on's cl oaplants, then led one of the biggest pollution reduction efforts in history. as president, he intends to reduce emissions by fifty percent within ten years. because if we want to stop climate change, we need to make a change. this is a fight-we can't afford to lose. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. ♪ new fixodent ultra dual power provides you with an unbeatable hold and strong seal against food infiltrations. fixodent. and forget it. shortly after republican

majority leader mitch mcconnell issued the guidelines for the senate impeachment trial, his democratic counterpoint called the resolution a, quote, national disgrace. senator chuck schumer said the resolution will make it harder to get witnesses and documents, and he said mcconnell was, quote, going along with trump's cover up hook, line and sinker. mcconnell's resolution will allow as many hours for opening arguments as in the clinton impeachment, 24 each side but what's different is they'll be divided over two days instead of four days as they were in the clinton impeachment, meaning the trial may lapse into the hours of the evening where fewer people are awake to watch them. i'm joined now by who will be a juror for the trike, mazie hirono of hawaii. thanks for being here. what do you make of this resolution from mcconnell? >> good evening. >> is it politics? >> of course it is. so what he wants is a fast trial, not a fair trial. and so this is what we have. we could have motions in the beginning to have witnesses, but

i wouldn't be surprised if that gets voted down. he is doing everything he can. basically, this whole thing is what i would call a rigged trial. >> you think it's rigged? >> yes. just as the president tried to rig the 2020 reelection for himself by leaning on the ukrainian president to do his political bidding using $400 million. >> why is doing it over two days theoretically 12 hours a day, how is that rigging it? >> well, for one thing, that's not only the part. the part that's really rigging is we don't have any documents, relevant documents, and we're probably not going to have relevant witnesses. >> all the information from the house is not automatically entered into the senate? >> apparently not. >> that has to be voted in? >> normally all of that would be included in the record, but this time mitch is going to make us vote on every little thing. and what hopes maybe he wants to give them something positive to vote for such as all of the record should be included from

the house impeachment process. so maybe that's something that the republicans can vote for as they are very busy voting down everything else that the democrats would push for. >> what the president's supporters clearly want is for this to be over. >> yes. >> before the state of the union. because they feel that probably president trump could not stop himself from talking about this at the state of the union if this was hanging over him. >> well, regardless, he'll find a way to talk about it in a way that is most advantageous to him. but yes, i think it's really clear that he wants to be able to say that he's been totally exonerated because i think of the way the senate is going, he is not going to be convicted. so just as he did with the mueller report, he will run around saying that he was totally exonerated. but as speaker pelosi says, he will always be an impeached president. >> so if it's 12 hours each day, are senators sitting there for the entire 12 hours? do you have staff who can, you know, fill your seats while you take a break? >> oh, no.

>> you're sitting there? >> we are sitting there, yes. and i think mitch's point is he doesn't want the american people to watch this. although one would think they're going to see snippets. they'll see enough. and one thing that they're clear on is the majority of american people want a fair trial which means they want witnesses. i think they understand we should have the documents that were denied to the house. >> but you think that's motivation, to have the american people not see what is going on? >> he has many motivations, but they're all political and they're all designed to help his people. certainly they're designed to cover up with the president did. and as i watch dershowitz, i don't know where he comes from, frankly, to say that what the president did not impeachable. you know, i think his position is that the president did it. so what. get over it. that's the mulvaney explanation. so he said and regardless whether the president did all this, it's not impeachable. so basically, you know what? we have to ask yourselves, who is the president going to shake down next.

>> the -- the white house just released tonight a list. i'm going to put it on the screen right now, the republicans who will be joining the president's impeachment team from the house, putting their names up there on the screen. what could you think is behind this last-minute move? >> i haven't seen. where are the names? >> over there. there is doug collins, mike johnson, jim jordan, is on the list, debbie lesko, mark meadows. >> john ratcliffe. >> i don't know what kind of role they're supposed to play because he's already got his team. what are they going to do? sit there? are they going to be able to speak? are they going to be able to jump up and down? i don't know. maybe he feels reassured. >> supposedly they'll continue to give advice. >> advice? >> it seems like they're the ones who are prominent on television. >> they certainly were. >> it seems like he has built a team which is actually people who made their names on television a lot. >> what the president needs surrounding him at all times are what i call yes men and yes

women. that's it. it makes him feel better. it makes him more assured because he is a very insecure person. so you got -- you know, i was waiting for how he was going to use, use the house people that are totally on his page. and now we know. >> i want to bring in our team here, because i think you were kind of enough to say you would answer questions for them. >> as long as they don't ask me anything. >> david gergen who advised former presidents nixon, reagan ford. elliot williams and cnn analyst and congressional editor of "the new york times" julie hirschfeld davis. >> i would like to ask you about the rules that pertain to you and others in the senate. can you go on television while this -- after the proceedings end or in the mornings to talk about what you've seen? >> yes. >> so you're free to do that? >> yes. i fully intend to, because as it is, the american people are not going to be staying up until 2:00 a.m. >> true. >> i think part of our

responsibility will be to let the people know what we heard, what kind of evidence that they are presenting on the president's side. >> so are these -- the people that we have just heard about up on the screen, do you anticipate them to be surrogates for the president who can take to the airwaves? >> i expect so. >> senator, i wonder a lot of this we all are looking forward to sort of big dramatic trial, organize arguments on each side. but there is a lot of prerogative in the impeachment rules to go into closed session. and i wonder whether you think that's going to happen a lot. will there be a lot of these deliberations, including starting tomorrow on how the trial will unfold that will actually happen behind closed doors that the public can't see? and what are the implications of that? >> i hope not. i hope the entire trial will be available to view for the public. i don't know on what basis they would close the discussions or the debate. except that they're trying to hide something. >> you hear a lot about unease from republicans, unease with the president's behavior, unease

with republicans about mitch mcconnell coordinating with the president of the united states. >> yes. >> for the conduct of the trial. have you heard from any of your republican colleagues? have they privately expressed to you any of these things that we're hearing about this unease with mitch mcconnell or the president? >> my colleagues often express in private their unease. but you know what? i say what does that matter if they're going to voting totally on the line with them? and they are enabling by the way by supporting mitch mcconnell and what he's doing. they're supporting the cover-up and the inability of us to call on relevant witnesses and to obtain relevant evidence. >> if they don't, and you think it's not a fair trial at the end of the week, look, you spent i think it was three terms in the house, do you think -- in light of everything we've seen this week, the last couple of weeks, big allegations, do you think the house should reopen proceedings and call witnesses and ask for more documents now? >> i don't see why that would get them anywhere different than where they are now, because the president has engaged in a total stonewalling of the house in their efforts.

so as far as i'm concerned, they had 17 witnesses in spite of the fact that the president didn't want anybody to testify, and these witnesses corroborate what the president was up to and what all his people were up to. and so as far as i'm concerned, unless the president mounts a defense which is more than saying oh, well, anything he does, that's not impeachable, that's not a defense. that's some sort of argument, not based on any evidence. i'm waiting for the president to mount a defense. otherwise we are left with the 17 witnesses, what they testified to, and the evidence that was produced. >> do you have any hope that there actually will be witnesses called after seeing the rules that have been put out? >> apparently there have going sob some opportunity in the beginning for chuck schumer to get up and ask, for example, john bolton be a witness. but if mitch wants to just stifle that, he can just move to table the motion. and we can -- but that forces

his republican members to vote to table any witnesses coming forward. >> does that mean we end up with a deal for hunter biden in exchange for a john bolton or something like that? >> i don't know that chuck is going to make that kind of deal. >> right. >> but what i would anticipate is chuck would make a motion for bolton that would be turned down and they may make a countermotion amendment to the mcconnell motion to proceed that would be hunter biden, and that would probably be voted up. i don't know. they may vote it down because it does look pretty weird that somebody who actually was there in the white house who called this whole thing a drug deal not to be allowed and they're going to have a hunter biden who doesn't even have anything to do with what the president did, and they're going to go ahead with that kind of a witness? that doesn't look good for them either. >> legally, that's an important point. hunter biden's testimony has no legal bearing. >> of course not. >> on whether the president's conduct was improper. >> no. and up to now, the republicans have yet to focus on the president's conduct. they have been tossing out, you know, what about this and what

about hunter biden, what about all of, this what about the scheme that is actually the ukrainians and all that you know what? but they have not focused on the president's actions. what it's going to come down to is that the president did it. he himself says he did nothing wrong, that he did it. so what. >> senator mazie hirono, appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> everyone else is going to stay with us. so much to talk about, including the witnesses democrats hope to call, who they are. what the democrats hope to learn and will they actually ever hear their testimony. also president trump's legal strategy. you heard alan dershowitz defend the president a short while ago. a rebut federal a fellow law school professor laurence tribe just ahead. wherever we want to go, autosave your way there with chase. chase. make more of what's yours.

♪ [happy ♪irthday music]

♪ don't get mad, put those years to work with e*trade. t-mobile 5g is here. and it's nationwide. while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network. [sneeare you ok?fles] yah, it's just a cold. it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure. coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure.

when they bundle home and auto with progressive. wow, that's... and now the progressive commercial halftime show, featuring smash mouth. ♪ hey now, you're an all star ♪ get your game on, go play thank you! goodnight! [ cheers and applause ] now enjoy the second half of the commercial! even renters can bundle and save! where did that come from? the kitchen. it was halftime.

president trump's defense team and senate allies are reportedly working on scenarios to prevent any testimony from john bolton should democrats win enough republican votes to call witnesses. "the washington post" is reporting that while the president's allies in the senate express confidence this is not going to happen, they nevertheless are preparing a plan b. one option is moving bolton's testimony to a classified setting. that would first come after battles in court. bolton is obviously just one of the witnesses the democrats hope to call. details on that now from cnn's sara murray. >> reporter: democrats are clamoring to see these four men in the hot seat testifying before the senate impeachment trial. john bolton, mick mulvaney, robert blair, and michael duffey all have firsthand knowledge of president trump's attempts to withhold security aid to

ukraine, allegedly in exchange for investigations into trump's political rival joe biden. they all refuse to cooperate with the house impeachment inquiry. but bolton, the former national security adviser recently pulled an about-face, saying he would willingly testify before the senate, while at the white house, bolton was vocal about his concerns over how the ukraine matter was being handled. >> i had to go to the lawyers to john eisenberg. i was senior counsel for the national security council to say basically you tell eisenberg that i am not part of this whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> reporter: also on the wish list mick mulvaney, who openly admitted the president withheld aid in exchange for investigations into 2016. >> they look back to what happened in 2016, certainly was part of the things he was worried about in part of corruption with that nation. get over it. there is going to be political influence in foreign policy.

>> reporter: mulvaney tried to walk that back later. emails also show mulvaney asking his senior adviser robert blair back in june, did we ever find out about the money for ukraine and whether we can hold it back? blair responded it was possible, but expect congress to become unhinged. blair said it would also be seen as more evidence trump was pro-russia. blair was the one who delivered the message to russ vogt that the aid needed to be held. buff it fell to michael duffey to carry out the program. after 90 minutes of president trump's controversial call with the ukrainian president on july 25th, duffey told officials at omb and the pentagon to withhold security aid for ukraine. he seemed to know it could cause concerns given the sensitive nature of the request, duffey wrote i appreciate you keeping that information closely held. as the hold dragged on and pentagon officials sounded the alarm that the freeze could run

afoul of the law, duffey told a top pentagon official on july 30th that the demand was coming from the top. clear direction from potus to continue to hold. sara murray, cnn, washington. >> back now with our political legal team. david gergen, how do you think this is going to play out? as you heard from senator hirono, chuck schumer tomorrow is saying he is going to offer a whole series of amendments dealing with witnesses and documents, but not sure that's going to amount to really anything. they might just delay that all until afterward. >> i think that mitch mcconnell plays hardball, knows how to do this. i think he'll wind up succeeding on most of the rules he is setting forward. i imagine there may be one or two things that get changed with some help from republicans. but at the end of the day, the larger point here is if mcconnell and his republican allies succeed in keeping out witnesses, keeping out documents, cramming it through in two days, this new thing

about having to vote to admit the evidence, which we did not have in the clinton case, if all of those things happen, i think historians will say we've had three big cover-ups in the government in the last 60 years. one was the pentagon papers, another was richard nixon, and another one is this. the difference is going to be that this one is succeeding. the other two failed, came apart. rick will disagree with that. >> i'm going to disagree with that. >> sure. >> if the democrats are serious about this, they can go to court and they can force the president to do what every president has had to do in the past, which is defend their position in court. they have chosen not to do that. they still have that option. >> but they've done that. >> there is no cover-up. >> haven't they done that on specific issue in the past, specific people they want to testify. the president has made a blanket noncooperation. >> the breadth of executive privilege is still executive privilege.

that's why you go to court. the court may say you know what? in certain areas we're going let it stand and other areas hold it up. >> what every president has also done is comply with subpoenas. >> exactly. >> no. >> yes. >> no. >> and provide documents to what the president has done. >> president obama didn't. >> what are you -- >> they went to court. you lost and then you turned them over. >> the obama administration respected that congress had a right. >> of course they do. >> this president has made clear from the beginning that he doesn't. >> so respected they had the right and chose not to give them. >> i was there at the justice department and the department of homeland security there was an oversight dispute. >> there is a difference between doing things on specific issues and a blanket we are no going to cooperate, isn't there? >> from the beginning of the administration he is not going comply with oversight requests. >> it should make your case an easy case to good to court. >> complied from the beginning. >> the bigger thing is impeachments, they have cooperated. >> yes. it's not like there is a long history.

>> but when we've had impeachments, there has been cooperation. and so you keep going back to this every time. i feel like we have this conversation, it's groundhog day over and over again, that you keep insisting the only way these people can testify is the democrats going to court when we know that is not true. >> of course they could voluntarily comply but they're not going to. >> you guys go to court. president clinton instead told people to cooperate and testify. the point is donald trump is the one who is holding this up. these people could testify very easily. we could get the fax. and again if you are, they could exonerate him, they would be testifying. >> the iconic figure of the republican party ronald reagan, iran/contra, send up the documents. send up the witnesses. how can you just sort of dismiss that and sort of like there is precedent after precedent of presidents who have tried to cooperate. and especially on serious things. the very country is at risk. >> i think what you're finding here is i would agree.

would i like the president to cooperate? in a perfect world, yes. this has been anything but a perfect world the way they have treated this president the past three years. they've gone after him and tried to impeach him from day one. thing is a legitimate ground to say you guys have come coming after me. i complied with all the mueller requirements. >> actually, he didn't. >> well, complied with -- they didn't -- >> didn't go testify. didn't go talk to mueller. >> but he did -- he responded to questions and mueller agreed that is satisfactory. so he did comply. he was very open. and where did that get him? it got him two years of hell. he is saying you know what? enough is enough. >> also, they didn't try to impeach him from day one. that's not true. that's a completely made up thing. the fact that someone said they wanted to impeach him is not the same thing as them trying to impeach him. nancy pelosi, who is the leader of the democrats did not want to impeach him. >> but what is extraordinary i think about these trial rules, and i'm curious your opinion is this idea that the house

inquiry, which took place over a matter of months, lots and lots of witness testimony, lots of documents they got and some they didn't get is not even going to be entered into evidence at the outset? how is that -- is that just a move to delegitimize what they have done? why should that take a separate vote of the senate? >> i think it's a move to say if we're going to have a trial, let's have a real trial. and here's what i think is going on. just like in 1999, the move was look, let the managers on both sides make their case. >> but in 1999 they admitted the evidence. >> if i can go forward. again, there wasn't a real contesting of facts with the clinton impeachment. here there is a huge contesting of fact and the method on which those facts were developed. and so here is what i think just to cut to the chase. what i think this is going on here is that the president -- mitch mcconnell is saying if we're going to go and have witnesses -- remember, the vote on witnesses is first. if we're going to have witnesses, then we're going to

look at this evidence, look at all the way this evidence was compiled, whether it's hearsay, and we're going to have members take votes on all of this evidence and where it came from and whether it's admissible or not. >> here is a question for you. what are the facts that are in dispute? you're saying facts. >> lots of facts. >> the conclusions that we choose to draw from the facts are in dispute, but the president himself acknowledges what happened on the call. we know what happened from omb. we know that the $391 million was held up. now the question was it ledge mi legitimate or proper. there is a legal dispute as to whether the president ought to be impeached for it. >> i disagree. >> i got to get a break in. i'm sorry. we're going to continue it. thanks, everybody. harvard law professor laurence tribe who has a decidedly different opinion from his colleague alan dershowitz who you heard a few minutes ago joins us ahead.

is your cleanser cleansing well? try garnier micellar cleansing water. micelles work like a magnet to remove makeup without rubbing. cleanse without rinsing. even for sensitive skin. it's cleansing, reinvented. micellar water. and now, new water rose micellar water. by garnier, naturally. and now, new water rose micellar water. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one.

for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com says they can save you dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. cheerio! esurance is built to save you dollars. and when they save dollars, you save dollars. so get a quote. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. when insurance is affordable, apps except work.rywhere... why is that? is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports. i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't. by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business.

to learn more, visit paycom.com ♪

harvard law school professor laurence tribe is arguing that the senate impeachment trial about to get under way is perfectly valid. in an op-ed for "the washington post" he says allegations that the senate proceedings are unconstitutional because president trump hasn't committed

a crime are flat-out wrong. quote, the argument that only criminal offenses are impeachable he writes has died a thousand deaths in the writings of all the experts on its subjects, but it staggers on like a vengeful zombie, end quote. one of the president's attorneys, harvard professional emeritus alan dershowitz plans to argue that an impeachable offense must be a crime. in 1998 he said there did not have to be a crime in order for impeachment to be constitutional. here is how he explained himself earlier tonight on the program. >> i've done all the research. >> okay. so you didn't do the research back then. got it. >> i didn't do the research back then. >> okay. >> because that wasn't an issue. >> you were wrong. >> i wasn't wrong. i am just far more correct now than i was then. i said you didn't need a technical crime back then. >> okay. >> i still don't think you need a technical crime. and i think your viewers are entitled to hear my argument without two bullies jumping on everything i say.

>> oh, come on, please. >> and trying to pinpoint and nitpick on what i said. >> professor tribe's viewpoint, i spoke to him shortly before air time, before that sound you hear from dershowitz. >> you've been critical of your former colleague alan dershowitz who writes he is not to be trusted and he is, quote, losing it. is your issue with him that he is defending the president or he says he is defending the constitution or is it his legal arguments or both? >> it's his legal arguments. he's perfectly entitled to defend the president, although i don't like he pretends he is defending the constitution instead of the president. he is not the constitution's client. but i don't want this to make -- to be a feud with alan. the stakes here are enormous. we've got a president who was shaking down a foreign government for his own benefit, for his own reelection.

he was using taxpayer money to do it. he is engaged in the kind of abuse that alexander hamilton, james madison, any of our framers would have said requires that we end the presidency, especially when the abuse goes to meddling in the next election. and when alan dershowitz or anybody, although i don't know anybody else who really does it, comes up and says well, it's an abuse but it's not a crime or crime-like, and therefore we can't remove him for it. that really -- that's disgusting. there is no basis in the constitution or in our history for that. it means that if abraham lincoln had said oh, hell, let the south go, or give it to some -- let's give it to france, that wouldn't have been a crime, but surely it would been impeachable. alan in his own book -- his own book gives the example if putin decided to give alaska, the trump decided to give alaska back to putin, that might be

terrible, but it wouldn't be impeachable. well, that is just bs. and i think it's really sad that the country pays attention to these ludicrous arguments. they wouldn't pay attention but for the fact that he is star on fox news and he used to do a lot of criminal defense work. that's fine, and he was a great teacher, and he used to be a good colleague. but right now he's selling out, basically, selling out, i don't think for money, but just for attention. >> you think he wants to be in the thick of it, and that's what's at the heart of that? >> yeah, sure looks like it. he really gets off on being, you know, in the spotlight. it's all very nice to want to be in the spotlight, but when the future of the country and the constitution is at stake, where are your values? you know, it's not -- it really is sad. it's sad to me. >> the argument he is making is -- and the president's brief makes as well is that both the

articles of impeachment, both of the charges essentially are not in the constitution as impeachable offenses, that the obstruction of congress is essentially made up and that other abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. >> well, i know he says it. he can say it a thousand times. he can stand on his head and say it. it doesn't make it true. the fact is that high crimes and misdemeanors was a phrase that the framers took from england and from the colonies, and it meant abuse of power. that's what it was. there are things the president can do that don't look like any ordinary crime because only the president can do them, like giving away part of the country to putin or letting part of the country float out to sea, or the supreme court has given examples of things that aren't crimes like abusing the pardon power that are reasons to remove a president. if a president were to say that

the department of justice will from now on not go after anybody who has voted for me, for donald trump, that wouldn't be a crime, but it would sure be an impeachable offense because it's an abuse of power. >> what about the argument that dershowitz and the president's team is making that this will set a precedent that will, quote, fundamentally damage the separation of powers, says the brief, and would essentially open the door to future presidents being impeached for protecting t ing thing the prer the presidency? >> the separation of powers is the very thing this president has attacked over and over again. he takes money that was appropriated for the military and seizes it for his wall. he doesn't respect the separation of powers. and this argument that when the president stonewalls, refuses to take any effort to cooperate with congress, even when it's

exercising its power of oversight and impeachment, the argument that that is perfectly okay because there is such a thing as executive privilege just is constitutionally ignorant. >> professor tribe, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> i appreciate yours, anderson. up next, the historical significance. what's going to start to take place tomorrow on the senate floor. be right back. when people ask me what makes verizon 5g different i talk about firefighters. for hundreds of years they've had to do their jobs in blinding smoke. but verizon 5g ultra wideband is built to transmit real-world data so fast, it could power technology that lets them see through smoke. that's a difference that can save lives.

that's a difference that will change everything.

just between us, you know what's better than mopping? anything! at the end of a long day, it's the last thing i want to do. well i switched to swiffer wet jet and its awesome. it's an all-in-one so it's ready to go when i am. the cleaning solution actually breaks down dirt and grime. and the pad absorbs it deep inside. so, it prevents streaks and haze better than my old mop. plus, it's safe to use on all my floors, even wood. glad i got that off my chest and the day off my floor. try wet jet with a moneyback guarantee

there are those who will say thatoo fat.: too skinny. too hard. too soft. too old. too much. too unexpected. too limited. and to them we say too bad. because at kaiser permanente, we believe that everyone deserves the right to thrive. again, breaking news. senate republicans revealing how they would like the impeachment trial of president trump to play out. the trial officially begins tomorrow. however you think the outcome will be, it cannot be

understated how historic this moment is for the nation. it's only the third time a president has been impeached in the almost 250-year history of our country. joining us andrew johnson. joining us tim naftali, co-author of impeachment in american history. paul begala who worked for president clinton, had a front row seat to his impeachment. and a professor who teaches impeachment law at tulane law school. paul, the rules of how this is going to be, this is obviously despite what he had earlier said, this is going to be very different than the president clinton impeachment. >> it is. and i don't understand why. i'm sure it's political, and i'm a political guy. i get that. but it's not like he's at risk of losing votes anyway. it's not like 30 republicans are going to remove the president anyway. it's actually honestly, in mcconnell's interests, in the senate's interest more importantly to have a fair trial. the average american watches that and said okay, that's fair.

you're trying to keep senators up until 1:00 or 2:00 or 3:00? the senate famously is like the world's most exclusive nursing home. and we're going to take these people and keep them up until 3:00 in the morning. there is no need. >> i'm not sure viewers are going to stay up. >> maybe that's his goal. but he is certainly giving the house managers prime time. insteld of doing it all in the day time, which is what the house did when there is not as many viewers. i think this is going to do real damage to the senate. in the clinton days, the republicans controlled the senate. we were a democratic administration, but the republicans and the democrats in the senate together thought that the house had been too partisan, and they got together and all 100 of them agreed upon rules because they were really worried about the institutional reputation of the senate. i don't see that today. >> ross? >> i think there are a couple of things. one is there is nothing to say that the managers have to use all 24 hours of -- i've never given a 24-hour opening argument. the second thing is, as i read the rules, and they are significantly different, very different from the clinton

rules, is it's really going to what this trial is going to look like. the clinton trial was set up to not really be a trial, to admit all of the house evidence right up front and have no discussion about that. the president couldn't even object to it, get right through opening arguments and get right to a verdict. do it very quick. i think what senator mcconnell is doing here is saying look, we've got two choices. well can do a quick sort of clinton-like quasi trial, do those opening arguments, get right through it, get right to a verdict, or we're going to start talking about new witnesses, that's fine. we're going to take up the issue of evidence at the end and then decide what the president's going to object to and what's going to be admitted. i think that's really what the fundamental difference is. >> tim, how do you see this? >> well, i think that i keep asking myself what role the moderate senators played in shaping this. mitch mcconnell is a very good tactician. he would not have put this draft

resolution out if he didn't already have 51 at least, if not 53 votes, which means that the moderate senators who have been talking about witness, i'm talking about senator collins, senator murkowski, senator romney are okay with this. but what is it that they're okay with? because this, as ross mentioned, this resolution is quite different than the clinton resolution which apparently senator collins handed to mitch mcconnell and said this is what i like. and my sense is this, that there were people in the caucus, the republican caucus who didn't want any witnesses, and they didn't want there to even be an opening for witnesses. and the moderates said no, we need witnesses. and what you've got is now a compromise where they're going to have a vote to vote on witnesses. i hope this means that it will be a real discussion. i'm not convinced that there will be, in which case we may face a fact -- when we face the

case whether there will be no witnesses at all, making this a fundamentally different presidential trial. and that's not good for the country. >> ross, jeff toobin before was saying this is a farce essentially. >> well, i don't think that actually goes pretty far. in the clinton trial, there weren't witnesses who actually testified on the floor of the senate. there were depositions and then excerpts were played. and that's very different. again, i think what the moderates are getting out of this are really two votes. one is an up or down vote on whether considering witnesses is in order. in other words, an up or down vote on witnesses. and then the second is a vote on the house's evidence. are they going to admit, and that was a vote that was not present in the clinton impeachment, are they going to admit the house's evidence, or are they not going admit or are they going to admit parts and not admit parts circumstances that symbolic? >> i think that's very significant. >> because the people who are

the managers they're going to be arguing using that evidence. so it's going to be talked about. >> except here is somebody who has tried cases, during opening arguments what you typically say is what i think the evidence is going to show. that's what the managers i think are going to be able to do. but still the prosecution has to move for the admission of every piece of evidence, has to justify every witness, has to justify all of the questions and the answers. that's how a typical trial works. the clinton process short circuited that, admitted all of the house evidence automatically right at the beginning. the president didn't have the right to object. >> right. and we had -- we had all the evidence. ken starr, got bless him, he was pretty thorough. he made jaubert in "les mis" look like a slacker. painters, hairdressers, a dentist, mail carrier, we had all the evidence. it all came in. we had no right to object to it. in this case, the house case in terms of evidence is hamstrung

because the president wouldn't cooperate. so we're not going to let what little evidence the house was able to put together in, perhaps, without a vote, and we're certainly unlikely to get new evidence coming in. it really does look like a rigged deal. >> we've got to take a break. thank you, all. appreciate it. coming up, next house speaker nancy pelosi named seven members who will serve as impeachment managers and argue the impeachment trial, including the lead congress member adam schiff. he has been part of this investigation for months. we're going to take a look at his role, when we come back. give me a little slack! with freedom unlimited, you're always earning. i said i need some slack on pump three!

through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from finding out what's selling best... to managing your fleet... to collaborating remotely with your teams. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. infallible up to 24hr demand morfresh wear.wear. by l'oreal paris. excellent coverage with no weigh down. a breathable formula for fresh skin hour after hour. defies transfer, no excess. infallible up to 24hr fresh wear. by l'oreal paris.

t-mobile 5g is here. and it's nationwide. while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns...

to the people. millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network. $12.99 all you can eat ♪ now with boneless wings. only at applebee's.

dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. tonight republicans reveal the proposal for how it see the impeachment trial play out in the senate. democrats are pushing back. officially kicking off tomorrow. among them adam schiff who was picked to be the lead house manager of the trial. his selection is no surprise. he played a central role in the

invest investigation of president trump. >> it feels like being in the eye of the hurricane. you can never tell when you'll step out into winds. >> it's been nothing but turbulence for schiff for the past months. >> it's of course much more intense now than ever before. >> he should resign from office in disgrace and look at him for treason. >> anyone not living under a rock knows the schiff is one of president trump's favorite twitter targets. >> i can't keep up with the twitter attack. my staff stopped sending them to me. >> i don't follow him no. >> i have more important things to do. >> like make the case against anymore the senate trial. he was in the camp that believed impeachment was not a good idea. what changed his mind? >> what made this a necessity

for me and so many colleagues is that if the president believes that he can abuse his office the power of the office and fail to defend national security and there's no accountability, even if it's only in the house. that's too dangerous a prospect to persist. >> schiff came to congress from his l.a. county district 20 years ago. a moderate democrat who beat the republican incumbent. a leader of the impeachment fight against bill clinton. how's that for irony? >> his priority has been engaging in these national partisan ideology crusades and ignoring the business at home in the district. and i don't think people value that. >> before congress he served in the california state senate. his greatest impact as an assistant u.s. attorney when he prosecuted an fbi agent for

selling secrets to the russians. >> it does feel at times like many u life is full circle. >> from a major role in the republican led investigation. to chairman of the intelligence committee this year. to leading the charge against donald trump. >> what people don't understand about adam is that he wanted to go in the intelligence committee for two reasons. it was bipartisan and quiet. so i say how'd that work out for you? >> it's become ugly and personal. illegitimate hearings republicans say run by a partisan ship who may try to censure. >> behind closed doors with a chairman that lied three times to the american public. we're supposed to trust that? >> it's a soviet style impeachment process. >> he's unfit. >> the chairman is having none

of it. >> this president they'll destroy what america stands for and the world. hold lg up aide or meetings or whatever to get help in the next election. they'll normalize that. and hunker do and put their heads in the sand. where is sense of duty? >> schiff has written a few of his own and took dramatic and controversial liberties in describing the president's phone call with the ukraine president. >> i'll say this only seven times. you better listen good. i want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. lots of it. >> the performance turned into a political opening for republicans. one in particular. >> shifty schiff. is a double corrupt politician. he took my words on the phone call and they were so good he totally changed them. >> do you regret doing it that way? >> i was mocking the president and he doesn't like being

mocked. it was a mafia organized crime shake down. i'm not surprised if the president was attacking me about this. he would be attacking me about something else. >> they have been trying to impeach me. >> he has kept up the drum beat. during weeks of committee hearings and show downs over witnesses. schiff had the last word. >> he believes he's above the law. beyond accountability. in my view there's nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes that i are above the law. in the words of my great colleague. we are better than that. adjourned. >> we'll be right back. ♪ don't get mad, put those years to work with e*trade.

[sneezing] ♪ you don't want to cancel your plans. [sneezing] cancel your cold. the 1-pill power of advil multi-symptom cold & flu knocks out your worst symptoms. cancel your cold, not your plans. advil multi-symptom cold & flu.

wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule.

awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. the news continues. i want to turn it over to don

lemon and "cnn tonight." >> this is "cnn tonight" i'm don lemon. thank you so much for joining us. hours to go until the senate gets down to the real business of the impeachment trial of president trump. we have major news on just how the trial will play out. we'll tell you about that. mitch mcconnell is determined to keep most americans from seeing and hearing the historic event for themselves. with new rules that mean opening arguments happen in the middle of the night. literally under the cover of darkness. you have to wonder, what he's trying to hide. tomorrow will be about debate on the resolution and opening arguments begin on wednesday. house impeachment managers and senators will be on the floor for hours. and hours. fighting just really just to stay awake. the plan allows each side 24 hours to make opening arguments.