. >> joining us is danny cevallos. i don't know where to begin. so many threats to pick at here. first of all, what do you make of lev parnas both on the credibility aspect of it, in terms of how he is telling it, and the second part is he is making serious allegations which include people like mike pence, the attorney general, william barr, were all in on this scheme. what kind of evidence might he

>> joining me legal analyst, danny cevallos and daniel litman in washington, d.c. daniel, good to have you with us. let me begin with you. explain the significance of president trump's alleged attempts to fire the ambassador to ukraine before she was let go as we were just informed by lev parnas. >> it shows almost like premeditation, that president trump had this long-standing beef against the ambassador who i don't think he even met, so he didn't really know what she was like, and i think he was told that she was a roadblock in terms of getting those announcements of investigations and so he wanted to get rid of her, but the fact that johnny di stephano said pompeo hansn't ben confirmed so you can't fire her. trump would complain to his aids, fire mueller or get rid of sessions and they were usually able to placate him and prevent

let's bring in msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos, who knows a little bit more about this than we certainly do. let's kick off with yasmin's point, how could this impact john bolton's position in all of this? how could the kupperman case have an impact on if? >> well, the kupperman case would have, had it been ultimately decided on the merit, had very serious implications whether or not john bolton could be compelled to testify. but now that's gone, it leaves us with a kind of vacuum, and we go back to the don mcgahn case, by the judge brown, which led to the conclusion, which is an issue that had only been addressed once before by another district court, that executive branch folks do not have absolute immunity. this very to come testify. and then assert privilege, as to individualized questions. so this still leaves the question open as to whether or not folks in the national security field are different from people like don mcgahn. it's still an open question. because the courts didn't reach any of the merits on kupperman's

and will take every opportunity to engage with voters. >> joining us here on set, msnbc analyst danny cevalloslesniewski. let's talk, first, danny about with regards to the votes and the motion. the only defection that we saw was, i believe, from susan collins on the 10th amendment with regards to time to respond to a motion. otherwise, it was votes along party lines, delay, delay, delay. and then we heard from adam schiff there, a vote to delay is a vote to deny. with regards to these results, is this an indicator of where we could see this trial heading? >> probably. i mean almost every single vote was 53-47. accept except as you pointed out senator susan collins. it's so interesting how it echoes itself. susan collins was deeply conflicted in the impeachment trial as well and was considered a moderate as well as olympia snowe. they went through exactly what they're going through now. and i think this is a signal at least of possibility of mod r t moderates in the middle. they'll know that their vote is important but it could shift the entire slim majority. >> so, we heard a lot of the previ

it's an argument that's a bit of a stretch. >> danny cevallos always appreciate it. daniel litman, we're going to talk to you in a little bit. don't go anywhere for us. >>> how top democrats are responding to the idea the senate may acquit president trump as early as today. >>> the president and joe biden go after each other in iowa days before the caucuses, and mike pompeo is in ukraine meeting with president zelensky, the man at the center of the president's impeachment. we're going to give a live look from there and a check on weather when we come back. her w. >>> welcome back, president trump and former vice president joe biden are trading jabs in iowa just days before the caucuses are set to begin. in a speech yesterday, biden slammed the president over his moral character while trump at his rally last night mocked biden for his gaffes on the campaign trail. >>> does it matter if a president lies? does it matter if a president has no moral compass? does it matter if a president believes he or she is above the law? does it matter if the president is petty or mean

. >> joining me onset, msnbc legal analyst, danny cevallos, political reporter for the hill, julia manchester. thank you both for coming in, especially you danny, considering the fact that you were just on television two hours ago. i had no sleep. i hope you can get through this one. >> i slept in your office. thank you for that. >> we just heard some of white house counsel's pat philbin saying that the president can ask a foreign power for help against a political rival so long as the information is in fact credible. pretty astounding, i think for a lot of people that were listening to this defense strategy. what do you make of it? >> i am struggling with this. as a defense attorney i'm trying to find some legitimacy in it, and the challenge is that statement is possibly correct, and i say possibly because you can imagine a universe where a president is asking a foreign power for help against someone who's a political rival in the sense that he's staging a coup, driving tanks down mainstream. that might be acceptable. >> even if it serves your own personal interest. >> that's the point. and

joining us onset, msnbc legal analyst, danny cevallos, former u.s. attorney for the district attorney, and joyce vance, full house. appreciate you coming in with us on this important day. >> making your "first look" debut. >> i think one other time. >> in person. >> yeah. give us your biggest moment, joyce, from yesterday, something that really stood out to you. >> i think the biggest moment and danny, i'm not sure if you'll agree with me, but it was the closing argument that adam schiff gave where he told the senate floor you all know that he's guilty, right, and then he talked about assuming that we all know that he's guilty, what comes next. that maybe is sa little ba leap. there will be no republicans publicly acknowledging that, but in that moment of silence on the floor of the senate, i think everyone understood that, and we see it this morning. none of these arguments are about guilt. they're about process or politics. they're not about the evidence. >> it seems even trump's defense is not to kind of combat the evidence. it's more to combat th

joining us here on set, nbc legal analyst danny cevallos. good to see you. >> you've got chair adam schiff and the documents will be turned over to the upcoming impeachment trial along with the articles of impeachment. how is this going to affect president trump's senate impeachment trial, this new information that we just talked about? >> it's a compelling argument for the expansion of evidence at the senate trial. there's still going to be a battle that is not yet resolved in what o of evidence to allow and whether or not to call witnesses. and there's one argument that says, well, if impeachment is just an accusation, then the trial itself, typically in criminal trials, more evidence comes in, and more witnesses testify because the burden of proof is higher to get a conviction. this becoming a compelling argument and something i would add that the constituents and senators can easily digest. they have some of the notes if you want to look at them online. they have evidence in black and white that they can see themselves and it draws compe

." >>> joining us here on msnbc, legal analyst, danny cevallos. and senior staff writer for "the hill" scott wong. run us through what we will see today as president trump's impeachment trial resumes. are we going to hear 12 hours of opening arguments from the prosecution? >> well, things kick off in earnest today at 1:00 p.m. eastern. we're finally here. this is the senate impeachment trial but before we even get to the opening arguments, which will start on wednesday, we are going to have this big fight over senator mcconnell's resolution governing the rules of engagement for this senate trial and specifically senator schumer and the democrats have one big objection, and that is that this resolution lays out a very accelerated time line as you guys mentioned 24 hours of argument, that's pretty standard, but that 24 hours will be consolidated or condensed into two working days, two sessions. what that means is when you start at 1:00 p.m. each day to allow for john roberts to conduct his work over in the supreme court and walk across the street to

legal analyst, danny cevallos. >>> and billionaire tom steyer has qualified for the democratic debate after new polls show him surging in two states. we're going to dig in to those two numbers, and a check of your weather when we come back. of yr weather when we come back. [ sigh ] [ deep breath ] "1917" is the winner of the golden globe for best director. fall back! and best picture. if you don't get there in time, we will lose 1,600 men. it's "a soaring tribute to heroism." we need to keep moving! you keep hold of me! come on! and audiences give it an "a". [ thrilling music playing ] mostly. you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. text resolution to 651-90 to learn

danny cevallos that's a great example. appreciate it. a lot of people watching at 5:00 a.m. that threat has been transmitted. you can't get that back. let me get your thoughts on the impeachment and where it goes from here. what do you think we are likely to hear more of or different from the president's lawyers today if anything? >> i think we're going to hear more pretty much what we heard on saturday which was essentially putting forward a bunch of information that is not based in the facts, i wouldn't expect them to address the bolton bomb shell. correct me if i'm wrong there's a way to effect -- i don't think there's a way to effectively do about that. >> you think they would have shared it with the president's lawyers, heads up, this may come out while we're in the middle of all of this. >> i think it's certainly possible. i think that's something they were hoping wouldn't come out right before, especially in the middle of their opening arguments, this is the worst potential time for something like this to come out. >> which probably explains how it was leaked to the "

weinstein, the financial resources could hope to even last through two trials of this magnitude. >> danny cevallos, always a pleasure, thanks danny. >>> still ahead, an update on the raging wildfires across australia, and the status of fundraising efforts to help put out the flames and deal with the tragic after math, we're back in a moment. math, we're back in a moment for your teeth. the acid can actually wear away at the enamel a moment. math, we're back in a moment d a lot of people starte their teeth turn yellow. i like to recommend pronamel to my patients to help them protect their teeth and keep the enamel strong. i remember thinking about things i did and wondering if that was the last time i was going to do that thing. i thought...i'm not letting anything take me away from my family, that loves me and needs me, without a fight. when i came to cancer treatment centers of america, it felt... so different from any other hospital that we'd ever been to. whether it be spiritual, physical, emotional... they take it all into consideration, in healing you. infusion, imaging, everything is here. i

john hudson, danny cevallos and charlie savage. danny, let's start where hans started this off and that is we're hearing from the white house and not necessarily a surprise. >> no. >> in the six pages saying we must reject these articles of impeachment. we must not accept them but go deeper for us what you saw in that response basically to the summons. >> two prongs of attack and consistent the whole time. first that the article 1 of the impeachment articles is no good because this was basically an okay call. number one, the bilateral meeting took place. number two, there was no aid withheld. number three, this was totally above board and within the president's article 2 power. on the obstruction the white house consistently saying we were transparent. released the transcript and to the extent to resist congress we have an executive branch right to do so. this is not a surprise. this is consistent with the defense the entire time and then you add to that their argument that the process was flawed, that it did not give the president

certainly minor power there, danny cevallos for us this morning. thank you. >>> the wife of presidential candidate andrew yang is opening up about surviving sexual assault by her doctor while she was pregnant several years ago. >> now evelyn yang says her story is helping empower other victims. she posted on instagram thanking people for her support and she said she's empowered to stand up to the quote institutions that have failed for too many women. nbc's stephanie gosk has her story. >> reporter: evelyn yang was seven months pregnant with her first child when she says she was sexually assaulted by her ob/gyn. >> i was in the exam room and dressed and ready to go, and he proceeded to grab me over to him and undress me and examine me internally ungloved. i knew i was being assaulted. >> yang told cnn she was initially too scared to tell anyone about what happened at that 2012 visit with dr. robert hadden. >> i remember trying to fix my eyes on a spot on the wall and just trying to avoid seeing his face as he was assaulting me. >> reporter: she lat

. >> joining us here on the set to break this down, msnbc analyst danny cevallos and scott wong.he president and his defense team wrapping up their arguments yesterday. as a defense lawyer, what do you make of how they handled their case? >> defense's mission was totally different than the prosecution's. the prosecution had the burden the entire time. the house managers had to put on evidence enough to convict the president. the defense was always going to be shorter in their presentation. and they had to be very cautious not to introduce anything new that might arguably open the door or a pandora's box into an entirely new line of questioning. for example, new witnesses. so they played it conservative. they did the best they could with a difficult set of facts. consider that for the most part, they had to concede a lot of facts. they couldn't argue that didn't happen. they had to argue, yeah, that may have happened but it's acceptable. that is a difficult position to be in, because they're essentially conceding a number of things that the house managers have said but saying, it'

with me now is msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos. let's talk about this driver's license thing. that's going to affect all of us. i'm such a procrastinator. >> you checked it off your list, you're set. >> absolutely. >> what a pain. we were just talking about the things you have to do. >> you have to have a lot of paperwork, and you have to go to the dmv. >> physically go there. >> you have to physically go there. at least here in new york. it depends. i think they all do in every single state because there's no other way to do it. >> and along with that social security, everything else that goes along with it, and you were saying for you, you know, piece of cake, you were able to do it just like that even though it's kind of pain. >> not piece of cake. i don't know where my social security card is. i don't know where that was. i had to track that down. it was not easy. if you don't keep perfect records, it's not going to be easy. >> but you know what, it's going to be more of a hassle if you're stuck there at the tsa at the airport and not able to go on your flight. might as we

. >> joining us is danny cevallos. i don't know where to begin. so many threats to pick at here. first of all, what do you make of lev parnas both on the credibility aspect of it, in terms of how he is telling it, and the second part is he is making serious allegations which include people like mike pence, the attorney general, william barr, were all in on this scheme. what kind of evidence might he have to corroborate that? >>> a lot. and we heard some of it last night. >> let's start with credibility. you bring up a good point. if this were a criminal trial, a defense attorney like me would be pointing out that this is probably a corroborating witness that is saying or doing anything he can to get the best deal for himself, and then the government would counter, look, he's got no reason to lie at this point. he's still being charged. he's still going to face punishment for what he did. he's here to tell the truth, and if he doesn't, the hammer will come down on him. the jury will decide what they are going to decide in credibility. there's so much to unpackage in what parnas to

. >> joining us, msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos. good to have you this morning. what do you make of senator mcconnell's claims that they're going to move forward without any support from democrats? >> to describe the vote back 20 years ago to the clinton impeachment of 100-1 is a little misleading, because, at the time, it looked very much in doubt that senator trent lott, the republican, could get even a simple majority to agree. it was not as bipartisan as originally thought. it was only that far phil graham to agree on the little stuff and go forward on the little stuff, which was opening statements, briefings, the things they could agree on in the short term. that narrow issue is what passed 100 to nothing. when mitch mcconnell says this is the same as the deal that passed 100 to nothing 20 years ago, it was hotly contested back then. and it was only that compromise. the limited compromise, phase one as he calls it moved forward and passed. and passed very quickly because senators were worried if we don't agree with this now and start talking about it, it wil

. >>> joining us now on the set msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos and more revelation of the new emailslk to us how this could affect the senate impeachment trial. >> what you see in these emails is consistently the pentagon repeatedly sending emails over to the omb managers, the omb folks, and asking them, hey, where's this aid, we need this aid, remember me from yesterday, i was asking you about the aid, and if we don't get it, if it doesn't go through, it gets z h zoshed back into the treasury and that makes a big problem and you can see omb sending an email back to the pentagon saying essentially you guys screwed this up, not us which is amazing because we have so much documentary evidence of the department of defense and the pentagon asking omb, mick mulvaney, those folks, what was going on. and so that is really compelling evidence of a hold, that the hold came from the top, and that even other folks within the system were trying to, were reacting with alarm at this hold going on for so long. >> let me get your thoughts about what senator chuck schumer has said about. they has cal

. >> joining us here onset, msnbc legal analyst, danny cevallos. good morning, thank you for joining us on this. >> good morning, everyone. >> house speaker nancy pelosi preparing to send both articles of impeachment ahead to the senate. there was this op-ed by george conway, and neal katyal, the president faces two separate impeachment trials in the senate, what do you make of this suggestion? >> it's a clever suggestion based on the fact that the constitution doesn't really have a statute of limitations, it doesn't have a speedy trial provision, so the house can exploit the fact that there's no real rush, and article ii is about obstruction and the argument goes, well, we know everything there is to know about obstruction, that can go forward to trial, but if you want to continue investigating the ukraine scandal, that can be held back and fwarorwarded only when they have enough evidence. it's a clever use that there are aren't a lot of time limitations. . >> we're getting a little bit of insight into the president's mindset about witnesses in pa

. >>> let's get into it, joining us onset, msnbc legal analyst, danny cevallos, and managing editor at the "washington magazine" jay caruso. as we heard from debbie dingell wednesday or thursday, walk us through what to expect this week in regards to transmitting these articles of impeachment to the senate. >> well, i thinkac the big thin that people are going to be looking atgo is who are going t be the house managers, that's going to be the big decision, who they're going to decide on. nancy pelosi, i think, made a wise decision insi allowing the judiciary committee to conduct the hearings early on as opposed to the intelligence committee. i think that she'snt going to he to choose people that, you know, don't cometo across as very partisan, don't come across as looking to get trump, really projecting the image of wanting to gethe to the truth. that's going to be a critical motion that comes up here in the next couple of days. and nthen of course it will be when is it going to happen, when going to be a trial, and there's going to be issues around whether or not, especially as we go

danny cevallos there. appreciate it. the constitution says one thing. know, the popular vote that has been going opposite of it lately. so we'll see. let's talk about popular vote. the race to the white house. >>> 16 days. that's like a tournament right there. 16 days away from the iowa caucuses where the first votes in the election will be cast. >> and the democratic candidates spread across the country. today, many meeting with iowa voters. senator elizabeth warren took questions from a crowd in newtown on friday. she dodged questions from reporters about her relationship with senator bernie sanders. >> i don't have anything else to say on this. i have said what i'm going to say on this. i don't have any additional comment on it. i am here in newton to talk about why i'm running for president. i have said all i'm going to say on this. you can keep asking the question but i'm not going to make an addition-l additional comment. >> tom steyer meanwhile traveled to south carolina to kick off a bus tour. when asked about michael bloomberg, steyer said the

. >> all right, joining us onset, nbc legal analyst, danny cevallos, and gabby orr, great to have both of you with us. danny we tried to play a little bit of what was a very long day from the president's defense team, alan dershowitz, ken starr, two different legal styles and they seem to have contradicted themselves about the role of abuse of power and what is impeachable and what is not. let me get your thoughts, first of all, how did it play out, what was your big take away in terms of the president's defense. >> the big take away had to be the giant elephant in the room in the form of john bolton that went almost completely unmentioned by the defense except for a brief snippet by alan dershowitz, the defense focused on putting hunter biden on trial, a risky proposition for two reasons, it smacks of what about -- what aboutism, you're suggesting that the reason that president trump ever got involved with ukraine and making this phone call is he was a crusader of corruption. that's a really tough sell. it's been a tough sell since the beginning that the president bypasses the normal

joining us, msnbc legal analyst, danny cevallos, and white house correspondent, checking his messages for sources, jeff mason as well. thank you for joining us this morning, guys, very much appreciated. jeff, i'm going to start with you on this one. let's talk about this back and forth we're seeing. i think this is a precursor for what we're going to see over the next couple of weeks and the senate impeachment trial. the back and forth between the president's defense team as well as the house prosecutors. what do you make of it? >> well, i think it's a case of both sides really having the same set of facts and interpreting them entirely differently, and that was, you know, very much on display by the fact that you've got the white house not really disputing anything that the house managers have been arguing but saying as in the clip that you just played, that it just doesn't rise to the level of impeachable offenses. the president wants very much to be vindicated in this trial. he has chosen the team that you have just laid out to do that, partially because of the fact that they are f

. >> joining us here onset, msnbc legal analyst, danny cevallos, and managing editor at "the washington magazine," jay caruso. so many moments, so many take aways on the senate floor, especially moments off camera near the elevator banks where our own geoff bennett was reporting, there was a handshake between lindsey graham and adam schiff, you did well, you spoke well yesterday which was interesting to hear to say the least, some of the off camera color. give us major take aways from yesterday, jay. >> i think the house managers laid out a good case, based upon what we know. i think what was really bizarre if you go back even to the day before is the president's attorneys just seemed to go into the whole thing not really prepared. it was kind of like they went in and decided they were going to start yelling and screaming, whatever it was. it was kind of odd. the biggest thing for me is the house managers seemed very prepared, with all the information they had, all the documents they had and everything, they presented a very good case. i had -- i thought it was a mistake when nancy pelo

danny cevallos, let's take a look at what's going to happen today. statements for both sides, long opening statements over the course of many hours. it felt to a lot of people yesterday for the democrats that was an opening statement, that was putting all the evidence out over 12 hours and walking the american people and senators in that room through what happened and why they believe it's an impeachable offense. >> we've already heard opening statements from the house managers, like you said yesterday they were part of the preamble to these essentially pretrial motions to get evidence and other things. now, in a normal court if the judge is educated about the issues, you don't have to get into all of those context fueling facts, but this is no ordinary court. these house managers were presenting not just to the senate, but to the free world, to the american public and to the voters. so they had to give this background information or else it would have seemed really disappointed to just launch into why they want witnesses without the background. the

. >> danny cevallos, thank you as always. >>> let's get a check of your weather with nbc meteorologist bill karins. >>> we have a wild storm system, severe weather, tornadoes, record highs, we're going to have some ice, we're going to have some snow. this is going to have it all. almost like a march like storm. and it's going to feel like it in in areas. snow squalls throughout the northeast yesterday, now it's cold. i'm not going to say cold a lot. this ises this is as cold as it's going to get. teens in the great lakes, single digits and negative numbers in northern new england. it is a chilly morning. it won't last long. for today, no real problems in the southeast, we warm up a little bit this afternoon in the areas of the northeast. we start to get late day thunderstorms in texas. today is not the real big problem. tomorrow is. we have a chance of even a severe weather outbreak friday into saturday. 28 million people at risk. and then those storms will head through houston, louisiana, arkansas, also and then by the time we get to saturday those storms continue to roll through the

. >> danny cevallos, always a pleasure, let's get a quick check of the weather with bill karins. >>>ittle bit of snow, pennsylvania, northern half of new jersey, southern new england moved through last night. light snow from syracuse, to utica, and this moved through northern new england, maybe just a little bit slippery on some of the untreated roads. many of the major roads should be just fine. as we go throughout the afternoon, we see heavy snow bands coming off lake erie, the tug hill plateau, and light snow, 1 to 2 inches in the mountainous areas. let's take you to the week ahead. this is one of those weeks where we start a little bit wintry and it's just going to be spring like heading into next weekend. mid atlantic for 51 in d.c. no complaints there. we're about 60 in atlanta. all through the southern half of the country we're fine. here comes the next storm system, and if there's been one spot that has had miserable weather, it's been the northwest, a lot of cloudy days, on and off rain, and more rain in the forecast today. let's fast forward as we go throughout the week ahe

for more i'm joined by correspondent garret haake and legal analyst danny cevallos. me about the process from here to the beginning of a trial. >> reporter: tomorrow morning nancy pelosi will meet with the democratic caucus, hash out the next steps on impeachment managers and that's the vote that will see on the house side sometime later this week. the vote for managers and naming of the prosecutors in the trial is the formal vehicle which kicks things over to the senate side. the senate side we'll see probably the swearing-in of senators and the swearing-in of the chief justice this week and not clear to start opening arguments or anything that looks like a trial until next week. the managers and the president's defense team have to have time to get the arguments together. we have known this is coming of course for quite a long time coming and a difference of knowing it and being prepared to open the case and then we are in a trial period that could last probably two weeks on the short end and significantly longer than that if the senate decides to vote to subpoena

attorney and msnbc contributor joyce vance and danny cevallos. thank you both for being here. the impoundment control act was clearly designed to underscore what the constitution said. that's that the congress has the power to apportion, to apportion money to tax money and apport n apportion. they were underscoring a point because nixon had a habit of redirecting money. what happens now that they say what the administration did is contrary to this law, this 1974 law. >> so it's a great question. this is another time where we talk about whether or not the rule of law continues to survive in the era of trump. the impoundment act is supposed to create norms. it's not a criminal statute. no one goes to jail for violating it. the notion was it would force the presidency to respect congress's power of the purse. that has broken down here. this is evidence that supports article one of the articles of impeachment, but we'll have to see whether the senate takes it seriously. >> danny, let's talk about the additions to donald trump's defense team today. all high profile. one of the thin

dave aronberg is here, also nbc legal analyst danny cevallos. what's it mean, danny? muted. to understand this we have to go back to 2008 to the hair iot meyers case in which the court held there was no absolute immunity, but it left the crack open to the issues of national security. you fastforward to 2019 and the don mcgahn case where the judge holds that there is no absolute immunity. but perhaps even more important, the administration chose to make a vague arm that because don mcgahn was in the white house, he was in the vicinity of national security, so he may have picked up a little bit of it so that he should be allowed that national security protection that absolute immunity. and in terms of betting, this was like putting that argument with the detroit lions as opposed to the san francisco 49ers, this was not best game to bet on national security as an absolute immunity issue. and so judge brown dismissed that argument when the administration might have won if it was used with a kupperman or a bolton. but they never got that opportunity and now they don't quit

nbc's josh lederman and danny cevallos, thank you both for being on this morning.l candidate of the morning. senator amy klobuchar is standing by. she joins the conversation next on "morning joe." i'm your 70lb st. bernard puppy, and my lack of impulse control, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. 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! "including best cinematography, for tbest director,rds. and best picture of the year. that's unnecessarily complicated. make ice. making ice. but you're not because you have e*trade which isn't complicated. their tools make trading quicker and simpler so you can take on the markets with confidence. don't get mad get e*trade. so you can take on the markets with confidence. 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 generatio

don't see any american president giving away nuclear secrets to an international -- >> bring in danny cevallos, what a president, they can ask a foreign leader for information against a political opponent doesn't represent the foreign campaign contribution. in other words, nothing wrong with what the president did in that phone call. >> if you look at philbin's words, he describes a situation that could hypothetically be true but that hypothetical does not apply to these facts. he's saying if a foreign country broadcasts out or tweets out this information and a political campaign just receives it passively, can they use it? is that okay? that's the hypothetical that might possibly be acceptable under his fact situation. that's not the facts here and why everybody's in an uproar about it, because even if that were technically possibly true, it's not this. this is different. this is not mere information. the receipt of mere information may be true in some other situation, but this was not mere information, and this was not passively receiving. this was requesting. this was asking for an announce