Cheat. He got caught. And then he worked hard to cover it up. Reporter after three days of laying out the case against President Trump, the impeachment managers pressed stir crazy senators today for more, more evidence, more witnesses. The president abused the powers entrusted in him by the American People nay scheme to suppress evidence, escape accountability, and orchestrate a massive cover up. Reporter in their final day of opening arguments, democrats condemned President Trumps efforts to block witnesses. President trump forced those officials to choose between submitting to the demands of their boss or break the law. And the trump administrations refusal to hand over any documents to impeachment investigators. No documents, zero, goose egg, nada. Impeachment managers set the stakes, arguing the president abused his power when he attempted to withhold a white house meeting and security aid unless ukraine pursued investigations into joe biden in 2016 and claiming everything that came after that was an attempt to cover his tracks and obstruct congress. They warned senators that trumps behavior was part of a pattern, once again using his own words against him. I have an article two where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. And they cautioned of the consequences if Congress Fails to intervene. The president is not a king. Is there a consequence for a president who defies our subpoenas . Absolutely. Do you think if we do nothing its going to stop now . All of the evidence is to the contrary. You know its not going to stop. Senators who are supposed to listen quietly to the lengthy proceedings have taken to passing notes, whispering to their neighbors, and reading books. At least one senator snuck in a cell phone. At points they fell silent like when adam schiff revealed how trump slugged off assessment that is russia meddled in the election. Dan coats and others came to me and said they think its russia. I have president putin. He just said its not russia. I will say this, i dont see any reason why it would be. Whatever profile russia did of our president , boy did they have him spot on. Flattery and propaganda. Flattery and propaganda is all russia needed. Saturday the president s defenders get their shot on the senate floor. Tomorrow, i think youll see a i guess we would call it a trailer, coming attractions is best way to say it. We have three hours to put it out. Well take whatever we can. Next week is when youll see the full presentation. Democrats tried to anticipate their response. Now, youll also hear the defense, the president said there was no quid pro quo. This is a wellknown principle of criminal law that if the defendant says he didnt do it, he couldnt have done it. That doesnt hold up in any court in the land. It shouldnt hold up here. Another defense because what they hope to achieve in the senate trial is what they couldnt achieve through their scheme. If they couldnt get ukraine to smear the bidens, they want to use this trial to do it instead. So, lets call hunter biden. Lets smear the bidens. Lets succeed in the trial with what we couldnt do with this scheme. And they urged senators to set Party Allegiance aside as they judge the president s conduct. What happens when our heart felt views of right and wrong are in conflict with the popular opinion of our constituents . What happens when our devotion to our oaths, to our values, to our love of country to part from the momentary passion of a large number of people back home . Those are the times that try our souls. Sara murray, cnn, washington. If that is the end of the beginning, what are the arguments to come next . Lets bring in friends to show, jim schultz, professor michael g gerhardt and rayna doe. We have a great mix for this. How do you think they come out of the box . I think theyre going to attack the prose is to begin with in terms of how this thing came through the house of representatives to begin with. They started with that. You saw a preview of that in the first round. I think theyre going to take issue with some of the overreaches during the democrats presentation. I think youre going to see them attacking. You heard schiff and nadler. Schiff concentrated so much on russian collusion throughout his presentation. I think thats an overreach especially what we know now. It reminds people of the overreach hes taken over and over again. The process of overreach on russia. And undermining the prosecutors credibility. And last thing with nadler, they keep talking about different crimes like extortion. They mentioned extortion a number of times here. That wasnt charged. If they had extortion, they would have charged it. Theyre trying to insert crimes into this blanket abuse of power. They cant do that. So, one, you guys rushed the job, you did a lousy job. Two, you bring up russia, reminds everybody you shot and missed that time, you made stuff up. Three is that if you had the real crimes you would have charged them instead of this blanket abuse of power. Response you know what i didnt hear, chris, is i didnt do it or he didnt do it, the president didnt do it. You have a really good i argue on behalf of my clients, the best argument you want to be making is my client didnt do it, theres no proof, theres no evidence. Thats not what theyre arguing. Theyre trying to distract. The democrats did a bad job, theyre trying to distract. That just shows the weakness of the republicans case. What do you think . Well, i recall about this whole process is not really a trial in a court of law. This is about political theater. And so its not just about a course in the senate either. Its going to be on television. I think the lawyers for the president are playing to the president and playing to his base, playing to the republican senators. They dont have to make great legal arguments thachlt dont have to get into the weeds so to speak on legal issues. They just have to make arguments to remind senators who do you not want to offend . Who do you want to make sure is on your side . Whos the bad guy here . Its democrats. And so on. Thats effective in that kind of form. I think for the democrats the evidence does support a lot of what theyre saying and charging in the situation. But thats not an argument thats going to seep into the republican mentality and its not an argument that may make a difference in this trial. However, they may also be speaking to the American People more generally and thats were going to have to see what extent they can make a persuasive case. Help me with this if you have a sense about it. Dont betray anything. Who do you think theyre going to lean on most out of the box in terms of the presenting their case. And do you think they go as long as the democrats did . I dont think they have to go as long as the democrats did. Its their job to poke holes in the democrats case and i think they can do that effectively by talking about the things i talked abt earlier. Also the fact that a lot of these witnesses dont get directly to the president. We can argue all day that there should be more witnesses, all those other things. You know my argument, they should have taken that through the courts. They had opportunity to do it and youre going to hear a lot of that tomorrow. I think they lead off with cipollone. I think he leads off. Hes the counsel to the president. I think he leads off. But they lean on sekulow a lot. Sekulow is a trial lawyer who was a very good hes if you want to call it theatrical like schiffs a theatrical prosecutor here. You want to be dynamic. I think i used the word dynamic. Hes the more dynamic of that bunch. But cipollone is insurgent and hell take the case apart. They will put contradictory testimony up and poke holes in all the things the democrats overreached on in the house phase of this and the senate phase. The big stick to deal with is the idea of you could have done it in the house. Yes, there were stall tactics. Yes, you could argue all day in a legal forum somewhere that this president has subverted the constitutional exercise of oversight. But it was a strategic choice by the house to not engage in what they saw as necessary and protracted litigation. How haunting is that . You know, i have to say i think that thats really an excuse thats being offered by republicans here. Its hard for me to take that seriously because really the attitude that the white house had, they essentially stonewalled entirely. They told no witnesses to cooperate. They withheld all documents. And their justification wasnt privilege or anything like that. It was essentially a blanket immunity, were not going to cooperate, this is illegitimate even though the constitution provides for this exact type of process. So, i dont really think the house had a choice here. And i think Senate Republicans are in a tough spot because the last time President Trump was investigated and didnt see couns consequences, what did he do . He did the ukraine scheme. If he gets off scotfree, who knows what hell do next. He never helps you guys in term of defending him. Yes, they stonewalled. Arg arguably they shouldnt have done it. If you have a good defense and youre accused of something, you bring yoout your alibi. But they made the decision not to chase it through the courts and they could have. Is it on the house . I dont think its on the house. I think its part of the constitution. The constitution uses the word sole twice, with respect to impeachment and the senate with the sole power to try. So sole means sole, only. The house has constitutional power here which the president has stymied, which the president has paralyzed by standing up to them and not complying with the subpoenas. And some respects theyre facing a question of constitutional law. I think this has haunted people for a long long time. And the question is whether or not if the house can charge something that the president doesnt cooperate and stands back and does what hes doing here, who wins . Well, we see its going to be the president. Lets continue the conversation. Let me take a break. Lets keep the conversation going. Will you stay . Will you stay . Where else are you going to go this time of night. Well talk about what can be expected starting tomorrow because the democrats finished their case. But now is a very big phase. Everything sounds impressive before its countered. What do we expect tomorrow or today. Next. Over 1,000 on average when they bundle home and auto with progressive. Wow, thats. And now the progressive commercial halftime show, featuring smash mouth. Hey now, youre an all star get your game on, go play thank you goodnight [ cheers and applause ] now enjoy the second half of the commercial even renters can bundle and save where did that come from . The kitchen. It was halftime. All right. Everything is impressive until you hear it countered. So, you heard the managers that ended their case with adam schiff who was a star in democrats minds. He ended on a passionate note. Now its going to a different turn because you have the defense. Their job isnt to do what the house managers had to do. Theyre about raising questions that can ease the conscience of just a handful of senators that theyre a little worried may want more added to the case. Lets bring back the team. Weve got jim schultz, professor gerhardt. I think were going to hear about you guys want these witnesses, where they kept from the house so we could only get them here . Or did they misplay it in the house and theyre asking for something extra here. You take the latter position that it was the efficiency of the house. I think michaels argument is misplaced in that the buck stops with congress. It cant stop with congress. When a subpoena issues, it has to go through the court system if youre going to fight it. If its stopped with congress it kind of blows out of it blows the woel had theory of separation of powers because congress could basically use that power to lead the executive branch around by the nose when they dont like the policy by threatening impeachment every time. What about the concept in law of the frivolous lawsuit where you challenge every subpoena even if theyre in the ordinary course because you dont want to do anything sf. Well, they have an argument that at least in the first phase when three phases of this. The first and second phase when they were subpoenaing witnesses or calling witnesses, if you will, before the entire house voted on it, thats a procedural defect. Youre going to hear that legal argument tomorrow. He illuded to that in the beginning and its a good argument to be made. Youre also going to hear as it related to this obstruction of congress that this is a made up crime because in essence its the same argument i just made. You cant have it both ways. You cant have congress yes, theyre the sole arbiter of impeachment, but at the same time theyre not the sole arbiter of every subpoena they issue. That has to go to the courts and thats why the courts are there, to sf those issues. This was argued in nixon also by hogan who was the first guy to go bad on nixon. Nixon was not a subpoena from congress. There were court subpoenas. They get they have more theres more power in a court subpoena than a congressional subpoena. Do you agree . The third article of impeachment against richardic in son that the house approved was failure to comply with four subpoenas. The difficulty here is basically whether or not congress in a sense can stand on its own and not depend on the courts. And again i come back to the word sole. So, the idea is with impeachment thats the one Power Congress has to hold the president accountable. But if it has to depend on the courts or the president to exercise that power, it becomes really weak and that power is eviscerated. I dont think its e vase rated at all because thats why you have the other check with the Judicial Branch of the government. A agree, they have the sole power to be the arbiter of impeachment, the sole power to vote on impeachment. That doesnt extend to documents. What i was talking about earlier is the case that went to court with the court subpoenas. He was charged but the issue of obstruction of congress was never take ton the courts. Now there is another issue which is more common sense. Youre doing defense work now, youre getting instres gaited, you have your client. It goes to trial. You have no reason to put a case in chief up. Its the prosecutor who has to do it. Of course you have the presumption of innocence. Ive never heard and youre doing dechs work. Weve got michael here, jimmy. Ive never heard of anybody having an alibi, document, or personal witness that gets them out of an investigation and they dont bring it forward to make it stop. Only here do we have the president of the United States saying pompeo, bolton, mulvaney, theyll clear me. The documents, he said the other day, we have them. Were all right. Who does that . Yeah, i have to say usually you present them before the charges are even brought. In fact, usually what i would do on behalf of a client is going to the prosecutor, have a meeting with them, a pitch meeting, and say im sew haddhou the evidence. Ive done it before. Heres why i think my client is not guilty of this crime. You shouldnt charge him at all or you should drop the charges. Usually thats what you would do. I dont know why you wouldnt bring that here. Its one thing if you think maybe its they think theyve got the jury locked up. They adopt want to take any chances because they feel like theyve got the jury locked up, its not an impartial jury and they dont need to do anything. But why spend a day arguing. Thats well and good that you meet with the prosecutor in time when you have a grand jury secrecy involved or have the ability to know the person across the table isnt going to leak that information. Theres no way youre going in doing that ahead of time if what youre saying to the prosecutor or anybody is going to blast that out the to the public. Thats what congress was doing. Who cares . Look, you know how i feel about leaks. I want them as a journalist. Ive never seen anyone leak like this white house. My point is different than that. You say mulvaney, pompeo, and bolton not you, the president. We have documents to clear me. I did nothing wrong. The call was perfect. Why doesnt he let them testify. If im his lawyers, im not letting him do it. Cipollone represents the office of the president of the United States. This has future implications. If you start rolling overevery Time Congress asks for something, because of that push and pull ive been talking about, youre going get it time and time again. Theyre going to ask for more, ask for more, overreach again and again and again. Typically these things get worked out before you get to the courts. But i think the vitriol, theyre going fight each other tooth and nail. Were going to see that play out tomorrow. Always a pleasure and thank you. So, again, it begins today, okay . Its 1 22 in the morning here in the east. They will just a few hours from now theyre going to get up, theyre going to meet, and theyre going to start to plan for their presentation. Theyve been strategizing for days. But were getting a preview from one of the people on the president s team, robert ray, where are your heads, what do you want, where do you see it, ahead. One, two, three [ dramatic music ] theres only one way this ends. Last man standing. And with the sXfinity Stream app, screen is your big screen. Which is free with your service, you can take a spin through on demand shows, or stream live tv. Download your dvrd shows and movies on the fly. Even record from right where you are. Whether youre travelling around the country or around the house, keep what you watch with you. Download the Xfinity Stream app and watch all the shows you love. All right. So, where is the president s team headed . Its not a mystery anymore. Theyre looking toi distralkt. Theyre looking to poke holes, and theyre looking to get this over as quickly as possible. The steel dossier, going to hear about it. Hunter biden, going to hear about him. Amid all that theyre going to have to make legal arguments as well. Its going to come down to two points. Abuse of power is not enough for impeachment. You need a real crime. And on the second article, how can you obstruct if you have the power to do something . And how could you obstruct if you were never challenged in court . So, one of the men making that case will be former white water prosecutor robert ray. Heres his take. Counselor, its good to have you on prime time. Nice to be with you as always, chris. This is the first time well hear a president be defended with an argument that abuse of power is not enough for impeachment. That wasnt argued in clinton. Weve never heard it argued before. And it is a bold move for you guys to say abuse of power is not enough. Well, abuse of power how can it not be enough . Chris in the clinton impeachment, abuse of power was raised and it didnt even garner a majority in the house of the representatives. Because the facts didnt meet it. But the point was that history has shown that abuse of power allegations as an article of impeachment have not faired well. Theyve fared well in the nixon impeachment as it turned out because it was tethered to the first article of impeachment which involved obstruction of justice. And so, you know, look our position is ive made this point on your show as you know. You dont agree with it. I understand that. Its subject to reasonable disagreement i suppose. But i have argued that the constitution historical practice, founders intent that well founded articles of impeachment allege both that a crime has been committed and that only a certain category of crimes that also constitute an abuse of the public trust, the violation of the president s oath of office or abuse of power would be sufficient to warrant his removal from office. Your trick is extrapolation. Thats what you have to sell to the senate because when you look at all the founders documents and all the things the country is chewing over and youve had two Supreme Court justices indirectly weigh in on this. One directly and obviously justice story. And the one dershowitz cites, Justin Curtis went on to defend andrew johnson. They also both recognized that abuse of power in crimes of the public trust a category unto themselves. And thats the trick for you, to convince these senators that abusing your power for your own gain is not something that the founders saw as wor thoif impeachment. I think thats a tough bar for you. I dont agree with that. Ill leave to professional dershowitz is constitution argument. I do think importantly you have to acknowledge that you tread on very thin ice if what youre really talking about is a standardless bar for impeachment that leads to all kinds of political mischief which i do think the founders were intending to avoid. You can call that extrapolation, but i think they were concerned about power. Yes. And they wanted to ensure that the congress through the impeachment power and the trial in the senate had sufficient wherewithal to be able, if it was done on a bipartisan basis, to muster the ability to remove a dangerous president from office and overturn the will of the people under extraordinary circumstances which i think was characterized then as a last resort. In todays terms, we would probably more readily characterize it as the nuclear option. This was put in place to check power, a president s power. Right. And it was put there with a high standard. The argument for you to contend with will be what youre asking for counselor is theres no check on a president s power unless you find some very hard to identify criminal standard, you are encouraging a president to play with his power for his personal gain, cover up the investigation, and get away with it. Look, honestly though, chris, and you know, i know this is an argument in the political process is subject to disagreement. The ultimate check on power is the election. Is an election and conveniently enough we have one. We have one nine months away. I guess the question for the American People to decide through their elected representatives in the states before the United States senate is whether, again, this is so extraordinary that it calls for no other action but the removal of the president from office. The idea of witnesses, we both know that except in the case where after opening arguments you ask a judge for a directed verdict. Trials have witnesses. Are you afraid of witnesses in this case . No. All weve ever said and the president has made this point repeatedly, if there are going to be witnesses, it has to be fair and it has to be on both sides. Sure. But the question for the senate to decide as a preliminary matter is whether or not they need witnesses in order to resolve based on this record once both sides have had an opportunity to present whether or not they need witnesses or further documents or anything else in order to make that judgment whether or not ultimately their power which is to decide that theres bipartisan support to remove the president from office. If thats not ever going to be the case, no amount of witnesses or documents or anything else is going to change that. Counselor, i appreciate your take on this. Good luck going forward. Thanks. All right. We appreciate counselor ray doing that, especially when they have the big job ahead today. That was not from tonight but it is going to be reflective of what well see in a few hours. Much more to come on whats about to come and what theyll have to deal with going into it, especially the story that broke tonight about the president and whether hes telling the truth, next. I am running to defeat donald trump. In 2016 i warned that donald trump was a dangerous demagogue, and when the Republican Congress wouldnt hold him accountable, i went to work helping run winning campaigns in twentyone house seats. Its time for the senate to act and remove trump from office, and if they wont do their jobs, this november you and i will. Im Mike Bloomberg and i approve this message. sensei beautiful. But support the leg when i started cobra kai, the lack of control over my business made me a little intense. But now i practice a different philosophy. Quickbooks helps me get paid, manage cash flow, and run payroll. And now im back on top. With koala kai. Hey more mercy. vo save over 40 hours a month with intuit quickbooks. The easy way to a happier business. All right. So, what is tomorrow what is today going to be about when the president s team takes up the mantle . They say just a movie trailer, coming attractions, preview of their case. Why . Well, the president s not happy. And do you know what . Hes not wrong with the tv placement. The president understands media very well and hes like saturday . Whos watching on saturday . Now, i think theres going to be a bigger audience than he would expect typically. But what will be the substance . Well, is this even impeachable . If they were right about everything they just told you, the house managers, is that anything . And along the way theyre going to distract. Listen. The Clinton Campaign had sought its completely corroborated, uncontested the steel dossier. Where did that foreign intelligence come from, foreign information come from . It came from connections from the federal bureau of investigation. The number three whose wife happened to work for fusion gps. Now, how will the fox news hit list play on the senate floor . We have Scott Jennings here. The idea of how you proceed, i dont think the president s wrong that he doesnt like starting on a saturday. I get it. I get it. But putting that aside, how do you expect him to come out of the box . What do you think their best foot forward is . Number one, i would expect them i know that the Senate Republicans are expecting a big presentation on the bidens. I dont know if thats going to come saturday or just sort of a more to come on monday. But thats got to be part of it. Why . Why do they want that . Because its what legitimizes the phone call. Is it the phone call perfect . What legitimizes the purpose of it coming up is if you can plant idea that the president had gentlem legitimate concern of what he heard about. So, that has to be part of it. And by the way, theyll have a video tape of one of the state Department Officials who testified in the impeachment hearing saying well back in the obama years i raised this you shh and they didnt do anything about it. Thatll be a powerful piece of tape for them. I think heres the legal problem with it and you talk through the political side of it. If you are charged with beating a guy up and at your trial you want that guy to be put on the stand to prove why you didnt like him and why you didnt beat him up in the first place. It doesnt absolve you of how you went about it. The president could have a problem with the bidens, a good faith problem. But how he went about it could still be abusive of power. He could have gone to the ag, the senate. He did it this way. And only asked for an announcement, not an investigation. And it makes it look selfserving. How do you handle it . If the president had a belief he had a righteous purpose in raising it, even if he went about it the wrong way, uk chyo chock that up to bad judgment. If youre a senator explaining it, bad judgment, did he go about it the way i would have gone about it . No. But were not here to parse that. Leave him in office or throw him out of office . Theres no other door to go out of. I think a lot of what theyre trying to accomplish is theyre asking for the gravest punishment in american politics and theres enough to say we cannot go all the way to that punishment because the president had legitimate concerns. If you look at the stack of papers he put out, he was doing what he said he was doing for rudy giuliani. The video tape that came out, the president says to us i dont know him. I have no idea what he was doing. That seems hard to believe without the tape. With the tape, you dont have a conversation about getting rid of the ambassador of ukraine with a nobody. This was not a nobody dinner. This was 15 people. Why would he lie about knowing parnas . I think its plausible that he doesnt know him in a familiar sense. Its obviously implausible that he doesnt know him at all because he was at a dinner with him. Im not saying they dated. Im saying you dont talk about that with a guy that you just shook his hand. The most likely thing is he had any familiarity with him because giuliani was vouching for him. Even if he doesnt know parnas that well, if youre friends with rudy and rudy says this is my guy, the credibility transfers. This was six months before he worked with rudy. Rudy wasnt even at the dinner. It couldnt have been when rudy was vouching for him. It was when parnas was trying to get close to him and tellin him this ambassador was bad for you, mr. President , because she was bad for parnas. Parnas wanted to work business deals. His interests wound up combining with rudy. Why wouldnt the president be straight and say i know him, i no e what rudy was doing. Why is he playing by the same book with Michael Cohen which we know that was a lie also . There are definite questions of this. Ive been critical of the president using giuliani for this effort. If you had a legitimate concern about corruption and you want that investigated, there are agencies to use. The state department, justice department, all them in. Not if you want your fingerprints on it. Some people might say trump didnt want the bureaucracies to do that and he doesnt trust that world so he went to his world to do it. So, why did he give the aid . Why did he give ukraine the aid . I think he gave them the aid because he had a mountain of pressure from republican senators. Why do you think so . They voted for it and he knew it was bad policy not to give the aid. He doesnt want trouble in the senate. Thats the only chamber thats rah lel i helping him. I think that was to me the Biggest Issue for him was not just the ukrainian stuff he cared about going on the side but he had a real problem in the Republican Controlled Senate by not doing this and he ultimately caved to portman and johnson and others. How much was they said to him you cant hold up the aid because you want them to investigate the bidens. I think the case they were making was we voted for this. This was your policy. Thats true too. And oh by the way you have a great political argument here which is your predecessor never sent these people and you take the win. I think they were trying to convince him like knowing you won, take the win. Youre tougher on the russians in this area than obama. It coordinated with the whistleblower coming out and there started to be heat. Well see how theyll deal with it starting today. Appreciate it. Were going to play more closing words from adam schiff. They were powerful. The democrats were very happy with them. What will they mean . How will they influence what we hear next . Stay with us. Lets be honest, every Insurance Company says they can save you dollars. Which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. Cheerio esurance is built to save you dollars. And when they save dollars, you save dollars. So get a quote. When insurance is affordable, its surprisingly painless. When insurance is affordable, because the tempurbreeze™makes stransfers heat. Away from your body. So you feel cool, night after night. And now tempurpedic is ranked number one by jd power in Customer Satisfaction with retail mattresses. Nefor natural brows. Rom maybelline new york. In one step. Mini brush. Tinted gel. For natural brows made easy. New brow fast sculpt. Only from maybelline new york. Being prepared is a part of who you are. But its especially important in the case of a disaster. Be informed about possible emergencies in your area. Make a plan that covers where youll go in an emergency. Build a kit with the things you need to survive. There is no one more capable of planning for your situation, than you. Start your plan today. Go to ready. Gov myplan there was silence on the senate floor just hours ago as congressman adam schiff laid out his final argument for the democrats. Heres what the senators were left with. President trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, ukraine, in the 2020 election. That has been proved. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included solicited the government of ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his election, harm the prospects of his opponent, and influence the 2020 election to his advantage. That has been proved. President trump also sought to pressure the government of ukraine to take these steps by acts of value to ukraine on the public announcement of the investigations. That has been proved. Let me Say Something about this second article. The facts of the president s defiance of congress are very simple because they were so uniform, because they were so categorical, because they are so uncontested. There will never be an article one whether that article one is abuse of power or that article one is treason or that article one is bribery, there will never been an article one if the congress cant investigate an impeachable offense. If the congress cannot because the president prevents it investigate the president s own wrong doing, there will never been an article one. Because there will be no more impeachment power. It will be gone. It will be gone. Whether you like the president or you dislike the president is immaterial. Its all about the constitution and his misconduct. If it meets the standard of impeachable conduct as we have proved, it doesnt matter whether you like him. It doesnt matter whether you dislike him. What matters is whether he is a danger to the country because he will do it again. And none of us can have confidence based on his record that he will not do it again because he is telling us every day that he will. Real political courage doesnt come from disagreeing with our opponents but from disagreeing with our friends. And with our own party. Because it means having to stare down accusations of disloyalty and betrayal. Is a democrat name only or shes a republican in name only . What i said last night, if it resonated with anyone in this chamber, didnt require courage. My views, as heart felt as they are, reflect the views of my constituents. But what happens when our heart felt views of right and wrong are in conflict with the popular opinion of our constituents . What happens when our devotion to our oaths, to our values, to our love of country depart from the momentary passion of a large number of people back home . Those are the times that try our souls. The founders gave us more than words. They gave us inspiration. They may have receded into mythology but they inspire us still. And more than us, they inspire the rest of the world. They inspire the rest of the world from their prison cells in turkey, journalists look to us. From their internment camps in china, they look to us. From their cells in egypt, those who were in the square for a better life look to us. From the philippines, those that were the victims and their families of mass killing, they look to us. From elgin prison, they look to us. From all over the world, they look to us. And increasingly they dont recognize what they see. Its a terrible tragedy for them. It is a worse tragedy for us because theres nowhere else for them to turn. Theyre not going to turn to russia. Theyre not going to turn to china. Theyre not going to turn to europe with all of its problems thachlt lo. They look to us because we are still the indispensable nation. They look to us because we have a rule of law. They look to us because no one is above that law. And one of the things that separates us from those people in elgin prison is the right to a trial, a right to a trial. Americans get a fair trial. And so i ask you, i implore you, give america a fair trial. Give america a fair trial. Shes worth it. Thank you. All right. Thats all for us. Thank you for watching. We have a special saturday edition of cuomo prime time at 9 00 p. M. Tonight. Right now, the news continues on cnn. Good evening, weve now heard from beginning to end the case for removing President Trump from office, Democratic House impeachment managers tonight wrapping up their threeday long opening presentation. They laid out the facts and logic behind their two articles of impeachment in a way that wherever you may stand on the president was both easy to follow and maybe did i feel to dismiss out of hand. Talk more in the hour ahead about the impact their words may be having and on whom, look ahead as well to tomorrow when the defense begins its case. Also tonight what could be new evidence that could speak to the president s conduct, a recording of what appears to be his voice on it demanding the firing of the u. S. Ambassador at the center of all of this, reportedly made at a dinner with the man lev parnas who the president has repeatedly said he doesnt know. Reminder to senators perhaps the Political Risk of rushing this through only to see now facts in the case come to light. First though, cnn sara murray takes a look back at what we heard today. The president abused the powers entrusted in him by the