us, we hope you set your dvr so you never miss an episode. we will never be the mob, we will always seek the truth. laura ingraham takes it away, "the ingraham angle" is next. >> laura: i am laura ingraham, this is a "the ingraham angle" from washington. tonight, we now know the rules that will dictate the upcoming senate impeachment trial and members of the president legal team are here to lay out what we can expect over the next few days. and clinton impeachment that's bob barr tells us if they are on the right path. days after shady ukrainian businessman lev parnas leveled a number of shocking allegations, rudy giuliani is here to respond exclusively to those claims. and a frankly disgusting media wanted you to think a pro-gun rally in virginia was charlottesville 2.0.

exclusive video and reaction from the ground you won't see anywhere else. but first, sending the moderates a message. that is the focus of tonight's angle. >> for years some of us have been trying to talk sense into mitt romney. we supported him over mccain, and in 2012 against obama. and i urged him to distance himself from the bush foreign policy and from the g.o.p. establishment in general on issues like china, trade, and immigration. in the spring of 2016, he couldn't help himself from dumping on the then likely g.o.p. nominee donald trump. in a very, very stupid way. >> donald trump tells us that he is very, very smart, i am afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart. he is playing the members of the american public for suckers. >> now in the senate, romney feels that he can play the

people for utah for suckers. now, let's waste millions in taxpayer money, weeks of legislative time, to force the senate to call witnesses that nadler and adam schiff didn't even bother pursuing. >> including john bolton, yes. he someone i would like to hear from. >> laura: if that right. pelosi and adam schiff want witnesses to scuff up the president before the next election, period. it is not about fact-finding. why would any republican agree? there has to be a political price for engaging in these trades. the voters of utah need to let mitt romney know their feelings on this, loud and clear. ditto for all republican voters, by the way, these senators have stop by hemming and hawing on whether there is any impeachable offense here. there is not any impeachable offense here.

markowski has to understand that with the entire presidency on the line, this is no time to show off for independent streak. and calling needs to hear that it is about to get a lot coldere plays footsie with pelosi and schiff. lamar alexander needs to know that his legacy will be forever tarred if he is part of creating a precedent for this type of political impeachment. years from now, historians if they are fair at all will say that this impeachment was a fraud, and a mockery. and a political disaster in the end for the democrats. that's why it is so concerning that we learned tonight that unlike the clinton impeachment trial, mitch mcconnell resolution will not include a motion to dismiss. this is an act of pure political expediency. >> there might have been some kind of trade-off with the

moderates, they clearly got what they wanted in this which is the potential for allowing witnesses who would be deposed first, there is no motion to dismiss. >> mcconnell's sole goal is protecting his senate majority, really susan collins partner, martha, this document exists for their protection. >> laura: e-cig six good luck protecting them if they make the wrong decision. they will only be remembered as crazy fools and puppets of "the new york times." just listen to the voters. >> republicans, impeachment has made them -- >> how do you think this is influencing you as a voter? >> i am becoming more a supporter of donald trump, i think a lot of people feel the same way. >> by the time they made it to ohio during the houseboat, fatigue had set in.

>> it was unnecessary, it's the very epitome of what frustrates people about washington. >> laura: bingo, well said. as i said last year, this isn't impeachment. it is impeachment theater. complete with door prizes. and a full parade. while miraculously, this travesty hasn't slowed down trump one bit. wall street and main street are humming, they don't seem to be taking it seriously. so why should any of us take it seriously? impeachment should always be considered a nuclear weapon of mutually assured destruction. the case and the evidence must be overwhelmingly clear and bipartisan, blatant, and obvio obvious. lest it leads into a toxic, the entire body of politics. the democrats used to believe that. romney and company would be doing the moderate thing by arguing that impeachment is so

serious that it shouldn't be based on theories of what people guessed the president was thinking. >> president trump never told me directly that the aide was conditioned on the meeting. the aide was my own personal gas, based again on your analogy. two plus two equals four. >> laura: all my god. there are no words. if an anonymous whistle-blower and a democrat majority is allowed to threaten the presidency, then all bets are off in the future. i promise you, republican presidents and their staff will be subjected to this type of harassment every time they take off. and that environment, who even would want to run for president let alone work for a republican president? so tomorrow morning on your way to work or dropping off the kids may be, call 202 -- 224 -- 3121.

that's the senate switchboard, jammed the capital lines and urge your senators to dismiss this case, get on with the business of governing. if the senate allows a full-blown trial to proceed, one based on zero factual evidence and no precedent, it will only encourage the abuse of power that got us here in the first place. and no doubt, will trigger a sequel. this is chairman maxine waters just yesterday. >> we will not stop, whether or not that leads to another impeachment activity i don't know. but i know we must continue with the work that our constituents have been elected us to come to congress to do. >> laura: do the moderates want to try to sell that vision of government back home? the people are sick of this, now it is time for deciding. senators, that's the angle. joining me now, counsel to president trump and alan

dershowitz, constitutional representative. what the heck is that? for the president, alan the media has been downright hostile to your constitutional arguments. watch. >> of technical crime back then, i still don't think we need a technical crime. i think your viewers are entitled to hear my argument without two bullies jumping on everything i say and trying to pinpoint and nitpick on what i said. let's talk about what the issues are. instead of trying to attack me. >> obviously, they have been attacking me from day one, they already know what i'm going to argue and they disagree with it because it doesn't matter what i argue, they will of course disagree with it. back in 1998, the issue was not whether or not you need a crime. president clinton most charged with a crime, the issue was whether it was a high crime. so i didn't do the research, i

relied on people like professor larry tribe who said you didn't need a technical crime, that turns out to be wrong. you may not need a crime, the critical point is that obstruction of congress and abuse of power are clearly not within the what was intended, i will lay that argument out quite clearly with sources and i am sure my other members of the trump team will do the same. >> laura: now alan, why did you want to be called constitutional representative rather than like everybody else? you must have a special title, everyone else. i'm just wondering. >> it's exactly what i did in the o.j. simpson case, i am of counsel, i have a special role to perform. my role is to present the constitutional argument, i am not meeting with the team on strategic issues, i am not

involved in whether witnesses should be called, or whether facts should be alleged. my argument is limited as it was in o.j.'s case where i just argued legal issues. that's very common, i have done that over and over again as constitutional counsel to big cases that i don't want to get involved in the weeds. >> laura: it sounds much more fun than having to get involved in the weeds, you can just quote charles pinckney during the constitutional debate. let's pull out all the delegates and start doing that. i appreciate that, alan. one specter hanging over the trial is john bolton's potential testimony. "the washington post" reports republican's are working to make sure he doesn't testify in public, one option being discussed was to move his testimony to classified settings because of national security concerns. robert, are you worried that bolton testifies and some real problems for the president? >> why, because where is that going to take anybody through this process? the whole point of the legal argument that's been made in the

factual record as it exists, which of course the house managers are stuck with, is that it doesn't constitute impeachable offenses because they didn't charge and alleged them. they don't have a sufficient cates that would warrant removal of the president from office, i am not a constitutional scholar i am just a trial lawyer. but as a trial lawyer on behalf of the president, taking a fair evaluation of this, let's look at impeachment. what is the whole purpose of it? the democratic constituency not talking to themselves, the only way this works is if the democratic constituency can talk to the constituency of the other party and convince them that the president should be removed from office. has that happened here at all? ever? is it ever going to happen? the answer is no. i don't care how many witnesses you tried out, or how many arguments you make. that is never going to change. >> laura: what forks are saying tonight alan, democrats mostly are saying well the trum1

pages i haven't gotten through all of it, most of it. it says, okay he did these things, but they are not crimes. and so, he can't be impeached. some of these things. >> totally wrong. totally wrong. that's not the position, the position is he didn't do any of these things. that he is innocent as a matter of fact. every criminal trier lawyer knows when you have disputes over law, you always argue in the alternative. you always argue that the facts don't are not approved, but hypothetically even if they facts were to be proved they wouldn't rise to the level of a crime or in this case and impeachable offense. so, it is not an acknowledgment and anyway by anyone on the legal team that the president did anything wrong, that is just not how that brief could possibly be read. >> laura: here is how one of

the msnbc contributors characterize trump's legal defense. >> it's what i called the i did it, so what? defense. it's may be their best bet for avoiding needing to call witnesses, what they can say is, hey if we call witnesses, but we do that for? all they will do is tell you what we already are telling you. he did it. he did it. and we don't think it's impeachable. >> laura: robert. >> it silly, we would only be arguing both. the democrats really is as was pointed out in the president's submission today, there arguing for an impeachment based upon the president's motives. we don't impeach presidents for motives. >> laura: that's the part of the brief on a motive, it's about subjective intent. and inferring that subjective intent of a president to impeach is something that has never happened. >> not clinton, nixon, johnson didn't happen.

>> that's not sufficient as a matter of law, as a matter of the constitutional text, as a matter of historical practice, and as a matter of the framers intent and on top of all of that, as a matter of fact in connection with the facts alleged here. >> speaking of how dangerous it is, when you start probing motives. every president wants to win reelection, makes foreign policy decisions, at least in part to enhance their electability. are we going to start psychoanalyzing every president motives and creating impeachable offenses out of looking at the worst possible motives that they might have had? no, you judge a president by his or her actions and you judge a president by the effect and impact. you don't judge him by looking into the depths of his mind and trying to figure out where somewhere in the back of his mind he was trying to get some s electability.

that would be so dangerous. >> laura: what i have been trying to impart over the last week plus, gentlemen, is this idea that given what we know already about the allegations and the testimony in the house of representatives, that a motion to dismiss at the outset was almost you can't say required, but if you are a good lawyer, to me that motion has to happen. and for romney, and these other senators, who i guess they are trying to play it cute or cover all their bases, i don't know what they think they are going to get here. oh, we need to hear from bolton in order for me to think that there is no impeachable conduct here. there are only two articles alleged, neither article on its face represents impeachable conduct. under any sensible reading of our constitutional language. so why should there be a motion to dismiss right at the top either by the trump team or by a

republican senator? >> i agree, i agree. i think that that's the right way to go, this is a motion to dismiss case. in which, if it were a criminal case and he were charged with dishonesty, and a list of things he did, the first thing you do is make a motion to dismiss because dishonesty isn't a crime. obstruction of congress is not an impeachable offense, abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. a motion to dismiss and a perfect world would be ideal, but do the american public want to see an end to the trial so quickly? i think that becomes a political issue. >> laura>> we don't live in a pt world, i never quite understood this about the clinton impeachment. if you are going to have opening presentations and do that for both sides, we are going to do this -- for 24 hours apiece, a better characterization you know. if you did it as a civil case it

would be a motion for summary judgment, and a criminal context it equivalent would be judgment of acquittal. i think the door is still open for that procedure lead happen, if you don't call it a motion to dismiss and call it what it properly is, i think you still are going to have an opportunity to have that motion in conjunction with the question about whether or not there will be witnesses properly presented. >> laura: the "los angeles times" is a big story tonight, basically saying mitch mcconnell is trying to rush this, speed this up. get this thing sped up so fast that we don't ultimately ever end up hearing from them. if that fair? >> you think there is fatigue now, wait until on both sides of completed. >> laura: the schedule infuriated democrats, they have a partisan effort to short-circuit a fair trial and to block america from following the historic proceedings. allen, is it up to mitch mcconnell to save the ratings for able television?

if fox viewers really want to follow this because they are so enraged, including as moderate senators, not too happy with them, if that a fair characterization of what mcconnell is doing trying to bore people to death with this western mark or try to speeded up? >> i hope that neither of us will bore our listeners, i think we will present interesting, compelling, i hope people will listen. the arguments, whether he presents them at two in the afternoon or two in the morning is up to the senate leadership. i would prefer to present them at a time when viewers are awake, and can take in the argument. but my argument and our argument is primarily to senators, that is our audience. that is who we will be speaking to, they have to be the ones to vote in the end. >> laura: robert, you are not speaking to the moderates? not just addressing the moderates? >> i think the whole point of this is that there are 100

people there, by what i choose four? and, ellen is right, that ultimately in terms of impeachment and removal from office we are talking to 100 senators. but truly, this is a momentous occasion. we are talking to the entire country. >> laura: absolutely, gentlemen, thank you for joining us. i know you have a lot of work to do still, do your presentations we really appreciate it. we look forward to talking to you again, coming up rudy giuliani offers his first on, response to the claims leveled by ukrainian businessman lev parnas, you don't want to miss this. >> man: what's my safelite story?

i spend a lot of time in my truck. it's my livelihood. ♪ rock music >> man: so i'm not taking any chances when something happens to it. so when my windshield cracked... my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem. >> tech: check it out. >> man: yeah. they came right to me, with expert service where i needed it. that's service i can trust... no matter what i'm hauling. right, girl?

>> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

moms love that land o' frost premium sliced meats have no by-products. [conference phone] baloney! [conference phone] has joined the call. hey baloney here. i thought this was a no by-products call? land o' frost premium. a slice above.

>> laura: the media spent much of the last week touting their new hero, the shady and indicted ukrainian businessman lev

parnas. he has been leveling some serious accusations not only at the president and other top officials but also at trump's personal attorney, rudy giuliani. rudy giuliani drones is now exclusively, great to see you tonight. your name was all over the news last week thanks to your former whatever he is, lev parnas. everyone in the media is waiting for your response, we appreciate you joining us tonight. so first, i want you to listen to the remarks from lev parnas. >> did anybody in the u.s. government or mr. giuliani actually convey to officials in the ukraine that you were there as a representative? >> i did this to introduce myself, tell them i am here on behalf of rudy giuliani and the president of the united states. i wouldn't do anything without consent of rudy giuliani or the president, i have no intent, no reason to speak to any of these officials. i know about joe biden, hunter biden, also rudy had a personal

thing with the metaphor stuff. >> rudy, your response. >> my response is that he is someone i was close to, obviously i was misled by him. i feel very bad, god father to his child and spent a lot of time. i still feel sorry for him, i will not respond to him for each and every one of the misrepresentations he has made, because there are so many. if i am called as a witness i am prepared to do it. in fact, i wouldn't mind being called as a witness for a lot of reasons including being able to reveal the unbelievable amount of corruption that went on between the democratic party and the ukraine all throughout the obama administration. i think people will be astounded to know the hundreds of millions of dollars that he illegally passed hands between americans and ukrainians. >> laura: i got it rudy, but everyone watching tonight is going to think, i just know how to place out. you have been doing this for decades, they will all say rudy giuliani will not respond to the

allegation that the president was directing him to direct lev parnas to do what he was doing in the ukraine to put the pressure. >> i will tell you that he in very large part did not tell the truth. i will give you a couple examples that are public, i will not suckered into a point by point response which i am ready to give in great detail in front of congress or court. in which, it will turn out he lied multiple times. i will give you one, he said that he was part of a meeting that he was called into during a hanukkah party at the white house. and that the president during that meeting deputized him. and told him that he was going to be like his representative, there were four people in that meeting. four people in that meeting, myself, his former partner, igor freeman, and to others say that's actually untrue. at the meeting never took place, the meeting never took place. >> laura: that would indicate

that he wasn't being directed by the president through you. >> it's indicated he lied, it indicated he lied, and miss are presented. like michael cohen did, let me give you a second example. they put out a story that congressman devin nunes met with victor shogun in vienna and 2018, making it a horrible thing that devon nunez did. lev parnas put out that story, lev parnas once again lied. devin nunes was not in vienna at that time, his passport demonstrates that. >> laura: we covered that. >> let me finish, i have to enter it my way. the second part of it is that i interviewed under oath, mr. shogun is prepared to show he hadn't been in vienna for eight years, never talked to devin nunes and that lev parnas lied about him. how many times do i have to prove a man is a liar before he isn't featured any longer as the

main witness for all you people in the press? the man is a demonstrated liar. >> laura: so >> i cannot go through every single one of the things he has said, i can assure you as those lies i just demonstrated, he didn't just lie he lied stupidly. >> laura: what is his motivation? >> a stupid lie is when your partner can contradict you. a stupid lie is when there is a tape recording that can contradict you. a stupid lie is when there is a passport that can contradict you. i can't possibly go through all the lies that he told. >> laura: al all right rudy, let's move on. >> what is motivation? the motivation not to go to prison, and the same thing from michael cohen. >> laura: that's what i figured you would say. rudy, -- >> the man's character got tested. i will lie my way out of it, i

am heartbroken. >> laura: a personal betrayal -- >> i am heartbroken, the lies are not just lies but stupid lies. which means he is extremely poorly represented, i don't let my client to go in and tell a story before people can contradict and check it out. >> laura: let's move on to the other allegation which is that you directed the surveillance of a sitting u.s. ambassador. in the ukraine. >> i can definitely tell you i didn't, he directed surveillance of me which no one is investigating. end of solomon, and your colleague sean hannity. donald trump unity. >> nobody is investigating that, nobody is investigating biden's bribery, nobody is investigating the surveillance of a lawyer, a newspaper reporter, nobody

investigating the money laundering charge against hunter biden which i have as a matter of records. nobody is investigating the money that biden's brother took out of iraq, another half billion dollars. they don't investigate democra democrats, they are afraid. they are afraid of what the media will do to them, instead they take chickens, you know the next word, charges and exaggerate them against the republicans. it is so disgusting the double standard. i have a big surprise coming up, i will devote a lot of time my year exposing the double standard on my own podcast. and i will do it with records, recordings, tape recordings, financial records, a lot of people will put a lot of money out of the ukraine, i learned a lot more about ukraine than i did just the millions that joe biden stole there and the millions he stole in iraq, it's

a disgrace he is not under investigation. >> laura: speaking of bill barr, he could be doing these investigations. lev parnas is saying that he was aware of all of your -- >> this one i can answer definitively. >> laura: let's just play it, then react. >> do you know if rudy giuliani was ever in contact with bill barr? >> absolutely, bill barr had to have known and for everything. it's impossible. >> also sent a letter to bill barr, it's appropriate for you to recuse yourself from the ongoing investigation and pending prosecution of lev parnas. was the attorney general in on whatever was going on there in the ukraine? >> i have never spoken to attorney general barr about this investigation ever, not one word

to attorney general barr about this investigation. not even a congratulations on how well he is handling it, i have been wickham specht, careful, exceedingly careful. not only that, lev parnas knows that. i told lev parnas several times that i would make sure i would never go to the attorney general with the so i wouldn't compromise him. that is a flat out, absolute, despicable lie. i am very disappointed and hurt by him, but that one really is a shame. to try to implicate somebody who had nothing to do with it, i never, i will tell you this definitively, never spoke to attorney general barr about this investigation. never once. >> laura: rudy, we really appreciate you being here tonight. lev parnas has been showcased all over. >> and unreliable man, an unreliable source -- >> they want to get to the president. >> laura: it's the

impeachment, they want the impeachment. >> allow "the new york times" to take a proven liar and not even pointed out. if you will use the proven liar, point out his five lies that have been proven. >> that would be an objective media, a fair media instead of a hatchet job. >> laura: thanks so much rudy, we appreciate it. the gun right rally outside of virginia state capitol could be a bloodbath, which turned out to be a total lie. we speak to a sheriff, plus trump defender steve cortez used to be a cnn contributor so why did they start icing him out? he is here to tell us, next. i'm finding it hard to stay on top of things

a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free woory free.... boom! boom! get free business day shipping... ...at office depot, officemax and officedepot.com

>> laura: today thousands of law-abiding gun owners rallied at virginia's capital to oppose the gun grabbing policies of democrats in the state house. the media did their job, and best job, to smear those at the rally of gun toting racists. so we sent fox's own to richmond to give you the real story. >> usa, usa, usa. speak out none of us want to call this violence at all, we just want peace. but i would love to have the ability to protect myself, my family, and everyone else around me. >> i heard a lot about violence, violence happening out here. >> they want to have universal background checks which we know is a first step toward gun registration which we don't need, target criminals and violations of law-abiding criminals whether it's weapons

or other things, don't target law-abiding citizens. >> it all starts with the second amendment, once they take that from you than it is one right after another. >> the rest of virginia if you look at the second amendment's actuaries city movement and counties, we don't want gun control. we will with it. >> you would have a better chance of laying in the creek and kissing a copperhead than you would getting the firearms from virginians. >> laura: i want to hang out with those people, they look fun. joining me now is someone who was at that rally, richard vaughn. sheriff of grayson county virginia, sheriff we really appreciate you being with us tonight. i know it wasn't easy, so thank you so much. what will happen in your county? if the bill that the virginia democrats are pushing go into effect? >> grayson county is a second amended sanctuary, if these bills are passed as proposed they can still make some changes on this bill, if they are passed as proposed they will not be enforcing and

grayson county. they will be unconstitutional, the constitution of virginia, that is what we will do. >> laura: i pressed one of the state democrats on gun control advocate who is now in the statehouse, he insisted, sheriff, bad guns that are in possession of people now would be grandfathered in and they wouldn't be forced to be turned over, you wouldn't have to turn your guns over. but that is not what i understand, there is a lot of loosey-goosey language in this legislation that would mean you become a felon if you own a particular type of semiautomatic weapon that has a big enough magazine in it. more than ten, you are in big trouble. >> absolutely, senate bill 16 1n

the committee last week, also a health bill to the same effect that could gun grab semiautomatic weapons like the ar-15 which is a light rifle. that is nothing but a .22 caliber rifle, not much more than a squirrel gun. these high-capacity magazines, why are we telling homeowners that they can't have a high-capacity magazine there to defend themselves in these situations? we hear of cases all the time where we have home intruders coming into residences, they need a high-capacity magazine to be able to defend themselves. a lot of people that are disabled have guns in the home and have to defend themselves. >> laura: sheriff, we sent griff jenkins down there, and he was all through the crowd today. these are people from all parts of the state, there were men, women, ethnically diverse, racially diverse, most of them were carrying their weapons because they were outside the perimeter but they didn't allow

anyone to go on the property near the capital with their firearm. and also, you can see the crowd is much more representative in the overhead job there. they didn't allow drones. i didn't understand that, the faa said no drones could be flown overhead either. i guess to take pictures? i don't understand that, seems like they are curtailing everyone's rights going into this rally almost hoping to tick people off to spark some kind of unrest. that never happened. >> absolutely, it was not a state of emergency. i spent several hours in the crowd in uniform with two of my deputies and some of my constituents, we met some of the best people in the country. we ate breakfast this morning with a gentleman from houston who drove 19 hours just to be here in virginia, to help us protect our second amendment rights. we met people from florida, pennsylvania, militia groups, people carrying rifles, everybody there was armed and we

estimated nearly 60,000 people. there wasn't a single person even arrested, the governor made the statement today that law enforcement did a great job, de-escalating the crowd. i agree, law enforcement did do a great job, there was no de-escalation needed. everybody we met there came up to us, shook our hands, thanked us for being there and standing up for their rights. >> laura: sheriff, compare that to the nt for rallies, what happens at those things? people with clubs, cement thrown at people, trash everywhere, assaulting people, the media does a big collective yon. you guys show up, a huge rally for the second amendment, no problem, no trash, no assaults, and you get the sense the media is unhappy. they are unhappy it wasn't didn't play up to their stereotypes, sheriff we are wite up there. thank you for what you do for the commonwealth of virginia, and for the cause of the second amendment. geiser appeared >> thank you for having me. >> laura: the media spent the

days leading up to the rally hyping it as a potential bloodbath, a powder keg of armed klansmen waiting to erupt into violence. >> thousands of gun right activists, white nationalists, militia groups all forming the virginia state capital. >> virginia's governor has declared a state of emergency, hoping to avoid a repeat of the deadly protest in charlottesville in 2017. >> there are a lot of people nervous about what could happen today. >> steve cortez spokesman for the america first joins us now, steve cnn took you off the air for exposing the media's lies. does their handling of today's rally surprise you at all? >> it doesn't, because unfortunately laura when you look at corporate media in this country, they have overwhelmingly forsaken journalism in favor of narrative promotion and the foremost narrative they want to promote about the president is that he is a racist, and that those of us who support him are racist as

well. charlottesville was really unfortunately the linchpin of that argument, i detailed why that is a lie. the charlottesville lie, the president never called neo-nazis find people. for committing what was the unpardonable sin in the eyes of cnn for declawing that deception that they continued to push. they put me on the bench, they took me off the air after i did a video that got 6 million hits detailing exactly why the charlottesville myth was a deception. >> laura: the myth you are focusing on is that the president, and his comments, said to some good. that he was referencing racists or those with clubs who wanted to hurt people, and certainly the horrific killing of an innocent person who was run over at that rally. your point as he wasn't referencing both people, he was referencing whom? >> he was referencing people who were there who believed the

robert e. lee statue should be preserved, the parks name should be maintained. by the way, that is not my opinion, you can look at the actual transcript and video evidence. the president, in fact, not only did he not appraise the supremacists and the hateful bigots who were there, he explicitly condemned them. they should be condemned totally, however, that didn't fit the narrative. so, media in this country round with a different story, i would like to think i was part of pushing back hard against that. as a consequence of telling the truth, of being a truth teller, and as i said just declined the deception -- >> laura: did cnn give you any acexplanation? in writing? >> not in writing no, but they did tell me it was directly because of the charlottesville video. the president retreated at, the president retreated it, it has many millions of views and we did strong work at improving

the truth of the matter. >> laura: cnn doesn't want that, that is very dangerous. to ruin a misconception stereotype that is exploding out there and out for two years, steve we really appreciate you, thank you for coming out tonight. does the trump legal team have the right approach to the impeachment trial? two men involved in the impeachment of clinton have answers, next.y ♪ rock music >> man: so i'm not taking any chances when something happens to it. so when my windshield cracked... my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem. >> tech: check it out. >> man: yeah. they came right to me, with expert service where i needed it. that's service i can trust... no matter what i'm hauling. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

some things are too important to do yourself. ♪ get customized security with 24/7 monitoring from xfinity home. awarded the best professionally installed system by cnet. simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today.

>> laura: earlier in the show we heard from members of truck legal team, now it is time for our own legal team to analyze their strategy. bob barr, former clinton impeachment manager. saul, does mcconnell's aggressive timeline on arguments

help or hurt trump legal team? >> it depends how they handle it, if trump's legal team takes far less than 24 hours simply to present its case based on what you've already indicated and what i believe to be the case, that is that there is no impeachable offense here. or no impeachable offense here, sit down and that will help their case. the house managers, they want to showcase everything about their team, the diversity, all of the greater legal theories, and eloquent, they will take all the time in the world. the trump team ought to take just a few hours, and then sit down. >> laura: the criticism today, saul, from some of the more liberal courts was that trump clearly just chose his lawyers based on how they will do on tv. what about that? >> i think it's ironic in light of how they have been attacked, and particularly they have attacked dershowitz, they can't

have it both ways. we know why he chose dershowitz and starr, because they are outstanding constitutional lawyers. a very seasoned trial lawyer, i think he made some great points tonight. particularly about the motion for summary judgment, i think that the way to go here in this case. >> laura: so summary judgment, for those who missed earlier, tsk tsk. that would be after the initial opening arguments are made, both sides, then you move for what is the equivalent of summary judgment. on everything you have heard, there is no constitutional case for impeachment. correct? >> first, you ultimately left the house put their evidence and that they have developed, then you decide whether or not to call witnesses, then after you have done all that, you say okay, we have heard all of this and even if it is true, we don't believe in this instance that the president should be removed because of it.

that would be a trial. >> laura: i want to look at two experts from both the house argument that released tonight and the white house legal brief, this is from the house brief. although his sweeping cover-up ultimately failed, 17 public officials courageously upheld their duties to provide a documentary evidence of the president's wrongdoing. his obstruction will be long-lasting damage to our constitutional system of divided power as that goes unchecked, bob barred this is what the white house says tonight. the only threat to the constitution the house democrats have brought is the own degradation of the impeachment process and trampling of the separation of power, their fixation on damaging the president has trivialized the momentous act of impeachment. final thoughts, bob. >> there's a regionwide only three pages of the hundred and 11 page report deals with the constitutional basis for impeachment, there is none and they know it.

>> saul and bob, we will be talking you all week long as it develops. it will be quite a week, coming up thomas dyer serves mlk day in a truly tragic fashion, the last bite next. - do you have a box of video tapes, film reels, or photos, that are degrading? 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.

>> laura: it's time for the last bite. tom steyer appeared at an mlk rally and tried to bust a move. ♪

haven't they learned not to try that? kids don't try it at home. oh, boy. dancing with the stars, i don't think so. that's all the time we have. shannon bream, take it from here. >> shannon: you've seen my dancing. i'm not going to criticize anybody els. >> laura: you're good. have a great show. >> shannon: thanks so much. breaking tonight, senate leader mitch mcconnell reveals the rules for the impeachment trial and democrats are crying foul. mcconnell said he's following the clinton model. dems say that's a lie. we have an expert that was part of the clinton management team. we set the facts straight. we were warned it could be a violent day in richmond. the democratic governor says it wasn't because of his decision