Tell us more about the what it could be like in the United States senate over the next couple of weeks with the house managers releasing and filing with the clerk of the senate the document that is essentially the trial brief that is a road map for how they plan to proceed over the next couple weeks. And a lot of this is information weve heard before. Some of it is about the facts. Some of it is about the procedures relating to impeachment. And some of it is about the guidance from the framers of the United States constitution, the House Democrats summing it all up, essentially saying that this is a situation that is a nightmare or would have been a nightmare for the United States framers of the constitution. There is a lot of information weve heard before throughout the impeachment of the president , but theres also some reference to new information. As a matter of fact, one of the things the House Democrats talk about in their brief file today is about that report just last week from the gao indicating that in gaos view, the Trump Administration broke the law by withholding that almost 400 Million Dollar in aid from ukraine. Now, thats important. The house impeachment managers and lawyers working with them say because this is a clear indication that someone has said in plain language that there was a violation of law. The administration has said there hasnt been a violation of law. In fact, in their response to the managers brief, they put that in plain language, that there had not been a violation of law. Overall, this is more, as i said, back and forth. One thing thats very interesting ana is that the president s response to the House Democrats impeachment brief is much more political and accuses the democrats essentially of trying to overthrow or overturn the 2016 election. Back to you. Okay. Joe johns, thank you for laying it out there for us. Lets bring in our analysts to talk more about this Senate Impeachment trial and other political questions that are top of mind tonight. We have cnn political comment. Trump argues that it alleges no crime at all, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors. They cite as evidence ukrainian president zelenskis repeated denials he felt any pressure from trump or the administration. Your reaction . This goes to the socalled quid pro quo and that is that zelenski, the president of ukraine, would have understood that if he didnt investigate the bidens, he wasnt getting the military aid. Zelenski has said thats not true, he didnt feel pressure. However there have been many other documents that have been revealed since that one conversation that would indicate zelenski knew that is exactly what the president wanted. As a matter of fact, there were explicit instructions that the president wanted him to announce an investigation of biden. So, i think were seeing what the approach will be here on both sides. But the president doesnt really contradict the known facts. S. C. , i know youve had a chance to read through the documents filed by the legal team. Was it what you were expecting them to be making as far as the arguments . Yes and no. I think theres some interesting points in here. One graph i found interesting, they say the president s actions on that july 25th phone call as well as the april 21 phone call end in all surrounded and related events were constitutional, perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of our National Interest. That can sound like a lot of bluster. But our National Interest is a very interesting point to make. That is making a substantive point that what President Trump was asking zelenski to do was somehow in advancement of our National Interest. I think thats interesting. Other interesting point, they call this impeachment effort by the democrats illegitimate and a onesided process. As we all know, the white house stonewalled this investigative process. Theres that, plus the white house chose not to par tis tate. Exactly. It was by design. And by desire. So, theyre pointing out a lot of problems that will fly back, i think, in the face of trump and the white house for actually creating the conditions that the white house is now complaining about. Could i just add also just adding to what s. C. Just said because i agrow wiee with it completely. This whole dispute, what were seeing in the papers is theres not a big factual dispute about what the president did. It was obvious from that first telephone call transcript which was released that he was putting pressure on zelenski to do an investigation of Hunter Bidens involvement in the ukrainian company. And one side is saying thats clearly a crime, thats illegal. Thats what the democrats are saying. And the president is saying, no, thats perfectly legal. I have a right as president of the United States to pursue this element of American Foreign policy, fighting corruption in other governments. In fact, theyre saying and arguing that democrats from the house are trying to basically take him out at the knees, his ability to conduct foreign policy. Thats exactly right. And i think strangely enough at the end of this impeachment process, we may have both democrats and republicans agreeing factually with what happened but having a big disagreement about whether its an Impeachable Offense or criminal in any way. So, s. C. , whats your reaction to the House Democrats and their saying President Trumps conduct is the framers Worst Nightmare . I think theres a lot of evidence backing this up that thats exactly what they were worried about. Whats clear is the abuse of power in the president s response because its exactly what ken starr alleged bill clinton had done. Now, that was dismissed and they didnt get to do the abuse of power. But its what democrats are now suggesting republicans, donald trump, did as well. And donald trump is trying to insist that shouldnt be part of it. But i think democrats are right. Its that abuse of power that the framers were really concerned with. And ive asked people on my show. Im sure you have too. Ive asked republican lawmakers, if a democratic president does this down the line in, you know, the next four, eight, whatever, however many years, are you going to defend him . Are you going to think its okay . And of course they all say sure. Im sure thats not true. Im sure that wont be true when a democrat does it. But because trump did it, its okay. I think thats a really dangerous precedent. Paul. S. E. Mentioned one of the lawyers thats part of the impeachment saga thats part of the president s legal team ken starr. I just wonder about the reason he put this team together. Is it all about being made for tv, because if it is, made for tv courtroom dramas are one thing. Arguing in a Senate Chamber in an impeachment trial is another, no. I think its true. The president has focused on those lawyers for more than that reason. Starr was the solicitor of the United States in the clinton impeachment manager. Hes had a lot of television and incourt experience. Alan dershowitz is a constitutional lawyer, life long professor at harvard law school, and Everybody Knows who he is. Maybe he makes for good television, unlike some of the democratic lawyers who nobodys ever heard of. Its like hes putting together a Reality Television show about impeachment with characters that everybody will want to see on television. This is the way the president operates. He got elected president using this strategy, and he may think he can beat these impeachment charges by doing what has worked for him in the past. I want to get this extra reporting in. We have a source close to the white house saying President Trump has appeared distracted by the impeachment trial telling people at maralago he cant understand why he was impeached. Why are they doing this to me, the source quoted trump as saying repeatedly. Whats your reaction . I think to pauls point, he sees himself as a character in these mellow dramas. And the character he most likes to play is the victim. And he is the victim of this quote unquote witch hunt. And if hes not playing a victim, hes playing the bully. Its one or the other. So, in this one, he takes turns. Hes played the bully in this saga. And right now hes playing the victim. And i would be alarmed if he werent distracted by this. Its the biggest thing that can to a president other than taking the country to war. He should be distracted. He should take this seriously. Just because he might be acquitted does not make this meaningless. Its meaningful. I hope hes taking this as seriously as we all are. Yes, indeed. S. C. Cupp and paul callahan, great to have you here. Lets talk about the senate trial. Join us more on what to expect, cnn contributor allen fruman, a hands on participant in the impeachment of bill clinton. Allen, when we think of clintons impeachment trial. We think of two names Monica Lewinsky and Kenneth Starr. Monica lewinsky couldnt help weighing in on twitter. She writes this is definitely an are you fing kidding me kind of day. Have you been having flash backs as well . Its nice to be here, ana. Yes, ive been having flashbacks. The impeachment of the president of the United States is about the most solemn thing that can happen under our constitution. The senate is attempting to treat this trial, at least i hope the senate treats this trial with the seriousness, the solemnity, and the dignity that it deserves. We will not have a Monica Lewinsky, but we do have a Kenneth Starr. But Kenneth Starr is a very competent attorney. And so i see no problem whatsoever in adding him to the president s defense team. He certainly knows his way around go ahead. Sorry. I didnt mean to cut you off. I want to ask you more about the legal team that hes assembled because again as we were just discussing, he wants a legal team, weve been told, a tv legal team. As courtroom dramas goes, a courtroom is quite different in terms of the setting that theyll be facing. Its not a courtroom. Its the senate, right . Yes, it is. So, give us a sense of what that should be like. All the senators who are seldom in attendance when the senate is in session are required to be there. And for the most part, they will be there. This is the senate in a very different setting from its usual somewhat casual approach to legislation. Again, this is a very solemn situation. Senators are listeners. They are both jury and court. And they are there to listen to the arguments both by the house managers and then by the president s counsel. And i believe that the dignity of the proceedings will be enhanced by the presence of the chief justice of the United States. I know that the senate is on trial. I belie the senate will acquit itself well. I make no predictions for the accused here. But the senate, i believe, will take this very seriously. And walk us through a little bit more about what we can expect and how its different than the hearings we saw in the house on impeachment. Senators are there to listen. The case will be made first by the house managers. And they may really not be interrupted by senators. The house managers make their case. They are followed by the president s counsel. And under the impeachment rules, the house managers get the last say. Throughout all of this, senators usually remain silent. The oath, the proclamation made by the Senate Sergeant at arms, commands everyone to remain silent on pain of imprisonment. In the clinton trial, each side, the prosecutors, the house managers, and then the president s counsel were recorded 24 hours to make their arguments. And then the order provided for 16 hours of questions by senators. Under the impeachment rules, senators submit their questions in writing. They submit them to the chief justice, and the chief justice reads the questions. So, even when senators get to participate, their voices arent heard. Now, one could argue whether not hearing senators voices adds to the dignity of the proceedings. You could get people arguing on both sides of that. But for the most part, the senators are not the stars. Also on procedures, senators arent allowed to speak during testimony which you just mentioned. But Electronic Devices will be barred from the Senate Chamber and restricted in other areas of the capital, including for journalists inside the Senate Chamber. Journalists are prohibited from approaching senators in halls and around the Senate Chamber. What do you make of the restrictions that have been put into place for this impeachment trial . I do find the restrictions somewhat curious. I know i worked at the senate in the advent of the iphone ipad era. When cell phones and ipads were prohibited on to the floor of the senate. And woah be the one who went up to the senator on his or her ipad. I saw the restrictions and thought to myself, theres one thing senators can agree upon, they dont want to follow these restrictions. Thats interesting. So whos making these restrictions . Who would make these if both party as agree they are bogus . Well wait and see. Well see. Alan fruman. We appreciate your expertise and insight on this historic moment. Meanwhile, we have breaking news across the pond. Prince harry and Meghan Markle are giving up their royal titles and going without government funding. Well have details on the deal they made with the queen next. If you live with diabetes, why fingerstick when you can scan . With the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. With the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. Ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. You can do it without fingersticks. Learn more at freestylelibre. Us you can do it without fingersticks. When you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea. Try pepto liquicaps for fast relief and ultracoating. Nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea. Get powerful relief with pepto bismol liquicaps. And my lack of impulse control, is about to become your problem. Ahh no, come on. I saw you eating poop earlier. Hey my focus is on the road, and thats saving me cash with drivewise. Whos the dummy now . Whoof whoof so get allstate where good drivers save 40 for avoiding mayhem, like me. Sorry hes a baby antiaging secret my derm just let me in on her little glycolic acid. New from Revitalift Derm intensives 10 percent pure glycolic acid serum. With our highest concentration of glycolic acid in a serum. Resurfaces skin to visibly reduce dark spots starting in just two weeks and reduces wrinkles for a more even skin tone. Powerful results. Validated by dermatologists. Theres a reason dermatologist love it. New revitalift glycolic acid serum. From loreal. Were worth it. You have power over pain, so the whole world looks different. The unbeatable strength of advil. What pain . After expressing a desire to step back from their royal duties, it has been decided that prince harry and Meghan Markle will leave their royal lives almost completely. The queen announcing today that the duke and duchess will no longer use their royal titles, his and her highness, or carry out royal duties on behalf of the queen after this spring. Her full Statement Reads following recent conversations i am pleased that together we have found a construct skpif supportive way forward for my grandson and his family. Harry, meghan, and archie will always be much loved member of my family. I recognize the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life. I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the commonwealth, and wond, and am particularly proud of how meghan has so quickly become one of the family. It is my whole familys hope that todays agreement allows them to Start Building a happy and peaceful new life. Here are the exact terms. They will no longer receive public funds. Instead, Prince Charles plans to finance them. They will also repay the multiMillion Dollar renovation of their residence and start paying rent. They will keep their private patronages and associations. However, harrys charity and e vick tus games, that doesnt count. A royal expert victoria arbiter join us in new york. I want to go back to the statement from the queen. What stands out to you . I think it was deeply personal nature of the statement. The british monarchy is dripping in formality. That was very much about reiterating that the queen is acting as head of state but also as a grandmother. She needed to find a solution that was going to really satisfy the wishes of harry and meghan but also that was going to be acceptable to the british public. I think this statement hit all the right marks. I want to bring in kate williams. Kate, the queen mentions the scrutiny the couple have been under. Shes had such warm words for meghan. Is there a sense that the queen could have put out a Statement Like this over the last couple of years . Yes, i think thats an important point, ana. As you say, this is a very personal, very warm statement. The queen complimenting meghan, how quickly she became part of the family, talking about the scrutiny which i have to say really jumped out to me. The royals dont normally talk about