Closing together of the arguments . He wasnt as emotional as last night. I can get emotional because if youre from tough state, the conflict between your principals and your polling, the conflict between what you believe in and what the majority of your state is screaming at you about is a very painful process. And what he tried to do tonight was isolate that conflict. And put it in the context of a constitutional crisis. And the strength of the United States senate to stand tall in history and maintain the eke wulibrium of the checks and balances of our institution. And i have to tell you its a hard thing. Im not trying to express sympathy for the republicans. Im trying to say that those moments, and if youre from a really red state or really blue state, you dont have them very often. But if youre from the other kind of state, theyre hard and thats what these folks have to wrestle with. He toldthem last noikt and tonight and they know it, this guy did this, hes given the back of the hand to the oversight of the United States senate. And deep down i believe the majority of the senate believes he should be removed. And somebody who knows of what you speak. Mark warner is also the top democrat on the Intelligence Committee and a very important dual hatted role in that room. We appreciate you making time. And let me give a shout out to claire. She just did a great job of both synthesizing what adam schiff, whos been remarkable over the last four days, and the challenge he called on all of us to reach that point of moral courage. Let me ask you to comment on what senator mccaskal said about senators of good faith are considering as they start to hear from the president s counsel sorry. Go for it. First of all, again, its been a long four days. I know weve only been in eight or so hours each day. Its felt like an eturny. That many paoliticians staying quiet that long is a rarity. And the comments particularly last night when he basically spoke out and said to all of us does anyone doubt that this president wouldnt have the capacity to dothis . That he wouldnt do it again . That anyone in this room, democrat or republican alike, would be the object of his scorn if they rose up against him . I think struck home. I spent a lot of time with my republican colleagues, try to look at things in a bipartisan way and i think that struck home. I think he also made that appeal tonight that this is about rising above. I think in the same scope i want to give the president s lawyers an opportunity to make their case over the next couple of days. Im going to be curious to see whether theyre going to attack the factual basis, which i follow this as close as most, maybe not as close as you, rachel. But i thought it was very important when they laid out, in a linear fashion, all of the objelo objects to withhold the aid and get these two political considerations, trash his political opponent. Go with this cookie theory ukraine was involved, rather than russia. That was extraordinarily powerful. So when the president s lawyers try to go against the factual, they try to say process foul or he did it but im going to be curious to hear what the preside president s lawyers have to say. Whats happened so far is the house managers i think invoked an extraordinary case about what are clearly, if proven, impeachable offenses. One of the unusual things about this impeachment process, and i know every impeachment is its own thing because weve had so few of them. But theres question of what witnesses will be heard from and what is continuing to develop in terms of the factual recrld we have about the president s behavior and what was going on in the ukraine scheme. The lead impeachment manager, chairman schiff, right before the trial started raised a real red flag in a couple of public interviews. Right before the start of the trial, he basically said publicly that he believed the nsa and the cia were withholding Important Information about ukraine and he said he believes its possible the agencies were withholding that information on orders from the president. Youre the top democrat in the senate. I have to ask if those assertions that he made are congrunt with your understanding . Is this something being looked at . Im not going to comment specifically on what adam said. I am going to point out that there is no one in the trump appointed Intelligence Community or Law Enforcement community. I dont think any of my colleagues on the senate Intelligence Committee, that are republicans, believe theres any credibility in the notion that somehow you crane was the active involvement in our 2016 elections, rather than russia and clearly this has been part of a putinrussian Intelligence Services propaganda effort. And i do believe theres the potential that agents of the president , potentially Rudy Giuliani, are being manipulated by the russian spin and the russian propaganda and this is will be, as adam schiff laid out, if this story holds, its such a net win for putin, both in terms of the split with america and ukraine, the notion that somehow the russian propaganda story is being advanced and the fact that the president of the United States continues to believe his own personal lawyer rather than his own intelligence leaders. And for that matter, his own intelligence senators. And in large part on article two, obstruction of congress. We got a detailed resitation, including what i thought was a powerful and interesting argument from garcia who argued a point about the timeline in which the state department and the Defense Department had both initially responded by saying that they would prepare to cooperate, they respected the congressional oversight responsibilities here. They would hand over documents. They started the process as normal. And then the white house intervened and told them both dont hand over a thing, dont make any witnesses available on our orders. Did something similar happened . Has something similar happened when it comes to the intelligence agencies . Or were those instructions specific to defense . I dont think theres ever been a white house thats tried to intervene more with the normal operations of government in terms of when the normal operations of government. And appointed officials, for that matter, longterm govern officials try to faumo the law. And this white house believes, in many ways, that they rise above the law. Im curious to hear the president s lawyers response to that. And this afternoon was the fact that even richard nixon, when he went through impeachment respected the congresss subpoena ability. Frr and that was all thrown out the window. Im trying to get the questions answered. But i do think for the most part the Intelligence Community has been and the Law Enforcement community has been one of the few areas in government thats been willing to stand up to this president and that has cost folks like former director of national intelligence, dan coats or sue jordan a 30year professional, cost them their jobs but theyve been willing to put country first. One last question. You opened the conversation saying you have a lot of conversation with your republican colleagues. Youre on the Intelligence Committee which has crossaisle comedy among members. I just wonder if you have been able to have conversations across the aisle, if there is constructive discussion happening about important forthcoming question like whether there will be witnesses . Are you talking about those things with your republican colleagues . Absolutely i am. And i want to go back at the powerful, powerful message. Adam schiff was great and on a scale of 1 to 10 he was a 12 last night in speaking to us about the character of donald trump and frankly, everyone in that chamber could believe he took these actions and he would, frankly, take them again if theres not reigning in. I want to give the confed engsiality of my conversations and i took an oath to be impartial until i hear the whole presentations. Im not going to make any decision until we get our questions answered. I want to close with this. And this is very telling to me. Weve still got folks, the president s chief of staff, secretary of staff, now the Vice President , a host of other top political officials who know the truth. You would think if they were able and willing to come forward and taken a oath and clear this president , that they would be forlsed to do this. You would think the president s lawyers would welcome that. I find it extraordinary these guys closest in the room are unwilling to come forward and this president doesnt want them to come forward. Skip all the process and procedure. But the folks that could clear this president are not willing to come forward because maybe theyre not willing to taken a oath and say that. Democrat of virginia. Its invaluable to have you here tonight. Thank you so much. Very interesting pointed he closed with there. Putting the witnesss question, not just on the republican senators. But putting it on mulvaney, pompeo, that if they want to come forward, its their choice to, they could tell the world theyre ready to testify and put themselves out there. And its on them. And frankly, the American People, thalgs ts the commonse kicking in. If it was perfect call, then his folks should show up to tell us what really happened. But no one wants to put their hand in the air and take that oath knowing the consequences of lying to this tribunal. Youve done great reporting and mike pompeo increasingly seems like the head of the whole thing. He had this bizarre outburst after an npr interviewer challenged him. We have that tape. Incredible. And theres something about the story that doesnt add up. And its the part of the Marie Yovanovitch. This tape came out about the president taker out. Why couldnt the president fire his own Ukraine Ambassador . Why couldnt he do it . Everyone defending him say he has the power to recall the ambassador. And one way he could have done that was to appoint a new ambassador and send it up to the senate. Why did they construct a machine that involved foreign money travelled through foreign guys going to a texas congressman to write a letter to try to get rid of the ambassador. Lev said it almost became comical, like a waiting for the doe kind of thing. Shes fired, she will not move. Theres some part of the story in the state department and it is in mike pompeo that explains why that all happened. Let me just theres one other piece that has been driving me crazy and it was reported by the daily beast who did an interview with lev parnas in which theres this thing with a guy na, demeetry. Hes the kremlins man in ukraine. Upper echelon of organized crime. Whats he doing in the story anyway . Lev tells me in that interview they were trying to work out a pulgs me, pull you a trade. He would get a little help, trying to get his Justice Department case against him dropped. And in exchange he would cook up antibiden stuff for them. Okay. Lev parnas said as part of that deal one of these lawyers is working with Rudy Giuliani, calls the u. S. Ambassador to germany, President Trumps favorite ambassador and rick brunel, cowarding to the account of the facts, says how can i help . And she says what wed need you to do is wed need you to give us a heads up if theyre really going to extradite him and he says sure, i can help you with that. I can help you enact this exchange. I, as a u. S. Ambassador, will use my connections at the state department to give you his kounsz counsel, a heads up so he can flee. Hes had no comment in response. But we know hes very well connected. And thats part of trying to help a u. S. Fugitive from justice. So, the world that mike pompeo is overseeing here has been involved in so many harry, harry parts of this that have yet to be fully adjudicate said and in some cases havent responded to. The fact he never defended yovanovitch and theres these insane allegations out there about the sitting ambassador to germany and that giuliani was apparently there, put in charge of u. S. Diplomats who didnt have ukraine as part of their renet so he could run this operation for the president , which mike pompeo was apparently totally read in on. How is he still secretary of state . And what weve seen and displayed throughout the three days of argumentation, you have to search high and low to finds one that is exculpatory for the president. Theres a lot of email traffic. Theres no one there could have been, even from cya perspective. A Mick Mulvaney saying this is wrong. We shouldent by doing this. The only one is the famous no quid pro quo. Call me. To your point about brunel and pertags and the wild interview that is under tremendous pressure. The state department produce as lot of paper. Its one thing they love its cage cables and paper. Weve only got the stuff that individual witnesses were able to take with thoem outside the building and hand over and the stuff they took from the state departments orbit has been the mo mostinalic most inical puatory evidence. And let me quote one of my favorite house managers. We shouldnt have to wait to read it in the book. That sums it up. Itsler going to come out. Bolton was read in on this stuff and hes going to talk eventually, even if the senators refuse. The expected subpoena that we should have. For control room purposes, the moment shes referring to is tape number 12. Play that when we come back and i believe were going to be joined by minority leader, chuck schumer, from the senate live. Stay with us. Stay with us President Trump obstruction of the impeachment inquiry was categorical, indiscriminate and historically unprecedented. I ask this body to not twiet read about it in the press or in a book. You should be hearing this evidence now. Impeachment manager. Joining us now is senator schumer. We really appreciate being here for another long day. My pleasure, rachel. So adam schiff saying give america a fair trial. She is worth it. After the house impiechment managers have completed their case, how fair trial do you believe america is getting this far . Well, theyve done a great job. The house managers were comrehencive, strong and the real tour deforce was adam schiff listed because the president s lawyers will go after him. He listed just about every false argument they would make and rebutted it in two or three sentences, preparing away. I thought our house managers did a fabulous job and you just showed val demings. One of the things that hadnt been talked about, which i think is hidden is article two. Because the president s demand for absolute immunity, no one can challenge the president when he wants to withhold information, which is so out of character with inamerican republic and an impeachment, neither Andrew Johnson or nixon nor clinton came close to that. Thats a new argument that hadnt been made fully and made very well by val, nadler, by hakim and a few of the others. I think thats going to resonate, at least with the public because it says that donald trump wants to be monarch like. He just wants it his way and no one, not congress or anyone teels ever refute him. Adam summed that up pretty well at the end. I know youve got begin to prepare questions for next week. And i know the members have been asked to submit ideas for questions later tonight and that you will begin to work on the process of fashioning eight hours of questions that will help. Are you all thinking about using the questions as a way of rebutting what we know might be some misleading claims made by the white house lawyers over the next few days . Absolutely, claire. Because usually in a trial, as you know better than me, the prosecution gets a rebuttal after the defense makes its argument. Prosecution and the defense, then the rebuttal of the prosecution. We dont get that, but i think we can use the question period as a way to allow them to rebut some of the republican arguments and i know many of my colleagues are preparing questions just along those lines. Good to see you. I just wanted to get your read on the moment that happened just now where adam schiff mentioned that cbs report, which was an unnamed senior aid to the president saying the message had gone out that any republican votes, their head will be on a pike and i believe Susan Collins from maine, thats not true. What happened there . I dont know if its true or not but ill tell you this. The republicans are so afraid to confront the actual facts presented by the house managers that theyre always looking for a diversion. Remember t was nancy and the first day it was jerry nadler, calling the senate to cover up or whatever he did and yesterday they said weve heard all this evidence, why do we have to go through this . Even though they wouldnt allow new evidence in. You know, what, krils rr, ill stand here all night. You find me one republican who will actually rebut the arguments made about the president s abuse of power and the president s obstruction of congress. I think well have a long night. They cant argue on the merits and so the typical republican thing, and now more than ever with all the pressure on them, we all know theres pressure on them, is to find diversions. Senator, we have reporting tonight about an audio recording that is apparently of the president from 2018 in which he personally and in blunt terms calls for the firing of Marie Yovanovitch, the ambassador to ukraine. Reportedly this has been given to the Intelligence Committee in the house. If the senate will not accept that tape of evidence or cant because of the way the timeline works, would you encourage the houses to release that tape on its own . Absolutely. We believe everything should be made public. We believe we have right on our side and we believe the American People are on our side. When we started four weeks ago with witnesses and documents, no one knew what it was. However our republican colleagues know their constituents are strongly for witnesses and documents and theres still eight to ten republican whose have not said theyre against witnesses and documents. Ill say one more thing about that tape. What President Trump did, and this is aparted from imp peachment, although she is part of the impeachment situation. What he did to ambassador yovanovitch is despicable. She was not a political person at all. She was the kind of person that makes america proud. Shes in a civilian sense, like our soldiers. And for him to be so nasty and to be so cruel in his angzs to her and now on this tape, hes despicable. Hes despicable. What adam schiff talked about and what a lot of the managers did is what the president does and how he acts, that it has to be his way or no way. He is the whole country. If it benefits him, its good, if it doesnt, its not, regardless of how that effects america. That plays into this. This man, he is so against the greatness of American Values and what we believe in. And this tape is just another stunning, saufl example. Its despicable. The democratic leader in the United States senate, thank you, sir, again for your time. Nice to be with you. On the point of that audiotape, iltsz impact on this conversation functions in a couple different levels. Number one, the content is interesting in terms of the president s behavior and his motivations. Number two, it is anl on its face demonstration that more information is going to keep coming out over the courses of the investigation. And the senators blinding them selves to additional evidence as it comes out and particularly evidence helps us understand the fact pattern of the president s behavior is going to get increasingly awkward over time. I will tell you the attorney for lev parnas who says tonight that his client has turned over that tape to the house Intelligence Committee as of tonight, bondy is that attorney. We also expect to speak to one more u. S. Senator who has just had a very long day at the capitol. Long day at the capitol. My body is truly powerful. I have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. Because i can still make my own insulin. And trulicity activates my body to release it like its supposed to. Trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. Its not insulin. I take it once a week. It starts acting in my body from the first dose. Trulicity isnt for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. Dont take trulicity if youre allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. Serious side effects may include pancreatitis. Taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain, and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. I have it within me to lower my a1c. Ask your doctor about trulicity. Art bed. Can it help keep me asleep . Absolutely, it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. Its the final days to save 1,000 on the sleep number 360 special Edition Smart bed. Plus, 0 interest for 36months. Ends saturday. Executive power without any sort of restraint, without oversight and without any checks and balances is absolute power. And we know what has been said about absolute power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. By issuing the blanket order and later specific orders, President Trump prevented at least 12 current or former Administration Officials from testifying during the houses impeachment inquiry. He specifically forced nine of the witnesses. To defy dually authorized subpoenas. The facts are straight forward and theyre not in dispute. At the heart of article two, obstruction of congress, is a simple, troubling reality. President trump tried to cheat. He got caught. And then he worked hard to cover it up. This is a determination by President Trump that he wants to be all powerful. He does not have the record to inrespect the congress. He does not have to respect the representatives of the people. Only his will goes. He is a dictator. Joining us now is democrat of illinois. Longtime member of senate leadership. Thanks for making time for us tonight. So, what are your reflections on this side of the trial . You have seen the house managers make their opening arguments. Tomorrow we make a big shift to hear from the president s counsel. I think the presentation was masterful. Adam schiff, of course, led it and i cant think of a better presentation. Command of the facts and presentation of the law and ability to stand there for an hour or more and lay out his dace effectively. And he had a wonderful team. I think they put a pretty high bar for the president pchsz men to say theyre going to match them tomorrow. In terms of how this is playing for the public, one of the things happening for all of us at home is were aware of public reporting about new evidence and new information and new documents being released, for example by court order where we the public are learning new stuff about what the government did specifically around the scandal, while it seems like the senate is a little stuck in time in terms of what you are allowed to consider. I wonder if that is putting any pressure on senators whether you head towards the vote on whether evidence and documents will be admitted it should. Because the point was made repeatedly that evidence is going to continue to tumble out, despite best efforts of the president and his team. This information is going to come out in one form or another. I dont think its going to be kind to the president. Or he would have released it a long time ago himself. They may find themselves in an embearing position. Im curious about how you and your colleagues, on both sides of the aisle are thinking about the next phase in which the president s lawyers will be presenting arguments and one of the things they gleefully talked about is theyre going after hunter and joe biden. Theyre very excited to essentially carry out part of what was the scheme that got the president impeachmented in the first places, which was dirty up joe biden. Many people on both sides of the aisle have served with them, relationships with him. What is your feeling about the next phase and what its going to be like to watch them do that if thats what they choose to do . It plays into the argument that the president was ready to do anything, even hold back necessary security aid for ukraine if he can get some guarantee on an announcement of the bidens. And if theyre gleeful tomorrow jumping all over hunter or joe biden, i think it looks like theyre trying to execute the scheme they couldnt pull off in conversations between those two president s. I know theyre looking forward to doing it. And talking about how they have a varbrief presentation, thats all they need. Its claire. Let me ask you about the excuses that seem to be surfacing from some of the republicans about calling witnesses and documents. I was concerned when i saw Lisa Murkowski saying something theefect, they should have gaunl to court in the house. A little out of left field. Is there something fundamentally wrong with our system that we could not go to court because it would not be determined for years in advance if that happened . Shouldnt there be a way for there to be immediate consideration when its this kind of balance of power question between the United States senate and the president of the United States . I think adam schiff one of the managers made it very clear when he put on the screen the time table of taking these questions of privilege and releasing documents and witnesses to court. Youre lucky to get anything done in a year and often times its many year businessfore its completed. And if youre talking about a fouryear term, they can just stall it and producing any evidence under that approach. And this president , i guess in a way, it was a god send but hes taken the absolute approach here. He doesnt have to disclose anything to anybody about any act of his administration. When you take that approach, rather than claiming privilege, it takes a pretty big target. Number two democrat in the United States senate, thank you for being with us tonight. Thank you. Thanks, rachel. So, as i mentioned at the top of the coverage tonight, theres another big piece of news that broke atlounld ukraine scandal today. That is not quite along side the impeachment scandal. More of an abutter because it keeps bumping into the scandal as its being fought over on cap 28 rr hill. What emerged was an audiotape that had long been rumored in which the president of the United States can be heard pirsinally ordering the firing of the u. S. Ambassador to ukraine. Well, we hear at msnbc have heard that audiotape and have somebody close to the story coming up. Pe and have somebody close to the story coming up. Art bed. Can it help keep me asleep . Art bed. Absolutely, it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. Its the final days to save 1,000 on the sleep number 360 special Edition Smart bed. Plus, 0 interest for 36months. Ends saturday. Okay. I want to take a shot at something thats been happening, a continued revelation of potential new evidence. A bunch of it has come from lev parnas a now indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani and including during the time when giuliani appeared to be spearheading the campaign on behalf of the president and ukraine. Lev parnas was a direct part of the alleged scheme to put pressureen the Ukrainian Government to announce investigationinize to joe biden. Now, lev parnas has been saying insistently that hes willing to Tell Congress what he knows. Hes hand said over text messages, hand written and a voice mail that have flugsd out what we, the public know about how the scheme took place over time. Hes also recently spoken out in a couple of media interviews. He told me in the interview that the president , quote, knew exactly what was going on. And in other part of the interview, lev parnas told me about a dinner he attended in april 2018 where he says the president called explicitly, emphatically for the u. S. Ambassador of ukraine to be fired. The Washington Post described it in their reporting. He described it to me in our recent interview. We got huge advance in in the story when abc news reported theres a recording, lordy, theres a tape. What he said about the president ordering the firing of Marie Yovanovitch was on an audio recording made in april 2018 at the same hotel. Msnbc has now heard portions of the tape made by lev parnass business partedner, fruman. Mr. Fruman and parnas have diverse vrjed in terms of their willingness to cooperate with the congressional impeachment investigation and their legal defense. It sounds as though President Trump can be heard saying about ambassador yovanovitch, get rid of her, i dont care. Get her out tomorrow. Do it. As i mentioned msnbc has been able to hear portions of the tape this evening as well and does sound like President Trump saying the same words to a group of people, including lev parnas. Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. Importantly this tape has been handed over to the house Intelligence Committee, whos had custody of it and turns out a be a fascinating tale. Joining us is the man who can tell it. Youll recognize him as someone sitting next toot parnas. I appreciate you coming in hereof. Lev parnas said, as part of my interview with him and hes told a few other people part of what happened is before this ukraine scheme, as we understand it is in effect, the president personally called for Marie Yovanovitch to be fired and told me it happened at an april meeting in the trump hotel. Did your client know there was actually a recording of that event, including the president making the comments . Shortly thereafter. Im not sure about at the time of the dinner. Yes. So, mr. Fruman recorded it. Did he record it surreptitiously . Or did others know . I dont know. He shared that recording with your client . Yes. Now, was that recording hand over or seize bood thigovernment when mr. Fruman and your client were arrested in. I cant talk about the things the gumpts seized under protective order. But what we did today because we have you were not the source for we were not the source for the abc. But we recombed the i cloud accounts mr. Parnas was able to access talking about doing damage to the southern digsricate. And we found this reporting. Found it in his possession. For one hour and 24 minutes recording of the event. It is a dinner in the trump hotel, President Trump is there, mr. Pargnash is there. Obviously mr. Fruman is there. And about 40 minutes to the recording the subjelkt comes up. Why does the subject of the ambassador come up . President trump raises the question and says whats with ukraine . And up to that point there had been talk about liquid, natural gas and the need to find a way to get into europe as well. He raises the notion, hes not a loyalist and runs around saying you may be impeached. And he says well, get rid of her. Get rid of her, get rid of her. On a few occasions he says it over several seconds, yes. Ive been trying to get my head around this for a long time. So, he told me in my interview, which you were there for that in fact she was not bad mouthing President Trump but she was not saying that he was going to be impeached and nobody should Pay Attention to him. And lev says he no longer believes themg and knows theyre not true. Does he know where he was getting this false information from and at whose bidding . I think he spoke about generally ukraine. The subject matter at the dinner is the subject of medical cannabis. The gas subject. Crude oil is the subject. Javlen missiles. Its like an organic dinner f you will. And at some point he raised what if he had heard. Which was simply the ambassador was going around and talking about how the president is going to be impeached. Now that we know those are false claims. A lot of very intense American Interest in who started this stuff to try to oust the u. S. Ambassador andthe president latched on to these claims, hes hearing from your client. When the president latched on to these things, who was feeding him that disinformation he was gobbling up . We know there were prosecutors spreading false hoods because of their own career interests. She was anticorruption, they wanted her out. Any reason to believe theyre the ones i dont think so given the timing. Maybe at some later point but seems to me the president is poised to basisically accept this narrative and it begs the question whether there would be talk said about the ambassador. Let me actually bring you in as an experienced litigator. Your clientd haz a case against the Southern District are of new york. Civil, not criminal. Im very curious about how you read, how this tape fits into this larger story of impeachment. How is it helpful, given were watching the trial right now and how do you think it will help your client . I think the truth helps the client. The courses we decided to take is voluntarily disclosing his involvement in n the tire caper and doing it early in the game and trying to deit to a body that has the most profound impact, which is congress. I think all of that helps tremendously. And as you know the whole Justice System is fuelled by informant testimony. Its like this protective armor we have. Some of the most Critical Evidence we see in federal convictions are the obtaining of indictments is obtained through cooperating witnesses. So our endeavor is to attempt to have lev tell in the most meaningful way. Isnt the question about things hes been indicted for, if thats the issue . Because some of the things youre pointing to go out, thaterant necessarily relevant to what the Southern District is pursuing. Now have a ninetyfourcount federal elective. And were talking about things of far greater import, i think and theres a minimum sentencing. Not like we need to get below that to relay the assistance of the federal government with what they commonly call a 5k. Does this mean your client is fully cooperating with the Southern District and answering all their questions. What were trying to do is is be in the position to answer the questions congress may have and help our country the most. Id like to ask you to stick around for anather segment with us. You have conveyed hits the tape to the house Intelligence Committee. I hope fail rr make it public. I was noting senator schumer saying it has to be made public. I think its critical importance we hear the evidence. I think ticket the best way to insure a fair trial. You heard portions of it so we can validate and talk about what this is. Is there any reason you cant give it to us in broadcast . Maybe we will but i want to liszn on the full tape. I think this is one of the most important ways we can try to push the issue of having a trial thats not like a mime show, that has evidences and witnesses and i know the time is short. An attorney for lev parnas whos head of the heart of the story in which the president can be heard ordering the firing of Marie Yovanovitch. F Marie Yovanovitch. employee enterprise car sales has access to over half a million preowned vehicles, most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera. [kristen gasps] employee because you never know what might be behind you. kristen bell does the sloth come standard . kristen bell vo looking to buy . Enterprise makes it easy. Insides, it was an unspeakable site. A loving couple dead. Was the killer one of the family . And he said our cousin. This case wasnt solved one tiny clue didnt fit at all