good evening. after another evening, the senate wrapping up the first of two days of questions from both sides. some of the answers made news. alan dershowitz with the claim if a president did something he beliefs will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quoim that results in impeachment. as you might imagine, his argument did not go without rebuttal. also the question of john bolton's manuscript being reviewed by lawyers and others at the white house. do the parts that might be relevant to the trial also contain information too secret to reveal? the clash over that today. and of course, the question of bolton's testimony or any testimony for that matter.

that battle still being weighed. plus from two moderate republicans, it appeared to stump the republicans hfl the president ever shown any interest in the bidens before joe biden launched his presidential run? plenty to talk about with the players. first we want to catch you up on the highlights from a very long, very consequential day. here's cnn's athena jones. >> senators apparently haven't heard enough as day one of questions is that anxiouses slid into the late hours wednesday. the three republican senators who have publicly said they could support calling witnesses, setting the tone for the day. asking trump's lawyers -- >> if president trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct, such as the pursuit of personal, political advantage, rooting out corruption and the promotion of national interests, how should the senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of article one? >> their response. >> once you're into mixed motive

land, it is clear their case fails. >> if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interests, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. >> after days of strategizing, both parties used dozens of leading, often loaded questions to push their side's case. republicans honing in on hunter biden. >> what did he do for the money that burisma holdings paid him in. >> hunter biden did attend one board meeting in monaco. >> reporter: but one question trump's lawyers couldn't answer, whether he ever mentioned concerns about the bidens before the former vice president entered the 2020 race. >> and limited to what's in the record, and what is in the record is determined by what the house of representatives sought. so i can't point to something in the record that shows president

trump at an earlier time mentioning something specifically related to joe or hunter biden. >> democrats stressing they need the hear from witnesses like former national security adviser john bolton who said he is willing to testify before the senate if subpoenaed. >> if you have any lingering questions about direct evidence, any thoughts about anything we just talked about, anything i just related, there is a way to shed additional light on it. you can subpoena ambassador bolton and ask him directly. >> you can get to the truth by calling witnesses who can testify. >> the trump team's response? >> the idea that the house can do an incomplete job. in trying to find out what witnesses there are. in testifying, finding out the facts. just rushing something through as an impeachment and then start

trying to call all the witnesses, it would forever change the relationship between the house of representatives and the senate in terms of the way impeachments operate. >> while in a particularly fiery moment, listing the witnesses they would call. >> i want adam schiff. i want hunter biden. joe biden. i want the whistleblower. i want to understand, there may be additional people within the house intelligence committee that have had conversations with that whistleblower. i get anybody we want. >> and delivering a stark warning to the senators. >> by the way, we get anybody we want, we'll be here a very long time. >> trump's team playinging a case for protecting executive privilege. >> to suggest the national security adviser, we'll subpoena him and it will be easy and it won't be a problem. that's not the way would it work. there are vital constitutional privileges. >> democrats arguing trump waived that privilege with this

tweet. >> he cannot characterize the conversation and put it into the public domain and then claim executive privilege against it. >> trump's team also urging senators to let the voters decide. >> the president is the one who gets to determine policy. because he's been elected by the people to do that. and we're right now only a few months away from another election where the people can decide for themselves whether they like what the president has done with that authority or not. >> schiff spelling out the consequences of not removing trump from office. >> bear in mind that efforts to cheat an election are always going to be in proximity to an election. if you say you can't hold a president accountable in an election year where they're trying to cheat in that election, then you are giving them carte blanch. >> tomorrow, another day of hours of questions. today they said they want to hear from witnesses.

hours of answers as well, august ewing both sides of it. >> i think you have a key point. there's the question from senator susan collins and lis murkowski whether or not the president has shown any interests before vice president joe biden decided to run for president. they did not have an answer to that saying wasn't within the record and he didn't feel like he could go into that. he wants to ask if there was a specific date on when the president decided to put the hold on the whole ukraine the security assistance. and not able to answer that question. i think that's what we keyed on. in terms of, behind the scenes, the movement here hack toward mitch mcconnell having the vote to block witnesses. it's not there yet but over the last 24 hours there's been a clear move to get votes in place

to be able to move this trial to an end by the end of the week. and that seems to be the direction it's headed. we have another big day of questions tomorrow but that's where it's going right now. >> i know has the minor point but it is fascinating to me that after all this, mitt romney's question, i thought, was really interesting. we still don't know when the president decided to withhold the aid. and whom he talked to. there is been no documents. it's kind of remarkable that a foreign policy decision was made and we still have no idea when it was actually made. >> that's exactly right. for those of us, you were covering it every step of the way. the house impeachment inquiry, the documents that we were able to see. the witnesses we were able to hear from, you heard various states over the course of when the president may have gotten interested in this. when they informed other agencies that it was in place between july when the ukrainians found out about it and no firm

date. if you want answers, there is a way to get them. bring in witnesses. democrats have made the point, if we don't hear witnesses, you will pay for this politically in the future. we'll be able to point to this as a trial that wasn't fullsome and therefore, this is on you either way. >> you've got some reporting about senator rand paul and the whistleblower. >> this was a fascinating behind-the-scenes look. nobody was able to see it unless you paid attention to senator rand paul during the first break. during the first break, senator rand paul walked up to a republican staffer and was clearly frustrated. essentially saying, if i have to force my way to get my question asked, i will. here's what was actually happening. i'm told behind the scenes, rand paul has a question about origins of the investigation. . in question, he explicitly names the alleged whistleblower. a name that has been throughout

for a period of time. here's the back story. over the course of the last couple days it has been communicated to senators in both parties that john roberts, the chief justice, will not entertain or read, he has to read all the questions submitted by senators, any question that names or discloses enough information to be able to identify the whistleblower. that's where rand paul ran afoul. the red line the chief justice drew. why that's extraordinary, we haven't really scene it before. on the third impeachment trial we've had. the chief justice traditionally plays a very reluctant role. more of a traffic cop, a procedural com than weighing in on things. what i can tell you is this isn't over yet. senator paul made it clear he is very frustrated. he believes he has every right to ask his question even if the chief justice doesn't want to read it aloud. it hasn't been resolved but a fascinating back story going on as these eight hours of questions were going on through the day. >> we saw hakeem jeffries,

senator langford. one of the jurors, richard blumenthal of connecticut. minority leader schumer said at least at this point it seems likely there won't be witnesses. do you think that's right? >> still an uphill battle to get witnesses. i feel those kinds of questions that we saw from the moderates, when was the hold put on? it couldn't be answered because we don't have witnesses who could testify to it or documents. black and white. the documents don't lie, that the american people deserve to see. thatis the evidence basic to any trial and any moderate really, any juror would demand that kind of evidence. and very striking. those were only a couple of the questions that couldn't adequately be answered based on

this record because of the defiance. the blanket of those documents. not just now but repeatedly in the past, in the course of this investigation. and my republican colleagues can't complain about not seeing anything. if they put blinders on and history will haunt them. republicans to republicans, democrats to democrats. why not use the time to challenge the other side's arguments? >> well, one of my questions was to the other side about when they knew in effect about the bolton book and whether they were discouraged from telling us about it. i think that's still an area where we need further questioning and they were in my view, possibly vague in their response. they said there was no consultation between the staff and the white house counsel.

but i am going to be demanding further answers. i asked for a statement by the other side which was really astonishing that a candidate for political office can accept aid from a foreign government or individual. anything of value under the current law is really prohibited. and yet of course, the president has said he would semiit. and in fact has invited china and ukraine to investigate a political rival. and yet they were saying, and we challenged them through the house manage orders this point. we know, foreign interference in our elections is a real threat. an ongoing and increasing threat in the next election. >> i want to get back to that. do you worry the white house, president trump and others around him are putting pressure on the national security staff to slow walk any classified examination of bolton's book?

>> i deeply worry about it. i am alarmed because of the polarization. the weaponization by this white house. and even wave from this investigation and others that the national security staff is subject to pressure on matters less consequential than this one. the so-called publishing date is march 17th. and i would not be surprised at all if the censorship by the white house and its review extend well beyond that date and bolton is forced to go to court to challenge the review and the censorship and the delay. so they're going to keep it under wraps it's as much as possible. that's just one element of the cover-up that we're seeing unfolding in real-time. >> professor dershowitz's argument that if the president does something he thinks will he help him get elected in the

public interest, that cannot be the quid pro quo that results in impeachment. i'm not a lawyer at all. i do not understand that argument. if that is standard, what does that open the door to? if you can do anything that you believe it is so important that you get sxlektd it is in the public interest, isn't that opening the door to all sorts of potentially inappropriate behavior? it is more than opening the door. it is throwing it wide for all kinds of abuse. anything done for re-election purposes is okay? that can't be the law. in fact, it isn't the law. and yet professor dershowitz is in effect arguing, if there is an abuse of power and it aids in re-election, and it doesn't violate a specific technical criminal law, it is okay. and i think that is one of the most astonishing statements i've

seen on the floor of the united states senate the, whether an impeachment trial or any other kind of proceeding. but let me just express my alarm. where it goes and the lowering of the bar. the expectations, the standards to which it leads. because i think the bar already has been set low enough for political campaigns, and this kind of statement is deeply damaging to our democracy. and it is why we're challenging. granted, there is no specific charge of bribery in the article of impeachment on abuse of power. but the elements of bribery have all beener charged. i have urged that bribery, in return for something that he had the power to do. the release of these hundreds of

millions of dollars in taxpayer military funds to a foreign government struggling to survive. and i think that saying that there is no abuse of power, nothing wrong, as long as the president feels it aids hip will in his re-election is reprehensible and irresponsible. >> thank you for your time. >> much more ahead including the president's words for john bolton. choice words. lots of them. plus a second recording from the president with lev parnas. daddy? yeah? who's peter? well sweetie, he's your great-great grandfather. here, does he look like me? yeah. your family's story is waiting to be shared. at ancestry.com

rouge signature by l'oreal. finally a lasting lip stain. for a matte color impact, with a barely there feel. luxuriously intense matte shades. rouge signature by l'oreal paris. we're worth it. rouge signature by l'oreal paris. ♪ applebee's new irresist-a-bowls starting at $7.99 for a limited time.

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. t-mobile 5g is here. and it's nationwide. while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles...

beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network.

president trump spent much of the day tweeting about the trial. for a guy who couldn't get approved as ambassador to the u.n. years ago, couldn't get approved for anything since begged me for a nonsenate approved job which i gave him despite many saying don't do it, sir, takes job, mistakenly says libyan mod old tv, gets fired, because if i listened to hip we would be in word war six right now and goes out and immediately wriss a nasty and untrue book. all classified national security. who would do this? joining us now with more of the reaction from 1600 avenue, what does it look like? >> reporter: it has been the president and his aides lashing

out. at john bolton. he said he did not think he would tie the military aid freeze to those investigations he wanted on the democrats which is now with "the new york times" saying that bolton is doing in his manuscript. what they're doing is trying to discredit him. tell the republican that's he doesn't need to be called as a witness. it is going to drag out this trial happening on capitol hill. if he does. and you saw the president's attorney arguing just there as they were closing out the questions saying it is not as easy as just issuing a subpoena and having him show up. he was sending a message to the senators moo who have were on the fence about having witnesses, if they do do that, there is going to be a foyt coming from this side of washington if they do. >> the white house counsel was asked about the president soliciting foreign interference, giving an anxious we hadn't heard before. >> that was pat philbin. he's the cipollone's deputy.

he was asking about the president's public and apparent tumors try to solicit information from foreign governments on his political rivals. you'll remember the abc news interview where the president said he didn't think it was a problem to take information from foreign governments on rivals or when he was on the south lawn of the white house and called on china to investigate the bidens and pat philbin gave a pretty broad defense. the democrats were not happy about that. at least the ones sitting at that table. the ones prosecuting and their case this week. he said mere information is not something that would violate campaign finance law. that taking a contribution would but getting information, having, he said it's not campaign interference for credible information to be brought to light. now, that is something that really stunned the democrats. shortly after, you saw zoe lofgren one of the house managers say it was news for her for the president to be able to get information from foreign governments on his domestic

rivals and that be okay. that was an interesting moment. it is really in lock step with what you've heard from the president saying he thinks it is okay. it will be interesting to say what republicans to have say about the deputy white house counsel. >> thanks very much. >> what she was alluding to backs up what dershowitz's argument was, that the president can do, as long as the president thinks what he's doing is in the public interest and that's him getting reelected, he can do virtually anything. i don't want to misquote dershowitz so let's play what he said. >> every public official that i can believes that his election is in the public interest. and mostly you're right. your election is in the public interest. and if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the

public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. >> does that argument make sense to you? >> no. >> do you know what was also in the public interest? wiretapping the democratic national committee as richard nixon did. do you know what the president could also say was in the public interests? lying about an affair that could have harmed the democratic party. obviously, president clinton wasn't running for re-election if 2000 but it would have been embarrassing for the democratic party and he could have made the argument that it is in the interests for me as leader of the nation. >> it makes donald trump the state. >> it is a march to monarchy. it is literally behavior that would allow the president to say that anything, any kind of misconduct he engages in, it is

good for the country because i am the state. >> schiff made that argument. >> i think when it was said to medvedev, lay off me for a while and i'll have a better negotiating position after the election and he said i'll communicate that to mr. putin, the sail thing applies. that's why dershowitz is wrong about trump on this. barack obama was wrong on that as well. i think the obama administration was wrong to open an investigation on their political rival. i disagree with dershowitz on that. you can't say that your own election is the public interest. that is not, that is a campaign thing. there has to be a separation of that. i think, i do think, if i was to go in there and tell him how she phrase this argument, it would be, we have to be very careful when people do acts on behalf of the government that are also

politically advantageous for them. every leader does that. every leader carries out a foreign policy pact the public likes. so where was that a political decision, a motive to get reelected? that's a fair argument. >> i found it interesting that nobody can anxious when the president decided which, allegedly something that was in the national interests and is an actual policy decision which is to hold off aid to ukraine voted by congress. you would think there is an historical record. it was known on june 5, a decision was made. we have no idea. >> that would be information you would want. that would be the climbed of information you could get if you had witnesses. the republicans aren't really interested in getting more information. i want to say quickly, barack obama didn't do anything wrong in that situation. he was just negotiating foreign policy. to try to compare that, where he has again trying to get another country to do his dirty work so

he can get reelected and attack a political rival is not the same thing. donald trump never did that. back off, russia and don't mess with me. >> they actually used that example. let's play that. >> president obama on an open mic said hey, medvedev, i know you don't want me to send this military money to ukraine because they're fighting and can i go your people. i want you to do me a favor though. i want you to do an investigation of mitt romney. and i want to you announce you found dirt on mitt romney. and if you're willing to do that, quid pro quo, i won't give ukraine the money they need to fight you on the front line. do any of us have any question

that barack obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct? >> i think that's a great argument. he's not saying get dirt on my rival. he's saying lay off me in the election. don't let me look bad with the american people until selection over. >> he's negotiating -- >> that's a rabbit hole that is very dangerous. >> nobody, nobody in this country was voting for barack obama or not voting for barack obama based on russia policy. that didn't happen. what he was doing is basically saying, i will have more flexibility after the electionful that is a totally normal thing for a president to say. it is not the same as saying, do this for me or i will not give you aid. it's not the same thing. that's not what biden did. this is crazy making thing. we've had to listen to this all day long. over and over, claiming that biden basically put pressure on the ukrainians to try to get them to not investigate a company that has, it was the

position of the united states, it was the position of every international entity involved. >> it does make it sound fast biden is the only one pushing for this thing. >> the europeans were pushing for it. >> in particular dershowitz saying anything the president does is in the public interests. >> i think we are watching in real-time a cover-up by the republicans in the senate. enabling the president to cover up his abuse of power. first of all, let's go to the phrase abuse of power which professor dershowitz says is not, it has never been grounds for impeachment. it is article two of the nixon impeachment. am i right? abuse of power. but more than that, we now have in bolton for the first time, let's look at him being perhaps the equivalent of john dean. meaning he was in the oval office. we now have the ability to find out the truth and to have a real

trial. all along the republicans have been telling, you we don't have any witnesses. here we have the ultimate witness who can give us the information we need. and one of the reasons the president is so frightened of john bolton, maybe john bolton knows about other instances, as did john dean, but we need to hear from him. but this is a cover-up. >> tim, the nixon library, i'm wondering at the trump library, will there be any documents some there seems to be no his, toal record to look book twhong things actually happened. >> i'm thinking about what the museum will be for this trial. i wanted to say something with the letter that we found out about today from the white house. the letter was signed by the senior director of the directorate. signed by he willen knight. i know ellen knight. she worked for me.

she worked, she was supervised by my supervisor. she worked on the nixon tapes. she did a brilliant job. she is committed to openness and transparency. after she worked for the nixon library, she went to an entity created by congress called the public information declassification board. which is dedicated to try on on widening access to information. so she's involved in this narrative. she's someone who is committed. >> blumenthal said he's worried. >> with duel respect, i heard that question today and it was way too vague. the determination of whether something is top secret or secret can be made by the drektorate but bls at this senior directors. the question that has to be asked is whether the office of general counsel, played any role

whatsoever in the determination and the timetable of review. according to the letter, mr. cooper who is bolton's attorney, should be getting a timetable very shortly. the key for the senate to ask, when is the timetable for review to come to the lawyers? >> we'll have a lot more on this and what we heard from both house managers and the president's defense team. also the latest on had whether we'll hear from witnesses. what's for dinner? (fake gagging noises) ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. 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.

says they can save you dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. cheerio! esurance is built to save you dollars. and when they save dollars, you save dollars. so get a quote. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. when insurance is affordable, i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan.

♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪ fred would do anything for his daughter! even being the back half of a unicorn. fortunately, the front half washed his shirt with gain. ahhhhhhh. the irresistible scent of gain.

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.

before the break, we get a look inside the process by which john bolton manuscript will be seen. with the concerns of a new cover-up being voice bid carl bernstein and others, just in

the time we have, i want to run through for everybody. do you think witnesses will happen? >> i don't think they'll happen and i think shortly there after, they'll be able to vote for acquittal. >> so you think it could be done friday. >> i don't know had a the procedural votes are. as soon as you don't have witnesses, this thing is over. and i think both parties will say get me out of here. >> from the beginning, i think it's been unlikely they would get witnesses. with the john bolton news, it looked like maybe possibly there would be but it seems like the republicans don't have the am tight to see this through and they don't have the interest. >> basically, based on what we heard today, it sounded like collins, murkkowski, might be even amenable to it but it wasn't clear if they were asking questions for the purpose of senatorial dialogue or not. i doesn't look line you're going to get the four that would be

needed to move there. >> what do you think the impact is? >> i think the impact is going to be, republicans will have to live with this for a very long time. there is ability even now to have a nonpart sandal trial. by admitting witnesses, let's see what they say. and then perhaps given the explosive nature of what bolton and others, the documents might show, some of these republicans might become offended at the president's behavior and there might be some votes for conviction. not going to convict him all together but it is possible to have a nonpartisan trial if mitch mcconnell and the republicans stop covering up for the president. >> would documents that are now not being sent over to congress, will they ever see the light of day? >> yes. this is one reason why this, they will but this is one reason it has to be done so carefully.

this is why subpoenas are important. you have to protect the documents. and there is a, the house should consider a special law similar to the nixon law even though it won't fast senate. one more thing. i'm not sure this is done. i think it is such a problem for the swing senators. >> they can say it's out there. read it. >> it's not out there. the point is, it is a paraphrase of a paraphrase. >> that's the argument they're using. >> normally, the classification is done by this office as part of the national security council, correct? >> yes. >> is outside pressure, are they -- first of all, very quick will, just because they said there's top secret stuff doesn't mean it is top secret stuff about ukraine. there is a lot of stuff that falls below that level. sure, he might have talked about

turkey, or the kurds for goodness sake and that is top secret. we don't know yet. a document will be going to bolton's lawyers which will stipulate what he has to do and i bet you he can do that and still have material that would be useful. >> he also knows so much about classified information. it surprises me that he could put snuff there. thank you. my interview with lev parnas, he and his attorneys were wandering around on capitol hill trying to get attention. we'll talk to them about what they were doing. the thoughts about republicans trying on get witnesses and more just ahead. 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.

lev parnas was in washington for the impeachment trial. the former associate of rudy giuliani had to be permission to be there from the prosecutors. he got tickets from the office of senator chuck schumer with you his court ordered ankle bracelet, the monitor he wears, prevented him entry to the room where the testimony was being given. leg trick devices are prohibited. still, he said he wanted to be

in washington. i spoke to him and his attorney about why. and another recording they said they have of the president in their possession. >> i know you had to get special permission from a judge to to go washington to try on attend the trial. why did you want to be there? >> well, i think it's important that the truth gets out. witnesses get called. and i thought it would just put a little extra pressure on some of the senators if they see me there, knowing that i'm one of the crucial witnesses to this whole thing. >> did you speak to any republican senators? did you happen to run into any in and if you didn't, what would you say to republican senators? >> i didn't get a chance to speak to any of the republican senators. i didn't get a chance to bump into them. i was not able to go into the actual senate. but i was hoping to, if i would bump into them, especially some

of them i've known over the years, i would tell them on vote with their conscience. >> have you donated money toist in senators who are deliberating on this? >> absolutely. one of the senators is rick scott. he was our home town senator. he was running for senate in florida. and through some of the super pacs i know we've been on the campaign trail with senator braun. me and rudy giuliani went to visit him in indiana when he was running for office. who else? senator lindsey graham, i haven't had any contact with him. i have a lot of information with him in his dealings. it was surreal to watch lindsey graham up there.

he's there talking about all this stuff. that this is a sham. this should go away. he was in the loop just like everybody else. he was in the relationship with rudolph giuliani. he was aware of what was going on, going back toot least 2018 maybe even earlier. and then if you recall, he was supposed to know the one that rudy giuliani was supposed to bring viktor shokin to when the visa got denied. and i think even if we checked the records, involved getting the requests for the visas somehow. >> so you're saying senator graham, lindsey graham knew about you and mr. giuliani's efforts in ukraine? >> absolutely. just like i said. first of all, senator graham was involved before even i got involved with mayor giuliani. so he had to have been in the

loop and he had to know what was going on. i was with giuliani every day. that was what was happening. >> you firmly believe that lindsey graham knew that you and giuliani, or at least giuliani waurgs undertaking this effort to dig up dirt on the bidens in ukraine ukraine. >> only a percent. rudied me that he spoke to lindsey graham. i don't know how deeply involved. i didn't speak to lindsey graham. i don't have text messages with him. we didn't interact. i can only speak from what rudy told me. >> as of now, we don't know if there are enough votes to call in this trial. do you have more evidence that could you release or will release or turn over to investigators that might change the calculus at all? >> we turned over more materials

recently. there was another round of production. there is a little less than 40-minute recording of the president at mar-a-lago with pete sessions and with lev. i'm not sure what the house might make public. we might make another recording public. to the extent we have any other information that might come in. our intent is always to comply. >> you're saying are that you turned over to investigators? >> there's mar-a-lago that we turned over. and this is one of the recordings. the one that was publicized last week was the dinner recording of april 30th, 2018 so much yes, there is another recording out there. i think the date of that is about april 20, 2018. >> i assume if there was

something significant on that recording, you would have already made it republican. >> that's correct. just in response, there are other recordings. another recording we might release. i don't know if the intel committee will make it to the intel committee that has not yet been made public. i'm not sure whether those will be incorporated into the record or not. >> do you have any recordings of giuliani? >> there's several recordings, i just haven't gone through yet, you know. i've been going through a lot of the stuff right now that i've just been finding, but -- >> are those things you turned over to investigators? >> yes. >> do you think it's -- is there anything of significance of giuliani? >> i mean, i don't know what you mean significance. it was everyday conversations of things, just like text messages, same thing we have voicemails and butt dials.

when you say recordings, i've never recorded anybody. i want to make it very clear. i've never recorded the president. these recordings were done by my partner igor fruman. they were sent to me and i found them on my icloud account when i was searching through it. i don't have any recordings of personally me. >> right. >> i do have text messages. i have butt dials, plenty of butt dials -- when i say recordings that rudy sent me. he has several different conversations on there when he's not realizing that he butt dialed me for one minute. >> he's a big butt dialer, it seems. >> yeah. you could say that again. >> but would you -- is it fair to say that you believe the most significant material is material you have already publicly discussed or released? >> i think that's fair to say,

anderson. >> yeah. >> i think it's fair to say. and the big question is really, can we somehow manage to have a fair trial where the evidence comes out, it's heard by both sides, witnesses are cross-examined under oath about that evidence and then a vote is taken? >> lev parnas, joseph bondi, thank you very much. >> thank you, anderson. >> we'll be right back.

my money should work as hard as i do. so i use my freedom unlimited card to buy all the latest tech stuff. today, i'm earning on a charger. so, just the charger then? ummm... ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ yeah! (sarcastically) fantastic. earn 1.5% cash back on everything you buy with freedom unlimited. chase. make more of what's yours. i'm finding it hard to stay on a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free woory free.... boom! boom! get free business day shipping... ...at office depot, officemax and officedepot.com

when people ask me what makes verizon 5g different, 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.

choose boldly. feria haircolor by l'oreal. pure dyes, with triple highlights. multi-faceted, shimmering color- with multiple tones in every strand. live in color. live in feria. by l'oreal. available at walmart. 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. go to coolsculpting.com for a chance to win $25,000.

coolsculpting, take yourself further. or more on car insurance.s could save you fifteen percent everybody knows that. well, did you know pinocchio was a bad motivational speaker? i look around this room and i see nothing but untapped potential. you have potential. you have-oh boy. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. our impeachment trial coverage continues. want to turn things over to "cnn newsroom." hello and welcome to our viewers joining us here in the united states and all around the world. you're watching "cnn newsroom." i'm john vause. just ahead, the battle over

bolton. will the former newt adviser testify in a senate impeachment trial? will four republicans vote with democrats? will mitch mcconnell hold his caucus? the confirmed number of cases of the wuhan virus continue to surge, china is left struggling to contain this outbreak. we are live in beijing this hour. also ahead -- ♪ >> a song and a tearful good-bye as european lawmakers bid adoie to britain. today senators sat in silence and listened to arguments for and against removing the president from office. now, the senators are asking the

questions and most seem to be trying to poke holes in the other side's argument. democrats want to subpoena former national security adviser john bolton, who reportedly wrote in an upcoming book donald trump told him directly that ukraine would not receive military aid until ukraine's president announced an investigation into joe biden. republicans say they'll call biden's son hunter as a witness and ask him about his time on a board of a corrupt ukraine energy company. >> counsel has said the greatest invention in the history of jurisprudence for ascertaining the truth has been the vehicle of cross-examination. let's call john bolton, mick mulvaney, other witnesses and present the truth to the american people. >> if there are going to be witnesses then the president would have to, in order for they said fair trial, fair adjudication, the president would have to have his

opportunity to call his witnesses and there would be depositions and this would drag on for months. >> another key moment came when trump lawyer and harvard law school professor alan dershowitz offered a novel defense of the president's alleged quid pro quo with ukraine. >> if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. >> to say you can't hold a president accountable in an election year where they're trying to cheat in that election then you are giving them carte blanche. so all quid pro quos are not the same. some are legitimate and some are corrupt, and you don't need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which. >> another day of back and forth in the u.s. senate will begin around 1:00 p.m. washington time. for more, cnn's phil mattingly reports now from the u.s. capitol. >> reporter: it was a long day,

but it was one that actually had and served a very real purpose for senators on both sides of the aisle, for house managers and the president's lawyers, an opportunity, the first opportunity for the senators themselves to ask questions of both sides. now, the chief justice, john roberts, was the one actually asking the questions, but senators from both sides rotating back and forth from republican to democrat throughout the course of wednesday asked the questions that have been driving their thought process throughout this process, and one of the most interesting by far out of dozens upon dozens of questions was a question from senators susan collins and lisa murkowski, two moderate republicans who have made it clear they're considering voting with democrats yes to receive witnesses and documents. they ask the president's counsel if whether or not there was any indication the president had been interested in specific issues in ukraine prior to vice president joe biden announcing his bid for the presidency. take a listen. >> i think it's important at the outset to frame the answer by