Welcome, everyone. U. S. President Donald Trumps impeachment Defense Strategy is beginning to be unveiled. His lawyers took center stage in the senate trial on saturday. Chief among their arguments, that the proceedings are merely an attempt by the democrats to overturn the last election and derail the next. Heres our sara murray. The president did absolutely nothing wrong. Reporter President Trumps defense team took to the senate floor, arguing that democrats have failed to make their case that trump should be removed from office for abuse of power and obstruction of congress. Today we are going to confront them on the merits of their argument. Now, they have the burden of proof, and they have not come close to meeting it. Reporter they accused democrats of trying to overturn the last election and preempt the next one. Theyre here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in american history, and we cant allow that to happen. Reporter trumps team aimed to poke holes in the arguments house impeachment managers presented, claiming the democrats didnt provide context around witness testimony, and using clips of witnesses from the house inquiry that bolstered trumps defense. The fact that they came here for 24 hours and hid evidence from you is further evidence that they dont really believe in the facts of their case. Reporter they insisted trump never made a white house meeting and security aid for ukraine contingent on ukraine opening investigations into joe biden and the 2016 election, noting trump never explicitly asked for such a quid pro quo in the call with the ukrainian president. The transcript shows that the president did not condition either Security Assistance or a meeting on anything. The paused Security Assistance funds arent even mentioned on the call. Reporter and they raised testimony from some Administration Officials who believed trumps call for investigations was simply a request rather than a demand. Do you believe in your opinion that the president of the United States demanded that president zelensky undertake these investigations . No, sir. Reporter trumps lawyers also made the claim that the president is legitimately invested in cracking down on corruption in ukraine and taking a tough stance toward russia. You will hear that President Trump has a strong record on confronting russia. You will hear that President Trump has a strong record of support for ukraine. Reporter but theres little evidence of trumps interest in corruption save for the call of an investigation into the bidens, which also directly involves the president s personal interests. And while the administration has taken steps to crack down on russia, trumps public statements have undermined those efforts. Over the course of their brief twohour arguments, trumps lawyers took shots at democrats lengthy and often repetitive presentations. Were not going to play the same clips seven times. He said it. You saw it. Reporter as well as house intelligence chairman adam schiff. Do you know who didnt show up in the Judiciary Committee . Chairman schiff. Reporter they wrapped up just after noon, leaving senators enough time to escape for a bit of the weekend. I thank you for your attention, and i look forward to seeing you on monday. Reporter afterward, House Democratic managers argued the president s team did not refute the claim that trump solicited foreign interference in a u. S. Election. What was most striking to me about the president s presentation today is they dont contest the basic architecture of the scheme. They do not contest that the president solicited a foreign nation to interfere in our election, to help him cheat. Reporter the president s team has 22 more hours to make its case but says its not planning to use it all. Sara murray, cnn, washington. And they will continue to make their case on monday. It will include presentations from members of the president s legal team that we havent seen in action like, like a constitutional law professor alan derby witshowitdershowitz. He appeared on cnn a short while ago and gave a preview. The process were witnessing, isnt this exactly what the framers intended . That its not about taking voters decisions away . In fact, impeachment is different than disqualification from running again. Thats a separate thing. What im going to argue on monday is that its precisely what the framers did not intend, that is, to remove a duly elected president from office and prevent him from running again based on vague, openended, and entirely subjective criteria like abuse of power and obstruction of congress. The framers feared that those kinds of openended criteria would turn us into a britishtype parliamentary democracy where in the words of madison, the president serves at the pleasure of the legislature. When is ken starr going, and how do his whats his subject different from your subject . We havent discussed it. I dont know. Ill probably find that out sometime tomorrow. But i know what im going to argue. I think they know what im going to argue. Im going to argue some things that i havent argued to you or on television. There will be some surprises. But the general outlines of my argument are fairly clear, and they dont focus so much on whether a crime is required. They focus much more on whether you can use the two criteria, abuse of power and obstruction of congress. And im going to argue very firmly that those are not appropriate criteria. If they had ever been put to the framers, the framers would have rejected those criteria as too openended. In the terms of madison, it would turn america into a parliamentarytype democracy in which the president serves at the pleasure of the legislature, something that none of the framers really wanted. The claim that mr. Trump withheld aid to pressure ukraine into investigating a political opponent is, of course, key to the democrats case. And on that front, a recently released recording might give it a boost. It captures a conversation at a dinner in 2018 between the u. S. President and lev parnas, who you might remember is an indicted associate of rudy giuliani, who says he was part of the ukraine pressure tactics. Have a listen. Thats why youre having such, i think if you take a look, the biggest problem i think where we need to start is weve got to get rid of the ambassador. Shes still left over from the clinton administration. The ambassador of ukraine . Yeah. Shes basically Walking Around telling everybody, wait, hes going to get impeached. Just wait. Really . Its incredible. Shell be gone tomorrow. Now that we have a secretary of state of state get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I dont care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out, okay . Excellent. Do it. Now, mr. Parnas is a man who mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed he doesnt know. But this tape suggests otherwise. The full recording was just released by parnas attorney, joseph bondy, and he spoke to Anderson Cooper earlier about its significance. First off, we hear the president himself saying get rid of the ambassador. Fire her. Get her out of there. This is one of the first occasions in which he attempts to remove the ambassador. Lev parnas, as he has explained it to me, was shocked that he might raise the subject of the ambassador and have the chief executive say, get rid of her and fire her. He could never have possibly expected that the president would literally take that step. Natasha lynn stat is a professor of government at the university of essex. She joins me from poland. Good to see you. Tell me what you made of the republican debut. Did it make a dent . I mean theres a lot of criticism that there was not much by way of argument based on fact. They didnt really contest the actual allegations. No. The republicans dont have to do much because they just have to ensure that senators dont go towards the democrats and dont defect. And so far the Republican Party is very committed to trump. What the republicans tried to put forward in some ways really bolstered the need to have witnesses. They said it was all hearsay, that there was no eyewitness accounts, and that there were a lot of holes in what the democrats were presenting. But that means they really do need witnesses to come forward. Yeah. Thats a good point. I was actually going to ask you that very question. You know, the trump team in many ways made a case for more witnesses by pointing out there had been no firsthand witnesses when thats because the white house blocked those very witnesses from testifying and the documents being produced. It kind of makes it a specious argument, right . Right. It doesnt really make sense what theyre arguing. Theyre basically saying that they were cherrypicking facts and that everything was based on hearsay and based on presumptions, but that would really mean that we need witnesses. I mean ive never heard of a trial without witnesses. Its unheard of. But this is all because the republicans want to push this forward very, very quickly, and theyre hoping that they can then quickly acquit trump, maybe even by the end of the week. You know, the other argument they were saying is that the democrats are trying to undo the 2016 election. But then that says that theres no theres never a reason to impeach a president. And theyre not really trying to undo the 2016 election because it wouldnt mean that if trump was impeached, then a democrat would immediately take office. Mike pence would just be in office, and hes just as conservative, if not more so, than trump. So some of these arguments that they put forward, of course, may come back to bite them later. And if there arent witnesses, documents, evidence that has emerged and probably will continue emerging, i mean will history consider this a fair trial where truth has been honorably sought . How will it be viewed down the line, decades from now . Well, i think its going to be viewed down the line as sort of a sham. It started when mitch mcconnell, the Senate Majority leader for the republicans, announced that he was going to be working with the white house, working with trump. Then they made a bunch of announcements that they were going to be blocking witnesses. Then they said, well, were going to vote on it later, but it doesnt look likely that theyre going to be admitting new evidence or having witnesses. So that really isnt a fair trial at all. In comparison to the clinton trial, which at the time seemed really ugly, really personal, that trial seemed to be conducted more fairly relatively speaking. I wanted to ask you about the lev parnas tape because its made a lot of headlines here. You know, again, donald trump repeatedly claimed he didnt know this man lev parnas. Now, on top of the many, many photographs, we have this recording. I mean youve got the president basically talking about state business and the removal of an ambassador at a dinner with a guy he apparently doesnt know. I mean you have to what do you make of that . And also youve got to wonder what parnas motivation was too. Why was he making these comme comments . At the time that this happened, he wasnt fully involved with rudy giuliani. Right. I mean i think its difficult for trump to keep telling us that he doesnt know lev parnas. And i think thats actually what motivated parnas to come forward. He made a mention that that was really irritating him that trump kept saying, i dont know him. Ive just been in photographs with him. So parnas has made clear trump does know him, and he was in the loop. He knew everything, and he was very much involved in the process of trying to get Marie Yovanovitch because that was the first step that then would allow them to go ahead with the shadow diplomacy effort. So what to make of all these tapes, i think it makes it very difficult for the republicans to agree with this idea that there is actually no relationship between trump and parnas. And i think the republicans would have to admit that parnas was a shady character during this time. Yeah. I think a lot of people agree on that. I mean if as it does seem certain there will be an acquittal, what again will be the precedent . Just sort of looking at what president s would be able to do Going Forward in terms of how they behave, what they could ask of foreign leaders in terms of domestic politics, the refusal to cooperate with congress, ignore subpoenas, tell witnesses not to testify, claim privilege for just about everything. Does that make that possible for every other president to come . Yes, it does. Thats one of the big dangers that the u. S. At the moment is backsliding democratically. Because we have trump stonewalling, hes playing constitutional hardball. Thats going to make it that much easier for other leaders. And i think we have to take what adam schiff said, how he talked about the fact that the reason they are trying to impeach trump is not because they want to undo the 2016 election, but because theyre trying to prevent electoral malpractice from taking place in the 2020 election. So whos to say whats going to happen in the future, that the executive can use their power to undermine their political opponents to ensure an electoral victory. Thats what happens, of course, in dictatorships. And of course the u. S. Is not a dictatorship or anywhere close to that. But were starting to see the constitution being challenged constantly, rules being challenged, and then of course the Democratic Political culture has changed and evolved where weve become used to this type of activity, where it would have been unheard of in the past. Professor natasha linstaedt, thanks so much. Thanks for having me. As the president s attorneys close out day one of their opening arguments, what does mr. Trump have to stay about their performance . Well have reactions from the white house when we come back. Also china cracks down on the sale of wild animals. The suspected source of a deadly new disease. Well be right back. Welcome back. Chinas allout effort to stop the wuhan coronavirus from spreading has led the government to ban the sale of wild animals. A market in wuhan that sold wild animals is the suspected source of the coronavirus outbreak that has now killed more than 50 people. Meanwhile, the transportation lockdown has been extended to the southern port city of shan tu in guangdong province. Ships, vehicles and people will be banned from entering or leaving the city beginning on monday. President xi jinping ordering all infected people, approximately 2,000 patients at this point, to be treated in whats called centralized quarantine. Globally almost 40 cases have been confirmed in more than a dozen countries and territories, and it seems more every day. Our david culver is live in beijing. David, you know, of course china often known for playing down bad news, but you have the president xi saying china is facing a grave situation. Theres also ramped up action on the ground. What does all of this signal . Reporter he was very stern in his warning and in his orders to local provinces to carry out as many actions as possible to stop the spread of this virus. Now, michael, i was just monitoring a press conference with the National Health commission. The numbers here are staggering. Heres what theyre doing, and its a Rare Press Conference given were in the midst of a holiday and its a sunday. But they have 1,600 medical personnel that as of today have been deployed to Hubei Province. Theyve got 450 military medical personnel already there, another 900 on the ground. So youre talking nearly 3,000. And then theyve got another 1,000 on standby. List ton these numbers. Weve been talking about the medical supplies and the dire shortage that theyre dealing with. In fact, one Health Care Worker telling us its like going into battle without your armor. The hazmat suits that they so badly need, theyre bringing back some of the workers at these factories that make them and starting up production because they say they need 100,000 each and every day for that province. They can only make 13,000. Thats the capacity they have. So theyre importing a bunch more. Roughly one month, they need 3 million of those suits. Its absolutely incredible. As you mentioned, president xi is urgently warning that this is an accelerating outbreak, and hes also calling for the protection of medical staff. And hes asking for the centralized quarantining of those impacted. So what does that centralized quarantining look like . Its likely those will be two new hospitals that are already planned and under way. I mean theyre planning to build these, one of them within six days, the other within 15 days. Theyre supposed to be able to hold more than 2,000 patients. In neighboring hong kong, they have dedicated a Public Housing unit to likewise be used for quarantine. Now, the numbers of those under lockdown, i mean they equate nearly the population of the uk. Thats how many people were talking about, nearly 63 million individuals who are within these lockdown zones. And earlier today i was able to speak with one American Woman who is feeling the stress, the unease, and the uncertainty. I woke up feeling quite desperate, sad, angry. Most of this is because of lack of information and lack of knowing whats going on. My mothers worried about me. I love her. Shes 88 years old. My sister let her know the things im doing here, and i dont want her to worry anymore. And id like to see her. Reporter one u. S. Official tells us there are about a thousand u. S. Citizens within the city of wuhan. Were learning from the embassy of china on their website, michael, that they are planning a flight to fly out on tuesday with some u. S. Citizens and medical personnel along with them to leave the city of wuhan. It will land in san francisco. With an incubation of 14 days or so, it sort of goes against the concept of containment, but lets see how that all works out. David culver in beijing, appreciate it. Thanks so much. Lets bring in the Program Director for emerging Infectious Diseases at Duke Medical School in singapore. Thanks so much for being with us. Thank you. China is saying that the spread is accelerating. Thats obviously concerning. I mean how might that acceleration grow further . What could happen here . I think for any infectious disease, if