>> that's all for this edition of this sunday impeached. >> article i is adopted. >> donald trumped becomes the third president to be impeached, but he and his supporters dismissed the democrats' vote. >> it doesn't really feel like we're being impeached. >> what will the senate trial look like? speaker pelosi delays sending over the articles until she's sure. >> looks like the prosecutors are getting cold feet. this is really comical. >> if the house case is so weak, why is leader mcconnell so afraid of witnesses and dumtss? >> my guests this morning, mark short and democratic candidate and impeachment juror senator cory booker of new jersey. plus, the democratic debate after a debate in which pete

buttigieg was the target of amy klobuchar and elizabeth warren. >> the mayor recently had a fundraiser that was held in a wine cave. >> this is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass. >> were bernie sanders and joe biden the biggest winners. christianity today calls for president trump's removal, citing growth immorality and ethical conflicts. why it's unlikely to change many minds. joining me are helene cooper, rich lowry, editor of national review and presidential historian doris kearns goodwin. it's "meet the press". >> the longest running show in television history this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. after a week in which the president of the united states was impeached in a manner that seemed utterly predictable, it's

worth noting that now there is much we do not know. we don't know how quickly a senate trial will proceed or if we'll hear from eyewitnesses who did not testify in the house. we de don't know how chief justice john robert wills react as he's pulled into the polarized times. we don't know if impeachment will act as a break in the kind of presidential behavior led to this moment. and we don't know whether-pro impeachment democrats will be rewarded or punished in november or how this entire episode will impact the presidential electionment we election. the impeach, don't impeach question is split right down the middle, 48% for, 48% against. 25% say he hasn't done anything

wrong. 8% say plflt trumr. trump's act the first impeachable act he's done. the republican master of the senate ask the democratic master of the house are matching wits as they prepare for the president's trial in the senate. >> the yays are 230. >> an historic vote, but few minds changed. >> no vote on impeachment day. we had like 195 dan to nothing, right? >> 83% of democrats believe mr. trump should be impeached and removed from office as do 50% of independents. only 8% of republicans do. that divide is playing out in the standoff over a senate trial between two masters of political chess. on thursday house speaker pelosi made it clear she will not formally name impeachment and transmit the articles to the senate until leader mcconnell unveils the rules of a senate trial. >> our founders when they wrote

the constitution they suspected there could be a rogue president. i don't think they suspected we could have a rogue president and a rogue leader in the senate at the same time. >> looks like the prosecutors are getting cold feet. >> democrats want four witnesses to testify including the president president's chief of staff mick mulvaney and former national security adviser john bolton. >> is the president's case so weak that none of the president's men can defend him under oath? >> mcconnell has prided himself on his iron grip on the senate holding open a supreme court seat for 11 months denying merrick garland even a hearing. >> one of my proudest moments is when i looked barack obama in the eye and i said mr. president you will not fill this supreme court vacancy. >> changing senate rules to speed the confirmation of conservative judges and holding 27 roll call votes on amendments this year.

>> the grim reaper. >> grim reaper. >> i'm not an impartial juror. this is a political process. >> leader mcconnell claimed the impeachment was motivated bipartisan rage. this from the man who said proudly i am not impartial. >> he kind of sits there and says we have to be impartial, and in reality the guy's trying to manipulate this for political advantage. i mean, at least mcconnell's honest. >> mcconnell also wants a speedy trial but needs to protect members up for re-election. this was is that right susan collins during the clinton impeachment two decades ago. >> i am willing to travel the road where ever it leads, but in order to do that, i need more evidence. i need witnesses and further evidence. >> mcconnell also needs to keep republican skeptics of mr. trump on board. >> i'm going to be talking to colleagues, listening to the leadership, and giving it a great deal of thought. >> and up for re-election himself in a trump friendly

state, mcconnell needs to please the president. >> i just left president trump. he's mad as hell that they would do this to him. >> and joining me now is vice president's chief of staff and the president's former legislative source martin short. let me start with a simple question. how does the west wing want to see a senate trial? what kind of trial does the west wing want to see? >> oh, chuck, i think that right now the west wing of the white house is understanding that the reason this president's being impeached is because he's winning in so many ways. he won on taxes. the economy is booming. there's record low unemployment. the military is getting refunded. we're striking new trade deals. it goes back to what congressman al green said. he said we have to impeach this president or else he could get reelected. as we transition to the senate, i think that we understand that mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer will strike a deal in this -- >> you're confident they're going to strike a deal? >> yeah. >> do you have an idea what that

deal is going to look like? >> sure. >> what is it going to look like? >> chuck schumer said he wants a deal like the clinton impeachment it let both sides lay out their arguments. it's a really untenable position wepg for speaker pelosi to say this president is such a clear a and urgent danger we have to basically trample his constitutional rights to force a quick medical treatmeimpeachmen. how can you possibly justify the contrast to say this is urgent to then say we'll have to wait and see. >> you have to see a trial start as soon as possible number one, right? >> i think the president wants to prove his innocence. >> and he wants witnesses? >> i think the president has articulated he's open to witnesses, chuck. >> but his legal team doesn't. is that fair to say or not? >> i think at the same time the american people are tired of the

sham. they're tired of this whole thing. we're anxious to get back to work for the american people. to the extent there's a prolonged trial, we're not anxious to that. we're anxious to say let's get back to working for the things americans said they wanted. democrats in 2017 they campaigned on promises. they said we'll work with him on health care, and we'll work with him. >> they seemed to work with him on trade. >> they finally did, chuck, but that trade deal was put on nancy pelosi's desk over a year ago, and we know she held that out. she held that out. >> we did learn perhaps a new important piece of the time line having to do with when the aide may have been held with ukraine. there's some requests that have surfaced, some e-mails. i know you're aware of it this morning. i know you guys have put out a statement about it. i would try to understand it leaves the appearance that the administration has said that the decision to freeze the aid was known publicly july 18th within the white house, the budget

office. this seems to indicate a request was sent immediately to the pent gone after the phone call between president trump and president zelensky. can you explain the disparity between the july 25th e-mail from the budget official to the pent go pentagon saying make sure this freeze happens. >> let's step back for one second. remember this administration is one that provided -- the previous administration sent blankets to ukraine. previous administration had russia invade ukraine. we're the ones that have actually stoold d up and defend ukraine. there was a will the lot of e-mt the timing of this. the aid was released. there was maybe 55 days in delays. we did our own review. in our budget request last year, we asked for $250 million of additional aid to ukraine. while democrats did this scam impeachment, they delayed aid for over three months.

if they'd done their job on time, we would have had that aid september 30th. >> does it make sense to have mick mulvaney and his deputies testify and give some clarity to this? >> i think it's ironic to be able to say we have an airtight case and she now says we demand more witnesses. how do you reconcile those two statements? the reality is our administration is action nxioust back to work. we want to see that the president gets exonerated. >> the best way to exonerate the president is to get mick mulvaney out there to tell us his story is it not? >> we've had a lot of witnesses already testify to what happened in the calls, a lot of witnesses have given a lot of different testimony. >> you brought up the vice president. he had shown openness to declassifying his calls and from his top russian aide, the memos ask her understanding of all of this, but you haven't done that yet. why? >> well, there's two questions. one is declassifying a

transcript and one is declassifying a supplemental submission that she submitted. that supplemental submission, the house intelligence committee has, they shared the judiciary committee. it was included in the report. there's nothing that's being withheld. democrat witnesses testified about the vice president's call and about his meeting with zelensky in which they testified that burisma, the bidens investigations never came up. the whole conversation was about our commitment to ukraine. >> what about the vice president's phone call? is it somebody else that's saying don't do it? >> i think we're still open to it. i think sets a bad precedent when they know hey, if i have a call that i know could get released, i think that's something sincere we haven't looked at. what was happening in the house and their investigation is they said you can't have counsel present. you can't provide your own witnesses. you can't see evidence. so why would we participate in such a kangaroo court when they had no concern about due

process. of course now -- >> on the senate side, don't you trust the senate? so why are you -- having witnesses, having your defense in the senate? >> i said we'll consider that, chuck. i said we're open to considering that. there is again this notion that we're absolutely going to deny the president his constitution that will rights. n -- constitutional rights. >> i'm curious, you were in the administration as the legislative director working in the west wing, and there was a "washington post" story this week about that talked about the president was talking a lot about ukraine in those first year in 2017, a lot in 2018, you put up one excerpt here from this "washington post" story from thursday. one former white house official said trump state ed so explicitly at one point he knew ukraine was the real cull are pretty because putin told me. >> you ever hear the president talk about putin and ukraine? >> not once. >> what i heard the president say no relation to putin.

i heard the president say again and again frustration that european allies weren't doing more. >> but you didn't hear the president blaming ukraine for the stolen e-mails at the dnc? >> no, no. what i heard the president say to the vice president when you go to meet with zelensky on my behalf, that happened on september 1st. the democrat case, there was a quid pro quo, and the money wouldn't be released. that was the president's meeting scheduled on september 1st. the aid was released on the 11th. >> after the whistle-blower report. the vice president went on the president's behalf. i want you to talk about why europe isn't doing more. the vice president said zelensky's doing a lot to fight corruption. i think we should release the aid and it was. >> i want to great you to respond to something from that editorial in christianity today, this excerpt in particular. consider what ab unbelievable world will say if you continue to brush off mr. trump's immoral words and behavior in the cause

of political expediency. if we don't reverse course now will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come. >> evangelicals are not monolithic, a lot of us who celebrate our savior's birth this week, we acknowledge there's a president who is also protecting thousands of other unplanned pregnancies the president is also standing for religious liberty. this morning in churches across the country we'll be singing oh, little town of bethlehem. that gives a lot of comfort to christians across our country. >> even if his behavior isn't very christian? >> christians are not monolithic in their political viewpoints, but there's a lot of us who look at what this administration has done and take great gratitude he's our president. >> martin short, thanks for

coming on and sharing your views. hope you and your family have a merry christmas. >> joining me now from urbandale, iowa, is democratic senator and presidential candidate cory booker. welcome back to "meet the press". >> it's great to be on, good morning. >> so you are to be a juror while a kacandidate. let me ask you about your juror role here first. i almost want you to respond to something one of your colleagues, bill cassidy sort of implied in our set up piece which is this idea of a fair trial, essentially who's not impartial here. what do you think a senate trial should look like? >> i think we all swear an oath, and we're going to swear a very special oath. we'll literally swear to this ideal of impartiality. and i've heard from my democratic colleagues folks just tell me, this is not a good thing for america. i don't think the colleagues that i know that are my friends in the senate on both sides of the aisle think this is a good thing. none of us are happy about this. as a guy who's a big competitor,

i want to beat donald trump. i want to face him down on a debate floor. this is not something i want to do. i'm going to evaluate the facts objectively and honor the oath i swore even though i think donald trump has violated his oath of office. >> speaker pelosi has delayed sending over the articles. do you think that is a good maneuver is th maneuver? is there a point where she should send them over no matter what? is there a timetable in your head? >> she's been a light worker in dark times balancing the most difficult of circumstances, the third time in american history a united states president has been impeached. those articles will come over. we all know they will. i think what she's trying to do is make sure the best possible case for a fair trial happens. to have this all happening in a context that mitch mcconnell is opening saying he will violate his oath and not be impartial we have a situation here that is

not very simple. you're going to have a trial. have the firsthand witnesses. if you're innocent have acting chief of staff mulvaney come before the senate. swear to an oath, settle this whole thing. i think she's trying to say hey, let's not make this a partisan circus. let's get to the facts and get the trial conducted rightly and then behind us. >> do you view the ask of hunter biden and joe biden as witnesses as basically an attempt by whether it's the republicans or the trump administration to make the witness request a mutually assured political destruction? >> i'm exhausted, frankly of the biden aspect of this. this does not speak in any way that's germane to the president's behavior. did the president or not -- and there were witnesses in the room, did he violate his oath? did he violate national security? did he pursue his personal interests with our taxpayer dollars counter to the mandates of congress? this is a very clear cut and

dried thing to me. there are people that could be testifying in front of the american people and settle this once and for all under oath, what did you witness. all of us on both sides of the aisle, we're fatigued of this, so much noise, so much obs few occasion, so much distraction. let's get to the facts. >> i want to play you a clip of a couple of basically voter responses to the impeachment. one is from 1998, and one is from a voter in iowa from the last week. take a listen. >> him dropping his pants with somebody in the white house isn't going to affect my bottom line. >> i think he's a jerk, but things are getting done. i think it's just a ploy to try to not get trump elected. >> senator, i bring that up because there is this fatigue you brought up yourself. i think there's fatigue out

there in the country. a lot of people are looking at this through their own pocketbooks and the economy is doing well. how much should public opinion's exhaustion factor into how you conduct this senate trial? >> it should not at all. not at all. when i walk onto that senate floor, i get this overwhelming sense of gravity. we have news institutiothese in are so much bigger than us. this is not a question about popular opinion right now. this is a question about the ideals of our nation. did the president of the united states violate his oath of office? did he violate the values of this nation. we created a system of checks and balances to hold him accountab accountable. he is not above the law. he should be subject to the constitutional mandates, so we should do this independent of olympic opinion, th public opinion, history will look back at this moment, did a president violate his oath? did he violate the sanctity of

our constitution? if he did he should be held accountable. do the right thing and lets move on as a nation. >> you were not on the debate stage last week. something that obviously that's not something that pleased your campaign and you've made your views known that you feel as if the parameters to get into the debates are too high. the dnc just raised the bar even higher for january. let me ask this. what do you believe was missing from the debate that your voice would have added last thursday night? >> let's just be clear, what you hear from local media in iowa and people is why is some dnc officials in washington determining who we get to evaluate because here on the ground our campaign is third or fourth in net favorabilities. our campaign is number one or two in endorsements from leaders. we now according to morning register have one of the top teams organizing on the ground setting up. there's even articles talking

about why cory booker is going to upset in iowa. one month later went on to finish one and two. barack obama around this time was 15, 20 points behind hillary clinton. the polls have never predicted who would go on. our campaign is surging right now and this is why i'm grateful to the american public. there's almost a bash lash against us not being on the stage. we had one of our best fund-raising periods of the entire campaign. help us to surge like we are now and win when it comes to february. >> well, your history is correct, senator booker. december leaders in iowa often don't finish as the leader when the caucuses actually happen, so you definitely have to watch out for upsets there. thank you for coming on. sounds like you are campaigning hard. you've got the sunday morning, you've been campaigning a lot voice there. stay safe on the trail. rest that voice. and enjoy your holidays. >> chuck, really appreciate you.

merry christmas to you and all who celebrate and happy hanuk h hanukkah. when we come back, the two big stories of the week, impeachment and the democratic race. panelists next. e democratic race panelists next

welcome back, panelist, correspondent for the "new york times," wall street journalist columnist, presidential dor rin kerns godwin and and author of the book the case for nationalisti nationalistinational ism. let me put up the impeachments of our lifetime and show you where the american public was on each. here's president trump, 48% support impeachment. his job approval rating is at 44% and his job approval in his own party was 49%. bill clinton, the support for impeachment was much lower, the job approval in his own party was slightly lower. richard nixon, support for impeachment slightly lower than trump. job approval much lower, ask job

approval in own party 48%. doris, in some ways i think we see why donald trump is surviving, why bill clinton survived, and why richard nixon did not. >> why clinton was survived is that right from the beginning people thought it was a private matter more than a public matter. the economy was booming. they liked him. they liked his performances and the hearings when they started the hearings his approval went up. >> even as his personal went down. >> for nixon, the hearings did make a huge shift. there was a much lower beginning way back 28% thought he should be impeached. by the time you get to june, it is 44%. by the time you get to the tapes, it goes up and up. and finally impeachment would have taken place. republicans and democrats said our long national nightmare is over. the difference with president trump is his impeachment desires are much higher than otherwise

to begin with even though they haven't move d movd. what you would have thought is the hearings would have moved them. i love it when history was mentioned all the time. what you were hoping is to educate the country about the rule of law. we have two alternative views of the hearings. we had one story on one side. we had one story on the other side. >> i have the feeling this is -- i mean, an impeachment is a huge and grave political event, and yet by the end of this week i kind of thought history's going to kind of forget this. it's not going to remember this as a dramatic moment. you all know the reasons, party line vote. split country going in that there was a split country going out. there's a sense that this past week was almost politics by other means and that people experienced it that way, which made it different. >> so unremarkable when it should have been remarkable? >> it did.

it did indeed and i wonder what the plan is going forward, if we're going to pick this up again in two weeks when suppo supposedly everybody's going to still be dynamically involved. i'm not sure. >> it's so interesting when you compare it to richard nixon. i think it says muff more about the time that we're living in right now than anything else because in the case of nixon's impeachment, it feels to me looking back and that facts then actually mattered. i think now in the world that we live in, no matter what, we don't actually -- there's no real disagreement on what actually happened, but people are going to feel the way they feel, and they're going to vote the way they vote no matter what, and you're not going to see any sort of big swings. if they came up with a tape of trump on the phone call with zelensky, nothing would change. you'd still have -- >> trump mentioned something about 5th avenue once. >> exactly. that's exactly where we are right now. >> respond to jeff flake, his

op-ed, and sort of -- i think it's sort of interpreted for viewers. jeff flake writes my simple test for all of us is what if president barack obama had engaged in precisely the same behavior? i know the answer to that the question with certainty. this is jeff flake writing to his former republican colleagues in the senate. transla translate. >> first of all, i think republicans should forthrightly acknowledge this is wrong. they'll regret it when there's a democrat in office and they want to complain about his or her abuses of power. you have to be with your team on this, jeff van drew votes against the impeachment inquiry has to leave his party. justin amash, republican from michigan comes out for impeachment, has to leave his party. >> i think that's the most important thing people need to understand about impeachment. >> historically, small sample size, we've just had two senate impeachment trials in our history, but never has a member of the president's own party

voted to convict in the senate, and i think that will likely hold true this time as well. >> what makes me sad when you think about what jeff flake was talking about was really about the integrity of the senate and the vote for the country. when you think about how trent lott handled it with daschle with the clinton impeachment, they went into the old senate room. they wanted to be surrounded by histor history they wanted to make the decision outside of cameras. they came to an agreement on what the rules would be which was 100-0 in the larger party. this way now we have mr. mcconnell saying ahead of time i'm going to take my cues from the president. it's not going to be impartial. i yearn for that earlier time. >> can i just tell you, i cannot believe we're referring to the '90s as the good old days. we thought those were the most polarizing time we'd ever had. >> yeah, yeah. >> all of this is the backdrop for the presidential race. i want to put up our most recent national primary because it shows you that the more things

change, the more they stay the same. wi they're the only in double-digits, buttigieg at 9, klobuchar, bloomberg, yang. >> three months ago biden had a bigger lead. sanders has fully recovered from that heart attack completely and warren seems to have lost a little bit of ground. has this impeachment inquiry saved joe biden? >> saved joe biden in what way? i can't imagine -- >> it gives him a shield in this respect that the democrats can't fully engage with biden for fear they're looking like they're doing the president's bidding. >> with hunter and the whole thing and i don't want to make that worse. i don't know. i sense biden may be on a little bit like a feather that's not going upward but downward. we were talking before, i have a feeling bernie sanders might be in an interesting position sort

of holding on and coming up a little. >> you're assuming he's a niche. >> i'm not sure. i was out in iowa. i saw him speak to a whole bunch of teamsters. they gave him a standing ovation, and all of a sudden i realized there's something ancestral. it's the old progressive left in bernie. >> very quick. >> all we'd ever seen is the biden from the last debate, democrats would be idiots not to nominate him, but you look at iowa and the early states, iowa's completely open. >> if one candidate can win two races in february, then that's something. but we may have four different winners in four different races. when we come back, it is a divided nation and in a divided nation the voters who can make the difference in november are intriguing, and this year's swing voters are much different. .

. looking around here i see tablets, laptops, printers, smartphones. they're all connected to the internet. they're all connected. can your network handle all those devices? sometimes. comcast business runs on the nation's largest gig-speed network. so you can get the bandwidth you need to power all of your devices at peak performance. if all of my devices could have that kind of speed, i would be dancing! get started with secure 35-megabit internet and one voice line for just $64.90 per month. call today. comcast business. beyond fast.

welcome back, it is no secret that our politics are increasi increasingly polarized, on what is a disappearing middle. politicians that achieved success in part because of the their ability to appeal to the other side. joining me now are two former officeholders who have experienced this changing landscape, claire mccaskill who lost her seat. as his district has become a lot more liberal. welcome to both of you. i want to talk about that so-called disappearing middle because let's be frank here, impeachment is breaking congress as we know it for now. the center is who puts humpty dumpty back together again. it feels like this is going to be a lot harder this time. senator mccaskill, i'll let you take the first swing of this. how does the center, does it

have to reassert itself to sort of fix the senate? >> well, first of all, i think the senate was broken. congress was broken before impeachment came along. >> fair. >> my first year in the senate i voted on 306 legislative amendments. this year there's fewer than 30. mitch mcconnell has presided over absolutely destroying senate norms from merrick garland to killing legislative debate. the senate is no longer what it was, and the people of this country are going to have to be the ones politically to put pressure on this dysfunction and say we want unity. we want stuff to get done. we want you to quit the partisan food fight. >> tom davis, there isn't a political constituency that rewards that right now? >> not at all. we've devolved into parliamentary behavior into a balance of power structure, and it doesn't work. remember for about 80% of the house and the majority of the senate, the only race that counts is the primary election. to these members november's just

a constitutional formality. the voters have sorted themselves into basically making most of these seats safe. the number of marginal seats has really decreased in each party. they're the ones that decide who's the majority. >> what's interesting in our new poll is how -- how certain some people are of their vote already. we asked this question about 2020. certain to vote against trump is already up to 48%. it's up two points from when we asked last month. certain to vote for trump is 34%. depends on the nominee is 18%. this is what i'd like to focus on for the rest of our conversation. this is the swing voter for this election. it looks like no swing voter that any of us have talked about in 30 years. this swing voter is male, younger, white, i want to show they approve somewhat of the president's job rating. they'd prefer a republican congress over a democratic congress, but they believe the president did something wrong even if they're not ready to impeach him. senator mccaskill this is a different type of swing voter

than we're used to. normally it's the suburbs. the suburbs are moved in one direction. you tried to appeal to these swing voters and you had a hard time doing it. is it culturally impossible for democrats to reach out to these folks? >> i don't think it is, especially if the candidates get back to focusing on what's pragmatic, practical, unifying the country, and the big one, health care. the republicans are in a bad position on health care. they have tried to take away the protections that people have really grown to be really guarding. they don't want that pre-existing condition protection gone, and i think if, in fact, the democrats nominate someone who can talk about unity, talk about going after drug companies, talk about stabilizing health care costs, then i think donald trump will no longer be president in january of 2021. >> tom davis, there's another fascinating aspect about this group of 18%, and it is they're more uncomfortable with joe biden than they are bernie

sanders. bernie sanders scores fairly well with this group of voters, and because another dynamic in them is they're not fully happy with the system as it was. is it possible that sanders might be the best person to take trump voters away from trump? >> well, i think it depends where you're talking about. look, i think this race is going to be a race to the bottom at any extent where people are holding their nose. a lot of swing voters and picking the lesser of two evils. what the president has going for him is the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years and a stock market that's going through the roof he's getting good results on the ground. he just passed a new trade agreement. that's going good for him at this point in spite of everything else. if the democrats run against him on the economy. that's a tough sell at this point. you want to get to the middle to appeal to these swing voters and give them a reason. the nomination process drives the democrats left and the republicans right and that's the dilemma that both parties face. >> what did you make of the

debate the other night? you could come to the conclusion over the last four or five debates that the party looks like they're arguing now -- they're moving toward the middle. maybe that's because buttigieg is the guy that's getting traction in iowa more so than warren or sanders. do you see that as -- how do you view that development? >> well, i saw a very recent survey among democratic voters, and it is really interesting, they really don't like the idea of the government paying for college for rich people. they really do, the majority of them want to hold onto the option of private insurance if people want that, but they certainly want a government option also, so i think that where most democratic voters are are frankly closer to mayor pete or joe biden or amy klobuchar than they really are the universe alty of the proposals that bernie sanders and elizabeth warren are pushing.

>> would you advise democrats to spend time wooing republicans like yourself? i'm not presuming meaning more centrist republicans, more right of center republicans, i'm not presu presuming where you are on president trump personally, but a republican like yourself? >> absolutely. in these swing states it's really in the suburbs. the republicans have been losing it. they lost in the mid terms, but remember, the midterm election was more about putting a check on the president rather than giving him a blank check. that's traditionally what we see in midterm elections. i think these voters when it comes into the presidential race are really up for grabs and it's going to make the difference in who carries these swing states. >> claire mccaskill, and congressman tom davis, people who bring a reasonable conversation to a sunday morning. thank you, both. hope you enjoy your holiday break. when we come back, a look at some of the people we lost in 2019. >> the question will be asked in

2019 what do we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact? s we kept our democracy intact come.

we're about to begin. yeah! i'm a magic cat. i love it. and now for the icing on the cake. [ hiss ] - cis choosing to nurtureild and emotionally support children in urgent need. it's not just about opening up your home; it is also about opening up your heart. consider fostering.

welcome back. as we do every year, we want to take a moment to look back at some of the iconic people in politics, culture and media whom we lost in 2019. >> i'd like people to think i was an honest judge and a good judge, and i always tried to reach the best result in every case. >> i run because i believe that we have a mission in this country to lead the world. >> the women of the senate know how to bridge the partisan divide and get the job done.

>> i'm trying not to write just because i can or just write more. i'm trying to write less that means more. >> i'd like to be remembered as a mother and a wife and friend of people that i love very, very much. ♪ ♪ >> i was texas born and texas bred, and when i die i'll be texas dead.

>> do your own thing in your own time. >> there's a tombstone out in kansas somewhere where it said he did his damnedest. when they put a tombstone on me it won't say that. >> when we're dancing with the angels, the question will be asked in 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact? intact do you want me to go first or do you want to go first, brea?

you can go first. audible reintroduced this whole world to me. so many great stories from amazing people. it makes me want to be better. to be able to connect with the people's stories that i'm listening to. that's inspiration. it's on during my commute, it's on all the time. doing the dishes. working out. while i'm in the car. at bed time. an audible listener is someone that wants to broaden their mind. people who are tired of listening to the radio, or music. to hear her speak those words. it was incredible. it was unbelievable. with audible originals, there's something for almost every taste in there.

everything you ever wanted to hear. i signed up for getting a credit every month, and i started exploring books that i normally wouldn't read. our ability to empathize through these stories, with these stories, can be transformational. it's my own thing that i can do for me. see what listening to audible can do for you. just text listen27 to 500500.

♪ back now back now with end game and the end of the decade. it's sort of weird to think we're ending the decade, and we're going to enter a decade that's a lot easier to refer to. we asked all of you to come up with what were the most impactful stories of the decade, politically, socially. we calli tallied them up.

there was a three way tie for fourth, the great recession, the recovery from that, osama bin laden killed, and trump's election. >> you had the recession and recovery why? >> the recession was not only an economic event 2008 in america, it was a psychic event. it changed us politically. it changed a whole lot. it was not a recession and a small thing. it was a big epical event. >> you put bin laden on there. >> i'm a news reporter. you guys are thinking these big lofty, you know, high altitude thoughts. i'm thinking about what grabbed us and just riveted -- like slammed us down in the chair, and you're like oh, my god. look at the headlines. that was a huge deal. we've been looking for this guy for more than ten years, for 11 years, and for far more than that actually. that was a big news story. >> while we have trump election tied for fourth, the next one at number three is political

realignment, and rich, we put your brexit within political realignment as part of that. all of you had some form of this. look, that's why it's third. >> yeah, well, the coalitions of the party are shifting. they have been for some time. boris johnson's smashing victory in the uk points to how a more populist nationalist right potentially has a broader appeal. >> the number two story of the decade, let's show it on screen here. climate change. doris you had that i believe as your top. >> i did. >> most important story. that's what i'm thinking as a histori historian. am i going to be right 50 years now. when you look at the natural disasters that happened, you look at the withdrawal from the paris accords, if we're not taking a lead in this role in the generations to come we'll know that we failed. >> number one, be honest, in our staff meeting we were trying to

figure this out because about half of you put -- let me read the number one before i give it away. we decided to call it socialist. half of you put gun massacres, sandy hook, half of you referred to opioids. this is where i want to spend a minute. when you put that together, it does feel as if, yeah, we have a societal ill hear on this one and we haven't figured out how to tackle either. >> yes, i would say america and drugs has been a huge story. the number of people who never used to get into that area of life started in the past five, seven years. >> these are all legal drugs. these are not illegal drugs. >> and attendant to this is the change in legal pharmaceuticals. what's there, the sense that people have in a way we're all guinea pigs if for a new drug revolution. i would add into addiction,

social media addiction, pornography, all of those things that very quietly happen but change the face of a country. >> and the increasing isolation of so many people, underlays that all. >> it reinforces that. you put sandy hook as number one. it is -- there are two memories etched in my head of being a white house correspondent. that day at the white house. >> i think sandy hook for me is by far the most important thing that happened this decade because it showed that -- i think that we were willing to accept as a people the deaths of children in schools. we were willing to prioritize our gun rights over protecting children in elementary schools. the fact that we're okay with this and that nothing changed after sandy hook said so much. and now when you see all of these kids who were so used to activ ive shooter training. that was a big deal. >> you know what strikes me

rich, is it's a reminder of how little americans turn to politicians for moral leadership. our politicians have totally failed on these two crises. >> there's a sense of deep unease, one because this decade played out under the shadow, the financial crisis and the iraq war. and there's something broken in our society. the lack of attachment of individuals, which counts for the drug crisis. for alcohol deaths, for suicide, and 2017, i think those three things account for 150 -- >> our life expectancy rate has declin declined. this is something -- we so distrust our politicians we don't expect them to have the answers on this. >> losing trust in government means losing trust in our collective ability to do something. franklin roosevelt used to say

you can have any problems, and if man created the problem you can solve that problem. i think we're losing that sense, and that's really scary. there are positive things about these tens. there was activism, long lines. >> more women ran and run than ever before, a lot more people interested politics. there's an arc to this decade that you have to see the positives. >> you have to see it as a historian. in 30 years this decade may be reviewed different tlly than wh we're viewing it now. i have five seconds, that's all we have for today, thank you for watching, happy holidays, merry christmas, happy hanukkah and everything. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." sunday, it's "meet the press." ♪

still no movement in the stand offin the impeachment trial. >> the submit within the evangelical community after a popular christian magazine calls for the president's removal. the magazine is doubling down as the president's christian supporters hit back. >> and former national security adviser john bolton calls out the trump administration over its north korea policy as we learn more about the quote christmas gift the north has threatened. good monday morning