good evening. welcome to a special two-hour program focused entirely on the impeachment trial of donald j. trump which officially begins tomorrow afternoon. whatever you think the outcome will be, it cannot be understated. it will be taught in history books. mentioned at the top of any presidential biography and mentioned by all who witnessed it. this is third impeachment in the 250 year history of our country and potentially, an peexed president, must then run for re-election. it shows 51% of americans believe the senate should vote to remove president trump from office. 45% disagree. right now we're focused on the moving pieces of the trial.

we know the argument that will be made. the previous arguments called the argument flimsy. 17 times they used the word unconstitution a. what we did not know until this moment is how publics intend to actually structure the trial, the rules. not just whether witnesses could be called but how long both sides will have to make their arguments. a short time ago, mitch mcconnell provided some much needed clarity. literally hours before the trial was set to begin. so what have we learned from mitch mcconnell? >> he's setting up a fast fraction could lead to the presses's acquittal potentially as soon as next week. if the republicans don't break ranks, if there's to bipartisan agreement to get witnesses, we could see this happening pretty quickly and this is why. under the resolution, it will be

focused exclusively on the resolution. democrats will offer amendments. then amendments to the resolution. once it is documented, it lays out the parameters of the proceedings. then each side will have 24 hours to make their case. first democrats will. then the republicans will. but those 24 hours could be used in only two days. that means democrats will have probably thursday, wednesday and thursday of this week to make their case. the white house will then, the president's team will have friday and probably saturday to make their case. its possible they will use all 24 hours to defend him. at that point there will be 16 hours of questions senators would have to ask questions to each side. once those questions are done, earlier next week, then they would move into the question of whether to subpoena any witnesses. then a separate vote, much different than the clinton vote, about whether to admit the house democrats and the evidence they

gathered during the impeachment inquiry into the record. that in the clinton case, that was admitted automatically. here under the rules, the senate would have to vote. a majority vote to admit it into the record. once those votes are all done, if democrats and republicans don't both agree to subpoena witnesses and subpoena documents, then they could set up that acquittal vote and it is very possible that could be by the middle of the week, next week. the president could be on his way, well ahead of the state of the union, delivering the address. after the senate proceedings could be finished. >> so the state of the union is two tuesdays from now, correct? >> yeah. february 4th is the day. that's when he wants to be acquitted by. >> so the 24 hours each side has, who determines how they use that 24 hours? >> well, when it is given to the democrats, first, guarding the democrats. adam schiff, the lead impeachment manager will be arguing for a good chunk of that

but they will split it up accordingly among the impeachment managers on the team. they will split it how they see fit and then the president's team will decide how they see fit, how to make the arguments over a 24-hour time span. they're only given two session days to make their case. we'll see if they use all 24 hours to move it even quicker. >> and these rules are very different than clinton impeachment rules, correct? >> the biggest difference, the one i alluded to, the requiring evidence to be submitted, they'll require a vote. the democrats have got the information all throughout the impeachment inquiry in the house. they may not be able to admit if someone senators do know vote and allow it to go forward republicans are arguing because

they stay democratic process in their view, it was a sham process. they're saying that's why it is different than clinton. clinton allowed for four days. so six hours a day, instead of 12 hours a day. so that's different than clinton. that's what got democrats riled up. they're saying, it would mirror clinton's trial but it's different in some key ways. mcconnell's office is saying, it will be similar and still very similar. all right. thank you, here with our legal team, let's start with you, the opening salvo with mcconnell. the legality. >> mitch mcconnell is trying to make it a farce. trying to make it a joke. this is, you know, the trial will start every day at 1:00 in the afternoon.

12 hours would be 1:00 in the morning. that's not how the senate works. there will be breaks. so the idea is that mcconnell wants to keep most of the evidence in the wee hours, so that nobody sees it. then the real new atrocity that mcconnell added today, which i don't think many people saw coming, the idea that the house managers couldn't even present their evidence without a vote from the full senate. something completely new, not true in the clinton trial. it is all designed to engineer an acquittal. as soon as possible. >> had if the evidence has to be voted on in the end, is that correct? so while the house managers are making their arguments, can they not use evidence? >> we don't know yet. the answer can't be no.

but just as an official matter, it is not received into evidence until later. >> the evidence is out there. nobody is hiding it. they can refer to what happened in the house. >> why this vote? >> there's a lot more to be known. >> what the president did was illegal. they've referred to it in their documents. >> a lot of things gao said that what obama did was illegal and nobody said anything about it. the gao represents the congress. they have a different point of view than the congress. >> i want to agree with jeffrey on this. i think has the perversion of the process used with bill clinton. plain and simple. it's laughable, it's a joke. you want people the sit there 12 hours a day and listen to this rather than splitting it up, as was with clinton, to six or so hours a day? just because --

>> who said that? >> just because the president of the united states would like to have this done conveniently by the state of the union. >> do you think there might have been some motive that nancy pelosi held this for a month to be approximate to the state of the union? so he would be under -- >> nancy pelosi was trying to find out, nancy pelosi was trying to find out what the rules were going to be biffle the way, mitch mcconnell was going to keep them in his back pocket until the final day anyway. >> rick, even if she turned over the articles earlier, they couldn't have started the trial before now. >> let's try a bigger view. they were on christmas vacation. >> oh, look. they would have started it earlier. this could have been done in an orderly way. nancy pelosi forced a shortened process. >> we're already down in the weeds. let's look at the big picture. this is most important moment

for the republican party since the censure of joe mccarthy and the impeachment of richard nixon in which republicans became great heroes and patriots. now we're looking at midnight mitch and the so-called world's greatest deliberative body, really embracing a cover-up there for all to see. that's what this is about. preventing information it's becoming known and seen by the american public. other impeachments, including andrew johnson, including clinton, there has been no problem about knowing the truth of the facts. we still have a factual problem here because the president and those who work for him, and mitch mcconnell, have impeded the facts from the beginning. >> there are facts that could be known. i agree. >> let's have them. whose responsibility is that? it is up to the house of representatives to present the case. >> who wouldn't let the documents or witnesses come

before the house? >> this is a way to deal with the problem. you work the courts to get that information. they chose not to do that. as a result of that, you're right. >> a president who doesn't cover up and lie all the dpim says all right. we'll give you the evidence. >> there is another way to do it that you don't go to the courts. do you what other presidents have done. you tell people to go testify. the way you act like, the only way to get people to testify and give you the relevant information is to go to the courts is disproven by history. does it have to start at 1:00? to your point, if this is nancy pelosi's fault, nobody is making this start at 1:00. it could start in the morning. >> john roberts is. >> maybe co-change the schedule. that's the way the clinton impeachment ran. >> why two days? >> because they want to get in it before the state of the

union. they need to do that. >> did bill clinton have the state of the union speech in the middle of the trial? >> i remember it there. >> didn't his poll numbers actually go up? >> the fascinating thing, tlis will tell us who was right. bill clinton did not acknowledge the impeachment process. emas he over and over again, eye going to work for the american people. he didn't interfere. he didn't complain. and all this president does is talk about, it's a witch hunt, a farce. we'll know next november who was right. >> bill clinton handled it, i was there. bill clinton handled with it aplomb. he was contrite. he did focus, he didn't want to talk about it for a lot of reasons, obviously. he focused on doing the work of the american public.

i think republicans know the president will not do that. if that's during the state of the union, it may not be a pretty show. >> but that's -- >> there is every right to protect the president just like the democrats have every right to try to drag the president through it. >> so is this the right thing to do? >> i think it is the right thing to do. there is no question as to how this will turn out. the reason to hold this and delay this it doesn't make sense. >> we're just getting started. we're on for two hours tonight. we have a lot to cover. we have breaking news from the "washington post." surrounding john bolton. if witnesses are in fact called before the senate, if bolton is called and wants to go, agrees to go. later, the new cnn polling on the eve of the impeachment trial. what americans say the senate should do. what'd we decide on the flyers again?

uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service.

my age-related macular degenso today i made a plan with my doctor, which includes preservision... because he said a multi- vitamin alone may not be enough. and it's my vision, my morning walk, my sunday drive, my grandson's beautiful face. only preservision areds2 contains the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. it's how i see my life. because it's my vision... preservision.

vo: the gun lobby's worst mike bloomberg founded and led a gun safety organization that's helped pass lifesaving laws across the nation. on gun safety mike will get it done. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. athat will have you seeingf with adouble.n iphone 11 all on t-mobile's newest, most powerful signal. get twice the deal, with 2 lines of unlimited for $90 and 2 iphone 11s on us. only at t-mobile.

it's red lobster's new three-courfor $14.99.east choose soup or salad. one of seven delicious entrées - like new hawaiian-style garlic shrimp. and, get a sweet dessert. three courses. one amazing price. so come in today. when you're not able to smile, you become closed off. having to live with bad teeth for so long was extremely depressing. now, i know how happy i am. there was all the feeling good about myself that i missed and all of the feeling bad about myself that was unnecessary. at aspen dental, we're all about yes. like yes to free exams and x-rays for new patients without insurance. yes to flexible hours and payment options. and yes, whenever you're ready to get started, we are too. don't wait, book at aspendental.com or call today. a general dentistry office.

there's more breaking news. the warrick post reports even if the senate votes to allow testimony in the senate impeachment trial, republicans are quietly working on plans to keep former national security adviser john bolton from testifying publicly. sharing the by-line on the story is the washington reporter, rachel who joins us now by phone. the presses's attorneys and his allies in the senate, how would they try to stop bolt only from testifying publicly if enough republican does agree to have witnesses come forward and bolton agreed to come forward. >> good evening. yes. we're hearing they're trying to put together this contingency plan. if they lose this battle over witnesses and whether or not to call them. there are two options. the first, the president floated this notion that he could claim executive privilege over bolton's testimony to keep him from saying anything. we are hearing from republican that's the white house talked about, if bolton were to not

listen to the white house exerting executive privilege, they could go to a court and appeal for an injunction that would stop him from testifying until they could litigate what could or could not be said under executive privilege. that could take months and we're seeing it happen on another investigation the democrats are doing. there's another option that we just heard about today from our republican sources on both sides of pennsylvania avenue. this notion that they could go into a classified briefing. that would mean anything bolton says would be hidden. but i think it is pretty clear, what they're trying to do is they're trying to make sure that if bolton comes to the senate, anything he says will not be put out in the spotlight and will be hidden. >> is it even clear where bolton is in terms of how critical it is?

we know he called it a drug deal. we know when her his head is at and what he's will to say. >> i think really a wild card. speculation on both sides. people don't know if he's going to be helpful to the democrats' case or the republicans' case. i have talked to republican who's float this notion, a guy who is a lifelong republican has served in gop administrations, and is a former fox news tv star, is he really going to turn on the president and offer something that will make him be more likely to be renewed from office? there are those who say he wouldn't do that because he would be outd and wouldn't be able to get a job. you see these witnesses who testified in the house brought forward. and that is his underlings saying he told them point blank what he was seeing on ukraine was a quote, drug deal. he told them to trays issue, to

talk to was lawyers. he thought there were some legal problems here. so republicans are not willing to play a game in terms of seeing what he will say. they would rather block it even though they don't know what he would testify to. >> all right. thank you. "washington post" the story is this now. is it ethical for a majority party to be coordinating with the white house, how to deal with potential testimony? >> when the framers set up the impeachment process, they could they knew the senators would be politicians. they could have said this will go to a jury like any other jury. so i don't have a problem with the president talking to the senators of his party. that's just realism. the problem is that they are setting up a process that is a farce. they are setting up a process that is designed not to disclose any information. i don't care if they talk on

each other. it is realistic when you have a senate jury, that there will be a certain degree of coordination. the problem is that this is the result they have come up this. the bolton idea is further proof they don't want the public to learn anything more than it already knows. >> do you think the white house is afraid of bolton? >> i suspect they don't want any wild cards, of course. any white house would not want someone who they don't know their testimony, to be testifying at the senate trial. that's why this should have been done at the house. >> but it couldn't be done by the house if they took time to do it. >> wait a minute. >> what if the president said, like during iran contra. what if em, i have nothing to hide. i want everyone to testify and tell the truthful ronald reagan could have been in a heap of trouble during iran contra and he did exactly the opposite.

now they're trying to hide bolton in a classified setting. trying to hide him from the american public because they're afraid of what he is going to say. >> ifture one being accused, remember, this was started by house democrats. they have the burden of proof. they have not met the burden of proof. if you're in the role of someone being aggressively attacked by one party, in the house, and they are defending themselves, and doing it in a way, you might say i don't like the way they're defending themselves. it is not their responsibility. >> bolton didn't want to testify before the house. he thought it was a circuit. circus. he said i'm willing to testify before the senate if you subpoena me. he has said he was willing to do it. he didn't do it in a classified session. he didn't talk about privilege.

we know a lot of story, right? we know he said it was you a deal. >> isn't it common sense if you're innocent and there are people working for and you know that you're innocent, he is maintaining his accident in. the people who have first hand information about that, wouldn't you want them to testify? the only reason you wouldn't want then to toast is because they won't back-upper story that you're innocent. >> i think that's a rational conclusion to make but you can also make the conclusion that the white house counsel has, they have privileged information and they're going to frequent protect -- white house who has a responsibility to protect that privilege. and they're going to do that. and i think that is another legitimate way. >> that's why they wanted the witnesses in the mcconnell statement, that's why them the witnesses have to be deposed them first. one would assume there wouldn't be any surprises and perhaps they would decide as they did in the clinton trial to show on

video what they mutually agreed. they could show to the american public so privilege wouldn't be an issue. >> it's always an issue. >> you can negotiate that. if what you wanted was the truth. >> again, i would say one other thing. careful what you wish for. if we go beyond the record, which came from the house. and bring in extraneous witnesses, what is good for the goose is good for the ganlder. you will see joe biden can, who knows who else you'll see. you want a free for all mess, that's what you'll see. >> the polling on the eve of the senate trial. what americans think the senate should do. when we continue. i'm finding it hard to stay on top of things

a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free woory free.... boom! boom! get free business day shipping... ...at office depot, officemax and officedepot.com nyquil severe gives you powerful relief for your worst cold and flu symptoms, on sunday night and every night. nyquil severe. the nightime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine. and here we have another burst pipe in denmark. if you look close... jamie, are there any interesting photos from your trip? ouch, okay. huh, boring, boring, you don't need to see that. oh, here we go. can you believe my client steig had never heard of a home and auto bundle or that renters could bundle? wait, you're a lawyer? only licensed in stockholm. what is happening? jamie: anyway, game show, kumite, cinderella story. you know karate?

no, alan, i practice muay thai, completely different skillset. they work together doing important stuff. the hitch? like you, your cells get hungry. feed them... with centrum® micronutrients. restoring your awesome... daily. feed your cells with centrum® micronutrients today. [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 crabe stronger...strong, with new nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor... it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. new nicorette ice mint.

we have the republican resolution outlining the rules for the trial. house managers and president legal team each team getting 24 hours to make their opening arguments. that can mean long 12-hour days going long into the night when americans may not be watching television, it is the same time as the impeachment trial but on a more condensed schedule. two days opposed to four. republicans don't want the american people to actually hear those facts. it could be a reason for that. a new cnn poll, we showed you at the top of the broadcast. just 51% of americans believe president trump should be removed from office. 45% disagree. more than half the country want

to see the president removed from office. >> that's about where it was in october, november. it seems when the facts are central to the conversation, you see not toward the president's favor. when it is about process, it tends to move more toward his favor. but look at some of the demographic trends. take a look at the gender gap. this is astonishing. 59% of women say convict and remove compared to 42% of men take. a look at the racial breakdown. 86% of african-americans say convict and remove. 65% of hispanics, 42% of white americans in this poll, and then the age divide also. younger voters under 45, 56% of them say convict and remove. if you're over 45, 45% of those say convict and remove. >> and what about the witnesses? >> this is probably the most significant number in the poll. 69% of americans in this poll say there should be witnesses that were not part of the house

process, included in this senate trial and take a look at it by party. 48% of republicans. see that number there, bottom left column there. 48% of republicans say there should be witnesses. 44% of republicans say there shouldn't be. that is the number that chuck schumer hopes to use as some political leverage to find those four publics to could that to his side of the. >> what about the belief about abuse of powers? >> more people say convict and remove. 58% say that did he indeed violate the abuse of power. 57% say he did indeed obstruct congress. this means that you're talking about people who don't think he should be convicted and removed from office, who do actually think he is guilty of doing what he is alleged to have done. >> it's interesting. that sort of aligns with the argument that should could take. don't like what he did.

it is inappropriate but not an impeach an offense of the. >> i think that was the thing that jumped out to me. that so many people actually believe the things are in the impeachment articles happened but they don't believe he should be impeached is troubling to me. people can have opinions on it. i think if they had more information, they would understand these are actually impeachable offenses and i would like to hear from them, why they don't think they are of the. >> well, dershowitz is arguing that very thing. whatever you may think, these are not impeachable. >> yeah. a lot of people disagree with it and that's what the impeachment trial is for, for people to present their case. i think we'll hear an airtight case that the founders envisioned when they came one the idea of impeachment. >> if 51% of the country according to this poll, want to

see the president removed, that's way more than, i think clinton had like 30%? >> clinton was much more popular, also. don't forget. he was a popular president. donald trump's popularity rating -- >> it is at 43%. approval. clinton was much higher. if you look at the two articles of impeachment. abuse of power and obstruction of congress, the public is there. the public says we believe this. the difficulty for republicans is that while they might want to say, well, you know, he wasn't, this wasn't right thing for him to do. inappropriate but not impeachable. the president himself will not allow them to say, this was inappropriate. his lawyers are saying, it was perfectly appropriate. he is saying, it was perfect. so if they stray from that argument, they risk his wrath. bill clinton encouraged them to go on the floor and dump on

him. this was awful, this was terrible, but don't impeach him over an impropriety. this president will not allow then to do that. and that is the political problem that they really face. >> you have been very critical of the new rules released by mcconnell. do you think people who are watching, may really care? these tactics work. >> i don't know. everything that trump has done has worked in terms of that he wants them to work. in terms of holding his base. but mitch mcconnell, what these numbers mean is something that mitch mcconnell understands. his party on the hill does not like the president of the united states. many of them, i'll ask rick santorum, 30%, 40%, 50% of the republicans in the senate

despise donald trump. they think that he is corrupt and unfit to hold office. >> do you think that's true? >> yes. and i think it is time the press rae, that we rae start talking to the principal legislating assistants, to the senators, to find out what their bosses really think. >> who cares what they really think? let's look at what they vote. >> that's right. and mcconnell knows there are four or five are waivering on these procedural questions. if one of them. particularly susan collins who reveres margaret j. smith, who took on mccarthy. >> come on. >> she's been cowardly and we have no reason to think -- >> okay. we need to get a break in. when we come back, more new polling numbers how much republicans want witnesses at the trial. idn't li

until i almost lost my life. my doctors again ordered me to take aspirin, and i do. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. listen to the doctor. take it seriously. (sensei) beautiful. but support the leg! when i started cobra kai, the lack of control over my business made me a little intense. but now i practice a different philosophy. quickbooks helps me get paid, manage cash flow, and run payroll. and now i'm back on top...

with koala kai. hey! more mercy. (vo) save over 40 hours a month with intuit quickbooks. the easy way to a happier business. my grandparents that i never knew.ch about i'm a lawyer now, but i had no idea that my grandfather was a federal judge in guatemala. my grandfather used his legal degree and his knowledge to help people that were voiceless in his country. that put a fire in my heart.

it made me realize where i got my passion for social justice. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com

more on the polling on the eve of the impeachment trial. 51% of americans. the senate should vote to convict and remove the president from office. not wavering. september until now. back with our team, the number of women who want to see the

president -- >> 59%. we see the polling gap. a gender gap. that is significant. if he loses re-election, it will be because of women voters across the country. 59% want him removed. convicted or removed. 42% of men say that. you just see, that's a 17-point gender gap. we see it time and again around every aspect. around president trump mipolitil standing. >> as someone who would like to see him reelected, what do you do about that problem? >> that's a foundational problem that goes way beyond impeachment. they are trying. i think desperately trying to do some things to address that gender gap of if you look at the defense authorization pact, they put in paid family leave. very much appealing to suburban voters on that regard. pushing for a broader parental leave program. there is a limited amount the president can do on a policy

level. most has to do with tone and style. that's been problematic for him >> you mean there's a limited amount because he doesn't want to do it. >> no, no. >> it turns out more men in pennsylvania. >> well, his fundamental argument doesn't resonate with women as much. he is completely based on the grievance that things are being taken away from you. the country is being overrun by people and taking away your privilege and i don't think women gently feel like that is their position. white men are his base. white men are his base and it is because they're convince that's ought brown people are coming to take everything away from them and ruin the country. >> i think that's -- in error, up in one. if there is any party that is a party, just listen to the democratic debate last week of the if you want to hear grievance of the.

>> all they do is complain about how serve persecuting him. and people who vote for him. >> i agree that it is based on grievance of personal persecution. and that liberals are persecuting christians. >> there is persecution going on all over the world. >> in this country? religious persecution? >> absolutely. >> go on a college campus. that's not persecution. like what happens in the middle east, perhaps. >> there certainly is a denial of religious freedom in this country. >> that's not what we're talking about. it is not as bad as around the world. >> what bim barr thinks is religious persecution, having bakery owners and inn keepers and restaurant owners being allowed to discriminate against gay people.

that's what religious freedom is. >> all of those are exactly right. you want gay people barred from stores, from restaurants. >> ridiculous. >> it's not absurd. the administration is in court asking for this. >> no someone asking for that. >> they can't buy anything. >> you know that's not true. >> there are lawsuits. >> bits participating in sparms -- ceremonies. they religiously object to. nothing to do with selling a bagel to someone. >> baking a cake -- >> the position has been taken on bagel that's indeed people who own these places have a right, if they are religious beliefs prohibit it, not to give a bagel with cream cheese. >> i would be on the other side of that street. -- suit. they have an obligation to do so. other things they don't.

>> we've gotten in the weeds. >> that was my fault. >> let's take a lox. up next, we'll dissect the legal strategy. joining us, alan dershowitz. working with the president's legal team. he will say he's not on the legal team. he's defending the constitution. we'll talk about it, ahead. 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. athat will have you seeingf with adouble.n iphone 11 all on t-mobile's newest, most powerful signal. get twice the deal, with 2 lines of unlimited for $90 and 2 iphone 11s on us. only at t-mobile. 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, it's red lobster's new three-courfor $14.99.east choose soup or salad. one of seven delicious entrées - like new hawaiian-style garlic shrimp. and, get a sweet dessert. three courses. one amazing price. so come in today.

president trump's legal team issued a trial memorandum responding to articles of impeachment. quote, after focus group testing various charges for weeks, house democrats settled on two flimsy articles of impeachment that involved no violation of law whatsoever. they also write the deluded standard asserted here would weaken the presidency and forever atter balance among branches of government in a manner. that offends the constitutional design established by the

founders. later, they write, each article is impermissibly duplicitous. present ing it is multiple independent acts as possible bases for conviction. if they agree that any particular act was obstruction. or abuse of power. joining me now, one of president trump's team of defenders, alan harvard professor. dershowitz. will be speaking on behalf of the president strictly on constitutional grounds. professor is the author of the the case of against removing trump. let me start. the argument by the president's attorneys that you have made as well, that impeachment requires a crime. i want to play something you said in 1998. >> certainly doesn't have to be a crime. if you have somebody who

completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to the liberty. you don't need a technical crime. >> you >> you said without a crime there can be no impeachment. back then you said it certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president, abuses trust and poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime. >> that's true, you don't need a technical crime. that's my position today. you need criminal light behavior, akin to bribery and treason. remember -- >> that's not what you said then. >> it's what i said then, it's what i said now. >> you didn't say criminal-like behavior. you said completely corrupts the office of president and poses great danger -- >> that issue was not before anybody. clinton -- in the clinton case, he was charged with a crime. now the issue is whether or not you need criminal-type behavior.

i've done a lot more research. back then i took the word of many academics who said that >> so you were wrong then? >> no, i wasn't wrong. i have a more sophisticated basis for my argument now, having read justice curtis's opinion and other opinions. it's very clear now that what you need is criminal-like behavior akin to bribery and treason. what is very clear is obstruction of justice, obstruction -- i'm sorry, obstruction of congress or abuse of power aren't even close to what the framers had in mind. and i will show that during my, my speech by going through all of the debates in congress. blackstone's commentaries -- >> jeff, go ahead. >> what's clear is alan was right in 1998 and he's wrong now. the two -- the two -- the two statements cannot be reconciled. one must be right or one is

wrong. and the one in 1998 was right. i mean, the idea -- look, every single law professor that has looked at this issue except you seems to think -- >> let him complete -- don't talk over each other. >> he just lied. professor bowie who is a professor at harvard takes my view. read his article, jeffrey. don't makeup stories about every professor. read professor bowie's argument in the law review where he quotes with approval justice curtis's -- please withdraw that argument that no professor has said it. so you're saying professor bowie doesn't exist. you did say everyone. virtually every law professor. now you're saying you're wrong, okay. so now you're admitting you're wrong. >> i'm admitting that it's not every single law professor. >> we all improve and change our views when we focus more on the

issue. and i focus more on the issue. and i now completely am convinced that the issue requires that -- >> justice curtis was not in a supreme court argument. he was making an argument to the senate. >> that's right. >> and the point that you -- i don't know what criminal-like behavior is. you keep talking about -- >> i'll tell you what it is. >> let me finish. the idea that you can only impeach a president for criminal or criminal-like behavior is absurd on its face. think about some examples. suppose the president goes to a religious commune and refuses to speak or talk to anyone. you think that president could be impeached? it's clearly legal. but, of course -- >> he couldn't be -- >> let me explain why. let me explain why. so, when the framers sat down to discuss whether to have impeachment or not, one of the major issues was a president would become incapacitated. madison talked about that.

good to morris talked about that. when it came time to articulate the criteria, they didn't include that because it isn't criminal and because it's open-ended and subject to abuse. so for 150 years we didn't have a procedure for removing an incompetent president. it required the 25th amendment to do that after woodrow wilson became incapacitated. so there is an enormous difference between what we think should be a ground for removal and what the framers put in foreground for removal. you're coming up with a lot of hypotheticals that the framers had to decide what's covered. >> let's not talk about a hypothetical. i want to go back. previously you said, it doesn't have to be a crime if the guy -- if the person in office completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust, and poses great danger to our liberty that is impeachable. now you're saying criminal-like. corrupting the office of the president, is that in your

criminal like behavior? >> no, it's not. that was rejected by the framers. look -- >> you're saying you were wrong back then? >> i'm saying i'm much more correct right now having done more research -- let me explain. please don't shut me off. you're two against one. let me make my point. >> i'm trying to understand what you're saying. >> listen, maybe you'll understand if you listen. i didn't do research back then. i relied on -- please let me finish. because that issue was not presented in the clinton impeachment. everybody knew that he was charged with a crime. the issue is whether it was a hard crime. now the issue is whether a crime or criminal-like behavior is required. i've done all the research since 22 years ago. i didn't do the research back then because that wasn't an issue. >> so 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.

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 and trying to pinpoint -- >> please. >> -- and nitpick on what i said. let's talk about what the issues are instead of trying to attack the messenger. >> i don't think anybody is attacking the messenger. i think rationally -- look, i'm not a lawyer nor have i studied law and i didn't go to harvard. but what you're saying, the words you are speaking do not jibe with what you said in the past and you're not saying what you said in the past is wrong. so we're out of time actually. >> i didn't say it was wrong. i'm saying what i'm saying now is right and they're very similar when i talk about technical crimes. and you'll hear my argument laid out in far more detail uninterrupted when i speak on the senate floor. eight all right. jeff toobin, professor dershowitz, i appreciate it as always. stay with us as the senate heads for only the third impeachment trial in u.s. history. we'll talk to a key democratic

senator, one of the jurors, a lawyer from harvard joins us also. ♪ or more on car insurance.s could save you fifteen percent everybody knows that. well, did you know pinocchio was a bad motivational speaker? i look around this room and i see nothing

but untapped potential. you have potential. you have-oh boy. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. quitting smoking is freaking hard.st, like quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette whwhat do you see?he world, we see patterns. relationships. when you use location technology, you can see where things happen, before they happen. with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs for everyone you love. expedia. for everyone you(whistling)

shortly after republican majority leerd mitch mcconnell issued the guidelines for the trial, they called it a national disgrace. senator chuck schumer said the resolution will make it harder to get witnesses and documents and mcconnell was, quote, going along with trump's cover up hook, line and sinker. senator mcconnell