good evening, and welcome to "politicsnation." tonight's lead, an impeachment impasse. three days after the historic vote in the house to impeach

president donald trump, house speaker nancy pelosi has so far rerefrained from sending the articles to the senate. putting the brakes on the upcoming trial. once the standoff is revolvesols senate is expected to hold a trial in january to decide president trump's fate, an acquittal, a conviction, and removal from office but with the republican majority in the chamber, trump will probably remain in office and become the only impeached president to run for another term. public opinion about impeachment is still largely unchanged. so we ask yet again, will this procedure backfire on democrats ahead of the 2020 election? we'll pose that question to not one, but two white house hopefuls live right here on "politicsnation." former massachusetts governor deval patrick and colorado

senator michael bennet. and also on tap today, a prominent christian magazine is calling out trump for the fraud that he is, urging evangelicals to pull their support of the president, explaining trump's theoretical removal, quote, is not a matter of partisan loyalty es, but loyalty to the creator of the ten commandments. we'll get to that in just a few moments. but we'll start with everybody's favorite topic, the impeachment crisis. joining me now, congressman hank johnson of georgia, a member of the judiciary committee. congressman, let me ask you. you are on the judiciary committee that did the impeachment inquiries. are you certain that this was done in a matter that was above partisan posturing and partisan

factors, but it was to really protect the law and the constitution of the united states? >> no doubt, reverend al. thanks for having me on. good to be with you. >> thank you for being here. >> no doubt that this process of impeachment was not one that was come to lightly by the speaker of the house. you know as well as many others that there's been a ground swell of growing support for impeachment throughout this year, starting with rashida tlaib on the day she was sworn in, january 3rd, telling the nation what she intended to do, and many people were with her. i was one who kind of laid back. i didn't think that then or at the time of the release of the mueller report was the time to do impeachment.

but shortly before the speaker announced that she was opening an impeachment inquiry, i decided that i thought it was in the best interest of the nation to support impeachment at that time, and that was in september. and it was in response to the bombshell announcement of the whistle-blower existing and coming forward with information that showed that the president put his own interests ahead of the nation's national security interest. it was at that time that nancy pelosi, myself, and others in congress got on board the impeachment bandwagon. so it's lately, but t, but it wn an efficient way, and it revealed the truth about what happened and compelled us to move forward with the vote,

which what we did last week. >> now, when we look at the facts that the congress had approved $391 million to ukraine, which was in dire needs of it in their battle with russia, and they were an ally, ukraine was, of the united states, which you referred to in terms of our national security at stake, and the abuse of power and the fact the president did stop witnesses from coming forward and testifying. there's also another issue that you raised that spoke to many americans. here's what you said on the house floor right before the vote. >> if you think i exaggerate in warning our elections can be undermined, i would urge you to come down to jurj, find a black man or woman of a certain age and they'll tell you the danger is real. and they'll tell you a brave americans, patriots willing to risk far more than a political

career who marched and struggled and sometimes died so that we could have fair and free elections. we're not asked to possess even a fraction of their courage. we're simply called upon today to do what's right. and i'm proud to vote "yes" on impeachment and with that i yield back. >> now, what was compelling to me about your statement was we saw and heard the facts laid out as you just reiterated here live. about the abuse of power. about obstructing congress. but you also raise the fact that we're talking about having the interference with an election and suppressing votes, that has been done in many different ways. this, another one of them. why was that important for you to bring that up as you cast your vote? >> well, it's important to understand, reverend, that the

rights of black people to vote have been under attack ever since we got that right. we didn't get that right until 1965 with the passage of the votings rights act. ever since then, our rights to vote have been under attack. actually, folks like brian kemp who serves as georgia's governor has his hands around the throat of the african-american electorate and trying to get people's names to registered. we've seen that just this week with 200,000 names that have been deleted from the have to go rolls in georgia. what president trump was trying to do was actually get a foreign government to interfere in the

election by announcing an investigation of his chief political rival, joe biden. and in that way, you got it going and coming because it's part of the same force. you've got those on the state level working to deprive us of our right to vote, and then you've got those on the national level, donald trump and his supporters, who are trying to sway the opinion of voters against those who they would tend to vote for based on false information. and so it's an egregious violation of the constitution. it's a violation of the ability of people -- ability to exercise their fundamental right under a democracy, which is to choose their own leaders. >> yeah. >> and when you interfere with that right, you're striking at the heart of democracy.

>> now, one of the things that struck me is as i watched the proceedings and you were there on the floor, it was a little -- i won't say stunning, but certainly we would take note of. not any of the republicans that were defending the president brought up his character. none of them said this is an honest man, he wouldn't do this, this is a man that has such high ethics. it was all on process, very little stood up for the character and the kind of behavior this president would engage in according to what they feel about him personally. >> well, i tell you, what happened this week with nancy pelosi, a female leading the effort with about 90 other females in the democratic party

in the house of representatives, along with 45, 44, 44 african-american legislators, 38 latino legislators, 20 asian-american, asian-pacific legislators. so you have close to 150, 200 of a diverse part of america voting on impeachment, and you had a cast of white males pretty much -- that's what it was, bottom line, white males defending the president, willing to defend anything that he does. why is it that we're at this point in the nation's history? it is the final -- i won't say final vote, but it is as if the white male privilege is under assault, and they feel like

they've got to accept anything from their leader to maintain that position. and so it's actually much greater than this president simply abusing his oath of office and abusing his power as president and putting our national security at risk. it's actually about trying to maintain a current system that will never -- that is actually, when you look at our country and look at our children, this is a multicultural, multidemographic society and it's getting even more so. it won't stop. but this is the last line of defense and they're willing to accept anything from their leader in order to preserve it. >> yeah. congressman hank johnson of georgia, thank you for being with us tonight.

>> thank you, reverend. >> for some analysis, let's bring my panel for today, david brock, chairman of the american bridge 21st century, a democratic political organization, and sarah longwell, publisher of the bulwark and director of republicans for the rule of law. let me start with you, susan -- i mean sarah. the question i pose to congressman johnson, the law is clear. the question is, of course, interpretation of the law, but it seems pretty much clear to me. and the fact that the republicans are arguing process, not really defending the character of the president, and not defending whether or not what he did was right or wrong, legal or illegal. doesn't that weaken the republican party as a whole and make them appear to just be sick

fantasi o . >> because of that, i said when this process began that i thought republicans were going to surprise people, that they would be better. i couldn't have been more wrong. i've actually been really disappointed in some of the people that i'm a really big fan of. somebody like will herd is an incredibly responsible person who understands the rule of law. he knows what the right thing to do is. adam kinzinger, mike gallagher, i was surprised to see any of them. even if they were going to say i'm not going to vote for impeachment, to really be clear about how wrong it was that the president did these things. and more importantly, that he was completely obstructing congress' oversight process in not allowing his aides to

testify. >> when violates the balance of power that the country was built on in terms of executive, legislative and judicial branches. when you look at that, david, this is a threat to a lot more than president trump's presidency or term in office. we're talking about if this is allowed. we've set a precedent now where you can solicit and receive the aid of a foreign power to interfere with the elections in the united states. >> right. >> and you're also talking about the president doesn't have to regard the subpoenas or the wishes of the legislative branch. this has far-reaching implications. >> yeah, particularly the obstruction piece. it has far-reaching implications for the institutional powers of the executive and congress. that is why nancy pelosi is, i think, rightly so calling out the senate now to have a fair trial. and i think the democrats have the better of this uranium, fair trial, bring in the witnesses

that the president has obstructed, as you said, all along. the republican argument is basically have the verdict now and then have the trial. and i think that's the weaker of the two arguments. but both parties are walking a little bit of a tight rope. the democrats, 70% of the country including 64% of republicans want a trial, but a i've seen internal polling suggesting in swing states some of the voters want to get it over with. so i think you're going to have to walk that tightrope. and then mitch mcconnell has one to walk because he's got senators who probably don't want to take some of these tough votes on whether to have the witnesses. >> isn't it so that if we're talking about mitch mcconnell -- i understand the internal polling that david is talking about, but mitch mcconnell who held up president obama's nomination of garland to the supreme court, mcconnell held it up 10 or 11 months. i mean, he's not the right person for the republicans to

have leading the quest for an immediate turnover of the articles of impeachment and have a quick trial when he absolutely blocked a supreme court nominee for 10 or 11 months until his party became the majority in the senate. >> yeah, but mitch mcconnell doesn't want to have a trial at all. he wants to make sure that there are no witnesses that testify because he knows that that will be bad for the president. but what we need right now is leadership from at least three republicans like mitt romney, like susan collins, like lisa murkowski who during the rules process set the rules to say this is going to be a fair trial and take that power out of mitch mcconnell's hands. >> now, david, would that also include them saying, those three or any three, giving the go-ahead that, wait a minute, mr. mcconnell, the witnesses

that have primary information, evidence, direct evidence that would deal with the president should be brought before the senate and testify at trial. >> yeah, absolutely. and i think sarah's right. there is the prospect of a handful of these republicans, and that's all that's required, and some of them are in tough re-election races, so i think you could see that. and i think the republicans -- mcconnell and lindsey graham made a huge mistake by saying up front that they're not impartial jurors. >> they said it and repeated it. and don't you have to be sworn in as impartial. >> they will have to take the oath. and it's going to be interesting to see. are they going to lie under oath? >> it would be interesting to see ask that they be recused because of their statement and play the videotape of what they said. if they need it, i have those tapes. we'll have more with david and sarah later in the show. coming up, i was front and center at this week's debate in the los angeles area where the

candidates came out swinging. still ahead, who won the night and who fell flat? plus, my next guest described the debate as, quote, a cage fight. why deval patrick remains optimistic about 2020, despite not qualifying for the debate stage. but first, my colleague, gigi stone woods, with today's top news stories, gigi? >> thanks, rev. stories we're watching at this hour. coming up, cleanup and recovery under way at the site of a major freight train derailment northwest of washington, d.c. that's where five cars fell off a bridge, two of them into the po toe mack river. officials say the derailed cars are empty. luckily no one is injured. in las vegas an apartment fire kills five people and injures 13 more. on arrival fire crews say residents were seen jumping and hanging out of windows of the it happened in the early morning hours in a large downtown complex. the cause has not yet been

determined. america's newest spacecraft is said to return the earth tomorrow morning after two days in space. officials say the unmanned starliner will have completed all available objectives. however, it failed to dock with the international space station after entering the wrong orbit shortly after takeoff. >> more "politicsnation" with reverend al sharpton after the break. stay with us. before we talk about tax-smart investing, what's new? -audrey's expecting... -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans.

at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life 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

quitting smoking is freaking hard.st, like quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette

they have made it harder for african-americans to vote.

as one court said, discriminated with surgical penetratio with surgical precision. stop the purging. i would pass as president my bill to register every kid in this country when they turn 18 to vote. that would make all these discriminatory actions go away and i would stop the gerrymandering. >> senator amy klobuchar at this week's democratic debate discussing the protection of voting rights for all americans. i was there in the audience on thursday, a night that featured just one candidate of color on stage but no black or brown candidates at all. though it's worth pointing out that the three candidates polling best with black voters were present. a recent poll shows joe biden at 48%, senator sanders with 16%, and senator warren with 11%.

no other candidate comes close to double digits in the survey. mayor pete and senator klobuchar, who were also on stage register at 0%. let's bring in 2020 presidential candidate deval patrick. he's the former massachusetts governor. governor, let me ask you, you won twice, leakelected in the s of massachusetts, a state that doesn't have near-majority black votes. you showed the ability to get votes from everybody twice in the state. yet you saw a stage that had no blacks on the stage, kamala harris had qualified but she dropped out of the race. i knew you from when you were involved as head of civil rights division in the justice department. you fought around voting rights and stood up for this. how did you feel when klobuchar raised this issue about the denial to vote and was there a

part of you that wished you were on stage because you had experience with this issue? >> thank you, reverend al, first of all, for having me and for the question. i was proud of senator klobuchar for raising this issue. you know, it's beginning to appear that republicans don't think they can win anything without cheating. you look at the vote suppression, you look at the purging purging, you look at the effort to undo the voting rights act and their success at that in the supreme court. you look at the way they are awash in dark money and how they've used -- how they've used that. and now we have a president two times, not once, inviting foreign interference in our elections, and then refusing to enable the congress to do its job to inquire about it. we put forward a democracy agenda. we're going to say more about it

in the coming weeks. it's very much about getting at exactly these kinds of issues, some of which senator klobuchar brought up, but there are others as well. >> now, as a lawyer and, as i said, a former senior justice department official and former governor, when you look at what is going on in terms of the impeachment and the two articles of impeachment, how do you view those that say this could backfire on the democrats? is this a partisan, a political issue? or is this an issue that runs deeper than that? >> it has to run deeper than that. it does run deeper than that. frankly, i think it was political considerations that caused a lot of democrats and the leader and speaker pelosi to come so gradually to the question of pursuing impeachment. and i think, frankly, it was right to take the time to consider the evidence, to make a

public demonstration of the evidence and vetting of the evidence. and i commend the members of the house who have treated this moment with a sobriety it demands. one of our guests earlier was talking about her surprise and disappointment that members of the republican house seemed to show so little regard for the truth of what happened. and the real question is, is it okay for a president of the united states to invite foreign interference in our elections? i think the answer to that is no. and i think it's congress' job to call the president on that kind of behavior. >> now, you did not qualify for the last debate, yet you continue to run and you feel there's a path to victory. >> of course. >> the next debate in january has raised the bar for its debate criteria. the polling threshold is even higher, and so far not a single candidate of color has

qualified. do you think that these qualifications, the criteria is something that should remain or something that we should aspire to making sure we can meet? >> well, i got a couple of comments there. first of all, i think you know my view, my skepticism of the value of polls at this stage. when we get closer to the election, it's a different thing but right now it's about name recognition, and i have some work to do in that. but qualifying on the strength of name recognition is not really what we ought to be about. also, frankly, the format of the elections, this last one i would say in some respects was as good as they have -- as any, or has been better, i should say, than some of the others. but early on, it sort of felt like it was just about trying to pit competitors within the party against themselves over relatively small differences.

when the big game, the big contest is between what we as a party stand for and what the incumbent president and his party stands for. that's a pretty clear contrast. and then i guess the last thing i'd say is, you know, for me the game is not qualifying for a debate. we will do that when we're ready to do that. the game is winning the vote, and that is not a game. that's about inviting people to see their stake in their own civic and political future and how it is they rally around a campaign and a candidate with a record of delivering on the of any kind objectives that we as a party are about. >> do you feel, governor, deep down within if you are successful in upsetting everyone and winning the nomination, that you could beat donald trump? >> oh, yes, yes. but i take nothing for granted.

you know, i haven't taken single thing in my life for granted. i didn't take for granted winning my first run or my second as governor of massachusetts. at the same time everybody was saying it couldn't happen. i didn't take for granted serving as head of the united states justice department civil rights division. you know, most of the opportunities i have had have been things that other people said couldn't happen. and i think that donald trump is not so unlike, you know, the schoolyard bullies that we've all experienced. and the question is going to be, i think, in this election season not the character of the candidates but the character of the country. what are we about? what do we stand for? and at the end of the day we are going to have to choose to promote a vision of america that is about equality, opportunity, and fair play for everyone

everywhere, and not just a select few that cast the vote for one candidate as our incumbent president has shown. >> deval patrick, thank you for being with us this evening. >> thank you, rev. be well. coming up, president trump just proved to the world that when it comes to being a true christian, he is a complete and utter fraud. i'll break it down next. i'm your mother in law.

and i like to question your every move. like this left turn. it's the next one. you always drive this slow? how did you make someone i love? that must be why you're always so late. i do not speed. and that's saving me cash with drivewise. my son, he did say that you were the safe option. and that's the nicest thing you ever said to me. so get allstate. stop bossing. where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. this is my son's favorite color, you should try it. [mayhem] you always drive like an old lady? [tina] you're an old lady.

(danny)'s voice) of course you don'te because you didn't!? your job isn't doing hard work...

...it's making them do hard work... ...and getting paid for it. (vo) snap and sort your expenses to save over $4,600 at tax time. quickbooks. backing you.

in my last memo to the president before christmas, i want to talk about the reason for the season. i know republicans like to pretend there's some war on christmas, but as a practicing baptist, i'd like to keep christ in christmas. as your fellow republicans, mr. president, who are disrespecting jesus this christmas season, by comparing him to you. >> when jesus was falsely accused of treason, pontius pilot gave jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. during that sham trial, he afford more rights to jesus than the democrats have afforded this president and this process. >> if i may, jesus died for our

sins. you, mr. trump, are being impeached for your sins. here's what bothers me about this comparison. to even loosely compare you to jesus, who you claim believe was a savior, is to really bring in something that is inappropriate and downright offense to for those of us that on next wednesday will be really celebrating the birth of who we feel was given to the world to pay a price for our sins. and, by the way, even the evangelical outlet "christianity today" has joined the chorus of publications calling for your removal, calling your actions, quote, a violation of the constitution and profoundly immoral, end of quote. and referring to you personally as, quote, a leader of grossly immoral character who endangers this country.

mr. president, you demonstrate your profound immorality day in and day out. during that historic impeachment vote, you couldn't resist a live exhibition of your failure to live up to one of jesus' commands, love thy neighbor as yourselves. this time you found the target of a grieving window of late representative john dingell. >> you ever hear of her, michigan? dental dental, that's a real beauty. she calls me up, it's the nicest thing that's ever happened, thank you so much. john would be so thrilled. he's looking down. he'd be so thrilled. thank you so much, sir. i said that's okay, don't worry about it. maybe he's looking up, i don't know. >> looking up from hell? i guess, again, here's what is wrong with this, mr. president. you asked during the campaign in 2016 your favorite scripture.

you said all of them. well, go to the scripture that says judge ye not that ye not be judged. i won't judge where you might end up when we face god, but it is not up to me whether towing heaven or hell, but it is up to me to use my vote on whether you go back to the white house or not. we'll be right back. hi i'm joan lunden.

today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. -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.

. until senate democrats and republicans can get on the same page and adopt the rules for president trump's trial, house speaker nancy pelosi says she will hold off sending impeachment articles to the upper chamber. at the trial, all 100 senators are required to serve as jurors in the proceeding, but in 2020, five of those senators will have to pull double duty as they're running in the presidential nomination process and would presumably be needed in washington for the trial during the crucial lead-up to those first caucuses and primaries. joining me now is one of those potential multitaskers, 2020 presidential candidate and democratic senator from colorado michael bennet. senator, before i ask you how you're going to pull double duty, what do you feel of house speaker pelosi saying she's

holding the articles until it's clear what the rules of the trials are, and what do you hope she extracts so you as one of the jurors as a member of the senate will have a fair look at the evidence that has been charged in the two articles of impeachment? >> thanks, reverend. thanks, again, for having me. i think that she's doing the right thing for now and that what we need to extract is a commitment to have witnesses and to get documents from the white house. the white house completely stone walled the house of representatives. it's one of the reasons why president trump is being impeached. now is the opportunity not just for the senate but for the american people to see -- to see the evidence that he refused to provide to the house of representatives. and i think for this to be a real trial, for this to be a fair trial we're going to need to be able to see that kind of evidence and have those kinds of witnesses? now, two of your fellow senators other side of the aisle,

majority leader mitch mcconnell as well as senator lindsey graham of south carolina have said that they already feel the president is innocent and they're not impartial. that's a quote of mitch mcconnell. do you think they should recuse themselves because you all 100 senators have to take an oath of being impartial and they've already stated they're not impartial. >> yeah, well, i don't think that they will recuse themselves, but i do think it is ridiculous that the majority leader of the united states senate has said clearly that he's going to take direction from the white house counsel's office, from the president's personal lawyers. that is not how this is supposed to work. i mean, i don't understand how these strict constitutionalists have gotten where they are. this is like the secular version of the religious stuff you were just talking about, reverend, a minute ago. where are these guys? the president can't get his wall through congress, so the next thing you know he's declaring a

fake emergency and strict instructions to vote to break the rules so that he can get his wall? now they're saying we're going to follow the white house's lead on, you know, the conduct of this trial. it is absurd. and what we need is for the american people to call in and say this isn't good enough. this is serious. the president, what he has done here is serious. what the house witnesses all corroborated is that the president of the united states tried to extort a foreign country to interfere in our elections to his benefit, for his benefit, and then he stonewalled the congress that was trying to look into it. so we can't let them get away with this, and we simply can't let them get away with this. the standard for what a president should be has sunk so low under this president. we have to use this opportunity to reassert what that ought to look like. >> you said you are going to invite the press to all of your

future fundraisers, and that was part of the debate the other night where the candidates debated about where they get money from, who are the adordon. there was one reference to a candidate raising money from donors in a wine place. why are you making this pledge, and do you think it's important that it be very transparent where people that are running for president get their money and from whom. >> yeah, i think the transparency is a good thing. and i think it's important. i don't see different things in fundraisers than i do on the stump. i don't see different things in the primary that i do in the general election. that's what you learn running in the state that's exactly a third republican, a third democratic, and a third independent. but i think the transparency is good. if it comes with more fundraisers, i'm particularly happy about it because we just kicked off an effort to raise $700,000 so i can get on tv in

new hampshire. we're off to a really good start there and we have to continue it now. >> all right. thank you, senator michael bennet. >> thanks, reverend, appreciate. >> it appreciate you. more takeaways from thursday's presidential democratic debate next. you're watching "politicsnation." you're watching "politicsnation." democratic debt you're watching "politicsnation. unshots ] ♪

♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪

this week's presidential debate has been ordered by some as the best yet. a handful performed well. but mainly one person took the brunt of attacks from his fellow competitors. south bend, indiana, mayor pete buttigieg. but shared a couple of good polls in iowa and a few solid debate performances make him the new person to beat? back with me to discuss this are two political strategists. sara longwell, a republican. and david brock, a democrat. david, they went after, particularly, senator warren, after pete buttigieg about the fundraiser, as she said had the wealthy donors in a wine cave. was that fair? is that -- that he is now picking up in the polls and is becoming the one to beat.

particularly, in some of the early states, including iowa? >> well, he's definitely in the cross hairs for a reason. and i think that is his early standing in the polls. i think that senator warren, in some ways even though pete is more moderate, they're competing for some of the same vote. and klobuchar, who had i think a really good debate, is also competing directly with buttigieg for that moderate lane. now, as far as senator warren's attacks, i mean, my own opinion is this -- this financing question is a little bit of demagoguery. and my question is, i think first of all, pete was on the defense for part of the night. but i think he did well on defense. and his argument is you can't tie your hands behind your back when you're going up against donald trump. so the question for warren is, what she's doing may be fine in the primary, but what is she going to do? is she going to collect money from big donors in the general? is she going to do call time then? what is she going to do with big outside groups who have billionaire support who want to help her? so i think -- i think it's a

little bit of demagoguery on her part on that one. >> sarah, part of what concerned me sitting there was we were 24 hours from the impeachment of president trump. don't you think there should have been more focus on the president and why he should be removed? or at least beaten by one of them than some fighting between each other. >> yeah, absolutely. i mean, i think that in most of these debates, the big winner is always donald trump because these democrats keep having these sort of silly, slappy fights over process. instead of taking it hard to donald trump. i mean, donald trump's not going to be fighting with them about process. he's going to be doing wwe style gonzo, you know, murder attacks. he's going to be yelling about socialism and pocahontas. and i just don't think that the debates these guys are having right now are preparing them for that. nor do i think that they're taking it to trump the way they need to to demonstrate to the voters that they are the ones

who should be in the ring with him. >> if the economy, david, stays where it is now in terms of many people feeling it's a good economy, don't the democrats have to focus on where there are holes in the economy? and how they can have an even better life for americans. more than they will some of the inside, the beltway kind of arguments. >> yeah, absolutely. i think that the -- the -- the idea that the economy is strong is trump's main calling card. and what we're going to have to do, as democrats, is get in there in some of these swing areas. even in some of his base. in some of these rural areas and convince people of the reality that he's broken a lot of promises. on healthcare and on manufacturing jobs and on tariffs. he has hurt people. and their lives are not necessarily better. but that is the job of the democrats. and they've got to do more of that in these debates i think. >> all right. david brock and sarah longwell, thank you very much for being with us.

up next, my final thoughts. stay with us. ou. (vo) when you share the love, you change lives. over twenty-two hundred wishes granted. more than fifty seven thousand pets supported. over one hundred national parks protected. over two million meals provided. through the subaru share the love event, subaru will have proudly donated over one hundred seventy million dollars to national and hometown charities over twelve years. (shelter attendant) thank you. (grandfather) thank you. (senior) thank you. (make-a-wish child) thank you.

house, the president, and evangelical leaders were really, really, really concerned when the editor of "christianity today" came out with an editorial saying that the president should be removed. that not only had he violated the constitution but that he was immoral. and they started saying, well,

it's a smaller magazine now than when billy graham founded it. and billy graham did found that magazine. but whether one hears truth from a huge cathedral or what we call a storefront church, the truth is the truth. and should be listened to. as we approach christmas, mr. president, you're the one that made evangelicals and the whole belief of certain fundamentalists part of the political culture of the '16 election and going forward into your presidency. so it is appropriate to ask, as we celebrate the birth of jesus since you have said don't take christmas out of saying happy holiday, say merry christmas. would christ really support migrant children put in cages? would christ support those that need healthcare when he healed sick people and opened blind eyes? would he support those that are

trying to step back on healthcare for all? but christ who was born in a bond because there was no room in the end for his earthly parents, not be concerned about the homeless. would christ, who as a child had to flee to egypt brought by his parents to save him from being killed. he was a refugee. would he support your immigration policies? think about it, mr. president. oh, by the way, you said you done more for religion than any president. one thing you did for religion. you taught most of us how to do more praying. that does it for me. thanks for watching. i'll see you back here at 5:00 p.m. eastern for a new live edition of "politics nation." up next, my colleague picks up more of our coverage with more of today's news. f our coverage e of today's news. hello. i'm gigi stone woods live from