and so far nobody has told me they don't like the results of what i'm doing. privately, though, some fear that the ambassador's actions undermine american interests here. and that trump's disregard for diplomatic norms could deal a blow that will last much longer than cornstein's tenure and have repercussions far beyond hungary. >> clarissa ward, thanks so much for that report. i'm wolf blitzer in "the situation room," erin burnett "outfro "outfront" starts next. >> mitch mcconnell says no. but his words tonight coming back to haunt him. plus, it's all for love, trump's new rationale for why rudy giuliani does what he is doing. this as giuliani tonight makes a jaw dropping admission, and voters give a democratic lawmaker an earful on impeachment, why she's willing to lose her job over her vote.

let's go out front, and good evening i'm erin burnett, out front tonight, a huge battle, the top two senators clashing over the impeachment trial, chuck schumer says the republican leader mnl is kowtowing to president trump. >> for him to talk to the president is one thing, for him to say i'm going to do just what the president wants is totally out of line. >> schumer announcing today that he wants four witnesses at the trial, including mick mulvaney and the former national security adviser, john bolton. >> i haven't seen a single good argument about why these witnesses shouldn't testify. or these documents be produced unless the president has something to hide. >> of course trump has blocked those witnesses from testifying so far, and mcconnell is backing trump saying he doesn't want witnesses which is actually

really curious because mcconnell, circa 1999 argued in favor of witnesses at bill clinton's impeachment trial. >> every other impeachment has had witnesses. it's not unusual to have witnesses at a trial. the house managers have only asked for three witnesses. i think that's pretty modest! it actually is. i guess it was. i mean, look, it's not just that mcconnell has completely changed his tune, now that it's his party in the white house. now he thinks completely the opposite. it's if mcconnell thought trump was a truth teller, he would go along with chuck schumer and have those witnesses. why do i say that because here is what trump has said about mick mulvaney testifying? >> i would love to to have mick go up, frankly, i think he would do great. i would love to have almost every person go up. >> well, mcconnell knows that trump right there is not telling the truth because, well, to say it again, trump blocked mick and

bolton, and all those others from testifying already, so mcconnell knows that trump right there is not being honest, but he's backing him anyway. manu raju is out front on capitol hill. obviously schumer and mcconnell, there are some who hoped would have a meeting, it would be, you know, collegial and private and they would come out with an agreement. that is not what we have seen so far. >> no, but we do expect them to talk in the coming days ahead, mitch mcconnell said he'll have more to discuss about this topic tomorrow, but when you're talking to republican senators tonight they're making very clear they are siding with mcconnell and the notion that there should be no witnesses that should come forward. richard burr told me he does not want to hear from mick mulvaney or john bolton. saying i don't see any benefit of bringing forward other witnesses who could supplement the record. the evidence was produced by the house so far should be enough

and faulted the house democrats for not going to court to get those witnesses to come forward. expect more republicans to go down that route as well, but erin, what could change the calculus is if there are more republican senators who break ranks and demand testimony. on the floor of the senate, there could be motions to compel witnesses to testify and just 51 senators could vote and compel witnesses to come forward. if four were to break ranks that could change the calculus on the floor, one of those potential defectors, mitt romney told me moments ago, he did not want to comment specifically about these witnesses if they should come forward. he wants to talk to his colleagues, then he will make a decision. a lot of decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. the republican leadership is making it clear, they want a short trial, and they want to move forward. >> i want to go out front to the democratic senator from delaware chris coons who sits on the

senate judiciary committee, has endorsed joe biden for president. senator, i appreciate your time. you heard manu going through the math. mitch mcconnell says no witnesses and he needs 53 senators, perhaps there are some of them who may support witnesses, may not ultimately support removing the president from office but would support witnesses and a more fulsome trial. do you see any of them stepping up going against the majority leader and siding with schumer on this? >> i think it's possible, erin, if they put the country's best interests ahead of narrow or partisan interests because frankly, the president didn't put on a defense in the house. the house impeachment inquiry saw witness after witness testify that president trump did the things he's alleged to have done, and the president blocked folks who were in the room who were part of the decision making

process to hold up the military aid to ukraine or demand the sort of quid pro quo that's alleged, that's how leaders came up with witnesses, they could clear president trump if president trump could allow them to testify. if you're going to have a fair trial. we've got all the evidence and witnesses that were developed by the house intelligence committee through their inquiry. what we don't have is the folks the president has blocked. if the president has a defense, this would be the moment to present them, what did the president know. >> senator john cornyn is making the case, obviously a member of gop leadership, look, if this is what you wanted you should have had the house democrats get the testimony so it was part of the record, and i'm referring obviously to mick mulvaney, john bolton, anybody else that senate democrats are now asking to hear

from. do you think house democrats ended their work too soon, they should have pursued that themselves? >> i think it would have taken literally months to go to a court and to compel compliance with congressional subpoenas, that's what we have seen in previous investigations when the house has been run by republicans and by democrats in different periods in modern history. courts are very reluctant to enforce congressional subpoenas to testify. i'll remind you, even president nixon during the watergate hearing directed his cabinet to comply with congressional subpoenas. president trump despite saying publicly, i would love for mick mulvaney to go up and testify is the one who chose to direct his cabinet, his subordinates to not testify. i think it's a red herring to suggest it's the house democrats fault to try and get president trump's closest advisers, to

testify. >> certainly he remembered his point of view, he doesn't care. i mean, it's almost absurd, he's saying the exact opposite, making chuck schumer's argument, about a modest, only three witnesses in 1999. what do you say to mitch mcconnell? >> well, this is another challenging moment where majority leader mcconnell, rather than being the majority leader o. republican caucus should be taking steps in the best interest of the history, and standing of the senate, and constitutional order, and our national security, and that means holding president trump accountable. there's nothing about his recent record with regards to the impeachment inquiry that suggests he's about to do that, but that is what the role of the majority leader of the senate should call him to do. sgh we spo s >> we spoke a few weeks ago one of the most contentious hearings in the house. you were rather subdued, you

seemed down about it. you said when you tried to talk to your republican friends in the senate, they either tried to change the subject. they wouldn't talk about it. and you said it's been frankly quite difficult to get anyone to concede that the president's defense stands in tatters. have any of your republican friends since then told you that they might vote to convict trump. have you sensed any change? >> no. what's striking to me is how a number of my colleagues who when the whistleblower report was initially covered in the press said, oh, well, if that happened, that clearly would be a bad thing for america, that might well be impeachable. there's no one that i have spoken with in the republican caucus today who is saying they believe president trump committed an impeachable offense. that's because they're, i think , redefining what is an impeachable defense downward, yeah, he might have put pressure

on ukraine, dangled aid, but that's not impeachable. i continue to have conversations. i've got colleagues in both parties who would like to see both sides get to present their case but hope the impeachment trial won't interfere with our doing the business of the american people. we've got big bills moving in week on appropriations and defense, and i haven't found anyone saying privately or publicly they would consider voting to remove the president who's in the other party. >> i appreciate your time. and next, rudy giuliani's stunning admission tonight, he needed america's uk ambassador out of the way, so he admits it. president trump tonight standing by. >> thoohe's a great person who s our country and he does this out of love. plus impeachment, against impeachment but open to censuring trump. a republican says that may have been the way to go. and could she lose her job over impeachment, freshman

democrat in a pro trump district takes a major, major risk tonight. man: sneezes skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

apps except work.rywhere... why is that? is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports.

i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't. by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business. ♪ music itintroducing the new braava jet m6 robot mop. with an adjustable precision jet spray and advanced pad system braava jet breaks up messes and gets deep in corners. braava jet. only from irobot. at chevy, we're all about bringing families together. this time of year, that's really important. so we're making it easier than ever to become part of our family. man: that's why our chevy employee discount

is now available to everyone. the chevy price you pay is what we pay. not a cent more. family is important to us. and we'd like you to be part of ours. so happy holidays. and welcome to the family. the chevy family! get the chevy employee discount for everyone today. the ones that make a truebeen difference in people's lives. and mike's won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. all against big odds you can beat him. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. (kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl)

(clapping) always there in crunch time. tonight, it was for love. the president defending giuliani's recent trip to ukraine, where giuliani continued to try to dig up dirt about president trump's political rival joe biden. >> he was a very great crime fighter, probably the greatest over the last 50 years, very smart, best mayor in the history of the city of new york, a great person who loves our country, and he does this out of love, believe me, he does it out of love. >> love or money. out front now, gloria borger, cnn political analyst, joe lock hea hearth, and mike shield, gloria let me start with you. president trump says giuliani is doing this out of love. >> well, i think rudy giuliani and donald trump in many ways are in all of this together.

when you think about these two gentlemen who have been talking about this for a very long time, they're the ones who believe, of course, that ukraine also interfered in the election. they may be the only two who really believe that, at least that's what rouge is trying to prove. and i think if you were to ask a lot of republicans, inside the white house and outside the white house, about whether they believe the president should continue to yolk himself so closely to rudy giuliani, they would say absolutely not, but for now, at least, as long as giuliani is defending the president, the president will defend rudy. >> and joe to this point, remember when giuliani says this about trump? >> i say things like he's going to throw me under the bus. when they say that, i say he isn't, but i have insurance. >> all right. his excuse for that afterwards did not ad up is he was talking about real insurance about being

thrown under a bus, just to make it clear. do you think that explains why trump is standing by giuliani? >> no, i think trump thinks right now that crazy uncle rudy is his best defender. he went over to ukraine in a move that i think baffled anyone who has any political sense at all in the middle of the impeachment trial, and he's still defending him and that's the litmus test for trump, you know, will you defend me, and rudy will. >> it's not about fear that rudy could turn on him? >> i don't think so. but you know, he's not defending him well, i mean, when he tells "the new yorker," here's exactly why i pushed the ambassador out, here's why i slimed her and used others in the government to get her out because she was getting in the way of my dirty tricks operation. that doesn't help the president. >> i mean, mike, rudy giuliani is currently under investigation by federal prosecutors in new york, in part for his work in

ukraine, and trump campaign sources, you know, they're telling us that they're worried about it, they're worried rudy is a liability for the president. why do you think, mike, that the president does not see it like that right now, i mean, clearly he doesn't. >> i think there's two things. first of all, the president is never going to back down. one of the reasons why the president's supporters love him so much. in their description, they saw a republican who wouldn't back down and compromise and stick to his guns through thick and thin. he has gone down a path where he wants to find out what happened with burisma, hunter biden and joe biden when he was the president of the united states. if rudy is the one who's going to find him, he's going to back him up. secondly, he believes something did happen, and he wants to find out what happened. he really believes and it looks very fishy, that things went on with hunter biden while he was vice president, and he thinks there's a counter narrative that's worth talking about and he's not going to let what's going on, including an impeachment stop him from

getting what he thinks is the truth. >> and gloria, here's the thing, to the point mike is making, giuliani is not mincing words, right, he's making it very clear, right, he's not hiding behind what he's doing, they're doing the best defenses to say that's right, i did it, damn right, and here's why. in the new yorker, giuliani admits his role in getting rid of marie yovanovitch, in fact, saying, yeah, you're right, i was, i got rid of her. she was terrible. he said quote, i believed she needed yovanovitch out of the way. she was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody. from his own words. by the way, what were those investigations about, here's what they were about. >> mr. giuliani demanded that ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election dnc server and burisma. >> mr. giuliani also mentioned both the accusations about vice

president biden and about interference in the 2016 elections. >> these investigations were pursuant to mr. giuliani's request to develop information, to find information about burisma, and the bidens. >> and so giuliani's owning it, gloria, and to make it clear, perhaps that would be fine if it didn't go against what even trump's own homeland security adviser said were the facts, right. that's the reality, but giuliani obviously believes that's right, own it. >> and lots of republicans are saying, well, what the president was really talking about, what he really meant on that phone call was he's interested in investigating corruption. and what rudy giuliani makes clear is that he was interested in investigating the bidens and marie yovanovitch who was of course supported reformers stood in his way, and when the president told those folks

sitting in his oval office, sondland and volker, and perry, when he said to them talk to rudy, what he was talking about was not corruption. he was talking about those same investigations that he wanted announced, which is what rudy giuliani was doing for him. so what this makes clear is that rudy giuliani is working on behalf of the president of the united states who wanted these investigations. it wasn't about corruption. it wasn't about an announcement of investigations against his political rival to hurt him. >> erin i think it's important to establish what it is rudy didn't like about the ambassador. he claims that he has documents that show that she was stopping visas from people that could travel to the united states and testify as part of the case he was building. he believes that they're investigating corruption, the sitting vice president of the united states, intervening on

behalf his son's company, sitting on the board of an energy company and bragging about it, he wants to find the truth, and what he is saying is the sitting ambassador was blocking visas of people coming to the united states. >> the one thing i find frustrating and i understand you're trying to make points here expect when you look at what joe biden was doing at that time, he was going ahead and proudly going ahead with executing formal u.s. policy which was put out there and mirrored the policy of every single one of our allies. when you say that it's almost like oh, joe biden was trying to do this secret thing. that's inaccurate, and i don't want that to keep getting somehow put out there, even though i feel like i have to reinvent the wheel. >> i think it's important if you're going to say he was just fragrantly saying i was trying to get rid of the ambassador. he has a reason that he is stating a reason why he was opposed to her over the investigation he was conducting. that's what he's claiming. >> erin, all of this completely

defies any human logic. the new president of ukraine was in a very powerless position and needed this military aid. if there was any evidence that any of this was true, that hunter biden had done something wrong or joe biden had acted improperly, they would have turned this over. what, in fact, happened, and you know, rudy giuliani has now had three years to produce evidence. rudy giuliani, remember, famous, and we'll all remember this, said before the mueller report, i'm issuing a counter report. we're still waiting for that because it doesn't exist. he doesn't have this evidence. all they're trying to do is change the subject here, and the president and rudy giuliani think that they can just throw anything up against the wall no matter how dishonest it is, and we'll all just run after it. the clock has run out on that. he has made clear in the new yorker story on behalf of the president he ran a career foreign service officer out of

her job, and her job was fighting corruption in order to allow rudy giuliani to inject corruption into ukraine. >> he is not disputing the fact witnesses who testified under oath. >> that's right. no, he's not. they were all saying that she was drummed out by the white house at the highest level. rudy giuliani does not work at the white house but happens to whisper in the year of somebody higher, and that is the president of the united states. it's very clear that this was part of their scheme to try and produce some evidence such as it is against joe biden, which honestly, doesn't really exist, and so, you know, it's a scheme, it seems to me, that they invented with each other, and they're in this together and everybody would like rudy giuliani to go away except for one person, and that's the president. >> thank you all very much. i appreciate all of you taking the time tonight, and next a

republican says he might have been open to censuring president trump. notice my past tense and voting for impeachment. will it come back to bite democrats in november. >> and if that's not what my district wants from me, then i will move along. this holiday season choose the longest lasting aa battery... (music) energizer ultimate lithium backed by science. matched by no one. (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.

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. new to want, a top republican on the house judiciary committee who's against impeaching trump said he would have been open to censuring president trump instead. >> would you support censuring trump over what he did?

>> it hasn't been offered. >> if it is. >> i think it probably would have been smart had the democrats done that. whether there would have been support, i would have to think about it. >> would you support censuring? >> i would consider it, but i would have to consider it at that time. >> congressman chabot by the way was one of the house managers who helped republicans make their case to impeach president clinton. democratic congresswoman maxine waters, good to have you with me tonight, congresswoman. so at this moment of course no signs that any republican will support impeachment. do you believe congressman chabot when he says a motion to censure the president could have gotten more support? >> well, ichblt thoug haven't tt it. it really doesn't mean anything. the fact of the matter is we have moved forward with impeachment, the judiciary committee has put it out and it's going to be on the floor on wednesday, and we're going to vote on it, so the discussion about censure is just meaning

less at this point, and i haven't thought about it. >> so a group of freshmen democrats led by congressman deen phillips is pushing speaker pelosi to name justin amash who was a republican, and now an represent. to support him as an impeachment manager for the senate trial, if the house votes to impeach trump. what do you think about that, about using justin amash in that way? >> i don't think very much about that. i think that our managers must be committed to the proposition that we have taken up impeachment, our judicial committee has basically voted it out, and we have a responsibility to move forward, bring it to the floor, and i don't buy the idea that someone who's already determined that they're going to leave the democratic party because they don't believe in impeachment of this president should be one of our managers. i don't think that makes good sense.

>> amash, of course, was a republican, now he's an independent technically, but he's voting for the articles. would you consider him? well, i think one of the things we have to do -- >> i think you're talking about vaughan. i'm talking about justin amash. >> this is a decision about the leadership, and while mr. phillips certainly can make a recommendation, all of the recommendations will be taken into consideration. but in the final analysis, the leadership led by nancy pelosi will make that decision so the top republican on the house judiciary committee, doug collins, obviously we saw him, we saw a lot of him last week, made this prediction about your party and his and president trump during last week's hearings. >> the other problem i have is it's going to be never ending, impeach him over and over again, i guess i'm waiting for the committee hearing schedule in february to see what we're

investigating next. >> congresswoman waters will you rule out impeaching trump again? >> let me just say that, you know, his comments are just, you know, comments of a frustrated individual who does not support impeachment and he's not only been on the air time and time again, ranting and raving about the impeachment process, and so i pay no attention to what he has to say. >> so, you know, republicans, though, to this point, they say that your party has been looking to impeach president trump when he was elected because you don't like him. you have looked for item after item and finally you have found one. you did say less than two weeks into his presidency, that you wanted to see him impeached, congresswoman, for other reasons than we are obviously sitting here now talking about. what do you say to your republican critics, when they say, look, they have been saying this since the beginning, so, you know, they're just looking for excuses. >> well, they say these things because they cannot refute the

facts. as a matter of fact, when i observed this president and the way that he conducted himself during the primary elections, the way he called names, the way he lied, the way he talked about grabbing women by their private parts. i never thought we would hear president trump talk like that and i had done some research, i knew about his alignment with putin, and manafort, and the relationship was and the fact that he had been sent there by putin, in essence to head up the president's campaign because i believe, even though i don't have the facts to prove it, i believe that putin wanted to lift the sanctions. he's always wanted to lift these sanctions that were placed on him because of his interfering and encouraging into crimea. so i believe that they wanted to elect president trump and trump, i believe agreed. i will always believe this, that he agreed that if he got

elected, he would lift those sanctions. he would like to do it, he's not been able to do it, but when they talk about we're just making things up, and he talks about this as a witch hunt, there are too many factsment this president will not condemn putin for hacking into the democratic national committee. will not condemn him for hacking into our election system. these are accoufacts. 17 of our intelligence agencies have said this. are these patriots, what do they think about our democracy being undermined by the president of the united states of america. if they want to say we just don't like him, they don't really care about what happened to this democracy. don't have an appreciation for the constitution and the fact that the constitution gives us the responsibility to impeach when we see this president or any president who is not go ahead for the country, who's undermining our country, who's putting us in danger, who's

aligning himself with the foreign country to interfere in our elections. those are facts. >> thank you very much, congresswoman waters, i appreciate your time tonight. >> you're welcome, thank you. next, the cost of voting in favor of impeachment, should democrats be worried. if you live your life only looking at polls and only figuring out how to keep this job another two years, you are in it for the wrong reasons. plus what is it about impeachment that makes reasonable people do this? >> senators. >> let me finish. let me talk. >> senator. >> here's what's happening now. blended and aged again. it's the reason our whisky is so extraordinarily smooth. dewar's. double aged for extra smoothness.

(shaq) (chime) magenta? i hate cartridges! not magenta! not magenta. i'm not going back to the store. magenta! cartridges are so... (buzzer) (vo) the epson ecotank. no more cartridges. it comes with an incredible amount of ink that can save you a lot of frustration. ♪ the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. available at... that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein.

save hundreds of thousands of lives. but after the emergency, time and again, insurance companies deny coverage, second guessing doctors, nurses and first responders... now "big insurance" is lobbying congress. asking for restrictions on air medical services. eliminating patients' access to life-saving care and destroying jobs all in exchange for bigger profits for insurance companies. tell congress, put patients first, not big insurance.

tonight, a freshman democrat says she's willing to lose her job over her impeachment vote. jason carroll is out front. >> reporter: from the minute congresswoman alyssa took the stage, it became clear how divided her district was over impeachment proceedings and president trump. >> okay. well, i'm thrilled to see such a great turnout today. from start to finish, a vocal group at monday's town hall shouted their opposition to slatkin's decision to vote yes on two articles of impeachment. >> you guys, let's try to have a

civil conversation. >> slotkin spelled out her decision to vote for impeachment, telling the audience before reaching that decision, she reread the constitution and house rules. >> okay. so i'm just going to continue because i've got the mic. so the thing that was different for me is this very very basic idea that the president of the united states would reach out to a foreign power and ask for an investigation for personal political gain. >> supporters and critics of slotkin taken aback by the scene in the room. >> i don't like the shoutouts, okay. i don't do them myself. okay. >> but you disagree with her stand on impeachment? >> well, obviously, because again, i'm making other assumptions. okay. you have to be prejudice to go along with the impeachment.

>> reporter: how did you think the town hall went? >> i was so disappointed that they were like little kids in the back screaming like closing their ears, no, no, no, they won't even listen to her. >> reporter: when it was over, a moment for the congresswoman to reflect more on her decision. >> who was the first person that you told when you reached your decision? >> my husband. >> reporter: his reaction. >> well, he was in the army for 30 years. i've got a stepdaughter in the army now. these are things that are very close to our hearts. there is nothing more important than making sure foreigners don't get to play a role in any way in our elections. >> reporter: as for any potential political fallout in 2020, slotkin says this is one decision that is bigger than politics. >> the ballot box will tell us. you know, all i can tell you is if you live your life only looking at polls and only figuring out how to keep this job another two years, you are in it for the wrong reasons, and we need a different generation

to thinks differently, and works harder and focuses on what's important, not just what's politically expedient, and if that's not what my district wants from me, then i will move along. >> reporter: and erin, given all that the congressman heard from all of her critics, i asked if there was any way she might be able to reach them with her point of view. she said despite all she heard, the folks in her district are reasonable people, people who fall somewhere in the middle, and she said, but look, at the end of the day, if they don't understand her point of view, so be it, she's willing to pay the price. erin. >> thank you very much, jason carroll. and out front next, don't give it to the senate, top constitutional expert lawrence tribe has advice for democrats. and the topic that is breaking up some television families and it seems perhaps some real ones, too. managing type 2 diabetes?

audrey's on it. eating right and staying active? on it! audrey thinks she's doing all she can to manage her type 2 diabetes and heart disease, but is her treatment doing enough to lower her heart risk? [sfx: crash of football players colliding off-camera.] maybe not. jardiance can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. so it could help save your life from a heart attack or stroke. and it lowers a1c. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal.

a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. lower a1c and lower risk of a fatal heart attack? on it...with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance.

life isn't a straight line. things happen. and sometimes you can find yourself heading in a new direction. but at fidelity, we help you prepare for the unexpected with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. a partner who makes sure every step is clear, cdc guidance recommends topical pain relievers first... like salonpas patch large. it's powerful, fda-approved to relieve moderate pain for up to 12 hours, yet non-addictive and gentle on the body. salonpas. it's good medicine. hisamitsu. even after you clean, odors are still trapped in your fabrics. febreze fabric eliminates those odors. and try febreze unstopables with twice the fresh-scent power. tackle tough odors with irresistible freshness. la la la la la

new tonight, no senate trial. one of the nation's premier constitutional law experts lawrence tribe says in an op-ed tonight that if mitch mcconnell doesn't agree to chuck schumer's request for things like livens withes, then the house should impeach trump but and this is the crucial word, but refuse to hand it over to the senate. lawrence tribe is a constitutional law professor at harvard and author of the book "to end a presidency, the power of the impeachment" and he is out front tonight. professor tribe, it's great to have you. >> great to be here. >> go ahead with the impeachment of the president but then refuse to formally allow the senate to have a trial, why? >> well, i didn't say refuse permanently. what i said was that senator schumer has made an entirely reasonable proposal for a meaningful trial with actual witnesses. that's what a trial is, and until and unless mitch mcconnell agrees to hold a trial and not

just, you know, a pretend trial, a faux trial, we shouldn't just hand the impeachment articles over to him. after all, the president wants to be exonerated. he doesn't want to have things end where they are now. which as of wednesday is going to be a conclusion by the house of representatives, not just that there should be a trial, but that he is guilty. guilty of abusing his power to get a foreign government to help him in the election. guilty of shaking down a foreign government, and as long as that's the state of affairs, there's a lot of pressure on mcconnell to do something that is a reasonable accommodation with schumer. that leverage should be used rather than simply tossing the articles of impeachment into a meaningless ritual. that's what i argued. >> you refer to it as a whitewash, as a contempt of trial in your op-ed, you say

mcconnell is letting the president and his legal team call the shots. just explain, professor, then, when you say the house should refuse to allow mcconnell to hold a trial like this, you're saying that schumer should be using this leverage, how can the house do this, for them to actually do what you're suggesting? >> well, a lot of important things aren't ease toy do. this one is relatively easy. the house should wait until mcconnell makes some reasonable agreement. if they don't, schumer should press. if there's going to be a trial there has to be one that schumer gins up on his own. you need two hands to clap. you need a prosecution. the house should wait with appointing managers until mcconnell makes steps to make it a real trial. if the house simply caves in, if schumer, who has made an entirely reasonable set of proposals, every bit as reasonable as we've ever had, if schumer just caves to mcconnell,

that's awful. seems to me we have to remember one important thing. after wednesday, if the senate doesn't hold a trial, then not only will trump be only the third president impeached, he will be the first president ever to have been found by the house to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors without an exoneration by the senate. he needs that exoneration. and you can't get an exoneration if you don't have a real trial. that's the dilemma in which the president finds himself. >> so now to this point about a real trial, right? so let's just say it happens and you get witnesses and things go the way that, you know, senator coons said earlier that, he doesn't have a single friend that has indicated there's any way shape or form in this world they would to remove this president. lindsey graham has come out and said he is not an impartial juror. here he is, professor.

>> i have clearly made up my mind. i'm not trying to hide the fact that i have disdain for the accusations and the process. >> he has disdain for the constitution, erin. he's got to take an oath. not an oath to have a blank mind, but an oath to at least listen to the evidence. and if he says, i don't care about the oath, i don't care about the constitution, well, then in the end all of the senators who do that, unlike elissa slotkin, who cares about things other than her own re-election, are going to have to pay the price in history. they may not pay the price at the polls, but there are more important things than the poll. >> just so i know -- i understand your point. i'm hoping you can have me understand this. look, lindsey graham is -- i understand the frustration the people have with lindsey graham. but he's not alone. there are democrats who have made up their minds, right? here are just a few of them. >> uh-huh. >> right now, i would like to

just see us do the ukraine issue, because it is so clear and it is such a clear violation of law. >> i don't know that it leads in any other direction except to vote yes, which is what i believe i will do, based on everything i know. >> you know, when he made that call to the head of ukraine, he's digging up dirt on an opponent. that's illegal conduct. >> haven't they already made up their minds, too? does she have the same frustration with them that you do with graham? >> absolutely. i like those people. they're my friends, but i think anybody who says, i don't care what the evidence shows, i don't care if there's exonerating evidence, is making a big mistake. that's why i like what senator schumer said. namely, it looks like he's guilty, it looks like the president abused his power but he should have a chance to exonerate. that's what i want. that's a fair trial. >> thank you very much for coming on tonight.

>> thank you. >> and we'll be right back. bru. and picks up more pet hair than other robot vacuums. and the filter captures 99% of dog and cat allergens. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™. you have a brother in the second battalion? they're walking into a trap. your orders are to deliver a message calling off tomorrow morning's attack. if you fail, we will lose sixteen hundred men. if we're not clever about this... no one will get to your brother. i will. (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. ( ♪ )

here, it all starts withello! hi!... 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.

(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 ♪

there's so much anger over the impeachment debate you may want to hear jeanne moos' version to smile. >> who on earth could vote for trump after this? >> how could anyone not vote for trump after this? >> who do you think is going to get voted off the masked singer next week? >> who knew that split would divide the tv family on "the view." >> there are senators that are -- >> let me talk. >> whoopi told megan mccain to clam up. >> girl, please stop talking. please stop talking right now. >> it's as if the whole country is "the view," engaged in a massive tug of war over impeachment, represented by this re-elect trump banner. >> the president is a coward. >> he's a low life.

>> yeah. >> he's a low life. >> fast talkers can't spit out the words fast enough. >> this is the -- i'm just beyond words at this point. >> even fictional characters are feeling the friction. >> this is the trump derangement syndrome. you're just as bad as you're accusing him of being. >> no. i'm just done! >> senator lindsey graham seems to be almost arguing with himself. compare to what he said back with bill clinton's impeachment. >> don't decide the case before the case's end. this bothers me greatly. >> two decades later. >> i am trying to give a pretty clear signal, i've made up my mind. >> we're all mad. >> my wife is mad, my kids are mad. even my dog seems mad. >> even an elevator is not a safe space. >> shame on you, sir. >> trump 2020. trump 2020. trump 2020. god bless america. >> impeachment is pushing our buttons and, unlike whoopi, we

can't end the argument by going to break. >> we'll be right back. >> you'll be exposed for your treason. >> new york. >> and thanks so much for joining us. ac 360 begins right now. good evening. for all or part of five centuries, for the third time ever a president will be impeached, in all likelihood this week, possibly wednesday. that, alone, makes this week historic. so, too, are the decisions that they make along the way. they are possibly precedent setting for future generations, but also for the minds of voters come next november, and we have new and exclusive cnn polling that shows what those voters are thinking and how some of their minds are changing. we'll show you how in just a moment. the polls book end a day that saw back and forth over what witnesses might or might not appear during the senate