good evening. at the end of a working saturday on the impeachment trial of president donald trump. we'll hear what one advocate will tell the senate. as for today, it was by design a short one, two hours, start to finish, this morning. lawyers with white house lawyer pat cipollone leading the charge. he accused the house managers of trying to overturn the last election and trying to 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, he said, did nothing wrong including calling the ukraine president in which the president said was perfect and in which cipollone's deputies 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 in ukraine. his interest in the bidens were barely mentioned. the question as to when or whether that will change, they failed to say. up in the air will be new testimony. mitt romney said he's very likely to vote to call

witnesses. whether three other republicans will join him is that the client is happy. the president felt like his defense team made a compelling case and was extremely pleased with the team's presentation. perspective on the day, we have alan dershowitz. he's written a new introduction to the constitution "declaration of independence" and jeffrey toobin. >> pat cipollone argued that impeachment was an effort to overturn the election, and i quote, they're asking you to tear up all of the ballots on your own initiative. take that away from the american people. the push back is and as a constitutional lawyer, i want to get your opinion, the process we're witnessing, isn't that what they wanted? 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. they didn't intend on him not running again because of vague a charges. those open-ended charges will puts into a british parliament. >> jeff, let me ask you. the white house counsel saying there are no firsthand witness accounts, talking about how important cross examination is, claiming this whole thing is perpetrating the most massive interference in american history. the idea that there's no firsthand accounts, that is true. gordon sondland said he believed the president knew -- wanted a quid pro quo and was dangling one thing for the other. i guess the flip side of that is

there are no firsthand accounts because the people who have the firsthand accounts are not allowed to testify. >> that's just true. the position of the defense lawyers that -- 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, we didn't hear a lot about vice president biden, nothing from the president's attorneys. on monday it's expected to be a large part of the presentation, certainly monday or tuesday. how exactly do you believe it's relevant here? and is that -- it's not -- i assume it's not part of your brief because it's not -- i don't think it's the constitutional issue that you're going to be focusing on. >> no. >> 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 impeach ablg oable offen. if any witnesses are brought in, they have to be on both sides. very large concept of relevance. the president's lawyers would argue, look, the president honestly believed there was corruption and the failure to prosecute this young man, i'm not taking a position on that, but that it was relevant and they should have therefore having an investigation of that, why he wasn't prosecuted. why he wasn't investigated. >> you're going on monday? >> yes. >> 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 abraham lincoln, if i had more time, i'd of written a shorter letter. i'm going back to all of 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 and trying to shorten. >> when is ken starr going? >> i don't know. >> how do his -- what's his subject different from your snubt. >> we haven't discussed it. but i know what i'm going to argue, they know what i'm going to argue. i'm going to argue some things i haven't argued if you or on television. there will be some surprises. the genuine feeling is whether you can use the two criteria, the use of power and obstruction of congress. i'm going to argue very firmly that those are not appropriate criteria. if they had ever been put to the framers, the framers would have rejected those criteria as too open ended and in the terms of madison, it would turn america into a parliamentary type

democracy in which the president serves at the leisure. >> professor dershowitz, how closely. you're not really part of the legal -- the meetings about strategy at large. you're focused on this constitutional issue. >> right. >> is it something like -- do they know everything you're going to be arguing? how has that worked? >> i haven't shown them my draft. if they asked me, of course i will. i've been working just very, very hard to produce a neutral, nonpartisan, academic. but i think effective advocacy is most effective when it's nonpartisan and neutral.

but it's a role i played in many cases. i've come in and argued just the constitutional issue. most recently in a takings case involving a large corporate matter and they just asked me to argue the constitutional issue, so i did. i coordinated lightly with the team but they gave me a lot of authority and independence to make the takings argument. >> final question. more of a personal question really. when you do something like this, who is your client? i mean, is it -- who are you speaking to? is it you are speaking to the president, the -- >> 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. here there are no interruptions, no objections so i will speak for whatever it is, 45 minutes straight. i have 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. we'll see. i have to tell you, i prefer being interrupted even by you, because it, a, gives me a chance to respond and be spontaneous. >> alan, you're usually an appellate lawyer. >> that's right. >> you're usually arguing to judges and not jurors. the fact that judges ask questions, that's a huge advantage to you usually. >> i agree. >> because you know what they care about, what they don't care about. >> i agree with you. >> how will you know what the senators -- what grabs them or will you? >> it's going to be very hard. i always look forward to hard questions. i've said in 55 years of arguing 250 appeals, i've never been asked a question i wasn't prepared for. doesn't mean i didn't always give 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 the questions. >> will you take part in that? >> i hope so. i would like to. there's a lot of spontaneity there. >> thank you. you have two minds off. my interview with the attorney for lev parnas. a newly released tape suggested that for 80 minutes he engaged with lev parnas directly. hey, i set up the thermostat.

[ singing ] lil' sweet! for getting all digital with that thermostat, you deserve the [ singing ] sweet reward of a diet dr pepper. hmm, that is sweet. is it hot in here or is it just lil' sweet? it's definitely hot. that is odd. diet dr pepper. [ singing ] it's the sweet one. they can save you these. in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save. the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.

when insurance is affordable, you don't use this old tno!g, do you? or how 'bout this dinosaur right here? nope! then why are you still using a laser printer? it's got expensive toner cartridges. but this... is the epson ecotank color printer. no more expensive cartridges! big ink tanks. lots of ink. if you don't think this printer's right for you, just pick up your phone... (chuckling) ...and give me a call. the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. available at... ♪ you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7 with a strain of bacteria you can't get anywhere else. you could say align puts the pro in probiotic. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. and try align gummies, with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health.

think you need to buy expensive skincare products [♪] to see dramatic results? try olay skin care. just one jar of micro-sculpting cream has the hydrating power of 5 jars of a prestige cream, which helps plump skin cells and visibly smooth wrinkles. while new olay retinol24... provides visibly smoother, brighter skin. for dramatic skincare results, try olay. and now receive 25% off your purchase at olay.com brand power. helping you buy better.

we've got a tribute from alan dershowitz. he said he has yet to fully coordinate his remarks with the rest of the defense team. we'll talk more about this. the reaction from the president as caitlyn collins joins us from the white house. have we heard much? do we know what the president thinks his legal team did today?

>> reporter: we've heard from several sources and the president was pleased. he was encouraging people to watch it. we know he and the vice president watched it very closely today. of question as it pretty much always does with trump comes down to coverage. it will be really interesting to see what his reaction is, to check in with him 24 hours from now after the sunday political talk shows have happened. that's when the president is going to be watching. you're going to see the hosts compare how the democrats laid out their arguments in close to 24 hours compared to the two hours from the president's legal team. right now the president's legal team says they feel really good how today went and they're looking forward to how monday goes. >> alan dershowitz is talking monday. what's their plan? >> reporter: the question is how long are they going? they don't need long to lay out their argument. you'll see jay sekulow, outside attorney but also alan dershowitz and ken starr. it will be interesting to see

how they flow because the democrats had worked on their presentations for a month now since they had voted to impeach the president and nancy pelosi transmitted the articles of impeachment. they've within wobeen working c on that. cipollone and jay sekulow, alan dershowitz made it clear they've not been coordinating with each other. he doesn't know what argument ken star is going to be making, he said. it will be interesting to see how that looks. they're all expected to present on monday. right now based on our reporting, they are not expected to go until tuesday. it will be interesting to see how that plays out, if it's coordinated together and if they are going to bring up the bidens. they said they were going to, they didn't do so today. we are told by sources it will likely come up before they essentially rest their case. >> caitlyn collins, appreciate it. we want to get our legal team's take on it.

david toobin and alice stewart. jeff, again, the republicans have said, well, the democrats opened the door on the bidens, you know, now it's fair game. >> yeah. as if they weren't going to go after biden until, you know, adam schiff said a mean thing. come on. look, this is a political trial appropriately. this is a jury of senators. it's not a criminal trial. there will be political arguments made. this is an opportunity for the president to embarrass maybe the democratic nominee and that's how today went. >> david, how do you think today went? >> i thought the defense team was more effective than i expected. in the past contexts when they've sent papers up, they've been sending letter up, they've been discrete. they've been political

documents. i had a sense the president is going to be helping. here the lawyers seemed to do it on their own. by going after the substance they left themselves open to counter attacks. they misstated things and had misleading things. the emphasis about the phone call, as if that's the only standard or measur we should have when there's all of these things going on which suggest that. i think there are examples like that. overall, i thought they also were smart in reducing the timing. the senators were tired. they didn't want to sit there. and i think that adam schiff was wonderful. he ticked these guys off. i'm not sure that helped them. >> the republicans -- trump's winning. he's winning here.

he's winning on impeachment. he's winning on witnesses. one of the rules in a courtroom is when you're winning, sit the hell down. don't talk. i think that they wisely followed that advice. >> yeah. his lawyers were effective, i think, in planting the seed of doubt as to what the president's motives were. they constantly went back to the phone call, the conversation. not only from the president, but also from zelensky and zelensky raising the suggestion that there needed to be more burden sharing. he wasn't getting enough from european countries. he felt no pressure. this was all about going after corruption. they doesn't mean that they completely dismiss the notion for witnesses, for documents. in fact, i think if you do plant the seed, a question as to whether or not the president was guilty, the only way you resolve it is to have witnesses, is to have more documents. then you go back to why zelensky

may have been saying the things he did. on the phone call, clearly they needed the phone call, the help, the money, they're in a hot war with russia. zelensky was well versed enough. so instead of saying, no, we get enough money from germany, you're wrong, of course he went along with it. >> that's one of the things that the democrats tried to say right immediately after the white house counsel stopped speaking today was that essentially that they had made a good argument. they kept pointing out there was no eye witness -- >> they haven't met the burden of proof. the democrats are like, okay, let's get people in here who have firsthand knowledge. they said the democrats presented selective evidence. then they went on and presented selective evidence. that's what they did. they went for a short period of

time. i take the point when you're willing, you sit down. they couldn't fill up the time if they needed to. if they try to fill up their time, they don't have much of a defense. they've giving the republicans the figure leaf that they need so they can feel good about what they're doing. all of the talking points the president is core rid about corruption. the only corruption he was worried about is the joe biden thing. you're going to cut off aid after people have talked about how good he is. how wonderful because another country is not giving them enough money. they said zelensky said i wasn't being blackmailed. of course he's going to say that.

we have sworn testimony saying in fact dod and state did hear from ukraine that they were concerned. >> the reality is the reason they're not taking as much time, the burden of proof is on democrats to prove that the president is guilty of these issues that are worthy of impeachment but 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 pete ferrara said earlier on cnn that democrats have a problem. if they say they have such an overwhelming and compelling case, why do they need more witnesses? why do they need more information? what we're going to see is we're going to see 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 beyond a shadow of a doubt that these actions are worthy of impeachment and also in terms of the political argument that jeffrey mentioned, this is the democrats' effort

that they have done from the moment the president was nominated. that's the political nature of this. 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 lev parnas after this puts trump and lev parnas in a room together for more than 80 minutes a year before the zelensky call. be right back. fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely.

but allstate helps you. with drivewise. feedback that helps you drive safer. and that can lower your cost now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? and this is cc+ cream. it gives you your skin but better. it's your full coverage foundation, spf 50 plus anti aging serum. discover the #1 cc cream in america.

discover the #1 oh no, here comes gthe neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his xfinity customer service is. i'm mike, i'm so busy. good thing xfinity has two-hour appointment windows. they have night and weekend appointments too. he's here. bill? karolyn? nope! no, just a couple of rocks. download the my account app to manage your appointments making today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. i'll pass.

a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! the biden question, a lot of

questions about where the president's defense team would go. one remains with this trial and the witnesses. back now with our legal and political team. obviously, i mean, the major question is will there be new witnesses? will there be new documents? it does not seem like it's moving that direction though mitt romney has come forward saying he's inclined to ask for more witnesses. >> i just give you an example of why i think less is better from the defense team. there was a very interesting and i thought thoughtful presentation from one of the president's lawyers on the issue of whether president zelensky knew when aid was cut off. the issue of timing, which is a fairly important issue in the case. it's not make or break, but the more you create a controversy about that, the more you have to respond. what do the emails show? i mean, that issue is something that clearly there would be email traffic about. in fact, every time there is a

factual dispute raised by the defense, you know, in the white collar world, in the world of white collar crime, investigations begin with documents. >> you don't actually interview witnesses until you have all of the documents. >> as a prosecutor, you certainly don't want to because that's the -- that's the raw material of every white collar crime investigation. and the fact that they've gotten as far as they have with no emails is fairly remarkable, but the more the defense acknowledges that there are factual disputes, it's like, let's see what the documents show. >> what stood out to me today was contrasting what the president's defense team was trying to do by saying all of this was normal. there was nothing abnormal about what transpired. if you go back and 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. >> the reality is, the question of whether or not ukraine felt pressure on the call, whether or not they knew assistance was being withheld, all of these were 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. >> there's sworn testimony of people saying this. the other thing is john bolton sense the the house, if he was subpoenaed, he would testify. that's something that didn't happen. why not have john bolton come up who may have firsthand knowledge for all we know. he was obviously somebody very involved in everything. so i think at a minimum they could have john bolton testify. >> they could have subpoenaed him in the house procedure.

>> he indicated he wasn't going to respond to that. now he said he will respond to a subpoena from the senate. >> we got a report from the gao that in fact the president did break the law. obviously we know that they're non-partisan. they said he did break the law. so we continue to subsequently get more information. >> i have a sense, anderson, this is going south in terms of getting witnesses and documents, in part because of the chemistry that's involved here. these senators, republican senators feel they have been somehow insulted in all of this process, they've been attacked. their head's on a pike, but it told us the psychology within that republican group is moving in the direction of saying, we've heard enough. americans have heard enough. and very, very importantly, what the defense team is going to do and the defense team some

arguments when they're up for re-election. 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? >> anger over the pikes on head. that was reported by cbs. if you deviate, your head will be on a pike. what's so interesting to me, apparently they were annoyed because it seems to indicate that they're afraid of donald trump. >> that's the point. >> and that's the point. that's what the pikes on the head or heads on the pike metaphor is all about. is that they're terrified of donald trump. >> i'm not sure i know what a

pike is? >> it's a large -- >> is it a pike or spike. >> not a good visual. >> not a good village. >> don't you think though that they're just viewing that also to give themselves an excuse? they're trying to act like we're being insulted. we're being accused of things. >> we're trying to be objective here. >> nadler accused us of a cover up. the way we're going to prove that is to do a cover up. >> i have to get a quick break in. we had new audio and video of the president at a conference and talk to parnas's attorney. let's be honest, every insurance company says

they can save you these. in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save. the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.

that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein.

and one gram of sugar. 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. think you need to buy expensive skincare products [♪] to see dramatic results? try olay skin care. just one jar of micro-sculpting cream has the hydrating power of 5 jars of a prestige cream, which helps plump skin cells

and visibly smooth wrinkles. while new olay retinol24... provides visibly smoother, brighter skin. for dramatic skincare results, try olay. and now receive 25% off your purchase at olay.com brand power. helping you buy better. lev parnas and his attorney released the full video from an april 2018 donor video. earlier we only had clips of it.

now the president said he doesn't know the two men. something lev parnas contradicted on this show. it shows the president entering the room. on the tape you hear his voice and that of parnas, fruman and much of the others. much of the 80 minute tape involves talks about energy policy, vladimir putin and ukraine. it's at that point they discuss ambassador yovonovitch. >> the biggest problem where you start is we've got to get rid of the ambassador. she's still left over from the clip top administration. >> the ambassador of ukraine? >> yes. she's saying, wait, he's going to get impeached. it's incredible. >> now that we have a secretary of state -- >> get rid of her. get her out. i don't care, get her out.

take her out, okay? do it. >> before air i spoke with lev parnas's attorney. >> i want to ask you about some of the stuff that's on these recordings. at one point the president asked lev parnas about the former president of ukraine, poroshenko. i just want to play this. >> do they feel they're going to be okay? >> yes. they feel they're going to be okay if you support them, yes. >> what do you think of the leader? >> poroshenko is a good guy. >> there's always us that has to support everybody. why isn't germany supporting? >> it's interesting, i think it's lev parnas that says the biggest problem is corruption. the president brushes by that and he talks about germany not doing more. which is counter to what he said. he was very concerned about corruption, number one. >> i think 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 -- do you know the reason why, you know, furman made these recordings? >> i don't know why he made the recordings. some like to take pictures. i can't describe the motive. >> he sent the recordings to lev parnas? >> yes. >> are there more recordings lev parnas has? >> yes. >> with the president? >> yes. >> do you plan to residential 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. >> to you, what is the significance of these recordings? >> i think there's a few aspects of it that are important. first off, we hear the president himself saying get rid of the a.m. bats is a door. fire her. get her out of there. this is one of the first

occasions in which he attempts to remove the a.m. bassmbassado. lev parnas was shocked and he could never have possibly expected that the president would literally take that step. >> it's also true that lev parnas in the interview, the talk that we had, he was saying he actually didn't really know anything about the ambassador -- >> right. >> -- he had just been told and kind of revved up by others who was saying, he conveyed that this morning. that's when the president said, take her out. >> i think there's a snippet of the recording where lev says he doesn't know her name. >> in this one the president is talking about the threat on the ground. >> how long would they last in a fight with russia? >> not very. >> i don't think very long.

without us, not very long. >> 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 is stuck at a dinner with? >> i wonder. i like to think he's been briefed on ukraine by his advisers. i like to think he has some understanding of ukraine, but what this aspect of the tape shows us is he had things on his mind and they were vulnerable. at some point in 2019 lev delivers the poroshenko quid pro quo. you won't get a white house visit unless you say this. >> it's fascinating to me. i've been thinking a lot about what parnas said. the fact that he was the guy, according to igor fruman is,

they were on the ground and they would deal with the former president. the man that is heading intelligence services under zelensky. hold up a phone and rudy giuliani would be on speaker phone saying, listen to these guys. they represent the president, me. listen to what they have to say, what they're going o tell you. >> it's not conventional. 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 interests, it makes no sense that it's these two guys. >> guys with no security experience and no diplomacy experience, can you say if they gave donations to other gop

senators. i know from the public record he gave donations to sort of joint fundraising committees that -- >> yes. >> -- could then be distributed to a number of candidates. >> yes. >> did he also give directly? >> i think it was more -- there were some direct donations, small, direct donations but really more larger donations to super pacs that could then unbundle those donations and give them to the gop can dalgts 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? >> mr. parnas had met mr. giuliani. he did not have much of a relationship with mr. giuliani. >> he hadn't paid mr. giuliani the half a million to be involved? >> i don't believe that the payment was before this dinner. he had met him in 2016 in florida at a fund-raiser. they had seen each other at the

inauguration. >> therefore you see lev and the president traveling. >> so at the time this was made, they're sitting at that table, not because giuliani has brought them there. they're sitting at that table because they donated and got seats at this private event at the president's hotel. >> exactly. exactly. exactly. >> what's he looking at now? >> i would like to think there will be a vote in the sane nate. i can't imagine. i like to say we still while we have a couple of days can push that movement and effect change. >> thank you. next, more on new details of the white house strategy from monday and how the impeachment trial unfolds from here. all done.

[ singing ] lil' sweet! oh! for accenting the heck out of that wall, you deserve the [ singing ] sweet reward of a diet dr pepper. hmm, that is sweet. [ singing ] so sweet! oh, you're leaving already? [ singing ] oh yeah! diet dr pepper. [ singing ] it's the sweet one. a lot of folks ask me why their dishwasher doesn't get everything clean. i tell them, it may be your detergent... that's why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum... ...with the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. for sparkling-clean dishes, the first time. cascade platinum. (burke) we've seen almost everything, so we know how to cover almost anything. even a "gold medal grizzly." (sports announcer) what an unlikely field in this final heat. hang on... you're about to see history in the making.

(burke) not exactly a skinny dipper, but we covered it. at farmers, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ (vo) visit farmers-dot-com and get a quote today. of course i'd love to take an informal poll. i used to be a little cranky. dealing with our finances really haunted me. thankfully, i got quickbooks, and a live bookkeeper's helping customize it for our business. (live bookkeeper) you're all set up! (janine) great! hey! you got the burnt marshmallow out! (delivery man) he slimed me. (janine) tissue? (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. the easy way to a happier business.

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

the impeachment trial of president trump will be back in session 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. so i actually think -- >> it's also interesting he said

he's not coordinating 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 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 got to go to 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. you try hard, you eat right...

mostly. you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. text resolution to 651-90 to learn more. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. and you know what they isay about curiosity. it'll ruin your house. so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like meow.

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 comes days after a break with the tradition, "the new york times" endorsed warren and amy klobuchar.

that's it for us right now. 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 regarded, how the president saw him and proof yet again that this president is lying to you. so, let's get after it. tricky day for the president's lawyers.