>> SENATOR AND JUROR IN THIS
TRIAL, ALEX PADILLA, THANK YOU.
OUR LEAD-OFF GUEST HERE ON A
NEWSWORTHY NIGHT COMING OUT OF
THE U.S. SENATE.
WE TURN NOW AS PROMISED TO EMILY
BAZELON, A FORMER FEDERAL
PROSECUTOR WHO HAS ALSO BEEN
COUNSEL TO CONSTITUTIONAL
INVESTIGATIONS.
JOHN FLANNERY.
GOOD EVENING TO BOTH OF YOU.
JOHN, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN AN
OPENING ARGUMENT QUITE LIKE THE
WAY THE DEMOCRATS BEGAN TODAY?
>> OH, IT WAS POWERFUL.
AND IN FACT I KEPT THINKING,
GOING BACK TO MY JESUITICAL
TRAINING OF ARISTOTLE HAS TWO
BOOKS ON LOGIC AND ARGUMENT IN
THE RHETORIC.
THE FIRST ONE IS TO USE LOGIC,
WHICH WAS THE FIRST PART OFS ARE
SKIN’S SPEECH.
EAST BUT THE SECOND ONE HE WROTE
IS HOW TO USE THE EMOTION OF
PEOPLE TO COMMUNICATE TO THEM
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SOMETHING.
HE DID BOTH.
HE GAVE A FIRST CLASS
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR’S
ARGUMENT, BUT HE ALSO
INTERTWINED WIT THE FACTS SO IT
WOULD BE HARD TO DENY.
AND THEN HE TOOK IT PERSONAL.
LIKE YOU AND I HAVE BOTH SERVED
ON THE SENATE, SO WE’VE BEEN IN
THESE HALLWAYS WHEN THERE
WEREN’T CROWDS CHARGING DOWN
THERE WILLING TO HURT OR KILL OR
WORSE, TAKE OVER THE GOVERNMENT.
AND HE BROUGHT IT HOME TO HIS
FAMILY AND HOW ANYBODY COULD
HEAR THAT AND NOT PERSONALIZE IT
FOR HOW TERRIBLE THE OFFENSE.
AND ANY SENATOR WHO WOULD VOTE
TO ACQUIT WOULD ALLAY HIMSELF
WITH THE NOTION OF AN AUTOCRACY,
NOT A DEMOCRACY.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE IN MY MIND FOR
ANY RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC OFFICE
HOLDER TO VOTE FOR ACQUITTAL AND
NOT TO BE AGAINST OUR BASIC FORM
OF GOVERNMENT.
AND THAT’S THE THING THAT KEPT
COMING.
AND WHEN YOU WERE JUST
INTERVIEWING WITH SENATOR
PADILLA, I HAD THE FEELING THAT
THOUGH HE WASN’T THERE, IT WAS
AS IF HE FELT IT.
HE HELD THIS COMMUNICATION WITH
THE PEOPLE.
THE SILENCE IN THE ROOM I THINK
TOOK THE HARD FACTS AND TOOK THE
EMOTION AND BLENDED THEM
TOGETHER AND SAID THIS CANNOT
STAND.
WE CANNOT HAVE A PERSON LIKE
THIS AFFIRMED BY US, BY
ACQUITTING HIM AND RISK THE
WHIRLWIND OF HIM COMING BACK.
THE CENTER DOES NOT HOLD UNLESS
WE STOP THIS KIND OF CONDUCT.
>> AND YOU MENTION WHAT COMES
THROUGH IN THE VIDEO.
I WANT TO PLAY A LITTLE BIT MORE
OF THIS TRIAL EVIDENCE.
TAKE A LOOK.
>> SURE.
>> MY YOUNGEST DAUGHTER TABITHA
WAS THERE WITH ME ON WEDNESDAY,
JANUARY 6th.
THE SOUND OF POUNDING ON THE
DOOR LIKE A BATTERING RAM, THE
MOST HAUNTING SOUND I EVER
HEARD, AND I WILL NEVER FORGET
IT.
THE KIDS HIDING UNDER THE DESK,
PLACING WHAT THEY THOUGHT WERE
THEIR FINAL TEXTS.
SHE SAID, "DAD, I DON’T WANT TO
COME BACK TO THE CAPITOL."
PEOPLE DIED THAT DAY.
THIS CANNOT BE THE FUTURE OF
AMERICA.
WE CANNOT HAVE PRESIDENTS
INCITING AND MOBILIZING MOB
VIOLENCE AGAINST OUR GOVERNMENT.
>> JOHN?
>> WELL, IT’S MOVING, AS I SAID.
AND WE’RE A NATION THAT -- YOU
KNOW, I HAVE A RED TIE ON.
WHEN I WAS PUTTING IT ON, I GET
KIDDED ABOUT THE BOW TIE.
ALL I COULD THINK OF WAS THE
BLOOD THAT PEOPLE SPILLED SO
WE’D HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
AND THESE GUYS WOULD SUPPLANT
THE RIGHT TO VOTE OF THE
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO VOTED, NO
MATTER WHAT THEIR COLOR OR THEIR
ORIGIN OR SOCIO-ECONOMIC
BACKGROUND, AND THEY WOULD COME
IN AND REPLACE IT BECAUSE THEY
WANT THIS AMORAL MAN TO LEAD
AMERICA.
I CAN’T IMAGINE ANYTHING MORE
BASE AND A GREATER FAILURE THAN
THE OATH OF OFFICE UNDER THE
14th AMENDMENT AND COMMON SENSE
IN THE LAWS OUTSIDE THE CONGRESS
THAN THEY WOULD SUPPORT THIS MAN
STILL.
IT’S TERRIBLE, AND IT’S A SHAME
AND A DISGRACE.
AND I THINK IN THE MIDTERMS,
WE’LL DEAL WITH IT, IF WE DON’T
DEAL WITH IT DURING THIS TRIAL.
BUT THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT
THIS TRIAL IS TO GET THE MESSAGE
OUT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED.
WHETHER OR NOT WE CONVICT THIS
PERSON, WE HAVE TO SEND OUT THE
MESSAGE OF WHAT THIS CRIME WAS
ALL ABOUT.
>> YEAH, WHAT HAPPENED AND WHO
IS ACCOUNTABLE.
AND EMILY, I WAS GETTING AT THAT
WITH SPECIFIC QUESTIONING OF THE
SENATOR BECAUSE IT’S NOT OFTEN
THAT ABOUT 100 SENATORS SIT
THERE FOR HOURS TOGETHER.
CERTAINLY NOT QUIETLY TO TAKE IN
THE EVIDENCE.
WE KNOW A LOT FROM OUR OWN
REPORTING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT
INFORMATION DIETS THAT THEY
HAVE, JUST AS PEOPLE ACROSS THE
COUNTRY HAVE.
BUT THIS ISN’T ABOUT WHO YOU
LIKE TO GET YOUR NEWS FROM OR
WHICH SOURCES YOU FIND HAVE
DIFFERENT INTERESTING ANALYSIS.
THIS WAS ALL DOCUMENTARY
FOOTAGE.
AGAIN, I’M GOING TO PLAY A
LITTLE BIT MORE I BELIEVE WE
HAVE SOME OF SOME OF THAT
CHANTING AND THEN GET YOUR
RESPONSE THAT WAS PLAYED AS
EVIDENCE TODAY.
>> USA!
USA!
>> GET BACK, GET BACK!
>> BREAK IT DOWN!
BREAK IT DOWN! >> BREAK IT DOWN!
>> BREAK IT DOWN! >> BREAK IT DOWN.
>> BREAK IT DOWN.
>> YOU GOT IT!
>> FIGHT FOR TRUMP!
FIGHT FOR TRUMP!
>> EMILY, IT’S NOT OUR JOBS AS
REPORTERS TO PREJUDGE THE TRIAL
OR THE PROCESS OR THE OUTCOME.
BUT I DON’T SEE HOW ANYONE WHO
IS AN AMERICAN WATCHING THAT
WOULDN’T FEEL RENEWED DISGUST
AND ANGER AT WHAT WENT ON THERE.
I’M CURIOUS YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT
OPENING THE TRIAL THIS WAY.
>> WELL, I THINK THERE IS A
CLEAR EMOTIONAL APPEAL HERE AND
A SENSE OF RELIVING A NATIONAL
TRAUMA.
THAT’S DIFFERENT, OF COURSE,
FROM WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP
SHOULD BE IMPEACH AND CONVICTED
FOR THE ROLE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
DEMOCRATS AND THE PEOPLE
MANAGING THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
ARE GOING TO ARGUE THAT HE HAD.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE GUT
LEVEL RESPONSE THAT A LOT OF
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO
WATCHING THAT FOOTAGE IS TO
REMEMBER WHAT A DIFFICULT DAY
JANUARY 6th WAS, AND THAT IS
IMPORTANT FOR THE DEMOCRATS
TRYING TO MAKE THEIR CASE.
>> YEAH.
VERY WELL PUT.
AND IT IS THE ONE THREAD THAT
SUBSTANTIVELY THE TRUMP LAWYERS
HAVE, AND THEY MAY MAKE THAT
CASE MORE TOMORROW.
EXCUSE ME, PROBABLY THE DI AFTER
WHEN IT’S THEIR TURN AS THE
ARGUMENTS BEGIN TOMORROW WHICH
IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT
HAPPENED AND THE HIGH BAR FOR
TRYING TO TIE THAT TO ONE
INDIVIDUAL.
EVEN SOMEONE WHO HAS FOMENTED
VIOLENCE AS MUCH AS DONALD
TRUMP.
GO AHEAD.
>> NO, EXACTLY.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO
REMEMBER TWO THINGS AT ONCE.
IF THIS WERE A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION, IT IS NOT, BUT IF
IT WERE, THERE WOULD BE A HIGH
BAR FOR ACTUALLY CONVICTING
PRESIDENT TRUMP -- FORMER
PRESIDENT TRUMP OF INCITEMENT.
WE HAVE A HIGH BAR FOR THOSE
KINDS OF CONVICTIONS BASED ON