you're destined to strike out big league. jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> and thanks so much for joining us. ac 360 with anderson starts now. good evening. we start with breaking news tonight. house speaker nancy pelosi this afternoon announced the impeachment inquiry is about to enter a new, more public phase trying to at least in part undercut a key republican talking point in the process. the speaker informed her colleagues in a letter that the house will hold a vote on thursday on rules that establish the rights of the public to see the information collected from witnesses during closed-door testimony and how that information will be transferred to the judiciary committee which is responsible for recommending articles of impeachment. it will also establish the rights of the president and his do counsel as they head for an impeachment vote. much of her letter was not about the process ahead, it was rather

why they're holding the vote. she said we are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the trump administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas or continue obstructing the house of representatives. nobody is above the law. tomorrow will mark five weeks since speaker pelosi publicly announced this. they said they cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry. mike pompeo has said his employees cannot testify. rudy giuliani has refused as well. today democrats threatened contempt after a witness refused to appear. one of the reasons the president's allies have refused is with process. there needs to be a single house vote to establish the inquiry. that is not true. a federal judge called those arguments cheri picked and incomplete with no textual support in the u.s.

constitution. today the president seemed to said, i'd rather go into the details of the case rather than process. process is wonderful. process is good but i think you ought to look at the case and the ka is is very quick. it's so quick. >> but it doesn't seem like his allies in congress agree with him, especially considering so much testimony from multiple officials appear to confirm the initial whistle-blower's allegations, a quid pro quo. congressman, why take this vote now? what changed? >> well, i think that this vote is not necessary for the impeachment inquiry to exist. indeed, as you pointed out, judge howell last friday in the d.c. district court said as much. however, we do need a vote in order to do a few things. one, publish the transcripts of the closed door proceedings.

two, transfer this evidence to the judiciary committee for their consideration later and then, three, among other things we need to have staff-led questioning in the open hearings, something which currently is not the norm in most public hearings. >> so in the public hearings it's -- the questions are going to be, what, from attorneys on the staff as opposed to from members of congress? >> i think it's going to be primarily led by staff. i think one of the problems that your viewers might notice with our public hearings is that most times we as members each get about five minutes of questioning and although you can pack a lot into five minutes, there's -- there's kind of an abruptness to the way that they start and end and so we hope to have lengthier question periods and also done by folks who are probably going to get into even more details than is normally the case in member questioning.

>> and also, i mean, you know, to be frank, in the five minutes that many members of congress have, oftentimes a lot of that is eaten up by them making a statement first and sometimes those statements are very long. >> oh, i don't know what you're talking about, anderson. >> not you. certainly never you. >> how much of this is in response to charles cupperman's failure to show. chairman schiff said he didn't want to litigate in courts. >> i think these aren't really linked. this had to be done anyway in order to go to the next stage, the opening hearings. the one thing i can say about mr. cupperman is he obviously is not complying with the personally directed subpoena, but as you can see, there's been a stream, a parade of witnesses who have come forward. these are career public servants, oftentimes appointed by donald trump's administration who have come forward at their own expense putting their necks on the line to tell the truth

and that's very much to be commended. >> the house republican leader, kevin mccarthy, he has responded to what nancy pelosi put out today. he tweeted saying, quote, today's backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start. obviously you don't agree with that, but do you see this as at least in part a desire to sort of meet republicans -- some republican's criticism that there should be a full vote on this? >> well, what i can say, it reaffirms what's already occurred. i mean, there are claims that the process has been unfair are totally unfounded. more than 40 republicans have participated in the closed door proceedings. they've had equal time to question the witnesses. they can question them about any topic they want and they get to make opening statements as well. they've used that opportunity on an ample basis. so i think their claims of process are unfounded. interestingly, they don't want to talk about the substance of the allegations and that's what

we really need to consider at this point. so going to a public hearing will really allow the american people to see the substance of the evidence and really decide for themselves what they think about where the evidence should lead us. >> so will all the transcripts of the closed-door meetings, will all of those be released? and what percentage do you think of the people who have come forward so far to be witnesses or to give testimony will be called back to do it publicly? >> the answer be is i don't know. i don't think that has been decided. obviously i don't want to get ahead of my chairman, adam schiff, on these particular questions. but i think probably short of redacting for certain maybe sensitive or classified information, my hope would be there would be maximum transparency. in my humble opinion it was very powerful, incredible, compelling

testimony such as by bill taylor the other day. >> as i mentioned at the top of the program, speaker pelosi said they're taking these steps to, quote, eliminate any doubt as to whether the trump administration may withhold any documents or continue obstructings the house of representatives. do you actually expect this will change how the white house responds to your threats? >> i'm not sure. i'm he not holding my breath kind of based on the obstructionism they've provided up to this point, but at this point i think we have to do the right thing. we have to hold open hearings. provide maximum transparency into what's happening and like i said, allow the american people to actually see the witnesses and hear for themselves what they have to say. it's extremely important for this process to unfold the way it should. >> congressman, appreciate it. thank you very much. >> thank you, anderson. joining me is gloria borger,

jeffrey toobin, and david irvin who is now a washington corporate lobbyist. jeff, does this upcoming vote, does it put democrats in a stronger position or is it, as kevin mccarthy is saying, democrats backtracking? >> i think it pus them mostly in a stronger position. i think what it's really about is that there has been a plan among the democrats from almost the beginning of this process to make an article of impeachment about failure to cooperate with congress. failure to answer subpoenas, failure to answer witnesses and documents. this resolution will eliminate one of the arguments that the administration has used to refuse to produce documents and they will still refuse to produce all that material. so i think it's really designed to build up the article of impeachment. i don't think it's going to get the trump administration to yield on the issues of allowing

people to testify. >> gloria, the idea that the congressman was just saying that it's going to be staff members doing the questioning as opposed to members of congress, we haven't seen that for a while. that's pretty interesting. you know, there were a lot of -- there was a lot of talk of should not have been done in, you know, the mueller testimony, in other testimonies, but do you think that's going to make much of a difference in terms of public perception? >> well, i don't know if it's going to make much of a difference in public perception. it may mean that you get more or better information out of the witnesses because, of course, the committee lawyers are really steeped in all of this. and i don't know if that will happen on the republican side as well or just on the democratic side. if there are republican attorneys and republican members of congress, you can be sure they're going to go back to the deep state and the -- sort of the rat hole about, well, these are all democrats. they're not to be trusted. you know, all the rest of that.

and i think, however, if you have attorneys with time lines and a long amount of time to question people, not just five minutes, you may actually be able to tell a narrative a lot better than you would if you were moving from member to member to member. and i think this is all about telling a story to the american public. >> david, it's interesting because democrats are saying, well, look, all the things that, you know, nancy pelosi has talked about today, that was the plan all along. transcripts were always going to be released. witnesses were all going to be -- some of them were always going to be brought back to testify openly. do you see this as much of a change or do you see it -- or how do you see it? >> yeah, you know, anderson, i listened to carrie corderro earlier on another show kind of opine. this is a tempest in the teapot.

the speaker didn't need to do any of this. she could have conducted business in a closed door meeting. i'm not sure what you get out of this except, you know, you give comfort to some folks who are in very safe districts and you make people in swing districts very nervous. >> dave, to your point, it's not going to change -- sorry. it's not going to change -- >> no. >> -- you know, how the white house handles this ordeals with it? >> no. just like jeff said earlier. just because they vote this way i don't think all of a sudden the white house counsel is going to say, since you've had this procedural vote, we'll turn this information over to you. it will change absolutely nothing. >> i'm sorry. go ahead. i didn't mean to interrupt. >> jeff, it's not going to change anything. i think, anderson, i go back to the washington post january 20th, 2017, you know, the move to impeach president trump has begun on inauguration day.

this is a continuation of that. i think the white house sees it as that. cnn has a piece on the website too where polling is upside down in swing states on impeachment. michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania. impeachment is not playing so well there. so i think speaker pelosi has a timing thing on her hands as well. are we going to get this done and wrapped up before thanksgiving or is this going to drag into 2020? >> can we talk about this a little bit about the law rather than the polling data. you know, the white house has said we will not cooperate because you haven't passed a resolution. they are going to pass a resolution and the white house still isn't going to cooperate. that's wrong. that's just something that shouldn't happen. >> jeff -- >> right. >> jeff, let's -- >> go ahead. >> go ahead, gloria. >> david, respond and then we'll go to floor yeah. >> no, i was going to say -- jeff, there's a long history of the house and white house not getting along. you go to fast and furious,

benghazi, lots of push back from every administration to the congress on all oversight investigations. this is no different. >> well, but the white house at some point and the president said it today, anderson, you pointed out at the beginning of the show, the president said today, you know, i really want you guys to get into the details here and stop talking about process and start defending me on the phone call because it was a beautiful phone call. >> he said he wanted to talk to mueller and he wanted to be interviewed. >> exactly. >> what one says publicly is not what one wants. >> exactly. now the republicans have a conflict here, because the president, at least he says, wants them to talk about the phone call and how it was perfect and it was fine for the president to ask another president a political favor. and the republicans are still screaming about the process even though nancy pelosi has said, okay, fine, here it is.

she called their bluff. they have to have a meeting of the minds here about what they're going to do during this process. are they going to go down the dark hole of the whistle-blower as a democrat. i did it, so what? >> we're going to continue this in just a second. i have to get a break in. still to come we're going also to the white house for reaction to thursday's impeachment vote. also detailed account on the u.s. special forces and the one dog that we know about who all risked their lives on the secret mission that killed the leader of isis.

reaction tonight from the white house. a vote in the house of representatives will take place on thursday that will send it to a new, more public direction. jim acosta joins us now from the white house. what are they saying about it at the white house, jim? >> reporter: they're not signaling a whole lot of cooperation to come, anderson. i will tell you talking to some sources, republican sources up on capitol hill and close to the white house essentially saying this was their objective all along, to force the house speaker nancy pelosi to have this vote later on this week. according to one republican source i talked to earlier this evening, this does not mean that all of a sudden there's going to be all of this cooperation. this one republican source referred to pelosi's source as

being largely symbolic. the white house press secretary i think signaled this pretty clearly earlier this evening, anderson, putting out a very lengthy statement calling this process irreversibly illegitimate. that is an indication that the white house is likely to take the posture, anderson, that although nancy pelosi is trying to create a process that will be voted on in the house, that that doesn't all of a sudden put the impeachment toothpaste back in the tube. >> the legal team, have they weighed in? >> reporter: i talked to one source close to the legal team aware of what is being discussed inside the president's legal team, and they are saying this evening that they're being much more cautious about what is going to be voted on in the house. i talked to one source who said, listen, we haven't even read what's in the resolution so at this point they don't want to comment. anderson, if past is prologue, throughout this impeachment inquiry it is very likely that the white house will have to be

dragged into court and forced to cooperate with this investigation no matter what is voted on on thursday but we'll have to wait and see what is in the finer details of this resolution. at least the president's legal team is not closing the door on all of this but they're not signaling a great deal of cooperation tonight. >> jim acosta. thank you very much. back to our panel. david, the time line here does matter. i mean, it is -- obviously there's an election coming up. if this gets wrapped up in court and moving into the new year and the senate takes it on and there's lengthy testimony, that's going to occupy time of the front-runners on the democratic side for president. >> in that regard, not only that, but you get more and more of what i see verbatim from voters across america and

particularly in swing states that say, look, congress should get back to doing what they're doing. there's an election coming up. we have a few months to go. why don't we make our decision as to who should be president or not and let's not nullify the past election. that becomes more of a problem the closer you get. jeff, earlier you talked about -- i was going to say jeff earlier talked about the vote. one of the things the republicans have a lot of heartburn with is speaker pelosi never took a vote to authorize this impeachment process to begin with. republicans -- >> doesn't matter. >> republicans feel like she should do that. if she's going to have a subsequent vote, let's have a vote to begin the proceedings initially. >> judge howell in the district court said that's not necessary. >> didn't need it. >> they're going to take that vote anyway at the end of this week. so, i mean, you know, these procedural objections to how the democrats are proceeding, they will persuade a certain number of people who i think are already persuaded but, you know,

the ultimate issue is is the president's conduct impeachable and at some point it looks like the house of representatives is going to have to make a decision on that and that's a substantive issue, not a procedural one. >> gloria, how much of the time line do you think is -- >> it's a political issue too, jeff. >> this time line is moving very quickly. this whole thing is fast tracked. the democrats are well aware that they want this to end, as david points out, they want this to end before january and caitlyn colance just reported tonight that judge richard leon wants to hear from charles cupperman who said i'm not going to testify today on capitol hill, former national security person who worked for john bolton. his attorney and the white house lawyers, the house lawyers about how this should proceed. cupperman said i can't figure this out. the white house and the house

disagree. he's having them all in on thursday. that's pretty quick. having them all in on thursday. so presumably so he can decide this matter soukuperman can testify or not testify. so that gives you an idea of how the courts are even speeding this up. >> jeff -- >> if i'm not mistaken -- anderson, i think that the house already continues to have depositions scheduled to the middle of november. there are depositions being held out to the middle of november. seeing how things are going to move much quicker. if they're not wrapping up by the end -- you get thanksgiving, christmas, in the new year. pretty quickly here. taking depositions throughout the end of november doesn't seem like you're going to get things wrapped up too quickly. >> jeff, the house can structure the rules any way they want in terms of the actual opening hearings. are you encouraged that it's going to be staff members asking the questions or that's what they say? they said that and then clearly that sort of derailed.

>> no, this seems to be different. and i am so encouraged. i think this is good for the republicans as well as the democrats. the congressmen, with all due respect, are such extraordinary blowhards that they are -- a, all they want to do is hear their own voices and, b, don't know how to ask a question to tell a story. both sides will be able to use this testimony to tell a story. >> right. >> the public can then, you know, make up its mind about which story is more persuasive, but the nonsense of five minutes from each side is a miserable way to extract information. >> ridiculous. >> this is much better, i think, for all concerned. >> and you're going to be able to read some of the secret testimony because they're going to release -- they're going to start releasing some of these transcripts. we know that the attorneys are up there checking out the transcripts of their clients. so, you know, the public is going to have a lot of the story before you get the testimony so

they're going to be able to tell this narrative one way or another and the republicans can do whatever they want, either produce a counter narrative or just poke holes in the sources of the narratives that mr. taylor is a member of the deep state who's not a patriot, et cetera, et cetera, after he's had 50 years in public service. >> david -- >> gloria -- go ahead, anderson. >> sorry. i wanted to ask you about john bolton. obviously there's a lot of folks wondering would he testify, what would he say? charles cupperman who was on the july 25th call didn't appear for the scheduled testimony. the white house had directed him not to. if the president thought cupperman or frankly any of these officials could clear the president, wouldn't they want him to testify? do you have any sense of where bolton is at? >> i clearly do not. you know, i think it's going to

be important -- we'll hear from morrison coming up i think on thursday. his testimony -- his name appears, you know, numerous times in -- >> taylor referenced him multiple times. >> right. right. because he was the firsthand person who was present on the phone call. taylor was reacting to what he heard from mr. morse son so i think mr. morse son's testimony will be very, very important to hear what he has to say and that will lay out kind of a roadmap one direction or another for both sides. and then as you point out correctly, you know, charlie cupper mcup erman's the deputy advisor. we don't know whether mr. morse son has exculpatory testimony. >> thank you very much. how a military dog and u.s. special forces played an important role in the death of the most wanted terrorist. exactly what happened and what

could happen next. bayer, we're helping put more gold into the golden years. with better heart treatments, advanced brain disease research, and better ways to age gracefully. at bayer, this is why we science.

you have fast-acting power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength and speed of advil liqui-gels. what pain?

hey. ♪hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant someone new joins your network... only with xfinity xfi. download the xfi app today.

there are new details tonight on the raid that resulted in the killing of isis leader al baghdadi. in a speech the president said, quote, it was a tremendous weekend for our country. this afternoon the president tweeted out a picture of the dog, the military canine that chased al baghdadi down the tunnel. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says the dog is now back on duty with its handler and doing all right. one of the details we learned today about a mission that had been in the planning for some time and was fraught with high risks.

5 p.m. saturday evening, eight american helicopters were carrying as many as 100 u.s. special operations forces. iraq and flew for 70 minutes across syria. the pilots flew low to avoid detection but came under fire during the flight returning fire as they went. their destination was a compound in western syria. according to president trump, the area had been under surveillance for a few weeks. we learned today an informant inside isis told the kurdish led syrian democratic forces that the elusive isis leader was hiding out and provided a piece of underwear and a blood sample that was used in a dna test to confirm his identity before the raid took place. >> the aim was to capture him and if we couldn't capture him, then of course we were going to kill him. >> reporter: when they arrived the helicopters began firing on the buildings allowing the soldiers and their canines to

land. believing the front door was booby trapped, they blew holes in the side walls to enter the compound. an intensifier fight ensued and two fighters were captured and 11 children taken into custody. two of baghdadi's wives were killed during the operation. they were found with their suicide vests still intact. baghdadi fled into an underground tunnel taking three children with him. a canine member of the delta force team went after baghdadi and that's when the terrorist leader detonated his suicide vest killing himself and the three children with him. it's unknown if they were his children. >> we tried to call him out and asked him to surrender himself. he refused. he went down into a subterrainian area and in the process of trying to get him out he detonated a suicide vest we believe and killed himself. >> reporter: president trump said two american special forces members were wounded in the

attack. a canine unit was wounded but is doing fine. a short time ago president trump tweeted out this picture of the dog. his name is still classified. a dna test positively identified baghdadi's body soon after he was killed. u.s. special forces were in the compound for about two hours and were able to gather what's described as highly sensitive material on isis before pulling out and flying back to iraq. >> baghdadi and the thugs who followed him were responsible for some of the most brutal atrocities of our time. his death marks a devastating blow for the remnants of isis who are now deprived of their inspirational leader. following the destruction of their physical caliphate earlier this year. >> translator: abu bakr al baghdadi who dreamed of destroying the west and was responsible for the death of thousands around the world was buried at sea. >> there's no better of a book

than "black flag." jim work borque is the author. she's the author of a fascinating book "the targeter, my life in the cia hunting terrorists." welcome both of you. what surprised you about how all this played out if anything did? given everything you know about baghdadi and isis and what kind of an impact does his death have? >> well, i think it's not a surprise that eventually we would get him. this is the result of a long effort. it's going back, as we understand it, probably years and a sense of people looking for him very deliberately. i think what was surprising was where they got him. a few expected to see him in the area of the northwest of syria pretty populated with other groups that are rivals. other islamist groups that don't

like isis. so he's sort of hiding in plain sight and taking some risk in being where he was. on the other hand, he was extremely close to the turkish border. if he needed to escape quickly, he had the opportunity to do that. that's where they found him. the rest of the story is history. >> what does his death ultimately mean for isis as an organization and for other groups in the region? >> as we've seen throughout the years, leadership decapitation has sometimes minimal effect, sometimes it can really take the oxygen out of the group. sometimes it depends on who the successor might be and whether or not baghdadi was grooming anybody to come up through the ranks. it will be hard to have somebody without his clout and bonafides. al qaeda is looking to take over some of their territory and fighters looking for another home. so it's hard to know at this point really what the future

remains for isis, but at the same time there are tens of thousands of fighters that belong to the organization that are still alive and have the opportunity to coalesce. >> how concerned do you think or how much concern should there be in the united states, in europe, elsewhere about potential retaliatory attacks or even in the region? >> i think we can almost guarantee that something is going to happen. this is a moment when the islamic state is going to have to show it's still relevant. whatever core leadership is going to be urging people to do things. messages, posters calling on their followers to attack individual cities in the u.s., washington, new york, other places. they're goings to want be to show themselves as being

relevant. this is a group with resources. it's not like al qaeda and iraq was ten years ago when it was decimated. with that many fighters, 14,000, 18,000 with weapons. followers around the world including some who don't go to the places to fight on the battlefield. they have the potential 58 to do something. i would be surprised if we don't see some dramatic activity over the next few months. >> the pullout of u.s. forces from along the turkish border and that part of syria, what sort of an impact do you think it had on this operation. the thing that struck me is apparently this information, at least in part, came from a source that kurdish fighters have. >> i mean, that could have disrupted this operation entirely. i mean, we don't know if it delayed the operation or if they had to rush to conduct the

operation, but i think pulling out any of the troops right now is problematic for some of the follow-on information that they're going to gain from this raid because we know they were able to stay in the house for some time, probably collect some information and in order to act on that, it's hard to launch all of these operations from inside iraq or turkey. i think it's going to have a follow-on impact but it could have disrupted this option. >> you spend a lot of time tracking isis, al baghdadi. what was it like for you personally when you learned of the circumstances of his death and that he had been killed? >> well, and i spent a lot of time also tracking zarqawi and this succession and the iterations of these organizations, it's a relief on one hand given the amount of

violence he's sown and the impact that he has had but at the same time i know just like we saw with zarqawi, bin laden, ideology continues. we seemed to not have learned some of the lessons. we haven't instituted the governance, diplomacy and all the other tools we have to counter this. >> thank you. great to have you both with us. thank you so much. >> yes. >> next, we'll talk to a speech writer for james mattis and a look at the reality of being blindsided by a president. be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪ born to be wild...

♪ even after you clean, odors are still trapped in your fabrics. febreze fabric eliminates those odors. and try febreze unstopables with twice the fresh-scent power. tackle tough odors with irresistible freshness. la la la la la

the amazing new iphone has arrived. and so has t-mobile's newest signal. no signal goes farther or is more reliable. so you can get more out of the new iphone. better battery life, new ultra-wide camera. and at t-mobile get unlimited for only $30/line for 4 lines on a network that goes farther than ever before. and right now, switch at a t-mobile store and get the new iphone 11 on us! only at t-mobile.

...6, 7, 8 ♪ ♪ ♪ big dreams start with small steps... ...but dedication can get you there. so just start small... start saving. easily set, track and control your goals right from the chase mobile® app. ♪ ♪ chase. make more of what's yours®. the amount of student loan debt i have, i'm embarrassed to even say. we just decided we didn't want debt any longer. ♪ i didn't realize how easy investing could be. i'm picking companies that i believe in. ♪ i think sofi money is amazing. ♪

thank you sofi. sofi thank you, we love you. ♪ as we noted earlier in the program, president trump has spoken a lot about the weekend raid that led to the death of baghdadi. he described how he died. >> he was whimpering, screaming and crying and, frankly, i think it's something that should be brought out so that his followers and all of these young kids that want to leave various countries and the united states, they should see how he died. he didn't die a hero, he died a coward. >> neither of the top two

officials in the pentagon could say they heard the same thing. here's mike espers and general mark millie talking with reporters today. rchltsz the president talked about baghdadi whimpering and crying and screaming. how do we know that? >> i don't have the details. the president probably had the opportunity to talk to people on the ground. >> i know the president had an opportunity to talk to unit members. i don't know what the source of that was. i assume it was talking directly to unit members. >> my next guest says that sort of discordant information was an issue when he was serving with former defense secretary james mattis. we're joined now for an exclusive interview. the position that the president has put the current secretary of

defense in often -- particularly with his comments about the raid, it reminded me of the position that you write about in your book that the president put secretary mattis in on more than one occasion. explain how secretary mattis navigated that. >> you bet. thanks for having me on. as you mentioned, that was something we saw quite frequently. there was a lot of breakdown in communication between the white house and the pentagon. in the book i recount several such as the creation of the space force and the fact that we only received a call notifying us of the creation of the space force after the president had announced it on live television. >> 15 minutes after? >> 15 minutes after. as you looked over at the telephone and you saw who was calling from the white house to give us a heads up, it was chief of staff general jonquelly. we had even asked about the white house about 15 minutes before the speech if there was going to be any news being made, no, there wouldn't be. it would be right down the

fairway. that was one of the many shocks we faced. >> i want be to read something you said, it would be political suicide to admit trump was catching us off guard. anything less would imperil mattis's reputation. it's a no-win situation for somebody like secretary mattis in that case? >> it's a challenging situation but i thought the secretary handled those kinds of situation as well. we'd be on international travel traveling on the e4b and you would have press gagless. he'd be hit with a challenging question or caught off guard. i liked his response which i recall in the book which is if you ask me what's going to happen, if the president says 6 and i say half a dozen, they're going to say there's a violent disagreement. he knew to say circumspect. >> one of the very telling moments that you chronicle is president trump's visit to the pentagon to receive his first

briefing on all the locations around the world with u.s. forces and embassies. very important meeting, mattis had been preparing for it very carefully. he wanted to convey the importance of both allies and a strategic presence. explain how the president reacted through the whole presentation and what he brought up? >> anderson, this is something we had spent weeks. you're taking a president who if you think back to july, very real in the role. background in national security. secretary of state mattis, tillerson and gary cohn wanted to give him an in depth briefing. we centered this around return on investment capital. you get great return on your investment when you have 1,000

troops over seas but you have the host nation with tens, hundreds of thousands working in partnership with us. to have put that much time and effort into a briefing to have president trump walk in with a scowl on his face, to sit down with his arms crossed, he refuses to look at tillerson, refuses to look at mattis. it was something that you just sense in a room that he was not pleased with what he knew he was going to hear. we were briefing about issues of national, international importance. he starts bringing up that there had been a leak in the washington post and he spent ten minutes about how that reporter should be sued and the washington post should be sued. it was very jarring. >> that's when he brought up the whole idea of a parade, right? >> it is. it was towards the tail end of the meeting. there were a lot of issues he brought up. he brought up the cost overruns with the navy's newest aircraft

carrier, "the u.s.s. ford." he brought up the reporter from the washington post. he brought up the idea of a parade. it was something that i recount in the book that mattis and others were adamantly opposed to it. first, they didn't like the optics of having a full parade certainly going down pennsylvania avenue and just the optics of tanks. it harkens back to soviet era display of power. more importantly, when you have a military it needed all the funding it could get to rebuild and restore itself after decades of war. you wanted to use that funding for building the military and not on a military parade. >> guy snodgras, thank you for being with us. >> thanks, anderson. what happened when the president went to a public event that was not a friendly crowd for the president. mini is a different kind of car.

♪ ladies and gentlemen for a different kind of drive. ♪ ladies and gentlemen for the drive to create a new kind of family car,

that became a new kind of race car. for the drive to rebel, zag. for the drive that's inside you. and inside us. that's the drive under the hood of every mini. because every mini is... for the drive. ♪

check with chris and see what he's working on for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> why did the democrats decide to have this vote? is it proof it is a procedural step in a direction of imminent articles of impeachment? is it a capitulation to the republicans? is this a win for republicans? what would that mean either way? we have defenders for the president on tonight to talk about this and the impact of taking out mr. baghdadi and what that does for mr. security. we have our top investigator, mccake am mccabe and baker are here. a new round of noncompliance with someone who was supposed to testify today. what does it mean, where does it take us? that's how we're starting the week, my handsome friend. >> all right. look forward to it. up next, president trump's tough, rather rough reception at the world series in wafshington. why one of his political opponents is coming to his

defense. by developing digital tools, so he can use less water to grow crops. at bayer, this is why we science.

want your skin to glow? like "woah".

try new b3 powered serum sticks and new overnight gel masks with b3. cleanse with 5 in 1 daily facials. get glowing, with olay (mom vo) it's easy to shrink into your own little world. especially these days. (dad) i think it's here. (mom vo) especially at this age. (big sis) where are we going? (mom vo) it's a big, beautiful world out there. (little sis) whoa... (big sis) wow. see that? (mom vo) sometimes you just need a little help seeing it. (vo) the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation

that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira.

a democrat is coming to the defense of president trump nigh series game. the president got booed loudly. take a look. >> announcer: the president of the united states. >> some cheers shifting to boos. the chilly reception came during a salute to u.s. service members, just after the president announced the death of the most wanted terrorist, abu bakr al-baghdadi. it didn't end there. here's what happened next. [ crowd chanting "lock him up" ] >> one of the political opponent disagrees with the chant.

chris coons said the office of the presidency deserves respect, even when the actions of the president don't. that does it for us. the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." a first-hand witness to the president's phone call on ukraine is due to testify tomorrow. brand new reporting, this man may solidify what should be an obvious point. what do you say, let's get after it. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >> all right. so now we're expecting a new testimony tomorrow. we're just getting in information in. we are trying to understand what it will mean for us. but, look, a white house national security official, all right, the main ukraine expert, he is called the top