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 will allow for

as many opening hours as the clinton trial 24 for each side. those hours will be divided over two days instead of four days as they were for each side as they were in the clinton impeachment. the trial may last into the early hours of the evening where fewer people are awake to watch them. i'm joined now by someone who is a senator who will be a juror for the trial, senator mazie hirono of hawaii. good evening. >> thank you. >> what do you think of the resolution from mcconnell? >> you want a fast trial, not a fair trial. 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's 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 the only part. the part that's really rigging is that we don't have any documents, relevant documents that we're probably not going to have relevant witnesses. >> all the information from the house is not automatically entered into -- >> apparently not. >> that has to be voted on later on. >> normally all of that would be included in the record, but this time mitch is going to make us vote on every little thing. one hopes maybe he wants to give them something positive to vote for, such as all of the records 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 before the state of the union because they feel it would -- 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 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 he was totally exonerated. but as speaker pelosi says, he will always be an impeached president. >> 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 seat while you take a break? you're sitting there? >> no, we are sitting there. he doesn't want the american people to watch this, although one would think they're going to see snippets. they'll see enough. one thing that they're clear on is the majority of the american people want a fair trial, which means they want witnesses and i think they understand we should have the documents that were

denied to the house. >> do you think that's his motivation, to have the american people not see what is going on? >> he has many motivations. they're all political. they're all designed to help his people. certainly they're designed to cover up what the president did. and as i watch dershowitz, i don't know where he comes from, frankly, to say that what the president did is 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 regardless of whether the president did all of this, it's not impeachable. so basically -- we have to ask ourselves, who is the president going to shake down next? >> the white house just released tonight a list -- i'm going to put it on the screen right now -- republicans who will be joining the president's impeachment team from the house, putting their names over there on the screen. what do you think is behind this last-minute move? >> i haven't seen. where are the names? >> it's over there. there's doug collins, mike

johnson, jim jordan is on the list, deputy lesko, mark meadows. >> i don't know what kind of role they're supposed to play. he's got his team. what are they going to do, sit there, are they going to be able to speak, jump up and down, what? i have no idea. but maybe he just feels reassured when he has his major -- >> supposedly they're able to give advice, continue to give advice. it seems like they're the ones who were prominent on television -- >> they certainly were. >> he's sort of -- it seems like he's built a team which is actually people who made their names on television a lot. >> well, the president needs surrounding him at all times what are called 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've got -- i was waiting for how he was going to use the house people who were totally on his page, and now we know. >> i want to bring in our team here because i think you were

kind enough to say you'd answer questions for them. >> as long as they don't ask me anything -- >> gergen who advised nixon, ford and clinton. assistant attorney general elliott williams and at the "the new york times," julie hearstfeld davis. >> i'd 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 till 2:00 a.m. 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 we just heard about up on the screen, you anticipate them to be surrogates for the president who can take to the airwaves? >> i expect so. >> senator, i wonder, you know a

lot of this we are all looking for a dramatic trial, oral arguments on each side. there is a lot of plea recognren the impeachment rules to go into closed session. will there be these deliberations including how the trial will unfold happen behind closed doors that the public can't see and what do you think are the implications? >> 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. had you verdict from your colleagues anything we're hearing about this unease about mitch mcconnell or the president?

>> my colleagues express in private their unease. what does that matter if they're going to be voting in line with them. they are enabling mitch mcconnell with 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 if you think it's not a fair trial at the end of the week, i think it was three terms in the house. do you think the house should reopen -- in light of everything we've seen this week over the last couple weeks, some 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 and 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 corroborated what the president was up to and what his people were up to. and so as far as i'm concerned, unless the president moubts a defense which is more than

saying anything he does, that's not impeachable, that's not a defense. it'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? >> well, apparently there's going to be some opportunity in the beginning for chuck schumer to get up and ask that, 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 john bolton or something like that? >> i don't know that chuck is going to make that kind of deal. but what i anticipate is chuck would make a motion for bolton. that would be turned down. and then maybe they may make a

counter motion 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 hunter biden who does president have anything to do with what the president did, and they're going to go ahead with that kind of a witness, that just -- that doesn't look good for them either. >> legally that's an important point. hunter biden's testimony has no legal bearing 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 haven't -- what about this, what about hunter biden, what about all 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. he did it, so what. >> senator mazie hirono,

appreciate your time. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> everyone else is going to stay with us. much more to talk about including the witnesses the democrats hope to call. who they are, what they 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, fellow harvard law school professor lawrence tribe just ahead. you're made of trillions of cells.

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. trump:global warming. th the a lot of it's a hoax." vo: mike bloomberg knows the science and understands the challenge. as president, a plan for 80% clean energy by 2028. mike will get it done. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

it's a lifelong adventure finding all of these new connections all the time. greater details. richer stories. and now with health insights. get your dna kit at ancestry.com.

fred would do anything for his daughter! even being the back half of a unicorn. fortunately, the front half washed his shirt with gain. ahhhhhhh. the irresistible scent of gain. 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 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 witness democrats hope to call. details on that now from sarah 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 duffy all have firsthand knowledge of president trump's attempts to withhold security aid to ukraine, allegedly in exchange for investigations into president trump's political rival joe biden. they all refused to cooperate with the house impeachment inquiry. but bolton, the former national security advisor, recently pulled an about face, saying he would willingly testify about the senate.

while at the white house bolton was vocal about his concerns how the ukraine matter was being handled. >> i have to go to the lawyers, john eisen berg, i was counsel for the security counsel to basically say you tell eisen berg, ambassador bolton told me i am not part of whatever this drug deal mulvaney and sunday a sondland are cooking up. >> reporter: also mick mulvaney openly admitted the president withheld aid in exchange for investigations into 2016. >> the look back into what happened in 2016 was what he was worried about in 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 show mulvaney asking his senior advisor 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 acting office of management budget director that the aid needed to be held up. but it fell to michael duffy, omb's associate director of national security programs to carry out the order. emails released as part of a lawsuit revealed that 90 minutes after president trump's controversial call with the ukrainian president on july 25th duffy told officials that 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, duffy wrote, i appreciate your keeping that information closely held. as the hole dragged on and pentagon officials said it could run afoul of the law, on august 30th they said the demand was coming from the top potus to continue to hold. sara murray, cnn. >> back with our political team. as you heard from senator

hirano, chuck schumer tomorrow is saying he's going to offer a whole series of amendments dealing with witnesses and documents. 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. he'll wind up succeeding on most of the rules he's setting forward. i imagine one or two things will get dhchanged with rep from republicans. at the end of the day, the larger point here is if mcconnell and his republican allies succeed keeping out new witnesses, keeping out documents, cramming this 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 happened, i think we can -- 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 then another one is this. the difference is going to be that this one is succeeding. the other two failed. they came apart. rick is going to disagree a. >> i'll disagree. the democrats can go to court and force the president which is what they have had to do in the past, defend their position in court. >> they've done that -- no, there's no cover up. >> haven't they done that on specific issues 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. and the court say may say, you know what, in certain areas we're going to let it stand. in other areas it's not going to hold up. >> you're saying what every president has done. what every president has done is comply with subpoenas. >> no. >> yes. >> no. >> yes. provide documents -- what the -- >> president obama didn't.

they went to court. they went to court. you lost, then you turned them over. >> the obama administration respected that congress had a right -- >> of course. >> this president has made clear from the beginning that he doesn't. >> so you respect they have the right and you chose not to give them. >> i was there at the justice department and the department of homeland security. there is an oversight dispute -- >> there is a difference between doing things on specific issues -- >> the president said from the beginning of the administration he is not going to comply with oversight requests. >> it should make your case an easy case to go to court. >> the president could have complied from the beginning. >> in impeachments they have cooperated. >> it's not like a long history here. >> 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, groundhog day over and over again, the only way they can testify is the democrats going to court. when we know that is not true. other presidents -- >> of course they could

voluntarily comply, but they're not going to. >> you guys go to court. president clinton instead told people to testify and to cooperate. donald trump -- >> because there was no disputing the facts on the part of president clinton really. >> but the point is donald trump is the one that's holding this up. these people could testify easily, we could get the facts. if they could exonerate him they would be testifying him. >> the iconic figure in the republican party, ronald reagan, iran contra, send up the documents, send up the witnesses. how can you dismiss that and sort of like -- there is precedent after precedent of presidents who have tried to cooperate, and especially on serious things when 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 in the way they've treated this president. they tried to impeach him from day one. i think there is a legitimate ground to say, you know what, you guys have been coming after me. i complied with all the mueller

requirements. >> actually he didn't. >> complied with -- they didn't -- >> he didn't go and testify. he didn't talk to mueller. >> but he did respond to questions and mueller agreed that is satisfactory. so he did comply. he was very open. and where did that get him? two years of hell. enough is enough. >> they didn't try to impeach him from day one. that's not true. that's a completely made-up thing. someone said they wanted to impeach him is not the sam thing as them impeaching him. nancy pelosi who is the leader of the democrats did not want to impeach him. >> what is extraordinary about the trial rules, i'm curious your opinion, the house inquiry which took place over a matter of months, lots and lots of witness testimony, lots of documents that they got, 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 de-legitimatize what

they -- >> if we're going to have a trial, let's have a real trial. 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 facts and the method on which those facts are developed. here's what i think, to cut to the chase, what i think is going on here, is 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. we're going to look at all the way this evidence was compiled, whether it's hearsay, admissible. 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's a question. what are the facts that are in dispute? you're saying there are facts -- now -- >> 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. the question is was it legitimate or proper? but i don't think anybody is disagreeing about any of the facts. there's a legal dispute as to whether the president ought to be impeached for it, but there's no -- >> i disagree. >> i have to get a break in. we're going to continue it. thanks, everybody. harvard law professor lawrence tribe who has a different opinion from his colleague alan dershowitz you heard about the validity of the senate impeachment trial will join us ahead. a sign your digestive system isn't working at its best. taking metamucil every day can help. its psyllium fiber forms a gel that traps and removes the waste that weighs you down. it also helps lower cholesterol and slows sugar absorption, promoting healthy blood sugar levels. so, start feeling lighter and more energetic by taking metamucil every day. take the metamucil two-week challenge, lighten up. just take metamucil every day for two weeks.

available at your local retailer. dealing with our finances really haunted me.ttle cranky. thankfully, i got quickbooks, and a live bookkeeper's helping customize it for our business. (live bookkeeper) you're all set up! (janine) great! (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. because the tempur-breeze™makes stransfers heat. away from your body. so you feel cool, night after night. and now tempur-pedic is ranked number one by jd power in customer satisfaction with retail mattresses. to put on our website? i mean i would have but i'm a commercial vehicle so i don't have hands... or a camera...or a website. should we franchise? is the market ready for that? can we franchise? how do you do that? meg! oh meg! we should do that thing where you put the business cards in the fishbowl and somebody wins something. -meg: hi. i'm here for... i'm here for the evans' wedding. -we've got the cake in the back, so, yeah. -meg: thank you. -progressive knows small business makes big demands. -you're not gonna make it, you're not gonna make it! ask her if we can do her next wedding too! -so we'll design the insurance solution

that fits your business. -on second thought, don't...ask that. that fits your business. [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.

harvard law school professor lawrence tribe is arguing the impeachment trial about to get underway is completely valid. in the washington post he said the senate proceedings are unconstitutional because president trump hasn't committed a crime or flat-out wrong. quote, the argument that only criminal offenses are impeachable. it staggers on like a revengeful zombie, end quote. one of the president's attorneys law school professor alan

dershowitz plans to argue an impeachable offense must be a crime. back in 1998 that was not the case. professor dershowitz said back then there did not have to be a crime in order for impeachment to be constitutional. here's how he explained himself earlier tonight on the program. >> i've done all the research -- >> okay -- >> 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 -- >> come on, please. >> -- pinpoint and nitpick on what i said. >> professor tribe's viewpoint, he's coauthor of to end presidency, the power of impeachment, i spoke to him shortly before air time, obviously before that sound you just heard from professor dershowitz. >> professor tribe, umenyiora

been critical you've been critical of your friend. he's losing it. is your issue with him he's defending the president? he says he's defending the constitution, 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 that he pretends he's defending the constitution instead of the president. he's not the constitution's client. but i don't want this to make -- to be a feud with alan. the stakes here are tee nor musmus enormous. we have a president shaking down a foreign government for his own benefit, for his own reelection. he's using taxpayer money to do it. he's 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's 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 have been impeachable. and alan, in his own book -- his own book gives the example of if putin decided to give alaska -- if trump decided to give alaska back to putin, that might be terrible, but it wouldn't be impeachable. that is just b.s. 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's a star on fox news and he used to do a lot of good 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 and it's really sick. >> you think he wants to be in the thick of it and that's what's at the heart of that? >> it 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 that he's making is that -- in the president's brief as well, that both the articles of impeachment, both of the charges essentially are not in the constitution as impeachable offenses. it's made up and the other -- that the other abuse of power is not, it's not an impeachable

offense. >> 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 high crimes and misdemeanors was a phrase 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. i mean, or, you know, 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 and his team are making, this will set up precedent that will, quote, fundamentally damage the separation of powers as it says in the brief, it would essentially open the door to future presidents being impeached for protecting the prerogatives of 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. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ wherever we want to go, we just have to start. autosave your way there with chase. chase. make more of what's yours.

and this is cc+ cream. it gives you your skin but better. it's your full coverage foundation, spf 50 plus anti aging serum. discover the #1 cc cream in america. discover the #1 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.

yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

again, breaking news, senate republicans revealing how they would like the impeachment trial of president donald trump to play out. the trial officially begins tomorrow. however you think the outcome can be cannot say how historic this will be for the nation. the third time a president has been impeached in the 250 year of the country. bill clinton and andrew johnson. joining us jim naftali. democratic strategist and cnn political commentator who worked

for president clinton. had a front row seat to his impeachment. and ross garb er, teaches impeachment law at tulane law school. this resolution from mcconnell tonight for how the rules are going to be, this is obviously despite what he earlier said, this is going to be 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. 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 interest and the senate's interest more importantly to have a fair trial. the average american watches and says that's fair. you're trying to keep senators up until 1:00 or 2:00 or 3:00 a.m., >> the senate famously is like the world's most exclusive nursing home. keep them up till 3:00 in the morning. there's no need. he has time. they have the votes. >> they may stay up. i'm not sure viewers are going to stay up. >> maybe that's his goal. he's certainly giving the house

managers primetime instead of doing it in the daytime which is what the house did when there's 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. the republicans and the democrats in the senate together all of them got together and agreed upon rules. they were 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 the managers have to use all 24 hours of -- i've never given the 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 it. 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. we can do a quick sort of clinton-like kind of quasi-trial, do those opening arguments, get right through it, get 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, you know, what the president is 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 because 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 witnesses, i'm talking about senator collins, senator murkowski, senator romney are okay with this. but what is it they're okay

with? because this, as ross mentioned, this resolution is quite different from 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, 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. what you've got now is a compromise where they're going to have a vote to vote on witnesses. i hope this means there will be a real discussion. i'm not convinced that there will be, in which case we may -- when we face a case where there will be no witnesses at all, making this a fundamentally different presidential trial. and that's not good for the country. >> ross, there were -- jeff toobin before was saying this is a farce, essentially. >> well, i think that actually goes pretty far. in the clinton trial, there weren't witnesses who 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 this is a vote that was not present in the clinton impeachment. are they going to admit the house's evidence or are they not going to admit or are they going to admit parts, not admit parts? >> is that symbolic? >> i think that's significant. >> the people who are the managers, they are going to be arguing using that evidence. so it's going to be talked about. >> except here's how -- somebody who has tried cases during opening arguments, what you typically say, this is what the evidence is going to show and you argue from that. that's fine. i expect that's what the managers are going to be able to do. but then 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 a right to object. >> right, and we had -- we had all the evidence. ken starr, god bless him, he was pretty thorough. he made le mis look like a slacker. painters, hair dressers, mail carriers. we had no right to object to it. in this case the house is ham strung 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 -- we're certainly unlikely to get new evidence come in. it does look like a rigged deal. >> we have to take a break. appreciate it. coming up, house speaker nancy pelosi named seven members

who will serve as impeachment managers and argue the case during the impeachment senate trial including the lead manager, congressman adam schiff. he's been part of this investigation for months. we're going to fake a look at his role when we come back. ♪ ♪

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.

oh, hi, samantha. you look more like a heather. do you ever get that? it's nice to finally meet you in person. you're pete nocchio? oh, the pic? that was actually a professional headshot. i'm sure that's it, yeah. i, uh, i think i've lost a few pounds recently too. i'm actually doing a juice cleanse. wait! you don't... (glass breaking) (gasp) ah! oh...! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. 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. 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. ior anything i want to buy isk going to be on rakuten. rakuten is easy to use, free to sign up and it's in over 3,000 stores. i buy a lot of makeup. shampoo, conditioner. books, food. travel. shoes. stuff for my backyard. anything from clothes to electronics. workout gear.

i even recently got cash back on domain hosting. you can buy tires. to me, rakuten is a great way to get cash back on anything you buy. rack it up with rakuten, sign up today to get cash back on everything you buy. 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 democratic house chairman 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. let's take a look more. >> it feels like at times being in the eye of the hurricane. you can never tell when you'll step out into gale force winds. >> it's been nothing but turbulence for schiff for the past months. >> the impeachment inquiry into

donald j. trump. >> it's of course much more intense now than ever before. >> he should resign from office in disgrace and, frankly, they should 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 president's twitter attacks on me. my staff stopped sending them to me. they're too numerous. >> you don't follow him on twitter? >> i don't follow him no. i have more important things to do. >> like make the case against trump in the senate trial but just months ago, schiff was in the camp that believed impeachment was not a good idea. so what changed his mind? >> what made this a necessity for me and so many of my 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. >> reporter: schiff came to congress from his los angeles 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 ideological crusades and ignoring the business at home in the district. and i don't think people value that. >> reporter: before congress schiff served in the california state senate. but his greatest impact was as an assistant u.s. attorney when he prosecuted an fbi agent for selling secrets to the russians. >> it does feel at times like my life has come full circle. >> reporter: from a raij role in the benghazi 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 on the intelligence committee for two reasons. number one, it was bipartisan and, number two, it was 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 schiff who may even try to censure. >> behind closed doors with a chairman who has lied three times to the american public looking them in the eye and somehow we're supposed to trust what comes out of that. >> it's a soviet style impeachment process. >> chairman schiff is unfit to chair the intelligence committee. >> reporter: the chairman is having none of it. >> for this president they'll destroy what america stands for and the world. holding up aid or meetings or whatever to get help in the next election. they'll normalize that. they'll rationalize it? and hunker do and put their heads in the sand.

where is sense of duty? >> reporter: schiff has written a few of his own and took some dramatic and controversial liberties in describing the president's phone call with the ukraine president. >> and i'm going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. i want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. understand? 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? >> no, i made it clear i was mocking the president and just as clearly the president doesn't like being mocked but it was a mafia kind of organized crime shakedown. 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. >> reporter: and trump has kept up the drum beat. during weeks of committee

hearings and showdowns over witnesses. schiff had the last word. >> this president believes he is above the law, beyond accountability. in my view there's nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes that they are above the law. in the words of my great colleague, we are better than that. adjourned. >> that was gloria borger reporting. we'll be right back. maybelline new york.rom for natural brows... in one step. mini brush... tinted gel. ♪ for natural brows made easy. new brow fast sculpt. only from maybelline new york. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal.

that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you.

a but i hearsearches fa different calling. the call of a schmear of cream cheese. for i, am a schmelier. i practice my craft at philadelphia. here, we use only the freshest milk... that one! go! go! and the finest ingredients... what is this? until perfection is achieved. she's ready. schmears! philadelphia. schmear perfection.

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. just hours to go until the senate gets down to the real business of the impeachment trial of president donald trump. we have major news on just how

the trial will play out. we'll tell you about that. it looks like mitch mcconnell is determined to keep most americans from seeing and hearing the historic event for themselves. with new rules that mean opening arguments would happen in the middle of the night literally under the cover of darkness. you got to wonder, what he's trying to hide. tomorrow will be about debate on mcconnell's resolution and then 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. mcconnell's plan allows each side 24 hours to make their opening arguments but they only have two days to use that time. which means trial day scheduled to start at 1:00 p.m. could easily stretch until 1:00 a.m. or later. is the majority leader trying to push senators to the breaking point? afr