mr. dershowitz participated.ho said they were predisposed against trump for various reasons, our jury pool. and they said they were so moved by mr. dershowitz, it gave them second thoughts. it was really interesting. here are some of the second thoughts on that for your analysis. >> you helped me become president of the united states and i'll help you. it would be horrible. it would be awful. it's not a crime. it's extremely, extremely dangerous to target people because you don't like them. yesterday it was hillary clinton. lock her up. today it's lock him up. tomorrow it's you. i'm not here to defend donald trump. i'm here to defend the rule of law. i'm here to defend you. >> two points. one, when i used to do mob cases, the longer the case, the less theatrics like that work because jurors see through it. the first few days they're entertained, and after a while they realize it's all entertainment, but they actually look at the facts. but i just to go back to the second thing which is really what professor tribe

mr. dershowitz. >> the impeachment trial of president trump today at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2, on demand at c-span.org/impeachment or listen on the free radio app. >>> venezuelan officials and lat ip american scholars talk about the political and humanitarian situation in venezuela. they spoke at an event hosted by the strategic and international studies. >>> welcome, everybody, to csis. i am moisis. i am fellow of the america's program. unfortunately due to last-minute travel issues joanna mendelson from the american university who was going to join us is not going to be able to make it anymore. i would like to mention that we're mindful that this is an all-male panel and we're doing as much as possible to include women in our events, especially when we discuss venezuela we like to discuss how the various crises affects men and women different and it's important to see how it can be beneficial to all venezuelans. we're discussing today the implications of reciprocal assistance, known as tr. for a quick background, the united states and 11 other nations invo

mr. dershowitz is an outlier, a total outlier. i mean, outlier. okay, finally, the third argument we hear from republicans against witnesses and documents goes like this. the president will be acquitted no matter what. we know the results. nothing could change our minds. why even bother with a fair trial? talked about being political. talk about being cynical. i understand the pressure of my republican colleagues are under to wrap this up as fast as possible because president trump demands it. but we, the senate, democrats and republicans, have an obligation to seek the truth. a fair trial matters, whatever the outcome. >> host: senator chuck schumer earlier today ahead of today's senate proceedings which will get underway and about x minutes here. also happening earlier today, bloomberg reported democratic senator joe manchin says he believes hunter biden is a quote relevant witness in the senate impeachment trial, a stance that breaks with his party. also political reporting democrats have owned potential impeachment trial defectors to worry abo

mr. dershowitz is an outlier, a total outlier. i mean, outlier. okay. finally, the third argument we hear from republicans against witnesses and documents goes like this. the president will be acquitted no matter what. we know a result nothing to change our minds, why even bother with a fair trial? talk about being political. talk about being cynical. i understand the pressure my republican colleagues are under to wrap this up as fast as possible because president trump demands it. but we, the senate, democrats and republicans have an obligation to seek the truth. a fair trial matters, whatever the outcome. senator murray. oh, senator -- do you have to go somewhere? go ahead. >> thanks, senator murray. i have a front row seat, so to speak, right on the floor by the house managers. i have sat in my seat unlike other members for this whole period of time i've listened intently. i've used the skills that i had when i was an attorney. the 28 years that i've been in congress and asking questions at hearings. and i have listened carefully to the president's t

mr. dershowitz. >>> the impeachment trial of president trump, today at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2, on demand at c-span.org/impeachment, or listen on the free c-span radio happen. . >>> sunday, book tv features the latest books from journalist andrea bern stooip and thor and professor deirdre mcclousky. starting at noon eastern on indeath, a live conversation with deirdre. her most recent book, were liberal i. work. the bouj wow era trilogy. join with your phone calls, tweets and facebook messages. >>> and at 9 eastern on afterwards, andrea bernstein chronicles the trump and kushner families in her latest book, american oligarchs. >> were the president as a private businessman was extremely adept at fending off criminal investigations. so he made sure that he understood who his friends were and they understood who he was. and he was able to make it work for him. he was never charged in any criminal case. it is interesting to have that background sort of in the rearview mirror as we go into this impeachment situation where he is being called to account and where

mr. dershowitz. >> the impeachment trial today at one p.m. eastern on c-span2, on demand at c-span.org/impeachment, or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> after the day, said an impeachment virginia senator mark warner vice chair of the senate intelligence committee, stopped to talk with the media. >> i was late, but i could not abide the president's counsel saying foreign interference in the sense is okay if it doesn't fall into the cla

mr. dershowitz who frankly even in his heyday was never a trial lawyer. he was at most a behind the scenes appellate lawyer or trial strategist and these days he's become something of a carkechur of himself. -- caracter chur of -- caricature of himself and mr. trump would like him to be there as part of the trial seem. -- trial scene. host: what's the format of a senate trial? guest: i don't think we know. all we know is after the formalities, the identification of the managers and the procession, there will be some additional formalities, the senators themselves will have to be sworn in, the chief justice will take an oath to preside. the articles will be read, so forth and so on. what happens after that is very much up in the air, i think. my best guess is that sometime either at the end of 24 week or beginning of next, senator mcconnell is likely to present for the consideration of the senate a sort of governing resolution that will cover some of the details of how the trial will be conducted. that after all is what he and speaker pelosi have been jous

mr. dershowitz represented o.j. msimpsoe tyson, and convicted sex offender jef ey he has also been vocally opposed to the impeachment of president trump. both are likely to bring showmanship to the historic events of the coming weeks. nada: for more on the hirings i spoke with a reporter for "the because of their trience.osen what does this signal about the white house strategy for this >> that is exactly right. this is a president who cares about the tv lineup that he has these are people who make regular appearances on fox news, which is really in the president's eyes the most important thing to him, that these people can robustleldefend him onision. that being said, the president had a limited array of options available for people who actually wanted to join his defense team -- for example, i had spoken to joe lieberman this heweek after a source said president had floated his name from and lieberman said he declined to participate in the impeachment trial because he did stnot think he had a cctive role to play.

mr. dershowitz are experienced trial lawyers.y are likely to be competent representatives of the president's case including mr. sekulow, is very interesting it certainly appears that some extent, at least in a regular court trial he might actually be a witness because he may have been involved on some of the communications concerning ukraine and other matters and i think an ordinary trial would be an odd choice to make and they are all competent lawyers with the exception of mr. dershowitz who frankly even in his heyday it was never a trial lawyer. he was at most a behind the scenes appellate lawyer or a trial strategist and these days he's become something of a caricature of himself but presumably mr. trump would like him on here. mostly because he would be a public face of the trial team. >> what's the most likely format that we will see in the senate trial? >> i don't think we know. all we know at this point is that after the formalities that we talked about, the identification of the managers, the procession, there will be so

mr. dershowitz. >> the impeachment trial of president trump today at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2, on demand at c-span.org/impeachment, or listen on the free c-span radio app. >>> student, book tv features the latest books from andrea bernstein and deirdre mcclousky. starting at none eastern on in-depth, a live conversation with deirdre macaosky. why liberalism works, the bouj wow era trilogy. join with phone calls, tweets and facebook messages. >>> and at 9:00 eastern on after wards, andrea bernstein chronicles the trump and kushner families in her latest book. >> where the president as a private businessman was ects treemly adept at fending off criminal investigations. so he made sure that he understood who his friends were and they understood who he was. and he was able to make it work for him. he was never charged in any criminal case. it is interesting to have that background sort of in the raev ewmeror as we go into this impeachment situation where he is being called to account and there is a public reckoning and in some ways even though he's president, he

mr. dershowitz. today impeachment trial at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. online or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> this morning on "washington journal" the latest on the senate impeachment trial with south dakota senator mike rounds. join the conversation all morning. washington journal is next. ♪ for the first time in the impeachment trial of donald trump we heard from senators. more of that today. it is thursday, january 30, 2020. up to eight more hours today of questioning as the senate resumes the trial at 1:00 p.m. eastern. we will have that live on c-span2. we would love to hear you from you on your thoughts. (202)for democrats 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001 and all others, (202) 748-8002. we welcome your text at (202) 748-8003, tell us your name and where you are texting from. also facebook.com/c-span. in a change of direction and some of the arguments in the question and answer phase post"day, the "washington with a picture of alan dershowitz. trump team advances blanket defense against impeachment. president trump's legal team offere

mr. dershowitz and others are making, that's not an issue and i happen to agree with them on that particular one. democrats on the outside as an example on articles you are suggesting obstruction of justice, but what they're also saying is while the present try to delay our decisions, the president said he was going to take us to court. those are legal remedies that the president does have. the house just decided they're going to cut to the chase since they're going to dump it in the senate lap but were not going to take the time and work through those do processes which the president truly believes he has. we did have taken time? yes, it would have but now they want the senate to have that same burden and go through that same process. we think that should've been up to the house to do before they brought it in turn with many republican colleagues and others have called for the american people to have the final say in the election and the underlying issue through on a lot of this is the interference of russia in elections and allocations of ukrainian interference into u.s. elections. how con

mr. dershowitz, he is a constitutional scholar, and i am so proud to be an american citizen and i love our constitution. i just think they put it wonderfully, but i think this sets a very dangerous precedent for future presidents of what's happening in the house. that tellthis tells us that whos the majority can just impeach for whatever reason. >> host: denise and oklahoma. and again, 93 questions were asked tonight. they will be back at 1 p.m. tomorrow, and we will be back all day getting your reactions as well. jocelyn anaheim, california. what question would you have liked to hear tonight? >> caller: thank you. good evening. my question, first of all i would like to thank the council dershowitz for explaining everything. it is an eye-opener as i understand how the constitution works now. before i was just like closed minded. my question to the house manager schiff, they state they want to be fair, but why do they not allow the presidents council to cross-examine or question the witness especially the whistleblower? why are they protecting this person, and what is the motive or somethin

mr. dershowitz. >> thank you mr. manager the senator from or carolina. >> i sent a question to the desk for the council the president. >> we have seen the house managers repeatedly play video clips of acting chief of staff mick mulvaney's press conference in which they claim he said there was a quid pro quo. how do you respond to the house managers allegation that mr. mulvaney supported their claims in his press conference. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, senator thank you for the question. we respond as mr. philbin did earlier today with that which is mr. mulvaney has issued two statements, one after his press conference and one monday after the new york times article concerning mr. bolton's alleged manuscript, statements in his manuscript. i think the easiest thing is to read them and understand what he said and to put into context for everyone in the chamber. this is from -- this is the day of the press conference. once again the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to a biased political witch

mr. dershowitz. >> thank you, mr. manager. the senator from north carolina. >> i sent a question to the desk for the counsel of the president. >> senator burr asks, we've seen the house managers repeatedly play video clips of acting chief of staff mick mulvaney's press conference in which they stated a quid pro quo how do you respond to the allegation mr. mulvaney supported their claims in his press conference? >> mr. chief justice. senator, thank you for the question. we respond as mr. philbin did earlier today with that which is mr. mulvaney has issued two statements. one after his press conference and then monday after the new york times article concerning mr. bolton's alleged statement in his manuscript. i think the easiest thing is just to read them and understand what he said and to put it in to context for everyone in the chamber. this is the day of the press conference. once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biassed and political witch hunt against president trump. let me be clear, th

mr. dershowitz's pattern. he gives a statement on the floor and then spends the next day correcting it. nonsense. by dershowitz's logic, president nixon did nothing wrong and watergate. he was just breaking into the dnc to help his reelection, which of course is in the public interest. according to dershowitz-ian logic. this would frankly unleash a monster. more aptly, it would unleash a monarch. think about this, according to dershowitz, impeachment is only for criminal offenses. meanwhile, president trump president trump's justice department argues that a sitting president can't be indicted. can't indict for criminal conduct, can't impeach for noncriminal conduct. the president could blackmail a foreign country into poisoning our elections and get away with murder, literally. so long as he's in office. republicans have gone from denying the president with the president did, to normalizing it by claiming every president does it, to now saying there is nothing wrong it even if he did it. it's incredible. the lengths they will go to justify something most of them -- not all, but most -- a

mr. dershowitz gave, there's no article there that is grounds for impeachment or removal. >> speaking of alan dershowitz, it wasn't that long ago that he was speaking of then-candidate trump corrupt. >> you compare that to what trump was doing with trump university, so many other things. there's no comparison between who has engaged in more corruption, and who is more likely to continue that if elected president of the united states. >> well, that was 2016. how things have changed. one thing that hasn't changed much is public opinion about calling witnesses. in another poll out tonight, 75% of americans in a new poll say witnesses should be allowed to testify. 75%. can you get 75% of americans to agree on anything? there you go. 75% say witnesses should be called. but the big question in all of this, now that we've heard from the senators is, will they hear what the american people are saying? that's a big question. and one final note i have for you. because this is personally important to me to address this, okay? anyone, ask anyone who knows me, they'll tell you. i don't believe in bel

mr. dershowitz's comments there. and anderson asking him what side are you on? certainly, he's an attorney, been associated with jeffrey epstein, harvey weinstein, and now he is making sure that he fights for mr. trump in this trial. how could it look, with this legal team in place? >> this legal team is controversial. it's classic trump. it's about getting a lot of attention with these high-profile figures. and i think the reason why he chose the likes of dershowitz and starr is because they have a lot of experience on tv. and they have a lot of experience on tv defending trump. they're well-known to the public and they're going to be able to frame the debate to the way that i think trump is able to take this on to the campaign trail. they have earned some respect from republicans as well. and, of course, it's not just about making a case to the public, they have to make sure there's no republican defections. but as already mention they had come with a lot of baggage. alan dershowitz has defended o.j. simpson, and jeffrey epstein. kenneth starr was released fro

mr. dershowitz actually said that the legal consensus was his legal statements were not valid. that they don't represent the overwhelming majority of legal and kind of constitutional scholars. they kind of went through and made a lot of our points. it seemed to be an approach where they just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick today. >> congressman crow, this is claire mccaskill. it's my understanding tomorrow they will finish their case and then you will adjourn until wednesday when the questions will begin on wednesday. my question is, are you all consulting with the democratic leadership over those questions, which ones would be most important to get asked and in what order, and i'm curious, because i have not heard anyone say, is that 16 hours divided evenly between the democrats and republicans, or is it a total of 16 hours that anyone can take as long as they still have a question? >> well, it's supposed to be evenly divided, but if one side runs out of time or runs out of questions then that remaining side can be spent on the other side. so what's suppos

mr. dershowitz was on the with anderson earlier, he asked what would starr bring that he wouldn't bring, he said he didn't know, that they weren't talking to each other. these are their superstar lawyers. they're not talking to each other. they don't have to? >> clearly you want to make sure their arguments are consistent with one another and that they're painting a picture for the senate as well as the public that's coherent. if they're not working together, it would be hard to do that. it's interesting. as we know, the legislature has already heard testimony about whether or not this is a valid basis for impeachment under the constitution. so why he's retreading that ground, it's not clear to me. it suggests that the facts in and of themselves are not something that he's going to be disputing. >> we appreciate your insight. amy pope, thanks for joining us from london this morning. >> thank you. >>> as we continue to hear more about the trump defense team and how it's striking back and making case for his acquittal, we'll tell you how the rest of the trial is expected to unfold next wee

mr. dershowitz just made, which is so good, is that you can't contextualize it that way. if someone has committed a corrupt act, they are not above the law. and so, you are entitled to investigate. that's what the president was talking about, and just because he is running for reelection himself, does not make it permissible to investigate criminal conduct on the part of corrupt people just because they are running for office. >> sean: that's a great argument. last and then we have to roll on here. >> welcome a real quick, sean, i would said that the democrats are going to need a long, long period of rehabilitation and reeducation. what you saw there tonight on the floor with alan dershowitz is the beginning of that reeducation. >> sean: phenomenal job. this was a beat down today. thank you both. andy and devin nunes. new footage has resurfaced of adam schiff questioning john bolton's credibility a few years ago. we are going to replay what john bolton said about the president's phone call. that tape, we have tonight. oh, we are not buying his apology. we have a lot of gr

mr. dershowitz on behalf of myself and mick sally and moran. >> the question for counsel to the president directed to senator dershowitz. you stated during your presentation the house grounds for impeachment amount to the most dangerous precedent. what specific danger does this impeachment pose to our republic to its citizens? >> thank you senators, i came of age of the period of mccarthyism. i then became a young professor during the time of the vietnam war. as all of you live through the division during the iraq war. in 9/11 and following 9/11. i have never lived at a more divisive time in the united states of america then today, families have broken up, friends don't speak to each other. the dialogue has disappeared on university campuses. we live in extraordinarily dangerous times. i am not suggesting that the impeachment decision by the house has brought that on us, perhaps is nearly a symptom of a terrific problem that we have facing us and likely to face us in the future. i think it's a responsibility of this mature senate whose job it is to look forward, whose job it is to ensure

mr. dershowitz. today impeachment trial at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2.or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> this morning on "washington journal" the

mr. dershowitz just said. it's irrelevant because unless you can point to a clear federal crime, it does not matter. >> right. and that, of course, paul butler, we have the fact that he broke the law with regard to impounding funds approved by congress, but that doesn't carry a criminal sanction. the amendment years ago with regard to aid to latin america. it's not necessarily a crime. it's just against thesa law. >> and, in fact, high crime and misdemeanor as stated in the constitution does not refer to specific statutory crimes. in fact, chris, those kinds of crimes didn'tth even exist at t time the constitution was written. high crime and misdemeanor is a term -- understood by all the founders to mean corruption. mall administration. someonen. obtaining the high por of being theta president of the united states and using thatsi extraordinary power for their own personal ends. >> why is dershowitz, your former mentor to some extent, why is he out there basically showing off to be blunt about it? and saying t

mr. dershowitz's pattern. statement on the floor, and then spends the next day correcting it. nonsense by dershowitz's logic, president nixon did nothing wrong in watergate. he was breaking into the dnc to help his re-election, which, of course, is in the public interest according to dershowitz logic. the dershowitz argument would unleash a monster, more aptly it would unleash a monarch. think about this, according to dershowitz, impeachment is only for criminal offenses. meanwhile, president trump's justice department argues that a sitting president can't be indicted, can't indict for criminal conduct, can't impeach for noncriminal conduct. the president could blackmail a foreign country into poisoning our elections and get away with murder, literally so long as he's in office. republicans have gone from denying the president what the president did to normalizing it by claiming every president does it to now saying there is nothing wrong with it even if he did it. it is incredible. the lengths they will go to justify something most of them, not all, but most know is wrong. th

mr. dershowitz. he has a history of defending controversial figures including but not limited to o.j. simpson, who he helped to beat a double murder charge. both he and starr have represented convicted sex offender and accused child sex trafficker, the late jeffrey epstein, who also had dealings with donald trump. this evening dershowitz spoke with our colleague ari melber by skype and seemed to be trying to distance himself from his role on trump's legal dream team. >> i will not be involved in the factual aspects of the case. my sole responsibility is to analyze and present the constitutional arguments against impeachment. i am not somebody who is strategizing with his legal team. i won't be involved in the decision whether to call witnesses. i am doing it as a lawyer who is not in a lawyer-client relationship with anybody. my specialized role is to present the constitutional argument, the same argument i would present if hillary clinton had been elected and she were being impeached. >> meanwhile back at the house today, the president was careful to adhere to business as usual, welc

mr. dershowitz's arguments. i think he makes compelling arguments and i've read those over in the house and i think they make compelling arguments as well. we have nine members of the supreme court, michael. it's because people have a disagreement on the exact wording and meaning of the constitution. i'm looking forward to hearing the arguments and the opposing view from house managers. >> i saw you, senator, and your colleagues take an oath this week. let's put it on the screen. i solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states, now pending, i will do impartial justice, my emphasis, according to the constitution and laws so help me god. what does impartial justice mean to you? what do you think it means to some of your colleagues? >> i think it means putting aside the biases and prejudices that we all have going into this, whether they're political or whatever. i think we have to try to do that to set those aside. every day in t

mr. dershowitz say that because every elected official believes that what they're doing is the right thing, that that presumptively makes it the right thing. we saw the president continue to move the goal posts. at first they're saying at the beginning of the trial there's no quid pro quo. then they're saying the quid pro quo isn't impeachable. twh when it becomes clear to everybody in that room that what the president did was wrong, they're saying move on because the what, what he does is presumptively the right thing. they are throwing everything out. they're saying the process wasn't fair but then they're not willing to go through a fair process because it would take too long. so we're really in unchartered territory here. >> you brought up the alan dershowitz argument. that's something we've talked about all morning long. what are the implications if that argument -- what are the implications if that argument, and to rephrase it he's saying every presidential candidate thinks that their election will make the country better. so, therefore, anything that he or she does in the process of

mr. dershowitz state something as a fact.w doesn't back up what he's claiming. >> it's important we set it straight. >> thanks very much. >>> this month marks 75th anniversary of the largest nazi death camp in world war ii. survivors determined to bear witness, sharing stories. all of this as antisemitic attacks are on the rise. i want to warn you, the next is graphic. live in paris with more. melissa, good morning. >> reporter: good morning, erica, it is one thing visiting a camp like auschwitz birkenau alone. it's another when you see it through the eyes of a survivor. this month at the anniversary about 200 of them will be attending. as that agageneration starts to disappear, the question is will our global memory as well. >> the screaming at night, just unbelievable. we still didn't understand why they didn't kill us and be finished. why did we have to suffer so much. >> he was only 14 when he arrived in auschwitz birkenau. now he spends most of the time talking boult what he saw. the moments the doors of his cattle train

mr. dershowitz says he's going to make a case that this does not rise to the test of impeachment. mr. starr will make a similar case. it doesn't reach the -- the president snows when you talk about the death valley of television, maybe he wanted to save them for the weekday. he knows how important the first day was. by all accounts, he was pleased with his team. >> what the defense said yesterday was kind of get the top line points out, that the president did nothing wrong, that this is a way to, for democrats get in the way of the 2020 elections going on. gives a tidbit for the sunday shows today and it has a big preview or a show for monday. we don't expect the president's team to use all their time. i would be interested to see what kind of argument they lay out. we haven't heard too much, for example about the bidens. how much will the white house counsel team delve into that. we saw a little bit how the house managers tried to pre-butt that argument in their arguments. that gives us -- that gives the white house team a clear explanation to go into them at length. maybe those are

mr. dershowitz obviously from an academic perspective has a great role, but for leading a huge legal team, ken starr has immense experience with that. >> neil: that experience, back to your point ken, is what seems to be an important focus for the trump administration that the constitutional basis for this impeachment is faulty, right? that's what they're really going to focus on. >> yes, that's going to be a big argument, certainly, neil when it comes to the issue of witnesses, there are, as i wrote in my politico piece yesterday separation of powers issues bounding there. i'm sure that that whole team, jay sekulow is a first-rate lawyer as well, frankly, i would think that the white house folks are going to take the lead in this. they are going to zero in on the constitutional issues that make it very difficult to show that this was an impeachable offense. very semi, i was sitting here thinking to the impeachment of andrew johnson where their argument was, you can say all you want that violating the tenure of office act was a violation, legal violation, but that act is unconstitutional.

mr. dershowitz. >> thank you, mr. manager. >> the senator from north carolina? >> mr. justice, i second a question to the desk for the counsel of the president. >> senator burr asks, we've sustain house managers repeatedly play video claims of acting chief of staff mulvaney's press conference in which they claim that there was a quid pro quo. how do you respond to the house manager's allegations that mr. mulvaney supported the claims in his press conference. >> mr. chief justice. >> thank you for the question. we respond as mr. philbin did earlier today with that. mr. mulvaney has issued two statements. one after his press conference and then one monday after "the new york times" article concerning mr. bolton's alleged manuscript. the alleged statements in his mamt. i think the easiest thing is to read them. to understand what he said and to put it into context for everyone in the chamber. which is the from, this is day of the press conference. once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biassed and political witch hunt against president t

in this portion we hear from president trump's defense attorneys robert ray and alan dershowitz. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, house

mr. dershowitz said. it's irrelevant because unless you can point to a clear federal crime, it does not matter. >> tha of course paul butler, we have the fact he broke the law with regard to a pounding funds approved by korncongress that doesn't carry a criminal sanction. not a crime, just against the law. >> it does not refer to specific stat choir crimes. those kind of crimes didn't even exist at the time the constitution was written. it's a term of olive the founders to mean corruption. mall administration. someone attaining the high power of being a president of the united states and using that extraordinary power for their own personal ends. >> so why is dershowitz your former mentor to some extent, why is he out there basically showing off? to be blunt about it, and saying that the constitution doesn't allow for the prosecution of a president, impeachment of a president, unless you have some criminal code he violate d? why is he saying that. >> he was a great law professor. one of the reasons i want

mr. dershowitz have had with regard to the facts in the case no matter how brilliant a lawyer is if you haven't mastered the facts you could come off as rather clumsy and it does seem as though the appointments of these 2 which are really superstars within the legal community are a kind of 11th hour efforts and that will perhaps subtract from their ability to play a more prominent roles in the impeachment trial then one of the key questions that people have been talking about in the run up to this of course is whether or not witnesses are going to be allowed to testify during this trial if i remember correctly bruce when ken starr was prosecuting president bill clinton in the run up to that he's brought in a huge number of witnesses to testify against the the president do you think that that could be used as some sort of leverage by the democrats to force the trial to . witnesses to take part. well it's a wonderful question but i think it's a little bit off that is mr starr was investigating mr clinton as a prosecutor his initial investigation was focused on a crime but he wasn't part of the ho

mr. dershowitz pointed out last night, there has to be a defined offense and the way they tried to resolve this is to say in addition to our definition, high crimes and misdemeanors involve conduct that is recognizable wrong to a reasonable person. and that's their kind of add-on to deal with the fact that they have an unconstitutionally vague standard. they don't have a standard that really defines a specific offense. they don't have a standard that defines in coherence. they say they're doing this to resolve a tension, they call it, within the constitution because they point out and this is quoting from the report, the structure of the constitution, including its prohibition of bills of atander, that -- and that's exactly what was pointed out. everything in terms of the constitution, speaking offense, the conviction, that all crimes should be tried by jury, they all talk about impeachment in the criminal offense terms. but it isn't within the constitution, it's within the definition, which lacks definition of offense and would keep people and the tension they're trying to resolve, which

mr. dershowitz not that long ago.said he has not been contacted -- had not been contacted yet at the time about representing the president and spoke about why he did not think president trump should be impeached if you are interested in watching that. whether or not the senate trial includes witnesses is still to be determined. as you know, there are 4 gop senators open to calling witnesses to voting to approve -- that that would give includes lisa murkowski, lamar alexander, susan collins of maine. open toted cruz is also witnesses. the washington post notes on tuesday, mr. mcconnell met with a small group of senate republicans including senator ted cruz who told leaders as well as -- as long as democrats witness on -- .eciprocity push for bolton to appear with others. yesterday at last night's amy klobucharor .alked about impeachment [video clip] >> when i look at the issue, it is whether or not we will be witnesses.e if our republican colleagues will not allow witnesses, they might as well give the president a crow

mr. dershowitz does have, no criminal would be stupid enough to commit treason or bribery.crimes and misdemeanors must be played out in the senate. the closest that anyone has came since nixon is trump. lawrenceville, georgia, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? not even charges. obstruction of congress, you are supposed to go to court and settle between the 2 -- the executive and the legislature. nixon said he did not want to go to court. the charges are all fake anyway. adam schiff, he lied about the telephone call. it is one piece of baloney after another. it has been going on since before trump got elected. they are all involved with ukraine. pelosi, her and her son. name willncy pelosi's replace benedict arnold as america's most infamous trade itor. int: about 10 minutes left the segment of washington journal. getting a reaction now that we have the president's full defense team named. some high profile names on that list. we recorded our newsmakers program. it airs on sunday but our guest is senator ben cardin. we asked him about the addit

mr. dershowitz. >> thank you mr. the senator from or carolina. >> i sent a question to the desk for the council the president. >> we have seen the house managers repeatedly play video clips of acting chief of staff mick mulvaney's press conference in which they claim he said there was a quid pro quo. how do you respond to the house managers allegation that mr. mulvaney supported their claims in his press conference. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, senator thank you for the question. we respond as mr. philbin did earlier today with that which is mr. mulvaney has issued two statements, one after his press conference and one monday after the new york times article concerning mr. bolton's alleged manuscript, statements in his manuscript. i think the easiest thing is to read them and understand what he said and to put into context for everyone in the chamber. this is from -- this is the day of the press conference. once again the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to a biased political witch-hunt ag

mr. dershowitz and the other lawyers who presented on behalf of of the president. hopefully it's over in a few hours today. we get to the questions and then get the acquittal that is warranted here and then onto the people's business come onto the american peoples business. we will take some questions. >> what you make of senator lankford's idea to have senators review john bolton's book -- >> that's up to the city. they will decide what you want to do but look i think there's no need for witnesses. i think the case of the set is so strong, hopefully it's over this week and we can get folks on are doing the business of the american people. >> what if there's a speedy equivalent boat related that keeps coming day after day afterwards? >> look, adam schiff had a chance to bring witnesses in the house portion of this investigation. he chose not to do so. that would be an issue we could deal with. >> it was very clear yesterday what we have been saying all along, this thing fails legally. it fails institutionally and fails actually. alan dershowitz made very clear yest

mr. dershowitz. this is meghan mccain. one of those people like you that thinks the call was iffy but it's not necessarily enough to impeach and i see this process as highly partisan on both sides and everyone sort of made their decisions before hearing the case. how do you think the democrats can make a better case to the american people and potential skeptics? >> well, it's not my job to tell the democrats how to make a better case. i think they needed evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. look, i'm in this process because i love my country and i love the constitution, and i don't want to see the constitution weaponized into a political tactic that can be used against any president. the next president, a democrat, if there's a republican house, they will impeach him on abuse of power. on the floor of the senate i listed 40 american presidents who have been accused of abusing their power from washington to jefferson to lincoln to current presidents. you can't use the concept of abuse of power. it's too broad. it's not

mr. dershowitz seemed outcasted because of his association with jeffrey epstein, and the chance to be puty appealing to him even though i'm not sure that appearing on the senate floor as he did yesterday will get him the invitations he feels he is lacking, but the president has long looked for a name that dershowitz provides. long time seeking a tv lawyer with a somewhat good reputation to be able to defend him in the way that alan dershowitz defended him yesterday. i do not think mr. dershowitz had a good argument but his position with fox news hosts and the floor is exactly what the president was looking for. >> and his clients, o.j. simpson, klaus von bulow, the fact alan dersch its howitz and put him on my defense? >> there are people around the president who were like, do we want to associate with someone who represented jeffrey epstein and himself accused of allegations around jeffrey epstein and when i asked dershowitz that he said he had spoken about it with the president and the president didn't believe the allegations against him and he was fine with him joining his word. >> too

dershowitz. so with that i would like to use my time, mr. chief justice, to robert ray. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, distinguished house managers, and may please this court of impeachment. i stand before you today in defense of my fellow americans who, in november 2016, elected donald trump to serve the people as their president. their reasons for that vote were as varied as any important decisions are, but their collective judgment accepted as legitimate under our constitution is deserving of my respect and yours. for only the third time in our nation's history, the senate is convened to try the president of united states on articles of impeachment. those articles do not allege crimes. the constitution, the framers intent, and historical practice of dictate that well-founded articles of impeachment allege both that a high crime is been committed and that as such removal from office ise warrand only when such an offense also constitutes an abuse of the public trust. that is in the case of the president, a violation of his oath of office. both are required and ne

mr. president, you do what you want. and of course dershowitz his mind. does that mean saying msnbc goes off the air? what is this? it's a scary time. >> it's great to have you back on, senator. four-term united states senator from california, barbara boxer. thank you very much. thank you all. stick with msnbc all day and night. this is getting -- this is the election eve moment. we're going to find out in the next 24 hours if we're going to have a real trial or a quickie. i'm chris matthews in new york. my colleague nicolle wallace is going to pick up from here. froe 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. things you can do with schwab: you can earn more when you invest your cash. ♪ you can get a satisfaction guarantee. ♪ you can also wonder why our competitors don't offer that. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management. ♪ it's an easy way to earn it's cashback on the stuff i'm already buying. sometimes it's 3% som

mr. schiff's. >> it was dershowitz is that it. >> but ship said so and speedy he came back and listen the guy who -- over 100 your zico. >> what you say to the critics who say the republicans have abandoned any pretense of being independent jurists and are merely shilling for the present? >> hogwash is what i would say. at the end of a we are as subjective as either side. bottom line is no one walks into the hearing without having heard what was brought for the house. we had 192 video clips of witnesses testifying in the house. so we are either having our opinions reinforced or rejecting his opinions at asking questions based on the premise brought from the house. the fact they have brought a flawed, weak case to the city, that makes -- and what to make it better they can do that by calling mr. bolton in the house where they have speedy but they did. >> actually what they did was they invited him to speak. they did not subpoena him. >> you're right, they didn't subpoena him. he said he would show up. >> well, at the end of the day they still have opportunity, now he says he's happy to come tesla

mr. ray and professor dershowitz changed the trajectory of yesterday.today. >> listen in to chuck schumer. >> i thought there were two leaders of vietnam, win cow key and nguyen cow key. nguyen in vietnamese is pronounced win. thank you for listening in. >> this is the schumer -- >> okay. thank you all for coming. i'm joined by my great colleagues here. now, it seems like every day some new revelation emphasizes our request for relevant witnesses and documents in this trial. and gives it momentum. there has been a steady drip, drip, drip of information. the truth, leaking out and one explosive article after another. in that sense, this is reminiscent of watergate. emails were released over the christmas break, showing that the delay on military assistance was placed 91 minutes after the president's july 25th call with president zelensky. emails from michael duffey revealed he had, quote, clear direction from the president to continue the hold on military assistance. and yesterday the new york times reported on several stunning chapters from ambassador b