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, important,

substantive role if he wants it. but senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has made clear he expects john roberts to really mimic what he saw in 1999 with chief justice rehnquist, which is be passive, allow the senators to handle any of the questions they want, but the toughest questions, if they come up, chief justice roberts that as the ability and the means to rule on those questions. however, the expectation is, at least at this point, he will largely defer to the senate, which would mean votes, which would mean a simple majority of 51 votes would essentially dictate how things move in this trial, anderson. >> it's also going to be interesting, because cameras are obviously banned in the supreme court hearings. that's not going to be the case during the senate trial with roberts. >> it's a different ball game. everything he does is going to be on camera, except for the deliberations of the senators. and keep in mind, his team has been preparing for this just like the president's defense team, just like the house managers have been. they have been coming over, back and forth, to the united states senate, preparing for it, making sure he's got office space. everything's being set up for a very different process than he's used to, anderson. >> phil mattingly, thanks very much. get some sleep. the news continues.

i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> anderson, thank you very much. appreciate it. good evening, everyone. welcome to "prime time." i am chris cuomo. this is a very big night. we've watched the impeachment articles literally be handed over, walked over to the senate. this impeachment has now set into motion a removal trial. the big question is, what about all of this new evidence emerging of clear wrongdoing? can the senate really choose to ignore it? and will the white house continue this "did nothing wrong" argument? the president's best defender is on the show tonight to respond at a critical moment. presidential counselor kellyanne conway is here to test the president's arguments. and we no longer have to wonder, like we were ever really wondering, about what was said between senators sanders and warren in their post-debate moment. we have the audio. let's listen to what went down

and figure out where it leads for those two top democrats. let's get after it. all right. the president got some good news earlier today with one thing that he caused. the first phase of a china trade deal now signed. but of course, that development is being overshadowed by another situation that he caused, which led to his impeachment. today we watched as the house went through its ceremony, this formality, historic handoff of two high crimes charges in the form of impeachment. they literally walked them from the house to the senate. the seven newly picked prosecutors. they're called managers for the house. they will return tomorrow and formally present the articles and read them aloud. then the jurors, also known as the senate, will be sworn in. now, the president's defense

will be taking part for the first time soon in this process. what is going to be their argument? well, it should have been, is this worthy of removal? yes or no? was this a rightful impeachment on the facts, yes or no? but that is not their posture. their posture has been through this president, he did nothing wrong. can the president maintain that posture in the face of so much evidence both learned and now new and available, like this from a man he says he doesn't even know, an indicted felon, with felony charges, lev parnas. here's what he says about the president's posture. >> president trump knew exactly what was going on. he was aware of all of my movements. he -- i wouldn't do anything without the consent of rudy giuliani or the president. >> in terms of the president and what he has said about you, he

said about you and mr. fruman, igor fruman, i don't know about those gentlemen, i don't know about them, i don't know what they do. you're saying that was not a true statement from the president? >> he lied. >> again, let's set this up, because it will be the frame for the argument that is to follow. one, i don't believe parnas. he's an indicted guy -- fine. he has documents that show conversations that were had in furtherance of what this president asked for in that call summary with president zelensky. we have a letter from rudy giuliani that shows that he is doing this on the personal behalf of the president. not working for the government, not working for the state department, other versions that mr. giuliani has offered on this show and other places. and that the president knew what he was doing. and what were they doing on a piece of paper written very clearly, easily legible, get the announcement of the biden investigation and create communications with zelensky. that's what that guy, igor parnas, was tasked to do for

giuliani in service -- lev parnas, in service of this president. now, was it worthy of impeachment? arguments both way. removal. arguments both way. we'll start hearing them. wrong. how is it not wrong? will they maintain that posture? let's bring in counselor kellyanne conway. good to have you. >> good evening. >> thank you for taking the time. so, let's deal a little bit with process and then to substance. the senate is saying, we don't know if we want witnesses. if the president has people at the top who haven't testified yet, who supposedly clear him of any wrongdoing, why wouldn't you want them, in the face of this new information, why wouldn't you want it vetted for people? >> well, christopher, thanks for having me. first of all, that's not how american jurisprudence works. you don't try to prove your innocence if you've not been proven guilty.

and we don't need to present witnesses. maybe they will, maybe they won't. we'll respect the process in the senate however it unfolds. we do feel the senate process will be, one, more fair to the president than whatever that was in the house. and second, more familiar to the public. so most americans are not familiar to whatever make it up as you go along process that happened in the house, whether it was adam schiff growing mushrooms in the dark basement with the depositions that we couldn't have access to, the president couldn't challenge witnesses, present witnesses, challenge evidence, present evidence, have his lawyers present. you had a bunch of professors testifying about extortion, bribery, quid pro quo. >> right. >> the mueller report. none of which is in these articles. and let me just say that. you all were talking fluent latin there for quite a while, quid pro quo, all of a sudden, not even talking pig latin. these articles of impeachment are thin, they are specious. they've been presented to the senate and we respect the process in the senate. the trial process will be much more familiar to americans who know what a trial is. >> we'll see. we don't know what the process is.

>> well, we will see. >> let's go one step at a time, kellyanne. >> sure, go ahead. >> not to get in the weeds of the past, because we need to focus on the present, but the way this went down, other than the fact that the house did the fact-finding, not a completely secret task force, as was the case for clinton, as was the case for nixon, the house did it. when it came to what kind of rights and access the white house had, it was the same as clinton had once it reached the house judiciary. but that's -- >> but you know what's different? >> hold on. i'm not asking you to call witnesses.

>> it's not the past, it's in the articles of impeachment. >> no one should have to call witnesses on their own behalf. no one should have to provide a defense. no one should have to prove their innocence. what i'm saying is, i've never heard anybody hiding an alibi. if i had somebody, if you had somebody who cleared you of a charge, you would bring them up. why? that's in the interest of justice and it's in your personal interest. >> that's just not true. >> -- the argument is it was obstruction and that's an article of impeachment. >> christopher, you invited me on the show tonight and there's got to be a question lurking in there. you're talking a lot. i'm just standing here. but go ahead, do you have a question? >> yes. >> because your premise is wrong. first of all, it is not the deep past what would happen in the house. the house rushed through the impeachment process, they didn't do their job fully and completely. and then they sat on the -- >> they weren't allowed because you hid witnesses and documents and even this information from parnas. >> we didn't hide witnesses. >> they had to wait for federal prosecutors under the jurisdiction of this president's doj to release parnas to give it. so all of the delays -- >> they didn't need to vote -- they didn't need to vote before christmas. that's not true. hey, christopher, they're trying to impeach and remove a president. they're not going to get their way. nancy pelosi's in a terrible spot, because the people who want the president removed from office probably believe that impeachment would do the trick. the people who think that this has been a big waste of time and money, the people's time and the money they paid to their

congress who is not doing the rest of their work for the people, they won't be happy about it. the cnn report on december 20th made very clear according to your own polling that 76% of americans say that the economy is either very or somewhat good, the highest number in many, many years, if not decades. you know what, history was made today. but not because a bunch of impeachment managers, six out of seven who were already in favor of impeaching president trump before they had the process, before you had the whistle-blower complaint. think about that. >> the house managers in the clinton situation were also populated by people who were against clinton -- >> i don't want to talk about -- oh, i thought -- >> that's apples to apples. >> no, you think the past -- you think the past -- you think the past is what the house did last month, but now you're talking about the past -- >> it's apples to apples. you're saying it's unfair, it's never been like this before -- >> hey, let's get after it. >> i don't want to talk about bill clinton. >> you're just talking over me and you're being rude to your guest. >> no, come on, kellyanne, you know better. >> you want to talk about

clinton, i saw this cnn documentary on the clinton impeachment and i thought it was a fantastic product -- >> me, too. i thought it was good. >> we were reminded that president clinton was running around asking his personal secretary, poor betty curry, to hide the gifts that he had given monica lewinsky, to lie that he had never been alone with monica lewinsky. you had all of that real evidence -- >> yeah, you have real evidence here, too -- >> lying to the grand jury -- no, you don't. >> let me go. >> no, you don't. >> the president, his lawyer -- >> and you know why you don't have evidence? where's the bribery, where's the extortion? where is it? >> here's where it is -- >> not in the articles. >> you have a call summary where a president clearly asks for a favor. we now have all of it fleshed out and there's a clear picture of wrongdoing. i'm not saying worthy of removal, i'm saying wrong. >> you're right. and he won't be removed. and then he'll be re-elected -- >> you see how i treat you differently than i treat you? confidence in what i'm saying. rudy giuliani said on this show, i wanted them to go -- >> respectfully, he's not making

a lot of sense. >> -- he did it for the president of the united states in a personal capacity. he enlisted parnas, fruman -- >> the president did not say that -- >> no, no, no, giuliani said it on this show and elsewhere. lev parnas says -- >> so what matters is what the president says. rudy giuliani is not -- rudy giuliani is -- >> they did it on his behalf. they did wrong things. if he admits he did something wrong, he wouldn't have been impeached, kellyanne. >> so christopher, you're right to try the case on your show and you can't try the case on your show. >> i'm trying to vet the facts. >> let the senate be the -- we're going to look at the constitution. and we'll let the senate, under the constitution, be the jury. >> what kind to have trial can have no witnesses? >> here's what we do know. that we're -- well, a trial where there's no evidence, no witnesses, and the person will be acquitted. not removed from office. >> there's no such thing. that's not a trial. you're both lawyers. we've never heard of a trial like that. >> the democrats -- that's not true. >> name one trial where there were no witnesses. >> -- the democrats wanted to

get rid of donald trump. here's how you've all been trying to do it. first, you're going to overturn the results of the election and find the electorates, the 70,000 votes in the three states. then they're going to -- he's not going to like d.c., he's going to want to go back to new york. that was weird -- >> this is all nonsense. what i'm talking about is wrongdoing -- >> -- two years, recession -- no, you're embarrassed because you pushed that for years. >> i've never pushed any of this. >> then it's recession, then it's ukraine -- >> i've never pushed any of it. >> you know what happened today? >> what happened today? they delivered articles of impeachment -- >> -- collusion, you pushed it for two years. >> there was collusion. he had people in his campaign doing stupid things, such that there are a dozen instances of potential obstruction. >> i was his campaign manager. i was on cnn every day telling you how we would win, so i would never have talked to a russian. we didn't need the russians -- >> you didn't. others did. you've got a guy looking at jail time right now. you've got a son too dumb to know they shouldn't have done it. they were doing dumb things. >> oh, stop it. that's ridiculous. >> that's collusion. >> so you're going back to russia collusion -- >> you brought it up. this is my last point for you.

>> no, nancy pelosi brought it up again today. >> how can you look at what lev parnas says and what the documents show and what the president asked for -- >> i don't know lev parnas. >> -- well, the president does. >> and are these documents -- i'm sorry, these documents what he wrote on a hotel -- >> yeah. contemporaneous -- >> okay, great. so now we're going to impeach -- >> relevant and probative as evidence, as you well know as an attorney. >> yeah. chris, i think if you're going to invite anyone on the show, because i watch cnn and what you do is when you have a democrat on, cat's got all of your tongues. you let them say whatever they want to say. if they make no sense -- >> that's not true. that's not true. you are in power, you are defending the president against things that are wrong. >> you're not letting me speak. >> and you can't deal with the facts of the circumstances because you can. >> but if you'll let me speak, then i would. >> speak to what lev parnas says and what the documents show and what the president shows -- >> i don't know lev parnas! what documents? >> you don't have to know him. >> let's start out the way you

started out. he's indicted. he faces campaign finance -- i don't know the person. but here's what i do know. >> mm-hmm. >> i know that if you've watched joe biden for an appreciable amount of time, including on cnn's own debate last night, you know that guy. we don't need anybody's help to beat him, okay? >> it doesn't matter to me. i don't care about the outcome of the election. i care about fairness -- >> the president and the phone call -- well -- no, you don't. if you cared about facts, you won't be talking about lev parnas who wrote on a hotel card -- >> why not? >> because you would have the following. you would have -- you would have what people promised on your network for years. collusion, conspiracy -- >> look, that was dealt with in the probe. this is something the president did as an arguable abuse of his power for his own political benefit -- >> the mueller report. >> -- using his lawyer, manipulating an ambassador, having guys surveil her, and he knew them, and according to mr. giuliani, he had knowledge and consent of all of it. how is it not at least wrong?

>> so that was said on a tv show? that's not said on earth. guess what, you're not the judge, jury, and executioner. >> no, i'm not. i'm just trying to get answers to very obvious questions. >> you don't have anybody under oath. >> obviously. because, man do they lie. >> they come on here and -- >> people who come on in defense of this president lie like crazy. i believe that you spin away from questions. >> you said that to me privately. >> i'll say it publicly. >> and you said it privately. you want that moment to go viral. >> i think you spin away from questions very well. others lie their asses off on this show. >> you're not -- last time you didn't want to ask questions. you just wanted to talk. >> i'm going point for point for you. i think it's valuable to see what the president -- >> here's the deal. >> last word to you. >> the president's best defender gets to speak on other shows. >> 14 minutes. >> i do gaggles like nobody else does. and you know what? and they let me answer the question. christopher, here's the bottom line. this president is not going to be removed from office. if the democrats really wanted

to get rid of him, they would have figured out a way to do it at the ballot box. >> that's their task. that's on them. >> no. no, you can't even get a word in edgewise. if they wanted to remove him -- >> -- is out and argued. that's what it is, kellyanne. >> so explain to the american people why the promise was mueller report, conspiracy -- >> see, i understand why you want to get away from the facts, but they don't go away. >> and not lev parnas. the hero was robert mueller. not lev parnas. >> lev parnas wasn't part of that, lev parnas is part of this that the president started right after mueller said to stay away from foreign powers and everybody agreed. kellyanne, i promised i would keep it reasonably short. i will. you're always welcome on this show. >> no, you can't promise -- you can't say things like the president asked him to investigate a rival for his political benefit and get away with it. i have a response to that. show me in the call where that is done. he never mentioned 2020. >> do me a favor. look into biden. a lot of people say it was

terrible. >> "do us a favor." stop misquoting it. >> the people who are involved in the state department all say it. >> that's not in the call. >> it doesn't have to be in the call. it was led to. >> it was between a call between two presidents. >> he says, look into the bidens. >> ukraine -- he said, "do us a favor." >> yeah. >> zelensky ran on an anti-corruption agenda -- >> it was never about corruption. it was about him, lev parnas just said it, mr. giuliani admitted it was about getting the bidens on this show. kellyanne, i've got to go, but you're always welcome. >> so you're staking your credibility on lev parnas? >> no. on his documents and on faith in the system that if you try these witnesses in an open forum, the truth will come out, at least the best obtainable version. i have to go. >> and are you at all concerned, cnn just defends hunter biden all the time -- >> that's not true. i've said what hunter biden did was wrong. i think if you want to investigate it, you should. but you should not sneak it around. i've got to go.

i'm not "the new york times." i'm not "the new york times." i'm chris cuomo. i'm "cuomo prime time" and i appreciate you being on the show. >> that hunter biden was fair game. >> listen, then you should have done it the right way. i got to go. kellyanne, i've got to go. >> we did do it the right way. we don't need to present evidence to exonerate a man who's been exonerated. i have one last thing -- >> i'm saying that you shouldn't hide an alibi if you have it and if you wanted to investigate biden, you could have gone to your buddy lindsey graham and you did it in a shady way. >> i don't want to investigate the bidens. i think they're completely boring to me. >> i've got to go. >> i think they're completely boring, but history was made today but not with the articles of impeachment, it was made with the historic trade deal and the dow hitting 29,000. tomorrow the senate will vote on the usmca. that's history that matters. >> it matters as well, that's why i mentioned it at the beginning of the show. >> it matters mainly. >> it all matters. 76% of the people say that there should be witnesses. but thank you for making the case. you're always welcome. >> 76% told cnn the economy the doing very well. >> it is.

both things can be true. you can have a strong economy and not lie all the time about what matters. >> what do you think americans care -- >> i got to go! i have to go. you're going to get me yelled at for time. >> and thanks for saying i would never lie. i appreciate it. >> i think you spin your way away from questions that you don't like. do people lie? yeah. she spins away and tries to make it about other things. that's the president's defense. what do you think of it? you saw it tested, fact for fact. what do you think? it's on you. our former u.s. ambassador to ukraine was arguably put in danger. that's why i said to kellyanne, he's got these guys surveilling her, he has knowledge and consent of it from giuliani. how is it not wrong? okay, so here's what we need to do. those are the arguments. it's good to hear them, frustrating or not. let's put the president's perfect in a whole new light of what we understand about what happened and when, next. introducing ore-ida potato pay. where ore-ida golden crinkles are your crispy currency to pay for bites of this...

...with this. when kids won't eat dinner, potato pay them to. ore-ida. win at mealtime. and this is cc+ cream. it gives you your skin but better. it's your full coverage foundation, spf 50 plus anti aging serum. discover the #1 cc cream in america.

discover the #1 [sneeare you ok?fles] yah, it's just a cold. it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure.

coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. it'scan it helphe january sale keep me asleep?mber 360 smart bed. absolutely, it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. and now, save $1,000 on the sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, now only $1,799. only for a limited time. it's an easy way to earn it's cashback on the stuff i'm already buying. when you have a child and they're constantly growing out of clothing, earning cashback from rakuten just makes everything easier. sometimes it's 3% sometimes it's 8% but you're always getting cashback. the way cashback works on rakuten is so they get a commission from the store and then they share that commission with me. and you have money, more money to spend because you got free money. go to rakuten.com and sign up today for a $10 bonus.

♪ don't get mad, put your money to work with e*trade's easy-to-use investing tools. everything gets simple when you just look at what matters. politics is argument. people are going to fly in lots of different ways. and let's be honest, it's persuasive. look at the transcript. we did. we keep reading it. every time we do, with each new piece of evidence, it looks less like a perfect call and more like a road map for corruption and abuse of power. the goal, lev parnas conveniently wrote it down. remember, you don't have to believe what he said. look at what he wrote contemporaneously. typical trumpian spelling, by the way, get zelensky to announce that the biden case will be investigated.

"announce," not to get to the bottom of corruption, just the announcement. something only useful for what? politics. and for whom? donald trump. because that's what he wanted. it's not conjecture, it's right there, according to trump donor turned eu ambassador gordon sondland. >> he had to announce the investigations. he didn't actually have to do them. >> right? so to get that, the now former ukrainian prosecutor had a price to help with this. what? laid it out in text messages. you want the investigation, including about the blank, which is how he spoke about the u.s. ambassador. she's got to go. trump himself badmouthing the same ambassador. we know that because zelensky said, quote, you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador, unquote. to which our president ominously responded, she's, quote, going to go through some things. now you can understand why she said this.

>> "she's going to go through some things." it didn't sound good. it sounded like a threat. >> did you feel threatened? >> i did. >> it's just a feeling. no. because look at the text messages showing that people working on behalf of the u.s. president actively stalking an american diplomat, saying ugly and menacing things about what could be done to her. rudy giuliani was running the operation, in his own words, conducted with donald trump's knowledge and consent. the president, meanwhile, championed the former mayor's work, not once, four separate times in his perfect call. we've also learned, since he was impeached, the order to withhold the aid, which was obviously the carrot, to ukraine came from potus and potus directly and his own people were warned, keep it quiet.

none of that stopped this president from asking for a favor, okay? the moment zelensky brought up the assistance, do us a favor, they argued. no, it would only help trump. if he wanted to investigate biden, he could have gone to the a.g., he could have gone to the senate. he didn't. he wanted the stink to come from ukraine so it wasn't on him. potus' people say releasing the transcript is evidence he had nothing to hide. it's the testimony and evidence that's come out since that exposes that as bs. and the fact that he's hidden the same people he says is his alibi. nobody does that. the only question, what will these senators do? will they do their damn job and put the information out there for your judgment? let's see. we'll bring in one of those jurors who will be sworn in tomorrow. does he think it's going to be a fair trial? next. brown-bagging it. so why you paying so much for wireless? i don't know... the new tracfone wireless gives you all kinds of control. leftovers? tracfone lets you keep your leftover data each month. what are you doing?

unlimited carryover data! hey! do you know you can get unlimited talk and text on america's best 4g lte networks for $20, no contract? 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. when you look at the world, ♪ what do you see? ♪ where others see chaos, we see patterns. ♪ connections. relationships. ♪ when you use location technology, you can see where things happen, before they happen.

♪ with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪ in the race who has neverdate taken a penny in contributions from any special interest. ever. independence - it's the way mike will get it done. mike: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. they get that no two people are alike and customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. what do you think? i don't see it. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ that's why it's important to be prepared for anything life brings. at fidelity, we'll help you build a clear plan for retirement. one that covers health care costs, taxes,

and any other uncertainties while still giving you the flexibility to make changes to your plan as often as you need. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. ♪ here's wishing you the bluest sky ♪ there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. 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. was the ukraine operation about rooting out corruption?

no, says one of the guys helpin with us, senator. >> thank you, chris. it was one heck of a day today. i was managing the trade bill, then a few minutes later, i was sitting in my seat, as you mentioned, getting ready to be a juror. and i was wondering what the founding fathers would say about all of this. what they would expect. and i will tell you, they would expect that the senate work for a just outcome rather than a political outcome. and i want to make only one other quick point and take questions. and that is, ms. conway, you know, basically said, despite the fact that almost a dozen people in the president's circle have been convicted or are on the way to jail, somehow she doesn't believe this is serious. that is pretty much like standing in the rain and saying it's not wet. >> her job is spin. to take arguments, put them on their head.

to distract and do other things. she is very good at it. the problem is, she ain't running this show and she's not running your trial. and the question that's got to be so frustrating for you is, if they don't want to agree, unlike the clinton impeachment, the senate here is my understanding saying, we do not stipulate to the facts as found by the house. is that your understanding at this point? >> the rules have not yet been finally set out. as you know, we're still working on this. >> but if they won't stipulate to the facts, how do they justify not having witnesses? because if you don't want to accept the record, you must create your own record to have a trial. you must have witnesses in any trial. how do they get around it? >> chris, if they have a witness who can prove the president's innocence, they ought to bring that witness forward. i mean, that's basically the ball game. >> they say you don't prove your innocence. but of course, that assumes that the jurors are the proxy for the president, which they're not supposed to be. >> what i can tell you is day

after day, more evidence piles up. let's look at this rudy giuliani letter that has recently come to light. now, here we have the president's personal lawyer, a senior republican, one of the most influential people in the republican party. he writes the president of the ukraine, basically saying it is his mission to dig up foreign dirt and he is pursuing this essentially by order of the president of the united states. now, witnesses sometimes lie, sometimes misrepresent. the documents are pretty straightforward. >> that's the beautiful thing about them, especially if they're contemporaneous, done at the same time as what you're looking at. and i think kellyanne gives you good political cover here. i don't know lev parnas. the president says the same thing. i don't know why rudy giuliani was saying what he was doing. talk to rudy. well, we have. and he says he was out to get the bidens and he was out to do that for the interests of his client, who was the president of the united states. and i don't know why that isn't enough for this to be egg on the

face of the republicans in the senate. they say they don't know. they don't have good answers. they won't provide who they say is an alibi. you say you don't accept the record of fact from the house. how do you not have witnesses? >> chris, my sense is that there are a number of republican senators who are agonizing over this question of whether or not to have witnesses, because they know, should they vote against having witnesses, and as we have seen week after week, more information comes to light, history is not going to treat them kindly. >> yeah. and, i mean, that's the task. we put them up on the screen. you know, a couple of them are friends of the show. we welcome them all to make their case. how do you look at this information and say, i'm not even going to test it, even though that is your sworn duty? thank you, senator ron wyden. we'll be watching tomorrow. i know there are going to be restraints on you guys when it comes to what you can do during the pendency of the trial. but know anytime you are free to tell the american people what it

all means, you have a place here. >> i'm of the view, chris, that in america, fortunately, the truth eventually comes out. >> we look for the best obtainable version of it all the time and these documents have to be part of that picture. take care, senator, and good luck doing your duty. >> thank you. all right. this trial is going to force some of the 2020 candidates off the trail, right, because they're senators. you have bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, amy klobuchar. now, talking about the state of play in the race. we saw what happened during the debate, right? what the sanders campaign says were crossed wires about this conversation that warren and sanders had about whether or not she should run back in 2018, because whether or not a woman can win. the truth of it, though, wasn't during the debate. the truth of it was afterwards. we read the body language. we were more right than we knew. wait until you hear the audio. and i want you to listen to it with this question in mind. who was being straight with me last night? because isn't that the test? next. e insurance-themed experiee

of a lifetime. it's "progressive on ice." everything you love about car insurance -- the discounts... the rate comparisons... and flo in a boat. ♪ insurance adventure awaits at "progressive on ice." tickets not available now or ever. at "progressive on ice." i feelbusiness cards...new logo...outdoor sign. you always get me. now, get free 1 hour in-store pick up... ...at office depot officemax and officedepot.com. same time next week. yes! now all-day matte goes crayon easy. superstay ink crayon from maybelline new york. precision tip. up to 8-hour wear. draw on all-day matte intensity. superstay ink crayon. only from maybelline new york.

(whistling) you have power over pain,

so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain? as of 12pm today, i am debt free ♪

so what did senators warren and sanders say after the debate? listen.

>> 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. >> anytime. >> you called me a liar -- let's not do it. >> i don't want to get in the middle, but i want to say hi, bernie. >> yeah, good. okay. >> why am i laughing? because bernie is bernie. the question is, was he being truthful up there with senator warren? what does this mean? ana kasparian, who backs senator bernie sanders, angela rye. so, angela, bernie sanders, elizabeth warren says told her, i don't think a woman can run -- i don't think she can win, rather. she says that's what he said. he says, i never said that, it would be ludicrous for that to be suggested. is elizabeth warren right to say to him afterwards, you called me a liar on national tv? >> well, it sounds like she said, did you call me a liar on national tv? and --

>> she said, "i think you called me a liar on national tv." >> you're right. fact check me, moderator. fact check me, moderator. you're right. >> go ahead. >> i think the reality of it is it still sounded like a question, there was an inflection at the end of her statement, so maybe we can find a middle point there. i think the reality of it is, elizabeth warren certainly believes that is what she heard in the meeting with bernie sanders. bernie sanders certainly believes that's not what he said. i think the reality of this is that we are spending a lot of time talking about something that happened, none of us were in the room for. it is horribly unfortunate if bernie sanders said this. it is also horribly unfortunate if we continue to spend time on this. it is something they have to personally reconcile. i said this on don's show the other day, and that is, you know, at the -- a few months ago, i did a podcast with elizabeth warren, asked her about what distinguishes her from bernie sanders. and she refused to answer the question, because of their relationship.

if they're going to let their relationship not be divided on policy, which is absolutely what the debate stage should be for, it certainly should not be about this conversation, because she's -- she came -- she joined the race anyway. and we know, as we all have talked about, that hillary clinton did win the popular vote. so it's not true even if he believes that. >> and she whooped bernie sanders, also. clearly, a woman got tons of support, both in party and in this country. and also, i agree with your analysis, step for step, about its importance. ana, here's why it matters to me, okay? truth. >> can i just note one quick thing. >> go ahead and then answer my question. >> sure, sure, of course. i agree with a lot of what angela said, but i also want to just note, part of the reason why hillary clinton won the popular vote by as much as 3 million votes is because bernie sanders campaigned on her behalf, traveling like crazy to campaign on her behalf. why would he go out of his way to do that if he didn't believe a woman could win as president of the united states? >> i think people would say that

that's a generous assessment of what he did on her behalf. >> yeah, it would. >> but i don't think it's necessarily relevant, ana. i don't think it's worth going back to that. all i'm saying is this, i don't care if he said to elizabeth warren, i don't think a woman can win. i think that you could argue that lots of different ways about why he said it, what he meant, what was the context. i don't really care. i really don't. >> it seems like cnn cares a lot. i mean, you guys have been covering it nonstop. >> here's what i care about. i care about the truth. the best thing you guys have going is a party, no matter what part of it you are, donald trump lies to you all the time and we won't lie like that. that's your best argument, i think, person-to-person. this goes to that. who's telling the truth. it matters if only that reason, ana. is there not curiosity on your part because of that? >> what i'm curious about is why there's absolutely no discussion about his record, on what he's done and what he's actually said publicly when it comes to women in positions of power.

i mean, back in the 1980s, it wasn't even a popular position to believe that women had a place in politics. but he was out there publicly talking about the importance of including women in politics and encouraging women to run for president. so, again, look, we don't know what was said in that room, because no one was in there, other than bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. the only thing that we can do is a character assessment by looking at his record. >> but both things could be true, ana. he could have said it, and he could have said these other things. and remember this, i'll tell you what, it's very rare that i hear people say, a woman says that this happened, and we're saying, we don't know what was said. senator elizabeth warren says she knows what happened. >> i think the context matters and i find it strange that elizabeth warren hasn't quoted what he said. all she said is, i think a woman can win. he disagreed with me. >> that's fine. that's fine. >> but was there context? >> that's fine. i think you either own what you said or you don't. >> i think it's weird to keep talking about it.

>> i agree with you both on that point. i want to ask about something else. angela, when you looked at the stage last night, this aside, and i'm sure it wasn't part in your calculus. do you see somebody up there that's definitely going to beat president trump? >> chris, i -- i have to be honest with you, because that is my pledge as a person who has a platform on tv, and i have to be honest with you, that debate stage last night frightened me. it really did. there is a huge void with kamala harris out of the race. there is a huge void with julian castro out of the race. there is a huge void with cory booker out of the race. and i'm not just talking about ensuring that there is the appearance of diversity in a big tent by the democratic party. it is also the ways in which our politics are being discussed. and it's frightening. it is not that i am only going to lend my support to a candidate of color, but what i really have a problem with is

how that debate stage was formulated. it is a huge party -- a huge party rift with the dnc. why does that matter about when you talk about your -- the answer to your question? and the answer is simply this. if there is a rift in the party, i don't know that folks can come together the back one particular candidate, especially when you don't see a whole ton of strength, right? that worries me a great deal. and we have a lot of groundwork to do before this party can beat donald trump. >> do me a favor. i'm out of time on this one. ana, you know you're welcome on the show anyway. i love having you on and your perspective on this, angela, you know that about yourself as well. let's see how it goes with these votes. also, we're going to have a couple of town halls coming up with this dialogue at the top. let's keep this going about why you feel or don't feel your party is where it needs to be going into the biggest fight of the new millennium, probably, in this election. thank you both for speaking to what's mattering tonight. appreciate it. 100 jurors are going to be sworn in tomorrow. they will decide this president's fate.

will they do the job the best way they can? and why should they, anyway? that's the argument, next. but when we found out our son had autism, his future bece my focus. lavender baths always calmed him. so we turned bath time into a business... ♪ ...and building it with my son has been my dream job. ♪ at northwestern mutual, our version of financial planning helps you live your dreams today. find a northwestern mutual advisor at nm dot com.

introducing ore-ida potato pay. where ore-ida golden crinkles are your crispy currency

to pay for bites of this... ...with this. when kids won't eat dinner, potato pay them to. ore-ida. win at mealtime. ♪ potato pay them to. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ don't get mad. get e*trade, dawg.

it's an easy way to earn it's cashback on the stuff i'm already buying. when you have a child and they're constantly growing out of clothing, earning cashback from rakuten just makes everything easier. sometimes it's 3% sometimes it's 8% but you're always getting cashback. the way cashback works on rakuten is so they get a commission from the store and then they share that commission with me. and you have money, more money to spend because you got free money. go to rakuten.com and sign up today for a $10 bonus.

can you have a fair trial with no witnesses? no, i argue. so why would you do that? one reason. >> i'm not an impartial juror. this is a political process. >> remember that. when senator mcconnell takes this oath tomorrow, i solemnly swear in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of the president trump now pending, i will do impartial justice according to to the constitution and laws, so help me god. hand to god. remember he said that. remember he means what he told you. he's not doing his duty. he's doing trump's bidding openly. >> everything i do during this

i'm coordinating with the white house counsel. there will be no difference between the president's position and our position. >> unlike a court of law there's no rule forcing senators to be fair. it's politics. good, bad and ugly. but be clear. the gop are doing their duty for trump if they have no witnesses, period. kellyanne conway showed you in her own way why. they have no good answers to the questions raised as fact. no real aisle buy. they hid primary witnesses and this new information from potus pal parnas working under trump's doj to get it. bottom line. these people are working for the system but to their own advantage. and forgetting they work for you. nevertheless, we know about the information. shady circumstances leading up to the ouster of the ukrainian ambassador. making it even more clear what was going on with ukraine and why.

one excerpt. get zelensky to announce that the biden case will be investigated. that's from a guy who was working to help trump and giuliani, lev parnas. was it about corruption? nope. that's what he says. can't believe him, he's an indicted guy for felonies. believe the documents. and why wouldn't you test it? so much for trump's favorite defense. just trying to root out corruption. parnas and his papers say it's a lie. the goal was the announcement. not an investigation. the way it was done was wrong. okay? they have an inability to own what is obvious in the white house. and it is their major weakness. the inability to say fine, we did it the wrong way. i don't trust the state department. i don't trust these guys. i have my own guys do it because i believe in the corruption. i'm telling you,s this a good chance he wouldn't have been impeached if he could tell tell the truth and he couldn't. if he wanted an investigation, go to your pals in the senate.

go to the ag. you could have launched an investigation. it's not what you wanted. you wanted political advantage and that requires your hands to be clean. the stink of corruption from ukraine. forget if it existed or not. what good reason is there for you not to do everything that you could to do it the right way. now, look, you see how it all fits together. but here's why we need witnesses. you're not of one mind on this. you're 5050. should you be put in a position to vote for or against this president with all the stuff hanging out there? shouldn't the people who have sworn an oath to do your bidding vet it for you? i can't. kellyanne is right. i can't get it. i can't get these people to come on. i can't get the documents. by the way, this is their job primarily. if all these people hidden can clear the president, why aren't they coming out? no one hides an alibi. but they do hide trouble. all the more reason to hear.

both other presidential impeachments had witnesses. remember this, here not only do they not want witnesses, they refuse to acknowledge the fact record from the house which did not happen in clinton. the starr report was agreed to including clinton's perjury which he initially disagreed with. how can you refuse to accept the facts but say we refuse to find the facts as well. if they vote against witnesses they're voting against showing you the best obtainable version of the truth and that is against your interests. constitutional duty, patriotism, raising your hand to god. those all motivate even a reluctant senator to do the right thing. and 66% of you want bolton to testify. the majority of you want witnesses. you don't get that without having republicans and democrats feeling it. do what the constitution demands, do what the people say. do justice. all right. that's the argument. congress was supposed to get

some answers today on the iran threat. the administration bailed on the briefing. why? bolo next. kin! i'm craving something we're missing. the ceramides in cerave. they help restore my natural barrier, so i can lock in moisture. we've got to have each other's backs... cerave. now the #1 dermatologist recommended skincare brand. and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ]

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ brown-bagging it. so why you paying so much for wireless? i don't know... the new tracfone wireless gives you all kinds of control. leftovers? tracfone lets you keep your leftover data each month. what are you doing? unlimited carryover data! hey! do you know you can get unlimited talk and text on america's best 4g lte networks for $20, no contract? 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.

it took plenty of work to get here. but it's still important to be prepared for what's next. at fidelity, we can help you build a clear plan for retirement without the unnecessary fees you might expect from so many financial firms. we'll make sure you can cover the essentials, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you have a retirement partner who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. ♪ here's wishing you the bluest sky ♪ there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze.

really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.