in favor of impeachment. that's why his remarks are so much more powerful. they're called admissions against interest. and for somebody to say oh, i cited bowie and he's taking the opposite side, i said that on the floor of the senate. that makes his admissions even more compelling. he wrote a strong article, he repeated it in the "new york times." you wouldn't know that watching your shows and other shows that he admitted that and made admission about abuse of powerful which was use to feel my argument. you always cite people who agree with you. please go back and read his articles. he is a coward because he should have stuck by his guns. he's an assistant professor. there's probably a lot of pressure on him to make sure he's never used in any way to help a position that the dominant members don't agree with. shame on him. >> professor dershowitz, he's a

distinguished scholar. let's leave it at that. let's continue this conversation -- >> he didn't behave as a distinguished scholar. >> it's inappropriate to two after him -- >> he went after he. he called me a joke. why can't i respond. >> and you did respond. >> you didn't stop him when he called me a joke. >> i didn't interview him. i'm just interviewing you. we have to leave it on that note. alan dershowitz, we will continue this conversation down the road. thanks so much for joining us. erin burnett is going to pick up our special coverage. >> and good evening. i'm erin burnett. out front tonight we are moments away from the senators going back into the chamber with the chief justice. these are the final few hours. this is it senators will have to question both trump's legal team and the house managers. as democrats continue to push

for witnesses ahead of the key vote tomorrow, the lead democratic house manager at this moment, adam schiff has a new proposal. he says that if you get witnesses, if you're going vote with him there, they'll get them deposed in a week and they believe that it will go very quickly to alleviate concerns which have been put out there that once you have witnesses, all time is thrown out of the window and a significant amount of time passes by. he's saying that's not the case. one surprise after another. you just saw alan dershowitz trying to explain away what he said yesterday about an incredibly expansive view of executive power. phil mattingly is outfront live on capitol hill. what do you hear about the proposal chairman schiff is putting out. does this break through to people that bought into if you get witnesses this becomes a prolonged process. >> reporter: i want to walk you through what just occurred on the senate floor which could be a very important moment. it included chairman schiff's

proposal of trying to limit to one week potentialens withes that would be subpoenaed. what we saw shortly before the break is lamar ax lander, one of basically two republicans at this point who haven't made up their mind on where they sat. alexander has sat silently throughout the course of the last day and a half as these questions have moved through. he proceeded to ask his first question. now, we all perked up, everybody essentially froze when senator alexander asked that question because we've been waiting for any sign on which way he might be leaning. the question was this: can you compare to the house managers the bipartisanship the nixon spreedings, clinton impeachment proceedings, and current spreeding. and he asked that with steve daines of upon had mon and ted cruz of texas. one of the house managers involved in the nixon proceedings, was involved in the clinton proceedings came and made the case for why she believed at some point based on evidence she had seen this could

become bipartisan even if it hadn't yet. i'm told it's a csignificant concern for lamar alexander. the proposal came out and mitch mcconnell following up with a question as well. everybody is trying to get a sense of where lamar alexander was. and that exchange could be very important as we wait for the undecided senators to make up their mind. >> thank you very much. as we get more, you hear more of these few minutes we have before the break ends and the senators go back into the chamber. we'll go back to phil. i want to go to ron wyden of oregon. he's been in the senate trial all afternoon. what did you make of that moment of senator alexander's question and where he stands. obviously when it comes to your push as democrat for witnesses, lamar alexander is central. >> he certainly is. and erin, my take is there are a number of republican senators that are wrestling with this question of how you can go

forward with a fair trial without having witnesses who can make first-hand accounts. i also think that what adam schiff was trying to do was to be conciliatory. there are a lot of ways, you know, to get there. you know, you have a vote on a witness, justice signs off on a subpoena. you can be off to the races. so, there are a lot of senators who i think are going to be up late tonight really thinking through a bit of history because years from now, people, i believe, are going to say did he have a fair trial. that's what i got in home in places donald trump won, in places hillary clinton won. >> so, the witness vote is coming. that's what it is about right now. >> correct. >> should there be a 50/50 tie, your colleagues senator richard blumenthal says chief justice roberts should break the tie, and chris murphy says he should not break the tie. where do you stand? >> my sense is -- and i have

tried to study john roberts, the chief justice, for a number of years. my sense is because he feels so strongly about not affecting political judgments, my take is he would be very reluctant to break a tie, and i base that on having studied him for a number of years. >> so, you're going with a will not, not should not? >> and it is more a watch his style. you see his reluctance to get immersed in politics, to be the political decision maker. that's what's coloring my judgment. >> you know, rand paul wrote a question today, senator paul. and in that question, as you know, senator, he named the whistleblower. now, chief justice roberts refused to read that. he has read questions which describes things about the whistleblower. he refused to read a question in which that name appeared. so, rand paul then went back and

read his question aloud to the reporters in the halls of the senate. we are not reporting that name. should rand paul face consequences? >> i feel it's critical to protect whistleblowers, and i will tell you, erin, on the basis of what has happened over the last couple of months, whistleblowers are certainly less likely to come forward. the chief justice made a ruling. i think that disposes it. >> today nancy pelosi said president trump wouldn't be acquitted if the senate trial does not include witnesses. at the heart of it can't be a meaningful vote if it didn't include the information. if the senate votes to acquit, will you accept that result as an acquittal? >> my concern is -- and we're still in a period where things are very fluid -- that i'm going to spend all my time, every bit

of time, trying to approach a republican and talk about the historical impact of this. this is going to set a precedent. this is going to set a precedent that a lot of senators are going to have to face for years to come. and i'm going to focus on trying to get the republican support for key witnesses, witnesses with first-hand knowledge. >> all right. thank you very much, senator. a appreciate your time. and laura, i want to go right to you. we're going to be joined in a few moments by a member of the president's defense team to talk about this. but congressman schiff is saying it doesn't mean weeks or months. we're going to depose any people -- he made it clear it was open ended -- within a week and they could do that. they could do that behind closed doors. and it's going to move very quickly. is that true? do you think that could all happen? >> i think they are following the precedent set in the clinton impeachment trial. but the problem is the deciding of who the witnesses will be and the streamlining of the

questions and what are the most important parts, it is difficult to assume you could get comprehensive and long term depositions from any one particular witness given the gravity of the issues. however, you could do so with the same thing. i think in many ways schiff was saying this because he wanted to say can you at least allow for there to be some form of a fair trial in process? could you at least allow for what we've done before, much less than a matter of how quickly you could do it. you could get that at the end of the day. you could do two days, three days, a short time period. but i think his argument was more so political than it was about the amount of time. >> trying to get them on board. now, this point, there was a moment the chief justice, it's this odd thing, literally these formal index cards. the questions are written on them and the senator stands up and says i have a question for the house managers or the trump team and chief justice roberts reads it. on this issue we're talking about a possible tie and will chief justice roberts see it as his job to step in and break the

tie? he appeared to show emotion. this was a question from senator warren and she asked how the trial is going to affect americans' view of the entire government system and the supreme court. here's the chief justice. >> at a time when large majorities of americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the supreme court, and the constitution? >> senator, i would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the chief justice. i think the chief justice has presided admirably. >> there was that extra moment when he was done reading that question that i thought was just

significant. hard to tell. he doesn't let anything show on his face. but it seemed meaningful to him. >> i would think that it would. and in some ways he is being used as a vehicle because he has no choice but to read the words. so, it made for that moment. so i thought it was right for what adam schiff did to bolster him in a certain sense because i don't think that's playing fair for him to be put into that situation. and we're talking about really grave questions that he's about to maybe face like do i do something as significant as breaking ai 50/50 tie. that's the enormity of the situation. so, to use him in that way i thought didn't play well. and the real question is like now what will his role otherwise be because we shouldn't put him into that kind of a position. >> it is such an important moment he's going to have if that happens. but just his role on this is significant. scott, he also had to read that question from lamar alexander that phil mattingly was talking about where everyone's trying to read into what will lamar

alexander do. he's that crucial person. he could be the person that causes a tie. what did you read into that question that he submitted along with other senators including ted cruz? >> well, look, i think that lamar alexander is obviously still trying to make up his mind about what he wants to do. but i think he's also one of the most thoughtful and most respected e members of the senate. so, i thought -- i trust lamar alexander -- we know whatever he does here, i think he's going to go down in history as one of the greatest senators from tennessee and one of the greatest republican senator of all time. i trust his judgment. on the question from elizabeth warren, i thought that was ridiculous to pressure the chief justice of the united states with that political question. that was a question written by someone running for president who doesn't have any other way except to be rather vicious in the way she was raising the specter of his illegitimacy. i agree with the way schiff answered it. i thought he handled it perfectly. i thought that question was out

of bounds. >> joe. >> i agree. i think it put him in a very tough position, and it didn't do the democrats any favors by putting him in that position. he's going to make up his mind based on what he thinks. i do think there was a pretty significant uptick in the hostility today between the two sides. i think they're tired of each other. and particularly on the -- from white house counsel cipollone who seemed to be very hair triggered today going after schiff very personally. and i think the democrats were smart to let zoe lofgren answer those questions. you know, i think the democrats have done a very good job here of making the case. the republicans have done a very good job of distraction. and the president has gotten what he wants which is he's gotten joe biden smeared on the floor of the senate. so, whatever happens here, everybody got something.

>> we are now just a few minutes away from them returning. stay with me. we're going to hear from president trump's team as we await the senate to return from a dinner break. one of the impeachment toirns will be out front next. is he preparing for witnesses? when you shop with wayfair, you spend less and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one.

for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com trump:global warming. th the a lot of it's a hoax." vo: mike bloomberg knows the science and understands the challenge. as president, a plan for 80% clean energy by 2028. mike will get it done. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

a former army medic, made of the we maflexibility to handle members like kate. whatever monday has in store and tackle four things at once. so when her car got hit, she didn't worry. she simply filed a claim on her usaa app and said... i got this. usaa insurance is made the way kate needs it - easy. she can even pick her payment plan so it's easy on her budget and her life. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa ♪ the amount of student loan debt i have i'm embarrassed to even say i felt like i was going to spend my whole adult life paying this off thanks to sofi, i can see the light at the end of the tunnel as of 12pm today, i am debt free ♪

we have no debt, we don't owe anybody anything, and it's fantastic ♪ ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia. it's timcan it helpltimate. sleep nukeep me asleep?he sleep number 360 smart bed. absolutely, it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus 0% interest for 24 months on all smart beds. only for a limited time breaking news. we are moments away from the impeachment trial starting back up and we are just learning that two key senators to watch lamar alexander and lisa murkowski are

meeting right now. this is the big question, right? votes for witnesses or not? this is the final moments. out front now one of the president's impeachment attorneys robert ray. i appreciate you're taking the time to be with me. >> nice to be with you. >> senator murkowski and alexander are meeting. this is significant. if one votes for witnesses and the other doesn't, you could end up in a tie. they know that and they're meeting. this is i would imagine you view as significant as well. >> of course. this is -- trials are unpredictable things. this is where we have landed. this is something for the senate as a body to make a determination about, and it's going to come down to some close votes. so, they are very much well aware, i am sure, of the significance of their actions and also the difficulty that would be presented by putting the chief justice in a position to have to consider the question. >> you're saying they want to vote together? >> look, i -- during a trial, i have to be very careful.

i am not in any way trying to influence or impact their decision. that's a call that they have to make. all i'm suggesting to you is the question you asked, isn't this significant. you're darn right, it's significant for the country. >> jay sekulow began the president's defense. we saw it of course with an impassioned argument on this very issue. i want to play a key moment. here's jay sekulow. >> sure. >> not a single witness testified that the president himself said there was any connection between any investigation and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else. >> which was a grim situation until it wasn't, until john bolton came forward and said to use sekulow's forwards, the president himself said there was a connection between investigation and security assistance. can you explain that hypocrisy. why sekulow and your whole team wouldn't say great, let's hear from the guy? >> it's not hypocrisy because the most that bolton can say

based upon what has been reported is this is what the president wanted. that's not sufficient of a link to get into the question of whether or not there actually is evidence that would be sufficient to sustain an impeachment charge which is the one that should have been brought if the house managers had the evidence to sustain it of a corrupt -- >> but he's saying no one said the president said this, and bolton is saying the president did. just on the fact -- just on the basis of that simple reality, how is that not significant? >> i don't think that's a news flash. i think everyone understood for quite some time going back to the mick mulvaney press conference about what it is that the president wanted to see happen. and he said as much. so, i don't see how that really is news. >> it is to your fellow lawyers. they don't -- the whole time they've said there was no connection between the investigation and security assistance. >> well, i guess it depends on what kind of connection we're talking about here. let's be very careful about the

kind of connection that would have to be sustained. i addressed this when i had my remarks to the senate. it would have to be a conversation between the president and president zelensky along the lines of you're not getting foreign assistance unless i get the investigation i want. >> rj was the messenger of that. >> i understand that but the principle witness with regard to this. the president denies it and adam schiff claims that's false. it's still evidence and deny -- >> he hasn't said it under oath. >> he's denied the existence of a quid pro quo. he did it contemporarys you to the events while he was having conversation with ambassador sondland and ron johnson. that's not an insignificant thing. the ukrainian officials have continuously from president zelensky that any pressure was with regard to that. and the aid got released -- >> three days after the president found out there was

investigation into the aid. zelensky gets 90% of his military aid from the united states of america. so of course he's going to say there's no pressure even if there's pressure. it's hard to use those -- >> i don't think evidence really is of the sort of of course he was going to say that. the fact is what the facts are. and i think the most significant of which is the administration through omb and mick mulvaney all recognize that the aid was going to be only temporarily withheld. it was going to be released prior to the end of the fiscal year, and they knew they didn't have authority to extend it beyond that any further. and that's in fact -- >> that's why there was so much urgency on getting investigation. >> i'm not sure -- >> the investigation that everyone kept saying the president of the united states wants that we heard witness after witness after witness talk about in the house. >> i guess my response to you is this: there's nothing improper about the president withholding aid in order to see what the ukrainians do. that's all that was done here. that's a legitimate action for the president to take and that is the action he did take. there isn't any evidence to

suggest anything beyond that to the contrary. >> one of your colleagues on president trump's defense team patrick philbin said something surprising to anyone following this. let me play this a few moments ago. here he is. >> i just want to make sure that there was no conduct or foreign policy being carried on here by a private person. ambassador volker was clear that he understood mr. giuliani just to be a source of information for the president. and someone who knew about ukraine and someone who spoke to the president. >> that answer was surprising because again here's what we heard from witness after witness about it. >> the official foreign policy of the united states was undercut by the regular efforts led by mr. giuliani. >> i became aware that m mr. giuliani, a private lawyer was taking a direct role in

ukrainian policy. >> secretary perly, ambassador volker, and i worked with mr. giuliani on ukraine matters at the express direction of the president of the united states. >> patrick philbin knows all that, why would he say there's no conduct of foreign policy being carried on. >> because we have private policy that does that. i think the question if we can keep our eye on the ball here is issues related to what was done asking for and making a request for the ukrainians to look into matters involving corruption including the bidens and burisma. i mean, let's -- if we can just sort of focus on that, that's the real question here. i have said it would have been better to have done that through the usual -- >> you did say that. >> -- appropriate government channels and one of the reasons you do that is because your political motives are not subject to question when everybody understands they're being run through the appropriate processes of the federal government, that's not

to say that the president doesn't is are the authority to do it outside of those channels but there are consequences to that and that's why we find ourselves. >> bob, the senate is expected to return from their dinner break at any moment. we are learning two senators who are crucial to deciding whether the senate will hear witnesses were in a closed door meeting. what does that mean? hi! we're glad you came in, what's on your mind? can you help keep these guys protected online? easy, connect to the xfi gateway. what about internet speeds that keep up with my gaming? let's hook you up with the fastest internet from xfinity. what about wireless data options for the family? of course, you can customize and save. can you save me from this conversation? that we can't do, but come in and see what we can do. we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome.

ask. shop. discover. at your local xfinity store today. [happy ♪irthday music] ♪ don't get mad, put those years to work with e*trade. it would've saved me a lotspen of money that i spent.

my family has bad teeth. when you're not able to smile you become closed off. the meaning of a smile to me is the beginning of a conversation. the best advice i can give anyone... ...is don't wait. at aspen dental, we're all about yes. like yes to free exam and x-rays for new patients without insurance. yes to flexible hours and payment options. and yes, you'll start smiling more too. don't wait, book at aspendental.com or call today. a general dentistry office. ior anything i want to buy isk going to be on rakuten.

rakuten is easy to use, free to sign up and it's in over 3,000 stores. i buy a lot of makeup. shampoo, conditioner. books, food. travel. shoes. stuff for my backyard. anything from clothes to electronics. workout gear. i even recently got cash back on domain hosting. you can buy tires. to me, rakuten is a great way to get cash back on anything you buy. rack it up with rakuten, sign up today to get cash back on everything you buy.

breaking news as we await the senators returning from their break, you know we have been telling you about lamar alexander submitted a question today. he says he is going to make his announcement tonight on witnesses. i want to go to manu raju on capitol hill. manu, he knows the significance of this. he just had a closed door meeting with lisa murkowski. but him making this decision tonight and announcing it is extremely significant. >> yeah, he told me just moments ago that he will announce his decision tonight. of course, if he decides to come out against witnesses and documents, that should be enough to ensure that there will be no witnesses and documents in this senate trial and president trump's trial could be ended

quickly, potentially as soon as tomorrow night. after this closed door meeting with lisa murkowski, i asked are you going to make a decision. he said i'm going to make my decision after the last question tonight. i said are you going to announce your decision. he said yes. i said are you coordinating your decision with lisa murkowski. he said we were just talking. we talk about what we're doing. they're notochord nating or acting independently. they're clearly checking in on this. they are the two key senators we are not clear where they'll come down. we expect susan collins of maine and mitt romney to vote for the motion that would allow for more vote for subpoenas and documents. but we don't know where lisa murkowski is yet. he's leaning -- she's curious about talking to witnesses, but she's mum about whether to move forward. alexander has bipartisan

relationships so his decision to make this announcement decisive is going to come tonight. >> can you imagine them splitting? let's just to play this out for people. if lamar alexander votes for witnesses and murkowski votes against witnesses, then you end up with a tie and a tie is a situation no one wants to be in. republicans don't want that, democrats want that, john roberts doesn't want that, no one wants that. would you see them splitting on this issue? >> according to what lamar alexander told me they are acting independently but there is a push. no senator wants to be the decisive vote. that's easier for republicans to message so republicans can't be blamed to be the decisive vote to move against witnesses and also raising the question of whether the chief justice will force that tiebreaking vote. so, that's why members don't want to go that route. we'll have to see what they decide. and of course tonight could be a

decisive night about the preside president's impeachment trial, whether it will end tomorrow night or go on for some time. >> murkowski heading back in there now. the majority leader is back. we're waiting for the gavel in. this is a huge development though, it's safe to say. lamar alexander said he will announce. i imagine he's going to wait until the questions and answers are done. what do you read into that? >> yeah, he's it, right? if he says he's not going to do it, then if just three others do it, then it leaves it at 50/50. if he is going to do it, i assume that makes it more likely that murkowski is going to do it. really big announcement tonight. and republicans are warning this could drag this out for an indefinite period of time. and that's something that obviously the senate leadership has been warning against heavily. >> they have been put i want to make that point, ryan, adam schiff is saying that's not so. they'll get depositions. they'll do the depositions of witnesses within a week. maybe they would do a deal where you're just going to have bolton for hunter biden and that's it

and everybody's going to get a little bit of what they want and thefr done and do that in a week. is that possible? is. >> seems possible. they could do the depositions and get written statements, one written statement from bolton and the other side gets their statements. there's compromise there. so, the idea that somebody would make a decision tonight before seeing what that compromise might be suggests to me in a certain sense that maybe their mind is already made up in a different direction because otherwise you might see movement in that space. >> all right. all of you stay with me. we're going to take a brief break. they're starting to file in. mcconnell is in the room. murkowski is in the room. we're following the breaking news. lamar alexander will be announcing tonight he tells manu r . any comments doug?

yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

(whistling) this one's for you. the heroes who won't let your disease hold you back. you inspired us to make your humira experience even better with humira citrate-free. it has the same effectiveness you know and trust, but we removed the citrate buffers, there's less liquid, and a thinner needle, with less pain immediately following injection. if you haven't yet, talk to your doctor about humira citrate-free. and you can use your co-pay card to pay as little as $5 a month.

humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask your doctor about humira citrate-free. the same humira you trust senator mcconnell is gaveling back in for the final part of the question and answer session. let's listen in. >> -- on behalf of myself, senators mcconnell, hoeven, and wicker. >> thank you.

>> the question from senator grassley and the other senators is addressed to counsel for the president. during president clinton's impeachment trial, he argued that, quote, no civil officer, no president, no judge, no cabinet member has ever been impeached by so narrow a margin and that the closeness and partisan division of the vote reflected the constitutionally dubious nature of the charges against him, end quote. president trump has raised similar concerns during these proceedings and argues that the lack of bipartisan consensus highlights the partisan nature of the charges. are the president's concerns well founded? >> mr. chief justice, senators, thank you for that question. i think the concerns are very well founded. i think that they are concerns

that echo back to our founding when alexander hamilton warned in federal list number 65 precisely against partisan impeachments. a partisan impeachment is one of the greatest dangers that the framers saw in the impeachment power. and in federalist 65, hamilton said that impeachments could become persecution by intemperate or designing majority in the house of representatives. and that is what we have in this case. in fact, there was bipartisan opposition to the articles of impeachment here in the house. so, this is one of the -- it is the most divisive sort of an impeachment could be brought here. and it reflects very poorly on the process that was run in the house which did not have bipartisan support and the charges that were ultimately

adopted in the house because it is a purely partisan impeachment. and i think that that's important to bear in mind also that the house managers themselves and some of the members of this chamber at the time of the clinton impeachment warned very eloquently against partisan impeachments. they recognized they partisan impeachment would not be valid, that it would do grave damage to our political community, to our policy, to our country to create deep divisions that would last for years. and in the clinton impeachment they made those warnings when it was not even arising in the context of an election year. now we have a partisan impeachment as we pointed out when there's an election only nine months away. and it will be perceived and is perceived by many in the country as simply an attempt to interfere with the election and to prevent the voters from having their choice of who they want to be president for the next four years.

and the house managers have said we can't allow the voters to decide because we can't be sure it will be a fair election. that can't be the way we approach democracy in the united states. we have to respect the ability of the voters to take in information because all the information is out now. they've had plenty of opportunity with the process that they ran in the house to make all the information public that they want and to be able to make their accusations against the president. we think they've been disproved and the voters should be able to decide. and the most important thing, the greatest danger from this partisan impeachment i believe is the one that minority leader schumer warned about back in 1998 which is that once we start down the road of purely partisan impeachments, once we start to normalize that process and make it all right to have a purely

partisan impeachment, especially in an election year, then we just turn impeachment into a partisan political tool, and it'll be used again and again and again and more frequently and more frequently. and that's not a process. that is not a future for the future that this chamber should accept. instead, this chamber should put an end to the growing pattern towards partisan impeachments in this country, put an end to that practice and definitively make clear that purely partisan impeachment not based on adequate charges, not based on charges that meet the constitutional standard will not get consideration in this chamber and will be rejected. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice. >> yes, senator from maryland. >> mr. chief justice, on behalf of myself and senator klobuchar, i send a question to the desk directed to both parties.

>> thank you. the question from senator van hollen is to both parties. the president's counsel will go first. in his response to an earlier question this evening, mr. sekulow cited individuals like the bidens as being, quote, not irrelevant to our case, end quote. are you opposed to having the chief justice make the initial determinations regarding the relevance of documents and witnesses, particularly as the senate could disagree with the chief justice's ruling by a

majority vote? the president's counsel is first. >> mr. chief justice, again, to make our position clear, we think constitutionally that would not be the appropriate way to go. we're -- again, no disrespect to the chief justice at all who's presiding here as the presiding officer. but our view is that if there are issues that have to be resolved on constitutional matters, that it should be done in the appropriate way. you have senate rules that govern that as to what you would do. and if litigation were to be necessary for a particular issue, that would have to be looked at. but this idea that we can short circuit the system, which is what they've been doing for three months, is not something we're willing to go with. i've said that -- i said it all day yesterday and again, no disrespect to the senator's question, but we're just -- that's not a position that we will accept as far as moving these proceedings forward. thank you.

>> senators, counsel for president says that would not be constitutionally appropriate. why not? where is it prohibited in the constitution that in an impeachment trial upon the agreement of the parties the chief justice cannot resolve issues of the mahathteriality o witnesses. of course that is permitted by the constitution. now, counsel earlier said that the house managers want to decide on which witnesses the president should be able to call. we want them to call our witnesses. well, you would think that mick mulvaney, the white house chief of staff, would be their witness if indeed he supports what the president is claiming, if indeed he is willing to say under oath what he's willing to say in a press statement. you would think he would be their witness. but i'm not saying that we get to decide. that's not the proposal here. the proposal is we take a week, the senate goes about its

business, we do depositions, the witnesses are not witnesses on the president's behalf, we get a decision on as house managers but rather that we entrust the chief justice of the united states to make a fair and impartial decision as to whether a witness is material or not, whether a witness has relevant facts or not, or whether a witness is simply being brought before this body for the purposes of retribution in the case of the whistleblower or to smear the bidens without material purpose relevant to these proceedings. we're not asking that you accept our judgment on that. we're proposing that the chief justice make that decision. and i think the reason, of course, they don't want the chief justice to make that decision as i indicated the other night is not because they don't trust the chief justice to be fair. it's because they fear the chief

justice will be fair. and i think that tells you everything you need to know about the lack of good faith when it comes to the arguments they make about why they went to court, why they refused to comply with any subpoenas, why they refuse to provide any document yoos, why they're here before you saying that the house managers must sue to get witnesses and they're in court on the same day saying you can't sue to get witnesses. and this is why they don't want the chief justice to make that decision because they know the witnesses they're requesting are for purposes of retribution or distraction. >> mr. chief justice. >> senator from north carolina. >> i sent a question to the desk on behalf of myself and senator cruz. >> thank you.

the question from senators tillis and cruz is for the house managers. you have based your case on the proposition that it was utterly baseless and a sham to ask for an investigation into possible corruption of burisma and the bidens. chris hines, the stepson of then secretary of state john kerry emailed kerry's chief of staff that quote, apparently devon and hunter both joined the board of burisma and a press release went out today. i can't speak to why they decided to, but there was no investment by our firm in their company. hynes subsequently terminated his business relationship because, quote, working with burisma is unacceptable, end quote, and showed a, quote, lack of judgment, end quote. do you agree with chris hines that working with burisma was unacceptable? did john kerry or joe biden

agree with chris hines? if not, why not? >> justice, the reason why joe biden is not material to these proceedings, the reason why this is a baseless smear is that the issue is not whether hunter biden should have sat on that board or not sat on that board. the issue is not whether hunter biden was properly compensated or improperly compensated or whether he speaks ukrainian or doesn't speak ukrainian. what the president asked for was an investigation against joe biden and the smear against joe biden was he sought to fire an investigator because he was trying to protect his son. i guess that's the nature of the allegation. and that is a smear. as the house demonstrated, when

the vice president sought the dismissal of a corrupt and incompetent prosecutor, it had nothing to do with hunter biden's position on the board. it had everything to do with the state department, our allies, the international monetary fund were in unanimous agreement that this prosecutor was corrupt. and the uncontradicted testimony was also in getting rid of that prosecutor, it would increase the chances of real corruption prosecutions going forward, not that it would decrease them. so the sham is this. the sham is that joe biden did something wrong when he followed united states policy, when he did what he was asked to do by our european allies, when he did what he was asked by international financial institutions. and the other sham is the russian propaganda sham that this crowd strike kooky conspiracy theory, that the ukrainians, not the russians hacked the dnc and that someone whisked the server away to ukraine to hide it. that is russian intelligence

propaganda, and yes, it's a sham. and it's worse than a sham. it's a russian propaganda coup is what it is. thank god, putin says, that they're not talking about russian interference anymore. they're talking about ukrainian interference. well, counsel says well, isn't it possible that two countries interfered? but you heard what our own director of the fbi, christopher wray said. there is no evidence of ukrainian interference in our election. there is no evidence. so, yes, i think we can cite the fbi director for the proposition that that is a sham. and that's why -- that's why we referred to it as such. but at the end of the day, what this is all about is the president using the power of his office, abusing the power of that office to engage in soliciting investigations and

actually just the announcement of them. if the president thought there was so much merit there, then why it was it that he just needed their announcement? and what's more, as counsel just conceded before the break, rudy giuliani was not pursuing the policy of the united states. okay, if it wasn't the policy of the united states, then what was it? if it wasn't the policy to pursue an investigation of the bidens, then what was it? it was a domestic political errand is what it was. >> thank you, mr. manager. senator from oregon? >> mr. chief justice, on behalf of senator menendez, senator brown and myself, i send a question to the desk for the house managers. >> thank you. senators wyden, menendez and

brown ask the house managers, the president's counsel has argued that the president's actions are based on his desire to root out corruption. however, new reporting indicates that attorney general barr and former national security adviser bolton shared concerns that the president was granting personal favors to autocratic foreign leaders like president erdogan of turkey. the president has also acknowledged his private business interests in the country like trump towers istanbul. the treasury department has not denied the president directed treasury and the department of justice to intervene in the criminal investigation of the turkish state-owned bank, which has been accused of a scheme to evade iranian sanctions. has the president engaged in a pattern of conduct in which he places his personal and political interests above the national security interests of the united states?

>> thank you, mr. chief justice, and also want to thank the senators again for your hospitality in listening to both sides as we endeavor to answer your questions. thank you for that question. i think first and foremost, there has been a troubling pattern of possible conflicts of interest that we've seen from the beginning of this administration through this moment, but the allegation here related to the abuse of power charged is that in this specific instance, the president tried to cheat by soliciting foreign

interference in an american election. by trying to gin up phony investigations against a political opponent. now what counsel for the president has said is that what the president was really interested in is corruption, that he's an anti-corruption crusader. for you to believe the president's narrative, you have to conclude that he is an anti-corruption crusader. perhaps his domestic record is part of what senators can reasonably consider. but let's look at the facts of the central charge here. the president had two calls with president zelensky, on april 21st and on july 25th. in both instances, he did not

mention the word "corruption" once. released the transcripts. the word "corruption" was not mentioned by donald trump once. we also know that in may of last year, president trump's own department of defense indicated that the new ukrainian government had met all necessary preconditions for the receipt of the military aid, including the implementation of anti-corruption reforms. that's president trump's department of defense saying there is no corruption concern as it relates the release of the aid. i think we can all acknowledge as the president's counsel indicated that there was a general corruption challenge with ukraine. i think the exact quote from was

since the fall of the soviet union, ukraine has suffered from one of the worst environments for corruption in the world. certainly i believe that that's the case. but here is the key question. why did president trump wait until 2019 to pretend as if he wanted to do something about corruption? let's explore. did ukraine have a corruption problem in 2017 generally? the answer is yes. did president trump dislike foreign aid in 2017? the answer is yes. what did president trump do about these alleged concerns in 2017? the answer is nothing. under the same exact conditions that the president now claims motivated him to seek a phony political investigation against the bidens and place a hold on the money, the president did nothing. he did not seek an investigation into the bidens in 2017. he did not put a hold on the aid

in 2017. but the trump administration oversaw $560 million in military and security aid to ukraine in 2017. in 2018, the same conditions existed. if president trump is truly an anti-corruption crusader. but what happened in 2018? he didn't seek an investigation into the bidens. he didn't put a hold on the aid. rather, the trump administration oversaw $620 million in military and security aid to ukraine, which brings us to this moment. why the sudden interest in burisma and the bidens in alleged corruption concerns about ukraine? what changed in 2019? what changed is that joe biden announced his candidacy. the president was concerned with

that candidacy. polls had him losing to the former vice president, and he was determined to stop joe biden by trying to cheat in the election, smear him, solicit foreign interference in 2020. that is an abuse of power that is corrupt. that is wrong. >> thank you, mr. manager. senator from maine? >> mr. chief justice, i send a question to the desk on behalf of myself, senator rubio, and senator risch. >> thank you. the question from senators collins, rubio and risch is

addressed to the house managers. the house of representatives withdrew its subpoena to compel charles kupperman's testimony. why did the house withdraw the kupperman subpoena? why didn't the house pursue its legal remedies to enforce its subpoenas? >> senators, i thank you for the question. when we -- our practice in the house was to invite witnesses to come voluntarily, if they refuse, to give them a subpoena. in the case of dr. kupperman, he refused to come in voluntarily, and we subpoenaed him. almost instantly upon receipt of the subpoena, a lengthy complaint was filed in court where he sought to challenge that subpoena. interestingly and contrary to i think what you're hearing from the president's counsel here today, the house took the position that a