good evening. day one of the case against donald trump is in the books. what the jury made of it and a look behind the scenes and how the president is handling it. record day of tweeting. earlier he appeared to boast about withholding evidence from the trial saying honestly we have all the material, they don't have the material. today's hearing started just after 1:00 p.m. and with a few breaks ended at 9:43 eastern time. certainly a long day. there was a lot said so want to start with the highlights. >> the senate will now hear you. >> reporter: democrats began to prosecute their case by using their own words to try to

incriminate him. >> in 2016 candidate trump solicited help from russia in his election effort. >> russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. >> there's no question that president trump intended in pressing the ukraine lead story look into his political rival. >> they should investigate the bidens and by the way, likewise, china should start an investigation. >> reporter: the president tweeted no pressure. >> mr. chief justice, senators -- >> reporter: they opened day two with marathon remarks stretching 2 hours and 20 minutes without a break. >> that concludes our intro duksz. >> reporter: the evidence overwhelmingly proves trump obstructed congress he said. >> the president this unapologetic, this lawless, this unbound to the constitution and the oath of office must be

removed from that office. >> reporter: democrats have two more days to make their case against the president and convince moderate republican senators the trial should include new evidence and witnesses. >> as you can see, there isn't a lot to read here. you should demand to see the full record. the american people deserve to see the full truth when it comes to presidential actions. >> reporter: but today democrats ran through the record they have. officials worrying the freeze on ukraine aid was illegal. efforts to oust former ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch. rudy giuliani's own admission that he was pursuing investigations in ukraine to help his client, not the country. >> rudolph giuliani is a cold-blooded political operative for president trump's re-election campaign. >> reporter: schiff's skewered trump's insistence he wasn't

involved in a quid pro quo even while clamoring for investigations into 2016 and joe booitd. >> that's not something that comes up in normal conversation, right? hello, mr. president, how are you today, no quid pro quo. that's the kind of thing that comes up if you're trying to put your alibi out there. >> reporter: the president's defenders waited their chance to take the senate floor. >> the whole reason we're here is ridiculous. >> reporter: sara murray, cnn. >> the latest from jeff zeleny at the capitol. what is the sense of on the hill tonight of how day one went? >> anderson, perhaps predictably. they're pleased with how it unfolded. i talked to chuck schumer and he said he believes that the chance for witnesses grows and gains every day. i asked him why he thought that. he said when he was sitting on the floor of the senate looking

across the aisle, he said he did believe he sees some republicans who are engaged and paying attention and said he believes hearing some of this argument for the first time, that's exactly what adam schiff was doing. today was all about what, you know, how things unfolded in chronological order and it was a lot of the president's own words and the witnesses and the testimony from late last year that were played in the senate floor. you could just see the senators watching that and senators of both parties said they were in fact watching some of this for the first time. they weren't necessarily paying all that careful attention when the house was doing this so that is the view from one side. jay sekulow said it's unfolding exactly house it was expected and no proof the president violated any laws and certainly can't prove impeachment so it's the democrats' case and the president's side starts saturday. >> this notion that it's

mandatory for senators to stay in the chambers, is that being observed? >> not very mandatory tri. the senators make the rules. i was sitting in the chamber for several hours late this afternoon and into the evening and the reality is the majority of senators were paying attention. some were standing up and paying attention. a lot were walking around. shortly before the dinner hour things got scarce on both sides. senator lindsey graham was gone for an hour or so. democratic senator diane finne feinstein left early as well so a lot of senators weren't exactly on the edge of their seats. susan collins is one example. she is a republican we're watching carefully taking detailed notes and paying very close attention. others were as well but they're definitely not enforcing the strictness of staying in their seat. >> a classified document that chief justice roberts mentioned, what was that. >> that was interesting and we are told it's from jennifer williams, you'll remember she is the national security adviser

for the vice president who testified before the house committee as late as last year apparently after that testimony she wanted to add something, we're not sure what it was but came back and added a supplemental piece of testimony so that was entered into the record. it's classified. democrats say they don't believe it has to be but the white house has not declassified it so a bit of a mystery in the moment but something she added on to her testimony. >> and obviously the question whether or not witnesses will be called is endlessly discussed. anything republican senator who might be a yes vote in the matter says is being closely scrutinized. that point i understand that lisa murkowski from alaska made remarks about the proceedings. >> she is one of the republicans we're watching carefully. she is sitting on the edge of her seat and feels like she is in the front row of a pew watching everything unfold but she also expressed some displeasure with jerry nadler from that conversation yesterday when he engaged in a back and forth with the president's lawyers that led to the chief

justice admonishing both sides and said she did not like the tone that he set, the accusatory tone there, so it's clear as democrats are trying to make their case here trying to also not turn off republicans, so tomorrow this moves into a conversation about the law and the specific articles of impeachment and then again the president makes his case, his lawyer does starting saturday. >> jeff, thanks very much. i want to bring in our late time team, and, david, a different afternoon than yesterday. there are not two sides going back and forth. just democrats with their first day making their defense. how do you think it went. >> surprisingly well. it could have been really boring, repetitive day rehashing lots of things we've known from the past, instead adam schiff turned -- i think he emerges as one of the most impressive people we've seen in a setting like this.

i thought back to sam dash in the watergate days and what he managed to do take a massive amount of evidence, things that happened and seemed unrelated and brought them into a narrative in which one thing related to the neck thing. i hadn't realized exactly when john bolton resigned and what the context was until i heard that tonight. and i thought -- i think he's carrying his team right now. he's the intellectual center. he has a good team but he is a real star and if his presentation today doesn't begin to soften things up and make it possible to change public opinion, i'm not sure anything will. >> mike, what did you think? >> it's interesting to me, just pivoting off that who the audience is here. is it the american public? is it senators that we're trying to vicinity of something or senators we're trying to nail and beat in an election? it seems like the democrats go between all three. maybe if they picked one and stuck to it, it would be more

effective. at times they're looking like real legal argument they're making and seems to be more the american public and for some senators in the room but procedurally do something that keeps the senators there all night and they start talking about a cover-up and use talking points that angers the senators so it's sort of confusing from the republican side which sort of audience they're trying to win over here. in the end it looks political to most people and the republican side and looks like they're trying to score points. >> kirsten, to mike's point, ultimately the american people would be the audience they want to rely on most because they don't think they'll be getting republicans -- >> exactly. i think they're realistic about the fact of what's going to happen, that he's going to be acquitted, right? and maybe there's going to be some witnesses, but even that's very much up in the air so they're operating under the

assumption that if they can't get the witnesses and if they can't get the additional documents they can discredit the acquittal, right? say when they do acquit him and trump says i was acquitted, no, you weren't acquitted because this was a sham trial. there were no witnesses, there are always witnesses in trials. we weren't allowed to allow more documents in so you can't claim that. >> schiff said something today which they seized on. he referred to the 2020 election in his remarks and talked about how it has to be done now otherwise the president will try to steal the election so we have to end it now. one of the big talking points across the country is this is not -- this is taking the vote away from the american public. there is an election in 11 months instead the democrats want to do it themselves and sounded like schiff said that's right. >> that's what impeachment is. the whole idea of impeachment is that you are not letting it go to an election. the founders put it in therefore for a reason and understood that

sometimes -- >> when you ask that in polling it is devastatingly bad for democrats especially in the target areas across the country. would you rather the american people get to vote on it in november. overwhelmingly they say let us have it. >> the argument the democrats are making for the rush of not going through the courts and getting it to the senate was that they believe the president is trying to up end this coming election and therefore time is of the essence. >> thus he can't be trusted. i don't think republicans would have a different talking point if it were 2018 versus 2020. i think the democrats did a good job in laying out why ukraine matters to the american people. and why this isn't just some country where the president being his typical bombastic self maybe did something that didn't fit protocol but was it impeachable. they laid out why we were withholding aid from a u.s. ally in a hot war with an adversary

and laid out the national security implications from doing that and also laid out a matter of logic. when you heard adam schiff say the president and his defenders constantly quote zelensky saying there was no quid pro perfect phone call, of course they were forced to do that because they depend on the united states. two plus two equals four. the same thing with the logic behind corruption. why use that as an excuse? if the president believed that ukraine, in fact, was corrupt, go back to congress, lay it out before congress and it's your prerogative at that point to withhold money. they laid out and i think they divided it up amongst the managers very well as to what happened, the timetable, evidence from the fact witnesses, marie yovanovitch and her treatment and at the end of the day when you even heard from jason crow talk about his experience serving in the u.s. military and the fact that we've got tens of thousands of u.s. troops in europe right now and the numbers of troops, the ukrainian troops that have died from all this, it turned it into

a matter of life and death with a u.s. ally. >> i want to hear from karl. we'll take a quick break and start it off on the other side. more on how the president is handling day one of the house's case against him. we'll get a live update from the white house and also conversations with one of the jurors, senator jeff merkley's thoughts of what it was like on the floor. are the senators listening? are they engaged? he'll tell us as our special late night coverage continues. with rheumatoid arthritis. re because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death.

serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™".

as your broker, i've solved it. is complicated. that's great, carl. but we need something better. that's easily adjustable has no penalties or advisory fee. and we can monitor to see that we're on track. like schwab intelligent income. schwab! introducing schwab intelligent income. a simple, modern way to pay yourself from your portfolio. oh, that's cool... i mean, we don't have that. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.

democratic senate leader chuck schumer told reporters a short time ago he believes today's evidence may not only have an effect on the public but on republican senators as well. his rationale he gets so much of their information from fox news quoting schumer, when you think about it, it's probably the first time they've heard the narrative of what happened. back with our political team of experts. carl, what did you take away from today?

>> i think this is a hugely damaging narrative that was laid out today, and that mitch mcconnell understands and has understood for a while that this hugely damaging narrative was going to affect his members. and that his strategy -- i've talked to some republicans about this -- midnight mitch is to wear out his own members so that they don't vote for more witnesses because there are six, seven, eight, nine wobbly republicans. not necessarily going to vote to acquit, but want either to make some kind of statement that they don't like what the president has done, that they think it is deplorable, disgusting, really have been affected by what they're hearing. the question is, though, whether or not they will go for witnesses. manu outlined the numbers pretty well earlier tonight. if mcconnell is able to hold with the exact majority that he

has, then there won't be witnesses. but if there is a break of three or four, then you can go to six, seven, eight perhaps for witnesses. and he's very worried about holding them, particularly because of the strength of this narrative and how powerful it is. this president of the united states is the only president in our history who has done what the founders wrote this clause for. he has sought the interference of a foreign power in our elections to undermine our free electoral system. these republicans, some of whom have not focused on this till now, they get it. a good number of them. then, look, they've been craven since this president has come into office but they're also on the spot. >> but what do you really think? but, no, the interesting thing is there is very little new that we learned or saw today. it's just that today for the first time it was packaged as an argument. frankly, as a former prosecutor,

i was taken back to seeing what prosecution looks like and adam schiff was actually quite deft. again, you don't have to agree with it. you may legally disagree with the conclusion, but he was actually quite deft. i think the best rhetorical point he made today was, look, i would love to show you what was in ambassador taylor's august 29th -- i can't show you that because it's not allowed to be admitted. i would love to show you his contemporaneous notes, i can't show you that. >> bolton is a real wild card. >> all of the things that he could not show the jurors. now, again, as michael said, there's a few different audiences. the public and the vulnerable senators, and he was speaking directly to those -- you said eight or nine. it's probably four or five or maybe a smaller group. susan collins, are you listening? >> is anybody listening? whether it's in the room or outside, are minds already made up? yes, there are some senators uncomfortable or queasy on things, but the writing is on the wall.

>> i think it's very hard to move them. you also have to remember, yes, they're listening to this but the president's lawyers are going to come out and say what they're going to say which we've already had a preview of which is a lot of the talking points they've been using in the past and jay sekulow had a press scrum earlier. basically said, oh this, is just trying to impeach a president over a phone call. these use these talking points where that's really not -- no, nobody is trying to impeach him over a phone call. there's actually nobody's position, but they mischaracterize the democrats' position. they mischaracterize the democrats don't believe in executive privilege which is not their position. we just think there should be testimony -- he actually could invoke executive privilege at some point if he wanted to, but he hasn't. >> but, you know, it's almost reminiscent of the 1990s. a lot of people tried to make the argument that president clinton was impeached for sex when, in fact, it was for lying

under oath. >> i know. we said that every single day. james carville on down. we tried to make the case there were eight criminal referrals. exactly. it's amazing how that works. >> david, you were there. >> we had a pretty good size audience yesterday, about 7 1/2 million people at night, 11 million during the daytime. i thought they were smart to put schiff at the beginning of prime time tonight. that's when the audience really -- >> yesterday they were presenting their case in a similar way than they -- today was much more detailed, but they weren't just making procedural motions and not sort of explaining them. they were using them as an opportunity to, you know, inform, educate, however you want to call it, people who had not been following this. >> right. i think that's right. but, you know, there is a question now starting to bounce around. david axelrod has been talking about it this evening here at cnn. and that is, the public is facing a dilemma and the senators, there are only two options. it's either acquit, which a lot of people in this country oppose, they'll never get to

have the votes -- i'm sorry to, convict or acquit. he's clearly going to be convicted at this point, but if he is -- >> acquitted. >> acquitted. but if he's acquitted, then there is this real danger he'll walk around saying i've been exonerated and he'll feel emboldened. is there some third option they can develop, a vote of censure, something -- >> that's why i mention statements people might make. >> we're going to pick this up shortly. coming up next my conversation with senator jeff merkley of oregon. we'll be right back. i have to w. (vo) why the aceves family chose verizon. we all use our phones very differently. these two are always gaming and this one is always on facetime. and my oldest is learning to be a pilot. we need a reliable network because i need to know he's safe. as soon as he lands, he knows he better call mama. mama! (vo) the network more people rely on, gives you more. like plans your family can mix and match starting at just $35. and apple music on us. plus, up to $700 off the latest iphone when you switch.

that's verizon. can be a sign your feeling digestive systemhed down 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. mostly. you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. text resolution to 651-90 to learn more.

being prepared is a part of who you are. but it's especially important in the case of a disaster. be informed about possible emergencies in your area. make a plan that covers where you'll go in an emergency. build a kit with the things you need to survive. there is no one more capable of planning for your situation, than you. start your plan today. go to ready.gov/myplan

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. we talked before the break

about how the case made today by democrats is being received and who it's being tailored for. whatever you think of it on the merits, it was a thorough presentation. i talked about it just before air time with jeff merkley, a democrat of oregon. senator merkley, it's certainly been a long two days. i'm wondering what you think the biggest takeaway at the end of today is. >> well, i was really struck about two things today. one was we've all had bits and pieces of the story, but today it was painted into a large arc, an arc that covered nearly a year in which the strategy of investigating the bidens and ukraine went from the back burner before biden declared for office to the front burner right at the same time that a new government was being elected in ukraine and the new government, president zelensky became the pressure point, the person being asked to deliver on help for the trump administration. and just laying that out in this arc was very useful. and then it also really

addressed the issue of to what degree was the u.s. government really trying to help zelensky, who campaigned against corruption, take on corruption. and the answer is we weren't. we weren't. we took out our ambassador yovanovitch, who was a champion for helping fight corruption. we didn't provide any new pograms to zelensky, the new president, who actually wanted to have help taking on corruption. the defense department said they were doing everything possible and released the aid, and then we held back the aid whether supporting the new government and helping them stand up against the russians, so the picture is becoming much clearer. >> we're not able to see what's happening in the room when people are speaking in terms of what the other senators are doing. are -- right now democrats are making presentations. are republicans listening? i mean, are they present, are they listening, are they engaged? >> they are present, they are

listening. i don't think you can distinguish between the two sides of the room if you were looking at it. on both sides you'll periodically see a number of people standing up going to the back of the room, stretching, while continuing to see whispering, note passing, eating some food out of their desk. but it's a lot of hours. i don't think you really wouldn't get a sense that one side was listening and one wasn't. i think the republicans definitely are paying attention. >> as part of the democrats' presentation, we're seeing video clips, witness testimony from the house impeachment hearings. is that a way to get those witnesses on the record in the senate in case witnesses are not allowed? >> yes, it's very helpful to actually see people speaking and listen to them and their voice, see their facial expressions. very different than just reading about it on a piece of paper. and i must say i'm not yet optimistic that we will get the witnesses and documents to make this a full, fair trial. i listened to a couple of my colleagues during one of the

breaks and they were speaking to cameras saying, well, we don't see why we need witnesses. the house says they had a strong case. that's good enough for us. we'll just listen to what the house managers say and make a decision. i hope, i really hope my colleagues across the aisle join together to fight for the vision of a full and fair trial with documents, with witnesses. >> do you think -- i mean, it will take, what, four republicans. do you think there are four republicans who would push for any kind of witness? >> i think there's far more than four who are thinking about it, but i also know that they're going to get a tremendous amount of pressure from the president's team and from mcconnell to shut this down and not put witnesses or documents before the body. >> there's going to be two more days for democrats to make their case, then the president's attorneys will make theirs. jay sekulow, one of the attorneys for the president, previewed part of their defense today saying, quote, notice what's not in the articles of impeachment, allegations or accusations of quid pro quo. that's because they didn't exist.

to that what do you say? >> well, a couple of things. every piece of evidence from every direction points towards a quid pro quo, and that is that both a meeting with the president, our president trump, was held up and aid was held up in exchange for creating pressure for the new president of ukraine to announce investigations into the bidens and into the 2016 election to see if ukraine played any role in that. that just comes out in every possible way. in at least three cases you have people who are very close to the president. we have mulvaney who spoke in open to the press saying there was a quid pro quo. and we have sondland who was speaking to the president then and immediately spoke with other people about how the president created or spoke to this. and then we have certainly

others who were in that inner circle who were a pace or two removed, but also had kind of this understanding, this high understanding of the arrangement. >> senator merkley, thank you. >> thank you, anderson. >> ahead president trump returns from abroad after talking about what he's withholding from the impeachment trial. we'll have a live report from the white house next. my man, we're a lot alike. just two dudes getting paid to do what we love. only difference is you never get booed... [woman in crowd] we love you, big orange! ...and of course the salaries. mainly the salaries. try investing with e*trade. they make it easy to get started, without all the typical finance jargon. that's the spirit, keep on smiling! don't get mad. start investing with e*trade.

shortly after day two of the

impeachment trial ended, jay sekulow spoke with reporters and had this to say whether their side would use the full 24 hours over 3 day as lotted to them in defense of the president. >> at this point here's what i believe is going to happen. they're going to -- it looks like they're going to spend tomorrow and friday, and then i suspect we'll start on saturday, and then we'll go probably another day or two, but who knows. we have to make that determination with our team. >> let's turn now for more to kaitlan collins who is at the white house. so, the president's comments this morning, bragging about having the documents the democrats want, one would think his lawyers would not be all that happy about that. >> well, and they were asked about it earlier, anderson, to clarify what was the president talking about when he said that. and they did not answer that question. instead, they ignored it, moved on, took another question. and some white house officials have been arguing, no, the president was talking about the strength of their argument. if you look at the context surrounding that quote, he had been talking about releasing the transcript of his call with the

ukrainian leader, that call from july that started all of this. even if that wasn't what the president meant, it was a curious comment for him to make. you've seen multiple democrats take the president's remarks and amplify it and say he is boasting about withholding information from congress. of course, the reason that would be so questionable is this is a time when they were trying to convince these moderate republicans to vote to admit more evidence into the record so then when they are moving forward, they have access to those documents. so the question, if that's going to affect anyone's argument, though, is still something that remains to be seen. >> he said we have all the material. hard to see how -- >> they don't have the material. >> they don't have the material. i don't know how that's an argument -- i mean, that sounds like they don't have the material, which is the documents. anyway, do we know -- it seems impossible to believe the president has not been watching a lot of this. he's certainly been very active on social media. i think it's set a one-day record for him. >> reporter: yeah, he tweeted more today than he has ever in his presidency. that includes retweets as well.

the president was on that very lengthy flight back from switzerland to washington where he arrived back here at the white house just a few hours ago. and, of course, he has made no secret that he was watching while he was meeting with those world leaders in between those meetings. we are told he has been keeping an eye on this today. he's also been evaluating his team, how they were doing yesterday during those debates back and forth. and he's also been on the phone with a lot of republicans talking to them about what's going on. and i'm told he's itching for his team to get out there and to make his argument. though, of course, democrats use all of their time, they're not going to be able to do that until saturday at the earliest. >> his go-go in flight bill must be huge. at least his works. jay sekulow, part of the president's legal team spoke today about the possibility of calling witnesses. what did he say about that? >> reporter: yeah, he did. he said that essentially they don't think they're going to get to that, but they are preparing for that contingency. manu has laid out on the hill there are a lot of questions about how many republicans are going to get to that if they do, because they don't think it

would just be the 51. they think there would be several more than that because no one wants to be the 51st vote to bring this in. though jay sekulow said they are essentially preparing for all these contingencies. anderson, you can't prepare for someone like john bolton. they do not know what it is he would say if he did come forward. >> fascinating. kaitlan collins, thanks very much. joined once again by our political and legal team. mike, do you -- what do you think jay sekulow -- what do you think the president's team is going to do, will they use all three days? i mean, if they were concerned about getting this, pushing this to the state of the union, there was an argument to be made they would want to keep it short. >> i'm not a lawyer, but it seems that the defense's job is to get the jury to acquit him. and if they think the jury is going to acquit him, and it's a done deal, why would you say anything else? i think that would be true in a lot of courtrooms. just like you pointed out a lot of things sound like talking points, if those talking points are what's going to work to acquit him, they need to keep

saying the talking points. the jury is the republicans in the senate. that's who is going to vote on this. they're going to make a decision i'm guessing based upon that with a little sprinkle of whether or not the president wants them to do it next week and get that put out politically on television. >> david, just making the -- making the arguments in a variety of different ways, alan dershowitz doing it on constitutional grounds, it does give any senator who wants to use to vote the way they want to vote, it gives them ammunition. >> absolutely, absolutely. because the republicans have gone at this in such a different way than the democrats, the democrats have been arguing the facts and the evidence. the republicans are not contesting them on the facts. they're making the argument, you were sloppy, unprepared, thin case, et cetera, et cetera. i don't know how they can fill 24 hours on the republican side unless they take into account the facts and work their way through it. i'm not sure they're prepared to do that. i think there is a good chance they'll cut it short and see if they can jam it through on the witness thing and go home.

you know, there are a lot of republicans who think this is a farce, this should never be happening. just take that argument and go. they're going to pay a price. they're going to pay a price. >> if you were arguing the republicans' case, would you actually argue the case? >> no, that's number one, they want to get it over by the state of the union. i don't know that they do, but that seems to be the prevailing consensus, number one. and, number two, it's clear that they don't want to make the legal case or engage on the facts. number one, because they made the case that they think that what the president did was perfectly lawful. and, number two, this is what defense attorneys do sometimes, which is confuse and obfuscate, and essentially trick the jury into not following the facts and the law, which here clearly -- look, the president today committed or copped to an act of obstruction. admitted to it. regardless of whether the fact he was joking or he was making a half truth or whatever, that would be admitted as evidence if this were a normal proceeding. and so it is to their advantage to not take that on directly and just, like i said yesterday on

the show, wave their hands and scream. >> and if yesterday was any indication they did not use all their time yesterday either. if this were behind closed doors, maybe it could work better for other republicans to go along with. but given the fact this is playing out in a national landscape and given that some of the evidence, a lot of the evidence presented from the democrats is so damning, to hear a shortened rebuttal from the republicans, especially given that the president is not giving them any wiggle room at all. >> it does seem that given what we know about how all this works is that a lot of it is going to depend on what the president wants. if the president has watched this after three days of democrats and is -- wants a spirited defense, they will, i would imagine, they would give him a spirited defense. >> he wants to shut it down. >> i think they've already given him a spirited defense. i think that's what they're doing. it's a lot of bombast really. but it's not substantive, and so i don't think there is any way they can really rebut the

substance, which is why they go back to what i keep calling the talking points, which are the same things. it's always turning away to something else rather than actually saying that didn't happen. what you have alleged didn't happen or i have some piece of information that's somehow going to exonerate the president, they don't do that. >> we have to take a break. thanks, everybody. up next more perspective on the history being made now from a veteran the clinton impeachment paul begala and richard nixon's near impeachment, john dean. reflect'' on family and friends ♪ ♪ and hey, we got somethin' ♪ ♪ just for you (sniffing) ♪ it's a cup of your favori-i-i-ite... ♪ (loud splashing) (high-pitched laughter) dang woodchucks! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

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. for bathroom odors that linger try febreze small spaces. just press firmly and it continuously eliminates odors in the air and on soft surfaces. for 45 days. robinwithout the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are -

even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. are you currently using a whitening toothpaste, but not seeing results? try crest 3d whitestrips.

its enamel-safe formula lifts and removes stains to provide 100% noticeably whiter teeth or your money back. try crest 3d whitestrips. charmin ultra soft! it's softer than ever. charmin ultra soft is softer than ever,

so it's harder to resist. okay, this is getting a little weird! enjoy the go with charmin. the opening arguments we've

been watching are historic. only the third time in the nation's history alongside andrew johnson and bill clinton the late '90s a president has been impeached. perspective from paul begala who had a front row seat to his boss' trial and john dean, former counsel to president nixon who resigned before his likely impeachment and john dean testified, just in terms of how this is different from president clinton, the managers were interviewed. >> and yet we still wouldn't want more witnesses because everyone was deposed, interviewed by the fbi front of the grand jury. mr. starr was so thorough, he interviewed window washers, dentists, mail carriers and we had to accept three witnesses, ms. lewinsky.

jordan, and sydney bloomenthal. this time around, there's a really limited first-person, firsthand evidence, and it's really striking. we've never had an impeachment trial in history with no witnesses. right now it looks like that's where we're going. and the house managers a are doing a terrific job putting on a case with what they have. >> what was the argument? >> back then? it was that we can't have a trial without witnesses. the record is there, but they had already been interviewed. absolutely. front of the grand jury under oath. as a friend of vernon, i was worried it was a perjury trap. but it wasn't. they didn't perger themselves. monica lewinsky was a star witness. it blew up in their face. i don't think you have the same

issue here because we don't have the testimony from firsthand witnesses, which we did. my goodness, it was about an affair. we had at them both the people who had the affair, so it's kind of exhaustive and everyone's mail carrier and dentist. >> they were unified up until a certain point. water dllt -- watergate. >> they were with him throughout the hearings, certainly with the senate was holding the hearings, the house republicans were solid. the republicans in the senate were solid. not withstanding the ima knowledge that baker was fighting for nixon behind closed doors and publicly being very amenable to all this information, what have you. in the house, they were very solidly for nixon. the moderates were the first to peel off. actually, larry hogan, whose son is now governor of maryland, his

father was the first to peel off and say i think this man should be impeached. >> they were under the same sorts of pressures that republicans today -- >> very similar. what really happens in the end is nixon had pulled so many of them aside, particularly in the senate, and looked them in the eye and said, listen, i knew nothing about watergate, about the cover-up until john dean, my counsel came in and told me on march 21st was the first i learned. it was an outrageous lie and the tapes later proved how enormous the lie was. >> so the fact that he had lied to them to their face. >> to their face, and that's really when he lost the senate. >> it's interesting, paul. these senators are not unfamiliar with the fact that the president has lied whether he publicly admitted it or not. >> maybe it is the bed of nails phenomenal.

phenomenon. maybe he just told so many lies, even his come patriots in the republican party are immune to it. this is not simply about lying. this is an execution, i think, proved, but i'm a democrat, that the president subordinated national security to solicit a bribe. it's extraordinary. adam schiff today was magnificent in taking us back and showing us just how important this is and how even without the direct witnesses how damning the evidence is. >> and how the large scheme was. we really saw it today. >> we've been focusing so much on witnesses is john bolton going to be called in, which is obviously important, but the documents are, you know, very important as well which have not been turned over. the president bragged about that today saying we have all the material, meaning he has all the material, the white house, because they haven't turned over any. it's different, again, from the clinton impeachment. >> 90,000 pages we produced. 90,000. mr. trump and his white house produced zero.

i worked in the white house, so did john. i blt in executive privilege. the president has the right to talk to aides confidentially. this goes back to george washington. when he established it, when he did, washington said, this doesn't count in impeachment because if you can use executive privilege to block everything, out of impeachment inquiry, there is no such thing as an impeachment inquiry. washington was right. and i think washington a better president than donald trump. >> we'll be right back.

cologuard: colon cancer screening for people 45 plus at average risk. i've heard a lot of excuses to avoid screening for colon cancer. i'm not worried. it doesn't run in my family.

i can do it next year. no rush. cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. there's no excuse for waiting. get screened. ask your healthcare provider if cologuard is right for you. most insured patients pay $0. ask your healthcare provider if cologuard is right for you. we all use our cellphones very differently. (vo) why the french family chose verizon. so, she's always on social media. he's always watching sports. someone's video chatting her friends. hi, gianna! my parents are getting older so knowing that i can get in touch with them at any time is really comforting. grandma, you're on tv! (grandma) wow! what channel? (vo) the network more people rely on, gives you more. like plans your family can mix and match starting at just $35. and a year of disney+ on us. plus, up to $700 toward our best phones when you switch. that's verizon.

the news continues. let's turn things over to chris for "cuomo primetime." hello, everybody. i'm chris cuomo. house managers have two more days to make their case for removal of president trump from office. the big question after day one of the arguments is, what's the impact? what is new? what's seems to sway? what is the indication of that? the facts are there to the extent that they are knowable at this point. the democrats are in a little bit of a tricky position. they're arguing that from what we know so far it looks bad. from what and whom we can have, we believe it gets worse. so that creates a question mark that the republicans and, by extension, the president's legal team, will almost certainly use to prove poor effort in the house, you didn't get it done, and, two, we don't know the unknown, your job was to prove it and you didn't. how will it play?