offenses. now, at the time that was 18 women, as you mention. now that number is 32 who have accused hadden of sexual abuse. their attorney says they want justice. they want to see him behind bars. but whether he'll actually be tried for additional allegations is really unclear, don. >> dana bash, thank you for bringing us this story. really appreciate it. >> thank you, don. >> and thank you for watching, everyone. our coverage continues. >> good evening. at the end of a landmark day for the country, a key figure in president trump's alleged ukraine extortion scheme lev parnas says, quote, the president knew everything i was doing. what's more, he says -- these are his words -- everybody knew. vice-president pence, he says, he believes was in the loop. mick mulvaney, john bolton, all in the loop. and as rudy giuliani's go between with ukraine, the guy who was actually on the ground forge in ukraine, lev parnas is certainly in a position to know. he also, we should point out, is

an alleged felon. he's under federal indictment on campaign finance charges. he's wearing an ankle monitor. he's out on bail. he has baggage. but as prosecutors often say, they don't get to choose their witnesses. it's the alleged bad guys who choose their associates. in a moment our conversation so you can decide for yourself what to make of lev parnas' story, the pressure campaign he says he helped carry out. the extortion he says he helped carry out on the president's behalf to get the ukrainians to announce an investigation of the bidens. and with his words practically hanging in the air today, the nonpartisan government accountability office, they released a bombshell report saying the administration broke the law when it withheld congressionally mandated military aid to ukraine. in the space of a day, the white house broke the law. the henchman implicates the president and other top officials in the scheme. for the third time in american history, the impeachment trial

began. >> will all senators now stand and remain standing and raise their right hand? do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you god? >> i do. >> the clerk will call the names in groups of four. and senators will present themselves at the desk to sign the oath book. >> impartial justice. they swore that they would do that, impartial justice. one by one, they did, they signed that oath. then a few moments later the sergeant at arms made it official. hear ye, hear ye hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the house of representatives is exhibiting to the senate of the united states articles of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states.

>> and not long after that, the president weighed in. >> it's a hoax. it's a hoax. everybody knows that. it's a complete hoax. the whole thing with ukraine. so you have a perfect phone call. everything was perfect. and they impeach. it's totally partisan. we had 195-0 republican votes. i guess we got a democrat actually came over to the republican side. we had 195 to nothing. this is a hoax. it's a shame. >> he was also asked about lev parnas, and as he so many times before about so many other associates, here's what he said. >> well, i don't know him. i don't know parnas other than i guess i had pictures taken, which i do with thousands of people, including people today that i didn't meet, but just met them. i don't know him at all. don't know what he's about. don't know where he comes from. know nothing about him. >> knows nothing about him. keeping him honest, parnas isn't

claiming the president gave him marching orders or asked about details what was being done allegedly on his behalf. what he does say, however, goes to the straight to the heart of the articles of impeachment now before the senate. and if it's true what he says, it ties the president of the united states into the worst of it. much of it is accompanied by documentation which he's provided to federal investigators that could find its way into the proceedings. maybe not. though portions of it have not been corroborated, some of it has been refuted by the people he names. he attacks testimony we've already heard, sworn testimony. we spoke late tonight -- excuse me, late last night accompanied by his attorney joseph biondi. here's part one of tonight's "360" interview. you loved president trump. >> loved him -- i mean, when the fbi came to my house, my wife felt embarrassed because they said i had a shrine to him. i had pictures all over. i idolized him. i mean, i thought he was the

savior. >> did you think you were friends? >> absolutely. i mean, again, i went from being a top donor from being at all the events where we would just socialize to becoming a close friend of rudy giuliani's to eventually becoming his ally and his asset on the ground in ukraine. >> the president has said -- when you were arrested, the president of the united states said he didn't know you. >> i don't know those gentlemen. it's possible i have a picture with them because i have a picture with everybody. i don't know them. >> the truth is out now, thank god. yes, there was a big day for us. i thank god every day. i was worried that that day is not going to come. i thought they were going to shut me up, make me look like the scapegoat and try to blame me for stuff that i wasn't done. but with god's lep ahelp and th great legal time i have beside me we were able to get the information out. so i welcome him to say that even more. every time he says that i'll show him another picture. >> he's lying? >> he's lying. >> your attorney in a tweet had

said there were two times in which you gave the message of a quid pro quo to ukrainian officials. what were those two times? >> i think they were probably a little bit more than two times, but there were -- the first quid pro quo was when we met with president poroshenko. >> former president? >> former president poroshenko. >> what was your message to poroshenko? >> if he would make the announcement. he would get -- trump would invite him to the white house or make a statement for him. but basically would start supporting him for, you know -- >> so that was the first quid pro quo, poroshenko could come to the white house, get a meeting with trump if he announces an investigation. >> correct. >> what was the next one? >> you have to understand, because this was a transition time. he was -- zelensky just won. he was president elect. and the number one thing on their agenda was not even the transition, it was to get the inauguration because it was a big thing. >> to show the american backing

of the new administration. >> of course. because he had no strength with russia. >> giuliani cancels his visit because there's a lot of bad publicity about it in the united states. he cancels his visit. you go have the meeting with the high-level official in zelensky's circle. >> correct. >> what's the message you delivered? >> i basically told him very strict and very stern that several things. a, that he needed to make an -- zelensky needed to immediately make an announcement literally that night or tomorrow -- within the next 24 hours that they were opening up an investigation on biden. >> at that point was there any mention of withholding of aid? >> yeah, it was -- well, if they didn't make the announcement, basically, there would be no relationship not just -- it was no specific military, there was no aid. there was going to be no inauguration, pence wouldn't be at the inauguration and there would be no visit to the white house. there would be basically -- they would have no communication. >> so you told the top official in the inner circle that if they

didn't announce the investigation of the bidens immediately and get rid of some folks around zelensky who they believed were opposed to president trump that there wouldn't be any aid, and vice-president pence would not even come to the inauguration? >> correct. >> and what happened? what did they say? >> i called, rudy told them, i don't think -- there's going to be an announcement. he said, okay, they'll see. >> they'll see? >> they'll see. >> and what happened the next day? >> i got called and said that they got a call from the -- basically they found out that pence is not going to be there. the guy got canceled. he said that there was a scheduling problem or something. >> the day after you delivered that message? >> correct. >> the quid pro quo. >> it was a monday, the 13th. and then after that, like i think on the 16th or the 15th, i don't remember the exact dates, they had -- because they were flipping out what to do. they didn't want to be embarrassed. they didn't know if anybody at all was going to show up, but

they knew pence wasn't coming, trump wasn't coming. >> how did you have the authority to say the vice-president of the united states will not attend the inauguration if you don't do what i say? >> i mean, that's what i was told to do. >> who told you to do that? >> rudy giuliani. >> this letter that you gave to the house, the first line in it which is a letter from rudy giuliani to president zelensky. i am private counsel to donald j. trump. to be precise, i represent him as a citizen, not president of the united states. this is quite common under american law. duties and privileges of a president and private citizen are not the same. so he is making a very clear point that he's not representing the interests of the united states at large for national american security. he's representing the interest of donald j. trump. >> that was always the point. >> that was? >> that was always clear. he always made it clear he doesn't represent -- wherever we went, he said, i don't represent

the government, i represent the president of the united states. >> so anything rudy giuliani wanted the government of ukraine to do, that wasn't official u.s. policy, that was a personal benefit to the president of the united states? >> well, you know, when i was doing it, i thought it was all in the same. but obviously now i can see what the situation the way it is, i mean, it was strictly for him. but i thought he was our leader, he's the chief, he's the president, and it was all about 2020 to make sure he had another four years. >> but that's how you personally viewed it. this is about 2020, to help him get the next four years. >> that was the way everybody viewed it. i mean, there was -- that was the most important thing, for him to stay on for another four years and keep the fight going. i mean, there was no other reason for doing it. >> did the president care about ukraine?

>> you have to ask him. the only thing we cared about and we were the team, was to get zelensky or poroshenko or somebody to make a press release, an announcement into the biden investigation. >> in terms of who knew about what you were doing in ukraine, did vice-president pence know? >> of course. >> his office has said he was unaware of -- that he had met with zelensky after not going to the inauguration, but he wasn't delivering a message of a quid pro quo. >> look, again, like i said, i'm not here to debate, i'm here to get the truth out. i got my records -- >> how do you know that the vice-president would have known what giuliani was up to? >> because we would speak every day. i knew everything that was going on. i mean, after rudy would speak with the president or come from the white house, i was the first person he briefed. i mean, we had a relationship. we were that close. i mean, i mean, we were together from morning to night.

he took me -- i mean, the interview he would do, i would be sitting over there while he was doing the interviews. i mean -- >> so giuliani knew everything you were doing. >> everything. >> you're saying vice-president pence knew? >> i don't know if vice-president knew everything we were doing. i'm sure he was -- >> he was aware of the quid pro quo? >> everybody that was close to trump knew that this was a thorn in the side and this was a serious situation. >> bolton? >> bolton. >> mulvaney? >> mulvaney. bolton i don't think agreed with it. i think there are certain people that agreed with it and didn't agree with it. >> he called it a drug deal according to fiona hill. >> bolton is a good witness. between me and bolton we could fit in all the dots. ways on the ground there and he was here. >> and you would be willing to testify? >> i would be very willing to testify. >> a few moments ago you heard president trump say he didn't know lev parnas. vice-president pence says the same, telling reporters, quote, i don't know the guy. pence also said it was, quote,

completely false that he was aware dirtying up joe biden was the reason for the pressure on ukraine. we reached out to rudy giuliani and got no response. he said about lev parnas, quoting now, i feel sorry for him. i thought he was an honorable man. i was wrong. next in part two of our conversation, why lev parnas believes senators are a first lady to call him as a witness. also ahead the legal implications of parnas's allegations, the gao striking conclusion the white house broke the law. that and more when we continue on this history-making day. when you look at the world, what do you see? we see patterns. 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. ♪ for bathroom odors that linger

try febreze small spaces. just press firmly and it continuously eliminates odors in the air and on soft surfaces. for 45 days. as your broker, i've solved it. is complicated. that's great, carl. but we need something better. that's easily adjustable has no penalties or advisory fee. and we can monitor to see that we're on track. like schwab intelligent income. schwab! introducing schwab intelligent income.

a simple, modern way to pay yourself from your portfolio. oh, that's cool... i mean, we don't have that. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management. 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. before the break you heard lev parnas say he is, quote, very willing to testify at the senate impeachment trial. in part two of our conversation he talks about why that might not happen. we begin with his account of the campaign to get rid of marie

yovanovitch, the ambassador to ukraine, and his very, according to him, big role in it. did you want yovanovitch removed? >> me personally? >> yeah. >> i didn't have no personal motives. >> did you know her? >> no. >> you didn't have an opinion about her at all? >> my opinion came from the crowd i was in. and over the time it grew more and more and more and more and more and more. eventually i felt like, yeah, i hated her because, you know, everybody hated her and she -- i mean -- >> you say the crowd. ukrainians or giuliani? >> primarily our trump crowd. >> why did they hate her? >> because she was supposed to be a soros -- she was supposed to be a left-over from the obama/soros/democrat era. >> that's what you were told? >> and she's not a trumper. to my knowledge, the president fired her at least four times, maybe even five times. once in my presence. >> explain that. you said he fired her in front of you? >> correct. >> what happened?

>> that was the first interaction about her. we had -- it was a dinner, private dinner for a super pac in washington, d.c. at the trump hotel. in the conversation the subject of ukraine was brought up and i told the president that -- in our opinion she is bad mouthing him. she said he's going to get impeached. something like that. i don't know if that's word for word. >> you said that at the table? >> correct. >> where the president was? >> correct, correct. and his reaction was he looked at me like -- he got very angry, basically turned around to john de stefano, fire her, get rid of her. >> in the position with giuliani, you've been described as a fixture forge and his effort to dig up dirt on the bidens. is that accurate? >> i don't know what you call a fixture. i mean -- >> arrange meetings, got meetings. >> that's exactly what i did. i mean, i was the middleman between two worlds. here i was, i had a partner in

igor fruman, grew up in ukraine, had extensive business there. because of his businesses he knew all kinds of people that were, you know, politicians. >> he could -- he had the contacts? >> it was all his contacts. i didn't have any contacts in ukraine. i don't have any contacts in ukraine. >> for a guy who doesn't have contacts with ukraine, you were able to get meetings with a lot of important people in ukraine. why was that? >> well, if the president of the united states tells them to meet with you, i think anybody will meet with you. >> everybody you met with knew you represented rudy giuliani and by so, the president? >> i mean, there was more than that. the protocol would be when i would meet like i'll give you an example. when i first met yvon bakonov -- >> head of intelligence. >> he was the first person we met in the zelensky camp. when i met him, the first thing

i did is i said, i represent rudy giuliani. i'm going to put him on the phone. i put him on speakerphone. rudy at that time told him i represent the president of the united states and everything i say, to be taken with that authority. >> rudy giuliani said on speakerphone to the man who now runs ukrainian intelligence that you represent giuliani and the president? >> absolutely. the president directly. >> you represent the president? >> correct. and that's why they spoke to me and that's why -- that's why i got out of there alive. >> you can say with 100% certainty that everything rudy giuliani did in ukraine was done with the president's blessing whether or not he had foreknowledge or was told about it afterward, but giuliani and the president were in frequent communication? >> beyond frequent. several times a day. rudy wouldn't do anything without the president just like i wouldn't do anything without rudy. >> the argument made by a lot of republicans during the

congressional hearings was not only that the president cares deeply about corruption in ukraine, this wasn't just about a personal benefit for the president, but that zelensky himself has come forward and said, i didn't feel any pressure. there was no quid pro quo. you've met with a whole host of people in his inner circle throughout the government -- >> that's a total lie. they're still -- i mean, they're still rocked to this day. they're not recovered. i don't know when they will. >> you have no doubt they felt this pressure, this was a -- >> oh, my god, of course, absolutely. >> existential threat? >> the main reason my life was threatened because of that. i mean -- >> so why do you think zelensky says, oh, no, there was no pressure, i didn't feel pressure? >> they're in an awkward position. i understand them. i'm not here to call them out and put them in the worst position. >> the awkward position if zelensky says whatever he actually feels, he still needs

aid from the trump administration. >> obviously. listen, my opinion is this, you know. loyalty goes so far. but i think there's a lot of people in the republican party that don't agree -- they're good people that don't agree with what he's doing, but they're scared. he gets away with everything. and, you know, especially with attorney bill barr on the side, the justice department, i mean -- a lot of people are scared. they don't want to get investigated. >> people are scared of being investigated by the justice department on behalf of president trump, you're saying? >> i think so. >> does that scare you? >> scares me a lot. and i pray every day that, you know, that's not the case or god has a way. that's why i was hopeful to get this information out and now, you know, i'm ready to deal with whatever it is because if i did something wrong, i'll take my responsibility. but like i said, what i was

charged with has nothing to do with what we're discussing right now. i think this is important for national security. i think it's important for the country to find out the truth exactly what happened. one of the things you said, anderson, you have to understand when these congressional -- you said during the congressional hearings. i watch them very well. they made all kinds of arguments but there was no proof to back it up. i mean, they sit there and they talk all this stuff about this and that, but they didn't bring one evidence, the democrats brought all this proof, all this evidence, all this testimony. show me one witness that came out. if you really look at it, i should be their best witness. i should be their number one witness because i'm the one that got all the dirt supposedly. why aren't they calling me to testify -- why do they need biden? call me. ask me what biden did wrong. >> do you think they're afraid of calling you? >> i think they're very afraid of me. i think they're afraid of me because i think they made a mistake by, you know, trying to do what they did to me.

>> if you could say anything to the president, what would he say? >> he needs to understand he's not a king. he needs to understand there's a democracy, there's rules. even if you don't like him, even if you don't agree with him. it's all fun and dandy going to these rallies and standing up in rallies. i was there. i was front stage -- i was the first one at the trump. it's scary if he wins another four years. i don't know what will happen. i don't know what will happen to me because i guess i'm enemy number one right now. i pray that i have good counsel and that i'll be protected and that we'll fight this. but i'm glad the truth is out. i feel good. i feel good that i was able to do my civil duty in front of congress and i'm here to help the senate, congress, and hopefully i want to look at the gop senators and to let them know that i'm here, you know. not just the republicans, the

democrats. you should know the truth. you can validate it. you have all my information. call me. we can sit down and i'll tell you everything. >> lev parnas. just ahead, as the senate impeachment trial gets underway, a top democrat on the foreign relations committee ed markey joins me to talk about the allegations you heard tonight from lev parnas. 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

says they can save you dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. cheerio! esurance is built to save you dollars. and when they save dollars, you save dollars. so get a quote. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. when insurance is affordable, does scrubbing grease feel like a workout? scrub less with dawn ultra. it's superior grease-cleaning formula gets to work faster. making easy work of tough messes. dawn takes care of tough grease, wherever it shows up. scrub less, save more... with dawn.

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. senate democratic leader chuck schumer was asked today about the allegations and evidence given by lev parnas and whether they should call him to give testimony. he said it helped strengthen the

push for witnesses and if it allowed them to call witnesses it wasn't something we'd rule out, unquote. as you heard parnas, he's hoping to get that call. >> if you really look at it, i should be their best witness. i should be their number one witness because i'm the one that got all the dirt supposedly. why aren't they calling me to testify -- why do they need biden? call me. ask me what biden did wrong. >> do you think they're afraid of calling you? >> i think they're very afraid of me. >> joining me now is ed markey. he also sits on the foreign relations committee. i'm wondering what you make of parnas saying president trump knew exactly what was going on. he's also -- though, he has no direct evidence of the vice-president, he believes pence would have known as well, as well as mulvaney and bolton and others. i'm wondering what you make of his allegations. >> well, he's only saying what ambassador sondland said, that everyone was in the loop.

everyone knew. everyone was completely and totally aware of the fact that the president was withholding $391 million worth of american taxpayer money in order to extort an investigation of the biden family. so it's very consistent with everything we've heard up until now, but we are very close now to the source because of the relationship which mr. parnas has with giuliani, and so we know that he was integral to pulling off this caper. and if he's willing to testify, then that's a powerful corroboration of the central charges against the president of the united states. >> it's one thing to point out the ukraine foreign minister to say he doesn't trust one word he's saying, obviously he's facing criminal charges. there are questions about his credibility, which i asked him about also. but to me one of the remarkable things about essentially what his position was, there's no doubt he was very close to giuliani. there's no doubt he was in ukraine doing this stuff.

the fact that he would hold up a phone and giuliani would speak and say, according to parnas, say to whoever -- whatever ukrainian official he was meeting with, this guy represents me and represents the president. >> right. there's no question that giuliani hired parnas to be a representative in the ukraine in order to talk to the ukraine government about an investigation of the bidens in return for this money. i don't think there's any question about that. now, parnas is someone whose evidence, testimony should be questioned, challenged, like any other witness. but he should be a witness. he should have his documents presented to the senate. this is ultimately a trial, it's a search for the truth. and this evidence that is being presented is directly relevant to the question of what the president knew and when he knew it. what he told giuliani or his

other officials to try to execute as part of this attempt to extort an investigation of the bidens out of that government. so from my perspective, parnas should have all of that information provided to the senate. he himself should be made available so that he can be questioned as well. >> it is remarkable when you hear from parnas every time he talks about what the quid pro quo was, what his message to the ukrainians was, it's always the same. an announcement of an investigation against the bidens, not an investigation itself. like that didn't matter whether there was -- in fact, parnas said to me, you know, you wouldn't want ukrainians doing an investigation. it's the last place you would trust to have an actual fair and thorough investigation given corruption issues in ukraine. they just wanted the announcement. >> it's clear that at that time that president trump was paranoid about joe biden, that

he wanted to discredit, undermine that candidacy. i don't think there is any question about that. the only issue now is whether or not the senate is going to hear from mick mulvaney, who was firsthand in access to the president. whether or not we're going to hear from john bolton who called it a drug deal. whether or not the other witnesses at omb or in the white house who had firsthand information are going to be allowed to give that information to the united states senate and to, ultimately, the most important audience, the american people. and parnas in his information only reinforces the testimony that the house of representatives heard. this would be on top of all of that testimony. that's what a trial is. it's not a grand jury proceeding. that's essentially what happened in the house. this is a real trial. you cannot, as those who are conducting a trial, blind yourself willingly to the

information which is now available. an avalanche of information which has now become available since the house voted their impeachment articles, so that the american people and the senate, which is, by the way, also on trial along with president trump to conduct a trial full and fair so that the american people can understand what was being done in their name. >> senator markey, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. >> want to bring in cnn's chief legal analyst former prosecutor jeffery tubin and kirsten powers. jeff, what do you think of parnas as a witness? >> well, you know, he has this distinctive style. he's very dead pan, he's very low key. and you somehow don't realize how extraordinary a story he's telling. i mean, here's this guy, the proprietor of a company called fraud guarantee, and he is going to the leadership of the government of ukraine and saying, unless you announce an investigation of the biden

family, you are not getting the money that congress is authorized. you're not getting the visit from the president, and you're not getting an oval office visit. and it's true. none of it happened. >> he's just some guy that shows up in their offices and holds up a phone, according to him, rudy giuliani's voice emerges from the phone saying, you've got to listen to this guy. >> and he is -- and, you know, the story checks out to the extent we can. obviously i think senator markey said it right. you should test his credibility like anyone else. but does he have a story to tell? he sure as hell does. >> kirsten, what do you think of parnas? >> if you take a step back from what he's saying, he has a calm demeanor. i agree with jeffrey. it's a crazy story, but it is a familiar story. it is something if you watch the hearings in the house judiciary committee and intel committee, it's a familiar story. there are other people that were

saying a lot of same kinds of things. so i think the fact that he's saying, you know, this was absolutely the president was leading this whole effort, knew about it, the fact that it was always about 2020, he said to you. everybody knew that, everybody knew this was about 2020. again, i think it's pretty consistent with a lot of things that we've already heard. and then you add in this letter that's been released of giuliani representing to, you know, the president of ukraine, i'm here in my personal capacity which also undermines this idea that a lot of republicans were saying it was just foreign policy. but the letter shows otherwise. >> stay with us. still a lot to discuss including whether democrats should call lev parnas as a witness if they were able to do that, ahead.

♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun

♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ [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.

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

we discussed the senate impeachment trial and who should testify. one name mentioned is the former national security advisor john bolton. take a look. >> i think bolton is a very important witness because i think between me and bolton we could fit in all the dots i think because i was on the

ground there and he was over here. >> and you'd be willing to testify? >> i would be very willing to testify. >> i'm back with jeffrey toobin and kirsten powers. there's no sign any testimony is going to take place. >> mcconnell is dead set against it. the question is are there four republicans who will vote with the democrats. i think it's unlikely. >> john dean said he thought it would only need to be three because then a deciding vote would be the chief justice? >> well, you know, this is one of the many uncertainties. in the 1868 trial of andrew johnson, the chief justice did break a couple of ties on procedural issues. but since then the received wisdom has been that a tie is a failure. it means no. again, nobody knows for sure because so many of these issues have not been sorted out because they've never happened before. >> kirsten, parnas is saying bolton can fill in the dots. well, we know bolton claims to

be willing to testify if subpoenaed, though he wasn't willing to testify to the house. >> right. >> do you think that this -- do you think parnas and bolton saying he's willing to put any more pressure on senators to call a witness? or they don't really care? >> i don't think that they really care, and i'm not even sure they would care if they testified because i think what republicans will keep falling back on is that you're just taking their word, right? so you're taking lev parnas' word that this happened, but the president said it didn't happen. and they're always going to fall back on that. it doesn't matter how many people tell the same story. so ambassador sondland has said the same thing that lev parnas said in terms of the president only wanted an announcement of an investigation, not an actual investigation which undermines the whole story, which is he cares about corruption. sorry, jeffrey. >> no, no. i'm not sure that's true, that the senators will feel no

pressure at all. i mean, the idea that there should be a fair trial is a very simple one to understand. and if you just railroad this thing with no witnesses, i mean, how does susan collins explain that to the voters? how does corey gardener explain that to the voters of colorado, that there was just no reason to call any witnesses, this case was so clear? >> i'm not saying that -- they may end up calling witnesses. my point is even if they call the witnesses, that i think most of the republicans will just say, well, basically unless you have like a picture or video of donald trump doing this, we don't believe you. >> i agree with you on the ultimate vote. i think the issue of witnesses is really a big deal. and the public is going to see the testimony and will makeup its mind. look, all of us who have covered trump have been wrong about like oh, the public is going to change its sentiment about

anything. the public isn't changing. the polls haven't moved since he became president. i think the idea of a fair trial is a powerful one. >> we have to leave it there. kirsten powers, jeff toobin as well. cnn correspondent kardashian martha mcsally. that's coming up on the ridiculist. (whistling)

(whistling) when you're not able to smile, you become closed off. having to live with bad teeth for so long was extremely depressing. now, i know how happy i am. there was all the feeling good about myself that i missed and all of the feeling bad about myself that was unnecessary. at aspen dental, we're all about yes. like yes to free exams and x-rays for new patients without insurance. yes to flexible hours and payment options. and yes, whenever you're ready to get started, we are too. don't wait, book at aspendental.com or call today. a general dentistry office.

dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere.

let's check in with chris. >> very interesting that we saw the oath taken today by mcconnell, and i think 99 of the senators, right, in office is still to be done next week. but it's already off to a shaky start. you can't really trust the oath. this guy, parnas, that you interviewed, we've seen out

there with maddow's interview. he's got credibility issues, there's no question about that. you can't ignore what he says. there are documents that back it up. he should be tested at trial, and i don't see how the senate gets around all the information that they must ignore if they don't have witnesses. >> yeah. we'll see what they're going to do. chris, we'll do that in about eight minutes from now. one senator's response from a simple question finds our spot on the "ridicu-list" tonight. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts

or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15%ain? or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these?

keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service. ♪ ♪

everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia. time now for the "ridicu-list." tonight senator martha mcsally, sadly, sally's to the list. she's a republican from arizona when on the day president trump went on trial for his contempt for the constitution and the rule of law, revealed her contempt for professionalism in one of democracy's core tenants, a free and professional press just doing its job in the halls of congress. this is what happened when the senator was asked a very simple question. >> would you consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial? >> you're a liberal hack. i'm not going to talk to you. >> you're not going to comment, senator? >> a liberal hack. that's what senator mcsally called manu. for the record, manu raju is a good journalist and a good human

being and nice person. he's incredibly polite asking public officials questions that they often do not want to be asked. but you know what, they're public officials. that's part of their job. and by the way, the question that he asked, it wasn't exactly what sarah palin used to like to call a gotcha question, which weren't gotcha questions at all. should the senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial? ah, wow. if you can't answer that question, maybe you shouldn't have been elected to the senate. but oh -- sorry. martha mcsally actually wasn't elected to the senate. she actually tried to get elected, but she lost, i forgot that. she lost actually to a democrat. she only has the privilege of walking the halls of the senate and calling others a hack because she was appointed to the job by the governor of arizona to fill the seat left vacant when john kyl, temporarily

filling the seat of the late senator john mccain, retired. now, i didn't know much about mcsally because her record in the senate is pretty thin. it turns out mcsally is a veteran of the air force and has a really honorable and impressive record of service. she was a trailblazer in the military. she actually sued the defense department while serving so that female service members didn't have to wear head scarves when off base in saudi arabia. she may be pretending to be tough in the media now or hate the media now. but when she wanted attention for her lawsuit, she had no problem popping up on cbs's "60 minutes." that was 18 years ago for, you know, person who's become a desperate politician. that's a lifetime. she also didn't seem to dislike the media when "elle," not exactly the daily caller, profiled her in 2016. that's when she was portraying herself as a political moderate according to wikipedia, a pragmatic conservative. the magazine said she, quote, seeks to engage in rational discussion based on mutually agreed facts. well, based on the mutually agreed fact of her slur today, i think it's fair to say that mcsally's days of engaging in

rational discussion are over. see because what her calling manu a liberal hack is really about is her running scared and attempting to reinvent herself as a trump foot soldier. that's what this is about. she's up for re-election. she now actually has to earn her senate seat, the one she was appointed to. she's running against former astronaut mark kelly. it's going to be a tough election. she's desperate to say or do anything to stay in power. that's what this is about. in 2016, she was running for congress. she didn't endorse trump. she probably doesn't want to talk about that now, but she didn't endorse trump. in fact, she spoke out against trump when the "access hollywood" tape came out. she's been public about sexual abuse she suffered from a coach in high school. she's been brave about that. she said trump's comments are disgusting, joking about sexual assault is unacceptable. i'm appalled. sure. she was running for re-election as a congresswoman then in a swing district. maybe it was political calculation. but it was at least politically a tough call.

but once trump won and she ran for senate in 2018 for jeff flake's seat, she knew which way the wind was blowing. she started embracing trump. "politico" wrote, "martha mcsally wants to make one thing clear before she launches an arizona campaign, she's a big fan of president donald trump, big fan." mcsally's brave, she's been in combat. she was a trailblazer in the military. now she wants to stay in power so she picks on a good and decent reporter just asking a fair and simple question. and you know how you know -- this is all just a political act -- she herself tweeted a video of the exchange. and she herself is now fund-raising on that exchange. she's trying to make money off the fact that she called manu raju a liberal hack. the president is asking people to donate to her because she was rude and unprofessional to a reporter. big, long, slow clap for you. reporter was just doing his constitutionally backed job. so congratulations appointed senator mcsally. i'm sure the money's going to flow in, you may get a bump in the polls, and you may win.

but look at the company you are now in, and look how far you have come. you were once a profile in courage. you're now a profile in politics. the news continues. over to chris for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> well said. thank you, anderson. i'm chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." we are living history, my friends. president trump is on trial. the senate took an oath to do its impartial best today. the question is, can they honor that oath if they don't have witnesses and examine the record of fact? let's take a look tonight at what they may try to avoid. the damning details offered by trump co-member lev parnas. what do you say? let's get after it. all right. for better or worse, today it begins. senators took an oath swearing to god to do their best to be impartial in trying the case against trump.