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.

they had a short day. the president didn't really want them on on a saturday. even as they were making their case, new evidence was undercutting arguments that you don't need witnesses. we're going to get to what's going on with lev parnas, someone they haven't heard from, the documents he has shown that they haven't reviewed, the tape that no one has mentioned. we're going to take you through that and how dangerous it is to ignore it. the trump defense team, however, chose brevity over depth. that makes sense. they know their audience. these senators are not only tired, but they are looking for a way out of this situation. and the president certainly understands the media reality. saturday afternoon, not as many people watching. let's not waste our ammo. but four basic key points, okay? first up, dangerous to remove a first-term president this close to an election. here's a taste.

>> for all their talk about election interference, that they're here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in american history and we can't allow that to happen. >> that's an interesting legal tactic, turning an argument on its head. i'm going to argue something because i think you found it compelling except i'm going to blame the other side of the same thing that they argued that you found impressive. if nothing else, it can cause confusion. now, there is no time limit on the truth, however. and the president is likely not to be removed. in fact, the best thing that could happen for our democracy with an election just ten months away is for you, the voter, to be armed with as much of the truth as possible.

so, given what we've seen for the last three years, as ugly as impeachment is, this is the only avenue that can perform that function. here's the second point. the democrats don't have the proof. >> they think you can read minds. i think you look at the words. >> chairman schiff has made so much of the house's case about the credibility of interpretations that the house managers want to place on not hard evidence but on inferences. they want to tell you what president trump thought. >> this is interesting. they're playing to speculation. they don't really know what he said. they don't really know what happened at the top level, so how can they come to a conclusion like they have in their arguments. well, here's the problem. why couldn't the house get access to first-hand witnesses and documents? that part they have to ignore

and turn it. they turn it on to they were lazy, they went too quick. they wanted us to do it. that last one is going to be the most vulnerable. if you're democrats and have control in the house, are you in any rush to turn it over to the senate where you don't have control? where you know they don't want to remove the president? think about that. now, that brings us to the next point. none of this matters. ukraine got the money. zelensky, while he didn't get that white house visit, he did get a one on one with the president at some point and he never gave any proof of investigation. there was no announcement so there was no wrong doing and really that's what the president wanted. >> the security assistance flowed on september 11th and a presidential meeting took place on september 25. without the knew crane yan ukrainian government announcing any investigations. finally the democrats' blind drive to impeach the president

does not and cannot change the fact as attested to by the democrat's own witnesses that president trump has been a better friend and stronger friend of ukraine than his predecessor. >> if you give the most money to your local church and then go to the pastor and strong arm them to help you with something or you'll never give them another dime, does the fact that you've given a lot make the pressure campaign okay? putting in that term, it's pretty simple, right? it's all this legalese that messes it up. he gave more money that obama, so what that he tried to bribe them this time. timing matters. when did they release the aid? after they knew about the whistleblower. after schiff and others were asking questions. and remember they released the aid without what they were looking for that supposedly justified holding up the aid. remember what they've argued to you in the past, the president himself. i just wanted to make sure they

fight corruption. well, they gave you no assurance that they would. and you released it anyway. tough argument. now, the defense team's final point, they did not do this the right way, these democrats. >> because impeachment is delegated solely to the house of representatives by the constitution, the full house of representatives should be involved in critical decision making regarding various stages of impeachment. here the house democrats skipped over that step completely. >> they did not skip over the step. they were stymied. now, you can wrap this argument in this arcane legalese of the constitution, look to past precedence for protection. here's the truth though. there's no right way to do this. it's only been done twice before. the sole power of it is in the house. this they went too fast argument is what you want to believe. did they go too fast because

they wanted to deliver it to someone else who had more power than they did, who wanted the opposite result than they did, or because they weren't going to get anywhere? how does this play into the state of play? let's ask democrat from connecticut, senator richard blumenthal, senator, always a pleasure. >> thanks for doing this on a saturday evening. >> thank you for doing it on a saturday evening after the week you've had. these are the three basic prongs. this is not impeachable even if the democrats had the proof. they don't have the proof. and they don't have the proof because they did the job too quickly to squeeze it in before the election and now they want us to do their job. how much of that worries you? >> very little of those arguments worry me on their merits. here's why.

first of all, you've just put it very well. they're complaining about lack of evidence. it's basically lack of direct evidence about what the president said or ordered. and that's exactly why we need the documents and witnesses. they've made a pretty powerful case. unfortunately for them it is for our contention. we need mick mulvaney who was in the room and said there was a quid pro quo, get over it. we need john bolton who said the president was doing this drug deal and he tried to talk him out of it. we need robert blair and michael duffey, the president's hinch men in executing the corrupt abuse of power, demanding an investigation of a united states citizen, a political rival in return for release of this money. so far as the rush is concerned, well, the house moved expeditiously. they're complaining about a rush. but now they're trying to rush

this trial. they're saying we can't have witnesses, documents because they would take too long. >> right. >> that kind of argument falls on its own weight. the bottom line here, chris, is as i would tell my colleagues, you can't put blinders on and complain you can't see. >> mm-hm. i get the analogy. i have a question about strategy from the democrats. why didn't any of the house managers introduce this tape of the president asking lev parnas about what was going on in ukraine and saying got to get rid of that ambassador and the documents that parnas has put out. he's a huge credibility issue. his story doesn't make sense. he's indicted for good reason when you read through the indictment itself. his lawyer was just on with anderson. there's a lot of pieces that don't size up that well for parnas in term of why he wanted into this situation. but just on the merits of the documents, trump was talking to him on that tape and talking to a guy he said he didn't know, and he has documents of these crazy text messages with somebody supposedly surveilling

the ambassador. why didn't you guys use any of those that we have to get to the bottom of this? >> i think that's a great question, chris. remember the timing of the parnas disclosure is just been the past day or so. and also the net effect of it is really to reinforce the abuse of power in firing this very distinguished and well-respected ambassador in a very chilling authoritarian way. >> and that the president said he didn't know the guy, senator. he said i don't know lev parnas. i don't know what he does. he's staring him right in the face having a conversation with him about exactly this. >> that's exactly right. and even more chillingly in a way is the exchange about how long would ukraine last without america's help. showing the vulnerability of ukraine. but here's what's important about that tape. first of all you raised a very good point.

maybe parnas should be called as a witness if we're permitted to call witnesses. but second, there will be more coming out. the truth will come out because of more freedom of information act requests that produce documents about michael duffey, because of court orders as produced these parnas documents, and because frankly the reporting by the press and the other kinds of facts that will come out. and they will haunt my colleagues. if they turn a blind eye, if they put those blinders on and say they can't see anything. >> if you guys play trump style politics here, couldn't you look at it this way. you're better off if they don't vote for witnesses because you let them pay the price for letting the truth die in darkness. you carry that into the election. this is the only time we've seen somebody not produce what they said was an alibi. and you campaign on that. you may be better off that way than if you do get witnesses. >> i'll be very blunt, chris. that's a pretty good political

argument. but i'll tell you, i have been struck by the gravity of the feeling of responsibility that i have. i mean, truly, nothing i do in the united states senate is likely to be more important than taking this oath to be an impartial juror. i think the case for impeachment is overwhelming on the evidence so far. i think we need those witnesses and documents who have direct knowledge, the black and white documents don't lie. as a prosecutor, i would rely on them and demand them. but my point is i don't know exactly what's in them. i'm still listening. i want to be impartial. i want all the evidence. and my colleagues have approached this sitting in that chamber hour after hour and the seriousness of our responsibility has really, i think, hit many of us. and so it's more than just about the politics of the moment. it really is about the historic moment we have here.

>> we'll see soon enough what hits them hardest, especially on the right side of that aisle. senator blumenthal, thank you so much for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >> all right. next, the video i'm talking about with parnas and trump. it wasn't some big fund-raiser. it was an intimate group. how do we know? because i can show it to you. and we can't assume the president knew who this guy was. it could have been a passing along in a photo line. no, it wasn't. how do i know? because i can show it to you. vicky ward is here. she's going to take us through the video. she knows the players. she's been following the engineer tanglements with this president. we'll give you the story next. types of chronic hep c. whatever your type, epclusa could be your kind of cure. i just found out about mine. i knew for years

epclusa has a 98% overall cure rate. i had no symptoms of hepatitis c mine caused liver damage. epclusa is only one pill, once a day, taken with or without food for 12 weeks. before starting epclusa, your doctor will test if you have had hepatitis b, which may flare up, and could cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you have had hepatitis b, other liver or... ...kidney problems, hiv, or other medical conditions... ...and all medicines you take, including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with epclusa may cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects include headache and tiredness. ask your doctor today, if epclusa is your kind of cure. 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, (shaq) (chime) magenta? i hate cartridges! not magenta! not magenta. i'm not going back to the store. magenta! cartridges are so... (buzzer) (vo) the epson ecotank. no more cartridges. it comes with an incredible amount of ink that can save you a lot of frustration. ♪ the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. available at... now here's why we keep talking about this tape, all right? lev parnas is not just some giuliani stooge. he is a full fledged member of

trump co. but the president wants you to believe this. >> i don't know who parnas. i don't know him at all, don't know what he's about. don't know where he comes from. know nothing about him. >> lev parnas has come forward and said you knew everything he was doing -- >> he's a con man. i don't know him other than he's sort of like a groupie. he shows up at fund-raisers. >> listen. that's not true, okay? there is video taken by lev parnas' buddy and it is of an intimate affair. the president is taking pictures. it's one of the things that people pay a lot of money for. but it's one table. it's like 15 people at this dinner, okay? that's not a groupie. i've been in this business a long time. that's a lot -- truth, that's not that much money to get that kind of intimacy with the

president, by the way. he doesn't just take a picture with him and say i love you mr. president, i love you too. that's not what it is. he has a conversation with the president about the threat to him in ukraine posed by the ambassador, what would happen if ukraine didn't have u.s. support, how long they would last against russia. listen to this. >> that's why you're having such -- i think if you take a look -- the biggest problem there i think where 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 of ukraine? >> yeah, she's basically walking around telling everybody, wait she's going to get impeached. >> really? >> it's incredible. >> she'll be gone tomorrow. >> now that we have a secretary of state -- >> get rid of her. get her out the door. i don't care. get her out the door. take her out, okay? >> excellent. >> do it. >> he knows him. he's talking to him about the

same thing. he knew he was working in ukraine. cnn's vicky ward has been following this story from the beginning. one of the first things she told me about why this mattered is this isn't just about what the president was doing for him but what parnas and his friend were doing for themselves before even joining purpose with rudy. that's why it's even more need to know what's happening. >> i think this is what this tape clearly shows. if you read the transcript, lev parnas an igor fruman wanted to get into president trump's circle for business reasons. you have to ask why is he recording that event. there's a question in the indictment facing these gentleman that asks were they working with an official in ukraine. lev parnas talks about ukraine in a business context. he's talking about liquified natural gas. and also pipelines.

and he says at one point, you know, i'm trying to buy a ukraine energy company. in that room are tommy hicks, jr., happens to do work at the company. now he's an energy magnate. i don't think it's coincidence, we've reported a week after this dinner lev parnas has a meeting with pete sessions who is then the congressman for texas. his constituents were in the energy space. pete sessions writes to donald trump and asks for the removal of the ambassador of ukraine. this is before rudy giuliani and his mission to dig up dirt on the bidens even gets anywhere near parnas. >> so, if you could speak to the gop senators, why would you tell them that they need to know more? what would be your questions for them that demand answer?

>> well, clearly lev parnas does have recordings and a lot of documentation both about -- both concerning the president and concerning rudy giuliani and concerning government officials in ukraine. and, you know, the whole focus of this impeachment is what quid pro quo is done, it's about a shadow foreign policy in ukraine. clearly he has documentation as does, it seems like his associate igor fruman to back it up. we want to see more of that. his lawyers come on cnn tonight and says he has more video recordings, we need to see them. >> look, this is why it's so dicey for the senators to ignore it. this guy parnas is playing to advantage. he's got a case hanging over his head and it's a scary case. his lawyer is dribbling things out a little bit here and there.

they're no angels either. it leads to what should be curiosity that right now is being shared by you. it should be shared by senators. let's leave it there. as we get more pieces to puzzle, i know you'll help us put them together. vicky ward, thank you so much. amazing they are not reviewing what you just saw and these documents we're telling you about. we'll keep drilling on these because we don't know what happened and why. and what we do know already is obvious enough. but what we don't know is even scarier in some ways. so, how did the team do today? how did they set themselves up? we'll take a look at where we know they're going on monday. the power team is here with their take. not easy to say. try it yourself. next. (janine) ghostbusters!...

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 here we have another burst pipe in denmark. if you look close... jamie, are there any interesting photos from your trip? ouch, okay. huh, boring, boring, you don't need to see that. oh, here we go. can you believe my client steig had never heard of a home and auto bundle or that renters could bundle? wait, you're a lawyer? only licensed in stockholm. what is happening? jamie: anyway, game show, kumite, cinderella story. you know karate? no, alan, i practice muay thai,

completely different skillset. your amy what work?zing! 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!

and with the sxfinity stream app, screen is your big screen. which is free with your service, you can take a spin through on demand shows, or stream live tv. download your dvr'd shows and movies on the fly. even record from right where you are. whether you're travelling around the country or around the house, keep what you watch with you. download the xfinity stream app and watch all the shows you love. a book that you're ready to share with the world?

get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! i don't know lev parnas, says the president. sure does talk to him a lot in intimate settings. and a businessman himself, parnas, says the president was lying about that. he just put out more proof. let's bring in andrew mccabe, shan woo, and kaitlan collins. what is the white house response to the context of this tape? >> reporter: they have really been dismissing it. when we just had the audio, just a transcript of what the president was saying, they really weren't saying that they were concerned about it at all. but of course it directly contradicts the main thing we have heard from the president, that he didn't know lev parnas, dismissing him as a groupie. but chris what you see from this is that not only was he not just a groupie.

he's someone who had an intimate dinner with the president. you can see at the beginning of the tape just how small the room is that they're in but also that the president took this person at their word when he said marie yovanovitch was bad mouthing the president. she testified she did not say those critical things of the president. trump took lev parnas at his word and said let's fire her. he was in the room with other aides at the time of the president. he was also asking him other things about ukraine, seemingly trying to get information from them that typically a president in that situation would get from a national security adviser or the secretary of state, not just a random associate of your outside attorney. >> weird thing to ask someone you don't know, how long do you think ukraine would last in a war against russia if we weren't there for them. a very familiar thing to say to someone you don't know.

kaitlan, thank you for that. andy, ordinarily when you go to someone and ask do you have anything to do with this guy lev parnas, nope, have nothing to do with this. then you get a tape like this. the next thing is a knock on the door and a set of cuffs. the president is not telling the truth relative in this context. >> it's yet another bold faced lie on the part of the president. last count we're over 16,000 or something according to "the washington post." how significant that is i'll leave to your viewers to figure out. i think the significance of this video is it goes a long way to bolstering the credibility of lev parnas on this whole story. parnas is a guy with deep issues in his credibility. he's got the outstanding indictment which includes the false statements, so there's all kinds of problems. but he is able to bring this sort of documentary or in this case video to the table that shows that at least in terms of these events, lev parnas has

been telling the truth and of course the president has not been. >> always odd, shan woo, when the indicted guy seems more truthful than the president of the united states. but here's the good news. the house managers didn't bring it up. and therefore the president's defenders didn't bring it up. in fact, they did the opposite and said these guys have no proof of anything. the president supposedly liked it. what did you think? >> i thought they did a weak job. they did what they had to do. strategically you don't want, as the defense, to leave that evidence from the prosecution sitting with the jury and american public, the senators, over the weekend unanswered. so, they had to answer with something. when you look at the advocacy scorecard, house managers won

hands down. cipollone's argument started with the right point but he rambled in the process. i thought they did what they could but chris, their performance reflects lawyers who have a very difficult micromanaging client that they had to satisfy. you can see the particular talking points that the president wanted them to do. that interfered with their ability to put on a strong coherent defense. >> andy, you know, he's got a reason to feel good. the republican senators were talking today. and, yes, we had romney and the media has been running with romney saying i will maybe likely vote for witnesses. but there are a lot of senators coming out saying nope, no need. they blew holes in them in just two hours today. i that blew all these holes, told us the other side. very different feeling today. >> yeah, i think that was no surprise there whatsoever. we talked about the other night that what the defense has to do here is provide those republican senators some sort of talking points that they can use to justify their vote against witnesses or justify their vote

of acquittal. it seems some of them have found a few nuggets to cling to in today's presentation. i did think it was notable we've only heard a few hour of their presentation. they have a long way to go. we'll see if maybe this comes up. what you did not hear today was anyone make the defense that this president did not do this, would never violate the constitution, respects the powers granted to him and the other branches under the constitution and would never do such a thing. you never did hear that, that moral patriotic defense that any innocent person would put on under these circumstances. i thought it was really a noticeable decision on their part not to do that. >> so, i need to know from kaitlan what the white house is putting out about how the republicans feel about it in the senate. i need to hear from shan what he believes the defense is going to

have to come out with on monday. and i need to hear from andy about what they have to be worried about in terms of questions from the senators. so, you know what that means? stick around. i've got to take a break, and we'll get to that right after. there's a lot of wood left to chop in this process. we'll get after it right after this. 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.

dthen you have a reasons to go to jackson hewitt today. you could get up to $3,200 the day you file with an express no fee refund advance loan. that's money fast. like, today fast. don't wait weeks. go to jackson hewitt today.

introducing ore-ida potato pay. where ore-ida golden crinkles are your crispy currency to pay for bites of this... ...with this. when kids won't eat dinner, potato pay them to. ore-ida. win at mealtime. for everything that i give, i get so much in return. join our family of home instead caregivers and help make a world of difference. home instead senior care. apply today. 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.

are we here because of a phone call? or are we here before this great body because since the president was sworn into office there was a desire to see him removed? >> they're not here to steal one elections. they're here to steal two elections. it's about time we bring this power trip in for a landing. >> day five of the trump trial was a flip of the tables. it's with the defense now trying to accuse democrats of interfering with elections. let's discuss the impact and

what it means with where we're headed. andrew mccabe, shan woo, and kaitlan collins. kaitlan, what's the white house saying about how republican senators were affected by today? >> so far they feel pretty good. they feel like the message they've gotten from the republican senators is they're inclined to acquit the president. now they want to give them enough to feel comfortable doing so. their goal is going to be to poke holes in the democratic narrative you've seen laid out the last few days. that's why it's questionable they only went two hours today. some people wonder why they didn't offer more of a framing of what this is going to look like. they say that's coming on monday. that's going to be a question whether or not they answer enough to satisfy those senators to keep witnesses out of the trial. right now that's been the white house's number one goal. and they are not 100% confidence they're going to get there. >> i'm surprised they didn't

have dershowitz go today. you know of all the stuff the president wants to hear, that bookish stuff about what the constitution wants, you would think that's what they want last. let's say they come out fists of fur on monday, i know it sets up on monday, they can set up what they want. but they have to be careful because after they present, then the chief justice will ask questions as processed through the parliamentarian. but they come from the senators. what is the certain there? >> the concern is that's essentially a rebuttal hiding in plain sight. so, the question period which can go as long as 16 hours, i believe, it's not actually an information-gathering, you know, function. it's more of a point-making function. so, each side will strategically place questions that they want to address with senators from their respective parties. so, it will essentially give the house managers an opportunity to

get up and address some of the points from the defense presentation that they disagree with. it'll also give the defense the same sort of opportunity to get up and respond to those democratic questions. >> do you think it's going to be death by a thousand cuts or are they going to swing one big stick? >> i agree with kaitlan they've been trying to poke holes in it. as a defense counsel, you can't just sit back and poke holes hoping to sow reasonable doubt. you have to offer a theory of innocence. what they have to do to give those republican senators a good hook to hang their coats on is to present a coherent theory of what the president was legitimately doing. spent a lot of time talking about what he wasn't doing wrong. they need to talk about what he was doing right. that may be challenging for them. but the answer would be

something along the lines of he's conducting foreign policy in his way. you may think it's incompetent or unconventional but that's what he was trying to do. they've got to offer that. >> i still have to believe, andy and i have talked about this a lot, and i get it. i've done my homework. i understand abuse of power, read the founding father stuff. but andy, you and i believe if they had the word bribery written over that first article, they would have a compelling case. now they allowed them to argue -- now all the master's degrees aside, no crime, andy. that's going to be a problem or an advantage for the defense. >> i think you'll hear a lot of that on monday. i think the house managers had a lot of grounds that they could have hung their bribery reference or bribery charge on. they decided for whatever reason to do that. it's fundamentally changed the conversation around that article to become one of the lofty what does the constitution really require rather than a nuts and bolts was this bribery or was it not? i think there's plenty of reasons you can say what the president did was soliciting and offering a bribe both of which are illegal.

i think that was an opportunity missed. >> andrew and shan, thank you so much on a saturday night. kaitlan, nobody's been working harder than you. i appreciate you doing that for us tonight. have a good night. have a good rest of the weekend to the extent it exists. our secretary of state. what did we see with him and this reporter from npr? boy it sounds familiar, doesn't it? you don't like the question. you attack the person who's asking it. you try to shame them. here's an argument i find equally as shaming of what's going on. we have a big problem going on right now in this process. and it's not what you think. the coronavirus in our midst, next. i'm your curious cat, and you know what they say about curiosity.

it'll ruin your house. so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like meow. i wanted my hepatitis c gone. i put off treating mine. epclusa treats all main types of chronic hep c. whatever your type, epclusa could be your kind of cure. i just found out about mine. i knew for years epclusa has a 98% overall cure rate. i had no symptoms of hepatitis c mine caused liver damage. epclusa is only one pill, once a day, taken with or without food for 12 weeks. before starting epclusa, your doctor will test if you have had hepatitis b, which may flare up, and could cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you have had hepatitis b, other liver or... ...kidney problems, hiv, or other medical conditions... ...and all medicines you take, including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with epclusa may

cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects include headache and tiredness. ask your doctor today, if epclusa is your kind of cure. 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... ♪

all right. we're supposed to be in a process of exposing the obvious, right? that's what this impeachment trial is supposed to be about, so let's do that. what we know about this president and ukraine is troubling, and what we have yet to review and those at the top who have yet to reveal what they know is arguably more troubling. no one hides an alibi. no one hides helpful information and you know it. while we wait to see if there are witnesses, we've already witnessed what this is really about, haven't we? certainly if you switch trump's r's republican to a d, the gop will be in full benghazi road. they were ready to trash the fbi and the entire intel community to save a president of their own party. trump presents far more daunting facts and questions than clinton did and we all know it. still, there are good faith arguments to be made here about whether what trump did while

wrong warrants removal from office. two problems. one is proof of sakeness. the other is of true malignancy. i would say what we're about to argue is what matter plus in this trial. first is what we're seeing the gop do, party over principle. now they're defending a president who's withheld more information and witnesses than any other ever and they know it. capitulation that decapitates the notion that they are arguing in good faith that the president shouldn't be removed because if you don't support witnesses, if you hide them, you neuter the process and it's nothing like a trial so you can't be of good faith. why do these senators fight so hard for their office, spend so much time and money promising what they'll do in office, honoring their oath only to work even harder once they get in to

avoid doing the job they were so desperate for in the first place and ignoring the oath they swore to god not to do. the same jobs they seem to want so badly at any cost. that leads to the malignancy. even worse than what we've seen in the trial this flagrant favoring of party over principle is bad but it's just a symptom. the true disease, the virus, the cancer that is killing us, are these poisonous things trump shows, a cheat against any real integrity and argument on the facts. lie, deny, defy. you don't like the questions? attack who asked them. press ways to expose what you hide. try to get people to hate those who are asking. witness the latest sign of the contagion. >> i have defended every state department official, we've built

a great team, a team that work is -- >> sir, respectfully, where have you defended marie yovanovitch? >> i've defended every single person on this team -- >> can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended marie yovanovitch? >> i've said all i'm going to say today, thank you. >> not that bad, right? well, after the interview the reporter, npr's mary-louise kelly, says pompeo got profane, petty, asking if americans even cared about ukraine, then had his staffers bring in a blank world map and tried to shame her, he said, find ukraine. she says she did, which would not be surprising. does pompeo deny this? no. in a statement on official -- look at the paper, put the paper on. he says, it's worth noting that bangladesh is not ukraine. just throw up a map. you think someone as seasoned as

she is, you think someone who went to fifth grade, thinks where bangladesh is, there, part of old pakistan, you see ukraine? you think you're going to mix those up? bangladesh isn't even connected to russia. why did he say that? because they don't give a damn about the truth. what they care about is shaming people who try to expose the truth. all right? now what's the source of the virus? the obvious. >> what a stupid question that is. what a stupid question. but i watch you a lot, you ask a lot of stupid questions. >> now there's so much more. that's not the point, to showcase it again. it has become contagious because they think it works for him, and he tells them do do it. he does it by his example, he does it by prodding. now we see it with all the trumpers. whenever they don't like something, whatever they don't agree with, they wind up attacking.

listen. >> i know it's hard for you to understand, even short sentences, i guess. >> because she was a serious, right? in response to a question about separating children from their families at the border you get cheeky like that, right? another example. republican senator martha mcsally. >> senator, should the senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial? >> you're a liberal hack, i'm not talking to you. >> you're not going to comment? >> you're a liberal sack. >> for asking whether or not you support witnesses? mcsally's got an amazing pedigree, but you want to be sitting in john mccain's seat, and you disrespect the process and the press that way? it is beneath the office and you guys have started to think it's the highest bar you can find. you know how we know? mcsally was fund-raising off that moment within hours. we don't allow this kind of behavior with our kids or our kin. we say it all the time. hey, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. if you can't deal with the

argument, shut and up walk away because it's already over for you. here's the problem with it. it's worse than the politics of party over principle. because it is our surrender to anything to do with the facts, anything to do with the law. it's literally this in official form. it's not just attacking the messenger, it's trying to kill the message and pretend it never existed. and that is the most dangerous thing we can face. that's my argument. now one of the largest veterans groups wants the president to apologize. why? diminishing the injuries some of our heroes in iraq. why should he? will he? bolo next. 're a reliable partne. 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. your amy what work?zing! 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!

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, 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.

bolo, be on the lookout. 34 u.s. service members with traumatic brain injuries after iran bomb our bases in iraq. that's bad for the president, right? so he spins it like this. >> i heard that they had headaches. and a couple of other things. but i would say, and i can report, it is not very serious. >> you don't consider potential traumatic brain injury serious? >> they told me about it numerous days later, you'd have to ask the department of defense. no, i don't consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that i've seen.

>> the veterans of foreign wars demands an apology for that disrespect. the military and its supporters are trying to highlight the gravity of traumatic brain injuries. will an apology come? be on the lookout for that. that's all for us tonight. thank you for watching "cnn tonight." d-lemon now. >> what a time to be alive. when you hear things like that, you compare that to the great orator that we heard last night from adam schiff, and it makes you long for the time when we had people who were in leadership who are contemplative, who thought about what they were going to say, who could actually form sentences and were able to put thoughts together that would make you feel safe and feel a sense and a degree of comfort when the american people needed to hear comfort. if you don't know what's happening with our troops, all you have to do is say what a