reminder, attorneys for the former president get to make their case for acquittal tomorrow. our special coverage starts at 11:00 a.m. eastern. news continues right now, let's turn things over to chris. >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo and welcome to this special live late night edition of "prime time." it is midnight in the east. the trump lawyers are up next at the impeachment trial after house prosecutors, managers, rested their case. and we're hearing they're looking to keep arguments short and tight, because really, what is there to defend? the less they say may be the better after that opening day disaster. but that was largely stylistic. look, the jury is rigged. we are not as a criminal trial. these are not members of the

society, simply. they are invested and interested parties. senator mcconnell told you that. he said they're not impartible. now you know that members of the republican side of the senate are meeting with the defense team. how is that impartimpartial. they took an oath to be impartial. one trump lawyer demolished his own client's lie that the election was stolen from him. he said voters are smart enough to pick a new administration and they did. the big lie, of course, led to this insurrection and it still hasn't been retracted by trump so prosecutors are warning he must be blocked from running for office ever again. not for the seek of punishment. that's not what impeachment is about. the founders knew there was a criminal justice system. this was about, how do you prevent and remove people from positions of authority, not necessarily for crimes, and that's a big dispute that will be played on in the defense

starting later today on the east coast, tomorrow on the west. more on their closing argue pts now from cnn's ryan nobles. >> he attacked the first amendment, he betrayed his oath of office. presidents don't have any right to do that. it's forbidden. >> reporter: the democratic house impeachment managers have wrapped their case with hours of time available, hoping a shorter presentation will have a greater impact. >> all of my wonderful supporters. >> reporter: on day three, they tied trump to the mob by showing that those who stormed the capitol did so because they believed the president had sent them there. >> you don't have to take my word for it, that the insurrectionists acted at donald trump's direction. they said so. >> we were invited here! we were invited! hey, we were invited here! we were invited by the president of the united states!

>> reporter: the managers showed several examples of rioters shouting trump's name and proclaiming they were doing his bidding. >> does he not realize president trump called us to siege the place? >> following my president. i thought i was following what we were called to do. >> we're fighting for trump. >> reporter: they then showed how trump offered his support for the mob and demonstrated no remorse for the role he played in inciting their anger. >> my speech and my words and my final paragraph, my final sentence, and everybody to the teeth thought it was totally appropriate. >> we know president trump didn't make a mistake. because you see, when you or i make a mistake and something very bad happens, we would show remorse. we would accept responsibility. president trump didn't do any of that. why not? because he intended what happened on january 6th.

and how do we know that? he told us. >> reporter: trump's legal team will get their opportunity to rebut the democratic argue ptar but they attempted to get a head start today. their lead lawyer, david schoen, left the chamber while the trial was under way to go on fox news. he promised their presentation will show no link between trump and the actions of january 6th. >> i think you'll at least be moved by what you see and get a much better picture of exactly what's going on here and the hypocrisy in some of the positions taken by the house managers in this case. >> reporter: but democrats believe they've provided overwhelming evidence of trump's connection to the crime. and warned that it was income bent upon these jurors to hold him accountable because of what might happen in the future. >> i'm not afraid of donald trump running again in four years. i'm afraid he's going to run again and lose, because he can do this again. >> reporter: and it looks like this impeachment trial of former

president trump could wrap up much sooner than we expected. the trump legal team gets the case on friday. they've indicated they may only use three to four hours of the 16 hours they have alotted for his defense. that means the question and answer period could start friday afternoon. now, there's still the opportunity that witnesses could be called. that could make the process go a little bit longer than we expected, but both sides have indicated that they do not believe that witnesses will ultimately be called. that could mean that everything could wrap up as soon as saturday night. chris? >> all right, ryan nobles, thank you very much. you know, just to remind you, the difference between this and criminal trial, the defense has no burden in a criminal trial. it doesn't have to put on what they call a case in chief. that's the prosecution's burden, because they are the one with the burden of proof. so, here could mean different things, that they're keeping it short. what's the most likely reason for that? let's bring in two republicans right now who know the jurors well, jeff flake and charlie

dent. thank you both for being with us tonight. >> thank you. >> good to be with you, chris. >> so, senator flake, haven't talked to you about this. what are you hearing from your former brothers and sisters on the right about what they think of what they're apart of right now? >> well, i can tell you, the prosecution was much more -- i mean, it was much more moving than i expected. i thought that i'd seen all the footage, i thought that i knew where i was, obviously, you know, i thought that the president ought to be convicted before, but boy, this -- the show they put on in the last three days was incredibly gripping and moving and i can tell you, my former colleagues couldn't help but be moved and i think you saw that mostly yesterday, where new footage came up and i think they realized for the first time, some of them, how close they really were and the timeline, knowing what the president did and what he didn't do, right in

the midst of it all, particularly going after the vice president as he did, right when he was in danger. >> of course, being moved emotionally is different than being moved dispositionally -- >> that's right. >> i want to play a sound bite from senator cassidy and see if you think this is a suggestion of maybe breaking ranks. >> there was a few things that they laid out with great care. the timeline in which you see the events unfold. and during that timeline, the president's inaction in calling out support for the police officers. so, what i hope the defense does is explain that. >> i apologize for saying breaking ranks. that's the last kind of attitude we need right now, that's part of the problem. charlie dent, do you think there is a chance, i want your take on this, as well, flake, but do you

think there's a chance that a bill cassidy could vote to convict? >> yeah, i do, because the evidence has been so overwhelming and so overpowering. clearly senator cassidy was moved by it, that's why he voted the way he did on const constitconstitution al lity the other day. and the problem is, if this were a little league game, the mercy rule would have been invoked sometime yesterday morning. i mean, this is just so -- again, it was such a powerful argument. the defense, you know, has its job cut out for them. they just have a bad client, they have bad evidence, bad facts -- i don't know how anybody could watch this and not be moved by it, particularly after we witnessed the images of the vice president and his family and senator schumer and romney, you know, literally escaping moments before the mob was, you know, just upon them. i think this is a strong case and i think maybe a few could be moved. >> if pence had been out there right now complaining about what

was done to him and why, maybe it would have meant something. but to answer your question. you know when they don't call a mercy rule? when the people that make the decision and keep the score, are the parents of the two teams. what do you think, senator flake? do you think that there is movement for cassidy or for anybody else or is this all about staying together and showing no weakness? >> well, i do think there's movement. it's not going to be 17, which is what they're going to need. bill cassidy has indicated that he's listening and anybody who listens, really, is going to be moved here. i also think it's not beyond the realm of possibility that mitch mcconnell will move, as well. maybe a john thune or a rob portman. there are some who could move here. i don't think it's going to get to 17, but this has been a moving, you know, couple of days, it really has. >> you know, mcconnell, you know

him, i don't, tough read, he really bamboozled them on this one. i mean, this is -- not quite the genius of the merrick garland judge switch. him saying, hey, we should delay this until after so we can give it due time and consideration and then votes to say it's unconstitutional twice, i mean, he's a tricky read. an interesting part of this dynamic, charlie, we keep talking about how these guys, these men and women, are scared they're going to get primaried if they go against trump. 34 of them are either retiring or don't have a primary coming up. so, what's their motivation to vote against what they know is so obvious? >> yeah, i mean, i don't -- i don't think there should be any reason why members are so fearful. donald trump is a diminished figure. he is disgraced. he's been impeached twice. i believe he will be a weaker figure going forward. there is -- and you talk to these -- talk to these ten house republicans who voted to

impeach, they feel empowered and liberated, in many ways. yes, they took an enormous risk. they risked their jobs in order to save it. they did the right thing. and i think that their vote will only look better and better over time and i think many senators should feel the same way about a vote on conviction. they will look better. the more members who speak up and tell the truth about what has occurred, the stronger they will all be. donald trump can't fight with everybody. and he knows that. so, there's power in numbers. and that's always been the problem. with guys like jeff flake and me, at times, there were just too few of us speaking up. but when you hear powerful ful voices like liz cheney, peter meyer and others, i feel much better that there is a force that's pushing back. and we need to grow that force. and we will further diminish donald trump. >> you know, the interesting aspect of this, senator flake, is that the men and women who are seeking to protect, in likelihood, donald trump, were

not protected by him. that mob came looking for them. and they know that trump was aware of what was going on. kevin mccarthy called him, asking for help and he pushed back, he didn't want to do it. he wanted to just slow down the proceeding. i mean, what does it mean that they would seek to protect him from not protecting them? >> yeah, that -- that's what's just unbelievable. it really is. but it's not just donald trump they're afraid of. he is a diminished figure, but that base is still there, and i can tell you the calculation that many of my former colleagues make. they feel they've already angered one side, the side that wants conviction. and if they were to change now, they would anger two sides. and you make a calculation, you really do. do i really want to anger everyone? and if i can slip by, maybe trump will be a diminished figure, this will be forgiven down the road, but right now, i don't want to go against that

base. so, i think that's very much a calculation they make and it's unfortunate, because i think the evidence speaks for itself. >> well also, it's a tricky calculation. i totally get it, makes sense, senator. you laid it out very cogently, but charlie, then you have the danger of the unknown. you acquit trump, you know he's going to do a celebratory lap, you know he's going to say it's a victory. it's going to empower the groups. they already felt it was a righteous cause. and there's a very good chance there will be more of it. then isn't that on your hands? >> well, yeah. i would think so. and this is really where we get down to what this party wants to become. you know, this party really has to be about truth. and part of the reason why we are in this predicament to begin with is because for too long too many leaders who knew better failed to stand up and tell hard truths to people. leaders in congress failed to tell their members the truth and now you have members of congress failing to tell the constituents the truth.

they knew the election was over. they simply had to say so and not indulge these false narratives, these lies. and i think this is coming back to bite us. and that's what led to the insurrection. the party is going to have to stand up, are we going to be a party of truth, rule of law, or are we going to be taken over and bullied by these conspiracy theorists, these white nationalists, these proud boys and oak seekers and other free radicals out there who have a foothold in the party now? and this is a battle that we have going forward. and i think the battle is just beginning, so -- you know, this is not over. >> well, jeff flake, charlie dent, i appreciate you, but we know this. they vote to acquit, forget about being the party of law and order. those days are gone. appreciate you both. let's see how it turns out. let's hope for better days. it's not just house democrats arguing that the rioters took their cues from donald trump. federal prosecutors are now pointing to a statement from a

leader of the oath keepers. these are bad people, okay? they want bad things. will it sway a single republican juror? and how will the trump defense team explain away all the rioters telling you exactly what the link is between trump and their actions? next. ♪ ♪ comfort in the extreme. the lincoln family of luxury suvs.

advanced non-small cell lung cancer can change everything. but your first treatment could be a chemo-free combination of two immunotherapies that works differently. it could mean a chance to live longer. opdivo plus yervoy is for adults newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread and that tests positive for pd-l1 and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene. opdivo plus yervoy is the first and only fda-approved combination of two immunotherapies opdivo plus yervoy equals... a chance for more starry nights. more sparkly days. more big notes.

more small treasures. more family dinners. more private desserts. opdivo and yervoy can cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body during and after treatment. these problems can be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have a cough; chest pain; shortness of breath; irregular heartbeat; diarrhea; constipation; severe stomach pain, nausea or vomiting; dizziness; fainting; eye problems; extreme tiredness; changes in appetite, thirst or urine; rash; itching; confusion; memory problems; muscle pain or weakness; joint pain; flushing; or fever. these are not all the possible side effects. problems can occur at the same time and some more often when opdivo is used with yervoy. tell your doctor about all medical conditions including immune or nervous system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, or received chest radiation. here's to a chance for more horizons. a chance to live longer. ask your doctor about chemo-free opdivo plus yervoy. thank you to all involved in our clinical trials.

new projects means new project managers. ask your doctor about chemo-free opdivo plus yervoy. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a short list of quality candidates from our resume database. claim your seventy five dollar credit, when you post your first job at indeed.com/home.

federal prosecutors are turning up the heat on some of the scariest groups in the country. remember, the number one domestic terror threat are white nationalist extremist organizations. they were invited to the capitol, in their opinion, by the former president of the united states. big moves from the doj against both the oath keepers and the proud boys for their roles in the attack on the capitol. let's bring in evan perez with the latest. what do we know?

>> well, chris, let's take the oath keepers, for instance. this is a group that was one of the first charged with the conspiracy charge by federal prosecutors here in washington and in particular, a woman named jessica watkins who is a leader of the oath keepers, from ohio. she was part of a group that came to washington, they went so far as to do military-style training before they traveled to washington. but according to prosecutors, she had some doubts about coming and she was waiting for trump to give the signal. this is from the court filing today in federal court. as the inauguration grew nearer, jessica watkins indicated that she was awaiting direction from president trump. and it goes on to say her concern about taking action without his backing was evident in a november 9th, 2020, text in which she stated, quote, i am concerned this is an elaborate

trap. the potus has the right to activate units, too. if trump asks me to come, i will. this is an indication, according to prosecutors, that this is what watkins and her co-conspirators were waiting for, a signal from the president to carry out their plan. they went so far, chris, as to come up with an idea of moving weapons from virginia into washington, across the river. again, a very elaborate plan. we're seeing new details come up almost every week in this and in some of the other conspiracies. another one that we saw today, a group of proud boys, five of them, that were charged. this is the largest group that we've seen so far and in this case, you know, they -- the prosecutors said that, you know, they had tactical gear, they were leading a group of protesters, of rioters, past the police lines, they said that they were armed with helmets and gloves, they had -- one of them

had a wooden club or axe handle that was initially disguised as a flag. again, it gives you, as you pointed out, these are dangerous people, according to prosecutors, and they're trying to roll up as many of them as they can, hopefully some of them are going to flip and will lead to some more complex charges. again, that's the hope that prosecutors have at this point. >> evan perez, thank you very much. appreciate it. especially at this hour. donald trump's lead attorney tells cnn they are streamlining their presentation. they want to wrap it all up tomorrow. they have to make their argument and then there is a question and answer session from the senators. now, we know from the briefs that they filed, it's likely to lean on a free speech argument. that is not going to go well and i bet you it actually doesn't happen the way we anticipate. let's bring in better minds. elliott williams and john dean. let's take one step back for a second, fellas, thank you for being here, and start with, oh,

that's -- you know, that's scary stuff, hearing that lady from the oath keepers, or whatever they're called, i'm waiting for the word, and the proud boys showing up, but the link is going to matter. where is the proof, elliott, that she had any reason to believe she would ever hear anything directly from the president of the united states? that's what the threshold would be in a criminal trial. it's still somewhat the threshold here. prosecutors can't make that link. >> right, well, this is not a criminal trial. and as congressman raskin said today, common sense should dictate. and common sense says these people would not have been there were it not for president trump directing them to be there or, a pattern of conduct over six months or so, that led the people to be there. but look, the fact that the justice department is prosecuting these people kind of -- from the perspective of trump's lawyers and his supporters in the senate, vind kapts the point they've been making all along, is that we

don't have to deal with this here, because there is a criminal justice system that can prosecute wrongdoers. these people are really, really bad, but they have nothing to do with president trump. and i wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow president trump's lawyers made exactly that point and just said, look, you know, bad stuff happened, but the president didn't incite these people, the president didn't directly tell these bad folks to do anything and we condemn all of the violence that happened. they're going to try to distance themselves and frankly it gives senate republicans an out, a bit of a dodge, to say that there's a process in place for dealing with it, but it's just not impeachment. >> right. john dean, help me understand the first amendment argument, because to me, it seems like that's about when congress makes a law that abridges a freedom. if someone passed a law saying a president can't say, go to the capitol and attack people, then he'd have a first amendment debate about it. how does it apply in an

impeachment trial? >> well, it really doesn't. and i think jamie raskin, who is a former constitutional law professor, did an eloquent job today of knocking it down and showing it really is a farcical kind of argument. trump cannot use that as a defense for actions he took as president. the first amendment protects citizens from their government, not the government officials from their government when they're the actors. so, i don't think the first amendment argument is going to work, chris. it is such a stretch and it's really been pretty well undercut by the presentation of the managers. >> let's listen to a little bit of lead house manager jamie raskin making exactly the argument you're discussing. >> incitement to violent insurrection is not protected by free speech. there is no first amendment defense to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. the idea itself is absurd.

and the whole first amendment smoke screen is a completely irrelevant distraction from the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors governing a president who has violated his oath of office. >> the problem is, elliott, you know, you were right to remind the audience and me, frankly, don't confuse the forums, don't confuse the forums, but it's all about that, because this is about comfort. this jury is rigged, right, by definition. these men and women come in here with a bias. mish mcconnell said it out loud, you know? he said, we are not impartial. they took an oath to be impartial, they then met with the defense cocounsel. so, this is giving them cover. isn't that easy to do? >> it's incredibly easy to do. and again, you make a great point with the meeting with the defense counsel, because there are lots of ways in which this is not like a criminal trial. a lot of the evidence we saw today would have likely been excluded from a real court as hearsay. the statements from chris

christie would not have made it into court. the question comes to how seriously the members of the senate take their oath to be impartial and can they put aside their biases as elected officials or their biases as members of the public and try to adjudicate this on the facts? it's -- we have ever reason to believe that won't be the case. 44 members so far have already suggested what their views are going to be and some have gone even further than that, and now it's a question of, you know, as mitch mcconnell has said, a vote of conscience to some extent for some of the members of the senate. but it's very easy, just like you're saying, chris, for them to distance themselves from the realities of what they heard, because how could you come out of some of those presentations, both on law and emotion, you know, the heartstrings things that we saw, and not think that there's an undenial link between the president and the conduct that we saw, it's just undeniable. >> i don't think it would be fair to second guess it after this, because really the house managers never really had a

chance. the people goi into the room saying they want to acquit. do you think the only decision to look back on will be witnesses? i get the calculation was, well, then, they're going to bring in all these people, the election was a fraud, it's going to be a circus, but wasn't the best chance to shock the conscience to have these people in there saying, i love president trump and i went there because he told me to, that's why i did it. and to hear from the officers about how scared they were and the families and we did this to protect you, wasn't that their best chance? >> obviously it was and i think the house managers very effectively used footage that would have been admissible in a criminal trial, as well. they also used some that, as elliott says, would not. so, i think the witness issue, and that ended up in the resolution, as sort of a fall-back. i think the house managers pushed that it be in there in case something occurred during the trial where some of the evidence was contested or the defense lawyers put on an

argument that was so fell lay shus that it needed to be knocked down with somebody that could do so, like the appropriate witness, that they got that clause in there that if they need a witness, they can call on them or witnesses. and i think that's what that's there for and if it doesn't happen tomorrow when they present their case, there will be no witnesses and this thing will head toward the question and answer session. >> and chris -- >> go ahead, elliott. >> that's not uncommon. now, again, back to this point that this isn't a criminal trial and so on, but prosecutors and the start of a trial will also submit a witness list to the court of every possible witness they might call but are not ever obligated to and sometimes in the course of a trial, things change, stuff happens and they'll decide to call a witness or not. the universe of people that could potentially provide information is out there but they could easily have closed their case yesterday after that mitt romney video and be just as fine as they would have been

after most -- mitt romney being chased, you know, being protected by the officer, because the mob was coming, that was some of the most compelling evidence anyone could have ever seen and i don't know how much witness testimony would have created a stronger case than what we saw. >> you know, it was interesting, i had robert ray on. it's not really worth playing the sound, but it's interesting. he was falling back on what they used in the first trial, which was, you don't have a big felony here, you can't make the case and he was using the brandenberg standard, i said, well, this isn't a criminal trial. a lot of them, they could rely on just that. you don't con nenect him with t words in a way that satisfies the law, that could be enough there and it actually gave ray, john dean, an opening to say on the show, i really was troubled, i thought it was dereliction of duty, how trump didn't act to stop it. that was really bad.

but it's not a crime. they could just play on that. i, through your tutelage and the study i've done, i don't believe that was the standard for the founders. i think that they knew that this wasn't about criminal prosecution, this was about policing your own and preventing damage, but that is a -- an arguable position among the republicans, is it not? >> it is, in fact, chris, it was argued ad nauseam during watergate by the house impeachment republicans. they doesn't want nixon to be impeached for anything less than a full criminal felony or very serious misdemeanor, which they often were talking about a felony. so, that was debated at length and actually the study that was done by hillary rodham at the time, later clintclinton, her b and analysis, along with bill weld, became the standard to guide the committee as to what

were the appropriate understanding of high crimes and misdemeanors and they found it was not necessarily a criminal offense under our code. our code didn't exist at the time that they wrote those provisions, so it is a fig leaf, however. it was an argument that some republicans in the nixon era would have hung on if they couldn't have established that nixon obstructed justice. they were prepared to let him have a pass. so, same thing. >> you know, elliott, we will never -- we've never seen anything like that before, where you have a president impeached twice, sure, but that's the least of it, where this jury, they're not just witnesses, they were victims or potential victims of what happened that day and they still want to give him a pass on the basis of this. we will have never have seen anything like this before and we will have never seen groups as ugly as the ones you know from your prosecutor life being given this kind of empowerment. >> yeah, and they're not just

victims. some of them, you know, you can go as far to say they were co-conspirators. they were at least aligned sufficiently with the president. and back to this question of a crime, setting aside sincitemen and all of the above, what governs the president's behavior is article 2 section 3 of the constitution. it's the take care clause. the president's sole duty is to take care that the laws of the united states are faithfully executed and even if his conduct doesn't rise to the level of being a crime, as robert might have been saying earlier on tonight, he clearly was not faithfully executing the duties of the presidency if he was attempting to undermine dually executed elections after his folks filed 62 lawsuits, all of which lost. so, you know, maybe the president didn't commit a crime, but that's not the standard and that's not the burden that needs to be overcome here. >> some day this will be remembered as the most

forgiveness ever given to a politician by a member of their own party, by members of their own party. the only other question is the chapter that follows it. what will happen next as a result of this? elliott, john, thank you both for your time. now, those on the jury making excuses for the defendant will have a lot to answer for themselves. i really believe that this is more than just a trial of donald trump, it is a trial of that party. this big vote's coming soon and we're going to turn to some of the top minds on complicity watch. next. the lexus es, now available with all-wheel drive. this rain is bananas.

lease the 2021 es 250 all-wheel drive for $349 a month for thirty six months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

what do you look for when you trade? for $349 a month foi want free accesss. to research. yep, td ameritrade's got that. free access to every platform. yeah, that too. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. now offering zero commissions on online trades.

want to save hundreds on your wireless bill? with xfinity mobile you can. how about saving hundreds on the new samsung galaxy s21 ultra 5g? you can do that too. all on the most reliable network. sure thing! and with fast nationwide 5g included at no extra cost. we've got you covered. so join the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction. and get a new samsung galaxy starting at $17 a month. learn more at xfinitymobile.com or visit your local xfinity store today.

trump's lawyers would have a tough task if they were dealing with anything close to an impartial jury, but republican senators, they don't have to be impartial. this is a political thing and they showed that today. they took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, to be impartial and then they went and met with defense counsel. it's politics. it's ugly and it's obvious. now, the question is, how will they justify giving trump a pass

for something that is so clearly a violation of his oath of duty, to take care, to execute the laws faithfully in this country. and to be about law and order. let's talk to two top political minds, phil bump and the professor ron brownstein. phil, i start with you. what is your sense of how tough to swallow this is for the men and women on the right expected to acquit? >> i mean, honestly, i feel like we're so far down the path now that there's been so much self-rationalization, i don't think it's going to be terribly difficult to swallow. everyone has come into this thing with an expectation of what's going to happen, the bar is low enough, it's not going to be hard to clear. i thought the move today was, to your point, you're exactly right, meeting with defense counsel, certainly does betray that this is a political effort, but it was a strange decision simply by how much emphasis they are expected to put on came pairing this to a criminal trial, by making assertions

about the first amendment, the const constitutionality of it, if the standard has been met for donald trump to have incited the crowd. they're going to be playing this card. we insist upon there having been due process as part of this, which was not the standard that was met and so on and then to have that meeting really does belie the point that yes, this is about politics, it's always been about politics, that's why we know how this thing is going to turn out. and because of that, i feel like everyone's made their peace with the likely outcome. >> we went through this issue a little bit once before, ron, about the meeting with the defense counsel and about back with clinton and did they meet, well, they did talk, but they didn't meet. i mean, is this one of those deals where you take an oath to be impartial but none of them expect it to be that way? >> well, look. mitt romney was the first senator ever from the president's own party to vote to convict, so, there's a political dimension here. and wone of the key facts is tht 47 of the 50 republican senators

are from states that voted for donald trump twice. there are only three senators left in the republican caucus from states that he didn't win both times. it's a reflection of the party retreating into trump country under his presidency. but i think it's larger than that, chris. if you look at this in a slightly larger context, all of the republicans who supported his efforts to subvert the election, two-thirds of the house republicans signing onto that lawsuit, if you look at house republicans just now basically allowing marjorie taylor greene under the tent, refusing to excommunicate here. and it's hard to imagine a more egregious breech of the oath of office and they're all going to exonerate him again, i ask the question, has the extremist conspiracy wing in the republican party become too big for the party to directly confront and to try to excommunicate? that seems to me the message they are sending from these

serial decisions. and certainly, i think, from the extremist voices, they are going to take this as an affirmation, as an evidence of their leverage in the party, that even after the senators themselves were the victims, the targets of this attack, almost all of them are still going to refuse to draw a bright line. >> well, look, you're the numbers guy, but you have 34 of the senators on the republican side either not running again or they're not up and they are still towing the line, so, the pull must be very strong. phil, the other point is, are the senators in a little bit of a box because so many of them were saying the same things that trump was saying? they were either saying nothing and allowing him to say it unchecked or they were saying, yeah, there may be something wrong with this election. and of course, you have all of the state laws going throughout the country now in many of their own states to suppress voter turnout. they're in a little bit of a box. >> you're exactly right. if you look at what happened from election night on, it's

sort of a microcosm of the entire trump era, where donald trump started saying things they could generally agree with and donald trump took it way further down the path than they were expecting. right after the election, all sorts of senators stepping forward, even ones who are now critical of trump saying, you're right, we need to investigate the allegations of there having been irregularities in the vote. there were never any credible evidence of real irregularities other than the ticky tack things we see in every election cycle. they wanted to go along with the base as far as they could and so many of them, by my count yesterday, nearly two dozen of them, went along to some extent with this idea that there was fraud that needed to be addressed. some of them went much further, ted cruz, josh hawley, but most of them, about half of them did, and that makes it very hard for them, then, to point a finger at donald trump and say, ah-ha, you were dishonest with the american public and betrayed your oath

when they fostered that same argument. >> so, if these guys are not really the rhinos, republicans in name only, because they are on the south side fringe and extremist element, what happens to the republicans? ron? like, you know, there are real republicans, you know, you and i know them, love them, have them in our families, they are not about trump. they like some of the policy ideas, but they don't like the ugliness. where do they go? >> well, look, that really is the question, because we talked about last night, three-quarters of republican voters are okay with trump, okay with what he's done since the election, do not see anything wrong with his behavior, but an astonishing large number, a fifth to a quarter, it's not a big number, it's a plenty big number to be catastrophic to the republican party, if that one-fifth to one-quarter say they are uneasy, start to move away. the question is, do they see the common policy goals sufficient to hold them? and i think that, you know, the extent to which the party is

kind of winking at this extremism and basically saying, we are allowing you in the party, does put -- does put those voters under real strain. now, what republicans are trying to do, chris, as you noted, is look for ways to maintain majority power without majority support. and there is a tsunami of state level efforts. 33 states, 165 bills to try to roll back access to the vote. the prospect of much more severe gerrymandering, even than in 2011, because of the 2013 supreme court decision, shelby county knocked down the protections of the voting rights act. democrats face a huge choice. their one point of leverage to stop this train is their agenda to create a new voting rights act, new federal standards for access to the ballot but they can't pass that in all likelihood unless they end the senate filibuster and that may be the biggest decision they face in the next two years. >> aren't the republicans, whatever you want to call them, i don't know what they are anymore, but aren't they making it an easy decision to blow up

the filibuster? if they are going to acquit here and do all these obstructionist things, the idea that, well, come back to bite us -- it's going to bite you anyway. any time the republicans have an advantage, they do that and beat the democrats. we've seen it time and time again just in recent history. phil, ron, i'm out of time, but i love talking to you both. be well. almost a year into this pandemic, it's still hard to get people to wear one mask. now we're being told that two are best and some out there could be counterfeit. the last part i think we should deal with, because there's a good answer. some n-95s are fake. the good news is, you can tell if they're the real deal or not. we'll bring in an expert, give you the how-to, next.

new advil dual action with acetaminophen fights pain in two ways. advil targets pain at the source... ...while acetaminophen blocks pain signals. the future of pain relief is here. new advil dual action. when you switch to xfinity mobile, you're choosing to get connected to the most reliable network nationwide, now with 5g included. discover how to save up to $300 a year with shared data starting at $15 a month, or get the lowest price for one line of unlimited. come into your local xfinity store to make the most of your mobile experience. you can shop the latest phones, bring your own device, or trade in for extra savings. stop in or book an appointment to shop safely with peace of mind at your local xfinity store.

mark your calendars, dr. anthony fauci now setz the u.s. can start dr. anthony fauci said the u.s. could get the vaccine by the end of april and by the end of july enough vaccine for milton onion enough vaccine for 300 million americans. a lot of you might be buying n95 which everybody wants to, there are fakes flooding the market, feds have seized nearly 15 million counter fit face masks entering the country since the pandemic. i will tell you first don't confuse this with the n95 with the kn95, the chinese masks meet their standard but not national institution for occupational

health standards here. i will bring in a doctor to talk about k-n95 masks in a second. let me tell you if you have the real deal. on the back should be this logo national institution occupational -- that i read to you, niosh. and approval number,c, and go to the niosh site and check the tc number. masks should have headband not ear loops around this way opposed to top to bottom, we've been wearing these for a long time. also, no claim on there that they're okay for kids and no decorative elements. okay. if you follow that guidance it's been pretty good for law enforcement in terms of how that's how they've been flagging t them. let's talk in general about mask wearing why it is so highly

recommended. is the doctor here. >> he's here. >> thank you, sir, good to have you in the house. two key methods for lab experiments to show you can reduce exposure to to aerosols by more than 95%. what did you learn? >> well, it's really quite clear as we've been saying all along, masks work, they work to protect me and you if i wear them. that's very reassuring. now, you have to put the mask on correctly. right. if has to be fitted nicely around your cheeks and your chin and snug that down around your nose so that there's no air around the sides. and look at me breathing. this goes in and out through the mask. that means the mask is working. >> so you got to wear it right, most people don't, right? >> right. this does not count. you got to wear it above the

nose, please. >> and the idea of wearing two masks, how much of a difference are two versus one if one is worn correctly and a proper mask? >> well, it adds another layer of protection. and snugs down that first mask also. but you have to make sure that they're both there. christian villanueva, see, i'm breathing through the mask. there's little, obviously you see i'm breathing through the mask, there's little more protection. you begin to approximate what you get from n95. >> so if you have n95 you only need that one. >> that's correct. you should not need another mask if you're wearing the n95. the important thing is we should all be wearing at least one mask when we go outside and interact

with others. let's all do that. those of us who would like to wear two, bless you. wear two. wear them correctly. >> do you have to wear a mask after you get the vaccine? >> yes, you do. you have to do that for a couple reasons, one, at the best, the vaccines are 95% effective. i didn't say 100%. so you still need to protect yourself. and we're still not sure whether the vaccine prevents infection. there's still a possibility that we could transmit it to others and until those data are secure we haven't blown the all-clear whistle. so keep wearing the masks, even though you've been vaccinated. >> well-argued and thank you doctor, pleasure as always, and thank you all it's important to be with you at this time. stay tuned.

the news on cnn continues. i took out this personal loan with sofi and it significantly helped me lower the amount of interest i was paying. sofi helped me pay off $23,000 of credit card debt. and i just couldn't have done it without them.

keeping your oysters business growing has you swamped. you need to hire. i need indeed indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base claim your seventy-five-dollar credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/promo

we'll be back at midnight eastern with a special live late-night edition of primetime, but now, it is time for the big show. cnn tonight with d lemon. >> you came early. >> like christmas. >> i was getting myself together here. so chris, we've been preaching and yelling and talking together. >> that's more you, i'm more reasoning and arguing. >> oh, please. >> don't beg, continue. >> why do we keep asking how can