especially on witnesses. abby, what does this look like at this moment? i'm sorry, let me know what everyone is seeing. the house clerk cheryl johnson leading there with the nine impeachment managers. many faces you will recognize with the masks on. these are the nine impeachment managers. david scicillini there, david raskin, there is nine there. this is part of the formal process. as i said, only the fourth time in american history you've seen this, walking across from the house to the senate to formally deliver this article, and it is just one article of impeachment for former president donald j. trump. you see the lead impeachment manager behind ms. johnson, jamie raskin. one thing that is interesting to think about here, abby, is that this is only the fourth time this has happened in american

history, and yet the third time, we're all used to this picture because we just saw it 12 months ago. >> reporter: that's right. this is unprecedented in so many ways, but that's really the main one, is that the proximity of the last impeachment to the second impeachment is really amazing and all within one presidential term for a president of the united states. in some ways that is one of the factors here as we go into this process, thinking about whether democrats can get 17 republicans to vote to convict. there are a lot of republicans who feel a sense of fatigue about this process, who believe it's politically untenable for them because their base believes that how rapidly one impeachment followed the other is something that republican voters just can't stomach, and i think that has become, actually, sort of an elephant in the room as part of

this process, even as democrats make the case that this is a president who has done something that no other president has done, which is to incite a riot and an insurrection against another branch of government. so that's the dynamic here, and i don't expect that we'll see a huge amount of change in the republican standpoint, because it seems like republican voters in particular are not moved by the case that democrats have been making. >> go ahead, dana. >> erin, i just want to say, as we're watching them, some of the infamous photos we have now become used to seeing of these rioters in those halls were taken just steps away from where these impeachment managers are right now, steps off the senate floor, never mind on the senate floor. it's a reminder of how personal this is. it's another way this is unique from any other impeachment proceeding in the past. >> just to set the stage here.

you see the lead impeachment manager jamie raskin waiting by the door. the impeachment managers are going to be escorted to the floor of the senate by the acting sergeant in arms or secretary of the senate. that's about to happen p now. then they'll read a proclamation and they will read the articles. >> as dana said, when you think about it and you watch these people walk in a somber way into the chamber, it was just nine days ago that the rioters were inside the capitol in that very place, or near that very place. and this has happened all so quickly. it is quite remarkable. i remember when we went through, you know, the first impeachment. that was not lightning speed like this is. i think that there were many in the congress who believed they had no choice but to act, even

if donald trump was no longer in office and that's what we're seeing. >> let's listen in here. >> -- representatives to conduct proceedings on behalf of the house concerning the impeachment of donald john trump, former president of the united states. >> the managers on the part of the house will be received and escorted to the well of the senate .

the sergeant in arms will make the proclamation. >> hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. all members are asked to remain silent the while of representatives is exhibiting to the united states an article of impeachment against donald john trump, former president of the united states. >> managers on the part of the house will proceed . >> mr. president, the managers on the part of the house of representatives are here and present and ready to present the article of impeachment which has been preferred by the house of

representatives against donald john trump, former president of the united states. the house adopted the following resolution, which by the permission of the senate, i will read. house resolution 40, in the house of representatives, united states. january 13, 2021, resolved that mr. raskin, mr. degette, mr. cicilline, and ms. dean are managers in the impeachment article against donald john trump, former president of the united states, to senate of the appointments, and the manager of the appointments may exhibit the articles of impeachment to the senate and take all other actions necessary which may include the following: employing legal, clerical and other necessary assistance and incurring other such expenses that would be necessary to pay the amounts available to the judiciary under applicable

resolutions oram applicable ho of representatives, and the articles of impeachment that the managers consider necessary. speaker nancy pelosi on behalf of the representatives. i will now read the articles of impeachment. house resolution 24 in the house of representatives, united states, january 13th, 2021 resolved that donald john trump, president of the united states, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the united states senate. article of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the united states of america in the name of itself and of the people of the united states of america against donald john trump, president of the united states of america in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and

misdemeanors. article 1. incitement of insurrection. the constitution provides that the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and the president shall be removed from office on impeachment 4 in conviction of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. section 14 of the constitution prohibits any person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion in holding any office in the united states, end quote. in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the president of the united states, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states, and in violation of his constitutional duty, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. donald john trump engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors in

inciting violence against the government of the united states, in that on january 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th amendment to the constitution of the united states, the vice president of the united states, the house of representatives and the senate met at the united states capitol for a joint session of congress to count the votes of the electoral college. in the months preceding the joint session, president trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the american people or certified by state or federal officials. shortly before the joint session commenced, president trump addressed a crowd at the ellipse in washington, d.c. there he reiterated false claims that we won this election and won it by a landslide. he also made stare.

if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. members of the crowd he had addressed in attempt to. it is my solemn and constitutional dult, injured and ki killed. the president engaged in other violent and deadly destructive and seditious acts. the president's conduct on january 6, 2021 followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the results of the 2020 election. those prior efforts included a phone call on september 2nd,

2020 to, quote, find enough votes to overturn the georgia election results and threatened george raffensperger if he failed to do so. he threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power and impaired a. it resulted in injury of the people of the united states. wherefor, donald j. trump by such conduct has demonstrated he will remain a threat to security and to the constitution if he is allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with the rule of law. donald j. trump thus orders impeachment and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of

honor, trust or profit under the united states. nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. mr. president, that completes the exhibition of the article of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states. the manager's request that the senate take order for the trial, the managers now express leave to withdraw. >> thank you, mr. raskin. and the senate will duly the house of representatives is ready to proceed with the trial. thank you.

>> you're seeing impeachment manages walk out of here. another moment in history here, the second time for an impeachment trial for president trump. there have only, of course, been four impeachments in the house in american history, two for trump. you just saw history being made here, and it's for a former president. this is a moment in history. the clerk there, cheryl johnson, they are preparing along with the nine managers to walk back to the house of representatives. this is part of the circumstance and part of the moment, part of history here. and there they walk back to the house of representatives. john king, it is a moment in american history to think about what is happening here, right, that you just had jamie raskin, the lead manager, go to the floor of the senate and read

that article for the former president, donald j. trump who, f of course, is no longer in office. they are making the case that this is important to prevent anything like this from happening again and to prevent him from ever serving in office again, which is a compelling case and one he made a very clear point in making. >> right, and erin, anyone's views at home, whether they think the president should be convicted or whether they think this is the democrats overplaying their hand, we're watching a very important ritual, an indelible stain on the former president. twice impeached now, and they're walking through a crime scene. this is a ritual march, as you're saying, it's part of the ceremony, but it's taking place in a crime scene, a building that 19 days ago was attacked by people holding trump flags, by screaming, "hang mike pence," by

looking for speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. and this is indelible. he did incite this rally that turned into a riot. and so now we wait. we have two weeks to wait. the house managers, as i said in the beginning, have monumental decision to make about how big of a case they want to present, whether they want to bring in new reporting, things like the "new york times" saying there was a plan in the justice department to perhaps get the president to fire the acting attorney general, to make one last-gasp effort to advance the big lie. how much of a case did they bring in? i also think one of the interesting parts here, most republicans want this to go away. there will be a handful, at least, that vote to convict the president. i suspect that's where our count is right now, but most republicans want this to go away. we can have an argument about, is it constitutional? they should each make a debate

about the process. what the president did was reprehensible, now former president. but he was president of the united states when he sent that rally to attack up to the capitol, a branch of the government, to attack his own government. where are the republicans standing up and saying, here's the alternative punishment? it's crickets. it's silence but for a very few. >> it's unity, and let's just move on. nothing about holding anyone into account. manu, i want to go back to you, because we could all see the managers walk there to the senate floor, presided over by senator leahy, and you could hear jamie raskin speak. but you could tell who was in the room to really listen. tell me, you've got restrictions, but other than mitch mcconnell, who was there?

>> ted barrett was in the room watching the senate chamber, only watching what was happening on the floor. he saw mitch mcconnell, the senate republican leader, in his seat. he saw mitt romney who was the lone republican senator who voted to convict president trump back in 2020, and roger marshall, a new freshman senator from kansas, who told me these charges should be dismissed, someone who voted to overturn electoral results as the house members tried to invalidate his votes. romney has been leaning toward the nd. mcconnell, a bit of a wild stone, but i'm talking to his allies and colleagues. there is a sign hely, but those

republican senators were rnt -- listening to the reading of that art article. all of them were there, according to ted barrett. all of them, if not all 50, are voting to convict. they are definitely listening very closely. tomorrow they will all be sworn in as jurors tomorrow afternoon and then that trial will begin, and they're expected to be in the office at that point starting the week of february 8, erin. >> and john king was discussing how this is a crime scene, right sf they're walking through a cr crime. ab abby, this is the big question, how big they're going to go. who are they going to call for witnesses? are they going to call mike

pence as a witness? what are they going to do? >> reporter: that's such a good point, because in so many ways, including the impeachment managers themselves, are witnesses to this event the president is being impeached over. in some ways they have a lot of options in terms of potential people that should be called. many. many believe, and whether they bring in witnesses for themselves, day by day the amount of evidence that is available to them is enormous. the problem is it may not end up mattering at the end of the day. many republicans don't seem interested in an argument before

or against conviction. they're interested in finding a way out of the politically, r. . saying that trump was pushing the department of justice to go directly to the supreme court to validate the election win, right, he was trying to push his justice department to do that. he only stopped when the acting attorney general were. >> you know, the answer is yes, if they are not where abby just described. >> so many of tlem, kps looking

for tarnl. some of them have latched onto the belief among constitutional lawyers that it's not constitutional. we're finding they believe shl -- that the president was highly involved in this and that he did instigate it. it was obvious that there might be someone in the justice department that was witness to or a part of conversations that the president had beforehand or even people who were in or around the president on that day, the day before, to testify to his involvement beyond what we might know. that notion of them actually getting somebody to agree to do that, is going to be very

difficult. >>. all of us spoke to people around the president, the. i want to gi. you just got an interview by biden, on camera. what did he tell you about the impeachment trial? >> reporter: he hasn't really weighed on it that much. he's been focusing on rlt. . there's been a meeting on capitol hill between the democrats and republicans and the senate. i asked him what is his view of the trial and the concern for what he could mean.

it's basically all-consuming for the senate given how long it could last, but, erin, he thinks if the trial for former president trump didn't happen, it would have a lasting effect if it didn't go forward. senator biden is one that he thinks donald trump would be acquitted for the second time. he does not believe that all votes have been in the senate. it's changed a lot since he was there, but it hasn't changed that much t. he views this trial as something that has to happen, acknowledging the fact it's something he could have on his had general da.

he doesn't seem to think the votes are there. there's a concern about that. >> reporter: yeah, and before this, you saw mitch mcconnell break with president trump like he never had in his time in office. president trump being out of office, of course, has changed a lot of this, and i think that president biden recognized that. he recognized that reality as i just grabbed him and in a few moments he was walking from the main land to the united states at the evening. . they weren't la. >> i think so significant, gloria, that the president was saying he didn't think the votes were there on the republican side. what, then, gloria, do democrats get out of this? you don't convict someone for doing what trump did, and everybody knows that he did. and you don't prevent trump from

serving in office again because you can't do that without convicting him. what did they get out of this? >> well, they go on record saying that the united states house of representatives -- by the way, for the second time in just about a year impeached a president for behavior it believes was not worthy of the office of the president, he incited violence. we're not seeing republicans out there saying it was perfect. it was a perfect phone call. we did hear, but we are not what

republicans are doing is about process. you shouldn't do this because it's divisive to the country when we need to unify the country. you shouldn't do it because it's unconstitutional to do it. that's a point that they were there. they understand what occurred. their lives were in danger from this mob, so they cannot say this was per ffectly fip, that e president's behavior was perfectly fine. i think president biden knows how to count votes. he was in congress for 35 years. he gets it, he understands why republicans may not vote to convict, but we are not hearing

what we heard the first time. there was no saying "this is fine." >> it's almost a political fight within the republican party. >> he put the blame on the president very clearly tochlt try to speak out publicly against liz cheney to try to take away her leadership in tlt r -- the senate. >> both parties live in relatively safe districts. he knows he can go home and pound his chest and say, i'm still fighting for donald trump.

that's part of the problem. this is going to take through not just this impeachment trial. this impeachment trial is round 1. then we'll see the biden agenda on tough votes, things like climate agenda. 20, 24 midterms, this process, soul searching trg. o one other thing, the republicans are talking process, but so is the democratic president. it has to happen. democrats get it. they understand this is inconvenient for a new president, the timing of this. because he truly wants to try to be bipartisan. he truly wants to at least try to get republicans to work with him and this will complicate that. but that republicans want to hear joe biden say he is the

leader of this country, what he did was irreprehensible. he is also talking process because this is so convenient to him. >> abby, let me give you the final word. >> one of the problems for republicans also to what you were just discussing with john is this idea of disqualifying president trump from holding future office. you would think this might be something they might look to as a way to rid the republican party of him, but what it really becomes is a vote where they expose themselves. very few republicans right now, save for a handful, the mitt rahm knees of the from holding fehr office. again, i think this is making this process that much more difficult. one of the things that kate cal

linz. the spomtly spoblt of republicans in a republican party where president trump still has something like 75% support among republican voters. it's still extraordinarily high and there's no room there for a vast majority of those members to break from him, at least not if they're going to be doing it alone. there is no -- you know, there is strength in numbers in the senate and they're just not the numbers to give the people the sense of security they need to go against trump in this moment. >> certainly not people to say, as mitt romney -- >> can i say one last thing? >> go ahead, dana. >> i know john was talking about the process that the president told him. that's unusual to just get the president in the hallway. but he also said it has to happen. that's on the substance of it, and that's a nod to the democrats who were looking to him for a little bit more

support. sd >> thank you all so much. i want to go back to manu raju. >> he's trying to figure out his defense team, and we'll start torlt mpl. we're told another woman from south carolina has been asked to spook. this comes after he's trying to bring on an experienced legal team, is going to choin his, the leader of the defense team which bower just told me he spoke to donald trump yesterday, saying donald trump was on the golf

course at the time. he also said donald trump is ready for this trial to get over kwiblg. that is the mood of the foreign president at the moment. he's trying to bring on people. >> we talked about this. but if lindsey gramd. >> does that call as to what he should do? >> he said they should not going on tours. lindsey graham, no exception, says this trial should not go forward. he wants it dismissed and is consulting with donald trumply.

like ipsd. you can tell he wants this trial over quickly. >> manu, thank you very much. i want to go now to scotland lawrence tribe from amer stole impeachment, and of course rg rmg recall. >> was your constituted a constitutional laurel the controversial snrnld. two men in the 18th century, both former officers, no state constitution limited impeachment of officers and some allowed impeachment only of former

officers. in 1781, virginia subjected thomas jefferson to an impeachment inquiry after he served as governor. it would seem there is a very clear track record that this is for formers. >> a very clear track record, and in the united states it's been clear, too. in 1876 a former secretary of war was impeached. the whole point was to make sure that if someone commits some terrible offense against the united states close to the end of his or her term as president, that that doesn't prevent the special remedy that the constitution explicitly makes available of disqualification, doesn't prevent that from being invoked. otherwise a president who goes on a crime spree at the very end or resigns before impeachment is possible gets a get out of -- not just jail but get out of a

disqualification card free. it doesn't work that way. almost all scholars agree. >> so as they use that, you're making it very clear, right, there is no standing on that. what about now the issues of witnesses? i understand that every single person who is going to be voting is a witness, right? they were almost all there, right? so there is that, that they have -- that they all saw it themselves. would you call witnesses, though? i guess what i'm asking, professor, is there is a difference between brad raffinsperger and that whole phone call and calling mike pence and other people who were in that room on that day. >> well, hi former student, jamie raskin, is going to make that call in conjunction with a very talented group of managers and nancy pelosi. i'm not going to forecast what they will decide to do. i trust their judgment. but when all of the people of

this country, as well as every senator, was a witness to the mob scene in which the president basically climaxed weeks of efforts to undo a free and fair election by riling up the mob and aiming them straight at the capitol to do violence and cause death and threaten assassination and kidnapping and to threaten to hang the vice president, witnesses might add a little bit of color, but we've all seen it, we all know it. that is why the republicans who desperately don't want donald trump to be riling up further mobs and don't want him to be running people against them in primaries, that's why they're hiding. they're hiding behind a technical legal argument that just doesn't happen to hold water. they want to be able to say, we're not approving the sacking

of the capitol. oh, no. we're not approving threatening to hang mike pence. we're just saying we're without power, our hands are tied. it's unconstitutional to have this. give me a break. >> i wanted to ask you about something else, professor, and i saw you actually mention this on twitter. president trump's former attorney, his personal attorney, michael cohen, said over the weekend he thinks the president may have secretly pardoned himself and his children and rudy giuliani. you said this was something you were concerned with but didn't want to raise publicly, didn't want to put it throughout for the president. it's never been done.

i if someone ripped out a pardon and said accident guess what, it's notarized, it's authenticated. the whole idea of a pardon is you accept it publicly and thereby in a sense make a public acknowledgment of your guilt. i don't think that's an important issue at the moment, because it turns out that almost all the non-secret pardons he gave, they're almost so sloppily written. to talk about secret pardons is sort of a distraction. right now it's. not only is the former president

on trial, they are on trial. do they have the courage to say that such a person is too dangerous to have running the country ever again running the country in the future? not only is it a crime scene, it could be a scene of repeated crime if we don't disable this dem a going to. high otherwise it has to happen. at the end of a president's term, if he has a get out of prison card free, and he has a way of counting and gathering out into the horizon and gathering up money and ruining it again work. and next, there were only a few republicans in the room there when jamie raskin

presented the article of impeachment. now all eyes are on mitch mcconnell. what will he do? and breaking news, a case of coronavirus identified in south africa and brazil. he says more ominous than the one in the u.k. dr. fauci is my guest tonight. ...and i sleep cold? p? no problem. it's temperature balancing, so couples can sleep better together. can it help me fall asleep faster? yep. by gently warming your feet. but can it help keep my asleep? it sure can... by sensing and automatically adjusting to keep you comfortable and help you recover. can it really promise better sleep? not promise... prove. sleep number... proven, quality sleep from $999. i think the sketchy website i bought this turtle from stole all of my info. ooh, have you looked on the bright side? discover never holds you responsible for unauthorized purchases on your card. (giggling) that's my turtle.

fraud protection. discover. something brighter. when you're through with powering through, it's time for theraflu hot liquid medicine. powerful relief so you can restore and recover. theraflu hot beats cold. new projects means new project managers. 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. everyone has a story. a history. we have different needs and challenges. but one thing we share is wanting to make our lives the best they can be.

if you have medicaid and medicare, a dual complete plan from unitedhealthcare can help. giving you more benefits at no extra cost to you. and one-on-one help managing your care... ...to get you the help you need, whatever your story may be. with dual complete from unitedhealthcare, there's more for you. one of the worst things about a cold sore with dual complete from unitedhealthcare, is how it can make you feel. but, when used at the first sign, abreva can get you back to being you in just 2 and a half days. be kinder to yourself and tougher on your cold sores. we made usaa insurance for members like martin. an air force veteran made of doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of,

we're made for. ♪ usaa ♪ want to sell the best burger in every zip code? add an employee. or ten... then easily and automatically pay your team and file payroll taxes. that means... world domination! or just the west side. run payroll in less than five minutes with intuit quickbooks. these days, it's okay to do some things halfway... but taking prescriptions shouldn't be one of them. so cvs has a proprietary search tool that looks for savings. plus free delivery. get a free prescription savings review at cvs.

breaking news, a new variant of coronavirus first identified in brazil has been detected here in the united states for the first time. a person in minnesota has tested positive for the variant which dr. anthony fauci has described as, quote, more ominous than the strain found in the u.k., and dr. fauci is out front with me tonight. so, dr. fauci, first of all, let's just start with this strain that has now been discovered in minnesota. i would imagine this doesn't surprise you, but how widespread do you think it could be given we're not really testing widely for variants that has now shown up? >> well, first of all, if it has the capability of spreading more efficiently, likely it might actually get more and more dominant. but we have to wait and see, because we have a couple situations, we have a california mutant that was recognized in california that's different than the brazil one that seems to be more efficient in spreading. you have to keep your eye on all of these things, and with regard

to genomic surveillance, we're really ratcheting that up a fair amount. you're absolutely correct. up until recently, we haven't had a comprehensive genomic variance, which the cdc is really increasing with a lot of collaboration from the nih that will get a much better feel for what is circulating in our own country. >> you mentioned california, i mentioned brazil. there's south africa, there is the u.k. i only say that in the context of if there's all that, there's more, and it's obviously able to mutate very quickly so there could be many more variants out there. i suppose it's a big question for you. how confident are you that one of the ones you know about or that we don't even know about yet could change the game here on mortality or vaccine effectiveness? >> well, one of the things you have to do is continue to monitor it, and that's the

point, erin. you have to do that. so if you look at what we know about the u.k. variant, that the antibodies that are induced by both the moderna and the pfizer vaccine seem to be really quite effective in blocking that variant. as i mentioned, the south african and the brazilian variant are a bit more ominous because some of the mono clonal antibodies, some of them are blocked and don't do well against the mutant. when you put them against the brazilian antibodies, it is diminished. although it's been diminished somewhat, it's still well within the cushion range of being an effective vaccine. so the good news is the vaccines

as they exist now still would be effective against the mutants. the sobering news is what i think you were alluding to, that as you getrep li cation, you get more and more resolution of mutants. you have to increase your surveillance and you have to have flexibility. the wait y we're doing with sou african variant is what we're doing with the current vaccines is to perhaps give a boost sometime in the future, months from now, to be able to cover those mutants. so you always have to stay a step ahead of the game because the virus continues to mutate. one more comment i think people need to understand. the best way you prevent the evolution of mutants is to suppress the amount of virus that's circulating in the population. and the best way to do that is

to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as you possibly can. >> so let me ask you, you've spoken out now, i know, dr. fauci, about some of your frustrations, about president trump receiving information that you say was based on no data. we all remember infamously when you say where are people getting their numbers. i remember talking to dr. scott atlas on this show and he was talking to people about no issue wearing masks at crowded rallies. obviously he had promoted the concept of herd immunity to the president and herd immunity versus transmission, then there was the unfounded claims about hiydroxyc hydroxyc

hydroxychloroquine. how bad was the information given to the president regularly? >> there was a combination of good information and bad information. unfortunately, the concept of anecdotal as opposed to science-driven information seemed to prevail. i think if you look at the pushback that i got from people in the white house, including the president, about hydroxychloroquine was one of the reasons why i felt it was essential for me to -- not in a confrontational way, i took no pleasure out of confronting the president, but i had to get out just to maintain my own integrity but also to stand up for science that the data did not show what they werecdotes a the spurring on to take a look at a scientific approach. but to be ruled by anecdote is folly. >> right, and that obviously is what happened, right? we heard it. there is ingesting bleach. there is no anecdote on that.

that one was just beyond the pale. can i ask you, when he said that -- dr. birx obviously was unfortunately there. what went through your mind when he said that? >> i just said, oh, my goodness gracious, i can just see what's going to happen. you're going to have people who hear that from the reason why immediately those of us who were not there said this is something you should not do, be very explicit. the cdc came out, i think, the next day and put in one of their publications do not do this. i got asked on a number of shows, certainly on cnn and i said absolutely this is not what you want to do. >> so you came out and said that, and as you point out, you took no pleasure in contradicting the president but you had to do it multiple times and as a result, dr. fauci, you got disturbing threats. you've talked about some of them, threats against your wife,

your children. you got that envelope with white powder and feared that could have been something deadly, anthrax, ricin, this coming because you came out and were disagreeing with the president. i mean, when -- >> right. >> when you saw what happened on january 6th. insurrection, the people that believed every single word he said and echoing that, did it s seem inevitable to you because you had firsthand experience the threats of violence. >> it did. in fact, what it did to me is to just under score the intensity of the decisiveness in our society because if nearly ly articulating a commonly held public health message of something every public health official in the country would agree with because i articulate that publicly, if that triggers death threats against me,

harassment of my family, my children and my wife, somebody sending me an envelope with powder that explodes in my face to scare me and my family, that tells you the depth of the decisiveness and january 6th to me was like oh my goodness, here it is in it's ultimate. it purely a reflection of divisiveness that is such -- so deep that it's disturbing and to me, as a person, i don't want to seem dramatic, who loves our country, i see that but being nothing but destructive and it very scary. >> you get an envelope and it explodes in your face. at that moment, what do you think? >> well, you know, it's very interesting, erin. this is the life i've chosen and this is what i do and this is my job. i'm not a hero by any means. as i said in the interview with

the "new york times", i said oh my goodness, it's either a hoax or anthrax and i have to take medicine for one or two months or it ricin and i'm dead. once i got past that, i realized what a terrible effect it would have on my children because until the examination came back and we found out that it was harmless powder, my children were very, very distraught by that. that's more painful to me than somebody, some jerk threatening my life. i mean, that's just the way it is with me. i just don't want to see my family get involved. i mean, i chose this life and this is what i do. they did not choose that. they did not choose that life. >> well, no. to be honest, when you chose that life, i'm sure you didn't expect anything like this to happen. i mean, you know, to this point, d

dr. fauci and i know you say you're not a hero and a lot of people see you as one, and perhaps you're a reluctant one. you made a decision every day to stay. right? to stay and do what you were doing because that was your calling and you felt like it was the right thing to do. can you tell us something that you were able to accomplish by staying? you know, something that you feel specifically you were able to make better by staying through all this? >> yeah. you know, even though there was a lot of extraordinary surreal things going on like what you were just referring to, the anecdotal and people coming in with strange ideas about anybody calling up and saying i think this works and takes as much footing in some parts ochof the white house than the data i present as a scientist, i felt if i left there would not be that honest broker there and, you know, it would leave debbie

birx and redfield and steve haun alone there. so they were presidential appointees. i was a non-presidential appointee. so with all the threats that i'm going to fire him, i was not going to get fired. so i felt that if i stood there with them and continued to speak the truth, i would be one, be representing science at the white house publicly, and i felt if i left, that would be a void there. not that there weren't scientists there. with all due credit, you had bob redfield and debbie birx and jerome adams, too. he was fine. >> you did feel he was good at what he was doing? i know, obviously, he's taken a lot of heat for his initial comments on masks but as the science changed, he changed his mind on but that you think he did a good job? >> yes, i really do. one of the things that's

unfortunate is that there are -- and i know people who are very, very much against the last administration understandably that there were some good people in the white house. i mean, back then in the trump administration. some people on the task force who really cared. they were put in a very difficult position. >> yeah. >> i mean, i said to myself, i'm sorry, i'm not going to stand by and not object and i did. i had to do that. that's just my character. there is no way i could not have spoken out, and luckily, i mean, i didn't get fired. to be honest, i didn't think they could fire me anyway. >> i don't think they could have. you put yourself in a position where that was impossible. you mentioned debbie birx and i know you think highly of her. you've worked with her since the 1980s. we've reported she expressed interest in keeping her role in the task force during the biden administration and i actually remember olivia troy, you know,

who was vice president's mike pence's at one point. she traveled the country with her rolling bag through this telling people to do the right thing even when the president didn't back her doing that. do you think biden should have kept dr. birx on? >> you know, i don't -- you know, erin, i don't want to make that judgement. i think what the biden administration did right in the beginning was a good thing. they wanted to start right from scratch fresh and bring back their style into the white house, and i got to tell you, you know, not only what the president is saying publicly, but what he's told me and the team privately is so refreshing because it wasn't like he was doing it for effect, he was just saying with everything we do is going to be based on science. science is going to speak.

and then he said something else that i really liked. he said we're going to make some mistakes. we may stumble but when we do, you know what we're going to do? we're going to fix it. we're not going to blame anybody. we're just going to fix it. boy, you know, when you saw me get up in front of the white house press room about 20 minutes after that, everybody said you had a very refreshed look in your face. it was because i just came out of a conversation with the president that was really very refreshing. >> all right. dr. fauci, i appreciate so much your taking the time to talk to us and to keep talking, you know. i know it's exhausting. you've been tireless in it through all of this to tell the toout truth to the american people and thank you. >> thank you for having me, erin. pleasure to be with you. >> all right. "out ffront" next, the artie of impeachment just delivered to the senate. we'll be right back.

and our breaking news coverage continues of the article of impeachment. let's hand it off to anderson. >> thanks very much. good evening. tonight accountability and amnesia for the fourth time in history but the second in barely more than a year, house managers moments ago delivered an article of impeachment to the senate. the trial proceedings began briefly with the substance of it set for two weeks from now and if the last 19 days are anything to go by, half the sitting senators will pretend they don't remember the alleged offense by then. that is the direction soleme

republicans are going. be