the senate. still hasn't happened. we have a responsibility in the house do this because we've seen presidential conduct that crosses the line. so i think there are two issues here. one is did the house have a reason to say this was impeachable conduct for history? and the other is is this good politics? i'd like to focus on the first of the two. i'll leave other people to decide if it's good politics. the house decided that this kind of behavior was a threat to our constitutional order. and they, therefore, had as constitutional responsibility to do exactly what they did today, which is to say this shall not pass. it will be up to the senate to decide if president trump should be removed, but the house has basically put down a marker and said this is behavior that we cannot countenance because of our constitutional responsibilities. it's hard to understand that in this partisan time, but that's one important way of looking at this. the house has spoken. the house has decided to defend its institutional responsibilities as an article i

institution. >> you have the republicans who are lockstep behind the president. they will do whatever the president says, and then you have people on the other side, on the democratic side, who some of whom are willing to lose their seats to fulfill their constitutional duty. some of them probably will lose their seats over this. i think it's been a little overstated. i don't think the republicans are going to win the house back off of this, but this was a risk for dozens of democrats who voted to have him impeached. so i think it's very telling that they feel that theyy have o do this, even if it means they could potentially lose their seat. >> i think the analysis that one is a noble -- that the democrats are noble and the republicans are hacks, which is pretty much what was just said is a gross mischaracterization and an over simplification. the reality is republicans, and

this is what's missing in washington, is an appreciation that people can look at a set of circumstances and say that they just see it differently and not that they're in donald trump's back pocket but you heard republicans throughout the day, we all sat here and listened throughout the day gift multiple reasons where they didn't think that the evidence proved the case. and everyone here just dismisses that as not true. >> it's a litany of untruths. >> it's not a litany of untruths. >> it really was. they repeatedly say things that aren't true to defend the president. we've unpacked them a million times. this idea that they got the aid. they got the aid because there was a whistle-blower report. so everything is kind of, you know, massaged to make it -- >> they got the aid because there was a provision in the appropriations room that was going to force them to do it. >> if the president hadn't gotten caught and there hadn't been a whistle-blower report, none of this probably would have

happened. >> the idea here that you're suggesting if you want to distill it down, impeachment is a constitutional remedy that's available to the members of congress. it is not the equivalent of an election nullification. >> i agree with that. >> and yet you had minority member collins talks about that very issue repeatedly. yes, he did. >> let her finish. >> i'm happy to hear your retort. it probably won't persuade me because the second point that you raise in terms of why it is you think people are acting this way and one's a hack and one's the other, i think reasonable people can disagree about whether this coat is magenta or purple but it's not yellow and never is going to be. people looking at sets of facts and we're talking about whether or not any information has been provided. none has been provided. whether there actually was the idea of the aid being withheld. it was. what they were asking people to do today was to compartmentalize. you heard a litany reason of why

this president is impressive on economy and a host of issues. it was asking the american people to say overlook this because you can compartmentalize effectively -- >> you mischaracterize what they're saying. what they're saying on article ii is simply this -- there is a remedy for the democrats if they're not getting information from the president. it's a remedy that has been used consistently throughout the history of of this country. you go to a court and you file a suit to compel them to deliver. and they didn't want to take the time to do that. that's why republicans are voting no on article ii. >> let's listen in. >> december 18th, a great day for the constitution of the united states, a sad one for america that the president's reckless activities necessitated us having to introduce articles

of impeachment. may i thank our six chairs who for a long period of time have been legislating, investigating and litigating. today that came to a culmination on the floor of the house for the judiciary committee under the leadership of jerry nadler of new york and the nlks committee under the leadership of adam schiff of california, brought the articles of impeachment to the floor to a conclusion where they have passed. i thank them for their tremendous leadership by chairwoman maxine waters of california, richie neal of massachusetts, the chair of the ways and means committee, carolyn maloney, the chair of the government oversight committee and of course adam schiff, the chair of the intelligence committee for their

great work over a period of time. i just want to say before yielding to the chairman that i could not be prouder or more inspired than by the moral courage of the house democrats. we never asked one of them how they are going to vote. we never whipped this vote. we saw the vote -- well, you saw the public sthamatements that s of them made, we saw the result when everyone else did. the statements on the floor about patriotism and about being very true to the vision of our founders. and so i view this day, this vote as something that we did to honor the vision of our founders, to establish a republic, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform to defend our democracy and that

republic and the aspirations of our children, that they will always live in a democracy and that we have tried to do everything we can to make sure that that is their reality. we'll hear from our chairman and then we'll take three questions and i'm now honored to yield with great appreciation and respect to distinguished chair of the judiciary committee, chairman nadler. >> thank you. the framers reserved the power of impeachment for the gravest offenses against our constitution, against our liberty and against our democratic institutions. president trump used the powers of his office for his own personal political gain to the detriment of the national security interests of the united states. that is the very definition of an impeachable offense. when congress began to investigate president trump's wrongdoing, he engaged in an unprecedented pattern of obstruction.

that, too, is why the impeachment power exists. a president who subverts both our elections and our constitutional system of checks and balances puts himself above the law, and it is congress's duty to hold the president, any president, accountable. it gives us no pleasure, no pleasure to stand here today, but president trump's conduct has put our next election at risk. president trump's behavior puts the integrity of our constitutional order at risks and president trump's continued actions put the rule of law at risk. the framers gave us the power of impeachment for exactly this reason and in fulfillment of our oath and obligation to the american people, today we took action to hold president trump accountable for the serious and undisputed risk he poses to our free and fair elections and to the separation of powers that safeguards our liberty. a president must not be allowed to become a dictator.

i want to thank speaker pelosi, chairman schiff, my fellow investigative chairs and all of my colleagues who today defended the principles upon which our nation was established. today the house of representatives did its constitutional duty. today we lived up to our responsibility to the american people by taking action to defend our national security, to preserve our democratic elections and to show that no one, not even the president, is above the law. i'm now happy to introduce the chairman of the intelligence committee, adam schiff. >> the president of the united states has been impeached, for now only the third time in history. the president of the united states should be tried and the question is now whether senator mcconnell will allow a fair

trial in the senate, whether the majority leader will allow a trial that involves witnesses and testimony and documents, a trial that should be fair to the president, yes, but should be fair also to the american people. the american people want to hear from people like john bolton. the american people want to hear from people like mick mulvaney. the american people want to see what's in those documents that the president has been hiding at the state department in the office of management and budget in the white house itself. we have done our duty here in the house. we have upheld the constitution. we have done as the framers would have us do when a president abuses his office and obstructs a co-equal branch of government. the question now is will the senate uphold its duty? will the senators uphold their oath. do the senators want to hear from the witnesses? do they want a real trial? we have to hope that they do.

the reason we undertook this extraordinary step is because the president not only abused his office but threatens to abuse it again, threatens to interfere again by inviting foreign interference in our election. the remedy isn't complete as long as the president is free to continue to invite foreign interference in our affairs. i just want to close by thanking the speaker for guiding the congress through this tumultuous time. there is no one i think who could have guided the congress with a steadier hand or with more insight and intellect than the speaker of the house, and i also want to thank my colleagues in particular, so many new members of the house who have displayed such courage, who have shown that they truly have the courage of their convictions. thank you. >> i just want to add that one person who isn't with us

physically in this room but i know was present all day for the deliberations, our former -- our chair of the -- oversight committee chair, our north star, elijah cummings. he said when the history books are written about this tumultuous era, i want them to show i was among those of the house of representatives who stood up to lawlessness and tierney. he also said when we're dancing with the angels, the question will be what did you do to make sure we kept our democracy in tact? we did all we could, elijah, we passed the two articles of impeachment. the president is impeached. >> reporter: madam speaker, do you view the house's role in this as complete now or are there other steps you might take

to ensure a more fair trial in the senate? >> you mean more fair trial than they're contemplating because we had a very fair process in the house of representatives. i would yield to our -- let me just put it another way. we have legislation approved by the rules committee that will enable us to decide how we will send over the articles of impeachment. we cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the senate side, and i would hope that that will be soon, as we did with their legislation, our resolution 660 to describe what the process would be. so far we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us so hopefully it will be fairer and when we see what that is, we'll send our managers. >> reporter: what would you consider a fair trial, madam speaker? >> reporter: [ inaudible ]. >> we'll make a decision as a group, as we always have, as we

go along. >> reporter: could you presumably withhold the articles for weeks until u gyou get whatu consider a fair trial? >> again, we'll decide what that dynamic is, but we hope that the resolution of that process will be soon in the senate. >> reporter: what do you consider a fair trial? >> did you have one, cheryl? did you have a question, cheryl? >> reporter: did i have a question? >> yeah. >> reporter: i do have a question. what do you consider a fair trial? what are you looking for? are you looking specifically for witnesses? for documents? >> let me tell you what i don't consider a fair trial. this is what i don't consider a fair trial, that leader mcconnell has stated that he's not an impartial juror, that he's going to take his cues, in quotes, from the white house, and he is working in total coordination with the white house counsel's office.

any comments from my colleagues on that? >> let me just say that obviously senator mcconnell by that declaration has said that he is, in effect, the foreman of the jury is working with the defendant's counsel. that's not fair. and we'll have to see what else. but that's certainly an indication of an unfair -- of an intention to have an unfair trial. >> we'd like to see a trial where -- look, it's up to the senators to make their own decision working to the hopefully in recognition of their witnesses that the president withheld from us, their documents that the president withheld from us and we would hope that information would be available in a trial to go to the next step because that's another level in terms of

conviction, in terms of this. but right now the president is impeached. >> reporter: is it possible you would never send the articles over? >> we're not having that discussion. we have done what we have set out to do. the house has acted on a very sad day to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. to do so in a manner that was fair, even though the other side was mischaracterizing it. nonetheless it was fair and appropriate and urgent. and urgent. so we will make our decision as to when we're going to send -- when we see what they're doing on the senate side, but that's a decision that we will make jointly. okay, you're starting to act like another country. don't shout, okay? who is not going to shout a

question? yes, sir. >> reporter: can you guarantee that the impeachment articles will be at some point sent to the senate? can you guarantee that? >> that would have been our intention but we'll see what happens over there. >> reporter: so you may not send -- >> you're asking me are we all going to go out and play in the snow. that has not been part of our conversation. that has not been part of our conversation. excuse me, what? i'm sorry, dear. >> reporter: [ inaudible ]. >> no, i've never raised the prospect. you asked the question. i never raised the prospect. i said we're not sending it tonight because it's difficult to determine who the managers would be until we see the arena in which we will be participating. that's all i said. i never raised the prospect --

we'll see when they come forward. it's up to the senate to say what their rules will be. my colleagues didn't want to say anything about this because it is, you know, this is a serious matter. even though the majority leader in the united states senate says it's okay for the foreman of the jury to be in cahoots with the lawyers of the accused. that doesn't sound right to us. but let's see when they understand -- we have acted and now they'll understand what their responsibilities are and we'll see what that is. but i never raised that possibility, no. >> thank you very much. thank you. >> anyway, let me again thank our chairmen, all since of them and our darling elijah. they did a remarkable job. and i think you probably, hopefully, will be inspired by the moral courage of our caucus.

especially as the distinguished chairman recognized our freshmen members who came here, reviewed the facts, understood the constitution, made their decision, again, to honor their oath of office. we're very proud of them. >> you just heard from nancy pelosi saying that they have not or will not pick managers until they -- to send this to the senate until they learn what the rules are being decided on in the senate. jeff toobin, it's confusing to hear this. explain to the best of your ability what this means. >> well, i think what's going on is that the senate has not decided what the structure of the trial is. there's a clear difference between what leader mcconnell, the majority leader wants, which is a very fast trial with no

witnesses it seems and the minority leader chuck schumer, who has said we want at least four witnesses to testify, including john bolton, and what nancy pelosi is saying is we are not going to send over the articles of impeachment or the names of the house managers until we know more about the trial. now, this raises the potential that she could say, well, i'm just not turning over the names and the articles until i'm satisfied that the trial will be a fair one, raising the possibility that this could just go on as a standoff between the house and the senate. >> so tim naftali, it would go on as a standoff, it would go on that the president had been impeached in the house and not acquitted in the senate. >> i just can only say wow, this

is unprecedented. we talked about the fact it's the third time in our history that has president has been impeached. this is the first time that we've seen the house potentially use its leverage in this process, whatever leverage it has, to try to influence the senate's rules for the trial. >> that's what pelosi's doing. >> that's what i heard. >> that's what it seemed like. >> mitch mcconnell i would argue set up this situation by the comments he made on fox news. he made it clear that despite the fact he's supposed to take an oath,er that a they're all so take an oath, that he's already not impartial and he was coordinating his approach to the rules with the white house. in 1998 and '99, trent lott, who was majority leader worked closely with tom daschle, it was a very partisan time as senator santorum can attest to,

nevertheless they came up with rules that 100 senators approved. i understand there was a sticky situation where we weren't sure whether there would be witnesses, so you had a second vote on the witnesses but you did come to an understanding. now the house is saying before we see that understanding, we want to be sure it's a fair trial. and if we don't think it's fair, nancy pelosi didn't answer that question. >> you jumped to several weeks after the vote in the house. i can tell you that tom daschle, who was the leader of the democrats at the time, working with president clinton, who did not want a trial, who wanted a resolution voted to get rid of this immediately, they wanted no witnesses, they wanted nothing, they wanted an up-or-down vote and be done with this. why? there's not a single democrat vote for peefimpeachment. so they're not acting differently. >> i want to bring in manu raju

on capitol hill. talk to me about what we just heard. >> reporter: what the speak ser doi -- speaker is withholding the articles as leverage into moving forward in a trial that they want. what is a fair trial for the speaker? she has not detailed in any way. i tried to push her on that. other reporters tried to push her on that. is there a possibility she may never send over the articles because the republicans may never get to what she wants. she's essentially dangling the articles over the senate saying we're not going to send this to you until the republicans agree to what they want. we don't exactly know what they want. the process is this. they do need to have a vote on the floor to name the impeachment managers and after the impeachment managers, the democrats will actually prosecute the case on the senate side. after that happens, they will

send the articles over. they've yet to have the vote to name the impeachment manager. we'll say if and when we decide to send the articles over. she's not being clear but she's using it as a clear point of leverage here. >> i want to go over to wolf and to jake, some really fascinating developments here. >> and there's more fascinating developments here. the president of the united states who has just been impeached is now reacting. jim acosta, our chief white house correspondent, is about to tell us what he's saying. >> i would say this is a code red at the president's rally in michigan right now. he is reacting in realtime i suppose as only donald trump can to being impeached. i say code red because he is red in the face. when you see this video of the president speaking at this rally in michigan, he is red in the face and going off the rails. at one point a few moments ago accusing democrats of declaring war on democracy by impeaching him, talking about how speaker nancy pelosi in very personal terms, calling her crazy nancy,

talking about other members of the house like debbie zidingell. >> you are the ones interfering on america's elections, you are the ones subverting america's democracy. we did nothing wrong, nothing whatsoever. this was just an excuse. you're the ones obstructing justice. you are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our republic. >> the president was also saying how he is going to be unleashing his millions of supporters to somehow vote house speaker nancy pelosi out of office. i don't think that's going to be possible in her san francisco district but perhaps he's talking about her majority in congress, something that republicans have been talking about for some time. wolf and jake, he just finished

going off on debbie dingell, one congresswoman who voted with the democrats in favor of impeachment and talked about how she provided what he described as being a-plus treatment to her late husband, the late congressman john dingell. when he passed away, the president making a remark a short while ago that john dingell may be looking up, not down as all this is taking place in washington. there are some folks watching this rally wondering whether or not john dingell is talking about being in hell right now watching all of this unfold so the president making some very deeply personal, deeply strident remarks at this rally m in michigan right now. this lines up with what i heard from a trump adviser earlier today that the president is not only feeling very unnerved by all of this, this is obviously under his skin but there are plans in the works inside the white house and inside the

president's political team to really use and weaponize impeachment heading into the 2020 campaign. that appears to be the case when youle lesisten to the president this rally tonight. >> it's amazing what's going on. the president is clearly furious. he's so angry he's now the third president in the history to be impeached by the house of representatives. >> he's certainly not being cool under pressure. he insulted the looks of congressman adam schiff, went after james comey. let's remember what happened here. congressman john dingell was a long-serving member ofs house of representatives, beloved, from michigan. he passed away earlier this year. congresswoman debbie dingell who succeeded him in that seat before he died obviously was appreciative to president trump for providing the funeral as the trump administration does, as any white house would do.

and then take a listen to how pr president trump described it just a few minutes ago. >> debbie dingell, that's a real beauty. so she calls me up like eight months ago, her husband was there a long time, but i didn't give him the b treatment, i didn't get him the c or the d. i could have. i gave the a-plus treatment. take down the flags. she calls me up. it's the nicest thing that's ever happened, thank you so. john would be so thrilled. he's looking down, he'd be so thrilled. thank you so much, sir. i said that's okay, don't worry about it. maybe he's looking up, i don't know. i don't know. >> i mean, once again we saw something like this after the late senator john mccain died. first of all, the idea that by bestowing honors upon a long-serving member of congress who has passed away that that's

somehow a personal favor by president trump and first of all the lack of compassion and decency. he's not even been gone for a year and the idea that he would suggest and obviously jim was being poll light earlier but obviously he's suggesting that maybe john dingell is in hell. it's an incredibly crass thing and more importantly, this shows how much this really bothers him, how rattled he is. >> this is disgraceful. this is just disgraceful. what he is describing is a congresswoman who called him and thanked him after the funeral and flying flags at half staff. and i believe he was the longest serving member of the house. this is disgraceful. she called him to say thank you and now he is saying this vote of hers is some kind of betrayal, some personal betrayal to him because john dingell got the funeral that he deserved? and, by the way, this is a president saying this in a state of michigan, where john dingell

was beloved. and it's just, you know, and going after nancy pelosi. i mean, he's -- i can't think of another word other than disgraceful to describe what the president is doing this evenievening. >> but this is the type of conduct, this is the reason nancy pelosi is speaker. this is the reason you had the suburban revolt against president trump. this is the reason democrats won by such a big margin in the 2018 mid terms and one of the reasons democrats believe, even though this impeachment is controversial for a number of their members, they believe the president will continue this behavior and accelerate this behavior because of his raw anger now, debbie dingell is a partisan, she's a nancy pelosi deputy, the president has every right to be upset with her vote, but there's a way to do it and that's not the way to do it. especially in the case of john dingell, any president would have done this for john dingell, longest serving member of house

of representatives, worked with democrats and republicans and he served in world war ii, he's buried at arlington national cemetery. you can take issue with debbie dingell without doing that. >> in some ways you feel this is a president who has to keep going lower and lower and lower in many ways to satisfy his base. he goes to these big rallies, people who are adoring and his cheering fans and they in some ways are immune to some of this. the crowd sort of not reacting and then he goes below the belt there talking about john dingell being in hell. this is a president beloved by white evangelicals. they seem to give him a pass on everything he does. i think these coming months we're going to see more and more of this president acting in this disgraceful way. >> this is a very historic, momentous night, of gravity and solemnity. it's a night that will not only leave a stain on president

trump's president sif bcy but i what that's going to do to his psyche as we see it happening in realtime. >> he is clearly, clearly furious that he's in this category, only the third american president to be impeached by the house of representatives, setting the stage for a trial in the u.s. senate. our historic impeachment coverage continues right now with chris cuomo. all right, wolf. thank you very much. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." the president of the united states, donald john trump has been impeached on two articles, one, abusing his power, two, obstructing congress. how did this happen and now that question is replaced by where do we go from here? the stain on his name is permanent. but what will the system do now? where will it leave our democracy? let's go after it. all right. i have some of our best minds around me to help understand the

law, the history, the journalism because history is being written right now and we are still figuring out the next steps. we have preet bharara, maggie haberman and michael smerconish. maggie, history is being written right now. the president doing his best to distract the narrative, mocking the death of a former member of congress, taking pot shots, but he cannot distract from what happened in the house tonight. how will this be remembered? >> it's an excellent question, chris, that we don't really have an answer to yet. we know this will be remembered on its own as the third impeachment in this country's history. we know people are going to remember some details around abuse of power. we don't know in 20 years whether there will have been other impeachments and whether this is the beginning of the process being redefined and we don't know what this will mean in a reelection campaign because we have not seen that in this country before where an impeached president is going into a reelection effort. we've seen tonight the president

is reacting as we expected he would, motional emotionally, de rivals, using pretty abusive language not just about congressman dingell but his wife. the concern that i had heard from his allies and aides over the last couple of weeks is how angry he would be after this took place. i think we're going to see that play out over time. >> it's not surprising to see how he's reacting and where he's reacting to it by surrounding himself with people that love what he represents. what is surprising, at least to me, is nancy pelosi's play here at the end. our job is done, we have done what the constitution told us to do, we'll figure out when we're going to send over the articles of impeachment. this is a gray area in the law. what is the play for pelosi? >> i think that there's clearly some gamesmanship that's about to take place by speaker pelosi and by mitch mcconnell. there's an argument out there that says as soon as mcconnell

takes the con, here wants to take the trial over immediately and get it over before christmas. she's not going to give him the opportunity to do so. >> the theory would be she's holding it back to buy time to make it extend past the holidays? >> correct. otherwise he wants to dispense of it immediately. i think in the back of the minds of the republicans is if that plays out, fine, because now we're into the 2020 landscape and they like the argument that says americans can settle this at the ballot box, people are already voting in the iowa caucus, new hampshire primary, et cetera, et cetera. >> preet and i were looking through the actual constitutional language, there's no direction here other than the sole power is in the house to impeach andpower is in the senate to try. pelosi said we can't name managers and hand the stuff over essentially until we see what the trial will look like. that's not in there. >> it's a little bit of a game

of chick kren. she wants to know what the process is going to look like. i don't understand the speculation that there is for some period of time going to be the idea that you hold back the articles of impeachment because for a couple reasons one is the democrats have been saying i think correctly for a long time we're in a rush, we got to do this quickly, we can't wait, this person is a recidivist, the president can't be allowed to do this again and now you're going to say hurry up, hurry up, now wait. that doesn't make a lot of sense either. i don't understand what leverage the democrats have having now successfully got articles of impeachment passed. i understand the need and they should want badly to have other witnesses who have been, you are know, absent to come and testify, but what is the leverage on mitch mcconnell to rush? i understand what michael was saying if you know you have to have the trial, have it super quick even before christmas, but if there's a possibility that the democrats say unless these witnesses come forward, we're not going to send you the articles and the prospect hangs in the air not to have a trial,

that's great, wonderful for mitch mcconnell. >> no matter when they pass the articles of impeachment over, the president of the united states has been impeached. that process is over. he is not out of office. there is no consequence to his being impeached. consequence can only come from the senate. so his being impeached doesn't mean he's out. it means nothing other than that now there must be a trial in the senate. when is what we're discussing here. what kind of play is this for pelosi? yes, a little bit of gamesmanship, a little bit of chicken, a little bit -- he's a threat so now you're delaying politically. >> politically it's a risky play. in the short term it is getting in the president's head and that's to some extent something they want to do. they have done what they can do, they've done the best they can here when the white house has denied them witnesses.

>> the guy describing everybody by animal face and disrespecting the dead. >> they want to let him know if he is going to disrupt the process, they're going to do a version of that. if the white house is going to not participate at all in this process, and they didn't, they're going to abide the same way. contradictory messages, i think they're coming to that a little bit late. one is about this hurry up and wait thing in terms of moving the articles forward. the other is in describing him in these terms through this impeachment process, democrats have cridescribed him as a natil emergency. at the same time, they are cutting a trade deal with him. so he is a national emergency but they've also given him his chief legislative priority over the last year. voters do have trouble understanding two things at once sometimes, and i'm not sure how this helps the house case. >> the president says we didn't lose a vote.

that's true unless you count justin amash who has been defecting from the party. the democrats did, they lost five. so there's van drew from new jersey, who is thinking about changing parties. there's colin peterson from minnesota and tulsi gabbert voted present on the first article, abuse of power. now, van drew and peterson also voted no on the second one, which was abuse of congress, and they were joined by jared golden of maine. so all in all there are five names on the democrats' side that either voted present or nay to one or both of those articles. just to keep track. his reaction is ugly early surrounded by people at a rally. pelosi shut his people up twice during the actual proceeding. let's just remind you of what happened. this was during the debate voting period. >> on this vote the yeas are

230, the nays are 197. present is one. article i is adopted. the question is on adoption of article ii. on this vote the yeas are 229, the nays are 198. present is one. article ii is adopted. >> that is a face that any italian child know, the zip it, i don't want to hear it. she has played strength for strength. so where does that leave her right now, though? she did the job. this is compelling. you keep saying he's a continuing national security threat, that's why you had to do this so quickly and couldn't fight what they saw as pretentious legal fights over big names.

where's the leverage? >> i'm most interested to see whether the result of today and tonight is a momentum shift. i have to believe there were more eyes on the proceedings that have just ended than at any other point in this process. here's the question that needs to be answered. why has public support for impeachment actually declined as the hearings have played themselves out? >> and his approval is up. >> you can look at the marquette study of wisconsin, most critical state of all 50 in the election, the gallup survey that kale out today. my own theory is most americans, many americans in the end because it got so damn nasty decided to chalk this up to partisan biggering. you asked maggie what's the headline of the future, that would be mine. i think this was born of his conduct. frankly, the underlying facts are pretty straight forward in the end. but it was very hard for people who are working for a living and raising kids and soy forth to

follow all the names and places and the dates. >> why is that to his benefit? >> a lot it have got chalked up to it's more fighting going on in washington, we have an election on the horizon, let's revolve it at the ballot box. >> do you think those things go together? >> that's a political question. public sentiment can change when people pay more attention. the same way michael says more people probably paid attention today as we got to the seriousness of the final moment of the vote on impeachment. i think the nation got a little quieter and notwithstanding you a the histrionics leading up to it, it's a big deal. it's an important deal. trump makes fun of the fact that nancy pelosi says she's prayerful and it's a somber moment, it is. i felt it. i think a lot of people felt it no matter what side of the aisle you're on. if and when there is a trial, if

it takes the form i think the democrats want with live, compelling witnesses once again, i think more of the nation is going to tune in. >> but it's unlikely. >> mitch mcconnell is a smart guy and he probably has the power to avoid it. but if you have an actual trial with actual witnesses who are telling the same story, i think more people will tune in. maybe we're so polarized it won't change minds but that's an opportunity for public sentiment to shift. >> one person who wants witne witnesses is donald trump. he thinks it's his opportunity to get people to tell his story. it was made clear in a meeting there are not 51 votes in the senate to approve witnesses like that. it's not going to happen but he still wants it. >> can i make a point from my experience? good defense lawyers figure out

whether or not there's enough evidence to convict their client and some defense lawyers, sometimes because they have clients who have a certain kind of ego make the mistake of putting on a case. sometimes the most powerful defense case to make is they got nothing. they didn't prove it and the defense immediately after the prosecution rests, they stand up and say the defense rests and they don't have a competing story. i had cases where the defendant puts on witnesses and now you have competing tales. sometimes the best arguments -- some of the better arguers on the part of the president just said there's just not enough he here. >> let's take a break. we do know this, if they were to put on any of the big shots, they have built in counternarratives already that they have to contend with. that's never an easy spot when you're putting on a case. everybody stay with me. let's just the implications. momentum shift, where do we go from here? stay with cnn's continuing

coverage, history in progress. when a nasty cold won't let you sleep, try nyquil severe with vicks vapocool whoa! and vaporize it. ahhhhh! shhhhh! nyquil severe with vicks vapocool. the vaporizing nighttime, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine. the wait is over. t-mobile is lighting up 5g nationwide.

while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. now, millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. and this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network. they can save you these. in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save.

the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. 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.

well, no matter how you feel about president clinton, more often than not when his name is mentioned, the word impeachment soon thereafter follows. that is now also the case for the 45th president, donald john trump. his legacy is still yet to be written in many ways, but impeachment will always be a part of it. so what happens now? he's been impeached. here's a little bit of the president's reaction. >> it doesn't really feel like we're being impeached. the country is doing better than ever before. we did nothing wrong. we did nothing wrong. and we have tremendous support

in the republican party like we've never had before. >> >> all right. i'm joined by preet bharara, maggie haberman, and michael smerconish. maggie, help me. the stages of grief are shock, deni denial. >> and then rally. >> he doesn't feel like he's being impeached. >> right. >> he doesn't think he's done anything wrong, so the country's great. then he did some really ugly talking at that rally about people alive and dead. this was all predictable. where does it leave him within his party tonight? >> i think it leaves him burrowed more deeply into them before. i think one of the things we have seen his political folks said this was going to happen. they were right, that we were going to see the fissures in the republican party close basically, and everybody coalesce around him. he is doing what we have seen him do since that weekend with the "access hollywood" tape in 2016. his impulse that weekend was to go downstairs at trump tower and

burrow himself into a rally of supporters standing on fifth avenue. this is basically a version of that. this is what he does in humiliation. he describes it as we, not i'm impeached. we're getting impeached. can you believe that? and you're going to see that going forward. you're going to see an angrier version, and you are going to see, i think, his voters feel as if they are being attacked personally. what that means over ten months, we don't know. he's heading into a re-election. it is still going to be an up or down referendum on him. there will be a choice argument that they are making with the democratic nominee, but this is still ultimately about him and how he defines this when he has a stain that we know bothers him on his record, how he manages to focus on the economy, on legislative accomplishments that he is actually proud of instead of talking about this all the time remains to be seen. >> nancy pelosi said it is a good day for the constitution. it is a sad day for america. michael, i asked you how can those two things be true at the same time? >> they seem at odds to me. >> the constitution is what it

is. it's how you use it. >> can i mac a point in terms of what you asked maggie and where we are big picture on this? he is still controlling the narrative. i watched you last night when the six-page, single-spaced letter came out that many were regarding as unhinged, and i could tell how torn you were in terms of, hey, i've got to deal with this subject matter because he's the prutesident of the unid states. yet i don't know i want to give platform to some of the things he's saying. he controlled the news cycle last night. he controlled the news cycle this morning. whatever it is he's saying about john dingell, we're talking about it and we're not talking when we talk about dingell, the two causes that led to his impeachment. he's masterful at that. i'm not saying it as a positive attribute, but i've always said the man gives good ear. he knows what inflames that base, the conversation that he's had from the moment he descended the escalator at trump tower has always been to one side of the aisle, and they're still in the tent thus far. >> i want to make one

counterpoint to that, and i totally agree with you about his supporters. i think one of the things that can vote donald trump out of office is his own behavior. the problem with this impeachment is it's about his conduct. so the more he does things that reinforce the pects of his conduct that voters are tired of or never liked in the first place and aren't willing to tolerate any more for whatever reason, i'm not sure that -- >> i guess my response would be i don't understand why this, even though it's now with a capital "i," would be a break point when there have been so many things that haven't been. >> not for his true blue folks but for the people who held their nose and voted for him because they wanted to convince themselves he would change. this was an act. they didn't like hillary clinton. this could be enough to make them move away. >> could be. >> you know, the greeks had a word for what the president behaves as, and it was a demagogue. and i don't ever know in history of a demagogue being removed for being too much of what it was that made him a demagogue in the first place. so it's a little bit of an open question. what is their threshold? what is too much? but in terms of his leverage,

maggie has to be right that there's a galvanizing within the party to a degree in the house. in the senate, what does it mean to you that he has been told more than once by more than one republican, go easy on this. we want this parade of -- this circus of people. we don't know how much the republicans can take of people coming up and saying things that may not sit well with them. >> i worked for 4 1/2 years in the senate, and we were always very proud of being in the senate as opposed to the house, both, wonderful american patriotic chambers. but as the founders said, the senate is supposed to be the cooling saucer for legislation, and the hot sauce that comes from the house gets moderated somewhat in the senate. and there are figures in the senate who may care a little bit more about their legacy and care about history. they're not going to totally jump overboard, but they want to have some moderation. mitt romney might be one of those people. lisa murkowski might be one of those people. depending on what the mood of the country is and depending what they think they need to say

to their constituents and to say for posterity, at a minimum, this is the gambit, right? insist on some rules of the trial that don't turn into a mockery and then let the chips fall where they may at the end. i think that's where the leverage is, and that's what mitch mcconnell is trying to figure out. but the fact that he basically said it's going to go a certain way and it's going to go quickly and he's denying those witnesses to the democrats may mean that he's done the count, and he knows there's some people who are going to mouth off a little bit at the margins, but he's got his people in line. and the basic contours of what he wants to do have been approved by at least 51 senators, and he's ready to go. >> we've seen mcconnell in the past do what the president didn't like in the moment but he felt it was most helpful for him. thanks so much for being with me on such an important night. we're going to take a quick break. we're going to check in with don lemon. we're going to talk about where this stands and what is next. the handover right after the

break. , 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. little things can be a big deal. psoriasis, that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection

and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. look, it's just like when i tell people abbe confident.th geico. stand up straight. and speak with purpose. yeah? go on, give it a practice run. kelsey. kelsey. marriage? oh. okay. look maybe you should just show her this beautiful helzberg diamond ring? that's a better idea. yeah, maybe not in the bathroom. oooh! oh my word! geico. it's easy to switch and save. plaque psoriasis uncoverth clearer skin that can last. in fact, tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to.

serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last. janssen can help you explore cost support options.

history has been made. president trump has been impeached. two articles. one, abusing his power. two, obstruction of congress. that is done. does not mean he's no longer president. all it means is that the house has impeached him, and that cannot ever be undone. what comes next is a trial in

the senate. now, between these two events, there's been an unknown injected. nancy pelosi, speaker of the house, saying, we've done our job, and she's asked about handing over those articles to the senate to allow it to be their chance. and she said, we'll see what happens. we want to see what shape it takes. what's going on with timing? what does that mean for what comes next? impeachment can't be undone. but the president can't get his acquittal until that trial happens in whatever form it takes. we'll be back at midnight with more special coverage of the impeachment of president donald trump. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon right now. >> that's the suspense. that's the leverage that nancy pelosi believes that she has at this point. is it going to be fair because at this point in doesn't seem like it's going to be. you hear mitch mcconnell saying there's going to be no distance between the white house and him. they're supposed to be impartial. they're supposed to be