hawaii. live pictures of joint base pearl harbor. they're responding to reports of gun fire on the base. the local hospital telling us it has received one patient. no word whether there will be more. we'll update you throughout the night. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> thank you, anderson. tonight we you is a brawl in the judiciary and they are just talking to historians. what comes next? we have two judiciary members here and also one of the professors who testified before them today. the main question is can this process ever yield any progress? and the gop is doing its best to ignore the obvious, but how do they hide from rudy giuliani maybe back in ukraine digging for the same dirt that is all over the president. our investigators are on the case. what do you say, let's get after it.

three constitutional scholars in complete agreement backing up democrats in their push to prove president trump committed impeachable offenses. the shothan shorthand, check, ae of power, check. a fourth provided caution against impeachment. his name is jonathan turley. he was called by republicans, but he was the only person in that room on the right to get the reality here right, admitting that the president's call was far from perfect. he even urged democrats to do more investigating. so where does this go? speaker pelosi held a clos closed-door meeting this morning with her members. sources say she asked her troops if they're ready to keep going and that she got shouts of approval. adam schiff reportedly got a standing ovation when pelosi turned the mic to him.

crafts are unified. here's the problem, so are rarts. what does that mean on a process supposed to be based on some consensus. we have judiciary committee member steve cohen. very important day today. were you at the meeting this morning with pelosi? >> no, i was not. i was preparing for the hearing. >> the idea that you guys are all rah-rah and ready to go forward based on what is the enthusiasm? >> the facts are clear. they're pretty much uncontroverted. there was abuse of power, a betrayal of the nation, a corruption of. election processes, or an attempt to corrupt the election processes. that's what eye crimes and misdemeanors are. they're violations by the president and high officials that make it difficult for the country to go on and democracy to survive. these are exactly the type of offenses that are looked upon to

show that as an impeachable offense. i think our three experts said that, that they were all there. that it was as impeachable a set of facts as there ever has been and we need to keep our democracy, which is the basic framework of the constitution and our government alive by having free and fair elections. and that the framers were afraid of this, afraid of foreign entanglements, afraid somebody would try to enrich themselves as president where they would use their office to guarantee their reelection and the framers said we need to have impeachment, it's so important that the original person that thought we didn't need impeachment that election was sufficient, mr. morris, governor morris, changed his mind during the debate and said you're right, we've got to have impeachment in there because we can't -- >> going back to the founders. >> yes. >> in terms of the facts on the table, rudy giuliani may be back over in europe, maybe even

ukraine doing more digging for dirt. he says i'm here just trying to defend my client and show he is innocent. what's your take on that? >> president trump can't get over the fact that he won the election with the help of the russians. he asked for it. he said, russia, if you're listening, get me those emails. his son and son-in-law and they all met with the russians at the trump tower. it wasn't about adoptions, it was about getting dirt on hillary clinton. and mueller couldn't show conspiracy but they could show there was collusion, there was involvement with the election. he can't get over that. so he's trying to put it off on ukraine, which is something russia wants to do. russia's put out this line and people like senator kennedy and others, i think it's thune, they've taken it on and they're mouthing with the kgb and fsb

what they want you to say. >> there's no question that there is nothing to this ukraine thing and everybody knows it, it's adding to the intrigue but i'm looking at it a little differently. when we look at the forensics here and the evidence, everything runs through or leads to rudy giuliani in terms of understanding why this happened. now, with that said, i don't think he's the problem, i think he's an agent for the president, but here's why i ask you the question. do you believe that he is the president's lawyer? >> i think he is. i think he's been acting as the president's lawyer, he's been acting as kind of a renegade, self-dealing secretary of state with pompeo's authorization, but he's the president's lawyer, yes. >> i tell you why i ask. it matters because if he is not the lawyer, then he doesn't have any privilege and there is really no explanation for him being put into this process except to subvert it. and if he is the lawyer, there is still a big problem.

you say, yeah, he's the lawyer. on this show he said he was a lawyer. then a few days later he said in an article he's not, he's acting as a political person who has always rooted out corruption and then he said he was there for the state department. how do we know his lawyer? trump says it, he says it. is he getting paid? he says no. well, then that means he's given hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of legal advice based on what his charges are over this much time for free. but we don't know of him ever filing that as an in-kind donation. we don't know of the president ever filing that. so what if he doesn't pass the test for being his lawyer? think about what the implications would be not just for rudy and his lawyer license and fara investigations, he is not acting as a lawyer, what does that mean for the investigation? >> you're probably right.

trump probably hasn't paid him. >> unless he's paying him by these other meetings we've been hearing about, letting him get clients before people and show a lot of access. >> well, that's a payment of a different kind. it's not one that might be reported. but he's giving him access and using it to his advantage. rudy's dennis the menace. he likes being in the mix. he likes to cause havoc. trump and he seem to be a good pair. you don't know what he's doing. we'll find out eventually i guess but we won't find out with bill barr because bill barr is trump's other lawyer. >> barr is certainly -- we understand his capacity, though. what rudy's capacity is, it has little implications for him, ethical implications for him. he may be dennis but i don't see him as the menace. i think he was put in play by this president and if he was put in play just as an operative to subvert the system and get things he wanted done and really in no capacity that gave him any

right to any of the access he had, that adds a very different dimension to it. with what we saw today, congressman, that got ugly early and you were just talking to historians. what's going to happen when you get into the meat of the matter here? how can it resemble anything like progress with zero buy-in, something we've never seen anything like this kind of recalcitrance from the party of the republicans? >> i'd like to say chairman nadler ran the committee firmly and fairly. on the democratic side, no recriminations against the republicans, no people jumping in and questioning republicans' motives there were republicans that try to put down democrats and put down the witnesses, questioning who they voted for, did they give money to hillary clinton or barack obama and questioning them a lot and putting them on the seat for things that really weren't relevant. but the democrats i thought ran a very, very structured and

orderly process to try to elicit facts that would show the violation of our constitution and the reason why we need to protect it so this election coming up will not be interfered with more. just the day after robert mueller told the committee that the russians at that moment were trying to interfere with our lele election in 2020 and had systematically gotten involved in the election in 2016 and one day later he calls and says i'd like a favor with the u crekrai president. the man doesn't learn. doesn't learn from george stephanopoulos. sure i'd like to see it. wray says, no, you call the fbi immediately. the man doesn't learn. >> you only learn if you think your current position is wrong. he clearly doesn't and he's getting a lot of affirmation from his side. we've never seen anything like

it in modern history. nixon's own party turned on him, that's why he resigned. congressman steve cohen, thank you for being with us on such an important day. >> you're welcome, chris. >> you saw today the state of play. man, this is a deadlock, okay? so we have ahead the argument against impeachment with one of the republicans that was there today. what do they see is what matters. what do they see as any chance of progress? how do they rationalize the way steve cohen and the democrats do why they're doing the right thing? next.

super emma just about sleeps in her cape. but when we realized she was battling sensitive skin, we switched to tide pods free & gentle. it's gentle on her skin, and dermatologist recommended. tide free & gentle. safe for skin with psoriasis and eczema.

[sneeare you ok?fles] yah, it's just a cold. it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure. coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. [airport pa]"all flights have been delayed." t-mobile makes the holidays easier... ...like this. because right now when you buy one of the latest samsung phones you get one free. on that. so you can post this... ...score this... ...be there like this...

...and share all of this... ...with that. so do this, on that, with us. now, buy a samsung galaxy s10 or note 10 and get one free. (burke) at farmers insurance, we've seen almost everything, so we know how to cover almost anything. even a "three-ring fender bender." (clown 1) sorry about that... (clown 2) apologies. (clown 1) ...didn't mean it. (clown 3) whoops. (stilts) sorry! (clowns) we're sorry! (scary) hey, we're sorry! [man screams] [scary screams] (burke) quite the circus. but we covered it. at farmers, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ the ups and downs of frequent mood swings can plunge you into deep, depressive lows. (crying) take you to uncontrollable highs. (muffled arguing) or, make you feel both at once. overwhelmed by bipolar i symptoms? ask about vraylar.

some medications only treat the lows or the highs. vraylar effectively treats depression, acute manic and mixed episodes of bipolar i. full-spectrum relief of all symptoms. with just one pill, once a day. elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements, may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. metabolic changes may occur. movement dysfunction, restlessness, sleepiness, stomach issues are common side effects. when bipolar i overwhelms, vraylar helps smooth the ups and downs. jonathan turley was the sole witness called by republicans today. he made two points that mattered here. one, why are you movingsoast, democrats? that's an interesting discussion. the second was this notion that assumes that this situation is still a mystery.

>> if you prove a quid pro quo, you might have an impeachable offense. >> to be clear what you described is a quid pro quo, it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happened as well. >> we do that all the time with foreign policy. >> don't forget what eu ambassador sondland said, there was a quid pro quo, everybody knew it, i delivered the message. that doesn't mean it's worth of impeachment but why ignore the obvious? judiciary committee member mike johnson of louisiana, thank you for being here after such a long day. you know it's foreign for us here to test both sides on those things. we can talk about the rate of investigation but this idea that if you show basically a prieb, if you show there is a solicitation here, that there is a pressure campaign, that's all that came up in the testimony. why do you guys ignore what happened instead of just arguing

that what happened isn't enough? >> chris, i would dispute all of that. we are paying attention to exactly what happened. no witness that testified either in the basement or out in the public has said anything about a bribe or extortion. that was a term that the democrats were using to justify this whole charade. >> that's a legal conclusion. sondland said there was a quid pro quo. you don't get the aid if we don't get the announcement, that's the same thing, you don't have to speak latin. >> you can't take sondland out of context. you have to take the full sondland. he asked the president directly september 9th -- >> how do you know? >> because it's in the transcript. >> where's the record that the call happened? you have to take him at his word but if you can't take him at his word at the stuff you don't like. >> he said the president himself said to him and replied, i want no quid pro quo -- >> we don't know that the call

happened. >> you can say sondland was not being truthful under oath, when he talked about the quid pro quo he thought, he was forced to admit that it was a presumption. >> let's slow it down for the audience. you're a very talented attorney. when you say it's just conjecture, sondland spoke to the president on a regular basis, says he was given every indication by working through rudy giuliani and this is what they wanted. everybody who testified said this is what we were told they wanted, this was the plan. rudy giuliani said it on this show. the president said it on the call. the on thing that i agree with you that changes the calculus when the president's phone called changed the language. here's the problem, we don't

know that the call happened. >> that's the first i've heard anybody make that argument. >> really? >> well, for your line of reasoning to apply, chris, you also have to ignore what the officials in ukraine said. it was november 14th where the foreign minister in ukraine came out and said there was absolutely no link whatsoever between any request for an investigation and the funding. >> then why did they go to vindman and say why do we go to rudy? why did zelensky come out and say if you're our partner, you don't cut off aid to anything in the middle of the war? >> zelensky has been defending president trump's version, his understanding. you have to take this in full context. that's what the president had. >> isn't the full context that zelensky was desperate for access to the american presidency to show that threshold of power and they needed the aid because he was in

an existential crisis? >> there's no question about that. zelensky was elected on a platform similar to president trump, he was going to drain the swamp in ukraine. it's one of the most corrupt nations in the world, in the top three, and he's talking to zelensky about that, he wants him to clean up the corruption there. he has a fiduciary obligation to the taxpayers in this country not to misspend our resources overseas and that's how president trump was thinking about this. >> if that's how he was thinking about it, reasonably, the full reasonable, if you were to ask people in ukraine, the official there is, when you think of corruption in ukraine, what comes to mind, how many do you think would bring up a debunked conspiracy theory? you say what you are doing with your pay for play with russia,

with your barons who are getting all of this public property? that's what you'd ask, not about the bidens, who is a u.s. citizen. you'd go to the d.o.j. that's what mike johnson would do. that's not what the president did. >> the president operates the way he does, but -- >> that's not acceptable. "he operates the way he does" what if you throw a rock through a window and take a necklace and say that's the way i operate? >> i think 68% of ukrainians had bribed an official the previous year. >> so you should look at the corruption inside ukraine. that's fine if you want that as your litmus test for money. he only asked for things good for him, not ukraine. rudy giuliani, are you okay with him in the midst of all this going back there and doing more digging? and if so, on what basis? >> i'm seeing conflicting reports of what rudy is doing right now. >> if he's there.

if he's not there, god bless him, i hope he's safe. >> that's not relevant to the impeachment question, it's not relevant to what the congress is doing right now. we were talking about the hearing today, i don't think the democrats moved the ball at all. i think the american people are very frustrated by this. every witness today was forced to admit they had no personal knowledge at all about any material fact in the schiff report. >> they're just historians. i don't disagree with you about any of that. they were just historians today. turley made a couple arguments in '98 that were interesting to hear his take on the state of play today. but a lot of that was academic. but i think rudy matters 100% and not because he's the bad guy. i don't think rudy giuliani is the bad guy in this story or the fall guy. i'm saying how can it not matter to the impeachment investigation if the underlying premise of why the president was using undue pressure was to get the bidens, if he's there doing it right now

and you don't even know the color of his authority in doing so. you don't even know his capacity of being over there, do you? >> no, we're don't know that. i'm not sure it's relevant -- >> should you? how could it not be relevant? >> the president has a right to hire private counsel -- >> how do you know he hired him as counsel? >> i don't know that. >> what if he didn't hire him as private counsel? >> rudy giuliani is a priority citizen -- >> but he said he went there under the color of authority of the state department. >> i didn't know if he said that. >> cbs news interview september 29, 2019, i did it at the request of the state department and i have all of the text messages to prove it. either he went over there -- i'm sorry, three days earlier he said i'm not acting as a lawyer, i'm acting as someone who has devoted most of his life for straightening out the government -- oh, i'm sorry, on

the show seven days before that he said i'm here as the president's lawyer. aren't you a little interested in finding out who rudy giuliani's working for and why he'd be in ukraine right now or asking anybody about the bidens when you guys say that that's not what the president wanted? >> i believe that the president genuinely wanted to clean up corruption to make sure american taxpayer dollars were being spent. 2016 he talked about corruption all the time and tweets about it all the time. i think that's a really important thing. the overarching theme here is what our own chairman nadler in judiciary said 20 years ago, a sing single-party impeachment is d destructive to the country. >> correct. who is responsible, which side for making this one-sided? i know you'll say the democrats. independent going to look through the case and make an argument that it is your side

that has changed this from a place looking for consensus to just strictly adhering to party. but i'd love your take on it privately and you're always welcome on the show. congressman mike johnson of louisiana, thank you for making your case here tonight. >> thank you. i'll give you a response when we get a chance. >> please, i appreciate it. i know you're busy. i'll have you back on the show as well. >> remember that we were talking about rudy. i'm not painting him as the bad guy. this isn't about the investigation into him. is he the president's lawyer? is he paying him? he's not paying him. is he getting access as payment? it's a donation? did he file it as one, did the president? this matters. if he's not his lawyer, then he doesn't have any attorney/client privilege and all this is open, if they want him. now, the president's ukraine actions are not impeachable, says the right. but then the constitutional law witness today say if it isn't, nothing is.

where does that leave us? all right, let's bring in one of the professors, michael gerhardt. he was there today and he was there in 1998. how is this different and where does he think it goes? next. forget about vacuuming for months. the roomba i7+ with clean base automatic dirt disposal

and allergenlock™ bags that trap 99% of allergens, so they don't escape back into the air. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™ but he wanted snow for thelace 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! 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. ♪ i am all about livi♪g joyfully. hello. the united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. rewarded! going new places and tasting new flavors. rewarded! traveling lighter. rewarded. haha, boom! getting settled. rewarded. learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get... rewarded!

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

professor michael gerhardt joins me now. he was at the judiciary hearing this morning and testified during the clinton impeachment. thank you for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> what do you think the most meaningful distinction is between this impeachment situation and with president clinton? >> i think there are a couple important distinctions. the first one is that with president clinton, i think there

was virtually no disagreement about the basic facts. everybody understood that he had lied or at least given some kind of falsehood under oath when talking about his relationship with monica lewinsky. the question there very cleanly was whether his lies were impeachable. in this situation, i think there's obviously not consensus about the facts, at least admitted consensus, though it seems so far they're indispu indisputable in the record, and i think the other difference is that the president's defenders, i think, are really focused on personal attacks. not so much attacks on the facts or the law but on attacking the messenger and in this case the three of us who were called by the democrats. >> well, listen, you know the old adage law school 101 if you don't have the facts you start going after the person, and if you don't have policy and they

don't have either here. what happened here is pretty obvious. they keep arguing what seems to be isn't what it seems to be. this is the first time in modern history we've seen the party of the president refuse to acknowledge any oversight duty. they are the president's line and they will not move. what does that do to this process? >> i think that's a really terrific point. that is different from clinton's situation and different from nixon's in nixon and clinton admitted it was legitimate that there was an impeachment inquiry. here the president's defenders are doing exactly what you said. they're attacking the legitimacy of this inquiry at all and attacking the people who are fact witnesses, attacking the people who are talking about the law, but attacking them for being disloyal, for being idiots or whatever, but not really

attacking the substance of what they're saying. >> that really throws a wrench in the works because that's not what the founders intended. so that's my last question for you. i read, you know, the federalist paper 65 and 66 but the middle section of 65 is germane here. they didn't want this to be a battle of numbers. this was supposed to be about some consensus. you got to agree with each other to some extent here. so what's the right thing to do in this situation if one party basically won't participate. do you impeach if you have the numbers or do you abandon the effort because this is not what impeachment was made for? >> that's a really terrific question and i've given it a lot of thought. i think the answer to your question is, in my opinion, that that what is at stake here is really the conflict between two different kind of precedents?

what is the precedent we're going to set here? that the house impeaches and goes forward, it sets down a marker that what the president did at least got the disapproval of the house. the other precedent that can be set is that presidents can do this and get away with it, this is okay for the president to do. in many respects, this whole episode, this whole situation is about which of those precedents is going to be established. >> professor, thank you for what you did for the country today. i know it not easy but these aren't easy times. thank you for with us tonight. appreciate it professor michael gerhardt. now, somebody who actually aggressive with him, the person that the republicans called, not now but '98. please stick around for that. now we have to get back with rudy giuliani. it's not because i'm in love with my own idea here. he isn't denying reports he's in ukraine. i'm not even saying it's wrong

he's in ukraine or illegal, but in what capacity. i believe this may be a big key to the case. why? well, that's where we're going to bring in better minds. mr.s mccabe and bake are. we're going to their investigative know-how to this set of facts next. still fresh... ♪ unstopables in-wash scent booster ♪ downy unstopables and my side super soft? with the sleep number 360 smart bed you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. so, can it help us fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet. but can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your

movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. and will it keep me in the holiday spirit? yes! with comfort and joy. so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise. prove. and now, save up to $500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. only for a limited time. 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.

everybody's getting caught

up about the back and forth of today but it's a mistake. you got to see where progress is in this investigation and i think we're on to it tonight. the house intel report lays out how the timing of rudy giuliani's phone calls are oddly in line with key moments and key players in this ukraine saga. investigators are still trying to determine who was behind the blocked number. it's identified in the report as dash-one. something that's interesting. the calls from dash-one or whatever you want to call it come after every time mr. giuliani has reached out to the white house first. provocative question is could it be the president? what would the relevance be? that takes us to a huge question. andrew mccabe and jim baker is here. feel free to shoot me down for being in love with my own idea. how do we know rudy was his lawyer? because they say so? they say he wasn't paying him.

was he paying him back with access? the biggest reason i ask is full fold. if he's not really his lawyer because he doesn't qualify, jim, he doesn't have any privilege. what if he didn't have that answer at his disposal? >> there's three -- exactly. you're right on that. there's three things that i'm looking at. who was he working for? was he working for the president, for the state department as he has said in the pass? was he working for lev parnas, for some other person? is he over there working for this television network supposedly doing this documentary? that is very unclear. that then drives the other question that you were just referencing, who's paying for all this? of great concern to me is are any federal funds being spent in support of this travel and, if so, like how is that being approved, how is that being accounted for? and if he's working for the federal government and he's not

using federal funds, how is the government accepting his services? that's not consistent with the law either. that doesn't make any sense. the third thing, chris, is just like doesn't anybody around rudy giuliani actually care about him enough to tell him, look, even if this is a lawful thing you're doing, it's an awful idea? in this time period for you to be over there doing this, talking to those people, it just looks bad. you're not helping yourself, you're not helping your client, if he is your client, the president of the united states, it's a really bad idea. presumably people around him care about him and somebody needs to step in and tell him this is a bad idea, man. >> andy, i'll bounce it to you. the balance is going to be we're doing it in plain sight because it's not wrong because the bidens are dirty. i know this sounds like some lawyer issue at home. i'm telling you it isn't. if he doesn't have the privilege at his disposal, all the conversations he had with the

president and any form they've been recorded on any level are open to discovery in this process. and that would be a big deal. and on side of the ethical problems and campaign financing violations for both of them, no? >> yes. in terms of the investigation, it's a very big deal. quite simply, he can't have it both ways. if he's there as an official emissary of the state department, then he has no attorney/client privilege with the president. that could expose all of his communications with the president. there are other privileges the president could assert to try to protect those things but he wouldn't have attorney/client privilege. owned, if he is there as the president's personal attorney, which he has also said several times, then that completely undercuts the president and his defenders that all of this was in pursuit of eradicating corruption in ukraine and this

was all part of an official u.s. diplomatic effort to try to make ukraine a cleaner place. if he's there as the personal attorney of the president, he is pursuing the president's personal business, and i think that makes the case in a for the abuse of power. the president asked for these investigations or the announcement of them because he was pursuing his own interests, not the nation's context. on this show he said i was acting for my client. and then one week later he told i think the atlantic, i'm acting to someone who has devoted most of his life to straightening out government. then he said i did it at the request of the state department and have i the the text messages to prove it.

>> one of those and expectations and obvious consequences. >> absolutely. if this ever ends up in a court where he's made a hash out of it, quite honestly. i think he's created enough doubt about exactly what he was doing and who was doing it for that it would be difficult for the attorney/client privilege to survive under this context. i this i it would wb a very tricky argument for him to try of communications with the president and others as well. >> if any story ever fell into the category oh what a tangled web we we've, this is the story for that. we'll have to mack up a now, there is an argument to be made

that this is a at a tile the optics of what you see in the r rom, it wasn't meant for hyperpartissonship. i'm going to use sound from '98, national rals from they to make the argument of who's in the wrong and which way a forward, next.

[airport pa]"all flights have been delayed." t-mobile makes the holidays easier... ...like this. because right now when you buy one of the latest samsung phones you get one free. on that. so you can post this...

...score this... ...be there like this... ...and share all of this... ...with that. so do this, on that, with us. now, buy a samsung galaxy s10 or note 10 and get one free. we di didn't have to call an ambulance.. and i didn't have to contact your family. because your afib didn't cause a blood clot that led to a stroke. not today. we'd discussed how your stroke risk increases over time, so even though you were feeling fine, we chose xarelto® to help keep you protected. once-daily xarelto® ... ...significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib... not caused by a heart valve problem. in fact, over 96% of people remained stroke-free. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of stroke. while taking, a spinal injection increases the risk of blood clots, which may cause paralysis - the inability to move. you may bruise more easily or

take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures... ...and any kidney or liver problems. be sure you're doing... ...all you can to help protect yourself from a stroke. ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com. (burke) at farmers insurance, we've seen almost everything, so we know how to cover almost anything. even a "three-ring fender bender." (clown 1) sorry about that... (clown 2) apologies. (clown 1) ...didn't mean it. (clown 3) whoops. (stilts) sorry! (clowns) we're sorry! (scary) hey, we're sorry! [man screams] [scary screams] (burke) quite the circus. but we covered it. at farmers, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

we're at a stalemate.

but i argue this is no good-faith dispute on the facts. what happened here and why is obvious and reflected by all we've seen and heard. president trump abused his power. he did it for his own gain. he did it with a foreign power. he did it to interfere in his election. republicans complain about rushing through the process, and that's fair criticism. it has gone fast. but the documents and players at the top of the food chain are being withheld by trump, something both nixon and clinton got impeached for by republicans by the way. so here's my argument. we are stuck because this process, impeachment, was meant for a measure of consensus. coming out of an elevation of principle over party. how do we know? just go right to the founders. federalist papers, alexander hamilton. read this part. there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties than by the real

demonstrations of innocence or guilt. now, the right says, see? see what he said? that means the democrats are to blame. they have the numbers. i argue the right is wrong. majorities have always led the way in this process. it was no different with clinton. but what did change is the gop becoming the republycants, okay? they complain that impeachment can't be one-sided and that's not new as a concept. judiciary chair jerry nadler, back when it was his side in the soup, he made the same argument. >> there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially provided by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.

>> ah, they got him. there he is making their argument for them. wrong because in '98, it wasn't all one-sided in the house. almost three dozen democrats crossed the line to start the process. five democrats voted to impeach bill clinton. and let's remember the facts there were far less damning and far further from the origin of that investigation than what we have here. remember clinton lied about monica lewinsky, a tryst, in an investigation that was supposed to be about land deals. here you have a textbook example of courting foreign interference in a probe that is looking at exactly that. imagine if right now the democrats said, oh, we have proof that the president lied in this civil deposition in some lawsuit about an ongoing affair. we're going to impeach him for that now. that's the most obvious example. people would go crazy, okay?

so it was -- and remember with nixon, it was members of his party that told him he was done. so this is the first time where we've seen a party go all in exclusive of their constitutional duty. so you know who is right here? the president. he was dead on when he said this. >> you'll have a democrat president. you'll have a republican house, and they'll do the same thing because somebody picked an orange of a refrigerator and you don't like it. >> forget about the orange part, but he is correct. that's exactly how it went with clinton. so he is living his own prediction except he's not looking into the future. he is the future. the democrats are doing what the gop did the way the gop did it except the gop is not acting like the democrats, right? because the democrats have him on worse facts than the gop did with clinton, i'm telling you. but it is the gop that perverted the process by refusing to do

constitutional checks. instead all they're doing is showing they lack the constitution to do their duty and all they're checking on is checking in with the president, what he wants done, what he wants said and how. proof -- lindsey graham then. >> you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic. >> lindsey graham now. >> show me something that is a crime. >> you see what i'm saying? they have just capitulated to trump. forget the truth. it's all trump. so what to do? this impeachment process wasn't made for this, but you can't let this stuff go, or trump will feel invincible, and future presidents may feel the same. but impeachment and removal can't work without some kind of consensus. that leads to two-thirds seeing it the same way. that's the constitutional standard in the senate and for a reason.

can't be partisan. you've got to see it the same way basically. so maybe the answer is in what you see as an acceptable if imperfect end. not removal but removal of all doubt that what was done here and how it was done was wrong. maybe the lone witness the gop had today once made the best case to impeach today. there is great significance. listen to this. there is great significance to where an impeachment process terminates, ends. if the process terminates in the house, the underlying conduct becomes precedent of exclusion, meaning you can't do this. if the process terminates in the senate without conviction, no precedent is established for similar conduct in the future. that was professor turley in 1998 in making the case, go ahead and impeach clinton even though you won't remove him. and i say that argument stands today.

if the democrats' goal is for history to remember that you don't do this, you don't get away with it, that trump can't trump the law and proper presidential behavior, then maybe this is their best path as imperfect as it is because they have the facts on their side even if the process exacts no greater toll on this president. the question then becomes what toll will it exact on the gop? how will they explain ignoring obvious proof of presidential perfidy in favor of a presidential pat on the head? that's my argument. now, beyond impeachment, you see what happened at the nato summit? some unexpected drama for our president. that's next. 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. ♪

nato summit is going on over in london. it's not going to be remembered for posing in photos like this but for the truth of how world leaders respect this president. listen to this.

>> now, it's mostly justin trudeau, obviously the leader of canada. but you saw them all laughing. that's macron. you got boris johnson there just laughing at the president of the united states. now, thank you for watching though i'm sorry you had to see that. let's get the take with d. lemon as "cnn tonight" takes over the coverage. that's not posing, not posturing for the cameras. this is how they talk about our president. >> yeah, as if he's a joke. they're talking about him -- it's the truth. >> you know, the whole payoff here of his style -- >> look, when people are laughing at you, that means you're the joke. he's the brunt of a joke right there, and the