that's "first day in 2020." coming up, happy new year. >> happy new year. we were just talking about this how i can't even believe it's been a decade. >> yeah. >> just unbelievable. >> at the '10. >> you can only think what it's going to be like in 2030. unbelievab unbelievable. thank you, frances. hi there, everybody. happy new year. hundreds of iranian backed militia men set fires at the u.s. embassy in baghdad this morning as protests there erupted for a second straight day. u.s. marines fired tear gas into the crowds to break them up. back in florida, president trump blamed iran for the attack. he ordered 750 more troops to be sent to the region from fort brag. those members of the 82nd airborne left earlier today. i want to bring in alley aruzi, nbc's tehran bureau chief and following this story pretty closely for us. ali, good morning.

welcome. bring us up to date on what's happened really overnight with regards to the situation. >> reporter: hi, yasmin. it's still a volatile situation there. perhaps not as intense as yesterday. nonetheless, mobs of iranian militia men and their supporters camped outside the embassy gates. this morning, more crowds arrive and u.s. marines guarding the embassy were forced again to fire tear gas to push back those protesters. they had lit fires on the roof of the reception area and they had used makeshift wraps to scale the walls of the embassy. yasmin, interestingly just moments ago the umbrella group in charge of the shia militias in iraq issued a statement asking protesters to leave the area and respect the iraqi government. >> interesting. >> there's no sign that they've left the area yet, but this may be a sign that things might be fizzling out. we have to see how that pans out in the coming hours.

but with that said, the u.s. isn't taking any chances. the defense department announced that it's beefing up its presence at the compound. defense secretary mark esper said he would immediately deploy an infantry battalion of some 750 soldiers of the 82nd airborne division to the middle east. it's also important to point out, yasmin, that the 82nd airborne is a rapid defense unit. somebody is assuming this has the potential to still escalate and wants to have the ability to respond with substantial force. now as you know, president trump is blaming iran for the attack threatening them in tweets last night, but iran has denied any involvement. they've been lashing out. iran's supreme leader ayatollah khamenei criticized u.s. air strikes this morning. he accused the u.s. of taking revenge on iran and its allies

for defeating isis which he says was a criticism. he said if iran was threatened it would strike back strongly and without notice. he also said anti-american excitement in iraq is palpable. also this morning, tehran summoned the swiss envoy, the swiss represent u.s. interests in iran in the absence of any diplomatic relations, to protest against what they called u.s. war mongering statements. but, yasmin, it's unclear what direction this is all going in and the smallest miscalculation could have dire consequences especially as the u.s. and iran have no direct channels of communications. it's still very intense. if those crowds don't dispurse in the coming hours and days, it's going to get a lot more tense. >> ali, quickly with regards to

the retreat you're talking about from the u.s. embassy, are you hearing at all that this has anything to do with coordination between or talks between iran and the iraqi government? >> reporter: well, it's not from iran and the iraqi government but the umbrella group that control the militias. they answer to iran. the goods force are the main patrons. it would be indirectly coming from tehran being passed over to the iraqi government. obviously the iraqi government is stuck between the power struggle between iran and america and they don't want this to escalate any further. they don't want protesters to get killed outside the embassy because then that would be very difficult to walk back. so, yes, i think between iran, the militias and the iraqi government these statements are being coordinated.

>> we've been talking about it over the last 48 hours as this story and broke, the real victims here seem to be the iraqi government being used as a pawn between the united states and the government. want to bring in douglas olivan. he's senior vice president of mandet international and does have financial interests in iraq. important to note that. susan delpercio and jonathan altar is a columnist for ""the daily beast."" he's the author of the center holds obama and its enemies. why do you find that funny that i'm introducing your book here? >> it's kind of an old book. that's great. i love that it's still getting a plug and there's a lot about foreign policy in there in iraq. >> douglas, i want to start with you. give us your reaction with

what's taking place overnight in iraq and what you feel as if is the biggest threat right now. >> really quickly, we just need to distinguish between what's happening next to the embassy and what's been happening in iraq the last three months. we have two groups we're calling protesters. we've had some very, you know, antiiranian, anticorruption pro government accountability protesting for three months now. they're waiving iraqi flags. they're iraqi nationalists. then we have this group sitting there next to the embassy. they're waiving yellow flags. they see themselves as part of the resistance along with the iranians. two very different groups. it appears though that we're having something calm down now. the -- we're seeing things calm down. we have the iraqi counter terrorism forces that have moved in to provide a buffer between these demonstrators and the embassy and that should give

some calm in addition to the statements that you've been talking about and of course the additional u.s. forces that are on the way. >> do you think the u.s. forces that are on the way, douglas, currently could actually further escalate a situation that seems could change at a moment's notice? >> i don't think those forces are going to be deployed in a manner that would make them likely to be an escalatory force. they'll initially come to kuwait. when and if they come they'll be put inside bases. we're certainly not going to see american troops put out on the streets somewhere. no, i'd see that as prudent planning and not necessarily anything escalatory. it's important to know no one got killed yesterday. we had the demonstrations but the embassy itself was not breached, no one went in, the embassy was not harmed. the u.s. has the ability to respond to ways in a nonviolent way and tamp down the military aspect, the violence that always has the chance of spiraling out

of control. >> nonetheless, the threats, video, images emerging out of iraq and what we're hearing from iran as well amidst all of this, something we need to keep a close eye on. susan, i want to play a bit of what we heard ahead of the celebrations at mar-a-lago. let's take a listen. >> i don't think that would be a good idea for iran. it wouldn't last for long. do i want to? no. i want to have peace. i like peace. and iran should want peace more than anybody so i don't see that happening. no, i don't think iran would want that to happen. it would go very quickly. >> i have to say, susan, i was a bit surprised by the statement from the president. it would serve the president well in this current news cycle considering the fact that he is facing a senate impeachment trial in early 2020 to ramp up rhetoric on iran and yet in fact he's doing the exact opposite here saying it would not serve iran well to go to war with iran and iran does not want a war. we also know iran does not

necessarily want to negotiate with the united states. the united states has gone back and forth on this. we've heard from the president that they're ready to sit down and at times they're not ready to sit down. what do you make what you're hearing from the president here? >> i think the president is acting in part of his own self-interest because he does know that escalation -- he's not prepared to take that on. he does not want to see our country, which is good for all-americans, get into a military tit-for-tat with iran. that would be obviously a very difficult situation that could explode up in the middle east in many different ways but he also has to be careful how many wars he can fight with -- or rhetoric wars he can fight because he's also dealing with north korea now. he has the issues in syria, with russia. so i actually think this was very responsible of the president and it does seem that there were signs to say to -- through whatever negotiations, whether it's through iraq to tell iran to show some restraint and it's a good thing that

everything is de-escalating for the moment. >> richard haas, jonathan, tweeting overnight that the president actually helped create this crisis by putting aside diplomacy, obviously by leaving the jcpoa, canceling essentially the jcpoa on the part of the americans. what do you make of this? >> i think he's right. it's great that they're de-escalating now. this is just 24 hours after the president said in a tweet this is not a warning, it's a threat. that's very irresponsible talk in the middle of a crisis. traditionally it's been our adversaries, north korea, iran who use this angry rhetoric. the united states, as teddy roosevelt said, is supposed to walk softly and carry a big stick. so this guy, the president right now, wants to, you know, walk loudly and that is destabilizing. >> it is, but it seems like a lot of people are already aware

of how he speaks and that his -- he gets hot and then tends to pull it back. >> just to richard's point, so a number of experts know a lot more about this than i do, have pointed out that he basically attacked the wrong country. he retaliated against the wrong country. yes, he needed to retaliate in a proportionate way. >> where should you retaliate? >> syria. >> on syrian territory? >> on syrian territory. instead without giving them notice he was bombing iraq. that's our ally. >> there was notice given about 30 minutes before the strikes happened. iraq actually pled with the united states to not allow these strikes to happen and the united states went forward with them. >> because iraq knew that doing this in their own country was going to stir up this hornet's nest. this whole thing was unnecessary. it was entirely possible for the president to retaliate in a proper way but when you're --

when you look at everything like a real estate deal when you want to push as hard as you can and pull back, walk away from the table, come back to the table, this is not new york real estate. there are a lot of -- >> certainly is not. >> -- complex forces at work here. right now the umbrella group for the militia is keeping the lid on. if you look at the history in iraq, our ability to depend on locals to keep calm, to keep the place stable has a very poor record so there are a lot of individual actors who can say, you know what, we don't care in our militia what the umbrella group thinks, what tehran thinks, we're mad at the americans and we want them out. so the idea that this is all just going to end right now seems premature. >> hey, doug, quickly here, it seems to me as if the iranians,

this militia group, is making a bet that the president will not act given that he has an election around the corner and he has consistently supported americans pulling out of the middle east. >> well, i think there's a lot to that. you know, president trump has been inconsistent on several matters of foreign policy, but on one thing he's been remarkably consistent. he has maintained for well over a decade now that putting large numbers of u.s. troops in the middle east is a terrible idea. and now he's finding himself drawn or his staff trying to drag him to a place where he would have to do that. i think we're seeing pushback against that. this is no secret. the iranians know this, the iraqis know this. that's all being factored into the calculus as everyone acts. of course, the unfortunate part is sometimes if you push too far someone has to do something they would rather not do so the escalation calculus, the possibility of this ramping out of control is still very much there. i think everyone sees this.

>> as we heard from our own ali arouzi, iran said they will in fact act if threatened. thank you all. by the way, happy new year's, you guys. >> happy new year's. >> coming up, rudy giuliani's stunning offer ahead of president trump's impeachment trial in the senate but first here's one of the top video stories of the year from nbcnews.com. kamala harris grilling now attorney general bill barr during his confirmation hearing. watch this. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general barr, has the president or anyone at the white house ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone? >> i wouldn't -- i wouldn't -- >> yes or no? >> could you repeat that question? >> i will repeat it. >> yeah. >> has the president or anyone at the white house ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone? yes or no please, sir? >> the president or anybody

else? >> seems you would remember something like that and be able to tell us. >> yeah, but i'm trying to grapple with the word suggest. i mean, there have been discussions of matters out there that they have not asked me to open an investigation. >> perhaps they've suggested? >> i don't know. i wouldn't say suggest. >> hinted? >> i don't know. >> inferred? you don't know? okay. >> this attorney general lacks all credibility and has, i think, compromised the american public's ability to believe that he is a purveyor of justice. >> should he resign? >> yes. to be able to deliver relief for your patients. get them out of pain, get them out of pain fast. we have a new product out there: sensodyne rapid relief. if you use it on monday, by thursday, you'll be enjoying that chocolate ice cream again. they can start it, and 3 days later, i know that they're going to have the results they were looking for.

welcome back. as we enter this crucial 2020 election year, yes, it is finally here. impeachment looms large for the trump white house before heading into new year's festivities at his mar-a-lago resort in florida last night as we see him there approaching president trump said he'd be happy to have a senate trial and took his final shot of the year at the democrats. >> what the democrats did in the house was a disgrace. i call it impeachment like. it's a disgrace and nancy pelosi should be ashamed of herself. she's a highly overrated person. i know her well. she's highly overrated. >> and i'm joined now by glen

kershner and al motter. he worked on hillary clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. happy new year's to you both, guys. i take it you had a night like i did in which you were in bed pretty early. here we go. i actually want to read george conway's tweet after we heard from the president there. it gave me a little bit of a chuckle. i imagine it will do the same thing for you guys. so it appears that speaker pelosi is throwing a new year's eve party inside o of @realdonaldtrump's head. so, al, lay out for us what we should expect when it comes to impeachment starting when it comes to speaker pelosi and mcconnell ending their standoff. >> sure. so it is going to end and what she's doing now, yasmin, is try to give as much leverage as possible to leader schumer to create a structure that's as

fair for the president in the senate. there's not much leverage she has but she's trying to expose speaker mcconnell's bias in stating he is hand in glove working with the president instead of managing an impartial trial. >> you have the recent reporting from "the new york times" with regards to the internal trump administration fight over aid to ukraine, that it's basically a game changer. do you think it is? >> you know, i do. when you actually see that there was an oval office meeting in which three of the highest republican government officials, esper, pompeo and bolton told the president in real time in august, mr. president, if you continue to withhold this aid, you are not acting in the interests of america. i mean, the only rational translation of that is these three men, secretary of defense,

national security adviser and secretary of state told the president, you're kind of abusing the power of your office. there's no other translation for the phrase you are not acting in america's interests. so it seems like those three men at a minimum tend to agree with a significant majority of the representatives in the house who voted to impeach the president for abusing his power. i don't know how you can forego having at a minimum those three men testify in the senate trial because that actually is blockbuster evidence. >> they possibly agree behind closed doors but nothing we have heard from any of them individually. in fact, we've heard from mick mulvaney and pompeo straight saying everything the president has done with regards to ukraine is above board. it's the kind of stuff we've done all the time from mick

mulvaney. behind closed doors we've heard from "the new york times" reporting they might think quite differently. al, how do you see with regards to this new reporting in "the new york times," how do you see it playing into the overall impeachment narrative? and do you think it changes the game in the senate impeachment trial or more for public perfect steps? >> i don't think it changes the game in the senate. i do think it slightly changes perception. it is explosive but, remember, we're living in this alternative universe of donald trump in which he can do virtually anything and not lose any support from his base or from his republicans in the senate or the house who, frankly cowardly support him on a regular basis. so it is important evidence and, yes, i agree with glen that these people should have to testify. i'm not sure that they actually will or that it'll move the needle in terms of any vote to remove the president in the senate. i don't think that's what's going to happen. >> glen, everybody on twitter has been waiting for you to weigh in on this one, and that is rudy giuliani from last night weighing in on the senate

impeachment trial. let's watch this. >> i would testify. i would do demonstrations. i'd give lectures. i'd give summations, or i'd do what i do best, i'd try the case. i'd love to try the case. >> are you going back to ukraine. >> i don't know if anybody would have the courage to give me the case, but you give me the case, i will prosecute it as a racketeering case, which i kind of invented anyway. >> i feel like this is just the precursor to what 2020 is going to look like, glen, but take it away for me, my friend. >> yasmin, let's fact check what rudy giuliani just said. first of all, he said, i kind of invented racketeering cases. well, the ricoh statutes, that stands for racket tear influence and corrupt organizations, those statutes were passed in 1970. it was more than a dozen years later, 1983 to be exact, that

rudy giuliani first had a stint as u.s. attorney in new york. so he kind of didn't invent racketeering cases. and then, second, i -- you know, he may have misspoken when he said he'd be happy to prosecute the case. now for 30 years i prosecuted cases. i never made the mistake of saying i would love to go in and defend the case, but rudy giuliani, if taken at his word, said he would like to prosecute the case in the senate in which his client is the defendant. now i don't think you need to be an expert on conflict of -- conflict issues to understand just how bad that is, but i think we need to put that in the rudy giuliani bucket of truth is not truth and i never asked ukraine to investigate the bidens. of course i asked the ukraine to investigate the bidens. rudy giuliani continues to proof th

prove that he's not really good at this lawyering thing. >> i would have loved to have seen what was in that cup he was holding. thank you, al, glenn. happy new year's once again. >> happy new year's. >> mayor pete raking in some major cash. he's not alone. how all of that money in the bank will shape the strategy about a month away from the iowa caucuses. you're watching msnbc. we'll be right back. back.

welcome back. i love that music i have to say. i feel like i'm actually at the white house. a new year and we've got -- i'm talking to susan, just not anybody, and we've got brand-new fundraising numbers from some of the top 2020 democratic contenders. mayor pete buttigieg just announced his campaign raised more than $24 million this quarter. andrew yang had his biggest single day of fundraising to date yesterday raising 1.3 million in a day and capping off a big week for his campaign. vaughn hilliard standing by for us in des moines this morning with more on these very big numbers. just one month before the iowa caucuses. happy new year, vaughn. how was it in iowa overnight?

>> reporter: yeah, good morning to you, yasmin. overnight bernie sanders in the des moines area had a new year's eve bash down the road with a band that formerly played behind prince. it's the exact same thing that he did four years ago. of course, he pulled off what was a surprisingly close finish in that iowa caucus four years ago. he's hoping to do the same. you know, this is a caucus race here in which ultimately we are 33 days away. you mentioned those fundraising numbers. pete buttigieg just this morning announcing that his campaign pulled in a haul of $24.7 million. we should note that was near the highest mark of any candidate to date. bernie sanders, in fact, in the last quarter fund raised about $25 million. money becomes important because you want to be on the road as much as possible over the course of these next 33 days instead of being out on the road fundraising. that's where you saw buttigieg holding several fundraisers, particularly across the east coast and the west coast here

over the last month, because a lot of this is if you turn on the television, who makes that air wave buy time. this is the reason why the likes of kamala harris dropped out of the race, because a lot of these campaigns, they have organizers on the ground. several of the candidates, including buttigieg, have more than 100 staffers on the ground here in iowa alone. bult at th buttigieg campaign says they have more than 500 staff across the country. cory booker indicated they had the best fundraising haul of any three-month period to date over the last three months. that is significant for them. if you look at the cory booker ad, you see images of his time in newark as mayor. that is a way to get into people's minds. it comes down to folks here having to decide come caucus day who they're ultimately going to back. if you have the resources to not only put staff on the ground but also be on the tv air waves, it is crucial not only here in iowa but so that you can continue to make a strong play in new hampshire and then nevada and

then south carolina and then, hey, right after that on march 3rd, super tuesday, you've got big money states of california and texas where financing is going to be quite crucial come march 3rd. >> vaughn, what are we going to hear from the others? >> reporter: that's a good question. so the fundraising period ended just yesterday evening here. there's a grace period in which they -- the fec puts out those numbers. so the campaigns oftentimes they put out ahead of time if they're feeling good about their numbers like the buttigieg campaign, they're happy to have everybody wake up on new year's morning hearing those numbers. other campaigns may hope that the news cycle takes off and other things percolate up in the news before they announce their own. >> subsequently their numbers are buried. vaughn hilliard, happy new year's, my friend. thank you as always. great talking to you today. >> thank you. want to bring in jonathan allen and susan delpercio, republican strategist who is

back with me. john, talk me through first your reaction with regards to mayor pete, who's no longer going to be mayor, his fundraising numbers, 24 million, and making it the first announcement. >> well, one of the -- one of his aides said today that's going to be enough money for them to go the distance and pete buttigieg was recently endorsed by kevin costner. for those who remember the movie "field of dreams". >> those who remember. i think we all remember. >> brings a tear to my eye normally but i'll try not to cry through this segment. but, i mean, look, i think the money's important in that it allows buttigieg to continue building his campaign in future states. it's not going to be so much money that it's more than, you know, a bernie sanders or so much more than a joe biden or so much more than elizabeth warren that they're -- that it's prohibitive or exclusive, but it does mean that buttigieg is

going to be able to continue to be a big player here. >> susan, buttigieg got a lot of criticism from elizabeth warren. she talked about the wine caves in which he's invited people into wine caves subsequently raising big dollars. is he going to be subsequently criticized for this big number because of the way in which he's getting big donor dollars? >> no. it's the same way elizabeth warren raised money for her senate campaign. he pushed back on that well. he'll move forward. those numbers are good numbers. it will be interesting to see how biden does and the other person i'm looking at fundraising numbers from is andrew yang only because he said i believe yesterday that he's doing better than he did in his third quarter where he raised $10 million and shocked a lot of people. the interesting thing will be to look forward and say, what's their burn rate? what do they have, as vaughn was talking about, to go into super tuesday? >> so just quickly, what do you mean by the burn rate? >> how much money are they

spending on the ground? when you see they raised -- let's say, pete buttigieg, he raised $24 million? >> yeah. >> how much does he have on hand? that's what we'll see on january 15th when they put out the numbers. sometimes they put out big fundraising numbers ahead of schedule because they don't want to show they may have spent $25 million to date. so it just depends to see how they're -- and everyone looks to see how they're using their money. so that will also be critical. we'll see pete buttigieg probably putting a lot of money in new hampshire at that point. >> want to get your reaction to some of these major numbers that we're seeing from andrew yang, jonathan. over $1 million in a day. 3.5 million just in the last week. this is really more of a grassroots movement that we're seeing from andrew yang. >> yeah. it's totally unexpected. you know, to the extent that mayor pete buttigieg was before this campaign relatively unheard of on the national level, andrew yang is really coming out of nowhere. not somebody who was involved in

politics at all and is continuing to be funded. however, what we're not really seeing is him competing within any of the states at the state level in the way that he would need to to be in the place to compete for delegates, which is what you really need to win a democratic nomination. you may change and he may be able to turn the money into gold in terms of delegate allocation. at the moment he's not positioned to do that. >> i quickly, susan, want you to weigh in on senator elizabeth warren's numbers. up until last friday she had weighed in and raised 17 million. she's not raising -- >> that was quarterly numbers. that was up until last friday. >> exactly. if we can see andrew yang can raise $3 million in a week, why can't elizabeth warren? we'll see. i think it's more reflective of her bout with her health care plan and the fact that it will cost $52 trillion and people

just didn't respond well to that. she seemed to have faultered in the polls but there's time. and even if it's only $17 million, that's still a lot of money to be competitive, especially going into new hampshire which is her neighboring state. >> quickly, jonathan, here in just a couple of hours i believe at noon mayor pete dropping the mayor from his title. how's that going to change the calculus for him with regards to campaigning? >> it certainly makes it a lot easier to not have a day job in terms of having time to be on the campaign job and it means he's not responsible for anything that goes on in south bend from here on out. what he's done as mayor there is something that's central to the story he wants to tell, but it's been something that's been difficult for him. he's had opponents attack him on his tenure there and he's had some issues that have happened while he's been mayor there and running for president. it's been an issue and i think it will make it a lot easier for him to campaign without having to worry about that. >> yeah, it's actually an

interesting juxtaposition to say that he's not going to have a day job and you have senators who will be involved in a senate trial and they'll have to be off the campaign trail. jonathan and susan, happy new year's again. >> happy new year's. >> happy to be spending it with you this morning. coming up, everybody, a new california law aimed at protecting your privacy goes into effect today and it could have major implications nationwide. you don't want to miss this. hey, saved you a seat.

this round's on me. hey, can you spot me? come on in. find your place today, with silversneakers. included in most medicare advantage plans. enroll today by calling the number on your screen or visit getsilversneakers.com

welcome back. so today the state of california is ringing in the new year with a new law that could have national implications on how much control you have over your own personal information. it gives people in california the right to stop companies from selling their personal data, their names, their addresses, their photographs, even what they buy, where they go, and when they go. but as it takes effect today, many are asking what exactly does it mean to me? the answer is, it depends on which company you ask. not surprising. as "the new york times" points out, many of the new requirements are so novel that some companies disagree about how to actually comply with them, even the biggest tech companies have different interpretations of the law, especially over what it means to stop selling or sharing consumers' personal data. natasha singer wrote that piece for the "new york times" and was gracious enough to join us on this new year's day morning. so happy new year to you,

natasha. >> happy new year to you. >> thank you for showing up this morning because i know it's tough this early on new year's day. before we get into the nuances of all of this, walk me through exactly what this new law does. >> well, we all know that we're being tracked all the time, right? if you have apps on your phone, they may be collecting your location every few minutes. they know if you go to a church or a bar or if you go to the gym or buy fast food. until now we haven't really understood much about how much data is collected and who it's shared with. what this law does is for the first time it gives consumers the right to see all the data companies have on them, to delete that da it and to stop the sale of that data. >> but there is this thing that you bring up in this piece with regards to the nuances of this law and the way in which these various companies like facebook, like evite like uber are interpreting this. you write they say it would give people a chance to opt out if they do not want their data

shared with third parties by contrast, indeed, a job search area said people seeking to opt out will be asked to delete their account. how effective is this law if, in fact, it's being terinterpreted differently by each and every country. >> it will be fascinating to watch. it goes into effect today but it won't be until mid year. this provision where consumers can opt out of the sale of their data, under this law sale is defined as data shared for any kind of compensation. so even companies that don't sell your data but share it for some kind of benefit have to now allow people in california to opt out of that sharing. >> so where is the california attorney general stand on this as of today when hearing these various interpretations? >> you know, one of the things that is also open to question is

californians are going to be able to see all the data companies have on them. i called different companies and different companies had different definitions of all. the attorney general said if you want to see all your data, you can see all of your data. >> what implications does this have nationally? this doesn't affect just california. >> it has a huge effect nationally. they do not want to have one procedure for california and the other for 49 states. that's cumbersome but second of all you can't treat californians differently. big companies like microsoft say they're going to honor these data rights for all customers nationwide. >> do you see this as easy as pressing one button or do you have to look for it when logging on with whatever company you're logging on to? >> law says the companies have to post a visible display. if you look at websites, there's

a tiny thing at the bottom. >> nothing is visible. >> first of all, you have to hunt for it until the attorney general says prominent means prominent and there will be cumbersome forms to fill out. >> 2020, thank you. >> thank you. coming up, nbc investigates a new trend in medication is effective and popular. there's just one very big problem. we'll be right back. ♪ $12.99 all you can eat now with boneless wings. only at applebee's. and i like to question your i'm yoevery move.n law. 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. if you listen to the political it sounds like we have a failed society. but nothing could be further from the truth. americans are compassionate and hardworking.

we aren't failing. our politicians are failing. that's why i'm running for president. to end the corporate takeover of the government. and give more power to the american people. that's how we'll win healthcare, fair wages, and clean air and water as a right. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

welcome back. we're learning the trump administration is set to crack down on vaping. the new york times reported that the fda plans to announce a ban on most flavored ecigarette cartridges. president trump just confirmed an announcement is coming soon. >> as you know, we'll be taking it off the flavors for a period of time. certain flavors. we'll protect our families, we'll protect our children. and we'll protect the industry. hopefully if everything is safe, they will be going very quickly back on to the market. >> and according to the "times," there have been more than 2500 vaping-related illnesses nationwide. and for millions, the high cost of prescription drugs is a major

concern and particular the so-called combination drugs that rely heavily on ingredients that individually cost just cents. but when combined or sold shockingly high prices, and anne thompson has this story. >> love it. love the art. suzanne is a freelance photographer in omaha. but she works a second job as a teller because it comes with insurance to afford her acid reflux medicine, a generic version. and the insurance has saved her a whooping $14,000 for a 90 day supply according to her pharmacy receipt. she is taking what is called a combination drug. one pig thll that combines two. >> i don't understand why when

you put them together, why does it all of a sudden become $14,000. i don't get it. >> they get away with it because they can. they can set drug prices based on what the market will bear. >> reporter: and this internist at mass general says combining two medications in to one should not be so expensive. she studied the price difference. ze xwchlt e rchl zegerid, $46 per pill and vimovo, $30 per pill versus 35 cents for the generics. and duexis, $20 per pill versus 28 cents. these are small tweaks on existing medications that have been around for decades and that doctors have known and been using for these purposes for

years. >> reporter: and her study found that brand name combination drugs cost medicare cost to $1 billion. is there any kind of magic to these new combination drugs? >> magic, no. in a lot of ways we are paying for the repackaging. >> reporter: and list prices for some of these have sky rocketed. duexis, $139 eight years ago, and now over $2400 today. most patients and even doctors have no idea. how do these costs remain hidden? >> because the physician may not the know how much the drug costs. when the patient picks it up, they only know the co-pai. >> reporter: and suzanne's company pai co-pai is just $24 another example, is up ten times

over the years. a jump of 2,000%. >> in the first three months, we had about 34 million rev yo- -- >> reporter: and the ceo declined our request for an interview. out of pocket costs for sured p and the company nets less than $300 per preer descriptiiphera . but it adds you. and his total compensation is more than $50 million. horizon says that providing pain relief and stomach protectant is better for patients. >> i can see the convenience in taking one pill instead of two for some people. the question here, at what cost. >> if patients are paying so

little, why should sthey care? >> because this is a cost that we all have to pay. >> reporter: and the maker of the brand name declined to comment. the maker of the gentleman aeri says many factors go into the doss. and if you are wondering whether to take two or one drug, that is something that you should discuss with your why. >> thank you for that report. coming, president trump taking action after it protestors stormed a com bound in baghdad. bound in baghdad let's be honest, quitting smoking is freaking hard. 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 aveeno® with prebiotic striple oat complex balances skin's microbiome. so skin looks like this and you feel like this. aveeno® skin relief. get skin healthy™

for your worst sore throat pain, try vicks vapocool drops. it's not candy, it's powerful relief. ahhh vaporize sore throat pain with vicks vapocool drops

and try new vapocool spray. what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing.

welcome back. that wraps up this hour. coming up, my friend and colleague jeff bgeoff bennett. how was your night? >> i set an alarm to wake up at 11:55 to properly ring in 2020. >> and that is better than me. i fell asleep on the couch. what is your resolution? >> people will never believe that we used to be cool at some point. >> i was neff cool. never actually cool. what is your resolution? i want to know. >> i don't make resolutions anymore because i have a hard time keeping them. i'd say to be more present. because the work is