of the u.s. code require that any objection be presented in writing, and signed by a member of the house of representatives and a senator. is the objection in writing and signed by a member and a senator? >> the objection is writing, not signed by a senator. >> in that case, the objection cannot be upheld. [ applause ] are there any further objections to counting the certificate of the vote from the state of michigan? the certificate the teller has verified, appears to be regular, in form, and authentic. hearing no further objections, this certificate from minnesota, the parliamentarians advise me, is the only certificate of vote from that state that purports to be a return from the state. annexed to it, certificate of authority from the state purporting to appoint and ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the

certificate of the electoral vote of the state of minnesota seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that joseph r. biden jr. of the state of delaware received ten votes for president. and kamala d. harris of the state of california received ten votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of the vote of the state of minnesota that the tellers verified appears to be regular, in form, and authentic? hearing none. in certificate from mississippi, the parliamentarians advise, is the only certificate of vote from that state. it purports to be a return from the state, has annexed to it, a certificate of the authority of the state purporting to appoint and ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of mississippi seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that donald j. trump of the state of florida received six votes for president. and michael r. pence of the

state of indiana received six votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote from the state of minnesota that the teller has verified appeared to be regular, in form, and authentic? hearing none. this certificate from missouri, the parliamentarians advise, is the only certificate of vote from the state that purports to be a return from the state. and that has annex to it, certificate of the authority of the state purporting to appoint or ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of missouri seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that donald j. trump of the state of florida received ten votes for president. and michael r. pence of the state of indiana received ten votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of the vote of the state of missouri, that the teller's verified appears to be regular and authentic? hearing none.

this certificate from montana, the parliamentarians advise, is the only certificate of vote from that state that purports to be a return from the state. and that has annexed to it, a certificate of authority of the state, purporting to appoint or ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of montana seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that donald j. trump, the state of florida, received three votes for president. and michael r. pence, of the state of indiana, received three votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of the vote of the state of montana, that the teller verified appears to be regular, in form, and authentic? hearing none. this certificate from nebraska, the parliamentarians advise, is the only certificate of vote from the state that purports to be a return from the state, that has annex to it, certificate of authority from the state purporting to appoint or

ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of nebraska seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that donald j. trump of the state of florida received four votes for president. and joseph r. biden jr., of the state of delaware, received one vote for president. and michael r. pence of the state of indiana received four votes for vice president. and kamala d. harris of the state of california received one vote for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote from the state of nebraska, that the teller's verified is regular, in form, and authentic? hearing none. this certificate from nevada, the parliamentarian advises, is the only certificate of vote from the state that purports to be a return from the state. and that has annex to it, authority of the state purporting to ascertain

electors. >> mr. president, the electoral vote of the state of nevada seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that joseph r. biden jr., of the state of delaware, received six votes for president. and kamala d. harris, of the state of california, received six votes for vice president. >> for what reason does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> mr. president, i, and 55 other members of the united states house of representatives, object to the electoral votes of the state of nevada, in order to protect the lawful votes of nevada and all other american citizens. >> section 15 and 17 of title 3 of the united states code requires that any objection be presented, in writing, and signed by a member of the house of representatives, and a senator. is the objection in writing and signed by a member and a senator? >> mr. president, it is in writing but, unfortunately, no

united states senator has joined in this effort. [ cheers and applause ] >> in that case, the objection cannot be entertained. are there any further objections to counting the certificate of vote of the state of nevada that the teller's verified appears to be regular, in form, and authentic? this certificate from new hampshire, the parliamentarians advise me, is the only certificate of vote from that state that purports to be a return from the state. has annexed to it, a certificate of the authority of the state, purporting to appoint or ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of new hampshire seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that joseph r. biden jr., of the state of delaware, received four

votes for president. and kamala d. harris, of the state of california, received four votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the state of new hampshire, that the teller has verified appears to be regular, in form, and authentic? this certificate from new jersey, the parliamentarians advise, is the only certificate of vote from the state that purports to be a return from the state. has annex to it, a certificate of the authority of the state purporting to appoint and ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of new jersey seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that joseph r. biden jr., of the state of delaware, received 14 votes for president. and kamala d. harris, of the state of california, received 14 votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the state of new jersey? teller's verified appears to be regular, in form, and authentic.

this certificate from new mexico, the parliamentarians advise, is the only certificate of vote from the state. that purports to be a return from the state. and that has annex to it, a certificate of authority of the state purporting to appoint or ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of new mexico seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that joseph r. biden jr. of the state of delaware received five votes for president. and kamala d. harris of the state of california received five votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of the state of new mexico that the teller has verified appears to be regular, in form, and authentic? hearing none. this certificate from new york, the parliamentarians advise me, is the only certificate of vote from the state that purports to be a return from the state and

has annex to it a certificate of authority from the state purporting to appoint and ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of new york seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that joseph r. biden jr., of the state of delaware, received 29 votes for president. and kamala d. harris, of the state of california, received 29 votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the state of new york that the teller's verified appears to be regular, in form, and authentic? hearing none. this certificate from north carolina, the parliamentarians advise me, is the only certificate of vote from that state that purports to be a return from the state. has annex to it, a certificate from the state purporting to appoint and ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of north carolina seems to be regular, in form, and authentic.

and it appears, therefrom, donald j. trump of the state of florida received 15 votes for president. and michael r. pence of the state of indiana received 15 votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote ev of the state of north carolina that the teller's verified appears to be regular, in form, and authentic? this certificate from north dakota, the parliamentarians advise me, is the only certificate of vote from the state. it purports to be a return from the state and has annex to it a certificate of authority of the state purporting to appoint and ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of north dakota seems regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that donald j. trump of the state of florida received three votes for president. and michael r. pence of the state of indiana received three votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to

counting the certificate of vote for the state of north dakota that the teller has verified as regular and authentic? hearing none. this certificate from ohio, the parliamentarians advise, is the only certificate of vote from the state that purports to be a return from the state. has annexed to it, a certificate of authority of the state purporting to appoint or ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of ohio seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that donald j. trump of the state of florida received 18 votes for president. and michael r. pence of the state of indiana received 18 votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote from the state of ohio, that the teller has verified as regular, in form, and authentic? hearing none. this certificate from oklahoma, the parliamentarians advise, is the only certificate of vote from that state.

purports to be a return from the state. has annex to it, a certificate of authority of the state purporting to appoint or ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of oklahoma seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that donald j. trump of the state of florida received seven votes for president. and michael r. pence of the state of indiana received seven votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the state of oklahoma that the teller has verified to be regular, in form, and authentic? hearing none. this certificate from oregon, the parliamentarians advise, is the only certificate of vote from the state that purports to be a return from the state. has the certificate of authority from the state annexed to it. to appoint and ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of oregon seems to be regular, in form, and authentic.

and it appears, therefrom, that joseph r. biden jr., of the state of delaware, received seven votes for president. and kamala d. harris of the state of california received seven votes for vice president. >> are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the state of oregon, that the teller has verified as regular, in form, and authentic? hearing none. this certificate from the commonwealth of pennsylvania, the parliamentarians advise, is the only certificate of vote from the state that purports to be a return of the state. has annexed to it, a certificate from an authority in the state purporting to appoint and ascertain electors. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the commonwealth of pennsylvania seems to be regular, in form, and authentic. and it appears, therefrom, that joseph r. biden jr., of the state of delaware, received 20

votes for president. and kamala d. harris, of the state of california, received 20 votes for vice president. >> for what reason does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. president, sadly, but resolutely, i object to the electoral votes of my beloved commonwealth of pennsylvania, on the grounds of multiple constitutional infractions, that they were not under all of the known circumstances regularly given. and on this occasion, i have a written objection, signed by a senator and 80 members of the house of representatives. >> is the objection in writing and signed by a senator? >> yes, mr. president, it is. >> an objection, presented in writing, and signed by both a representative and a senator, complies with the law. chapter 1 title 3 of the united states code, the clerk will report the objection. >> we, a united states senator,

and members of the house of representatives, object to the counting of the electoral votes of the state of pennsylvania, on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given. signed, josh hawley, united states senator. scott perry, member of congress. >> are there further objections to the certificates from the commonwealth of pennsylvania? the chair hears none. the two houses will withdrawal from joint session. each house will deliberate, separately, on the pending objection, and report its decision back to the joint session. the senate will now retire to its chamber.

phil mattingly, who is monitoring along with us. so, phil, now the senators go back to their chambers to -- to debate this in the senate. as well, to be debated in the house. how long do we expect that to be? because senator hawley, who is the senator who has signed onto this objection, he has said he will cede his time. >> obviously, this will replicate what you saw with the state of arizona, which, obviously, was interrupted for -- for a number of different hours. but where the senators right now will walk back across the capitol into their chamber. they will be seated and, technically, they will have a maximum of two hours to debate the objection to the state of pennsylvania. here's what's going to happen, though. you noted, senator josh hawley, who is the republican senatorer who signed onto this objection made clear, he was not going to

use his time. that's only five minutes. the reality is right now, the senate plans to yield back all of its two hours, and quite quickly, move to its rollcall vote. that vote, not unlike what we saw in arizona, will go down very, very badly for those who are trying to object. it will fail and it will die. what we are waiting to see right now is the length of the house debate because, again, the house will also be given a maximum two hours to debate the objection to pennsylvania. going to have to get a sense, in terms of how much time is going to be used there. obviously, you saw the pennsylvania delegation, pennsylvania republicans, were all signed onto the objection here. they all plan to speak. probably, a pretty good bet the pennsylvania democrats, as well as maybe a couple other democrats who have strategized the defense in terms how pennsylvania operated, how its state laws operated, and what it did in the wake of the pandemic to allow for more mail-in voting. one thing to keep in mind, anderson, we spoke about this before they reconvened. both sides, both chambers, both sets of leaders, won't this to

move quickly. and so, while the senate is going to move very quickly, probably right into a rollcall vote. the house will take more time, but they are also trying to wrap this up. and i think that the final point i'd make here, in terms of process and what's going to happen next. pennsylvania is expected to be the last successful objection that actually launches a process. obviously, you saw two objections fail, in michigan and nevada, because republican senators -- and georgia, sorry, three objections fail because republican senators did not sign on. notably, congressman of georgia said they had somebody to sign onto the georgia objection. that somebody was senator kelly loeffler. senator kelly loeffler announced earlier tonight, on the senate floor, based on the events of tonight or based on the events of today, she would no longer object. after the state of pennsylvania, as far as we know, up to this point in time, there will be no more successful objections that launch a debate, that launch a vote. things should move pretty quickly. it just all depends, right now, in terms of how long the house debate goes for the state of pennsylvania. >> phil mattingly, appreciate it. it's been an exhausting day.

it is not over, yet. i will be back on air tomorrow, at 9:00 a.m. in the morning. want to hand it over now to don lemon and chris cuomo. this is cnn breaking news. hello, i'm chris cuomo. joined, of course, with don lemon. another day in history. this, of the most ugly and tragic kind on a day that was supposed to celebrate democracy, we saw an insurrection. we saw mob-ocracy. we saw an attempted coup. and words matter because, already, people are way too insistent on trying to mitigate and reduce what happened, today. and we cannot do that, if we ever want to get to a better place. you know, you and i shared an interesting thought, today, that was very different than what was being done, even by our brothers and sisters in the media. when this started to happen, and the trump signs came out and they bust and did that bums rush into the capitol, were you surprised? >> no, not at all. i have to be very -- i have to

be very careful at what i say tonight, because i'm not surprised. i'm not shocked. but i am angry about what happened today. and -- and all americans should be angry about what happened today. and all americans should be angry about what the what aboutism. and all americans should be angry about the difference -- the differences in the way black lives matter protestors were treated. gassed. in the capitol because the president wanted to carry a bible and do a public event for a show. to make a video. and then, today, you have people who hopped up on lies and propaganda, took over the nation's capitol, not stopped by police. everyone is saying what was the failure in police? why -- what happened? there was no failure. if you look at the video, those people are being ushered in by some of the people who are supposed to be security or police. >> so you don't think it was simply about not being prepared? >> no. how can you not be prepared, when you are in control of protecting the united states capitol? how are you not prepared? all you have to do is look at the videos.

not -- again, we always have to preface this by saying, you know, not every officer. there are officers who are taking selfies with these people. there are officers, who are opening the gates and allowing officers or private security, or whoever they are, and allowing these people in. one has to think that these people are, somehow, believing what these folks are saying. or at least, some way, have been co-opted by them or are a part of it because folks are going in saying, this is our capitol. we -- this belongs to us. they work for us. therefore, they feel entitled to be able to subvert justice, to go into the nation's capitol, to stand at podiums and lecterns, that are reserved for elected officials, presidents, and senators, and congressmen of the united states. we're supposed to respect the country. we're supposed to respect the capitol. and by the way, you and i were talking about the fringe-right media. and i -- state-run media over at

fox news, i consider them, because they have been on the fringe of this. on the wrong side of this. talking about, today, my gosh, i cannot believe how beautiful the cap -- this -- the -- the capitol, physically, the beauty of the capitol being somehow desecrated. what about the democracy? what about the republic? and stop comparing it to black lives matter protestors because black lives matter protestors were there for real -- a real issue. police brutality. criminal-justice reform. the way people of color are treated in this country. people of color, who would -- who did what those people did, today, at the capitol. it would not have been come on in, let's take a selfie, let me help you, escort you down the stairs. it would have been tear gas, get on the ground, knees on the neck. that's what the black lives matter protestors were about. yes, there were rioters who were out of control with black lives matter. the same thing happened with today.

so, today, the folks at state-run media that are saying well, not all the people were out there doing bad things. the majority of those people were protestors and they were peaceful. that is the same argument that black lives matter had been making about people. not all of them were antifa. >> however, why is this important? two reasons. one, because this was supposed to be a seminal moment, today. this moment was so ugly, so obvious, that it should have been an end for us. it should have been, this is too much. what it was, was just another step in a process. and that's something we're going to have to talk about. is today going to be an end? or is it going to be a beginning aft of an ugly period? now, here is what we know, for sure. it delayed our democracy, at a minimum. and that is a fundamental difference. all right. any violence is not protest, it's rioting, it's criminality. we say this all the time. the reason we have to keep saying it is because there are people in this society who want to weaponize differences and

they, immediately, came out today and mitigated the significance of what happened today. oh, you were okay with it when it was blm. nobody was okay with it. but to even suggest that. because what we are doing right now, the reason we have a chance to recap here, and for don to give his thoughts is because, right now, they have been delayed, again. this is supposed to be the day where congress certifies the electoral votes from all the different states. okay? it is not a forum for adjudication of claims. it's not a court. it's not a commission. it is not a fact-finding body. >> that's what's happening. >> it is about certification. it is being bastardized for that use by retrumplicans and in the form of legal geniuses. senator hawley, senator cruz, they were supreme court clerks. they know what they are talking about. right now, they're in chamber getting ready to debate. >> they don't know what they are talking about now. >> hold on. i want to give a sense of where we are in the process. they are in chamber and they are going to be debating, up to two

hours. the only other objection we expect, there were going to be a number, as many as six. after the insurrection today, some senators got cold feet and said, maybe this is a bad move, fomenting fraud that is a farce. but, hawley did not. cruz did not. so, now, pennsylvania is up for debate, up to two hours. when they start debating it, the house and the senate went to separate chambers to do their debate. we will bring you the debates from the floor. >> yeah. it may. it nmay be two hours. and hawley's going to cede his time so it could be short. it is going to allow many senators to leave the capitol while the house debates possibly for two hours. and then, they are going to vote on this pennsylvania objection. but again, this is where we are now. had what happened today not happened, we wouldn't be sitting here at 12:25 in the morning, probably. >> who, us? >> with the vote. we would not be sitting here saying, well, pennsylvania's being debated right now. that would have happened earlier. >> yes. it would have been over.

>> they lost time because of this. all of this is pro forma what's happening right now. all of this is theater, with what's happening right now. and the reason, you know, everyone says, get back to the moment. the moment, the reason, that we're here, in this moment, is because the -- because of people, like ted cruz and josh hawley, who have been lying to the american people. and now, trying to compare apples and oranges when it comes to protestors, versus rioters, in this country. that's the moment that we're in right now. it's all the same moment. we're all in the same moment. this is what happens when you ig -- ignore the will of the people. whether you're a republican and you believe this was -- falsely, believe that this election was stolen. or, whether you are a democrat or someone who is -- who believes in criminal justice. and you believe that people of color should be treated equally. this is where we are, in this country, right now. and it is all culminated in a

moment that -- that come together, and now people are trying to say -- people are wanting to take away a free and fair election. the right of the people. it's all -- it's all the same thing. because -- but, hang on. just give me -- just give me some leeway here. because of a president, who uses people's -- who uses fear and anger as weapons. who pits people against each other. and the people who are in congress, like hawley and cruz, are using it, this moment, right now, to prop themselves up for political gain. that's why we're in this moment, right now. so, it all comes together. it's not just what's happening on the senate floor. it's not just what is's happeni in congress. it's what's happening in everyday people's lives, in this country. that's where we are. >> absolutely. and many people, even in the media. you know, good journalists,

saying this is surreal. this is unimaginable. this is reality. this is where we are in this country. i'm not saying everybody is this way. but this is the mood. this is our political culture, this is where we are. and by the way, there was bloodshed, today. all right. four people died. most notably, you are going to hear about a woman who was shot and killed, during the insurrection, when she had broken into the capitol with others. it happened, as they were, literally, rioting and trying to break down a door. there is dramatic video to show you, of the moments leading up to that deadly confrontation. why show that? why not show it? none of us should take any, just an ounce or scintilla of any type of satisfaction in hearing somebody got hurt, even though they were doing something wrong. our democracy should have never come to this, and you need to own the reality. all right? so, here is a modified version, just to make it less, you know, distressing for you, of the moment after you hear the gunshot. nope. we're going to hold on it.

senator mcconnell is saying something important right now. let's listen. >> section 17 of title 3, the united states code. when the two houses withdrawal from the joint session to count the electoral vote for separate consideration of an objection, a senator may speak to the objection for five minutes, not more than once. debates shall not exceed two hours, after which the chair will put the question, shall the objection be sustained. the clerk will report the objection made in the joint session. >> objection from senator hawley from missouri and representative perry from pennsylvania. we, a united states senator and member of the house of representatives, object to the counting of the electoral votes on the state of pennsylvania, on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given. >> majority leader.

>> no further debates. >> if there's no further debate -- if there is no further debate, the question shall be, shall the objection submitted by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, the senator from missouri, mr. hawley, be sustained? is there a sufficient second? >> there is. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> ms. baldwin. ms. baldwin, no. mr. barrasso. mr. barrasso, no. mr. bennet? mr. bennet, no. mrs. blackburn? mrs. blackburn, no. mr. blumenthal? mr. blunt? >> no. >> mr. blunt, no. mr. booker? >> no. >> mr. booker, no.

mr. bozeman? >> no. >> mr. bozeman, no. mr. braun? >> no. >> mr. braun, no. mr. brown? mr. brown, no. mr. burr? mr. burr, no. ms. cantwell? no. mr. cardin? mr. cardin, no. mr. carper? mr. carper, no. mr. casey? mr. casey, no. mr. cassidy? ms. collins? >> no. >> ms. collins, no. mr. coons? >> no. >> mr. cornyn? mr. cornyn, no. ms. cortez-masto? no. mr. cotton? mr. cotton, no. mr. kramer?

mr. kramer, no. mr. krepo? no. mr. cruz? mr. cruz, yea. mr. danes? mr. danes, no. ms. duckworth? >> no. >> ms. duckworth, no. mr. durban? mr. durban, no. ms. ernst? ms. ernst, no. mrs. feinstein? mrs. feinstein, no. mrs. fisher? mrs. fisher, no. mrs. gilibrand? mr. grassley? mr. grassley, no. mr. haggerty? mr. haggerty, no. ms. harris? ms. hassen? ms. hassen, no. mr. hawley? mr. hawley, yea.

mr. heinrich? mr. heinrich, no. mr. hickenlooper? mr. hicken loop evlooper, no. ms. hirono? mr. hoeven? mr. hoeven, no. mrs. hyde-smith? mrs. hyde-smith, yea. mr. inhofe? mr. inhofe, no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson, no. mr. kaine? mr. kelly? >> no. >> mr. kelly, no. mr. kennedy? >> no. >> mr. kennedy, no. mr. king? >> no. >> mr. king, no. ms. klobuchar? ms. klobuchar, no. mr. lankford? mr. lankford, no. mr. leahy?

mr. leahy, no. mr. lee? mr. lee, no. mrs. loeffler? mrs. loeffler, no. mr. luhan? mr. luhan, no. mrs. lomis? ms. lomis, yea. mr. manchin? >> no. >> mr. manchin, no. mr. markey? mr. markey, no. mr. marshall? mr. marshall, yea. mr. mcconnell? mr. mcconnell, no. mr. menendez? mr. merckly? mr. merckly, no. mr. moran? mr. moran, no.

ms. murkowski? ms. murkowski, no. mr. murphy? >> no. >> mr. murphy, no. mrs. murray? mrs. murray, no. mr. paul? >> no. >> mr. paul, no. mr. peters? >> no. >> mr. peters, no. mr. portman? mr. reid? >> no. >> mr. reid, no. mr. risch? mr. risch, no. mr. romney? >> no. >> mr. romney, no. ms. rosen? >> no. >> ms. rosen, no. mr. rounds? no. mr. rubio? >> no. >> mr. rubio, no. mr. sanders? mr. sasse? >> no. >> mr. sasse, no. mr. shots? no. mr. schumer?

mr. schumer, no. mr. scott of florida? mr. scott of florida, yea. mr. scott of south carolina? mr. scott of south carolina, no. mrs. shaheen? mrs. shaheen, no. mr. shelby? mr. shelby, no. ms. sinema. ms. sinema, no. ms. smith? ms. smith, no. ms. stabenow? ms. stabenow, no. mr. sullivan? >> no. >> mr. sullivan, no. mr. tester? >> no. >> mr. tester, no. mr. thune? mr. thune, no. mr. thillis? mr. thillis, no. mr. toomey? mr. toomey, no. mr. tuberville.

mr. van hollen, no. mr. warner? mr. warner, no. ms. warren? >> no. >> ms. warren, no. mr. whitehouse? mr. whitehouse, no. mr. wicker? >> no. >> mr. wicker, no. mr. wyden? mr. wyden, no. mr. young? >> no. >> mr. young, no. ms. harris? ms. harris, no. mrs. gillibrand? no. mr. blumenthal? mr. blumenthal, no. ms. hirono? ms. hirono, no. mr. portman? mr. portman, no. mr. cassidy? mr. cassidy, no. mr. menendez? mr. menendez, no.

mr. kaine? mr. kaine, no.

so, here we go. they are just waiting to announce right now, chris. >> so, what's happening right now is the parliamentarians, the people who sit in front of mike pence, if you are looking at the screen right now. you have the people who are on that top level. those are the senate parliamentarians. all right. those two rows. and they are pretty much the only ones who know the rules. so now, they are finishing the vote. and then, mike pence will record the vote. now, what has been remarkable here, so far. >> sanders. >> yeah, they are still going through the rollcall. sanders is, obviously, bernie sanders. is that, they have more yea or yes votes on this, than we anticipated. so far, we've heard seven. now, you have to remember where we are with this. okay? this is not a place to

adjudicate claims, by law it is to certify what states have already adjudicated. so, we're going to listen to the vice president, now, read off the vote. and then, discuss the gravity of this moment. >> on this vote, the yeas are 7, the nays are 92. the objection is not sustained. the secretary will notify the house of the action of the senate, informing that body the senate is now ready to proceed to joint session. with further counting the electoral vote for president and vice president. majority leader. >> mr. president. >> the -- i just want to hear what mcconnell says. >> so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that, upon the dissolution of the joint session, the senate stand adjourned, to then convene for pro-for

pro-forma sessions only, with no business being conducted on the following dates and times. >> right. and it's so interesting in terms of why people get turned off by government. one little step sideways. we are going to come back tomorrow for pro-forma sessions where no business is conducted. only in government, do you have a meeting to do nothing. now, what that means is they will not get your business done, tonight. the vice president had said, in kind of a strong statement of retaliation to the terrorism today. i mean, look. that's what it was. it's not just violence. it was politically directed. they wanted to undo this process. it was an insurrection. they wanted to take over the coop to capitol. they wanted this not to happen. this is a unique level of animus for us. now, what happened with this vote, 93-7, means that seven senators, all republicans, decided that, even though this is not a tribunal, that even though the state of

pennsylvania, that this was on, has been adjudicated at so many levels. senator hawley from missouri said something that he knows isn't true. and the man was a supreme court clerk. >> yeah. well, you said that he and he had cruz know because they're -- apparently -- >> they are very sophisticated, legal minds. >> they are sophisticated. they are sophisticated in fooling their constituents and the american people that they are actually doing their business. that's not what they are doing but i think as he important to call out on this. i wish we had a wall because we'd call it a wall of shame. ted cruz, texas. josh hawley of missouri. cindy hyde-smith. cynthia loomis of wyoming. and then, you have roger marshall. what is roger marshall of? kansas. rick scott of florida. tommy tuberville of alabama. those are the yes. and here is the interesting thing. kelly loeffler, who just lost her bid as an incumbent senator last night, was -- had said,

yesterday, you know, during -- on the day of voting, i am going to vote yes or no, right, not to certify these things. she decided today, after what happened at the capitol, that she was going to vote to certify. i'm not sure if she found religion. i'm not sure what her reasoning was, but it's interesting that she said no to this. and also -- and also, senator lindsey graham as well. that doesn't mean he is absolved of any sins for the past four years. but he did say this is done and it is over. >> well, look. again, there is a lot going on in this moment. but all leads us to the same place, which is that we are at a bottom, here. i've never seen it this bad. and we often say we are living history. we often say a lot of things because we want you to be able to seize on the meaning of a moment. and when you kept being told that this president was say things that was dangerous, i know it got monotonous and it started to seem hyperbolic. and then, you had a group of people, today, solely at his discretion and in his name,

break into the united states capitol. overtake the session to count the electoral votes to decide who our next president and vice president is. okay? that's not a protest turned into a riot. that's not beating up buildings. it's not criminality. all those things are wrong but they are not this. and the immediate response by the retrumplicans and by the supporters and the space around him was to mitigate it, immediately. so, our hope was, hopefully, this is enough. and it seemed like it was because the people in congress were shook. you know, when people come in and they say, hey, they are coming to get you. you are going to be a little scared. lindsey graham. i'm out. i'm out. good. good for him. >> but there was a lot of what-aboutism today that didn't necessarily need to happen. stand on what is happening right now. don't go back to what happened this summer. again, i think it's apples and oranges. don't talk about black lives matter. don't talk about the protest. we can deal with all that.

let's talk about what happened today. this is supposed to be the greatest democracy, in the world. and in that greatest democracy in the world, today, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists, took over the nation's capitol and caused someone to die. >> four people lost their lives, today. >> four people lost their lives but one of them was shot. three of them were from medical emergencies. one of them was shot. >> now, before we went to the floor, i want you to see the moment. look. this is what you are going to hear. you are going to hear people defend today. by saying, hey, we -- we weren't the bad guys. we were victimized. a woman died today. and that is true. a woman lost her life, today, because of what was done. and here's some of the video of it. >> he's got a gun!

>> that sounded like a gunshot. >> all right. so, you saw what we did there, right? we froze the video. i have to be honest with you. this is a discretion call, editorially, that we make to kind of insulate you from the reality of violence. i have always thought it was a mistake. >> i think we should show it. >> i think it's a mistake at war. i remember the iraq war, and being over there. and you guys lost interest and you didn't want to see dead bodies, anymore. and i think, when you get numb to it, you start to forget the significance. it matters that she was taken out there, today. it didn't have to happen. it should have never happened. none of this should be happening. >> chris, we showed ahmaud arbery being shot on camera. >> sure. should. >> we showed george floyd losing his life on camera. we show a lot of people who are killed by police, mostly black people, black men, being killed on camera.

we should show that woman being killed on camera, as well. i'm not sure -- listen. i don't make the decisions around here, as to what -- there is no difference. a life being lost is a life being lost, regardless of who it is. and in what situation. so, i think you are absolutely right. we should show that, to show how horrible these insurrectionists. the -- the horror of their actions, today. >> the reason that we don't show it is actually the opposite of why we should. because we're not in a place where you're sensitive. we're insensitive. that's the problem. that's how you can have people break into your capitol, today, and, immediately, have it explained away by people. now, let's get to somebody who was in there, and talk about how it changed the tone and tenor of what's happening, in congress, right now. at least, somewhat. congressman dan kildee of michigan is with us, tonight. he was there. thank god, you're all right. appreciate you guys going back in there, to do the people's business. we know that you have debate

ahead of you tonight. the senate is adjourning. they got their work done. they suspended debate, as you are well aware. so, give us a present-sense impression of being in the capitol, and having these people come for you. >> well, it was a surreal moment and it was frightening, in a couple of different ways. and i'm -- i'm not afraid to admit it. you know, i was there on the floor, in the gallery, literally, laying on the floor behind a wall. as these people were storming into our chamber. and it was frightening. it scared me. there were about 30 of us that had gone into the gallery because we wanted to be, you know, socially distanced on the floor. we didn't want to be all gathered, together, and michigan was not due to come up for a while. i had prepared, along with my colleagues, the defense. so, we were -- we were waiting our turn. and all of a sudden, they started trying to smash through the doors. and in both doors, they tried to break in. and the capitol police responded. we were huddled on the floor. we got stuck there for about 20 minutes, before we were taken

through some tunnels to a secure location where i stayed for about four hours. this was really a terrible moment. and it's frightening in another way, and you have been covering this. because this was an assault on our democratic way of life. this is an assault on the principles that have been sacred, in this country, for 240 years. and it was whipped up by politicians, public officials, the president of the united states, himself, and some of my colleagues, who know better. and in fact, some of my house colleagues that i've had conversations with explained that they were supporting this effort, which did add fuel to this raging mob. they -- they were supporting the effort because they were afraid to say no to this trump base. in other words, their own, political fortune was more important to them, than the principles that have held this

country together. there is no warranty or guarantee on the back of the constitution. this democracy is what we make it. and -- and i'll say this. those members of congress who have supported this specious attack on the electoral college vote will have their names permanently written in ink, and everyone should know those names. i will never look at my colleagues who voted for these challenges, who supported these challenges, who fueled this insanity -- i will never be able to look at them the same. that includes some of my michigan colleagues that i could not look in the eye today when we were huddled in a safe place. i could not look them in the eye with any degree of respect. i hope we remember those names forever. >> congressman, i've got to ask you, since you said that, everyone now is talking about, well, the nation needs to come together. people need to work with the

trump voters. people need to respect the trump voters and so on and so forth. how do you work with your colleagues if you can't look them in the face? how do you work with the trump voter when they are not dealing with reality, when they have been lied to and they have somehow bought into this, as you can see what played out in the capitol and you witnessed? >> this is really an important question, and you were talking about this earlier. i'm exhausted by the obsession with false equivalency and equal blame and equal responsibility to put away this nonsense. the republican -- not all republicans. this was not republicans versus democrats because many republicans joined us. but it just so happens that all of the objectors were republicans. my view is this. i'm willing to work with them, but they have much farther to travel to come back to some sense of normal conversation and debate than any of us do.

this false equivalency that both sides need to somehow reconcile with one another, look, i get that. but they have gone too far, and president trump and those around him and these few senators and over 100 republican members of the house, it's up to them to grow up. >> mm-hmm. >> and get some steel in their spine. my favorite professor at the kennedy school taught me something really important. he said that leadership is the act of disappointing your own supporters at a rate they can absorb. it means sometimes you have to tell people things they don't want to hear because it's honest and it's the truth. >> yeah, but that was school. >> let me do a follow here, congressman. the natural follow is can this happen? do you think it can happen? everything that you said, do you think they can grow up? do you think they can live in

reality? do you think you can work with the other side? can they work with you? the democracy depends on it. >> apparently because they are so bent on pandering to people that they want to please, only if enough people see this moment and say enough is enough. >> but, dan, if today wasn't enough -- today wasn't enough, right? you had some mildness when they went back in. i call it a little pts. they went back in. they were a little shook because when they come for you, it mellows you a little bit, and we saw some modulation. but not enough, especially in the house. you had 100 of your colleagues on the republican side hue to claims that they knew to be false. these are not the same people raiding the capitol today. these are the people fomenting the animus of those people when they know it's wrong. first of all, they know your forum is not a place to adjudicate claims. they know that's not what the election act was in 1872.

they know that and they're doing it anyway. they're picking states that they have no business doing it in like pennsylvania. what does that tell you that even after they watch their own crush through the capitol and embarrass this country such that we have erdogan from turkey telling us to respect democracy, what does that tell you about what the future holds? >> i'm worried about it. i'm normally an optimist. i have to be an optimist to do this job. but as i was laying on the floor of the gallery of the house of representatives trying to protect myself from attack, in the same place where people come to watch our democracy, it occurred to me there is no automatic fix. it isn't self-correcting. it's going to have to take some of these people waking up. i wish i could tell you that i'm convinced that it will happen. i wish i could tell you that. but i look at some of my colleagues, and i don't see a change in their hearts.

they're trying to rationalize. >> it's not going to change as long as they benefit from it. they're afraid he's going to show up in town and take them out in a primary. you're going to see what you saw today. because if a coup isn't enough to change them, and then you have an aspect of why it went so well from the insurgents' perspective today. do you have any questions in your mind about what the level of preparation was here and some very concerning items of interest about video where it seems like they're being let through barricades and there's a familiarity with these protesters, you know, selfies being taken. and obviously the concern is that if they were all, you think this would ha -- were all black, you think this would have gone the same way? >> there was a failure. there's no two ways about it. i do appreciate the officers who were there. i saw them draw their guns and protect me, and i'll thank them

for that. but there was clearly a lack of preparation. there was clearly this sense that this particular mob has a different character to it than other much smaller groups of people that had the national guard called out on them. where was the national guard this time? where were they? >> well, there's a selfie picture up on the screen now of someone taking a selfie. and then there are other -- there's video and other images of the rioters being allowed into the capitol, being moved beyond the barricades. >> i saw that. >> i've got to ask you -- i've been wanting to ask you since i got here. you said it's happening in certain states, right? but it's happening in certain states and precincts that are predominantly in cities. >> absolutely. >> and black precincts. what does that say to you about the motives of the president and the motives of your colleagues

to pick urban areas, cities that are predominantly black to contest? >> look, we know what this is. i grew up in flint. we know what it means when they talk about detroit and philadelphia and fulton county. >> atlanta, yeah. >> lookit, they know what they're dog. their dog whistles are well heard by these people who storm this place. this is the 21st century reincarnation of jim crow. they can't erase that. they can't rationalize it. these members of congress who voted for this, who supported this and these senators have put their name on a list with george wallace, with bull connor. instead of a list with john lewis and fannie lou hamer and martin luther king. >> do you tell them that? >> absolutely. they made their decision today which list they are going to be listed upon for their children, for their grandchildren, for everyone.

and i'm done with these people. you know, this idea that we do need to come together, i love people. i'm willing to work with anybody. but there are certain lines that you cross that just cannot be forgiven, and i will not forgive these people until they come to reconcile their own wrongdoing and apologize to us for putting us in this position, not just me being threatened physically, but the threat to our democracy is real. this is not a guaranteed democracy. it can fall apart. it can crumble. we saw evidence of that today, and these members of congress walking around, patting themselves on the back as if they're some sort of hero, give me a break. they're cowards. the only reason they did this is their own cowardice. they are afraid of the voters that they don't want to offend who wear the red hats. shame on them. >> congressman dan kildee of michigan, thank you so much. we're glad that you're safe. we're glad that you're okay.

>> also, dan, we haven't forgotten about what's happening in flint. we know the people there are still not being treated to the kind of water, that the infrastructure was never done, the funding didn't come through. you'll always have a place on our platform to discuss about the need. >> thank you. i appreciate it. thank you for what you're doing. >> chris, we have to remember there's a lot going on. as my rant at the top of the show -- >> it was a rant. >> i feel it's the truth, and i know it's the truth. i'm speaking for people out there all day who i've been listening to have been contacting me and have been watching not just on social media but every -- the first thing people said was, wow, can you imagine if these were black people, what would happen? it wouldn't be come on into the capitol, let's take a selfie. i'm sorry. it would not be that. it would be get on the ground. it would be tear gas. it would be -- it would be, you know, batons. that's exactly what would happen. here we are in the middle of a pandemic, in the middle of

racial strife in this country, in the middle of challenges to our electoral process, a political crisis, and a president who is unhinged. can you believe that we're sitting here now talking about invoking the 25th amendment for the person who holds the nuclear codes of this country? it's crazy. who incited a riot at the nation's capital today. >> yes to the last part. i believe the 25th amendment is a little bit of a passion excuse. i don't think it's set up for this application. i don't think the timing is available. i often think that with the media, you are right, it is being discussed. but i think that's one of the choices we make where we don't have to go that far because it's not going to happen. but, yes, i do believe it because that's why it's not surreal. it is completely real. we are in the middle of a maelstrom. we are in the middle of a pandemic that we have not talked about at all today