just before 11:00 p.m. eastern time. the senator promising a statement shortly within the hour, we're told. a couple of minutes ago, his moderate colleague from maine, susan collins, says she will be voting yes.

things got very interesting. it is close. joining us chris coons, senator coons, any insight on how you think senator alexander might vote? >> i lot of us were trying to discern from his body language, the questions he asked or from sidling up and chatting with him during the breaks how he might go this evening and i'm as much in the dark as you are. this is going to be a very close vote. what is striking to me, first, is the answer that we got to a question that was asked earlier this evening which was -- and this was a question i asked. if the president were to call witnesses which of his witnesses would testify directly to what the president said, what the president did around withholding aid from ukraine that might exonerate him? the answer, of course, was to change the subject. and to talk about folks who couldn't directly testify. to what the president did. because frankly i think there are no witnesses who the administration can put on who will give sworn testimony to

clear the president or they would have done that. it's striking. and so instead what the white house counsel repeated again tonight was a defense that said even if everything argued by the house is true you can't impeach the president. that's a stunning position to take, a suggestion that it really is okay for the president of the united states to seek foreign interference in an election for his own partisan political benefit, and i frankly think when russia and china hear things like that, what they're hearing is an invitation to interfere in our upcoming election. >> it does set a precedent, it seems, that whether it's future presidents or even this president could then continue -- could continue to do. i'm sorry. i've got to go to manu. >> lamar alexander is against moving forward on witnesses and

documents, that could mean the swift end to the president's impeachment trial. he says this, i worked with other senators to make sure we have the right to ask for more documents and more witnesses but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that's already been proven and does not meet the high bar for an impeachable offense. the institution does not give the senate the power to remove the president from office for actions that are inappropriate. a/cs that are inappropriate. the question is whether the united states and the american people should decide what to do about what he did. i believe the constitution provides the people should make the decision in a presidential election that begins in iowa on monday. our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who sor with the consent of the

governance, not at the pleasure of the united states congress. let the people decide. so he makes very clear i am a -- i work with -- he says there's no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and does not meet the high bar for the constitution for an impeachable offense under the constitution. that means that the votes are simply not there at the moment to move forward on impeachment documents, and probably will not be there tomorrow, assuming there's nothing that happens to break a potential tie-breaking vote if it does come to that. looking at the math here, 53 republicans, 47 democrats. two republicans with expected to vote for moving ahead. they need -- lamar alexander is a no. the only question who there's still a question about is lisa murkowski. if it's 50/50, she votes to decide to vote with the democrats, chief justice vote to break a tie. expectation here is that's not going to happen. if he doesn't break a tie and she's a no, even if she votes for it that means that the president's impeachment trial could be over as soon as tomorrow night, anderson.

>> thank you. back to senator coons. senator, what's your reaction? >> well, anderson, i'm very disappointed to hear that. i have served with senator alexander for a decade and on many occasions have known him to be a thoughtful and seasoned senator. i disagree strongly with his conclusion tonight. but let me simply say this, and i'll say it to him when i get a chance tomorrow. if the conclusion he's reached is that what the president did was inappropriate, but that the people should decide in the upcoming election, the very least we should do is to make sure that the next election is a free and fair election, without foreign interference. and i frankly think if the american people are to make up

their minds in this next election about whether or not to reelect president donald trump they should know the facts. getting john bolton to testify was frankly an exercise in making sure the american people got to hear directly from someone who was in the white house and knew what the president had directed be done. if i hear what you just conveyed about senator alexander's statement he essentially said that the house case has been proven, but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. and i hope everyone will reflect on what that means. because what the house charged president trump with was inappropriately using the powers of his office for his own partisan political advantage to try and coerce another country, ukraine, into ginning up a fake investigation into his chief political rival. that's really a pretty stunning admission, and a striking thing to say doesn't reach the level of impeachment. if all of us can agree that we want our elections to be free and fair then there are bills that majority leader mcconnell has refused to bring up for a vote that would strengthen our election system and that would make it clear that it is illegal

for foreign powers to interfere in our election and for candidates to seek and accept it. we could do more to make sure our next election is free and fair. and anderson, i just can't tell you how disappointed i am this evening to hear that announcement from my colleague lamar alexander. >> is it your understanding, as well, that now that alexander's a know, if senator murkowski is a yes, and then it would be a tie, 50/50, the chief justice could break that tie, but -- >> he could. >> but chances are he would not if he's sort of going on the rehnquist model. is it your understanding then that it would be over, it would die there, because -- >> correct. anderson, there is a precedent from the impeachment trial of president andrew johnson where

the chief justice broke a tie -- chief justice chase. he broke a tie twice. and then there was a vote by the full senate to invalidate the asserted power of the chief justice to break a tie. that vote failed. and so the precedent is there, where a chief justice can rule, break a tie in a way that then has a significant impact on the trial. so there is precedent if the chief justice should choose to rely on it. i can't predict how he might act in this case. we know the chief justice is quite concerned about the legitimacy of the supreme court, how it's viewed in history. my hope would be that he, given that view, would side on openness, and witnesses, and making sure the american people know what happened in this case. but obviously we'll get a chance to see the outcome of tomorrow. >> assuming this goes in the direction it's looking like it's going now based on lamar alexander's vote is there anything to indicate to you that president trump would not do this again, if this is okay with

republican senators to have foreign interference in an election, or to have the request made by the president of the united states for foreign interference against his political opponents, is there anything to stop him from doing it again? >> no, and that's the whole concern here is that impeachment is the ultimate constitutionally directed remedy for the senate. there was some back and forth tonight on the floor with the house managers and white house counsel about what else could we do to constrain this president and they were suggesting some of the other powers of the senate to hold up nominees, or to vote against his appropriations priorities, and adam schiff, the house manager, sort of -- i won't say he mocked that suggestion but he'll say that's a pretty thin read on which to stand in the face of a president newly emboldened and without any guardrails, i'll remind you, anderson, one of the striking things about the alleged facts here is that it was literally the day after bob mueller, special counsel mueller came and

testified that this call with president zelensky of ukraine happened in which president trump said do me a favor, though. so my concern, the concern of many of my colleagues, is that president trump will stand before us next tuesday night in his state of the union, declare himself fully exonerated and promptly begin engaging in more inappropriate actions inviting foreign interference in our upcoming election. >> you think he will? >> i certainly hope not, but there's nothing to suggest that he will feel constrained, in fact, as i'm sure you well remember it was in the middle of the 2016 campaign that he publicly invited russia to interfere by searching for his opponent's emails. the later mueller investigation, and intelligence community work concluded that it was literally exactly that day that russian military intelligence, the gru,

began hacking into former secretary clinton's server and in the middle of this impeachment inquiry president trump went out on the front driveway of the white house and invited china to join in trying to dig up dirt on his leading rival for the presidential campaign here in 2020. so i don't think president trump will be restrained in any way going forward if the outcome in the next few days is as you were suggesting. >> if he went onto the front lawn of the white house tomorrow and said, again, you know, ukraine, if you're listening, i'd still like you to announce an investigation, and china you too, and bosnia and, you know, serbia, and anybody else he wants, would -- i mean, do you think he'd here a peep from any republican senators other than mitt romney or susan collins?

>> that is exactly the burden on my republican colleagues, if they are saying they cannot move forward to even listen to witnesses, to even request documents, that they can't say or do anything to restrain this president then the burden is on them to take action, to be responsible, to act like senators to show that they have the best interest of our country at heart and to push back on an unrestrained and unconventional president. look, it was donald trump who as candidate said i could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone dead and get away with it. sadly, predictions of his unrestrained behavior from his campaign are coming true and while i understand some of my republican colleagues may like the results of his policies, or may agree with some of his initiatives you certainly can't think it's good for the american people or standing in the world or rule of law to have a

president, who in such brazen ways, thumbs his nose at our constitution and the at the way we all should conduct ourselves in public life. >> it seems he has league cover, at least from professor dershowitz as long as he personally believes it's in public interest he gets reelected and that there's a -- that he believes it's good for the country and even if it's good for him in the mix, as long as it's a mix of rationales of motives, then that's not impeachable. >> that was the jaw dropping argument made by professor dershowitz last night and then ultimately repeated by white house counsel tonight in response to questions that you cannot impeach a president for doing something where there are mixed motives and some of his motives are toed a -- to advance the public good. that's a wide open invitation to interference in our election, playing dirty politics and further rigging the system of our upcoming election. i'm gravely concerned about what this means. and that there was a serious

assertion of that of conduct for our president. >> senator coons, i appreciate your time, thank you. >> thank you. >> back with our legal and political team. reading the key line from senator alexander's statement, i work with other senators to make sure we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses but there's no need for more evidence to prove something that's already been proven and that does not meet the united states constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense. the constitution does not give the senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate, unquote. let's get reaction from the panel.

it does seem, and senator coons seemed to believe that says that alexander believes that the argument that the democrats are making was proven. it's just not impeachable. >> i think that's what it says. it's a little baffling. i have to say there are a lot of negatives in there. it's not a crystal clear sentence. the only thing that's clear is he's not voting for witnesses and that he thinks the president's behavior is inappropriate so he doesn't agree with the president that this was the perfect phone call and his behavior was perfect. but, i mean, let's be clear, this means that this trial was a sham. >> that's right. >> this trial was not a trial in any meaningful sense of the word. there is -- we know relevant evidence out there in the world. there are documents.

there are emails. there are texts. and there are witnesses. which could shine very clear light on what went here -- what went on here and the senate says we're not interested. that's a disgrace. >> john dean? >> this was not a profile in courage by lamar. and i'm a little surprised. not totally. but i keep thinking this will be the most significant vote he makes in his career and is one of the last votes he'll make. and i -- obviously he's not standing for reelection. he's standing down. i think this is kind of a sad end note for his career. >> you disagree with him but why is it a profile in courage, do you disagree with him? >> no. >> hang on, he's not standing for reelection. >> that's right. >> he's not a maga hat wearing trump supporter, he's a long time public servant, the governor of tennessee, the education secretary under bush 41, worked with you prior to that. he gave you principled statement saying i disagree with the president's behavior, no political reason to do anything other than -- he's criticized by people on this station and all over the media, i think it's a

huge stand of courage on his part. he's going to get eviscerated by people like you. >> is it right? i'm talking about on the merits is it the right decision. >> i think it reflects what a lot of americans believe. and what a lot of senate republicans believe. which is this may have been inappropriate had the democrats not overreached and perhaps brought censure -- it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. that's a principled thing for him to say. you may disagree with it. it's the view that a lot of americans also hold. >> kirsten, do you believe they would have voted for censure. >> there's absolutely no way. i don't know whether you can call it a profile in courage or not, but let's not pretend they don't have a life in politics afterwards. how can you watch what we've all sat and watched and merely think something inappropriate happened? that's just not what happened. we heard from the lawyers over and over, the president's lawyers saying there's nobody who can say they heard this from

the president suggesting that if we could hear from somebody who heard it from the president that perhaps it would be relevant. we have somebody, and they have chosen to not have that and that's what this statement is about. this statement is about not wanting to hear from the person we kept hearing we needed to hear from. so it's not a real trial and it's not a real exoneration. >> and it's a cover-up. that's what the senate has now done. they have covered up what the president of the united states has done in his grievous action when they had the ability to find out more. and reach a bipartisan, as it were, decision if we could hear from the witnesses, if mr. bolton could come in and tell us, is there anything else there? no. maybe it would be exonerating. this is a cover-up. plain and simple. and there has been no attempt throughout this proceeding by the republicans in this senate of the united states, the so-called world's greatest deliberative body, which we can see how deliberative it is, that we have seen now a really

shameful episode in our history that's going to read down for many, many years, particularly because of the dershowitz catechism for the cult of trump. that's an astonishing assertion dershowitz made about what the president can do. >> mike, i'm wondering what you think senator coons saying that the president could do this again, there's nothing to stop him, there's no -- >> one of the things he said was it's up to my republican colleagues to call him out. senator alexander called him out in that statement to -- i also think it's dangerous. now democrats will say throughout the election, donald trump is winning, he's getting foreign influence, he's stealing the election. if he wins that's a dangerous result of this. >> would that be okay with you if he did it again tomorrow? >> no, you should not have foreign interference in our

elections, of course i don't believe we should have foreign interference in our elections. >> what's the punishment for it? >> what's the stop it? >> the impeachment under normal circumstances. >> first of all, we had a mueller report that said that he did not collude with russia. first of all, that didn't happen. >> i didn't -- just on this. >> it is debatable whether or not that happened here and you and i have argued, we're in a different place on this, i believe the president of the united states talking to a former sitting vice president saying -- who happens to be his political opponent is not something that -- >> but conditioning in exchange -- >> well, yeah. >> but again it's the conditioning of the act on the official election. but on a different point, i agree with jeffrey that the statement we just heard was all over the place. i think the most tragic part of

it is how he hinging it on the fact that it's an election year. if that's the case, if we've now made the choice we can never impeach a president during an election year -- >> i don't understand. so tomorrow rudy giuliani could set up an office, like two blocks from the white house, and hire igor fruman, if he's not sent to jail, or lev parnas, although i think he's done with lev parnas, and he could start operating for the president again overseas doing stuff, and that would be fine. >> it's something we've talked about, just yesterday on the show, it would be foolish for him not to because the rules now say that it is very much, number one, perfectly permissible behavior for a president and his stooges to engage in, and number two, even if he does it and they know he does it he cannot be impeached for it and won't be removed for it. >> this is a license. >> and remember who we're

talking about. i mean, we're talking about donald trump who never feels chastened by anything. >> that's right. >> so he will see this and i think he's probably correct, as a victory. that this -- the democrats failed here, and, you know, i mean, you -- you're in republican politics, do you think there is any chance on the state of the union on tuesday he will say, as bill clinton did, you know, i sure screwed up but i didn't deserve to be impeached, do you think there is any chance you will see any humility? >> no, it's a perfect call. >> yeah, so -- >> i think if he did he wouldn't be rewarded for it. he has not gotten to where he is by doing anything eastern being who he is. he's not going to agree with that. >> republicans have redefined what a president and what a president can do. they've even rejected the idea

that you could impeach a president for an abuse of power. if you can't impeach a president for abuse of power what does that mean? what does it mean? a president commits abuse of power and what? there's no remedy. that is the republican argument. >> if a prosecutor brings -- if a prosecutor brings a case, that no they're not going to get 67 votes in the senate. they teed this up. they went too far. they overreached. >> what happens if -- >> this is the interesting thing, i expect what you were saying before about how partisan this is, it takes to be partisan, both parties have to be partisan. when he's acquitted it will probably be a bipartisan vote, you'll probably get a couple democrats. the most bipartisan vote in this will be the acquittal.

>> i understand your criticism of the process, and totally valid argument you make, i'm wondering about tomorrow and the next day and the rest of this term and onward, clearly you're not comfortable with the idea of the president repeating that action. >> i'm only comfortable with any president soliciting foreign aid if that's what they did. not proven to be the case here. we have federal laws against people doing things like the foreign practices act. there are things you can't do that you can be prosecuted for. suddenly tomorrow there's a -- the trump campaign is now free to go and break the law left right and center because of what happened tonight. >> individuals have been impeached, federals have been impeached for showing up to work drunk. the idea that now abuse of power is not the kind of thing you can be impeached for -- >> quick break. there's a lot going on this late hour, including as we just mentioned, john bolton, he is mentioned, john bolton, he is speaking out, that's next. moreb.

bounty, the quicker picker upper.

get it. get it. get it! get it! crowd chanting: get it! get it! get it! (crowd groaning) (crowd cheering) narrator: give your town a reason to celebrate because every goodwill item you bring home, brings job training and more to your community. goodwill. bring good home. so susan collins is yes on witnesses tonight, lamar alexander is no, but it is a noah message to the president, president trump, quote, it was

inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold united states aid to encourage that investigation. when elected officials inappropriately interfere with investigations it undermines the principle of the -- >> more developments on the man who would be a star witness, john bolton, who is speaking tonight. kaitlan, what's he saying? >> john bolton is speaking at a private event in austin, texas, behind closed doors. during a question and answer session he made some notable comments, defending witnesses who testified on the hill despite -- telling them they didn't have to go forward, they were protected and instead according to this report it says that he praised fiona hill, tim morrison, alex vindman, bill taylor, he said all of them acted in the best interest of the country as they saw it.

members of the administration feel like they can speak their minds without retribution. i think it's very nearly the reverse, the exact reverse of the truth. that's what he said behind closed doors and this report also says he briefly mentioned his new book though it doesn't go on to say what all is in that book. the book has been at the center of all of this. we may not hear more from john bolton until the book gets published. >> we probably don't know if this was a paid speech. it was to a private company, correct? >> it's essentially for their clients, at a hotel, but it

doesn't say whether or not he was paid for this. >> i'll tell you 95% sure he was paid, it's a financial company, correct. >> yeah, it's a financial company, speaking to their clients, it's not unusual for him to do that, he did it before he came into the administration, but it doesn't say 100% whether or not he was paid. >> any plan for the white house if the president is, in fact, acquitted tomorrow night, as seems to be what will happen? >> what's also interest if the president is acquitted, he's not set to be in washington. he's slated to go to mar-a-lago to spend the weekend. if that does happen he would not be in washington. when the trial got started he wasn't in washington, he was out of the country in switzerland at the economic forum. >> is rudy giuliani still the president's personal attorney? >> yeah.

last time we checked they did say he was still his attorney. notable because you saw the deputy white house counsel having to defend giuliani, saying he didn't believe he was taking a formal role in the foreign policy. officials testified they had to go through rudy to handle ukraine matters. as of right now rudy giuliani is still representing the president. the question of how much he's involved going forward given all of this, still an open question. >> kaitlan collins, thanks very much. back with the legal and political team as well. jeff, what happens tomorrow? >> there will be a debate on witnesses, for starters, manu got a briefing from john thune from south dakota, four hours about witnesses, that presumably now will be voted down. at that point senator mcconnell

will try to move to a vote on the merits. that motion to -- motion to go to the merits is amendable. and presumably the democrats led by senator schumer will try to put in some amendments. so i think it could be a very long night if they're trying to do this all in one night with four hours on the motion, and then perhaps a series of more motions. and then, you know, presumably you're going to want to have senators be heard on this. this is one of the most consequential votes they'll ever take. >> mike, do you expect democrats in the house to continue, you know, trying to get documents, to continue trying to get witnesses h. >> i don't think they're going to give up. they have banked their majority in the house on this. and it wouldn't be my advice.

i think the old nancy pelosi was senatorer than the current nancy pelosi, the one that said in '18, told her candidates, don't talk about impeachment, focus on health care, pocketbook issues, that's how we'll win the majority. now they've dug themselves in this hole. >> is it possible for them not to pursue witnesses, but to pursue documents through the courts, out of the public view, and therefore not something that's necessarily covered in the grinding months it would take? >> one of the things at the center of the impeachment trial was how long the courts take, and i guess these political calculations of whether it's worth it still to proceed with the courts given that you know what the position of the president's going to be, and it could just take a long time. it's an unfortunate argument to hear, particularly the senate talked about how long courts will take, and this whole senate impeachment trial could take a long time so we ought not to

pursue down the road. they have very few functions in the world and oversight and frankly impeachment is one of the constitutionally mandated ones. the idea that pursuing these matters to their fullest is a waste of energy or time it's an insult to the american people. >> john dean, what are the guardrails then that exist for preventing this kind of behavior, besides the stern concern of republican senators? >> well, one of the things that's hard for me to believe is that the is that the southern district is looking the other way on a conpick waterhouse conspiracy that's been going on. they didn't indict the president but a lot of people around him are certainly at the edge if not involved in criminal behavior. >> wait, john, i think you've got to be careful. >> i am -- the crime is conspiracy to defraud. pretty clear. 18 u.s.c. 371. >> i know the statute. but who's -- >> the removal of an ambassador

for improper reasons. it starts back that early. it goes on. >> a president can remove ambassadors -- >> i said improper reasons. >> i don't think that's a conspiracy to defraud, to be honest. i mean, i think the remedy here is impeachment. if the president abused -- we've been down that road. the senate doesn't want to do it. the idea there will be criminal prosecutions -- >> politically to mike's point plays into the witch hunt, you guys are never going to give up on this, now you're going after it through the southern district. >> removing the ambassador spoke to the president's intent with respect to impeachment. >> we have to take another quick break, pick up the conversation next. on what just played out tonight in the last 35 minutes and the long-term impact it may have.

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.

can you help keep these iguys 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.

we talked before the break about guardrails on the president. i want to read a couple passages from senator alexander's statement. he says it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold united states aid to encourage that investigation when elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. the framers believe there should never, ever be an impartisan impeachment. if this shallow, hurried and -- it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of

cultural divisions that already exist. it would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used whenever the house of representatives is of a different political party. >> one of the strangest arguments they've made, i think. it's basically saying if we has republicans choose to not consider anything that you say then it's a partisan -- >> who's partisanship? who gets to be bipartisan? >> not cross the aisle under any circumstances and not consider any information and then call it a partisan -- >> exactly. >> situation. you're the ones who made it partisan. so it doesn't really make sense. but what i really -- what lamar alexander needs to answer is a question i asked earlier is what then is the remedy in this situation? you can't seriously be saying that you have to wait for an election.

what if a president comes in and in the first week abuses power, is he actually saying that there's nothing we can do? we have to sit and wait four years until people vote? i mean, that's the question that needs to be answered. >> let's take a look at this partisan question one other way. let's just imagine, for a moment, if obama had ordered an investigation of trump's children by a foreign power, knowing that trump might run against him, and tried to take action to preclude the candidacy of donald trump by smearing him, imagine -- i would think that obama would be impeached with an awful lot of democratic support and republican. there would be no question about a bipartisan impeachment. >> missing one thing. >> right. >> is if obama said we are withholding aid -- >> right. >> that's -- you know -- what

makes it so much worse. >> add that into the equation. with donald trump's children. it would not be a close call, mike. he would be impeached. because republicans and democrats would join together because the rule of law has been so offended. and what has occurred here, and something you said before that was very wise, i thought, about, well, you know, donald trump, and about his -- i believe what we know about donald trump is his contempt for the rule of law. and republicans know this in the senate. it unites many of them in their view of donald trump. what they have done tonight is to say it's all right, we'll forget about the fact that we know he's contemptuous of the rule of law. we will give him a license. he now has it. >> first of all, your hypothetical -- >> and i don't like to do hypotheticals, but there is --

>> there's a common thing. when obama was president, democrats would say if george bush did this -- now democrats say barack obama. barack obama was one of the most partisan presidents in history. he did not work with the republican congress, governed from the left and campaigned from the left, and said there's more of us than them. we're going to beat them in elections to the left. >> that's just not what happened. >> you can argue, and i think that -- look, we are in a cold civil war in this country and that's also reflected in what we've seen tonight. but the republicans had a chance to have a truce in the cold civil war and they blew it. >> let me ask you another hypothetical. after bill clinton was acquitted in the senate, did that mean that he could commit perjury just whenever he wanted to from that point on, did that mean that he could have inappropriate relationships with people in the white house, anytime he wanted? that not the standard, there are laws in the country. so the idea that president trump has been -- is going to be found not guilty of what happened, just like any person who walks out of a courtroom that's found

not guilty is now an innocent person. >> the difference is president trump has gone on the record defending his conduct in a way that bill clinton never -- bill clinton didn't say -- >> he said i'm sorry. he can commit perjury all he wants if he says i'm sorry. >> i'll lie under oath again. >> he had criminal referrals in his impeachment. did the senate say you know what he can just keep committing crimes. >> the way they handled the misconduct is very different and you know that. >> quick break. throughout the night our conversation has been returning to the historic nature. try olay skin care. just one jar of micro-sculpting cream has the hydrating power of 5 jars of a prestige cream, which helps plump skin cells and visibly smooth wrinkles. while new olay retinol24... provides visibly smoother, brighter skin.

for dramatic skincare results, try olay. and now receive 25% off your purchase at olay.com brand power. helping you buy better.

americans come to lendingtree.com to compare and save on loans, credit cards and more! but with the new lending tree app you can see your full financial health, monitor your credit score, see your cash flow and find out how you can cut your monthly bills. download it now to see how much you can save.

conversation has been returning to the historic nature. kind of night when it's easy to get wrapped up in each new breaking development. we want to look at how the headlines may become chapters of -- we have douglas brinkley, the former director of the nixon presidential library. doug brinkley doug brinkley, your thoughts tonight? >> i'm disappointed in lamar alexander. he was one of those senators to be a kind of special cut that you never -- an independent spirit. he's from tennessee. and remember during the

watergate days he had fred thompson turn in many ways on nixon. particularly howard baker. that was the republican party back then. it's not the republican party now. what lamar alexander has done, i think, is hurt his legacy in history, seeming more as a partisan player right now than somebody that was thinking about what's best for the liberty of the country. >> tim, are there any guardrails now on the presidency? >> in one way n part, tonight is the end of the period that started in watergate when there was a bipartisan acceptance of the concept of abuse of power. lamar alexander talked about how this was a partisan impeachment. what he didn't add was the reason it was a partisan impeachment was that the trump party is no longer willing to accept certain assumptions about the limits on presidential power. and so what we're seeing tonight is an old nixon veteran, in a way, in a 19th century way with a statement, saying it's okay to let the article ii power, the

presidency, dominate our government. he said what president trump did was inappropriate. in fact, he said the house managers have proven their case, but there was nothing he felt the senate could do about it. >> doug? >> i'm wondering what's going on i mean, he's somebody that seems at any moment should have been taken to a podium, and tell us what's going on. instead our country is in this nightmare about when is this book coming out, when is it, this and that, instead of speaking truth to power. >> he's making what seems to be a paid speech today. >> yeah, and he's going to be making paid speeches all spring. he's going to be getting money for his book. we've all been held hostage on his financial paradigm. but democrats watching tonight or americans concerned about president trump's overreach should remember what nancy pelosi said. this president's been impeached and that's going to be remembered big in history.

he is in that loser's club. that happened to andrew johnson and nixon and bill clinton. and so it's not a nothing. pelosi made that very clear, but things are going to get speedy because of the state of the union address and iowa coming and the cycles -- >> president trump, the day after mueller testifies, calls up the president of ukraine and does this, tomorrow what is to stop him from -- >> nothing. >> -- calling up the president of ukraine again? >> maybe the fear of these whistle-blowers in government. he maybe didn't realize how he can get burned. and the fear -- >> so what. they blow a whistle and nobody listens. >> well, the country listened. a lot of people -- he got impeached over it and it's something, you know? >> i was going to say that what this impeachment should have done is made it painful for a president to do what he did. it was always clear from the beginning that there weren't two-thirds senators, the senators were going to vote to remove him.

the question was do you let him get away with it? and the house decided no. and unfortunately, no republican agreed in the house. >> i wonder how many republican senators are going to make a statement even close to lamar alexander, which is not exactly saying it wasn't a perfect call by any means, by any stretch. i mean, how many republicans are just going to say, you know, it's not -- whatever happened wasn't impeachable and that's that, the reported of the call. >> lamar alexander in his mind is a states person. he's seen himself. he thinks the letter you just put onto the country is going to live in the ages. that's a great statement about our democracy because -- so he's going to damage himself with academic historians like tim and i. but in the republican party now, they're high fiving lamar alexander. let's face it, he has when push comes to shove been a republican

loyalist from reagan to today. >> he may not be a senator any more, but he has to live somewhere and, you know, all his friends are who his friends are and he want to be a republican servant. >> when john kennedy wrote profiles in courage or ted sorensen helped ted kennedy write a book, he chose eight senators. we actually don't have a lot of profiles of courage in the history of the senate. tonight was an opportunity to add another one. and maybe we'll see some courage tomorrow. there's no -- you know, when you think beyond tomorrow as a politician, particularly one who is retiring, saying the right thing for the country will get you eternal thanks. doing what senator lamar alexander did today might give him thanks tomorrow, but he will be forgotten or remembered for all the wrong reasons because of what he did. >> appreciate it. thank you for being here. we'll be right back. more ahead. robinhood believes now is the time to do money.

without the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us.

robinhood.