i'm michael smerconish in philadelphia and they're off. at long last, voting has begun. forget iowa. i'm talking about the hawkeye state's neighbor to the north, minnesota. they were able to cast early absentee ballots 48 days before on march the 3rd.

39 states and the district of columbia allow early voting. it's game on against the backdrop of the impeachment against the impeachment of president trump. on the same day senators were sworn in, the dow closed at a record high. also the same day the senate passed the new u.s./mexico/canada agreement replacing nafta. one day prior a trade deal with china committed china to buy an additional $200 million of goods an services by 2021. expected to ease some of china's tariffs and most of the tariffs that trump placed on chinese goods. we'll get to it today with two members of the united states senate, doug jones and chris coombs are here. plus presidential candidate tom steyer. first one of the latest additions to the president's legal team, alan dershowitz.

he's also the author of the case against impeaching trump and guilt by accusation. the challenge of impeaching the president in the age of me too. congratulations. you are page one all across the country in philadelphia where you're the lead story of the inquirer. i'm confused. you were announced by the white house as a member of the president's legal team without any qualification and then before i went to bed last night i watched you with anderson cooper and you seemed to limit your role. how? >> my role is limited. i'm only going to appear on behalf of the constitution making the arguments against impeachment based on the constitution. i'm not part of the strategic legal team. i won't be involved in the debate over whether there are witnesses or no witnesses or whether or not facts come out one way or another. this is a role i played before in other cases. i'm a specialist in constitutional law.

i've written three books and probably 25 articles on the impeachment clauses of the constitution. i will appear on friday, make my argument to the senate about the constitutional reasons why these two articles of impeachment don't satisfy the criteria and then i'll answer questions from the sentences senators but that will be the extent of my role. i am clearly on the side of opposing impeachment. no ambiguity about that, but i am -- i have a limited role to play and that was by agreement with the president and with others. >> i was going to say, was that your call or was that the president's desire? >> well, i think it was mutual. we discussed it. this is the role that i have played in the past. i've made these arguments previously and i think i will be most effective making this argument. it's important for the senate to hear from somebody who is not a partisan. i'm a liberal democrat. i voted against donald trump and

for hillary clinton. i would be making exactly the same argument if hillary clinton had been elected president and she were impeached on similar grounds. i made the same or similar arguments when bill clinton was impeached even going back to 1973 when richard nixon was impeached i was on the national board of the american civil liberties movement. i favored impeachment, i urged the board not to take a position but to stand up for his civil liberties and to make sure that all the constitutional is were dotted and ts were crossed. this is a role i've taken over the last half century. >> i ask this question because during the house process we heard from four constitutional law professors, turley, feldman, carlin. it seems to me you are casting your role as more expert witness than advocate. >> no, i'm an advocate. >> let me ask you this. are you uncomfortable arguing

the underlying facts of this case? >> i'm just not an expert on the underlying facts. i'd be perfectly comfortable arguing any aspect of this. i have argued some of them in my writings. i'm an advocate, not a witness. i'm advocating against impeachment. i think it would create a terrible, terrible precedent for future presidents if we were to weaponize the impeachment provisions of the constitution and apply them to any president who was accused of abusing his power. that would have included adams, jefferson, lincoln, roosevelt, you name it. virtually half of our presidents have been accused of abusing their power. as to obstruction of congress, it's an invented concept. >> give us a sneak peek of the argument. when the constitution speaks in clear terms, its plain meaning must prevail over other considerations. it's hard to imagine a clearer set of words than those governing impeachment.

the president, vice president and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. the text speaks of crimes. it requires a trial in the senate and conviction of one or more of those crimes. it sounds as if professor alan dershowitz that only crimes are impeachable offenses which i would say puts you at odds with what hamilton wrote in federalist 65. >> no, it doesn't. hamilton in fact supports my view. hamilton describes the criteria and then says, all of these crimes are offenses against the public and, therefore, they can be deemed to be called political but both hamilton and madison were very fearful of giving congress too much authority and turning our republic into a parliamentary democracy in which the president served at the will of congress. those were madison's words, the

will of congress. and so after they decided to have an impeachment provision, which was much debated, they then decided on what the criteria would be. the criteria were all criminal or criminal-like and of course we didn't have a criminal code, a federal criminal code at the time that the constitution was enacted, but what they were talking about was treason, bribery or other and the word other is crucial. my colleague larry tribe who disagrees with me about practically everything in his book on impeachment does acknowledge that the word other indicates that the high crimes and misdemeanors must be of a sort comparable to treason and bribery and that's my position. it's a position that should be presented to the senate in a non-partisan way. i'm trying to be supportive of the constitution. i think my advocacy will be good for the country otherwise i wouldn't do it. i would not be in this case if there were not serious constitutional issues presented.

>> you referenced laurence tribe. by the way, i read both your books. here's what he said. i want to put this on the screen for the audience. it would have been easy to write a provision limiting the impeachment power to serious crimes. the framers, they didn't go that route. doesn't he make a good point? >> no, he doesn't because it would have been easy for the framers to put in words like abuse of power, which they discussed when they decided to have an impeachment provision. peculation was one of their favorite words. malpractice, maladministration. administration of obstruction -- any of these things, obstruction of congress. neglect of duty. all of these were discussed. none of them were placed as criteria. instead the criteria were related to treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. what my friend larry tribe is saying because it wasn't expr s expressly taken out of the

constitution, you have to assume it's in the constitution. no, when you're engaged in a concept like impeachment, you have to apply the concept of what's called lenninity. it was well known to the framers. that is when you have two possible interpretations. you always go with the interpretation that is more supportive of the person being accused and less supportive of the accuser. and, therefore, if there are doubts, if tribe and i have a disagreement about what the interpretation is, the interpretation should be the one that is more favorable to the accused and less favorable to the accuser. i think the words of the constitution are clear. the framers could have put any of these criteria into the constitution. they decided not to because they had two fears. one a fear of the president who would exceed his authority. the other a fear of congress that would exceed its authority. the framers were not enamored of the house of representatives. they did not want a pure democracy, that's why they created the electoral college, the senate which was to be

appointed by the state legislature and had provisions that protected against the abuse of power by congress as well as by the president. >> professor -- >> and so a compromise was struck. >> good luck next friday. come back next saturday and let's continue this discussion. >> my pleasure. thank you. joining me now, senator doug jones of the great state of alabama. a democrat who's up for re-election this fall which puts him in a tricky position. he's also the author of "bending towards justice, the birmingham church bombing that changed the course of civil rights." let me just pick up with where i was with professor dershowitz. you're a former prosecutor. is that the way you read the constitution? >> well, michael, thanks for having me, number one. that's not necessarily the way i read the constitution, but i'm looking forward to hearing mr. dershowitz's arguments. i think he makes compelling

arguments and i've read those over in the house and i think they make compelling arguments as well. we have nine members of the supreme court, michael. it's because people have a disagreement on the exact wording and meaning of the constitution. i'm looking forward to hearing the arguments and the opposing view from house managers. >> i saw you, senator, and your colleagues take an oath this week. let's put it on the screen. i solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states, now pending, i will do impartial justice, my emphasis, according to the constitution and laws so help me god. what does impartial justice mean to you? what do you think it means to some of your colleagues? >> i think it means putting aside the biases and prejudices that we all have going into this, whether they're political or whatever. i think we have to try to do that to set those aside.

every day in this country during the week jurors are due just that. they all walk into a jury room with their common experiences, experiences on their own, biases, thoughts, prejudice, you name it. the key is whether you can set those aside and give both sides a fair trial. give the president a fair trial but also give the house managers a fair trial. i think people can do that. i think as you watch people walk up there, i didn't see any of my colleagues, you know, crossing their fingers behind their back when they signed that oath. i have to take them at their word that regardless of the fact that they say they are impartial, they can set this aside. >> senator, i respect -- i respect the fact that you've not weighed in on the ultimate issue, but a number of your colleagues, they have. >> sure. >> frankly whether they were crossing their fingers or toews, i don't know how in good conscious they could have taken that oath. >> well, that's up to them. i can't get into their heads. i can't decide for them. all i can do is my oath and what

i do. i'm going to encourage the colleagues, and i've done it. you know this, michael. i've done this from the very beginning, i've told people, please get out of your partisan corners. look at this as a serious matter that you have as a constitutional issue. we have folks like alan dershowitz to talk about the constitution of the united states. this is a serious matter. these are serious allegations. i hope people can do it. people are human. not everyone is going to do it. people do this one way or the other. whichever side they come down, but they do it with a clear conscience and that they can face their constituents. >> put your former hat as prosecutor on. by the way, i want to remind the audience, i wanted to reference that great book that you wrote because you prosecuted clans men for the famous or infamous 16th street bombing just so folks are reminded of your credentials. do you think this record as presented to the senate is right

for deliberation or do you regard it as incomplete? >> it's incomplete but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not right for deliberation. i think, again, you see cases presented every day that have dwaps in the evidence. the question becomes at the end of the day as to whether or not the picture is complete enough for people to make a judgment. we've been looking at this and studying. my biggest fear is regardless of whether it's right for judgment now, it is still somewhat incomplete. it's going to be complete later on. we're stig seeing every day, even today there's more information coming out. that is going to continue to happen if we don't try to get witnesses that are subject to cross examination. it's that cross examination that the president's lawyers can do that is the great truth secret in our justice system. that's what i'd like to see. i'd like to see the witnesses, documents and the ability of both the house and the president's lawyers to cross examine whatever witnesses we've got either in deposition or on the floor of the united states

senate. >> final question. you're in a tough spot. you're a democratic senator representing a very red state. how do you balancing your search for truth and what the political dynamics might be of the great state of alabama? >> because i don't go to a partisan corner, i don't go to a political corner. i know that's hard forpeople to believe. you guys in the media, everybody else looks at this and the first question that gets asked is how do you balance this with a tough race that you are in? the fact of the matter is i put the politics aside. my office consistently, we do everything in my office without a view of politics. we do it. we look at the evidence and we do what we believe is the right thing so when i come back to the great state of alabama i can give a good argument as to why i voted a certain way without regard to politics. if i have to make it based on a political decision then i'm not doing my oath as a took as a senator or the oath that i took

the other day any justice whatsoever. >> senator, thank you so much for being here. >> thank you, michael. any time. still to come, during the democrat's most fraught moment of the campaign, he was the man in the middle. tom steyer says he's going to win by attacking trump on the economy. i'll ask him how. and "the new york times" editorial board interviewed all the democratic contenders and the paper is announcing who it will endorse tomorrow night. i want to know what you think. go to my website at smerconish.com and answer this question right now. should newspapers make political endorsements?

this is the --

>> i'll follow you. >> that's as big as it gets. >> what an opportunity. >> all right. we'll head in. >> okay. >> good morning. >> hi. >> okay. >> thanks for having me over. >> let's just dive in. so that video was part of the big drumroll "the new york times" is doing for its endorsement of a democrat in the primaries, but does a newspaper endorsement for presidential candidate still matter in the twitter era? tomorrow night, two weeks before the iowa caucus, "the times" is going to make the announcement first on the sunday tv program the weekly and then online and in monday's newspaper aiming for transparency. "the times" filmed between each candidate and its editorial board editors. james bennett had to recuse himself because his brother, colorado senator michael bennett, is still in the running. "the times" first endorsed a president back in 1860, abraham

lincoln. "the times" spokesperson said they first did primary endorsements in 1992 for bill clinton and george bush. in january of 2008 it endorsed hillary clinton over barack obama. in 2016 hillary clinton won the vast majority of newspaper endorsements including several traditional conservative morning papers like "the dallas morning news" and "the arizona republic" which hadn't gone for a democrat in 126 years. "the times" endorsed hillary unsurprising but also ran an anti-endorsement titled why donald trump should not be president. all of this seems to have backfired alienating trump supporters and allowing trump to paint himself as the victim of media bias. so will a "times" endorsement move the needle or might it color the paper's view. go to my website smerconish.com.

should newspapers make political endorsements? joining me now, an editor from a paper deciding not to endorse any candidates, david haines of "the milwaukee sentinel." >> thanks for having me. we decided in 2012 after a very contentious recall involving governor scott walker to take a look at our endorsements. at the time when we looked at it we just didn't feel like we were having impact. and i think particularly when a regional newspaper like ours weighs in on a national race, i don't know if we can add a lot of value. as you mentioned in the runup to the segment, there's also a problem with readers confusing what we do on the news side which is factual, accurate and relevant for our readers with what we were doing on the opinion side. so we just didn't feel like we were having impact and we were

worried about that confusion. >> that last point of yours, i think it's become even more of an obstacle. in other words, the well has been poisoned so to speak because you have so many out there who are offering opinion and it makes it difficult for the public to distinguish between news and opinion even if that wall has always existed in your newsroom. >> well, i think that's right. we've taken a step further. last year we essentially disbanded our editorial board. we still do an occasional editorial on local issues, first amendment issues. we focus on solutions journalism with our team which is reporting on responses to social problems in the community and then seeing if those responses have any evidence to back them up. and what we have found from our readers is that we have better readership. our analytics show that that's working better. i can tell you, michael, that i have not one person, zero, call me and say please, please write more editorials.

>> do you lose a branding opportunity of sorts? on "the times" editorial page, i saw something from the columbia review. john mccormick was said swaying votes is only one reason for endorsing and arguably not the most important. they explain what the publication is, what it advocates, how it thinks, what principles it holds dear. do you find that persuasive? >> i really don't. i think that our job as journalists, especially in a local area, might very well be in a different situation than we are. i think our job is to report factual factually, accurately and we're going to do a lot of coverage with the democratic national convention here in july on this election. i think that's our job and then

leave it to the readers to decide for themselves who to vote for. >> david haines, thank you so much for being here. >> you bet. let's see what you're saying on my smerconish twitter and facebook pages. michael's comment on news outlets being able to differentiate between opinion and reporting has helped mr. trump immensely. it helps trump immensely and harms trump immensely. i think it's harder for folks to discern that which is opinion versus that which is just straight news reporting. i can tell you that here on a saturday in my time slot i give you a little of each but i think you know where that line lies. on some programs, particularly in the evening hours, it's not so easy to discern. remember, i want to know what you think. go to my website at smerconish.com. answer today's survey question. should newspapers, should they make political endorsements? up ahead, in the most viral video moment from this week's

democratic debate, he was the man in the middle. meanwhile, tom steyer is rising in the polls by spending exorbitantly like his rival. are billionaires making a difference? i will ask him. febreze finds odors trapped in fabrics and cleans them away as it dries. use febreze every time you tidy up, to keep your whole house smelling fresh air clean. fabric refresher even works for clothes you want to wear another day. make febreze part of your clean routine for full home freshness. la la la la la

45 plus at average risk. i've heard a lot of excuses to avoid screening for colon cancer. i'm not worried. it doesn't run in my family. i can do it next year. no rush. cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. there's no excuse for waiting. get screened. ask your healthcare provider if cologuard is right for you. most insured patients pay $0.

ask your healthcare provider if cologuard is right for you. what's the time? device: a dime is ten cents. severe cold or flu? take control with theraflu. powerful, soothing relief to defeat your worst cold and flu symptoms fast. device: (sneezes) theraflu. the power is in your hands.

. the most viral moment from this week's democratic debate came after it ended and my guest was stuck in the middle. everybody was trans fixed as bernie sanders tried to shake elizabeth warren's hand, she refused. we soon got to hear their audio which proved even more riveting when fellow candidate tom stier walked over. >> i think you called me a liar on national tv. >> what? >> i think you called me a liar on national tv. >> let's not do it right now. you want to have that discussion. we'll have that discussion. let's not get into that. >> i don't want to get in the middle. i want to say hi, bernie.

>> for steyer, it was a moment you can't buy. he tweeted, just wanted to psy hi, america. it earned him over 80,000 likes. tom steyer wants to say more than hi right now. he joins me. i know you've been asked a million times if you heard what they were saying between one another. you didn't. i have to ask you this. is bernie always so abrupt? >> i -- i like bernie sanders. you know, i consider him a friend. he's someone i respect him, i like him. he was in the middle of a private moment. i thought he was fine. >> in the debate substantively, here's something that you said. >> i am prepared to take on mr. trump on the debate stage and take him down on the economy. >> at the outset of the program i referenced the fact that, you know, we've got this odd juxtaposition. here's the president going through impeachment in the senate at a time the dow reaches

an all-time high, a trade agreement with china and we have the usmca. square all of this for me. what is the case that you intend to prosecute against a president for the economy? >> look, michael, the president is always talking about the dow. he's always talking about unemployment. when i go around the united states, what i see is americans who are suffering. i see a country where, yes, the economy's growing, but all of the increase in income is going to the richest americans and that that's been going on for 40 years. this is a president who passed possibly the worst economic legislation in american history, which was his tax bill, which was the biggest give away in history to rich people and big corporations. sure the dow is up. if you -- when companies don't pay any taxes, their bottom line gets bigger and the stock price goes up, but that's overwhelmingly the benefit of that goes to the richest

americans. what i can see in this country is a country where all of the good outcomes are going to rich people. they're under dramatic pressure and we have a cruel republican party that is absolutely willing to make americans suffer so rich people can pay lower taxes. it's just not right. >> i had peter navorro from the white house here one week ago and he made the observation when you look at wages, wages are growing at a higher clip for those lowest on the economic totem pole than those on the upper echelon. the white house tauts the fact that african-american unemployment is at an all-time low. there are metrics they point to that make their case is what i'm saying. >> yes, they do. what we know and what you know and what everybody in america knows is unemployment is low. and you can't afford to live on it. if you go around the united states, theres a gigantic housing problem because working people can't afford to pay rent or buy a house. what we're seeing is a national

government, a republican government that has walked away from working people in the united states dramatically now and it's been true for 40 years. since ronald regan. so we see a dramatic housing problem. you see a republican government that is trying to take away people's health care and a national government which is doing everything it can to slam the door on education in the united states of america. this is a very unequal country with very little mobility where, in fact, the economy is growing and rich people are doing fantastically and big corporations are paying a tiny percentage in tax. it's very, very unfair. and people in -- the vast bulk of americans are suffering as a result of republican policies, this president. >> i need to ask one billionaire about another billionaire. how do you feel about the amount of money that mike bloomberg is spending on this race thus far and apparently willing to continue to spend even if he's

not the nominee? >> look, my attitude about mike bloomberg is simple. he's very different from me. if he wants to be the representative of the democratic party, then he's got to embrace a wealth tax, something i did almost a year and a half ago. this is -- this society is incredibly unequal as to income and dramatically more income as to wealth. in fact, we have redistributed the money in this country to the richest people away from everybody else. he's very rich. i'm rich. anybody who wants to lead the democratic party, particularly someone like him, has got to embrace the idea that we're going to combat inequality, that we're going to go back to a country where we actually succeed together and if mr. bloomberg embraces that as far as i'm concerned, go ahead, bring out your message, but that is absolutely critical for somebody who wants to lead the democratic party. >> final question, will we ever see any other tie?

>> michael, there is no question that you will see another tie but i don't think it's going to be around my neck. >> thank you. appreciate you being back. >> nice to talk to you. let's check in on tweets and facebook comments. what do we have, katherine? from facebook. steyer's money would be better spent supporting a viable candidate. you say that, you could say that about bloomberg but each of them has elevated otherwise, i'll answer for steyer's case, would not have received the level of conversation that they have in this cycle. i want to remind everybody, answer today's survey question at smerconish.com. i love this. i hope you're into this. should newspapers make political endorsements? the democrats are hungry to get john bolton to testify. but will that only happen if americans get to interrogate hunter biden?

i shall ask senator chris coombs? >> you've got a good one now. even if they're trying to impeach the son of a [ bleep ]. can you believe that? iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us

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. and let me tell you something, or rodeo...nt i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. it's just a loan designed for older homeowners, and, it's helped over a million americans. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. eliminate monthly mortgage payments, pay bills, medical costs, and more. call now and get your free info kit. other mortgages are paid each month, but with a reverse mortgage,

you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more in aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage loan guide. access tax-free cash and stay in the home you love. you've probably been investing in your home for years... making monthly mortgage payments... doing the right thing... and it's become your family's heart and soul... well, that investment can give you tax-free cash just when you need it. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio, and so much more. look, reverse mortgages aren't for everyone but i think i've been 'round long enough to know what's what. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust 'em, i think you can too. trust aag for the best reverse mortgage solutions.

so you can... retire better. the impeachment trial begins on tuesday. democrats are pushing to get witnesses like john bolton to testify, but if they open that door, will the gop then usher in hunter biden? i spoke with senator chris coombs earlier. >> senator, as you know, the president has recently added alan dershowitz and ken starr to his legal defense team. here's something that ken starr said recently. >> i predict there are going to be witnesses. we've had too many indications from too many different senators that they want this. >> who's a witness then? who appears? >> oh, i think the top one is john bolton, right, for the democrats. and then the republicans really do want hunter biden. >> and you think that will happen? that's what you're saying now? >> oh, there will be a battle royal over hunter biden.

>> if democrats call witnesses, will republicans be permitted to do likewise? >> well, michael, that's not something we know yet. as you well know, in a trial one of the tests of who is admissible as a witness is who's relevant. who's got something that they can testify to that is directly probative to the issue that's before the jury. what we're considering is whether or not president trump blocked congress inappropriately in their impeachment inquiry, whether he obstructed congress, and whether he did or didn't improperly order the withholding of military aid to ukraine. john bolton is clearly relevant to the latter question, to article one of the impeachment charges. hunter biden is clearly not relevant. so if we're having a debate in the senate where we're sitting as the jury about what sorts of evidence, documents and witnesses ought to be admissible, someone like lev parnas who has recently been appearing on television shows, who was one of giuliani's

partners in this illicit side foreign policy scheme, this effort to try and gin up dirt on joe biden, would he be relevant? he might very well be because he claims to have had direct conversations with president trump about his intention to interfere in ukraine. how hunter biden is relevant to the questions in front of the senate i can't really see. >> so law professor jonathan turley offered an answer to that question. here's what he said. in a conventional trial biden would be a relevant defense witness. his testimony would have bearing on a key question in an abuse of power trial. trump insists that he raised the issue of hunter biden's relationship with the ukrainian energy firm to the ukrainian president with a concern he had about corruption in that skun try. if the son could be shown to

have a scheme, it might be trump's best defense. >> that strikes me as quite a stretch. a leap of logic worthy of ev evilkenevel. they make so much strained arguments to try and bring into the scope of what they're advancing, things that are pretty much of a stretch. i will say this. i don't expect that there will be a successful vote when we start tuesday to gyp the impeachment trail on witnesses, on documents. i think that mitch mcconnell has the 51 votes he needs to insist on having the case in principle presented by the house managers first, the president's defenders second and only then to turn to the fight of witnesses. i frankly think that the core issue here is the president and his conduct with regard to

ukraine is on trial and the challenge for us in the senate is to prevent it from becoming a circus and to make sure that whatever evidence and witnesses are admitted are actually directly relevant to the questions we're considering. >> senator, might the answer to the republicans relative to hunter biden be, be careful what you wish for? in other words, there's this caricature that's been created of him that might not be matched by the facts. he's not a dope. he went to georgetown. he went to the yale law school. i watched the interview that he did with abc's ""good morning america."" maybe america would be surprised if they did hear from him. >> that's entirely possible. he did a strong job voluntarily coming forward and speaking on camera about a number of challenges he's had in his life. i thought it was a forthright and honest and open interview, and you're right that he's a well-educated, smart, capable man. i do think that the question

we're going to have to confront is how broadly are we going to go with bringing in witnesses that might feed to certain pet conspiracy theories or might debase the general tenor of the trial and its conduct in the senate? that's something the senators as a community, we're going to have to resolve as we get to the questions in the weeks ahead. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, michael. still to come, your best and worst tweets and facebook comments like this one. what have we got? smerconish, you talk about fair impeachment trial. so tell me how is it their that what 3 or 4 are presidential candidates are not recusing themselves? i guess that is not conflict of interest. listen, i have a different take on this whole idea, slightly different than your point. the conventional wisdom is that those who are running for president who now have to go sit in the senate are off the trail and that it's a detriment to them politically.

i think that they're in the perfect position -- they're not exactly going to be cloistered in a religious sect. they are going to be the decision makers in all of this. i think those that are disadvantaged are the presidential candidates who are not in the senate. and we will give you the final results at smerconish.com. go vote now. should newspapers make political endorsements? zicam is completely different. unlike most other cold medicines, zicam is clinically proven to shorten colds. i am a zifan for zicam! oral or nasal. my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes

or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain, and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity.

it's either the assucertification process. or it isn't. it's either testing an array of advanced safety systems. or it isn't. it's either the peace of mind of a standard unlimited mileage warranty. or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned. or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. now through march 2nd. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer.

responded to the survey question at "smerconish".com. should newspapers make political endorsements? survey says -- whoa!

50/50 with 10,000 and change casting ballots. isn't that interesting? i'll leave it up so you can play tiebreaker by continuing to vote. here's some of what came in during the course of the program. what do we have? sms smerconish, does it matter if newspapers endorse? only two major newspapers endorsed trump and he still won. jimmy johnson, i didn't like when you coached the cowboys but that's okay. let me say this, when you talk about the major newspapers and beyond the biggies, i'm sure the president did better in smaller markets. do they matter? i would say it depends where they are. for him it's a badge of courage or pride. if he ever win and lightning struck and he won the endorsement "the times" or "the washington post," he wouldn't be able to rail against "the times" and "the washington post." he uses it as a political weapon very effectively.

what else came in? the dems should give the gop hunter biden. the gop will be like the dog who caught the car, they wouldn't know what to do with him. ems, this is my theory, pure speculation. i have this vision on the democratic side of the aisle, some who know hunter biden are sort of rubbing their hands and saying, yeah, yeah, just keep begging for this guy. the republicans have created such a caricature of him. in other words, they set the bar so low. and all of a sudden hunter biden comes in. he's a handsome guy. he's articulate. he's smart. he went to georgetown and yale law. he put sentences together that are not convicted of anything elicit other than perhaps earning money, perhaps because of the name he was bestowed, and americans say oh, my god, is that all there is? it could completely backfire.

it's one of the intangibles. but i don't know. i'm paying attention. one more. i'm for tom steyer for president. tae takes a billionaire to beat a billionaire. bloomberg is trying to buy the election. he oversaw new york city. he's the x factor. a muddled picture going into super tuesday and then we will see what he's going. join me for my "american life" and i'm in pittsburgh, manchester, sold-out shows in st. louis and raleigh. see you next week. you inspired us to make your humira experience even better with humira citrate-free. it has the same effectiveness you know and trust, but we removed the citrate buffers, there's less liquid, and a thinner needle, with less pain immediately following injection. if you haven't yet, talk to your doctor about humira citrate-free. and you can use your co-pay card to pay as little as $5 a month.

humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask your doctor about humira citrate-free. the same humira you trust with less pain immediately following injection. what's the time? device: a dime is ten cents. severe cold or flu? take control with theraflu. powerful, soothing relief to defeat your worst cold and flu symptoms fast. device: (sneezes) theraflu. the power is in your hands. you take a little paradiseto with you. lash paradise from l'oréal paris voluptuous volume. intense length. no wonder there's one sold every five seconds. only one mascara can take your lashes to paradise.

lash paradise mascara from l'oréal paris.

(honk!) i hear you sister. that's why i'm partnering with cigna to remind you to go in for your annual check-up, and be open with your doctor about anything you feel - physically and emotionally. but now cigna has a plan that can help everyone see stress differently. just find a period of time to unwind. a location to de-stress. an activity to enjoy. or the name of someone to talk to. to create a plan that works for you, visit cigna.com/mystressplan. cigna. together, all the way.

visit cigna.com/mystressplan. 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.

i hope saturday's been good to you so far. good morning on saturday, january 18th. i'm christi paul. >> and i'm martin savidge. and you are in the "cnn newsroom." >> always so good to have you. hours from now house peext managers are expected to submit their facts, evidence, arguments against president trump. >> but that deadline comes as new evidence has come to light. late last night democrats released new documents and text messages from indicted rudy giuliani associate lev parnas. those appear to show that an aide to republican congressman devin nunes may have known about the operation at the center of the impeachment trial. >> and president trump in the meantime has beefed up his legal team, preparing, of course, for