today is climate day at the white house, he says that means today is jobs day at the white house and talked what those jobs could look like moving forward with this really ambitious, really far-reaching plan he's laid out and also, you heard him at the end. he said he promised to do right by coal workers talking what they did for the country and promising to do right by them. that's going to be a big aspect of all of this. what the effect is that it has and how that ends up looking like's clearly, they were trying to address that there as he was unveiling these executive o orders. >> a big part of it. also -- go on, bill. >> i was going to say, brianna, one tool he still has in the box to get around obstructionists republicans and even a democrat like joe manchin in a coal state is declaring a national emergency. republicans like marco rubio who resisted donald trump declaring a national emergency when it came to border security so he could free up money to build his

wall he said, be careful. if we do this now, maybe tomorrow the democrats will declare climate as a national emergency. a lot of people would argue that this is a national emergency as opposed to that one before. mitch mcconnell is -- or chuck schumer is encouraging the president to do this. remains to be seen if he'll take his advice. >> certainly an emergency in florida. republicans in florida will tell you it is as they deal with effects of climate change. bill, thank you so much. kaitlan, thank you to you as well. it is the top of the hour. i'm brianna keilar and as we are getting new details from the biden administration today on its plan to tackle the pandemic, just moments ago we saw the white house press sent saying that they are recommitted to reopening schools nationwide. >> that's going to require testing materials, support for contact tracing, vaccinations for teachers and ensuring equitably provided but our cdc director and team will be

looking into putting together specific guidelines so there can be clarity on that front. >> we also heard from the new cdc director in the administration's first coronavirus briefing today, and from the start it was a stark difference from the trump white house. it was held by a videoconference instead of in-person and doctor rochelle walensky shared data showing vaccines are not causing widespread allergic reactions. >> based on our most recent data we were found there were 2.1 cases of an if a lack tis per million administered doses of. >> moderator: mac-- moderna and2 of pfizer. to be clear, these are rare, treatable outcomes and the covid-19 vaccines are safe. >> president biden's team also says they are prioritizing bringing services to minority communities. a cnn analysis finds while black and latino americans are suffering more seriously from

coronavirus, they are getting vaccinated at a lower rate than white americans. >> removing structural barriers to access in underserved communities. we'll do this making sure that it's convenient and accessible to get to vaccination sites. so there's so much to do to get through this pandemic and we want to make sure all communities are cared for and supported along the way. >> the new administration also pointing out it will send more vaccines, a 16% increase to states, and that ramp-up cannot come fast enough. with four days left, january is now the deadliest month of the pandemic. there are more people dieing now than in the first months when doctors were learning how to treat the infection as well as during the summer surge. the cdc's latest projection sews 514,000 people, as many as that, could die by mid-february. another 80,000 americans lives possibly lost. the rampant spread is slowing

along with hospitalizations. the good news. 49 states are seeing a decline in new cases. cnn sara murray joins me now. there is good news, but there is a lot hanging on vaccinations here and we've been talking to people, sara, about all they had to do, all they had to go through to get a shot. what more do we learn about the coronavirus vaccinations from the first briefing of the task force? >> reporter: yeah. understandably seeing a lot of frustration for people across the country about trying to get access to these vaccines, and one of the things we heard from the biden officials today is that even as they're touting signing these new contracts with moderna, inking new contracts with pfizer, more vaccine is coming in the coming months and also this summer, they are leveling with the american public that it's a really big task ahead. what a white house adviser to the coronavirus team had to say. >> level with the public we are facing two constraining factors. first is getting enough supply

quickly enough. the second is the ability to administer the vaccines quickly once they're produced and sent out to the sites. we are taking action to increase supply and increase capacity but even so it will be months before everyone who wants a vaccine will be able to get one. >> brianna, the last part of what he said is so important. we've seen all the states open up to more people to say if you're 65 and over, you have access to the vaccine. people get frustrate bawd they're not able to get appointments. they're disappearing. had an appointment, canceled because there wasn't as much vaccine as their state expected to get. the biden team is saying, look, there is light. we are signing contracts to try to speed up the process and also just level with americans and say, even if everything goes as we expected, even if we are able to speed up this vaccine supply the way we want it's still going to be a couple months we're be in this mess.

you're not all able to go and sign up immediately. i think there's going to be a big education component coming from the biden administration to explain to people how this is all going to work, brianna. >> sara, certainly. thank you very much, sara murray. talking now with cnn medical analyst leana wen. former baltimore health commissioner and participate in the johnson & johnson covid-19 trial. when you wrote a piece back in april what this would be like, i wonder what you thought what this one under president biden was, what you thought about it? >> i thought it matched exactly what so many of us in public health have been urging the trump administration to have their briefings sound like. instead of having to clean up after those briefings and explain why certain things were not true, here we are actually discussing the policy implications of what they talked about. i thought the briefing was excellent in that it first began

with state of the pandemic, by the cdc director. then went into the science. the new scientific research led by dr. fauci and explained then to the american people how they can use, how they can interpret those scientific findings. then i think critically we heard from the administration, about what's going on with vaccinations. heard the federal government finally take responsibility for the actions that they should be in control of, and getting the american people progress reports as well as setting expectations for what might happen with the speed of the vaccine distribution going forward. >> and no vaccine like many thought but despite current troubles hope to have 300 million americans vaccinated by end of summer. do you think that can be done? >> i think what they're saying is that they don't want supply to be the constraining issue. so they secured commitments from companies so that there will be enough vaccine by end of the

summer. but there's still a lot of things that could go wrong. for example, the companies may not be able to meet manufacturing goals for any number of reasons. also, we need to distribute the vaccines and set up all the distribution and administration channels meantime and overcome vaccine hesitancy. right now demand for out stripped supply, but at some point there are maybe we need to do a lot more education to build trust in communities? i think this could be done. it is a huge list, but i think that the biden team actually needs to set goals to be even more ambitious, and really setting these targets so we can measure their progress against these it ambitious goals. >> the goal, of course, when it comes to vaccinations, reach herd immunity. can that happen if kids are not vaccinated? >> hmm, it will be much harder, because it means you have to be vaccinating much larger proportions of americans or of american adults, if kids are not

initially in that group. again, this is why i think the biden team needs to speed up their, the -- the goals they're setting, because 100 million doses in 100 days is not going to get us to herd immunity. probably until middle of 2022. so i recognize a lot of pieces have to be in place, but there's more that i think can be given to the american people as the aspiration pep were want the aspiration of the man on the moon. we need that kind of moment, and that can be done. >> the cdc is saying that schools can reopen if precautions are taken. they say outbreaks seen in crowded offices in long-term care facilities are not being reported. cdc reported what happened seven inschool infections with case rates in schools 37% lower than in the surrounding community. seeing that study, doctor, do you think the president can keep his promise?

>> yes. so this is a really important study, because i think a lot of us have wondered if you have really high levels of community spread, how do you keep that out of schools? i think this is a study that shows, if you have the right mitigation measures in place, schools can actually be a safer place to be than, say, if kids are still gathering having play dates or daycare in other unmonitored setting. the key, though, is, do schools have resources to do all of these mitigation measures? i think we also have to take into account variants. in the uk, in the netherlands, other countries schools are open throughout the whole time, when the virnts hit them far more transmissible they had to close down schools. a good goal for the biden administration to aim to reopen schools but have to monitor the variants very carefully. >> indeed. doctor, thank you so much. we covered a lot of territory. thanks for coming on. also, a reminder to viewers that dr. anthony fauci and other top doctors from president

biden's covid-19 team will join anderson cooper and dr. sanjay gupta tonight for a new, live town hall. don't miss that. it's "coronavirus: facts and fears" 8:00 p.m. eastern. following also breaking news on the security front. the department of homeland security has just issued a bulletin signaling there is a heightened threat environment following president biden's inauguration. reads in part -- dhs has not information to indicate a specific credible plot. how much, violent riots have continued in recent days and we remain concerned individuals frustrated with the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition as well as other perceived grievancens and ideological cause fueled by false narratives could tont to mobilize a broad range of ideologically actors to incite or commit violence. josh campbell, break it down for us. what should we take away from this, josh?

>> reporter: brianna, top line is we are learning from officials that that january 6th trump-inspired attack on the capitol did not happen in a vacuum. authorities now warning the public, the department of homeland security, out with a new advisory. you mentioned, talking about the motivations of some actors to include a big lie that president trump has peddled since before the election and it's continued now with he has not actually called it out. an idea the election was stolen. intelligence officials warning the public that those kind of ideas could inspire additional attacks. also worth pointing out this new advisory is not something we did not know because of our earlier reporting talking to our intelligence sources that extremists are largely looking at that january 6th attack as a success. that emboldened and motivating them. that type of adviser material went out to loll enforcement, warning them. today homeland security warning

the pub lech writ large, what we've heard since 9/11. see something, say something. important for authorities to disrupt plots. finally worth noting so maniest ras we've seen since that attack on the capitol have involved people turning in their own family members. their own friends. people they knew were at that location. department of homeland security continuing that same vein saying if you know something, see something, they want to hear from you to try to prevent more violence. >> and cnn reporting there are security concerns with threats against lawmakers when they travel outside the washington area. we are learning several members of congress given extra security and local police departments are also chipping in helping in their home states. perhaps not surprising from some videos we saw from airports. but this is -- this is serious. >> right. this is, again, a consequence of this heightened situation we're seeing based on, again, going back to that big lie that the 2020 election was stolen. now seeing lawmakers having to

take additional precautions. our colleague jamie gangel earlier reported after that attack lawmakers were looking into private security for themselves. the capitol police and other law enforcement agencies provide protection for leadership in the house and in the senate, but lawmakers not in leadership positions, seeing for themselves to go out and try to get security, because they feel like they are potential targets. again, goes back to this extremism that we know has been simmering und of the surface. know it's been there a long time but so many extremist actors now see themselves as successful after that january 6th attack targeting lawmakers. lawmakers to this day feeling unsafe, still feeling it necessary to try to get private security. just as a precaution. they don't know what will happen what their in a d.c. or when they're out in their district conducting their work. brianna? >> josh campbell, thank you so much. despite the threats, just in to cnn we've learned senate republicans are now planning to

filibuster president biden's pick to lead the homeland security department. plus, gop lawmakers are really tying themselves in knots to give reasons why donald trump's second impeachment trial should not take place. 20 different reasons. we'll roll the tape.

re-entering data that employees could enter themselves? that's why i get up in the morning! i have a secret method for remembering all my hr passwords. my boss doesn't remember approving my time off. let's just... find that email. the old way of doing business slows everyone down. with paycom, employees enter and manage their own hr data in one easy-to-use software. visit paycom.com for a free demo.

the new myww+ gives you more of what you need to help you lose weight! more simplicity with the what's in your fridge? recipe feature. and more motivation with on-demand workout classes. the new myww+. join today for 40% off, plus our kitchen essentials kit! there is a debate on capitol hill right now aboutmepeachmentd whether or not you think president trump could should be convicted. republicans don't think he should be impeachened and also can't agree on the reason why. there are 20 reasons. 20. they sight for skipping the whole thing.

reason one. saying it's unconstitutional. >> a moot point. >> no constitutional provision committing impeachment for sole purpose of removing them from running in it's office mplgs em pooch a man out of office for express purpose making sure he can never run again. i think it's unconstitutional. >> constitutionally sketchy. >> most legal scholars say it is constitution. they cite precedent to impeach someone once they've left office. plus plus, it would prevent them from holding office again. only permissible to punish sitting officials if would incentivize ends of a president's term to do things without fear of recourse like inciting a riot two weeks before election day and going la-de-da into normal life. trump's just a normal guy now. >> donald trump holds none of the positions listed in the constitution. she a private citizen. >> president trump is a private

citizen. why would you spend your time on this? >> now, the house including ten republicans did not impeach a private citizen. they impeached a sitting president who wasn't a private citizen when he incited the attack that left five people dead including one capitol hill police officer. and reason number three. they say that democrats want revenge. >> i think it's petty. i think it is retribution, vindictive. >> it's vindictive, a waste of time. >> of course, with the senators calling it revenge, democrats and some republicans, too, call it accountability. also revenge is served cold and the crime scene of the capitol is very much warm. reason four, make life young emcee and bust a move. >> i mean, move on. >> coin a phrase, i think it's time to move on. >> it's an odd argument he wants to thank you next, a failed coup

attempt endeangers their lives. reason five, call it the give a guy a break argument. this from nikki haley. >> the actions of the president postjanuary th, postelection were not great. i mean, at some point, i mean, give the man a break. >> not great is how you describe lousy take-out. not a deadly insurrection it's a the capitol. nikki haley has a track record of giving trump a break even after saying things like this. >> i will not stop until we fight a man that chooses not to disavow the kkk, that is not a part of our party. that's not who we want as president. >> but i have to tell you, donald trump is everything i taught my children not to do in kindergarten. >> reason number six, everyone's to blame. so he can't be the only one to blame. let's call this one the kevin mccarthy goes full oprah. you get blame and you get some

blame and you get some blame. >> the president bears responsibility for wednesday's attack on congress by mob rioters. >> i don't believe he provoked it if you listen to what he said at the rally. >> i also think everybody across this country has some responsibility. >> and then there is reason number seven. that it will enflame the country. >> instead of moving forward as a unifying force, majority in the house is choosing to divide us further. >> the idea they're going to do impeachment is not going to bring our country together. it's only dividing our country. >> lawmakers fine with dividing the country and exacerbating tensions encouraging or enabling or ignoring the belief of many americans, that their votes didn't count, and that the election was stolen. without any tangible proof. reason number eight. it's too soon. you know, the can't we just talk about it first part of the breakup? >> i oppose this rushed impeachment brought forward

without a single hearing. >> reason number nine, the stalker defense. >> they're going to do it. again. they've been obsessed with it. it is truly an obsession. >> from the congressman from ohio who stands donald trump, who went on fox in december said he believed trump won the election, it's that kind of cheerleading that got him a medal of freedom award as the president was going out the door. then reason number ten. that it's too historic. never been done before. >> this is unprecedented. there's no clearly marked path for navigating an impeachment trial for somebody who's no longer president. >> also unprecedented thashs in 2021 a violent mob incited by the sitting president attacked one of the most secure buildings on the planet and attacked the very same police officers who whisked these lawmakers to safety. reason number 11 also from the senator from texas.

>> seems very, very much counterproductive if you're the, president biden, to say we're going to take the precious first days of a new administration and we're going to squander it on this impeachment trial. i just think it's -- it's shockingly bad judgment. >> and then reason number 12, cold, hard cash money. senator guzman saying with him gone, impeachment is a significant expense. reason number 13 is the fate of the republican party. >> but for republicans who go al with it, i think they'll destroy our party. >> by the way, senator paul thinks pretty much everything will "destroy his party." >> if the establishment tries to block an outsider from winning the nomination they'll be war within the party and they'll destroy the party. >> what i don't like about donald trump using the republican party and then perhaps going out at the very

end after he doesn't win the nomination and then trying to destroy the republican party. >> reason number 14. the fate of getting anything done in congress. senator wicker says another impeachment will "poison the cooperative spirit that we need in a 50/50 senate." >> to my democratic colleagues if you try to call one witness you're going to blow up the united states senate. >> yes, an argument it's going to hurt the democrats agenda, obviously it's a huge concern for republicans. reason number 15. lack of votes. >> i predict that there will not be anywhere near the votes needed to impeach the president. >> we had 45 people, 45 republican senators say that the whole, the whole charade is unconstitutional. so what does that mean? that means that impeachment, the trial, is dead on arrival. >> if you think part of a jury is leaning one way even before

all the evidence is presented, or the witnesses testify, just cancel the trial, that's what that is saying. reason number 16. that it's political theater. as florida senator rick scott claimed in a tweet. after indulging the particularly absurd and damaging political theater of baselessly challenging the election. reason number 17. what aboutism? >> if we impeached every politician who gave a fiery speech to a crowd of partisans, this capitol would be deserted. >> next time republicans are in power they could reach back and impeach a former democratic president. >> i guess next year, i don't know. maybe impeachment of jimmy carter or impeachment of bill clinton or impeachment of barack obama because that's what we do in januarys. >> reason number 18. >> if the chief justice isn't coming i think it's an illegitimate procedure and it isn't a real impeachment. it's going to be a fake partisan impeachment. >> it actually doesn't in this

case, since trump is now out of office. that is why the chief justice of the court that is the final word on constitutional issues determined that the constitution does not require him to preside. nubble 19. reason number 19 is the marty mccomply defense. mcfly defense. >> used to be that when you lost an election that was punishment enough. >> the president's election loss november 4th is his punishment for inciting a riot on january 6th. great scott, that makes no sense. remember, voters didn't have almanacs of the future when casting ballots for president. finally, reason 20. that it's cancel fodder. >> canceling the president and all the guys you disagree with. the cancel culture doesn't just go after republicans and conservatives. won't stop there. it will come for us all. >> congressman jordan can rest

assured, though. one thing definitely not coming for him is a coherent argument or a dictionary, because if he looked um cancel culture, he's see himself. he and other freedom caucus members circulated a petition in his conference to have a vote to force liz cheney to resign from her house republican leadership position for voting her conscious, to impeach donald trump. so, no. no one is canceling donald trump. jim jordan will make sure of that. still ahead, it's an alternative to impeachment. democratic senator tim kaine joins us live to discuss the possibility of censures former president trump if not convicted. plus, we just learned that president biden's nominee to run the department of homeland security may face a republican filibuster's we are live on capitol hill, next.

go pro at subway® for double the protein on footlong subs and the new protein bowls. and if you want to go pro like marshawn, don't let anything get in your way. here we go! yeah, appreciate you, man! go pro and get double the protein for just $2 more.

♪ if these beautiful idaho potato recipes are just side dishes, go then i'm not a realthe idaho potato farmer. genuine idaho potatoes not just a side dish anymore. always look for the grown in idaho seal.

this just in to cnn. senate republicans are planning to filibuster president biden's cabinet pick to lead the homeland security department, al hawn e ehandro miorkas. >> reporter: not allowing him fulfill this post. already before the government affairs committee, had a

confirmation hearing. favorably they voted to advance it to the senate floor. two republicans voted in favor. a group of republicans trying to slow things down raising concerns he won't go far enough in efforts to call for more crackdowns on immigration and raising concerns about joe biden's proposal on immigration as well. some of those republicans including senators josh hawley of missouri, senator john cornyn of texas have called on the senate judiciary committee to have a second confirmation hearing for this nominee. that is not going to happen. the incoming democratic chairman of that committee, dick durbin making clear he will not have a secretary hearing. instead trying to advance this to the senate floor, but because of rules of the senate, any individual senator can slow down the process. that's what cornyn just told a group of us moments ago as well as senate minority whip john thune to make clear they will

force democrats to take those procedural steps to overcome this road block, his filibuster, by republicans. that will require 51 votes in the senate to overcome. the democrats will get those votes, but it will take some time. and it would be the first nominee by the senate attempted to be blocked by senate republicans by this procedural maneuver. more could certainly come but this comes as the homeland security department just today issue add threat bulletin warning about a potential for extreme s to commit violence during the president's transition period. a lot riding on this move. republicans are not satisfied with mayorkas and democrats to push him through but it could take several days longer. >> thank you, manu raju on capitol hill. and still ahead, senator tim yan joins me live and senator tom cotton called out by colleagues for misrepresenting

his military service while running for office abnd we're gawk to fact check that next.

arkansas senator tom cotton came under fire this week after left-leerning salon published and article awe accusing him of his military record. here are the salon headline that says "senator tom cotton campaign and his experience as an army ranger but didn't have any." a number of mof middle of the r out lets keyed in on this story. saying the statements that he made himself about his service and explored whether he did something wrong. some conservative outlets backed tom cotton because the salon story makes a serious charge and in doing so evokes a claim of stolen valor. while possibly problematic for senator cotton seen as a likely contender for president in 2024,

stolen valor, this is not. cotton is a decorated combat veteran served in both wars in iraq and afghanistan. also served in the old guard at arlington national cemetery and received a bronze star and combat infantryman badge awarded to infantryman who were in direct combat with the enemy. attended and graduated from ranger school. no small feet. cotton responded to the controversy monday. >> were you straightforward with voters about your military service? you're a decorated veteran, but there's a story, a couple of stories popping up about you saying you were an army ranger. >> thanks, brett. i graduated from ranger school. wore the ranger tab in combat, 101st air bborne in iraq. this is about my politics. general craig nixon used the term to describe alumni of a

ranger regiment and graduate as did secretary of army and most buddies in the army. as did most of the liberal media until a conservative veteran used that term that way. if they disagree, fine. i respect their views. most important, i respect service of all rangers and indeed all soldiers who volunteered to serve our country. >> when the "washington post" fact checked this distinction after it came up in a senate race last year, the operations special command explained it this way "a graduate of the u.s. anchor course is ranger qualified." that would be senator cotton. "anyone who is serving or has served within the's 75th ranger regiment is a u.s. army ranger." that would not be senator cotton. the army is clear on the distinction between being a ranger and being ranger qualified. now, few americans are familiar with this fine print of the military lexicon, because few americans served in the armed forces. even fewer hold one of these

titles. even the civilian media struggles with this distinction. there are many examples of reporters using the term ranger as shorthand for ranger qualified service members including at cnn. military news services do not tend to lump them together. senator cotton, no doubt, knows the difference between these two things. now, he is right that in the military it is not unheard of that a service member right refer to ranger school graduate, ranger qualified folk, colloquially as ranger, maybe in a greeting, a tip of the hat. while it's a courtesy some in the military might bestow on a ranger qualified service member, it's not a courtesy a ranger qualified service member usually bestows on him or herself, which is what he did. look at facts here. leadup to senator cotton the 2012 house run in 2014 senate run repeatedly he claimed he was

an army ranger. >> i'm made tough decisions as an army ranger in iraq. i'll make them again as your senator. >> i did join the army and become an infantry officer and army ranger. >> according to salon also told the hot spring "sentinel record," my experience in iraq and afghanistan and experience in business will put me in very good condition. his office doesn't dispute this. help is a graduate of ranger school, which is a grueling two-month course that can last even longer if a candidate repeats or recycles a phase. school, which is very normal. the goal of ranger school is equipped service members to lead in combat situations. by the very end, they are severely sleep deprived and significantly thinner than they were when they entered the school. for two months they operate on a delirium inducing amount of sleep, little food and extreme

physical and mental exertion designed to find the best of the best. it's a long story describing the course as a tactical infantry course anyone in the military is eligible to attend. technically it's true. attending and graduating are two very different things. ranger school is not summer camp. more than half who go fail to complete it according to the army. tom cotton was one of the few who did. that made him "ranger qualified." able to wear a prestigious ranger tab on his shoulder he says he wore as an infantry officer in iraq, serving in the 101st airborne, a storied unit you may remember if you've ever seen "band of brothers." another path service members can take after graduating anchor school. that is getting another assessment and joining an elite ranger battalion. this is where cotton claims being a ranger have gotten him into trouble. the folks who serve in ranger battalions are indisputably u.s.

army ranger and can get bent out of schhape if you refer yoursel as a ranger even if you passed the school. like this democrat who served in a 75th ranger regiment. >> brianna, i'm deeply disturbed with the level of comfort our nation is getting to rp to truth and misinformation or disinformation from elected officials. it's really important i think that we let the truth be known that the truth is still important in america, and with respect to public servants. and in this instance, senator cotton exaggerated his service. i thought it was important to point out. no, not stolen valor. that's when people say they received awards or commendations they didn't receive. i think it's really important that i say that senator cotton's service is legitimate in its own right. really i wonder, struggle with

why he felt like he needed to puff his service up and claim he was a ranger, because he's a combat veteran. an infantry officer as i was, served in a storied unit. he didn't need to do this. >> after the salon story broke, crow tweeted senator cotton with a picture of himself saying unless you wore one of these berets you shouldn't call your a ranger. truth matters. retired four-star general, former head of special operations command and legendary ranger criticized crow tweeting, you are a congressman now. act like it. called it a dumb debate. here we are. this issue has been widely discussed. it's important to nail down the facts here and not the first time this has become a political football. most recently in last year's new hampshire senate primary both candidates were ranger qualified, messner's campaign described him as a ranger. >> as an army captain and ranger dooring the cold war, he led men

in our battle against socialism. >> now, he rebuked this and messner clarified to the "washington post" he was not in a ranger regiment but defended himself saying there are different views on this issue with the military. reflectingen nuance of this issue the "washington post" gave messner's two pinocchios out of four. rangers are the premiere force in the word. a strike force, sliding down ropes dangling from helicopters middle of the night, killing capture valuations in search of high-value targets. maybe better "black hawk down." perhaps you've sovieteen "plato" infantry are frontline combat ints. think day to day patrols. baghdad, lookout nor ifor ieds, work, dangerous work.

all to say why wasn't that enough for senator cotton when he spoke about his military service during his first campaigns for office? senator cotton who has served this nation heroically, engaged in direct combat with the enemy. why did he knowingly run the risk of being called out for being less than fully accurate about his notably cotton's description of himself as an army ranger is one he has stopped using the way that he did in his early elections. even while he defended doing it in his past in his appearance on fox monday just days ago, he did not repeat his past claim that he's a ranger. we've extended an invitation to senator cotton to come on to the program. he so far has passed on that, but, again, he is welcome to join us. and the likelihood that former president donald trump will be convicted for inciting an insurrection in our nation's capitol is very slim. all by five gop senators voted against the constitutionality

signaling there won't be close to enough republican support unless witnesses are able to sway their opinions and that's very much in doubt. there is though another way that democrats may try to hold donald trump accountable, and that is a bipartisan censure. i want to talk with the democratic senator from virginia tim kaine. senator, today you said you drafted a resolution pushing for this alternative. some of your democratic colleagues are pouring some cold water on the idea, so where does this stand, and why do you think that this is way to go? >> well, i think, brianna, having alternatives on the table is important. there has to be accountability for the actions of january 6th including accountability for the president who formented this violent attack on the capitol. i've put an alternative on the table to consider in lieu of or after and it's just an alternative and i want folks to contemplate it. here's what it does.

declares that the attack on the capitol was an insurrection against the constitution of the united states. it was an effort to stop congress from undertaking its constitutional duty to count electoral votes. the it then finds that president trump gave aid and comfort to those who carried out the insurrection by repeatedly lying about the election, slandering election officials, pressuring others to come to washington for a wild event and then encouraging them to come up to congress. those two findings, that it was an insurrection that president trump gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists is language pulled right out of section 3 of the 14th amendment of the constitution that says anybody who has taken an oath to defend the constitution who either engages in an insurrection against the constitution or gives aid and comfort to those who do will be barred from office again. the this is an alternative that -- that would impose, in my

view, a similar consequence but it does not require a trial, and it does not require a two-thirds vote, and so that's what i have crafted. i'm contemplating an introduction next week, still talking to other senators about it, but i think it's important for the senate's leadership to understand that there are alternatives. if we can't get to 67 votes for impeachment there may be another way to hold president trump accountable. >> i mean, it also kind of sounds like an admission that you very likely, i mean this is what's apparent from what you're hearing, that you won't get to 67 vote. do you think it's harder for republicans and are you trying to make it harder for them to, you know, to -- is it harder for them to say no to a censure than it is for impeachment? >> i would say, brianna, it's not an admission but it's a recognition. the vote that took place yesterday was extremely clarifying.

as you've report senator paul put a question to the body and basically said it's unconstitutional to have an impeachment trial and convict someone who is a former office holder. now legal scholars actually have a wide range of opinions on that, and i think the best scholarship suggests that you can have such a trial, but 45 out of 50 republicans yesterday voted in support of the paul proposition, that it is unconstitutional to impeach a former office holder. i think all of us in the chamber understood that once you voted that it's unconstitutional to try a former office holder, the evidence is unlikely to change anyone's mind. if that's the case, we're at least 12 votes short of the two-thirds needed for impeachment. so we have to sort of grapple with if we want accountability how do we want this to end? do we want it to end with trump acquitted again, or do we want

to have it in with senate input that finds that -- kcensures president trump and bars him from holding office. >> do you have any republicans on board for this alternative? >> i'm intending to file next week. i'm not going to file it if i can't file it bipartisan and i think i'll be able to, but i can say right now as i'm, you know, this day thursday, i don't have ten republicans that have said they will do it. the idea though is to see if there is an alternative. >> do you have any? >> yes. you'll see me file it, and it will be bipartisan. >> all right. senator kaine, thank you so much for joining us. a government warning about potential violence from

extremists upset about biden's election and how president biden is going to ramp up the application of the number of vaccines that people are receiving.

you are watching cnn. i'm brook baldwin. thanks so much for being with me. we're seeing the biden administration begin a process of undoing in the last four years and crises they say were exacerbated by former president drew. first, as the nation's vaccination process continues to disappoint, lock lines, gridlocked appointment times, only 23.5 million administered of the nearly 44 million

distributed. the white house task force will ramp up vaccinations by states immediately. that's in addition to the 200 million doses that the president just committed to purchasing by this summer. >> we are taking action to increase supply and increase capacity, but even so it will be months before everyone who wants a vaccine will be able to get one. >> also today the president vowed to make up for lost time when it comes to the effects of climate change citing the devastation suffered from-hour cages erma, harvey and maria and defending his $2 trillion policy. and today the newly minted secretary of state tony blinken will be holding his first press briefing this hour. live pictures from the state dhempt's promising to revive the deteriorated morale within his department after a turn leapt past four years. we'll bring that to you live after we see mr. blinken behind