good evening, we are coming to you at the end of a day that saw managers make the constitutional case that the president extracted political favors. he was not fighting corruption when he asked the president of ukraine to investigate the bidens, in it for himself. they took the risky step of making vice president biden himself and the president's unfounded allegations against him a major part of their presentation. which is only one item of interest among many tonight and we'll talk about them all.

athena jones sets the stage. >> the most serious charges ever brought against the president. >> reporter: house manager jerry nadler started pointing a long list of constitutional experts and invoking the framers of the constitution. >> abuse, betrayal, corruption. this is exactly the understanding that the framers incorporated into the constitution. >> reporter: democrats using visual aids to bolster their case that trump used the power of his office to pressure ukraine to serve his own political interests using comments from the president's own allies, notably attorney general bill barr, alan dershowitz and lindsey graham, one of the jurors in the trial to make the point an impeachable offense does not have to be a statutory crime. >> i think that's what they meant by high crimes, it doesn't have to be a crime. it's just when you start using your office and you're acting in a way that hurts people you've

committed a high crime. >> reporter: hitting trump for blocking witnesses. >> if the president had any exculpatory witnesses, even a single one, he would be demanding their appearance here instead of urging you not to permit additional witnesses to testify. >> reporter: texas congresswoman sylvia garcia arguing trump's motivation for demanding the investigations was the 2020 election. >> but when vice president biden became the front-runner for the democratic presidential nomination and polls showed that he had the largest head-to-head lead against president trump, that became a problem. >> reporter: garcia walking the senators through the investigations trump sought and why they were baseless taking aim at a talking point about joe biden. >> vice president biden called for the removal of this prosecutor at the official direction of u.s. policy. >> reporter: using comments from current and former trump aides

to illustrate her point. >> we have no information that indicates that ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election. >> it's not only a conspiracy theory it's completely debunked. judd gregg wrote a piece in the hill, the five ways to impeach one self-. the third way was to hire rudy giuliani. >> you can say at love of things about president trump but he is not led by the nose by rudy giuliani. >> reporter: driving the point that trump was acting in his own personal interest by again pointing to remarks he made about ukraine in october. a clip that aired some half a dozen times in the trial so far. >> well, i would think that if they were honest about it they'd start a major investigation into the bidens. it's a very simple answer. >> so here we hear again from the president's own words what his primary object is and his

primary object is help in his re-election campaign. help to cheat in his re-election campaign. >> reporter: schiff, a former federal prosecutor also addressing the reason for all the repetition. >> you will see some of these facts and videos therefore in a new context, in a new light in the light of what else we know and why it compels a finding of guilt and conviction. so there is some method to our madness. >> reporter: and much as they did on day one the democrats saved some of their most powerful arguments for prime time. >> read the transcript president trump says. we have read the transcript and it is damning evidence of a corrupt quid pro quo. this is corruption and abuse of power in its purest form. >> reporter: athena jones, cnn, washington. >> more now on the key question, what if anything will senators decide to do with what they've been hearing and what if any appetite republicans have for

hearing more as in for witnesses. jeff zeleny has late reporting and joins us from the capitol. what do you know? >> reporter: that is a central question. did any republicans change their mind today? were they moved by the argument throughout the day about the president's abuse of power in the words of the impeachment managers. they made the case that the president is an existing threat, a continuing threat. it wasn't a mistake. but watching the faces of those republican senators as i sat in the gallery it is unclear if any minds were changed. of course, it takes four republicans to join with democrats to vote next week, four new witnesses, four new documents, unclear if there will be those four or not. the key republicans simply aren't saying. susan collins, senator of maine said she would like to see witnesses. john bolton in particular. lisa murkowski raised questions about is this going to get into a long drawn out fight over

executive privilege? she said she does not have the stomach for that. as she was leaving the chamber she would not talk about the day's produceedings. she said she was tired and wanted to digest. unclear if any minds were changed, of course, most on each side had their minds made up at the beginning. >> it seems like the 2020 election cast a shadow over the arguments being made today or at least in part. >> they did without question. of course, the president's own words, so striking to hear his words again and again in the gallery, you know, really a litany of his greatest hilts he's been talking about but joe biden, the democratic managers raised joe and hunter biden throughout the day, a pre-buttal to what the president's lawyers are expected to use. -- their side in the coming days but a preview of the 2020 general election campaign an in fact that's what some republicans are accusing schiff of. they believe he is trying to

alter the outcome of 2020. trying to muddy up president trump. one more day left of the democratic managers making their case on the second article of impeachment. unclear if any mines have changed. there is another audience. democrats are trying to make their case to the american public and they believe they've done a lot on that front. anderson. >> jeff, thanks very much. joining us tireless late night time, david ghergen, bianna golodryga, kirsten powers and scott jennings. takeaway? >> i thought if we were in a regular court of law this would be over now. they've presented such a compelling case. they have lots and lots of evidence to back it up and in a normal court you would move for dismissal at some -- or at some point here they would try to sort of knock it on home. we're not in a normal court of law. we are in the court of politics.

on that public opinion seems to be moving in the favor of the democrats but the -- some of the earlier cnn reporting tonight was that actually support among republicans for calling witnesses actually going down some. that the argument, you know, you were going to issue subpoenas, that will be challenged in court and want to have weeks and weeks of having this hang over our head. >> support among republican senators. >> yes, we've had -- jeff was just saying no evidence of movement in favor of the democrats, i would say there may be some movement in favor of republicans and lisa murkowski doesn't sound like she's safely on board after the last two days. >> they certainly have a lot of coverage for reasons they could say they don't want to have witnesses. there is a whole host of arguments they can make. >> interesting. who is the audience here, right? as a lawyer you think about are you speaking to a judge, are you speaking to a jury, are you

speaking to a panel of judges. if you notice democrats today in interviews have started talking about the two juries, the public and essentially senators as the jurors and so on. interesting thing an nadler touched on it. he was talks to the public more. one of the first things out of his mouth was a, b, c, abuse of power, betrayal, corruption. you run the risk of simplifying but people can't remember number 65 of the federalist papers but can remember, a, b, c. he's speaking to the public to simplify it a little bit so to some extent you have to get the public behind you and it all fits together. >> bianna, during one of the breaks senator john cornyn said he probably had a mixed motive about holding up the aid to ukraine. that seems about as strong a

rebuke that he's going to get. >> you could see even in adam schiff's powerful closing arguments and statements tonight that he sort of gave republicans that option by saying, look, i know how you feel. let's all be honest. we know the president is guilty. whether or not you are willing to admit that, you know what he did is wrong. the question you pose, is it worth impeaching him during an election year? he laid out why. this is a man who he said, he quoted, chose rudy giuliani over his own intelligence agency and why did he choose rudy giuliani? to benefit himself because what giuliani had to offer was something that would be beneficial to president trump. what his intelligence community and chris wray in particular had to offer was the truth and so he said because of that he is a man who cannot be trusted to be president of the united states to put the u.s.' interests first and foremost above his own so he laid that out and addressed it because it's something we've been talking about and republicans behind closed doors

have acknowledged too maybe begrudgingly the call could have gone better. >> scott, you don't see any any minds being changed. >> no, i think the president is going to be acquitted. i mean i personally think that because of that fact and that fact not changing there is not an appetite to shut down or bog down the senate over weeks or months because it would take away from being able to do other things. i do think -- i thought schiff's final argument tonight was a powerful speech and sounded exactly like a speech you might give at the convention this year as why the american people should not vote for donald trump for re-election. it was a political speech and so i think that he's making this argument that politically it's too dangerous to leave the president in office and the rebuttal from the republicans would be politically it would be dangerous on a 50/50 issue. an issue that split the country right down the middle for the politicians in washington to upend the results of an election during the next election and

throw him out. i think what you'll see is a clash of political views, the view that he's too politically dangerous to leave in and the view that 50/50, not a single republican vote in the house and you want to throw him out? sort of an epic argument and the fall campaign will be about. >> kirsten, there was talk a while back that republicans may get to the place where they say, look, it wasn't right what the president did but it's not an impeachable offense. it doesn't seem like any republicans are even willing to really go there publicly because out of fear of what the president will do to them. >> right. it has to be a perfect phone call so i think that -- i just think that if we agree -- if what you say is true and this is what the republicans are going to do then it's essentially saying in this country it is okay for the president of the united states no matter who it is, future, democratic president to use, you know, a white house meeting or foreign aid to get

another country to do their personal bidding to help them win re-election. that is a major problem, i think and to say that, well, the republicans, you know, 50/50 and so political and all that kind of stuff but you're not considering the fact it's because of the way the republicans are behaving but putting it all on the democrats instead of saying none of the republicans are seriously considering this so they made up their mind before they came in and that the lawyers are arguing and i think it was jay sekulow said the argument they'll make tomorrow this call was completely appropriate. and, of course, that's ridiculous this. call was not completely appropriate on any level. it's never appropriate for a president. the united states to ask another government to investigate an american citizen. just top level and then we can. >> down on all the other problems with it. >> i think that it's not the way the parties are behaving but the way the american people are behaving. the founders set a high bar foy

a reason and the democrats haven't met that bar. if you look at the way the country is behaving. >> hold on. the country is now 75% think that he ought to have witnesses. almost 70% believe he's broken a law. 70% believe that he's done something that is unethical. are we not -- are we going to brush all that aside and say that's the way it breaks? you think that's good for the country? >> i think in the last cnn poll it was a 50/50 proposition. >> that's on the ouster. you think we ought to have a third choice? >> many people would want a different door to go out but this process doesn't allow it. >> take a break. coming up next, andrew johnson never reacted this way to his trial. also raising a lot of eyebrows. one senator's attack on an impeachment witness, a decorated combat veteran and reaction to it. later live report from the white

house on the president's latest thoughts, comments on the trial especially witnesses that and more as this special impeachment trial edition of "360" continues. [cymbals clanging] [knocking] room for seven. and much, much more. the first-ever glb. lease the glb 250 suv for just $419 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. ♪ ♪girls on the floor gotta thirty point lead and a minute left♪ ♪queens on the team in real life not just on the internet♪ ♪all strength, we ain't stoppin' believe me♪ ♪go straight till the morning look like we♪ ♪won't wait, we're taking everything we wanted we can do it♪ ♪all strength, no sweat

♪all strength, no sweat

even before they need it.need, with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪ when our daughter and her kids moved in with us... kids, bedtime! ...she was worried we wouldn't be able to keep up. course we can. what couldn't keep up was our bargain detergent.

turns out it's mostly water, and water doesn't get out all the stains. so, we switched back to tide. one wash, stains are gone. kind of like our quiet time. [slurping] what are you doing? don't pay for water. tide gives you three times the active cleaning ingredients. if it's got to be clean, it's got to be tide. when we see you enter through our doors. we don't see who you're against, or for. whether tomorrow will be light or dark. all we see in you, is a spark. we see your kindness and humanity. the strength of each community. the more we look the more we find the sparks that make america shine. ♪ ♪ robin hood and little john runnin' through the forest ♪

♪ laughin' back and forth at what the other'ne has to say ♪ there's a booking for every resolution. book yours at booking.com just because the president is on trial doesn't mean he can't be on twitter and has broken record, perhaps as a sign of how seriouly he's taking it he tweeted out this image of himself at trump tower with president obama i guess apparently spying on him from outside the window after having climbed up trump tower. a modern day norman rockwell kind of thing. back with our critics. i really don't know -- where to go from that. what happens -- what do you think the republican argument is going to be? we heard from jay sekulow who said the democrats talking about

biden and hunter biden, that opened the door to us talking about it. seemed to me that door was already going to be open because that is something that they can really sink their teeth into and has obviously benefits in many different ways for them. >> it's the thing that they say legitimizes the president actually bringing it up in the first place was this was a legitimate issue. even the democrats are trying to prebut it because they know it's a problem so i think you'll hear the republicans talk about it. i don't know if it will make up the bulk. i don't know how much time they'll need. >> do you take they'll take all three days. >> if you think you've got it, why would you keep belaboring it. if you get through your arguments and think you've got it, get through the q&a period and then they go -- the witness vote and move to final jeopardy. >> second low says he won't run out the clock. >> to me i wouldn't be focused -- i would be focused on doing what i had to do to get

the votes i need and not being so repetitive. >> there's a legal term for what they did by bringing joe biden up today. it's actually called fronting and, you know, you do this when you have a witness who has convictions in their record or something and you be the attorney to bring it on and put it on the record so the other side doesn't do it. by says the name biden, hunter biden, even though it's not relevant, the question of hunter biden's conduct is not relevant to whether the president violated his oath of office or broke the law it's still -- it was very sort of legally sound or sort of prosecutorially sound for them to get it out there rather than jay sekulow. >> which is why they focussed on the time line and said he never talked about corruption or biden. the only time this came up was when biden became a nominee for president and you saw his poll numbers go up and they repeatedly connected the two, it had nothing to do, the president didn't care.

it was only when he became a potential adversary. >> even if he had legitimately wanted -- let's say it was legitimate, you wouldn't ask someone, a foreign government to do it. you would ask the doj to do it. >> you wouldn't ask a foreign government which is history of corruption that you're -- >> also have rudy giuliani run it. >> you wouldn't ask them and basically say in order to get what you want, you have to do this. right? there's a lot of different layers of things you wouldn't normally do. >> when i said not relevant, scott, you grimaced. here's why it's not relevant. it's -- i lost my train of thought on that one. it doesn't change the question of whether the president violated the law. now, it's a relevant question for voters. if they want to ask the question of whether hunter biden is himself compromised, whether joe biden is compromised or whether his family is problematic, that's for voters. as a fact for impeachment that's just not relevant. legally, factually, consally it

has no bearing on whether the president behaved improperly by withholding that $391 million which we know. that's not in dispute. everyone is in agreement it happened. the question is what you choose to do with it. >> the republicans would say, a, it is relevant. the fact that joe biden arunning for president doesn't absolve him from questions about his conduct or the appearance of conflicts of interest. that's number one. >> question are to voters. >> no, it's a question for the president because if legitimizes a reason to bring it up. that's what they would say. number two, they would also say he got the aid over a very short period of time and this administration has been far tougher on the russians than the previous one -- >> if i think you're a bad person, i think you're a lovely person but in i think you're a bad person i steal money from you. if i'm charged with theft because i can't then say, well, i was doing it for a righteous person because the guy i stole from was a bad guy. >> he got the aid because the

whistle-blower came out -- >> he got caught were schiff's words, yeah. don't you think that's true. >> yes, of course, yes. >> but they're not acknowledging it. >> the republicans might say he got the aid because several senators went to him and said you got to release this aid. rob portman was one of the big voice. >> there will be a big optics scene when secretary of state pompeo will visit with zelensky. that's not a coincidence. they'll point to that and say, see -- >> don't you want to go back to the politics of this? scott, republicans can go have their exoneration rallies and rally the base but, remember, half the country will be really angry if there's nothing else said, just he can walk off with exoneration. i think the republicans, they need better arguments than they presented so far about why there ought to be the case. >> everyone, stick around. attack the patriotism of an

impeachment witness. what she said and how the attorney for the witness, the recipient of a purple heart responded. it's either the assurance of a 165-point

certification process. or it isn't. it's either testing an array of advanced safety systems. or it isn't. it's either the peace of mind of a standard unlimited mileage warranty. or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned. or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. now through march 2nd. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer.

i don't have to worry about that, do i? harmful bacteria lurk just below the gum line. crest gum detoxify, voted product of the year. it works below the gum line to neutralize harmful plaque bacteria and help reverse early gum damage. gum detoxify, from crest. 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. 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. 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.

you would think that deciding the fate of a president after hearing the evidence against him would be plenty to do for most senators. some, though, have taken a moment here and there to step out of the chamber. some have been doing crossword puzzles. others are getting a little reading in. many have used break time to go on television. one chose to spend her time attacking one of the players in this drama, marsha blackburn, republican of tennessee, firing off several tweets about one of the impeachment witnesses, colonel alexander vindman.

quoting now, adam schiff is hailing him as an american patriot. how patriotic is it to bad mouth our great nation in front of russia, america's greatest enemy. that was followed by this. alexander vindman leaked the contents to his pal, the whistle-blower over a policy dispute with the president. how is that not vindictive. for starters you would not know it from senator blackburn's tweets he is lieutenant colonel vindman. he did not know who the whistle-blower was. he carries shrapnel and also a purple heart. late this evening colonel vindman's attorney responded to the senator. quoting from a statement, a member of the senate, at a moment when the senate is undertaking its most solemn responsibility would choose to take to twitter to spread slander about a member of the military is a testament to cowardice. joining us now, one of senator blackburn's colleagues, senator tammy duckworth. what do you make of what senator blackburn said today? >> well, i am just appalled that

is what she has said that she would actually attack a veteran, a man of honor, a man who in his remarks, when he testified under oath was that here in the united states right matter. and that is why he spoke up. he did his duty. that's what we expect every single serviceman and woman to do, do your duty and that's what he did. and for her to attack him is really quite shameful. >> also for her to be accusing somebody of denigrating or criticizing america in front of russia seems like that's exactly what president trump did in helsinki with vladimir putin standing on a stage. >> well, that's exactly right. if anybody has denigrated america, it's president trump. certainly not colonel vindman. he, in fact, has talked about how grateful he is that his father escaped the soviet union to come to the united states, how he and his brothers have served this country in uniform combined for well over 30 years. and so he has not denigrated in country. in fact, he has served and defended this country for at least 20 years, and it is

president trump who has actually denigrated our great nation in front of a foreign ally, in front of an adversary like russia. >> republicans have said nothing new has been presented to them. the same information repeated and over and over, the more they talk the less convincing they become. >> allow us to subpoena the additional evidence that the white house is hiding from the american people, the evidence that we've shown so far has holes in it that the white house can fill. we've got documents that have parts of it blacked out, redacted. we have folks who we know were involved in these decision-making process, such as mr. bolton, that have said they would like to testify. they would testify, we would subpoena them. if they want to see more evidence, allow us to testify. they voted over ten times just the other night against allowing us to bring people in to testify, against bringing on new documents. we can have this additional evidence if the republicans would actually allow us to subpoena it. >> the senate minority leaders and chuck schumer is

claiming for republicans it's the first time they've heard the whole narrative of what's happened because they get their news from fox news. do you believe that's the first time many republican senators are hearing about all this? >> i can tell you, anderson, i watched the house trial, and the way that the house managers have actually presented the evidence in chronological order was new to me. it was really interesting to have all the bits and pieces stitched together into a comprehensive narrative that really shows how overwhelming the evidence is of the president's guilt of his abuse of power. and so even for myself i've been paying attention. it was really important to have all of this put together in a chronological format so that we are now finally understanding what was happening on the july 25th telephone call when we know all of the conversations that happened before it. >> you know, obviously we still don't know if witnesses will be called, if republicans will allow that but today senator chris murphy said that, quote, mulvaney is most important to all the testimony. it seems clear this entire thing is run through mulvaney and

mulvaney is the one talking to trump on a regular basis. i'm wondering if you agree with that. do you think mulvaney is more important than bolton, because, frankly with bolton, it's not clear what he's going to say. >> i'm not sure what either one of them are going to say. mulvaney has said on record in a press interview there was quid pro quo. he said, hey, we do this all the time. get used to it. i think he would be a critical witness. i also think that mr. bolton is critical, along with many other people that the white house is not allowing to testify. >> senator duckworth, i appreciate your time, thank you. >> thank you. just ahead, a check in at the white house and the president's defense team, how his team plans to rebut the charges made by house democrats.

[♪] 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. rowithout the commission fees and account minimums. so, you can start investing wherever you are -

even on the bus. download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. aaaah! nooooo... nooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent. bounty, the quicker picker upper.

we all use our phones very differently. we need a great network all the time. (vo) everyone in your family is different. these two are always gaming and this one is always on facetime. (vo) so verizon has plans to mix and match starting at $35. and up to $700 off the latest iphone. the network more people rely on, gives you more.

talked earlier how the president's legal team is signaling they intend to make hunter and joe biden part of their case. kaitlan collins at the white house with more reaction to that. what are you hearing? >> we know they've been watching it closely. you're seeing the president's legal team sit in the room silently. not being able to say anything in response. we're being told they're waiting back, watching to see what it is their argument is going to be because they say they've got this affirmative argument they're going to have but they're also going to need to push back on what the democrats are saying so the question is, essentially, how they're going to do that, whether or not they're going to try to match the democrats with the videos, the sound clips that you've seen them playing from the house portion of this impeachment.

and so the legal team has been meeting every day at the white house before they go to capitol hill, essentially a little bit of a prep session and then they go over there and they're listening, waiting to see what they're going to do. right now, anderson, we're told they're only expected to take two days, not three days like the democrats are expected to do starting tomorrow to make their case. though some people have said it's fluid. but they aren't expected to go for the full 24 hours they'll have to make opening statements right now. >> is certainly seemed clear by the sheer volume of tweets and retweets from the president that he is certainly focused on this, whether or not he's actually himself watching it all, do you know how closely he's actually watching? >> no, he's been watching it pretty closely and that's based on what people who have been speaking with him have been saying, the president watching to see exactly what these democrats are saying and a lot of this material the president has seen before because he also watched very closely during the impeachment hearing and he is irritated the fact that his team

is not able to make their argument. so that's what's so interesting about the fact that there is this possibility out there the senators will make saturday a pretty short session and then come back on monday for the president's legal team to make their full argument. a lot of people don't see how the president will think about, he cares a lot about what is said on those sunday shows and the coverage. that will be a question. if they only have an argument for a few hours on saturday compared with how long the democrats went for today. something else that will be interesting when you see the president's legal team come forward and make their arguments, ken starr and alan dershowitz are expected to join jay sekulow and pat cipollone. i'm told by sources so far they have not been involved in any kind of formal prep session. so it will be really interesting to see how they make their arguments, rather than how the democrats are making theirs, coordinating together. >> thanks very much, kaitlan collins. back with our political and legal team. elliott, jay sekulow said that

the democrats' presentation today, a lot of details about ukraine opened the door on the bidens. do you buy that? >> no, i don't. again, this gets back to what we were talking about earlier, this question about hunter biden's conduct, if voters wish to consider it, if voters wish to consider whether joe biden is compromised that's a question for the voters. it's not a relevant question for whether the president behaved properly. i think what they want to do. >> you could make the argument -- >> sure. >> you know, that if there was, you know, real corruption, involving hunter biden and joe biden, then that justifies the president's -- that it wasn't a political, purely political and personal benefit to the president. >> if that's the case you have a state department that can gauge -- >> now you're thinking rationally. >> a justice department. i try, i do my best. you have a justice department that can do -- frankly, you have many other avenues besides calling the leader of a foreign country to engage that person

and that government. and, frankly, and violating the law as the gao has found. >> in fact, if you wanted to actually investigate corruption, the last thing you would do would be to announce an investigation into it. you don't usually do that -- >> particularly if you had never expressed an interest in investigating corruption, particularly in ukraine. so for all of those reasons this, is incredibly suspect. >> the other thing is, he didn't just ask them to investigate, he tied it to something that they needed, right, he tied it to a white house meeting and foreign aid. so if you take all these separate things, each of them by themselves are problematic, put them together and that's where we get to where we are today. >> we should also point out according to sworn testimony, lev parnas, it wasn't even to investigate, just to announce the investigation. >> to announce, right. but it's the extra -- all he had done, it would be inappropriate. but that's not all he did and so he added to it basically, you know, bribing them. >> do you think if -- to the extent that the republicans

bring up the bidens and go down that -- does that -- does that help -- does that -- i mean, it must hurt joe biden. >> it muddies the water, for sure, and there are plenty of people that you talk to that don't really know much about the details but when they hear the bidens were involved and what was his son doing on the board, and most people would agree that it's actually not kosher for somebody to get a job like that, just because of your last name. it does become a bit murky. like we said before, this is not something the president had taken up before, this is not something the president expressed interest in by going to his justice department, by seeking an investigation. in fact, the reason why he was so frustrated with zelensky is they had gotten to a certain point, via rudy giuliani, with his predecessor. and poroshenko was at least apparently willing to play ball a bit more than zelensky and therein lies the issue. >> yeah, scott, giuliani i think was mentioned 200 times today. do republicans try to defend giuliani or just not touch that?

>> don't touch -- the lawyers may try to touch it but republican senators i don't think are going to touch this because there's no way to argue that this was a smart idea. getting rudy and lev and igor involved, i mean you and i have had this conversation many times. it's the single worst thing he's got going for him, to your all's point. there were official channels if you wanted to investigate this. clearly could have done it. so, no, i don't think you're going to see senators jumping to rudy's defense. i think you might see them jumping to the defense of, it was legitimate to look at the bidens, but i don't think any of that's going to involve giuliani. >> david, before we go, i want to talk to you about jim lehrer. i know he was a friend of yours. >> yes, yes, he was and thank you. i appreciate it. it's been a very sad day. you know, jim was one of the finest journalists of his generation. and i hope we see some more people like that before it's over. he was a model of integrity, fairness and decency that made such a difference. he was so committed to being

impartial as a journalist he didn't even vote, he purposely skipped voting. it was the reason he was selected to moderate 12 presidential debates. 12 presidential debates. we've never seen that and will never seen that again. and i have to tell you, on a personal basis he was the one who invited me in to the television world 35 years ago and made a h of the people we need to remember, people like that in journalism. he made such a difference. >> extraordinary man, and just incredible legacy and contribution. david, thank you for that, i appreciate it. appreciate it. we'll be right back. the tempur-pedic breeze™ makes sleep feel cool. appreciate it. we'll be right back. because the tempur-breeze™ transfers 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.

capitol hill comes to an end, the house impeachment managers are near the end of their presentations. if the schedule holds, friday would be the final day for the democrats to make their case. saturday it will be handed over to president trump's lawyers and his republican defenders. during the house impeachment hearings, noah feldman argued in favor of the president's impeachment. now that the senate trial is underway, no better time than tonight to check in with the professor for his take on what's happened so far. professor, looking at everything you've seen thus far, do you think the house managers are making an effective case? is there anything you think they should be doing that they're not? >> i think they are doing a good job. you know, their first goal was to try to draw the country's attention to the fact the senate doesn't want to call any witnesses. they were very effective at that, maybe even more effective than they expected. then they had to switch and

pivot and start focusing on telling the story. they've had two days to do that now. they've done it in pretty deep detail. and that's an important thing to do, not only for the public, but also for the senators. and last but not least, they are also trying to make an historical record. they know this impeachment isn't just about now. it's about the long run. >> there's multiple audiences, not just the public, not just the few senators in the room who might actually be willing to call for witnesses. it's also history. >> absolutely. and i think everyone who is involved in this impeachment process has to understand that even if the outcome is the one that most people predict, that's actually not what really matters at the deepest level. it would be nice if the senators would come around and recognize that trump isn't just impeachable but deserves to be removed from office. even if they don't, it's important for the future of american democracy that others in the future, future generations be able to look back, watch this footage, watch the commentary, read the transcripts, and see exactly

what donald trump did and that he was impeached for it, to send the message this kind of conduct just isn't okay no matter what two-thirds of the senate decides. >> the frightening thing about that is if, assuming he is not actually removed from office or the senators don't even vote on witnesses, what message that sends to future presidents. >> it's true. you know, one of the great dangers of the fact that the president could get away with having stonewalled congress and the house of representatives during the impeachment inquiry and get away now with having republicans choose not to call witnesses is there is maybe a lesson that a president is best served just to refuse to play along, you know, just to thwart the entire constitutional process. that's a terrible outcome not just for this president, but for future presidents. but that's only the glass half empty view. there is also a glass half full possibility. and that is to remember that just being impeached is not

something that happens every day. donald trump is only the third president to be impeached. and there was one other, richard nixon who quit because it was so terrible to imagine being impeached he would rather resign. and so in the long run, there can be a sanction just associated with the fact of impeachment. and that i think is meaningful and has historical significance, too. >> you wrote a piece earlier this month saying the impeachment trial doesn't need more evidence. that while witnesses would clear up a few things, the case has already essentially been made that the president abused his office. do you really think that the bolton's testimony or mulvaney's testimony aren't necessary? >> my own view is that the house was right to impeach on the evidence that it did have. there was more than enough evidence to determine that what the president did was an abuse of the office of the presidency to cheat in the elections. the call records alone tell you that in no uncertain terms. now, in terms of knowing the whole story, will we know the entire story without bolton and mulvaney? no, we won't know the entire story, and it would be very good for the country and it would be

good for history to know exactly the details of what happened. but even without that, it's clear that the senate ought to remove donald trump from office, and it's clear that the house was right to impeach him on the basis of the evidence that it did have. and, by the way, the house managers, they're in a bit of a delicate position. they are saying correctly that we need this evidence, but they can't be saying that without this evidence, you can't remove the president because the house has already voted to impeach. >> professor noah feldman, i appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll be right back. 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.

and mine super soft? don't get mad. yes! with the sleep number 360 smart bed, on sale now, you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? no problem ...and done.

so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise... prove. don't miss the final days to save $1,000 on the sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, now only $1,799. plus, 0% interest for 36-months. ends saturday. 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.

cnn's impeachment trial coverage continues. want to turn things over to chris cuomo. chris? >> thank you, anderson.

hello, everyone. i am chris cuomo. day two of democrats' opening arguments is in the book. house impeachment managers made their case, again, about eight hours today. different, though, than yesterday. how? it was more structured. they laid it out more with what they call sign posting. here's where we're going to go. here's why we're going to go there. and it seemed to work. the main points, though, were also some of the most provocative ones. president trump abused his power, how? pressuring ukraine to serve his