our coverage of the kbeeft trial of president trump continues now with anderson. good evening tend of a working saturday in the impeachment trial of president trump. we'll hear what one vo-teadvoca will tell the senate. two hours from tastart to finis this morning. lawyers leading the charge arguing that democrats have failed to meet the burden of proof for removing a president from office. he accused the house managers of trying to overturn the last election and derail the next. >> they're asking you to tear up

all of the ballots across this country on your own initiative. take that decision away from the american people. they're here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in american history, and we can't allow that to happen. >> the president says he's done nothing wrong, including the call with ukraine's president which cipollone's deputy described this way. >> the transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. the paused security assistance funds aren't even mentioned on the call. >> the defense also argued that the president was legitimately interested in fighting corruption, though there's little evidence to support that apart from his interest in the bidens who were barely mentioned

in this morning's presentation. as to the question of when that will change, a source on the legal team declined to say. also up in the air, whether there will be new testimony. mitt romney said he's likely to vote to call witnesses. what does seem clear is that the client is happy. a republicansaurus saying the president felt like his defense team made a compelling case and was pleased with the team's presentation. on his plans for his time before the senate, harvard law school dershowitz. also with us tonight, cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. >> professor, white house counsel pat cipollone argued today that impeachment was nothing more than an effort to overturn the election saying, quote, they're asking you to tear up all the ballots, take that decision away from the american people. the pushback on that as a constitutional lawyer, i want to

get your opinion, the process we're witnessing, isn't this what the framers intended? impeachment is different from disqualification from running again, that's a separate thing. >> what i'm going to argue on monday is that it's precisely what the framers did not intend, that is, to remove a dually elected president from office and prevent him from running again based on vague, open-ended, and entirely subjectivity criteria like abuse of power and obstruction of congress. the framers feared that those kinds of open-ended criteria would turn us into a british. >> there are no first-hand witness accounts talking about how important cross-examination is, claiming this the whole thing is about perpetratetrating the most massive interference in american history.

the idea there's no first-hand accounts, that is true. gordon sondland said he believed the president knew, wanted quid pro quo and was dangling one thing for the other. i guess the flip side of that is there are no first-hand accounts because the people who might have them are not allowed to testify. >> that's just true. i mean, you know, the position of the defense lawyers that you don't -- that you have to penalize the house managers for not getting the testimony of john bolton and mulvaney, i mean, that rewards the conduct that is the subject of article 2 in the counts of impeachment. >> professor dershowitz, when i hear anything from the president's attorneys. on monday it's expected to be a large part of the presentation.

how exactly do you believe it's relevant here and i assume it's not part of your brief because it's not -- i don't think it's a constitutional issue you're going to be focusing on. but do you think that should be brought in? >> well, i don't think necessarily any witnesses at this point should be brought in because i think they don't charge impeachable offenses. witnesses have to be called on both sides. there's a very broad concept of irrelevance, and the failure to prosecute this young man, i'm not taking a position on that. but that it was relevant that they should have, therefore, having an investigation of that why he wasn't prosecuted, why he wasn't investigated. whether it's a good argument or a bad argument, that's for the senators to decide. >> you're going on monday? >> i'm going on on monday, yeah. >> do you know how long you're going to be presenting for?

>> less than an hour hopefully. i'm trying to cut it down. i'm following the abraham lincoln notion if i had more time i would have written a shorter letter. i've been spending the last two weeks in dusty books going back to all the original books of the constitution, the trial of andrew johnson, and now i've taken my head out of the books and i'm revising. >> when is ken starr going. >> i don't know. >> what's his subject different from your subject? >> we haven't discussed that. i don't know. i'll probably find out sometime tomorrow. but i know what i'm going to argue. i think they know what i'm going to argue. i'm going to argue some things that i haven't argued to you or on television. there will be some surprises. but the general outlines of my argument are fairly clear and they don't focus so much on whether a crime is required. they focus much or on whether you can use the two criteria, abuse of power and obstruction

of congress. i'm going to argue very firmly that those are not appropriate criteria. the framers would have rejected those criteria as too open ended and would turn america into a parliamentary-type democracy where the president serves for the legislature. >> you're not really part of the legal meetings about strategy. you're focused on this constitutional issue. is it something like do they know what you're going to be arguing everything in advance? do they just say, okay, you have however much time you need? how does that work? >> i haven't shown them my draft. if they ask me, of course i will. i've been working just very, very hard to produce a kind of neutral, nonpartisan obsessive

academic -- i know people say that's not my job, but i think effective advocacy is most effective when it's nonpartisan and neutral. i've been working along those lines. i'm sure i'll coordinate with them about timing and making sure there's no duplication. but it's a role i've played in many cases. i've argued just the constitutional issue, most recently in the takings case involving a large cooperator matter and they just asked me to argue the constitutional issues, so i did. i coordinated lightly with the team, but they gave me a lot of authority and independence to make the argument. >> final question. more of a personal question, really. when you do something like this, who is your client? who are you speaking to? is it you're speaking to the president? are you speaking to the republican senators, democratic senators, or to the television audience? do you think about that? >> of course. of course you can't be an effective advocate without knowing who your audience is. my audience is the senate.

i will speak respectfully to the senate. i will use senate precedence, and i'll be arguing like i argue in a court. the big difference is, in courts i'm always interrupted and i have an opportunity to be spontaneous. i will speak for 45 minutes straight. i've never done that before, and it will be a unique experience for me to be uninterrupted. after being interrupted by you guys a little bit, maybe that will be a relief. so we'll see. although i have to tell you, i prefer being interrupted, even by you, because it's, a, it gifr gives me a chance to be spontaneous. >> the fact that judges ask questions, that's a huge advantage to you usually because you know what they care about and what they don't care about. >> i agree with you. >> how will you know what grabs

the senators? or will you? >> it's going to be very hard. i always look forward to hard questions. in 55 years of arguing, 250 appeals, i've been asked a question that i wasn't prepared for. that doesn't always mean i gave the right answer, but i'm always prepared for the question, that's why i'm looking forward to the q&a period when we get these questions from the senators. >> will you take part in that? >> i hope so. i would like to. i'd like to play a role in that. >> professor, thank you. jeffrey toobin as well. we'll take you to the white house for a live report: my interview with lev parnas, a newly released tape suggests for 80 minutes during a private dinner he at least engaged with lev parnas directly. he wanted a man cave in our new home.

but she wanted to be close to nature. so, we met in the middle. ohhhhh! look who just woke up! you are so cute! but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. yeah, it was really easy and we saved a bunch of money. oh, you got it. you are such a smart bear! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be. super emma just about sleeps in her cape. but when we realized she was battling sensitive skin, we switched to tide pods free & gentle. it's gentle on her skin, and dermatologist recommended. tide free & gentle. safe for skin with psoriasis and eczema.

sleep this amazing? that's a zzzquil pure zzzs sleep. our liquid has a unique botanical blend, while an optimal melatonin level helps you nod off naturally with no next-day grogginess. zzzquil pure zzzs. naturally superior sleep. and try vicks pure zzzs kidz, a low dose melatonin gummy that helps your child fall asleep naturally. does scrubbing grease feel like a workout? scrub less with dawn ultra. it's superior grease-cleaning formula gets to work faster. making easy work of tough messes. dawn takes care of tough grease, wherever it shows up. scrub less, save more... with dawn.

when you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea. try pepto liquicaps for fast relief and ultra-coating. nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea. get powerful relief with pepto bismol liquicaps.

so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. . we got a preview from alan dershowitz with what he plans to say on monday. he's yet to fully coordinate his

remarks with the rest of the defense team. we'll talk more on strategy and the president's reaction to day one of his defense. kaitlan collins joins us from the white house. have we heard what the president thinks his legal team did today? >> several sources say the president is pleased. he liked how today went and was encouraging people to watch it. we know he and the vice president both watched it very closely today. but of course the question pretty much always does with trump comes down to coverage. it will be interesting to see what his reaction is in 24 hours from now after those sunday political talk shows have happened because that's when the president is going to be watching. of course you're going to see hosts compare how the democrats laid out their arguments and close to 24 hours compared to these two hours from the president's legal team. but right now the president's legal team feels good about today and they look forward to monday. >> alan dershowitz is talking monday. what is the white house's plan for laying out the argument? >> the question is still how

long they're going to go for on monday because they don't think they need time to lay out their argument. you're not going to see just the people you saw today. the counsel's office, jay sekulow, the outside attorney, and alan dershowitz and ken starr. it'll be interesting to see how they flow because the democrats worked on their presentations for a month now since they had voted to impeach the president and until nancy pelosi transmitted these articles of impeachment. so they've been working careful on those drafts. the president's legal team has been working behind the scenes, pat cipollone and jay sekulow. he doesn't know what argument ken starr is going to be making, he said, so it will be interesting to see how that is. they're all expected to present on monday. right now based on our reporting they are not expected to go until tuesday. so it will be interesting to see how that plays out if it's coordinated together, and, of course, if they're going to be bring up the bidens because they

previewed they were going to, they didn't do so today, but sources say it's likely going to come up before they essentially rest their case. >> kaitlan collins, thank you so much from the white house. david gergen is with us, kristin powers, and alice stewart. jeff, again, the republicans have said, well, the democrats opened the door on the bidens, so, you know, now it's fair game. >> yeah. as if they weren't going to go after biden until adam schiff said a mean thing. i mean, come on. you know, look, this is a political trial appropriately. this is a jury of senators. it's not a criminal trial. and there will be political arguments made. this is an opportunity for the president to embarrass the person who may be the democratic nominee and he's going to take that opportunity. >> david, what did you think about today? >> i thought the defense team

was more effective than i expected. you know, in their past context, they've been sending letters up to the hill, they've been political documents. and i have a sense maybe the president had a big hand in writing those. here's what i want in that paper. here the lawyers seam seemed to do it on their own and i thought they sounded more like lawyers and less like propagandaists. they clearly left themselves wide open to counterattacks. they clearly misstated things or had misleading things. their emphasis early on about the phone call as if that is the only standard we have about the president's action when there's all these things going on around him. but overall i thought they also were smart in reducing the time these senators retired. they didn't want to sit there

and i think i thought adam schiff d i thought he was terrific in appealing to the public but he ticked these guys off a couple times and i'm not sure that helped him. >> trump's winning here. he's winning on impeachment, he's winning on witnesses. so one of the rules in a courtroom is when you're winning is sit the hell down. don't talk. and i think they wisely followed that advice. >> his lawyers were effective in planting the seed of doubt as to what the president's motives were. they went back to the phone call, not only from the president and zelensky, zelensky even raising the suggestion there needed to be more burden sharing, that he wasn't getting enough from european countries and once again they default to he felt no pressure and thus this was all about going after corruption. they eventually did get the money. but that doesn't mean that they

completely dismissed the notion for witnesses and documents. in fact, if you plant the seed of question as to whether or not the president was guilty, the only way you resolve it is to have witnesses and documents. and then you go back to why zelensky said the things he did. clearly the country needed the aid and money. they were in a hot war with russia. zelensky was well versed enough to know what the president was focused on, so instead of saying we get enough money from germany, you're wrong, of course he went along with it. >> one of the things that the democrats tried to say immediately after the white house counsel stopped speaking today is that is it white house counsel made a good argument for calling more witnesses. >> they haven't met the standard for the burden of proof, so the democrats are like, okay, let's get people in here who have

firsthand knowledge. what they did was they started out saying that the democrats only presented selective evidence, and then they went on and just presented selective evidence. that's really what they did. i would say they went for a short period of time and i take the point when you're winning, you sit down. they couldn't fill up the time. they don't have much of a defense if they fill up their time. they're giving the republicans the fig leaf that they need so they can feel good about what they're doing. but they're just leaving out tons of information. and so when they're -- just all the talking points about the president was so concerned about corruption. and yet the only corruption he was worried about was joe biden and nothing else. even the burden sharing thing doesn't make sense. so you're going to cut off aid from a country after we've heard from republicans how wonderful trump has been to ukraine, how much more he cares about it than obama, yet he's going to cut off aid to them because another country's not giving them enough money? that doesn't even make sense.

they're just making a bunch of nonsensible arguments. even under the zelensky point where they continue to say he wasn't being blackmailed. he's not going to say that because he needs the money and we have sworn testimony saying that, in fact, the d.o.d. and state did hear from ukraine that they were concerned. >> the reason they're not taking as much time is the burden of proof is on democrats to prove that the president is guilty of these issues that are worthy of impeachment. i don't think they have. the fact that they are still wanting more witnesses goes to show they don't have a case to seek impeachment. even preet bharara, who is not a huge fan of this president said earlier on cnn that the democrats have a problem. if they say they have such an overwhelming and compelling case, why do they need more witnesses and information? what we're going to see is quality arguments out of the white house counsel over quantity.

they don't need to put a lot of information out there because they made two strong points today. that the democrats have not proven i don't understand the shad also in terms of the political argument that jeffrey mentioned. this is democrats' effort that they have done from the moment that the president was nominated to overturn the results of the election. and that's the political nature of this is that the democrats don't have a case for impeachment when the reality is their motive is to overturn the election. >> we're going to have more on this. we're going to cover a lot about what happened today, what to expect next week. also my interview with the attorney for lev parnas after the release of a tape that puts president trump and parnas in the same room together before the zelensky call. we'll be right back. a weekend . fifteen minutes until we board. oh yeah, we gotta take off. you downloaded the td ameritrade mobile app so you can quickly check the markets? yeah, actually i'm taking one last look at my dashboard before we board. excellent. and you have thinkorswim mobile- -so i can finish analyzing the risk on this position.

you two are all set. have a great flight. thanks. we'll see ya. ah, they're getting so smart. choose the app that fits your investing style. ♪ and i like to question your i'm yoevery move.n law. like this left turn. it's the next one. you always drive this slow? how did you make someone i love? that must be why you're always so late. i do not speed. and that's saving me cash with drivewise. my son, he did say that you were the safe option. and that's the nicest thing you ever said to me. so get allstate. stop bossing. where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. this is my son's favorite color, you should try it. [mayhem] you always drive like an old lady? [tina] you're an old lady. it's our do-it-all concealer. instant eraser from maybelline new york. iconic cushion tip does it all. erase. shape. correct. no wonder it's america's #1 concealer. instant eraser.

only from maybelline new york. most people think as a reliable phone company. but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. (second man) virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. (second woman) we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready.

♪

. according to the biden question, not a lot of mystery about where the defense team would go today nor how the president would respond. one question remains about this trial, that of witnesses that was brought up before the break. back with our legal and political team. obviously the major question is will there be witnesses and new documents? decide it does not not seem it's moving in that direction, though mitt romney has come forward saying he's inclined to ask for more witnesses. >> just to give you an example why less is better from the defense team. there was a very interesting and i thought thoughtful presentation by one of the president's lawyers on the issue of whether president zelensky knew when aid was cut off, the issue of the timing, which is a fairly important issue in the case. it's not a make or break, but

the more you create a controversy about that, the more you have to respond what do the emails show? that issue is something that clearly there would be email traffic about. i mean, in fact, every time there's a factual dispute raised by the defense, in the white-collar world, investigations begin with documents. >> you don't actually interview witnesses until you have all the documents. >> as a prosecutor you certainly don't want to because that's the raw material of every white-collar crime investigation. the fact they've gotten as far as they have with no emails is very remarkable. but the more the defense acknowledges that there are factual disputes, it's like, le let's say what the documents show. >> the defense team was trying to say all of this was normal.

if you go back and you listen to the testimony from the fact witnesses, nearly every single one of them said that this was not normal. nothing was normal from the defense department official, from former ambassadors, and diplomats in ukraine who had spent decades in these positions. all of them said that they had never seen anything like this. which begs the question of why don't we hear from more witnesses. >> but the reality is the question of whether or not ukraine felt pressure on the call, whether or not they knew the assistance was being withheld, all these questions that came up during the house impeachment procedures, why weren't these questions answered then? how could they go about vote for an impeachment moving forward on this if these questions were not answered at this point? >> they were pretty much answered, whether they felt pressure. >> there's sworn testimony of people saying this. john bolton said if he's subpoenaed, he'll come testify. that didn't happen when the house impeachment him.

so why not have john bolton come up who may have, you know, firsthand knowledge for all we know. he's obviously very involved in everything. so i think at a minimum they could have john bolton testify. >> and they could have subpoenaed him during the house procedure as well. >> but he indicated he wasn't going to respond to that. now he's said he will testify and respond to a subpoena from the senate, so why not have him testify. >> we got a report from the gao that, in fact, the president did break the law. obviously we know they're nonpartisan and they said he did break the law following the fact that the president was impeached. >> i have a sense this is going south in terms of getting witnesses and documents in part because of the chemistry that's involved here. these senators, the republican senators feel that they've been somehow insulted in this process, that they've been attacked and their heads on a pike and they overreacted to

that glch that. but it told at us psychology is moving in the direction of saying we've heard enough, americans heard enough, and very, very importantly, what the defense team is doing, what dershowitz is going to do is give them arguments they can take home, especially in the states that are purple when senators are up for re-election. they're going to come out of this now with some nuggets they can use, some things that will be familiar to them. and they're feeling comfortable, i think. even though i think it's become clearer than ever that the amount of documents we have and the number of witnesses totally insufficient for understanding the truth. >> isn't the real reason that they are just stooges who are afraid of donald trump -- >> what's interesting is the anger over the pikes on heads comment which was reported by cbs. that's something the white house had been telling some republican senators, if you deviate, your head will be on a pike. what's interesting is that apparently they were annoyed

because it seems to indicate that they're afraid of donald trump. well, they are. >> that's the point. >> and that's the point. that's what the heads on the pikes metaphor is all about is that they're terrified of donald trump. >> the pike is also on the head. >> i'm not sure what a pike is. a spike? >> when you pillage a village. >> don't you think, though, they're just doing that also to give themselves an excuse? they're trying to act like, oh, you know, we're being insulted, we're being accused of things. >> we're trying to be objective here. >> norlgds accused us of a cover-up so the way we're going to do that is to do a cover-up? that's a strange response. >> we'll have more on this. we have new audio and video of a gathering with lev parnas.

alice loves the smell of gain so much, she wished it came in a fabric softener too. [throat clears] say hello to your fairy godmother, alice. oh and look they got gain scent beads and dryer sheets too!

quitting smoking is freaking hard.st, like quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette looking to simplify your skin care routine without sacrificing results? try olay total effects. one dose provides more vitamin b3 than 50 cups of kale and improves 7 key areas of visibly healthy skin. try olay total effects.

>> earlier today lev parnas and his attorney released the full video audio and video from a

adorn dinner, a tape previously we only had clips of. this was months before he and igor fruman became involved with rudy giuliani. the president said he doesn't know the two men, something parnas contradicted on this show when he discussed details of this in counter. now, the recording released today while shaky shows the president entering a room. on the tape you hear his voice and that of igor fruman and others. the 80-minute tape involved discussions including north korea and they upcoming congressional elections. but during a conversation about energy policy and vladimir putin, parnas mentions ukraine. it's at that point they discuss ambassador yovanovitch. >> the biggest problem there i think where you need to start is we got to get rid of the ambassador. she's still left over from the clinton administration. she's basically walking around telling everybody wait, he's going to get impeachment. just wade.

>> really? >> it's incredible. >> she'll be gone tomorrow. >> i don't remember his name. >> so what happens now that we have a secretary of state -- >> ged rid of her. get her out tomorrow. i don't care. get her out tomorrow. take her out. okay? >> excellent. >> do it. >> i spoke with lev parnas's attorney, joseph bondy. >> i want to ask you about some of the stuff on these recordings. at one point the president asks lev parnas about the former president of ukraine, i just want to play this. >> do they feel they're going to be okay? >> if you support them, yeah. >> what do you think of the leader? >> he's a good guy. he wants the right thing. >> it's always us that has to support everybody. why isn't it germany? >> it's interesting. i think it's lev parnas who says the biggest thing is corruption.

the president focuses more on germany not doing more, which is counter to what his supporters say was that he was concerned with corruption number one. >> that snippet is consistent with what the president has said for a long time which is that other countries don't pull their weight and the united states is paying a lot of money, whether it's south korea or germany. >> what was the reason why igor fruman made these recordings? >> i don't know why he made the recordings. some people make recordings. they like to take pictures. i can't ascribe any motive i don't understand that. >> but he sent the recordings to lev parnas? >> yes. >> are there more recordings that lev parnas has? >> yes. >> with the president? >> yes. >> and do you plan to release those? >> perhaps. we've sent recordings to the house intelligence committee also. this seems to be the recording that certainly addresses the issue of the ambassador and we thought it was really important to get that recording out in

public today. >> what is the significance of these recordings? >> i think there's a few aspects that are important. first, we hear the president himself saying get rid of the ambassador. get her out of there. this is one of the first occasions in which he attempts to remove the ambassador. lev parnas as he has explained it to me was shocked that he might raise this subject of the ambassador and have the chief executive say get rid of her and fire her. >> it's also interesting because lev parnas in the interview in the talk that we had, he was saying he actually really didn't really know anything about the ambassador. he had just been told and kind of revved up by other people who were saying she's bad mouthing the president and he conveyed that message in this recording to president trump. that's when president trump said take her out.

>> yeah. i think there's even a snippet of the recording where lev indicates he doesn't even know her name. >> in this case the president is talking about the thread on the ground. let's just listen to it. >> how long would they last in a fight with russia. >> come on. >> not very long. without us, not very long. >> how does ukraine feel about it all? >> they're actually very much appreciate everything you're doing. >> did it seem clear to you that the president had a deep knowledge of ukraine? do you think he was just making conversation with people he's stuck at a dinner with? >> i wonder. i like to believe he's been briefed on ukraine by his advisers. i'd like to think he still soha understanding of ukraine. but it shows it was already on his mind that ukraine was vulnerable without military aid from the united states. then you have to remember at some point beginning in 2019 lev delivers a quid pro quo.

you won't get a white house visit unless you announce an anti-corruption spacampaign wit the bidens. >> it's still fascinating to me. i've been thinking about what parnas said that the the fact that he was the guy and igor fruman according to lev parnas were the people on the ground in ukraine and they would literally go to a meeting with the former president, with the man who would ultimately is now heading the intelligence services in ukraine under zelensky. and hold up a phone and rudy giuliani would be on speaker phone saying listen to these guys, they represent us. they represent the president, they represent me, you know, listen to be what they have to say. >> it's not conventional. you wouldn't expect diplomacy to be conducted that way. i can kind of wonder if there's some reason to have igor and lev doing that bidding. >> if it's actually in the national security interest, it

makes no sense that it's these two guys. >> guys with no security clearance and no diplomacy expertise and have no background in politics, it makes no sense. >> can you say if parnas and fruman gave donations to other, you know, gop senators to congresspeople? i know from the public record he gave donations to sort of joint fundraising committees that could be droibistributed. >> there was some direct donations, but larger donations to super pacs that can unbundle those donations and give them to the gop candidates that they believe most needed them. >> at the time these recordings were made, had lev parnas and igor fruman already begun working with giuliani or was this before that began? >> no. mr. parnas had met mr. giuliani.

he did not have much of a relationship with mr. giuliani. >> so at this point he hadn't paid giuliani the half a million to be involved in the other business he had? >> i don't believe the payment was before this dinner. he had met him in 2016 in florida at a fundraiser. they saw each other at the inauguration and at other republican events. but thereafter you see lev and mr. giuliani traveling to various candidates' campaigns for purposes of the midterm elections. >> at the time this was made, they're sitting at a table not because giuliani brought them there. they're sitting there because they got seats at this private event at the president's hotel? >> exactly. >> what is he looking at now? >> i would like to think that there will be still a vote in the senate for there to be witnesses and evidence. i can't imagine a trial without those things. it would literally be like a silent movie or a puppet show. i would like to think we still while we have a couple days can

push that movement and effect change. >> appreciate it. thank you very much. >> thank you. next, more on new details in the white house strategy for monday and how the impeachment trial unfolds from here. ♪ ♪ apps except work.rywhere... why is that? is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports. i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't. by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business. to learn more, visit paycom.com when your v-neck looks more like a u-neck...

that's when you know, it's half-washed. downy helps prevent stretching by conditioning fibers, so clothes look newer, longer. downy and it's done. now all-day matte goes crayon easy. superstay ink crayon from maybelline new york. precision tip. up to 8-hour wear. draw on all-day matte intensity. superstay ink crayon. only from maybelline new york. they work together doing important stuff. the hitch? like you, your cells get hungry. feed them... with centrum® micronutrients. restoring your awesome... daily. feed your cells with centrum® micronutrients today.

feed your cells with oh, hi, samantha. you look more like a heather. do you ever get that? it's nice to finally meet you in person. you're pete nocchio? oh, the pic? that was actually a professional headshot. i'm sure that's it, yeah. i, uh, i think i've lost a few pounds recently too. i'm actually doing a juice cleanse. wait! you don't... (glass breaking) (gasp) ah! oh...! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

the impeachment trial of president trump will be back in seion on monday. alan dershowitz will be part of it as will ken starr although we don't know exactly what overlap there will be. jeff, i'm wondering looking to monday what do you expect. i know when you and i were on the air this morning before the defense began today there was a lot of expectation that they would go after the bidens today. they didn't do that. do you have any doubt they'll do that monday? >> you know, i still believe that donald trump will not pass up the opportunity to say that the biden family was enmeshed in corruption. i just think that is a politically priceless opportunity. and many senators, you know, of the president's supporters have raised that issue. so, i'll expect we'll hear that. there will be constitutional issues. alan dershowitz told us, this

was news, that he will be speaking on monday. that is an argument that is both good for the substantive issue of whether the president should be impeached but it's also a good argument on witnesses. because if you believe will alan that this is not an impeachable offense, it doesn't matter if there's proof of it or not. >> it's also interesting he said he's notochord nating with ken starr or really the white house team. >> you know, i have worked with other lawyers on cases. it is customary for the lawyers to coordinate with each other. and especially in something with stakes like this. you certainly -- first of all yor you don't want to be overly repetitive. but also the lawyer in charge wants to make sure everything said is consistent with what the client wants. they're still a few days away -- i guess one day away. and i would be surprised if there wasn't at least some

coordination first. but it's a little late in the game for that. >> do you think it would be a mistake for the white house not to use all its allotted time. >> i think it would be a mistake to go 24 hours. i think the point you all made about -- kirsten, you made the point, there's not enough to say to fill this 24 hours. they learned the lessons, 24 hours -- in days gone by, you can live with something 24 hours. but we live in a world today where everything is short and quick and 24 hours seems like a long time. it seems like an obsolete concept. >> an hour feels like a long time. i do an hour-long show. >> it's not as much they don't have anything more to say, but they have said what they wanted to say. i think we're going to see more of what we heard today, the two main points: the democrats have not made the case for impeachment and the fact that they're going to show once again that this is a political ploy by the democrats to overturn the

election. >> but they're not going to go point by point, then gordon sondland did this. they're not going to be replaying all this saying what sondland really was doing -- >> we saw sekulow making that point. i'm not going to repeat what you've already seen. i'm not going to repeat videos that we've already heard before because they're going to get the information out there. from that standpoint they know who they're speaking to. they're speaking to republicans in the senate. and many of them have already made up their mind and made it clear how they're going to vote on this. but at the end of the day, they feel like all they have to do is make the case that the democrats have not proven this to the extent where it's worthy of impeachment. >> there was one point within the first 15 minutes of their testimony speaking today was when they set the bar too high as far as expectations because they said what you're going to come away with is being reminded that the president was very, very tough on russia and that the president always put himself first. those are two points that are difficult to make and

objectively at the very least dubious. >> i've goat a break. but you're not having it anymore. >> i can't even get to what he wanted to say because we're out of time. breaking news on the other thing that quite a few senators are busy with. big new endorsement just out. we'll tell you about it. i talk about the future of emts. an ambulance can only go so fast. but verizon 5g ultra wideband is being built to transmit massive amounts of life-saving data in near real-time. so someday, doctors could begin their work before the patient even arrives. that's a difference that could save lives. that's a difference that will change everything. and my lack of impulse control,, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey!

my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby! when the murray's go to work... michelangelo goes to work, too. good thing they use new gain ultra flings with two times the oxi boost, and febreze. fresh again... oh, your she's landed.ed. and she's on her way to our house. what. i thought she was coming next weekend. i got it. alexa. start the coffee. set the temperature to 72. start roomba.

we got this... don't look. what? don't look. lets move. ♪ mom. the lexus es, eagerly prepared for the unexpected. lease the 2020 es 350 for $389 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. things you can do with schwab: you can earn more when you invest your cash. you can get a satisfaction guarantee. you can also wonder why our competitors don't offer that. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management. ah, look out! abandon nut! [screaming] ah, we're too heavy!

matt, let go. no, you let go. hey, mr. peanut! no, you don't. don't do it, mr. peanut. nooooooooooooo ugh. maybe he'll be alright. [explosion] maybe not.

. before we go, tonight breaking news in the 2020 presidential race. with a little over a week before the first votes are cast in the iowa caucuses, the des moiness register has endorsed elizabeth warren. it come ls days after a break

with the tradition, "the new york times" endorsed warren and amy klobuchar. i want to hand it to chris for "cuomo prime time." welcome to a special saturday edition of "prime time." trump defense is up. they gave us a taste today, a two-hour taste, but just a taste. you had the democrats doing the arguing for days, right? the president's team now is going to pick it apart. they say there is no law, there is no real proof of any wrong doing, and there was no real effort by the democrats to do their job. we're going to lay out their lines of defense and we're going to have a trump juror tonight to test them, see what he feels is their best option and what are they looking forward to tomorrow. then these parnas tapes. you haven't heard a lot of the tape. you played about 15 seconds, 20 seconds last night. there's over an hour. it tells us things about who was there, how parnas was