case for removing president trump from office, democratic house impeachment managers tonight wrapping up their three-day long opening presentation. they laid out the facts and logic behind their two articles of impeachment in a way that wherever you may stand on the president was both easy to follow and maybe did i feel to dismiss out of hand. talk more in the hour ahead about the impact their words may be having and on whom, look ahead as well to tomorrow when the defense begins its case. also tonight what could be new evidence that could speak to the president's conduct, a recording of what appears to be his voice on it demanding the firing of the u.s. ambassador at the center of all of this, reportedly made at a dinner with the man lev parnas who the president has repeatedly said he doesn't know. reminder to senators perhaps the political risk of rushing this through only to see now facts in the case come to light. first though, cnn sara murray takes a look back at what we heard today. >> the president abused the powers entrusted in him by the

american people in a scheme to suppress evidence, escape accountability, and orchestrate a massive cover up. >> in their final day of opening arguments, democrats condemned president trump's efforts to block witnesses. >> president trump forced those officials to choose between submitting to the demands of their boss or break the law. >> and the trump administration's refusal to hand over any documents to impeachment investigators. >> no documents, zero. goose egg, nada. >> impeachment managers set the stakes arguing the president abused his power when he attempted to withhold a white house meeting and security aid unless ukraine pursued investigations into joe biden in 2016 and claiming everything that came after that was an attempt to cover his tracks and obstruct congress. they warned senators that trump's behavior was part of a pattern, once again using his own words against him. >> then i have an article ii where i have the right to do

whatever i want as president. >> and they cautioned of the consequences if congress fails to intervene. >> do you think if we do nothing it's going to stop now? >> senators who are supposed to listen quietly to the lengthny proceedings have taken to passing notes, whispering to their neighbors, and reading books. at least one senator snuck in a cell phone. but at points they fell silent like when lead impeachment manager adam schiff revealed you trump shrugged the u.s. intelligence assessment that russia meddled in the 2016 election. >> my people came to me, dan coats came to me and some others and said they think it's russia. i have president putin, he just said it's not russia. i will say this, i don't see any reason why it would be. >> this is just the most incredible propaganda coup. he won't read his own national security staff talking points but he will read the kremlin ones. >> instead, schiff argued trump

has bought in to the debunked theory that ukraine, not russia, meddled in the last election, setting the stage for the latest scandal to engulf the white house. >> the buy-in to that propaganda meant that ukraine wasn't going to get money to fight the russians. i mean, that's one hell of a russian intelligence coup. >> a hush fell over the room once again as the late senator john mccain's voice filled the chaimer be. >> putin also sees, here's this beautiful and large and magnificent country called ukraine. >> senator mccain advised that this is a chess match reminiscent of the cold war and we need to realize that and act accordingly. he was, of course, absolutely right. >> reporter: saturday the president's defenders get their shot on the senate floor. democrats tried to anticipate their response. >> now you'll also hear the defense -- the president said there was no quid pro quo.

this is a well-known principle of criminal law that if the defendant says he didn't do it he couldn't have done it. that doesn't hold up in any court in the land. it shouldn't hold up here. >> reporter: and they urged senators to set party allegiance aside as they judge the president's conduct. >> let's imagine it wasn't joe biden. let's imagine it was any one of us. let's imagine the most powerful person in the world was asking a foreign nation to conduct a sham investigation into one of us. it shouldn't matter that it was joe biden because i'll tell you something, the next time it just may be you. >> sara murray, cnn, washington. quite a night and three historic days so far. here to talk about it, elliott williams, kirsten powers and scott jennings. amanda, you were a senate staffer. i'm wondering what you are hearing from republicans in the

senate, what you're hearing from -- what you imagine -- do you think any minds were changed on the republican side? >> of the peoples who could be persuadables, they're thinking about the politics and of the people i'm watching, like my former boss ted cruz, i mean, brace yourself, the republicans are going to mount a very strong counterattack. they are going to have a perfect call defense. they're going to go out and say -- >> nothing short of a perfect call is okay for them. >> no, they're going to go for it. i think this is going to get ugly. it's going to get personal about the bidens very quickly. they're going to go to that floor and they're going to say, listen, we spent all this time talking about things that we know happened. we know trump asked for the investigations. we know he paused the aid. that was legitimate. he was justified in asking for the investigation of hunter biden because a powerful ukrainian company was trying to buy off the son of a former vice president. that's going to be the argument flatly. and i heard no democrat defend that arrangement. hunter biden doesn't even defend

that arrangement. he said to abc news yeah, i probably had that job because of my last name. so i think that's a huge opening that they're just going to push the gas and pedal hard on the week before the iowa caucus. that will do tremendous damage, they hope, to joe biden. that will benefit bernie sanders, who ultimately is who trump wants to face. >> elliott, you know the capitol hill pretty well. >> yeah, but it's interesting, i think big picture, you know, looking at how schiff laid out the case today, i think the moral -- what he was saying is that the moral wrong really was the abuse of power. this is something that a president ought not to do. but the subtext of what schiff -- adam schiff was saying today was that far more dangerous to us as a union is the obstruction of justice because of the fact that the one thing the framers wrote in, to put a check on the president of the united states, was congress. either through the ability to subpoena witnesses, or call witnesses, or have hearings. and if it comes to it, impeachment. without that, and schiff said this quite explicitly, without that, you know, you march toward

tyranny to some extent. look, you know, people freak out a little bit when you start talking about tyranny and kings and stuff like that. but if there is a president with no check from congress that's where you get. and, look, we tried monarchy once in the united states. it didn't end particular ly well. we shouldn't go back there. it is very important that there be some check on a president's power. and i would think conservatives would agree with me on this. we don't want -- >> carl, what do you make of adam schiff's closing? >> i thought that the whole narrative, and particularly the closing, was the most shameful account, perhaps, in american presidential history, so eloquently presented, that i cannot see how any open minded person could not be swayed as to the constitutional criminality of the president of the united states, donald trump, in the extreme and that the craven

inability of the senators in the republican party to do really, as schiff said, make a moral choice about right and wrong. it might sound trite up here but this is a pivotal moment in our history, and it's going to go the wrong way, probably. not the vote for acquittal, but the idea that we cannot have a real trial of a president of the united states who has done grievous damage to the country, the constitution and the subtext of everything we heard in this narrative today about our president being a lap dog and serving the interests of russia throughout, and of vladimir putin. irrefutable. >> kirsten, did the democrats make their case the last three days? >> i think that they made an airtight case. and listening to what amanda is saying, i think that's right, we've already seen the republicans kind of lay out the kind of arguments that they're going to make, arguments that we've been hearing a lot. but i just -- what i don't understand is how anybody can

listen to that and agree with it. it's just -- what it would mean is that if there's a democratic president in the future and scott, if you could just answer this question. if there's a democratic president in the future, and they ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival in the republican party and they use foreign -- some sort of official foreign policy, whether it's a white house meeting or whether it's aid or whatever it is, are you okay with that? >> i'm not -- >> and will republicans be okay with that? >> i think republicans are going to argue, to amanda's point -- >> they'll deal with that if that happens. >> i think they're going to argue what amanda said which is there could be multiple motives for this, which is in the uncommon for presidents to have multiple motives. >> i'm giving you a very specific thing. this is important is what's going to happen is republicans do what we all think they're going to do that is a scenario we're now facing, it is republicans saying that that kind of behavior is acceptable. i'm asking you if another

president does that, are you okay with that? >> i -- i'm not going to answer a hypothetical in the future. i don't know what the situation would be. i think republicans are going to do what amanda said, which is argue there was a legitimate reason for the president to bring this up and that democrats have overplayed by arguing that this is somehow trying to rig the election. by the way, i heard repeatedly all throughout last night and this morning that schiff sang last night that the 2016 election was essentially stolen and if we don't prevent trump from being on the ballot then the 2020 election is already illegitimate. that rankled the conference. they don't see it that way, kirsten. they don't believe that democratic claims that this is somehow election rigging, foreign interference -- they don't believe that verbiage. they don't believe the severity of what you're saying. >> take the election out of it. it did happen. there's no dispute that he was using a white house meeting and he was using foreign aid to try to get them to do an investigation into a political rival.

that's just not in dispute. so how is that okay and how is that something that we are now saying in the future is going to be acceptable behavior? >> further than that, kirsten, it would be foolish for a future president not to. it would be irrational for a future president not to now that the bar has been set so low for presidential conduct that now we've opened the door to exactly what you're saying to future presidents, inviting the intrusion of foreign governments into our system of elections. you're absolutely right. >> i've got to get a break in. ahead tonight a jurors' take on it, senator chris murphy and also later, more breaking news, audio of president trump talking at a table that lev parnas was at, the man he says he doesn't know, and demanding the firing of the u.s. ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch. which is something lev parnas himself said happened and now there's a tape released. ...take the personal assessment and get matched with a proven weight loss plan. find out which customized plan can make losing weight easier for you!

myww join for less than a $1 a day. 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. will you stop botherin' me? i'm sortin' my trash here! your artwork is amazing! my what work? people need to see this! you need a website. you want to put even more trash on the internet? what are you doin'? very soon you're gonna be very famous! right....lady that is the last thing i would ever... huh? huh? what the... stop! put those away! uhh, excuse me, is there a problem here? you're in a no parking zone. oh, i... i didn't know. you didn't see the sign? that... that wasn't there when i was here earlier. (whimper) really?

you know, in italy, they let you park anywhere. have a good day, sir. with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. (glass shattering) (frustrated yell) (car horn blast) (yelp)

democrats made their closing arguments tonight, defenders of the president begin their case this morning, more history about to be made in a building that has seen so much already, earlier tonight impeachment scholar michaelgerhart, adam schiff was trying point by point, blow by blow to give republicans no place to hide,

if not philosophically. before air time i spoke with one of the jurors. senator, chris murphy, a democrat from connecticut. senator, i wonder are you satisfied with how it was presented and do you think any republican minds were changed? >> what's interesting, anderson, is a lot of republicans haven't seen this argument made before. a lot of them didn't watch the house testimony. a lot of them haven't seen sondland and taylor presented in public. and so while some of it might have seemed repetitive i think it was important for republican senators to sit through the entire timeline, the entire story of this corruption scheme. i think many of them didn't understand how big it was. now, i don't know that that changes their mind, but it makes the job on the president's lawyers awful tough. and i think representative schiff understood that because he ended tonight, i think very effectively, by concentrating on all of the distractions that were going to be launched by the president's lawyers. i think he's effectively come to the conclusion that the trump

lawyers aren't going to try to contest the facts. they aren't going to try to contest the corruption. they're going to just try to distract with how mean the house managers were to the president or how bad the bidens are or how unfair the process was. i thought that was an effective way for him to end. >> earlier today you said when it comes to calling witnesses you were much more optimistic last week than you are now. i wonder is it that -- what is it that changed your mind? do you think there is any chance witnesses will be called? >> i think there's absolutely a chance. i've talked to senate republicans who are still i think very willing to look at witnesses. but i also know this week, having been on the floor, that senator mcconnell, and the president's people, were pressing republicans pretty hard to get in line. and you started to hear these arguments that we just don't have enough time. if you want witnesses it's going to take too long. well, one witness is john bolton who has told us he wants to testify. he's not going to take the senate to court. and he has a really important story to tell because as we've

learned over the course of the last three days he's one of the people that was in the room multiple times with trump when trump likely gave the order for this scheme to be carried out. so i think there's still a chance. i just know that the republicans in the white house will work in this really hard this week. >> the president's attorneys obviously began their case tomorrow and as you said adam schiff was sort of trying to preempt that by going over some of the arguments they're likely to make. how much do you expect them to focus on the bidens in particular versus, you know, a step by step recounting of the president's actions and their interpretation of it? >> oh, i don't expect them to do any step by step recounting of the president's actions. they're not going to do a point by point rebuttal of the timeline because they can't. the timeline is the timeline. the corruption scheme happened. they are absolutely, i think, going to spend an enormous amount of time trying to pre-litigate the 2020 general election.

joe biden may or may not be the candidate for the democrats, but this whole thing has been about trying to destroy who trump sees as one of the strongest candidates. and if he didn't get it done behind the scenes with ukraine, he and his people are going to try to get it done on the floor of the senate over the next few days. that's why they're not interested in spending too much time tomorrow, on saturday they want as many eyes as possible on their reelection arguments that they are going to be making starting in large part on monday. >> just lastly republican senator ron johnson claimed it's damaged the u.s.-ukraine, adding quote the sooner this ends the better for america. i'm not sure exactly what that's based on and how the impeachment inquiry could damage relations more than the president trying to extort ukraine. >> you know, ron johnson and i obviously have been part of this trial. we traveled to ukraine as this corruption was unfolding. and, you know, president zelensky told us to our face

that he wanted to stay out of american elections, that he knew that getting dragged into u.s. politics was going to hurt him and hurt ukraine. so president zelensky told us to our face that it was the attempts by the trump people to drag him into american politics that was doing the damage to him and his country and that is, of course, the truth. our responsibility is to get to the bottom of this corruption. and though yes when this trial is over it will be a little bit easier for people like ron johnson and i to get back together, working on pro-u.s. ukraine policy. our responsibility now to our constituents, to u.s. taxpayers, is to find the truth. and that truth cannot be found in whole without getting witnesses and documents. >> senator murphy, i appreciate your time. >> thanks. >> up next, the legal team prepares for the day of arguments tomorrow. their game plan ahead.

(worried) i'm not picking it up. you pick it up! i'm not picking it up! i'll pick it up! they're clean! (raps) 'cuz my hiney's clean.

oh yeah i'm charmin clean. charmin ultra strong just cleans better. enjoy the go with charmin. 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. ♪ ♪ well i'm standing here, looking at you, what do i see? ♪

there's a booking for every resolution . book yours at booking.com

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.

at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, president trump's team son the clock for up to 24 hours. there's certainly a lot of questions about it, and a lot of anticipation building toward what we'll see and hear. kaitlan collins joins us from the white house. i know the president's weighing in with advice for his legal team. what's he been saying? >> he was asked what does he want to say to them ahead of tomorrow and their first opening statements on the floor and he said to fox news tonight in an interview, quoting him now, what my people have to do is just be honest, just tell the truth, he said, about this forthcoming presentation. now, of course, that's not all the president wants them to do. we've also heard anderson from multiple people who say the

president wants them to defend his call with the ukrainian leader as a perfect call. it will be interesting to see if that's a tactic they pursue or if they just go after the house's investigation of the president because we know that there are several republican senators who when that call transcript first came out did not say it was a perfect call. >> you know, it's funny because if you ask pretty much any senator that question, either the senators pretend they haven't heard you or they answer the question they wish you asked. nobody will answer that question about whether or not it was a perfect call. the idea that his attorneys are going to have to stand up there and actually make a full throated defense that it's a perfect call. >> right. >> that's going to be fascinating to see if they actually do use that term. >> yeah, and it's not just that. the other thing that will be interesting, and this came to my mind when you were watching the house democrats, is they played that clip of the president's own fbi director christopher ray saying that that theory that ukraine interfered in the

election, not russia, saying that it was debunked, not true, and if you read through the legal briefs that the president's team filed that is one of the sections in the index, that it was appropriate for the president to ask about possible interference by ukraine in 2016. so if they try to defend that when the democrats just played this clip of the president's own fbi director saying it's not true, it will also be really interesting to see how they're going to straddle that. >> yeah, kaitlan collins, appreciate it, thanks. back with our political and legal team. scott, amanda painted a stark picture of what she thinks the republican attorneys are going to do tomorrow, or at least begin to do tomorrow. do you think that's pretty accurate? >> yeah, i do. i think a lot of biden talk. i think that's what the white house is telegraphing here that they want to get into that and they'll say the democrats opened the door. so i think we're going to hear a lot of that. and i think we're going to hear a lot of push back on frankly some of the talk that schiff got into regarding the 2016 election.

and then sort of projecting on the 2020 election. i've heard a lot of folks chattering about this, you know schiff, they don't view him as a credible voice because he spent all this time before the mueller report claiming he had direct evidence of collusion and then the mueller report sort of deflated that and now they're listening to him give speeches saying if we don't take trump off the ballot, not just removal from office. that the 2020 election is already illegitimate. they don't like that. you're going to hear them talk about how the democrats apparently don't have confidence in their own field of candidates and maybe don't have confidence in the american people to conduct an election. >> here's one thing. republicans are going to stand up and argue that the investigation was legit. here's where i think they're a little bit weak, and democrats should push them on that. number one, are we really supposed to believe that president trump was so concerned about nepotism and corruption? are you kidding me? that he singled out this one company, and it just happened to be the son of his potential rival? number two, he's going to have to prove that these actions were in the national interests, not just his narrow political interest.

i think that's really tough to do when you're outsourcing party or foreign policy to rudy giuliani and the fraud brothers. but we'll see how they do with that. >> do you -- elliott, you're an attorney, do you actually believe they will try to go point by point through this thing? >> oh, no, it's funny. they've meandered -- meandered is a judgment. but they've changed their -- the arguments they've used. first it was let's talk about witnesses later or now. and then it was democrats have said nothing new and they're just repeating themselves. and today we started hearing this argument that, well, the democrats, adam schiff used strong language and that offended us. part of the issue is they don't have to have a legal argument here because it seems clear the republican caucus is going to be together. now it's all about politics. i don't know if everybody saw "the washington post" around 7:00 tonight put out a story saying look they're going to go after joe biden, that's what tomorrow is going to be about. any thought this is going to be a sound legal argument on the merits is just not true.

>> the idea, though, of the president telling his lawyers to tell the truth, i just want to stop on that for a moment. donald trump -- >> it's genius. -- telling people to tell the truth. we have never had a president who lies anything like this man. and i think one of the things that we need to think about, what schiff was doing, he had more than the audience in the senate floor. he also was thinking about the election. and this narrative about what this president has done and also the notion that the truth is going to yap at the heels of these senators through this campaign and perhaps long after but an awful lot is going to come out. i think we know that. about the president. about some of his conversations. with other world leaders, perhaps. we're going to learn a lot. and the fact that these republican senators seem to be oblivious, both to history and the moral dimension of what

they're doing and not allowing a trial to go forward, after a presentation that was very convincing, i think, i think people -- you tell me, scott. i was told there are a lot of uncomfortable people in the room listening to that presentation. is that a fair -- >> i heard republican senators thought schiff yesterday made a compelling presentation and tonight he got a little off the rails and one person told me jumped the shark. i think some of it was compelling and some of it they didn't find compelling. to elliott's point -- they didn't like it that he came on the senate floor and essentially made things up about what the white house is supposedly telling republican senators. i know you think this is crap but people don't like it when you come to their office and impugn their character, they don't like it. >> think about what this president has said, his language about most of the people on the other side of the aisle there and they are talking about a cbs report about pike on a stick. this is insane. >> why are they getting so offended about this -- whether he said it or he didn't say it, that their heads would be on a

pike. that's what offends them? that's what p offends them after everything they have heard for the last three days and that's what offends them? >> exactly. there's something wrong with this. susan collins also sending a note to john roberts complaining about jerry nadler, you know, she was so shocked, and shocked by what happened, and it's like that's what shocks you, susan collins? >> margaret chase smith, you think of her idol. >> why are you shocked and outraged by what you're being told the president did? >> also, i mean, we have a lot of republicans coming out and saying well, it's repetitive what we've been hearing, they're just repeating the same thing over and over again. the president repeats the same thing over and over and over again and people say he's a marketing genius and he's great and i don't think i've ever heard any of those republican senators run before the cameras and say, oh, my god, the president's yet again repeating the witch hunt.

i mean, we've heard it a million times. they all just slavishly repeat it as well. >> back to the arguments for one minute. one thing it's important to delineate is what the president's lawyers will say. >> right. >> they have one boss, the president, versus what the republican senators may say after they take the vote. i have no doubt the president's going to be acquitted, but i do think you're going to see some republican senators express varying levels of discomfort with the call, with the -- you know, rudy, lev and igor, whatever, that will go beyond what the president's lawyers would say in their own defense. >> you'll hear the words concerned, uncomfortable. >> you'll hear the words bad judgment. i think you're going to hear the words i don't like it. i think you're going to hear the words i don't like it but it doesn't rise to the level of throwing out the president. >> taking a break. we have a new tape to talk about, one that doesn't just appear to tie president trump closer to the firing of former u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch, but also to the two men who the president says he does not know.

it's important to have a reliable network. we all use it in different ways. (vo) everyone in your family is different. someone is streaming sports, someone is video chatting her friend. hi, gianna! (vo) so verizon has plans to mix and match starting at $35. and up to $700 toward our best phones. the network more people rely on, gives you more. aaaah! nooooo... nooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent. bounty, the quicker picker upper. can all be traced back to your website. squarespace must be... the worst thing that's ever happened to me! the worst thing that's ever happened to me.... very soon...you're gonna be very famous! right... i told you oscar... a triumph! uh! it's a triumph....! ah!! it's not art...it's trash! oscar the grouch..more like oscar the great! am i right? huh? no! no!

more evidence tonight that suggests president trump did indeed know two men who were associates of his personal lawyer rudy giuliani and who were involved in the effort to

oust former u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch. lev parnas and igor fruman were charged in october with violating campaign finance laws. president trump said at the time, quote, i don't know those gentlemen, however a recording of a dinner at a hotel in washington suggests otherwise. two clips released tonight were recorded in april 2018 and begin with a man we know as lev parnas. >> the biggest problem, though, i think we need to start is we've got to get rid of the ambassador. she's still left over from the clinton administration. >> the ambassador [ bleep ]. >> walk around telling everybody wait he's going to get impeached, just wait. >> really? >> it's incredible. >> in the second clip we hear that same voice of a man who sounds like the president apparently responding. >> get rid of her. get her out the door. i don't care. get her out the door. take her out. okay? do it. >> cnn's not confirmed the

authenticity of the tape, and i think i said the attorney released it to abc. but i don't think that's the case. we're not clear on who released it to abc. if confirmed it would support what lev parnas said on this program last week about that very same dinner at the trump hotel in washington and about the president's desire to fire the ambassador. >> to my knowledge the president fired her at least four times, maybe even five times, once in my presence. >> explain that. you said that he fired her in front of you. >> correct. >> what happened? >> that was the first interaction about her, we had -- it was a dinner at the -- a private dinner for a super pac in washington, d.c. at the trump hotel. and in the conversation the subject of ukraine was brought up, and i told the president that our opinion, that she is bad mouthing him and that she said that he's going to get impeached, something like that. i don't know if that's word for word. >> you said that at the table? >> correct. >> where the president was?

>> correct, correct. and his reaction was he looked at me, like got very angry and basically turned around to john and said fire her, get rid of her. >> back with us our political and legal team. carl, it's interesting because the president said, look, i pose for a lot of pictures with a lot of people. that's an accurate, true statement. lev parnas is not just some other person who donated some money and got to be in a receiving line. he was glued at the hip to rudy giuliani. >> he's the instrument of this plot. he is the instrument of the scheme. but let's just step back and take a deep breath. we have gone in less than 40 years from mr. gorbachev tear down this wall from a republican president to take her out. it is astonishing. it's not a criminal -- it's not an impeachable offense, i guess, to talk like a thug, but it certainly figures in this whole presentation.

it all starts to fit together. the president of the united states, this group of goons running around, ukraine, doing putin's bidding and meanwhile back here the president is saying -- talking like a thug, take her out. i mean, isn't that breathtaking? maybe i'm wrong. >> if what he says is true he would go to a meeting in ukraine, he would -- the guy who later is now head of the ukrainian intelligence service, he would hold up his phone, rudy giuliani would be on the phone on speakerphone saying this guy, listen to him, because he represents me and the president, and listen to what he says because what he says is true. >> right. >> and then lev parnas would deliver the ultimatum. you've got to do this, announce an investigation, or else, you know, no aid. >> that's what this impeachment is about. it is all a fabric, and the fabric fits together. and that fabric is going to be, i would imagine, what this election is going to be about.

and maybe the fabric will hold or maybe it will rip. but it's all of a piece. >> just on a base level we have to acknowledge that our president, the president of the united states was secretly recorded by someone, that the southern district of new york -- everyone should go google the department of justice press release that was put out on these guys. they were arrested last october. they were working for -- allegedly -- a ukrainian official who wanted the ambassador gone. who are they being paid by exactly? i don't think the public knows. and then they paid their money into the rnc, into donald trump's super pac, got a meeting and said you've got to get rid of her. and trump got rid of her. and we have no idea who these guys were working for. >> the watergate burglars have nothing on these guys. >> that trump claimed to not know this person. this person he doesn't know allegedly is giving him this

information that he trusts enough to then say get rid of her. >> he was also rudy's date to the george h.w. bush funeral, which is also just, again, one of those weird -- that's who rudy wrought. >> but i don't think, you know, i think we get too comfortable, maybe, with the fact that the president lies all the time that we're going to go right past the fact that he just lied about this. he said he didn't know this person. or the alternative is that he wasn't lying, he just takes advice from random people at dinner parties and decides to fire them. those are the two options. >> and he was the president's agent in ukraine. >> i find it plausible that the president has dinner with a lot of donors, that he maybe recognizes, maybe he thinks he took a picture, doesn't know them well. what i find amazing about this, and we've talked about this many times, this guy comes in through rudy. the president loves rudy giuliani, obviously he wrote a check. we don't know where this tape came from, i guess. but the idea that your personal lawyer brought someone to a dinner who may have said, sure, mr. president, please, please

talk a little louder into the phone here about sensitive -- even if you did want to have that conversation with that guy the idea that your own lawyer brought that guy who tape recorded you, i just -- i would be -- >> he's talking about taking out -- >> i would be outraged. what client of a lawyer wouldn't be like w-t-f? >> you also wonder how many other people have just recorded the president in mar-a-lago, just walking around? why wouldn't you? why not? >> here's the thing. we don't -- we don't know who released the tapes. he does have a huge incentive to get information out there. >> coming up next, will senator susan collins be one of the four votes democrats need to get the trial witnesses they want. we'll talk to her fellow senator angus king, and what constituents are saying on the subject when we continue. e how l i can eat and still enjoy myself all day long, i wake up every morning to see how much weight i've lost and how much better i look.

myww join for less than a $1 a day. 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.

♪ ♪ country roads, take me home there's a booking for every resolution. book yours at any price, at booking.com

senators are closer to the facts of the impeachment trial and serves on the senate intelligence committee. in addition his counterpart on the main delegation is republican senator susan collins. so his insight is doubly welcomed tonight. we spoke with senator king just before air time. i wonder how you thought the house managers presented their case. do you think it moved the needle for the republicans that could've been moved? >> i thought they did a very effective job. i thought adam schiff was right on tonight. he was very strong. now, anderson, i've been around enough trials to know you never

make a decision until you've heard both sides. i'm a juror or a judge or whatever they're calling us. but i want to hear what the white house has to say tomorrow. but the important thing tonight i think that i was glad to hear adam schiff emphasize is i think and i thought for some time that article ii the obstruction of congress is actually more important and stronger than article i. because, number one, the facts are not in dispute. there's no argument about, you know, who said what to whom about ukraine. the president just categorically stiffed the whole process. secondly, it creates -- if this is allowed to go, if the president is acquitted and nothing happens on this, it basically renders the impeachment clause a nullity. there is nothing left of it because if the defendant, if the accused can control the evidence that comes in, then you may as well just fold up the impeachment tent altogether.

and it is an important check of the checks and balances. >> you're saying that if this stands as it has been, then for any future proceedings or any future relations between the white house and congress, a complete sort of stiff-arming of congress is a strategy that can work. >> absolutely. and that's what's so dangerous. the business about what happened in ukraine is bad. but that's a single incident. the precedent of the president being able to stiff-arm the whole process will haunt us for a hundred years. i mean, we're sitting in that chamber today and they're talking about things that happened in 1867 and 1976 and 1998. this would be just an incredibly dangerous precedent. you may as well just take out a pen and cross out the impeachment. if they're allowed to say you can't see that evidence. that's crazy. that doesn't make any sense.

>> that is hanging in the balance. and that relies upon four republican senators. are there four republican senators do you think whose minds -- >> well, no. actually that one relies on 20 republican senators because if they vote to -- if the president is acquitted on both of these counts, then the impeachment clause is gone. i mean, then you've basically established the precedent that any future president can get away with not cooperating in any way, shape, or form, not allowing any of the executive branches to testify, not allowing evidence. the question about the trial and whether we're going to get witnesses, that only will take four. but i'm really worried about the hundred-year precedent of a president that's essentially an elected monarch. >> do you think there are four who will ask for witnesses and are willing to actually side

with democrats on? >> i think there will be. i'm not sure. i just don't know. i just think it would be very hard to go home and say to your constituents i didn't want to see any more facts, i didn't want to have any witnesses. the calls to my office over the last three days have been something in the neighborhood, they told me last night 95%. i haven't looked at it today. but 95% of the people calling my office said we ought to have witnesses. they're not saying impeach him or don't impeach him. 95% are saying this ought to be a real trial. >> senator angus king, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> sure. >> we'll be right back. you need a website! very soon you're gonna be very famous! lady that is the last thing i would ever... huh? stop! put those away! coyou fifteen percentico or more on car insurance?

do woodchucks chuck wood? hey you dang woodchucks, quit chucking my wood! geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

our impeachment trial coverage continues. i want to turn things over to chris cuomo. chris? ♪ >> all right. thank you very much, anderson. hello, everybody. i am chris cuomo. this is a special midnight coverage edition of the trump impeachment trial. well, we have seen the house managers make their case. they were the prosecution in this process. so now about ten hours from now, the trump defense team will have its turn. will they go as long? probably not. they can, but they may not. their goal is to convince senators of the opposite of what you heard from the managers. the managers said there's so much here, they're going to say there is nothing here. now, the first challenge for them is to contend with the powerful closing argument from house leader or lead manager adam schiff. take a listen.