what is open to question is whether members of congress are going to do their duty. >> this is "new day with alisyn camerota and john berman." good morning, and welcome to your "new day." monday, november 25th. it's 8:00 in the east. alisyn is away, bianna golodryga joins me. >> 8:00 already. >> so much news. >> a series of developments at the pentagon. the secretary of the navy has been fired and on his way out the door, richard spencer wrote a stunning letter, basically accusing the president of undermining military discipline. this is all connected to navy s.e.a.l. eddie gallagher demoted for posing with the corps of an isis fighter, a decision president trump overturned. a senior defense official tells cnn the secretary spencer is losing his job for going outside the chain of command and trying to work out some kind of secret agreement for the white house for gallagher to remain in the navy. >> if that is not enough on the impeachment front, new e-mails reveal a scramble inside the white house to contain the

fallout from president trump's freeze on military aid to ukraine. "the washington post" was first to report this story and it found an extensive effort to justify the president's move after the fact, as well as a debate about whether it was even legal. documents from the white house revealed include e-mails from acting chief of staff mick mulvaney to white house budget officials in early august asking why the president was blocking aid already approved by congress. >> joining me is cnn political analyst josh dozy. a lead reporter on the team that broke this story. let me read you one line from your reporting on here about the white house trying to retroactively create justification for the halting of u.s. military aid to ukraine. quote, one person briefed on the records examination said white house lawyers are expressing concern that the review has turned up some unflattering exchanges and facts that could at a minimum embarrass the president. it's unclear whether the mulvaney discussions or other records pose problems for trump

in the inquiry but some fear they could pose political problems if revealed publicly. what's going on? >> what the records show is that the president ordered his aid halted in july, and then in august, early august, the chief of staff says, have we decided what our legal justification is for this and how much longer can we withhold this aid. it shows the white house retroactively trying to review the process trying to come up for a justification for a public explanation and a legal justification as well for the aid that was being withheld. it shows a lot of scrambling from defense officials, national security officials, folks on the nsc who said we're not sure if this is legal and omb pushing back. what these documents at their core show, the president who makes this decision in july, orders the aid held, and the bureaucracy trying to catch up with him and figure out, can we do this, if so, how long. >> sounds like there are a lot of documents here which could shed a whole lot of light on some of the subjects being

looked at in this impeachment inquiry, so what are the chances that congress ever gets its hands on the e-mails? >> the white house are not going to comply with any of the requests and not put the e-mails out there and not showing the documents but the white house's counsel's office and lawyers are looking across agencies at omb at various national security agencies inside the white house to understand for themselves what's going on. they've been interviewing folks of who been involved part of the e-mails, called in to be interviewed. the white house is preparing its own report. how much of that ever sees the light of day, i don't know, but as you can imagine, we'll be trying to figure it out and bring it to you. >> part of this, and part of your reporting, deals with a rift inside the white house between the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and the white house counsel, pat sip loney, explain that. >> right. acting chief of staff mick mulvaney was not on board with the decision to release the first transcript. that came from the counsel's office from doj and ultimately the president. since then, there's been diverging strategies on how to

respond to the onslaught of requests, subpoenas, strategy for pushing back against the impeachment probe, and mulvaney and the lawyer are not necessarily seeing eye to eye on many of these issues. what we're seeing here is both are blaming the other for this kind of coming out in the public. >> bottom line here, so far as the inquiry is concerned, is there evidence here that the white house halted the payments in order to get the investigations into the bidens or even into the 2016 election? do you have any sense that there is any kind of document trail in there? >> we don't, but we're trying to figure that out. the e-mails that we know about so far just show a white house that's grappling to come to the presidential directive and don't understand and why he's doing this and trying to figure out if it's legal. we have not seen anything in writing that implicates what you said, john, but that said, there's still a long ways to go

here. >> it was a presidential directive? something the president -- >> yes. something the president ordered clearly and there's staffers at o mb, state, defense, trying to figure out how can we implement this, is it legal, and how long can we implement this for before we have to release the aid. >> all right. josh, as always, thank you so much for your reporting. >> thank you. joining us now, cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin, political analyst david gregory and white house correspondent kaitlan collins. jeffrey, there are documents and e-mails which answer some of the questions clearly that are being asked or at least color in some of the edges here, and i just think it's amazing that congress doesn't get to see this. >> and people who know the answers to all these questions. mulvaney, bolton, pompeo, all of them know how these decisions were made about why the aid was withheld to ukraine, but the president has directed that they not disclose them and they're not being disclosed so far. there's no evidence that

suggests anything other than the most incriminating view of what happened. >> is it fair for me to think that if these e-mails and if these witnesses could exonerate the president, they might be more willing to let us hear them and see them? >> that seems to be a reasonable assumption. you're a fair person, berman. i would say that is fair, that you can make that assumption. >> the fact that they're even doing this review shows you how scatter shot this decision was and it wasn't done properly through the interagency process or the sign off of the attorneys saying it was legal because it shows the decision was made, then they had to scramble to get a legal justification and that shows you the fact they're doing this review shows how broken this process was, people excluded, key players, and they tried to wall people off from this. >> and the reason we talk about the legal question, david, is because there's actually a law, it's the 1974 law that says that the omb must release money appropriated by congress.

we know that this budget cycle was going -- the fiscal year was ending at the end of september, the money was released september 11th, just a few weeks shy of that. how does this implicate, in particular, mick mulvaney? >> well, he's the one as you pointed out last hour who said before the press corps yeah, there is -- there was a quid pro quo and then tried to walk that back a couple of days later or less than that after he had inadvertently told the truth. what's striking about this entire investigation and this proceedings is that it began with the president saying, of course i did it. yes, i did it, what was wrong with it, that i asked ukraine for a favor in that july 25th phone call. but what's also striking is that the president has said look, we're going to strongarm ukraine, this what i want how do we justify this and once the heat comes on from the whistleblower, how do we look for justifications for holding up that aid. so, you know, the question is,

we know this phase of the impeachment proceedings do we end up hearing from these additional people who know down the road if we actually get to a trial. >> you know, perhaps you don't need the documents to incriminate mick mulvaney. he's perfectly capable of implicating himself as we saw. >> he doesn't have any friends this morning, either. >> mulvaney didn't do this on his own. i mean mulvaney has no known views about ukraine. he doesn't care about ukraine. i mean it all comes from the president. t there can be no other conclusion. >> the president's argument is that there is no drink link to him. i think people can deduce this came from the president, this wasn't something that mick mulvaney all of a sudden had an issue with ukraine over, the same with regards to a meeting with president zelensky in which sondland said, that in his opinion, was definitely a quid pro quo but there was no one who actually heard the president say, quid pro quo -- >> i will say, no direct link to the president, except for the

transcript of a phone call that i'm holding in my hand. >> the perfect phone call. >> if only there were a transcript of a phone call from july 25th, where the president of the united states says, you know, there's a lot of talk about biden's son, that biden stopped the prosecution, a lot of people want to find out so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. >> but again, and as republicans thought they won points from in sondland's testimony, sondland said he could not -- he could not say with 100% accuracy that the president wanted to withhold money in exchange for dirt on biden. >> you know, one of the things judges do when they instruct juries before they give veshgtsz is they say to the jury, use your common sense. i think that's good advice for news consumers as well. the idea that this directive came from anyone other than donald trump and was anything other than a demand for dirt in return for the money authorized by congress, is just totally

implausible. >> gordon sondland testified and the others made pretty clear, they thought they were operating with what the president wanted them to do. they didn't leave a lot of confusion about that. going back to mulvaney's press conference, he said he discussed this with the president. he's the one who actually drew the link directly to the president. you've heard that from republicans, there's no explicit link of the president expressly saying this is what i want. mulvaney said yes, we discussed this, this is absolutely part of the reason why the aid was held up. he wasn't under testimony. he was in the briefing room saying it. it still counts as him drawing that link. >> at least possibly assume someone from the white house briefing room is telling the truth, that isn't necessarily the case, it seems at least plausible he was telling the truth. >> david, we have a jury here, ultimately, for impeachment that are senators, right. it's the senate. but they're not sequestered. the news media can do its job and keep unearthing other

supportive facts of this effort to block aid in order to extract political dirt from the ukrainians, what's striking is that democrats certainly believe that it's very clear what happened here. it's a separate issue from whether they're going to move this politically at all, but it's clear what happened. yet there is more supportive detail when you unearth these e-mails and when there are people who are not coming forward and saying what clearly happened. there was an effort to block the aid and then to justify it after the fact. >> control room, if you can find the john kennedy sound with chris wallace this weekend while i'm talking, david brought up a good point, wisconshich is the is the jury, some in the senate that will be part that don't seem to care about the facts. listen to this. >> senator kennedy, who do you believe was responsible for hacking the dnc and clinton campaign computers, their

e-mails? was it russia or ukraine? >> i don't know. nor do you. nor do any of us. miss hill -- >> i mean let me just interrupt to say, that entire intelligence community says it was russia. >> right. but it could also be ukraine. >> senator kennedy went to oxford but might have gone to hogwarts because he's living in a fantasy world there. he's basically saying, i don't care about the facts. when talking about a senate jury, what does that tell you? >> well, they made up their mind. i think you heard the defense from the intelligence committee, the republicans on the intelligence committee, to say, sure, maybe russia interfered, but the ukrainians did as well. there's no evidence to support that and it's been specifically debunked including by people advising the president, his former homeland security director. this is where dr. hill was powerful as a witness saying

stop the madness and follow what the evidence tells you. again, however strong this cases is, this is a political process. republicans have made it very clear, even will hurd, who is retiring, more moderate on the issues, saying they're not backing off the defense of the president. >> to be clear, when john kennedy says he doesn't foe who it was that interfered in the election, the detail in mueller's report was so fine and so specific, that you could look at the facebook ads that these russian operatives created to sow discord and sow disinformation about the information. it's that level of specific. for him to brush that off and say he didn't know because he didn't watch russia try to interfere in the election is stunning. >> it's not just the mueller report. there are two very detailed indictments pending today against russians, one about social media, one about the hacking of the dnc e-mails, of russians for interfering in the election. so it is actually before our judicial system.

it's not just robert mueller's opinion. >> there's a report from senate republicans which john kennedy is. >> you're saying there's a lot of evidence, right? >> there's a lot of evidence. >> our team couldn't have produced a better segment than that one from john kennedy. >> great point. >> thank you so much. >> thanks. well, there are plenty of unknowns about the next phase of the impeachment inquiry, including who else could be called to testify. court decision coming today that could help decide. that's coming up. e story of green mountain coffee roasters costa rica paraíso. meet sergio. and his daughter, maria. sergio's coffee tastes spectacular. because costa rica is spectacular. so we support farmers who use natural compost. to help keep the soil healthy. and the coffee delicious. for future generations. all for a smoother tasting cup. green mountain coffee roasters.

♪ ♪

experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. an internal white house review shows an extensive effort to justify withholding military aid from ukraine after the crucial assistance was already frozen. one of the figures allegedly involved, acting chief of staff mick mulvaney who has so far refused to testify. will he and others be compelled to speak to congress now? joining me now, democratic congressman peter welch.

great to see you this morning. thanks so much for joining us. i want to start off by getting your reaction to the latest report from "the washington post" showing that officials from the omb and mick mulvaney were trying to justify withholding that aid. >> well, it's more corroboration of what the hearings i think clearly established, president trump used the -- he dangled the white house meeting and withheld the aid in order to get ukraine to agree to do his dirty work on vice president biden. and everything that we've seen just corroborates what the president said in his phone call, and now it appears there's a paper trail that shows the machinations that the white house went through to try to keep that congressionally authorized aid, bipartisan vote, strong bipartisan vote, to keep that at bay so ukraine didn't get it until the president got what he wanted. >> and adam schiff over the weekend seemed to suggest that we won't be hearing from any more witnesses. does this new report give that a second thought? does it give you pause maybe we

should pursue or you should pursue a hearing from people like mick mulvaney and even john bolton? >> no, we would like to do that and i think what chairman schiff said he's acknowledging the reality, that if the president is going to continue to stonewall and not allow bolton or mulvaney to testify, we have plenty of evidence we have to proceed and not let the president's resistance -- he should be turning over to congress the paper trail, the documents that are in the state department with secretary pompeo and he obviously should be turning over these documents that show the white house effort to withhold aid, but if we are going to allow ourselves essentially to be rope a dope by the president when we have this overwhelming evidence of what obviously happened, then we'll get nowhere. chairman schiff and the whole committee is hoping if we can get that and there are going to be court battles going on, but let's proceed with what we have. i think that's the point.

>> you seem convinced there is an impeachable offense, that to you, in case of a smoking gun, is the transcript itself. you say by the president asking the leader of a foreign country to dig up dirt on his political rival or opponent, is worthy of impeachment. why do no other republicans thus far seem to agree with you? >> well, you know, it's a good question. i mean where is the howard baker of this year? but essentially what you have is documentation, i think overwhelming proof, that the president used his power in an effort to force ukraine to do something that was good for him personally in his political life. it had nothing to do with national security interests. you know, we live in this society now where everybody, apparently, feels that they can see the facts as they want to see them. it's a real challenge for our democracy where there's not a common set of facts. trump exploits that. he pushes that. but the bottom line here is,

it's astonishing to me that my republican colleagues don't express real concern about the president's invitation to ukraine to interfere in our election and also his pressure on ukraine to get what he wants and ask them to do that political investigation for him. >> let me ask you about a story first reported here on cnn, that is about ranking member of the intelligence committee devin nunes and a potential meeting he may have had last year in vienna, meeting with -- and this is through lev parnas we're hearing this, who is a questionable figure at that and associate of rudy giuliani, but lev parnas' lawyer says he has evidence that devin nunes met with shokin who was one of those quote/unquote corrupt politicians and prosecutors, in ukraine. if, in fact, this meeting did happen, what is your reaction?

>> well, first of all, i have no knowledge and the committee has no knowledge and, of course, mr. nunes has vehemently denied it. obviously that's a very serious allegation. shokin is a totally discredited ukrainian prosecutor completely corrupt. if the reports of that meeting were that the effort was to try to get shokin to start doing, in effect, the biden investigation, then we have this incredible situation where the intelligence committee, i think at that point, mr. nunes was chairman, at least ranking member, was in effect accommodating the president's desire to pursue that investigation. we don't know yet, but mr. nunes has got some answering to do to make certain that we do get to the bottom of this. >> we'll continue exploring this story on our end as well. i want to end by asking you about what you hear privately behind closed doors without naming names. as we've been talking about, the polarization which we've covered

the same hearing where you have two different parties coming out suggesting they heard two different testimonies the past two weeks. i'm curious if you're hearing differing opinions behind closed doors from your republican colleagues about what they've heard and whether they think what they've heard is impeachable? >> look, frankly, they're keeping pretty quiet even in public. you saw francis roone my raise questions, from florida, a member of congress retiring, and asked the question as to whether this was impeachable and immediately got hammered. the trump tweet still has an immense impact on my republican colleagues who tend to come from districts that have overwhelming republican support because of gerrymandering. we've got a situation here where it is almost as though the facts don't matter. people are choosing sides. that could change over time. i mean if we start getting documents like you saw with sondland, where you had documents he had in his

possession that in black and white confirmed what he was saying about the president focusing on the investigations, we know there's a paper trail of mulvaney, bolton and pompeo, probably with pence, but would that ultimately change my colleagues' minds? i think it would if and when the people in their district and public opinion starts to look at the reality of this. >> the if and when, of course, is the big question. we appreciate your time. thank you so much. >> thank you. all right. we're just learning some new details this morning about a brazen heist at a museum in germany involving one of europe's largest treasure collections. we're going to give you the breaking details on this next. we're reporters from the new york times.

this melting pot of impacted species. everywhere is going to get touched by climate change.

(logo whooshes) ♪ (logo chiming) - [woman] with shark's duoclean, i don't just clean, i deep clean carpets and floors. so i got this. yep, this too. even long hair and pet hair are no problem. "connect the world," roll removes the hair wrap while i clean. - [narrator] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans, now cleans itself. now available in our new uplight model.

breaking news now over in europe where a manhunt is under way as we speak after what's being called one of the largest art heists in post-war history. police say the thieves targeted priceless treasures at the 300-year-old green vault museum in germany's dresden castle. the display case was smashed. one estimate says the 18th century diamonds, rubies and pearls that were stolen could be worth more than, get this, a billion euros. police say two suspects were spotted on security camera slipping in through a window. the museum's director says the works are so well-known that it would be impossible to sell them on the open market. let's hope they retrieve that as soon as they can. an extraordinary controversy at the pentagon. varying accounts of why the secretary of navy was fired for his handing of a war crimes case

involving a navy s.e.a.l. secretary richard spencer is accusing the president of undermining the idea of military discipline. he writes, quote, i no longer share the same understanding with the commander of chief who appointed me in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline and i cannot in good conscience obey an order that i believe violates the sakds oath i took. joining us now barbara starr. it's a complicated case, but at the end of the day to have a secretary of the navy say the president doesn't understand or agree on military discipline is really stunning. >> well, it is not something i remember happening around here any time recently. the closest we came, of course, was former defense secretary james mattis resigning because he felt he couldn't follow the president's orders on withdrawing troops from syria. that's what happens. if you're a seen official, southeaste senior uniformed or military, if you cannot follow the president's orders in good

conscious you have to step down. this case is so wacky, i don't think there's any way to put it, spencer at the same time, according to defense secretary mark esper, who fired him yesterday, was engaged in a back channel negotiation with the white house to try and resolve the gallagher case, to let a review of his status as navy s.e.a.l. go forward but somehow have a guarantee ahead of time at the end of that review, which was supposed to be impartial, that gallagher would get to remain a navy s.e.a.l. and retire honorably. if you're following all that and it's confusing to you, it is confusing up and down the hallways of the pentagon this morning. the issue, the bottom line, how did we get here? there is a good deal of dismay that president trump, while he had the authority to intervene in these war crimes allegation cases, that maybe he should not have according to many officials and he should have just let the

military justice system take its course. >> in the case of eddie gallagher, a navy s.e.a.l., petty office with the navy s.e.a.l., he was accused of war crimes, accused of killing an isis prisoner, shooting innocent civilians. he was acquitted on every charge except one, taking a picture with a corps, which is actually a very serious charge inside the navy s.e.a.l. community. but he was acquitted of almost everything. he was demoted. the president reversed the demotion, right, but then the s.e.a.l. said, we want to take away his trident and we want to make a proclamation basically that eddie gallagher may not have been guilty of a crime, the court said, but he is not -- he should not be declared a navy s.e.a.l. he should not have the honor of being considered a navy s.e.a.l. in his retirement. now he will be allowed to retire with his trident as a navy s.e.a.l. which with is exactly what the president wanted. correct? >> what the president wanted and let us be blunt, it is what fox news wanted.

gallagher and other military personnel involved in these cases have been going to fox news and have been on their air for a considerable period of time advocating for their cases. the president we know listens to fox news was listening to what fox news is saying, this is not an opinion, this is a fact, the president listens to fox news. the bottom line concern this morning is very significant, which is the next time someone misbehaves in the military, if they put their case on fox news and the president hears it, who is the president of the united states actually going to believe? you know, that the issue of good order and discipline in the ranks really is sacrosanct. it is supposed to be maintained independently, impartially without outside influence. mr. trump had every right as commander in chief to intervene, he had the legal right to do so, but the question is, should he have done so and where did he get his information and did it

all really come from those troops making their case on fox news. >> barbara starr, thank you for being with us. >> barbara makes an important point. where else did we hear the president turn to fox news for information on one of its hosts bashing somebody, ambassador yovanovitch. you saw mike pompeo having to reach out to sean hannity asking what's going on here. history repeat itself once again. the race for president, a big endorsement is coming for joe biden today. right? >> gave away the mystery right there. >> i'm just reading what's in front of me, john.

have you ever worked with dr. francis? oh yeah, he's ok. just ok? guess who just got reinstated! well, not officially. nervous?

yeah. yeah me too. don't worry about it, we'll figure it out. i'll see ya in there! just ok is not ok. at&t has america's best network, now with our best plans, at our best prices, starting at $35 a line for 4 lines. new from at&t.

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. dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer.

pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. so we have major news for you in the democratic race for president. until this moment, right here on "new day," no sitting member of congress from a key early voting state, one of the four early voting states, has endorsed one of the 18 democrats running for president. no early state endorsement until right now. joining me is democratic congresswoman dina titus of the state of nevada, the third state to vote along the way here.

congresswoman, thank you so much for being with us, and we gave away the mystery on the screen, who are you endorsing for president? >> well, even at 5:30 in the morning las vegas time, i'm excited to be endorsing joe biden for president. i've seen him up close, i've worked with him in congress, i've known him for a long time, he's built a broad coalition in my district, i think he's the best qualified to be president of all the good democratic candidates and the best position to beat donald trump. >> you have been on the record expressing concerns that some of the democratic candidates weren't speaking to people in the suburbs, some of the moderate areas like the ones you represent that you see as key to flipping the house in 2018. what specifically are those concerns? >> well, our party is a broad party and we have to -- it's like a big tent party. we say that all the time. but i believe that joe biden has put together a broad coalition. my district is where most of the

democrats live in nevada and also is the most ethnically diverse and if you look at the people he's talking to, they look like the face of the united states and they look like the face of nevada. >> are you concerned that some of the democratic candidates are speaking to only the wings of the democratic party? >> well, i'm not here this morning to criticize the other candidates. i'm here just to talk about what a good candidate i think joe biden is. if you look at him and his record over the years, he's been out front on positions that i care about before they were popular. he shepherd obamacare through the congress of course he was out front on gun violence. i represent the district where the shooting was at the music festival and also he can get things done. he's well respected around the world by foreign leaders and we certainly need to right that ship. also, he's not just a sound bite guy. he's a sincere person.

he's not scripted. i think that's what you need, that steady hand, to get us moving on the right direction. people trust that and so i believe he'll win this election. >> not scripted and steady hand aren't necessarily the same thing here, are they? when you talk about nonscripted there is concern amongst some quarters of the democratic party about his performance in the debates and in iowa there is concern about the energy that he's generating among voters there and there was an article today -- i know the biden campaign is excited to get your endorsement today because nevada is an early voting state, and there was concern about biden supporters. in iowa, they are duds, i will help but there's no excitement here. there is nothing. i will do whatever it takes to get him elected but i can't go down there when there is nothing going on. what do you see in nevada if that's what's happening in iowa? >> well, i don't think that's happening in iowa either. you may have heard some people say that, but he just got the

endorsement for governor vilsack who is very popular and who will generate a lot of excitement. here in nevada, he's been here many times over the years campaigning, even for senator reed, he's put together that broad coalition, he's got 40 people on the ground, a number of different offices. he's coming back, dr. jill is coming back, there's a lot of excitement and i'm glad people are focusing on nevada because too often they tend to forget we are the third state and we look much more like the country at large in terms of our demographics and that makes a big difference. >> that's an important point right there because iowa and new hampshire are not particularly racially diverse, are they? they're fairly white states. right now, it isn't clear who will win those states, but it's possible that joe biden doesn't emerge victorious in iowa or new hampshire, what kind of firewall do you think that nevada may provide the vice president? >> well, i'm excited about

nevada. we have got a lot of people who are working hard right now to set up the caucuses so we'll be ready. there's a big turnout machine in the democratic party so there will be people going out to vote. we've got early voting this year. we've got voting in work places to make it easier for people to participate. i'm glad they're seeing nevada as third now. iowa and for, they're always close. they may go either way. they have some favorite sons and daughters in the northeast, but i think nevada will kind of set the tone for states coming afterwards in super tuesday. >> congresswoman dina titus of nevada, thanks for being here. as we said, the first sitting member of congress from one of the key early voting states to endorse one of the presidential candidates and happened right here on "new day." appreciate you being with us. >> you were excited about the build up and announcement this morning. >> i'm a big fan of firsts. >> kind of ruined it for you earlier. still works. she was excited. breaking news. another health scare for

justice ruth bader ginsburg. what will the impact be for the court with cases on the horizon. we'll speak with dr. sanjay gupta next. pre-black friday deals start november 22nd at petsmart! select chuckit launchers are $4.99! 25 ounce beggin strips are only $9.99! and don't forget - our black friday deals start online thursday at petsmart.com! petsmart!

i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪ (loud fan noise) (children playing) ♪ (music building) experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event.

sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. - [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. he's finally here! hey! how are you? i'm good. ♪ how are you? hello grandma! for every family going home for the holidays, there are countless people working to help them get there. thank you to everyone we rely on to get us home to the ones we love.

♪

more than a week after president trump's unannounced visit to the walter reed medical center questions remain about his health. cnn chief medical correspondent dr. sanjay gupta joins us with more. sanjay, great to see you this morning. you're right, we still have no new details. we have the president saying on tuesday he went for a physical because he had extra time, but as you note, walter reed staff was not prepared for his arrival. so that doesn't seem to square. >> yeah. there's a lot of things here, bianna, that don't seem to add up. one of the big things medically when you look at what they say the president had done at walter reed, you got to keep in mind that all those types of laboratory tests, many of this testing, can be done at the white house, the white house medical unit. i've seen this before. it's pretty extensive.

they can't do all testing, can't do specialized testing, for example, but a lot of what they say he could have had done could have been done at the white house. you know, going to walter reed for the president is a big deal, you know, it typically involves an institution wide notice that goes out for practical reasons. people who do shifts at the hospital, certain roads that are closed, corridors that are closed, that's why people there need to know. that didn't happen this past saturday. also we know that it wasn't listed on his public schedule. you know, we don't know, we know he was there under two hours. that's good. probably means it wasn't something serious or something requiring intensive therapy. but why take the president to walter reed? it's a big deal. when the tests they say he could have had done could have been done at the white house itself. >> right. his doctor, dr. connelly, issued a letter saying despite some of the speculation the president has not had chest pain or evaluated or treated for urgent

or acute issues, specifically did not undergo any specialized cardiac or neurologic evaluations. as you note what seems to be striking is that his doctor rode with him in the car to walter reed. why did that interest you and why is that unusual. >> there's dr. connelly getting in. that doesn't happen. i talked to former white house doctors and they say in their entire time there, they never have been in the car with the president. part of that is a security protocol, the doctor rides in a separate vehicle. so again, it's just unusual. it's strange. it's tough to make of that. and again, you know, i do keep coming back to this point that dr. connelly himself and the white house staff itself for this administration has previously done these tests at the white house, has previously put it on his public schedule and previously alerted the hospital that they were coming. many of those things did not happen this time. >> also because his statistics show he technically does have

heart disease which is something you finally got a former doctor, ronny jackson, to acknowledge prooef as well. >> people remember harold bornstein and the letter he wrote and it was extravagant, floury language, will be the healthiest president ever, his health is astonishingly excellent, stuff like that. that was blatant. he said after the fact that, you know, he alleges that president trump dictated that letter to him. but sometimes, to your point, it can be more subtle. listen to this exchange. >> he does have heart disease, is that what you said? >> he does not have heart do is. >> he had a ct scan before that showed calcium in his coronary blood vessels. >> he does, he did, he had -- so technically he has nonclinical athro score rottic sclerosis. >> i mean, anything to avoid saying the word disease there. that's how challenging it can be

to get information out of the white house sometimes. >> it's important you stay on it. let me ask you about the latest news out of supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg, she's at home after checking into the hospital with chills and a fever. she is said to be working from home. that's a positive development. i know you agree with that. how concerning is it that she went to the hospital in the first place? >> you know, it is concerning. he's 86 years old, in the hospital a week and a half ago as well. she started getting sick this past friday. ended up going from one hospital to another hospital to johns hopkins by ambulance. they were concerned about her. she did improve with antibiotics and fluids. but remember, bianna, she's had a significant health history these past couple years, had the fall, cracked her ribs, found to have cancerous nodules in her lungs. it is a very positive development she responded so well to antibiotics. you know, there's a lot of things that are still going on. i'm sure they're monitoring her very closely. she was also treated for pancreatic cancer earlier this year. any of these things, you know,

could be -- just things they have to keep an eye on. >> she is a fighter and we are pulling for her. sanjay, thank you. great to see you as always. >> thank you. we are following all kinds of developments this morning, first you have the situation with a secretary of navy getting fired and then criticizing the president in a stunning resignation letter on his way out the door and new details in the impeachment inquiry, much more right after this. here's the story of green mountain coffee roasters sumatra reserve. let's go to sumatra. the coffee here is amazing. because the volcanic soil is amazing. so we give farmers like win more plants. to grow more delicious coffee. which helps provide for win's family. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters.

- [woman] with my shark, i deep clean messes like this, this, and even this. but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans now cleans itself.

what's the time? device: a dime is ten cents. severe cold or flu? take control with theraflu. powerful, soothing relief to defeat your worst cold and flu symptoms fast. device: (sneezes) theraflu. the power is in your hands. very good months morning to you. i'm jim sciutto. new details on a white house race to rationalize the ukraine aid freeze after the fact. "the washington post" reporting on a confidential review that, quote, turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over

whether that delay was legal. white house lawyers are reportedly concerned that internal exchanges could, quote, at minimum embarrass the president. we're going to dig into that. a major ruling in the ongoing power struggle between the white house and congress over allowing executive branch witnesses to testify before congress. federal judge set to decide whether the house can compel former counsel don mcgahn to testify about his former boss, president trump. mcgahn's testimony was key to robert mueller's russia investigation providing some of the most scathing details of alleged obstruction by the president. it is a ruling that would have major implications, and could also give cover for impeachment witnesses who have not cooperated such as john bolton cover or perhaps motivation to testify. joining me now is cnn's joe johns at the white house. joe, let's begin with this "washington post" reporting. you heard gop lawmakers the president's defenders