tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC February 10, 2021 12:00am-1:00am PST
tonight, on "all in" -- >> what our country experienced that day is the nightmare come to life. >> the second impeachment trial of donald trump is under way. >> their argument is if you commit an impeachable offense in your last few weeks in office you do it with constitutional impunity. >> tonight we will replay in full the jaw dropping 13-minute documentary evidence video submitted by the democrats. >> we know -- >> then, the ex-president's lawyers forced to scramble their defense. >> i'll be quite frank with you. we changed what we were going to do on account that we thought
that the house managers' presentation was well done. >> tonight what we learn from day one while even republicans were shocked by trump's defense and what it means for conviction and the country moving forward. >> senators, this cannot be our future. this cannot be the future of america. >> "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. today the second impeachment trial of former donald j. trump officially began and the argument before the u.s. senate today was focused, it was
constitutional. because it takes place after trump has left office. the end result is that the trial will actually move forward. the measure to move the trial forward passed this evening, 56-44. a bipartisan vote with six republican senators joining every democrat in the vote. the result was never really in doubt. democrats have the majority in that body. today was supposed to simply be the argument on that technical question of constitutionality. but lead impeachment manager congressman jimmy raskin opened the case with a striking 13-minute video that brought home the reality of the events of january 6th stitching together video collected on the scene and inside the capitol. we are going to play that video for you now. you absolutely, if you have not seen it, should see it. if you have seen it once, you should see it again. it is unedited because what was presented in the trial we have not bleeped the graphic language or obscured the violent images, so viewer discretion is advised. >> we will stop the steal. today i will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we
won this election and we won it by a landslide. this was not a close election. after this, we shall going to walk down and i'll be there with you, we are going to walk down, we are going to walk down to the capitol. >> take the capitol! >> take the capitol! >> we are going to the capitol where our problems are. it is that direction. >> everybody in! >> stop the steal! stop the steal! >> everybody in! this away! this way! >> thousands of folks, where did they come from?
>> the constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our constitution and you can't vote on fraud and fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? when you catch somebody in a fraud you are allowed to go by very different rules. so i hope mike has the courage to do what he has to do. we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore. so we're going to walk down pennsylvania avenue. i love pennsylvania avenue. and we're going to the capitol, and we're going to try and give our republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help.
we're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. >> get the fuck out of here, you traitors! >> majority leader -- >> we're debating a step that has never been taken in american history. president trump claims the election was stolen. the assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to sweeping conspiracy theories. >> usa! usa! usa!
>> traitor pence. >> defend the constitution, save your country! defend the constitution. >> stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! >> they're leaving. they're leaving. >> break it down. break it down. break it down. break it down.
fight for trump! >> there's never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. this was a fraudulent election. but we can't play into the hands of these people. we have to have peace. so go home. we love you. you're very special. you've seen what happens. you see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. i know how you feel. but go home and go home in peace. >> usa! usa! usa!
>> something, right? republican senator roy blunt likely spoke for many of his colleagues when he said that may have been the longest time i sat down and watched the footage of a horrendous day. senator mccaskill said she was told many looked away from the video and didn't watch. the opening salvo from the trump defense said that made them change their plan. they were going to argue the unconstitutionality of the trial first but then said 45 minutes into a rambling, bizarre largely incoherent defense they had to change tact because the house impeachment argument was so strong. >> i'll be quite frank with you, we changed what we were going to do on account we thought that the house managers' presentation was well done. and i wanted you to know that we
have responses to those things. i thought that what the first part of the case was, which was the equivalent of a motion to dismiss is about jurisdiction alone. we are counter arguments to everything that they raised and you will hear them later on in the case from mr. van der veen and from myself. >> after castor, a second trump lawyer appeared, david schoen, he was much more angry in the delivery, expressed outrage at the video of the insurrection and accused house managers of hiring a movie company to produce it and then played his own video a complications of democrats talking about impeaching trump all set to scary background music. i want to bring in one of the jurors who was in that room, amy klobuchar of minnesota. thank you for joining us. what was it like in that room today? >> it was chilling to watch that
video and to be in the very room where this happened. i'd say everyone was watching the video, and what we saw for the first time was just the timeline, the fact in just a visceral way that the president, the things he had been saying at the rally which, of course, we were not watching because we were doing our jobs in the senate, to basically directing this angry mob to go down the mall and then the timeline for when he did his first video hours later, and then the tweet which i had never put together the timeline there, that that was literally after the officers had been hurt, over 100 of them. that we now know that we had an officer that died because of the injuries sustained, that a woman had been shot, someone else had been trampled. what does he do? he sent out after being glued to
the tv the tweet that says these are the things that happen when a victory is so viciously stripped away from great patriots. he is calling them great patriots who have been badly treated for so long. then tells them to go home and then ends with remember this day forever. so, to me, that's all you need to know about donald trump and his role in inciting this riot. >> i agree that the sort of syncing up the timelines of the president's words and actions, a video in which he says to the people, we love you. go home in peace like there's no repercussions. okay. enough of this. you can go home. not we will bring these people to justice. none of that. i wonder if you noted this or felt it in the room watching that video, the fact that so many of the people that assaulted the capitol
were literally carrying trump flags, literally engaging under his banner in a like medieval sense and whether you -- >> exactly. -- you had seen that before and whether that hit you sitting in that room. >> it did because remember he spent his four years going after the other branches of government. an assault on the courts with his words, an assault on congress, and this time he sent them down there with them using banners and poles with his name on it to literally ram in the door, which, as jamie raskin so memorably described the sound he will never forget as they tried to ram in the door and he talked about the fact that -- i remember this video that i'll never forget -- one of them using an american flag, american flag attached to a pole to beat an officer when the officer was simply trying to defend our country and defend that flag.
those are visceral moments. and so when you ask how the senators reacted, i don't want to hear about how they didn't like the defense lawyers. yeah. they weren't good. okay. fine. that's not the point. you can't defend the indefensible. what i hope my colleagues listen to as we move forward in this trial are the facts and the facts are on full, ugly, horrific display in the video you showed. >> there's a moment when mr. schoen, the lawyer for the ex-president, that basically they have tried to take this view and they said it in their brief and said it here that it's outrageous or incitement itself to say what happened on that day. here's what schoen said about the presentation by the house impeachment managers. >> we now learn that the house managers in their wisdom have hired a movie company and a large law firm to create,
manufacture and splice for you a package designed by experts to chill and horrify you and our fellow americans. they want to put you through a 16-hour presentation over 2 days focusing on this as if it's a blood sport. >> what do you think of that? >> the house managers have a job and they're putting on a case. and this isn't one of those cases that involves a lot of behind closed door investigation of what happened when people weren't at meetings. it may eventually with whoever was involved in funding this and other things, but right now this is about simply did the president incite this riot? and all you need to look at are his words, what he said leading up to it. not just one momentary utterance, all the bashing the election, bashing our democracy,
calling his people to arms, calling his people to go down that mall and then you have to look at what they did. when you see that officer screaming, who is just simply trying to protect the capitol, when you hear their words when they're saying unbelievable things about our police officers, about our representatives, going after personally the vice president, the president kept doing and on the day of january 6th, simply because the former vice president was doing his job which was to preside over the electoral college, those things, those are the facts. those are the words. and i don't think any faux argument that somehow the constitution doesn't allow for this is going to work. that's why senator cassidy changed his vote and that's why you saw conservative lawyers including one man, mr. cooper, who had been named republican lawyer of the year coming out clearly and saying, you know what?
they don't really have a case here. the precedent of the senate and the language of the constitution makes it clear this case should go forward. >> senator klobuchar who will be a juror in this proceeding for the next week and a half, as long as it takes, after a busy and grueling day, thank you for making time for us tonight. >> thank you, chris. thank you. ahead, we learned after the first day of the impeachment trial and how trump's legal team lost the first fight, a lot to get to with a constitutional law expert lawrence tribe next.
these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the services of the post office plus ups only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. when you've got a business, you don't want to worry
a 4-week trial plus about slow internet or a d confusing cybersecurity. so get comcast business internet with fast, reliable speeds, and add the advanced security of comcast business securityedge. it combines the speed you need with threat protection. plus there's 24/7 support. it's internet and advanced security - made simple. so bounce forward - with comcast business. get started with a powerful internet and voice solution for just $64.90 a month. and ask how to add comcast business securityedge. call today.
first day of the second impeachment trial of donald trump focused on one question, whether or not it is constitutional to try an impeached president no longer in office. the vast majority of experts who really studied that issue agree with the house impeachment manager. the trial's absolutely constitutional. each side got two hours today to argue their case. >> their argument is if you commit an impeachable offense in the last few weeks in office you do it with constitutional impunity. you get away with it. in other words, conduct that would be a high crime and misdemeanor in your first year as president and your second year as president and your third year as president and for the vast majority of fourth year of president you can suddenly do in your last few weeks in office
without facing any constitutional accountability at all. this would create a brand new january exception to the constitution of the united states of america. >> judgment, in other words, the bad thing that can happen, the judgment in cases of impeachment ie what we are doing, shall not extend further than removal from office. what is so hard about that? what -- which of those words are unclear? shall not extend further than removal from office. president trump no longer is in office. the object of the constitution has been achieved. he was removed by the voters. >> to assess those arguments, i'm joined by laurence tribe,
professor of constitutional law at harvard university. i will start by saying as the senator noted that the -- i think there's an asymmetry in the hands that each side have been dealt in terms of the strength of their cases so whether the lawyering is up to snuff or not which i think it was clearly not very good, what was your assessment of the arguments today? >> what you just played was a good example. when mr. castor purported to quote the constitution saying judgment shall not extend beyond removal from office, he was lying by stopping the sentence there. >> yes! >> it goes on. its says and disqualification from holding future office. that is what this is all about. so it wasn't just a bad argument. it was a distortion of everything. and we shouldn't forget how powerful the argument on the other side was. it wasn't just that the president's lawyers basically sucked. it was that the lawyers for the
house of representatives, the ones who spoke did a brilliant job showing that the text of the constitution, the history, the whole purpose of the impeachment power to protect the country from would-be tyrants who are most likely to do damage at the very end when it comes to the point of transition, the whole point would be destroyed if we couldn't hold this trial and that's why it was obvious that the correct answer is, we have to continue this trial. >> yeah. your characterization of the president's lawyer's performance shared by people watching on tv and in the gallery. senator cassidy is interesting because when that -- when rand paul brought that motion, that point of order to object to the constitutionality before the trial even began, it was a
55-45 vote, 50 democrats, 5 republicans voting to proceed. 45 republicans against. there was one vote that switched and that's senator cassidy today and here he is explaining in part why he switched his vote. >> president trump's team were disorganized. they did everything they could but to talk about the question at hand. and when they talked about it they kind of glided over it almost as if they were embarrassed of their arguments. i'm an impartial juror. one side's doing a great job and the other side's doing a terrible job on the issue at hand as an impartial juror i vote for the side that did a good job. >> it was a breath of air to see there was a persuadable, gettable vote in that gallery. >> it sure was, but i would point out that the issue is not grading what kind of a job the two sides did. >> right. >> the issue is how to preserve our democracy. our freedom. our right to live as a
self-governing people depends on being able to vote out some guy doing a terrible job killing half a million people almost because of how he mishandled the virus. doing all kinds of bad stuff but if the attempts to vote him out of office are overridden not just frivolous lawsuits but when they fail by twisting the secretary of state of georgia and when that fails, storming the capitol, killing cops, threatening to hang the vice president, threatening to assassinate the speaker of the house, if they can get away with that with no accountability through the impeachment process, well then, our democracy is gone. what we have fought for for 235 years is gone. that's what we should be focused on. we can't afford as jamie raskin said, we cannot afford to have a secret january exception to the
constitution and to the idea that no one is above the law because our republic will be lost if we have it and that's the issue. that's what the next few days will focus on. that visual demonstration was powerful. it's not just a picture is worth a thousand words. that is worth more than all of "war & peace." you just look at this, as amy klobuchar pointed out, you can see the president engaged in the worst kind of insurrection against our country. that has got to lead to his permanent disqualification. that's what the trial is about. >> it strikes me, the flimsiness of the legal arguments today, like castor cutting off the quote, literally cuts off the sentence. schoen talking about at points
to argue that obviously there's no trial of impeachment after the officer is not in office, even though the plain press of the belknap case of 1876 contradicts that, and he just ran right past it. >> right. >> it is reverse engineered on the fact looking for cover. >> right. >> this is what they have come up with to hide behind it. >> right. there shall one or two scholars who take this view but hundreds and hundreds don't and the consensus is obviously based on the constitution's text, the history. our whole history is based on the idea that you have to have a way of permanently disqualifying someone who shows himself to be an existential danger and the moment you convict and remove somebody they're no longer an officer of the united states and that meant you couldn't go on to sentence them to permanent disqualification then that part of the constitution would be erased. >> trump's lawyer one point appeared to want to argue it's an affront to the constitution
to consider disqualification despite the fact that in said constitution there is the option of disqualification. >> right. >> in precisely those words. >> and it was an important option. the framers knew that was the most important thing you could do. >> yeah. >> because it was -- people who had already left office who were the danger when they would come back. that was the whole point of writing the impeachment power the way they did. >> laurence tribe, professor of constitutional law, thank you for sharing those insights with us. >> thank you, chris. still to come, house impeachment managers expected to present new never before seen evidence in the trial of donald trump. we'll talk about what will happen in day two after this. tes . that's why i founded lively. affordable, high-quality hearing aids with all of the features you need, and none of the hassle. i use lively hearing aids and it's been wonderful. it's so light and so small but it's a fraction of the cost
of the other devices. they cost thousands less. it's insanely user friendly. you take the hearing test online, the doctor programs in the settings. you don't even need to go into an office. they're delivered to your door in a few days and you're up and running in no time. it connects via bluetooth to my phone. you can stream music and you can answer phone calls. the audiologist was so incredible she's full of all kinds of little helpful hints i love it. they're a game changer for me. i feel like i can take on anything. it feels great to be in control of my hearing. better hearing has never been this easy. try lively risk-free for 100 days. visit listenlively.com
their case against donald trump for inciting the mob that stormed the capitol, threatened the lives of members of congress. it's the house managers planning to use the evidence available and the forms, evidence that nobody has seen before. interesting. to talk about what to anticipate going forward i'm joined by quinta jurecic, managing editor at lawfare blog, and elizabeth holtzman, former democratic congresswoman, and author of "the case for impeachment." elizabeth, can i ask you this? there are -- you have been in the position of being a lawmaker on a committee dealing with this issue. it's competing narratives for democrats and do not want to carry on too long particularly if it won't lead to conviction. that said, there are enormous factual holes here. we still don't know why officer sicknick died or what he died of. i wonder what your instinct is
of the evidence and how full that should be. >> well, you know, of course you always want all the evidence in the world so that you can present a case that's just open and shut but that rarely happens so you have to make a decision about what you can leave out. i just want to remind everybody about the nixon impeachment effort which voted in the house judiciary which had a house judiciary committee vote against him. the basic evidence was out of his own mouth. the tape recording. and the convincing evidence was the smoking gun tape which showed him ordering the cover-up and that's what everybody single republican on the committee joined every single democrat saying he needs to be impeached so the idea we need eyewitness
testimony, that would be great but in the real world you don't need that. and i think the evidence they have is really, really telling if people focus on it. not only do you have the words that trump used at the rally to incite people, but when he came, when he got people to come to the rally, what did he say? he urged them to come. he said be there. he tweeted more than once and said it was going to be wild. what does that say? what's the last demonstration you went to with an invite it will be wild? i never went to one like that and i went to plenty of them. you look at what he said when it was over. what he said was basically, what can you expect when you quote/unquote steal an election? people are going to do this. uh-huh. really? that's the justification? that he is still not condemning them after all that's happened on that day, he is not condemning them. he is saying this is what you can expect and therefore you
asked for it and you deserve it and that's the message. not only telling them to remember the day forever and we love you and you are special people, but saying that this is what the american people deserved because they didn't stand up for donald trump. and that's very powerful. people have to focus on his words. >> elizabeth makes a point here that in some ways that 13-minute video we showed shows how much evidence there is. right? like what more do you need? i wonder how you feel about that as someone who's been writing about and covering this president, the misdeeds and impeachment for a while. >> absolutely. i agree completely with elizabeth. i think that the video was incredibly powerful even for me as someone following this very closely and has seen a lot of the video. i was really struck by how aggressive the editors of the
video were in choosing what to include, they included footage of ashli babbitt's shooting, they included footage of the d.c. metropolitan police officer screaming in pain, shut in the door. trying to bring home how brutal and ugly and frightening the capitol riot was. and i do think that they did a really masterful job in splicing in trump's comments to the shots of what was happening in the capitol. and ended with a shot of trump's tweet. sort of not really disavowing any of the violence. so to me, that seems like an extremely strong case. i will say that it feels like we have gone from republican senators having to deny the content of the mueller report to republican senators having to deny a call transcript between trump and the ukrainian
prime minister and now republican senators faced with the task of deciding whether or not to deny the significance of video that was live streamed at a riot where they work. >> yeah. >> so it should be enough. i don't know if it will be. >> yes. it is -- orwelian is overused of course, but this is precisely actually the kind of central philosophical conundrum of "1984" that you are forced to deny in what is in front over your own eyes and under the threat of penalty of an authoritarian system. the point here, elizabeth, that, again, what the 13 minutes made my think on the question of evidence and witnesses is that this is a fairly rare case where there's a lot of evidence they can present without witnesses because so much is already recorded and in the public record. >> correct. correct. and that's what makes the case
so powerful. and the question is very simply -- is this the kind of society we want, where a president can -- after exhausting every other way to overturn a peaceful and fair election, to bring out his shock troops, the storm troops and bring out violence to put himself back in office. and that is horrifying. is this the legacy that we are leaving for our children? i think the answer has to be no. but these republican senators seem to be marching in lockstep with each other and that's wrong. they need to be impartial jurors and do impartial justice and i'm afraid that won't happen. >> there's a distinction in terms of the division of labor, as i sort of think through it. i have a strong desire for a much more comprehensive, factual, like, record of that day. this trial will not be that, but it does seem like that -- like, to divide, sort of divide the
trial from that but not lose sight of getting the full record of the day. because as a journalist there's so many questions we do not have the answers to. >> that's exactly right. we still don't have any sense of what happened with the death of brian sicknick. there are many, many questions that are still being sort of untangled by law enforcement and it is important to note that the fbi is still looking for some of the suspects here. right? they put up new bulletins every day. so the story is still very much being untangled and each new criminal complaint or indictment we receive from law enforcement tells a little bit more of the story. and, of course, reporters are doing great work, too, to untangle that thread. so in a weird way the criminal process is not maybe where you would think you would find the story. you might expect an impeachment in that place but i think it's here actually the other way around.
>> yeah. i think there's probably crossover because some of the reporting, the filings in many of the criminal cases show people talking about the president telling them to be there and will be wild and the thing that inspired them to go, saying that the president invited us. there's evidence in those various indictments and filings that happened among the folks caught in the riot. thank you for making time tonight. >> thank you. don't go anywhere. much more on today's trial and a congresswoman rashida tlaib reacts to being included in trump's defense. she joins me ahead. s me ahead
own lives. senators, this cannot be our future. this cannot be the future of america. >> lead impeachment manager jamie raskin delivered a powerful argument today as he described the siege on the capitol. congressman raskin's words will air in full on rachel maddow's show in a few minutes. for her reaction, i'm joined by rashida tlaib. what was your impression of today's proceedings? >> i was incredibly proud of the leadership, of representative raskin and many others that are truly putting the love of country first. one of the most passionate speeches i have heard where he talks about democracy is personal. and it is. i mean, chris, from my district alone, they were intentionally trying to throw out black votes. right here in detroit. and so for us, it was extremely personal that they were trying to use white supremacist
rhetoric, trying to use that kind of racist tone and these conspiracy theories that led to the violence of january 6th. raskin is right, this is extremely personal and extremely, very much about us being able to keep our right to have a voice at all levels of government, and especially again, pushing back against that violence that we saw on january 6th. >> now, one of the arguments presented by the lawyers, which was a stitched-together video, is actually a reprisal of what they did a year ago. the basic argument is democrats have always wanted to impeach the guy. they sort of, they wanted to impeach him and looked for an excuse. that's the argument. you featured twice in it. we sort of spliced together your appearances. i want to play it for you and get your reaction. >> because we're going to go in there and impeach the [ bleep ]. >> i'm here at an impeachment rally, and we're ready to impeach the -- >> what's your reaction to that?
>> i mean, i was right. this is a person that's been lawless. not only that, it's a crooked billionaire running his businesses out of the white house. he was absolutely committing impeachable offenses. this primary impeachment that you see before the senate right now to convict him is for the violence on january 6th, but for many of us, especially here in my district, we saw that it was extremely corruptive that they were putting the trump organization first. they were putting a for-profit organization, his businesses, before the people's business, and making sure that, again, folks were staying at the trump hotel to do all this. and, again, many of us didn't wait for him to bribe a foreign government, nor did we wait in the 13th congressional district for a white supremacist attack on our capitol. we knew what he was about and called him out on it from day one. >> what is the sentiment in the house caucus? obviously this now moves -- this is in the senate.
your colleagues are working there. but there is a lot that has to happen right now with covid relief and the like in the house and also the aftermath of that attack with a majority of your republican colleagues who voted to overturn the election, what are things like over in the other chamber right now? >> i mean, we have been extremely busy. i represent the third poorest congressional district. i have been very much active on the financial services committee, house oversight committee. working even just today meeting with staff on ways and means committee, talking about how do we make sure this relief hits the ground quickly. many of us are laser focused on that, as well as protecting our democracy, making sure we hold the forever impeached president accountable. we can't look away. yes, he's not president right now, but you know, chris, this, again, sets a dangerous precedent if we don't hold him accountable. it's like a doctor who harmed a patient. if the person doesn't become a doctor anymore, it doesn't mean we can't allow that person to have recourse and hold that doctor accountable. it's the same thing with the
president. i don't want to see this happen again. and we need to use every resource possible and convict this president for the violence they caused. people were hurt. they were harmed. people died because of his incitefulness and continued conspiracy that led to the violence of january 6th. know this, i don't think there's anybody, especially myself and others, that aren't as well again laser focused on making sure we get covid relief to our families. they are so extremely tired of waiting for vaccination distribution to be equitable, to get direct payments of $2,000 when we're still fighting to make sure that's reoccurring monthly payments. just know that relief is coming. we have not stopped that work. at the same time, we're not going to hold back in holding this president accountable. >> final question for you, because you mentioned this and it strike me as important, which is the people of your district were the subject of the plot in some ways. multiple levers of the republican party, majority republican colleagues, the
president wanted essentially to throw their votes out. they voted for the president, and they wanted to vote to overturn it, and that remains the case. no one has apologized for that, as far as i can tell. >> no. and the racist tone, i mean, it was very obvious they were focused on black and brown communities, black and brown precincts. they intentionally mentioned the city of detroit, even though if you look at some of the audits that have been done, we have done far better than any other communities outside of the city. it's so important to realize they were using, again, that white supremacist sort of rhetoric to feed in to the conspiracy theories that fed into the violence. these are people who came with a confederate flag. they tore up this beautiful tribute outside leader hoyer's office to john lewis. these are people, again, who were listening to the forever impeached president and telling them, target the black and brown votes. understand there's fraud there, and it's so important we push back against that.
my residents don't deserve anything less than holding this president accountable for the violence he caused on january 6th and the harm and pain he caused in trying to jeopardize their democracy in this country. >> rashida tlaib of the great city of detroit, thank you for your time. that is "all in" on this thursday evening. >> excellent, excellent hour. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. happy to have you here. the united states senate has a chaplain, his name is barry black, which is cinematic enough. but his voice is beyond that. his voice is among members of the clergy, chaplain barry black has what should be considered an unfair advantage when it comes to his ability to make you think beyond the everyday. to make you think of the other worldly. just by virtue of the magnificent sound of his voice.