tomorrow attorneys for the former president get to make their case for akwcquittal tomorrow. the news continues. let's turn things over to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> welcome to this special late night edition of prime time.

it is midnight in the east. the trump lawyers are up next in the impeachment trial after house 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 at 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 impartial. now you know that members of the republican side of the senate are meeting with the defense team. how is that impartial? they took an oath to be impartial. how is that impartial? one trump lawyer, castor, 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hasn't been retracted by trump, so prosecutors are warning he must be blocked from ever running for office again, not for the sake of punishment. that's not what impeachment is about. the founders knew that 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 arguments now from cnn's ryan nobles. >> he attacked the first amendment. he attacked the kuconstitution. 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

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! 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? >> i was 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 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 arguments tomorrow. 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 warn that it was incumbent 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 allotted 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 expect. 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? >> ryan nobles, thank you very

much. just to remind the difference between this and a criminal trial, the defendse has no burdn 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 it 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, gentlemen, for being with us tonight. >> thank you. >> good to be with you, chris. >> so, senator flake, haven't talked to but this yet. what are you hearing from your former brothers and sisters on the right about what they think about what they're a part 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 that

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. 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 although i do want to play a sound bite from senator cassidy and see if you think this is a suggestion of maybe breaking ranks. >> there's a few things 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. and 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. it's part of the problem. charlie dent, do you think there is a chance -- and obviously, senator flake, i want your take on this as well. charlie, 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 constitutionality the other day. you know, and the problem has been 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 senators schumer and romney literally escaping moments before the mob was just about upon them. so 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 might have meant something. but to answer your question, you know when they don't call a mercy rule is when the people who make the decision and keep the score are the parents of the two teams. then you're going to wind up having a split decision like this. 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? >> i do think there's movement. it's not going to be 17, which is what they're going to need.

-- he's indicated 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. this is not quite the genius of the merrick garland judge switch, but him saying we should delay this until after so we can give it its due time and consideration. then he votes to say it's unconstitutional twice. he's a tricky read. we keep talking about how 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 -- look, 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 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 their vote will only look better and better over time. 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 is power in numbers and that has always been the problem with guys like my friend jeff

flake and me, at times i feel there was too few of us speaking up. but when you hear powerful voices like adam kinzinger and liz cheney 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. >> the interesting aspect of this, senator flake, is 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? >> you know, that's what's just unbelievable. it really is. but it's not just donald trump that 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 if i go against him. but right now i don't want to go against that base. so i think that's very much a calculation that they make, and it's unfortunate because i think the evidence speaks for itself. >> also, you know, it's a tricky calculation. i totally get it. it makes sense. you laid it out very cogently. but then you have the danger of the unknown. you acquit trump, you know he's going to say it's a victory. you know it's going to empower those 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.

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 simply failed to stand up and tell hard truths to people. many leaders in congress failed to tell their members the truth. now you have members of congress failing to tell their constituents the truth. they knew the election was over. they simply had to say so and not indulge these false narratives, these lies. i think is coming back to bite us. that's what led to the insurrection. so at some point, the party is going to have to stand up and say, are we going to be a party of truth and honesty, rule of law, democracy, or are we going to continue to be taken over and bullied by these conspiracy theorists, these white nationalists, these proud boys and these oath 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. chances are you have some questions right now here are a couple answers... lysol disinfectant spray and lysol disinfecting wipes together can be used on over 100 surfaces.

and kill up to 99.9% of germs. lysol. what it takes to protect.

do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy, even a term policy, for an immediate cash payment. call coventry direct to learn more. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized that we needed a way to supplement our income. our friends sold their policy to help pay for their medical bills and that got me thinking. maybe selling our policy could help with our retirement. i'm skeptical, so i did some research and called coventry direct. they explained life insurance is a valuable asset that can be sold. we learned that we can sell all of our policy or keep part of it with no future payments, who knew? we sold our policy. now we can relax and enjoy our retirement

as we had planned. if you have one hundred thousand dollars or more of life insurance you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit conventrydirect.com to find out if you policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance. want to brain better? unlike ordinary memory supplements— neuriva has clinically proven ingredients that fuel 5 indicators of brain performance. memory, focus, accuracy, learning, and concentration. try our new gummies for 30 days and see the difference. 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? >> reporter: 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 there's this 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 she was awaiting direction from

president trump. 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 that this is an elaborate trap. unless the potus himself activates us, it's not legit. potus has the right to activate units too. if trump ask mes me to come, i will. again, this is an indication according to prosecutors that this is what watkins and her co-conspirators were waiting for, the signal from the president in order 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 we've seen so far.

and in this case, you know, 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 they were armed with helmets and gloves. 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. well, 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 wait we anticipate. let's bring in better minds. elliot williams and john dean. let's take one step backwards for a second, fellas. thank you for being here. and start with, ooh, that's scary stuff, hearing that lady from the oath keepers saying, i'm waiting for the word and the proud boys showing up. but the link is going to matter. where is the proof, elliot, 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 at a criminal trial. it's still somewhat the threshold here. prosecutors can't make that link. >> right. well, again, we should be careful. this is not a criminal trial. and as congressman raskin said today, common sense should dictate, and mocommon sense say these people would not have been there were it not for president

trump directing them to be there, a pattern of conduct over six months or so that led the people to be there. the fact that the justice department is prosecuting these people, from the perspective of trump's lawyers, vindicates the point we've been making all along, which is we don't have to do this here because there's a criminal justice system that can prosecute wrong doers. frankly, 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 -- wrinkled brow, 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 had passed a law saying a president can't say, go to the capitol and attack people, then you'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 -- trump cannot use that as a defense for actions he took as president. the first amendment protects citizens from their government, not 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 smokescreen 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, elliot, 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. mitch 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 counsel. so this is just about giving them cover. isn't that easy to do? >> oh, it's incredibly easy to

do, and, again, you make a great point with meeting with defense counsel because there are lots of ways in which this is not like a criminal trial. for instance, a lot of the evidence we saw today would have likely been excluded from a real court as hearsay. the statements from chris christie, for instance, would likely have not made it into court. the question comes to how seriously the members of the senate take their oath to be impartial, and can they, recognizing that this is a junck proc -- unique proceeding, can they put aside their biases as members of the public and try to adjudicate this on the fact ? we have every reason to believe that won't be the case. 44 members so far have suggested what their -- now it's a question of, as mitch mcconnell has said, a vote of conscience for some of the members of the senate. 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 undeniable 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 because really the house managers never had a chance. the people go into the room saying they want to acquit. do you think the only decision to look back on will be witnesses? i get what the calculation was. well, then they get to bring in witnesses. they're going to bring in all these people that 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, as elliot

said, would not. i think the witness issue ended up in the resolution as sort of a fallback. 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 fallacious that it needed to be knocked down with somebody who 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. i think that's what that's there for. if it doesn't happen tomorrow or when they present their case, there will be no witnesses and this thing will head toward the question and answer session. >> chris -- >> go ahead, elliot. >> that's not uncommon. back to this point this isn't a criminal trial and so on, but prosecutors at the start of a trial will always submit a witness list to the court of every possible witness they might call but are not ever obligated to. >> right. >> 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 who could potentially provide information is out there, but they could easily have closed their case yesterday after that mitt romney video and been 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. 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 brandonburg standard, and i was saying it's not a criminal trial. this is a different standard. but a lot of them, they could rely just on that, that it's not enough. you don't connect him with words directing them to do what they

did in a way that satisfies the law. that could be enough right 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 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 didn'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 clinton, her book and her analysis along with bill weld became sort of 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 establish that nixon obstructed justice. they were prepared to let him have a pass. so same thing. >> you know, elliot, we will never -- we've never seen anything like this before where you have a president impeached twice, 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 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 he even goes as far to say were co-conspirators, some of them who had worked or were at least aligned sufficiently with the president. and, you know, back to this question of a crime, setting aside incitement and all of the above, what governs the president's conduct far more than anything in the criminal code is article 2, section 3 of the constitution. it's the take care clause. it is that 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 duly executed

elections after his folks had 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. >> someday 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? ellio elliot williams, john dean, thank you for your expertise and your time. 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 complicit y watch, next.

oh, you think this is just a community center? no. it's way more than that. cause when you hook our community up with the internet... boom! look at ariana, crushing virtual class. jamol, chasing that college dream.

michael, doing something crazy. this is the place where we can show the world what we can do. comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wifi-enabled lift zones, so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. oh we're ready. ♪ ♪

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. this is politics. it's ugly, it's obvious, and it's politics. 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 a 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 that i don't know it's going to be terribly difficult to swallow. you know, everyone has sort of come into this thing with an expectation of what's going to happen. the bar is low enough that it's not going to be very hard to clear. i thought the move today was, to your point, you're exactly right, meeting with defense counsel certainly does betray this as a political effort. but i think it was a strange decision simply by virtue of how much emphasis they are expected to put on comparing this to a criminal trial by making these assertions about the first amendment and about the constitutionality of it and about whether or not the standard has been met for donald trump to have incited the crowd. they're really going to be playing this card a lot. we insist upon there having been due process as part of this, which was not the standard that was met and so on and so forth. then to go and have that meeting really does belie the point that, yes, this is just about politics. it's always been about politics. that's why we know how this thing's going to turn out. and because of that, i feel like everyone has already made their peace with the likely outcome. >> now, 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. 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, i think, was the first senator ever from the president's own party to vote to convict, so obviously there's a political dimension shere. there are only three senators left in the republican caucus who states he didn't win both times. it's a reflection of the extent to which the party has retreated into trump country under his presidency. i do think it's a little larger than that. if you look at this in a slightly larger context of all of the republicans who supported his efforts to subvert the election, two-thirds of the state attorneys general, two-thirds of the house republicans signing on to that lawsuit, if you look at house republicans just now basically allowing marjorie taylor greene

under the tent, refusing to excommunicate her, and now again after this, it's hard to imagine a more egregious breach of the oath of office as liz cheney said, 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 that they are sending from these serial decisions and think certainly 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 at attack, almost all of them are going to refuse to draw a line. >> you have 34 of the senators on the republican side, they're not running again or they're not up, and they are still toeing 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 those 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. >> no, 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 in which donald trump started saying things which they could generally agree with and then donald trump took them way further down the path than they were expecting. right after the election, there were all sorts of senators stepping forward saying, you're right, we need to make sure we're investigating these allegations of there having been irregularities in the vote. they still understood this was where donald trump was trying to take the base.

they wanted to go along with the base as far as they could. 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 than others, ted cruz for example, josh hawley went much further than others in the caucus, 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, aha, you were dishonest with the american public and betrayed your oath when they have fostered that same argument. >> if these guys are really the rinos, republicans in name only because they're cottoning to this outside fringe and extremist element, what happens to the republicans, ron? there are real republicans. 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? >> look, that really is the question because we talked about last night, about 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 is not a big number in terms of the internal balance of power, it's a plenty big number to be catastrophic to the republican party if that one-fifth to one-quarter says 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 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 2011,

democrats face a huge choice. their one point of leverage to stop this train heading toward them 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. >> aren't the republicans kind of -- whatever you want to call them, i don't know what they are anymore. but aren't they making an easy decision to blow up the filibuster? if they are going to acquit here and they do all these -- the idea that it will come back to bite us, it's going to come back to bite you anyway. anytime the republicans can play to advantage, they do exactly that and beat the democrats. we've seen it time and time again in recent history. 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. now, the last part i think we should deal with because there's a good answer. some n95s 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. i got this mountain bike for only $11. dealdash.com, the fair and honest bidding site. we sold an ipad worth $505 for less than $24. a stand mixer for less than $20. a 4k television for under $2. a macbook pro for under $16. as well as a playstation 4 for under $16. and brand new cars for less than $900. dealdash.com offers hundreds of auctions every day. all auctions start at $0 and everything must go. and don't forget, we offer a full 90 day money back guarantee on your first bid pack purchase. i won these bluetooth headphones for

$20. i got these three suitcases for less than $40. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com today and see how much you can save. there are auctions going on right now, so what are you waiting for?

mark your calendars. dr. anthony fauci now says the u.s. could start letting the general public get access to covid-19 vaccines in april. and by the end of july, president biden declares there will be enough vaccine for 300 million americans. now, a lot of you may be buying

n95 masks right now because most experts say that's the one to wear, especially if you're going to wear just one, which pretty much everybody wants to, right? there are fakes flooding the market. the feds have seized nearly 15 million counterfeit face masmasks entering the u.s. since the beginning of the pandemic. how can you tell? i'll tell you right now. first, don't confuse this issue with the n95 with the kn95. kn95 are the masks -- i'll bring in dr. william schaffner. he can talk about k n95 masks in a second, but let me tell you how to find out if you have the real deal or not, okay? on the back, there should be this logo, okay? niosh. that's that national institute for occupational thing that i just read to you, okay? and an approval number that begins with tc. then you can go to the niosh site and check the tc number,

okay? masks should have a headband, not ear loops, okay? that means that the band should be going, you know, around this way as opposed to looping top to bottom. you know what i'm saying? eve been wearing these masks for a long time. also no claims on there that they're okay for kids and no decorative elements, okay? so if you follow that guidance, it's been pretty good for law enforcement in terms of that's how they've been flagging them. so that's that. now let's just talk in general about mask-wearing and why it's so highly recommended. is the doctor there? >> he's here, chris. >> thank you, sir. it's good to have you in the house. two key methods for lab experiments to show that you can reduce exposure 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

they work to protect you if i wear them. and that's very reassuring. now, you have to put the mask on correctly, right? it 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. >> you got to wear it right. most people don't, right? >> right. this does not count. you've got to wear above the nose, please. >> and the idea of wearing two masks, how much of a difference are two versus one if one is worn correct lily 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. obviously, see? i'm breathing through the mask. there's little, if anything, that's going around the side. the work of breathing is a little bit harder, but you do get another layer of protection. you begin to approximate what you can get from the n95. >> so if you get the n95, you only need that one? >> that's correct. you should not wear 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 of 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, dr. william schaffner. appreciate you as always. >> my pleasure. >> thank you all. it's a pleasure for me to be here with you in these important times. stay tuned. the news on cnn continues.

for nearly a decade, comcast has been helping students get ready. we've connected 4 million low-income students to low- cost, high-speed xfinity internet. we're working with hundreds of school districts across the country to sponsor free internet and laptops. and parents are seeing an impact. and now we're turning 1,000 community centers into lift zones - wifi enabled safe spaces to study. so more students can be ready for anything. i'm trying to do some homework here.

- [announcer] pray.com's bedtime bible stories calm your mind and ease your spirit. download pray.com to get the #1 app for prayer and sleep. welcome to our viewers in the united states and