crowd, a guy ripping my mask off and he was able to rip away my baton and beat me with it. he was practically foaming at the mouth, so just these people were true believers in the worst way. that was all i had to defend myself against the crush, so i was holding on. eventually he was able to get away from me because my arms were pinned so i couldn't effectively defend myself. >> officer hodges is 32 years old and says he had a headache for a week after that and may have had a concussion. he says it was his first time at the capitol. the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> the question for us, why was he put in that position? we'll get after that right now. thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "primetime." we have new information the trump insurrection at the capitol was more dangerous than expected. >> everyone in there is a disgrace. that entire build something filled with treasonous invaders.

death. every single one of those capitol law enforcement officers death is the remedy. >> they have defied their oath. >> let's come back this time not with the bible. >> let's come back, this time not with the bible. you see plenty of people standing around them. nobody is shouting them down. many echoing that message that death is the only remedy and those are people that trump told he loved last week. and that guy, the ugly guy with the beard, wasn't alone. dozens of people on the fbi's terror watch list suspected white supremacists according to "the washington post," were reportedly in d.c. on trump insurrection day for pro-trump events. now you add that fact to the warnings that went out from our intel agencies and others telling the government to be

ready for extremist activity, and the answer to why all of that was ignored, why capitol police were overwhelmed like officer hodges, the answer becomes even more important. five people died but this could have been a massacre. the feds say the man you just heard saying death is the only remedy is peter francis stager. he is now charged in the beating of a police officer -- again, they weren't just talk -- he talked the talk and went and attacked an officer and there's video of it. and he did so with an american flagpole during that insurrection. the hate rant was around 30 minutes after the time stamp on this video that prosecutors say shows him beating a cop. death is the only remedy, he says, after the beating. now there's no remedy for that kind of evil intent. but for so many others, the motivation to be there, to do those things, was false belief and election fraud. and the remedy for that is

obvious, the truth. these deluded minds need to hear the truth from the man who invited them there. >> we were invited here! we were invited by the president of the united states. >> there are so many people saying exactly that on tape. stop with the trump is being blamed. they blame trump. they say he invited them. you want proof, there it is. invited by trump. it's all on tape. and the u.s. intel warns that his big lie that the election was stolen is still putting us in danger. they know that now, right? they saw it and they're still pushing it to this very day. proof. >> the democratic party did violence to this country by attacking a president who i believe was legally elected on november 3rd. >> you believe.

you're supposed to be a numbers and facts guy? you're supposed to be an academic? peter navarro, shame on you. you advised trump and you will never advise anyone of consequence ever again because of what you did today and in all the days that led us here. shame on him. and on trump. i call him trump because he disgraced the office, and he will be remembered as the worst. he still won't correct his lie that started this all. on top of the hundred arrests more than 200 have been identified as suspects according to the fbi director who spoke publicly for the first time today since the capitol attack. >> we know who you are if you're out there, fbi agents are coming to find you. anybody who plots or attempts violence in the coming week should count on a visit. >> now he says in the coming week because the word is domestic terrorists are still plotting. wray flags concerns online,

chatter regarding events surrounding the upcoming inauguration. and, look, the sad reality is our capital looks like a war zone. there are more troops deployed in our capital to protect us from ourselves than we have in the three middle east war zones combined. our forces are now filling washington to protect us from the outgoing president and his mob. the national mall is being shut down for the inauguration. streets are being closed. no big monitors because there's still a threat out there. and there are threats in all 50 states. we have to be honest, we have lost one of the signatures of our democracy. the peaceful transfer of power. the world can no longer look to us as a demonstration of that. it didn't happen. and now we're trying to figure out who knew? there are so many saying the threats didn't get communicated to the people who were planning

for that day. why? let's turn to congressman tim ryan, democrat from ohio. he chairs an appropriation subcommittee that oversees the capitol police and says he's having a hard time getting answers. thank you for coming back, sir. >> good to be with you, chris. >> so linking facts that you had these guys on the watch list who were in d.c. and that you had a number of them, it tells me here, visited by law enforcement before january 6th, such that some others wound up not going. so they knew enough to go visit guys who were on the list, and they knew enough to warn about what might happen here, and yet it didn't seem to flow through to how we were prepared to keep you guys safe that day. with a does that mean to you? >> well, it's part of the epic fail, and i think the epic fail was not having the troops, the

support, the backup for those capitol police from anderson's story earlier, but it's also the breakdown of communication, and we don't have all the answers. you know how these things get. it's a he said/she said, the chief of police said, oh, i told the sergeant at arms. now the fbi said we told somebody. so we're going to have to unravel this thing, chris. this isn't anywhere close to being over, and it was take a bi-cameral effort much like 9/11 to peel the onion back. >> is it starting to stink to you? in the law there's a distinction. you said fail. you have two types, misfeasance and malfeasance which is you did your job poorly on purpose. >> well, if we start hearing what the chief of police said that the optics would look back and that's why the sergeant at arms said, well, we can't have national guard troops here and that kind of thing, that will be a huge problem because you talk

>> well, if we start hearing what the chief of police said that the optics would look back and that's why the sergeant at arms said, well, we can't have national guard troops here and that kind of thing, that will be a huge problem because you talk about the optics of a few thousand national guard troops that have been able to prevent the breaching of that perimeter originally, those optics are a hell of a lot better than the optics we saw, and that's not the kind of leadership, sweep thing under the rug and pretend things don't happen. and that's what we want to get to the bottom of. who was the one to make the call saying we don't need any more national guards men and women ready to prevent the breach because that's where the fault will lie. >> now the next concern is transparency. you're having a hard time getting answers. you had said that the capitol police are kind of being like a black box so far and that you're hearing more from the media than from them. why? >> it's part of the culture and leadership at the capitol police, and this has been a

problem for a while, chris. i will say after i said that, beat them up a little bit yesterday, we got a phone call this morning and we got some answers to the committee staff people of the questions that we have. i shouldn't have to go on national tv and be very critical of them in order to get a phone call back. this has been the problem. i mean, look, it's still happening. right? what was the problem on january 5th and 6th or 4th, 5th and 6th? breakdown in communication. here we are a week later and we still don't have the kind of communication that we want. that's the frustrating part and that's the frustrating part from the rank and file as well because they're still not being communicated with. >> look, for what it's worth, congressman, that's why i do the show. anytime you can give me information or come on and say it yourself in a way that the power of the distribution forces people to defend themselves or to answer, that's the job. >> it works.

it works, chris. >> good, i'm glad. it's troubling enough to worry about who may come at us -- come at you actually next from outside. now there's this fear i want to get this right from representative don beyer of virginia. some in congress are worried that their own colleagues might kill them. there's the overall sense that maybe if some of them have guns and likely the ones who are more into conspiracy theories and qanon with the satanic rings, are we safe from them? talk to me about that. >> i've been in congress 18 years, chris. i worked in congress as a young person. i can't believe i even have to answer this question. but the reality of it is, and i've talked to a number of members of congress who are

afraid of other members of congress. being targeted by them, being harassed by them, following them around with the phone. and then the kicker is when speaker pelosi says we need metal detectors for everybody going on the floor, that in and of itself is a huge red flag about the new world we're living in. but then having members of congress say i'm not going through there. i'm going to go around those metal detectors. i mean after everything that just happened, people's lives in danger, families worried about them, trapped in the chamber, and you can't be unselfish enough to just walk through this metal detector? >> if the rule is you have to have a metal detector, why don't up arrest them if they walked around it? that's what would happen to me. >> i think speaker pelosi's new initiative is a $5,000 fine the first time you don't do it and a $10,000 fine the second time. capitol hill is a little bit different than in an airport or some other venue like a football game. she is being very firm, and i

think she needs to continue to do that and i support her 1,000% on that. >> do you think this is somebody -- i don't know don beyer of virginia. maybe you do. do you think there's a chance that somebody else in that room with you might set you up or take a shot at you? >> you know, i just don't know. i think we're living in a very, very hyper environment for obvious reasons, and so that's where you are. the science bears this out. when your brain goes in fight or flight mode and you're fearful, you begin to see threats everywhere. and, unfortunately, that's where the entire country is right now. members of congress, we're in a very heightened state of fear right now. and so members of congress should acknowledge that and say, i'm going to do my part and not carry a gun on the house floor or walk through a metal detector. i can't say i personally, you know, fear that because i don't.

but i know other members who do. and that should be respected and honored and everybody should try to be unselfish and be a good citizen here and do the job. >> now look, there is something that could be done. it is now incontrovertible. the intelligence committee says it keeps coming from different points of contact, now hearing it from people in the crowd about their motivation that these election fraud lies are fueling the fervor. >> no question. >> and they're using it as recruitment rhetoric online and you're hearing it in the tapes of why people came and they'll continue to come on that basis. what do you do about having republicans acknowledge that this happened? you're not going to have a president, the former president at the inauguration.

that's going to be bad. i know some of you don't want them there but that's a bad sign in terms of people who believe this was rigged. what can republicans do? what should they do? what are you asking them to do to legitimize the election? >> chris, i think need to do something very simple, have a resolution in the house and the senate that is very straightforward and the lawyers can work out the language that joe biden won the election, that every legal process was exhausted and that they had a chance to go to the courts and work that angle and they exhausted those options and joe biden is legally the president of the united states. and just put that up and let all those members of congress, maybe didn't want to vote for impeachment and there weren't hearings and there was some red herring they could hang their hat on, but it's just straightforward. if we don't start getting to the truth and operating from the same set of facts, nothing else is going to be able to move forward.

nothing else is going to heal. and that's what mitch mcconnell said in his speech on the senate floor before the rioters came in. he said we have to start operating from the same set of facts. he said, biden won. lindsey graham said biden won. this should not be a heavy lift. but get them on record and make them make a choice, because if the leaders of the republican party don't acknowledge that we are not going to be able to move forward. you're going to continue to have the tail wagging the dog. >> they can't keep asking for unity with what they ignored with trump but they can't ask for it if they don't acknowledge what they know to be true. these answers matter. we need you guys to be safe so you can do your job. use it as you like. >> you're the best. take care. thanks. >> the images are really helping us tell the story. the reality is told by the people who did the bad deeds. one of the wildest images is this one. you've seen this guy, the qanon shaman. the federal charges he now faces

are no conspiracy fantasy. his lawyer is here. for the first tv interview, what is the deal with this guy that makes him any different from what you just assume by looking at him? and will 17 republican senators really risk their careers -- i can't even believe i said that -- i can't believe that's true. what's the chance they would cross the line once trump is no longer president? we'll take up the latest workings from those people and the players around them with dana bash and john harwood next.

research shows people remember commercials with nostalgia. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's one that'll really take you back. it's customized home insurance from liberty mutual! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ah, a package! you know what this human ordered? a backache. consider pain, delivered. pain says you can't. advil says you can. introducing fidelity income planning. we look at what you've saved, what you'll need, and help you build a flexible plan for cash flow that lasts, even when you're not working, so you can go from saving... to living. ♪ let's go ♪ facing leaks takes strength, so here's to the strong,

who trust in our performance and comfortable, long-lasting protection. because your strength is supported by ours. depend. the only thing stronger than us, is you. (gong rings) - this is joe. (combative yelling) he used to have bad breath. now, he uses a capful of therabreath fresh breath oral rinse to keep his breath smelling great, all day long. (combative yelling) therabreath, it's a better mouthwash. at walmart, target and other fine stores. first up is this exquisite bowl of french onion dip.

i'm going to start the bidding at $5. thank you, sir. looking for $6. $6 over there! do i hear 7? $7 in the front! $7 going once. going twice. sold to the onion lover in the front row! next up is lot number 17, a spinach and artichoke dip, beautifully set in a hollowed-out loaf of sourdough bread. don't get mad get e*trade and get more than just trading investing. banking. guidance. so senator mcconnell has tossed the impeachment trial into the democrats' laps effectively. how will senate democrats move forward as president-elect biden tries to shift focus to his covid relief plan? now tonight he spoke and he urged action in this time of distress as he rolls out his nearly $2 trillion answer. >> the crisis of deep human suffering is in plain sight, and there's no time to waste. we have to act and we have to

act now. >> all right, let's bring in john harwood and dana bash. people talk about how biden and mcconnell talk more than you might think, but he has to deal with the democrats, also. what is the thinking in terms of how they do the most to advance the agenda? does that include doing a senate trial, or are they worried about it? >> they're worried about it. but they know that it's going to be very hard to not do a senate trial given the fact that it's going to be in the senate's lap and that democrats are going to be in control. but i talked to biden transition officials, soon to be administration officials, who say that they are having real conversations about finding a way to make sure not to take their eye off the ball on things like covid which the president-elect talked about, like the economic despair so many people in america are in

right now never mind the third goal that they have which is confirming a cabinet so they can deal with some of these issues. it's really, really important to them, and they are having those conversations on a daily, multiple times a day, conversations with the democratic leaders to figure out how they're going to do it. i'm not sure they're there yet. >> john, is there reason to believe they can do two things at once there, that the impeachment won't cancel out cooperation? >> yes, i think they can. and, you know, it's not ideal for joe biden to have this trial going on as he begins his administration, but violent insurrection is not ideal. sometimes history requires to do some things and puts issues in your lap. i think they will attempt to do business, stand up for government. i think mitch mcconnell is not resistant to that.

i think he will help joe biden do that. i think interestingly this trial on the basis of what we know now i would not expect 17 republicans would side with democrats to convict president trump, but i think the very fact that they would not convict president trump probably increases the prospects that some of them with cooperate with joe biden on some legislative initiatives including the covid package he announced tonight. >> dana, in a way the democrats will be doing the republicans' work for them. because if they try trump -- and i know they most likely will and, settle down, the people on the left every time i question it. they're discussing it, we might as well discuss it. if they do try him and were to get the 17 cross line votes, they would really be doing the republicans a huge favor because they would be amputating trump from relevancy. so the democrats are helping the republicans in a way by going after this guy, no? >> that's one argument.

there are really different points of view among republicans i talked to and some of them are saying it publicly about what the right political answer is. whether or not one is what you just said that it seems to be where mitch mcconnell was suggesting this week? by getting it to "the new york times" and cnn confirming it, that is the best way to rid the republican party of president trump is to make clear to convict him for this impeachment and the other point of view is just the opposite. that doing this makes him a martyr, makes it easier to play the victim card and continues the fervor and the anger and the fomenting that he has done to people who have been radicalized like those we saw on january

6th. we don't know the answer to that. there are really different points of view and it's fascinating to see the debate inside the republican party. >> john, how fertile is the ground of this can or can't impeach a president after he's out of office? >> there's precedent for it. it's happened before. i think it will be part of the defense for donald trump's team to say it's unconstitutional as well as the other defenses they will make which is that trump didn't mean for them to do what they did. but on this question you were just talking about, i don't think it's one or the other. i think both are actually true. i think among some he will be a martyr. if he is tried and convicted or tried and not convicted he will be a martyr for going through with the trial. we're seeing tremendous pressure on the fault line.

you have a bunch of high-income people who financed the republican party whose principle concerns are tax cuts and deregulation and the troops to win elections are white working class voters who are very concerned about the cultural changes in the country, the increasing diversity, white people who don't like the fact the country is becoming less white and concerned with the way the economy has changed. people with less education can't do as well as in the past. the pressure has the potential for harming the republican party. i don't think it's a question of the democrats doing the republicans' work because if they convict donald trump, donald trump goes away. no, he's not going to go away but will be diminished and the republican party will have to figure out whether they think they can continue to keep this coalition together, would groups

of people with very different interests and concerns, or whether that fracture will get bigger. >> to remind you at home of the rules, impeaching somebody twice does not mean they can't run again. convicting them with a two-thirds vote doesn't mean they can't run again. presumptively if you can get two-thirds to convict you can get half to ban from office. dana bash, john harwood, thank you both. appreciate it. >> thank you, chris. a lot of the faces of this insurrection will go down in history. in textbooks. one of them will likely be this guy, the suspect who has become one of the faces of just how whacked out this was. he's become known as the qanon shaman. i want to be clear, i see nothing funny about this guy or his situation. but i do think it is worth

speaking to his lawyer because his defense and his request goes right to the heart of the president's responsibility. you'll see next. before we talk about tax-smart investing, what's new? -audrey's expecting... -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan.

these folks don't have time to go to the post office they use stamps.com all the services of the post office only cheaper get a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. your grooming business is booming. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base. claim your seventy-five-dollar credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/groomer critics are calling news of the world, "a towering piece of moviemaking". we will get you away from all this pain. and now it's certified fresh. she needs new memories.

♪ ♪ when you drive this smooth, you save with allstate the future of auto insurance is here you've never been in better hands allstate don't want to wait weeks for your tax refund? click or call for a quote today visit jackson hewitt today. you could get from $500 to $4000 the day you file with an express no fee refund advance loan. that's money fast. like, today fast. don't wait weeks. visit jackson hewitt today.

jacob chansley wants a pardon from trump. who is that? you know who he is, this guy. he also goes by jake angeli but is known as this guy in the face paint with the horns who took part in the riot at the capitol. he calls himself the qanon shaman. i don't know what that means and i don't care. what i care about is why he says he was there. because i've heard it from a lot now on tape and from representatives. so he is looking at a growing number of charges. he is up to six federal counts now including violent entry. his lawyer is al watkins, and i appreciate him coming on to explain his rationale. counselor, thank you for being here. >> it's a pleasure.

>> just to be clear, your client believes that he was invited to go, he was told to go, he was instructed to go by the commander in chief himself, donald trump. is that accurate? >> it's very accurate to say that not only my client but a large number of individuals who were present felt like they were on a mission to be able to have their voices -- [ inaudible ]. a person -- to walk pennsylvania avenue. >> hold on. i'm not hearing you well. when you turn your head to the right i hear you. turn your head to the right and talk for a second. >> you're breaking in and out on

me. let me do this. where is your microphone? >> i've had a great time and quite frankly -- >> hold on a second, al, let me do something -- >> yeah? >> can you hear me? >> yes, i can. >> okay. talk for one more second and i want to make sure i get your sound right. >> all right. what more do you need -- >> your sound is cutting in and out. i want to make sure people get this plainly that your client and others say they believe that they were just following what the president wanted them to do by going in and overtaking the capitol? >> so let's talk -- let's talk real talk -- for everyone including universally -- human beings -- these people -- they were in georgetown -- the only thing missing --

>> al -- al, i'm not cutting you off, i'm doing you a favor. let me take a quick break. it's worth it. i want to get your sound right because people need to hear what you're saying. that's exactly what i'm going to do, take a break. if i can't get him on camera, i'll get him on the phone because you need to hear it. it is fundamental to our understanding why people would do something as wrong as they did. sorry i couldn't get it right but this matters too much to do it halfway. z . (burke) deep-sea driving, i see... (customer) something like that... (burke) well, here's something else: with your farmer's policy perk, new car replacement, you can get a new one. (customer) that is something else. (burke) get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

sorry i couldn't get it right but this matters too much to do it halfway. the qanon shaman what he calls himself, the fool with the paint face and the weird horns on his head, his attorney is on the phone with me now, al watkins. i want you to hear why this guy and supposedly, according to his counselor through his client, a lot of them felt like this is what the president was telling them to do. al, you can hear me, yes?

>> yes, i can. i want to tell you it's really important we should stop calling people fools because we have a large percentage of our population who spent a great deal of time in their lives hanging on every word of president trump. my client did not break into the capitol. he had the doors to the capitol held for him by capitol police. my client did not shroud his face in secrecy. he wasn't wearing a bulletproof vest. my client was not armed. he didn't have zip ties. my client fought -- was in the military, served honorably. no criminal background whatsoever. and he, like a lot of other disenfranchised people in our country felt very, very, very solidly in sync with president trump.

he felt like his voice was for the first time being heard and what ended up happening over the course of the leadup to the election, over the course of a period from the election to january 6th, it was a driving force by a man he hung his hat on, he hitched his wagon to, he loved trump, every word. he listened to him. he felt like he was answering the call of our president. my client wasn't violent. he didn't cross over any police lines. he didn't assault anyone. he was there at the invitation of our president. >> all right. >> who was going to walk down pennsylvania avenue with him. >> a couple things. one, i call him a fool because that's what he looks like not because he voted for trump. >> so you know, he is a genuine shaman. he has been a long-standing professor of that faith. >> okay, whatever.

i'm just saying the guy ascribes to qanon, it's not ration thought. he's in a place he's not supposed to be. i don't care if somebody held the door open for him or not. the reason is because there was a mob of angry people herding them and he was walking around with a six-foot spear. the president and his defenders say i never told them to do anything like this. this was just me saying pay attention. we're angry about this. let your voice be heard. nobody told them to break into the capitol. your response? >> we all have to understand that the words that were spoken by the president meant something, not just to my client, they meant something to a lot of people. they listened to those words and those words meant something to them and they had a right to rely on the words of their president that was worldwide, and they did. and now they're turning around, they're getting arrested, as well many should be. we had an abysmal -- abysmal -- horrible compromise of our democracy. and a vital, fragile time.

>> what compromise of our democracy? >> the compromise of our capitol, our great capitol. >> oh, i thought you were talking about the election. >> oh, no. >> this was an insurrection and he was part of it, your client. >> and my client was not -- look, let's talk candidly. the guy is wearing a fur. he's a shaman. he has horns on. he practices yoga, meditates all day long, couldn't be a more gentle, soft spoken human being. he's not a violent man. he's not alone and what we as a nation have to understand is our president needs to be accountable for that and the only honorable thing for him to do for those who were peace loving, for those who did go there with peace in mind that weren't going there to be violent, trump needs to stand up and own these people.

he owes them -- he has an obligation to them, he has an obligation to our nation. >> and do what? >> it's not going to happen. >> and do what, al? >> oh, give a pardon, give a pardon -- >> you want him to pardon the people that broke into the capitol and killed a policeman and was trying to get to members of congress? >> remember the following, what am i? i'm not -- my role is not to judge somebody. my role is to be an advocate. if there's one iota of a chance that the guy who is the president of our country who invited everybody down pennsylvania will give my client a pardon, you know what, i'm going to do it. now am i holding my breath thinking donald trump will be sitting around going, you know what, what's the name of the guy with the horns? let's give him a pardon. with trump, you never know. he may say i want the guy with the horns. maybe he's represented by the

shaman instead of rudy giuliani. >> al this is serious stuff we're dealing with. you client is a joke and asking for a pardon makes everything razor focused how absurd this situation is. >> now that's the point, isn't it? >> i don't know what the point is anymore to be honest. why does he believe what the president tells him? there has been no proof of any election fraud. the same reason he believes qanon because he's not thinking about what he believes. >> in 1978 a lot of people in san francisco followed a guy by the name of jim knowns down to georgetown -- >> it was a cult. >> that's right. and you know the only thing different here, there's no kool-aid. >> so you think this guy, the shaman, has this kind of complete devotion to trump and believes that trump said to him you go down there with the rest of these people and try to stop this and get into that capitol? >> i've heard you on air say,

hey look, the president's words mean something. the president said i'm going to walk down pennsylvania avenue with you. the president has the right to go into any federal building he wants anytime he wants with whomever he wants. you have a guy who, look, you and i can judge everyone in the world but that's not how we roll. our nation is filled with people who do, in fact, believe and they have a right to believe on the words. they had a right to rely on the words of our president. whether we voted for him or not. >> absolutely. i can't disagree with anything you're saying about the persuasiveness of the highest official in the land. i get you on that. now it is an interesting coincidence to me that the two times you and i have had

discourse is once representing this guy and the other time when you were with mr. mcglosskey. >> the other time when i was representing the young child of lamar smith, the young male of color in st. louis brutally murdered by a white cop. >> we didn't talk then. i just talked to you and we'll remember before that kfgs, you and i remember this, it wasn't off the record because we were on camera, he was saying it's not about trump. i'm not a trump guy. i've always worked with the black community, and then after the interview, he became like this super trumper and went on fox all the time as an advocate for trump and everything he was about. how did you wind up in both of those situations? >> well, how i end up in a lot of situations is something for me to know and it's not a secret.

i work really hard. i'm an advocate. i work for my clients. my duty is always to my client. that being said, there are times and occasions where people applaud me and the same people are trying to string me up. that happens. that's not a concern to me. my concern is justice and advocacy for my client. >> it is a really interesting perspective that you bring with this guy, watkins, that he really believes he was doing what the president told him to do and he wants a pardon. al watkins, thank you for presenting the case. >> and he wasn't alone. >> i understand. al watkins, thank you for making the case and thank you for bearing with me on the coms. >> my pleasure. >> how bizarre is that? now on one hand, not bizarre at all. the president has been putting that message out. look, i know this guy is not a great, he's not a great face for

the typical trumper. some of you may want to believe that's a typical trumper. it isn't. he is an eccentric. but the idea that they thought they were going down there -- it's not just owned by this one guy with the hat on. a lot of those people felt like that. what will that mean for the legacy of this man and for the conscience of the people in congress who are denying that reality now? we'll be right back.

ready to blow away the rules of volume? new air volume mega mascara by l'oréal paris. a whipped formula and a 'cushiony brush. for mega volume, yet mega light. new air volume mega mascara. by l'oréal paris. you're worth it. tracfone wireless gives you unlimited carryover data. $20 bucks. no contract. $20 bucks? wow, that's great. yeah, hit decline. i don't want to talk to her. hit me. get me. this is your wake-up call, people. tracfone wireless. now you're in control. at panera, when we make a pizza...

we don't just “make a pizza.” we use fresh, clean ingredients... to make a masterpiece. order our new pepperoni and four cheese flatbread pizzas for delivery or pickup today. panera. hey kim! with 5% cash back on travel purchased through chase from freedom unlimited, you can now earn even more. book that hotel kim, because you are worth it. i am worth it. now earn 5% on travel purchased through chase and so much more. chase. make more of what's yours.

research shows people remember commercials with nostalgia. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's one that'll really take you back. it's customized home insurance from liberty mutual! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ so there's a big question we're going to debate right now and you're going to be hearing a lot about it in the senate. can you convict somebody in an impeachment setting when they're already out of office? is that do-able, constitutional and right? let's debate it right now. i've got two people on both sides of this issue, scholars of law both steve vladeck and ross garber. good to have you both. thank you very much. ross is of the mind you can't, and steve is of the mind yes, you can. steve, let's start with you. why is it okay to go forward with this even if trump will be out of office?

>> yeah, chris, i think the central reason why is because impeachment is not just about removal from office. as the constitution makes abundantly clear the senate is not just voting on whether this person can still be in office. the senate has a chance to vote whether he should be allowed to hold office in the future. with president trump that's a concern given he refuses to concede he lost the election. he's made no bones about thinking about running in 2024. it would render the power to disqualify an officer entirely pointless if the person being tried could resign the moment before the last senator votes senator young, and thereby deprive the senate not just of the power to convict, but of the power to disqualify. >> other than them being worried about the qanon shaman showing up and sending trump down the hole, why do you think it would be wrong to try him once he has already left office? >> steve makes some interesting points.

and i think what you have to do is start with the language of the constitution and the language of the constitution and i've got it here, article 2, section 4 says the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors. that is the president, vice president, all civil officers. what it doesn't say is a former president. it doesn't say that any citizen who has served as president. it's president, vice president. >> got you. in office. i take the point. i take the point. let's bounce it to steve so we can do counter point. how do you deal with the language? >> chris, i read all the language. ross points to article 2, but what about article 1, section 3. where in talking about the senate's power and the senate's role, article i, section 3 says it's not just about trying the impeachment. it's alsoing about voting on disqualification. again, the argument that the senate cannot try a former officer, which by the way the senate has rejected twice,

requires us to read the power to disqualify out of the constitution because on that view, chris, every single officer in that position would just resign right before the senate vote. >> steve, don't run past -- hold on a second. >> okay. >> as we all learned, don't run past your own example. when has this senate rejected ross' argument that just because you're out of office means that we don't try you? >> twice. so the very first impeachment in american history was senator blount in the late 1790s. and the senate continued with his trial after he had been expelled from the senate. and 1876 there was a former secretary belknap who resigned, chris, literally the morning the house was to beginning the impeachment proceedings. both the house and senate took rotes in that process where they both held, yes, we have the power to potentially try and convict and disqualify former secretary even though he has resigned. we've got article 1, section 3

and we've got historical practice, all pushing in favor of the idea that just because you are out of office. >> got you. >> once you're itmpeached -- >> ross, to you. >> so not so much. again, let's look at the actual language of the provision that steve cites. article 1, section 3 says judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification. and that language is important. >> and disqualification. disqualification will be the keyword for steve. >> yeah, we're going to read all the words. shall not extend further. here's the reason for that provision is that we took or whole impeachment notion from england. >> right. >> and in england, impeachment -- >> chopped your head off. >> well, potentially removed from office, you'd go to prison, you'd be fined. you could get your head chopped

off. article 1, section 3 says no, no. the worst they can do here is not chop your head off, is you're removed from office, disqualified. >> what about the disqualification part? >> for sure you'll notice there it doesn't expand who it applies to. and the example it's notable we've had tens of thousands maybe more of officials and no official has actually been -- former official has been convicted. but those two examples steve cites are interesting. in the first case the blount case the charges were actually dismissed and one of the arguments was there was no jurisdiction. in the second case, the bellmack belknap case which everybody talks about, what's interesting, if you look at the trial record there, what the senator said is we're not going to actually dismiss the charges at the beginning. we don't have enough votes to do that. they acquitted him mostly on a lack of jurisdiction. and again, it's notable that's the last time anybody even tried this. and my concern is two things.

number one is you provide a disincentive to resignation. what you want to do is encourage a corrupt official to resign, that's number one. and number two, this notion you serve in office and you're forever subject to impeachment and disqualification is -- >> well, it's not forever. >> sort of astounding concept. >> you're extending the principle right now. but let me bounce it back over to steve. and that the examples do not meet the moment. >> i think, chris, that's true in both directions. with regard to the blount case keep in mind these were the folks in the room when the constitution was written who allowed the trial to proceed to an acquittal knowing blount had been excelled by the senate. i think the historical examples actually support the notion there is jurisdiction. chris, again, i don't want to lose the larger point. the folks who make the argument ross is making have no good answer for what to do about the disqualification power. and i think the critical point here is here is the crystal clear case for it. we didn't need that for nixon

who was a broken man, who everyone understood was not going to run for office again after his resignation. donald trump is making noises about this. so i think this is exactly why the disqualification power is in the constitution. and on the reason you can't disqualify someone after they've left office, we would never be able to disqualify anybody because they'd all just resign on their way to the trial. >> ross, give me a quick button. are you just trying to make it so that trump can run again? >> no. i've got no dog in this. i'm reading the constitution. this is how i size it up. i think it is very likely that the senate either at the beginning or after trial decides it has no jurisdiction and makes that clear. i think with respect to disqualification, it is an adjunct to removal. removal and disqualification, and it has never never not once, ever, ever been applied in the way my friend suggests. >> all right, guys, i appreciate you both very much. it's a little in the weeds but a little isn't. i think the t