy's gotten used to his whole yup, he's gone noseblind. odors. he thinks it smells fine, but his mom smells this...

luckily for all your hard-to-wash fabrics... ...there's febreze fabric refresher. febreze doesn't just mask, it eliminates odors you've... ...gone noseblind to. and try febreze unstopables for fabric. with up to twice the fresh scent power, you'll want to try it... ...again and again and maybe just one more time. indulge in irresistible freshness. febreze unstopables. breathe happy.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ comfort. what we deliver by delivering. i'm begging you... take gas-x.ed beneath the duvet your tossing and turning isn't restlessness, it's gas! gas-x relieves pressure, bloating and discomfort... fast! so we can all sleep easier tonight.

and then, more jobs robegan to appear.. what started with one job spread all around. because each job in energy creates many more in this town.

now to a potential plea deal, roger stone telling nbc news he's in talks to cut a deal with robert mueller. he was questioned about the wikileaks release. joining me, jill winebanks and federal prosecutor barrett berger. how big a deal is this? >> it could be a very big deal because corsi could give roger stone up, and roger stone probably know as great deal, but corsi could also know a lot about direct evidence of the

relationship between russia and the trump campaign. so he could be important in his own right. however, he is a conspiracy theorist who makes a lot of stuff up. so he may not be very credible and we don't know what he knows and we don't know what mueller already has. so it's really hard to predict. but he could be a big link. >> so if that is the case, i want to move on and ask you about another new report today in which a new york state judge is denying your request that alleges trump and his family violated laws by the way they managed their foundation. trump's attorneys say the case ought to be dismissed because of laws that suggest that a sitting president may not be sued. where does this go from here? >> you had the judge saying that the president is not immune from this kind of a civil lawsuit simply because he is the president. now this will move to the next phase of this litigation, which

could go into discovery, which is very significant. this could open up the doors to a lot of different financial records we'd get to see from the trump foundation. this is a president who has not yet opened up his tax returns for us to see, so discovery could be very significant. it could give as you glimpse into things that we simply haven't seen before. >> i want to move on to this topic and i'll begin with you, barrett, on this, as the president's legal team has submitted all written answers to robert mueller. but a new articles says mueller is not done with trump and they want to question trump over his actions while in the white house. would that be, berit, about obstruction of justice still? >> it could be. according to what we've heard, he only wanted to give written responses on the collusion part,

not on the obstruction of justice part. they still want to get some answers. so what form that takes i think we don't know. there are certainly reasons to think they may not be able to subpoena the president in person but they may try for another round of written questions. >> rudy giuliani says that mueller would lose subpoenaing the president. >> i would say we wouldn't take any legal advice on rudy giuliani on any subject, but certainly not on this one. i think that the case of u.s. v. nixon clearly establishes that a president can be subpoenaed and must respond to a subpoena. i don't think there's a big difference between a subpoena for documents and a subpoena for testimony, and the argument that it would take too long and that mueller shouldn't waste time, i just want to point out that it took us three months from our subpoena until the supreme court ruled. three months. that's not a long time. and i don't think it would take even that long since there is now supreme court precedent on

the issue. so i'd say go ahead and subpoena. >> what about "the new york times" report this week that the president wanted to order the d.o.j. to prosecute james comey and hillary clinton. they say don mcgahn told the president you have no authority for this action and warned him if he pursued it, he could face consequences, including possible impea impeachment. is trump's attempt here an abuse of power? >> to me it's a clear abuse of power. they are not his private agents and are not goons to go out and prosecutor whoever he designates. that's the equivalent of the enemy list that nixon had and it's very wrong. >> berit, to you? >> absolutely.

i agree completely with jill on this. it's so outside the rules of norm and i expect we could see subpoenas on them once the house changes hands. >> thank you both so much. why wildfires like the ones in california could become more commonplace but why won't the president believe it? fire pit. last use -- 0600. i'd stay close. morning. ♪ get ready to switch. protected by flo. should say, "protected by alan and jamie." -right? -should it? when you bundle home and auto... run, alan! ...you get more than just savings. you get 'round-the-clock protection.

...you get more than just savings. i saw my leg did not look right. i landed. i was just finishing a ride. i felt this awful pain in my chest. i had a pe blood clot in my lung. i was scared. i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®. to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's... proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected

bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... to help protect yourself from another dvt or pe. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. ♪ ♪ the united states postal service makes more holiday deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ with one notable exception. ♪

good afternoon, everyone. i'm alex witt here at msnbc

headquarters in new york. beaking news this hour, "th