amazon prime video so when you say words like... show me best of prime video into this... you'll see awesome stuff like this. discover prime originals like the emmy-winning the marvelous mrs. maisel... tom clancy's jack ryan... and the man in the high castle. all in the same place as your live tv. its all included with your amazon prime membership. that's how xfinity makes tv... simple. easy. awesome. that's our show for tonight. now it's time for "weekend with alex witt." >> did you hear my what from the studio? >> i'm sure it's real. it is a 1958 genuine series, "trackdown." >> that will get downloaded left and right. or posted by the left, not the

right. good day to all of you at msnbc here in new york. it is 9:00 al in the west, noon in the east. welcome to "weekend with alex witt." vp up next, donald trump's conversations with the russian leader. >> it's up to him who he wants to read into conversations with world leaders. >> he had only nice things to say about putin, never spoke ill will russia. >> democrats have had this infatuation with russia and putin. >> a grand-new idea for ending the stalemate as the government shutdown ends its fourth week. the field for 2020 just got more crowded. early indications about which dems can stand out from the rest. but new reaction this hour surrounding president trump and his relationship with the leader of russia, president vladimir putin. "the washington post" reporting president trump has gone through extraordinary lengths to conceal

details of his conversations with trump at five locations over the past two years and that includes the president's two-hour meeting with putin during their helsinki summit. and a conversation with putin on the sidelines at the g20 summit in germany in 2017. "the post" reports on the last occasion, president trump took, quote, possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing that linguist not to discuss what had transpired with any other administration officials. the chair of the house intelligence committee adam schiff said his committee tried to obtain the interpreter's notes last year. the president now reacting to that report. >> i have a one-on-one meeting with putin, like i do with every other leader. i have many one-on-one -- nobody ever says anything about it. but with putin they say oh, what did they talk about? we talked about very positive things. i'm with putin and they make a big deal. anybody could have listened to that meeting. that meeting is open for grabs. >> democratic and republican senators giving opposite reactions to the bombshell

report. >> if you compare objectively president trump's policies to russia compared to president obama's policies to russia, by any measure president obama was much easier, was much more gentle on russia. >> it's curious that throughout that whole summer when these investigations started, you have vladimir putin policies almost being parroted by donald trump. many of us would argue that while those sanctions had been put in place, the trump administration has been very slow at implementing those sanctions. >> also front and center, friday's "new york times" report that the fbi opened a counterintelligence inquiry back in 2017 into whether the president had been working on behalf of russia, either actively or unwittingly. listen to the new chair of the senate judiciary committee, lindsey graham. >> i'm going to ask the fbi director was there a

counterintelligence investigation opened up regarding the president as being a potential agent of the russians? i find it astonishing and to me it tells me a lot of people running the fbi, a cave this that crowd. i don't trust them as far as i can tell them. >> kelly o'donnell is joining me with more reaction ton what looks like a beautiful backdrop but perhaps not too pleasant to stand outside in. kelly, what are you hearing, if anything, from the building behind you there? >> the white house has come out strongly against both of the reports you laid out. "the new york times," they called that absurd, that deals with the fbi inquiry into the president and possibly working on behalf of the russians. and with respect to "the washington post" story about the president trying to keep secret the contents of his meetings with vladimir putin and typically notes and readouts from world leaders are shared within the government, even if they're not made public, they're a part of the official record

internally so that any part of the government that would have the right to access that would be able to use that in dealing with an adversary such as russia. apparently the president's practice differs from his predecessors. we said that in many contexts equipment before. so today as we heard from lindsey dprau lindsey graham, a friend of the president now, much more of an ally that he originally was, and also chair judiciary in the senate, he's frustrated by this. here's more what lindsey graham had to say about the inquiry into how if the president was somewhat compromised. >> i would like to know who linked it because they have an agenda not friendly to president trump and i, for one, don't trust what i read in "the new york times." this really did hand. congress needs to know about it. what i want to do is make sure how could the fbi do that? what kind of checks and balances are there? >> at there poiis point what we

from "the new york times" reporting and what we can all kind of take in is we don't know any conclusions from it. if this counterintelligence inquiry is still ongoing or was it dealt with when it started in 2017, folded into the mueller investigation, and we waiting for robert mueller, the special counsel, to ultimately conclude his probe to find out what came out of that. we just don't know. the president said if there had been anything to be found, it would have been made public. he insists there was no such interference between himself and russia, no collusion as we heard him say. alex? >> again and again in fact. all right, kelly o, thank you so much from the white house. joining me now, ann guerin, correspondent for "the washington post," charlie savage, washington corespondent from "the new york times" and msnbc contributor and abigail tracy, news writer from "vanity fair's hive." as you have covered the white

house before and been on these foreign trips, any extent of this behavior, what extent has previous presidents tried to keep private conversations between world leaders in fact private but even from their own trusted staff and advisers? >> well, as far as we know it's never hand this way ever before. the usual practice, as you were talking about with kelly, even in quite sensitive qualifications between a president and foreign leader, is that there will be several people present with the president when these things happen. occasionally it's just the president and other leader and each of them have an interpreter with them. trump has done it differently in several respects. in at least one important meeting he only had vladimir putin's translator with him. there was no other u.s. set of ears on the meeting. and then as we reported today that he actually confiscated the notes from his state department translator and told that

translator not to tell other people what had transpired during the meeting. partly this appears to be the result of the president being embarrassed by leaks of the way conversations he's had with foreign leaders have played out. he thinks there are people within the government structure who are trying to make him look bad after the fact. but, of course, there are many other interpretations as to why he would want to confiscate those notes. none of them very good. >> there had been a number of leaks, particularly at the time those notes were confiscated, it seemed like there were a lot of leaks coming out of that white house for whatever reason. do we know, charlie, if these are exclusive to the meetings with vladimir putin or is this something he does as a broader pattern with other heads of state? >> to be honest, i don't know how often this behavior has hand. this is a new wrinkle. we knew about the one-on-one meeting with putin with only his own translator. this taking of the notes from the other meeting, although rex tillerson was apparently there too.

it couldn't have been that wacky, whatever they were talking about there. it seems to me, i agree with you this has to be understood in the context of unprecedented leaks happening in 2017, when we were learning about private conversations in the oval office and phone conversations with foreign leaders of the sort of thing that never normally leaks. i think they were just completely freaked out by that. >> yeah, but you talk about the report with rex tillerson, charlie, and that was hamburg, yes, he was there. but nobody was there for the helsinki chat, which went on for what, two hours? i remember we were all on the air waiting for the president to get to a podium and do a debrief on his meeting and it lasted forever and ever and ever that wait. that is quite extraordinary, right? >> a lot of things about helsinki were extraordinary. kweep returning to that as a weird moment in the history of this presidency, i agree with you. >> what about, abigail, the president who spoke on fox last night by denying "the washington post" report but somebody took particular steps to conceal the

private meetings with putin. the allegations in the article, does it all sound plausible to you? >> yeah, it certainly does. one thing earlier today i actually spoke with a former administration official who didn't specifically work on russia who said it may sense this type of behavior. i think typically where putin was concerned donald trump always thought one-on-one meetings with him was the best way to make a deal, the best strategy in terms of approaching u.s./russia policy. i think there's always been a sense around it, sort of suspicion whether it's a deep state or bureaucrat trying to help him, he views himself as the ultimate deal maker and should be handling this aloathe. alone. when you look at that perception of diplomacy, it makes sense of some of the behaviors described in "the washington post" article as well. >> anthony mentioned to charlie, rex tillerson, secretary of state, did attend the meeting in

hamburg. he is not the biggest fan of the president, to say the least. if there was anything nefarious about that meeting, meet he have offered more on the topic in your colleague's report? >> he wouldn't comment specifically for our report. he's been quite circumspect after getting sue mayoraly fired back in march. he did give one speech describing the president as not always understanding, the briefings given to him and being incurious at a couple of other choice descriptions. but none of them particularly mean-spirited and the president lashed out and, you know, called rex tillerson a number of insults. and now rex tillerson has gone back to his ranch in texas and tried to stay out of things. at the time he gave a press conference after that meeting

that he sat in on with the president and president putin, but really was very -- i mean, the details he provided in that press conference were scant. >> very broad. he talked about syria, i believe, and then wasn't there some reference that there might have been some discussion about james comey but that did not -- but the president called him a nutjob but that did not come from rex tillerson, right? >> no, not at the time. >> not at the time, right. charlie, given bob mueller is investigating possible collusion with russia, what's the likelihood the special counsel would subpoena the interpreter to try to get some sort of a detailed readout? >> that's an interesting thought. people have talked about, including on the air the last hour i was watching, maybe the democratic house could subpoena that interpreter or i guess they can subpoena rex tillerson, too, for the same meetings since there was no american interpreter in the other one we

were talking about them for to subpoena. i was thinking they could try but that's a pretty strong executive power claim to get the president's own words in a private meeting. i don't think they would have a strong legal basis for doing that. but bob mueller can subpoena things that maybe congress can't get since he's part of the executive branch and this is for a criminal investigation. that goes back to the watergate tapes case where the prosecutor can get the tapes at the oval office conversations. that's an interesting idea that had not occurred to me until you just asked this question, but that should be something worth thinking about. >> what about, abigail, when the president was speaking about "the new york times" report, this was on fox yesterday, and whether or not he ever worked on behalf of russia. the quote, i believe he said, i think this is the most insulting thing i've ever been asked, but he didn't directly answer. is there anything to interpret there? >> i think he's certainly used a lot of words to not give a definitive answer. but i think one of the interesting things in following up on charlie's point, the house

democrats created a subcommittee to investigate circumstances such as these, whether it's helsinki meeting or interactions with kim jong-un and these are things i certainly think they're going to look into. i certainly think his answer and lack of a declarative no yesterday has raised further questions on this issue. >> what about, anne, as how the president defended himself on the russia questions overall? let's listen to what he said. >> i have been tougher on russia than anybody else -- probably any other president period but certainly the last three, four modern day presidents, nobody's been as tough as i have. >> do the facts back him up, anne? >> actually, he says that all the time. if you're look strictly at sanctions, rehe's right. they haven't removed sanctions and they added more. the main lever that the past several presidents have applied against russia, he's continued to apply and has added to.

but if you're talking in the sort of more jenkl sense of does he believe putin? is he willing to kind of engage on putin's turf, you know, then there he's been far less strong than his predecessor or george bush for that matter. >> okay. all three of you stay with me. i want to set up for our viewers the next topic of conversation. you can probably guess what it is because there are potential new developments in the stalemate of the longest shutdown in u.s. history. one of the president's creditors is laying out a new recommendation. >> before he pulls the plug on the legislative option, and i think we're almost there, i would urge him to open up the government for a short period of time, like three weeks, before he pulls the plug, see if we can get a deal. if we can't at the end of three weeks, all bets are off.

see if he can do it by himself through the emergency powers. to my republican colleagues, stand behind the president if this is his last option. he ran on this. >> but graham said it all depends on what president trump ultimate zlieds to support. and then in the last few hours, the president adding to his litany of tweets throughout this weekend, pointing the finger at democrats. last night trump telling fox news he has, quote, no idea whether he can get a deal done with democratic congressional leaders. >> by waiting to build a wall, using those funds that are available to you on a national emergency, aren't you knee gating the point of the emergency itself? >> i have the national right to call a national emergency. many other presidents have called a national emergency for things, frankly, of lesser importance than this and i have the right to do it. >> he didn't really answer the question, did he? the shutdown dragging on to 23.

some workers are now relying on food banks just to put food on the table. democratic senator tim kaine from virginia blasting the president. >> this is a guy who has prayed for a shutdown. he says he cares about national security when he's taking paychecks away from hard-working public safety professionals, the willingness of democrats to invest billions of dollars in border security is not in doubt. what we don't want to do is waste taxpayer money on a vanity project that's ineffective. >> and charlie, abigail back with me now. charlie to you first, what did you make of what senator graham said there, they can wait three weeks and it's not an emergency -- the word emergency sums up to how do you define that? >> a lot of that with trump comes down to is this a real emergency? even if it's not, this is

fabricated. we think you just made it up. i think the justice department would tell courts it's not up to a judge to tell the them whether it's an emergency or not. and if the courts went along with that, it wouldn't matter the facts on the ground don't match the rhetoric. i think what senator graham is trying to do here is find a short-term solution to take some of the heat off to get people paychecks. the question with senator graham that played this sort of interesting game with president trump, who he used to denounce is now a strong ally of rhetorically is he clearly tried to influence the president, tried to get him to do things he thinks would be bet are governing policy and in return a strong rhetorical ally. there's not a lot of evidence trump does what graham wants him to do, whether syria or sending people to guantanamo or anything else. whether this three-week plan flies and whether trump is like that's a great idea, i have my doubts. >> what do you think this would mean overall, anne, would it

mean politically an admission of defeat if he were to go along this? >> the president, as charlie alluded to, is likely to see it that way. graham's proposal here is sort of the all of the above, the government reopens, sort of the optics that he sees as bad for the president and bad for republicans generally would improve, there's a chance at least much negotiation with democrats, daca may come as part of that negotiation. graham appears to be putting that on the table. the president appears to be putting that on the table, at least that's one persian of one of his tweets this morning. and then if the president doesn't get what he wants, doesn't get money for the wall, those negotiations fail, and then he can go the national emergency route but the immediacy of real opening the government, it would be off the table.

i could see where that would work, but only if the president sees it as a path out of the corner he's in and has a way for that not to be a failure for him. >> final thought to you, abigail, on this and weigh in on how you think the president sees this and where this may go. >> i think right now the president is in need of a face-saving maneuver and i think lindsey graham is trying to provide him with that. if you look at what graham is suggesting, it's similar to what democrats have been pushing for, open up the government and other as spegts of the government to allow time for real negotiations over border security, over daca, over the wall to take place while not leaving hundreds of thousands of u.s. workers furloughed without paychecks and things sort of falling apart across the country. so i think one of the things is whether donald trump believes that this is a pr battle that he can win and sort of accepting graham's suggestion and real making it seem as though he's

not backing down but it's actually a negotiation win for him. >> okay. ladies and gent, anne, abigail, charlie, thank you very much. the story behind the lawyers beaching up its legal team with more than a dozen attorneys. gal more than a dozen attorneys. eav] [glass shattering!] not cool. freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting? now that's cool! coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells with little or no downtime. and no surgery. results and patient experience may vary. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you. and visit coolsculpting.com today for your chance to win a free treatment. i'm off to college. i'm worried about my parents' retirement. don't worry. voya helps them to and through retirement... dealing with today's expenses... while helping plan, invest and protect for the future. so they'll be okay? i think they'll be fine. voya. helping you to and through retirement.

billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy. there's therabreath at walmart.

♪ [ dobaxter.ng ] it's bedtime. peace of mind should never be out of reach. [ voice command beep ] xfinity home. xfinity home connects you to total home security

you can control from anywhere on any device. and it protects you with 24/7 professional monitoring. i guess we're sleeping here tonight. xfinity home. simple. easy. awesome. call, go online or demo in an xfinity store today. new reaction today from current and former lawmakers on the bombshell "the new york times" reported on covering an

fbi counterintelligence investigation into whether or not the president of the united states is working on behalf of russia. let's take a listen. >> i find it astonishing, and to me, it tells me a lot about the people running the fbi. how can the fbi do that? what kind of checks and balances are there? >> throughout that whole summer when these investigations started, you had vladimir putin policies almost being parroted by donald trump. these are not actions of a traditional president of the united states. >> if i were the president, i would embrace the story, because it backs up his narrative. fbi agents were acting in a rogue manner, overstepping. >> joining me now, white collar criminal defense attorney and former chair of the national bar association's pack, a. scott bolden former prosecutor nelson cunningham. gentlemen, good toe you back on the broadcast. you heard chris christie saying

the president should embrace the report because it fits the president's narrative. does that argument hold? >> the president's in a really tough spot here and they're trying desperately to try to get themselves out of this spot. they will grab anything they can. christie saying embrace the narrative, the fbi is corrupt and biased. that's been the message that's come out from donald trump on this. but you have to ask yourself if you were an fbi agent in 2017 and the head of the fbi had just been fired because of this russia thing, how could you not want to investigate what was behind that? >> you know, scott, you also heard senator graham earlier questioning the fbi's checks and balances. what is your take on this investigation, and how damaging this may be for the president legally speaking? >> well, we'll have to wait on a report for those details but the reality is, this narrative that the republicans and trump

supporters continue to talk about is a false narrative. it's a false narrative because we know the mueller investigation has indicted, charged and got pleas and even people have gone to jail, something like 30 to 40 already. so if it's a hoax, it's not much of a hoax, it's a reality. this narrative they continue to embrace and talk about this conspiracy, deep state, ndoj, just isn't real. it's their particular rhetoric but it's not the particular reality we're looking at. the mueller investigation is coming to a close, i think perhaps the next three-muss plus months, but the other reality is this, mueller knows a lot more than the press or you and i know and that should be the scary part for the republicans and donald trump. >> again, this report late friday from "the new york times" and less than 24 hours after that one, another bombshell from "the washington post." the first question to you, nelson, on that. this story says that to suppress

his conversations with russia, the president actually confiscated, them, literally took them and said i don't want these going anywhere. can the special counsel subpoena the interpreter if he hasn't already? the reason i'm asking you this is i remember during your time working within the clinton administration you were deal be with ken starr, wasn't it, who was trying to subpoena secret service agents for information? >> he was. >> how hard is this whole process? >> he was. so ken starr did in 1998 subpoena the secret service agents who had been in and around bill clinton when he was with -- allegedly with monica lewinsky in order to collaborate the story. the clinton white house fought that furiously. they said look, secret service agents are neutral people. we don't want to get them involved and we should keep them out of it. ken starr won that battle and the secret service agents testified before the grand jury. this is different because it's

dealing with national security. although i've never heard of a president doing what donald trump did. i also worked in national security issues in the clinton white house. i have never heard of a president doing what donald trump did, but we have to recognize conversations between a president and foreign leader go to the very heart of our national security, our foreign policy enterprise. yes, it's terribly concerning if the president was doing something untoward in those conversations but we have to be very careful about setting a precedent where the congress has the ability to subpoena what was said in private one-on-one conversations between the president and a foreign leader. that goes to the heart of the executive function, and it presents a tremendous constitutional question. it will be fought in the courts. >> what you're saying is fighting this in the court, nel nelson, you think this would be something that donald trump would win trying to suppress the extraction of the notes from an

interpreter? >> he might. he might. i think the way a court would look at this and they say, the president would -- in a battle state between the house of representatives and the president, they would say -- they would say who was at the heart of his constitutional powers? and the president engaging in national security, discussing matters of state with foreign leaders, that's at the very core of the president's constitutional powers. any court is going to be very, very concerned about opening up those conversations to public view. the showing that would be made by either the house of representatives or by mueller would have to be -- it would have to be extraordinarily high that this evidence was needed to conduct either a counterintelligence investigation, criminal investigation or oversight. it's going to be a donnybrook. >> so, scott -- >> it would be difficult. i'm sorry, go right ahead. >> pardon me, do you agree with what nelson has said, his

interpretation? >> yeah, i agree it would be very difficult and i think it's something that would reach the appellate court and even the supreme court. but i would supplement what he said by saying this, we have extraordinary facts here of a president where counterintelligence investigation that was turned over to mueller, but before mueller got involved, was of the president. the fbi and doj did that because they serve the people of the united states, not necessarily the president. secondly, if you juxtapose all of the facts leading up to this investigation, all of the contacts between trump's campaign and what trump's position has taken since he's been president, the comey effect if you will, firing of comey, disclosure of classified information, russian operatives in the white house, i think that is a strong counterweight to the challenge that nelson has talked about. and i think it would be tough. but in the end, whether it's the house or mueller, i think they

either work out a deal with the white house or the supreme court will have to decide, and i think both sides have strong allegations. i think the house has a better chance of getting it because they can go into close-door meetings, they can have it classified and be limited from the public. with the mueller piece you have that too but the mueller is part of a criminal investigation and that report may be made public or may not be. >> and scott, the headline again in "the post" legal team was 17 new attorneys to battle democrats. does that make sense with the topics of potential legal arguments we're discussing here? >> if you look at the totality of the mueller investigation, i'm not surprised that they're beefing up. not only are they going to write a counterreport, and if the mueller report is made public, there are certainly going to be parts of it labeled classified and blacked out. and there are going to be legal challenges to what's being blacked out that could go to the supreme court as well. >> a. scott bolden, nelson

cunningham, gentlemen, thank you very much. the impeachment question and why some congressman said doing it for political reasons may not be so problematic after all. itit be so problematic after all. i don't keep track of regrets. i never count the wrinkles. and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on, is staying happy and healthy. so, i add protein, vitamins and minerals to my diet with boost®. boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals your body needs. all with guaranteed great taste. the upside- i'm just getting started. boost® high protein be up for life. it's not there's it's mine, mine, mine. and it always will be forever and ever.

the rx 350l with 3 rows for up to 7 passengers. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management.

new insight into the shutdown. blame game. a poll just out from "the washington post"/abc news said the majority of americans hold the president and republicans responsible for the shutdown. standing there at 53%. let's bring in howard dean and republicanist strategist susan del percio. good to see you both. anybody surprised by these numbers? the implications of this poll, susan, are what? >> it's that the republicans and president are in big trouble with the american public right now. and donald trump said he would own this shutdown and he certainly does. that's what those numbers show. >> howard, the poll would seem to reinforce democrats' position and nothing for the wall. but they say it's making him increasingly vulnerable to adversaries. do you think the threat would force democrats and republicans

to get you back to the negotiating table to actually find some sort of middle ground, make progress. >> there was a middle ground and the middle ground was passed by the senate, including the republicans who voted for it unanimously and the house. that's the middle ground. it would be very easy to end this. the problem is the president. and the republicans in the senate because the right way to do this is to pass those bills again and then override the veto of donald trump. that is the right way to do it but the republicans lack the courage to do it. >> let's keep in mind, that which was passed did not have money for the wall at all, right? >> right, that's correct. trump can't help himself being the center of attention at all times and that is why 53% of the americans blame trump and the republicans. here's the problem, the real suffering that's going on here that people are paying attention to are federal employees on food stamps and trying to get unemployment. that is going to hurt him in the election, even though the election is a year and a half away. >> susan, i want to ask you

about the president potentially declaring an emergency to get the wall funded. there's an article on vox which has this headline, republicans worry trump's national emergency could set a new precedent for democrats. so not to much concern about the wildfires in california, hurricanes and puerto rico, florida, texas, you name it, but it's about the democrats, is that correct? >> well, i think at the end of the day what we are seeing is the president going and using emergency powers is a very dangerous precedent. there will be a lawsuit. the senate, whether it's a democrat or republican-led senate, whoever doesn't challenge that, is basically ceding their authority. so i think this is something that the president has heard a lot from republicans on saying, no way this is really bad, you can't go forward. you will not have our support should you declare a national emergency. just to fall on something the governor had just touched on, yes, millions of americans are affected by this shutdown, not just the 800,000 who are not

being paid but their families, other people who rely on it, they're making very tough decisions. but if this goes on in to another month, the problem i think the democrats may start to face is that people are going to start blaming everybody and say get something done. now, i don't think that means that the democrats, because they have the power here, should cede too much but it will start taking a toll on all elected officials from washington sfwlxt it will be a domino effect, small businesses in communities and they will start hurting, if not already, feeling the pinch on this. howard, let's go to new comments given to me yesterday by represent jahr mudge. >> you have all of the elements you would need to certainly warrant an impeachment hearing. the only reason for congress cannot to begin impeachment hearings is a political calculation and that should never be the reason you don't do

it. impeachment is there for a reason and i think geertiwe're g close to having a responsibility to that process. >> do you agree with that, do you think impeachment hearings have not started yet because it's a bad political card to play for democrats? >> the reason it's a bad political card for the democrats is you have to wait to see the evidence. so he's not wrong but you need the mueller report and find out what's there. impeaching the president, look what happened to newt gingrich and the republican when's they impeached clinton and the public didn't think he should be impeached. clinton's numbers went up to 60% positive during the impeachment. we have to be fair. look, i think we ought to be tough as nails on these republicans. i think they sold the country out. but the truth is, we cannot use their tactics. that doesn't make the country better. we have to be fair and perceived to be fair. and mueller's report is going to have a lot to do to convincing the public we are doing the right thing.

yammuth is not wrong, if it's the right thing to do, we should do it, but i don't think we've seen the evidence. no one has seen the evidence yet. >> i think it's too early to start an impeachment process. i see the points that have been made. if you look at the news reports, there's a lot of reasons to think there could be -- an investigation will lead to some impeachable offense but that being said, governor dean's right, we need to see the facts of the case laid out and not just play on the dislike of this president. one thing that's different versus president clinton, i don't think his unfavor asable numbers were ever as high as donald trump. there was a referendum on donald trump and they said no thank you. sometimes a little stronger than that. i think going into impeachment talks right now is just playing on the anger versus the fact. >> we wii have nothing but a th you for the two of you. that's nice. i love our kumbaya moments.

thank you, guys. beto o'rourke is already a top presidential contender for 2020 but he's about to get a huge boost that who knows, could propel him. t that who knows, co propel him 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. went to ancestry, i put in the names of my grandparents first.

i got a leaf right away. a leaf is a hint that is connected to each person in your family tree. i learned that my ten times great grandmother is george washington's aunt. within a few days i went from knowing almost nothing to holy crow, i'm related to george washington. this is my cousin george. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com hey, darryl. would you choose the network rated #1 in the nation by the experts, or the one awarded by the people? uh... correct! you don't have to choose, 'cause, uh... oh! (vo) switch to the network awarded by rootmetrics and j.d. power. buy the latest galaxy phones, get galaxy s9 free. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla,75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting.

otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. -we're in a small room. what?! -welcome. -[ gasps ] a bigger room?! -how many of you use car insurance? -oh. -well, what if i showed you this? -[ laughing ] ho-ho-ho! -wow. -it's a computer. -we compare rates to help you get the price and coverage that's right for you.

-that's amazing! the only thing that would make this better is if my mom were here. what?! an unexpected ending! the field of democratic candidates is getting bigger by the day. why they may go hard left in 2020. and what that could do to their odds of beating president trump. and now let's go to late

night laugh lines and president trump's comments about a new caravan forming in honduras. >> say what you want about him as president, but donald trump would make a great immigration weatherman. >> here's the story, there is another major caravan forming right now in honduras, and so far we're trying to break it up. but so far it's bigger than anything we've seen. and a drone isn't going to stop it. and a sincer isn't going to stop it. but you know what's going to stop it in its tracks? a nice, powerful wall. ng today. and 2 boxes of twizzlers... yeah, uh...for the team. the team? gooo team... order online pickup in an hour. and, now get 20% off with coupon. at office depot officemax.

and, now get 20% off with coupon. if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture now might not be the best time to ask yourself are my bones strong?

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

to help manage blood sugar, and start making everyday progress. glucerna. i have decided to run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week. >> issues making sure people who are sick get access to the health care they need. making sure that people who are stuck in our broken criminal justice system and the families torn apart are being helped, that are being served. making sure we're taking action to protect our planet. >> i'm running for president, because it's time for new leadership, because it's time for new energy, and it's time for a new commitment to make sure that the opportunities that

i've had are available to every american. two of the democrats declaring a 2020 run for president. joining a crowded field of potential democratic presidential candidates. joining me now, former governor of pennsylvania, democrat ed rendell. love a quick assessment. which do you think is better positioned? recognizing this is awfully early. many others will jump in to the race. at this point, look at those two. >> both have a very interesting background. military service, secretary castro because of his service in the federal government apparatus himself and service in the congress, and as mayor. so they're both attractive, young people, but, look, i think this race will have a ton of candidates, but the ball is clearly in vice president biden's court. if you look at all the early opinion polls, particularly in the early states, he's the

dominant factor to capture 30%, 40% of the vote in a 15, 20 candidate field but has to make up his mind and come out of the gate strong, and i think he can. i don't know what he's going to do, but the ball is clearly in his court. >> you if think there's a 15 to 20 percentage there, how does it culminate into one? the aspiration, and polls and the like. >> i think after the first, two, three, four primaries it's field will clean out fairly quickly. that happened inary in '16. who would have thought jeb bush

woo drop out when did, but he did. if vice president biden does run and coming out the gate well, does the things i hope he'll do. run one term, not care about the approval rate and do what's necessary to get the country back on track, pick as running mate out of the chute and they're an attractive pairing he can win the first two, three primaries, significantly maybe call so it can happen earlier. >> what of the ideologiologies make the ideal campaign in 2022? >> we need to win back particularly in states like wisconsin, michigan and pennsylvania, we need win back the working-class white democrats that voted for donald trump. and that's why i think vice president biden is the best candidate suited to do that. he speaks to those candidates.

he is someone coming from their background. he's very appealing to them, down to earth. he's an ordinary guy in so many different ways except exceptionally smart. that's the key, i think. who can bring the trump democrats back in to the fold? people say to me all the time, donald trump locht tst the '18 election, made himself the issue and 9 million people voted for democrat than republicans. trump can't win. but he was running against the greatest candidate, himself. 2020 an opponent and will try to make the opponent too liberal, cost a $5,000 tax raise for every american. he needs a chance to survive in 2020. make the opponent the issue. we need to find someone whose

views of such it's difficult for trump to focus his attention on that person. >> can i ask you about age, though, and the precedence in being so well none and sort of old guard. when you look at the fresh faces, particularly those who came into this new congress, how much will that influence who ultimately runs against donald trump and how effective that element of the equation will be? >> well, first of all, donald trump is not a young man. it's not like we're running against jfk. >> nor is joe biden. >> right. but i think it would be much more difficult if the president in his late 40s, early 50s. one. number two, joe biden is in tens times better shape, looks 20 years younger, number two. and three, people are coming to the conclusion after seeing donald trump that experience may have a strong benefit. someone who's been in the

situation room. who's been it the oval office. made tough decisions. so i think age can be an asset as well as a liability. it's sort of a balancing test. and particularly if joe biden picks a young, attractive running mate. someone who can inspire younger voters as well and says he's running for one term. that helps diffuse after age issue there is. >> good point on that. >> against donald trump i don't think an age issue. >> ed rendell, thank you. look forward to seeing you again soon. >> my pleasure. it is the most read article on the "washington post" right now and it's an explosive one. the author greg miller joins me top of the hour.

every day, visionaries are creating the future. so, every day, we put our latest technology and vast expertise to work. ( ♪ ) the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country.

from capital one.nd i switched to the spark cash cardmes i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. what's in your wallet? amazon prime video so when you say words like... show me best of prime video into this... you'll see awesome stuff like this. discover prime originals like the emmy-winning the marvelous mrs. maisel... tom clancy's jack ryan... and the man in the high castle.