hey, i'm chris cuomo. welcome to a special live midnight edition of prime time. we were on impeachment vote watch, but there's been an unexpected delay. so, the historic votes on articles of impeachment against president donald john trump will happen just hours from now, yes, on friday the 13th. where will history take us? where will it leave us? let's get after it. 10:00 a.m. eastern on friday morning, the 13th. that's the new time for this phase of the reckoning for this president.

>> chairman, mr. chairman, there is no consulting from the ranking member on your schedule which you've just blown up schedules for everyone. you chose not to consult the ranking member on a schedule of this magnitude. so typical. this is the kangaroo court that we're talking about. >> republicans feigning shock, chairman nadler announcing less than an hour ago the committee would recess after they delayed the process with a long string of amendments. let's unpack what happened and what it means going forward. we've got michael, elliott, and amanda. amanda, just sticking to the political sphere, the republicans were drawing it out, making it as divisive and long and possible. as we just heard from jamie raskin, they were going to get it both ways whchlt the vote happened at 2:30 a.m. eastern

time, they would say in the middle of the night, in the dark when everyone was asleep, that's when they did that. so, nadler cut that off. >> that would have been a smart move for republicans. the message the whole day was the democrats couldn't prove their case, they couldn't do this, they're just appeasing the base. so, forcing them to do that into the middle of the night would have played that perfectly. but nadler cut that off. do you know what the good thing is. >> no, i don't. what the good thing. >> everyone got to say their piece, right? you had as many chances to make that case in the hearing today as you wanted. we heard it ad nauseum. and so i choose to see the silver lining. i like this stuff. i live for it. we're up at midnight. that was great. >> i would like it more if it were like a convention or something like that and not this existential potential crisis.

couns counsel, let's look at the challenges. the right is ignoring the facts here. they keep saying there's nothing to impeach. there's nothing to impeach. but they never argue why. they keep says there's no fact witnesses but they keep ignoring why because the white house won't allow anybody in. how big a deal? how persuasive to american people? >> it may be persuasive to the base, particularly to their base of course. but the other thing of course that's happening here and we've talked about this throughout the day is everybody is planning to history. and i think in terms of history, 50 years, whatever down the road, those arguments made by the republicans are going to look awfully weak because the misconduct here is clear. there's evidence supporting it that's set forth in the house intelligence report among other things and it's perfectly permissible to have an impeachable offense that is not actually a criminal violation. that's what the democrats have

put forward. and the republicans basically kind of danced around it. but they couldn't really weaken the constitutional foundation for the democrats' actions today. >> elliott, i have lawrence tribe, the esteemed professor who helped draft these articles of impeachment. we'll have a conversation with him about why they look the way they do later. but you know where i'm going with this. >> i do. >> you made it easier for the republicans to vote. you don't have the goods by not including specific crimes because most americans don't know this stuff the way you do. >> most americans don't understand the constitution the way michael gerhardt does. the constitution doesn't require that a crime be committed for there to be an impeachable offense. that's an unsatisfied opinion.

bill clinton committed obstruction of justice. >> perjury. he did perjury. nixon did the burglary. that's what it takes in the mind of common political persuasion. >> but as we were -- but again it's not just about common political persuasion. it's about what the law says and what's on the face of the constitution. throughout history, the dozens of individuals who have been impeached. you're talking about multiple federal judges. there was a secretary of war, i believe, who was impeached as well. often not for criminal offenses. remember the concept of criminal offenses was written into law and many of them are written into law long after the constitution. >> i hear you on that. go ahead, finish your point. >> i was just making the same point. not all crimes are impeachable and not all impeachable offenses are crimes. we should focus on what is the standard of conduct we wish to hold the future, future

preside presidents, of this united states to. if we want to open the door to presidents soliciting the aid, have at it. let's do that. >> that's an interesting pivot point. amanda, we heard congressman ratcliffe say not to interfere but be involved, that of course foreign power is going to be involved in our election, happens all the time. we heard ag barr say that the other day. more and more you're seeing them potentially illegal contributions but they're involved more and more. there's this subtle shift of this suggestion of wake up this is how it works that echos the president saying, what do you mean? if a foreign person comes to me with dirt on my opponent i'm going to take it. i'm not going to call the fbi. no less than mike, former ag under bush, said listen, this is who he is and how he does things. there's this new push of this is how it is, wake up, amanda, let the game be dirty because that's how it's played.

>> yeah. i think this is a dangerous precedent but let me explain where i think the republicans do have a point. it is significant that the democrats abandon the bribery charge. this is what made everything different than the russia investigation and the mueller report because this time you had accusations that the president withheld/paused the aid in exchange for acts. and somehow that just went away. that was the most important part. >> it's still in the language. >> you could have had a money trail. >> but it's still in the language. >> you had the omb, the white house involved. what? >> it's still in the language. they just don't hammer it home. >> right. and that's a vulnerability. it seems like the democrats weakened their case. and then on the second point which i think charlie did a good job pointing out in the hearings is the obstruction charge. obstruction of congress would be most well resolved through the courts. it seems like if it were that

important you would pursue it throughout courts. i think the republicans have an argument there although there's a dangerous precedent being set here giving a signal that we will allow foreign intervention in our election. >> you're also sending the signal that it's okay for the judiciary to become a coequal branch oversight of the congress. congress sends a subpoena, you're supposed to follow it. they have power the same way president can't compel members of congress before him, congress can't compel members of the executive. but you have to respect the demands otherwise. so, this running around that. they're making a good case even i'm playing into here. they're treating these house democrats like they were supposed to make the case and win it now when articles of impeachment, correct me if i'm wrong, counselor, they're just the allegations. this isn't making the case. this is just adding up the charges, is it not? >> that's right. and the basic function of the

articles of impeachment is to set forth the charges against in this case the president of the united states. i also think you're right about what you were just talking about and i want to re-emphasize that. and it's the point about the fact that the democrats here are focusing as we said before on offenses. there's nothing wrong with that. but the obstruction of congress charge is based on the failure of the president to comply with at least ten subpoenas and orders other people in his administration not to comply. and that's enough. those are lawful orders. the failure to comply is illegal. and the judicial review does what you just said. it means the constitution says the house has the sole power of impeachment. if the house has to depend on courts to enforce that subpoena, then it turns out the courts have the sole power or control over this process. >> elliott, the advantage for you guys is that the republicans

are playing the short game, right? because i'm old enough -- i'm like you guys -- to remember what happened in '98. they were jumping up and down, the republicans, lindsey graham most notably that you don't need a crime. you don't need a crime. this is about moral cleansing and that's all it is. and the perjury's more than enough because the lying about sex is more than enough. so, they're playing a short game here that people won't remember what they were there and reveal that kind of two-faced capacity that they're having. but you guys are playing the long game on the left. you're not even making this point. when they say you don't have the proof, you know, you can't prove to any real standard that this happened. this is a probable cause standard. that's all you're looking for with an article of impeachment. it's almost a more likely than not. do we have any reasonable basis to believe this may have happened? now go try it. that's all it is in a criminal

trial, let alone a political one. >> a couple of things -- i'll push back on myself as being characterized as part of the left. >> that's what you're playing tonight, elliott. that is your role. >> i'm playing on the side of the constitution. >> all right. go ahead. you can call it whatever you want. >> let's be clear, i think the problem republicans have was seen in the interview you did earlier tonight with attorney general framed it in terms of what's the way the president is and that's a toxin being put on our government. here's why. do you remember the pottery barn rule, you broke it, you bought it? the president -- >> i hate that rule. i'm a man with three kids. >> i have four. >> i've got two. i got it. the president has broken the modern republican party. and frankly this pre-dates impeachment. the fear of the nasty tweet has clouded the minds of pretty much every republican in the house and i think we'll soon see in the senate.

so, even in these places where the allegations are clear, now we can dispute as to whether bribery ought to have been added in or not. there are places these people should have been stepping out of line with the president of the united states and they're not going to because of the grip the president has on the republican party right now. >> no question. in the house. in the house. we'll see what happens in the senate. >> i'm not with you on that, chris. >> i said we'll see what happens. this is the beautiful thing about this world, if you wait, it will happen. and we'll see. there's no reason to get ahead of it. amanda, you guys have always owned character, right or wrong? i know democrats aren't going to with that. when i see trucks with american flags, i assume that person is republican. this is a big gamble going on here right now which is they hate us. us versus them will replace the high ground you used to have. any concern? >> yeah, absolutely. the phenomenon is called

negative partisanship. it's not so much about what you believe in your own team. it's how much you hate the other guy. the last election was a negative partisanship election. hillary's terrible. trump isn't as terrible so we're going to fall in line behind him no matter how terrible of a personal character he may have. it's awful. we're sacrificing a lot of things in the name of winning but it does come from a place of fear and anger that we can't trust the other side. there's no way we can do that. there's no way to vote for socialism. so, fall in line behind trump. >> my regret is i think that the republicans could accept what is obvious hiere and say okay, maye it was wrong what he did, he shouldn't have done it this way, but it's not worthy of impeachment. and i think they would have had arguments for that. now it's just a scorched earth policy of us versus them. michael, elliott, amanda, thank you one and all. all right. coming up, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, he's

making news tonight on what may happen if this does get to a senate trial which is likely at this point. let's go deep on his words and the implications next.

so, what happens tomorrow with key impeachment votes? why didn't it happen tonight? let's bring in phil mattingly, kaitlan collins. they've been following all the developments. furs to you, phil, what do we know? >> you letting me talk about mark up procedure tonight, cuomo, is like the man after my own heart. here's what matters about what happened. when you saw chairman nadler gavel out before the final vote, that was unexpected. we didn't know that was coming. but it had been planned. what he did is basically set up tomorrow the only option is not more amendments, not more debates, not more striking of the last word but essentially to vote on the final two articles of impeachment. there may also be a vote on the substitute amendment they agreed upon towards the end of the

night. why democrats did this is twofold. one, they were frustrated it went so late into the night. they say they thought hi had an understanding with republicans that this would end around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. multiple democrats said we want to do this in broad daylight. we don't want it to be done in the dead of night. republicans obviously are furious. doug collins saying it was the most bush league thing he's seen in his career. the reality is the end game is the same. these will pass with democratic votes tomorrow morning. we'll see how long it takes. but the way chairman nadler did it tonight, it will be queued up to move rather quickly. >> that was the most bush league things, the guys that stormed the scif, that was the most bush league thing. we understand you make an amendment and everybody gets to talk about it. they kept using that phrase that you used, i move to strike the last word. what does that mean?

>> it's the nightmare for anybody covering mark ups. basically what it does without getting too technical is allows the member to take the amendment in place and put their own proforma amendment on top of it. they can talk five minutes. what it also allows is any committee that hasn't had an opportunity to talk gets the opportunity. it opens it up to all 41 members of the committee to keep talking. we only got through five amendments tonight. we only got through one procedural vote tonight. everybody kept striking the last word which gave everybody another five minutes to talk. you saw a lot of talking points and a lot of the arguments you've seen over the last three or four weeks over and over again because of that procedural effort. >> phil mattingly, thank you very much for being on top of the game no matter what time it is. kaitlan collins at the white house. our president was at a congressional bowl tonight.

his proxies in the house are following his play book. when i heard gates go after in an ill advised attack hunter biden struggles with mental health and addiction sounded right out of the president's mouth. what do you know about how closely involved the president is with what they're watching in the house? >> the president feels he's been unable to properly defend himself here, so of course when it's something like this, he feels the strongest defenders are the republicans you saw the most today on the judiciary committee today pushing back on those democrats that are extensions of the president. they know very well what his mindset is because he's made it pretty clear to them over the last several weeks. that's what's interesting over this fight that's happening with the senate trial and how the senate republicans are going to advise the white house. we don't exactly know what that could lead to. but the more that the president watches things like what he did today, seeing doug collins there at the end so angry with chairman nadler over abruptly ending this going into recess

until the morning, the more president feels like he wants to fight back and he needs to be vindicated. so, that'll be a really interesting area to watch is exactly how they're going to resolve those differences. this is still a president who wants this aggressive combative defense. >> what is your best sense in terms of reporting about how close he is to the players? >> how close the president is? he's very close to a lot of them. i mean -- >> in terms of controlling what they do and giving them advice about what to say and who should say it? >> i think the president makes clear that he wants something to happen. he doesn't always necessarily telegraph what, but he'll say things like look at what notary public nancy pelosi is being. why aren't we on offense. that's the dynamic in the white house. even with the white house counsel, the president wants them to go forward and make

their own calls here. he struggled with that. republicans said if they down play this, that's going to help them. you saw republicans make it seem like this is a very boring process that was happening and playing out repeating those same arguments over again. but that's not what the president wants. he wants something really agreecive and he makes that very clear to a lot of these republicans. >> what's your sense as to whether or not he has the same kind of control with mcconnell and that crew that he has in the house? >> mcconnell is a whole different beast because he controls the senate pretty well. even if you talk to his detractors, they'll tell you he has a tight grip on his conference. that's why he doesn't want this long drawn out trial. he doesn't want it to damage these senators up for re-election. he wants to protect them from taking votes like that. that's the question when it comes to the president and mcconnell. you heard mcconnell say tonight he thinks he's going to be listening to the white house

counsel, but he's also telegraphing a message to the president says that he thinks by the time they get to the opening statements of the impeachment trial it'll be so clear that the democrats have a thin argument they won't need to callens withes. this is him signals to the president, this is what they should do. we'll see if cooler heads prevail or if the president gets to have the live witnesses in person he's called for. >> it's really interesting to watch play out. it's already so different than it was back with president clinton when the senators were scrupulously avoiding any sense of interchange with the white house. now it's right out in the open. it's like nunes part two. it's like they're supposed to be individual and holding them to account and yet they're accounting to the white house. interesting to see. thank you. phil mattingly as well. at this point impeachment is all but certain. still have a couple of steps. that's the way we're moving. but what is uncertain is what will this look like in the

senate? what do you do? the majority leader has options. you just heard kaitlan collins outline them to you. what's most likely? we'll discuss next. not magenta! not magenta. i'm not going back to the store. magenta! cartridges are so... (buzzer) (vo) the epson ecotank. no more cartridges. it comes with an incredible amount of ink that can save you a lot of frustration. ♪ the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. available at... (children playing)

(dog barking) ♪ (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. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ i looitaly!avel. yaaaaass. with the united explorer card,

i get rewarded wherever i go. going out for a bite. rewarded! going new places. rewarded! anytime. rewarded! getting more for getting away. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get... rewarded! -well, audrey's expecting... -twins! grandparents! we want to put money aside for them, so...change in plans. alright, let's see what we can adjust. ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. okay. mom, are you painting again? you could sell these. lemme guess, change in plans? at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan.

here, it all starts lemwithello! hi!... in plans? how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today.

if the president is impeached, what we will have is a set of allegations. see, for all the talk by trump's defenders about how this case is incomplete, impeachment is just about finding the charges, not making the complete case. that is the job for the senate. the question becomes how will the senate approach their job. what we do know is that senate majority leader has not yet been swayed to go full trump.

now, removal is unlikely because of the votes. but how it is handled matters, not for die hard trumpers in the fringe, but for the most precious voters, those who are still undecided according to the research about what the right consequence is for this president foibles. 2-1 those voters are independent. so, the reality show that trump likes to see is not playing well with mcconnell. one, there isn't precedent for thee yachtics like that. mcconnell doesn't want witnesses flying conspiracy theories that could cause embarrassment to vulnerable members. last time we lived this with bill clinton. the senate also gop controlled. they went heavy low key. no media present. listen. >> as has been the case all the way along, we'll be understanding of each other and try to make these deliberations genuine deliberations. >> after arguments concluded, deliberations, what you heard

lott talking about were held behind closed doors. certainly kept media and messing around to a minimum. that allowed sober minds to struggle with the prospect of removing the president over an affair, especially with clinton reaching epic heights of popularity for cutting major policy deals while in the midst of a foreign military engagement, u.s. air strikes against iraq. now, you compare that with the tweet-dominant master of mayhem and the executive time of trump under facts that are far more damning than when clinton, and you see why the popularity numbers were so obvious. clinton approach to the reproach plus the fact that the thin basis for impeachment that trump complains about now was present back then and though the democrats were righteous as today, even a ten member advantage in the senate backed with clinton wasn't enough. in fact, ten republicans voted against perjury charges. the obstruction count wound up

split 50/50. no matter how it's handled, this is not a good place for any president. he will be the fourth to face this. he's really the second to likely have impeachment stain their name. and with that stain comes stink. as far back as andrew johnson, his own party saw him as damaged goods. didn't even nominate him for re-election. nixon conceded. then ford did this. >> i gerald r. ford, president of the united states do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon on to richard nixon for all offenses against the united states. >> now, most agree that cost president ford against jimmy carter. yes, clinton beat it, but his party got beat in the next white house election. so, that leaves us with trump. he has managed to break all the

rules and norms and right ways to get ahead. can he find a way to turn the ultimate loss into a win? we'll see. now, we're going to pick it up with a big leaguer ahead. constitution authority lawrence tribe gave input to the time that crafted the articles of impeachment. so, why are they the way they are? why is this the best case? next. -that's how a home and auto bundle is made.

[ chuckles ] so, what are some key takeaways from this commercial? did any of you hear the "bundle your home and auto" part? -i like that, just not when it comes out of her mouth. -yeah, as a mother, i wouldn't want my kids to see that. -good mom. -to see -- wait. i'm sorry. what? -don't kids see enough violence as it is? -i've seen violence. -maybe we turn the word "bundle" into a character, like mr. bundles. -top o' the bundle to you.

[ laughter ] bundle, bundle, bundle. -my kids would love that. -yeah.

...6, 7, 8e, bundle, bundle. ♪ ♪ ♪ 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®. and even mueller and wiseman, as much as they hated trump, they couldn't find anything to use against president trump. so, we had to drop the russian collusion, we had to drop the treason. oh, what about obstruction of justice? well, it's not obstruction of justice when you know you're innocent and you know the department of justice is trying to set you up and you're trying to expose the truth. >> now, representative gohmert there is holy mischaracterizing what the mueller report said and what the law is on obstruction. but it was a debate among house democrats whether or not to include an obstruction of justice article on the russia

investigation against the president. in the end, sticking to ukraine for articles of impeachment was not a decision that house democrats made alone. one distinguished constitutional scholar in particular helped convince them that narrowly crafted articles would be the best way to go. why? let's bring in the man himself. professor lawrence tribe, also the coauthor of "to end a presidency: the power of impeachment." why tailor the articles of impeachment in such narrow fashion, why not say bribery not being more explicit? >> well, this is very explicit, and it's a much more serious crime than bribery. it's a crime against the constitution. bribery and extortion could have been charged, but they would involve getting into the weeds of legal technicalities. the idea of using the power of

the presidency for one's own private benefit, to help oneself get re-elected, that was the core danger that led to the inclusion of the impeachment power in the constitution. >> right. >> there was a big argument, you know, that they're framing. do we need an impeachment power. after all the president will stand for re-election. but the main answer was yeah but he might steal that election, especially dealing with foreign powers. that's why this is so important and it would be distracting to go off into legal capillaries and arteries like bribery and extortion although that would have been a possibility. >> but it is given a vulnerability to stick with your analogy, it's pumped blood through the arteries and capillaries of the republican push back which is you can't even articulate a crime. and remember -- i don't have to remind you -- but this is not going to be a jury. this isn't a trial. >> right. >> this is about persuasion with the american people.

they have come to expect crimes even if that is not the constitutional nor the historical measure. >> well, it's going to be the task of the democrats to convince the american public that the most serious crime is using public office for private gain. that is, itself, a crime. people have to be reminded that the constitution is law. it's the supreme law of the land. and when you break the constitution and break your oath to the people to use your office only to carry out the law and to advance the interests of the american people, you are a lawbreak lawbreaker, much more serious than a statutory crime. you know, it's a felony in the district of columbia to deface a postoffice box. that's a crime. >> but it's not impeachable. >> but it's not a crime against the constitution and surely it's not impeachable. >> i understand that not all

crimes are impeachable and not all impeachable acts may be crime. for purposes of persuasion i asked because that gave them opportunity to exploit again and again. >> right. >> i want to talk about the senate procedure part of this. is it true that it would be 50 plus 1 to dismiss the charges so the senate will have a trail. how much leeway does mr. mcconnell have? >> very substantial? but it's going to take 51 votes to establish any particular rule. so, the starting point is the rules that applied in the most recent impeachment in the 1990s and there are going to be suggestions for changes. some people suggest that it should be not a real trial, but i suppose you could call it a fake trial, a trial with no

witnesses, no real evidence. but i don't think that mcconnell will have 51 votes for that. i don't think he'll have 51 votes to bring in the whistleblower. i don't think he'll have 51 votes for any number of things. but i also don't think the democrats are going to have 51 votes for a lot of what they want. so, this is going to be a very tough negotiation, laying down the ground rules of the trial. and i think it remains to be seen what the trial will look like. >> right. >> but there will be a high price to pay if the republicans insist on having really no real trial at all, no witnesses. that will be the strongest confession of guilt possible because if they were not afraid of a real trial with the evidence that the intelligence committee has gathered being displayed before the country and there's really no dispute about what the president did, if they weren't afraid of it, then they would not try to shut it down and make it a quicky procedure. >> it's interesting the only guest they called -- or the only

witness they called in the last hearing was of course professor turley and he argued back in '98 to encourage his republican colleagues in the house to impeach even though it wasn't sure what would happen in the senate although people forget the republicans were in control of the senate back then, not the democrats. they just didn't vote pure republican lock step as we see now. and he encouraged to impeach even if acquittal was likely because of what he called the precedent of exclusion, showing what can't go. do you see value in that? >> right -- and if -- well, i think there's enormous value in saying if the president could do this, if the president can use his power, his public power in order to help himself get reelected by shaking down a vulnerable ally and helping our major global enemy, then anything goes. and if the president can basically shut down the impeachment process as this

president did by taking unto himself the power to decide whether to provide any evidence and effectively to say no evidence, we're not going to cooperate with you at all, if the president can do that, then the impeachment power is basically gone. and their argument that until you have a supreme court decision forcing the president to turn over some evidence, he has no obligation to do it, basically says that the power of impeachment is shared between the house and the judiciary. that's not the way the constitution is written. >> professor tribe, thank you so much for putting your head to these all-important matters. this conversation is to be continued. >> thank you, chris. >> thank you, sir. >> thanks. you want to know how smart tribe is, there's his book tribe coauthored "to end a presidency: the power of presidency." that is a reference that goes way back. it means a fake trial, that it

only looked good on the outside. listen to the way the reference comes from. it was done by a prince in crimea which was part of ukraine until russia annexed it and it was part of a ploy of a russian princess. i bet he didn't even know he was drawing such a contrast. guy's a genius. to the argument. be best. that's what the trump white house tells us. and it is a good reminder and queue. but the president is once again showing us him at his worst. he attacked a kid again. greta thunberg. now, you know her. you probably know he did that. but it's what you didn't hear that tells us all the most. the argument is on that next.

with advil, you have power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain? 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. ♪

one tweet for potus is a metaphor for our mess. so ridiculous. greta must work on her anger management problem. then go to a movie with a friend. chill, greta. he's talking about 16-year-old climate activist greta thunberg, "time" magazine's person of the year. this teenager on the autism spectrum and he knows it. wisdom can come out of the mouths of babes. >> the ice of all future generations are upon you. and if you choose to fail us, i say we will never forgive you. >> "time" magazine's decision to pick her is going to make sense to many even those who disagree with her about climate change which is also known as science.

but then comes trump. forget the obvious jealousy. this is the guy who faked being on a "time" magazine person of the year cover. and to make it clear, this was no misunderstanding. the campaign doubled down. they put his head on greta's frame like a bullied blow pop. we expect the president to ignore precedent of presidential behavior. the troubling behavior is this. you hear that? that's trump's defenders saying nothing. by brothers and sisters on the right, how can you expect people to believe you're offended by democrats' arguments about abuse of power or anything about integrity when you stand by with this president's constant abuse? and you provided the evidence against yourselves just last week when you cared so much about how we treat kids in politics. remember this? >> so, while the president can

name his son barron, he can't make him a barron. >> oh! whoa! first lady went right into be best mode tweeting a minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering and using a child to do it. now, i don't think the professor had the an mouse that the president just had. the first lady was still right. all of you who echoed her outrage, you were right because we don't go at kids. even as a joke. or as an aside or as an anything. but here's the question. where are you now? you suddenly cared about decency. it was wrong to mention barron, right? he's a kid and requires special consideration and sensitivity like greta. but where are you now?

where's bebest? where's flow tus? they defended the president the first time he went after thunberg and you're silent now. only his kids matter? you who are silent are just like the greek actors ages ago wearing masks of duty and constitutional consternation if masks could be that. underneath it all though you're just doing as you're told. that's where the word hypocrite comes from and you wear it well. if i were to say what trump said, i would be crushed and rightly so. i may even lose my job in today's cancel culture. but that's because most of us are concerned about how what we say affects those around us. but now we have a man who should have that concern most acutely and yet he ignores it in full knowledge that he has a cast of men and women willing to play the fool in his act of the

absurd. the party of character counts, of cleansing the office of contamination with clinton, no need for a crime, right? lindsey. but you're silenced now, more troubling than all the rest that's happened i argue. your tongue only works to spread his message of attack at all costs. your blind devotion to the president has blinded you to your own vulnerabilities on display. >> and i don't want to make light of anybody's substance abuse issues but it's a little hard to believe that burisma hired hunter biden to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own dispute with hertz rental car over leaving cocaine and a crack pipe in the car. >> i would say that the pot calling the kettle black is not something that we should do. >> what was gates doing there? he had to know his dui arrest and other rumors about him were

going to come up. but he didn't care. why? because all he cares about is what the boss is going to say? making fun of addiction? you pretend to care about mental illness. you should be ashamed. all of you. he's just a symptom of a problem. running from the facts is one thing. that's about strategy. embracing conspiracies, attacking frailties like illness and vulnerable kids -- are you part of the government or the goon squad? without fear or favor, right? that's the phrase about aplaying the law and yet you act out of fear and only to earn favor with one man. you took an oath to check the president in situations like this. so, two questions: if fear of the president and a related desire for his favor drive you, what will you do when he realizes if he hasn't already that he can take you for granted, when he decides you're no longer worth catering to. you're just going the to do what

he says. you need him. you're afraid of him. second, many posed the question of how do you want to be remembered at this historic time. and to be sure what's said and done now is going to be remembered. but there's a more specific question for you. forget what others are going to say. what are you going to tell yourself? what are you going to tell yourself about why it was okay to excuse behavior you know is wrong even when it came to making fun of a kid, a vulnerable kid, and you said nothing when you just cared about the same thing a week ago. do you know what that is? it's situational ethics? and do you know what those are? that's no ethics? what are you going to tell yourself? you're going to have to answer that question and sooner than you think. all right. that's all for us tonight. we're going to stay in coverage as long as it counts. the news continues on cnn. (burke) a "rock and wreck." seen it. covered it. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

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! i'm max, i was diagnosed with aplastic anemia and if i didn't find a donor, i probably wouldn't be here right now. be the match uses the power of the cisco network to match donors with patients faster than ever,

saving lives like max's. me and dylan are dna twins. ♪ ♪ dylan's like my brother. ♪ ♪ cisco. the bridge to possible. are ready for cartridges another school year? what does cyan mean? it means "cyanara," honor roll. (imitates shell fire, laughs) the ink! daaaad! daaaad! i'm so hosed. yeah. you are. (shaq) the epson ecotank printer. no more cartridges! it comes with an incredible amount of ink that can save you a lot of trips to the store. get ready for the dean's list. who's dean? the epson ecotank. just fill and chill.

available at... it's easy to move forward when you're ready for what comes next. at fidelity, we make sure you have a clear plan to cover the essentials in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. and on the way, you'll get timely investment help to keep you on the right track, without the unnecessary fees you might expect from so many financial firms. because when you have a partner who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

who gives you clarity at every step, (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. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >> hello and welcome to our viewers in e