i'm jamie colby. thanks so much for watching "strange inheritance," and remember, you can't take it with you. >> the facts are uncontested. the president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security by withholding military aid and crucial oval office meeting in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival. paul: welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul gigot. it's full impeachment ahead as house speaker nancy pelosi asks committee chairs to begin drafting articles of impeachment against president trump, saying that democrats have, quote, no choice but to act. pelosi's announcement came two days after the house intelligence committee released

a report concluding that president trump abused the power of his office by pressuring ukraine to announce investigations beneficial to his re-election l campaign and obstructed congress when he ordered witnesses to defy subpoenas in the impeachment inquiry. let's bring in columnist and deputy editor dan henninger and kim extrakim strassel and big b. the report said the president abused his power in a way that jeopardized national security and the intel gritty of our elections -- inte integrity of r elections. did it jeopardize security? >> even in the worst case scenario, if you believe he threatened to do this -- paul: the way it was provided. >> the way it was provided. it's interesting that the witnesses against him support the policy i think you and i would support of lethal weaponry

for ukraine which was stronger than the policy he inherited. >> paul: from barack obama. >> i'm in the camp where it was unseemly but not criminal or impeachable. paul: kim, what about the integrity of elections point? that's a key argument that the democrats are making. >> well, look, i think the problem with that argument is if you go back and you -- i mean, when bill clinton, the whole scandal over foreign contributions to his campaign, was this undermining the election scenario, this is a different standard that they're holding donald trump to here and, again, every time you talk to a foreign leader, if you are in theory getting some policy benefit, if it also helps you personally, if you're going to claim that that is interfering in our elections, then every single president is constantly interfering in the election by everything they do in foreign policy. paul: of course, we didn't --

the president didn't know how any announcement of an investigation would play out or how strong it would be, for example. what do you make of the overall case here, that the democrats are constructing? do you find it -- i mean, you were around as i was when nixon and clinton were impeached. how does it compare to those two? >> well, you know, bill clinton just quickly, bill clinton did lie to a grand jury, all right, broke a law. richard nixon, the tapes made it clear he was wrong when he said he had nothing to do with the break-in at watergate. paul: and he plotted the cover up. >> there were identifiable things. here they haven't come up with a smoking gun. the bigger problem is that by nancy pelosi, by raising this to the level of impeachment, has raised the bar impossibly high. everyone can agree or disagree about the rightness or wrongness of what donald trump did with the president of ukraine,

intervening, trying to get him to investigate joe biden. indeed, that's a voteable issue. voters can make up their minds about that. indeed, the house could have voted to censure president trump, the will of the house being that this was wrong. now they elevated this to impeachment which has its own rules, its own definite definit, articles of impeachment. i think nancy pelosi giving that speech, how this is a constitutional issue, this comes after three years of nonstop investigations of trump, the russian collusion narrative, the mueller report and now the american people are supposed to believe this simply isn't part of everything they've been trying to do the last three years. i think it's a hard sell for her. paul: to underscore dan's point, bill, they're talking about adding an article of impeachment related to the mueller report on obstruction of justice. so there is a kind of sense that this is -- a lot of democrats would like this to be a kitchen sink impeachment. you throw in everything that we

can against donald trump. >> yeah. further to dan's point, i mean, this has been scripted from the beginning. the big difference is, the other impeachments took a lot longer and there was a lot more process to actually get to the truth. this is sort of we've got to finish this up by christmas, before the election. and i think their logic was if you impeach him, they'll come around, the public, right. that's not happening. the american action network or gop related group that's running ads in some of the 31 trump districts where democrats hold the seat, they just did a poll that was -- the results reported in politico. it found in the three key seats of democrats that 60% of the people said that this should be decided by elections, not by impeachment. and the support for impeachment was lower than the support for non-impeachment. so i think that that's backfired. and dan raised censure many had

they gone the censure route, they might have split republicans by getting a few to vote for censure. what they've instead done is they're creating riffs if their own party and they've split -- and they've united republicans. paul: on the politics here, going ahead with this, they're committed. i guess they must figure that somehow that this will stigmatize donald trump enough so when he runs for re-election they'll be able to say he's only the fourth president who was impeached. i guess maybe the third because even nixon wasn't impeached. >> the reason we're here is because nancy pelosi's liberal base demanded this and liberal members questio demanded it. i think there was a fear within the democratic caucus that if if they did not impeach they would demoralize their base. in a time when the election would be about turnout, they felt it was almost a campaign pledge they needed to fulfill.

the problem, again, is this does put the more moderate members, the people who were so important to getting nancy pelosi the gavel, in a very awkward position and this also raises some real problems. they can't go too far with articles of impeachment or they risk losing some of those members too. paul: thanks, kim. when we get back, impeachment and the constitution. what we learned from this week's testimony from four legal scholars and the risks posed to the separation of powers from the process playing out on capitol hill. >> it's a perfect storm. you set a r short 3erd period, a huge amount of information and when the president goes to court, you she wanted to move someplace warm. but he wanted snow for the holidays. so we built a snow globe. i'll get that later. dylan! but the one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance.

what? switching and saving was really easy! i love you! what? sweetie! hands off the glass. ugh!! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be. i love her!

but you don't feel good. with polycythemia vera, pv, symptoms can change so slowly over time you might not notice. but new or changing symptoms can mean your pv is changing. let's change the way we see pv. you track and discuss blood counts with your doctor. but it's just as vital to discuss changing symptoms as well. take notice and take action. discuss counts and symptoms with your doctor. visit takeactionpv.com

>> if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power.

it's your abuse of power. you're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president of doing. we have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches and what comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy. paul: that was law professor jonathan turley lawmakers that it would be the abuse of their authority to impeach president trump and urging them to respect the separation of powers. this came as the house judiciary committee heard testimony from four legal scholars on the constitutional grounds for presidential i' impeachment. let's bring in attorney david ribkin. let's go through the arguments one by one. the main argument they're making is that the president abused his power. what do you make of that? >> constitutionally incoherent,

paul. the president exercised his core foreign policy authority to talk to ukraine about investigating past corruption. whether you like it or dislike it as a matter also policy, that's within his constitutional wheelhouse. they are saying he could benefit politically from the investigation of mr. biden or biden's son. paul: and therefore he solicited a bribe is the claim. >> the reason it's incoherent is because in a democracy every elected politician, both political branches, then he or she tried to policy legislatively or foreign policy wise is always thinking about political consequences. under this logic, every president is committing an impeachable offense virtually every day including by the way as you point out in an excellent editor l y'all, that' -- editors

the case with mr. biden. mr. biden's view was i'm going to ask ukraine to fire the prosecutor and freeze the aid until it gets done. it's also arguable that because this prosecutor appeared to be investigated or wanted to investigate his son r, he would also benefit politically. basically, what they're suggesting would be sufficient to impeach biden. by the way, there's precedent in our practice of impeaching past government officials. so biden is imminently impeachable. paul: that's interesting. jonathan turley made the point, which i thought hadn't focused on and i wonder what you think of it, this would be the first impeachment in american history if it proceeds as it will without a specific criminal statute or crime that the president who impeached who have allegedly committed. is that your view too? >> it is my view, although in

the case of andrew johnson he was accused of violating the office act, clearly would not -- looking at his articles of impeachment, he did not violate any criminal law. i would put it slightly differently. paul: that lawyer was later declared unconstitutional but it was at least a law. >> right. it was not a criminal law but it was a law. look, what we have is slog and nearing here. i think this is the worst example of abuse of impeachment power in american history, completely lacking in merit. the president has not committed any high crime or misdemeanor. he has not committed bribery. what the democrats are doing, they're saying he asked ukraine to interfere in the u.s. elections. if you're asking chinese premier xi to give you a good trade deal, from which you benefit politically, are you asking him to interfere in u.s. elections.

what about chairman ci kim and e denuclearization agreement. paul: but they would say he didn't ask xi to investigate joe biden. that's a difference. >> the argument is -- first of all, look, the united states asks foreign governments to investigate u.s. nationals every single day of the week and i'm not being rhetorical. number one. number two, you don't obtain benefit if you're running for offers. you're supposedly not subject to being investigated. why was mr. trump investigated when he was running for office. not only by the fbi, but also investigated apparently by a number of foreign intelligence seservices at the request i hapn to believe by certain folks here. there's nothing -- there's no content here as far as a high crime and misdemeanor here. the other part, they want to stick him with obstruction of congress. that's even more ludicrous. paul: i want to elaborate on

that. because they're saying he blocked all of this -- blocked document production and blocked witnesses from testifying. and therefore, he's obstructing their probe. what's wrong with that argument? >> this is even more ridiculous if we're going to make a comparison. look, the president does not forfeit constitutional prerogatives merely because an impeachment has commenced. he isen tie l tellshe is -- he o withhold the information. the president's advisers including mr. bolton and mr. cupperman have taken it to court. the democrats are eluding litigation. how can you possibly stick the president with obstruction charge because he's asking, and his people are asking article three of the judiciary for definitive adjudication, stick him with obstruction and he disagrees and doesn't follow supreme court adjudication of

this issue. going to court is as american as apple pie, couldn't possibly be obstructive. paul: all right. thank you for being here. when we come back, adam schiff facing abuse of power accusations of his own as the democrat demands and then discloses the telephone call logs of his political as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i wanted more from my copd medicine that's why i've got the power of 1, 2, 3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved once-daily 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy

♪ the power of 1,2,3 ♪ trelegy ♪ 1,2,3 ♪ trelegy man: with trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works three ways to open airways, keep them open and reduce inflammation, for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3. ♪ trelegy, 1,2,3 man: save at trelegy.com.

my bladder leak underwear.orried someone might see ♪ trelegy, 1,2,3 so, i switched. to always discreet boutique. its shape-hugging threads smooth out the back. so it fits better than depend. and no one notices. always discreet. is to be able to take these immune therapies and to make it a first line approach. because as more and more of these children survive into adulthood we are seeing more complications. it's almost like premature aging because of all the exposure to these drugs in the past. [female narrator] together, we can find safer treatments for kids fighting cancer. [john wagner, md] we have more hope than ever before. we keep trying and we'll learn from it.

and, the children's cancer research fund allows us to do just that. beyond the routine checkups. beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected. to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.

>> it is i think deeply concerning that at a time when the president of the united states was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of congress complacent in that activity. paul: that was house intelligence committee chair adam schiff this week insinuating that his committee colleague, ranking member devin nunes, is complacent in a conspiracy to commit impeachable offenses. schiff released a 300 page report tuesday on the democratic impeachment investigation that included telephone records obtained from at&t, disclosing details of calls between nunes, trump attorneys rudy giuliani and jay sekela, a journalist and

former giuliani associate among others. is schiff's surveillance of political opponents its own abuse of power. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and bill mcgern. how did schiff get these records and have we ever had a skis case where a congressman did this to someone else in congress? >> no, this is an unprecedented abuse of power. the way he did it, he sent a subpoena to telephone carriers. he did not alert the people who were the subject of these subpoenas to the fact that he was seeking their telephone records this way. republicans knew what that the subpoena had gone out but they were barred because this happened in the intelligence committee from saying anything about it publicly. and the phone carriers decided rather than litigate this, which would have been the proper thing to do, given the stakes an begin how seriously intrusive this was, they didn't. they just rolled over and handed him the records.

paul: this was so-called metta-day taxer it's not the content of the call, it's the timing of the calls, the numbers that were exchanged, the duration of the calls. you and i recall when this was a source of huge controversy when president george w. bush collected the so-called bulk meta data against terrorists. now the executive branch cannot collect this data, can it? doesn't it need some kind of court order to be able to -- when it wants to inquire to get a number. >> yes. basically any time federal law enforcement wants to obtain meta data it entails some sort of court supervision. because that's meant to ensure that the reason that they are doing this is valid, legitimate, that they aren't just snooping into the privacy of americans. adam schiff was sitting in his skiff somewhere in the basement of the congress and decided all

on his lonesome that his reasons were l valid and moved on his own. paul: just so people understand, congress passed a law that required the administration, the executive branch, to be able to have to get a court order to get the meta data. adam schiff decides as a committee chairman he'll just ask at&t for it and there's no court supervision at all? >> yes. and there's no way anyone can go back and get relief from this either. i mean, also, this is just unprecedented too. paul, this is the first time that we know of that a committee member has used his official powers in congress to spy on a fellow member of congress and also by the way, to divulge details about the workings and telephone calls of a member of the press too. paul: schiff is saying we didn't spy on nunes, i didn't subpoena he devin newness and i didn't subpoena the journalist, john sullivan. we were subpoenaing people central to the impeachment probe

and these were incidental collections. what's your response to that? >> well, there is never any reason -- if these were incident l talincidental collections, why publish the name. i think it's true what he was saying, that he got giuliani number's and many people as a result of the people giuliani has spoke to over the course of several months. that's why the accusation is so you outra outrageous, he doesn'w the contents of the calls. he lists the names of people that giuliani spoke to and suggests that were all-in on a conspiracy. he doesn't know what nunes was talking to giuliani about. they could have been talking about the easter bunny. to suggest this is proof of some sort of active involvement in conspiracy is a really malicious claim. paul: why do you think schiff would do this? the nunes' phone call records and john solomon's know phone cl

records are gratuitous? >> honestly, you'd have to ask adam schiff. bear in mind, we don't know this because this information was leaked to the press. it is in his 300 page report, okay. paul: right. >> and so he dumped it. it is really -- well, kim has been saying it's unprecedented. it is now a precedent. if adam schiff can do this, this means the chairman of the house intelligence committee or perhaps other committees can subpoena from telephone companies anyone's records for any i reason if they can suggest there's a legislative purpose. she's right, the telephone company should have taken this to court and eventually i think it will be taken to course. paul: there's also the issue of attorney/client privilege. giuliani is the president's personal attorney. >> there's press freedom, harassing the member of the press, there's attorney/client privilege and how you treat

another member. imagine if hillary clinton did this. there would be screams. the second story, there have been very little protests except for the wall street journal and a handful of other people. paul: the press corps is cheering it on. >> there is a logic to this. this is an effort smear anyone that's a critic. still ahead, president trump slaps tariffs on south american steelnd a says a deal with china may have to wait. senator pat toomey on the latest trade turmoil and the prospec (chime) (shaq) magenta? i hate cartridges! not magenta! not magenta. i'm not going back to the store. magenta! cartridges are so... (buzzer) (vo) the epson ecotank. no more cartridges. it comes with an incredible amount of ink that can save you a lot of frustration. ♪

the epson ecotank. just fill and chill! available at...

beyond the routine checkups. beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected. to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. doctor bob, what should i take for back pain? before you take anything, i recommend applying topical relievers first. salonpas lidocaine patch blocks pain receptors for effective, non-addictive relief. salonpas lidocaine. patch, roll-on or cream. hisamitsu. 1 in 5 people you meet wear yeah. that many! but right now, is not the time to talk about it. so when you're ready, search 'my denture care'.

poligrip and polident. fixed. fresh. and just between us. >> if you take a look at what's happened with their currency, they deval judvalued currency b. and i gave them a big break on tariffs but now i'm taking that break off because it's unfair to our manufacturer manufacturer, o our farmers. paul: that was president trump accusing argentina and brazil of hurting american farmers and manufacturers through currency manipulation. the president indicated that a trade deal with china may have to wait until after the 2020 election. this after democrats on capitol hill continue to negotiate with the white house over final details of a you ne a new tradeh

mexico and canada. republican senator t pat toomey joins me now to react to a full week of trade news. welcome. let me ask you about the job numbers that came out, big, big number. i wanted to -- were you surprised at that? how strong is the economy in pennsylvania? >> the economy in pennsylvania is strong. we're a big, diverse statement it's not 100% universally strong, obviously but it's generally very, very strong. employment is strong. wage growth is strong. this number is an amazing number that came out on friday. i think it makes it very hard to see a recession within the foreseeable future, with so many people working, with wages growing, record low unemployment, this is really good news. paul: the one area that's been a problem in the economy is manufacturing, especially across the upper midwest. it bounced back a little this past month because of autos in part and many people think that that weakness in manufacturing is trade related.

okay. do you agree with that? >> i do. i do. and i've seen in pennsylvania the tariffs on steel and you aluminum have done more harm than good, without any doubt. we have so many more businesses and workers in companies that use steel and aluminum than we have in those that make steel and aa limb unti a-- aluminum st much larger category when you raise the cost of the inputs, you make their products less competitive. paul: and the new tariffs on brazil and aluminum will hurt because brazil filled the gap on some of the other countries. >> i think this is a very clear misuse of the section of our trade law that is meant to authorize the use of tariffs only in the case of a national security threat. this is not a national security threat. these countries do not pose a national security threat to us and by the way, i don't think they're manipulating their currencies either. paul: i think arrest jen at this take that put a floor -- argentina put a floor --

>> they were intervening to try to prevent the downward movement of their currency. paul: the president is pushing for the u.s., canada, mexico trade deal, the president is pushing for it very hard. nancy pelosi is not going along with it. you have said you will not vote for the revised nafta in its current form. why not? >> i think it moves backward on free trade. it doesn't change that much relative to the underlying nafta. i would say there are three big change, i'll say four. there's mode modernization. paul: and that's good. >> that's good. they cut an that in. all good. there's three problems -- maybe there's more than three. a big part of the motivation was to impede the trade in automobiles, cars and car parts. the president's problem with nafta is we have a trade deficit with mexico. it's reciprocal.

the result was that we have a modest trade deficit with mexico and apparently that was unacceptable. so in this agreement, we imposed quotas, country specific rules of origin. paul: and wage -- >> minimum wage determination. all kinds of things that don't belong in a he freed trade agreement. -- free trade agreement. that's number one. there's an expiration date on it. paul: six years. >> well, 16, six years to extend it. we have no assurance that it's going to be ex tended. the third thing for me, the virtual elimination of the investor state dispute settlement mechanism. as you know, american investors in other countries often don't get a fair shake in the local court when they're competing with local interests. and so we always have this mechanism to adjudicate these differences and it's very helpful for american investors. this has been destroyed. paul: for all of that, those

are free treat classic objections here. but yet -- and they're concessions to the democrats in many ways. why is nancy pelosi holding this up and not going ahead? >> so the way it looks to me, of course i can't get in someone else's head but the way it looks to me, this negotiated agreement has made more concessions to the left, to the organized labor than any other trade agreement and they're still not there and it sure seems to me it's a reluctance to give president trump what he would consider a victory. paul: pelosi wants to cut protections for pa patents for g companies from 10 years to five and they want unilateral ability for united states versus to go and determine whether mexico is violating its own laws. if i were mexico, i'd say hey, that's our sovereignity. >> yeah, yeah. this is just so far beyond the pale of what we would expect in

a free trade agreement. by the way, the intellectual property protection on biologics on this new exciting form of medicine, domestic u.s. law is 12 years of protection. they already made a concession to 10 years. the democrats are saying even less than that. they're negotiating on behalf of the mexicans. it's just strange. paul: on the china deal, we don have that much time, but you want to get this trade deal done with china, phase one, would that be in your interest? >> absolutely certainly in our economic interest to avoid another round of tariffs and some meaningful progress might get us there. i think china's a complicated case because of the geo politics of it, because of the extremely bad behavior and the turn towards a more thor tea aa thorn regime there. the best could be suspension of the tariffs. paul: if you do a short-term deal you could make progress on

the tariffs and behavior and second term, if president trump gets one, do something more. >> there's no way we are going to solve all of this in one agreement. this is going to have to come in incremental steps. hopefully we make some progress this month senator toomey thanks for coming in. the supreme court hears its first gun rights case in nearly a decade as the justices weigh a ruling on the scope of the second (vo) the moth without hope, struggles in the spider's web. with every attempt to free itself, 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. ugh, another electronic signature. you have to print, walk,

sign, scan, recycle, walk, email yourself... really? more walking, try again, waiting, recycle, walk, email yourself, then get back to your day. or not. this isn't working. introducing samsung paperless workflow solutions. with the galaxy tab s6, you can sign digital documents on-screen, with a finger or your s pen. samsung business solutions.

but maybe not for peoples pen. with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened.

as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". paul: the supreme court this week took up the question of gun rights for the first time in nearly a decade with the justices hearing oral arguments in a case that if they choose to rule could clarify just where the high court stands on the scope of the second amendment. that issue is a now repealed new york city ordinance that prohibited gun owners from transporting their handguns to second residences and shooting ranges outside the city, fearing a loss in the supreme court, the city repealed that measure and

now argues that the case is moot, a move justice neil r gorsuch called a late breaking effort to avoid constitutional review. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and allysia finley. could the court drop the case because the ordinance has been repealed? >> no. the supreme court hasn't heard a gun rights case for nearly a decade and it is important, as the state and local laws that restrict gun rights proliferate for the court to provide some kind of guidance to lower courts so the standard review and in this case upholding the right to transport your gun outside of the home. paul: these actions stipulate are licensed firearms, not illegal firearms. you have a license in new york to keep it in your home. it's hard to get a license. they're saying you couldn't take it outside the city. >> you can't take it to a second home, they're saying you should get a second gun for a

second home. you couldn't take it to a shooting range, the second -- they said you can just practice or rent a gun at a shooting range. paul: what about the idea that the case is moot because there's not a live controversy? >> i think as we -- as justice neil gorsuch and samuel neil tried to tease out, it's not really moot. under the city ordinance, they could be stopped if they're not traveling continuously and directly to a shooting range outside of the city so what does that mean. you stop at mom's place along the way, you can get pulled over and if you have a gun, well, you could get sent to the slammer. paul: it was a funny exchange, if you stopped for a cup of coffee and a cop sees a gun in your car, could you be brought in and that wasn't clear that that would in fact not apply. >> that's right. that's why you need a court ruling to di stipulate affirmatively that this law or that gun right owners have a

right to take their gun outside the home. paul: there was an intervention in the case, a brief by several democratic senators led by sheldon whitehouse of rhode island saying you should drop this case and if you don't, you run the risk, justices, of having the court itself being restructured. that kind of direct threat to the court itself and its makeup, i can't recall anything comparable happening. >> no, never happened before, paul. sheldon whitehouse likes to break records. this is a remarkable thing. it gives you a sense to the degree in which democrats are vested in the gun issue and howie gear they are to make sure the supreme court doesn't do as allysia says, in any way offer further guidance that would provide more security to gun owners out there. they dropped and stooped to actually threaten the justices with court restructuring if they don't do what democrats want. paul: did they give any

indication, the justices, of where the court is split on this and how it might come out? >> i think they were definitely split on the question of whether the case is moot. and you know, actually justice kavanaugh didn't actually talk or ask any questions during oral arguments and the chief justice was pretty quiet. he asked about one question or a couple questions regarding the mootness, trying to draw out the new york defense. and i think they're going to come down over dis downoverturn. you're going to get a lot of dissent. paul: they don't have to go very far to rule in favor of gun rights, don't have to say anything about assault rifles. they can rule narrowly. >> they can rule narrowly. i wouldn't be surprised if they pull back and say the mooting was a political solution to

this. that dodges the principle, the fact that the right to bear arms is in the constitution. paul: and whether or not as clarence thomass has written, justice thomas, the court considers the second amendment to be a second class right or is it like the other bill of rights, it demands aggressive protection by the courts. when we come back, u.k. voters get set to head to the polls next week as prime minister boris johnson attempts to cement his brexit legacy. we'll go to london for the lateest, next. >> i'll stay out of the election. you know i was a fan of brexit.

whether you're out here on lte. or here on a wifi hotspot. xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. and now get $250 off when you buy a new samsung phone during xfinity mobile beyond black friday. plus, you can save up to $400 a year. click, call or visit a store today. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. nah. not gonna happen. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ]

hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. call... to save $500 off bath walls with your walk in bath. or visit kohlerwalkinbath.com for more info.

paul: the united kingdom gearing up for what could be the most consequential election in a generation. they head to the polls on thursday to determine first and foremost the u.k. future relationship with its europe eun neighbors and boris johnson attempts to deliver on brexit more than three years after voters decided to leave the eu. joe sternberg joins us from london with the latest. joe, welcome. what are the brexit stakes here? does boris johnson need a tori majority to pull brexit off? >> that is exactly what's at issue here. are voters going to give boris johnson the majority of

lawmakers in parliament that he needs to finally pass the deal that he negotiated a couple months ago with brussels and there's signs that voters are thinking about the election that way too. there's some recent polling that suggests that boris johnson's get brexit done he slogan is really the only campaign slogan any party or politician has offered that is cutting through that voters are remembering. so they understand that this is really what it's going to be about. the alternative is that voters turn away from boris johnson and the conservatives. the real danger is you end up with another parliament where there isn't a majority and the prospect that this anguish that britain has been going through trying to he resolve brexit the past few years just drags on and on. paul: that's one of the points boris johnson is making, he's saying don't let these drag on. the so-called remainers, they're divided between the liberal democrats and labor. the danger is if they start to

unite behind labor. >> yes. i mean, i think that there is a lot of division on the remain side which is one thing that is helping boris johnson here. because remember, even though brexit policy still remains deeply controversial, you will have a certain number of voters who will say look, our fellow voters decided this issue three years ago. it's time for lawmakers and the parliament to get on with it. and that is really the option that boris is giving them. you know, against that, you have a lot of confusion, you have small liberal democratic party of centrists saying they want to completely skupper brexit. have you a labor camp deciding whether th they want to offer a referendum. i think there's a certain sense where it isn't about brexit stint, it's about paralysis and gridlock. will voters elect a parliament that is just going to allow the country to move forward one way or another. paul: joe, let's talk about the

stakes on economic and foreign policy because there's a stark difference here between the johnson tories and what they're offering and jeremy corbin, he's probably the most left wing labor leader i can recall in my lifetime. what are the differences? >> well, absolutely labor and this election is offering their most radical left wing platform, at least since 1983 when they were running against margaret thatcher. i think you're talking about increasing annual spending by about 10% which is really an enormous amount of money that they're talking about, dramatic expansion of public services, nationalization of a wide swath of industries, such as railways, broad band service. i think labor under jeremy corbin is really hoping this election would give them the opportunity to completely remake the british economy in a very left wing direction. i think that the challenge for them is it's not clear that

british voters are nearly that radical. it's a deeply mostly conservative country in the sense that people are a little resistant to change, so it has been a tough sell for labor and corbin. paul: briefly, joe, labor's trying to use donald trump's support for johnson against him. is that working? >> it does work to a certain extent, because donald trump is a polarizing here as he is in america. he's not particularly popular. but i think british voters are going to understand this election is really about their future instead of any kind of referendum on donald trump and that seems to be the kind of decision that voters are preparing to make next week. paul: all right, joe. thanks for coming in. appreciate it. we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week.

beyond the routine checkups. beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected.

to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. i wanted more from my copd medicine that's why i've got the power of 1, 2, 3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved once-daily 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy ♪ the power of 1,2,3 ♪ trelegy ♪ 1,2,3 ♪ trelegy man: with trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works three ways to open airways, keep them open and reduce inflammation, for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3.

♪ trelegy, 1,2,3 man: save at trelegy.com. ♪ paul: time now for our hits and misses of the week. kim, start us off.

>> this is a miss and a not so fond farewell to camilla harris, the california -- kamala harris, who this week dropped out of the 2020 presidential race on the democratic side. you know, ms. harris really was a warning that biography is not enough. you can't go in and one day decide you're going to be a liberal firebrand, the next day flip around. she has the dubious distinction of maybe having done herself more harm in terms of being asked to be on a future ticket or in a future administration. we'll see her at the senate impeachment trial. paul: bill? >> the former vice president's routinely mocked for his senior moments on the campaign and references to kind of old terms like record players and malarkey, but it turns out he's more woke than we gave him credit for. existential is the word of the year, and it was joe biden who back in june said that donald trump was an existential net to

decency. so kudos to joe, looks like he's further ahead of the game than we sometimes give him credit for. >> this is a miss to the liberals out there who are accusing peloton, the exercise spin company, of promoting sexism by, in an ad in which a man gives his wife a nice spin bike that probably retails for around $3,000. most women would love to get this gift -- [laughter] including me. so to quote taylor swift, people need to just calm down. paul: dan? >> i'm giving a hit to the two astronauts this week who conducted a six-hour space walk to prepare the international space station. now, astronauts have been doing space walks since 1965. we've gotten kind of used to them. but the fact remains they remain literally, in one word, awesome. i yaw-inspiring -- awe-inspiring. 215 miles above the earth,

wonderfully incredible. paul: that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel. thanks to all of you for watching. i'm paul gigot, we hope to see you right here next week. ♪ his new given his outlook on 2020. the blood drop support for 20 entire expectations. that's 80,000 more than the initial expectation for that

employment rate me