nhood.

what a difference a few hours and a single u.s. senator can make. lamar alexander's decision changed the course of the impeachment trial of the u.s. president and added to a chain of other decisions that may affect how presidents behave or misbehave from here on out. the impeachment trial coverage continues with chris cuomo. >> appreciate it, anderson. i am chris cuomo. this is the special late night edition of "primetime." one of the biggest wild cards in this impeachment trial has just announced his decision. republican senator lamar alexander is a no on witnesses.

is that it? is it over? is there any move for the democrats? we've got it all covered. let's get after it. ♪ now that it happened, of course, it always kind of starts to make sense. senator lamar alexander from tennessee, long-time senator, good friend of mitch mcconnell, for him to have said in a big way all alone out by himself, yes, i want witnesses, would have been really damaging to his friend mcconnell. so i guess we should have seen this coming. and now he put out a statement, no, we don't need witnesses -- he is the first gop senator i have heard admit the following, though. that what the president did was inappropriate. it was inappropriate to ask ukraine to investigate a political opponent. it was inappropriate to hold up aid.

however, inappropriate ain't enough. that's what the republican said in his lengthy statement. here's a quote from it. there's no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the united states constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense. constitution doesn't give the senate the priority to remove the president from office and ban him from this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate. all right. so where does that leave us? is this over tomorrow? i would suggest likely yes. why? because i think the best you get in the vote is 50/50. what happens then? right question, right people to answer it. let's take it to the panel. okay. so, professor, he says no. fine. his vote holds tomorrow. it's no. you guys can attack the political analysis, joe, whenever you want. let's get the structural analysis first, which is 50/50. collins votes, romney votes. murkowski votes. 50/50. it's a tie. you lose if you want witnesses

on a tie. you need 50 plus one. what can they pressure the chief justice to do? what do the rules consider? what does history predict? >> they can pressure the chief justice all they like. that doesn't mean they'll get anything. >> can he? >> i don't believe he can. i think the rules define his powers. and the rules very clearly don't give him the authority to cast a tie-breaking vote and i don't think he's going to claim any inherent power to do it. the senate has the power to compel witnesses. he doesn't. he's also not a presiding officer in the same capacity as the vice-president is because the constitution expressly says the vice-president can cast the tie-breaking vote and there is nothing that expressly says the chief justice can do that. >> and the fact there's nothing that says he can't is not instructive? >> it is not -- >> not defined, not derived.

>> he does not have any power without the express grant of it. >> i'm going to disagree a little bit. as the professor says, the constitution says ordinarily the vice-president can cast and shall cast a tie-breaking vote. but in impeachment, the chief justice fills that role. shall preside. and i think that role, shall preside, means includes cast the tie-breaking vote. of course, you know that that was done in the andrew johnson trial. >> but it was controversial and the senate prevented him from doing it again later on. >> we have two historical precedents. one of them it was done twice. it's possible. i don't think it's likely but i think it's possible. >> let's say it's possible. asha, if it's possible, we know what the mechanism is. it's now they'll have another vote to overrule his vote, and that has to be a simple majority. the game here is what if that's 50/50? >> i think the fact that you end up in that loop probably suggests that professor gearhart

is right. does the chief justice then break the tie again, keep going back and forth? that would make no sense. sea then we'd have the long trial everybody worried about. >> i don't think that's likely to happen. >> what do you think happens? >> i think if the chief justice did weigh in, even the people who voted for witnesses would revert to party position and say, it is the senate's prerogative. >> right. >> i think there should be witnesses, but it is the senate's prerogative. so i don't think you'd have this domino effect. you would have a simple vote where they would just go on party lines and this would be over. >> it would be over. now, if it's over, there is a consultation phase that happens after this vote. what about censure, joe? here's the only reason. i know the easy answer is no way, the president won't allow it. they couldn't even argue the best argument, which is he did something wrong but it's not worthy of removal because the president wouldn't allow them to acknowledge any weakness. lamar alexander said in his statement it was inappropriate. and that is the nicest word to use.

it's always been arguable whether it was removable. but it was wrong and it's something they know they don't want to see extended or repeated, censure. >> i don't think they'll go to censure, but i think we'll see the inherent dishonesty in the republicans' approach through the whole thing. because i think you're going to see senators lining up tomorrow. and to justify their vote to acquit by saying, i don't approve of what the president said, but they remain silent throughout the entire process. and, you know, i think alexander is just the first, but my guess is you'll see a dozen senators saying -- >> they did that in clinton. the democratic senators. >> comparing it to clinton is somewhat absurd. for one thing, all the witnesses

testified. there was nothing new. clinton took responsibility, apologized multiple times. democrats, this is the biggest difference between the two. democrats took the process seriously. i was there. i got the calls from the senate offices, from the house offices saying, my guy is going south. what are you going to do? because they took it seriously, in the end they took a vote where each and every one of them went to the floor and decried the president's personal behavior. they took it seriously. republicans, from day one, did not take this seriously. and you see it tonight, you see all of these people tonight who have gone weekends without saying a negative word, all of a sudden they're going to find religion and say we don't believe in this. >> that's a fair distinction. i was saying they vote today acquit the president, but then attached a statement. there was a hard language. so now let's talk about -- so, the law analysis professor -- please, step up. i think it's over at that point. i think if you don't have witnesses, i don't know why he would attach mcconnell. it's totally at his prerogative to attach a lot of time for debate before the vote. i think they go right into the vote. how is he kept from doing that?

joe, i want you to take on the politics of what it looks like, but on the law. >> the rules that were approved at the front end of the trial are what governed the basic structure of it and the organization of it and the allocation by hours. it also -- it's obviously implicit, but also clear from the rules mcconnell calls the shots. he's in the position, he's got the votes that will back him up as the leader and that's all he needs. he can narrow the time. my guess is, although i'm no expert on politics, but my guess is that he'll have a little bit of time for debate just for the show of it i think they'll wrap it up. >> why -- you're probably right, but why, joe? your message is this is a sham, let's get it done? >> each in the caucus has their own politics. there are a number of people up in cycle. they need to go -- remember, 75% of americans wanted witnesses. 80% in one poll earlier this

week. these senators, corey gardener, john cornyn, martha mcsally, rob portman, they have to explain to their constituents why they blocked the will of the people. the way they'll explain this, you saw it in alexander, you're all of a sudden going to see mild disapproval of the president. it's a sham from beginning to end. that's what he's got to give his republic cabs a chance to get up there and do their own politics from the floor of the senate. >> good argument. let's take a break and hear the democrats side on this. we have senator merkley about what they think of this, what they think they can do about it next. $9.95 at my age?

$9.95? no way. $9.95? that's impossible. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company, to tell you it is possible. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get life insurance with options starting at just $9.95 a month. okay, jonathan, i'm listening. tell me more. just $9.95 a month for colonial penn's number one most popular whole life insurance plan. there are no health questions to answer and there are no medical exams to take. your acceptance is guaranteed. guaranteed acceptance? i like guarantees. keep going. and with this plan, your rate is locked in for your lifetime, so it will never go up. sounds good to me, but at my age, i need the security of knowing it won't get cancelled as i get older. this is lifetime coverage as long as you pay your premiums. it can never be cancelled, call now for free information. you'll also get this free beneficiary planner.

use this valuable guide to record your important information and give helpful direction about your final wishes to your loved ones. and it's yours free. it's our way of saying thank you just for calling. so call now. democrats have to be unhappy with the lamar alexander announcement of no, meaning he doesn't think you need witnesses in the vote tomorrow. so let's turn to one of his fellow jurors for reaction. senator jeff merkley of oregon. senator, thank you for joining us. >> oh, you're welcome. good to be with you. >> what's your reaction to senator lamar alexander saying

no need for witnesses? >> well, it's definitely a big disappointment because 100 senators should stand up to the responsibility of the senate to hold a fair and full trial. so it's, it's really disappointing to hear that news. >> looking forward, if it is a 50/50 vote tomorrow, do you think that your caucus will decide to make an argument directly to the chief justice? the rules are vacant in terms of what he can and can't do. >> i think we would. we'd like for every possibility to have the senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility. and there has been one case in history where a chief justice did break a 50/50 vote. >> yes, obviously it was in the andrew johnson impeachment. it was highly controversial. they said he had political motives. he did it again later in the trial. he was stopped by the senate. here you might get into a situation where they would need a majority vote.

they would need it to override the chief justice. do you think it's worth it to go through that process? >> i think we have to explore every angle because we took an oath to an impartial justice trial. it's not impartial if you don't have witnesses, don't have documents. we have an obligation to pose the question to the chief justice, will you weigh in on the side of the constitutional responsibility of the senate. >> senator alexander says in his statement that what the president did was inappropriate. it was inappropriate to try to get the investigation on an opponent. it was inappropriate to try to hold up the aid in furtherance of that effort. i haven't heard any other republican say that.

>> no, that is -- it certainly is something we've heard privately, but not publicly. >> do you think that's just where you are with republicans that they are unwilling to see what this president other than suboptimal? >> well, our colleagues are well aware that when you run an operation with giuliani that goes over the course of a year and it's designed to put pressure on a foreign government and use state assets, they would impeach a democrat in a microsecond. they know it's wrong, but they are under enormous pressure to shut this thing down. i mean, this whole process is -- we go forward without witnesses, without documents, it means the senate for the first time in history is holding a sham trial. it means the presidency is left under the glow of the defense argument saying the president is above and beyond the law.

and by not holding a trial, that statement on the supreme court, equal justice under law, they might as well take it off the supreme court, especially if the chief justice doesn't way in on behalf of justice. >> you argue for censure tomorrow everybody used the language of lamar alexander and say what the president is was, instead of inappropriate, wrong. >> tomorrow after we have the deliberation on the collins clause to shutdown witnesses, there is supposed to be before that vote a private deliberation among us as senators. it can be private or public. we are holding hope conversation with our colleagues about the gravity of the situation, the damage that we'll do, will be an opportunity to persuade a few more to stand up for their responsibility under the constitution. if that fails, if it becomes clear there is absolutely no way to get there, then i think it would be appropriate to

entertain a conversation of censure. >> do you think you're in a different situation now if article i of the impeachment has been bribery? you've been beaten over the head of not naming a crime since this started. >> no, i don't think, chris, it would make any difference. no matter how it was presented, his defense lawyers would argue that's not the right way to do it. and they would be wrapping us up in technicalities, bribery cases. everyone understands that this can be viewed as applying pressure, which is extortion, or offering an incentive, which is aid, which is bribery. everyone in the room, all 100 senators, have no doubt this is equivalent to extortion or bribery. but however the house managers have presented it, we have seen complete resistance over the last -- how many days, ten days it's been. no, i don't think it would have made any difference. the administration is afraid to open lid on the can of worms we would see if we had documents and witnesses. >> senator merkley, thank you very much. >> you're welcome, chris.

thank you. >> all right. so, what do we have? do we have 24, 48 hours? when is this over? what will mcconnell do if the vote goes his way tomorrow and it doesn't have to be witnesses? what happens next? let's talk about the practical implications for this process and the political implications beyond next.

looking to get your business off to a fast start in the new year? it's go time! switch to comcast business and get fast internet on the nation's largest gig-speed network. plus, complete reliability with 4g lte backup. and, cloud-based security to help protect the devices on your network. greenlight your business in 2020 with fast internet and voice for $64.90 per month. switch now and get a $100 prepaid card when you add comcast business securityedge. call today. comcast business.

beyond fast. one statement from one senator, and now we are almost certain of what will happen in the impeachment trial of donald j. trump. why? when senator said i'm not going to vote for witnesses, that made it much, much more likely to

have a vote that says no witnesses tomorrow, an acquittal, deliberation time -- an acquittal, if they don't want witnesses, they don't want to acquit the president. let's bring back the team. structurally we were talking about the time for deliberation. you say you need a little bit because it looks better. you're saying that people who have things to explain will want to do that. and then they have the vote. it's over. now it's how does the story get told? are the democrats -- i know they're upset about this right now. are they in better position politically, having had no witnesses and an acquittal of the . ? >> i think they're in a better position to win back the senate because the senate owns this now. there are five or six vulnerable senators in the republican party running.

it's an open question on the president, though. and we'll have to see how this unfolds because john bolton is going to speak eventually, and things are going to come out. i think the thing to look for, though, i think we can predict. what it will be, we're going to see sean hannity on superbowl on sunday. bill clinton went out and took responsibility, i'm sorry i put the country through this. i don't think we're going to see that on sunday. >> maya is smiling. >> if trump takes his normal m.o. here, i think that will turnoff everybody but his base. and he has got to figure out a way to win this election to expand his base and win other voters. >> can i -- >> hold on. let me get some perspective from ron brownstein. he's covered lamar alexander for a long time. he knows him well. explain to us in lamar alexander thinking what this move was

about. >> look, i mean, there is -- chris, there is a shakespearean art to this that makes this a perfect symbol for what has happened to the gop in the trump era. lamar alexander began his political career, he was elected governor in tennessee in 1978 to replace a corrupt governor who was accused of selling pardons for cash. lamar alexander was sworn into office three days early because they feared the gochlt governor ray blanton would continue to sell pardons. he has always filed himself that was able to work across party lines in the bush administration. he won for executive president in 1996 against bob dole and pat buchanan, seen as moderate. he came up in a key way internally incoherent. yes, i believe what the president is was wrong, i don't think it rises to a level of

impeachable offense. if you believe the public should decide, shouldn't the public have all the relevant information it needs to make a decision about the president's conduct. his statement for supporting witnesses or acquittal, i don't think it argued for opposing witnesses. it looks more like finding a justification to end up at the place you wanted to go. the one important caveat you noted before that he says the house proved its case, what the president did was wrong, and that i think is going to put a lot of pressure on martha mcsally, joni ernst, do they step out and say they agree with it? i expect few will. >> you expect the vote tomorrow will be no witnesses. >> yeah. i mean, unless -- who is the fourth who is going to vote for witnesses at this point? >> right. >> it's not 100% clear there murkowski will. this just kind of under lines

what we have seen for three years, is that at every critical moment, with the exception of the repeal of the aca, that the republicans of congress have chosen to bind themselves more tikely to trump. every time up breaks a window, they obediently sweep up the glass. what's that? >> is this a favorite of mcconnell? he's not running again. he's seen as a moderate, and then he does this? >> i think it's more than a favorite to marc partially a favor to mcconnell, the general feeling in the caucus believes that hurt him politically. he did not want to be in the trump era, no one wants to be the single person out there. the late john mccain turned thumbs down would be the one to say no to the party. the idea they are setting a precedent here, both for future presidents and the ability of presidents to stonewall the congress and deny them

information, it's astonishing to me how secondary that is to this overwhelming pressure to behave in a parliamentary manner and hold the party together at all costs. >> thank you very much. make your point. >> well, i think it was interesting that he mentioned senator alexander was sworn in three days early because -- >> continuing threat. >> yes. remember that this ukraine call happens the day after the mueller hearings ended. he takes these things, trump, takes these things as a victory and gets emboldened. it's not what he's going to do with hannity on sunday, what is he going to do monday morning when he starts making phone calls to foreign countries or looks at what he has ahead. >> the idea of what he says on sunday, i think we have to have a very good guess right now, which is they did me dirty. i'm glad i was able to stop this so it never happens to anyone else again. they didn't do this to me, they did it to you.

that is a big point for the president. i think it's a persuasive one. >> i think it's going to resonate with the base. everything resonates with the base. there is a political downside, they vote no witnesses. the polling is high, 75% in favor of witnesses. some of the senators may have to take a lump, but it's going to be an ongoing lump. we're not done. more and more is going to come out up until the elections. they're going to look at the senators and say you didn't want to hear this. >> they could have limited the exposure. we're going to take a break. thank you for the perspective. this is an interesting thing. here's what we know now because of lamar alexander. they say the people should decide, but they are making a decision -- this isn't about the removal vote. this is about witnesses. they're saying, you should decide, but we're not going to help you do that. in fact, we're going to hinder

your ability to do that. we're going to confuse your ability to do that because it's better for us. you know who else is caught in that spot? professor alan dershowitz. you've been hearing a lot about him now. he is caught in the middle of this maelstrom and he will be someone remembered for helping reach this conclusion. we're going to test his position just one on one, no group think next. 's this? your cold's gonna make you a zombie tomorrow. wrong. i'm taking a powerful nighttime cold medicine, so i can sleep great and wake up human. don't eat me i taste terrible! mucinex nightshift cold and flu. fight your worst symptoms so you can sleep great and wake up human.

all right. professor alan dershowitz. he says he's only defending the constitution, not trump. doesn't own the facts. now, let me give you a headline alert, okay. under scrutiny, he's about to say he does not think a president can do anything to win an election as long as they think it's in the public interest. but the idea that he doesn't own the facts and that he isn't using them and trying to excuse what the president did is a debatable point, and we're going to test his argument on that right now. professor dershowitz, thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> it's just you and me, professor, one on one. >> good. >> all right. >> okay. >> let's establish a starting point, please, counselor. is it your position that a president can do whatever they want to secure their reelection

as long as they think it is in the good of the people? >> chris, you know that's not my position. i started my talk in front of the senate by saying that nixon was properly impeached. nixon committed five crimes, and he did it because he wanted to be re-elected because he thought it would be in the national interest. of course, not. i never said that. i never implied it. i never suggested it. cnn, msnbc and many of the other networks deliberately and willfully distorted my words. let me tell you what i said. what i said was -- >> hold on, professor. let's establish the record for people so they know point by point. they're going to know when they watch us you and i have known each other a long time and you've never accused me of anything like that. so here's the sound bite. >> every public official that i know 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. >> now, as somebody who has admired -- >> that's exactly what i said. i said -- >> if sounds like you're saying, as long as he thinks it's in the public interest, he can do whatever he wants in the name of his reelection. >> that's because you deliberately selected that clip and didn't put it in context. the context was a question generally -- >> professor, be fair. it is you speaking. i how did i get the context wrong? go ahead. >> let me explain. >> go ahead. >> both congressman nadler and congressman schiff had said that if there is even one element of self-interest in a decision in a quid pro quo context, if the president or any politician, in

addition to serving the public interest by doing his act, also had a self-serving interest helping his own election, that would constitute corruption. you can play the clip. they have a clip saying that. that would constitute corruption. it didn't matter whether 99% of his motive was public interest as long as 1% was helping him get re-elected. that would constitute a corruption crime and impeachable conduct. i was responding to that by saying if that were the case, then abraham lincoln could have been impeached because he sent soldiers from the battle field to vote in the indiana election because he wanted them to vote for his party. every politician, is the point i was making, has self-interest in mind. they have one eye on the public interest, one eye on their electability. that's the issue i was speaking to in a broad argument made by nadler and by schiff. >> that is not my understanding of their argument.

>> show the clip. i'll show you the -- i'll tell you what clip it is. here's what nadler says. he says, if a man is motivated by 99%, perfect, perfect innocent motivation, but just a tiny percentage of it is corrupt, that' enough under the criminal law. i was responding to that by saying in the electoral context, that doesn't apply in impeachment context. >> let's take it piece by piece. >> you have mixed motives all the time. >> professor, professor, good. thank you for making it clear, okay. you don't believe -- >> no, no, i didn't make it clear today. i made it clear all through my senate proceedings, all through my debate. and it was not an accident. it was a deliberate effort to try to destroy my credibility by quoting out of context something that was intentionally designed to mislead your viewers. let's be clear about that. >> professor, i'm giving you as

much latitude as i can and it is completely personal and out of respect that i have for you personally, okay? i don't understand your pushback and here's why. you are being taken to task for an argument that seems grossly overbroad because as we both know and as you've taught me over the years, if you have mixed motives, and part of it, even a little part is corrupt or criminal, it's going to trigger the intent element of a crime. you say -- >> that's my point. >> you say it's different in an electoral context. hold on. we'll get to the next part. i want to finish this part for a second, professor. you're making it personal. you're saying they're out to get me, they're trying to destroy my credibility. i would not do this interview if if it's about your credibility to shape you. it's about corruption. the problem that you're in is you are making an argument that does not fit the facts.

and you'll say, well, i'm not responsible for the facts. that's other people. but you own the facts by the fact that you're on the team. and we talked about this when you decided to join this team. they have the facts on their side because there is no proof he did this in the public interest. there is only proof he did it for corrupt intentions, and you know the best proof of it is that he has lied and denied everything he did. so it couldn't have been in the public interest. i wanted to finish the point. respond. >> finish the point. >> yes, sir. >> if this were about the facts, i wouldn't have gotten up and responded. i responded to the general broad argument that if a political figure allows in his calculus, in the back of his mind -- >>. >> -- any motivation that will help him get elected -- >> yes. >> -- they said that would make it corrupt. my argument was that that's not corrupt. that's not, for example, i'll withhold the funds and i'll send them to you unless you let me build a hotel with my name on it and give you a million dollar kickback.

>> that's corrupt. >> that's corrupt. but when you say, i want to help myself get elected the way lincoln did and the way obama did and the way everybody else did, that's not corrupt. >> but that's not what happened here. and they're arguing specific facts here. lincoln is not a good analogy. >> you're missing my point, chris. >> i think you're making a point that doesn't match the facts. >> these are abstract constitutional arguments. >> they're not making an abstract argument. >> i'm not the fact guy. >> i know. you own the fact because you're on the team. when you do something in the public interest, you do not lie to the public about what you're doing in their interest. and here he lied about knowledge of the people. he lied about the activities. he subordinated the true state department channels for his own personal lawyer who worked with shady people and did shady things. so your argument is this professor should not -- this

professor. this president should not be here right now because what he did, sure, it was in his own personal interest. who cares, everybody politician works in their personal interest. there was nothing corrupt and he was just doing what he thought was good for the people. there is zero evidence that he did anything because he thought it was good for the people. and he denied, lied and defied every aspect of disclosure about this, which has to illustrate, professor, that he didn't think it was in the people's interest because he would have been bragging and open about that. >> can i respond? >> go ahead. >> can i respond now? >> 100%. >> if you had made -- if the house managers had made that argument, i would not have stood

up obviously. >> they did make it. >> it's a factual argument. they didn't make it. they did not make that argument. i told you the argument i responded to. i stood up because the house managers said, if you have any element, element of self-electability, helping yourself in the election, that's what constitutes the corruption. if they hadn't made that argument -- that argument brought to mind to me joe biden. joe biden. if he himself had said 99% of why i asked them to fire the prosecutor was in the public interest, but in the back of my mind, 1% maybe it would also help my son who is on the board of burisma, under the theory of the managers, that would make joe biden into a criminal and impeachable. it was that argument that i was addressing. i was making the constitutional arguments. and the constitutional arguments inevitably deal not with the particular facts, that was for other people. but with the abstract constitutional arguments they

were making. they were making an argument that was dangerously overbroad. >> they used the word corruption -- every time they make the argument that i've heard it. >> corruption to describe, yes, to describe a president who thought that maybe he can help his reelection. that's their definition of corruption. lincoln was corrupt under that definition. >> i don't agree with that analysis. go ahead. go ahead. go ahead. go ahead. >> let me finish. >> go ahead. >> because i made this point. i said that obama broke his promise to bomb the syrian military if they used chemical weapons. >> right. >> he broke that promise. if there were a memo in the file -- this is the hypothetical

part -- that said he was going to bomb them, but his pollsters said to him, gee, it would really hurt you with some of the hard left, and he changed his mind on that basis. i asked the question, would that be corrupt? the answer is no, of course not. and neither would it be corrupt if any other politician -- and i talked to the senators. many of them came to me afterward and thanked me for making the argument because i said -- >> of course, they did. and they were all republicans. >> they look to electability and the other side was making the argument that would criminalize that and make it impeachable. that was my argument. i was not responding fought facts because i never agreed to come on the senate floor and talk about the facts. >> i hear you, professor. >> i agreed only to the role of being a constitutional analyst. i laid it all out in my monday night speech and i responded to questions last night. >> i know, i watched it live. evgenia i'm very proud of the role i played. i defended the constitution. i would be making the same argument if hillary clinton were impeached and she would be impeached on abuse of power and i'm consistent. >> you see how fair we are? i ended the first part of this interview on him, when my response is actually much better. that's how fair i am, or we have to talk about the editing. now, when we come back in the next hour, we have the rest of it because what's the problem with the argument there? when you're on the team, you own what the team is about. i know the professor doesn't like that.

i now he doesn't agree with it, but it is the perception, which is why he's getting raked over the coals as he is. and the bigger point you'll hear sussed out. why bring up obama, why bring up biden, why bring up lincoln if you're not worried about mitigating the effect of the facts in this case. that's what the professor has to answer for and he will and we'll get a take on what this argument means from the better minds. next. 2-hour. and this is charlie still not coughing while trying his hardest not to wake zeus. delsym 12-hour. nothing lasts longer for powerful cough relief.

$$9.95? no way.? $9.95? that's impossible. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company, to tell you it is possible. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get life insurance with options starting at just $9.95 a month. okay, jonathan, i'm listening. tell me more. just $9.95 a month for colonial penn's number one most popular whole life insurance plan. there are no health questions to answer and there are no medical exams to take. your acceptance is guaranteed. guaranteed acceptance? i like guarantees. keep going. and with this plan, your rate

is locked in for your lifetime, so it will never go up. sounds good to me, but at my age, i need the security of knowing it won't get cancelled as i get older. this is lifetime coverage as long as you pay your premiums. it can never be cancelled, call now for free information. you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. use this valuable guide to record your important information and give helpful direction about your final wishes to your loved ones. and it's yours free. it's our way of saying thank you just for calling. so call now.

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.

to the panel, professor, the idea of the professor dershowitz is, i'm here for the constitution. i don't mess with the facts. and that's a good fact argument. i wouldn't have stood up if i heard that. can you have it the way the professor wants it? >> i think it's difficult. he's trying to have it, of course, both ways. he's also trying to pretend as if he doesn't recognize the context of where he's making the argument. and the ramifications of his

arguments. he is changing the facts or the hypos when it's suiting his argument. he's arguing against a straw man the entire time, trying to pretend like it's the issue he is facing is different than the issue he is defending. >> when he stands up, and says it's unfair. i don't believe that. he says, i don't think the president can do anything because they think it's in the public interest. however, does he get caught up in the analogies where he seems to be mitigating the impact of what trump did by mentioning, just so happens, democrats, and abraham lincoln? >> yes. the framers had two twin evils they were trying to prevent. one was self-dealing.

you have both in the trump/ukraine context. what dershowitz is trying to do is deflate self-interest with self-dealing. and they're two different things. a political calculation of how this might affect my election chances is different than using your power in a way to benefit yourself direct ly directly par in secret. this dooms that your actions are public. people will like it or don't like it. that's why you care what they think. trump was trying to conceal it. it wasn't about electability or general self-interest. he was self-dealing to himself. >> at best, the professor is cherry-picking what the democrats were arguing. saying, if it's 99% for the

public and 1% for you, the 1% is tantamount for corruption and that's to the people. he'll say, i didn't play the clip. but i played his own paraphrasing of the clip. didn't they argue that it was corrupt what he did, not just for himself. but this is bad and i'm doing it anyway? >> i think what the professor is doing an intellectual sleight of hand. on the one hand, making policy decisions. every elected official makes policy decisions. and you think, will this help me or hurt me? on the other hand, separately, is corrupt self-dealing. here's a fact that draws out that difference. through all of that ukraine scandal, he never went through d.o.j. he never went through the department of justice and never went through the channels. that takes this out of the first

category, the routine category and into the second category of secret corrupt self-dealing. >> i'm the one person on this panel that didn't go to law school. >> you don't have the best answers. >> i will apply common sense. i hope i have some of that. his argument is absurd. and the absurdity of the argument is drawn out when he brings up obama. obama could have decided to make a foreign policy decisions based on polling. presidents do that. i don't know if he did and i don't think he did. but there's nothing inherently criminal or impeachable about that. politicians make decisions on a number of factors. that's not what happened here. what happened here, he had his own self-interest. he went to describe or extort

the country to influence the election and smear joe biden. i don't have to go to law school to know that's wrong. it's wrong on its face. i was taken by the fact that some 15 senators congratulated me. they were all republicans. he dishonestly gave them an out. they can say, professor dershowitz who voted for hillary clinton and is at harvard says this is okay and the president can do anything. and he's left the impression and the precedent that presidents can do anything. >> i think you're right, except for one word. i think he honestly gave them an out. i think he believes that this is under the category of the 1,000 guilty men go free so the 1 man -- except, instead of on the facts, it's on the mechanism that joe is right, everything he did is wrong, you're 100% right, don't vote for him but you can't impeach him.

>> nobody elected alan dershowitz. nobody voted for him. i don't really care at this point what he thinks. >> right. they brought him in. >> they brought him in and brought him in to give that out. it doesn't matter if he thinks he is telling the truth or not. they used him for that. >> he thinks he is telling the truth. we'll keep this conversation going. i'll give the professor that. i don't think he did this in bad faith. whether it had the impact he thought it would, whether it is seen the way he thought it would be seen, that's for you to decide. now, another thing for you to decide, is the president's fate because that's all that's left, if impeachment is over. how do you judge the behavior? the question is, will you know enough to make an informed judgment? stay with us. lysol laundry sanitizer kills 99.9% of illness- causing bacteria detergent leaves behind. lysol. what it takes to protect.

- do that are degrading?ideo tapes, film reels, or photos, legacybox professionally converts them to dvds, thumb drive, or the cloud. legacybox is simple and safe, with over half a million satisfied customers. visit legacybox.com today, and get 40% off.