fourth time we will have had impeachment hearings period. two state department officials, bill taylor and george kent are set to paint what the democrats hope is a picture of the president knowingly exerting influence over a foreign government to investigate a political rival. they're going to testify to that, and you can also frankly read the transcript of the phone call where the president does that. on friday the former ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch takes the stand. this comes as we learn new details from deposition transcript being released by the house committees. >> and two officials say the ukrainians knew military aid was being held up long before it was reported publicly, and that of course contradicts republican arguments that there could not have been a quid pro quo. there is also breaking news this morning ahead of the public hearings that republicans staff of three house panels involved in the impeachment inquiry sending a memo to members detailing their defense strategy for president trump. the goal to undercut several key arguments made by democrats about what the president did and when. >> joining us now maggie

haberman, white house correspondent for the "new york times" and cnn white house correspondent kaitlan collins. you have some new reporting on in fighting within the white house. i do want to get to that. first what we did receive just an hour ago was this memo from house republicans on how they plan to defend the president. one of the things they will discuss broadly speaking is the president's mind-set, his doubts and skepticism about ukraine in general, and then they have these four talking points which i'm frankly surf are prizprised is what they're leading with here. that the july 25th phone call shows no conditionality or evidence of pressure, the president says do me a favor and brings up just the bidens and the 2016 election and also there is witnesses saying that there's also kinds of conditionality around that call. zelensky and trump say there was no pressure on the call, well, president trump may not be the only important witness here, president zelensky is under an awful lot of pressure to lead

his country. the ukrainian government was not aware of hold on aid during the july 25th call. that may be so, there is new evidence they were aware much earlier than we thought and that security assistance hold was lifted on september 11th. that was a couple of days after the white house knew about the whistle-blower complaint. i'm surprised these are the four points republicans are leading with a little bit. >> i think it's the best they've got. there's two factors here, number one, there's a number of witnesses who have corroborated various aspects of this testimony. the whistle-blower piece of it goes away. we know the president keeps talking about it, but at the end of the day that becomes far less releva relevant. the call itself has troubled a number of republicans, most of them won't say it publicly, but some have said they don't think it's appropriate. that becomes harder to defend. what you end up doing is basically doing a version of that's just how he talks. and we've heard that as a defense of the president's actions going well back to mueller over and over again. i think that they're working

with what they got after, you spoken to the court, details of this, not just the call, but what took place around withholding the aid and after the acting white house chief of staff went to the podium and said yes there was a quid pro quo. i think what you're seeing is there's going to be a limit to how far out on a limb republicans might be willing to go in issuing a defense. they just don't know what they don't know ask what else could come out. >> and we've been talking for weeks how the white house is unable to cobble together a defense for republicans to use. this is evidence that they're just taking this into their own hands. this is what they're going to go with, and maybe this isn't the best defense strategy and maybe there are holes with this, and potentially ways democrats can shut down some of these points, but this is the most detailed defense we've seen from republicans since this got started. >> i think it's important to remember that not only is it the most detailed, part of it is the importance of having it on paper because republicans have been a bit all over the place and scatter shot in terms of what

they're saying and that's been because the white house has not put out a consistent theme to your point of not getting control of this. i don't think this is necessarily going to carry the day, but they're going with what they have. >> the white house has not had a consistent theme, which brings me to some reporting i happened to read in the "new york times" this morning, and the "washington post" has a different version of this also, which is in-fighting. a battle inside the white house 24 hours before these public impeachment hearings begin. explain what you're seeing. >> there's a couple of things. in our story, we're actually talking about fights that are bursting into the open on a number of fronts that we've been told for years don't exist. you guys are focusing on in-fighting in the white house. that's not true. nikki haley wrote a book about it that comes out today. that's one area. then you have mick mulvaney and john bolton. this one is where you are seeing this burst out publicly. mick mulvaney tried joining a suit that related to bolton. it wasn't bolton specific, and

bolton's lawyer made clear i don't want you joining this suit. mick mulvaney. i mean, bolton's allies have made very clear that bolton seems mulvaney as complicit in what took place in this aid and being withheld from ukraine, and he didn't want to give him that cover to say he was trying to be compliant with house democrats and not testify. mick mulvaney doesn't get his own lawyer and go outside of white house counsel if he trusts the white house counsel, and we have -- you've reported, we've reported for months now that mick mulvaney and pat cipollone, the white house counsel have been at odds on any nucmber of fronts but impeachment has thrown accelerant on it. >> mick mulvaney thinks pat cipollone is trying to take his job as chief of staff. he also thinks he's being left out of legal matters that feels he should be briefed on. they're essentially going around him because they don't think he needs to be briefed on all of those matters because he's not an attorney serving the white house. it really has created this ugly feud. that's a great point about

mulvaney getting his own attorney in this suit which not that long ago he said he didn't need this person, and now of course he's going around pat cipollone and to a head? >> the question will be how they move going forward and what they're going to do over these next few critical days, and whether or not they're going to put these grievances behind them or if it's going to split further when the complaint is that the white house is not all on the same page. they can't get republican talking points here, they're not doing enough to defend the president. republicans think if they did more, if the president was more ardent in his defense, they could actually survive this. if the white house doesn't step up, people are not so sure they're going to be okay through this. >> the problem continues to be the facts and the efd as we see it. take condoleezza rice who was speaking overseas at an event. she was the secretary of state national security adviser under george w. bush, someone who hasn't necessarily been particularly critical of the trump administration, worked with them in the beginning to help get robert gates and other

people inside the why is house. this is one of the things that secretary rice said. i see a state of conflict between the foreign policy professionals and someone in rudy giuliani who said he was acting on behalf of the president, but frankly i don't even know the degree to which that's the case. it's troubling. it's deeply troubling and she also criticized on its face the phone call between president trump and the president of ukraine. >> i think the more -- look, we know how president trump will handle criticism from folks like condy rice, which is he's going to say these are people who are against me. she did try to help him early on in the administration. i just think it becomes the more republicans are openly saying there was a problem with this phone call, the president doesn't want republicans arguing process. we have heard this over and over from people in contact with him and people in congress. he doesn't want the process argument that they've been making which is they don't like how democrats have handled the hearings. there were selective leaks in their words about details from these hearing transcripts.

that's been taken away now that the transcripts have been released, so what the president's left with tweeting repeatedly, these are doctored transcript, one hno one has sai that. very few republicans have been really that willing, except for a strong group of his backers in the house have been willing to do that. >> it's going to be so difficult for them to make that argument, the very few people who have after these people are coming forward and people are watching what they're saying. not everyone has read the transcripts through and through, but when these people who some of them were hand picked by the president are on camera under oath talking about this, it's going to be harder for republicans to make the argument that the call was perfect. they're going to be turning more and more likely to it wasn't perfect. it wasn't the most appropriate, but we're not going to remove this guy from office over it. >> one thing that struck me the last day and a half heading into tomorrow is democrats have actually gone a little bit quiet previewing tomorrow's hearings. >> usually when you feel like your opponent is hurting

themselves you don't step in the way to save them. i think democrats are aware they did over promise around the bob mueller testimony to a large degree. they over promised to alesser degree around the corey lewandowski hearing. i think twice burned they are sitting back. >> i do think that could play a factor. if you read through this, you see they may have an easier time with some of these like one of the points i was looking at in here is where they talk about where the president said i would like you to do us a favor. essentially they're giving life to this conspiracy theory that the president has pushed which is that ukraine was behind interference in the election which his own government has said firmly is not true. but it is going to give you an indication of where the democrats are going to go tomorrow starting with points like this about what the president said. >> we want to put one picture up on the screen of daniel goldman. this is the face you will see tomorrow, counsel to the house intelligence committee. i think we have that picture of

daniel goldman. we don't have the picture -- oh, there he is. daniel goldman is the counsel on the intelligence committee staff. steve castor may do some of the questioning for republicans. it's interesting these are the two people who may be more important than the committee members theps, which is what the democrats want. >> democrats discovered in those two other hearings the painful nature for what they were trying to do of having not just members of congress ask these questions who are notoriously in both parties not great at asking these kinds of question in hearings in terms of eliciting the answer they want, but also this five minute rule they had in place, i think they found it was stunting in terms of the information they could get. so i think you see them really trying to do this differently. i think they know that they've got one shot to sway public opinion beyond where it is now and it's this week. >> and it's important that it not look like a circus. >> it may still look like a circus, but at least for if they're actually getting information people haven't heard, if they're making a compelling case, that's really

where they're going. >> that has been the white house's complaint, they're not going to have an attorney in the room to help question these people. they are really putting their fate into these republicans' hands, that's bhhe knows it's u to defend him. it's not going to be his own attorneys doing any of the work in this portion of this. >> you've got jim jordan and john ratcliffe. >> john ratcliffe will be an interesting person to keep an eye on because he was nearly named as the director of national intelligence. if you've read these transcripted of the closed doors testimonies he's probably been the most concise with the largest points of defense for the republicans. he's someone to keep an eye on. i think people will be following his lead on these. >> great to have you here, thank you very much. house democrats they are moving fast with impeachment. what are senators looking for as these hearings are about to go public? we'll ask next.

for the diamond in your life there's only one diamond store. zales. the diamond store seaonly abreva cany to help sget rid of it in... ...as little as 2 1/2 days when used at the first sign. abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. abreva acts on it. so you can too. plaque psoriasis uncoverth clearer skin that can last. in fact, tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last.

janssen can help you explore cost support options. but a company develops a way by tto actually attack it.in, what drew me to capital allocation in health sciences was the potential to help many people through investments that help fund medical innovation. my team and i often choose to invest at the very early stages of human trials. investing lets me use everything i've learned as a doctor to help make a positive impact. so that's why i go beyond the numbers.

this week we are examining the issue of polarization in this country and what can be done to fix it. it's a special series being called "fractured states of america." as john avlon explains it wasn't always that way. >> that's right. look, our country has been through far worse trials than we're dealing with today, the civil war and the great depression, but the polarization we're suffering right now is not normal. it's not healthy, and it wasn't always this way. how did we get here? flash back to truman, eisenhower and kennedy, there was broad consensus over the cold war and crucially, there was ideological

diversity within the two parties with conservative democrats and progressive republicans. america was able to get big things done through bipartisan coalitions, the marshal plan, interstate highway system, landmark civil rights bills. we're only 40 years away from women getting the vote and discrimination of all kinds was common, but our politics enabled unanimous decisions of the supreme court like brown versus board of ed. today we've been accustomed to these narrow 5-4 decisions. southern conservatives became republicans while the vietnam war shattered cold war consensus. take a look at these congressional voting patterns in the 93rd congress that presided over watergate. there were republicans to the left of some democrats and vice versa and most importantly, the two parties are clustered towards the center. fast forward 20 years, the parties moving further from the

center but very few folks on the extremes. the red state, blue state dramatically reducing the number of competitive elections. while there were 113 crossover members of congress in '93, democrats elected in p-- it's a 77% decline, and that means there's less and less political incentive to vote across party lines while partisan media demonized moderate political differences. the backlash of president obama, the center totally hollowed out. we also have asymmetric polarization. republicans have moved further right than democrats moved left, and that tea party congress was determined to be the most polarized ever going all the way back to reconstruction. things have only gotten more polarized under president trump, the second republican in 16 years to win the white house despite losing the popular vote, something that didn't happen once in the 20th surgeon genery.

bitter personal divides, declined in trust in the government, the media and each other. our polarized congress rooted in science like the climate crisis while ignore -- failing to take action even when super majorities support things like expanding background checks. now we see a country facing its third impeachment inquiry since this period of polarization began after only one other in our whole history before. so no, none of this is normal, and healing these divides is going to take time, and we're going to need to remember some practical wisdom from president eisenhower who said the middle of the road is all the usable surface. the extremes, right and left, are in the gutters. and that's your reality check. >> gave us the interstate highway so he knows. he knows about roads. >> he knows about roads. >> all right, thank you very much. a really important reality check. hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants with their futures hanging in the balance, today they are taking

their fight for daca all the way to the supreme court. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot.

this melting pot of impacted species. everywhere is going to get touched by climate change. ♪ even though ♪ i find you so captivating ♪ and i'm done with hesitating let's see where this goes? save on a gift that says it all. ♪ jared wwithout it, i cannot write myl tremors wouldname.xtreme. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. and we won't stop.

join us in fighting for what's right.

just 24 hours from now history, public televised impeachment hearings, just the third time the country has ever seen something like this over the air waves, just the fourth time this country has ever gone through this process at all. if it is passed in the house, it moves to the senate where senators will serve as the jury. what are they watching for? joining me now is chris murphy, a democratic senator from the state of connecticut. senator, thank you very much for being with us. how will you watch tomorrow? what is your checklist? what are you looking for? >> well, i think we already know what happened so this story has already become clear. the president of the united states wanted ukraine to help him destroy his political rivals, and in exchange he would give them security aid or access to the white house. that is absolutely unallowable in a democracy, and so i guess what i'm looking for is that the witnesses this week are simply

going to confirm the testimony they have already given to the impeachment inquiry committee. i don't think there's actually probably going to be a lot of drama this week. for the first time americans will see bill taylor and others in person and i think what they will see are patriots, are career public servants who have really no reason to tell this story other than their desire to get the truth out. but i'm not sure we're going to see any bomb shells. i think we already know what happened. i think we already know that it is something that is unacceptable in a country that governs itself by the rule of law, and it's really more of a question about what we're going to do about it, what the house is going to do and what the senate's going to do. >> well, to that point because we've seen the summary of the phone call between president trump and president zelensky. we have now read the witness deposition. we've seen what happened really in pretty vivid detailme. the next part is making the case it's bad, so bad that democrats

think it's impeachable. how do you make that case? >> well, ultimately we'll have to wait in the senate for the articles of impeachment to arrive before we make a decision as to whether this is impeachable conduct. i've made it pretty clear that if you allow for a president of the united states to use the massive power that is given to him or her in their office to try to advance their own personal interests or their financial interests, then we really aren't a democracy any longer. we look much more like a tin pot dictatorship. i think we've got to make it clear to the american people if you allow this to happen without any consequence then you're basically setting up every future president to be able to use taxpayer dollars as leverage to try to get themselves reelected. and we just can't allow that to become precedent in this country. >> i want to read to you -- we just this morning got this 18-page document outlining how house republicans plan to defend the president, and one of the

things they will focus on is the president's state of mind suggesting that he long was skeptical of ukraine. let me read this to you. to appropriately understand the events in question and most importantly assess the president's state of mind during his interaction with president zelensky context is necessary. this context shows that president trump has a deep seeded genuine and reasonable skepticism of ukraine and u.s. taxpayer funded foreign aid independent of and preceding any mental of potential investigations of ukraine's interference in the 2016 election or hunter biden's involvement in burisma, a notoriously corrupt company. how important is the president's state of mind here? >> i've been involved in u.s./ukraine policy for half a decade, and i'm skeptical about sending u.s. aid to ukraine. president obama was skeptical about sending u.s. aid to ukraine. that doesn't mean that either of us used our positions in order to try to extort a foreign

country to benefit ourselves politically, so of course you go into a relationship with a country like ukraine with your eyes wide open, but that doesn't give you permission to then try to use taxpayer dollars in order to destroy your political opponent. so i just don't think it matters whether president trump or any president as a state of mind of skepticism about sending money to a foreign country. >> and then another argument, which i know you have watched with concern is that being voiced by people like mac thornberry, republican member of the house who suggests he doesn't like the phone call at all but it's just the way the president talks. listen to this. >> there's not really anything that the president said in that phone call that's different than he says in public all the time. so is there some sort of abuse of power that rises to that threshold that is different than the american people have been hearing for three years? i don't hear that. >> he says he doesn't hear that.

what do you say to mac thornberry? >> yeah, i mean, listen, mac is a decent guy but that is a really extraordinary argument, the idea that, well, the president's corrupt and we all know he's corrupt, so you know, why do we really care about it any longer. there's also been this attitude in the administration where folks come to congress and say, well, don't really listen to what the president says because it doesn't really matter. watch what we do as a state department or department of defense. well, here we've gotten to see exactly what president zelensky was doing, president zelensky was, in fact, bending over backwards to try to show that he was going to start an investigation into joe biden, and everybody that worked for president trump from mick mulvaney to bill taylor, to kurt volker were all executing the orders the president gave to try to get the ukrainian government to do the president's political bidding. in this case the president gave an order.

everybody followed it through. the president of ukraine was ready to engage in this act of corruption until the president got caught. the only thing that stopped this extortion scheme from coming to fruition was the fact that the whistle-blower came forward that prompted all these folks working for the white house to clear their conscious ence by telling truth as well. if not for those truth tellers this would have been a massive corruption scheme that actually occurr occurred. >> one of the things the republicans brag about here is that the aid was released to ukraine on september 11th, but of course the timing there was days after the white house became aware of the whistle-blower complaint. senator chris murphy from connecticut, thanks for being with us this morning. >> thanks a lot. breaking overnight, cnn obtained a memo of the republican play book. it shows just how some they plan to fight back during tomorrow's impeachment hearings. we'll take a closer look and look at whether that will work.

at verizon, we're building the most powerful 5g experience for america. that's why the nfl chose verizon. because they need the massive capacity of 5g with ultra wideband, so more screaming, streaming, posting fans... can experience 5g all at once. this is happening in 13 stadiums all across the country. now if verizon 5g can do this for the nfl... imagine what it can do for you.

wat t. rowe price, hundreds of our experts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand. like a biotech firm that engineers a patient's own cells to fight cancer. this is strategic investing. because your investments deserve the full story. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. fthe prilosec otc two-weekymore. challenge

is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com. - [narrator] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot.

a new memo shows four key arguments republicans in the house will use to defend president trump during tomorrow's public impeachment hearings. let's bring in chief political correspondent for "politico," the author of "american carnage on the front lines of the republican civil war and the rise of president trump the." as we look at this and e with look at these four talking points that have essentially been put out this morning, what's remarkable and what i know we've been talking about this morning is that these points are actually easily discredited by a lot of what we have already seen. what does this tell you based on both this memo and your reporting and the lawmakers you've been talking with about where they're really at this morning? >> well, i think where republicans are this morning is basically where they've been for the last several weeks, which is

at the end of the day, they're going to argue that this is very much about intent more than it is about substance. that it's important to recognize that if the president had wanted to approach his dealings with the ukraine in a manner that was inherently corrupt and that if the president was intent on trying to extract concessions and lean on the ukraine, that we wouldn't be hearing from bill taylor, from gordon sondland or from anybody else that this was a perceived quid pro quo, that it would have been a very explicit quid pro quo. house republicans will say, look, this is a president who always says what's on his mind, so why would this case be any different. that is a linchpin of the defense argument that many of these house republicans will make, which is to say this is not somebody who leaves a lot of things open to interpretation. this is not somebody who was ambiguous with his messaging. if the president wanted ukraine to understand the pressure he

was exerting on them, then he would have been very clear about that. because he's not, it gives them the space, the oxygen they feel like they really need to make the argument that, in fact, he was just having a polite conversation, that he was bringing things up in a suggestive manner the way any president might do in that sort of a foreign policy setting. >> and also in terms of things he says, his state of mind, they will also make the point he was doing this, of course, because he saw this deep seeded genuine reasonable skepticism he had of ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption as we learned in that memo. there's another factor at play here of course when it comes to the president, and that is the president's influence over republicans. and you wrote in your latest piece for "politico" about how the president and his allies are really obsessed with potential republican defectors and what has been done with them, writing rarely does a republican become more wrathful than when he learns of a republican criticizing him, particularly if done in a public setting and even when he hears of an interseen attack he's been known

to fly into a rage calling bepe were in the room to grill them on the aled act leged act of du. he kept returning to this notion of fidelity, the fact that in his mind he is the one who returned republicans to power, and at the end of the day they owe him. >> that is very much how the president feels. this is somebody who has made a case study of the modern republican party and believes if it were not for him, if he were not this singular political phenomenon that republicans would still be in the wilderness and out of power and that they would have no wins on anything from taxes to abortion policy to supreme court justices and federal judicial vacancies that he has filled by the dozens. so obviously, yes, he does feel as though not only has he done these things for the republican

party but that because of that the republican party owes him, that it owes him its allegiance, its loyalty, its unwavering devotion. there has been a slow and steady purge of anybody in the party who has spoken out against the president. that purge will continue. you can bet that if any republicans in the house or the senate work up the courage to ultimately come out and vote for impeachment or for removal from office, this president and his family and his allies, they will not rest until they see that they person's political career is finished in the republican party. we've seen time and time again that that has borne out, that there are really very few republicans left standing who could be potential critics of the president. at the end of the caday if you' considering how many republicans might be willing to come out, part of the reason the number is so low is because many of the usual suspects, the people who would have spoken out, they're already gone. they've already been eliminated from the republican party.

>> always appreciate you taking the time to join us, thanks for being with us, and the piece again is a great read to wrap a bow on where their heads are at this morning. >> thank you. in just a few hours, the supreme court will hear arguments on the trump administration's attempt to terminate daca, the program that protects hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who came to the united states as children. it protects them from being deported. so far lower courts have stepped in to keep the program alouvre. cnn's jessica schneider live at the supreme court with a preview of this very important case, jessica. >> reporter: john, this really could be a make or break moment for these more than 700,000 so-called dreamers who really do rely on daca to stay in this country and to work here. when the justices hear arguments this morning, it really will be a technical argument all about the administrative procedure act and whether or not the trump administration adequately explained why they wanted to end the daca program, but the people out here, the dozens of people

who have been waiting in line, standing outside nin the rain, they say they want the justices really to look at the human element. >> el ya na fernandez left her long island home more than two weeks ago to walk 230 miles to the steps of the supreme court. she's one of the plaintiffs suing the trump administration for its decision to end the program that currently protects her from deportation, daca. >> are you afraid that at any moment you could be deported if daca doesn't continue? >> as a parent, one of the biggest fears that i have is losing protections against deportation that could lead to me being separated from my children. so that's something that is in my head every day. >> reporter: fernandez came to the u.s. illegally from ecuador when she was 14 and has lived undocumented in new york for 17 years. she struggled as a mom to her now 7 and 12-year-old kids, but when president obama announced the deferred action for childhood arrivals program or

daca in 2012, fernandez felt like she finally had a place in the country she called home. >> when daca came about, i was able to get better jobs. i returned to school. i spent hours and days away from my children but always thinking in my head at the end everything will be worth it, and it was until the trump administration took office. >> the daca policy produced by the last administration could not be sustained. >> reporter: the trump administration announced it would end daca in september 2017. part of the president's plan to crack down on illegal immigration. >> in some of the cases they're having daca, and they're gang members, and they're drug dealers too. >> reporter: the trump administration says president obaman never had the authority o enact daca in the first place, so president trump could easily end it, but groups liked national immigration law center immediately sued and several federal courts agreed ruling the administration did not adequa adequately explain why it was ending daca, which made the wind down not legal.

>> the roberts court has a very easy way forward, which is uphold the lower court's decisions and basically say, no, the administration did not follow the proper procedures in ending the daca program. >> i'm giving back to this country. i'm paying taxes. we contribute to this amazing country in many different ways. we are americans in every way but papers, and i want people to understand and see that. >> reporter: antonio alercon is also a plaintiff in this case. he came to the u.s. illegally from mexico when he was 10. now 25 he wants the nine justices to think about the lives their decision could impact. >> what would you tell the justices about why it's so important that you and the 700,000 like you are able to stay here? >> i would tell them to see our humanity. at the end of the day, we are americans. we belong here, and you know, we

are humans. >> reporter: arguments begin this morning at 10:00 a.m. you can see behind me just some of the dozens of people who have waited in line through the elements, through the rain, and throughout the night to get in here. the justices likely won't decide this case until june. that would be at the height of the 2020 election making immigration possibly even more of a focal point for these candidates. if the justices do, in fact, decide that the trump administration had the authority to end daca and did it the right away, erica, it could mean that these 700,000 dreamers would lose their work permits and eventually be deported. >> appreciate it. thank you. elijah cummings widow is running for her late husband's congressional seat in maryland. she says she is determined to extend and carry forward her late husband's legacy. her primary focus will be on health care, education, and protecting social security. she is undergoing a preventative double mastectomy on friday but

plans to hit the campaign trail following her recovery. the primary election is in february. the general election is in april. a new democrat, not michael bloomberg, yet another might be jumping into the 2020 race. we'll tell you who it is and why this person thinks that he or she needs to jump in. that's next. you're sensitive. yet some say it isn't real milk. i guess those cows must actually be big dogs. sit! i said sit! (vo) thewith every attempt, strto free itself,pider's web. it only becomes more entangled. unaware that an exhilarating escape is just within reach. defy the laws of human nature. at the season of audi sales event.

a lot will happen in your life. wrinkles just won't. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair's derm-proven retinol works so fast, it takes only one week to reveal younger looking skin. making wrinkles look so last week. rapid wrinkle repair® pair with retinol oil for 2x the wrinkle fighting power. neutrogena®

seaonly abreva cany to help sget rid of it in... ...as little as 2 1/2 days when used at the first sign. abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. abreva acts on it. so you can too. itso chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms.

stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix.

this cnn town hall brought to you by the society for human resource management. creating better workplaces for a better world. go to shrm we are work.com. you attacked her. i think it's a fair word. the word is, it's just an elitist attitude about you're either my way or the highway. >> let's get something straight. she attacked me. it's not about her. it's about the attitude that exists right now. if you disagree with me, you must be bad.

>> that's former vice president joe biden defending his comments about senator elizabeth warren during last night's town hall event. this comes as polls show the two candidates in a group at the top of the democratic party. in the key states of iowa and new hampshire. joining me now, chris cillizza and jonathan martin, national political correspondent for "the new york times" and cnn political analyst who broke a story about yet another possible new candidate jumping in the race. you'll have to wait to talk about that, john. chris, i want to start with you. i think the he or she did it first argument doesn't typically matter to voters. but what struck me was the substance of joe biden's argument about elizabeth warren. i want to play more of that where he talks about an elitist mentality. >> where i come from, growing up in a middle class neighborhood, the last thing i liked is people telling my family and me what we should know. what we should believe. as if somehow we weren't informed. that we just because we didn't

have money we weren't knowledgeable. i resent that. i wasn't talking about her. i was talking about the attitude that if you don't agree with me, get in the other party. >> why is he making this argument and why might it be effective? >> he's making the argument because, first of all, most basically, he sees elizabeth warren starting to move past him. why might it be effective? because it's true to him. you know, i think he does feel that way. this is not a political affect. i think he does feel as though he spent his life being told you're lesser than. you don't know as much. you don't have money. and he feels as though this is ridiculous. number two, because i think it plays to a potentially problematic image of warren. harvard professor, liberal, she's going to tell you what to do because she knows better. that image is out there among some people within the democratic party. certainly within the general

electorate. any time tan aek resonates with a person making it, it feels like it's personal and they believe it and it plays to an existing stereotype with another candidate and has the potential to work. >> it plays to biden voters who have been told, they're really not ardent supporters of joe biden. their support is soft. it's just name recognition keeping him up in the polls. so it may play to that. as we look at the polls, let me put up this new hampshire poll. joe biden at 20%. elizabeth warren, pete buttigieg and bernie sanders all ground at the top there. joe biden doesn't seem to be going anywhere. he's not dropping out in these poll numbers at all. in some cases he's rising. >> if you look deeper into the polling, especially in iowa and south carolina, a little less so in new hampshire which is a more affluent state, you see that biden has much more support among working class voters. he's trying to tamp down

warren's growth with working class democratic voters. this is one of the challenges he's had even as warren has risen in the last few months. her growth has mostly come from sort of college educated voters, the more informed, super engaged element of the democratic primary electorate. and i think biden recognizes that and is trying to consolidate his working class coalition by portraying warren the way he is. >> all right, jonathan. you broke yesterday that former massachusetts governor deval patrick is making calls. calling people, including joe biden, saying i'm thinking about jumping in to the democratic race. why? what does he see and what are the considerations? >> from the bay state, john, a great state. i think he sees a fluid race. he believes there is nobody that's unified the progressive wing of the party and the more center left wing of the party.

he believes he can do that. he's got liberal credentials, obviously, two-term governor of massachusetts, but also somebody close to president obama and his adviser so obviously creds when it comes to mainstream democrats as well. and he wanted to run. he almost ran last year. he sort of begged off late last year, but the fire never really went away. and i think watching this race unfold, he's realized that it's still fluid. he looks at a poll like you showed there where you have four candidates breaking up the vote in new hampshire in mid-november. and he sees an opening. why? he's next door to new hampshire, to his own home state. so he's widely known across the border from massachusetts. and also, in south carolina, being african-american, i think he believes he can actually do well there. kind of move some of those folks off joe biden. >> i was going to add to jonathan's point. don't undersell the fact that when deval patrick is considering the race, kamala

harris is widely regarded as a top tier, top fourish, top five candidate. african-american woman. now kamala harris, yeah, she's still in the race but has cut all staff in new hampshire and is focusing on iowa. they're struggling fund-raisingwise. we focus a lot on liberal versus conservative, on age, older versus younger. buttigieg versus biden. but all four of the top tier, warren, buttigieg, biden, sanders, are all white. and we know that if you look back in ways that primaries have been fought in the past, african-american vote is absolutely essential. now to -- >> once you get to south carolina. >> more broadly, to win the nomination. to jonathan's point, biden remains strong among that group, but warren, sanders and buttigieg are not obvious vessels for the black vote to go to if they don't want biden. potentially, deval patrick would be. that's another part of the thing

here. >> this won't take a long time because friday i think is the filing deadline to get on the new hampshire ballot. you'd think deval patrick would want to run in that primary. i'm also wondering if underneath the surface you don't have to scratch very hard to get obama people. i mean core obama people to tell you they're not happy with how this primary is going. and i'm wondering if deval patrick who is close to many core obama people might be tapping into that. >> i think part of this comes from the obama world that is sort of unassess about how this race is going. a lot of them like joe biden. not all of them are for joe biden. they wanted deval to run in the first place and are holding out hope. he's very close to valerie je d jarrett, one of obama's closest friends. her hope is that deval patrick

will run. that is certainly part of this. and i would say the kind of broader african-american donor class, too, john, sort of looking at the candidates out there and i think deval is someone that can be very appealing to those folks. >> very quick last question. rudy giuliani considering a podcast. you are a multimedia mogul. how good of an idea is it for the president's lawyer to launch a podcast about impeachment? >> so i am not, to my mother's chagrin, i'm not a lawyer, but if i was a lawyer, and i can imagine anyone who is a lawyer would tell rudy giuliani, this is a bad idea. more talking for rudy giuliani does not seem to be the recipe for success. and i would remind people, he is under not one, but two federal investigations here. i mean, this is not -- we joke about it, but the idea of having a podcast where you can just talk about whatever for as long as you want, it seems to me a recipe for disaster if you're rudy giuliani, though i would

guess it would be relatively interesting listening from just a listener's perspective, which, obviously, i am. >> which his lawyer may not have the -- >> his lawyer is not going to want that. >> terrific reporting. thanks for coming on. thanks to our international viewers for watching. for you, cnn newsroom is next. for u.s. viewers, we're about 24 hours until this historic moment when the impeachment proceedings go public on capitol hill. "new day" continues right now. it is a critical week heading into these public hearings. >> seeing this live testimony as opposed to reading transcripts is a big deal. >> laura cooper testified the aid was being held up. >> they didn't know this testimony would undermine that argument. >> they didn't want to admit that the president had that kind of leverage on them and made them look weak. >> this has been a consistent theme in this white house. mick mulvaney and cipollone have not been on the same page. >> this is "new day," with alisyn camerota and john berman.

>> good morning and welcome to your "new day. "it's tuesday, november 12th. alisyn is away. erica hill joins me for the countdown. 24 hours until history. one of the most perilous moments for the trump presidency. in the middle of it all, the white house is in the midst of a fierce battle with itself. "the washington post" reports that acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and the white house counsel's office are at each other's throats and congressional republicans are concerned the white house does not have a cohesive impeachment defense. also this morning, we're getting our first look at new excerpts from a book by an anonymous trump administration official stating the president will, quote, abuse any power he is given. cnn obtained exclusive excerpts. and all this comes as we're getting new details about how tomorrow's historic public impeachment hearings will unfold before our eyes. >> also breaking news. the republican staff of three house panels involved in the impeachment inquiry sending a