and that is all the time we have for this morning. i'm kendis gibson. we'll see you next saturday and we should throw like a strong welcome to this man to the mornings. weekend mornings. ali velshi. >> what an absolute pleasure to be with you all. we're going to have a good time over the next many, many months when we're together. thank you. some of your viewers may have heard me as i entered the room. >> he was not quiet. >> i gave a booming hello for a mile for everybody that could hear me. >> you all have yourselves a great day. thank you, bye. good morning from msnbc world headquarters in new york. president trump's defense team took only two hours to present opening arguments and some republican senators are already

saying they're going to need to hear more witnesses from witnesses before the end of this trial. and nbc news obtained the full audio accordingly recorded by lev parnas at a private meeting with donors. president trump calling of the ouster of marie yovanovitch back in 2018 and now a new response from rudy giuliani on why the president allegedly said what he said. >> ambassador of ukraine is. >> yeah, she's basically walking around telling everybody, wait, he's get impeached. just wait. >> he was told at the people at the dinner that the ambassador was going around saying, you shouldn't pay attention to president trump because he's going to get impeached. >> and now just eight days to iowa, the des moines register's coveted endorsement goes to presidential candidateelizabeth.

why the newspaper says her ideas aren't radical. the ukraine scandal comes as we prepare to enter week two of the impeachment trial of president trump. video from indicted rudy giuliani associate lev parnas and caught on a cell phone in 2018 a year before the ambassador was fired. the recording is more than an hour long and from this shaky video from just before the audio in question is caught, it appears that president trump was among the attendees at this supposed dinner. listen to what appears to be president trump asking how long ukraine can last in its fight against russia without the united states. >> how long will they last in a fight with russia? >> not very. >> i don't think very long. without us, not very long. >> it also includes another key

moment of a conversation about the removal of the former ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch from her post. >> i don't remember his name. >> now that we have a secretary of state -- >> get rid of her. >> i don't get care. get her out. do it. >> the white house issuing the following response. by the way, this is interesting because the white house didn't take the opportunity to do what it always does, deny, it says everything president in our history has had the right to place people who support his agenda and his policies within his administration end quote. interesting. all this coming hours after the president's lawyers began their defense argument in the impeachment trial doing so in just under two hours. one of their primary points the entire proceedings are just part of the democrats trying to

reverse the results of the 2016 presidential election. >> for all their talk about election interference, that they're here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in american history and we can't allow that to happen. >> we're going to talk about how the constitutionally mandated process of impeachment isn't actually election interference. here's what happened yesterday, the democratic house impeachment managers led by jerry shift delivering a cart filled with the trial record to the secretary of the senate. 28,578 pages worth. all right, joining me now our m msnc correspondent a who has been on capitol hill, garrett haake "washington post" editor jackie and msnbc legal analyst and former prosecutor paul

butler. welcome to all of you. paul, let me just start with you. this argument stand out in my mind. the president's team did a better job than some expected because they spent most of the year sort of yelling and criticizing. but this idea that this impeachment process that is outlined in the constitution of the united states is an overturning of the will of the people in 2016 is an invalid approach. how would that work in a court of law if the defense team got up and said, this court doesn't have standing. this process doesn't have standing? >> objection your honor, irrelevant. the president is charged with obstruction of congress and with abuse of office. you are not supposed to put the procedure on trial. but, again, the facts are not on their side. what they do is either lie about the facts and focus so much on that july 25th call which is very incriminating. i need you to do us a favor.

but the impeachment alleges a broad conspiracy between trump, between parnas and giuliani. not just that one call. so, again, it's all about deflecting. it's all about pulling somewhere else and, again, they got an easy job. the senators, most of them have already made up their mind. again, it's really a performance. they have to go through the motions before they get their big, fat acquittal. >> jackie, the parnas tape, the audiotape, we saw some of it with rachel the other night and we have more of it now. when you listen to it, it's like the keystone cops. a birch unches of guys that namt ambassador but trump says take her out, get her out. it's not things that we didn't otherwise believe to be true but what it does prove is that trump knew parnas. parnas had been saying he and trump were having conversations about the removal of marie

yovanovitch and russia. the idea that donald trump is having these conversations a year before the firing of marie yovanovitch lays waste that he wasn't withholding aid from ukraine and i don't know them and i don't know lev parnas. >> the president actually knew lev parnas was with him in a pretty intimate setting doling out advice, giving him advice and another thing that we have already known. the president was explicitly involved in this pressure scheme in ukraine and the maneuvers to oust marie yovanovitch and to pressure president zelensky. the white house response to this tape is really illuminating of the current situation amongst republican senators. yes, the president was inuvl vo

here. the president has control over his foreign policy. at the end of the day, you know, this is not impeachable conduct. you might see republican senators recognizing this video saying, yeah, the president was involved in some capacity. this might have been inappropriate. what you also see from this president is there is no remorse here. they are maintaining that he did nothing wrong. and, again, that this is just how the trump administration conducts this policy. >> they didn't deny the tape was authentic. whenever the president says something happened, i start to wonder whether it happened or not. what is up is down and what is down is up. garrett haake, nobody we have spoken to in the last two days that think it's legally important even if trump wanted to fire, isn't it important in

terms of the argument that we need to hear from people who heard in what his determinations were in holding back that $391 million in congressionally approved aid to ukraine because that apparently wasn't legal and whether that was a bribe or quid pro quo. >> the tape in and of itself is interesting in part because he's the president of the united states. if he wants to fire an ambassador, he can do it with a phone call. weird the tape existed a year before yovanovitch was forced out where there were so many other players involved. what the tape speaks to and might be important about it, it shows the president interested in what is going on in the background of ukraine more before this whole scheme started and what you don't hear anything about in that tape is any questions about corruption within that country and any questions about, you know, who is providing aid. whether the eu is doing enough. whether or not enough safe guards in place for the money. the president does not know the ambassador of his government is

to that country and it seems largely disengaged with anything except the political reasons to get rid of her. okay. get her out. i think it could provide some ammunition for democrats. it's a useful counterargument that the president was crusading against corruption in ukraine and heavily invested there and making sure good governance all the way around. i think what you saw there a disinterested president and gordon sondland describes it, the good stuff, the stuff that helps president trump. as to whether it's impeachable or even bad for the president, i don't think it's used in evidence in that way. getting rid of an ambassador is within the president's authority if he wants to do it. just weird that he has this side conversation with a bunch of donors about it rather than picking up the phone and doing it right there in 2018. >> and that he has national security advisors all around who

are experts in this area who can tell him how long ukraine can last. thanks to the three of you. garrett haake, paul butler and jackie alamoni. joining us now, senator michael bennett and a juror in the trial of the president in the united states of the senate right now. balancing his time between the trail. from new hampshire coming to us this morning. senator, here's the thing. the president should have and would have had other experts around him in the white house to be able to answer the question about how long can ukraine exist without us. but two issues here. ukraine is an ally. i'm not quite sure why the president would be asking random donors about this. but more importantly, a year later, over a year later when he withheld that aid, the argument can be made that he knew from

lev parnas and confirmed this with his advisors that ukraine depends on american assistance in a hot war against an active adversary, russia. >> it's absolutely true. in fact, they're trying to make the argument now that president trump was stronger than president obama with respect to supporting ukraine. it was clear at the same time he was doing that, he was undermining ukraine and, so, the point is well taken. and it reminds me that the point about his own advisors reminds me of the question that adam schiff asked during the trial, why was donald trump listening to rudy giuliani and it served his own interest. i think it matters why he fired the ambassador. i'm not sure it's true that a president gets to make that decision, if they're making that decision for their own personal political interests rather than the foreign policy interest of the united states or even if

they are, they shouldn't do that. >> let me ask you how you, senator michael bennet or any of your other counterparts in the united states senate can get to the bottom of these things. at some point later this week, maybe on wednesday through friday, you're going to have some opportunities to submit written questions. in the absence of witnesses or testimony that you may vote on next weekend, in the absence of that, is there a way to get to the bottom of these things through your questions in the senate? >> look, i think the house put on a compelling case and so far the president's defense has been there's nothing to see hooeere. don't pay attention to any of the allegations that were made. i think it will be hard to sustain that through a round of questioning to bring back the case that has been made and the president being a lot better putting his own evidence on and i don't take it as a foregone conclusion that we will not have evidence and witnesses. that is the way to get to the truth here. to hear people who are paid

$174,000 a year to be in the senate complain that the trial is boring and as my friend tim kaine said not even have the kind of bare minimum evidentiary basis is a rare of where we are and i don't think that is where most of the people in the senate ought to be at the end of the day. i think where we should be is saying we have a job here to protect the democracy and protect the constitution that's more important than any one president and we have to do that job because no one else in america to do it. >> senator, your colleague lindsey graham told a reporter yesterday, well, if you want bolton to testify, then we need hunter biden to testify. why would you have one without the other? national security adviser to the president of the united states when he made these critical decisions with ukraine. hunter biden, whatever you think

about him and whether he should have been on the board of burisma is not involved in a conspiracy and a bribery challenge that compromises the office of the president of the united states. >> and he can't shed, for that reason, he can't shed any light on the facts where john bolton can shed light on the facts. the president's team complained. nobody with direct knowledge and they blocked those people from testifying and even in the absence of that, the house has been able to put together pretty compelling testimony from american patriots that are willing to risk their jobs and risk their futures to testify in favor of the democracy. i also, i think lindsey had earlier said that he didn't believe hunter biden ought to testify. that should be handled outside of the trial. i think what they're trying to do is create every smokescreen that they can to hope the american people aren't paying attention. too boring, nothing to see here.

this is a serious proceeding and we ought to do our work. >> senator, good to see you, as always. thank you. presidential candidate and senator from colorado, michael bennet. coming up next, while secretary of state mike pompeo isn't testifying yet, he is at the top of democrats' witness wish list and a curse laden exchangepompeo had with the ukraine scandal. you don't want to miss this. joy reid has one of the house prosecution team members, one of the house managers on her show today to respond to the arguments from the defense. congresswoman val demings "am joy" at at 10:00 a.m. eastern.

needles. essential for the sea urchin, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections.

needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". i don't make compromises. 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. alwyou can see relationships.gy, connections. patterns. you can see what others can't. ♪

secretary of state mike pompeo going off on a reporter after she pressed him during an interview on friday. all over a line of questioning related to this woman, the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch. here is how the interview ended. >> i have defended every state department official. we built a great team. >> sir, respectfully, where have you defended marie yovanovitch. >> i have done what is right for every single person. i said all i'm going to say

today. >> now, according to kelly, pompeo roughly ended their conversation and here's what she says happened next. >> i was taken to the secretary's private living room where he was waiting and shouted at me for the same amount of time the interview lasted itself. he was not happy to be questioned about ukraine. he asked if i could find ukraine on a map. he asked his aides to bring him a map and i pointed to ukraine and he put the map away. >> in a statement on saturday, pompeo did not challenge the details of kelly's claims about his words or demeanor during their conversation. instead, america's top diplomats stepped up his attacks using his own version of trump revisionist history saying in that statement, quote, kelly lied to me twice. first last month in setting up our interview and then again

yesterday in agreeing to have our post-interview conversation off the record. he closed with this and this part's interesting. it is worth noting that beng bangladesh is not ukraine. mary louise kelly confused bangladesh and ukraine. i don't think that's likely, but let me just show you for reference. here is bangladesh and there is ukraine. they are not similar in size, they are not in the same part of the world. nothing to do with each other. bangladesh, india. both over a body of water, except there is last over ukraine and no land until you get to the south pole. again, nothing similar to these things. according to kelly, she never agreed to be off the record at any point and communicated in advance to pompeo's office that she intended to ask about

ukraine. joining us now is jackie author of "washington post" power up and elise from george university school of foreign service. elise, you are an expert at these matters at the state department about matters around the world and you're probably better at maps than most people. you know mary louise kelly. pompeo didn't say she came out and confused bangladesh and ukraine. it is meant to undermine a veteran journalist. >> right, ali. look, it's a crowd pleasing statement to secretary pompeo's kind of audience of one, which is really president trump. you know, it has no basis in reality. she had her degree in cambridge in european studies and obviously knows where ukraine is. but i think it's the issue that this is par for the course with

secretary pompeo and he had contempt for the press since she entered the state department about two years ago. and any time he doesn't like the question, he turns it on the questioner and says, oh, goodness. i can't believe you asked me that. this is ludicrous. you know, the issues that are tough, i've covered seven secretaries of state. none of them really like being grilled by the press. but in this particular case, secretary pompeo when he doesn't like the questions or gets pressed he is trapped by his own temperament. >> to elise's point, there is often tension between a secretary of state, foreign correspondents, state department correspondents tend to be the most tenacious among us because they are working in an environment where they're trying to get information that is often at contrast, in contrast with what the department of state wants to provide. but in this particular case, the statement put out by pompeo was

uniquely strong and another example of how unhinged the media has become in its quest to hurt president trump and his administration. to elise's point, it seems unusually personal. it seems unusually an emotional response for a man like mike pompeo who has had a long career in public office. >> yeah, well, a few things here, ali. first of all, it's completely unacceptable for the united states top diplomat who is responsible for defending press freedom around the world to berate a reporter in this manner. but it's clear that mary louese kelly did hit a spot here. this does confirm the stories we heard behind the scenes what elise just said, especially under the questioning of female reporters but it seems that ukraine particularly really set

pompeo off and it's worth remembering here that it's not just mick mulvaney and john bolton who the president is not allowing to testify and it's also mike pompeo when gordon sondland said all the important parties were involved in this scheme to pressure ukraine to investigate joe biden, that includes mike pompeo. there are e-mails obtained by the press and released that show rudy giuliani directly involving mike pompeo into the impeachment situation and pompeo refused to answer questions and as she pointed out refused to defend marie yovanovitch. so many troubling aspects of this statement and not least really that the pettiness of it. that's below the secretary of state. >> elise, take us behind the curtain a little bit in working behind the state department. what is the general relationship between reporters who cover the

state department and the state department. do you get the access you typically need? would it be normal for pompeo to have said that asked him questions that he had not agreed to or not agreed to cover certain topics. wouldn't be typical to agree with a cabinet level secretary to not cover a topic. >> look, i think the state department press core is notorious in washington for being a very substantive press corps and focusing on the issues and why their relationship with secretary pompeo and because of all the secretaries made this very political and the way he treats the press and the way he takes president trump's tone and treating the press as a, quote, enemy of the people. although i never heard secretary pompeo say that.

you could see him calling the press unhinged. she is not part of the press corps but it follows the secretary, travels with him and a relationship that is usually built. and sometimes there are points where he'll come back on the plane and talk off the record. any secretary will. but in an instance like this, you know, sometimes you let the secretary's press aides know these are the general topics that we're going to cover. you will never agree there is a topic uncoverable. it's pretty much known you can ask whatever you want. >> they don't have to answer. >> they don't have to answer. secretary pompeo is used to dealing with the press and if he doesn't want to answer, he can say, look, i don't feel comfortable answering it. making it political and turning it on the press. i'm pretty sure that she would not, she's one of the most, i'm

sure she didn't say this is off the record and completely violate her pledge. when someone says it is off the record, you take it to your grave. she was called back to the secretary's office. there was never any discussion about whether it was going to be off the record and when he went off on her, it was fair game. mary louise is not making a big deal and we have to be careful and what is the net net of this kind of behavior. does it do what trump and pompeo wanted to do and make people think the press is unhinged and unfair or does it make people understand that the necessity of the press speaking truth to power and asking the tough questions? >> you know, i think it really depends on the audience here. as the whole impeachment process

has shown, there are feweviewero live in a separate universe. there are those who watch fox news and sort of believe a lot of the alternative facts being put forward here by the administration. some of them really outright lies and falsehoods and then there are those who try to stick to the facts and i think the take away from this whole debacle is that reporters, as usual, as we have done throughout this entire trump adminivation stration is doubli on the facts and not bristling under these difficult, more difficult circumstances. and, you know, taking everything that this administration puts out with a grain of salt, fact checking it. you know, as elise said, no one should be questioning mary louise kelly's integrity on this. it was noted in the npr transcript that was released that there was no off the record

d distinction made and that we really do every single day sort of bring as much integrity as possible to this job. >> thank you to both of you. jackie, author of "washington post power up" and elise. still ahead, has tribalism in washington when it is time to vote in this impeachment trial, will anyone stand up and put country above party? that's next. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa

through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from managing inventory... to detecting and preventing threats... to scaling up your production. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence.

i waited to get treated. thought surgery was my only option. but then i found out about nonsurgical treatments. it was a total game changer. learn more about the condition at factsonhand.com it was a total game changer. even after you clean, odors are still trapped in your fabrics. febreze fabric eliminates those odors. and try febreze unstopables with twice the fresh-scent power. tackle tough odors with irresistible freshness. la la la la la

in our current polarizing political times it could feel like some lawmakers are magnetically opposed to taking a tough stand or a vote even during critical times in our nation's history, like the one we are in. in fact, when it comes to big moments of making a difference in recent years, few and far between. most recently, the late senator john mccain and his famous thumbs down during the health care vote stands out. these lost opportunities cannot only affect how history judges us, but can have a major impact on the present day views of politicians. just look at senator susan collins recent poll numbers. this all got us thinking. are we now dealing with the death of politicians who stand for principle? joining me sir michael sing singalten. former u.s. attorney and barbara mcquaid. welcome to all of you. thank you for being with us. >> thanks, ali.

>> danielle, let me start with you. history judges people through the positions they take and the principle stands they take. social media and cable news judges you by right now and what you just did. i'm worried that the pendulum swung too far to us and social media and instant gratification and too many politicians are not thinking about how history will see them. >> i think that's right. it's interesting because i feel like republicans are only thinking about right now. that they're not thinking about what happens if another president comes in and happens to be worse than donald trump. what happens if we're not standing up for our constitution and democracy. they're thinking about pleasing donald trump and the trump base and not thinking about how history will remember them. we're looking at mitt romney and lisa murkowski and susan collins and we're wondering, where is your patriotism? why is it so difficult for you

to put your country before your party in this moment. this impeachment is not just about donald trump, it is about our country. who we want to be in the white house. what kind of integritntegrity, , transparency that that person should have. if they don't, what are we saying? nothing matters. adam schiff was right. if truth doesn't matter, then nothing matters. that's what they have to hold fast to in this moment because we're going to look back at this moment and i want them to be able to say, what did i do when i was met with this grave time. what did i do? did i straighten my back or did i cowher? right now republicans are cowering. >> barbara, back before most democratic members of the house supported impeachment, tom steyer was talking about this in 2017. going around the country getting people to sign a petition. his argument was this should never be about whether this is unpopular. whether voters don't want

democratic members of the house to pursue impeachment. they want them to pursue other issues. this is about the institutions that we have built upon which we rely. the problem is we've gone through decades of hating congress and finding members of congress less popular than used car salesmen and tv journalists. but in the end, an institution worth defending and this is the week in which that institution and its processes are worth defending. >> yes, i think one of the things that when you join an organization you're told your most serious responsibilities is to defend the mission of the institution. and it seems to me that republican senators are really falling down on the job in that regard. because you have to think about the short term and long-term consequences of disregarding evidence and acquitting president trump. in the short term, the truth is going to come out. john bolton has a book coming out. the truth has a stubborn way of

trickling out over time. even if they are making what is to them the best politically expedient decision in this moment, i think even before the november elections, we're likely to know an awful lot more about what happened here and to disregard the truth and not even to find the facts. damaging to them even in that short term, but long term what does this mean to the ability of the senate to hold presidents accountable and to be that check on presidential abuse and to be a co-equal branch of government. i think they will have eroded that power. >> it's an inetrusting point. jackie was just on saying to me how you regard going on in this trial has to do with where you get your news. barbara is right. there are books and journalists writing about this and every one of these witnesses will find a way of getting all their stories out, if you wish to read them, you can know the truth. but there are lots of people who never read the mueller report. there are lots of people who don't know what adam schiff said

in this last week. does it matter that congress does the thing it's dpogoing to in polarized time where people are not looking to congress for the answer and they are looking to their cable news channel or the feed on facebook or conspiracy theory host from who they get their news. >> i think in the political sense, ali, it doesn't matter. 45% of the people want the president removed. that is as divided and split as you can get. however, i think danielle and barbara made very strong points and danielle talked about the virtues and what is interesting, ali, political leaders are not considering much on the republican side that is that life guarantees us nothing but time. with the time that we are given, what do we do with it?

how do you want to be remembered in history? standing for what is right or do you want to be remembered for what is standing is politically expedient and those are two very different things and i think now the question is what republicans are willing to say i no longer care about political expediency because there are some things like institutions and valus and like norms that are far more important than the politics and i'm willing to take political loss, if i must, in order to protect and defend the institutions of this country for future generations. and, unfortunately, we don't see many republicans willing to take that stand. >> that would be interesting. the idea of taking political loss in pursuit of a greater good. thank you shermichael singleton, danielle and barbara mcquaid. back in 1999 the top

republican on the senate came together on governing the impeachment trial. they agreed on a set of facts that would underpin it all. my, how far we've come. it doem . i can do it next year. no rush. cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. there's no excuse for waiting. get screened. ask your healthcare provider if cologuard is right for you. most insured patients pay $0. ask your healthcare provider if cologuard is right for you. when people ask me what makes verizon 5g different i talk about firefighters. for hundreds of years they've had to do their jobs in blinding smoke. but verizon 5g ultra wideband is built to transmit real-world data so fast, it could power technology

that lets them see through smoke. that's a difference that can save lives. that's a difference that will change everything.

while president trump is the third president to be impeached by president, unlikely to be the first convicted and removed from office on that process. why is that? both parties have never been more divided in history than they are now. let's look back at impeachment's past. in 1998 president bill clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, but two republican senators strayed from party lines. senator susan collins voted not guilty for both articles while senator richard shelby voted guilty for the obstruction of justice article but not guilty for perjury. two republican senators who stuck with their party to impeach president clinton, senator lindsey graham and majority leader mitch mcconnell

who both said their vote was to cleanse and restore integrity to the office. let's compare them. 1998 and 2020. >> we believe , let it be said any president who cheats our institution should be impeached. >> if i was the president, i wouldn't cooperate with these guys at all. they're on a crusade to destroy this man. and they don't care what they destroy in the process of trying to destroy donald trump. >> our nation is, indeed, at a crossroads. will we pursue the search for truth or dodge, weave and evade the truth. the president has engaged in a persistent pattern and obstruction of justice. the allegations are grave, the investigation is legitimate. >> i'm going to coordinate with the president's lawyers. so there won't be any difference between us on how to do this. you raise the issue what if you have witnesses. the president's counsel may or

may not decide they want to have witnesses. there's no chance the president is going to be removed from office. >> it's a good thing we have videotape. how will this trial be perceived at the end through the lens of history? for that, let me bring in donald richie who retired in 2015. iumer ai'm so enjoying, sir, uctaiuct talking to historians because talking to people about the now and i'm worried the future is not going to think nwell of the now as it relates to this trial. >> we're still arguing about the previous trials. >> that's a good point. what is the issue here? when you look at those videos and you see that the same people are making the opposite argument in 1998 that they're making now, what does that make you think about the institution of the senate and how it should be perceived? >> the world looks different depending on where you're

standing. clearly it's a difference if you're the president who is being impeached is the president of your party or president of the other party. senators are taking oath to be impartial jurors but also senators and also politicians. they're elected to office. and it's not surprising that senators would fall into categories that are sometimes predictable and sometimes unpredictable. certainly, senators have had to make very difficult choices, but there's often been a consequence. you know, seven republican senators who chose not to vote to impeach and remove andrew johnson. not one of them was re-elected. >> when we look at the job of the united states senate, this is among the most important. i've been arguing the most important thing that most of these sitting senators will ever do. some were involved in the clinton impeachment and some of the important things are nominating or approving of supreme court judges. but this is definitely among the most important business. as historians, these are the

things that take up more ink than the naming of post offices. >> that's correct. it's a very different situation than the daily activity of the senate. for one, you have the chief justice of the united states presiding. senators take a separate oath for this. they have to be in their seats, quietly. they can't get up and move around the chamber the way they normally do. very different atmosphere. first off, chamber is going to be packed with people and one or two people watching what is going on are standing room only. it is a grave situation and one that impresses on the senators that is a very important moment in their careers. >> donald ritchie, thank you for joining us. coming up, how justice and the truth will ultimately be at what is at stake in the coming days and weeks in this trial. that's next. of i

hey! my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby! at philof cream cheese.w what makes the perfect schmear you need only the freshest milk and cream. that one! and the world's best, and possibly only, schmelier. philadelphia. schmear perfection. whatever happens out there you have the hilton app. will the hilton app help us pick the starters? great question, no. but it can help you pick your room from the floor plan. can the hilton app help us score? you know, it's not that kind of thing, but you can score free wi-fi. can it help us win? hey, hey! we're all winners with the hilton price match guarantee, alright? man, you guys are adorable! alright, let's go lose this soccer game, come on!

book with the hilton app. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. expect better. expect hilton.

my hands are everything to me. but i was diagnosed with dupuytren's contracture. and it got to the point where things i took for granted got tougher to do. thought surgery was my only option. turns out i was wrong. so when a hand specialist told me about nonsurgical treatments, it was a total game changer.

like you, my hands have a lot more to do. learn more at factsonhand.com today. like you, my hands have a lot more to do. when you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea. try pepto liquicaps for fast relief and ultra-coating. nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea. get powerful relief with pepto bismol liquicaps. having a fair trial isn't about the president of the united states. it's not even about party, although appearing to fight for a fair trial will give republicans greater standing in history. but there have been some strange messages emanating from the u.s. senate this week helped along by trump's lawyers. rather than arguing that trump's demonstrated wrongdoing isn't worthy of his removal from office, they have tried to make the case that there was no wrongdoing whatsoever. no recognition that trump

unlawfully usurp the constitutionally mandated role of appropriations from congress. and the legally mandated role of deciding where money goes when he withheld congressionally approved aid to ukraine. no recognition that trump undermined the strategic ally, ukraine, involved in a real war with an active adversary, russia, for his political, personal gain. rather, trump's defenders attempt to make the case that the process itself, a process that is prescribed by the constitution undermines democracy and threatens the next election. trump's late attorney the white house counsel pat cipollone called election interference. ignoring the real interference that his boss and client refuse to acknowledge. rather than arguing on the merit, cipollone and his team argued that this trial shouldn't even be happening. if trump supporters win this

trial, they need to win it on its merits, not by default. not the exoneration that trump seeks. and a win on the merits means evidence, not procedural tactics and not made for tv sound bites and not the willful suppression of evidence. senators, you need to hear the full case. try the whole truth and then and only then cast your vote. knowing that you left no stone unturned in the greatest constitutionally mandated role you are ever likely to play as united states senators. history won't care if it takes another week or two. and for those senators in potentially vulnerable seats or even in seats that are not vulnerable, but for which they have to explain their actions to constituents later this year, this is bigger than any election. right is right. and if doing right costs someone a seat in the united states senate, that's a good deal for democracy. because the lenses through which senators and trump supports in

this trial will be seen will not be the lens of the republican party. they will be the lenses of history, justice and the truth. d to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems,

are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance. wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa breathe freely fast, with vicks sinex. my congestion's gone. i can breathe again! ahhhh!

i can breathe again! ughh! vicks sinex. breathe on. fidelity now has zero commissions for online u.s. equity trades and etfs. and fidelity also offers zero account fees for brokerage accounts, plus zero minimums to open an account. and only fidelity offers four zero expense ratio index funds directly to investors. with all of those zeros, there are zero reasons to invest anywhere else. fidelity. ♪ so maybe i'll win ♪ saved by zero ♪ so maybe i'll win can you help keep these iguys protected online?? easy, connect to the xfi gateway. what about internet speeds that keep up with my gaming? let's hook you up with the fastest internet from xfinity. what about wireless data options for the family? of course, you can customize and save. can you save me from this conversation? that we can't do, but come in and see what we can do.

we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. ask. shop. discover. at your local xfinity store today. i'm ali velshi. tomorrow the impeachment trial of president trump resumes. making a second day of arguments. as part of his opening arguments last week, congressman adam schiff explains what is at stake

at the impeachment trial. >> the truth is going to come out. indeed, the truth has already come out and the only question is, do you want to hear it now? you want to know the full truth now? >> the late house manager speaking not only to the 100 u.s. senators in attendance, but to the country as a whole as democrats continue to lay out their case for removing the 45th president of the united states from office. on day one of the trial, the senate voting almost exclusively along party lines 53 to 47 to establish ground rules for the proceedings and rejecting democratic efforts to compel key witness testimony that was not included during the house impeachment inquiry. however, the adopted resolution does allow democrats to renew their motion to subpoena witnesses and additional documents following opening statements by house managers and trump's defense team later this week. here are some other key numbers to look out for as part of the

impeachment trial. democrats wouldee