tv Cuomo Prime Time CNN February 12, 2021 10:00pm-11:00pm PST
just moments after today's impeachment trial proceedings, the senate voted unanimously to award the congressional gold medal to capitol hill police officer eugene goodman, being hailed rightfully as a hero for his actions on the day of the riot. majority leader chuck schumer led the senate in applause as he said goodman deserves the highest honor the congress can bestow. [ applause ] as you likely remember, it was officer goodman seen in this security video leading senator mitt romney to safety on january
6th. it was officer goodman leading part of the mob away from lawmakers in the capitol hill hallway. senator schumer also praised other members of the capitol hill police officers. as for officer goodman himself, asked by cnn's manu raju if he enjoyed the attention, he answered, "no, not at all." a humble hero and a well-deserved honor. the news continues with "prime time." chris? >> thank you very much, anderson. i'm chris cuomo, welcome to "prime time." trump's reaction to the insurrection, his reaction alone, is damning. breaking down details of the phone call between trump and mccarthy. mccarthy was absolutely pleading with trump to send aid to the capitol. in response, trump said, "well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are."
in that moment of crisis, trump showed spite. no wonder mccarthy said to him, as rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, quote, "who the f do you think you're talking to?" he was blaming trump for the attack in the immediate after math. this call is reported according to lawmakers who were briefed on it afterwards by mccarthy, republicans. one of them is gop house member jaime herrera butler, who went on the record to cnn. another republican member, familiar with the call, says, quote, it proves that the president knew very early on what the mob was doing, and he knew members were at risk, and he refused to act. it is a violation of his oath of office to fail to come to the defense of congress and the constitutional process immediately.
now, it is not easy to get people to argue what is clearly in defiance of fact, even lawyers. that's why trump is on his third string defense. and today, they got caught in a very important lie. they said the call trump made to senator tommy tuberville during the insurrection was hearsay, that it didn't happy, we don't even recall know. thus, they argue, at no point was the president informed that the vice president was in danger. tuberville has said on the record that he told trump on a phone call, during the insurrection, that pence was being ushered out. and he stands by that account today. not hearsay. trump was informed, and he did nothing. worse, after he knew pence was being escorted out, he tweeted an attack on him that led the mob to look to hang him. two points of proof that trump did nothing to help the vp or
the other members of congress, that he only reached out to mock their peril and pressure them to do his bidding on the vote. that violates his oath of office. that is arguably impeachable, even if he had nothing to do with starting the attack. while mccarthy is asking for help, he essentially says, eh, the other guys seem to care more. think about it. the trump defense to all of it is simple. everything that you just had confirmed to you about the phone calls, all we know that trump said that day and before, all of it, even if true, it's all okay, because everybody does it. everybody does the same thing that trump did. politicians are always talking about fighting. democrats use the word all the time. the media too. listen. >> this is ordinary political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the
language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years. >> indistinguishable. that's going to be the keyword. but first, even i made the cut. i was in the defense. i was an example of people who do exactly what trump does. listen. >> show me where it says that protests are supposed to polite and peaceful. >> i did say that. it's my face. different hair, same face. context is everything. trump and co. were criticizing black protesters and their allies because they were shouting at cops, that they were at fault for showing outrage. they shouldn't say how bad society is, they shouldn't talk like that. black people aren't limited to singing hymns and going home. outrage can convey a message and make change. but the defense team leave out what i say next. i say next, "looting, arson,
violence, now that's something else, don't confuse that with protests or people doing it with protesters. there are bad people in with good people in these situations. that's the truth." now, why would they leave out what immediately follows? because trump never said anything like that. and if he had, we may not be here today. but why did he leave it out? is it because while i was justifying allowing protesters the right to be angry, even if they're black, he was motivating action. his own people know it. at least 16 of trump's own administration officials were so horrified by his conduct, they quit in protest after the insurrection, because they too saw the clear link between trump's conduct and the insurrection. what he wanted is clear.
this trial is really about what his party is willing to own. an acquittal will not just give trump a pass. it will give safe passage to those who attacked. the kooks will celebrate victory and they may well look to capitalize on it. you know, they all know, that trump did them dirty on that republican side. they all know he failed at his duty. and if he were a democrat, they would all be saying it. and here's the point. what you see, what i see, they see too. they are not blind to what honoring an oath looks like. because this is what they did today. everyone, right and left, were on their feet. the one unified moment we've had was for who? capitol police officer eugene goodman, just awarded a congressional gold medal for his valor on january 6th. why?
because he did the right thing in a hard moment. he took action and didn't put himself first. he put you people first in congress. so you have to ask, how can the republican members of the senate applaud what goodman did and then vote to validate his opposite? let's bring in the better minds. monday new raju and michael smerconish. manu, this reporting comes out literally on the precipice of this decision. let's start with the tuberville call. very interesting. what was the defense play in saying that it's hearsay when they know tuberville is in the room and not going to sit down and let himself be called a liar? >> you know, chris, they really didn't have any good answers to what donald trump did on january 6th. his actions and whether he knew that the vice president was in danger. they just could not and did not answer that question. it was asked in various forms. that tuberville exchange was
quite remarkable because what the senator from alabama, who is a big trump supporter, and probably owes his seat in large part to donald trump's support, even voted with donald trump to overturn the electoral results in two states, he said very clearly that donald trump had called him and attempted to call him, actually called mike lee. mike lee, the senator, put him on speakerphone and tuberville talked to him and tuberville said to him, i can't talk to you right now because the vice president has been evacuated. ten minutes later, mike pence is the subject of a tweet from donald trump, getting attacked by donald trump. now, that's what the trump attorney said today was hearsay. when i caught up with tuberville later in the afternoon, after the proceedings, he said he stands by that account. of course his exact quote was, this is what the president told him, he told the president, he said, mr. president, they've taken the vice president out, they want me to get off the phone, i've got to go. that was the extent of their
phone call. so all this shows, chris, is that donald trump was aware of what was going on. but the trump team just did not have any real clear answers about why he didn't act sooner, what he was doing, what his mindset was. they sidestepped that question time and again. and i can tell you, talking to republican senators tonight, they were just not satisfied with his responses, including bill cassidy, who asked the question about tuberville, i said, are you satisfied with the response, he said no. >> how could he be? they lied. now, you double that up with, michael, what we call arguing in the alternative. even if you want to say that trump didn't incite the riot, he didn't even want a riot, then why didn't he do anything to stop it? that mccarthy call, i mean, that is the most cold-blooded thing i have ever heard in politics, i've heard a lot of things like that in terrorist organizations, but mccarthy saying, hey, man, we need help, and trump says, i guess these people care more about the election than you do.
this is where you speak. >> okay, i didn't know that. here is the big picture view. today was the day that the focus shifted and shifted in line with what you talked about last night. we've talked about november 3 through january 6. we've talked about the president's speech on january 6. today, the big takeaways are all about the inaction. chris, there's 90 plus minute window where rome was burning and trump was doing nothing. the mccarthy call is significant because it goes to trump's state of mind. trump evidencing his desire to see the rioters continue. notice, he didn't do what kevin mccarthy was asking. i thought the most telling exchange today was when murkowski and collins posed the howard baker question to the trump lawyers, you know, what did he do and when did he do it, specifically exactly when did
president trump learn of the breach of the capitol, what did he do, be specific. they had absolutely no answer for that. so the realization now by everybody was, trump is standing by, watching all of the rioting, all of the violence, and letting it go. >> and manu, in terms of the reporting, does any of it resonate? >> i don't think, chris. this cake is baked. the republican senators are making it very clear they are going to acquit. they have heard -- this new reporting is just in line with what the house impeachment managers have presented over the last couple of days. it underscores what they have been arguing on the senate floor. so the senators are aware of the story, they're aware of what donald trump did in the run-up to january 6, what he did to bring that rally here to washington, what he did while
speaking to that rally and once he did not do once rioters came into the capitol. at the same time it's very clear in talking to virtually all these republican senators over the last several days and several weeks that they still are not going to move to convict because they say the senate should not be trying a former president. so you can say what you want about that argument, but that is their argument. so tomorrow, when that key vote happens, i would be surprised if you get more than six republican senators breaking ranks. i would be surprised even if bill cassidy would vote to convict donald trump, and there are signs he might not, we'll see where he comes down, but at least five are going to break ranks, i think, maybe six, but certainly not 17. and that's what they need to get to 67 tomorrow. >> the trickle will come. >> the tuberville phone call, the mccarthy phone call, you know what i want to hear from, former vice president mike pence.
how does mike pence feel, when all of a sudden now the focus of this thing is whether president trump knew he was imperilled and still did nothing and still was sending out a tweet that was congratulatory of the protesters and critical of pence. that story is going to get told and the question is when. >> what's the price tag? >> for the book? big. >> that's a good answer. no, we know there's a price to convict him. is there any price to acquitting? >> you and i have spoken before. if it were a vote behind closed doors, there's no doubt this would be a conviction and it would be overwhelming, right? well beyond the two-thirds. >> and chris, the easy vote for republicans is to acquit. if they were to vote to convict, they are going to invite so much backlash. they're seeing what has happened to those ten house republicans who voted to impeach. they saw what happened to liz cheney and her getting threatened to get booted out from her leadership spot. she survived that challenge.
but mitch mcconnell, the senate republican leader, he knows full well that could happen to him. yes, he just won reelection. but talking to republican senators, they've told me he could potentially lose support as republican leader. he's the longest serving republican leader in history. he could potentially lose support if he voted to convict. he has his finger on the pulse of his conference, he knows that the easy vote for republicans is to acquit. >> to bring it back to mccarthy, if you need a metaphor for how strong the pull is to respect trump's base, mccarthy basically gets told, have a nice time with the barbarians, he throws the "f" bomb at the former president, then still goes to kiss his ring and votes to decertify right after the insurrection when he knew for a fact that trump left him sitting like a duck, michael. >> how badly does he want to be
speaker of the house in 2022? that's what it tells you. >> i guess it does. i have to be honest. i know you guys are right. manu, i know you're right. and i really trust your perspective on it, michael. it just feels so wrong. you are basically damning yourself to fealty to trump. you're resigning yourself to own whatever political violence comes from these crazy political groups that you'll be giving a victory slap to. >> don't misunderstand my analysis for approval, because it sure as hell isn't. >> i got you, i'm just telling you, i hear your heads, my heart is just telling me i can't believe they're so quick to put themselves in such a bad, damnable situation. manu, thank you for the spot on reporting, and michael, as always, all week, you've been keeping us crystal clear on what matters, i appreciate you, brother. >> thank you. >> it's never been about the
facts. there are no good facts for trump in this situation. we would offer them up if they were there. because this is a situation nobody wanted to be in. we're in the middle of a pandemic. but if this doesn't matter to kevin mccarthy, the guy is on the phone with you, think about it, put yourself there, it's all common sense, right? you call me and say, you've got to call these people off, all four fans of "cuomo prime time" are coming after me, and i say, hey, i guess they like me, and then you go to the mat for me in the situation? that's how strong the pull is. the question is could there be some surprise tomorrow? could the managers call mccarthy to testify? let's bring in two brilliant legal minds to go through the minds that were made and what the tension is on each side, next.
or...send good tidings with a slice of cake. gift food for any occasion. new on doordash. ♪ hey you, yeah you. i opened a sofi money account and it was the first time that i realized i could be earning interest back on my money. i just discovered sofi, and i'm an investor with a diversified portfolio. who am i?! i refinanced my student loans with sofi
because of their low interest rates. thanks sofi for helping us get our money right. ♪ my audible library is just like scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll, it's a lot. i downloaded audible and really, really enjoyed it. and then it kind of just became a lifestyle after that. audible allows me to find a space for myself. you just get way more than you pay for, one of those rare things in life. oh, the audible plus catalog is awesome. it's like having a streaming service, but just for audio content. there's audible originals... there's podcasts... i've used some of the meditations, it helps me relax. mythology, anthropology, a lot of the -ologies. audible recommended the right audiobooks at the right time. they pretty much have whatever you like. it's really enriched my life in so many ways. i can put on an audiobook, or a podcast, and be transported somewhere that is impossible to go,
that is why i love audible. to start your free 30-day trial, just text listen 8 to 500500. how great is it that we get to tell everybody how liberty mutual customizes your car insurance to start your free 30-day trial, so you only pay for what you need? i mean it... uh-oh, sorry... oh... what? i'm an emu! no, buddy! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ there's a very strong argument that he's guilty even under the strict brandenburg standard. why? because he incited imminent lawless action, he intended to do it, it was likely to cause it. how do we know it was likely to cause it? it did cause it. they overran the capitol. this is about protecting our republic and articulating and defining the standards of presidential conduct. and if you want this to be a standard for totally appropriate presidential conduct going forward, be my guest.
but we're headed for a very different kind of country at that point. >> that's lead impeachment manager jamie raskin going at the idea of the speech and the intent. but there is an entirely other wrinkle that was really fleshed out today. in the law they call it an "even if" argument. even if trump didn't want this to happen, even if he didn't incite it, once it happened, isn't it a breach of his duty alone just how he reacted? let's bring in the two best legal minds i could have on the show. we have preet bharara and robert raitt. preet, what do these calls mean, in the questions asked by senators about the vp, obviously a touchy point, whether the president knew about his danger. here is what defense counsel said about what the president knew about pence. >> the answer is no.
at no point was the president informed the vice president was in any danger. >> how are they supposed to accept that in light of senator tuberville's account of his phone call and of course as the overlay, what they learned about the mccarthy call today? >> they can't. they can't. and i think cnn has been covering it all evening, and it's vitally important. both i think as a constitutional matter, as a matter relation to the article of impeachment and also as a matter of conscience for the senators. mike pence was not only the vice president of the united states but was the person who would break ties in the senate. the vice president is the one official in the executive branch who has an office in the senate. donald trump, whatever you say about the other arguments and the moments leading up to the insurrection, it is absolutely clear from the admissions of senator tuberville and from common sense and knowing what was being reported on all the networks at that time about the 2:00 hour on january 6, that the
place was under siege and that michael pence was in danger. and donald trump didn't care. he didn't care about the life of his own vice president. that is a powerful argument in favor of holding donald trump accountable. and there's no excusing what the lawyer said about it today. >> robert ray on the show yesterday said he believed the president was in dereliction of duty because of how he responded to the insurrection. would you have answered the question the way mr. van der veen did, robert? >> no. i would have said, look, there's no evidence that's been presented with regard to that question, it's the house managers' burden to have explored that issue if they wanted to explore it. they could have explored it in the house of representatives. they bring the record over to the senate. and the question and answer session is not designed to essentially have what amounts to extra judicial statements about what the evidence is. the president has no obligation to come forward and help the house managers prove their case, that's their responsibility and they have the burden of proof. as i'm sure preet will point
out, i understand it's not a criminal trial, but it is quasi-judicial in nature and we still play by the rules of the due process. cross, the house managers have the burden of proof. >> what's the response? >> this idea of due process which we hold sacred in criminal trials doesn't have the same kind of application in an impeachment trial. for people like us who have overseen trials of cases, there's no judge. there's no voir dire of the jury. you don't require unanimity. there's no special verdict form. there's no appeal. you have jurors who are meeting with the defense over their strategy. and so i understand the rhetorical point about how due process, due process, due process. what matters here is what individual senators think was a
breach of responsibility and duty on the part of the president or not. and i hate to say, that's what it boils down to. i don't know what the standard of proof is, none of that is the case in a standard court of law. in this situation senators can take the position that in the absence of -- again, i know that the prosecutors, the house managers, have some burden of proof, how high that is, it's not clear, it's not stated anywhere in the law. the fact that they're declining to answer the question of what their client knew and what he did i think is devastating to that side. and you can't make the same argument as in a criminal case that the government hasn't proven its case. some of the proof is the fact that they have nothing to provide with respect to what trump did in those minutes and hours after the insurrection started. >> the absence of proof, meaning the absence of a record of his action, tells you everything you need to know, robert, about what happened once the insurrection began. is that dispositive, does that make the case that trump didn't
do what he was supposed to do? >> no, because i don't think you can impeach a president for the failure to act in this 3 1/2 hour window. everybody concedes he ultimately did act. what you're contending is it's impeachable because he delayed for several hours in doing so. i do think that's subject to condemnation, and i condemned it yesterday. >> who concedes he acted? >> it's an altogether another thing to say that -- >> robert. robert, who concedes he acted? i'm not conceding it. i'm saying he did nothing. pence worked with the dod to get national guard there. when trump was called and asked by his main ally, he mocked him, he did nothing, he sent out a bad tweet, then he put out a very lukewarm statement saying that he loved the people attacking the capitol. where do you see him undertaking the duty of the oath? >> he ultimately told them to go home. that mission was accomplished. i think that should have happened many hours before.
and i have said so. and i think that was the dereliction of duty. but it's another thing altogether to say that out of that, if that's what you're focusing on now, that that's an impeachable offense, my answer to that is, what's the high crime and misdemeanor that the president committed that warrants his conviction and the -- you know, the sanction of not being able to run for public office again. >> preet? what do you have? >> that's not what the house managers or i as an observer are basing the conclusion of guilt on. it's part of the whole story. it's part of the context. it's additional proof. it's an additional data point that the president of the united states intended for that thing to happen that happened, and how do you know that? because he seemed to enjoy it happening. he didn't try to stop it. and any reasonable, decent leader of the country that we call home would have done something different. it's not to say -- to parse out
that two hours of conduct or omission and say that's the basis on which you convict. that's an additional piece of evidence on top of all of the other things that we heard over hours and hours of presentation. and by the way, i wish that the president's lawyers would do what rob is doing. i made this point many times in my career. some of the most effective arguments i've heard made on the part of defendants have been by smart lawyers who say, you know what, some of what my client did was not commendable, some of it was downright bad, it was not a moment of pride for my client, but it's not a crime. in this case you could argue it's not impeachable. i don't agree with that. but you would earn some points with the american public. what people are so angry about in part is not just that they're making a legal or constitutional defense, but they're essentially saying the president did everything correctly, he did nothing wrong. and the fact that republican senators are saying that by their votes and being silent because they're scared and chicken of losing their jobs is despicable to a lot of people including myself. >> i understand your brandenburg argument, we could spend all the
time, and i don't have it. whether or not that's the right standard in impeachment. but specifically because it was in play today, their argument, robert, is everybody talks about fighting in politics, even cuomo, i got thrown in there too, which is always good for my ability to walk the streets. >> i appreciated that. >> i'm sure you did. why do they just ignore the reality of context? "fight" does not mean the same thing no matter when it's said or how it's said. and here, uniquely, it was amplifying a lie. and it was said in a moment of imminency. where they went and acted. doesn't context matter to when you say the word fight? >> i'm not denying that context cannot appropriate evidence for any jury, including a jury of impeachment, to consider. it's entirely appropriate to have made that argument. i think the house managers made that argument effectively, particularly on day one.
as i argued to you last night, i don't think any amount of evidence in that regard, context included, is going to change the fact that they are wed to the article of impeachment charge. that article charges that those words are what constitutes incitement to insurrection. and i think that that is inconsistent with brandenburg. i think it has to be a call to violent or lawless action. and that's not it. >> go ahead, robert, keep talking. check your microphone. let me know when you get it back. you have to talk for me to know, robert. let me get robert back on. preet, while we're waiting for him, he makes the argument on constitutionality in this, you don't have a high crime and misdemeanor, and it matters, there has to be a crime. this was argued all the way back in nixon. the democrats reject this. where do you come down on it?
>> it doesn't have to be a crime. there are certain things all the president uniquely can do. if you or i called up the president of ukraine and said do this or that, as in the last time around, it doesn't mean anything. some good examples have been made by first amendment lawyers who ordinarily come on the air to talk about how expansive the first amendment is. they make the point. i would like to know how rob thinks about this. if you're the president of the united states and go out and public and at the podium says i have decided to pledge allegiance of china and i believe china should invade us and america would be better for that. that's not a crime, if you or i said that, it's protected unpopular political speech. i want someone to tell me, a republican senator or otherwise, that that's not impeachable, no crime committed. if that's the case then we have completely different and wildly divergent views what have it means to take an unfit president out of office.
>> robert, you get the hypothetical. what's your response? >> i do. i think the closest analogy -- i'm not so sure about words, do i admit of a national security exception to the general rule that you would have to charge a high crime or misdemeanor and prove that. i think the only example i can think of happened during the cuban missile crisis. president kennedy and robert kennedy conferred and apparently the conversation was on tape as part of the taping system in the white house. and generally the subject matter was, there are musings about after the missile crisis was over, about whether if they had failed to act to remove russian missiles from cuba, what that would have meant. and the conclusion they both came to is, and the president apparently said, i think i would have been impeached. >> you don't think the national security exception applies to a president that gives immediate rise to an attack on the capitol where they seek out and try to kill congressmen? >> people can have a reasonable
disagreement about that. i appreciate preet's point. i think the answer has to be no. >> how about that, preet? who knew a president could sic a mob to congress to scare them to vote their way? >> there are a lot of things the most powerful person in the country can do by speech or deed that i guarantee you would cause senators to be gallop be towards the chamber to impeach, remove, and disqualify, and that would be one of them. >> i think most of that conduct would come under the category of malfeasance in office which the framers specifically intended not be subject to impeachment and removal from office. >> final point, preet? >> i hope the hypothetical is never tested. but i say again, it's a political act. it's not a courtroom trial governed by the rules of evidence and due process like we see in federal and state court.
there are certain things we expect a president not to do and many of those things are not criminal in nature. and i hope for the sake of our country we never face an example of that in the future. but this blanket idea that something must meet the elements of a federal or state crime -- by the way, crimes that were not even enacted into law back at the founding, when the impeachment power was given to congress, it just doesn't fly. >> i know this much. preet and robert, not to damn you guys to politics, but i think the american people would feel a lot better about the situation if they heard it being argued out this way. but they're not. be well and thank you for the perspective, gentlemen, both of you. >> you too. these details about the shouting match that trump had with mccarthy in that moment of crisis, the tone, the spite of the former president. why doesn't it matter? let's bring in a fellow juror to look at the last minute surprise as the trump trial heads towards a verdict, probably tomorrow, next.
at fidelity, you'll work with an advisor to help you build a flexible wealth plan. you'll have access to tax-smart investing strategies, and with brokerage accounts online trades are commission free. personalized advice. unmatched value. at fidelity, you can have both. new projects means new project managers. unmatched value. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a short list of quality candidates from our resume database. claim your seventy five dollar credit, when you post your first job at indeed.com/home.
before i was diagnosed by my doctor, i didn't know why my body was moving on its own. my eyes blinked way too much. it turns out, i have tardive dyskinesia, a condition that may be related to important medications i take for my bipolar disorder. my fingers moved like they were playing a piano that wasn't there. tardive dyskinesia can affect different parts of the body. it may also affect people who take medication for depression and schizophrenia. it's a relief to know that today, td is manageable. learn more at talkabouttd.com.
♪ wayne's world, wayne's world, party time, excellent. ♪ hey everyone, welcome to wayne's world. party on, wayne. party on, garth. as a local access show, we want everyone to support local restaurants. but, we'd never manipulate you like the way all these other commercials do. sh-yeah, that's really sad. we'd never shamelessly rely on a celebrity cameo. right cardi b? yeah! eat local! (giggles) ♪ local eats, wayne's world, yummy. ♪
we believe the senate will vote on whether or not to convict as soon as tomorrow afternoon if house managers decide not to call witnesses. seems unlikely at this point that they will but considering trump's lawyers have been caught in a major lie about what trump knew when his own vp was in danger, maybe they will call in witnesses. let's bring in democratic senator and impeachment juror. let's call in senator jeff merkley. good to see you, senator. >> good to see you, chris. >> do you think witnesses are likely? >> i think it's very unlikely. i think they want to wrap this up, be done. they feel like they have the votes now. i would be surprised. >> the house managers couldn't unilaterally move for witnesses? >> if they had wanted to do so, they should have done so when they were presenting their case. so i wouldn't think they feel
now there is a rebuttal role. but you never really know exactly how these impeachment trials will play out, they're so rare. so i couldn't say for sure. but not likely. >> as you were looking around the room, the tuberville call that the defense attorneys tried to dismiss as hearsay, tuberville then came forward and said it's not hearsay, it happened exactly as i said it did, he mentioned that the vp was being taken out. the call with mccarthy and the depth of the animus of the president towards a guy who is his ally who is asking for help. did any of that seem to make a difference? >> it was hard to read what was going on in the minds of my colleagues. i think their main sense, they've been looking for an out, and they don't really want to take in information that doesn't fit their argument. they would like to think their president actually cared that the capitol was being assaulted, actually trying to stop it. but there's no evidence that he
did. and this reinforces it. when you see that time chart, and you see that when the assault began, he did nothing, absolutely nothing. when you hear the reports of how people around him saw that he was excited, that he was happy, he was delighted, and then these two phone calls reinforce the same thing. he didn't say to tommy tuberville, he didn't say, oh, my goodness, you're kidding me, the vice president's being evacuated, what kind of danger are you in, i've got to help you all. no, it was, tommy, i'm not concerned about that, tell me how you can slow down the vote. and so it's really -- it really confirms the situation that people close to the president, inside the white house, close advisers we've had reports of, now we have kevin mccarthy's report, saying, mr. president, you must intervene, and the president says, well, why? these people care about the votes, i like what they're doing. that was the gist of what we've come to understand.
it completes the picture of a president who incited an insurrection through his actions, through the big lie, through feeding the fury of supporters, through organizing it on that day, through sending them to the capitol, through not getting the national guard out, and then not responding when the capitol was attacked. >> so this is not a hard loss on a policy argument. this is not even a hard loss on differing opinions about the president's role in the russia investigation into interference in the election. you guys were in there with people trying to come get you. and now your colleagues are going to make it okay. how does business as usual have any chance at happening after they acquit, if they do? >> well, what happens in a senate is, we will have the next issue up, and people will speak to it, people will vote on it.
but we must not forget what's going on here. for the first time in 200 plus years, the capitol was assaulted. a president wanted an imperial presidency. he wanted to break all the rules and do what happens in third world countries, ignore the constitution, destroy the peaceful transfer of power, assault the capitol, and then these republican colleagues who have been elected and have taken an oath to the constitution, just want to go forward and say, well, our base doesn't believe all that so we'll ignore it, which is kind of what it comes down to. they are afraid of their base. their base is inside the trump media bubble. all they hear is how wonderful he is. they're scared of that base. they're scared of the mob. and that is a profile in absolute absence of courage. >> how personal is this for you? you say that on that day, you saw staffers burst into the chamber, you saw the vp being swept away. what are your memories that have day?
>> well, initially, chris, i didn't think there was something too major going on because i've seen many protests in the senate chamber where there's a disruption. people in the balcony start screaming, they unfold a banner, they start chanting, they start singing, they link arms. each time it's six, ten people, and the capitol police come and escort them away. so when i first heard the ruckus outside the door, i think that's the moment officer goodman was directing that first group into that corridor where there are other officers, i thought, oh, there's six people out there who are -- who wanted to create a ruckus and they're being stopped by the capitol police like they always are. and then when the sergeant at arms' team and some of mcconnell's team burst in and started shutting the place down, i was like, whoa, this is completely different. then because we have smartphones, we started to discover, there's hundreds of people here and they're chanting and screaming and calling for
death to the vice president, and this is a very serious, serious thing. at that point it was just incredibly solemn. we didn't have any really clear idea of the level of risk. in fact i must say, in this impeachment hearing, we came to understand how close a call it was. there were people with arms. there were people a few feet away. somebody could have come in through one of the second floor balcony doors and started shooting people, given the fury, fury of that mob. so we're very fortunate it wasn't worse than it was. but look how bad it was. i mean, over a hundred police officers injured, five to seven -- well, seven people dead. it's -- wow. if the president can't be held accountable for this, after he cultivated this, organized it, directed it, and then celebrated
it, i just don't understand it. >> last thing, senator, you saw the vp getting escorted away, yes? >> yes. >> did he seem to understand that these people were coming to get him? >> well, i'll tell you, it happened in a flash. you're talking seconds. and i don't think he knew why he was being escorted away. i'm thinking about town halls i've had back in 2009, when you had an angry mob over obamacare, and you're told that there is a threat, we're going to tell you and sweep you away, but you don't even what the threat is. i assume he didn't know at that moment what the threat was. >> can you imagine what's going on in his head, listening to the details of how people were so anxious to find him, setting up a gallows outside, and now that he knows that the president was told where he was and then after that, the president sent out a tweet attacking him? can't wait 'til he tells his story.
senator jeff merkley, i appreciate you as always, sir, and good luck tomorrow. >> thank you. thank you. >> as is the way of these political battles in general, there's bs thrown around. let's bring in the human lie detector. to put the facts on the record. it's about what you know and how you can measure what was done in service to you tomorrow, next. at jackson hewitt, we offer safe and easy ways to file with a skilled tax pro. securely drop off your documents, have them picked up, or upload them, and work with a tax pro online from home. safe and easy ways to file that work around you. your next celebrity cruise is ready for takeoff,ax pro online from home. with our biggest air offer ever.
by the time you get to the third string defense, you know that these are the guys who agreed to do what trump wants you to do, and that means lie. let's bring in our fact checker in chief, daniel dale, what did you see? >> chris, there was a lot of nonsense from the two lawyers, and the first said the first tweet said to stay peaceful and called for no violence. in fact, the first messages
trump posted on twitter was at mike pence after rioters were in the building. and they claimed the timeline of events shows the crowd did not attend a speech and then go and attack the capitol. the fbi says there was more than enough time to make that happen and this is ignoring the existence of smart phones. and the constitutions due process clause applies to the impeachment proceeding, and scholars agree this is not a criminal trial and does not apply. a lawyer ran a misleading video suggesting that trump has been mr. peacemaker the whole time and democrats have spoken recklessly about violence and trump nearly praised law enforcement and called for peaceful protest and that's almost misleadingly insulting, and it ignores the history of
trump expressing support for a congressman that assaulted a journalist, and applauding journalist during protests, and a lawyer made a highly misleading claim, chris, this insurrection and riot was preplanned and one man arrested was the leader of antifa, and this was not a random hodgepodge of people from the left and right. some participants do have one that used a hash tag on antifa. now, a lawyer made a highly disputed claim that trump did not even know at any point that vice president mike pence was in
danger, and this con ttradicts something from a senator. the lawyer admitted that trump new, of course, this was a violent riot at the capitol so logic would have it everybody at the capitol would have been in danger and also it was explained there was a drop in georgia's absentee ballot rate, and a official tweeted today this numbers this year was identical as in the 2018 midterms. and a lawyer also claimed that the clearing of lafayette square, this infamous moment outside the white house because protests and rioters had pierced a security wall, and we all know the square was cleared because president trump wanted to have a
photo-op outside a church, and it was lie after lie. >> and they suggested that i was calling for violence in the streets last summer. i can tell you right now that is highly false. daniel dale, thank you very much. appreciate you. let's take a quick break and then we will be right back. when i noticed my sister moving differently, i didn't know what was happening. she said it was like someone else was controlling her mouth. her doctor said she has tardive dyskinesia, which may be related to important medications
she takes for her depression. her ankles would also roll and her toes would stretch out. td can affect different parts of the body. it may also affect people who take medications for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. we were so relieved to learn that today, td is manageable. learn more at talkabouttd.com. that's why at america's beverage companies, our bottles are made to be re-made. not all plastic is the same. we're carefully designing our bottles to be one hundred percent recyclable, including the caps. they're collected and separated from other plastics, so they can be turned back into material that we use to make new bottles. that completes the circle, and reduces plastic waste. please help us get every bottle back. ♪ that completes the circle, and rdad, i'm scared.aste. ♪ it's only human to care for those we love.
it's going to be very interesting to see what life is like in washington, d.c. next week, to see what they do in the aftermath of this acquittal. this is very personal for the men and women down there and there are going to be hard feelings for a long time. how will that translate into the disposition of any kind of collaboration and during the pandemic, and this is going to be telling and i know we are exhausted but we must grind on. and cnn tonight starting now with the big d starting now. >> boy, boy, boy, today. i can't believe they think