good evening. millions of people watched or have seen the moment and wondered what were elizabeth warren and bernie sanders saying to each other on stage, miked, during what appeared to be a tense confrontation after last night's debate. tonight, cnn has the audio and we'll play it for you. it's potentially significant for the campaign ahead. you'll see it here, and it comes at the end of a day like few others in the country. we want to begin with the history that was made today and what could be a lot more in the making. this evening, with a portrait of george washington looking on behind her and for only the third time in the country's history, house speaker nancy pelosi signed a resolution to transmit articles of impeachment of the president of the united states to the senate. a few moments later, the house clerk, accompanied by impeachment managers walked from the house chamber through

statutory hall, down the ohio clock corridor, and on to the senate floor. >> mr. president, i have been directed by the house of representatives to inform the senate the house has passed hres 798, a resolution appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial of donald john trump, the president of the united states. >> the message will be received. >> and history was made. and perhaps more in the making, because even as that was unfolding, the official washington was grappling with and fighting over some remarkable new potential evidence in the case. new documents from lev parnas, the indicted associate of president trump's alleged bag man in all of this, rudy giuliani. yes, that is where we are tonight. an impeached president with an alleged bag man formerly known as america's mayor, also formally known as a mob-busting u.s. attorney. these documents are so explosive

because they appear to tie so directly into the alleged extortion scheme at the center of the impeachment and connect the president more tightly to it. one is a letter from giuliani to ukraine's then president-elect, requesting a private meeting in his capacity as the president's personal counsel and done, quote, with his knowledge and consent. this was in may, back when giuliani was also boasting to the "new york times" about gathering dirt in ukraine about the president on the bidens. the documents also include this. a note that parnas scribbled to himself on hotel stationary. you can see it appears to be a to-do list of sorts, and item one is, quote, get zelensky to announce that the biden case will be investigated. there's also ominous, thuggish-sounding text messages, which we'll talk more about shortly between parnas and a man named robert hyde. they suggest the ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, was being surveilled or possibly stalked. how true that is is yet to be determined. these documents could make it that much harder for the

president to claim he was acting on behalf of the country and not himself, when he asked president zelensky to, quote, do us a favor, though. the giuliani letter, especially. the question now, would senators who take an oath to evaluate the evidence impartially, will they decide to even look at this let alone call witnesses on it? our phil mattingly starts things out tonight on the capitol. so phil, a remarkable day on the capitol. third time in u.s. history. what happens now? >> reporter: you'll see something tomorrow that looks a little bit similar to what we saw today. another procession of the seven house managers, the house sergeant at arms, as they go over to the senate floor at noon to officially present and read those two articles of impeachment on the senate floor. now, after that occurs, about two hours later, 2:00 p.m., the chief justice of the united states supreme court, john roberts, will make his way over to the united states and be sworn in to oversee the impeachment trial. once he is sworn in, anderson, he will then proceed to swear in all 100 senators for the duration of the trial. now, what we're seeing, basically, both today and

tomorrow is kind of equal parts ceremonial and procedural. what happens next, likely on tuesday, will really be the kind of meat and bones of this senate trial. we are going to see presentations from those seven managers, 24 hours in total over the course of a couple of days. then the president's defense team will get their turn, also 24 hours. and then 16 hours, again, spread over several days, for any senator that wants to ask a question of either of those teams. that is the first part of the senate trial that is really locked in. it is after that that the big questions remain about how long this trial will go, will anybody testify. but that's what's locked in at the moment. and obviously, a lot of ceremony on this first day. certainly history made. but it's when that trial really kicks off on tuesday that everybody is going to be paying very close attention, as they wait to see if the president will be removed, first and foremost, but also the reality of this moment, just the third impeachment trial for a united states president in the history of the country, anderson. >> and whether or not there'll be a vote to allow witnesses, it still remains really one of the biggest questions.

>> i would argue at this point in time, there's probably two big questions that i'm interested in at this point. one, what is the defense that the president's team is actually going to lay out, but witnesses is the question that every u.s. senator is getting at the moment. obviously, democrats have been very keen on trying to pressure their republican colleagues to agree to subpoena witnesses, to subpoena documents. whether it's john bolton, acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, even based on the latest evidence that they've transmitted over the course of the last 24 hours, rudy giuliani. here's the rub. they need at least four senators to join with the 47 democrats in the united states senate in order to make that happen. a simple majority is all it takes. and at this point in time, they don't have those commitments. what they do have right now is four senators who have said they are at least open to the idea of witnesses and documents. but all four of those senators are firmly behind senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, and that is not a question that should be considered until after that initial stage of the trial. basically, anderson, we'll get two weeks of a trial, with everyone wondering what's coming next, and the reality is we probably won't get the answers to those questions until that

moment of the initial presentation. >> and the rules so far stipulate that there will be a ban on senators using phones during the trial. what else is going to be sort of different about this? >> reporter: it's going to be very different from what you're used to seeing. obviously, instead of a senator presiding over the trial, you'll have the chief justice of the united states supreme court presiding. the senators themselves, once they take their seats at 1:00 p.m. on tuesday, once the central part of the trial begins, they are not allowed to speak. i've talked to a number of senators who like to joke about the fact that they and many of their colleagues aren't really super excited about the idea that they can't speak. it's something that they enjoy doing quite a bit. but the electronics is a -- we kind of look at it as a side issue, but it's actually really important. these individuals are going to be sitting in their senate chairs for hours on end. they can't have their phones, they can't have their ipads, they can't communicate really with staff. they are not allowed, anderson, to have any reading material on their desks that's outside of the scope of the trial itself. this is really going to give them only one option and one

option alone. and hays to listen to the presentations. one senator i talked to today made a really interesting point. he said, look, you guys have been paying attention to every iteration of this over the course of the last four months. the depositions, the public hearings, the votes. most of us have been watching the news, but haven't really gone into a granular detail of things. that's about to happen. and whether or not that changes minds or at least gets senators to the point where they want to hear more from witnesses or subpoenaing documents is going to be the question going forward, anderson. >> phil mattingly, thanks very much. i want to go next to cnn's alex marquardt who has the latest on lev parnas that could shake up the impeachment trial if it's allowed in. alex? >> yeah, anderson, this is a stunning new trove of documentation from lev parnas. text messages, photos, voice mails. and what a lot of it focuses on and really highlights is how deep this irregular channel was that rudy giuliani was leading in ukraine. and much of these documents, and frankly we're still going through a lot of them, parnas' legal team just handed these

over to the house over the weekend, a lot of these documents do focus on the removal of marie yovanovitch, the u.s. ambassador recalled by trump in may after what she called a concerted campaign against her by giuliani. there's one text message from lev parnas to a top gop fund-raiser in which he says, it's crazy we have enemies of our president surrounding the new president of ukraine. it's more important than ever to get a good ambassador that's loyal to our president. anderson, there's also a much darker side to this. these text messages between lev parnas and that guy that you mentioned, robert hyde, who until now was an unknown name. he's a republican running for congress in connecticut. and there's a series of text messages between the two of them again about yovanovitch. one of them says from hyde, "wow, i can't believe trump hasn't fired this "b"," referring to yovanovitch. then he talks about surveilling her, insinuating that he is tracking her around kyiv.

hyde writes, on march 25th, "they are moving her tomorrow. she's next to the embassy." then, anderson, there's this much more nefarious tweet where it sounds like he's planning something with others and talks about payment. hyde writes, "they are willing to help if we/you like a price. i guess you can do anything in the ukraine with money." it's unclear who "they" are, what they would do in exchange for money, and if anything was done. one thing, anderson, that is clear is that there has been total silence from the state department about one of their top diplomats, someone who has served in foreign service for three decades, a three-time ambassador. anderson. >> what's not known if this guy, hyde, was just making this up and kind of trying to puff himself up as if he has extensive contacts in ukraine. it's not -- am i correct in that it's just not known. he's now come out and said that he was just joking around, basically. >> reporter: you are correct.

in fact, lev parnas' lawyers came out today saying that he did nothing with hyde in terms of tracking or harming yovanovitch. they talked about his dubious mental state. and we have seen a series of tweets from hyde which are much more aggressive. he denies that he was ever in kyiv. he talks about parnas calling him a dweeb, that he was playing with, that these were texts written by him and his buddies while they were drinking. so he is dismissing that, but, anderson, this is still something that folks on capitol hill, particularly democrats, are demanding they get briefed on, demanding that gets looked into. it is no small thing for these insinuations that a u.s. ambassador was tracked by these shadowy figures across the ukrainian capital. anderson? >> and parnas is going to be on this program tomorrow night. he was on with rachel maddow. what did he say? >> reporter: he's saying that he

could have done nothing without the approval of the president. that everything he did, all the movements he made, those were tracked and known about by the president and the president's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani. and anderson, it's just another direct line between the people in this irregular channel, as it became to be known during the impeachment hearing, directly back to the president. and it really is reminiscent of one of the other point men in ukraine for the president, gordon sondland, to the ambassador to the european union, who said, yes, there was quid pro quo, and everyone was in the loop, including the president. anderson? >> alex marquardt, thanks very much. now, a juror as well as a lawmaker is openly interested in hearing from witnesses and weighing the evidence. joining us now is jeff mercury, from oregon. what do you make of the new documents that have been released from parnas? how much stronger do you think this makes the democrats' case against the president? >> well, this start sketching really critical details about

how giuliani was operating and about communication between that operation and the president. certainly, it isn't the whole picture. i think information is going to continue to come forward, but this starts to fill in some of the gaps. >> as of now, none of what parnas has revealed is part of the evidence that the senate is going to consider. to your republican colleagues who are hesitant to include any new information during the trial, for, i guess, a variety of reasons one can interpret, some stated, some not stated, what do you say to them? >> well, i say to them that there's really two steps here. an indictment is based on sufficient information that a serious act has occurred. and of course, in the context of an impeachment, that doesn't necessarily mean a crime. it can mean abuse of power in other ways. but it's just that there is serious information that merits a full trial. a full trial is the full examination of evidence. and like any other trial, it

continues to pull on any information that is available for witnesses to come forward, for documents to be examined, and that's what a trial is. it is really a situation where the president's lawyers deserve to pull in whoever they feel contributes to their case and the house managers in presenting their case need to be able to pull in and have a subpoena for the witnesses and for the documents. that's what a trial is. full fairness to present the case on both sides. >> so if republican lawyers wanted to pull in hunter biden or vice president biden, you would support that? >> my belief is that the jurors, the hundred of us, should not be determining who is relevant to the case. and quite frankly, i think that if either side tries to turn this into a circus, pulling in people who are clearly not relevant or continuing the persecution of a political opponent, it would do great harm to that side. so i would say that in this

case, the right of the defense to choose who they think is relevant and present that information something no one else should be able to interfere with. >> republicans are united in their opposition to include any new evidence. do democrats really have any leverage, though, to force this issue? >> the leverage is 51 votes. the leverage is people doing their responsibility under the constitutional framework of checks and plans. the leverage is the oath we're going to take at the start of the trial, where we pledge to do impartial justice. leverage is that the american people understand that impartial justice envisions a full access to witnesses and documents. lack of witnesses and documents, that's a cover-up. >> impartial justice, which is something that all the senators are going to be swearing to, is that something -- i mean, senators who have come forward and said, you know, i'm -- i -- this is not -- you know, we are not going to find the president guilty, can they swear to that oath?

>> well, i think they're going to have to search their heart and ask if they're able to set aside their preconception, all of us, all hundred of us, and if we are unable to do that, if we're unable to in good faith say, we'll set aside our preconceptions, look at the exact language of the house articles of impeachment, the exact evidence and how it fits, then we should recuse ourselves. because it would be really a deep violation of any form of integrity to go forward and swear that you can do impartial justice when you're unable to do it. >> the republicans have been criticizing the house impeachment hearings as rushed, saying that democrats were more interested in getting it done fast than they were in conducting a thorough investigation and that if they really wanted to do a thorough investigation, they would have gone through the court process in order to get the testimony that they wanted that they couldn't. there is new evidence that has come to light. the fact that new evidence is still coming to light, does that prove their argument correct? >> well, recognize that a lot of this information was solicited in the house examination and it was blocked, in all kinds of various ways.

people who refuse to testified and in this case, information that they subpoenaed, but they weren't able to get until now. but again, it goes back to the fact that the house setting is a different setting. is there substantial information relevant to what would be the -- an indictment? and in a trial, it's full examination of the facts, with everything brought to bear. my colleagues, my republican colleagues know this. they know that the president, his legal team because of tied up the subpoenas for probably a year, taking it through the next election, and that therefore, we could not have executed our responsibility under the constitution if the house waited until the courts could process each and every of the cases in which they were seeking documents and witnesses. so the house has to ask themselves a key question. is what we have so strong that this merits a full trial? and the house concluded that it was. and now we have a different set of responsibilities in the senate.

>> senator merkley, i appreciate your time. thank you very much. >> good to be with you. just ahead, how the trial might be received and what would happen if republicans pull the plug and more evidence comes to light. coming up after the break, a cnn exclusive. the lyrics to what looked like anything but a love song. we now have the audio of what sanders and warren said to one another after the debate. it looked tense and it was. we'll play you the audio in just a moment. later, a former top u.s. diplomat on the text messages and surveillance of america's ambassador to ukraine. with advil liqui-gels, you have fast-acting power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength and speed of advil liqui-gels. what pain?

(whistling) tracfone lets you keep your

leftover data each month. unlimited carryover data! $20 bucks. what are you doing? i want to ask you about your data. oh, i thought you said dating. this is your wake-up call, people. the new tracfone wireless. now you're in control. the new tracfone wireless. it's an easy way to earn it's cashback on the stuff i'm already buying. sometimes it's 3% sometimes it's 8% but you're always getting cashback. so it's like getting free money. go to rakuten.com and sign up today for a $10 bonus. ♪ oh, oh, (announcer)®! ♪ once-weekly ozempic® is helping many people with type 2 diabetes like james lower their blood sugar. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. here's your a1c. oh! my a1c is under 7! (announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week.

oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®.

quitting smoking is freaking hard.st, like quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette tonight, a cnn exclusive on probably the most talked about moment in last night's democratic debate, which actually happened just seconds after the debate, after the confrontation over whether senator bernie sanders once told senator elizabeth warren that a woman could not be elected president. even without the sound, the

moment did not look like a warm and friendly encounter. but without actually knowing what was said, it was impossible to know for sure. tonight, cnn is the first to obtain the audio and we're going to play it for you shortly. but first, jeff zeleny joins us now with more on the story that it tells. jeff, go ahead. >> reporter: anderson, good evening. it was an extraordinary mean. as you said, it was seen, but not heard as elizabeth warren came face-to-face with bernie sanders in the moments right after the debate last night in iowa. now, rivals were shaking hands and congratulating each other for a job well done, but warren clearly had something on her mind to tell sanders. and tonight, we know just what it was. with applause still ringing at the end of the democratic debate in iowa last night, the simmering feud between elizabeth warren and bernie sanders suddenly boiled over. >> i think you called me a liar on national tv? >> what? >> i think you called me a liar on national tv? >> let's not do it right now. you want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion. i think you called me -- let's not -- >> i don't want to get in the middle of it.

hi, bernie. >> good. >> she walked away without a handshake after intentionally trying to de-escalate the fight earlier in the debate. >> bernie is my friend and i'm not here to try to fight with bernie. >> but warren wanted to make a point that a woman can win the presidency. it was one of the most memorable lines of the night. >> look at the men on this stage. collectively, they have lost ten elections. the only people on this stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the women. >> they were sparring over a comment warren says sanders made during a private meeting in 2018 that a woman couldn't win the white house. sanders strongly denied ever making such an assertion. >> as a matter of fact, i didn't say it. and i don't want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what donald trump and maybe some of the media want. anybody knows me knows that it's incomprehensible that i would think that a woman could not be president of the united states. >> reporter: in the moment, warren disagreed, but wait more

than an hour later until after the debate, to accuse sanders of calling her a liar. >> now, we reached out to the campaigns all day long and again tonight. once we went through this audio, anderson, neither campaign wanted to give a comment on this. we caught up with senator sanders on capitol hill today. he did not want to talk about this at all. one thing that's clear, both sides were trying to de-escalate this feud on the debate stage, but it clearly did not work. now, it's escalated once again. i'm told that they did not speak today. but they will be side by side in close proximity tomorrow at that senate impeachment trial, anderson. >> and jeff, just explain how the audio -- how we got this audio now. >> well, anderson, we saw it play out, but we couldn't hear it play out, but my colleagues here at cnn spent the day looking through backup audio. it was not recorded from the primary audio system, it was a backup separate system, and they found it late today, we listened to it, we matched it with the video, so that's how we were

able to reveal this moment. so certainly interesting. 19 days before the iowa caucuses, they are going after some of the same voters here, the progressive voters. we will see how this feud continues. >> it's also interesting, jeff, because they were -- they were miked. it was literally the debate, you know, the applause was still going on. and they were aware they were miked and senator warren went over and had this exchange with a camera moving right past them. >> and it was so interesting, when we watched all of that, she had nice words to say for joe biden. she had nice words to say for tom steyer, pete buttigieg. and in an instant, she saw senator sanders there, went directly to him and accused him of calling her a liar on national television. he was taken aback by it, obviously, you can see there. and he essentially said the same thing, accused her of calling him a liar. so this debate, i think, will continue between the two of them. and we should say that they had a non-aggression pact for more than a year. perhaps it's surprising it held this long. it clearly is not in effect now, anderson. >> jeff zeleny, thanks very much.

joining us now is cnn political director, david chalian, and cnn chief political analyst, gloria borger. gloria, it seemed like on the debate stage, this was kind of maybe put away, because neither used the opportunity while they were in the midst of the debate to kind of go back and forth on this. but clearly, sanders or warren had something she wanted to say to sanders. >> yeah, she made a beeline for him at the end of that debate. and anderson, we were talking about it last night. we were trying to get tom steyer to tell us what they were saying, because he was hovering over them. and i think when you look at this, it really a pretty significant development in this campaign. the two progressive candidates, as jeff was pointing out, who had really tried not to get in each other's way during this campaign, suddenly have exploded into, you know, this barrage of name-calling, saying, you called me a liar, no, you called me a liar. and the question i think we all

have is how are they going to resolve this? are they going to resolve this? i know we've tried to figure out whether they spoke to each other today and as jeff points out, it seems that they haven't. and what do progressives do? these are their standard-bearers. and suddenly, they're not arguing over the issues, but they're arguing over who said what to whom. >> david, there's two things that are so interesting to me about this exchange and hearing the audio on it. one is that it's so real. it's not -- there's no -- i mean, this is two people who have been in the public eye, who have been on the campaign trail a lot. this is two people talking in a very real way with each other. and also -- and i mean, one can't say that senator warren was not aware that her mic was on and i mean, we take up audio all the time from after the debate, people on the stage, talking to each other or shag their hands, what they say when they're shaking hands.

she knew the cameras were there and knew the mics were still on. >> you see that at the end of every debate, you can hear them sometimes greet their spouses as they come up, or as you said, greet supporters. so clearly she wasn't aiming to have this conversation entirely in private, but you can -- as you said, it was so real, the moment. i mean, her -- however you want to describe it, her frustration, her anger, her desire to have -- make this point to bernie sanders was crystal clear. and what i find so interesting, anderson, is that it is not at all how she wanted to handle it in the debate. so you're talking about real moments among politicians, maybe they sound a little different there than we normally hear them on the stump. but during that debate, as jeff pointed out, they were trying to de-escalate. she wanted -- she said, bernie's my friend. well, that's a totally different approach than what she took at the end of this -- the end of the debate here. and i think perhaps that

indicates she didn't think having this moment, even though you're right, she did not desire to have this moment front and center in the debate itself, which to me suggests maybe she doesn't think it plays well politically for her or for the progressive movement more broadly or both. that's why i think she was trying to have an interaction with him after the debate. >> but gloria, i mean, clearly, this was a private dinner that they had had a year ago or so. so whatever was revealed about it by a variety of sources, and there were a number of sources on this, it came from, you know, either -- somebody in that room or somebody who -- the people in that room, the two people in that room talked to about it. >> and now you have these two candidates involved in a he said/she said. and you know, she is clearly furious about it. she shouldn't have been surprised, by the way, by his response, because he had before

the debate said it was ludicrous. and i think he repeated it again at the debate. but, you know, they know where each other stands on this. and i don't know how they get around it, because, clearly, they have different views of what occurred. and she was so angry, really angry that she's a professional politician. she knows that she was miked. she knows she was on camera. and yet, she was so mad that she could not really restrain herself from going right up to bernie sanders and saying, you called me a liar. >> or didn't care if it got out there. >> or didn't care. i mean, i think that's another possibility. but, you know, sometimes -- >> it's interesting, gloria, that she didn't say to bernie sanders, you lied. >> no. >> she said, you called me a liar. let's just hear it one more -- we didn't want to play it too much, but let's hear it once --

>> i think you called me a liar on national television. >> what? >> i think you called me a liar on national television. >> let's not do it right now. you want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion. you called me a liar -- you told me -- all right. let's not do it. >> i don't want to get in the middle of it. i just want to say hi, bernie. >> okay, good. okay. >> it's so interesting, she didn't say, you lied. it's, i think you called me a liar. >> but, by the way, on national tv. in front of millions of people, many of whom are going to vote for democrats and who were watching this debate. so you can clearly understand her fury at that. and again, it's one of those moments you don't see very often in politics, where she felt very frustrated, used whatever word you want. and she just went over to him and told him what she was thinking. >> fascinating. gloria borger, thank. david chalian as well. coming up next, where the impeachment trial may go now that there's new evidence on the table including a second batch

of lev parnas material, the associate of rudy giuliani, just out tonight. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia. for everyone you love. most people think as a reliable phone company. but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. (second man) virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. (second woman) we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready.

( ♪ ) hey there! i'm lonnie from lonnie's lumber. if you need lumber wood, lonnie's is better than good.

we got oak, cherry, walnut, and more. and we also have the best selection of plywood (clattering) in the state... hey! (high-pitched laughter) man: dang woodchucks! (wood clattering) stop chuckin' that wood! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

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.

again, the house judiciary committee today published a new batch of documents from indicted rudy giuliani associate lev parnas. they were provided over the weekend to the house intelligence committee and transmitted to the judiciary committee. this batch includes parnas celebrating the departure of former national security adviser john bolton. parnas will be on the program tomorrow night. >> gloria borger is back. joining me now is david gergen. the documents and the text messages from rudy giuliani's former associate, lev parnas, that we mentioned at the beginning, do you think all of

nuts even more pressure on the senate to bring forward witnesses and documents during the trial? >> well, i think it should. the question is, how do republicans feel about it? democrats are clearly applying the pressure here and we've heard from republicans today saying, well, if this was so important, why didn't the democrats hear from lev parnas earlier? why weren't they doing their job? and let me just share a little timeline to you on this point. parnas was arrested on october 9th. and the fed seized his phones and all his other materials. and the house subpoenaed him on october 10th. and the request to get all of his documents was just cleared this week. and he started complying with house subpoenas. so, they were doing this as fast as they could. there was no way they could get it earlier. but they did manage to get it before the articles of impeachment went directly over to the senate. so it can be that they got in under that deadline, and that it

will be used and will perhaps put more pressure on republicans. >> david, i mean, it sort of, again, raises the questions of, what other evidence is out there. this is lev parnas, who, you know, met the president a number of times by all accounts. there's lots of photographs and clearly has a long relationship with rudy giuliani, as well. if, you know, what he has to say is significant, one can only imagine what john bolton or mulvaney would say. >> yeah, there's no question, anderson, it does strengthen the case for the democrats to get both documents and witnesses. there are two damning stories here in all of these documents we got from parnas. the first is that the rudy giuliani letter leaves no doubt that the president was directing this from the beginning. he writes to the president-elect of ukraine to say, i am the personal counsel to the president and i am acting with

his knowledge and consent. and all of the evidence has pointed that way. this is very hard evidence, though. the second damning thing is, though, and what's spooky, is the whole story that they had gum shoes essentially following yovanovitch, the american ambassador, around on the streets of kyiv. and we heard, when she came back, she was frightened because she was forced out of there very quickly. clearly, they efforts to get rid of her succeeded. and that in itself raises all sorts of questions about abuse of power. so i think there's a lot here. you can argue process, but i personally believe that in any trial, the door should be open to new evidence right up until the time that the jury decides. >> and gloria, we should point out that we don't know if this person, mr. hyde, who is apparently kind of running for congress from connecticut, whether he was just making stuff up to try to make himself seem like he's sort of an international man of mystery who

has contacts in ukraine, who can infiltrate, you know, the diplomatic service protection or whoever it was protecting the ambassador. it may just be talk, and that's basically now what he's saying, he's saying, he just made this stuff up with his drinking buddies, which, i don't know, i guess, that says something else about him. but it's not clear, you know, if that's real or just an imagined fantasy. >> well, look, and this is what -- this is what the investigators are trying to sort through right now. there's a lot of documents here. and they're doing this as fast as they can. and the question is, will the senate say, wait a minute, you know, we can't try a case without seeing all the evidence here. and there's a lot of -- there's a lot of information that is yet to come out. whether it's from lev parnas or mr. hyde or whether it is from bolton, the former national security adviser.

so i think that all taken together, it seems to me that at least four senate republicans may be able to say, well, we need to hear more. the question for the democrats is, well, okay, if the republicans say we'll give you a witness or two, then what do the democrats have to give? do they then have to say, uh, okay, we'll let you talk about to hunter biden? i don't think that's going to happen, because he's irrelevant to this case, but you know republican are going to be asking for it. >> gloria borger, david gerg one-on-one thanks very much. more on the question of whether marie yovanovitch was being surveilled and by whom. some of my best memories growing up were cooking with mom. she always said, "food is love," so when she moved in with us, a new kitchen became part of our financial plan. ♪ i want to make the most of every meal we have together. ♪

at northwestern mutual, our version of financial planning helps you live your dreams today. find a northwestern mutual advisor at nm dot com. oh, your she's landed.ed. your dreams today. and she's on her way to our house. what. i thought she was coming next weekend. i got it. alexa. start the coffee. set the temperature to 72. start roomba. we got this... don't look. what? don't look. lets move. ♪ mom. the lexus es, eagerly prepared for the unexpected. lease the 2020 es 350 for $389 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. i can. the two words whispered at the start of every race. every new job. and attempt to parallel park. (electrical current buzzing) each new draft of every novel. (typing clicks)

the finishing touch on every masterpiece. (newborn cries) it is humanity's official two-word war cry. words that move us all forward. the same two words that capital group believes have the power to improve lives. and that, for over 85 years, have inspired us to help people achieve their financial goals. talk to your advisor or consultant for investment risks and information. talk to your advisor or consultant i learned about myuse grandfather's life. on ancestry and it was a remarkable twentieth-century transformation. he did a lot of living before i knew him. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com

more on the breaking news that house democrats plan to turn over evidence, suggesting the former ousted u.s. ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, may have been under surveillance. not by a foreign entity, but allege somehow in connection to an american in touch with an associate of president trump's personal attorney, rudy giuliani. now, as we said earlier, the evidence, text messages turned over by that associate, lev parnas, between him and the american robert hyde. in them, hyde repeatedly calls the ambassador a "bitch," and texts this, quote, wake up yankees man, she's talked to three people. her phone is off, computer is off. she's next to the embassy, not in the embassy. private security, been there since thursday. unquote.

a short time ago, hyde said that the messages were being taken too seriously. ", it was just colorful. we were playing. i thought we were playing." yovanovitch's lawyer calls the texts disturbing and is asking for an investigation. the november, she was asked about what president trump said to her as ukraine's ambassador. >> what do you think when president trump told president zelensky that you were going to go through some things? >> i didn't know what to think, but i was very concerned. >> what were you concerned about? >> she's going to go through some things. it didn't sound good. it sounded like a threat. >> did you feel threatened? >> i did. >> today, secretary of state mike pompeo has never directly addressed the ambassador's concerns or even publicly backed her. in november, he would only tell reporters, quote, i always

defend state department employees. but apparently not. joining me now is former u.s. ambassador to nato and greece and undersecretary for political affairs, nicholas burns. ambassador burns, thanks for being with us. it certainly seems as if ambassador yovanovitch had certainly plenty of reason to say she felt afraid or threatened. >> she certainly did. and that was back in october, anderson, during the house impeachment inquiry. now we know over the last 24 hours that if this story is true, people deputized by the president, lev parnas, perhaps even rudy giuliani, wanted to put her under surveillance. it's unprecedented. i think in american history, for anyone representing the president as giuliani said he was representing them to her, associates working for him would actually try to track an american ambassador, as they were defaming her character. so there's obviously got to be a congressional inquiry to this. chairman eliot engel of the house foreign affairs committee has already written to the state department, demanding this. it should be taken up by the senators looking into the

impeachment of president trump. it's got to be part of it, because it gets to the laernl story that president trump deputized rudy giuliani, to an affect, to hijack our policy towards ukraine and we all know the dramatic and very negative consequences of that. >> parnas' attorneys put out a statement earlier saying, essentially, that his client, lev parnas was not involved in the surveillance, clearly indicating that it's this mr. hyde who was alleging that he had her under surveillance. and again, we don't know if that's even true or just fantasy on his part. but as a former ambassador, it's one thing to be monitored by a foreign government, which is almost expected in some cases. i would imagine particularly in the ukraine or other areas of the former soviet union. it's quite another thing to have it done by someone from the united states and someone potentially representing the president. >> that's the heart of the matter here. was lev parnas operating at the instruction of rudy giuliani, who was certainly deputized by the president of the united states? there has to be an investigation

of this. in the state department, we take security very seriously. wherever an american ambassador is under any kind of surveillance or there's any threat to the ambassador, we roll out, in every administration, all the support we can for that ambassador. and anderson, what really, i think, angers me, and angers a lot of people in the state department today is that for 24 hours now, secretary pompeo has not said one word in defense of ambassador yovanovitch. the state department has been utterly silent and she's still on the payroll. she's still an employee. and she's defenseless right now. and i find that to be objectionable and extremely poor leadership. >> and if you actually read the, you know, the text messages from this hyde guy, i mean, parnas doesn't really reply much at all, but this -- parnas saying that -- robert hyde at one point says, talking about the people he allegedly has surveilling her or keeping tabs on her, quote, they are willing to help if we/you would like a price.

i guess you can do anything in the ukraine with money. what i was told. i mean, it certainly sounds like -- exactly what it sounds like. it sounds like, you know, he's saying, anything is possible to be done to her in a place like ukraine for a price. ukraine for a price. what do you want me to do? that's -- that's bizarre. and threatening. >> well, i read -- it certainly is. and i read the same messages you did in the press today and anyone receiving that kind of text message would have to report it to the fbi and report it to the right authorities in the embassy of ukraine and alerted the ambassador. and i don't know what mr. parnas did and didn't do. i don't know whether rudy giuliani was aware of this. but inaction and not responding to that kind of combustible email, there's culpability there as well. >> ambassador burns, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you very much. coming up, a look at the senate road map starting tomorrow for impeachment proceedings.

did you know you can get unlimited talk and text on america's best 4g lte networks for $20? unlimited talk? i like that! because on sundays you know i gotta talk to mama, then on... this is your wake-up call, people. the new tracfone wireless. now you're in control. the new tracfone wireless. so ithat gives me cash backsome new on everything.uten that's ebates new name. rakuten, it gets me cash back at tons of stores and i just shop like normal. that's ebates. i've told you fifteen times, we've saved like five hundred dollars last year. rakuten is changing my life, i get cash back on electronics, travel, clothes. you're talking about ebates. look, if you use my referral code you get ten bucks, i get twenty five. this is a pretty good deal to me we should probably- sfx [blender] smoothies ready. awesome. ebates is now rakuten, sign up today and get cash back on everything you buy. ♪ oh, oh, (announcer)®! ♪ once-weekly ozempic® is helping many people with type 2 diabetes like james lower their blood sugar. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it.

here's your a1c. oh! my a1c is under 7! (announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea,

stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. (sensethe lack of control when iover my businessai, made me a little intense. but now quickbooks helps me get paid, manage cash flow, and run payroll. and now i'm back on top... with koala kai. (vo) save over 40 hours a month with intuit quickbooks.

on another historic night, it's time to check in with chris and see what he's working on for "cuomo prime time." >> so we're dealing with one big known and one big unknown. the big known is that you and i knew exactly what warren and bernie must have been saying to each other. it was obvious from the body language. what are the implications? what does it mean for each of their campaigns, if anything at all? we'll look at that from a couple of people that are still trying to figure out the best way forward for the democrats. and then, you know the president is worried about what happened today. you know he's worried about the implications of this new information and how this is all playing, because they're sending out their best tonight, anderson. kellyanne conway is going to be on the show. she is arguably the president's most trusted adviser. he believes she makes his points the strongest. she will be on tonight to see if

she can make the case to our audience that what happened in ukraine was not wrong. >> all right. chris, we'll be watching, about six minutes from now. i'll see you then. straight ahead, what to expect tomorrow in the senate impeachment proceedings. (whistling)

(whistling) ♪

♪ ♪ everything your trip needs for everyone you love. expedia. -excuse me. uh... do you mind...being a mo-tour? -what could be better than being a mo-tour? the real question is...

do you mind not being a mo-tour? -i do. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. i like working. what if my retirement plan is, i don't want to retire? then let's not create a retirement plan, let's create a plan for what's next. i like that. get a plan that's right for you. td ameritrade. it's been quite a day for the country. the impeachment of president trump now in the hands of the senate. joining us for a look ahead, cnn congressional correspondent phil mattingly. so tomorrow, mitch mcconnell directing house impeachment managers back at noon to the

senate. what happens from there? >> you'll see a similar procession. all seven members of the house manager team will come back over to the united states senate. when they reach there, they will be announced and then they will take to the senate floor and read the articles of impeachment. after they conclude, the chief justice in the supreme court, john roberts, will come over around 2:00 p.m. he will be sworn in. then he will proceed to swear in all 100 senators. they will send a summons to the president of the united states, informing him that he's been impeached, ask him for a response. and essentially, anderson, that will be it for the week. it's all teeing up next week when the real trial will start in earnest. presentations, potentially witnesses later on in the process, but for now, ceremony, procedure, locking everything in before everything gets started next week. >> and what about chief justice roberts? how big a role will he actually play? >> it's a fascinating question, anderson, one we've all been trying to figure out. if you go back to 1999, kind of the most recent precedent, chief justice rehnquist took a passive role. the chief justice could have a very major, im