eric swalwell filed a different one, what i thought was going to happen, is benny thompson would go first, and other members of the congress would decide they would join in. it could become a larger class. i didn't realize, if anyone had slightly different approaches to the same problem, it could be a parade that lasts until the end of his life. >> i've spent the day studying eric swalwell's lawsuit. we are going to be joined by the harvard constitutional law professor, laurence tribe. if he tells us this is a real lawsuit and it won't be dismissed, it will get to a jury. it will get to a washington, d.c., jury. then that indicates it's going to be many, many, many more. >> yeah, and -- well, i know he has been thinking about it and writing about it. i just read his piece. i can't wait for you to talk to him. >> we will do that. thank you. and one of the things to watch now is who will be the first criminally charged attacker of the capitol who turns on donald trump and fires a lawsuit against trump saying that donald trump was negligent in telling people to go to the capitol and to fight. one of the counts in swalwell's lawsuit is that trump's language and conduct at the rally before the attack on the capitol was negligent at minimum. and it provoked people to attack the capitol. will jacob chansley sue trump, for what happened to him that day? will he sue donald trump for fraud in making him believe that the election was stolen and he had to put on his horns and go to the capitol and fight? will he sue donald trump for negligence for urging him to go to the capitol and fight? there are over 300 people whose lives have been disrupted because of what donald trump told them to do. and what they did got them arrested by the fbi. which one of them will be the first to sue donald trump for damages? which one of them will sue trump to pay attorney fees in their criminal case? which one of them will sue trump to pay for lost income and punitive damages because of what trump told them to do? which one of them will be the first to sue trump for fraud? that might sound like a crazy lawsuit to you. but not to them. they are all crazy or stupid or both. and so far, the cases against every single person at the capitol show them to be crazy, stupid, or both. jacob chansley advertised his craziness in his outfit choice, and today in a 32-page opinion, judge royce lambert, appointed by ronald reagan, used jacob chansley's craziness and stupidity as reasons not to let him out of jail. and according the authority to the require him to show up for a court date. the judge also quoted what chansley said when he was sitting in the vice president's chair in the senate chamber. quote, mike pence is an "f"-ing traitor. the first conversation the day after, according to the judge, quote, he entered the capitol -- he told him he entered the capitol by the grace of god and said he was glad he sat in the vice president's chair because vice president pence is a child-trafficking traitor. and the judge quoted what he said to nbc news. wit it was not recorded, it was written. he quoted it the same day, the same day he first talked to the nib fbi. this is what he said. the fact that we had a bunch of our traitors in office hunker down, put on their gas masks and retreat in their underground bunker, i consider that a win. jacob chansley voluntarily drove himself to the fbi field office in phoenix, arizona, to talk to the fbi, thinking that he, because he's is so smart, could talk his way out of trouble. not knowing that he already had secretly been charged. during that discussion with the fbi, at the field office in phoenix, defendant twice told law enforcement he had plans to drive to the arizona state capitol, corroborating the plans law enforcement found the horned head dress, face paint, spear, and bull horn in his car that was parked outside of the fbi field office. the defendant was then arrested at the phoenix fbi office. he went to the fbi field office with the horns and the spear and the bull horn in his car. crazy? stupid? or both? you decide. one of the reasons that added weight to judge lambert's decision to keep jacob chansley in jail is that he carried a weapon with him in the capitol. the judge described it as a six-foot pole with an american flag zip tied to the shaft and a metal spearhead fixed to the top. with the defense trying to argue that was just a flag, and federal buildings are filled with flags. the judge said, quote, whether or not an object is a dangerous weapon of course does not turn on its availability within government buildings. by defendant's logic, knives would not be considered dangerous weapons due to their availability in government cafeterias. prosecutors want to take federico klein in jail. he had a security clearance the day he invaded the capitol because he was working in mike pompeo's state department as a donald trump appointee. federal prosecutors say he used violence, and his individual participation heightened the overall dangerousness of the day. he was captured on video saying, we just want a fair election. the prosecutors say klein stole a riot shield from an officer and used it violently against other officers. the prosecutors say that he engaged in 30 minutes of hand to hand combat. he was seen on video hindering an officer, seeking to help another officer who was dragged in the mob in the lower west terrace. prosecutors say he should be denied bail because his employment history shows he knew how seriously he violated the law. and he continued to do it. they cite his oath of office as a federal employee to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. despite his oath to support and defend the constitution, klein demonstrated his contempt for that oath, the legitimate functions of the government, and for the constitution itself when he assaulted officers in an attempt to stop the certification of a lawful election. if klein is unwilling to obey orders while in full view of law enforcement, or to conform his behavior of the law, even when he disagrees with it, it's unlikely that he would adhere to this court's directions. freddy klein, crazy, stupid or both? freddy klein is an oath breaker. he broke his oath of office. some of his attackers of the capitol call themselves oath keepers. they are lying. don't ever count on one of them to keep an oath. they are deranged people who are dangerous to themselves and to others and the fbi is still looking for them. looking for deranged people who attacked the capitol. the fbi is still posting photographs on twitter asking for help. trying to identify the invaders of the capitol. today the fbi said they are looking for these people, these two, for assaults on members of the media. these pictures keep coming up every day. and today the fbi released video of the person they say planted bombs outside of the democratic party's headquarters and the republican party's headquarters in washington, d.c., the night before the attack on the capitol. the fbi is asking for help in identifying that person. also today, it was revealed that joshua james, who was seen in photographs with roger stone on january 6th before the attack on the capitol has been arrested. the arrest made public the day after prosecutors revealed they had charged a fellow oath keeper security guard for entering the capitol, the latest evidence that prosecutors are honing in on the extremist group with key ties to organizers of the pro trump stop the steal events. about a dozen oath keepers have been charged among the more than 250 capitol rioters. and leading us off is congressman adam schiff of california. he is chairman of the house intelligence committee, and he was the lead house manager prosecutor in donald trump's first impeachment trial. thanks for joining us. really appreciate it. >> good to be with you. >> i want to go to the last point we were covering here in tonight's reporting. and that is the connection between trump confidants like roger stone, the white house, and invaders of the capitol. there's also telephone data that has been collected from the cell phone services indicating there were phone calls tracing -- marking every phone call from the capitol that day, and there is evidence of at least one call to the white house. >> well, i think this is a very important part of the investigation, and there are really at least a couple main components. the first is they are going out, the fbi fanning out throughout the country, identifying those that were there, and carrying a spear or threatening the life of the speaker or the vice president. and they're tracking down and arresting them. and they are seeking detention, and the courts are ordering detention in some of these cases and the other aspect, who is involved in organizing, and financing this? what ties if any between the insurrectionist and public officials, and members of congress, or the trump campaign or administration or allies like roger stone? so it will be important for the fbi to get answers and it will be important for congress to get answers and part of that is to bring justice. to find people accountable. and also in terms of protecting the capitol going forward, we need to understand who was involved in this. how did this come about? who role did social media play in helping these qanon conspiracy theorists and others find each other? >> how important is it to have merrick garland confirmed and be in there overseeing the progress of this since it will eventually be handed off to him? >> well, it's very important. you know, for right now, as they are tracking these people down, and making arrests. they might -- may file a complaint and have to make a situation about whether to bring greater charges and some of the decisions might get bumped up. but in terms of the broader investigation, that is really i think one of the most important reasons why you need the attorney general confirmed. big decisions about bigger cases with more far reaching repercussions. if there indeed were people close to the president who bear responsibility for the violence, that's a decision that will be made by the attorney general. so he does need to be confirmed. and i think time is of the essence. >> we have seen many times where the justice department is investigating something that congress also wants to investigate. and you somehow have to choose your lanes and not cross over into the federal criminal investigation. have there been discussions in the house about how to do that? >> i haven't been part of those discussions yet. i think when we get to the point of bringing in certain witnesses, those conversations should take place. i can tell you, in the beginning of the russia investigation, we met with mueller with the -- i don't think he was interested in trying to coordinate with us, and that is perfectly understandable. but we wanted to make sure that nothing we did would prohibit them from bringing someone to justice. we wouldn't entertain bringing immunity to a witness if that would create a problem. at some point, there may be a need for deconfliction, and we will make sure we are not treading too heavily in their lane. >> and thanks to georgia electing two democratic senators, you find yourself in a different dynamic. because you also have a democratic senate. when you were investigating donald trump in the house of representatives, there was no investigation in the republican-controlled senate because no committee would conduct any serious investigation there. and so you now have the possibility of coordinating with the senate. has there been any planning on that? >> you know, i think that probably both houses are going to be going about this separately. you're absolutely right. there is a force multiplier. you have a senate that is willing to take on these tough issues so i think you will see parallel actions and we will seen some of it already. at the same time, it does underscore why it's so important to have an independent commission that would have greater resources in the congress. because it will be utterly nonpartisan and carry great weight and credibility with the american people. and i think with the efforts, it really makes sense if we want a body with the stature of the 9/11 commission to make recommendations for the future that we establish that commission. >> chairman adam schiff, thank you very much for leading off our discussion tonight. >> thanks, lawrence. >> thank you. up next, harvard constitutional law professor laurence tribe will join us for tonight's episode of defendant trump. ♪ ♪ (quiet piano music) ♪ ♪ comfort in the extreme. the lincoln family of luxury suvs. ♪ ♪ we know it's going to take many forms of energy to meet the world's needs while creating a cleaner future for all. at chevron, we're lowering the carbon emissions intensity of our operations, investing in lower-carbon technologies, and exploring renewable fuels of the future. we work hard to care for the homes we love. but it's only human... to protect the one we share. see every delivery... we work hard to care for every yikes...ove. and even every awwwwwwww... wait, where was i? introducing self protection from xfinity. designed to put you in control. with real-time notification and a week of uninterrupted recording... all powered by reliable, secure wifi from xfinity. gotta respect his determinatio. it's easy and affordable to get started. get self protection for $10 a month. donald trump is going to spend the rest of his life as a defendant. assuming the 74-year-old avails himself of all of his rights with appeal in civil litigation. it could easily follow trump well into his 80s and there is much more litigation coming trump's way, including criminal cases in atlanta and manhattan, and if necessary he will appeal the outcomes of those cases for many, many years to come. there are now two major lawsuits filed against trump by two members of congress for inciting the insurrection at the capitol. the one from eric swalwell names four defendants who spoke at the trump rally, urging people to go to the capitol and right. donald trump, donald trump jr., representative mo brooks and rudolph giuliani. the lawsuit quotes trump to fight like hell and walk down pennsylvania avenue to the capitol. swalwell is suing for conspiracy to violate civil rights. interference with official duties. negligence to prevent interference with civil rights. count three, negligence per se incitement to riot. negligence disorderly conduct. count five, bias related crimes, inciting assault, inciting to riot, and disorderly conduct and terrorism. count six, negligent infliction of emotional distress. count eight, aiding and abetting common law assault. count nine, negligence. if they can proceed to discovery, and proceed to trial, a district of columbia jury will decide what each of the counts might be worth. and that decision could bankrupt donald trump, and what is worse for trump, every single member of congress could bring exactly the same lawsuit against trump and his son and rudy giuliani, and congressman mo brooks, and all of those defendants could be bankrupted by all of those. joining us now, laurence tribe. he has won 35 cases in the united states supreme court. professor tribe, thank you so much for joining us tonight, and i want to bring the congressman swalwell lawsuit to you tonight for your judgment. on whether it will first of all survive a motion to dismiss and make its way to trial. >> thank you for having me, lawrence. it will survive a motion to dismiss because it's extremely solid. i have studied it with great care. and when you list those counts, a lot of people might not realize they are of a very different variety. the first two are based on laws going back to 1871, which are focused not on incitement as such, which might have first amendment problems. they are focused on conspiracy to interfere with the operations of government, in this case, conspiracy to prevent the certification of the next president. that is count one, which is based on a 1871 law, and then count two involves knowing about the conspiracy, knowing that it is causing harm and then doing nothing about it. that's basically dereliction of duty. those two federal counts are extremely solid. then the other seven counts are based on specific provisions. not of national law, but of district of columbia law. for example, count five is based on a section of the d.c. code. section 22.3704, which involves the harm that people do when they organize attacks against others based on their race, ethnicity, or politics. their political affiliation, their political ideology. obviously, this was an attack, as the president made clear, on those members of congress who were ready to certify the next president. when you look at the counts carefully, including the seven that are based on district of columbia law, they're quite invulnerable to any legal challenge. they raise no constitutional problems. the allegations are specific and meet all of the requirements that would be applied by someone who wanted to dismiss them. and not only, as you said, lawrence, every member of congress who would file similar suits but what about the survivors of the capitol police who were injured or killed. what about the people who with terrorized who were calling home to say good-bye to their loved ones? this is a very serious lawsuit and it's going to be an important way for accountability to take place. even if for various political or other reasons the criminal prosecutions do not land trump in an orange jumpsuit. these lawsuits are going to provide financial compensation and punitive damages to the many people who were terribly hurt by the insurrection. the people of the united states will not be fully compensated for sure. but the people who were at the capitol who were the direct victims of this attack will i think receive a measure of justice. >> as you read the lawsuit, i was focused, professor, on the negligence claims. that is a common civil tort. you did something in a negligent way that created a certain effect. and you don't have to prove that you deliberately intended for me to fall down the stairs. it's just because you didn't repair them, and left them that way, i fell down the stairs. and that piece of the lawsuit seems available to literally thousands of people, including congressional staffers, capitol police officers. there are so many people that can make similar claims against donald trump. >> right. part of what he did was negligence, part was reckless, part was intentional. and all of it that caused the harms that delayed the operations of government, although in the end, thanks to courageous members of congress, they got together and certified joe biden as the next president. but all of these things involve putting things in motion, that the president as a citizen and as a president, could have pulled back when he saw the harm that is being done. rather than delighting in it, and expressing surprise about other people around him not being equally delighted, and he could have called out the national guard more quickly. he could have moved more quickly. he could have told the mob to go home. he waited and he egged them on, and that was a combination of negligent activity, reckless activity, intentional activity, violating the laws of the district of columbia as well as the united states. as well as his oath of office. >> i am fully expecting someone arrested in the capitol will at some point turn around and sue donald trump for damages. what would happen in that case? >> it would depend on the lawsuit. i don't want to comment on a complaint that i haven't seen. perhaps one that hasn't been drafted yet. but it's clear that a lot of people that were bamboozled by trump into doing his bidding and causing this