thanks for joining us. anderson starts now. good evening. president trump said the former ambassador to ukraine would, quote, go through some things. she told congress she felt threatened preponderance of the evidence now there's breaking news, new documents including text messages that further suggest that marie yovanovitch may have been under surveillance before her ultimate departure from kiev. a line from one message reading, quote, we have a person inside. in addition to being just plain om

ominous, the messages cast doubt on exchanges with lev parnas, "i thought we were playing." parnas said he thought the whole thing was a joke. pamela brown has been looking at the new evidence and joining us with details. what are you learning from the newly released lev parnas documents? >> reporter: the newly release documents shed light on a former attempt to surveil marie yovanovitch, about her movements in ukraine. in one message, it sent a screen shot of an official photo of yovanovitch writing "my contacts are checking, i will give you the address next week" to which hyde replies "awesome." the next text, sent two minutes later said she has been there since thursday, never left the embassy. these indicate her movements

were being tracked for at least several days and hyde claimed he was just joking around. for context, rudy giuliani and his associates have been pushing the president to fire yovanovitch because they believed she was getting in the way of their efforts to dig up dirt on her bidens. she was pulled from her post when she said she needed to return to the u.s. because of great concerns. because of mounting pressure to respond, secretary of state mike pompeo said today the state will investigate this matter of the ukrainian ambassador potentially being surveilled. >> we're showingilya images of president trump with lev parnas standing next to him, talking to him. the documents show alleged kvgs

-- conversation to a staffer. >> reporter: in these materials, he tells parnas he needs to collect materials and efforts to dig up dirt on the bidens, particularly in his roll in firing a prosecutor. what makes they so significant is they draw nunez even further into efforts undertaken by giuliani and his associates in ukraine. last month house democrats released phone records showing calls between nunez and parnas and previously he said such a conversation would be very unlikely. >> pamela brown, thank you very. whether or not senators consider this remains to be seen. today the number of people defending the president grew by three, kenneth star, robert wray and alan dershowitz. the president has not always had

a high position of starr. >> i think ken starr is a lunatic. i really think ken starr is a disaster. it was a horrible process. i think starr was horrible. >> he called starr a total whacko. that was then. he is certainly known to say things he doesn't mean and to change his mind. just a couple weeks ago, he was claiming to want witnesses at the senate trial. >> when it's fair, and it will be fair in the senate, i would love to have mike pompeo, i'd love to have mick, i'd love to have rick perry, and many other people testify. >> as of now, no witnesses will be called. alan dershowitz joins us, a former member of the o.j. simpson legal defense team. his latest book is called "the case against removing trump." also joining us, jeffrey toobin,

a form are student of professor dershowitz's. professor, what is your role, delivering argument on behalf of the president on the senate floor talking about the constitution. you say you're not a formal part of the legal team. how so? >> well, i've been asked to prepare and deliver the constitutional case against impeachment that benefits the president. it the same argument i would have made if hillary clinton had been elected and had been impeached and the same that i made when i consulted with the clinton legal team. i'm there -- i will go into the history of the formulation in the constitution and the history of how these words came to be and leave it to others to argue the facts, to make strategic decisions about witnesses.

that's not within my jurisdiction. >> alan, why are you playing these semantic games? whose side are you on? you're part of the defense team. are you embarrassed? >> you sound like my mother when i said i was challenging -- >> i look like your mother. >> you wish. >> i said i was defending the right of nazis to march through skokie. she said to me, "son, are you for the jews or the constitution." i said i'm for the constitution. she said "i'm your mother, pick sides." >> what side are you on? >> i'm against impeachment. i think it would be unconstitutional, set a terrible precedent for this president to be impeached for these alleged articles of impeachment. but independent n'm not part of team that will be making

strategics decisions and that's going to be left to others. >> do you get paid for this? how does that work? >> that has not been discussed. if i were, all the money would go to charity. i would not keep a single penny. i strongly believe in the constitution, i strongly impose the impeachment. i worry about the weaponization of impeachment and it could be used in other cases. i join james madison who was very concerned that using open-ended phrases could create a way in which congress should have too much power over the president. i join alexander hamilton who said the greatest danger is when impeachment turns on the number of votes each party can get. so i'm there to try to defend the integrity of the constitution. that benefits president trump in this case. >> listen, i think everybody should have the best defense possible in any courtroom. jeff toobin, what do you make of professor dershowitz's argument

about the constitution not -- >> i think it's wrong. i mean, alan's position, and i don't want to mischaracterize it, is that -- impeachment should only apply to criminal offenses. >> that's not my position. >> why don't you say what it is. >> my position is clear. the framers said treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. other refers to matters that are close in kind. professor tribe grease on this part of the analysis they don't have to be specific criminal offenses but they have to be like treason, like bribery. >> so abuse of power is not a high crime? >> no, abuse of power was one of those things mentioned by the framers as a reason why we need impeachment but then rejected. it was widely discussed. it could easily have been accepted as one of the constitution an criteria. >> that's not true, alan. let me just talk for a second.

federal 65, alexander hamilton, which you write about, he specifically says abuse or violation of some public trust is an impeachable offense. >> no, he doesn't say that. the criteria have to be met. let me give you an example. madison in calling for impeachment said we need to make sure a president doesn't become incompetent. that's a good reason. but then when the criteria were debated, incompetent was not included because it was too broad. if you want to include the abuse of power, it won't get ten votes in congress because half the presidents of the united states have been accused by their political opponents of abuse of power. it's much too open ended and too broad -- >> what about violating the public trust? >> that's not an impeachable

offense. it could have been. this discussed it. they put in crimes that violate the public trust, that is treason and bribery violate the public trust. >> as you know, alan, there was no federal criminal code in the late 18th century. >> that's why i say you don't need specific crimes. criminal-like behavior. treason is defined in the constitution. and here i disagree with trump, if somebody were to murder somebody by the way, we did have a vice president who did murder alexander hamilton while he was vice president and he wasn't impeached because in those days, a duel, federal budget though it was illegal, was not regarded as murder. >> let me let jeff talk a little bit. jeff, what do you think the scope of high crimes and misdemeanors is? and how much is open to interpretation? >> well, it is of course open to interpretation, like any provision of law.

they don't cover every circumstance. but the point of impeachment is misconduct and bad conduct that only a president can do. alan, you and i can't withhold aid from the ukraine to advance our political interests. only the president -- >> and neither were we elected. >> let me finish. only the president has the power to abuse his power in that way. >> i agree. >> and the idea that the only remedy for that is to have an election down the lines are this is so far outside what we expect of the presidency. and it is in violation -- >> i agree with all that but the framers didn't make it an impeachable offense and ne could easily have done it. you admit these are arguable points. don't you think it important for the president to have constitutional lawyer like me making those points in a nonpartisan way, in a way i would have been making them for

hillary clinton and introduce a nonpartisan constitutional elment ine element into the discussion? >> i got to go to break. it's a cliff hanger. jeff will answer that question with we come back. also ahead one of the jurors who will be listening senator tammy baldwin. later more on lev parnas and new documents raising new questions tonight for the white house. u qt slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures,

new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix. i'm max, i was diagnosed with aplastic anemia and if i didn't find a donor, i probably wouldn't be here right now. be the match uses the power of the cisco network to match donors with patients faster than ever, saving lives like max's. me and dylan are dna twins. ♪ ♪

dylan's like my brother. ♪ ♪ cisco. the bridge to possible. 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 ad(whistling) or consultant i had no idea why my mouth was constantly dry. it gave me bad breath. it was so embarrassing. now i take biotene dry mouth lozenges

whenever i'm on the go, which is all the time. biotene dry mouth lozenges. freshen breath anytime, anywhere. we're talking tonight about the impeachment case against the president, as well as the case against that case. the politics, as well as new documents coming to light. we'll hear more from lev parnas shortly. back with alan dershowitz and jeffrey toobin. >> he absolutely is entitled to the best constitutional defense he can get.

what he's not entitled to is alan pretending like he's some sort of neutral observer instead of what he is, which is donald trump's lawyer. for some reason you don't want to admit that. that's up to you. but you are pretending that there is some sort of perfect constitutional sweet spot. it doesn't have to be a crime but it can't be simply being a bad president, that there is some magical area in there that is an impeachable offense, and i think straight forwardly that abuse of power, the framers recognized it, that's what's the issue in this case and the senators are perfectly capable of determining whether what the president did is a violation of his oath. >> that's like saying a judge is perfectly capable of determining something without an advocate on any side. let me be clear. i'm an advocate. i'm an advocate against impeachment, but i'm politically neutral. that is i would make the same argument if it was a democrat or republican. i don't let my political

preferences interfere with my constitutional analysis. it would be good if you presented your argument on behalf of the democrats. you're partisan on that side. they would hear arguments from you, they would hear arguments from me but i think the senate and the country is helped when they hear from a liberal democrat, who has always voted democrat, who has strong rview n impeachment. i had strong views on nixon's impeachment. i took the same position when bill clinton was impeached and i'm taking the same position now. i think it's very valuable for the senate to hear that kind of point of view and let it make its decision. i wish we had a nonpartisan -- >> you key invoking i would do this for hillary clinton. hillary clinton didn't behave this way. >> i would do it for hillary clinton if she did behave this way. >> we're into like magical hypotheticals here. >> i'm just saying i'm not

partisan. i don't take my cases based on whether it's a democrat or republican. i pass the shoe on the other foot test. no matter what it is, if the same facts were for a democrat or republican, i would make the same arguments. i don't think that's true of all of my colleagues, of all of the folks on cnn or on fox or anybody else. >> all i'm talking about is the facts here and the rule in the constitution. and the rule in the constitution which i think is by far the majority view, notwithstanding your view is that abuse of power, a president doing something is not a violation of the criminal law but a serious threatening use of presidential power. that's exactly why we have high crimes and misdemeanors. >> in my view the framers agreed with my view, not yours. they could easily have put abuse of power into the impeachment.

don't criticize me for stating my position and say i've changed, jeffrey. i've been completely consistent since 1973. i have changed not at all. the big rap on me is that i don't change, that i have a small mind. i'm the hob-goblin of small minds because i'm consistent. >> i'm just some guy on cable. you are going into the united states senate and telling the senators how to vote. that to me is a very big deal. what bothers me is that you are doing that pretending like you're some sort of outside, objective observer instead of donald trump's lawyer. >> i'm an advocate against impeachment. >> why don't you want to say his name? that's who you are. you're his lawyer. >> i am not part of the strategic legal team. i am a constitutional analyst, i want the impeachment to fail.

>> for the record, it wasn't the constitution who called you up and asked you to do this, it was president trump. >> i've been writing about and making this point on your show and others since well before anybody on the other side called me. i think it's the right thing to do. i would be doing it no matter what the circumstances were and -- >> i think everybody should have the best defense possible. his point is you're working for the president, whether -- >> i'm working for the constitution, the beneficiary this time happens to be the president. last time it was president clinton. the time before it was president nixon. >> i hear what you're saying. >> i'm not working for anybody. what i'm doing is making a constitutional argument on behalf of president trump's team against impeachment. let's be very clear about that. i'm against impeachment. i think it would be a very bad thing to happen. i'm very happy that the senate will hear my view. >> do you think there should be witnesses? >> i want to persuade some

democrats. if i can't persuade democrats to agree with me, i will have failed. and i suspect i will fail. i don't think i'll persuade democrats. i want democrats with open minds to be persuaded and it would be very nice if republicans with open minds would hear both sides. i would love to see a real trial that really involved people that hadn't made -- >> with witnesses? >> that's my question. >> if there were witnesses for one side, there have to be witnesses for the other side. you would have witnesses for the prosecution and defense. i would have no objection if after the opening and closing arguments the senate voted to have witnesses? >> do you think there should be? you're arguing for the constitution as an outside observer because you're not on the legal team. >> the constitution doesn't speak to that. if they do call bolton, then we have constitutional issues because bolton will want to testify, the president will invoke executive privilege, it will probably have to go to court and it will result in just

the kind of delays in a trial that the democrats did not -- >> what if -- >> let me tell you, if i were a lawyer, a real lawyer, i couldn't hope for somebody better than lev parnas to be testifying against my client. you couldn't imagine anybody who would be more open to effective cross-examination than a lev parnas. >> why is that? >> i predict here lev parnas will not be called as a witness because he has so much bag and a baggage and so much liability. boat bolton might be called but might not end up testifying. it's the decision of the court. >> rudy giuliani and president trump were relying on lev parnas to be the face of this extortion scheme or -- >> it says there should be an investigation and if there is any criminal conduct, it should be charged.

it may lead people to decide to vote one way rather than another but that doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. it's not even charged as part of the impeachable offenses. we can disagree and agree. there's a lot we'll agree about. we'll agree about what went on with lev parnas and all of those people is very, very disagreeable, but you have to ask a distinction between political sin, crimes and impeachable offenses. those are the distinctions i want to keep in the forefront. i'm going to make my argument. i'm not telling the senate what to do. my goal would get some democrats to accept my argument. i would love to see more bipartisanism in the impeachment process as hamilton and madison wanted. >> correct me where i'm wrok he wrong -- here. it says high crimes and misdemeanor.

>> yes. >> why are you laenlialleging w high crime and misdemeanor is? >> i've gone back and read all the debates and read all the history. >> you're interpreting the history? >> yes, i'm presenting an interpretation. you left out one word. it says other high crimes and misdemeanors. the other referring back to bribery and treason and high crimes and misdemeanors has a meaning. we all agree about what high crimes mean. clinton was wrongly impeached because he committed a low crime, not a high crime. >> what's a high crime? >> a high crime is a crime like treason and bribery committed by a person -- >> what does that mean? >> extortion -- >> isn't this extortion? >> well, if it is, it should have been charged. there's nothing in the articles of impeachment that charge extortion. >> isn't that -- wouldn't extortion be an abuse of power?

>> no, it's not. you aren't a lawyer, i can tell. >> thank god to be honest. >> extortion requires specific elements and if any of those crimes were to be charged, the house of representatives had a duty to do it. and then the senate would vote on extortion instead of voting on abuse of power. now they have to go up and down on extortion -- >> you're mixing and matching modern concepts and old concepts. you're saying he has to meet all the element of extortion. there was no such crime on the books -- -- let me finish. >> i didn't say that. >> let me finish. >> sure, please. >> it is not that this idea that you say it doesn't have to be a crime but then any time you mention anything other than a crime, you say that's not good enough. and -- >> well, that's right, that's partly right. >> what i'm saying is that this is why we have a hundred jurors,

a hundred juror-like people -- >> they're judges, not jurors. >> whatever you call them, they are people in whom the founders have put their trust, that they will make the judgment -- >> let me ask you a hard question. what if the house impeached and the senate voted to remove on grounds he had committed mal-administration? >> that's a term they explicitly rejected. i've read the debate. >> that's right. that's my point. they implicitly rejected abuse of power because they discussed it and didn't put it in the constitution. >> how do you know they implicitly rejected it? >> because it was -- >> mal-administration is not the same as abuse of power. >> it's very close. >> says you. >> it's very close. bad administration, mal-administration, abuse of power, when you abuse power,

you're guilty of mal-administration. the framers didn't want open-ended criteria capable of being weaponized for partisan political purposes by people who had more votes than the other side. i'm going to present these arguments. i'll be asked all these questions my only point is don't criticize me as some have done for agreeing to play this role. i think it an important role. this is an historic event. i'm honored to have been asked to play it. i will play it fairly. >> for the record, i wasn't criticizing. i would want you on my defense. >> one thing i certainly learned from you in criminal law class is that every lawyer should represent unpopular clients or popular clients and never criticize a lawyer for taking on an unpopular clause. >> thank you.

>> however, they shouldn't pretend they're not representing the client. >> if we can, we'll just continue this one more block. we're just going to take a quick break and be right back. when you have pain... you want relief. fast. only thermacare ultra pain relieving cream has 4 active ingredients to fight pain 4 different ways. get powerful relief today, with thermacare. you ever wish you weren't a motaur? sure. sometimes i wish i had legs like you. yeah, like a regular person. no. still half bike/half man, just the opposite.

oh, so the legs on the bottom and motorcycle on the top? yeah. yeah, i could see that. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

yeah, i could see that. that's why xfinity mobile lets you design your own data. you can share 1, 3, or 10 gigs of data between lines, mix in lines of unlimited, and switch it up at any time. all with millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. it's a different kind of wireless network, designed to save you money. switch and save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. and save even more when you say "bring my own phone" into your voice remote. that's simple, easy, awesome. click, call or visit a store today.

we are talking to jeff toobin and alan dershowitz. alan dershowitz will argue on the president's behalf. they appear a lot on television and in professor diershowitz's

case has a long career of defending people of different points of view. do you think when you look at the president's -- the three names named today, yourself, ken starr and robert wray, do you think the president picks people in part because of how they defend him on tv? >> i don't know. i was surprised that he selected the two prosecutors, special prosecutoro prosecutors in the clinton case. they both argued that abuse of power is a constitutionally permissible criteria for impeachment. so we will have some disagreement about that. i'll tell you where we won't have any disagreement and that's on the second article, obstruction of congress. the idea that a president can be impeached for simply telling the executive authorities not to submit to legislative subpoenas that are issued that he believes in a partisan manner without

getting the courts to order that, that's simply parts of our checks and balances. it doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution. it's just a made-up charge, obstruction of congress. the president -- they could easily have gone to court and gotten a ruling on whether bolton, who is the national security adviser, can be compelled to disclose conversations between himself and the president and they didn't do it. >> the second article is not about a single example of the president not producing a witness -- let me finish, alan. let me finish. it is not about a single example or even two examples. >> i agree. >> it is about the president of the united states saying to congress i will not cooperate with any subpoenas for any documents or any individuals, and that -- >> unless the court makes me. >> you know, just to say -- i

don't think a president has the right to say to another branch of government i won't do anything unless the courts force me to do it. the respect guaranteed among the three -- >> i disagree. read federalist paper number 78 w where hamil to be says tton says to serve as umpires. and he says, look, let the courts decide, that can't be an obstruction of congress. that can't be an impeachable offense. all he's doing is saying i want a legal response to this and if the courts save have i to comply, i will comply. >> he's of course not the first president. >> he did it in a blanket way. >> he did it in a blanket way -- >> perfectly permissible. >> remember this is about

attempting to control the outcome of the 2020 election. the position the president is taking is -- >>s th that's a political view. >> take months and months in court so i can continue doing what i'm doing until the election happens. >> you know as well as i do that courts when they're told this involves the peefimpeachment of president,y want we want a rulis week on whether they can be made to invectiexecutive privilege - >> that's not true. >> just richard leon, the judge in the kupperman case, he didn't even schedule a hearing for three weeks. i mean, he was lazy and incompetent. >> blame that on the courts. >> that's right. >> but the president has a right to invoke the courts. >> shouldn't be held hostage to

the courts when the president is issuing blanket denials of their rights as a coordinate branch of government. >> if i as a criminal defense lawyer, my client, if somebody is asked to come and testify and i claim there's lawyer-client privilege, i will invoke a blanket say no, you get a court order. the house used to have a way of enforcing their own orders. they have a little cell in the basement. they haven't used that in years. now they go to the courts. it may take time. that's part of our system of checks and balances. our government -- >> so is impeachment. >> our government wasn't created for efficiency. >> so wasn't impeachment. >> but it has to be made on an offense, not on something like obstruction of congress. it's just made up out of whole cloth and it would be extremely dangerous if that went forward. i am very happy to make the argument against abuse of power. now, when we get back to abuse of power rather than obstruction of congress, congress considered a lot of words.

they considered peck u lags. that was a reason to have impeachment. they said dishonesty. none of them were ultimately decided upon as grounds for peefl impeachment. there's a big difference for why you need to have impeachment. when you cover up with the grounds, you're worried about congress abusing its power. so you have to strike a balance. the balance was struck with those four concepts, treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. >> you have an interpretation of those four words -- >> i'm going to present it. >> you're acting as if -- when i was your student, you represented clause von buello brilliantly. were you representing clause von buello or the constitution? >> in that case clause ron buello. >> why is that different?

>> each of us have different roles. my role is to present the constitutional case. i am not going to be involved in the discussions about tactics or witnesses. that's not part of my role. my role is to make the constitutional argument and that constitutional argument is being made against impeachment and the beneficiary of that is going to be donald trump, if i prevail. i hope to get some democrats on board. >> professor dershowitz, i appreciate your time, jeff toobin as well. up next we'll talk to one of the jurors in the impeachment trial. her take on what we just heard. plus we reported more documents suggesting marie yovanovitch may have been under surveillance. when crabe stronger...strong, with new nicorette coated ice mint.

layered with flavor... it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. new nicorette ice mint. 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.

we just heard from alan dershowitz speaking before the senate on the president's behalf on the constitution. one element democrats may be interested in presenting, our breaking news this evening, more documents suggesting that marie yovanovitch may have been under surveillance before being called back from ukraine. an associate of lev parnas texting a bellian number.

that person or person sent hyde a photo and said they'll give hyde her address next week. hyde respond, quote, awesome. senator baldwin is a juror in the impeachment trial. what's your reaction to the information released from lev parnas and communication about former u.s. ambassador yovanovitch. >> well, obviously there's been a lot of discussion since the house intelligence committee started releasing some of the documents that he had shared with the committee. and i think it should be considered among the pieces of evidence that i hope we'll get a chance to review. we're anxious to have a full, fair and honest trial. and, as you know, there's still an ongoing dispute about whether there will be any witnesses or any opportunities to view documentary evidence. and, frankly, i don't know how

it can be a full, fair and honest trial unless we get those opportunities. and this has heightened the interviews -- parnas has heightened the interest in getting that sort of information before the senate. but it also points back to our strong need to hear from the four witnesses that we have been pushing for now for weeks. former national security adviser john bolton, acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and robber bla -- robert blair and michael duffy, high-ranking white house officials with firsthand, direct knowledge of all the president's conduct that's being alleged in these articles of impeachment. >> one of the things that professor dershowitz was saying was if democrats get the witnesses they want to have that republicans should be able to have witnesses as well, and there's been indications from some republicans that they would like to have hunter biden or

vice president biden. does that make sense to you? >> well, the articles are very specific. abuse of power referring of course to the president soliciting foreign assistance to -- for his personal benefit and political benefit in the upcoming election. and obstruction of congress. i know you've discussed those articles. i have no idea what relevant and firsthand information somebody like hunter biden could provide that would provide any clarity on the two articles of impeachment. and so i don't see a reason why they would want to bring a witness like that forward given what we're listening to and what we want to get to the bottom of. but, you know, right now we don't have any witnesses, and i am going to be pressing as hard as i can and hopefully joined by

several republicans so that we can have a real trial, a full trial and an honest trial. >> do you think that there are enough republicans to want that? i've heard estimates of anywhere from three to four would be needed. >> you know, there's a new tally every day. it strikes me that just a week ago mitch mcconnell was saying that he had the votes of the republican caucus to not allow witnesses, but i think that there will probably be more than one debate about witnesses when we convene on tuesday. and i think when we do, it will be as solemn and serious as the day we had yesterday when we were sworn in as essentially senators sitting as jurors. i think we'll have a debate on the conduct of the trial and it may not be the last word. i do know that our leader, chuck schumer, will have the opportunity to amend any motion or resolution that mitch

mcconnell brings forward about the conduct of the trial. i expect us to debate and i certainly hope enough of my republican colleagues want to see from -- want to hear from john bolton, want to hear from mick mulvaney and robert blair and all of these witnesses, michael duffy, who have firsthand, direct knowledge of the president's conduct that's being alleged. and frankly, i assume that the president may want to bring witnesses. this is a time where he can present his case and he chose really not to during the house impeachment inquiry and, you know, that's the president's choice but i think that it would, you know, behoove him now that he has his full legal team announced to be thinking about the case that he's going to present. >> senator tammy baldwin, i appreciate your time tonight. thank you. >> i appreciate yours.

thanks. >> coming up, allegations the president called the nation's top military commanders quote, a bunch of dopes and babies. details ahead. but she wanted to be close to nature. so, we met in the middle. ohhhhh! look who just woke up! you are so cute! but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. yeah, it was really easy and we saved a bunch of money. oh, you got it. you are such a smart bear! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.

for everyone you love. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. 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. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you.

this meeting has been reported on many times but new details about it, if true, are quite extraordinary and disturbing. a meeting took place in july of 2017 between president trump and his top military chiefs. a new book details the meeting. it's titled "a very stable genius, donald j. trump's testing of america." it was meant to educate the president on his gaping holes of thinks knowledge of history. they write as the meeting wore on, the president lashed out at the military brash saying, quote, you're a burn of dopes and babies and said to them, you're all losers, you don't know how to win anymore.

in the meeting's aftermath, rex tillerson was heard to call president trump a bleeping moron. though this has been reported on in the past, the gnnew details this are particularly troubling and the whole thing i got to say it was frightening to read the level of the inability of the president to concentrate and to actually sort of understand what he was being talked to about. >> well, again, i haven't read the book, i read just a brief excerpt of the book and it is demeaning to every person in uniform for president trump as commander in chief to say that secretary of defense joe mattis and joe dunnford are babies or

sissies or incompetent, to me it was stunning he could say that. as someone who has not worn the uniform himself, i think you need to take care of pay the appropriate respect to those who have. he is turning our military -- in his mind we are a mercenary organization, our military. >> he wants everyone to pay for our american troops to go places, this ludicrous idea of taking our country's oil, which is something he talked about on the campaign and i talked to him about it and thought it was interesting saying at the time, a violation of just every -- we not vikings like trying to pillage a country. >> the notion that anyone that signs up to defend our country is doing it for money is absurd. he said if you were running a private company, you'd go

bankrupt. there's a supreme irony as soon as he has gone bankrupt on several occasions. the pentagon, the defense department is not run as a private entity, a profit making enterprise. it is organized and funded in order to protect our national security. and we are deployed globally not as a favor to any other country. we deploy to those countries that share our interests and our ideals. and that protects our national security. and in his mind what we have to do is bring everybody home, let everybody else fend for themselves. that is a very darwinian world, in which i think we are irn varie -- inviting conflict on a massive scale. our people have been deployed honorably and they're willing to sacrifice life and limb on our behalf. i just entertained the youngest

living medal of honor recipient, fell on a hand grenade and had his body blown apart and pieced back together over the years. this young man was doing it in order to protect his comrades and his country. for the president to suggest a bunch of sissies, a bunch of incompetents, it really betrays the notion of our military, the service that the men and women render to this country. as commander in chief, i think he has an obligation to instill pride, respect for their patriotism and sacrifice. he does anything but that when he goes in to the pentagon or in the situation room and says you're a bunch of incompetents, you're losers, you've never won anything. well, they've been in the blood and the mud and they've fought in that on behalf of the country. i have four four-star generals in my office and i know these are the proudest people i have met with, the most patriotic and

i would fight beside them any time. the president said he wouldn't have any one of them fight with him. i would say i'll take them any day of the week as opposed to the commander in chief. >> like the president knows what it is to fight anywhere. the other thing was so -- just honorable about the people in the room at the time, the military personnel, is especially the lower ranking officers who were on the side of the room in this briefing, they just, you know, they sat there listening to what the president was saying and, you know, some, according to the reporter who did this book, some thought about walking out but this sat there, you know, they put their heads down, they just continued to do their jobs despite what the president was saying. >> they are trained to obey the chain of command. the president of the united states sits at the top of that chain. and so by their culture and tradition and obligation, they are there not to challenge the

president and to criticize him on his very first meeting, but to rather listen to what he has to say, to listen to his response to what their briefing is rather than be demeaned. so i don't fault them for that and according to the book it was secretary of state rex tillerson who raised, mr. president, you can't talk that way. >> secretary cohen, thank you. >> i want to hand it over to chris cuomo. >> tonight, more about the depth and perception and ugly intentions about then-ambassador of ukraine maria yovanovitch. and ken