thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. yet another day in our living history as american citizens where the front pages of our local newspapers kind of feel like things you might want to save. this is the dallas morning news today, "impeachment trial begins with ritual and rancor. senators sworn in and allegations read. this is the san diego union tribune. senate begins historic trial. "the chicago tribune" sort of went with the dramatic picture lead over the big headline. "washington post," five columns atop page 1. senate trial of trump begins. "wall street journal," yeah. senate opens historic trial of

president. the portla"the portland press h portland, maine. historic trump trial begins. in he, honolulu star advertiser, trial set in motion. "philadelphia inquirer," very dramatic. the trial begins. "st. louis post dispatch" often has very, very good front page headlines for all big occasions. this time they went with a very good one. trump on trial. but i will say as much as i love the "st. louis post dispatch" headline writers, i think they have a run for their money in terms of the best headline nationwide. check out the barkersbuparkersb and sentinel. their headline is perfect. jury duty. get it? as in you are the jurors, senators. do your duty. so good. jury duty. trump's trial begins. senators vowing impartial

justice. this is "the new york times." all six columns, the full width of the front page. trump's trial opens as new evidence emerges. this is "the birmingham news," birmingham, alabama. trial begins with pomp and a bombshell. today the formal summons of the president notifying him that he is on trial arrived at the white house. the white house is expected to make a reply to that in writing by tomorrow evening. also by tomorrow evening, the house, essentially the prosecutors, are expected to file their first trial brief for the president's impeachment trial. the president's side, in effect the defense, will have their first brief due on monday. so this is joined now. this is on. and as noted by those last two front pages we just showed from birmingham, alabama, and new york city, there is this very unusual dynamic at work in this impeachment, which is that the impeachment trial is opening as

new evidence emerges as "the times" puts it, or as proverbial bombshells continue to drop. it's ju which is the way "the birmingham news" put it. the fact that new witnesses are coming forward, everyone has noted that puts pressure on the senate in terms whether they're going to consider witness testimony and documentary evidence, as that new documentary evidence continues to pile up. will the senate pretend none of that is happening, or will they actually look at that stuff as part of considering this scandal, considering the record of the president's behavior that they've got before them? we're going to speak with a key u.s. senator tonight about how that is playing inside the senate and how that may ultimately be resolved. but the fact that new evidence is still coming out right now in realtime, new witnesses are coming forward and saying stuff that is potentially very consequential for the case against the president, i think

somewhat unusually it also means that the politics of this impeachment are very much in flux as the trial gets under way. i mean not trying to be naive p about this, but what the public knows about what the president did is an evolving beast, right? i mean as more evidence comes forward, as the public learns new things about what the president did, that's very much going to affect the public's expectations for how they want and expect senators to judge the president. it will affect how the public views senators in terms of the seriousness with which they are approaching this solemn jury duty. thank you, parkersburg news and sentinel. it will also affect the public's perception of the president's aed alleged high crimes and misdemeanors. this is a live thing. impeachments are always unpredictable, they're so rare.

but the fact this one still has more evidence and more sometimes very compelling evidence coming to the surface, being surfaced by freedom of information act lawsuits, being surfaced by witnesses coming forward who have tales to tell, it matters in terms of how humble we should be about our expectations for this impeachment as it goes forward. and i should mention -- can we go back to "the birmingham news" front page? thank you. one of the things "the birmingham news" is highlighting as a sort of late-breaking development that is important in terms of the senate trial starting right now is that as the trial is kicking off, the nonpartisan investigative body has just determined that when the president withheld aid from ukraine as part of this scheme for which he's being impeached, it was against the law for him to do that. it was illegal for him to do that. there has been a talking point from the white house and among republican supporters of the president in the congress that

this impeachment is a scandal for which there was no technical crime. there was a crime, it turns out, and that official determination that the president acted illegally in withholding those funds from ukraine, that official determination by the gao right as the trial starts -- i mean i know that's something that has been a little bit swamped by other developments this week, but that i may also end up being really important in terms of how this goes forward. that is one of the late-breaking bombshells that is still coming to fore, coming to public notice as the trial starts. we're going to speak with somebody very close to that story about that gao ruling in just a moment tonight, so we've got a lot to come. but i have to tell you even just tonight, the house has released still more evidence that pertains to the impeachment scandal, more texts and call records and communications, even a voicemail that they received from lev parnas, the same lev parnas who i interviewed this week in new york and who had a key role in the ukraine scheme

as essentially rudy giuliani's right-hand man for the duration of this pressure campaign. the things mr. parnas told me in this interview this week are explosive on a lot of different levels. he bluntly implicated not only the president but also a number of other senior administration officials including cabinet officials in the way he told the story about how that ukraine scheme worked. and i know that the white house and conservative media in particular have tried to discount his assertions and his allegations by saying that mr. parnas is under federal criminal indictment, and that is absolutely true. nobody is hiding the ball about that whatsoever. the problem with that politically is that it cuts both ways, right? yes, lev parnas is facing felony federal charges but that puts him in pretty good company in trump world. why is it that so many people connected to this president are in prison or have pled guilty to felonies or have been convicted of felonies or are otherwise up on multiple felony counts?

the president's foreign policy adviser from the campaign, prison. the president's national security adviser, awaiting maybe prison. the president's personal lawyer -- no, not that one, the other one. prison. and now the guy who was with rudy giuliani running this ukraine scheme for the president, yeah, he is facing prison. but like i said, that's a big team, you know? it's easy to take shots at him for his legal problems but at some point don't you look around and wonder how come this president has some many people around him who we recognize from their mug shots? there's a glass houses problem with people being like, don't trust this guy in the trump orbit. he's facing felony charges. yeah, dude, who isn't? but the other problem with this effort to dismiss these allegations and these assertions made by mr. parnas is that it turns out i learned in speaking with him this week and in reviewing very carefully everything that has been released by the house intelligence committee that he

handed over to them, what we've learned about him as a witness to this scandal is that he is that remarkable thing that prosecutors and investigators look for, which is the person who not only was involved at all levels of the scheme that's being investigated. he is the person who did that while keeping all the receipts. he kept everything, it turns out. he has provided reams of documentary evidence, text messages, letters, photos, whatsapp messages. i mean you name it, he has handed it all over to the house impeachment investigators, who bit by bit have been making it public over the course of this week. and it turns out those materials can be used to corroborate his story, to corroborate some of the assertions that he made to me in my interview this week. for example, "the washington post" today took a close look at what i think is actually the most explosive claim that lev parnas made in my whole interview with him, and i know

mr. parnas made a lot of very explosive claims. but i just want to focus in on one of them that i think might end up being the most consequential, and it's the basis of this "washington post" report today sort of checking out, as best they can from the public record, mr. parnas' assertions. i'm not going to replay this whole section of the interview in which mr. parnas made these claims. they're about the vice president. i've cut it down a little bit to pare it down to its essence. but you should see it one more time to refresh your memory. here it is. >> did you meet with an ukrainian official named sergei schaffer? >> yes, i did. >> sergei schaffer is a very senior aid to president zelensky. >> correct. >> it has been reported as far as we understand from public reporting that you conveyed to mr. schaffer the exact quid pro quo, that you wanted zelensky to announce investigations into joe biden or military aid would not be released to ukraine. is that accurate? >> it was a little bit more than

that. basically the message that i was supposed to -- that i gave sergei schaffer was a very harsh message that was told to me to give it to him in a very harsh way, not in a pleasant way. >> who told to you give it to him in a harsh way? >> mayor giuliani, rudy, told me after meeting with the president at the house. it wasn't just military aid. it was all aid. basically their relationships would be sour, that we would stop giving them any kind of aid. >> unless? >> unless there was an announcement made. the conversation -- i told him that if he doesn't -- the announcement was the key at that time because of the inauguration, that pence would not show up, nobody would show up to his inauguration. >> unless he announced an investigation into joe biden, no u.s. officials, particularly vice president mike pence, would not come to -- >> particularly vice president mike pence. >> so the day after that meeting that you had -- >> this was sunday the 12th. >> i believe it was the

following day that, in fact, vice president pence's visit to the inauguration was canceled. >> well, it was after my phone call. the conversation that i laid out to mr. schaffer was basically what i was told to do by giuliani and the president. then afterwards, i relayed back to them saying that he's going to get back to me later tonight, and we're supposed to meet. then around 8:00 or 9:00 at night, i text him back again saying, any word? what's the situation? and at that point because on whatsapp, you can see when a person disconnects you, and he disconnected me, our conversation. he basically -- >> he blocked you? >> he politicked blocked me, an understood that was a no. i said, no go? and i remember rudy going, okay, they'll see. and basically next day pence, to my awareness, trump called up and said to make sure pence doesn't go there. >> so you believe that mr. pence's trip to the inauguration was canceled because they didn't agree? >> oh, i know 100%. >> to announce the

investigations into biden? >> well, because there's other -- the chain of events, that was the key to where we are today because after that, take a look at what transpires. next, within the next couple of days, they realize that now they get word because obviously when pence cancels, they get word that pence is not coming. so now they realize what i was telling is true. >> lev parnas in my interview with him this week made explosive claims about the president, about attorney general william barr, about energy secretary rick perry, congressman devin nunes, rudy giuliani, and, and, and, and. but for my claim, for my money, the claim that he laid out about vice president mike pence is sort of stunning. i mean in the biggest picture sense, it is stunning because senators are being convened in this trial right now to decide whether or not president trump's behavior in this ukraine scheme is sufficiently bad, sufficiently illegal, sufficiently violative of his responsibilities under the

constitution that senators should remove the president from office. if they remove the president from office, they would, de facto, elevate vice president mike pence into the oval office. and so in that circumstance, it would be good to know if vice president pence was also involved or indeed knowingly complicit in the core scheme for which the president has been impeached. i mean there's the possibility here that you are, you know, like arresting bonnie but promoting clyde, right? if they were doing this together and vice president pence was knowingly complicit in the heart of this scheme, you know, demanding that ukraine announce investigations into joe biden, or you get your aid cut off, if he was knowingly complicit in that scheme, if he was part of it, that's a big deal for senators who are now solemnly weighing the prospect of removing president trump from office for his role in that scheme. if vice president pence also had an overt and knowing role in the

same thing. but lev parnas' assertions about vice president pence, explosive as they are, as fascinating as they are, they don't just live out there in space on their own. they are bolstered as "the washington post" lays out point by point. they are bolstered at every turn by documentary evidence that supports the time line of what mr. parnas is describing. quote, text messages and other documents released by the house this week as well as congressional testimony during the impeachment inquiry corroborate the time line that parnas detailed in interviews about the episode. mr. parnas explained to me that he was in contact with a very senior ukrainian government official named sergei schaffer. that, in fact, is bolstered by the string of text messages by parnas and schaffer. mr. parnas told me he was given mr. schaffer's number and he first got in touch with him when he was in ukraine on may 11th. well, turns out that checks out.

here's that text message written may 11th from lev parnas to sergei schaffer. it's written in russian. the intelligence committee has translated it as, good evening, sergei. my name is lev parnas. i'm a friend of rudy giuliani. please call me back. thank you. nine minutes later, to prove who he was and that he had the connections he was bragging out, lev sent along to schaffer a copy of a letter that giuliani had send the previous day to president-elect zelensky. it's not a public letter. this is something only actually connected to rudy giuliani would have. lev sends over that letter basically to establish his bow into fieds. mr. schaffer responds ten minutes later, understood. thanks. later that night within a couple of hours, schaffer sends lev parnas by text the name of a fancy restaurant in kiev, where he apparently wants to meet mr. parnas. the following morning we know lev is on his way. good morning. i'm on my way but i'm running late. sergei responds, and we don't

need to translate this. okay is okay in any language. now, at that meeting at that restaurant, that is what lev parnas described in his interview with me. that's where he said he was harsh, that he made this harsh demand that if they didn't announce investigations into joe biden, not only were they not going to get military aid, they would get no aid. it would be the end of their relationship with the united states, and they would definitely get no mike pence at the inauguration of president zelensky. pence would cancel his inaugural visit. and just as mr. parnas said, after that meeting happened, which did not go well, it was very heated. he said he was very harsh. he said schaffer made no commitment on behalf of the ukrainian government to announce the biden investigation, which is what lev was demanding in no uncertain terms on behalf of giuliani, on behalf of the president of the united states. i mean just as lev said, after that meeting which did not go well, he told me in this interview that he didn't hear back from mr. schaffer after

that meeting. and so later that night -- it had been a breakfast meeting in kiev. later that night, lev parnas started texting the guy to find out if he was going to give him an answer. that's what he told me in the interview. and in fact, it checks out. here in those texts we've got lev parnas the night of the 12th texting mr. schaffer. sergei, good evening. is there any news? sergei does not write back. we can see from the complete string of text messages that a couple of weeks later, lev tries again. hello, sergei? hello? that's a couple of weeks later. then a couple of months later, question mark. are you blocking me? in fact, sergei schaffer never writes back to lev again just as lev said. he said he cut me off from that conversation. and then what happened next after he didn't hear back from sergei schaffer on the night of the 12th, according to lev, he relayed back to religion in

washington, or at least in the united states, that it was in lev's words, a no go. remember the threat was vice president pence would cancel his plans to attend the inauguration unless they announced those investigations. the way lev told the story, he relayed home it's a no go. they're not going to do it. rudy told him, they'll see. the next morning, mike pence would cancel his trip to go to zelensky's inauguration. the way lev explained it, the way lev laid out this bombshell assertion about vice president mike pence and his involvement in this scheme, in this pressure campaign on ukraine to make a visit and all these other things that the ukrainian government wanted and needed from the u.s. government, make it contingent on them announcing that investigation, which on the 12th they would not do. i mean the way lev explains it, that meeting happened on the 12th. he reported home about it the night of may 12th, and then the cancellation of pence's visit in fact happened on the 13th. that is what lev parnas alleges

as explosive as it is. and it turns out that last part of it checks out as well. >> we had already stopped the trip planning by that point. >> when did that happen? >> stopping the trip planning? >> yeah. >> on may 13th. >> and how did you hear about that? >> i was called by -- by a colleague in the vice president's chief of staff's office and told to stop the trip planning. >> and did you have any -- any knowledge of the reasoning for stopping the trip? >> i asked my colleague why we should stop trip planning and why the vice president would not be attending, and i was informed that the president had decided the vice president would not attend the inauguration. >> okay. >> kind of seems like lev parnas was speaking for president trump after all. president trump contacted vice president mike pence and told him he wouldn't be going to that inauguration. this dramatic story that lev parnas tells about vice president mike pence's trip

being canceled to ukraine to make good on the white house threat that that visit would be canceled unless they announced the biden investigations, it is bolstered -- i mean others shocking as that claim is and as potentially importantly as that claim is about the involvement of the vice president, you may doubt lev parnas because of who he is. but what he said is explicitly and exactly bolstered by corroborating documentation and testimony from disinterested witnesses. now, a senior administration official talking to "the washington post" about this chain of events, even with the protection of anonymity would, quote, not share what reason president trump gave vice president pence for canceling that trip. well, somebody should maybe ask president trump what reason he gave vice president pence to cancel his trip to zelensky's inauguration. somebody should ask vice president mike pence what reason president trump gave him for canceling his trip to president

zelensky's inauguration, or did he really just, you know, cancel his planned trip to zelensky's inauguration on direct orders from the president of the united states by saying, yes, sir. please don't tell me why, sir. i mean maybe that's how things operate at the highest levels of the trump administration. but somebody should ask. i will also say that in the materials just released by the house tonight, mr. parnas' claims that rudy giuliani arranged for mr. parnas to have john dowd, the president's onetime lawyer represent him when he was summoned to speak to the impeachment investigation, that claim about giuliani setting him up with john dowd, that is also bolstered by these text messages released tonight by the house. also when mr. parnas told me in the interview that he was shocked that california republican congressman devin nunes was taking a leading role in the supposed investigation of this scandal, he said he was shocked by that because he, lev parnas, had arranged for a devin nunes staffer to actually participate in this scheme by

trying to dig up dirt on joe biden from corrupt ukrainian officials. that too is bolstered in these many text messages released tonight showing lev parnas doing just that with a top staffer to congressman devin nunes, setting up interviews between that staffer and ukrainian officials who are making these claims against joe biden. what lev said to me is bolstered by the documentation that you would go to look for if you were trying to prove it. and i understand they want to attack lev parnas as an accused criminal, and point taken. he is an accused criminal and one of many around this president and this administration. but whatever mr. parnas' own situation in his own criminal case, the guy does seem to have kept everything, every photo, every text, every whatsapp message, every attachment. so his claims, in fact, can be checked. the white house has denied all documents from the entire federal government to the

impeachment investigation. turns out lev has a bunch, though, and he's handed them over. turns out even the most -- what i believe to have been the most explosive claim he made in my interview with him, in very important ways it turns out by the documentary evidence we can corroborate it by, it checks out. more ahead. stay with us. us i want nutrition made just for me. but i also want great taste. so i drink boost for women. new boost women with key nutrients to help support thyroid, bone, hair and skin health. all with great taste. new boost women. all with great taste. ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪

♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

beyond the routine checkups. beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected. to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.

it was a signal moment when white house chief of staff mick mulvaney stood up in the briefing room last year and admitted out loud in front of the whole world that, yes, there was a quid pro quo involving the withholding of aid to ukraine in exchange for them announcing investigations that the white house was demanding. but it's easy to forget because of how large that claim looms. in that same press conference, mick mulvaney also admitted to something else. he admitted in that press conference as well that there were concerns inside the white house, inside the office of management and budget, over the

legality or the potential illegality of the hold on the aid to ukraine. >> we were concerned about over at omb about an impoundment. i know i just half you folks to bed. but the budget control act, budget control impoundment act of 1974 says if congress appropriates money, you have to spend it. we knew that money had to go out the door by the end of september or we had to have a really, really good reason not to do it. that was the legality of the issue. >> that was the legality of the issue. there was legal constraint on us. that presser is remembered for mick mulvaney admitting to the quid pro quo, but he also admitted that there were concerns inside the white house, inside omb, about the legality of that part of the quid pro quo. that part of the quid pro quo that was withholding the u.s. aid from ukraine. so that press conference was in october. the following month in november, there was a career official from omb testifying to the

impeachment investigation that, in fact, he was among the people who had raised questions about whether withholding those funds from ukraine was illegal. more explosively, that official, mark sandy, testified that two other officials at omb had not only shared those concerns that this was potentially illegal. he told the impeachment investigation that two omb officials had actually resigned, at least in part due to their concerns over the legality of the hold. well, we now know that those officials who resigned, they were not alone in their concerns, and it would seem to be proven now that their concerns were well founded. the white house has refused to hand over any documents that could shed light on these matters but just before christmas, heavily redacted documents did start spilling into the open thanks to freedom of information act lawsuits filed by watchdog groups. those documents showed that senior political appointees within omb knew that the hold might be in violation of the law

and that they actively took steps to try and keep it as quiet as possible. earlier this month reporting by just security revealed that department of defense officials also expressed explicit and urgent concern about the potential illegality of the hold. the president and his allies have insisted consistently, right, that no crime was committed in relation to any part of this impeachment inquiry. it's not true, and the officials who were concerned early on that what was going on around them might be illegal, they were right. yesterday the gao, the independent nonpartisan congressional agency that's tasked with investigations, tasked with reviewing this matter, concluded that, yeah, the trump administration did, in fact, break the law when they withheld that money. that decision sent house budget chairman yarmouth confirmed that president trump broke the law by withholding critical security assistance from ukraine.

he said, quote, this is only the latest proof that he brazenly and knowingly abused his power. joining us now is the chairman of the house budget committee, kentucky congressman john yarmouth. thank you so much for making time to be here tonight. i really appreciate it. >> good to be with you, rachel. >> i just ran down a little bit of the history of this part of the scandal. let me ask you if i got any of that wrong or if events have overtaken me and i left out something important. >> no, you got it exactly right. the impoundment act of 1974 prohibits the administration from withholding funds unless there's some kind of program attic problem. for instance, if there were a grant program that congress established and nobody applied for the grant, then obviously they couldn't dispense the funds. but other than that, the government is obligated -- the administration -- to spend the money congress appropriates pursuant to our article 1 powers. and if they don't, they have to come to congress in advance and

explain why they want to withhold the funding. of course they did none of that. what gao said was that you cannot -- definitely cannot withhold funds based on policy. you can under certain circumstances -- against, the programmatic technicalities, you might, but when it's policy, you can't do that. the administration came back in response to the gao report and said, we believe we have the right to withhold funds based on the president's priorities, which is policy. so basically they're saying they don't agree with the law. they can not agree with the law, but they have to abide by it. the problem is there's really no enforcement mechanism. we can impeach him, which we're doing. obviously this is part of the entire scheme which is part of the article 1 charge, that he abused his power. in this case he actually broke the law in abusing his power. so we're going to be looking at

ways to tighten down the impoundment act so that there actually are some consequences if the administration does something that's against the law. >> let me ask you about one of the sort of intriguing human dynamics behind this part of the story, which is that it does appear from the documents we've been able to see, from the testimony we got from people like mark sandy, that there were people at omb working in the white house, there were people at the defense department certainly who seemed pretty convinced or seemed very worried that this was illegal, that this hold on this aid was not in compliance with the law and that there would be consequences when it became known. and those people raised concerns, explicitly committed them to writing, seemed to run those concerns up the chain as far as they could. then we also see other trump administration officials, political appointees seeming to try to keep this quiet, seeming to try to keep this as something that wasn't getting widely circulated and wasn't being widely discussed after they'd been warned that it was illegal.

that sort of per seefceived culpability for people who knew they might have been furthering a criminal act, it just seems like people other than just the president did stuff that was wrong here. >> yeah, exactly. and there's another piece of evidence too in that normally what we call the apportionment letters, which actually has to go out when you dispense money, or when you're delaying the dispense of money, are signed by career officials, career employees at the omb. that was done to a certain point, and then they took it out of their hands and put it in the hands of a political appointee at omb. they took it out of the normal process, and this was part of their -- i think, again, a response to the fact they knew they were doing something wrong. they didn't want the career officials to have a hand in it. and we know there were wide reports that mick mulvaney also had asked omb lawyers to see if

they could come up with a legal justification for what they were doing. so they all knew they were doing something wrong. there was never any question about that. and they had -- that was on the technical side. the legal side. on the policy side, there were people within the administration, very high up in the military and the diplomatic sphere who were arguing against it, saying it was bad policy, that we needed to actually put this money out so the ukrainians could defend themselves. >> congressman john yarmouth, chairman of the house budget committee, thanks for helping us understand this tonight. it is a dramatic thing to get a ruling that the president acted illegally in this scheme as his senate trial is beginning. but it's helpful to have you clarify it for us, sir. thank you very much. >> well, when mick mulvaney said he put half the people to sleep, maybe we put the other half to sleep, but it's a very important event. >> also putting people to sleep is an important skill. america needs to sleep better. thank you, sir. we got much more to get to tonight. stay with us. so you can stream.

...because we give you that and we also give you that.so you can stargaze like this... game like this adjust this. re-adjust this. and you can do all this, because of that. so do this, on that, with us. hurry in to get free smartphones now. of course i'd love to take an informal poll. i used to be a little cranky. dealing with our finances really haunted me. thankfully, i got quickbooks, and a live bookkeeper's helping customize it for our business. (live bookkeeper) you're all set up! (janine) great! hey! you got the burnt marshmallow out! (delivery man) he slimed me. (janine) tissue? (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. the easy way to a happier business.

americans come to lendingtree.com to compare and save on loans, credit cards and more! but with the new lending tree app you can see your full financial health, monitor your credit score, see your cash flow and find out how you can cut your monthly bills. download it now to see how much you can save. i don't keep track of regrets.

and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on is boost high protein. and now, introducing new boost mobility with collagen for joint health. when taken daily, its key nutrients help support joints, muscles, and strong bones. new, boost mobility.

in 2016, the very first member of congress to endorse donald trump for president was a republican congressman from buffalo, new york, named chris collins. once trump in fact became president, chris collins became one of trump's most vocal and most ardent defenders on capitol hill, right up until the point in 2018 when chris collins was arrested on felony charges related to an insider trading scheme. congressman collins fought those

charges in court for over a year. he was actually re-elected in 2018. go, buffalo. despite being under indictment for federal crimes. it was not until late last year, 2019, when congressman collins finally resigned from congress after he decided that, okay, after all he was going to plead guilty. well, now with the impeachment trial of donald trump officially under way, with senators and the chief justice being sworn in yesterday, today we got a stark and sobering reminder of where the donald trump era in politics really began because today the first congressman who endorsed his presidential bid, chris collins, he was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in federal prison for his role in that insider trading scheme. i should note that the second member of congress who endorsed donald trump for president is a gentleman named duncan hunter. he just submitted his official resignation to congress last week after also pleading guilty

to felony charges. he's set to be sentenced in march. more to come in every possible way, i'm sure of it. stay with us. (whistling)

(whistling) text on america's best 4g lte networks for $20? unlimited talk? i like that! because on sundays you know i gotta talk to mama, then on... this is your wake-up call, people. the new tracfone wireless. now you're in control.

the new tracfone wireless. little things can be a big deal. psoriasis, that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. as a doctor, i agree with cdc guidance. i recommend topical pain relievers first... like salonpas patch large. it's powerful, fda-approved

to relieve moderate pain, yet non-addictive and gentle on the body. salonpas. it's good medicine. hisamitsu. earlier tonight i showed you a bunch of newspaper front pages today from this historic time, this historic date in our history. i want to focus for one minute on this one. this "new york times" headline: trump's trial opens as new evidence emerges. i mean we're living this, so we know what this feels like, but it's a remarkable thing. as the articles of impeachment move from the house to the senate this week, as the senate convened its trial, nearly every day this week has brought forth significant new information related to the factual record of this impeachment scandal. how does all this new information affect how the senate trial is likely to be conducted? and are senators talking about this amongst themselves or changing their minds based on the new information they're getting that may be sort of affecting the way they otherwise thought they would approach

these things? senator mazie hirono, democrat of hawaii, was sworn in yesterday as one of the 100 jurors in this historic trial. she joins us live tonight. senator, thank you so much for being with us. >> good evening. >> let me ask if i'm right to focus in on this as a notable factor heading into this trial. the new information that's coming out every day, is it affecting what your expectations are for how the trial will run? >> it certainly adds to the corroboration of what we know president trump already did, which was to shake down the ukraine president for his political purposes, and using almost 400 million in taxpayer money as a bribe. so all of this corroborating evidence is emerging thanks so much to you. about you but if these were more normal times, somebody like lev parnas would have testified in the house impeachment inquiry because he was subpoenaed to testify, and he was prevented

from doing so. and all the evidence that was requested, 71 subpoena requests for documents, which the white house said, no way. so they've been stonewalling the impeachment inquiry all the way, and this is one of the reasons, rachel, that i think you've done a great service to let people understand that there's more evidence out there. and mitch mcconnell is doing everything he can to prevent the senators and the american people from hearing this evidence. thankfully, though, in this age of social media, all of the parnas evidence -- and there's a lot of it -- is on the website, the house website. >> in terms of the information that has been conveyed forward for the investigation? >> yes. >> you know, i wonder how sensitive you think the senate is as a body, how mitch mcconnell, i guess, is as its majority leader to public perceptions on this stuff because, i mean, part of what's weird and interesting about the

fact that this information is coming out through freedom of information act lawsuits and public interviews of people like me on tv is that the public knows all this stuff. the public gets to see all this stuff. >> yes. >> and that changes public expectations for what the president is actually going to be on trial for. how sensitive do you think mcconnell is to what the public knows and what the public is going to want answers to? >> i don't think mitch mcconnell is very sensitive at all. this is the same person who prevented merrick garland from getting on the supreme court, and then he didn't prevent the government shutdown that hurt 800,000 government workers. so he's not sensitive at all. one thing that mitch mcconnell cares about is retaining control over the senate just as the president is totally interested in his own retention of the presidency. these are the kind of people we're talking about. but thankfully the american people want evidence and witnesses in the trial. the majority of people understand that that is what a fair trial looks like. >> in a conference call with reporters in your home state of

hawaii today, you said the president is trying to rig this trial. >> yes. >> by not producing any documents and forbidding his people from testifying. what do you mean by using the word "rigged" there? >> just as he tried to rig his re-election by getting the ukrainian president to do his political bidding and using $400 million as a bribe, he's trying to rig this trial using mitch mcconnell to prevent any witnesses or any documents from being produced. this is -- i think rigging is the right word. another word is cheating. he's cheating the american people. >> senator mazie hirono, democrat of hawaii, thank you so much for your time tonight. i know next week is going to be a huge week. thanks for being with us. >> yes. thank you. >> more to come. stay with us. stay with us so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength and speed of advil liqui-gels. what pain? but since they bought their new house...

which menu am i looking at here? start with "ta-paz." -oh, it's tapas. -tapas. get out of town. it's like eating dinner with your parents. sandra, are you in school? yes, i'm in art school. oh, wow. so have you thought about how you're gonna make money? at least we're learning some new things. we bundled our home and auto with progressive, saved a bunch. oh, we got a wobbler. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. that's what the extra menu's for. tracfone lets you keep your leftover data each month. unlimited carryover data! $20 bucks. what are you doing? i want to ask you about your data. oh, i thought you said dating. this is your wake-up call, people. the new tracfone wireless. now you're in control.

the new tracfone wireless. 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.

okay. we're going to have to warm up the chart. all right. you remember this? this was the state of play the last time we checked in. this is something we have been tracking and trying very hard to keep to accurate scale. this is what the presidential contenders have spent on tv and radio ads thus far. this was their spending to date when we last checked in on them a week or so ago. but now as of tonight, we have an update with the new numbers we got in today. cha-ching, there's a little movement across the board but the dynamic in this race remains wholly unchanged. the billionaires running in the democratic primary, michael bloomberg and tom steyer are playing a qualitatively

different game. everybody else is like on a bicycle, somehow faster bicycles or slower bicycles. but they're like in a spaceship. different thing. but here is something also mind-bending in the new numbers, which tells a whole different story. obviously, you know, iowa is first in the primary, and then new hampshire. but then the next two states are nevada and south carolina. turns out something fascinating is going on with the spending in those two states in particular. i want to show you nevada. when you add it up, the 2020 candidates have spent almost $12 million on advertising, tv and radio ads in nevada. but when you look at how that $12 million is spread out across the candidates, you realize, wow, it's not really spread out at all. tom steyer has spent more than $10 million on ads in south carolina. 91% of the ad buys in south carolina are tom steyer --

sorry, in nevada. sorry. it's the same thing in south carolina. $17.5 million have been spent on 2020 ads in south carolina. of that $17 million, tom steyer spent almost $15 million of it all by himself. 85% of the money spent on ads in that state spent by that one candidate. now, we already know that tom steyer has translated millions of dollars worth of tv time into a huge boost in the polls in those states specifically. that bought him a last-minute spot at the debate this past week. but with him dominating the ad spending, not in some states down the road but in the states that go third and fourth, nevada and south carolina, with those contests that are now fast approaching, will that money, that dominant money in the ad world be translated into votes as well? we shall see. we'll be right back. stay with us. stay with us

through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from using feedback to innovate... to introducing products faster... to managing website inventory...

and network bandwidth. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. aleit's a master stroke ofe's heartachew. and redemption. the lexus nx. modern utility for modern obstacles. lease the 2020 nx 300 for $359 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

how about a best new thing in the world? ready for one? here we go. exactly 100 years ago today, alcohol became illegal in this country. it was the start of prohibition. on that first day, more than 1,500 federal agents spread out across the country conducting anti-alcohol raids with local authorities. barrels of wine were poured into the streets. bottles of booze were unceremoniously smashed. in new york city, the police commissioner himself personally dumped $100,000 worth of liquor into the east river. come on! in chicago, barrels of milwaukee lagger were tossed into lake michigan. authorities were zealous. the government began employing specifically female agents to go undercover to facilitate the raids. the most famous of whom went by the nickname lady hooch hunter. weirdly, that's my drag name

now. i'm not lying when i tell you that the actual lady hooch hunter quit the second she was assigned a desk job. she was a hooch hunter. you're going to lock her up behind a desk? despite all those efforts, prohibition of course was a massive 235i8ure. people still drank. booze cruises took passengers beyond our territorial waters as a way to bypass the law. organized crime flourished. gangsters had a massive new revenue stream after all thanks to smuggling alcohol and the huge demand for it. prohibition was ineffective at achieving its stated aims. it was also a huge strain on the economy, and it bred a huge and malevolent new species of gangsterism. federal, state, and local governments lost billions of dollars in tax revenue. it was an engine of misery and failure. when the great depression hit, there was a massive push to finally be done with it and have prohibition overturned, in part because it might provide an economic boost. protesters took to the streets with signs that said "we want

beer" and "i'm no camel, i want beer." it took almost 14 years, but prohibition was finally gotten rid of, finally overturned in 1933. and that leads me to the best new thing finally overturned in 1933. that leads me to the best new thing in the world. the anniversary, the centennial of prohibition, i feel is a timely reminder that sometimes our country makes terrible, terrible decisions. decisions that cause terrible harm to this country and to our -- to its inhabitants. but when we do that, we should remember that we can change our minds. we can undo those things. we can get smarter and resolve to never do those things again. we are capable of growth and learning as a country. and that is the best new thing in the world today. cheers. that does it for us tonight. i will see you again very soon. actually, see you tomorrow morning when i will be a guest on "a.m. joy." i will also tell you sunday night starting at 10:00 p.m.