e lets you design your own data. you can share 1, 3, or 10 gigs of data between lines, mix in lines of unlimited, and switch it up at any time. all with millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. it's a different kind of wireless network, designed to save you money. switch and save up to $400 a year. and now get $250 off google pixel 4 during xfinity mobile beyond black friday. that's simple. easy. awesome. click, call or visit a store today. this that is our show to day, and we will be back next week and up next is my friend alex witt with the latest and what a week, alex. >> it is almost an understatement. i mean, it has been extraordinary, and so much to talk about, and so good for you the prop up adam schiff, and he

is doing a great job to keep everything on track and not let it go off of the rails. thank you, joy. and we will see you soon. >> thank you. >> and a great day for all of you from world headquarters here. and noon in the east and 9:00 a.m. in the west. and so now new witnesses from the impeachment inquiry, and both sides squaring off on the talk shows. >> there is ample evidence out there that there is a corrupt deal to cook up. >> there nothing to implicate the president. the democrats know they are in problem. >> and quid pro quo is latin for bribery. >> and in the deep south, what the disappointment for the republicans and the president is telling us about 2020. and the surprise jump, and the candidate who surged to the top of the new poll, and we will hear from two voters in swing states and what is lying ahead

for the nfl workout for colin kaepernick took an unexpected turn. and a new deal as the lawmakers were given a brand-new reaction as the impeachment inquiry is set for another week of witnesses. they were sparring on the sunday morning talk show over the evidence gathered so far. >> i have to go back to something that sean said which is the evidence is building. it is simply not true, which is again why we keep changing the goalpost, and we have gone from quid pro quo to bribery. >> if you need more direct evidence, will you call on the state department to produce the mountain of note, call records and calendar entries, and we have subpoenaed those, and will you call on the state department to produce the evidence. >> you bet, because there is nothing in there at all that is going to implicate the president. >> and meanwhile, the republican senator ron johnson is shedding the light on the trip to ukraine

as well as the conversations with the president over the military aid and saying that the whistle-blower exposed things that did not need to be exposed. >> the funding was released and this would have been far better off behind the scenes and we have two branches of government, and most people want to support ukraine, and again, i am listening to the washington post article lionizing the whistle-blower, and if the goal is to improve the relationship with ukraine, he utterly failed. >> and the democratic senator chris murphy who also traveled to ukraine to meet president zelensky, and pushing back on the notion. >> i think that senator shif is right, if you don't use impeachment for this offense, i don't know what you use it for, and if the president got away with it, then he would have continued to try to rig the 2020

election in his favor. >> and joining me is denny heck, member of the house intelligence committee who has had a busy week. and congressman, welcome to you. and starting off with ron johnson, the senator, and what he said of why the whistle-blower exposed things that did not need to be exposed and what is your reaction? >> well, the fact is that and remembering that he released the aid after the whistle-blower came forward and so he has turned it on the head, and up is down, and black is white and war is peace. >> so your idea is that the president released the aid to ukraine, because he found out about the whistle-blower report?

>> it is a coincidence and of course, he released it, but a he knew that the whistle-blower was public and he would be held accountable for it and he would face bi-partisan blowback, because it was a bi-partisan release of that aid because they are a ally who is fighting an aggressive russia. it is also a cornerstone of the nation's foreign policy to assist that ally. >> something that struck me with senator johnson's statement is that if the whistle-blower's goal was to improve relations with ukraine, is that what the whistle-blower's goal was? if so, why would someone be called a whistle-blower? wasn't it rather about something that he felt was inappropriate behavior and bringing to the light something like that, and

rather than bringing on sop form of foreign relations? >> what the president did is illegal and wrong. it is illegal to solicit foreign assistance, and black and white, and letter of the law, and it is wrong. let us remember that dating back to 1994, and the ensuing budapest memoranda of assurances, ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons in exchange for fidelity over the borders and security over the borders. russia has violated that by invading them, and ukraine gave it up . at the time, they were the third largest owner of the nuclear weapon, and they gave it up to have their own sovereignty, and in the attempt to be a democratic country with the rule of law, and they have struggled, but they are making progress. >> and so now, this wednesday,

there is to be testimony from david holmes, and abc news obtained the private deposition in which he detailed a call that he overheard between the president and the ukrainian president, and if this is public and where this puts him if he is disputing holmes' testimony? >> well, he is at risk of per jurying himself. >> and are you concerned with the he said/she said and somebody else said that he did, and are you worried about that coming up? >>le alex, let me say this, there were other people sitting at the table. >> and right. and how about the questions that you want to ask him in the hearing, and what do you want to know? >> i want him to reconcile the

earlier deposition, and the amended deposition, and aim looking forward to that and the account of the conversation that took place in an open terrace in kiev, ukraine, and in front of god and everybody, but frankly, i'm also looking forward to the testimony of the other seven witnesses, including colonel vindman who was at the national security council and he was on the july 25th phone call, and also the testimony of dr. fiona hill who was a deputy at the national security council and who i found to be the most compelling witness before us. but that is among the eight scheduled to come before us, alex, the eight that are scheduled to come before us this week. >> yes, there is time for more, and it is going to be a busy week to say the least. looking over the exchange with jennifer williams, and this is part of the two deposition transcripts released this weekend, and she is an aid to vice president mike pence in which you asked about her

reaction to hearing president trump in both investigations that she was characterizing as having a personal and political interest, and this is from the july 25th call, and this is what you asked, you have no personal feeling or response to that and given how you characterized it and she said, it struck me unusual and inappropriate and you said, that is not the question. how did it make you feel? and she said, i guess for me, it shed some light on possible other motivations between a security assistance hold. and so how does this advance you and other democrats' impeachment plan? >> well, it is in every material regard corroborating the testimony of other witnesses. this is a crystal clear picture here. this is no longer a question of

whether he did it. he did it. he abused the power and attempted to shakedown ukraine for personal political gain in the form of the assistance and in the 2020 election, and every witness who has come forward has corroborated that. if we needed them to, given the fact that the president's own words in that telephone call as affirmed by nick mulvaney at a later press conference and now frankly by mr. holmes and overhearing the conversation with mr. sondland and president trump, and if there were not even the other elements of guilt present, and there are, and the fact that they transferred the transcript to the codeword server which is reserved for the covert operations and the like, and if it were not for the fact that they have prohibited a lot of the primary witnesses from coming forward and not for the fact that they have denied our subpoena for relevant document, notes, phone calls and memoranda, and the evidence here is compelling and overwhelming that he did it.

the only question remaining is does it rise to the level of an impeachable offense and i would be happy to have that debate with my friends across the aisle. but we have to stop talking or arguing about whether he did it, because he did it. >> and also, she said looking over the note, burisma, the company in which hunter biden was on board and that it was mentioned by name in that call, and tim morrison said that he believed that the white house's memo of that call to be accurate and complete, and aren't those conflicting statements there? how do you process that? >> well, it would be cleared up if they would reveal the material that was sent to the codeword server which they refuse to do. and the fact of the matter is that nobody is disputing that the president has brought up with president zelensky in that phone call an effort to pursue investigations of mr. biden and

burisma, and either specifically by name or reference. there is no dispute of that. >> take a look at the private deposition yesterday from mark sandy, and you were at, and he is the first omb official to testify, and this what congressman lee zelden said after. >> in order to put out a new shiny object with the moving goalpost, and the speaker started to use bribery, because extortion fizzled out, and quid pro quo fizzled out before that, and the answer today, and the answers given today as it relates to that only further drives a bigger hole into that argument. this is a great day for our country, and i mean, it is a bad day for democrats. >> i am going to guess that you disagree with that. and can you tell me the impact that sandy's testimony had on the democrat's arguments? >> well, we have been asked not to specifically cite exchanges

and questions and answers in depositions until such time as the depositions are released. as evidenced by our behavior, the depositions are being produced and as timely a fashion as possibly, and made available to the public as was the case yesterday and that is the case with mr. sandy's deposition as well. i would however in a general sense characterize it differently than mr. zelden, and that is to say as i have said before, every witness who has come before, and every single one has in every material regard corroborated what went on here. >> all right. well, what i will not do is to push you as i do, my friend, because i want to also applaud you with the passion in which you questioned and made your statement for all of us to hear of yovanovitch, because you were angry and passionate and appropriate. thank you very much for what my two cents' is worth. and now, the white house

reaction from kelly only do, and what -- kelly o'donnell. and what is the white house saying? >> there is an assertion that what is coming out after the closed door meetings is incomplete and selective. there is a window of time between when the witnesses complete their testimony and before the actual transcript of their deposition is released publicly. in that gap, we are left with good old fashioned reporting where our colleagues on the capitol hill team have been able to talk to the lawmakers and you have just did, to get a sense of what is transpiring in the room, and sources affiliated with some of the witnesses themselves to get a picture of what was said. in some instances like in the case of david holmes, we had an opening statement shared with us, and we were able to report on that, but we don't have the full transcript. and so there is a gap in time between the end of testimony,

and the release of the full transcript, and part of what you were referring to is transcripts, and hundreds of pages released late yesterday, and tim morrison who had been the russian expert at the national security council, and jennifer williams who is an aide to mike pence. and in part, the republicans have been frustrated, because there is a testimony within the morrison deposition that could be favor fobl table to the pres and tim morrison saying that there is no illegality of it, and this is how the white house processed the information flow out of the deposition, stephanie grisham. >> everything coming out is a selective leak against the president. we don't know what was said in there and if there is something for the president, it is certainly not leaking out. and this is the rules that keep

changing, and this is why the president is going to twitter and going around them. we have no rights in this sham, and it is horrible, and really horrible. >> and of course, some rights are afforded to the president and his side and the republicans. it is the nature of the congress and the democrats who control the committee process have the power by virtue of the majority, and so when the transcripts come out, there is an opportunity for them to read it in full, and get the whole back and forth of the conversation, and nobody has asserted from the republican side on capitol hill that the transcripts are not accurate and complete, and perhaps the white house is suggesting that the gap is a problem, but eventually the information is going to be available for everyone to find their own conclusions as to these witnesses, and how it is adding to the fact content that the lawmakers are investigating. >> and now, what about that

physical exam, and why that is important. >> typically, that is announced in advance, and there is additional coverage, and for example, the photos of the president meeting the doctors who are going to do the exam. nup of th none of that happened. the group traveled with the president to bethesda, maryland, to walter reed where he had a part of the annual physical and lab work, and no other information was provided except that the white house says that the president is perfectly healthy and fine, and no complaints, they said, but it is breaking the pattern of how it has been done, and raised questions of was there a medical issue or a concern or something more for us to understand what happened. we don't have all of the answers of that, and no statements from the president's doctor, and only the president and the press secretary saying that everything

is okay. >> kelly o'donnell, thank you from the white house. >> sondland is on the stand, and why a top democrat say they don't need his evidence for a strong impeachment. and county to county, the iowa poll which is showing a new frontrunner that could decide the election. decide the election. ♪ applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. now starting at $9.99.

and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time,

without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us

there is now ample evidence out there, and you know, that there was a corrupt deal being

cooked up and for example the statement by the former national security adviser john bolton that he did not want any part of this as he called it drug deal that was being cooked up. but we will hear from at least two firsthand witnesses. >> congressman jim himes there and number two on the house intelligence committee suggesting that the case against the president is engaging in a quid pro quo is not dependent on gordon sondland's testimony due wednesday. joining me is charlie savage, and betsy swan, the politics report for the daily beast, and both of you are msnbc contributors. so, charlie, is there enough evidence to support the case against the president as jim himes was suggesting? >> well, there is three categories of the outcome here, and spin that you could put on it. one, trump did not do it, and this is an earnest advancement of the foreign policy goals, and the effort of gaining, personal

campaign dirt, and two is that he did do it, but it is no big deal, and not an impeachable offense and it was a perfect call, and the third is that he did do it, and wrong, but impeachment ought not happen or let the voters decide. it is becoming increasingly difficult to do at least the first bucket, the first category saying that this is simply did not happen, and to deny it. it is not an anonymous whistle-blower who heard something from somebody, and it is one official after another now testifying in public, and all of the stories are corroborating that it happened as the congressman said earlier. the question is how do you interpret it? >> yes. and how pivotal is sondland's testimony. does it have the smoking gun element? >> well, he changed his testimony, and what he remember, and now there is a phone call with trump apparently, and they

overheard trump's desire to investigate burisma, and biden and he had never told congress about it, and he will be asked about. we hear that he was bragging about receiving instructions from trump about this, and morrison did not think it was true, but when he checked it, it is true. so maybe sondland is going to remember a bunch more stuff or time to be clean after a couple of times of omitting crucial details, but he is a problematic witness, because of the history. >> and betsy, the trump campaign put out six talking points to di put david holmes' deafsitioposi and also a picture of him taking a picture shaking hands with president obama. does that mean they are worried?

>> it means they are trying to get on the same page with the executive branch, and one challenge that theps are had in the first if u weeks of the entire impeachment story is that the white house seemed so disorganized an noncommunicative, and they were not getting the clear information of the game plan to defend trump. now that the white house has put out a product to point to and cite as they are putting together the challenging, and the complicated defense of the president indicates that the white house is dealing with this in a more organized manner than they were early on in the process. it is something welcomed, but it is not clear that it is going to organize in a more organized defense of the president. >> betsy, any word from the republicans either through a threshold, but there is evidence

that if it mounts this threshold, they will have trouble staying with the president? >> the republicans have been quite clear within the last few weeks in terms of what they think would be damning for the president. and the wors they use are conditional ti ity or linkage. they say if there is evidence that the president himself made the opening of these conditions to be a condition for the ukrainians to receive the aid, and if there is hard evidence that trump did this, it is game over. and this is something that the republicans will say publicly or privately. and thus, we don't vn a e-mail or anything that says that unless you investigate burisma, you are not going to get the aid. but the democrats will argue that the president for all practical purposes applied it for the ukrainians, and one thing that the republicans are pointing to, and you should keep

an eye to this week is that it is appearing to be a more organized committee that is working to defend the president, and there are republicans on there. and elise ste panpanek who caus this kerfuffle, and many felt that it was a head scratcher, but for the republicans, it was huge, because she is viewed as a moderate person in congress, and for her to sound like devin nunes or mark meadows would have sounded in the hearing, for them, it is indicative that the republicans on the panel are getting to be on the same page, and robust and exples it is defen -- explicit defense of the president, and going after the witnesses. so finally, it seemed that they

were getting the message together. >> thank you, betsy and charlie. always nice to debrief with you. coming up next, the battle for 2020. and now, a new poll showing that a candidate is taking the commanding lead in the critically important state. and there are only five candidates who are believed to be contenders for the white house. only five. that is next. 1 in 5 people you meet wear dentures. yeah. that many! but right now, is not the time to talk about it. so when you're ready, search 'my denture care'. poligrip and polident. fixed. fresh. and just between us.

i get rewardedd wherever i go. going out for a bite. rewarded. going new places. anytime. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com.

you don't let a cold ruin your day. you take dayquil severe liquicaps and crush it. dayquil severe. the daytime, coughing, aching, stuffy-head, fever, sore throat, power through your day, medicine. dana-farber cancer institute

discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere.

and now the candidates 2020 and the race for the white house. the latest iowa poll showing a surging indiana mayor pete buttigieg who is leading, and then warren, and biden tied with bernie sanders. in an earlier hour, the graphic left out andrew yang who is pulling along with 3%, and along with cory buckerk and kamala harris, and tom stire and tul si gabberth. we are going to be sending reporters to maricopa, and beaver county, pennsylvania, and dade county, florida, and

county, michigan. and so, dasha, where you are in kent county, it fell 5%, so what should we know about the voters there? >> yeah, alex, let's look at why kent county is so important to watch. donald trump did win this county, but it was by a much smaller margin than mitt romney did in 2012 and that because of to kind of the republic voter that you will find. this is the ig best city in kent county and the hometown of gerald ford and so sort of the symbol of moderate republicism, and the lifelong republicans that we have talked to here, they say they are conflicted and they don't recognize the party that they grew up with.

that is large part due to donald trump. and some are following jason amash, and that is home of the congressman who left the republican party earlier in the year, and running for re-election here as independent. and some aidentify as democrat, but it is going to depend who the democratic nominee. and so this is a little bit of what we have heard from the voters that we have talked to in the last couple of days here. >> i am concerned that they are having two more people considered to be in the democratic pool, and there is already 17 candidates. i think that if the democrats want to have a chance, they need to at this point centering in on the candidates. >> would you consider voting for a democrat in 2020? >> absolutely. >> how long do you identify as a republican? >> not anymore. i look around and saw what

donald trump is representing, and i could not be a part of it. >> reporter: could you see yourself voting for a republican in 2020? >> yes. >> and now, when we got into specifics with the voters around what candidates they are open to, and that is when it is interesting. most people are open to joe biden and pete buttigieg who is having a moment, and when we asked about warren and sanders, people are skeptical. so whether the county goes blue, it is going to depend who it is. and they say if kent goes blue, possible that michigan will, too. >> thank you for the report. over now to vaughan who is in wisconsin, and vaughan, a 3% drop in the voter turnover, but milwaukee county, a 10% drop

there, and did you find out why that happen and what is it going to take to turn it around? >> alex, this is the most diverse county in the state, and overwhelmingly voted for hillary clinton in 2016, and the question is how does that voter level go back to when barack obama was the nominee. in the past few days and having conversations with the black people here in the community, they say it takes more than showing up. hillary inclton as the general election candidate, she did not make a single stop here. the folks said it is not just opening up, but it is a lack of the acknowledgment of the people here. i was talking to hughes hopkins, and he is the black chamber of commerce executive director here, and he said that way that

the candidates are one year out of the election, they have to be speaking forcefully about whether it is small business loans or the disparity of the educational resources or the affordable housing. i wanted to introduce you to two other individuals that we talked about here, and what needs to take place here. >> campaigns miss the local component, and for a democratic nominee to be successful, and regardless of the plans, the people have to be invested on the structure, because you have people here who from milwaukee talking to the family efriends and neighbors, and church leaders. >> some people don't want to be involved in 1voting, but i have

been voting since 1976. and so this is one thing about politics, if you are not on the table, you are the on the menu. >> and so several candidates have visited, but there efforts on the ground, and they said that they are not waiting for the kand dashgts and taking action into their own hands, and following the voting here. >> yes, active in both of to areas. vaughan hillyard and dasha bur s burns. and our moderators are going to ask the top ten candidates what the voters need to know. because it is wednesday 9:00 p.m. eastern only on nbc on

msnbc. and colin kaepernick's workout. nyquil severe gives you powerful relief

for your worst cold and flu symptoms, on sunday night and every night. nyquil severe. the nightime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine. (man)(elderly woman) you toh, thank you so much. (elderly man 1) i'll be alright. (man) ok. (elderly man 1) ok. (man) ok george, see you again soon. (elderly man 2) bye bye. (elderly man 3) ah dell, and you brought the family this time! (vo) it feels good to help those in need. you can choose meals on wheels to get two hundred and fifty dollars from subaru when you get a new subaru, like the all new outback. (vo 2) get 0.9% during the subaru share the love event.

new fallout from colin kaepernick's saturday workout and his push to get an nfl quarterback. the free agent quarterback called an audible at a nfl planned event and instead, he put on his own show at a high school in atlanta, and nfl was express i expressing concern that he did

not show up at what was planned. but kaepernick said that after his workout session, that he is ready to play. >> i have been ready for three years, and i have been denied for three years. i have been out here to show people, and we have nothing to hide. so we are waiting for the three owners, and roger goodell to stop running from the truth, and stop running from the people. >> and joining us is terrence moore who covered the san francisco 49ers. terrence, welcome to you, and so, uyep, it has been three years. so is this event, was it a good faith effort to get kaepernick a contract? >> both sides, the nfl and colin kaepernick knew it would be a fraud from to get-go, all right. i wanted to share something that i wrote earlier in the week, and i have said that no matter what happened yesterday, in the long

run, both sides would win big and not with the nfl. the nfl made a record 15 billion with to a "b" dollars last year, and a league is working to keep the distractions away, and the disest was colin kaepernick. so it is a bucket list item to get rid of it. and so they have filed a collusion suit with kaepernick, and word is out there that there is another lawsuit to be filed. and so they did him a favor to move noit tit to the high schoo they say, we tried. but they probably threw a party after that. kaepernick is going to be a win, because he is the face of nike

and other item, and he had a sweatshirt that said kunta kinta, and he said he did that because the nfl is running away from those things. so this is not somebody who wants to play, because in the long run, each side will have gotten what they wanted. >> okay. look. any number of legal issues that surround a tryout of this nature, the player, and the big, big endorsement, and then "sports illustrated" says that they may have opened the door to the second grievance and you say that you just referenced that it might be on the horizon, and what would to be specifics of it? >> when it is coming to lawsuit, you can do a lawsuit for anything. but here is the thing, and i wanted to bring up this point about the nfl is so conscious of the image and trying to stay

away from lawsuits, and almost as powerful, they also want to stay away from the presidential tweet. remember what happened three years ago when colin kaepernick of 2016 started kneeling in the national anthem, and that is what got the nfl shaken, because of donald trump. you know, a little thing in donald trump and the impeachment inquiry, he can better distract by going to sports. that could be part of the lawsuits going forward. >> and stephen a. smith says that he does not want to play, and mike jones says that he may have waved good-bye to the last nflb job. but the sentiments from you and stephen a. smith are that he does not really want to play. so all of this is for show? >> well, a lot of this is for

nike. kaepernick cannot deny that nike had a film crew there, and nike is somehow going to take advantage of this. remember, when was the face of nike last fall, and remember, that the stock rose 31%. so he is a big deal for nike, and when he did that commercial that was his face, it won an emmy, and you cannot leave that out of the picture. i have no problem with him doing all of that, and he wants to be the face of the movement, and we need that face. another thing to take into consideration, can he play? yes. my nfl scout friend said that he can throw the ball through a brick wall. they used it as the expletives along the way, and a nfl scout said that he does not want the

distraction of what he is bringing to the locker room with all of this stuff. and so that is what he said after the workout yesterday. he is not a dumb person, colin kaepernick, and you don't say those things if you really want to get back into the league. does he want to play, yes. if he doesn't play, i am making millions from nike and speak to the movement where we need this voice to speak loudly. >> it is interesting conversation needless to say. and terrence moore, and how much does fact matter? how much does spin matter? hem th retirement... ...dealing with today's expenses... ...like college... ...while helping plan, invest and protect for the future. so they'll be okay... without me? um... and when we knock out this wall imagine the closet space? yes! oh hey, son. yeah, i think they'll be fine.

voya. helping you to and through retirement. new crest gum and sensitivity. ahh brain freeze! no, it's my teeth. your teeth hurt? just sensitivity. i should see my dentist. my teeth have been feeling really sensitive lately. well 80% of sensitivity starts at the gum line, so treat sensitivity at the source. new crest gum and sensitivity starts treating sensitivity immediately, at the gum line, for relief within days and wraps your teeth in sensitivity protection. ohh your teeth? no, it's brain freeze! new gum and sensitivity from crest. his haircut is "nice." this is the most-awarded minivan three years in a row. the van just talked. sales guy, give 'em the employee price, then gimme your foot. hands-free sliding doors, stow 'n go® seats. can your car do this? man, y'all getting a hook up and you don't even work here. don't act like i'm not doing y'all a favor. y'all should be singing my praises. pacificaaaaa! purchase and get $5,361 below msrp plus 0% financing for 60 months on the 2019

pacifica limited.

financtthe bad news?ths our so will this recital.day. new depend® fit-flex underwear offers your best comfort and protection guaranteed. because, perfect or not, life's better when you're in it. be there with depend®. like very high triglycerides, can be tough. you diet. exercise. but if you're also taking fish oil supplements, you should know, they are not fda-approved, they may have saturated fat and may even raise bad cholesterol. to treat very high triglycerides, discover the science of prescription vascepa. proven in multiple clinical trials, vascepa, along with diet, is the only prescription epa treatment, approved by the fda to lower very high triglycerides by 33%, without raising bad cholesterol. look. it's clear. there's only one prescription epa vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or

any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish or shellfish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. ask your doctor about vascepa. prescription power. proven to work. new clashes between republicans and democrats about where impeachment stands as congress starts week two of open hearings. >> i don't thing the evidence is building at all. and i'm being sincere in this. i think the evidence is crumbling. i think the longer these hearings go on, i think the less the american people are going to support impeachment because i think the evidence just doesn't support it. >> evidence crumbling? >> of course not. the evidence is building. >> joining me now, policy strategist, elana beverly, chris lieu, former senior aide to president obama and susan del

percio and msnbc political analyst. we just heard two different takes there. how do you think americans prosecute processing these competing narratives? >> i think the facts matter here. this is also where responsible journalism comes into play. we've had a full week of strong, credible witnesses. those who have had over a combined 100 years of service to our country and to defending the constitution. everyone from bill taylor to marie yovanovitch. this is where the media will help us focus our attention on the truth. and i think as the facts come out, they will continue to build, block by block, and building the case against donald trump. i think it will actually pierce the minds of the voters and get into the dialogue that voters are having and i think donald trump will start to crumble

under the pressure of the truth. >> susan, i'm curious if you think -- what he said, do you think he and other republicans believe the democrats' case is crumbling? >> no. i think that's all he has. what they're concerned about is the president crumbling. for example, the tweet he put out on friday, out of no, where attacking ambassador yovanovitch while she was giving testimony. that kind of thing is what makes the republicans so nervous. that and they do not know what else the president is hiding. so they're always going to be on their heels. they'll never be able to have an aggressive, separatraight forwa of -- not attack, necessarily, but narrative. that's where it ends up. as far as what people are saying, it depends on what news channel they're watching or what cable network they're watching or what newspaper people are reading. people are getting news in news

silo. if you're presidential supporter you get it one place, if you're not a president supporter, you're probably getting it somewhere else. that is also adding to this division which i don't necessarily see at this point changing too much. >> what do you think, chris, in terms of how much facts matter and whom to believe? >> i think facts matter a lot. this week you heard from three career civil servants who testified about a smear campaign about an ambassador to ukraine that went more than a year. you heard about the president's efforts to investigate joe biden. you heard the ukrainians were well aware of this. even over just the last day we've gotten more deposition transcripts from tim mother sxon others who confirmed this. when the facts are not on your side, you try to spin it. i think what you've seen from republicans over the last week is a shifting series of

defenses. after wednesday's hearing they said, this is boring, there's nothing interesting here and now they are on, this is all hearsay. nop one has firsthand knowledge. next week we'll hear from a lot of people that have firsthand information. there is still a solid majority of americans, if you look at public opinion polls, that support the impeachment inquiry and only a slight majority that support removing the president. those numbers are significantly different from president clinton and president nixon. i think the american people are paying attention. >> i've paid attention to all three of you. i'm sorry for the brevity of this conversation. i hope everyone else was listening. you all made great points. did donald trump's rally help the democrat win louisiana? reverend app hal sharpton joins. l .

and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com

the in-laws have moved in with us. and our adult children are here. so we save by using tide. which means we use less. three generations of clothes cleaned in one wash. anybody seen my pants? #1 stain and odor fighter, #1 trusted. it's got to be tide.

good day. welcome to "weekends with alex wi witt." it's been a busy day on the sunday morning talk shows. >> you can only use it under extraordinary circumstances. >> this would have been far better off if we had taken care of this hyped the scenes. two branches of government. >> what we know is the president of the united states was using the massive powers entrusted to him to try to use taxpayer

dollars as leverage to get a foreign country to interfere in an election. >> the longer these hearings go on, i think the less the american people are going to support impeachment because i think the evidence just doesn't support it. >> there is now ample evidence out there that there was a corrupt deal being cooked up. >> quid pro quo is latin for bribery. and the fact is that we're talking about abuse of power. >> you do find it concerning that a witness in real time found the president's tweet to be, quote, intimidating, it is something that concerns you? >> it's certainly not impeachable and not criminal. >> ambassador yovanovitch is still working at the state department. what the president is telling her during her testimony, there may be consequences to you and your family and your paycheck if you don't shut up. >> there's a difference between i feel intimidated. i'm intimidated to testified. clearly she testified fully. >> the message to everyone else that's thinking about testifying is chilling. >> the sunday news shows producing plenty for me to discuss with all of these folks. my guests of nbc reporters and analysts this hour.

the first big headline this hour, the impeachment battle escalating as tensions spill over to capitol hill. two house intelligence committee members sparring over the evidence gathered so far. >> i got to go back to something sean said, that is the evidence is building. it simply isn't true. why do we keep changing the goalpost? we've got from quid pro quo to bribery. >> if my friend, chris stewart, needs more direct evidence, will you join me to call on the state department to produce the mountain of evidence, emails, notes, call records, calendar sw entries. our committee has subpoenaed them. will you join me to call on the the state department to produce that? >> you bet. i don't think there's anything there to implicate the president. >> nbc's mike viqueira is joining me from the white house. let's get more on what their positions are on each side, what they're staking out this sunday. >> reporter: there's an essential contradiction on the

republican side, of course, alex. good afternoon to you. one of the principle arguments against this proceeding and in defense of the president is everything the democrats have put forward so far and everything we've heard from those witnesses in the first two days of testimony and, perhaps, in the next three days, three solid days in a row, tuesday, wednesday and thursday, of this coming week is that much of it is hearsay. yet at the same time, the administration has gone out of its way to try to bar those who do have firsthand knowledge of these conversations. and we're at the very center of this from testifying in front of congress. you see up on your screen, gordon sondland and lieutenant colonel vind vindman, tuesday at 9:00. gordon sondland, president trump's ambassador to the european union who was part of this rump group, the back channel the president was using

to communicate policy about ukraine along with rudy giuliani and others to try to work out this alleged deal, this alleged arrangement what the democrats are now calling bribery to withhold that military assistance unless somebody went before a microphone, preferably president zelensky. we heard a lot of rhetorical phrases today. we saw from the democrats, sean patrick maloney and jim jordan, a familiar figure from ohio. >> the president's defense is those things didn't happen. it's not just the president's word. president zelensky himself said the aid wasn't pressured. the foreign minister a few days ago released another statement saying there was never a link between aid and the investigation. the bottom line, he got the money. ukraine got the money. >> the president of the united

states used taxpayer funded military assistance to pressure a foreign leader to help him in his re-election campaign. that's solicitation of a bribe and that is an impeachable offense listed in the constitution. >> reporter: as soon as i saw the jacket, i realized it was the second ranking, steve scalise and not the whip. these are the talking points, rhetorical lines of attacks we'll see this week, a pivotal week in the republican house. >> thank you. joining me, business insider, and john harwood, cnbc's editor-at-large. let's get into this with you, john. did you hear anything new today, republicans and democrats in their arguments on impeachment? >> no, but i think we have to say, it's not really competing arguments at this point. what democrats are saying is obviously true. that is to say that the

president did attempt to exert pressure on a foreign leader in order to go after democrats to go after joe biden. that's obvious. it's been established. republicans like chris stewart say the case is getting weaker. he's just saying stuff. they have to say something. is the conduct the president -- the misconduct the president engaged in, is it worthy of impeachment? that's a different question. but the facts already have been established jond beyond a reasonable doubt. >> if the white house is blocking testimony from those that have firsthand knowledge of those events that transpired and forcing the democrats to deal with secondhand, not firsthand, or put them in the hearsay

category, is it because the white house might be concerned by allowing these testimonies from people who, unless willing to perjure themselves, would be giving damning testimony? >> obviously, yes. they're holding back more damning information on top of the already damning information we have. it's -- as i said, it's not even a question at this point. and you saw in gordon sondland, gordon sondland gave testimony in which he denied the existence of this direct linkage between investigations and military aid and then when he was contradicted by other evidence, bill taylor and others, who said, he told me that, sondland then amended his testimony. he's going to come this week. we'll see what else he amends in his testimony. but trying to pretend that this has not been established and things like steve scalise was sailing, well, they got the

money. yes, they got the money after the whistle-blower filed the complaint and congress found out about it. we know the aid was withheld and it was withheld for that reason. direct testimony has shown that. trying to deny that, the existence of that evidence, is kind much silly on the part of the republicans. but as i said, they have to say something. >> that last point i was making, which john said, it's obvious. it seems so simple. >> if we were to compare the democratic strategy and republican strategy, what we saw the last week is democrats just relying on the facts and keeping it simple. on the republican side, they were kind of throwing everything at the wall, trying to figure out what would stick. that's why we saw so many competing defenses. i don't know we can call them defenses at this point. john said, they're just saying things, they're just talking. they don't have any clear messaging. i think that's something where democrats also have an advantage. impeachment is an inherently

political process. they have the facts on their side but it also matters how they put this out to the public. what we've seen in sunday talk shows and comments democratic lawmakers have made, it's a very consistent and clear strategy to lay out this insidious narrative of a president withholding military aid to a critical ally to strong-arm them into delivering the dirt they wanted. >> i'm curious on mark sandy's testimony, tbehind closed doord, republicans said it would help the president, democrats say the opposite. do we have any idea where the truth lies? >> i think it's clear where the truth lies. even with mark sandy's testimony and also everything else we've heard so far, it lays out a very damaging narrative and a very damaging portrait of what this white house has done. any testimony the republicans say will help them, at this point it's just not based in any kind of factual evidence. >> john, what are you hearing

came of his testimony? >> sandy established the irregularity of the process by which that aid was frozen. he couldn't get a good reason for it other than the president wanted it frozen. mark sandy was not core to the -- at the center of the scheme we're talking about here, but he was one of the people called upon to implement it. the fact he testified to how strange that was only reinforces the case that the democrats are making and it shows why people of unitch peachabimpeachable ch were stubbed by this. >> let's get to the second big headline. another public hearing set to get under way. eight more witnesses scheduled to testify in the impeachment inquiry across three days. one is eu ambassador gordon

sondland, whose testimony could corroborate the most explosive information we have to date about president trump's involvement. as we get into this one, john, how significant is and will be sondla sondland's testimony? >> one is himself, he's in danger of a perjury charge. democrats are trying to get him a little latitude to correct his previous testimony. he's already done that to a limited degree saying, yes, i did communicate the aid was not likely to be released information the investigations were announced. the second phone call that david hale revealed and holmes being present when heard what sondland said, that's a significant fact and i would be surprised if gordon sondland attempts to deny

anything holmes says. sondland has figured out he's positioned to be a fall guy and he doesn't want to be a fall guy. he was not a trump guy to begin with. he just wanted to give him a lot of money and have a prestigious post in government and he's found himself deeply in trouble and i think he'll try to get himself out of trouble. >> is there any way he walks the fine line of trying to stay out of trouble and stay in the president's good graces? >> i would be surprised. i think the president's good graces are not his concern at this moment but we'll see. >> david hale's testimony is based on what sondland heard. >> it completely undercuts that argument. i think more importantly, it just blows up trump's entire defense and his entire talking point that he cares about with respect to ukraine was corruption and the war with

russia. based on this phone call, according to what david holmes testified, the big stuff trump cared about was, quote, the biden investigation. i think we'll see gordon sondland definitely testify to that when he comes in on wednesday. as john said, i don't think anyone's concerned about staying in the president's good graces. they just want to protect their own skin at this point. >> can i make one final point? all of this investigation has followed that release of the call summary. that call summary in the president's own words made pretty clear what happened. all we've been seeing since then is reinforcement from other people who, like the whistle-blower, were troubled by this as it was happening. so, it's not as if there's a bunch of people saying stuff and it's somehow contradicted by the president himself. it's affirmed by the president's own words. >> remarkable. thanks so much. mike bloomberg saying he's sorry for one of his policies.

reverend al sharpton just spoke to him on the phone about that. t sundown vitamins are all non-gmo, made with naturally sourced colors and flavors and are gluten & dairy free. they're all clean. all the time. even if sometimes we're not. sundown vitamins. all clean. all the time. (woman) you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. (vo) align helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets 24/7 with a strain of bacteria you can't get anywhere else. (woman) you could say align puts the "pro" in probiotic. so where you go, the pro goes. (vo) go with align. the pros in digestive health. and try align gummies. with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health. -excuse me. uh... do you mind...being a mo-tour?

-what could be better than being a mo-tour? the real question is... do you mind not being a mo-tour? -i do. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

-i do. whether you're out or here on a wifi hotspot. xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. and now get $250 off when you buy a new samsung phone during xfinity mobile beyond black friday.

plus, you can save up to $400 a year. click, call or visit a store today. former new york city mayor mike bloomberg spoke at an inner city church in brooklyn, one of his first appearances since he indicated he might get into the 2020 presidential race. he apologized for not taking earlier action of the police

stop and frisk. >> because of the number stops of innocent people, because it had been so high, resentment had built up. we eroded what we worked so hard to build -- trust. trust between police and communities. trust between you and me. and the erosion of that trust bothered me deeply. and it still bothers me. and i want to earn it back. >> joining me now, the reverend al sharpton, host of msnbc's politics nation and roberta ross, welcome to you both. rev, this is big. you are the guy that led the marches against this police procedure, so tell me what was going through your mind when you got this. >> well, i -- we had said for many years that there was a racist element to this. that black and browns were being disproportionately stopped and

frisked, we were subject to an apar tight type ruling here. and the mayor at that time, bloomberg, resisted and said it was about crime. well, eventually when he was no longer in evidence and his successor, bill de blasio, brought it down, crime did go down. when i heard of mr. bloomberg's statement this morning, and then he called me right after the statement, my position is, clearly, it's going to take more than one speech for people to forgive and forget. he's right. he has to earn it. we at the same time have to hear him out if he runs, just like we're hearing out joe biden, who authored the crime bill that incarcerated a lot of blacks disproportionately, and bernie sanders, who voted for it. i think it opens up this whole criminal justice issue in the presidential campaign at a time that president trump is

advocating national stop and frisk. >> you said he called you. i know you spent ten minutes on that call. i'm sure you're going to save the bulk of this for "politics nation" but give me a sense of what transpired in that call and how did you feel about it? >> it was a business-like call and michael bloomberg said, i want you to know what i just said. and i ptsd, it's good. i'm glad you came around to -- >> did he say i'm sorry to you? >> he obviously had said it publicly. i think obviously i'm not going to say everybody like me just forgive and forget. people were damaged by stop and frisk. but for him to come forward and say this, i think in the bigger picture that deals with a lot of cities still dealing with it. for him to say that, i think we have to deal with a lot of cities and a president that is

advocating this and our feelings about whether or not mr mr. bloomberg is politically motivated or biden or sanders who took a different position on the crime bill in the '90s. we have to feig out where we fall on that. >> in the tenor of the call with you, was there a sense of humility? >> it was a sense of michael bloomberg and my dealing with him as 12 years as mayor had never been one that expressed self-doubt or questioned himself. i've never seen him ever do that. i've not seen any politician including some running now actually apologize for what they did. whether we accept the apology or not, it does raise the bar on how people deal with some of their past positions that were proven to be inaccurate. >> janell ross, i want to bring you into this conversation. the choice of venue and the

extent to when you think is going to resonate with voters. what are your thoughts? >> to echo something the reverend al sharpton just said, there were a lot of people in that audience, there were a lot of faces with incredulous expressions on them. i don't think it's possible to address a issue you have maintained over the course of 10 plus, almost 15 years in the course of one speech. it is certainly unusual for a politician and bloomberg in particular to acknowledge in any way that he may have been wrong about something and to directly contradict your previous position. that being said, i do think there are a couple of large issues here. one, bloomberg's issues with black voters or challenges he might face with black voters do not stop or end with stop and frisk alone. also, as reverend sharpton pointed out, stop and frisk had

ramifications and reached well beyond new york city. this is the largest city, also the largest police force in america and a lot of police departments mimics their own versions of stop and frisk, via car stops or stops on sidewalks across america because this was being championed as a way to reduce crime, although there was no basis, both as a way to reduce crime but also to boost economic growth. bloomberg and other advocates of stop and frisk said this is the only way new york city could continue to grow at the rate it was. and that has long, long tentacles, well beyond new york city. >> i have a couple other issues i want to get to quickly. janell, your latest article about buttigieg, who is struggling with black voters. it's not because he's gay but

why is he struggling? >> i think there are interesting commonalities between bloomberg and buttigieg, both would identify themselves as centrists. that is certainly a position they have every right to take up and establish their ideas in that framework. of course, some of those ideas are not strictly in line with the chief priorities that black voters have repeatedly identified in polls. there is a lot of concern, actually, about crime in black communities. however, i think that the solutions or ways in which black voters might like to see those issues addressed might not align with the idea of, say, really aggressive hyperfocused policing, which bloomberg until today had been an advocate of. i think that in the case of mr. buttigieg, there might be issues, distance between his ideas and the best way to

approach some of the issues that have come up over the course of this campaign. i'd say health care to a more limited extent his ideas about how to address education finance, et cetera, et cetera. i think there are many areas where black voters are actually to the left of mr. buttigieg but are often described as sort of this conservative force in the democratic party. >> can i ask you if the campaign research of homophobia could hurt him, did that hurt him at all, pete buttigieg? >> i think it's wrong to overemphasize homophobia is a black community issue. homophobia is a -- there are blacks that are gay and blacks -- i know very few black families that don't have a gay member of the family. it is not just about homophobia. i think janell is right. it's a lot of issues.

it's the south bend policyish that buttigieg has to deal with this week right after the debate, the next morning national action is having southwest regional conference, he and other candidates coming to speak. they have to deal with their record on the issues, including some of the black candidates. i think you have to earn black voters. we're not a monolit. but i think you have to earn it. i think to just label it that it's a homophobic problem in the black community is unfair. >> can i ask you before i let you go, the democratic re-election of louisiana governor john bel edwards. in a word, a repudiation of trump or was that about politics, his victory? >> i think it was both. donald trump went down there three times and campaigned for the republican opponent. if the republican had won, he would have said he did it, so the republican lost, he did it. >> okay. rev, you're going to have a

power-packed show. >> can't wait for that. >> i'm going to tease that. thank you so much, janell ross, for joining me. as well, all of you watch the reverend al -- janell is going to be on your show also. saturday and sundays at 5:00 p.m. here on msnbc. breaking news. anti-government protests, more violence in hong kong after almost six months of demonstrations. police are now firing tear gas at people who barricaded at a city university. let's go to matt bradley, joining us from hong kong this morning following this story. what can you tell us, matt? >> reporter: this is a dangerous and escalating situation. we're six months into this protest movement. this all started because of an extradition bill that has since been withdrawn. now the protests are still continuing almost six months in. now, we've seen in the last week

that this whole thing has actually intensifies, both in frequency and in violence. now, the protesters seem to be taking their fight not necessarily from the streets but to universities and now i'm standing less than half a mile away from hong kong polytechnic university. that's the last of five universities that were occupied by these youthful protesters and now they're under siege. you can siee the police, the authorities in hong kong are tired of this. they want to take this university. but are for the protesters, this is a very strategic moment. that university they're holding the police are somewhat reluctant to take it since across the tunnel, that connects kyloon to hong kong. it's a major artery and basically snarling traffic. the protesters said they want to take this from a weekly thing. back in the day, back just six

months ago, this was only on the weekends. there were millions of people filling the streets of this major city, gridlocking everything but only on saturdays and sundays. now the protesters say they want chaos to become a daily issue. and the police are fighting back. they're firing with tear gas. they're using water cannons that are mobile and protesters upped their game. they're ewing bows and arrows and molotov cocktails, which we've seen from the first two months of this. this has become a really tense situation. the problem is this is a leader less movement. it's the thing that makes this such an enduring protest movement is also the same thing that makes this such a difficult movement to placate. this is a leaderless movement and trying to sit down with them, even the people within the

protest movement, if they sit down with the leadership, they're accused of being traitors. this is becoming attractable situation. the first time that we see the numbers here, the economy in hong kong is going to be in a recession. that means we'll be starting to see the pocketbooks of ordinary, you could call them the silent majority of hong kongers, they're going to start be affected. they don't want to see this anymore. they're tired of seeing the streets gridlocked. >> it's extraordinary. as you say, intractable, escalating and brings to mind that that we have just noted, the one-year anniversary of the yellow jacket protests. gordon sondland to take the stand this week. could pleading the fifth be the key to his survival? legal analysis of that next. legal analysis of that next. ugg i need all the breaks that i can get.

at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

what ambassador taylor is the aide had overheard the word investigations. you know, you've personally watched donald trump at a microphone say he thought ukraine should take an investigation of burisma and of the bidens' connection to that. so you actually know as much as he does. there's nothing scandalous about the fact he claims to have overheard that conversation. >> that is new pushback from rendz as they work to defend the

president from impeachment inquiry that they call baseless. it comes after reports that david holmes and official at u.s. embassy in kiev confirms he overheard the controversial phone call and call for a biden investigation. joining me now, two former federal prosecutors, nelson cunningham and cynthia oxley. you here first, cynthia. what is your take on the defense we just heard that the president has made a public appeal, so either way, is it a crime? >> just because the president has morphed now from everything was perfect to everybody else tells me it's perfect. now if he moves to it was wasn't perfect, maybe impeachable. he does this when things are revealed about his behavior. if now it will be not

impeachable, i think he'll find serious difficulty in the house. they have multiple witnesses that he hinged the aid, in fact, stopped the aid until he could get his announcement that the investigation was going forward into the bidens. interestingly, he really didn't care if there was an vefs investigation. he only wanted there to be an announcement to smear biden, like they had done with hillary. >> nelson, you're also the head at a global strategy firm that focuses on international affairs. do you see this call as a significant breach in protocol, something with huge implications for foreign policy overall? >> to any of us involved in foreign affairs, be the thought of a u.s. ambassador talking an open cell phone loudly in a restaurant in a public place in kiev, ukraine, is just appalling

and astonishing under any circumstances to be speaking to the president of the united states on a public cell phone in an open room so loudly that people at the next table could overhear both sides of the conversation. it is appalling. surely the russians taped every conversation. they have known about that conversation for months. we're just learning about it this week. who's got the leg up? they do. >> the same congressman from when we heard mike turner said the president's tweet from former ambassador ukraine that it was not witness intimidation because she was in the middle of testifying. take a listen to this. >> the witness said she's intimidated. how is it not witness intimidated? >> i feel intimidated to testify. she was in no means intimidated and prevented from testifying.

it's not witness intimidation. it wasn't trying to prevent her or would it have prevented her from testifying. she was actually in the process of testifying. >> interesting take there. do you think the president opened himself to witness intimidation charges? if so, turner's defense he's putting out there, would that have any legal standing in court? >> it has no legal standing in court whatsoever. basically, the defense is that lady is so tough and so strong that even the president's the most powerful man on earth's tweets threatening her and talking about bad things are going to happen to her on the call, she's so tough, it doesn't matter. that's not a defense to witness intimidation. witness intimidation definitely occurred. she testified that she felt intimidated. they are difficult cases to prove. and to me it seems more likely that instead of being charged with a crime, which she can't be

charged with anyway while in office, it will be rolled into an abuse of power. >> nelson, we have former nsc and his testimony he said he believed ambassador sondland -- how significant of a statement is that from morrison? >> look. it's hugely significant. and all eyes are going to be on gordon sondland this wednesday when he testifies. when the president sent that intimidating tweet to m a. sha yovanovitch, he wasn't just telling her. he was saying, dude, on wednesday, i'm going to be watching you and i'll be prepared to react to what you're saying. gordon sondland was one of the three amigos.

he spoke a half a dozen times to trump over the course of the summer. tim morrison, who is a political appointee. he formally worked for the house republicans. he's a political appointee in the trump white house. morrison said he checked because he couldn't believe sondland was talking to the. the that often. he found it, corroborated that sondland actually was talking to the president that often. you combine that with the testimony from holmes about the loud conversation in the restaurant on july 26th. overhearing the president and sondland talking. sondland is at the very center of this. he was speaking to trump repeatedly during the course of the summer. and his testimony on wednesday is going to be a blockbuster. >> if he does not kroob that which has been testified, i'm asking this of both of you, you can answer first, nelson, if he doesn't corroborate that, is he perjuring himself? will he face perjure charges?

>> he's already corrected his testimony once in a major way. and he testified before that he never spoke to anybody at the white house or state department about burisma or this. and now holmes has him on the phone with trump talking exactly about this subject. yet another paeshlt apparent lie. >> cynthia, does he take the fifth? can he take the fifth? >> he should take the fifth because he has lied repeatedly to congress and he has probably -- he has a good lawyer. a lawyer with a good reputation. he's probably been lying to his lawyer who was incapable of protecting him and can't protect him now. and because his lies are pretty specific. he didn't know about that biden thing. that was a complete mystery. that wasn't. that was a lie. in the decision to take the fifth or not, one big block for that is arrogance and this man is walking arrogance. just imagine, you're in kiev in

a restaurant, you get yourself a nice, big bottle of wine, share it with your friends and then you decide you're going to call the president of the united states and you turn up the volume so everybody else in the room can tell that you're holding for the president of the united states. you say repeatedly, gordon sondland holding for the president of the united states. >> oh, my gosh. >> everybody in the restaurant knows. there's an arrogance there. and that's the arrogance that has gotten him in trouble. that's what made him label himself as one of the three amigos. that had him swashbuckling around ukraine talking about how important he is. that's what made him throw away his personal values and do something to contra indicated and now lied to congress on top of it. he should take the fifth. i predict he will not. it's a big legal mistake. >> i tell you, listen to you paint that story, i'm just thinking, oops. it's hard -- >> who drinks a bottle of red

wine and says, i need to call the president. who does that? >> thanks so much. the headline reads the trump whistle-blower could be protected in the house but could be called to testify in front of senate. wednesday, msnbc and washington post host the next democratic debate live from atlanta and our moderators will ask the top ten candidates what voters need to know until the first three months of votes are cast. wednesday, 9:00 p.m., mction. cast wednesday, 9:00 p.m., mction verizon up gave us tickets to the super bowl! we were able to meet shawn mendes. verizon got me into the nfl combine. they don't even sell tickets to this thing. (announcer) verizon knows you love live music and sports. we got to be this far away from the stage. (announcer) that's why we give you access to more jaw-dropping experiences, including nfl games and events. i have never had a vip experience before like that. probably the best moment of my life. (announcer) switch now and you'll get access to thousands of tickets on us and get up to $750 toward our best phones. because the network more people rely on gives you more.

a wealth of information. a wealth of perspective. ♪ a wealth of opportunities. that's the clarity you get from fidelity wealth management. straightforward advice, tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management.

i will not allow them to go forward with my vote until the whistle-blower comes forward. >> senator lindsey graham vowing to bring in the whistle-blower if the impeachment investigation leads to a senate trial. this is a new article in buzzfeed points out the trump whistle-blower is protected in the house but could be called to testify in the senate. joining me, katherine clark,

vice chair of the house democratic caucus. let's get into this. you have tweeted in defense of the whistle-blower saying, we don't need to speak to the person who pulled the fire alarm to prove donald trump started the fire. however, if republican senators do choose to depose them in a possible senate trial, is there anything democrats can do at that point to stop he or she, this whistle-blower, from being a witness? >> i think we have to remember exactly the point i was trying to make in that tweet. the whistle-blower is not at the center of this. the actions of our president, of donald trump are. it's hard to protect that the whistle-blower and the protections they have under the law are there for just this reason so they can call out corruption. but the republicans don't have anything else to tell the

american people. but the complaint has been corroborated by witness after witness. >> why are they still doing this? i've made this point as well. it's as if we passed go a long time ago. it's almost as if the whistle-blower has he or she, him or herself become irrelevant? >> that's right. as it should be in a process that protects whistle-blowers and then evaluates the information they put forth. from the first steps with trump's own people in the intelligence community, they have said there is an urgency and validity to what this whistle-blower said. and we have seen that this week. which was a good week for the truth to come out

have you gotten a sense of a threshold which if crossed wouldbly republicanwould bring republicans around to supporting the president? do you know where that line stands? >> i don't know where that line stands. and that makes me sad to say that to you. because i do look at my colleagues, some of which we've worked on many different issues together. because we've come to do things for the american people. but as i watch this unfold, i wonder how they are wrestling with their conscience, how do they square their oath of office with defending a single president, one person, donald trump, above all else that matters? whether that is truth or the constitution or putting forward the agenda for the american people that we were sent to congress to work on, protecting health care, creating good jobs, making sure that we protect that

critical right to vote. donald trump has turned that upside down. and to watch people that i know i may have political disagreements, i may have policy disagreements, but people who don't come to congress to just defend one person. they come here i hope for something bigger. and to watch the defense of this president continue to change and shift because the facts don't support it is hard to watch. >> congresswoman katherine clark, i'm glad you are making these statements on high broadcamy broadcast. i'll look forward to seeing you good. the democrats, is there a reverse trump effect? a reverse trump effect 've seen a . even a- (ernie) lost rubber duckie? (burke) you mean this one? (ernie) rubber duckie! (cookie) what about a broken cookie jar? (burke) again, cookie? (cookie) yeah. me bad. (grover) yoooooow!

oh! what about monsters having accidents? i am okay by the way! (burke) depends. did you cause the accident, grover? (grover) cause an accident? maybe... (bert) how do you know all this stuff? (burke) just comes with experience. (all muppets) yup. ♪ we are farmers. ♪ bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum another election night ble to president trump, louisiana's democratic governor john bell

edwards reelected despite three visits to rally support for his republican challenger. edwards giving this reaction. >> our shared love for louisiana is always more important than the partisan differences that sometimes divide us. and as for the president, god bless his heart. >> let's bring in and i had dreedre adrienne elrod and also the aid to mitt romney. how surprising is this outcome given that edwardss was the incumbent? it was a pretty tight race. >> yeah, and also important to know that he made history. this is the first time in louisiana state history that democratic governor who is an incumbent has been reelected. so that is significant too. this is a bad situation that trump is in right now.

the deep red south is his base, those are the people who are supposed to get him reelected or are standing with him. the fact that governor edwards won after donald trump campaigned for his opponent, the fact that andy beshear one in kentucky, i mean, all of this happened in the span of the last ten days and donald trump's chosen candidate that he campaigned really aggressively for has lost. and another thing, a trend that the democrats have in all of these races that they have won recently is that they are focusing on the issues. they are not focusing on impeachment or anti-trump agenda, they are focusing on the issues the way that they can improve lighves. medicare expansion, better jobs. so i think dmgs can tademocrats about that. >> so lauren, in addition to all the effort put in by the

president when you think about how busy he is, these defeats, can they be seen as anything but a personal defeat for the president? louisiana was won by him by a 20 point margin back in 2016. >> i think the president isn't doing himself any favors by traveling to the state and saying you have to give me a big win. it invites the conversation that we're having. while i agree that he did campaign on the issues, i know balancing the budget in louisiana was a priority of his, he is a very, very conservative democrat. he is pro-life, he is pro gun, he is a veteran, he went to west point, he is the son of a sheri sheriff. so this is the kind candidate that can do well if you are a democrat in the south. but if you compare him to the candidates in the 2020 race, there is not a lot of similarities. so i think that it is a mistake to take a lot away from both of these races.

johnl he had wooedwards wouldn' a prayer in the 2020 primary. >> and let's switch to the impeachment inquiry. let's take a listen to two house intel committee members earlier today. >> i don't think the evidence is building at all. and i've been sincere in this, i think the evidence is crumbling. and the longer these hearings go on being i think the less american people will support impeachment because the evidence doesn't support it. >> evidence crumbling. >> >> of course not. the evidence is building. >> are americans more likely to follow facts and truth or spin? >> well, we're always more likely to follow facts and truth that are spun in the way that you want to believe. i know that doesn't amount to saying a whole lot. but at the end of the day, the evidence is building. how republicans know that. and they also are just doing what they have to do and saying what they have to say because they know that they cannot stop the vote of impeachment,

essentially the legal equivalent of indictment and they are just waiting for their back stop in the senate which is in the going to vote to remove this president from office. but it is just a completely unreasonable thing to say or believe that the evidence is not building. if you remember, first half of this year, we would have this debate every sunday about should nancy pelosi set in motion impeachment and what would that do for her retaining the gavel and democrats retaining the majority. i'm optimistic here as a trained democrat, i think that of course the evidence is building here. but you won't have an impeachment in the senate, but i think that it will bode well for democrats being reelected because they will have made the case to show this president should not be reelected. >> listen, i want to thank you all. kendis is side eyeing me so i have to wrap this up. thank you all. good to see you. and of course that long-awaited book from the anonymous author comes out on tuesday. a former white house insider will tell us whether it would be

a bombshell. you think? need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. liberty. liberty. liberty. liber♪y i've always loved and i'm still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'll go for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? sharing my roots. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop.

seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. my lady! those darn seatbelts got me all crumpled up. that's ok! hey, guys! hi mrs. patterson...

wrinkles send the wrong message. sorry. help prevent them before they start with new downy wrinkleguard. that's better. so you won't get caught with wrinkles again.

that is a wrap for me. i'll hand it off to kendis gibson, he is ready to take it away. >> alex, good to see you. hi, everybody. i'm kendis gibson live at msnbc world headquarters in new york. take a look, a calm sunday on capitol hill, but anxieties running high as the impeachment