thank you so much, my friend, have a good weekend. high noon in the east, 9:00 out west, welcome to "weekends with alex witt." escalating impeachment battle with the trump team set to state its case further tomorrow. new arguments from both sides spilling over publicly today on witnesses, truth, evidence, and the president's character. >> do you take that as a threat? >> i think it's intended to be. >> i don't think the president is trying to do a death threat here. >> threat assessment. the president directs a tweet at congressman adam schiff. what exactly demean? reaction with different takes. >> take her out. okay? do it. >> stay tuned. the attorney for lev parnas says there are more recordings of the president talking to his client after he releases the newest tape. what can we expect? new fears another case of coronavirus confirmed in the u.s. the very latest ahead.

we begin in washington. day six of the impeachment trial resumes at 1:00 p.m. tomorrow with president trump's defense team returning to the floor in what is expected to be a longer day of arguments. they used just two of their allotted 24 hours on saturday to lay out their case. it is still unclear whether new witnesses will be called for the trial. republican senators say it was the duty of the house to call proper witnesses during those proceedings last year. >> the house did not want to do that. they want to move as fast as possible and now they want to slow down the trial as much as possible in the senate. it's a very odd political strategy for them more than a fact-finding strategy. quite frankly it looks like they're asking the senate to go be special counsel, go search, go seek out. that's not really the task of the senate. the task of the senate is to hear the argument the house is making for impeachment. >> meanwhile, adam schiff is doubling down on his concern that senate republicans are

being pressured by the president to vote against witnesses. >> it is going to be very difficult for some of these senators to stand up to this president. it really is. there's just no question about it. and i want to acknowledge that. and i don't want to acknowledge it in a way that is offensive to them. but i do want to speak candidly about it. if we can't even get the senators to agree to call witnesses in a trial, it shows you just how difficult that moral courage is. >> and those senators still upset that schiff voiced that concern in his closing argument last week. >> he was saying the president had communicated to us that our heads will be on a pike if we oppose him and all of us looked at each other and said, we've heard no such comment from the president, we felt no such pressure from the president, that was the offensive part, not that he's quoting some unnamed source and some confidential

whatever from cbs news, it's that the implication was we've all been sent a message and we all spoke pretty clearly to say that's not true. >> all right. let's go first to capitol hill, where nbc's garrett haake stands by live for us. good sunday to you, my friend, on what is a little bitters of theier -- tempty ier emptier ha. >> reporter: the democrats were happy with the holes they were able to poke in the republicans' counterargument. you saw the democratic impeachment managers coming out afterwards saying the republicans were cherry picking facts to defend the president. republicans still feel like they have the votes they need and

feel like they're playing defense, trying to keep everybody on board on the question of witnesses first and the question of acquittal later on. the white house defense lawyers' presentation on saturday, while it was short, gave republicans i think a little bit more of a boost, they felt like they got a couple of new rhetorical arguments they can make. and they're feeling pretty strongly about the politics of it as were laid out this morning. take a listen. >> what happened yesterday, in two hours the senate -- uh, the president's defense team destroyed the narrative created in 21 hours regarding process and substance. >> the president and his defenders are trying to push this narrative, you know, if you don't believe this then let me try that, the smoke and mirrors. we talked a lot this week about what's reasonable and what makes common sense. we have no reason to believe that this president would protect the integrity of our elections.

>> reporter: alex, the white house lawyers' arguments broke along two main tracks, one that the democrats had not gathered enough information about the president himself and what he thought and that so many of their witnesses were basing their opinions on opinions, presumptions, assumptions about what the president was thinking. their other main argument was that the democratic house process was flawed. they didn't do enough to ensure rights for the president, they didn't get the job done. being in the chamber saturday and talking to republican senators afterwards, i think the argument that the democratic witnesses don't have the goods carried some water with republican senators, some of those folks who are on the fence. but the questions about the house process, senators by and large don't really care much about house process, except if it delivers them, and they feel in this case, you just heard from james lankford, a product that doesn't do enough for them. i think that's where we stand right now, probably on the cusp of getting enough votes or close to getting enough votes to call witnesses but certainly not there yet. getting that last vote, i think democrats will have a last time

finding that fourth vote for witnesses when that vote comes up later in the week. >> can i ask you what happens tomorrow? as i do the math, if they have 24 hours to present their case, the trump defense team, and they use two, are we looking at two very long days ahead, potentially? >> reporter: i think that's unlikely. the president's defense lawyers have indicated they don't think they need to use all of their time. we know the president wants to see this big muscular defense and wants to see it in hours when people are watching. if i were a betting man i would say what we'll see tomorrow is a defense from the president's lawyers that lasts into the prime time hours and then ends there. i don't think the white house nor these republican senators want to hear two days of defense here, they want to hear a strong defense but i think part of the white house lawyers' argument yesterday was, we don't feel like we need to repeat ourselves over and over again, we're going to defend this president once and that ought to be enough. >> if you're betting on it,

garrett haake, so am i. hans nichols, good sunday to you. we have the president airing his grievances on twitter today, targeting democratic congressman and lead impeachment manager, that's the key here, adam schiff. let's talk about what this is all about. >> reporter: it's a combination of offense and defense for the president. on the defensive side he's talking about how strong the republican party is but he's clearly taking shots at adam schiff in a very personal way. i'm going to read what he has to say, shifty adam schiff is a corrupt politician and probably a very sick man. he has not paid the price yet for what he has done for our country. and that raises the question of what sort of price, what is the repercussions that president donald trump is suggesting. now, adam schiff was asked about this on "meet the press" and he fired back. >> i made the argument that it's going to require moral courage to stand up to this president.

and this is a wrathful and vindictive president. i don't think there's any doubt about it. if you think there is, look at the president's tweets at me, saying i should pay a price. >> do you take that as a threat? >> i think it's intended to be. >> reporter: predictably this is going along partisan lines and we have senate republicans saying it wasn't intended to be a threat. here is what the senator from oklahoma had to say. >> i don't think it's a death threat. i don't think he's encouraging a death threat. the president is saying he's going to be held to a price. >> reporter: the other conversation getting a lot of attention is the idea that the president wouldn't be exonerated if there were a simple acquittal. that's significant for a couple of reasons, chiefly among them is it almost seems as if adam schiff seems to be suggesting they might not get the actual indictment, the actual removal from office of president trump. that's really the first time we've heard that from house

democratic managers, an acknowledgement that the president is likely to be acquitted by the senate. now, a lot has to happen between now and then. it looks like tomorrow we'll get the argument from alan dershowitz that the conduct the president is accused of, even if true, wouldn't meet the constitutional bar for removal, alex. >> look, adam schiff and the others are certainly picking up on that which has been in the ether for so long now but they couldn't exactly acknowledge that, going in and weakening their argument over those first three days of their testimony, the case they were making. thank you very much, hans nichols from the white house, we'll see you again. the new recording obtained by nbc news appears to catch the president directly calling for the removal of then ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch. that was turned over by the attorney for indicted rudy giuliani associate lev parnas. joining me now, josh lederman. josh, what did we learn from this recording, what's the big

takeaway? >> alex, this recording is bringing to life a conversation that lev parnas has described several times before but now we hear it in what appears to be the president's own words. it's illustrated for us how the president, despite the fact that he has long said he didn't know lev parnas, didn't know igor fruman, this is denting a big hole in that, showing that in fact these two florida businessmen born in the soviet union had pretty extensive access to the president, discussing all kind of things that are on their agenda with him at dinner. and it's also showing in this part of the tape where they start to talk about ukraine and ambassador yovanovitch that literally in one minute, alex, the president didn't know who ambassador yovanovitch is, he's asking what her name is, they don't even know it, but within seconds, still not knowing her name, how quick he is, when he's told she's been disparaging him, to order her gone. take a listen. >> the biggest problem there, i

think where we need to start is we got to get rid of the ambassador, she's still left over from the clinton administration. >> where, the ambassador, where crane? >> we'll be, now that we have a secretary of state that's -- >> get rid of her. get her out tomorrow. i don't care. get her out tomorrow. take her out, okay? do it. >> so alex, this is really -- takes place a full year before trump eventually actually got rid of ambassador yovanovitch in the summer of 2019. it's really showing us this early window into how the president's views were shaped by these donors at this dinner, similar events like that, about t key issues like ukraine, including the importance of u.s. assistance to ukraine and its conflict with russia, which we

know he later withheld as part of what democrats allege was a bid to pressure them to open investigations. take a look at the part of the tape where he wants to know about ukraine's strength against russia. >> how long would they last in a fight with russia? >> not very long. >> without us, not very long. >> without us. >> and alex, aside from the remarkable apparent security breach, the president was unwittingly being taped for over an hour by donors at a dinner, this brings fresh attention to why he is soliciting advice about ukraine's strength against russia, not from experts at the white house but instead from donors who show up at a dinner who have a clear agenda and a dog in the fight when it comes to their own business interests in the ukraine. >> i'm thinking about his aides. what were they thinking,

allowing people to have their phones? clearly they wouldn't thinking, they kind of overlooked that. anyway, the motivation is what right now, behind releasing this tape at this point in time? >> well, we're really in the 11th hour here with the senate trial more than halfway through, assuming that witnesses and new evidence aren't admitted. and so parnas' attorneys felt like it was important to have this information available to the public to make decisions about, and the senators, frankly, about the president's conduct before this trial is over. usually when you're under federal indictment, like lev parnas is, the advice from attorneys is, keep your head down, don't say anything. but we've seen a different strategy from him as he tries to show he's being cooperative and who help people understand what happened here. >> josh lederman, thank you very much. from jared kushnosh to sena cardin, senator from maryland, one of the impeachment jurors,

in fact, also a member of the foreign relations committee. all right. i want to pick up on what we just heard, that new recording, sir, which appears to show the president talking about ambassador marie yovanovitch. will this have a chance of playing a role in the impeachment trial, and should it? >> well, alex, first, it's good to be with you, and absolutely, the house managers mentioned the fact that the removal of the u.s. ambassador was part of the corruption issues in ukraine, and directly related to the ukrainians doing the investigation, the political investigations that the president wanted. so it is absolutely an important part of the narrative as presented by the house managers, which sort of underscores the point that we've been making over and over and over again, for the senate to conduct a trial, we need to hear from the witnesses that have direct knowledge about the president's participation with the ukrainians. so we really need to have witnesses who can verify or

support what the president is saying the narrative is. and that's been denied in the house and now they're trying to deny that here in the united states senate. >> how about president trump's tweet, here it is, we're going to show our viewers again, basically says adam shift has not paid the price yet for what he has done for our country. what's the price? is this a threat from the president? >> the president has a pattern and practice here of trying to intimidate and to bully and to offend and to threaten those who disagree with him. so this should have no place anywhere in america, but certainly not from the president of the united states. it really does infringe upon the fairness of the impeachment trial by trying to intimidate the person presenting the house case. >> senator, some gop senators say that they were offended earlier this week when chairman schiff quoted a cbs news report, let's play for everyone the moment that i'm talking about, here it is.

>> i don't know if that's true. vote against the president and your head will be on a pike. i have to say, when i read that, and again, i don't know if that's true, but when i read that, i was struck by the irony, by the irony. i hope it's not true. >> so my question to you, was that a misstep or an overstep by adam schiff? and to be fair, hasn't the president frequently quoted things that may or may not be true, things that he hears, things that aren't even attributed to a respected news organization like cbs, are your gop colleagues being somewhat disingenuous about this? >> alex, to me that's the point. i wish my republican friends would express outrage about the president's comments. but they're very silent about that. the president has said many things that are just absolutely false. he has intimidated parties that

testified in the house. he's defamed them. he's made it clear that he will go against anyone who goes against him, and use the power of the presidency in order to do that. where is the republican outrage in regards to those issues? i think what congressman schiff was trying to say is that he understands that the pressure a republican senator may be under in regards to president trump. but this is a moment in history, this is where we have to cast our vote based upon our constitutional responsibilities. and i really do hope that every member of the senate recognizes that. we took an oath to be im paragrap partial. we need to hear directly from the witnesses who had the knowledge. to me that's going to be important to have a fair trial, and then render an impartial decision. >> has that percolated enough that even your republican colleagues have come to you to express outrage over this statement by schiff?

>> i have not heard from them directly. but i can understand the concern about that statement. if someone questioned the motive of a senator or the courage of a senator, obviously that's somewhat sensitive. the point congressman schiff was making, quoting another source, that we need to be impartial, based on the facts, the circumstances, and the law, and we can't let party loyalty or the concern about political consequences enter into our judgment. it's just too important a constitutional responsibility here. >> are any of your republican colleagues convinced of the need to call witnesses, are any of them open to considering that? >> i certainly hope so. i thought the president's counsel yesterday made the strongest argument for why we need to do that, to the republicans. and that is that you get the facts through cross-examination

of witnesses. and he was critical that that didn't take place at every phase in the house, which by the way was not conducting a trial. we are conducting a trial in the senate. how can we get to the facts, the truth, if we don't have an opportunity to personally hear from the witnesses and an opportunity to cross-examine both by the house managers and the president's own lawyers? so i hope my republican colleagues would understand, we're conducting a trial. we need to see firsthand the witnesses who have direct knowledge of the president's participation with the opportunity of both counsels to be able to exam. that's what we need to get to the truth. >> do you get a sense your gop colleagues in the senate would consider conviction? >> i must tell you i have not -- i don't know if we should be talking about a final verdict right now. but certainly if you listen to what they've been saying, it's hard to find too many that are

disposed in that direction. i hope, as i said before, the oath they took, the facts that have been presented, that they'll reach impartial judgment. i hope they're open to doing the right thing here. >> senator ben cardin of maryland, thank you so much, on your day off, no less, i appreciate it, it's been a long week and it's a long week ahead. thank you so much, sir. what mitt romney is saying at the impeachment trial won't exactly please the president. and bernie sanders and aoc, what she's doing to help her progressive pal in this primary season. and a big prize for elizabeth warren at a time when moment matters. abeth warren at moment matters before we talk about tax-smart investing, what's new?

-audrey's expecting... -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. are you currently using a whitening toothpaste, but not seeing results? try crest 3d whitestrips. its enamel-safe formula lifts and removes stains to provide 100% noticeably whiter teeth or your money back. try crest 3d whitestrips.

so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. the most common that's why xfinity mobile. lets you design your own data. you can share 1, 3, or 10 gigs of data between lines, mix in lines of unlimited, and switch it up at any time. all with millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else.

it's a different kind of wireless network, designed to save you money. switch and save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. and save even more when you say "bring my own phone" into your voice remote. that's simple, easy, awesome. click, call or visit a store today.

we trying to get witnesses. we were stonewalled. but here's the thing. the chief justice of the united states is presiding over this trial. if he signs a subpoena for a witness to come, we're going to get that witness. we're not going to be in court for three or four years. we're going to get that witness promptly. and it's not for the house. it's for the senators to find out all the information which i think they would want. >> house impeachment manager zoe lofgren talking about the expected lack of witnesses in the impeachment trial. joining me now, abe gaigail tra

and charlie savage. big welcome to you both. charlie, democrats remain hopeful that they can get four republicans to cross over, to vote for subpoenas of witnesses. so far, there are at least three signaling they may. how confident are democrats about them? >> well, you're talking about mitt romney, susan collins, lisa murkowski. they've all sort of indicated they're open to the idea of hearing witnesses. people talking about a fourth vote being maybe lamar alexander who is retiring and a few others who are running for office or seen as not quite firmly in the trump coral. but it's still on the edge. you can see it cutting both ways. in fact if they got four, i think they would get a lot more than four. but getting to that fourth vote is going to be difficult. i would like to quickly add, with all due respect to representative lofgren there, the chief justice is not sitting, does not embody the

supreme court and he's not sitting as the supreme court in his role as presiding over the senate. a witness who is subpoenaed with his signature on it can still say, i'm not sure that's right, and the senate would still then have to go to federal district court and start that whole laborious litigation process. i think the senators know that. so it's not an idle threat that this thing could get dragged out for witnesses who want to obey trump and defy such a subpoena. >> absolutely correct on that point, in fact looking at the limits of executive privilege as well, in an article i was reading. to that point, abigail, we've pointed out the democrats need just a simple majority, 51 votes. what's the likelihood that senator lamar alexander would be the one to take them there? because that is the person many are watching right now. charlie makes the point he is retiring. what does he have to lose? >> absolutely, i think a lot of my sources have really pointed to lamar alexander as that potential final senator who could really reach that simple majority. because he is retiring, and a

lot of individuals who i've spoken with very much view him as an institutionalist and somebody who would approach this process with a very serious, you know, solemn kind of coming forward with it. and he is one of those wild cards. i think there are, you know, conversations around other senators as well. if you look at the latest polling around the desire by american people to see witnesses and more evidence in the senate trial, those numbers are pretty high, it's roughly around two-thirds majority of americans. so when you're looking at that polling and sort of the popularity of this idea, you could look to somebody like a cory gardner who is facing a tough reelection next year. he's somebody who maybe could thread that needle by voting in favor of witnesses and evidence while ultimately landing where he probably was going to anyway in terms of acquitting the president. >> as i look at the headline of your latest piece, abby, it reads, republicans coalesce around a verdict, wrong but not impeachable. is that the argument you expect we'll see play out tomorrow?

>> yeah, i think we saw a preview of that during the president's defense yesterday. and we've also seen it kind of coming from senators. i was on the hill over the last week, and even, you know, just being there over those days, i saw a progression in terms of the way republican senators were talking about it. initially they were raising issues about the howushouse's process, and now it's around this question of impeachable conduct. one of the only republicans who is saying out loud that donald trump did nothing wrong is really donald trump. what we'll see from the president's defense coming up is this idea that, yeah, maybe it wasn't a perfect call, maybe he did something wrong, but that's not impeachable conduct. that's the messaging you're seeing republican senators coalesce around.

looking back on the clinton trial you saw somebody like a senator specter, i spoke to trent lott who was senate majority leader earlier this week, and he recalled that senators hit on the line, not good but not guilty. i think you'll hear that from republican senators in this trial. >> i know you wrote about this in your latest piece, charlie, are democrats putting too much stake in john bolton's testimony? >> he's a wild card, we think he didn't like what happened in ukraine and referred to it as a drug deal according to witnesses who did testify in the house, that he wanted nothing to do with. on the other hand, had e is a committed republican, he could certainly throw a curveball here by exonerating the president. you've heard some democrats saying that, why don't we just hear from him, as a pitch to their republican colleagues. i don't think that anyone is

very confident or remotely confident that at the end of the day, with our without testimony, trump won't be acquitted anyway. his party votes will be with him. so another pitch democrats are trying to make to republicans is, wouldn't he be more exonerated if we had this willingness te witness tell us knows beforehand, otherwise trump will always have this cloud over him. whether it gets to four votes, as we've been discussing, remains an open question. >> charlie savage, abigail tracy, good to see you, thank you so much. eight days until the iowa caucuses. a poll gives us a better idea of who will win the hawkeye state. is a frontrunner emerging? fred would do anything for his daughter!

get in fred! even if it means being the back half of a unicorn. fear not fred! the front half washed his shirt with gain detergent. that's the scent that puts the giddy in giddy up! ahhh. the irresistible scent of gain. for a scent with even more giddy up, try gain scent blast in detergent, fabric softener and scent beads. apps except work.rywhere... why is that? is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports. i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't.

by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business. to learn more, visit paycom.com 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.

today marks eight days into the iowa caucuses with democratic hopefuls making their final appeals to voters this week, that task made much tougher for four senators working dual jobs as impeachment jurors and presidential candidates. a new nbc news/marist poll out of new hampshire today shows vermont senator bernie sanders with at least 22% of likely primary voters there. mayor pete buttigieg second at 17% in that one. another one of those four senators, elizabeth warren,

getting the coveted "des moines register" endorsement. then a "new york times"/siena college poll showing bernie sanders with a lead over pete buttigieg in iowa. our reporters on the ground are covering all the action. first let's go to nbc news road warrior shaquille brewster. good morning to you, shaq. >> reporter: good afternoon. this is exactly what bernie sanders' supporters wanted to see, him surging at this time. senator sanders just arrived at this event here, his bus is over there, you can't see it in the shot, but he's about to have this rally here in perry, iowa. this is one of at least three stops that he's having. he already had two stops earlier today and will have three formal stops. this is a campaign and a candidate trying to get as much time as he can on the ground here in iowa, because come

tomorrow, he'll be right back in washington, d.c. sitting silently for that impeachment trial. that's something he's been talking about to his supporters. he says, hey, i understand, i want to be here in iowa, i want to be talking with you, but instead you're going to have to rely on his sir gaurrogates. alexandria ocasio-cortez, michael moore. for the sanders campaign, they feel like they're in a good position. they feel like their support is increasing just at the right time. but they also know there are a lot of variables, a lot of factors that can come into play as we're about eight days away from the iowa caucuses, alex. >> shaq, thank you for that. let's turn to nbc's ali vitali in davenport, iowa, following elizabeth warren. so we heard about a happy dance there on the sanders campaign. what about warren having won the endorsement of probably the most coveted paper there, "the des moines register"? is she expecting a boost from that? because she is scrambling a bit to regain her footing after the

polling in iowa and new hampshire. >> reporter: yeah, a coveted endorsement, and from the biggest paper here in iowa. now, elizabeth warren is onstage behind me. i'm going to do what i do with you often which is a little bit of a golf choicvoice. she needed a little bit of a win and that "des moines register" endorsement is that. one of her staffers did a little dance and came over to me and told me she's happy to have that endorsement. it hit forical icahistory or his a little bit of a bump. all these polls we see coming out, they have different front runners, different orderings of the candidates. so a few points could make it or break it, especially eight days out from the iowa caucus. one thing from that endorsement, they make sure to point out that elizabeth warren is, quote, not the radical some perceive her to

be. they point out she used to be a republican, she's a capital cap distinguishing her from bernie sanders. one reason they may be trying to make that distinction, in that "new york times"/siena poll, there is a question of whether the candidate will do big, structural change, the al qaeda that elizabeth warren talks about. that's something we'll be watching. >> the queen of modulating her voice at live events, ali vitali, thank you for that, and the king of everybody else, shaq brewster, thank you so much. coming up, the main arguments the president's attorneys will make tomorrow for the senate to acquit. attorneys will make tomorrow for the senate to acquit some things are harder than you thought. and others are easier. like screening for colon cancer with me, cologuard. i'm noninvasive and you use me at home. i'm also effective.

i find 92% of colon cancers using dna in your stool. so why wait? cologuard is not for those at high risk for colon cancer. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your healthcare provider if cologuard is right for you. most insured patients pay $0. but she wanted to be close to nature. home. so, we met in the middle. ohhhhh! look who just woke up! you are so cute! but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. yeah, it was really easy and we saved a bunch of money. oh, you got it. you are such a smart bear! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be. 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.

all with great taste. (mom vo) we got a subaru to give him some ato reconnect and be together. and once we did that, we realized his greatest adventure is just beginning. (vo) welcome to the most adventurous outback ever. the all-new subaru outback. go where love takes you. ncan it one up spaghetti night? cleaning power of liquid. it sure can. really? can it one up breakfast in bed? yeah, for sure. thanks, boys. what about that? uhh, yep!

it can? yeah, even that! i would very much like to see that. me too. introducing new tide power pods. one up the toughest stains with 50% more cleaning power than liquid detergent. any further questions? uh uh! nope! one up the power of liquid with new tide power pods. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ wherever we want to go, we just have to start. autosave your way there with chase. chase. make more of what's yours.

they basically acknowledge the scheme. they don't really contest the president's scheme. they just try to make the case that you don't need a fair trial here, you can make this go away. but look, if they're successful in depriving the country of a fair trial, there is no exoneration. there is no exoneration. >> lead house impeachment manager adam schiff this morning on "meet the press," saying a senate trial without witnesses will not translate to an exoneration of president trump. joining me now, mimi rocah and

joyce vance. sorry about the pronunciation, guys, i'm going to have more coffee. joyce, knowing this case inside and out, do you agree with adam schiff that no witnesses means no exoneration? >> you know, i think he's exactly right, alex. and it's worth spending a little bit of time unpacking what that means. exonerated means that the evidence clears you, that the evidence has been thoroughly examined and a finding has been made that you were wrongfully charged and you didn't commit the crimes you were charged with. but that's not what will happen at the end of this trial if the senate votes to acquit, just to say the president is not convicted on the articles of impeachment, without fully considering the evidence. it's sort of like an ostrich that sticks its head in the sand and says maybe there's a storm going on up above me but i don't want to see it, i just want it to be over. >> what, mimi, do you make the

adam schiff saying they didn't contest the president's scheme? >> that's exactly right. i mean, schiff has been saying this all along, and it's even more true and clear now that we've heard arguments from both sides, that the democrats have done this meticulous job of laying out, based on the evidence, what trump did, that he did indeed put pressure on ukraine to do this fake digging up dirt on the bidens in exchange for a meeting and aid. and really none of those facts have been contested. and so instead, what the president's team is doing is really trying to distract from that, whether it's talking about how mean the house managers are, or that the house didn't do the vote in precisely the right way, which i'm not even conceding is true. but all of those things are distractions and prosecutors always say at trials, keep your eye on the ball. and the ball here is really clear. >> but mimi, are they basically saying, yeah, he did it, so

what? >> i mean, they are, without saying it that way, right? they know that if they say exactly what mulvaney said at the press conference, which is, there was a quid pro quo, get over it, they can't say that in a senate impeachment trial. so instead they're just not addressing the facts and trying to give the jury here, right, the senators, something else to hang their hat on, oh, adam schiff said something that we don't like, well, that's a reason to not vote for witnesses, oh, the house didn't take this vote at precisely the right moment in the right way so we don't need to vote to hear witnesses. trying to give them a hook to get around the facts, which are incontestable. that's why they have to go this route. >> joyce, listen to alan dershowitz, of course one of the most famous lawyers in the country, who addressed this on fox news this morning. here he is. >> the legal argument is that since they didn't allege any impeachable offences, since they only alleged abuse of power and

obstruction of congress and those are vague, open-ended criteria of exactly the sort the framers had rejected back in the constitutional convention, that yes, even if the factual allegations are true, which are highly disputed and which the defense team will show contrary evidence, but even if true, they did not allege impeachable offences. so there can't be a constitutionally authorized impeachment. >> hang on, joyce. is he right, or does being vague allow for a larger umbrella under which crimes could fall? >> you know, he's completely wrong, you don't have to be a famous tv lawyer to understand why that is. in the first place, the founding fathers and the legislative history, from back in the late 1700s, is very clear that they rejected the notion that impeachment required a crime. and there was explicit conversation and explicit agreement that they needed to

have this notion of abuse of presidential power as a reason for impeachment. but leaving that aside for a minute, you can just think about it using your common sense. do you want a president who abuses his power, not in a mundane or pedestrian way but in a really extraordinary way, let's use as an example, using his presidential power to hold up aid to a foreign country that's being attacked in order to extract a favor that will help that president get reelected. is that really behavior that we think should go unnoticed or unpunished in a president? obviously it's not, obviously we want accountability for that kind of behavior, to say nothing of a president who says you can't investigate anything i do, i'm going to withhold all of the evidence so that you, congress, can't fulfill your constitutional duty of taking a good hard look at what i've been doing. as americans, we all know that that's deeply contrary to the moral fiber of our country. >> okay.

joyce vance, mimi rocah, ladies, thank you so much. if any of you have missed the opening arguments so far, we've got you covered, catch "trump on trial" hosted by chris hayes tonight at 9:00 eastern only on msnbc. perhaps it's no surprise president trump is in attack mode today. but why is his administration becoming so combative, what is fueling this rage? need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i think i forgot to lock my buick. got it. i bet you lunch you can't make it in there. i'm thinkin' sushi. alexa, ask buick to start my suv. (suv starts) you can do that? -you can do that? you can do that? yeah, with a buick. what? at the heart of every buick suv ...is you. find out why buick is number one in dealer sales and service satisfaction. pay no interest for 72 months

on most buick suv models plus current eligible gm owners get $750 purchase allowance.

this round's on me.eat. hey, can you spot me? come on in. find your place today, with silversneakers. included in most medicare advantage plans.

enroll today by calling the number on your screen or visit getsilversneakers.com ♪ new fixodent ultra dual power provides you with an unbeatable hold and strong seal against food infiltrations. fixodent. and forget it.

i made the argument that it's going to require moral courage to stand up to this president. and this is a vindictive president. look at his tweets today saying i should pay a prize. >> you take that as a threat? >> i think it's intended to be. >> the president called schiff corrupt adding schiff has not paid the price yet. joining me chris lu and susan del percia and rick tyler. this is somewhat chilling. susan, given all the campaigns you have worked on, politicians you have worked for, i'm curious your take.

>> i think it's a reflection of himself than adam schiff. this is where the trump team and the white house, his managers, his defense are all so nervous is when donald trump is in this state. he tends to always go too far. they just don't know what he's going to say next. he would obviously be better off not doing anything and letting his attorneys make the case for him. but he is no normal, ordinary politician. >> i'm going to have to follow up that statement with this question to you, chris. why do you think he is lashing out at the lead house impeachment manager? is that a good strategy when he is the one on trial this week? >> it's actually a terrible strategy. when you look at his mob-style language during the scandal. do us a favor, she's going go through some things, take her out, and now pay the price.

there should be no doubt at this point that this is a president who is capable of shaking down a foreign leader for his own personal gain. apparently, the only people who are unable or unwilling to see this are senator republicans. when this is pointed out, the threats against them are pointed out, they feign outrage. if this were a normal court case, donald trump would be dragged before a federal judge right now to explain why his threat against a prosecutor is not a felony. we know the dangers of this. we have seen in october of 2018 how a deranged supporter sent out bombs to clinton and obama. these are not just words. >> he is not the only one in this administration who is in an ornery mood. pompeo in aive wi ivtiff with ar because she asked him about the treatment of yovanovitch. she claims pompeo confronted her after that and yesterday pompeo responded in a statement saying,

this is another example of how unhinged the media has become in its quest to hurt president trump. it's no wonder the american public distrust so much in the media. it's worth noting that bangladesh is not ukraine. the implication there, rick, being when she was asked to go to a map that was unmarked and point out where ukraine was, that in private with him, she pointed out bangladesh, which i'm sure -- she's an npr reporter. that said, how abnormal is this reaction? not just from the secretary of state, but from the state department, rick? >> well, it seems to me the only one unhinged was secretary pompeo. i think mary louise seems to have conducted herself professionally. i've had experience with reporters and a lot of times they ask difficult questions. pompeo tends to be -- he is good at it. he is a master of spinning people so they hear what he

wants them to hear. she was having none of it. many of us were cheering her on, because sometimes we get frustrated with reporters who don't go and ask and push and ask follow-up questions. she did that. he didn't like it. he claims they had some sort of agreement. but i tell you, you can get some types of agreements with reporters. but not generally you can't ask me this question or this subject area. she says that his staff had already agreed to it. good for her. >> look, can we add to this mix as well of ornery folks in the trump administration? steven mnuchin, lashing out at the teenage climate activist. what is behind this? do you chris and susan and rick, you can wrap up, do you think they are getting license from the top? verbally -- the president may say go after this or is this how this administration rolls? >> well, i think they understand

just like the trump defense team in the impeachment trial that they are playing to an audience of one. the president likes this. they think it plays well to the base. this is part of a broader strategy. >> susan? >> i agree with chris. this is what -- this is how you kind of get into donald trump's stratosphere. it's a love letter, if you will. >> last word to you. go ahead, rick. >> let me say it this way. greta, he had lack r lack of qu experience hasn't cost anybody money. but donald trump and mnuchin have cost people businesses and some people their lives. >> good to see all three of you. thank you. why china is stepping up in the battle against the coronavirus with earth movers.

frustrated that clean clothes you want to wear always seem to need an iron? next time try bounce wrinkle guard dryer sheets. just toss it in the dryer to bounce out wrinkles. we dried these shorts with bounce wrinkle guard, and a pair without. the bounce wrinkle guard shorts have fewer wrinkles and static, and more softness. it's the world's first mega sheet that does the job of three dryer sheets. it also comes in unscented. if you don't love bounce wrinkle guard, we'll give you your money back.

apps except work.rywhere... why is that? is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports. i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't. by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business. to learn more, visit paycom.com

or here on a wifi hotspot. lte xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $100 off galaxy a50. click, call or visit a store today.