preet bharara and michael smerconish. preet, what stood out to you today? >> you said it at the top of the show, i think in the first sentence where you talked about foreseeability. the video footage stands out because some of it was new and it's harrowing, and it just makes people, i think, shake once again because of what was averted narrowly, not just what happened, which was terrible. but the real crux of the matter is, not just that these people did these things and that lives were lost, but what was the president's responsibility for it, what was his role in it? i think the most powerful arguments and presentations made today connected up what donald trump said and did and how it was foreseeable that the things he said and did led to that violence. among other things, the fact that he has on prior occasions condoned violence. there was a great presentation that mentioned that bus, the biden/harris bus that was tried to be run off the road by supporters of trump. what did trump do after that? i had forgotten about this. he tweeted a video about it, app

preet bharara, you are invaluable. thank you. >>> someone in this much potential trouble shouldn't have members of congress clawing for their affection, right? but it's his gop queue. should the few republicans or what used to be republicans who have broken off, should they have their own party? now the time, tom friedman on the state of play, next. research shows that people remember commercials with exciting stunts. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's something you shouldn't try at home. insurance is cool. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ age-related macular degeneration may lead to severe vision loss. so the national eye institute did 20 years of clinical studies on a formula only found in preservision. if it were my vision, i'd ask my doctor about preservision. it's the most studied eye vitamin brand. if it were my vision, i'd look into preservision. only preservision areds2 contains the exact nutrient formula recommended by the nei t

preet bharara, you are invaluable. thank you. >>> someone in this much potential trouble shouldn't have members of congress clawing for their affection, right? but it's his gop queue. should the few republicans or what used to be republicans who have broken off, should they have their own party? now the time, tom friedman on the state of play, next. 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. tonight, i'll be eating the al pastor burrito from boca burritos right here in aurora. (doorbell rings) excellent as a local access show, we want everyone to support local restaurants. right cardi b? yeah! eat local! i have a convenience store delivery for super grover? yeah! oh, yeah, he said just put it there. [super grover] ahhhhh ah! perfect timing. get more from your neighborhood. ahhh, so soft! doorda

attorney preet bharara. preet, thanks for joining us.fenses, as he's calling them, might we see from the former president's legal team? >> well, i suppose the most significant technical defense is one that they assert in the document they filed with congress and that there's already been a vote about and that is whether or not under the constitution as a technical legal matter you can even have a senate trial if the president is out of office. i think the massive legal expertise on this is against the president. but that's an argument that they'll put forward. according to the document, they also may suggest, and it gets a little technical is the right word, that because it's arguable that there are multiple impeachable defenses described in the single article of impeachment when it comes time for a vote you may not know which senators were voting on which impeachable act in that article. if this was a regular criminal trial with all the rules of evidence and the other obligations of making sure that the verdict was proper, you would hav

we have preet bharara and robert raitt. hat do these calls mean, in the questions asked by senators about the vp, obviously a touchy point, whether the president knew about his danger. here is what defense counsel said about what the president knew about pence. >> the answer is no. at no point was the president informed the vice president was in any danger. >> how are they supposed to accept that in light of senator tuberville's account of his phone call and of course as the overlay, what they learned about the mccarthy call today? >> they can't. they can't. and i think cnn has been covering it all evening, and it's vitally important. both i think as a constitutional matter, as a matter relation to the article of impeachment and also as a matter of conscience for the senators. mike pence was not only the vice president of the united states but was the person who would break ties in the senate. the vice president is the one official in the executive branch who has an office in the senate. donald trump, whatever you say about

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 t

preet, i appreciate your time. thank you very much. >> sure. >> pretrial bharara, the former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. >>> let me start with you, he is going other things not just inciting insurrection which mitch mcconnell gave his personal opinion that it didn't reach the legal starred. but that mcconnell's opinion. preet is also mentions seditious conspiracien a other things. what are the other things? do you think never sees charges. >> the justice department is the key player here and we're at a moment of truth for the justice department because coming off four years of unprecedented of politicization of doj by donald trump and bill barr in particular. now we have a new doj in place. the president, joe biden says i will be hands off. he needs make good on that. . it comes to merrick garland to make the decision. the first step is do you open inquiry? i say yes you have to open inquiry into the president's conduct regarding january 6th. you need spread indication. needing some basis of fact that could be a crime. even mitch mcconnell gave us that muc