prime time. >> you'll be on at 11:00 and i'll be on from 12:00 to 2:00 because this is history and it matters. i'll see you in a second. i am chris cuomo. welcome to the first installment of prime time. 13 minutes. that's all that really should have resonated with senators today. 13 minutes was the duration of the video compilation of the events of january 6th. one. worst days in american history. and trump was all over it. and what was wrong about all of it was obvious. the hats, the faux flags being used as battering rams, and most of all, the anger. anger and animus against our country's laws that led to an insurrection attacking our democracy. that is the story of january 6th. and it is one that may not be

given an ending in the trial that we're watching. other than the presentation of the horrifying reality that brought these senators together today. this day, today, was a farce. after all, there is only one reason this trial is being held after trump's defeat. and that reason is senator mitch mcconnell. mcconnell asked to kick the trial until after trump was out of office. this is a fact. he never that he was doing that because they had to consider whether or not it is proper to try a president so late in the game? that is a fact. he said he wanted to give the trial the time it deserved. he lied. he voted to say it wasn't constitutional. he didn't know that then. it was another bait-and-switch. democrats, how many times will you pet the snake?

the law here is clear. the constitution provides no conditional nature to the senate's duty. okay? the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. that's it. there are no if's. there is no other language. what do you do? you follow the law. where are the originalists? josh hawley, the inimitable ted cruz. his own former legal adviser says the senator is wrong about this. it's not just that he's wrong. he's just not being honest. and this was not lost on a lead house manager, jamie raskin. >> all means all. there are no exceptions to the rule. that's it. that's all you ever hear from the right about the constitution, right? if it's not in there, it's not in there. it's not in there.

in fact, there is no rule that even allows the senate to do what it did today. i don't know why the democrats allowed this. this let's debate if we need to do our job. it was another chance though. here was the value in this whole process. you got to see how even in the face of such clear proof of what is right, there are so many willing in their number to do what they know is wrong. i was frankly shocked that only one more republican joined the 55 other jurors in the vote to proceed. senator cassidy of louisiana changed to a yes after last week and explained why. >> you listen to it, it speaks for itself. it was disorganized, random, they talked about many things but not the issue at hand. the house managers made a compelling, cogent case, and the president's team did not.

>> that should have been obvious to everyone in the room. but only one had the integrity to say or do something about it. on republican side. day one of the trump trial. a phrase you may get used to. trump trial. there may be several to come. this day certainly saw trump get the defense he deserves. it was pathetic. other key gop jurors like murkowski and cornyn are panning the defense. i argue trump's own lawyer made the best point of the day. and i'll tell you about it in a second. to be clear about what mattered, trump's guys don't have the law or the facts on their side. those are both dmp amning. their advantage is they have the jury rigged in their favor. be clear what b what is before your eyes. what we may never forget, it was a day that must live in infamy. january 6th is an insurmountable obstacle. house managers showed many

pieces of evidence recounting that day. trump's words on the 6th, spliced with the mob's response to the same. and a reminder in between clips that seven lives were lost, including a capitol police officer and two other officers who took their own lives after that day. more than 140 in law enforcement injured. the video ends with trump's tweet siding with the insurrection. i, insurrectionists. >> these are the things and events that happen when a sacred land slide election is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots. imagine if putin said it. how angry they would be. a lie. a lie that trump told exclusively for his own advantage and to make people angry. and do you know who made that

best case today? trump's own lawyer. >> the american people just spoke. and they just changed administrations. the people are smart enough in the light most favorable to them, they're smart enough to pick a new administration if they dome like the old one and they just did. >> mr. president, former president, your own lawyer says you're lying. that's defense attorney bruce castor saying the people just spoke. they're smart enough. is that biden won. they changed administrations. the irony that these senators sit there and look forward to acquitting a man whose own lawyer admits he was lying. i'll tell you what. do you know what else he did? he invited a future trump

indictment. listen to this. >> if my colleagues on this side of the chamber actually think that president trump committed a criminal offense, let's understand. a high crime is a felony and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. the words haven't changed that much over time. after he's out of office, you go and arrest him. >> now, we'll talk about the possibility of that. by the way, he's making an argument but he knows it's not accurate. if you go back and look at why they picked high crimes and misdemeanors, they were adopting a common law principle from the english. it wasn't about actual crimes. it was about their way of not making it subjective. they didn't like that they chopped the head off the king when he didn't do his job so they wanted a standard. they came one a common law standard. it is about abuse of office. period. and he should know that. but he's arguing a point. by the way, that was the high point for trump.

things went worse from there when the other trump lawyer david schoen took over. listen. >> this trial will tear this country apart perhaps like we've only seen once before in our history. >> so here's what they're saying. don't hold trump to account for encouraging an insurrection because that may lead to another. i wonder by whom? look. fear of trump is a sham. fealty is a challenge. how can so many senators still put trump above accountability? above the law, especially when they were all witnesses to and potential victims of the insurrection? think about it. when do you see a jury full of witnesses? a head prosecutor of a trial recounting his own ordeal as a victim in the same case? here's jamie raskin.

>> all around me, people were calling their wives and their husbands, their loved ones to say goodbye. and then there was a sound i will never forget. the sound of pounding on the door like a battering ram. the most haunting sound i ever heard. the kids hiding under the desks, placing what they thought were their final texts in whispered phone calls to say goodbye. i told my daughter tabitha. i told her how sorry i was and i said it would not be like this the next time she came back to the capitol with me. do you know what she said? she said dad, i don't want to come back to the capitol. >> we all know that this was a massacre in the making and we got lucky.

now, they have to think about this. the senators on the right side of the aisle are thinking about protecting the man who sent an angry mob to find them. how much of your party and yourselves can you give away before there is nothing left worth keeping? today was about how clear the law is here. tomorrow, the facts will be an even more powerful demonstration of the obvious. will senators really give trump a pass on his responsibility for one of the worst days in american history that could have cost them their lives? let's bring in the better minds. preet bharara and michael smerconish. preet, people are talking about ineptness of counsel on behalf

of the president's defense. how good a case do you need to have when the jury is in your pocket? >> well, that's the big question. i'm a lawyer and i practice and i've tried cases and i've overseen significant trials. and i've been on the phone all day back and forth, emailing and texting with colleagues and former colleagues of mine about the lawyer's performance and i've seen people on television talking about it. we should be clear. we should not let the inempty to do of the lawyers. as you've been outleaning very eloquently during the whole time at the beginning of the show, that's what matters here. at the end of the day it the jury that counts. the jury that voted notwithstanding how clear the law is. how much consensus there is on the one side of the constitutional question. almost on a party line vote voted against the trial going forward, doesn't bode well for how it will turn out at the he

said. so at the end of the day, i think the conduct will be judged and lot of people may have their minds changed because of the excellent performance by the house managers. if what trump really cares about is only not being convicted, i think the good money is on that. >> anything make you feel differently than how you came into it? >> no. and i think today proved that the arguments just don't matter. i think you put your finger on it a moment ago. you said it won't get easier for president trump's defense. because today was the easier day. today was the day, i know you don't buy into this, today was the day they could have wrapped themselves in the removal language of the constitution. that they could have wrapped themselves in the credibility of bruce ackerman from yale, or judge michael ludic and they can none of that. i love the expression, slow burn. i can only imagine ted cruz, princeton undergrad, harvard law

school, allan dershwitz said he was doing a slow burn watching that today thinking, i could be doing a hell of a lot better if they would give me the opportunity to, a to you constitutional issue. >> i don't know. when he got his chance, he said the proof is the polls that the election was stolen. he didn't exactly wow us when he got his chance. >> preet, there was a suggestion by counsel today that we've been hearing more echoed on the right. if you think he's responsible, just arrest him and hold him to account now that he's not president anymore. it's not crystal clear that that can happen. we've seen only mostly civil litigation involving former president. do you think that's a legitimate option here? if the senate takes a pass, acquits him, that he could be arrested and prosecuted? >> yeah. on any one of a number of issues, the president is in jeopardy. out of the manhattan d.a.'s office with various

improprieties, representations he's made to financial institutions. there are people hook at the other action, interfering with the result in the georgia election. we know that the d.c. attorney general is taking a look at things and obviously, we don't have a new attorney general yet. we don't know what process he, merrick garland will set up. but there are all sort of things the justice department can look at. and the president won't be directing those things so he is in a certain amount of jeopardy. and i think there are other things president may have done. we're finding out revelations all the time from people who now feel comfortable enough going forward. so i think there's jeopardy on what we know. i think there's jeopardy on things we don't yet know. none of that excuses this congress from undertaking the responsible and not passing the buck or taking the political

down the road. >> so last word to you, michael. your republican senator sitting and listening to what will happen over the next couple days. what do you have to believe in order the ignore what will be so obvious about january 6th, how bad it could have been, and why it could have happened? >> the way you expressed it that somehow they're loyal to trump. i don't think bits loyalty to trump. i think it is all about self-preservation. i don't think they give a damn about donald trump. i said before, if this were a secret ballot, he would be gone with 80% of the votes. it is about how they interim rhett the base reaction to this. in those vote today, notwithstanding senator cassidy, they showed they have resolve to continue to tow the line because they're fearful of that base. that's i think how it ends barring the unforeseen. >> thank you both for giving us

your thoughts on this historic day. the managers, by the way, they're the prosecutors. members of the house become prosecutors. they remain undecided on witnesses. this is a very interesting issue. why? you're about to hear from two tonight. one is a juror at this trial. because remember, almost all of them are witnesses to the events of january 6th. the other is the former head prosecutor of trump trial number one. what do they think should happen next?

liberty mutual customizes- wait... am i in one of those liberty mutual commercials where they stand in front of the statue of liberty and talk about how liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need? uhhh... yes. huh... what happens in this one? seagulls. oh, i like it. how are you doing? (seagulls sounds) only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

the big decision to watch in this trial is whether or not house impeachment managers will call witnesses. they're in a unique position. nearly every juror, and i keep saying this because they're not impartial. mitch mcconnell said it. i'm not impartial. they're thinking about what it will take to overcome their own self-interests. nearly every one of them was an eyewitness to the horror of january 6th and the days leading up to it. so let's talk about the value that witnesses could bring to their case, and where things

stand after day one. democratic congressman adam schiff, the lead manager in donald trump's first impeachment trial, joins us now. good to see you. >> good to see you. >> in his january 6th, when you think about it, which moment comes to mind first for you? >> i think the moment that jamie raskin so powerfully talked about today, and that is, i was on the house floor with jamie and listening to these insurrectionists battering the doors, breaking the glass to get into the chamber. it is an unforgettable and terrifying sound and one that none of us had experienced or will ever forget. >> what were you afraid of happening if they made it into the room with you there? >> well, i had a number of members including republican members tell me they can't see you. don't let them see you. you're in a different situation.

so i felt like i was a marked man. and who knows what would happen if they were able to breach that chamber and if those capitol police hadn't acted so heroically. it obviously could have been much, much worse and as it was, it was just awful with five people dead and the citadel of our democracy so horribly defaced. >> so to feel what you did in that moment, and then to live the perfidy of watching so many members of your house stand up to decertify the election, which is really just a nod to the insurrection, and now to see what's happening in this trial. how do you make sense of it? >> well, it is hard to make sense of. and as those events were going on in the house chamber, and my house colleagues in the gop picked up right where they left off after that failed

insurrection, we're still trying to overturn the results of the election. those members, unlike a lot of that mob. those members on the house floor knew what the president had been pushing out was lies. they had helped push out the same lies. so they had a great deal of culpability themselves. watching that 13-minute video presentation that the house put together, it couldn't be more obvious. this is the gravest constitutional crime in the history of our country. and that we would have so many gop senators vote effectively to not hear the evidence. not proceed to trial. to have the senate leaders say i won't begin the trial while the president is in office and then vote to say we can't continue the trial now because the president is out of office. that is not consistent with constitutional duty. not in my view. but that issue has been voted on. the trial goes on. and i think the power of the

case the managers put on will only grow. >> what do you think of witnesses? we've made a point on this show of bringing the lawyers on for different people who are accused of more serious crimes that day. and they say to a man, look, this is what we needed to do. trump made it very clear. we have to fight for this. it was being stolen from us. and they were in that place and we had to let them know one way or another, you'll abide by what we think is right. would you put those people on to make that point? you won't get the loser of the election. he won't show his face. would you put those people on? >> well, i have every confidence jamie raskin will make that strategic decision and make it the right way. i can tell you what he will be weighing, at least what i think he will be weighing. in that video, and i'm sure there is more where that came from that we'll see during the trial. you hear people in the crowd talking about why they're there. that they're there because the

president told them to be there. how much additional power does it add to bring in those lawyers, for example, and how many does it risk distracting from the rest of the case because then the defense may want to bring in other witnesses to rebut them. that's the cal chags that will need to be made. i would certainly expect that we are going to see like we did today, powerful video of the president lying in the weeks leading up to the election, lying about the election, martialing people. intervening with the secretary of state in georgia, and audio from that tape-recording. this president trying to cheat in every way, leading to the final effort to steal the election on january 6th. that's really powerful stuff. and i think the house managers will make the decision, do they add to that power by bringing in live witnesses, or do they

diffuse it by allowing defense witnesses to come in and rebut it. and i'm confident they'll make the right judgment. >> i was just on the phone with my son and i said make sure you're watching the show because i hope you never see this again. where people who are 100% of what happened on january 6th and why it happened. it is not a subtle situation. that they are thinking of giving a pass to the president. what do you want those men and women in the senate to know? >> well, i want them to know this. you know, the job is just not that important. if the worry is losing a primary election, there are worse things in the world. and to me a worse thing in the world is not to do your constitutional duty. to let down the country. to not fulfill your oath. to leave the chamber whenever we leave congress and regret that we didn't have the courage and the strength to do the right thing. that to me would be the worst

outcome. and i would also say just as we worried during the first trial that if senators recognized he was guilty and yet voted to acquit, it would recur. that he would cheat again. if they don't disqualify this president after committing the most egregious constitutional crime in history, and he runs again, we will fully have to expect he will cheat, he will lie, and he will incite again and put this country through hell again. they have the power to stop that and they should use that power because it is consistent with their duty. >> the party will never be the same if that happens. may not be, as it is. congressman adam schiff, thank god you're okay. a horrible thing for you to live through. that goes through the 6th and this. be well and thank you. >> thank you, chris. now let's go inside the trial with a juror who again is a witness. senator amy klobuchar. good to see you. >> thank you. it's great to be on again. >> so help me understand after

what they saw and heard in that room today, just one of your republican brothers and sisters in the senate made the move to join the other five and all the democrats saying, yeah, we should hold this trial. >> i don't know. i think they should come on your show to explain themselves. because to me, the constitution speaks for itself. and they've heard from some of the most conservative lawyers in the country, including the republican lawyer of the year, mr. cooper, who has made it very clear that the constitution would allow this trial to go forward. that in fact, as mr., congressman neguse did such an incredible job explaining, when you go through history, the secretary of war was impeached after he had left office. you look at the plain language of the constitution. so to me, there is no, as jamie raskin explained, there is no january exemption in the constitution.

it doesn't say, oh, you can't do bad stuff but that you know last month, you can do whatever you want when you go out the door. i think trevor noah said it best when he said, you can't get fired from best buy and take a tv on your way out. so that was established today, despite the vote of some of my colleagues. we did have six of them vote with us. so for history's sake, we will always know that a trial like this can go forward because of the strong vote on that. now we go into tomorrow. and they're going to see more videos like the one today. videos we have not yet seen before because there were police cameras and the like from inside the capitol. to me that was just chilling. the flagpole with the american flag being used to ram through windows and beat police officers. the trump flags on full display, literally hitting people, being used to take on and invade a co-equal branch of government. and we'll see more of that

tomorrow. >> never a good sign when a comedian seems to see the issue more clearly than the senators weighing it. >> one quick procedural question and then i have a question about your disposition going forward. the procedural question is why did today happen? it is not called for in the constitution, in the senate procedural rules, why did the democrats let the republicans question what their duty was in this situation? >> well, i think you're always going to have procedural motions, questions that could have been asked at various times in the trial and i think if you look at it from a strategic position, chris, and this was a bipartisan agreement. it was very important to have that going forward between leader schumer and ranking leader mcconnell. so that was important. but the other thing is let's look at what happened today. the republicans were, to a t, criticizing president trump's lawyers. and they were criticizing because they were bad. but i don't think that we should

lose focus on what really matters. there is no defense for the indefensible. it is not just about what the lawyers did today. so my point to you is strategically, we won today in a big way. america won today because we won the constitutional argument that was very clear to get behind us so we can go on to the facts of the case. >> all right. well argued. here's the next thing. do you think it is worth a suggestion to the members of the jury? how many of us needed to die? if they had gotten their hands on schiff, god forbid, if they got their hands on nancy pelosi, how many? would you held to president to account if they had gotten her? if they had gotten him and her? >> i was actually thinking about this today. as i sat there. how close we were and how the capitol police actually so many of them incurring injury. they were able to get us to a secure location. and the point is it was so close. they were literally at the

doors. in the case of the house, they were ramming through the doors. and the fact that there were some valiant people that stood up and protected us and incurred severe injuries, with one of them dying. two of them later taking their own lives because they couldn't deal with what happened. look at that. i don't know why that's not enough evidence but we are about to find out. >> senator, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> you know, the situation is so painfully obvious that usually, an unknown is absolutely known in this situation. ordinarily, the people you want to hear from are the people who did the bad things and usually you don't because they support the person on trial. here, even the rioters say trump incited the insurrection. and be clear, they're not going bad on him. they support him. that's how clear this is in their mind. they say they were there because the expresident told them to fight and they left when he said

to leave. you're about to hear the detailed explanation of one suspect seen spraying cops with a fire extinguisher at the capitol, next.

your next celebrity cruise is ready for takeoff, with our biggest air offer ever. save on every flight, from every gateway, on every sailing. and, with drinks, wi-fi and tips always included for everyone, you have everything you need for an unforgettable vacation. celebrity cruises. sail beyond.

i meant what i said. tonight is the night for you to have your kids watchful i got my kids watching with my in-laws in one place. my other kid is in school because we're all crazy with the schools, my wife, they're all watching. this should never happen again. where we are now. where the objection is being obfuscated and for the worst of reasons. the central question of this impeachment is why did americans attack the u.s. capitol? trump's lawyers argue, the people who criminally breached the capitol did so of their own accord and for their own reasons. yes. but what were those reasons? i think single case we've examined on this show, every attorney of those in the riot, they all have the same obvious ugly reason. they are doing it for trump.

tonight, it's not with the legal defense of matthew ryan miller. i think his case is obvious and it doesn't interest me. charges of attacking comes with a fire extinguisher are no joke. i'm saying litigating it doesn't interest me. it's obvious we'll let the process work. what does matter is what is happening in trump's trial. why did miller do it? it may not help him but it could make the difference in this trial. in terms of what is on the heart and soul and mind of those who decide to give him a pass. miller's attorney is eduardo, counsellor, thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> the president's counsel is asserting, your guy did what he did. it had nothing to do with the president. response? >> well, you have to understand what the situation was. matthew was at the rally to protest. to exert his first amendment rights. he had no motive, no other

reason to go and storm the capitol. the only reason any of those people went to the capitol to storm it, to do whatever they did, was because trump demanded it, trump asked for it and he wanted it. you can't get away from it. >> if we were talking about your guy, i would say, hey, he put his hand on that fire extinguisher. he made every stupid choice and he will get what he gets. but in this trial, do you believe that he could, explain to me why he thinks he had to do this for trump? >> well, first of all, i'm a little limited by the attorney-client privilege about what my client may have said to me. but you have to understand first of all, my findings recently into the proper context. i simply filed a motion for bond review asking my judge to get release for pretrial. it was relevant to whether or not my client can get out.

as to why he went there, he was with the crowds. we can't get away from that. he was there to protest what he thought was a stolen election at the request of the president of the united states. and when they stopped, when trump said stop, they stopped and they all went home. again, you can't get away from that particular fact. it's not a defense that my client is alleging at this point but it is a factor for the court to consider in his motion for bond review, which is what i've filed. >> and this isn't about your client now going bad on trump. what is his disposition toward the president as of your most recent discussion? >> well, he's still a supporter of president trump. i don't know if that will change or not. and no, he's not going bad on trump but he has to take responsibility for his own particular actions. what trump did is something for the impeachment managers and for the senate to decide. and that really has nothing to do with what my client did and why he took actions that he

took. >> it has everything to do with it in terms of what it mean for trump's trial. for his own defense, you'll have to figure that out. i wanted to make it clear i appreciate you making it clear tonight. thank you, counsellor. >> thank you. >> just to be clear, the guy still supports trump. okay? he likes trump. and he will still say in court and through his lawyer, i went there because trump told me to do it and i stopped when he said to stop. what else do you need to hear? the defense team argues that trump's political speech is protected. and that's right. having the right to say something doesn't mean everything you say is right and will be said without any consequence. especially in a political context. does the first amendment really allow a president to incite a mob? to overthrow an election that killed people along the way?

and what is the test? one of our brightest constitutional scholars, about what is his right? but also the examination of what is right and in what context, next. ♪ wayne's world, wayne's world, party time, excellent. ♪ hey everyone, welcome to wayne's world. party on, wayne. party on, garth. as a local access show, we want everyone to support local restaurants. but, we'd never manipulate you like the way all these other commercials do. sh-yeah, that's really sad. we'd never shamelessly rely on a celebrity cameo. right cardi b? yeah! eat local! (giggles) ♪ local eats, wayne's world, yummy. ♪

do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy, even a term policy, for an immediate cash payment. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized that we needed a way to supplement our income. if you have one hundred thousand dollars or more of life insurance you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel

or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit conventrydirect.com to find out if you policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance. ♪hail♪ ♪with it, baby, 'cause you're fine♪ ♪and you're mine, and you look so divine♪ ♪come and get your love♪ get a dozen double crunch shrimp for one dollar with any steak entrée. only at applebee's.

president's defense. first one, constitutionality. done. two more. the impact of trump's words on the rioters. that it was protected speech. okay. maybe he had the right to say it. fine. but you just heard from a lawyer of yet another person who breached the capitol grounds. and yeah, he had the right to say it but it wasn't right. when you put that idea in this guy's head and did he what he did, you should be held account. now, how does this go with speech? his rights versus what is right. noah feldman testified in trump's first impeachment inquiry. good to see you, professor. please explain the difference between protected speech, even if it is criminal speech, and impeachable speech?

>> the first amendment basically says that if you're a public citizen or a private citizen, you can say whatever you want without fear of being prosecuted criminally for it. so it would be very difficult, maybe not impossible but difficult to prosecute donald trump for what he said in that speech. but the first amendment does not apply to protect you or give you a get out of jail free card from being impeached. what the president did is he committed an impeachable high crime of subverting democracy and inciting people to riot. and he did it while talking. the fact that he did it while talking doesn't bring him within the protection. first amendment. the first amendment is about what congress can do through law or what the government can do to you. it is not about avoiding the consequences in an impeachment trial for something that you did wrong by talking. >> this is somewhat immediately familiar. people let's, yeah, you can get sued for defamation, for sland ferry somebody is lying about you. you can demonstrate damage or certain categories where you

don't have to demonstrate damage. people will say, this is what politicians do, give speeches. you never punish them for what they say. lots of bad things happen. why here? >> well, you can't arrest them and you can't send them to prison for saying things. but you can engage in an analysis whether they engaged in high crime. that means crimes punishable by impeachment. the worst thing that can happen is he can be banned from future office. that's not like going to prison. it is not like having to pay money damages and not protected by the first amendment. the constitution has a separate process for impeachment. and it is entirely separate from the protections that the first amendment gives you. >> i want to depart for a moment. because i really do believe the question on the senators' minds should be, how many people had to die for to you feel differently about it that day? how many of your colleagues? the humanity is being escaped. we're avoiding the 6th. it took as you month to commemorate it.

jamie raskin, the lead house manager, congressman, obviously, he and his wife, their family lost their son recently. you knew their son as a student and as a human being. and there was something that his words today, that i took as a remi reminder of our enter connectedness and why we should care about each other and what is being lost in our politics. i want to play some of what the lead house manager had to say today. >> distinguished members of the senate, >> my youngest daughter was with me on january 6th. it was the day after we buried her brother, our son tommy. the saddest day of our lives. the reason they came with me that day is because they wanted to be together with me in the middle of a devastating week for our family. i told them i had to go back to work because we were counting

electoral votes that day on january 6th. it was our constitutional duty. and i invited them instead to come with me to witness this historic event, the peaceful transfer of power in america. and they said they heard that president trump was calling on his followers to come to washington to protest. they asked me directly, would it be safe? would it be safe? and i told them of course it should be safe. this is the capitol. my chief of staff was with them locked and barricaded in that office. the kids hiding behind the desk with whispered phone calls to say their good-byes. they thought they were going to die. my son-in-law had never even been to the capitol before.

when they were finally rescued over an hour later and we were together, i hugged them and apologized and told my daughter, tabitha, who is 24 and a brilliant algebra teacher in teach for america. now, i told her how sorry i was, and i promised her that it would not be like this again the next time she came back to the capitol with me. and you know what she said? she said dad, i don't want to come back to the capitol. of all the terrible brutal things i saw and i heard on that day, and since then c that one hit me the hardest. >> now, look, a colder heart

would suggest okay, i feel badly for him and his daughter and that they lost their son. what does that have to do with this? i argue the relevancy of the connection to the human spirit and where his head and his heart were that day and their pain and that should matter to our leaders nchls the january 6th should matter. and you knew this kid, and what do you want to make sure what people know about who this kid was to his family and to you? >> it was a huge pleasure to teach tommy constitutional law, and he was just an e bowl i can't, alive, thoughtful, considerate young man. his loss is a terrible tragedy. and his father is so proud of him. when i testified at the first impeachment hearing, the kon congressman said you're going to have my son in your class. don't go easy on him.

he was an extraordinary kid and concerned about his classmates and doing the right thing and good things. to me, he stands for what our country is capable of being. so that tragic loss for the raskin family is also a tragic family for all of us, and it's a kind of loss in a deeper sense of our capacity as a country to cross the aisle to be connected to one another and to treat our politics as a zone of rational discussion which is something that tommy really stood for and passion for doing the right thing which is also something he to do for rather than the game of political fighting. when i hear the political and the constitutional gamesmanship, and i heard a lot of that today i'm afraid from donald trump's lawyers, i just think that's not the world we want to live in. that's not the world we want our kids to have. >> yeah. that's it, professor. well said. well said. why does it matter that jam raskin was talking about losing his son and the fear of losing his daughter.

because we're supposed to care about one another. if that's what guides you about how you do your job, you won't do it the way you'ring to it right now. if what happened on january 6th isn't enough, what is? what if they had gotten their hands on pelosi? and schiff and pence? would that be enough and if that's the calculation, what does that say about us? noah, thank you for feeding the head and the heart. appreciate you. >> thank you. we'll be right back in a moment. now, what i want to do with you is before we talk to the big man, d lemon, did you see this or hear about the new cnn original series, lincoln divided we stand? it's so appropriate. take a listen. >> lincoln freed the slaves. >> it's more complicated than that.

>> new president, a prayirie lawyer with no experience tried to hold together the american experiment. >> the stakes were extremely high. >> his election is an earthquake. >> the biggest misconception of lincoln is that he was perfect. ♪ ♪ i'm only human ♪ ♪ don't put the blame on me ♪ >> the man who found a way to make democracy safe. >> lincoln, divided we stand premiers sunday night at 10:00.

i give to shriners hospitals for children because i want to be a part of something amazing. - i know my gift to shriners hospitals for children makes a difference in the lives of children. - our support gives kids a bright future. - i give because when i see a child smile, i smile. - when you support shriners hospitals for children, you're joining thousands of other caring people like you who have helped kids like me and over 1.4 million other kids do amazing things. - will you call the number on your screen right now and give $19 a month, just 63 cents a day? you'll be making a life-changing difference for a kid just like me. - your support helps us do amazing things we never thought would be possible, and this is how we say thank you. - [child] thank you! (water splashing) - thank you! (trombone honking) - thank you! (buzzer buzzing) - thank you! - [child] because of your support, we can say thank you

by having the life we wouldn't have had without shriners hospitals for children. - my donation to shriners hospitals for children give kids a brighter future. - i donate money to shriners hospitals for children so children can heal and go home. - yay, shriners! - yay, shriners! - with your monthly gift, we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue blanket as another way to say thank you. plus, it's a reminder of all the children who now have hope because of your support. - will today be the day you send your love to the rescue? - go online right now to loveshriners.org to give your monthly support so more kids like me get the care we need to be kids. - thank you. - thank you for giving. - thank you for giving. - [child] please call right now to give. if operators are busy with other caring donors, please hold patiently, or go to loveshriners.org - [child] your gift, no matter how small, shows you care.

when you switch to xfinity mobile, you're choosing to get connected please hold patiently, or go to loveshriners.org to the most reliable network nationwide, now with 5g included. discover how to save up to $300 a year with shared data starting at $15 a month, or get the lowest price for one line of unlimited. come into your local xfinity store to make the most of your mobile experience. you can shop the latest phones, bring your own device, or trade in for extra savings. stop in or book an appointment to shop safely with peace of mind at your local xfinity store.

special coverage tonight. we'll be back midnight eastern. special live late night edition of prime time. now it's time for the big show. cnn tonight with the big man, d lemon. >> i've never seen anything like it.

i was stunned by the trump lawyer's performance. just stunned. it was awful. let's go honest. it was awful. >> they don't have the law or the facts. they don't have the pedigree. what they have overcomes all of that. they have the jury rigged in their favor. >> yeah. >> so they can do as bad a job as you think they did, and they're still in better position. >> i'm not saying it's going to affect the outcome. i was just surprised at the rambling and the stories and i thought they were making the other side's case. >> they had to. on one level they have to. >> right. >> on one level they have to say look, the election was decided. and everybody did what they were supposed to do. all these people are acting on their own. they're smart. they don't need someone to tell them what to do, so he didn't incite them or tell them w