today, or we joined them. people should not have to have a certain income to get a certain outcome to their dealing with the criminal justice system. that does it for me. thanks for watching. i'll see you back here next saturday at 5:00 p.m. eastern. and to keep the conversation going, like i said -- this sunday all the president's investigations, michael cohen sentenced to prison and implicating president trump in the illegal tabloid hush money payoffs. >> he directed me to make the payments. he directed me to become involved in these matters. >> i don't think, and i have to go check, i don't think they even paid any money to that tabloid. >> this as new investigations emerge involving donations to mr. trump's inaugural committee and to the trump organization. we have a new wall street

journal poll on the russia investigation and on the president's honesty. plus, obamacare struck down. a texas judge rules for republicans that the individual mandate without a tax is unconstitutional and the law must go. >> there was a big ruling, it's a great ruling for our country. we'll be able to get great health care. >> democrats vow to appeal and the case appears headed to the supreme court. my guest this morning, senate minority leader chuck schumer of new york, republican senator roy blunt of missouri and adam schiff of california. also, the white house showdown over a government shutdown. it's trump versus pelosi and schumer. i am proud to shut down the government for border security. >> is this a preview of the battles to come? joining me for insight and analysis are washington post columnist eugene robinson, katy tur, host of msnbc live, david brody, chief political analyst

for cbn news, and eliana johnson, national political reporter for politico. 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 sunday morning, as if we needed another reminder. this week illustrated again just how not normal the trump presidency has become. president trump's lawyer sentenced to prison. his chief of staff, his second one, mind you, is out. a routine -- less than two years into mr. trump's term and take a look at the investigations. among the targets, the trump campaign, the trump transition team, the trump inauguration committee, the trump family, the trump organization and the trump char table foundation, trump associates, and president trump himself. all of this may be taking a toll

on the president. we have a "wall street journal" poll out this morning. 62% say president trump has not been honest and truthful. that's a growing number in our poll, and it's across the board. 34% say he has been honest and truthful. 45% want to see the investigation continue. 34% would like to see it end. if all this wasn't enough on friday night word came that a federal judge in texas struck down the affordable care act, obamacare and said it was unconstitutional. the judge ruled the individual mandate is unconstitutional now that there is no tax associated with it. it got zeroed out during the tax bill package and that therefore the entire law now has to go. republicans have sought to kill the affordable care act since its passage. the suit was brought by republican governors and the attorneys general. the rules comes as obamacare is now more popular than ever. it helped democrats flip 40 house seats in november.

so looking ahead, multiple investigations, a new fight over health care, a trade war with china, a possible recession, and we haven't even mentioned the chances of a government shutdown at the end of this week. happy holidays, everyone. joining me now is the senate democratic leader chuck schumer of new york. senator schumer, welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> good to be back, chuck. >> let's start with the health care ruling. the assumption is there's going to be appeals. how do you appeal this law? do you appeal the specific argument about the mandate? or the entire ruling? or is it on severability? where do you attack this decision? >> well, first, chuck, it's an awful ruling. it goes, of course it undoes preexisting conditions, it jeopardizes the tens of millions getting good health care in the exchange. but it goes way beyond that. it would knock out funding for treatment of opioids, raise drug prices and close the donut hole so seniors would pay more for drug prices, eliminates maternal

care for women's health. it's an awful, awful ruling, we're going to fight this tooth and nail. if a majority say this case should be overturned, it has a tremendous effect on the appeal. first stop is the courts. we believe this should be overturned, it's an awful, awful decision. it puts a lot of our republicans in a box because they sort of were -- you know, two faced. on the one hand they said they want to preserve preexisting conditions and preserve health care. on the other hand, donald trump and a large number of republicans brought this court suit. there are going to be a good number of republicans who are going to really have to make a decision whether to join us in this intervention or face very severe consequences. >> are you open to finding a compromise with republicans? let's say this -- you know,

let's say your prospects don't look as good in the courts as you might think that they do. do you try to work with them to bring a penalty back on the mandate if that's what it takes? do you work with them to figure out a plan that eliminates the mandate? where are you on this? >> well, legislation, when it comes to health care, as we have seen, is very difficult, and the president and a large number of republicans are actually for cutting back on health care. that's what they've done for two years. we have a divided house and senate. i think the courts have to be the first and best way to go. >> let me ask you this about the cors, by the way. brian fallon, somebody who used to work for you, tweeted the juj who ruled in favor of gutting obamacare was confirmedfy voice vote. remember that the next time democrats cut a deal with mcconnell on judges and defend it by saying "they were all noncontroversial nominees," this judge confirmed in 2007 when democrats were in control of the united states senate. do you regret the way you guys

voted this judge? >> you never know how a judge is going to vote ten years later. this was an awful, awful decision, and it has to be overturned. there's also, you know, an element, i don't know how you deal with this, but forum shopping. the republicans chose this court and this bench because they thought they might get this way out, out of the mainstream ruling from this judge who's done it before. >> you brushed off that -- this judge issue very quickly. look, that was part of a deal, you were a part of cutting, back in '07. was that a bad deal? >> no, there was no deal, i don't think, on this judge. he was a nominee who the district court. no one brought up anything. no one knew how he'd rule in the future. you know, it's an awful ruling, let's make no mistake about it. >> some progressives and some senators will say, okay, here we go again with the affordable care act and it was a flawed enterprise anyway. here's what adam green, founder of progressive change campaign

committee writes. he says democrats need to put a bright north star in the sky for 2020 voters showing what democrats would do with more power and making clear we're moving toward medicare far all as a big part of 2020 electoral strategy. it's clear the presidential nominee will support medicare for all. do you think it's time for democrats to push this? >> look, democrats are for universal access to health care, one end of the party to the other. we want more people covered, everyone covered, better health care at a lower cost. many are for medicare for all. some or for medicare buy-in, some over 55, some are public option. we're going to have to do a lot more on health care. it will be a major issue in 2020, and i believe democrats will coalesce around the best way to get the best health care for the most people. >> where are you? do you think you should spend more time fixing the affordable

care act or launching a new health care proposal? >> we first have to do undo this awful decision because, look, we have a republican president and senate, they've spent a lot of time sabotaging health care. that's the first job. but after that, democrats as we did in 2018, rather successfully, are going to make health care a major, probably the major issue in the upcoming campaigns. and as we act in congress. and we're going to force our republican colleaguessh now that this decision has sort of lifted up -- their hypocrisy to choose a side. are you going to continue to cut it? same with president trump. >> i know you're very careful about putting your view here now that you're the leader of your -- of the senate conference there. are you going to support medicare for all, senator schumer? >> lots of different routes. i'm going to support a plan that

can pass and that can provide the best, cheapest health care for all americans. >> i want to move on to the issue that may lead to a government shutdown. it is immigration. i want to play for something you said in 2009 on the senate floor. take a listen. >> people who enter the united states without our pefr missirm are illegal aliens and they should not be treated the same as -- >> you said that at georgetown law school, not on the floor of the senate there. >> some people at georgetown would think it's better to say it there. >> that is so true, senator schumer. do you still believe in that principle? >> no democrat believes there's no difference between legal and illegal immigration. we democrats were for a path to citizenship, however, not amnesty, a very difficult path to citizenship. in 2013 every single democrat voted for it, a whole bunch of republicans led by john mccain

voted for it and it was thwarted in the house. we want to create a path to citizenship for those illegally, but we don't think they're the same. >> is there any way you budge at all on your number on border security on the 1.6? we know you don't want to give them the five. is there any middle ground that you would be willing to inch over to that you think could get 60 votes in the senate? >> president trump should understand there are not the votes for the wall in the house or the senate. he is not going to get the wall in any form. even the house, which is a majority republican, they don't have the votes for his $5 billion wall plan. in fact, ryan, afraid of what's going to happen, besent all the house home wednesday night. they certainly don't have the votes in the senate. now, we democrats, leader pelosi and i, offered the president two options as to how to avoid the

shutdown. and we should not let a temper tantrum, a threat push us in the direction of doing something that everybody, even our republican colleagues, know is wrong. leader mcconnell has said we shouldn't shut down the government. chairman shelby has said we shouldn't shut down the government. >> i understand. >> and they should join us in one of these two proposals, which would get more than enough votes passed and avoid a shutdown. then if the president wants to debate the wall next year, he can. i don't think he'll get it. but he shouldn't use innocent workers as hostage for his temper tantrum to sort of throw a bone to his base. >> what you're saying is there's no wiggle room here, those two options or that's it? >> well, those two options are the kinds of things that republicans have supported in the past. when you talk to them privately, even publicly, a lot of them have said a cr is much preferable to a shutdown. they have to have the guts to tell president trump he's off on the deep end here and all he's

going to get with his temper tantrum is a shutdown. he will not get a wall. >> before i go, i want to ask you about prospects of impeachment. last two weeks we've learned the president directed michael cohen to commit felonies. at what point do you believe the house democrats, you were on the house judiciary committee in 1998. so you're very familiar with this. at what point are house democrats obligated to open an impeachment inquiry? nobody says that means you vote for impeachment. are they obligated to start one? >> i'll give you my view. we should make sure that mr. mueller is unimpeded, that he finishes his investigation and we should make sure that that report is public. and then we should make a decision on the totality. as you know, impeachment has a lot of different ramifications. we certainly think no president is above the law. but i think it's wise to wait for the report. more and more people are believing in mueller. fewer and fewer people, as your survey showed, believe the president. let's get the report and let's read it, let it go public and

then let us decide. >> is it an asset or a liability to have a first name of senator if you run for president in 2020? >> well, we have a lot of good senators running and there are a lot of good non-senators running. to my view, let a thousand flowers bloom. let everyone run. democrats are going to be guided by who can best beat trump. he's such a danch to tger to thn and the working class of america. there's going to be more unity than people think. >> electability should be first and foremost? >> what i'm saying is i think the voters will believe that. >> fair enough. senator schumer, democratic leader in the senate, thank you for your time. >> do i make a plug, go giants, go giants. >> okay, as you fight for your non-playoff spot, fair enough, thank you, sir. >> you never know, you never know. >> okay, i'll have to check that math, fair enough. joining me now from the other side of the aisle is

republican senator roy blunt of missouri who sits on the intelligence committee. welcome back to "meet the press". >> hi, chuck, good to be with you. >> let's start with what senator schumer said he would ask the senate, ask for a sense of the senate and the house on this lawsuit that says it needs to be -- congress needs to intervene with this lawsuit and stop it. would you support that? >> i think what he was saying is what the congress should do is tell the circuit court what to do. i can't recall a similar time when anything like that happened. senator schumer followed that by saying on health care it's hard to get anything done when you -- that's not going to happen. that's not what we ought to be doing this week. and senator schumer knows it. >> didn't this federal judge act like a legislator and he decided on his own what the law is going to be? isn't this a form of judicial activism? he said i've decided congress says it's a zero tax, i've

decided it's no longer a tax. that's the definition of a judge writing legislation. >> that doesn't mean legislators can act like judges. >> you acknowledge in this case the judge has probably overstepped his bounds here? >> i think the thing to remember about the judge's ruling is it has no immediate impact. nothing changes yesterday, nothing changes tomorrow. this will have to go through a circuit court process. who knows if the circuit court would uphold it or not? that would either be quickly dismissed, one option, or a long period of time in my view before the circuit court deals with it. this will be another area where this health care will be used as a political issue way beyond the ramifications of one district judge making a ruling that has no immediate impact. >> well, let me tell you what the president said. the president said this was great news for america. that was his point. do you agree with him? >> i think it's basically -- for america it means we're going to continue to debate this.

health care clearly matters to people. what we had with obamacare, as you already called it today, was a poorly thought out plan, really poorly implemented to start with. it's had lots of negative impact on lots of families who have insurance they don't need with deductibles they can't afford. >> if all of that is true why have you guys failed to come up with an alternative? you've had eight years to come up with some alternative that could pass. >> we had lots of alternatives when obamacare passed, letting people up to age 26 stay on their parents insurance was a bill i filed. as far as i know it's the only republican proposal that was filed during that process, an independent bill, it was four pages and it probably insured more people than any other single part of the affordable care act did. there were lots of ideas out there. it's just the other side didn't want to listen to those ideas. >> your party can't unite on any idea though. isn't that -- if you had one

wouldn't you have more leverage at the table? >> i wouldn't say we couldn't unite on any idea. this is a very difficult issue in a closely divided senate. 49 senators, including me, voted to do something last year that a couple of republican senators couldn't agree with. trying to get -- this is why the committee process matters. the one thing i think we would be able to unite on, medicare for all would wind up meaning medicare for none. if democrats want to take that view to the american people and seniors, particularly people who are now covered by medicare, understand the ramifications of that. there is no way that will happen and there's no way voters will let it happen. >> was this lawsuit necessary? >> you know, i'm not in the job of questioning what state attorney generals decide they want to do. >> you have a future colleague in the senate, josh hawley who filed this lawsuit. it was probably the biggest

political negative he faced, the health care issue. in hindsight, politically, was this a mistake? >> he won his election pretty handily. whether it had an impact on voters, i don't know. i do know that the court case -- >> you don't seem enthusiastic about the lawsuit. you seem like take it or leave it. >> when you challenge something like the affordable care act, an attorney general in texas doesn't have the obligation to come up with faulty alternatives. josh hawley and i now have a different obligation than all those attorneys general had. we continue to look for more options, more choices, more access to insurance that really meets people's needs, things like the associated health plans that allow people in small businesses to band together. that's going to have a real impact on people that can get out of the individual market, which is always more expensive, and more difficult to navigate, than insurance at work.

a lot more people are going to have insurance at work because of the associated health plans that the administration has put out there and they're already beginning to work. >> are you at a point, though, that the expectation now is the affordable care act is the new baseline, whatever you do, you can't eliminate any benefits that that already has? >> i think you can create more options. i do think for the individual marketplace, for any foreseeable future, the affordable care act is going to be there, it's going to have the boundaries of the affordable care act. that's not really served individuals or families as well oz other things might. we have a real opportunity here with -- to look at this, democrat congress, republican senate, republican president, trying to find solutions to some of these problems that have now been around for at least six years. >> if it temporarily halted this lawsuit would you support putting a one cent tax, if you will, on the mandate in order to pass this judge's muster?

>> chuck, i think the tax was always a stretch. the obama administration said it's not a tax, it's not a tax until the only way it appeared that the court was going to uphold this was by them saying maybe it was a tax and the court upheld it on that basis, coming up with a one cent gimmick would not have much appeal to me. >> you were the head of the inaugural committee as far as congress is concerned. not to say you're part of the actual campaign aspect of raising money for inaugural, but there's now this investigation into the inaugural committee and the amount of money raised. the head of bush's inaugural committee in 2005 said about trump's inaugural committee, a third of the staff and a quarter of the events and they raised twice as much as we did. the obvious question, where did it go? i don't know. look, what you saw in your role as head of the inauguration, were you just sort of saying how come -- >> my role in the inauguration was pretty time consuming.

that part what happens to the capital is under the control of the congress. the funding is -- >> that's taxpayer money. >> probably our government is never more vulnerable at any time then when you've got everybody outside in the middle of the winter on tons of plywood and lumber and there's a lot of think about. i would say the two or three times that i interacted with that committee, to just be sure they understood that what happened to the capital was up to us, not up to them. but he was always very good to deal with. i have no idea what they did. i will tell you, during that particular period, my time was very consumed by being sure if we ever had to get everybody off that platform for some emergency we could get them off there quickly. >> you voted for all four articles of impeachment against bill clinton, two of them passed that were lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. do you regret those votes? >> not as much as i'm sure he

regrets lying to the grand jury. >> do you regret the impeachment process? >> i looked at ken starr's book, i think all of us looking back at that would not want to rush to anything that has all of the ramifications that impeachment has. if i was giving advice to my friends in the house, most of the chairman i would have served with when i was in the house. my advice would be legislate, don't investigate if you want to be rewarded with the continued opportunity to be in control of the house of representatives. >> roy blunt, republican from missouri, thanks for coming with your views. when we come back, the two big stories of the day, the trump investigation and the future and politics of health care.

our dad was in the hospital. because of smoking. but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. but then, we were like. what are we doing? the nicodermcq patch helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how. the meeting of the executive finance committee is now in session. and... adjourned. business loans for eligible card members up to fifty thousand dollars, decided in as little as 60 seconds. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it.

so shark invented duo clean. while deep cleaning carpets, the added soft brush roll picks up large particles, gives floors a polished look, and fearlessly devours piles. duo clean technology, corded and cord-free.

welcome back. we have eugene the panel is here. eugene rob inon, eliana johnson, katy tur, and david brody. eliana johnson, here's what donald trump, president trump

tweeted out after the ruling, as i predicted all along obamacare has been struck down as an unconstitutional disaster. congress must pass a strong law that provide great health care and protects preexisting conditions. mitch and nancy, get it done. it's the visual of mcconnell and pelosi somehow rewriting the health care law with donald trump has president. what does that look like? >> i think that's a vision that nobody in this town can conjure right now. and donald trump may be the only republican cheering this decision, which is somewhat fascinating. looking at conservative legal scholars and conservatives at large, there's nobody who seems to be happy about this ruling. and to think its reasoning makes much sense which is really that you can't have a tax of zero dollars, which, yeah, republicans in the house, they did away with the individual mandate by just saying the tax on it is zero dollars. but, you know, before obamacare went into law you heard conservatives say once you pass

an entitlement you can't take it away. the feeling several years in is that it's too hard to take away because it's increased in popularity. >> sounded to me like republicans are hoping this thing gets tossed. >> oh, yeah, they're hoping they are like rooting for the circuit court to throw it out like next week, right, they just want this out of the way because as long as this is sort of pending -- and it does seem to be a weird -- i'm not a lawyer, i can't call it ridiculous, i guess, reasoning, the decision, but it seems ridiculous to me. it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. i've read commentary by a lot of legal scholars scratching their heads. but this is awful politically for republicans because they've got to step up, right, and they're going to have to say, if push comes to shove, well, yeah, we've got to do something about preexisting conditions. yeah, we've got to preserve all these protections. because if they don't they're just going to get blown out. >> in looking at the timeline of how this would get appealed if

it doesn't get overturned it would have to go to the fifth circuit and potentially the supreme court and which would mean there would be a decision according to experts who talk about the timeline of these things would be in 2020, which would make it a perfect political issue for democrats. so the idea that maybe this is not going to be a topic come 2020 in the next election is, i think, a bit of wishful thinking for republicans. democrats will use that. >> i'm old enough to remember when the 2012 supreme court decision was going to just be the be all, end all of that presidential election. >> well, here comes john roberts again potentially on obamacare, part two, to potentially save the democrats again. so i think that will be interesting to watch. look, i also think it's an opportunity for a potential reset here. obamacare was passed on -- in terms of just a full partisan vote. we know this. here we are, let's say for example they do need to start from scratch if you will. it does give republicans and democrats a chance to do it "the right way" or the way that both

parties have said all along, that it needs to be bipartisan. this is a chance. pie in the sky but at least it gives republicans a reset. >> let me remind people. top, most important issues, health care, it wasn't that close, and immigration and economy almost had to be combined to get over health care. >> that's the context here. we have to step back and look at the context. our health care system is crazy. it is crazy. >> convoluted. >> it is -- we have some of the best medicine in the world, right, and space age medicine and laser surgery and everything else. but it is still the case, even after the affordable care act, that a catastrophic illness can bring financial ruin to a family. that we just don't have the protections and the access that the rest of the industrialized world has. >> let me shift here. this comes -- it was sort of like what else are you going to put on washington dysfunction?

we had new investigation this week, katy tur, we had michael cohen's now basically charge that the president directed him to commit crimes and the federal government backing him up on this. now you throw health care into this atmosphere. but this atmosphere, crazy as it always is in the trump era, we stepped it up a notch. >> lawmakers will tell you they can walk and chew gum at the same time. past two years, though, not a lot has gotten done, even though the congress has been controlled by republicans from top to bottom. they got a tax law but they certainly didn't get health care and they didn't try even to broach infrastructure. so when you throw in the house being led by democrats now and all the investigations that are going to pop up with them, it's going to be difficult to get a lot done in these next two years. politically speaking that might be a benefit in a backwards way to donald trump because he can go out and tell his voters, nothing's getting done because

the democrats are trying to obstruct at every corner and he'll actually have democrats maybe not working with him. but then again he did run on being a dealmaker. he ran on getting things done and changing things. >> maybe we now know why eliana, he had a hard time finding a chief of staff. four people went out of their way to pull themselves out of contention. this is something we know the president hates, the perception that nobody wants to work for him. he settles on mick mulvaney. and then what happens? we find out immediately mick mulvaney once trashed president trump. let me show you this clip. >> yes, i've supported donald trump. as enthusiastically as i can. i think he's a terrible human being. >> that's his chief of staff. >> you know, i think mike pence may be the only person in washington who would say donald

trump is a good person, mulvaney certainly isn't the odd man out on that. but i really can't think of a time in washington where there's been so much uncertainty. whether there's a government shut down six days from now, uncertainty about what our trade policy is and whether there's a trade war with china, uncertainty about what the mueller investigation is going to bring and the president now has an acting chief of staff. this is a president who needs a chief of staff more than any president in recent history but who simply won't let somebody do the job. we're at a fascinating juncture in american politics where we have no idea what the next six months to a year will bring. >> we all want to have the acting title these days. the acting panel will be coming back in a little bit. the man who will soon be heading up the intelligence committee russia investigation in the newly democratic controlled house, congressman

adam schiff joins me next. our dad was in the hospital. because of smoking. but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. but then, we were like. what are we doing? the nicodermcq patch helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how. opportunity is everywhere.

like here. where nothing stands between you and your best friends. ♪ because they let me to customize my insurance, and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything. like my bike and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

turning now to the turning to the investigations of the trump administration. and our nbc news "wall street journal" poll, more overnight by opening up new investigations. overall 55% said yes, while 42% said no. take a look at the party breakdown. it won't surprise you, by a margin of 88 to 10 democrats said yes, they support more investigations. among republicans, the result was flipped, 18% said yes while 81% are opposed. for what it's worth, independents looked like the mix of the two with a majority wanting more investigations. joining me now is the man who will lead the house intelligence committee in the next congress. democrat adam schiff. welcome back.

>> thank you. >> let me start with the interview you gave to the new yorker, the headline was adam schiff's plans to obliterate trump's red line. the reference was to the president saying, if mueller goes into my personal businesses before the campaign, that would be a red line, that's too much. the implication being maybe he'd fire him or something else. what does that headline mean in practice, that you're going to obliterate the red line? >> well obliterate was not my choice of words. >> fair enough. >> what it means is this. what ought to concern us the most from an oversight point of view is, is there any entang entanglement with a foreign power that might influence u.s. policy against our national interests? and what we saw in the michael cohen revelation, some of the michael cohen revelations, that the president while denying dealings with russia his business was actually pursuing a multi, multimillion deal with moscow, seeking the kremlin's

help with it. that's compromising. the president wants to draw a red line. but if the president's business is trying to curry favor with the kremlin, we can't ignore that. and the president should not be in a position to say you can't investigate certain things, only other things i don't care much about. that's what mine. if mueller is not looking into this, i don't know whether he is, someone needs to. otherwise we are being derelict with our security. >> what u.s. policies do you believe have already been influenced -- that you fear might have been influenced by financial dealings with the president? >> well, unquestionably the u.s. response to the russian hacking of our election has been influenced by something. whether it's been influenced by the president being concerned that his effort to build the trump tower deal would come out because, of course, the russians knew about it. they were on the other end of that transaction. dmitry peskov was involved in the coverup of that. whether that was the motivation or whether it's other motivation

or simply donald trump reacting to the question that's been raised about his legitimacy because of the taint over the election, i don't know. but we need to find out. >> is saudi arabia fitting into that, in your mind, and is that something you plan on investigating? >> saudi arabia could play into it if the saudis were funneling money into the inauguration committee or the investment into trump hotel rooms, the business that made him love the saudis so much, if that's warping u.s. policy, if it's affecting the president's unwillingness to criticize the crown prince over the murder of khashoggi, then we need to know about it. some of this may be in the purview of our committee, some with other committees. we will be working amongst ourselves to make sure we don't step on each other's of toes and work in a coordinated way. >> what do you believe deutsche bank financial records will show you? that's one of the things the

trump organization did work with. why them? what will the records show? >> the concern about deutsche bank is they have a history of laundering russian money. they paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines to the state of new york because they were laundering russian money. this, apparently, was the one bank that was willing to do business with the trump organization. now, is that a coincidence? what do we make of what the president's sons are reported to have said about not needing to deal with u.s. banks because they got all the cash they needed from russia or a disproportionate share of assets coming from russia. if this is a form of compromise id needs to be exposed. >> you have -- gina haspel the director of the cia has now given a briefing, you have now been briefed on this, what you have now learned, we've heard, you know, bob corker essentially said if a jury heard what i heard, the crown prince, he would be convicted in 30

minutes. is that a fair read of what you learned? >> i don't think there's any question of the crown prince was aware and knowing and would have had to approve an operation like this. what concerns me is when i hear people like the secretary of state say things that may be literally true but are deeply misleading. these are important issues as they affect the policy of the united states. policymakers like the house and senate need to make decisions about the best intelligence. you saw by that overwhelming unanimous vote in the senate that senators are convinced and rightly so of the crown prince's role in this. >> should we intervene in saudi politics and basically push the king to dump the crown prince? >> what we ought to do and here's where we need to rely on the intelligence agencies is we need to go through a menu of the responses here, everything from using magnitsky act sanctions to suspending arms sales or suspending support of the war in yemen. we need to get our intelligence

agency's best estimate, what will the saudi reaction be if the crown prince were to fall, who comes next? what does that mean in terms of our interest in the region? >> hearing a go slow approach. >> my feeling is, you use the best intelligence. don't ignore it or discount it or publicly disavow it. you use it to guide your decisionmaking. you still need a relationship with the kingdom. >> the last time you were here you were talking about other transcripts of people who gave interviews to the house intelligence committee to see if you were lied to. have you found some instances that you think are questionable? have you referred it to mr. mueller? >> we have found testimony that we find deeply concerning. i certainly would include mr. stone among that group. >> roger stone is among -- you believe lied to congress. >> i believe there's ample reason to be concerned about his truthfulness. and with respect to mr. stone and perhaps others, the special counsel is in a better position

to determine the truth and that we ought to provide it. >> do you have a theory as to why michael flynn's lawyers are attacking the fbi? >> i do. there are several witnesses now who are trying to have it both ways in some degree. you've got manafort who was clearly double dealing, trying to get a deal -- a cooperation agreement with the government and a minimal sentence and at the same time trying to get a pardon. papadopoulos, the same way. pleads guilty, admits guilt, gets sentenced but now seems to make a public case for a pardon. and i think to a lesser degree the same situation with flynn. >> you don't have a theory? >> well, the theory is they want to cooperate and get the best deal from the government. at the same time they want to leave themselves open to getting a pardon from donald trump. >> all right, adam schiff, democrat from california, incoming chair of the house intelligence committee. thanks for coming out and sharing your views, sir. is it time to start wrapping our holiday gifts in republican

red and democratic blue. (dad) got it? (boy) got it. (dad) it's slippery. (boy) nooooooo... (grandma) nooooooo... (dad) nooooooo... (dog) yessssss.... (vo) quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is two times more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand.

(boy) hey look, i got it. bounty, the quicker picker upper. - [narrator] meet shark's newest robot vacuum. it powerfully cleans from floors to carpets, even pet hair, with ease, and now for cleaning surfaces above the floor, it comes with a built in shark handheld. one dock, two sharks. the shark ion robot cleaning system.

those colors only mean one thing, it's time for a very special day to download what's going to be under the tree for your kids this holiday season. that may depend on the politics of your gift giver more than you may think. according to our friends at simmons research if the gift giver is a trump voter there's a decent chance that that present is from nerf. 60% say they're buying nerf

compared to 28% of clinton voters. and hot wheels, 42% of independents are buying those way more than republicans or democrats. and what would the holiday season be without barbie? a quarter of both democrats and republicans are buying the iconic matell doll this year. we don't know what job or what outfit they pick. when it comes to toys, there is one gift that nearly every group agrees on. it's because they have red and blue bricks. it's legos. the majority all plan to buy that this time of year. if your house is anything like mine these days, our older kids are hoping for some video games stuffed in their stockings this year, or downloads. the most popular for both democrats and republicans are call of duty and fortnite. democrats favor super mario cart. the holidays are a special time of year for children.

one more area where red and blue america agree, majorities of republicans and democrats say they want to provide their children with things they didn't get to have as a child. yeah, i'm one of those. and majorities of both parties admit they plan to indulge their children with those little extras. probably ones they don't need to be getting. there you have it, a note of happy political agreement just in time for the holidays. don't get two excited. if this week's news is any indication, the new year and the new congress will bring plenty to disagree about. when we come back, guess which democrat just moved into the top three in the latest poll in iowa? >> announcer: coming up, end game and post game brought to you by --

our dad was in the hospital. because of smoking. but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. but then, we were like. what are we doing? the nicodermcq patch helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how. discover card. i justis this for real?match, yep. we match all the cash back new cardmembers earn at the end of their first year, automatically. whoo! i got my money! hard to contain yourself, isn't it? uh huh! let it go! whoo! get a dollar-for-dollar match at the end of your first year. only from discover.

end game, brought to you by boeing, continuing our mission to connect, protect, explore and inspire. >> back now with end game. we have the first filed presidential candidate this week from our big list of 34. julian castro, the former san antonio mayor. what did we get overnight? the first des moines register poll of iowa caucusgoers. it told us who the top two tiers of democrats are. tier one, the top four in the iowa des moines register poll. biden at 32. bernie sanders at 19. beto o'rourke in double digits at 11.

elizabeth warren at 8%. then a bit of a noticeable second tier, if you will. kamala harris at 5, cory booker at 4, michael bloomberg at 3. they tested a dozen other candidates who didn't get to three. gene robinson, what do you make of -- the headline is beto o'rourke and double digits in iowa. >> who knew a year ago who knew anything about beto o'rourke. and that tells you the extent to which he broke through into the international consciousness with an incredible run in texas. and it shows he's going to be a factor. he's going to be a factor in this. and he's someone that potentially democrats could fall in love with. democrats fall in love. republicans fall in line. they can fall in love with beto. >> beto o'rourke had a town hall on friday. sounded like a presidential candidate. >> i want us to be big and bold and not to succumb to the smallness and pettiness and decisiveness that defines so much of the national conversation today.

so that's what we're up against right now. and it's more than just one person. it's all of us making this decision that we're going to live to our potential and to our promise. >> everybody from ted cruz's campaign has said donald trump better take this guy seriously. >> he's a really good messenger. that's what the democrats need. there's a lot of folks. i saw that first tier. joe biden, i guess on paper -- on paper, and that's the key, he'd be pretty good in terms of getting back blue collar democrats trump had one. that's really interesting to watch. he's getting up there in age, obviously. beyond that, he's been known to be somewhat of a gaffe machine and that's a problem. hasn't gone too well for him. beto o'rourke. the smart money is on him because of the messaging and he can put it all together. they need some energy. that progressive energy but at the same time kind of morphing into an optimistic message. i finishing it's bthink if it's and trump, it's anger versus

optimism. a lot of folks vote when they're fearful. look at the democrats. they'll play up the health care on fear. >> is it going to look like 2008 where the democrats wanted to be inspired? after eight years of president bush. they have be inspired, play it safe or get angry. >> chuck schumer wants play it safe. that was interesting in his answer. he wants someone that can win. >> electability and someone that can stand up to donald trump. >> joe biden has proven to be somebody who can stand up to donald trump and who can get down in the gutter with him when need be but not get dirty in the same way donald trump has. >> when i look at those top four candidates, i see two who can eat into the trump base and tell you that the folks on the trump campaign are worried about the candidates who could potentially eat into the trump base. joe biden and bernie sanders. the other two, elizabeth warren and beto o'rourke would have to really juice minority turnout. and i can tell you, i think beto

o'rourke, one surprising thing about his candidacy. he did overperform democrats in texas, he did not overperform on minority black turnout. and so i think there are going to be questions raised about that if he moves forward. >> to build off the point here, looking deep into our dive in our poll, joe biden and bernie sanders' favorable ratings are much better when you look at it than the other democrats. there is this -- there's a bunch of independent men that really like bernie and biden and nobody else. >> yeah, it's -- >> it's an interesting challenge. >> call it a gender gap, but it's -- it may be approaching that. and so, no, look,f formidable figures and candidates. i wonder if this is a bernie year, a biden year? i'm not sure. i think they're looking for somebody -- >> i wonder if it's going to be another year for a white man. there are liberal and

progressive voters who will say, if not now, then when is it ever going to be? we need to, or they need to elect a woman or they need to nominate an african-american or some sort of minority in order to push the party forward. >> how nervous would team trump be based on an amy klobuchar, midwesterner? >> i think what donald trump does best is branding. ask lyin' ted and little marco. beto o'rourke is a clean slate for donald trump. joe biden is not. bernie sanders is not. watch out for beto o'rourke. >> very interesting. thank you, guys. quite a panel. appreciate everybody on tv there watching. we'll be back next week because, if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." you can see more "end game" in "post game o" on the "meet t press" twitter account. ♪

you're in the business of helping people. we're in the business of helping you. business loans for eligible card members up to fifty thousand dollars, decided in as little as 60 seconds. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. take your razor, yup.

up and down, never side to side, shaquem, you got it? come on stay focused. hard work baby, it gonna pay off. havi is not always easy. plaque psoriasis it's a long-distance journey, and you have the determination to keep going. humira has a proven track record of being prescribed for over 10 years. humira works inside the body to target and help block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to symptoms. most adults taking humira were clear or almost clear and many saw 75% and even 90% clearance in just 4 months. and the kind of clearance that can last. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal, infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections,

or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. join over 250,000 patients who have chosen humira. ask about the #1 prescribed biologic by dermatologists. humira... and go. ♪ welcome to "kasie dc." i'm kasie hunt. we're live every sunday from washington, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. eastern. michael cohen sentenced. michael flynn set to be sentenced. george papadopoulos, out of prison and ready to run for congress. but where are federal investigators going with all of these cases? michael cohen's spokesman lanny davis joins me live on set as cohen's former boss calls him a rat. later, senator bob corker on why this may not be his last chapter in politics. i talk to him