>> Will President Trump be held accountable for the Capitol riot?

This week on "Firing Line."

>> If we object to results like this, the message is so clear.

We are saying to states, no matter how secure and accurate your elections are, we'll gladly overthrow them if we don't like who you voted for.

>> The Junior Senator from Virginia, Democrat Tim Kaine, was Hillary Clinton's running mate in 2016.

>> In all six cases, he's refused to defend his running mate's -- >> No, no, don't put words in my mouth.

>> Four years later, he was at the Capitol during the violent and deadly insurrection.

With an impeachment trial looming... >> The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

>> ...heated debate over pandemic relief... >> The total figure is pretty shocking.

>> We need big, bold change.

>> ...and President Biden calling for unity, what does Senator Tim Kaine say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Senator Tim Kaine, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Thank you, Margaret.

>> Senator, 45 Republicans voted earlier this week to consider whether or not the trial of a former president is actually constitutional.

Now, only five GOP senators joined Democrats to dismiss this effort and proceed with the trial.

And this is well short of the 17 Republicans that would be needed to join 50 Democrats to vote to convict the former president.

Senator, what is your sense of the Senate about the possibility of conviction of former President Trump?

>> Margaret, I think the behavior is impeachable and certainly warrants conviction, but I think the chances are virtually zero.

As you pointed out, this vote was basically on the question of whether you could try a former official in an impeachment trial.

There are legal arguments both ways on that.

I think the better argument is certainly that you can do such a trial, but 45 Republicans have said they don't think it is in accord with the Constitution.

So I would be shocked if even a single one of them would be willing to vote for conviction.

So, look, what we have to grapple with is the reality that we will have a trial and that we will fall far short of the two-thirds requirement to convict in an impeachment.

And that's why I have been working for the last couple weeks with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look at alternatives where we can hold President Trump accountable for fomenting violence at the Capitol on January 6th, but that would be short of the impeachment full trial with the two-thirds vote requirement.

>> Is the exercise of trying a former president in the Senate -- if you think that the result is well-known, if you can see the writing on the wall -- is that exercise somehow still worthwhile?

>> We have to have accountability for the events of January 6th for the president and for others, so efforts to find accountability are worthwhile, but I guess, Margaret, I'd put it into this context -- we are suffering through a once-in-a-century health crisis where many of our communities in the country are still experiencing record COVID cases and hospitalizations and deaths every day, and while accountability is important, what's urgent right now is helping Americans deal with the suffering of coronavirus.

That's the thing that is the most urgent to me, and that's what I certainly hear from my constituents.

So, accountability is necessary.

I just think maybe we need to explore, are there other mechanisms to reach accountability?

>> It's been reported that you are working with Republican Senator Susan Collins on a bipartisan resolution to censure President Trump.

What can you tell me about it?

>> Susan Collins and I -- and we've had conversations with others, as well -- are exploring a very simple resolution.

It would declare the attack on the Capitol on January 6th an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States, because they were trying to stop us from doing our constitutional duty and counting certified electoral votes.

It would find that President Trump gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol by preaching a big lie about election fraud and encouraging them to gather in DC for a wild event, and then, encouraging them to go up and raise hell with Congress.

And it would then condemn the president for those actions.

Under the wording of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Section 3, anybody who participates in an insurrection against the Constitution, or gives aid and comfort to those who do, is barred from ever serving in office again.

I believe, if we were to pass this resolution, it would take a 60-vote threshold, not 67 votes, not 2/3.

We haven't talked to enough people to know yet, could we get to 60?

But it's obviously easier than 67.

And then, down the road, people would look at this condemnation resolution, and if Donald Trump ever ran for office again, courts could determine whether the resolution would be a bar to him from running.

That would be for courts to decide.

But we could do this as a resolution.

It wouldn't take the full trial.

There's an easier vote threshold to get to, and then, we could move to COVID relief and trying to deal with the suffering of the American public.

So I am exploring this as an alternative.

And I have colleagues who are thinking about it.

Some say they'd like to do it after the impeachment trial is over.

Some are contemplating whether we might be able to do it in lieu of the impeachment trial.

But I just want people to know there are accountability mechanisms for this president other than an impeachment trial, which is most likely to come up short.

>> Another accountability mechanism is to let the courts work it out.

What do you think about this argument that maybe a better course of action is to let Merrick Garland's Department of Justice, that probably enjoys a greater degree of public confidence than -- no offense, Senator -- politicians in the Senate, right?

And if Trump were prosecuted and convicted in the courts, that could inform an action in the Senate as to whether the former president has committed a high crime and misdemeanor or deserves to be barred from office.

What is your thought about that?

>> Margaret, I think you make a good point.

As an elected official, I don't generally like to tell prosecutors what to do or not to.

Even an attorney general in a Biden Administration should have independence, and they should do -- you know, they should follow evidence, and I'm certain that, just as prosecutors are looking at the activity of people who attacked the halls that day, they're going to look at the activity of people who might have inspired them.

So I don't encourage them.

I don't discourage them.

They need to make independent decisions about that.

I do think, though, there is some value in the Senate taking the stand and saying there should be accountability.

And that's what -- you know, that's what censure resolutions do, that's what impeachment trials do, that's what a resolution of the kind that I put on the table that's drawn from the 14th Amendment would do.

It's not bad to have rules that we are willing to enforce ourselves, because if we don't, then, is the answer that, you know, there's no standards?

I think the Senate should have standards.

>> Senator, you along with six other Senators have called on the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Senator Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz over the Capitol Hill riot and their repeated objections to the election results.

You have said the committee should consider appropriate consequences, quote, "including up to expulsion or censure, if warranted by the facts uncovered."

What facts could be uncovered, Senator, that would warrant expulsion.

>> I want to leave it to the committee, Margaret.

Just as you know, but for your viewers, the Senate Ethics Committee is the only completely bipartisan committee in the Senate.

No matter what the lineup -- 80 Republicans and 20 Democrats or vice versa -- the Ethics Committee is three and three.

It's evenly divided.

And those of us who signed the complaint, we wanted to put it before the most bipartisan body in the Senate and obviously give Senators Hawley and Cruz the opportunity to defend their behavior and make their case.

Here's what troubled us.

Here's why we sought to file an ethics complaint against them and nobody else.

It wasn't their voting for objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania slate.

They were sort of the organizers of the objections.

They repeatedly, before January 6th, repeated, in my view, false narratives about fraudulent elections, rigged elections.

They undermined the integrity of the American election and American democracy.

They did so even as violence was occurring, even after violence occurred on January 6th.

Each of them sent out fund-raising e-mails during the attack on the Capitol.

Not just the generic, "Hey, it's Wednesday and I always do a fund-raising e-mail," but, "I'm raising funds because I'm fighting this fraudulent election.

And, so, there's no joy in this.

I don't like filing something like this against a colleague.

I never have and I hope I never will again, but this was a day that will live in infamy in the history of the United States Congress.

And just as the Senate came together, I think of the famous instance in 1954.

The Senate came together to censure Joe McCarthy, Senator of Wisconsin, and if you boil it down, they censured McCarthy for preaching the big lie.

He, over and over again, tried to tarnish the reputations of individuals falsely by claiming that they were Communists or trying to overthrow the US government.

You could say Joe McCarthy was worse 'cause he did it over multiple years, but in some ways, you could say what happened this year was worse because the big lie that Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz were preaching was not a lie about the reputation of individuals.

It was undermining the integrity of American democracy, undermining the integrity of the election.

And a lot of people got bamboozled by the repetition of the lie so much so that they were willing to undertake violence against Congress because of what they had heard.

>> Do you think, Senator Kaine, as this ethics investigation proceeds, more information about the extent of Senator Hawley and Senator Cruz's actions will become public?

>> It's possible, if there is more information about it.

There needs to be an investigation, including into any ties between them and folks who were organizing this rally that turned into an attack.

The circumstances of these fund-raising e-mails, which troubled us.

And, obviously, you do an investigation like this so that they can offer their own facts and defenses, which they need to do.

There's going to be multiple sides to the story.

The Ethics Committee is not under a time deadline.

They don't have to resolve it in a week.

They can take the time to make sure they fully understand all the circumstances, and then, in a bipartisan way, try to address it.

>> Does the element of fund-raising in that, Senator, concern you because it suggests some degree of premeditation or planning?

>> It very much concerns me, and you know, I guess I'm trying to put my finger on why I find that so troubling.

When I heard about it at the time, I was furious.

I was furious on that day.

So I've hardly ever been as angry about anything in my life than seeing the Capitol of the United States overrun by insurrectionist with Confederate flags, Camp Auschwitz T-shirts, chanting racist slogans.

I was absolutely furious.

And I felt like President Trump and others who preached this big lie -- which I believe Senators Cruz and Hawley knew it to be false -- but they preached a big lie and they fund-raised off it.

It made me so very angry, and when I found that, in the middle -- in the middle of this attack on the Capitol -- when we were sheltered in place in the Hart Building during this attack, both Senators Cruz and Hawley were sending out fund-raising e-mails, it absolutely drove me nuts.

I didn't think about that in terms of premeditation, but what I thought about it is, how politically craven?

You're willing to undermine American democracy, what?

So you can raise some funds?

What, so you can get an edge over somebody else that you think might be a political competitor in four years?

You're going to put our democracy at risk and risk the health of a lot of people?

Five people died that day, Margaret.

And many were injured and many were arrested.

Some of the people who came to the Capitol were violent, and some of them were white supremacists.

But a lot of the people who came, I think, were gullible.

And they got, again, bamboozled into believing something was true when it wasn't, and they were persuaded that way because leaders preached a false message at them that I think they knew was false.

>> Well, let's turn to COVID relief.

Majority Leader Schumer has indicated that, for many of the legislative items and priorities of the Biden Administration, he's actually willing to move ahead without GOP support.

But for a president who has just given an inaugural speech where he used the word "unity" multiple times and has really spoken about wanting to bring the country together, which is it going to be?

>> Margaret, here's -- You know, this is sort of inside baseball that you get, but just for those watching.

So we have quirky procedures in the Senate.

In the House, everything's by majority rule.

Well, in the Senate, generally, for legislation, you need 60 votes.

Neither party has 60. neither party's going to have 60 for a very long time.

So, for most legislation, you need to find some votes on the other side of the aisle.

There is an exception to that under current Senate procedure that's been used often by Democrats and Republicans.

It's called budget reconciliation.

On matters that are deemed by the parliamentarian to be sort of predominantly budgetary, you can legislate by simple majority.

And Democrats and Republicans have used that.

So that's not a change in the rule.

That's not anything new.

And what Senator Schumer has said on this COVID package is, "Look, this is the kind of thing where we can use the budget reconciliation process to get stuff done by majority rule."

And there's nothing wrong with that.

You know, Democrats have used it in the past, Republicans used it to try to destroy the Affordable Care Act.

They used it to get a tax cut passed in 2017.

So, Democrats, I think we need to be open to using it to pass a COVID relief package.

But what I want to make clear is this -- even if Democrats use reconciliation, there's going to be tons of priorities in that bill that are Republican priorities.

Because Joe Biden and his team and Democratic senators, we're talking to Republicans about what they're seeing in their state.

They want to see better vaccine deployment, they want to see more economic uplift.

So even if we go a budget reconciliation route that could pass with purely Democratic votes, you're going to see significant priorities in the bill that will reflect that we talked to Republicans, we listened to them, we included things that they wanted, and we included things that help their constituents.

>> But I guess the question is, you know... And it sounds like you don't believe that this bill is a litmus test of whether bipartisanship will be possible in the Biden Administration writ large.

>> Look, I'm not giving up on bipartisanship.

>> Okay.

>> I think -- Yeah, not at all.

In fact, you know, I think the Biden view is, if we can do it all together, that's plan A.

But plan B is the American public, they need relief.

We got to get results.

And why would we not use a tool that Senates of either party always use as long as we're in good faith dialogue with Republicans about what to include and we can provide relief that's meaningful to their own constituents.

You know, we needn't be embarrassed about that.

>> It seems to me there's some value for President Biden's first major piece of legislation to have Republican support.

Look, one of the sticking points is this -- is the total number, right?

And also the increased stimulus checks.

The bill would send out $1,400 in addition to the $600 that Congress approved last month.

>> Right.

>> Some high-earning families that haven't been hit by COVID would be receiving these additional checks, so one of the criticisms is, why not make this a more targeted approach to really helping individuals who are deeply and pointedly hurt?

>> And I think that's a very legit point.

I don't have a problem with having that discussion, and I don't think President Biden does either.

Because some families have not lost income.

Everybody's been affected, worries about the health of their kids, knowing people who died.

My wife and I had COVID.

Two of our three kids were out of work for months because of COVID.

Everybody's been affected, but not everybody's been affected equally.

Some people have lost their businesses, lost their jobs... >> Yeah.

>> ...you know, themselves been horribly sick and have huge medical bills or have passed away.

So knowing that, we ought to be trying to do something that's really going to help people, but with a focus on those who need it the most.

>> What about a grand bargain where the GOP would agree to trade aid to state and local governments for democrats agreeing to offer a temporary liability shield to protect businesses from opportunistic lawsuits who follow public health guidelines to protect their workers?

>> I think that deal could be there, Margaret.

I think that deal could be there.

As you know, that was sort of on the table in December as we were working on the $900 billion sort of second chapter of the CARES Act.

And, so, we couldn't quite get there, but we are continuing to talk about those.

>> Look, you sound like somebody who is optimistic about the prospects for bipartisanship and cooperation in the Senate, and it's very heartening.

But I will tell you, as you probably know, the conventional wisdom amongst the Progressive commentariat with respect to Mitch McConnell and the Senate is that there is no reason to believe that Mitch McConnell or Republicans are going to operate in good faith with Biden since they didn't do it with President Obama.

>> Right.

>> What is your real level of optimism about bipartisanship in this Senate, and what other bills or other issues do you think the Senate might tackle if you are successful in this COVID legislation, as well?

>> I think optimism -- You know, you partly base optimism on the evidence, and part of optimism is just an exercise of will because, if you say, "Oh, we can't get anything done.

They're not going to work with us," well, then, guess what?

That's guaranteed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You have to keep trying.

And, you know, I've been here long enough to see where you try and then, hey, something happens.

Mitch McConnell and I, at the end of 2019, we got a bill passed to raise the federal tobacco age from 18 to 21.

We're both from tobacco states.

That was a bipartisan bill.

And all of my colleagues have these stories.

What I really want to say to folks is, we do a lot more bipartisan than you think, but not near enough.

The fair critique of us is we don't do enough bipartisanship on the big stuff.

We have done immigration reform since 1986.

>> Yeah.

>> I think that's actually going to be a real test of bipartisanship in this era because I do know Republicans who really want to do immigration reform.

So, infrastructure -- you've got labor unions and the Chamber of Commerce saying we should do an infrastructure bill.

That was my biggest, probably, surprise about the Trump era was that he never really pushed that, because he was a builder, you know?

He had his name on buildings.

I thought that seemed like a natural for him.

He never pushed it.

But I think there's a real opportunity there that Democrats and Republicans could get together, especially those of us in the Senate.

There's about a dozen of us who were governors.

We talk about this a lot.

You know, we'd love to work on a bipartisan infrastructure bill.

And that's something we ought to be able to do.

>> Let me play a clip for you from the original "Firing Line."

William F. Buckley Jr. with Barry Goldwater in 1989.

Take a look.

>> We Republicans used to say about the Democrats, "They spend and spend and elect and elect.

Now the Republicans borrow and borrow and elect and elect.

>> Is there a perspective, an economic perspective there that teaches us that we were over-frightened by it back then?

>> No, but there is a philosophy that you are hearing more and more of from, unfortunately, some highly respected people in the economic business.

That we haven't gotten into any trouble with this deficit.

So why worry?

And someday, somebody's going to say, "Where's all this money that you owe us?"

>> All right.

Senator, I will grant you, that those who call themselves Conservative these days have entirely lost their moral authority to preach about federal deficits and debt.

My question for you is, what is the point... >> Yeah.

>> ...at which you begin to consider -- after we're out of a pandemic?

After we're out of a national economic emergency?

-- the consequences of trillions and trillions of dollars of spending?

>> Well, Margaret, it's a very legitimate concern, and I do think that the concern is one where timing is important.

Because we're hearing from folks -- former Fed chair Janet Yellen, now Secretary of Treasury.

Current Fed chair Jay Powell -- who are saying, "Look, our biggest danger right now is not doing enough to get the economy back, rather than doing too much."

And, so, they're saying we shouldn't be deficit hawks right now, but we do have to, finally, you know, in my view -- and this is not shared by everybody in my party.

There's some who preach a different view about, you know, almost the irrelevance of debt and deficits, and I think some of the Republican behavior would suggest they think it's irrelevant.

I don't think it's irrelevant.

Here's what I would like to do with my colleagues on the Budget Committee.

I was shocked, when I became a senator, to realize that the United States does not have a debt management policy, which every state and city and county have.

I was a governor and a mayor, and we had a debt management policy.

You wouldn't let debt service payments be more than X percent of your annual budget.

Or total debt be more than Y percent of your GDP.

And we managed to ratios.

You get to the Senate, and what do you find?

No debt management policy.

There's a fixed dollar limit -- the debt ceiling -- you know, 20 trillion or whatever it is.

And when you bump up against it, you adjust it.

And, so, I have raised with Democratic and Republican colleagues on the committee, and I've also raised this with Janet Yellen when she was Fed chair.

What would a debt management policy for the United States look like?

We need to have a debt management policy, and that's something that excites me about working on the Budget Committee.

>> Well, from your lips to God's ears.

Listen, I just have one quick question about vaccines because this is the most important issue were facing.

The Biden Administration announced this week that it will purchase 200 million more vaccine doses, and it plans to increase distribution to states next week.

The effort, which President Biden referred to as a, quote, "wartime undertaking," would mean that nearly the entire country could potentially be vaccinated by the end of summer, early fall.

What does the administration need from Congress in order to accomplish this?

>> The administration needs to use the Defense Production Act, which they could do on their own, but the Trump Administration didn't vigorously use it.

They need from us the funding to do the massive production and deployment.

And then, we need to stay on the Biden Administration.

You know, they're friendly, but the Trump team never really would communicate clear goals to us.

I'm going to ask during all the cabinet nominee hearings in the health space, "What's your commitment to us?

How many doses by when?"

And then, we're going to stay on top of them to make sure they do it.

Oversight of Congress is going to be very important.

>> Senator Kaine, one quick one.

I understand you have a superpower.

You can pronounce any word backwards?

What's "impeachment" backwards?

>> Oh, it would be "tnemhcaepmi," I believe.

"Tnemhcaepmi."

And "Revooh Teragram" would be your name backwards.

I just have a bizarre superpower.

You're right.

It's completely useless.

>> Senator, Kaine, thank you so much for joining me on "Firing Line."

I so appreciate your time.

>> You bet, Margaret.

Glad we could talk today.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> You're watching PBS.