schiff just as they're about to head over to the senate to begin the impeachment trial. thank you so much. i really appreciate it, alex. much more to follow up on that. thank you all so much, though, for joining me today. "inside politics" with john king starts right now. welcome to a special holiday edition of "inside politics." i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. the trump legal team right now filing its detailed trial brief with the senate, arguing the president did nothing wrong and the democrats' case does not meet the constitutional test for impeachment and removal. plus testing time now for mitch mcconnell. the senate majority leader wants a quick trial with no new witnesses or no new evidence. democrats plan to fight that plan, but they need a handful of republicans to break from the party to succeed. and democrats are quoting black leaders on this martin

luther king jr. holiday. the first votes just two weeks from today. also in an mlk event this morning, a former president who knows a lot about impeachment and controversy. >> i bring you greetings from my wife, who, according to the "washington post" last week, has now been the most exonerated person in history. that's a mixed bag. that means you've been falsely accused more than anybody. >> we begin this hour with the top lines at the white house impeachment defense. the president's legal team facing a noon deadline. that's right now to file its response to the 111-page brief the democratic managers filed over the weekend. we'll give you specifics of that document as you get it. this morning we did get a legal argument from one of the president's hired lawyers. >> the framers of the constitution did not commit impeachment on grounds of abuse

of power or obstruction of justice. we need treason and bribery. >> they will start the clock on an impeachment sprint this week. the rebuttal tomorrow, followed by the real start of the trial. whether there will be a legal argument with real judges, the lawyers dispute that. the math, at least at the moment, is clear. acquittal of the president is expected. but there is big drama over witnesses. there is also the issue over how to square the many damning facts with the president's mantra that he did absolutely nothing wrong here. listen here to newly hired alan dershowitz. he is struggling to answer a very straightforward question. >> do you believe that donald trump abused the power of his office, yes or no? >> it's irrelevant. abuse of power is not the criteria for impeachment, any more than dishonesty. >> do you personally believe donald trump right now, with the

evidence you've seen in front of you as one of his attorneys, abused his power, yes or no? >> i'm not going to answer that question yes or no, it's irrelevant. >> let's get straight to the white house and cnn's kaitlan collins. kaitlan, a very important moment for the president's team. they have never up to this point in the process given us a detailed legal rebuttal. >> reporter: yeah, and we're still waiting to get the document in our hands. they did have people ahead of this looking at what the document will look like. if you want just the top layer, they are calling on the senate to reject the articles of impeachment and acquit the president. they go on and say they believe the house impeachment process was a charade, in their words, not just in the substance but also the process, and they feel this is going to be the first time the president is able to lay out his case. of course, you did not see any white house attorneys or anyone arguing on the president's behalf during the house impeachment process. they say this is going to be different because it's going to allow the president to make his

case against these articles of impeachment. now, what they didn't preview is how long they think this trial is going to last. they essentially say that's something we'll be able to figure out tomorrow. they repeated their calls for that swift dismissal of these impeachment articles. something you've heard from people like lindsey graham say he doesn't think it's going to happen. they're going to have the senators at least listen to the opening arguments before they make decisions going forward from there. but also you are essentially seeing the white house say they feel slanted in the house and they're going to make the president's case here. one thing, when they were asked about the core tenets about the articles of impeachment, about the president withholding the white house meeting and the calls for ukraine to investigate the bidens, the answer was those two things are not linked and they don't believe house democrats have not been able to effectively make that case.

the interesting point will be what the democrats put out on that on saturday, that lengthy outline of what their argument is going to be when they said, we're laying out the facts of these witnesses and what they said, linking these things in the president's pressure campaign on these ukranian officials. when we get this document, we expect it to be pretty long. it will have quotes from president zelensky, gordon sondland, all these officials who they feel helped make their case and argument there. you will actually see that come to light this week. >> looking forward to having that document to be able to read it. kaitlan, i suspect we'll see you back in a few minutes as we get the document and begin to go through it. with me in the studio, julie pace with the associated press, dan walsh with the "washington pos post", jessica chambers and carol. carol, i want to start with you. they could make a political argument and win.

right now the math is in their favor so maybe they should make a political argument and win. but the white house says the house case is a charade, both in substance and in process. let's focus on the substance. you can argue it's not an impeachable offense if you want to make that case to the senators, but it's not a charade if you read through the impeachment report, if you read through the witness testimony. whether it was ambassador sondland saying it was a quid pro quo, ambassador taylor talking about how concerned he was about rudy giuliani's involvement outside the government if you will. ambassador yavonovitch talked it a drug deal. can they get away with saying it's a charade on the substance, or do they have to answer the questions? >> well, this is the interesting part of their argument, is that they're not just saying, here's all the facts, we dispute the facts, or here's all the facts and we don't think the facts meet the impeachable standard, the standard to be -- well, he's

been impeached, but the standard to be removed from office which the senate could vote. they're actually attacking the constitutional process, and i think that's really interesting and it's somewhat dangerous, really, because what they're saying is that the abuse of power article of impeachment is a legitimate argument on the part of the house managers. if you take that argument at its face, what they're saying is there is no ability to argue that a president can abuse his power, because impeachment is the only remedy for that. so, you know, until we get for the election. i just think they are going very far, and contrary to sort of thinking about a historical precedent here when they're takitak i -- attacking the constitutional process himself. >> i think donald trump cares about himself and what happens in this trial. it's actually a trumpian argument to put the process

aside and get to the substance and try to make this a purely political argument over his opponents. he's had success where he puts aside whatever his opponents are actually saying and focuses on the moore fact they're democrats and trying to undercut him. if you look at where republican senators have been, i recall ea this process we heard about the substance of what trump did. a lot of that has gone away even before the trial has started. there are maybe a small handful of republicans who are out there really saying, i want to be convinced that what he did was not wrong. >> i think that's an interesting point because we've seen this. this is the administration that brought us the term "alternative facts." this is a president who will stand up -- i'm holding up a blue piece of paper -- and say, this is red, this is red, this is red, and dare republicans to disagree with him. >> what we've seen over time suggests that fewer and fewer and fewer republicans are prepared to disagree with him because they know the wrath of donald trump is more than they're willing to take on

politically. there are a few who, in the end, may hope to go for witnesses, but that's a fight that's going to come in some time from now, not right this week. and donald trump holds these people very close and they are very nervous about him. >> so we're going to see -- alan dershowitz will make a constitutional argument, ken starr will make more of a historical argument, saying this doesn't meet the bar. one of the things they said in the phone call, the impeachment articles fail to cite any violation of law. alan dershowitz stated just the opposite 20 years ago that you don't have to. again, this is more of a political process. because the democrats don't cite specific sections of a federal law, and weav've seen some republicans try to make this point, therefore, it goes away. the constitution doesn't say that, but that's what they're going to argue. >> and to that, i was on a call with the president's legal team or sources, however they're putting it today, so the argument they're also making on

substance is that it doesn't cite a particular crime, and even then they would argue it's not a high crime or misdemeanor, which would drive to the level of an impeachable offense. but to your point, the flip side of the argument that they are making, and this is just the white house's argument, but they are saying that it would be an abuse of congress, not just an abuse of his power but an abuse of congress, what they're doing. because any president in the future who is subpoenaed and, therefore, doesn't respond to those subpoenas or this doesn't go all the way through the courts, that it is something that any president could therefore be impeached on these grounds in the future. >> well, and the other argument they're going to make is that the activity the president was engaged in, his conversations with president zelensky, were a legitimate exercise of his national security or foreign policy authority. that is a -- from a national security perspective, that is a dangerous thing. because the other witnesses who testified in the house proceedings show that what he

was doing was for his personal, political benefit. >> if that's a new precedent, what does the next president do and the president after that? another quick point here, one of the things they'll argue is frivolous and dangerous from what the house did on the obstruction count, saying they should have gone to court. the president didn't want to give documents, he didn't want to give witnesses. we have three branches of government for a reason and they should have waited. we weren't going to do this in this case. to me that's a more reasonable argument, and the facts about what the president did are not really in dispute. should you exhaust all means in court? that's more interesting. >> that might resonate with real voters who might be on the fence a little bit about the substance of this, because it puts the onus on the democrats to say why they felt the need to get this done by christmas, and while democrats have two and a half, three years to look back at how

the administration has resisted turning the information over to congress, there was a very clear effort by democrats to get this done by the end fortunaof the y political reasons. they wanted to get this done in the primary process, they wanted to get this done because they didn't know how it would go. tomorrow the senate comes into session to debate the rules, and that will be spicy. only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol®.

for fast pain relief. 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 is a go-to grease-cleaner throughout the kitchen, too. keep a bottle in the laundry room to pre-treat greasy stains. and keep dawn in the garage to lift grease off car rims. it's even gentle enough to clean wildlife affected by oil. dawn's grease cleaning power takes care of tough grease wherever it shows up. scrub less and save more... with dawn. i appreciate what makes each person unique. that's why i like liberty mutual. they get that no two people are alike and customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. almost done.

what do you think? i don't see it. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ . welcome back. about to get our first detailed look at the president's legal strategy for the impeachment trial this hour. let's get straight up to capitol hill and phil mattingly. we haven't seen the details of their legal team just yet, and by this time tomorrow the legal team will be trying to get through his plan for the rules.

tell us about that. >> reporter: that's one thing sources for the legal team wouldn't say on the call with reporters a short while ago, was what they expected the structure of the trial to look like, at least in the initial stage. make no mistake about it, they know exactly what's coming. they have been in contact with republicans about what that will entail. here's the important thing to remember. there's been a lot of questions about why haven't you seen the resolution yet, why aren't the details of the trial out yet. here's the reality. they weren't done as far as this weekend, which is what i was told. originally mitch mcconnell came out a few weeks ago and said all 51 republicans were behind on democratic votes with the structure of the trial. however, the details of that resolution needed to be worked out with several key elements of the republican conference. for moderates, they made clear they wanted specific language in that resolution to grant an up or down vote whether to seek

witnesses, period, or subpoenas for documents as well. the white house was able to maintain the things they wanted in the trial. that's what's been going on behind the scenes. there have been very intense meetings about what that language will actually entail. here's what we know at this point in time. mcconnell tomorrow will introduce a resolution that will allow for presentations from both sides, 24 hours per side. at this point in time those presentations will be limited to two days. so rest up, drink your coffee, it's going to be potentially a very long couple of days. at which point senators would be allowed 16 hours to ask questions, any questions they want from any senators who want to ask them. then we would get to the idea of votes on witnesses or subpoenaing documents. however, that initial resolution is technically amendable, and i'm told democrats and minority leader chuck schumer are preparing amendments to try to force votes on witnesses and subpoenaing documents on the front end. they don't have the votes for that. they don't have 51 votes to be able to add language into the resolution regarding witnesses

and documents, but all underscores that this will be tense from the get-go, there will be votes from the get-go, and this is something you will see continue the next week or two as this trial continues to play out. the big question is when everything is all said and done and you get to the stage of the trial where there will be substantive votes on witnesses and documents, will 51 senators exist to hear from someone like john bolton and subpoenaing documents from the white house. you're not going to have an answer to that until initial presentations come through. that is what four republicans who have opened the door to witnesses have said. they want to hear those witness representations. i've been told nothing that makes me think they'll change their minds before the representations. it will be feisty and set the tone for things, however, you probably won't get a firm answer on things, john, until those initiations for trial have all played out in the next several days. >> perhaps clues tomorrow but not final answers. phil mattingly on the hill. that's why it's so important the

tone the president's team sets in this brief today. he wants to make the case, we're done, we need nothing more. the democrats delivered 111 pages on saturday. they have a good case already, they say, but they cite a number of examples why you want to hear from john bolton, why you want to hear from mick mulvaney and lev parnas. mitch mcconnell has the votes. he doesn't have a huge margin, but as of today he has the votes. the question is, can chuck schumer make this case? >> we will force votes on witnesses and documents, and it will be up to four republicans to side with the constitution, to side with our democracy, to side with rule of law. >> part of this is schumer had it calibrated right in the sense they want to push out of the box in connection with with do they want witnesses. if he pushes too hard, does he

risk pushing lisa murkowski and the others into a corner saying, you don't have the votes. let's wait. >> that's why they'we wait unti tomorrow to see just how much mcconnell will push. we expect one vote to push for witnesses and documents out of the gate. we expect that to fail. but i don't think schumer is going to play too many policy games and witnesses, because i don't think they want to turn off republicans who will possibly vote with him down the line. >> if mcconnell get his way -- in the clinton trial they had 24 hours of representations in three days, mcconnell wants to do it over two days, then you have 16 hours of questioning. members of the senate submit a question to the chief justice. if they keep that calendar, the key votes could be next wednesday or thursday.

the bill clinton trial went on for five weeks. mitch mcconnell is hoping to get to a decision point in this one in one week. >> mcconnell has dtwo things hes got to consider here. on the one hand, trump wants a speedy trial, and mcconnell wants a speedy trial, too, so there is some urgency to get this done. on the other hand, he needs to make this look like it's a real trial, like it's not rushed, like they had an opportunity for both sides to make their arguments. il it's the witnesses, of course, that could push this much further than that. if we do wrap this up middle of next week, will that look like the senate really considered both sides of the argument. >> the republicans say, no, we've heard enough. here's a preview of what you'll hear in the next 24 hours on the senate floor. >> if the house isn't prepared to go forward with the evidence they produced in the impeachment inquiry, maybe they should withdraw the articles of impeachment and start over again. >> if the case looks so flimsy as some people say, if there's

nothing to it, it doesn't rise to impeachable offenses. like a court of law, the court disposes of it. >> my personal preference, chuck, would be to see this thing dismissed. what mitch mcconnell decides to do, i fully support. he has all 53 republican senators backing him on this. >> those are all allies of the president and allies of the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, who runs a pretty tight ship. we'll see mcconnell tested here as we'll see pelosi tested in the house. the question here is can they be so persuasive to get lisa murkowski, susan collins, mitt romney and one other to say, you know what, we want witnesses. >> this depends also on mitch mcconnell and how he holds his forces together. but i think the house has to make a very persuasive case at the time they finally make the

decision on whether they're going to call witnesses. if that presentation doesn't go as strongly as they want, if there are questions that the senators raise that they are having difficulty answering, then that could sway some of those handful of republicans who might vote for witnesses to stick with mcconnell and not do it. >> we think the math is pretty clear, but especially on the witness question, the quality of the lawyering is going to matter going forward. we'll come back to this a little bit later. two weeks to iowa. the 2020 field is getting testy. in south carolina, a moment of unity as the 2020 candidates honor the legacy of dr. martin luther king jr. ♪ ♪

♪ $$9.95? no way.? $9.95? that's impossible. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company,

to tell you it is possible. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get life insurance with options starting at just $9.95 a month. okay, jonathan, i'm listening. tell me more. just $9.95 a month for colonial penn's number one most popular whole life insurance plan. there are no health questions to answer and there are no medical exams to take. your acceptance is guaranteed. guaranteed acceptance? i like guarantees. keep going. and with this plan, your rate is locked in for your lifetime, so it will never go up. sounds good to me, but at my age, i need the security of knowing it won't get cancelled as i get older. this is lifetime coverage as long as you pay your premiums. it can never be cancelled, call now for free information. you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. use this valuable guide to record your important information and give helpful direction about your final wishes to your loved ones.

and it's yours free. it's our way of saying thank you just for calling. so call now.

can you help keep these iguys protected online?? easy, connect to the xfi gateway. what about internet speeds that keep up with my gaming? let's hook you up with the fastest internet from xfinity. what about wireless data options for the family? of course, you can customize and save. can you save me from this conversation? that we can't do, but come in and see what we can do. we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. ask. shop. discover. at your local xfinity store today.

back to impeachment and details from the president's legal brief in just a few moments. the first 2020 iowa votes two weeks from today, and the 2020 democrats are getting more testy because of the calendar, the high stakes and the race. the democrats are spending their time between south carolina and iowa today. no evidence, a tt least in this

conversation, that the dust-up from last week carried to this week. in fact, sanders poking fun at joe biden talking about changes to social security. this, for biden, is sure to turn up the volume even more led by either of the progressives who would hurt the democratic party in much of the country. >> i was asked a rhetorical question. bernie is at the top of the ticket in south carolina or warren is at the top of the ticket. how many democrats down the line do you think are going to win? and it's just practical. if you look at the data in those states, i win in those states. i think the candidate has to be someone who is going to help the ticket down line, they're going to be able to run with and not run away from. >> cnn's jessica dean is live fou for us in south carolina.

kum ba ya in the words of that march. not so much from the president. >> reporter: it's like we're two weeks out from the iowa caucuses or something. we've seen a show of support to mark martin luther king jr. day. you saw warren and sanders talking there. yes, the heat is turning up, the barbs are getting sharper as we get closer to actual voting, of an actual contest being run, and we're hearing from all the different factions poking and prodding at each other. i was at an event with joe biden over the weekend. that's when he called out the sanders campaign to denounce this video going around that pulled out some of his comments about social security out of context. he called it doctored, but it's really out of context when you're watching it. we had elizabeth warren and sanders last week, but they've turned their attention back to

joe biden. very interesting to hear joe biden's comments that you just played there, that's more and more of what we're hearing on the stump, that he can bring the rest of the tickets with him. it will be interesting as we get ever closer to february 3rd just how much more we hear from these candidates. >> the calendar does tend to drive the sparks. jessica dean in south carolina, thank you very much. when biden and klobuchar argue for medicare for all or free college, they say you can't sell that to the country at large. but for the former vice president to name sanders and warren, he's made the electability argument throughout the campaign about him, saying, i'm the best guy to beat trump. now he's saying to democrats, if you vote for him, look at your ballot, look at your congressman and say bye.

>> it is like him to push in that direction. it's certainly been out there as an issue. it often is in a democratic primary. who was the person at the top of the ticket that can bring the party together but also help the people? the counterargument that sanders and warren, some of the others have made through the course of this is, we need someone who can energize people as much as possible, and by indication, they're suggesting that joe biden generates very little enthusiasm, even in the democratic base. that's the argument people are making. >> there is a way to say the party should be careful, the party should think hard, the party should nominate someone who helps the party down ballot, but to say sanders and warren would blow up the party, welcome to the fray. >> it's the kind of quote you could imagine coming back if sanders or warren were the eventual nominees, certainly in those purple states. but to dan's point, the two

candidates have very different views on the electorate. sanders and warren talk about the electorate in some of these purple states but in some marginal democratic states. he's talking about voters that are gone, that are not coming back to the democratic party, who have made their choice to be republican and with donald trump specifically. what sanders and warren would also argue -- there is evidence to back up their arguments, too, is that part of the reason hillary clinton lost in 2016, yes, it was white working class voters in some of these states we talk about often, but also that turnout was down among black voters, among young voters in urban areas in philadelphia, in milwaukee, in detroit, that they argue they can generate enthusiasm, particularly among young people. >> the race is getting overshadowed by the big events in washington, but two weeks and counting, we'll be counting the votes in iowa. the polls in new hampshire, there's been a few points, the polls in iowa have had a pugh

points. this is bernie sanders. if the presidential campaign doesn't work out, maybe bernie sanders wants to come join us on "inside politics." >> everybody has their own set of problems. i'm 78 years of age. that's a problem. if you look at buttigieg, he's a young guy. people say he's too young to be president. or being a woman. there are some negatives, if you like. >> that's a pretty honest assessment, is it not? >> and also there is a new iowa poll out today that shows joe biden pulling ahead. he's at 24 points. bernie sanders ten points behind joe biden now at 14%, and elizabeth warren at 18 and pete buttigieg. you mentioned the argument taking place between bernie sanders and elizabeth warren, that poll suggesting it may have hurt both of them, because now both of them are trailing joe biden heading into the final two weeks. a source close to the warren campaign told me they've been told to deescalate the situation

with bernie sanders in this poll, perhaps reinforcing some of the reasons they're being told that. >> let's not forget, bernie sanders and elizabeth warren will be in their seats in the senate for the next two weeks, while joe biden and pete buttigieg will be out shaking hands and meeting other voters. that could also play a role given they're already a little bit down in this poll. >> he says he's going there wednesday night. if mcconnell sticks to this 12 days, i don't think that's possible. i think bernie was expecting eight or ten. the legal team has filed 110 pages with the senate. more on the impeachment in a moment. my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem. >> tech: check it out. >> man: yeah. they came right to me, with expert service where i needed it.

that's service i can trust... no matter what i'm hauling. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

cdc guidance recommends topical pain relievers first... like salonpas patch large. it's powerful, fda-approved to relieve moderate pain for up to 12 hours, yet non-addictive and gentle on the body. salonpas. it's good medicine. hisamitsu. coyou fifteen percentico or more on car insurance? do woodchucks chuck wood? hey you dang woodchucks, quit chucking my wood! geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

♪ ♪girls on the floor gotta thirty point lead and a minute left♪ ♪queens on the team in real life not just on the internet♪ ♪all strength, we ain't stoppin' believe me♪ ♪go straight till the morning look like we♪ ♪won't wait, we're taking everything we wanted we can do it♪ ♪all strength, no sweat ♪all strength, no sweat

or here on a wifi hotspot. lte xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $100 off galaxy a50. click, call or visit a store today.

more now on the breaking news this hour. the just-filed formal 110-page legal response filed on the eve of the impeachment trial beginning in ernest. let's get back to kaitlan collins at the white house for some of the highlights. kaitlan? >> reporter: john, we just got a briefing from the white house. it's about 110 pages, a lot longer than the outline you saw from them on saturday. essentially what you're seeing is they're laying out in detail this argument that you've been hearing from the white house, but what's notable about the difference in this and what we saw on saturday is on saturday we just got about seven pages from the white house, essentially saying they did not believe the articles of impeachment could stand on their own, and here they called them flimsy, but they break it down a lot more. they're defending the president's actions more in here than we had seen previously. it's not just talking about the articles of impeachment and the process and the substance here, it's actually talking about the

withhold of this ukranian aid, the president's actions here, and you're seeing them defend what the president is doing. we didn't notice this on saturday, because in that short briefing, the white house wasn't denying the core of this, that the president withheld ukranian aid, that he wanted this investigation of the bidens, and you get an indication when you read through this lengthy briefing that they filed getting ahead of this trial formally starting tomorrow, and just an indication of how much they're going to be attempting to defend the president's behavior here. in the index they talk about saying, quote, it was entirely appropriate for president trump to ask about possible ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. that's them arguing that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election because they wrote op-eds. they argued that was more than what the intelligence agency was

talking about. they said, quote, it would have been appropriate for president trump to ask president zelensky about the biden burisma affair. that tells you they not only will be arguing against the house process, whether it was fair to the president and whether these articles are fair, they're also going to be attempting to defend president trump's behavior. the question, of course, is, is the audience going to be reseptembresep receptive to that? they say, quote, anyone having the most basic respect for the sovereign will of the american people would shudder at the enormity of casting a vote of a duly elected president. that will be the message to these senators as they go forward to make they're case, and they already feel the president will be acquitted. they don't seem to have a lot of concern about that in the white house here like there was concern during the clinton impeachment, but the question now the white house is facing

that they don't know the answer to is whether or not there will be additional witnesses called forward. i also want to note we had a briefing call of sources working with the briefing team, as the white house puts it, and they were asking about lev parnas, this rudy giuliani associate who was indicted but now has come forward with text messages and voicemails and all these allegations about president trump's behavior. when they asked about him, they said, he was just trying to curry favor, essentially saying he was hoping to avoid some kind of jail sentence, and they said that was not part of the house investigation, so in their opinion, it shouldn't be part of the senate investigation. of course, it is still a big open question about whether that's going to be something that comes up, john. >> the president's brief now a return salvo, if you will, to the house impeachment managers. both of these documents now used and the lawyers will make the case on the floor of the senate for witnesses. let me read the first line which is more of a political argument

than a legal argument. there are substantive arguments, but they come out of the box, with the articles of impeachment now in front of the senate are an affront to the constitution and to our democratic institutions. the articles themselves and the rigd process that brought them here are a brazenly political act by house democrats that must be rejected. i suppose that will be one of the flash points. how brazen was mitch mcconnell about this? how brazen were they about withholding aid? their argument will be, the president did it, he can, no need for anything else. >> we also know there is argument from the administration about the fact the president was raising these requests of zelensky. it's what started the whole

matter in the first place, that the whistleblower complained, and we have heard others testify that john bolton, a stalwart republican, also had concerns about this. it really does come down to what you think the president's powers are in office. does he essentially have unfettered ability to make any decisions he wants in a foreign policy space, even if it involves a political rival? certainly from the white house perspective, they like putting this out there, too, because they think it muddies the arguments around joe biden. they think just keeping the joe biden name around, it helps them. trump thinks it's just about his political campaign. >> and it's more likely the republicans stay in their corner if it seems to be a big political flash point. the senate may not consider allegations not charged in articles of impeachment. they're talking about specifics there, but that also seems to be part of this no lev parnas, no information that's come out later, no gao report that said withholding the money was illegal and broke the law.

they're trying to make the case the house had an impeachment inquiry, has a record. that should be the basis right here. let's go straight to capitol hill. i'm sorry to interrupt you. house managers responding as well. what's the latest, manu? >> reporter: this is a filing that came through to house democrats, the saturday response from the white house that after the summit had summoned the president. democrats make the case they pushed back on virtually every assertion the president made. one aspect of it, it says president trump maintains that the senate cannot remove him even if the house proves every claim in the articles of impeachment. that is a chilling assertion. it's also dead wrong. so they go on in this argument to reiterate the arguments we've been hearing for some time on why the president deserves to be impeached and ultimately be removed from office, and essentially this is just the

latest in a legal filing that we'll see back and forth. you've been talking about the white house filing. tomorrow there's going to be another house democratic filing responding to the white house's brief from today. so you'll see these legal documents, these briefings go back and forth until we actually get to the actual arguments later today. we'll see also, john, whether or not house democrats themselves decide to talk a little bit more about this filing, about the white house's response. right now they are in speaker pelosi's office with the impeachment managers as they try to strategize the next few days, discuss what articles will be made publicly and see what they have to say about the white house's latest filing as well, john. >> more on the written word and the brief right now will become more of the lawyers on the senate soon enough. we'll take a quick break. we'll be right back. $9.95 at my age?

$9.95? no way. $9.95? that's impossible. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company, to tell you it is possible. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get life insurance with options starting at just $9.95 a month. okay, jonathan, i'm listening. tell me more. just $9.95 a month for colonial penn's number one most popular whole life insurance plan. there are no health questions to answer and there are no medical exams to take. your acceptance is guaranteed. guaranteed acceptance? i like guarantees. keep going. and with this plan, your rate is locked in for your lifetime, so it will never go up. sounds good to me, but at my age, i need the security of knowing it won't get cancelled as i get older.

this is lifetime coverage as long as you pay your premiums. it can never be cancelled, call now for free information. you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. use this valuable guide to record your important information and give helpful direction about your final wishes to your loved ones. and it's yours free. it's our way of saying thank you just for calling. so call now.

. more now on this 110-page legal brief filed today by the president's lawyers. just the title reminds us sometimes we get caught up in the details and we need to step back and remember the moment. trial memorandum of donald j. trump. the impeachment trial of the president of the united states begins in ernest tomorrow. they say essentially, yes, he asked for investigation into the bidens. they don't deny that happened,

they can't, but they directly address it. they also say the general accounting resolution last week should not be allowed in. they say the president was proper in his rejection of documents that the house impeachment had asked for and witnesses the house impeachment asked for. the burden now becomes the president's legal team, including pat cipollone, try to find pictures of pat cipollone talking on camera. he's practiced a different kind of law. it's not what he's done at the white house. he's not been a spotlight seeker. we are about to begin a fascinating moment. >> we expect to see about 45 minutes from him of substance and then we'll hear from jay sekulow. when the president's lawyers do talk, likely this is what's expected. he will then give us an overview of what's happened to get us to this point so far. then there's the rest of the legal team who they say will have a discreet function, and they will come in and argue various things. we don't know what the rest of that will look like, john, because they're waiting to see

what plays out beforehand. >> these opening arguments probably won't start until wednesday at the earliest. the house impeachment managers go first, and if mcconnell gets his way and we get 12-hour days, we're all there watching until 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. >> it's essentially a completely different determination of the same set of facts. >> exactly. that is the world we live in and we'll see it play out on the senate floor. one set of facts. no one disputes those facts, they just view them completely differently. democrats are united in believing the president abused his power in office. republicans believe he acted properly. the impeachment trial of the president of the united states begins tomorrow. brianna keilar begins her coverage right after a quick break. have a good afternoon. wnload not your first stock on us.

robinhood. and let me tell you something, rodeo... 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.

about medicare and 65, ysupplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything - only about 80% of your part b medicare costs, which means you may have to pay for the rest. that's where medicare supplement insurance comes in: to help pay for some of what medicare doesn't. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by united healthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? well, these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp and that's because they meet aarp's high standards

of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. for example, with any medicare supplement plan you may choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan, there are no networks or referrals needed. also, a medicare supplement plan goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. a free decision guide will provide a breakdown of aarp medicare supplement plans, and help you determine the plan that works best for your needs and budget. call today to request yours. let's recap. there are 3 key things you should keep in mind. one: if you're turning 65, you may be eligible for medicare - but it only covers about 80% of your medicare part b costs. a medicare supplement plan may help pay for some of the rest. two: this type of plan allows you to keep your doctor -

as long as he or she accepts medicare patients. and three: these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. learn more about why you should choose an aarp medicare supplement plan. call today for a free guide. i'm brianna keilar live from cnn's washington headquarters. welcome to a special holiday edition of "cnn right now." what this says about their strategy heading into an historic week in washington. all of this as the democrats hold firm on their demand to call witnesses as part of the trial. chuck schumer says he'll have to