my thanks to elise, jeremy, careen and sam, most of all to you for watching. mtp daily with katy tur in for chuck starts now. ♪ ♪ welcome to tuesday. it is "meet the press daily." i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd. we begin tonight with news that democrats are barreling ahead with the impeachment inquiry despite a judge's ruling yesterday that could pave the way for key witnesses to testify. this afternoon the house judiciary committee announced that it will hold its first impeachment hearing next wednesday and that for the first time in these proceedings the president can attend and his counsel can question the

witnesses, although a democratic aide tells nbc news the witnesses will be academics, not fact witnesses. in just a moment we're going to speak with a member of the house judiciary committee about this breaking news. it comes after a federal judge rebuked the president and ordered his former white house counsel to testify in the house's impeachment inquiry, a rule cing which the justice department is appealing. democrats on the judiciary committee who brought this suit now confront a dilemma. they argued there was an urgent need for this judge to rule on whether mcgahn had to testify in their investigation. yet after winning this case, they appear ready to begin drafting articles of impeachment without mcgahn's or other key witnesses' testimony. this judge was scathing in her 120-page decision, tearing down the administration's argument that top aides and advisors have absolute immunity from testifying and the ability to ignore subpoenas.

even though the impeachment hearings have given democrats enough evidence to impeach the president in the house, they do not have enough evidence to remove him from office in a senate trial. ultimately should the house judiciary committee barrel ahead with drafting articles of impeachment that are likely to be dead in the end at the senate, or should they wait for more testimony and more evidence which could take months to get? and that's if the higher courts uphold this judge's ruling. it's a big gamble either way. let's get right to it with msnbc correspondent garrett haake who's on capitol hill. in the seconds before this show, house democrats released the transcripts of testimony from two other witnesses and then a number of other depositions and put them in quote from other people they wanted to have testify who refused. that includes mick mulvaney, charles kupperman, michael

duffy, brektbull and a number of others. can you summarize what their testimony shows? >> reporter: i can only tell you a little bit because of this late 5:00 drop of these transcripts. mark sandy is the most interesting. this is the one budget official who chose to testify who talks a little bit in his deposition about how the hold was placed on ukraine aid. you can combine his testimony with some other reporting i've been able to do today. he was the official who signed off on that first hold and then had the ukraine defense aide essentially taken out of his portfolio and handed over to a political appointee who declined to testify despite being subpoenaed. george wreaker's testimony expected to largely buttress the testimony of other officials in that same lane. the interesting thing of your quote, unquote, depositions that

were released from these other folks who were called but did not appear, this is putting it on the record all of the officials who were called but chose not to comply with subpoen subpoenas. mcgahn's not relevant to the impeachment inquiry, but all of these other officials are and that same court hearing democrats hope perhaps might shake loose the testimony of some of those who thus far refused to show up. >> from what i can from what has just been released because democrats release what had they called their highlights from the testimony, what we're seeing from mark sandy is a number of instances where the president requested information about ukraine's security assistance or the chief of staff informed omb that the security assistance would be on hold. when asked about why that money was on hold, they were given no response, et cetera, et cetera. then there's something about july 25th, 2019. that's the day the president had that phone call with the ukrainian president zelensky,

talking about security assistance and he said i need you to do me a favor, though. i'll just read a portion of this. i guess it began after that call apparently. >> reporter: that's right. >> i'm not going to read it. it's actually way too long. why are they focusing so much on this july 25th date and why is it potentially so important to the democrats' argument? >> reporter: well, for a number of reasons. july 25th obviously was the day this got kicked off with a phone call, but we have learned over the last week from testimony of witnesses and from documents reviewed by committees that also on july 25th you had ukrainians reaching out to the defense department asking them about the hold on military aid. laura cooper testified to that last week. these documents that were handed over to the budget committee show that it was on that day, on july 25th, just a few hours after president trump hung up the phone with zelensky that the

first paperwork crossed desks at omb putting a hold on this money. democrats have made the case, we saw this last week particularly with the testimony of gordon sondland that you can say two plus two equals four. you don't need the president to come out with a giant poster board saying here is four, here's the corrupt thing. democrats are hoping they can put together all of these pieces, all of these things that point towards improper white house involvement by the president of the united states without getting testimony or answers from the president or even from his closest aides like mick mulvaney, like secretary pompeo who have thus far continued to refuse to come testify. >> there's going to be a hearing in house judiciary on december 4th. this is the first hearing in house judiciary. there were a lot of questions about when they would get involved. what's the strategy here? these are not fact witnesses. these are historical witnesses. >> reporter: these are essentially academics,

constitutional law experts. judiciary hopes they will have the report from the intel committee by december 4th when they have this hearing, but they don't necessarily need it. what this hearing is designed to do is set the table on impeachment, answering the questions what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor, what is a worthwhile impeachment article. this is to broadly set the scope of the actual impeachment part of this inquiry. what you had from the intel committee were fact witnesses laying out a specific case. now the judiciary committee will start their process by saying what is impeachment, what rises to the level, how should we look at what we get from intel in terms of deciding what, if anything, to charge the president with formally in the writing of an article or multiple articles of impeachment. this hearing sets the stage for that. it's also potentially the first opportunity for lawyers for the president to defend him in a public hearing. the judiciary chairman jerry nadler offers them that opportunity in this letter.

we do not know whether he would accept. >> garrett haake on capitol hill. thank you very much. i'm joined by madelyn dean of pennsylvania who is a member of the house judiciary committee. congresswoman, thank you very much for joining us. have you been given assurances that the intel committee report will be released to the public before house judiciary holds its hearing? >> i don't know the timing of the report. that is exactly what we're waiting on, the report from the intelligence committee. you saw the process was laid out by house resolution 660, reaffirmed and repeated today by jerry nadler in a letter to the president. so i don't know the exact timing. we look forward to getting that whole report. remember, we had two important weeks of open testimony, public testimony by patriots, courageous people who came forward and told us of the irregular nature of the back channel dealings that the

president and giuliani and mr. sondland and others were involved in to try to bribe the ukrainian president into coming up with a false investigation of a political opponent. but what we don't yet have is the other days and hours of testimony behind closed doors. i really look forward to getting that full report and reviewing it before we prejudge any articles of impeachment or any votes. >> what is the strategy for house democrats on the judiciary committee to start with academics, to start with what essentially it sounds like will be a civics lesson? >> like you, i like civics lessons. remember, we're on a journey, a grave journey of an impeachment inquiry and possibly a vote on impeaching the president of the united states, which could result in his removal. it's an extraordinary remedy that our founders came forward with because they worried about

someone who might try to be too powerful, might be involved in self-dealing, corruption or inviting foreign countries into interfering with our elections. so we haven't come across this in a generation, thankfully. you don't want to be doing this every year. it's a very serious, very solemn occasion and it's important that we educate ourselves, those of us who need to be crafting, drafting, amending, voting on possible articles of impeachment. but the american public has a right to know. i think of the young people in my office. they were not around during the time of the clinton impeachment, nor the time of nixon. so it's very important that we all understand academically and koconstitutionally what's at stake. >> democrats had said they needed a decision on mcgahn urgently. the decision on mcgahn came down yesterday. the white house is appealing it.

is it a good idea to go forward while the white house is in that appealing part or should they proceed by writing a report and giving to your committee? >> i thought the decision was abundantly clear, eloquently written that 250 years of american history schools us that presidents are not kings. this judge could not imagine a more serious set of obstructive circumstances. i'm paraphrasing on that line. but what i do know is what we've been doing all along. we recognize that we have a constitutional duty of oversight, that in the face of the obstruction by this administration, its historic obstruction, the framers i don't think even anticipated that those who worked for the administration would carry out the obstructive nature of not

coming forward following a lawful subpoena. >> so you don't need it. >> we have no choice but to go to court. we have tremendous evidence already. we will continue along that course, recognizing the important decision that it was. it's not just mcgahn who failed to come before us, but many others in an unprecedented claim of blanket immunity. there is no such thing. the court cleared that. we need to continue on the path that we are on because there's important evidence that has been brought forward by the investigation by the intelligence committee. we're on a dual track. >> are you going to be narrowly focused on just this crane evuk event or will you be broadening out the focus to potentially abuse of power behavior that you believe the president may or may not have done in the course of his first term? >> personally i have to be as thoughtful as possible. i want to see the report.

i want to read and digest the report and see where it leads us. what we have to combine is the evidence. it may be one article, it could be three articles, it could be four. but the evidence in the judiciary matches that to the law and i overlay that with my oath of office. i swore on january 3rd that i would uphold the constitution of the united states. so i want to see all of the evidence, not prejudge articles of impeachment, marry it to the constitution as well as my own oath. >> thank you so much. we appreciate it. for more let's turn to julian epstein, he was the chief counsel to house judiciary democrats during the clinton impeachment proceedings. how do you feel about the democrats and how they're pushing through without getting the testimony from all of the witnesses they might want? >> i don't think they have any choice. i think one of the problems that we have is that there is no real good system of accountability with the executive if the

executive wants to run the clock. in all previous administrations they've abided by norms. they've never really argued this absolute immunity the way they argued in the mcgahn case yesterday. i think this administration, one of the problems is that it keeps pushing the limits, testing the outer limits of what should go down as acceptable in a democratic system. and if they want to run the clock, if they want to push those limits, they can run the clock. i think the democrats really don't need the testimony, although it would be helpful to have the testimony particularly of the three or four very close high ranking administration officials. but right now there's a very strong case that the intel committee presented, a compelling, almost uncontestable case that this was a very ham handed bribery scheme, the likes of which you would see in a banana republic. it's hard unless you are a complete loyalist flunky to really argue that case at this point. so what the judiciary committee will do and we did this in 1998,

they'll hold hearings that will explain why this bribery conduct is in fact impeachable. the difference is in '98 we held a hearing on november 9th of 1998. the clinton white house was not invited to cross examine witnesses. now the democrats are inviting the white house to cross examine. so they're getting more procedural rights than the clinton white house got. >> do you expect them to use that? >> yeah. i think the white house will try to go after it and throw up as much smoke as they possibly can. the other difference as i've mentioned on the show before is that chuck rough, who was the white house counsel at that time came to myself during the clinton impeachment and to the republican chief counsel at the time and said whatever cooperation this committee wants from the clinton white house during the impeachment, you'll get it, i guarantee you that.

here's my phone number. call me if we ever are not cooperating fully. the white house cooperated at every stage in 1998 and all this white house is doing is obstructing. i think that's ultimately undermining their case. it would be nice to have mcgahn, bolton, mulvaney, but i think the case now is just so overwhelming, the totality of the evidence is just so uncontestable that i'm not sure waiting three or four months really is worth it. >> you say this is unprecedented, that this case of executive privilege, of absolute immunity has not been argued in the courts in this way because ultimately even though there's been a lot of fist waving, white houses have cooperated with congress. why does this white house not send mulvaney, pompeo, anybody that the democrats ask for to testify and just have them not say anything?

why pull them back completely? >> well, because in the case of harriet myer in 2018, she had to come and testify and then you have to invoke executive privilege on a question by question basis. i don't think mulvaney or pompeo or bolton really are able to invoke executive privilege on a whole host of questions that i could think of. executive privilege involves a conversation involving a deliberative decision that you have with the president. there's so much additional evidence that do not involve those perhaps direct conversations that are very, very telling that they could not invoke executive privilege on. so i think the reason the white house doesn't want to do it is because they don't have good answers. they've sort of all indicated -- there's so much evidence around each of those three that they were in -- other than bolton, that they were in on what bolton

called this drug deal. i just think the white house rael realizes it's a lose-lose situation, so better to obstruct. >> if you were advising the house manager for the trial in the senate, would you advise the house manager to call someone like bolton, to call mulvaney to try and test that, get john roberts to rule on it? >> absolutely. there is such a long paper trail. i think bolton would be very helpful if he were able to testify and not have the legal excuse not to testify. but sure, with pompeo and mulvaney, they just don't have good answers. mulvaney's already admitted the quid pro quo. the amount of paper trail that you have on each of them and witness testimony you have on each of them would tie them up in knots in an impossible position. i think it would be very compelling. i think the democrats will try to do that. it remains to be seen whether

they will be able to. they're not in control in the senate although they will be prosecuting the case in the senate as the house managers. i think it adds great texture to a case and a lot of intrigue. it kind of paints top administration officials as being these kind of feckless coverup guys, a lot like the haldermans of the watergate era. it puts them in a very uncomfortable position but i think it makes the case rather compelling. >> thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. ahead much more on the impeachment dilemma. more on the impeachment dilemma. as a struggling actor,

i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. 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. ♪ can you tell me the story again? every family has their own unique story. give your family the chance to discover theirs this holiday season, with ancestry. there's a company that's talked than me: jd power.people 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand

over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room. old spice antipersprant spray and old spice antipersprant stick, each has different approchaes to armpits. but they do have one thing they can agree on. no sweat in the nfl hey, its just my name. brought to you by the 48-hour sweat defense of old spice sweat defense.

welcome back. lots of news to break down after the house judiciary committee announced its first impeachment hearing scheduled for next week and they've invited president trump to attend. joining me beth fooy and noah rothman and jessie moore. welcome. i have yet to hear from a single democrat publicly or privately to say that it is a better idea to slow down and wait for mulvaney, wait for bull on tolt for mcgahn. >> we're stuck in a tough place. here come the holidays, here comes the new year, here comes the election. >> what is there seven or eight days left in this congressional calendar? >> don't freak me out. yeah. we're in this tough spot because in today's media age getting things in a place fwhere the

narrative is easy to understand is it. that's the whole thing. we can get as many smoking guns in as possible. it doesn't really matter if people have been distracted and the whole story's been blown up by the time it all comes out. >> you don't need any of that testimony? >> we need it but i don't care -- i don't think it's realistic to get it in in a timeline. >> the amazing hearings that we just went through that despite president trump's admonition that they were kind of a ratings loser, we saw a very high interest in those hearings. people saw the evidence unspool. they sort of understand what is being alleged. you're right that without the white house presenting its own side of the story, you are lacking the full picture. but because the evidence was so compelling and because people saw it play out by all these public servants who stepped

forward, you have to keep the momentum going. >> let's put the impeachment numbers up on the screen. about half of the country say that president trump should be impeached and removed from office. that number is much higher than it was a few months ago, but it has plateaued. do you expect there to be any change in those numbers? frankly, does it matter? are the democrats saying this is our line in the sand, you can't cross it? >> i expect those numbers to change in the event of a really significant bombshell development. absent that, what we're seeing there i think is pretty much a proxy for job approval of the president. if you don't like the president already, you support impeachment. if you don't, you don't. >> is that an argument just to not look at the numbers and do this more for history, as some democrats have argued? >> it is. however, what was just articulated there suggests that republicans have a lot of ammunition to work with. if democrats are going to talk about this as though it's

dependent on the political calendar, not on posterity's judgment, the weight of impeachment upon these lawmakers, then republicans are going to argue this is a political process and they will have evidence to support it. >> what did you think of those hearings? >> i thought they were amazing. i thought what we've learned substantiates a lot of the allegations. testimony is evidence. nevertheless, what we're learning now particularly from the omb testimony is where we're going to focus this investigation. it all depends on what the paper trail is at omb. who ordered this, why was it ordered? we all know why it was ordered. >> why are republicans insisting there is no "there" there? it seems abundantly obvious. senator kennedy got tons of play saying maybe ukrainian meddled. he tried to walk it back today. what is happening?

>> i've been talking a lot to people around here about the clinton impeachment. what was different then -- certainly everybody was in their partisan corners. however, democrats were more than willing to condemn the behavior of bill clinton. they were sort of falling all over each other to condemn the behavior of bill clinton. they said it stopped short of impeachable. that was their argument. republicans won't even go there. >> because it's a cult of personality and you can't defend the president? >> i don't know. but they refuse to see the evidence before their own eyes and believe it. that is the major difference between now and 20 years ago. >> the president won't let them make the argument that would win the day for republicans, which was this was bad, it happened, we don't like it, but does it rise to the level of impeaching and removing the president from office? no. >> he can't admit doing wrong ever. he never has. what about the ruling from this

court on don mcgahn? it was a stunning rebuke of not just the administration, but the dod doj and what the doj is arguing. a judge said that in order to argue that these administration officials do not have to testify, you have to read the constitution and its separation of powers backwards. >> yeah. that judge didn't come to play. that was a fun read. >> she said all of history has shown that the president is not a king. >> which is exactly right. but i think it still comes down to the fact that timeline is going to hamper the democrats. unless they're going to tie some obstruction impeachment articles in december, it's going to be for naught. it's a shame. >> let me read the president's reaction to this. the d.c. wolves and fake news media -- i'm fighting for future presidents and the office of the

president. other than that, i would actually like people to testify. don mcgahn has already stated that i did nothing wrong. john bolton is a patriot and may know that i held back money from ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country. i want to know why nearby european countries weren't putting up money also. i would like to have many others testify about the phony impeachment hoax. it is a democrat scam that is going nowhere but future presidents should in no way be compromised. what has happened to me should never happen to another president. what is interesting is buried in there, is this a warning to john bolton? john bolton is a patriot and may know that i held back money from ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country? >> it sounds like it's some sort of warning. bolton has been out there very visibly on twitter saying he has a story to tell.

>> the man has absolute integrity. >> why is he not talking? >> he's got a book that's coming out. >> exactly. >> the story is in the book. >> he's going to go sell a book when he's being asked to testify for wrongdoing and he's claiming this is a national security iss issue. >> you've got to promote this thing somehow. >> oh come on. >> on a more serious note, this is a guy who respects executive privilege. i don't know why the house has not subpoenaed him. he would litigate that subpoena and if he were compelled by a court to testify, he would and he would tell his story. but that has not happened yet. coming up the fired secretary of the navy is returning fire at the president. we'll talk to a former nato commander and u.s. navy admiral, next. nato commander and u.s. navy admiral, next he could've just been the middle class kid who made good.

but mike bloomberg became the guy who did good. after building a business that created thousands of jobs he took charge of a city still reeling from 9/11 a three-term mayor who helped bring it back from the ashes bringing jobs and thousands of affordable housing units with it. after witnessing the terrible toll of gun violence... he helped create a movement to protect families across america. and stood up to the coal lobby and this administration to protect this planet from climate change. and now, he's taking on... him. to rebuild a country and restore faith in the dream that defines us. where the wealthy will pay more in taxes

and the middle class get their fair share. everyone without health insurance can get it and everyone who likes theirs keep it. and where jobs won't just help you get by, but get ahead. and on all those things mike blomberg intends to make good. jobs creator. leader. problem solver. mike bloomberg for president. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. i felt gross. it was kind of a shock after i started cosentyx. four years clear. real people with psoriasis look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. of millions of americans during the recession. so, my wife kat and i took action. we started a non-profit community bank

with a simple theory - give people a fair deal and real economic power. invest in the community, in businesses owned by women and people of color, in affordable housing. the difference between words and actions matters. that's a lesson politicians in washington could use right now. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. fred would do anything for his daughter! get in fred! even if it means being the back half of a unicorn.

fear not fred! the front half washed his shirt with gain detergent. that's the scent that puts the giddy in giddy up! ahhh. the irresistible scent of gain. for a scent with even more giddy up, try gain scent blast in detergent, fabric softener and scent beads. what do i stand for as tech tear as the navy? good order and discipline. that's a prime tenet. this, in fact, erodes that. we have to have good order and discipline. it's the backbone of what we do. >> welcome back. that was former secretary of the navy richard spencer on cbs this morning speaking out for the first time against the president since he was fired. spencer was ousted after he pushed back on the president's attempts to influence the

military's handling of the case of navy seal eddie gallagher who was convicted of misconduct but acquitted of war crimes during his tour in iraq. instead of allowing the military to complete their review of the case, president trump intervened first via twitter telling the military to, quote, get back to business and allow gallagher to retire without losing his seal status. another official who stood up to the president is now out of a job. >> joining me now to talk more about this striking and very public dispute is former nato commander and msnbc analyst admiral james stavridis. >> i think it's unprecedented in this administration. the closest to it is secretary

mattis, who wrote a similarly pretty sharply worded i'm out of here letter. but in the case of secretary mattis, he went silent. here we have secretary of the navy. that's a very high level position, very publicly saying i disagree with the president about the need for good order and discipline. i would say the secretary of the navy is on the side of the angels in this one. >> why is it a problem to have the president break the chain of command here? >> it undermines good order and discipline. you can't run a military organization unless people can look up and down the chain of command with reliability. secondly, all of this -- let's step back for a minute. this is about pardoning war criminals. and when you do that, you undermine the ability of our soldiers and sailors who are in the field fighting to feel that they can undertake revealing bad behavior.

that hurts us. >> is the problem the president doesn't believe in war crimes? i mean, he's been very explicit about what he thinks should happen on the battlefield. we have a few different sound pi bites from the campaign. >> see, the problem is we have the geneva convention, we have all sorts of rules and regulations, our soldiers are afraid to fight. >> do you think they should allow for that given -- >> i am a person that believes in enhanced interrogation, yes. by the way, it works. >> i would bring back water boarding and i'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than water boarding. >> the other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families. when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. >> literally everything the presidentillegal, is a violation of the rules of

war and no military commander would execute those orders. they are illegal orders. if you ordered me as a four commander of the nato mission to kill families of terrorists or torture detainees, i would ignore those orders. >> if you were to talk to the president, how would you tell him that the geneva conventions matter, why do they matter, why do we have these rules in place and why is there a structure in place to punish people, publicly punish people who break those rules? >> for the most pragmatic of reasons. one is by having in an appropriate way, we hold the high moral ground. secondly we instill confidence in our people that we are better than our opponents, that we stand for what is right and true

and just. and thirdly, if we don't enforce these kinds of geneva convent n conventions and all the other conventions, you see an unraveling of the international system and that is to the detriment of us all. >> is this a break between donald trump and military leadership or a break between donald trump and the military as a whole? >> this is a very good question. president trump enjoys a slightly higher popularity rating within the military, particularly within enlisted military personnel who comprise the bulk of the force than in the u.s. population generally. i suspect that is part of his calculus here. however, he is in the wrong place here. the military is not going to support pardoning those who disgrace the uniform, which is what we are seeing here. i think he's making a political miscalculation alongside a geopolitical miscalculation alongside a moral

miscalculation. >> eddie gallagher posed with the dead body of a teenage captive that he stabbed. >> he did. he also captioned that saying look at my knife skills. that is not who we are in the u.s. armed forces. >> is it who we are now with this president? >> it is not. it is still a tiny minority of bad actors. eddie gallagher and the others who are convicted of these war crimes were reported by their peers. this is not a political correctness police who have turned these people in. these are fellow green berets, fellow seals who have reported, who have adjudicated these cases and who sit in judgment on them. >> eddie gallagher on the family facebook page afterspencer was fired posted a picture of a burniburn ing dumpster and said this is the state of naval leadership.

>> i disagree. we have a very good acting secretary of the navy and we have a very good designated secretary of the navy. they will have challenges dealing with the outcome of all of this. >> how do you feel about mark esper in all of this? >> i think secretary esper started this in a good place which is going to the white house, talking to the president. he brought the chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff. he worked very hard to show the president that these pardons would be a mistake. secretary esper has a hard decision to make. he has decided to economy cute t execute the orders of the president and stay in his job. at some point, this may be untenable for him if there is a whole series of pardons.

ef ti every time we do this it undermines good order and discipline in the military. >> thank you so much. next up, we'll set our sights on 2020 vision. our sights on 2020 vision. if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection.

help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. i'm finding it hard to stay on a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free. worry free...boom boom! get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up shopping season solved at office depot officemax or officedepot.com. a lot of folks ask me why their dishwasher doesn't get everything clean. i tell them, it may be your detergent... that's why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum. it's specially-designed with the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. cascade platinum's unique actionpacs dissolve quickly... ...to remove stuck-on food. . . for sparkling-clean dishes, the first time. choose the detergent that lets your dishwasher do the dishes! cascade platinum. the number one recommended brand in north america.

the amount of student loan debt i have, i'm embarrassed to even say. we just decided we didn't want debt any longer. ♪ i didn't realize how easy investing could be. i'm picking companies that i believe in. ♪ i think sofi money is amazing. ♪ thank you sofi. sofi thank you, we love you. ♪

welcome back. in tonight's 2020 vision, joe biden sets his sights on iowa. >> we need a leader who can on day one stand with our allies, know them by their first names and have them know there will be no question about the word of the next president of the united states. >> that's part of a new ad that debuts today in iowa and makes the case that the former vice president's experience making him qualified to lead on day one of his presidency. it premiers just four days before biden begins an eight-day bus tour of the hawkeye state where he's beginning to fade in recent polls. that tour could help biden connect with iowa voters,

something former president obama says may be a liability for his former vice president. according to politico n a meeting with one candidate he pointed out that during his own 2008 campaign, he had an intimate bond with the electorate, especially in iowa that he no longer has. he then added and you know who really doesn't have it? joe biden. while biden hopes to make up ground in iowa, a new poll just out spells trouble for another front runner. more on that when we come back. r front runner more on that when we come back a 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. ♪ some farms grow food.

this one grows fuel. ♪ exxonmobil is growing algae for biofuels. that could one day power planes, propel ships, and fuel trucks... and cut their greenhouse gas emissions in half. algae. its potential just keeps growing. ♪ its potential just keeps growing. wit looks like jill heading offe on an adventure. jill has entresto, a heart failure medicine that helps her heart so she can keep on doing what she loves. in the largest heart failure study ever,

entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. it helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto, for heart failure. where to next? entrust your heart to entresto. little things can be a big deal. psoriasis, that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats 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. i was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric toothbrush. but my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gum line. for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada for its effectiveness and safety. what an amazing clean! i'll only use an oral-b! oral-b. brush like a pro.

welcome back. for more on the 2020 race, i'm joined once again by jessie moore. jessie moore. life. >> he's saying he doesn't have it with the voters. >> i need to know more about the context of that conversation. there's no one more careful and calculating with their words. >> what about if it looks like sanders might get the nomination. >> he wouldn't do anything that would taint his ability to lift up whoever the nominee is. i think he's trying to stay in position to ride in at the exact

right moment that we need him right around the convention. >>nd biden's team is really excited about this bus tour in iowa. they believe this will convince them he is the person to support. >> what president obama said is quite true. you do not see much connection with joe biden to voters. >> why not? >> you have to really love your candidate to go caucus, maybe bring along a neighbor or friend. you have to haveg a real passi. so far, from my observation in iowa, you don't see that with joedo biden. people like him. they respect him. they like his history as president obama's number two but

they're not readywo to commit t him at all. >> buttigieg is rising in iowa and new hampshire. >> maybe a little too early. you probably want to peak in late december and january. that's also probably good news for joe biden. if there'se candidate you wanto perform well in these two states whichn composed of democrat graphics that do not reflect most of the democratic electorate. >> he is skyrocketing in those two states. there's appeal. there's a national appeal he has among some societiey voters buty he might have national appeal among some voters but not among black voters. i want to read this column in

the root. it's scathing when it comes to pete buttigieg. mayor pete's bs ri is not just wrong. it's proof. talking about young black people don't have a role model to look up to. this is from a few years ago. they would rather make stuff up. pete doesn't want to change anything. he just wants to be something. >> he has a hill to climb with black votes. i will say i like listening to mayor pete talk. his ability to elect the right thing to say in the right moment and the right tone, he's an incredible political athlete. i respect him.

south carolina is going to present a massive hurdle for him for him to stayle many the top tier after that. >> is he not electable? >> i think he is electable which is shocking because he's like my exact age which is just jarring for me on several levels. what am i doing with my life? he also hit acetone th tone tha folks areat hungry for. we want to see somebody who will win because this seems like a existenial crisis to beat donald trump. we're emotional. we like to be inspired. we like to feel why i think joe biden is having a tough time.

the people we need to show up don't always show up. let me ask you this because we teased it in the lead up into the segment about somebody making a fall. warren's poll numbers have taken a dive. i wouldn't say a nose dive but a dive. she's polling at 14%. he was in the 20s, i believe in one of their last polls. what's going on with her in what's changed is she introduced her medicare for all plans. >> that's what happened. she putha her meat on the bones and that collapsed her support. her plan seems so radical that democrats who may like her very much think there's no way this is going to fly. >> can g she come back from it? >> sure.

we' there's a good bit of time going to new hampshire. we have seen this in many elections past. the democrats recognize each one's vulnerability. they get nervous and go elsewhere. the chair dance ends. we don't know where that will be yet. >> i want to expand on that. the collapse began in the october debate when you started talking about medicare for all. it cannot be fixed. >> thanks for doing it short. thank you for being here today. we'll be right back. rt thank you for being here today we'll be right back. air force f doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa

that is all for tonight. we will be back tomorrow. i'm going to be be here as well with more meet the press daily. it's been a long day. the beat with ari melber starts now. hi. >> hi. thanks so much. we have a lot to get to. there's news breaking rattling the white house. house democrats have set the new date for im. we are the details later in the show. new developments that donald trump just lost. the president denying he ordered rudy giuliani to do any of the ukraine plotting. trump telling bill o riley i didn't direct him. he's a warrior. when asked what he was doing in ukraine. trump said you have to ask rudy. we also have some other very