Impeachment Trial of Former President Trump Impeachment Trial CSPAN February 9, 2021 12:48pm-5:12pm EST
>> with biden administration now leading the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, follow the latest at c-span.org/coronavirus. search c-span's coverage of news conferences as well as remarks from members of congress tom use interactive gallery of maps to follow the cases in the u.s. and worldwide. go to c-span.org/coronavirus. >> you are watching c-span2 your unfiltered view of government. c-span2 was created by an america's cable-television companies and today we are brought to you by views television companies who provide c-span2 to viewers as a public service. >> it is almost five weeks since the wednesday january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol and today
begins the second impeachment trial of donald john trump. this is the first impeachment trial, however, ever of a former president but not the first impeachment of a former federal official. that afternoon and welcome to our coverture on c-span2 continue our decade-long commitment to congressional coverage, the senate coverage in particular this afternoon with the senate gaveling into start the impeachment trial at 1 p.m. eastern. just ahead of that we expect in moments the house managers will present the case before the senate. the managers will walk over from the house side to the senate through statuary hall, , the old chamber of the house of representatives. we will see that shortly and at all of that live here on c-span2 as well. those house managers, the house impeachment managers are led by jamie raskin of maryland, also on that panel diana degette of colorado, david cicilline of rhode island, joaquin castro of
texas, eric swalwell of california, ted lieu of california, delicate stacey plaskett who is the delegate from the virgin islands, madeleine dean from pennsylvania. again we'll see them shortly coming across the capital with ready to present the case before the yes, senator want to point out that as you are watching this today what you may want to do is check out our website, c-span.org/impeachment. both the cases prison, the briefs filed by the president lawyers and responses are posted now. they are lengthy but if you want to follow along, that is available at c-span.org/impeachment. today we will be taken up largely by a constitutional question, can the senate hold an impeachment trial of a former federal official? it will be up to four hours of debate on that this afternoon. presentation on that this
afternoon and a vote later on this afternoon. we expect to be a simple majority vote later on in the afternoon. the presentations of the case will begin tomorrow at noon eastern, up to 16 hours for each açai site to present the case and we expect the final vote on the impeachment trial to happen sometime early next week. earlier today the senate majority leader chuck schumer was asked about if the could be particularly new evidence in today's trial. here's what he had to say. >> when you have such a serious charge sweeping it under the rug will not bring you -- it will keep the solar open, the wounds open. you need truth and accountability. i believe the managers will present a very strong case. the evidence will be powerful, the evidence some of it will be new, and i urge all my
colleagues to pay careful attention to the evidence. i particularly urge my republican colleagues, despite the pressure on them, to pay very real attention to the evidence here because it's very, very serious. >> the majority leader just a few minutes ago. we showed you couple minutes ago as we started a sunny winter day here in the nation's capital. could be later in some winter weather gathering as a trial continues through the week but one of the consistent things that's happened since the attacks and shortly after the attack is the presence of the national guard on capitol hill. that presence still continues. tweet from rachel scott from abc who tweets this. busloads of national guard writing at the capital as every day since the insurrection. let's take a look inside the capital led by jamie raskin as a house managers approach the senate.
>> watching the house managers of the impeachment trial, the second impeachment trial of donald trump, make their way from the house over to the senate side. not walk off and on the other way for the senate coming over to the house for joint sessions of congress, including state of the union speeches from presidents certainly in the coming weeks we will hear from president biden in his address to congress expected in a couple of weeks. the senate expected to gavel in shortly and again today will be set aside devoted to an argument on the constitutional nature of this trial, , as we watch looks like senate minority leader which mcconnell coming through.
[background sounds] [background sounds] >> the clock on the left of the screen called the ohio clock with the ohio clock corridor as members of the senate, that romney, republican mitt romney, make their way into the chamber and a good chance for us to remind you that these are our cameras, c-span cameras, cameras inside the chamber controlled by the u.s. senate and they will not come on until the senate is ready to gavel in which begin should be moments away. we were saying that today devoted to the argument over the constitutional nature of this, the constitutionality of this impeachment, the attempt to impeach a former president. we spoke about this issue this
morning with head of the national constitution center jeffrey rosen. we will show you will begin in the next minute or two and take your life back into the senate when things get underway. >> what is does the senate have the jurisdiction of the constitution to try a former president and the second is president trump guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors inciting insurrection. on the first question, the people who question jurisdiction led by senator rand paul said you can't try a former president because the penalty for impeachment is removal from office and disqualification to hold future office. and if you can't be removed and you can't be impeached. the argument on it for the site is at the center has dreadful officers before, voted in 1876
to try former secretary of war william belknap who reside before being impeached. and also there were two penalties for conviction. one is removal, the others disqualification and it would make any sense say the defenders for an official to be able to avoid disqualification from office just by resigning moments before his trial takes place. >> live coverage of the trial getting underway momentarily as the senate gavels in. we are live outside now, outside of the senate chamber, the ohio clock corridor as senate is a right. just remind you they will come in and it will get underway with four hours, , up to four hours f debate on the constitutionality of this impeachment trial with a vote later today, simple majority vote needed to carry forward. live coverage of the senate, the impeachment trial of donald trump getting underway shortly.
>> the senate will be in order. the chaplain will leave the senate in prayer . >> let us pray. eternal god, author of liberty, take control of this impeachment trial. lord, permit the words of the new england poets james russell lowell to provide arsenic jurors with just one perspective. once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide. and despite of truth with falsehood for good or evil
>> morning business is closed. and the senate will convene in a court of impeachment as i have said to be seated, there's no objection, the journal of proceedings in the trial are approved today. we asked the sergeant at arms to make the proclamation. >> hear me, hear me. all are commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment while the senate of the united states is sitting for the trial of the article of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against donald john from, former president of the united states.
[inaudible] >> the present in the senate chamber of the managers of the house of representatives. and counsel for the former president of the united states . >> majority leader is recognized. >> mister president, in the moment i will call on a resolution to govern the structure of the second investment trial of donald john trump. it's been agreed to by the house managers, the former
presidents council and his cosponsored by the republican leader. it is bipartisan. it's our solemn constitutional duty to conduct a fair and honest impeachment trial of the charges against former president from. the greatest charges ever brought against a president of the united states in american history. this resolution provides for a fair trial and i urge the senate to adopt. mister president, i send a resolution to death on my behalf and that all the republican leader to the organizing of the nextphases of this trial . >> will report. >> senate resolution 47 will provide for related
>>. [silence] this vote, the yea's are 89, the nay are 11. a resolution is agreed to. pursuant to the provisions of the senate resolution 47, there should not be four hours by the parties equally divided on the question of whether donald john trump is subjectto the jurisdiction of a court of impeachment . notwithstanding the expiration of his term inthat office . mister raskin, or a argue a proponent or opponentof this question ? >> mister castor, are you a proponent or opponent of this question? thank you. mister manager raskin, your
party may proceed first. we will beable to reserve real time if you wish . mister raskin, you are recognized. >> thank you very much mister president, distinguished members of the senate . goodafternoon . my name is jamie raskin and it's my honor to represent the eighth congressional district in the house to serve as lead house manager and mister president we will the reserve time for real, thank you. because i've been a professor of constitutional law for three decades i know there are a lot of people are dreading endless lectures about the federalist papers here . please breathe easy. i remember well wh online that a professor is someone who speaks while other people are sleeping. you will not be hearing extended lectures from the because our case is based on
cold hard facts. it's all about the facts. president trump has lawyers here today to try to stop the senate from hearing the facts . of this case. they want to call the trial over before any evidence is even introduced. their argument is that if you commit and impeachable offense in your last few weeks in office you do it with constitutional impunity. you get away with it. in other words, conduct that would be a high crime and misdemeanor in your first year as president, in your second year as president, in
your third year as president and for the vast majority of your fourth year in president you can suddenly do in your last few weeks inaugust without facing any constitutional accountability at all . this would create a brand-new january exception to the constitution of the united states of america. a january exception. everyone can see immediately why this is so dangerous. it's an invitation to the president to take his best shot at anything you may want to do on his way out the door , including using violence means to lock that door. to hang on to the oval office at all costs. and if you block the peaceful transfer of power. in other words, the january exception is an invitation to our founders worst nightmare. and if we buy this radical
coordinate that president trumps lawyers advance, we risk allowing january 6 to become our future. and what will that for america? think about it. what will the january exception mean to future generations if you grant it? i'll show you. >> we will stop the steel. [applause] today i will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. this was not a close election and after this we're going to walk down and i'll be there with you. we're going to walk down to the capital.
>> metal speaker, the vice president of the unitedstates senate . [applause] [chanting] usa, usa. >> the constitution says you have to protect our country and you can't vote on fraud and fraud rates of everything, doesn't it? when you get somebody in a fraud you're allowed to go by very different rules . so i hope mike has the
courage to dowhat he has to do . we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore . [shouting] we're going to go down pennsylvania avenue. and we're going to the capital and we're going to try and give our republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. >> majority leader.
>> we are debating a step that has never been taken in american history. president trump claims the election was stolen. the assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to sweeping conspiracy theories. but my colleagues, nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale, the massive scale that would have kept the entire election.
take it away from all of us. from me, from you, from our country . this was a fraudulent election but wecan't play into the hands of these people . we have to have peace. so go home. we love you. you are very special. you've seen what happens. you see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. i know how you feel but go home and go home in peace. [shouting] >>. [shouting]
representatives on january 13 for doing that . you ask what a high crime and misdemeanor is under our constitution? that's a high crime and misdemeanor. if that's notand impeachable offense then there is no such thing . and if the president's arguments for a january exception are upheld , then everyone agrees that he's culpable for these events, even if the evidence proves as we think it definitively does that the president incited a violent insurrection on the day congress met to finalize the presidential election, he would have you believe there is absolutely nothing the senate can do about it. no trial, no facts. he wants you to decide that the senate is powerless at that point . that can't be right. the transition of power is
always the most dangerous moment for democracies. every historian will tell you that. we just saw it in the most astonishing way. we lived through it and the framers of our constitution knew it. that's why they created a constitution with an oath written into it that finds the president from his very first day in office until his very last day in office and every day inbetween . under that constitution, and under that both, the president of the united states is forbidden to commit high crimes and misdemeanors against the people at any point that he's in office. indeed, that one specific reason for impeachment conviction and disqualification powers exist . to protect us against presidents who try to overrun the power of the people in their elections and replace the rule of law with the rule of mobs.
these powers must apply even if the president commits his offenses in his final weeks in office. in fact, that's precisely when we need them the most because that's when elections getattacked . everything that we know about the language of the constitution, the framers original understanding and intent, prior to practice commonsense confirms this rule . let's start with the text of the constitution. which in article 1, section 2 gives the house the sole power of impeachment. when the president commits high crimes and misdemeanors. we exercise that power on january 13. the president is undisputed committed his offense while he was president. it is undisputed that we impeached him while he was president. there can be no doubt that
this is a valid and legitimate impeachment. and there can be no doubt that the senate has the power to try this impeachment. we know this because article 1, section 3 gives the senate the sole power to try all impeachments. the senate has the power, the sole power to try all impeachments. all means all under no exceptions to the rule. but because the senate has jurisdiction to try all impeachments and has jurisdiction to try this one. it's really that simple. the vast majority of constitutional scholars who study the question and waited on the proposition being advanced by the president, this january exception heretofore unknown agree with us. that includes the nation's most prominent conservatives, legal scholars. including former 10th circuit
judge michael mcconnell. he's a cofounder of the federalist society, stephen calabrese. ronaldreagan's solicitor general charles reed . luminary washington lawyer charles cooper. among hundreds of other constitutional lawyers and professors , i commend the people i named, to read the recent writing to you in the newspapers over the last several days. and all of the key precedents along with detailed explanations of the constitutional history and textual analysis appear in the trial brief we filed last week and the reply brief that we filed very early this morning. i'll spare you replay i want to highlight a few key points from constitutional history that strikes me as compelling and foreclosing president trumps argument that there's a secret january exception away in the constitution.
the first point comes from english history which matters because as hamilton wrote england provided a model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed . and it would have been immediately obvious to anyone familiar with that history that former officials could be held accountable for their abuses while in office. every single impeachments of a government official occurred during the framers lifetime concerned a former official. a former official.indeed the most famous of these impeachments occurred while the framers gathered in philadelphia to write the constitution. it was the impeachment of warren hastings, the former governor general of the british colony of bengal. and the corrupt guide, the framers knew all about it strongly supported the impeachment. in fact the hastings case was invoked by name at the convention. it was the only specific impeachment case they
discussed at the convention. it played a key role in their adoption of the high crimes and misdemeanors standard and even though everyone there surely knew that hastings had left office two years before his impeachment trial began, not a single framer, not one raised concern when virginia and george mason held the hastings impeachment as a model for us in the writing of our constitution. the early state constitutions supported the idea to read every single state constitution in the 1780s either specifically said that former official could be impeached or were entirely consistent with the idea. in contrast, not a single state constitution prohibited trials of former officials. as a result there was an overwhelming presumption in favor of allowing legislature to hold former officials accountable in this way. any departure from the norm would have been a big deal
and yet there's no sign anywhere that that ever happened. some states including delaware even confined impeachment only to officials who had already left office. this confirms their removal was never seen as the exclusive purpose of impeachment in america. the goal was always about accountability, protecting society the official corruption. delaware matters for another reason. writing about impeachment in the federalist papers, hamilton explained the president of america would stand upon nobackground in the governor of new york upon worst ground and the governors of maryland and delaware . he emphasized the president is even more accountable than officials in delaware where as i noted the constitution clearly allowed impeachment of former officials and nobody involved in the convention ever said the framers meant to reject this
widely accepted , deeply rooted understanding of the word impeachment when they wrote it into our constitution. the convention debate instead confirms this interpretation. there while discussing impeachment the framers repeatedly returned to the threat of presidential corruption aimed directly at elections. the heart of self-governance. almost perfectly anticipating president trump, william devi of north carolina explained impeachment was for a president who spared quote, no effort or means whatever to get himself reelected. hamilton in federalist one said the greatest danger to our republic and the liberties of the people comes from political opportunists who begin as demagogues and and as tyrants. and the people who are encouraged to follow them. president trump may not know a lot about the framers, but
they certainly knew a lot about him. given the framers intent focused on danger to elections, and the peaceful transfer of power, it is inconceivable that they design impeachment to be a dead letter in the president's final days in office when opportunities to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power would be most tempting and most dangerous as we just saw. that's as a matter of history and original understanding. there is no merit to president trumps claim that he can insight and interaction and insist weeks later that the senate lacks the power to even hear evidence at trial, to even hold a trial. the true rule was stated by former president john quincy adams when he correctly declared i hold myself so long as i have the breath of life in my body amenable to impeachment by the house for
everything i did during the time i held any public office. when he comes up in a minute my colleague from colorado will further pursue the relevant senate precedents. explain why this bodies practice has been supported by the text of the constitution and mister selenium rhode island then response to the fallacies presented by the presidents council. and after these gentlemen speak i will return to discuss the importance, the fundamental importance of the senate rejecting president trumps argument in the preservation of democratic self-governance and the rule along. in the united states of america. i know will turn it over to my colleague, mister lewis of colorado.
>> mister president, distinguished senators. my name is joan and i represent colorado's second congressional district in the united states congress . like many of you i'm an attorney. i practiced law before i came to congress. tried a lot of different cases. some more unique than others. certainly never a case as important as this one. nora case with such a heavy and weighty constitutional question. for you all to decide. thankfully, as lead manager raskin so thoroughly explained, the framers answered that question for you. for us. and you don't need to be a constitutional scholar to know that the argument president trump ask you to adopt is not just wrong.
it's dangerous. and you don't have to take my word for it . this body, the world's greatest deliberative body the united states senate has reached that same conclusion. in one form or another in the past 200 years in multiple occasions. over 150 constitutional scholars, experts, judges, conservative, liberal, you name it. they overwhelmingly have reached the same conclusion that of course you can try, convict and disqualify a former president. and that makes sense because the text of the constitution makes clear there is no january exception to the impeachment power. that president can't commit grave offenses in their final days and escape any
congressional response. that's not how our constitution works. let's start with the president. with what has happened in this very chamber. i'd liketo focus on just two cases . i'll go through them quickly. one of them is the nations very first impeachment phase which actually was of a former official. in 1797 about a decade after our country ratified our constitution there was a senator tennessee by the name of william blunt. who was caught conspiring with british to try to sell florida and louisiana. ultimately, president adams caught him. he turned over the evidence to congress. four days later, the house of representatives impeached him. a day after that, this body
the united states senate expelled him from office so he was very much a former official. despite that, the house went forward with its impeachment proceeding in order to disqualify him ever againlink federal office . the senate proceeded with the trial with none other than thomas jefferson presiding. now, warren argued the senate couldn't conceive because he had already been expelled but here's the interesting thing . expressly disavowed any claim that former officials can't ever be impeached. unlike president trump, he was very clear that he respected and understood that he could not even trying to argue that ridiculous position. even impeached senator blunt recognize the inherent absurdity of that view. here's what he said and i certainly never shall contend that an officer may first
offense and avoid by resigning his office. that's the point. there was no doubt because the founders were around to confirm that that was their intent and the obvious meaning of what is in the constitution. fast-forward 80 years later. arguably the most important precedent that this body has to consider. the trial of former secretary of war william bell. in short in 1876 the house discovered he was involved in a massive kickback scheme. hours for the house today had discovered this product released its report documenting the scheme, he
rushed to the white house to resign, tendered his resignation to president ulysses grant. to avoid any further inquiry into hismisconduct and of course to avoid being disqualified from holding federal office in the future . later that day , aware of the resignation what did the house do denmark the house moved forward and unanimously impeached him. making clear its power to impeach a former official and when his casereached the senate, this body , belnap made the same argument president trump is making today. that you all lack jurisdiction, any power to try him because he's a former official. many senators at that time when they heard that argument literally they were sitting in the same chair as you all are sitting in today. they were outraged by that argument. outraged. you can read their comments in the record. they knew it was a dangerous, dangerous arguments with dangerous implications. itwould literally need a president could betray their
country , leave office and avoid impeachment and disqualification entirely. and that's why in the end, the united states senate decisively voted that the constitution required them to proceed with the trial. the case is clear precedent that the senate must proceed with this trial since it rejected pretrial dismissal, permits jurisdiction and moved to a full consideration of the merits. he was ultimately not convicted but only after a thorough public inquiry into his misconduct created a record of his wrongdoing and assured this accountability and deterred anyone else from considering such corruption by making clear it was intolerable. the trial served important constitutional purposes. given that president i described you, given all that
president embarks, you can imagine my surprise at manager raskin's surprise when we were reviewing the trial brief which his counsel insists that the senate actually didn't decide anything in thebelknap case . they say it's not my words, i'll quote from their trial brief. it cannot be read as foreclosing an argument that they never dealt with. never dealt with? the senate didn't debate this question for two hours. thesenate debated this very question for two weeks . the senate spent an additional two weeks deliberating on the jurisdictional question and at the end of those deliberations they decide decisively the senate has jurisdiction. and that it could proceed. that must proceed to a full trial and by the way unlike belknap as we know, president
trump was not impeached for run-of-the-mill corruption . misconduct, he was impeached for inciting a violent insurrection. an insurrection where people died. in this building. an insurrection that desecrated our seat of government and if congress were to stand completely beside the face of such an extraordinary crime against the republic, it would invite future presidents to use their power without any fear of accountability. and none of us, i noticed, none of us no matter our party or our politics once that. now, we've gone through the highlights of the president and i think it's important that you know as the manager raskin mentioned that scholars who overwhelmingly
have reviewed the same president fall to the same conclusion. the senate must hear this case. let's go through just a few short examples. to start all of us i know are familiar with the federalist society. some of you may know stephen, breezy personally, cofounder of the federalist society read actually was the chairman of the board in 2019. he was the first president of the yale federalist society chapter board, a position that i understand center hawley later held. here is what mister calabrese has to say. on january 21 he issued a public letter stating are carefully considered use of the law lead all of us to agree that the constitution permits the impeachment, conviction and disqualification of former officers including presidents and by the way he's not the only one as lead manager raskin said. ronald reagan's former
solicitor general among many others. another prominent conservative scholar known to many of you again personally is former 10th circuit court of appeals judge, judge michael mcconnell. he was nominated by president george w. bush. it was confirmed by this body unanimously. senator hatch, many of you served with this to say about judge mcconnell. that he's an honest man. he's beholden to no one and no group. what judge mcconnell had to say about the question that you're debating this afternoon? he said the following. given the impeachment of mister trump was legitimate, the text makes clear the senate has power to drive at impeachment. uber manager raskin mentioned another lawyer, chuck cooper in washington has represented former attorney general jeff sessions. house minorityleader kevin mccarthy . he issued an editorial two daysago , very powerful
observing scholarship has matured substantially and ultimately arguments that president trumps champion championing are beset by serious weaknesses. finally i've went through a lot scholars and i'll finish on this one. there's another scholar i know some of you know some of you have spoken with recently . up until just a few weeks ago he was recognized champion of the view that the constitution authorizes the impeachment of former officials and that is professor jonathan turley . let me show you what i need. these are his words. first avery thorough study he explained that quote, the resignation from office does not prevent trial on articles of impeachment . that's professor charlie's work. same piece, he celebrated the belknap trial and described
it as a corrective measure that help the system regain legitimacy . he wrote another article, several on this topic and this one is hundred 46 page study, very detailed and in that study he said quote, that the decision in belknap was correct in its view at impeachment historically had extended to former officials such as warren hastings, you heard the manager raskin described. as you can see professor turley argued the house could have impeached and the senate could have tried richard nixon after he resigned. his quote on this is very telling. future presidents would not assume that your resignation would avoid a trial of their conduct in the united states senate. finally, last quote from professor turley. that no man in no circumstance can escape the account which he owes to the laws of this country.
not my words, not lead manager raskin's words professor jonathan turley's work . i agree with him. because he's exactly right. now, the question one might reasonably ask after going through all those quotes of such noted jurists and scholars is why is there such agreement on this topic? the reason is simple. because it's what the constitution says area i want to walk you through three provisions of theconstitution that make clear that the senate must try this case . first, let's start with what the constitution says about congress's power in article 1. you heard lead manager raskin make this point and it's worth underscoring. article 1, section 2 gives the house full power of impeachment. article 1 section 3 gives the senate the sole power to try
all impeachments. based on president trumps argument would think that language includes caveats. exceptions area but it doesn't. it doesn't say impeachment of current civil officers. it doesn't say impeachment of those still in office. the framers didn't mince words. they provided express, unqualified grants of jurisdictional power to the house to impeached and the senate totry all impeachments . not some, all. former judge mcconnell, the judge we talked about earlier provides very effective textual analysis of this provision. you can see it up here on the slide and i'll give you the highlights. he says and i quote this is judge mcconnell, given the impeachment of mister trump was legitimate the text makes
clear the senate has power to try that impeachment . again, here is what it's pretty interesting, when we presented this argument in our trial brief which we filed over a week ago and related out, step-by-step so that you could consider it and so that opposing counsel could consider it as well. we received president trumps response yesterday. and thetrial brief offers no real . to this point. none. and in fairness, i can't think of any convincing response. the constitution is just exceptionally clear on this point area perhaps they will have something to say today about what they did not yesterday area there's another provision worth mentioning here because there's been a lot of confusion about it and i'm going to try to clear this up . it's the provision on removal and disqualification.
we all know the senate imposes judgment only when it convicts. on the screen you'll see article 1 section 3, clause 7 and with that in mind language says that the senate connects the judgment shall not shall not extend further than removal and disqualification. that's it. the meaning is clear. senate has the power to impose removal which only applies to current officials and separately it has the power to impose disqualification which obviously applies to both current and formerofficers but it doesn't have the power to go any further than . as i understand president trumps argument, they believe that this language somehow says that disqualification can only follow the rule of current officers.but it doesn't. that interpretation essentially rewrites the constitution. it adds words that are there.
after all, the constitution does not say removal from office and then disqualification. it doesn't say removal from office followed by disqualification. it simply says the senate can't do more than two possible sentences. removal and qualification. and this by the way is not the first time that this direct question has been debated in this chamber. >>
but provision of article one of the constitution. you will see here on the screen that the constitution twice describes the accused in an impeachment trial. here is what i want you to focus on. the adjusting thing is notice the words, it refers to a person and a party being impeached. again, we know that the framers gave a lot of thought to the words that they chose and even had a style committee during the constitutional convention. they could have written civil officers here and they did that elsewhere in the constitution and that would ultimately have limited appeasement trials to occur with officials but instead they used broader language to describe who could be tried by the united states senate. who could be with him trial rather for impeachment other than the civil officers, who else could a person or a party be? there is only one possible
answer, former officers. again, that might explain why during the bell connect trial senator of delaware later became the secretary of state of the united states and he sat right where senator carper's city now and he found this point so compelling that he felt compelled to speak out on it and during the trial he concluded that the constitution must allow the impeachment and trial of people and parties who are not civil officers and the only group that could possibly encompass was former officials like belknap and of course here like president trump. and just so we are clear, in full disclosure, this is another argument that was not addressed by president trump in his rebuttal and we know why they didn't. because their argument doesn't square with the plain text of the constitution. there is one provision that president trump relies on almost
exclusively, article two, section four and i'm sure you will see it when they present their arguments. their argument is that the language you will see on the screen somehow prevents you from holding this trial by making removal for office in absolute requirement but again, where does language say that? where does it to say anything and that about your jurisdiction? in fact, this provision isn't even in the part of the constitution that addresses your authority. it is an article two, not article one. it certainly says nothing about former officials. president trump's interpretations doesn't square with history, regionalism, textualism, in fact, even chuck
cooper the famous conservative lawyer i mentioned earlier with clients like the house minority leader has concluded that this provision of the constitution that president trump relies on cuts against his position those are his words. that is because as cooper says article two, section four means just what it says. in the first half it describes what the official must do to be impeached, namely commit high crimes and misdemeanors and the second half describes what happens when civil officers of the united states, including the sitting president are convicted, removal from office. that is it. in cooper's words is simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a mandatory minimum punishment. it says nothing about former officials, nothing at all. given all of that it is not
surprising that in president trump's legal trial brief 75 page brief they struggle to find any professors to support their position they did cite one professor though, professor holt, expert in this field who they claimed agreed with them that the only purpose of impeachment is removal. professor colt's position which they had to have known because it is in the article that they cite in the brief is that removal is quote, not the sole end of impeachment. actually, in that same article he describes the view advocated by president trump lawyers as having deep flaws. again, you do not have to take my word for it. you can take professor they
cited in their brief, take his word for it. he tweeted about it on the screen here this is what he had to say. i will not read through it in great detail but i will simply give you the highlights. president trump's brief sites might 2001 article on late impeachment a lot but in several places they mr. president what i wrote quite badly. there were multiple examples of such flat out misrepresentations and they didn't have to be disingenuous and misleading like this. this key constitutional scholar relied on in president trump set it right. i have explained in great detail the many reasons why the argument president trump advocates for here today is wrong. i just want to close with a note about why it is dangerous. lead manager raskin explained
that impeachment exists to protect the american people from officials who abuse their power. and who betray them. it exists for a case just like this one. honestly, it is hard to imagine a clearer example of how a president could abuse his office, inciting violence against a coequal branch of government while seeking to remain in power after losing an election. sitting back and watching it unfold. we all know the consequences. like every one of you i was in the capital on january 6. i was on the floor with lead manager raskin like every one of you i was evacuated as the
violent mob stormed the capitals gates. what you experienced that day, but we experienced that day, what our country experienced that day is the framers worst nightmare come to life. presidents can't inflame insurrection in their final weeks and then walk away like nothing happened. and yet, that is the rule that president trump asks you to adopt. i urge you, we urge you, to decline his request, to vindicate the constitution, to let us try this case.
>> mr. president, distinguished senators, my name is david sicilian he and i have the honor of resenting the first congressional district of rhode island. as i hope is not clear from the arguments of ms. mr. raskin, impeachment is not merely about removing someone from office. fundamentally impeachment exists to protect our constitutional system and to keep each of us safe and to uphold our freedoms and to safeguard our democracy. it achieves that by deterring abuse of the extraordinary power that we entrust to our president and the very first day in office to the very last day.
it also ensures accountability for presidents who harm us or our government. in the aftermath of a tragedy it allows us an opportunity to come together and to heal by working through what happened and reaffirming our constitutional principles. it authorizes this body and this body alone to disqualify from our political system anybody whose conduct in office proves that they present a danger to the republic. but, impeachment would fail to achieve these purposes if you created, for the first time ever, despite the words of the framers and the constitution a january exception as mr. raskin explained. now, i was a former defense lawyer for many years and i can
understand why president trump and his lawyers don't want you to hear this case. why they don't want you to see the evidence but the argument that you lack jurisdiction rests on a purely fictional loophole, purely fictional. it is designed to allow the former president to escape all accountability for conduct that is truly indefensible under our constitution. you saw the consequences of his actions on the video that we played earlier and i would like to emphasize in greater detail the extraordinary constitutional offense that the former president thanks you have no power whatsoever to adjudicate. while spreading lies about the election outcome and a brazen attempt to retain power against the will of the american people he incited and armed, angry mob
to riot and not just anywhere but here in the seat of our government and in the capital during a joint session of congress when the vice president presided while we carried out peaceful transfer of power which was interrupted for the first time in our history. this was a disaster of historic proportions. it was also an unforgivable betrayal of the oath of office, the oath he swore, and oath he sullied and dishonored to advance his own personal interest. make no mistake about it, as you think about that day, things could have been much worse. as one senator said, they could have killed all of us. it was only the bravery and sacrifice of the police who
suffered death and injury as a result of president trump's actions that presented -- prevented greater tragedy. at trial, we will prove with overwhelming evidence that president trump is singularly directly responsible for inciting the assault on the capital. we will also prove that his dereliction of duty, his desire to seek personal advantage from the mayhem and his decision to issue weeds further inciting the mob, attacking the vice president all compounded the already enormous damage. virtually every american who saw those events unfold on television with absolute horrified by the events of january 6. but we also know how president trump himself felt about the attacks. he told us that here is what he tweeted at 6:01 as the capital
was in shambles and as dozens of police officers and other law enforcement officers late battered and bruised and bloodied. here is what he said. these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long. go home. with love and in peace, remember this day forever. every time i read that tweet it chills me to the core. the president of the united states sided with the insurrectionist's and celebrated their cause and validated their attack and told him, remember this day forever. hours after they marched through these halls looking to assassinate vice president
spence, the speaker of the house and any of us they could find. given all of that, it is no wonder that president trump would rather talk about jurisdiction and i suppose the january exception, rather than talk about what happened on january 6, make no mistake these arguments are dead wrong. they are a distraction from what really matters. the senate can and should require president trump to stand trial. my colleagues have already addressed many of president trump's efforts to escape trial and i would like to cover the remainder and address the broader issues at stake in this trial. for starters, and an extension of his mistaken reading of the constitution president trump insists that he cannot face trial in the senate because he's really a private citizen. he references here the bill of attainder clause. but as was just explained, the
constitution refers to the defendant in and impeachment trial as a person and a party and certainly he counts as one of those. that's also apply common sense. here is the reason he now insists on being called the ready for the of the united states. rather than a citizen trump. this is not a grandly selected private citizen but a former officer of the united states government, former president of the united states of america and he is treated differently under law called the former presidents act. for years we trusted him with more power than anyone else on earth and as a former president who promised on a bible to use his power faithfully he can and should answer for whether he kept that promise while bound by it in office. his insistence otherwise is just wrong.
and so, so is his claim that there is a slippery slope to impeaching private citizens, if you proceed. the trial of a former official for abuses he committed as an official arising from an impeachment that occurred while he was an official pose absolutely no risk whatsoever of subjecting private citizen to impeachment to their private conduct. to emphasize the point president trump was impeached while he was in office for conduct in office and the alternative once again is january exception which are most powerful officials that commit the most terrible abuses and then resigned to lead office and suddenly claim the they are just a private citizen who can't be held accountable at all. in the same vein of president trump and his lawyers argued that he shouldn't be impeached because it will set a bad precedent for impeaching others
but that slippery slope argument is also incorrect. for centuries the prevailing view has been that former officials are subject to impeachment and you just heard a full discussion on that in the house has repeatedly acknowledged that fact but in the vast majority of cases the houses rightly recognize that an official resignation or departure makes the extraordinary step of impeachment unnecessary and maybe even unwise. as a house manager rightly explains in the belknap case and i quote, there is no likelihood that we shall ever on lumber the clumsy and bulky monster piece of ordinance to take aim at an object from which all danger has gone by. president trump's case is different. the danger has not gone by and this makes any prior abuse by any government official pale in comparison.
moreover, allowing his conduct to pass without the most decisive response would itself create an extraordinary danger to the nation. this invites further abuse of power and the congress of the united states is unable or unwilling to respond to insurrection incited by the president. think about that. to paraphrase justice robert jackson who said that that precedent, that i just described, would lie about a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any future president who decided in his final months to make a play for unlimited power paid think of the danger. here is the rare case in which love of the constitution and commitment to our democracy requires the house to impeach. it is for the same reason the senate can and must try this case. next, president trump will
assert that somehow significant or matters that the chief justice is not presiding over this trial. let me state this very plainly. it does not matter. it is not significant. under article one, section three when the president of the united states is tried the chief justice shall preside. there is only one person who is president of united states at the time. right now joseph r biden junior is the 46th president of the united states. as a result the requirement that the chief justice preside isn't triggered but instead the normal rules of any impeachment of anyone other than the sitting president apply and under those rules the president pro tem, senator leahy, can preside. of course, this makes perfect sense. the chief justice presides because when the current president is on trial if the
chief justice does not preside the vice president presides and it would be a concept for summer two preside over a child who would become president if there was a conviction. there isn't that concerned when you have a foreign present on trial or for that matter when you have anyone on trial other than the current president. it is why the chief justice presides only in that single case though why this is exactly the presiding officer the constitution and the senate rules require. as a fallback president trump and his lawyers may argue today that he should get a free pass on inciting an armed insurrection against the united states government and endangering congress because as he put it this impeachment is somehow unconstitutional. so far as i understand it from reading the pleadings of this case this defense involves cobbling together a bunch of meritless eagle arguments and all of them attempting to focus
on substance rather than jurisdiction and insisting that these kitchen sink objections leave the senate to not try the case. some say it may raise these points at this juncture i feel obligingly to address this. he may argue, for example, that he did not receive enough process in the house even though the house proceedings are more like a grand jury action which is followed later by trial and the senate with a full presentation of evidence. even though the evidence of his high crimes and misdemeanors is overwhelming and supported by a huge public record and even though we are going to put that evidence before you at this trial and even though we have a full and fair opportunity to respond to it before all of you and even though hundreds of others involved in the events of generally six have already been charged for their role in the text of the present has incited even though we invited him to voluntarily come here and testify to tell his story the
request that his lawyers immediately refused presumably because they understood what would happen if he were to testify under oath. regardless president trump's process arguments are not only wrong on their own terms but also completely irrelevant to the question of whether you should hold this trial and that question is answered by the constitution and the answer is yes. in addition separate from his new process complaints president trump and his counsel, particularly his counsel, have boasted on tv that to counter the undisputed evidence of what actually happened in this case you will see video clips and there was no video clips of other politicians, including democratic politicians using what they consider incendiary language. apparently they think this will
establish some sort of equivalent or that it will show in contrast that president trump's save america rally was not so bad. like so much of what president lawyers might say today that is a given and it's a parler game meant to inflame partisan hostility and play on our divisions. let me be crystal clear. president trump was not impeached because of the words he used, viewed in isolation, without context or beyond the pale. plenty of other politicians have used strong language but donald j trump was president of the united states and sought to overturn a presidential election that have been upheld by every single court to consider it. he spent months insisting to his base that the only way he could lose was a dangerous wide-ranging conspiracy against them and america itself.
he relentlessly attempted to persuade his followers that the peaceful transferral of power that was taking place in the capital was an abomination that had to be stopped at all costs. he flirted with groups like the proud boys telling them to stand back and stand by. he endorsed violence and sparking death threats to his opponents. he summoned an armed, angry and dangerous crowd that wanted to keep him in power and was widely reported to be poised on a hair trigger for violence at his direction. he then made the heated statements in circumstances where it was clear and where it was foreseeable that those statements would spark extraordinary imminent violence. he then failed to defend the capital, the congress and the
vice president during the insurrection engaging in extraordinary dereliction of duty and desertion of duty that was only possible because of the high office he held. he issued statements during the insurrection targeting the vice president and reiterating the very same lie about the election that had launched the violence in the first place. he issued a tweet five hours after the capitalist's act in which sided with the bad guys. we all know the context matters and that office in meaning and intent and consequences matter. simply put, in matters when and where and how we speak in the oath's we have sworn and the power we hold matter.
president trump was not impeached because he used words that the house decided are forbidden or unpopular. he was impeached for inciting armed violence against a government of the united states of america. this leads me to a few final thoughts about why it is so important for you to hear this case as authorized and as indeed required by our history and by the constitution. president trump's lawyers will say i expect that you should dismiss this case so that the country can move on. they will assert this impeachment is partisan and that the spirit of bipartisanship and bipartisan cooperation requires us to drop the case and march forward in unity. with all due respect, every premise and every conclusion of that argument is wrong. just weeks ago, weeks ago, the
president of the united states literally incited an armed attack on the capital, our seat of government while seeking to retain power by subverting an election he lost and then celebrated the attack. people died. people were brutally injured. president trump's actions endangered every single member of congress and his own vice president and thousands of congressional staffers and our own capital police and other law enforcement. this was a national tragedy, a disaster for america standing in the world and president trump is singularly responsible for inciting it. as we will prove, the attack on the capital was not solely the work of extremists lurking in the shadows and indeed, does anyone in this chamber, honestly
believe, that but for the conduct of president trump that that charge in the articles of impeachment that that attack at the capitol would occurred? does anyone believe that? and now his lawyers will come before you and insist that even as the capital still surrounded with barbed wire and fences and soldiers that we should just move on and that led to bygones be bygones and allow president trump to walk away without any accountability, any reckoning, any consequences. that cannot be right. that is not unity. that is the path to fear what future presidents could do and so there is a good reason while this article of impeachment past the house and it bipartisan support and principles at stake belong to all americans, from all walks of life, we have a common interest in making clear that they are aligns no one can cross, especially the president
of the united states. and so, we share an interest in this trial where the truth can be shown and where president trump can be called to account for his offenses. we william faulkner famously wrote that the past is never dead but this is not even the past. this just happened. it is still happening. look around you as you come to the capital income to work. i really do not believe that our attention span is so short that our sense of duty so frail and that are fractional loyalty so all-consuming that the president can provoke an attack on congress itself and get away with it just because it occurred near the end of his term. after a betrayal like this there cannot be unity without accountability. this is exactly what the constitution calls for and the framers original understanding in the chambers owned president
in the very words used in the constitution all confirm unquestionably, indisputably that president trump must stand trial for his high crimes and misdemeanors against the american people. we must not, we cannot continue down the path of partisanship and division that is turned the capital into an armed fortress. senators it now falls to you to bring our country together by holding this trial once all the evidence is before you by delivering justice. thank you. >> senators, mr. president, to close i want to say something personal about the stakes of this decision, whether president trump can't stand trial and be
held to account for inciting insurrection against us. this trial is personal indeed were for every senator and for every member of the house for every manager and all our staff in the capital police in the washington dc metropolitan police and the national guard and maintenance and custodial crews in the print journalists and tv people who were here and all of our families and friends and i hope this trial reminds america how personal democracy is and how personal is the loss of democracy two. distinguish members of the senate my youngest daughter tabitha was there with me on wednesday january 6. it was the day after we buried her brother, our son tommy, the saddest day of our lives. also there was my son-in-law
hank who is married to our oldest daughter, haner. i consider him a son to even though he eloped with my daughter and did not tell us what they were going to do. it was in the middle of covid-19 but the reason they came with me that wednesday january 6 was because they wanted to be together with me in the middle of a devastating week for our family. i told him i had to go back to work because we were counting electoral votes that day on january 6. it was our constitutional duty and i invited them instead to come with me to witness this historic event, the peaceful transfer of power in america and they said they heard that president trump was calling on his followers to come to washington to protest and they asked me directly would it be safe, would it be safe?
i told them of course it should be safe. this is the capital. our majority leader currently offered me the use of his office on the house floor because i was one of the managers that day and we were going through so tabitha and hank were with me in the office as colleagues drop by to console us about the loss of our middle child, tommy. our beloved tommy. mr. cicilline actually came to see me that day and dozens of members and lots of republicans and lots of democrats came to see me and i felt a sense of being lifted up from the agony and i won't forget their tenderness and through the tears i was working on a speech for the floor when we would all be
together in joint session. i wanted to focus on unity when we met in the house. i quoted abraham lincoln's famous 1838 speech where he said that it's division and destruction ever come to america it won't come from abroad but will come from within. said lincoln. in that same speech lincoln passionately deplored mob violence and this was right after the murder of the abolitionist newspaper editor and lincoln deplored mob violence and deplored mob rule and said it would lead to tyranny and despotism in america. that was the speech i gave that day after the house, very
graciously and warmly welcomed me back. tabitha and hank came with me to the floor and they watched from the gallery and it was or when it was over they went back to that office off the house floor and they did not know that the house have been breached yet and that an insurrection, a riot, or a coup had come to congress. by the time we learned about it about what was going on it was too late and i couldn't get out there to be with them in the office. all around me people were calling their wives and their husbands, their loved ones to say goodbye and members of congress and the house anyway were removing their congressional pins so they wouldn't be identified by the mob as they tried to escape the violence.
our new chaplain got up and set a prayer for us and we were told to put our gas masks on and then there was a sound i will never forget, the sound of pounding on the door like a battering ram in the most haunting sound i ever heard and will never forget. my chief of staff was with tabitha and hank locked and barricaded in that office and the kids hiding under the desk and placing what they thought were their final texts and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes. they thought they were going to die. my son-in-law had never even been to the capital before and when they were finally rescued over one hour later by capital officers and we were together, i hug them and i apologized and i told my daughter tabitha who is
24 and a brilliant algebra teacher in teach for america -- i told her how sorry i was promised her that it would not be like this again the next time she came back to the capital with me. do you know what she said? she said, dad, i don't want to come back to the capital. of all the terrible, brutal things i saw and heard on the day and since then that one hit me the hardest. that and watching someone use an american flag poll with the flag still on it to spear and pummel one of our police officers ruthlessly, mercilessly tortured
by a poll with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life. people died that day and officers ended up with head damage and brain damage in people's eyes were gouged and an officer had a heart attack. an officer lost three fingers that they. two officers had taken their own lives. senators, this cannot be our future. this cannot be the future of america. we cannot have presidents inciting and mobilizing mob violence to get our government and our institutions because they refuse to accept the will of the people under the constitution of the united states. much less, can we create a new
january exception in our precious beloved constitution that prior generations have died for and fought for so the corrupt president have several weeks to get away with whatever it is they want to do. history does not support a january exception in anyway so why would we invent one for the future. we close, mr. president. >> i ask unanimous consent that there now be a ten minute break. i ask unanimous consent the senate recess for ten minutes. >> without objection, so ordered.
[background noises] >> the second impeachment trial of donald trump is underway this as he is now a former president, the first ever impeachment trial of a former president but not as you heard in the opening arguments the first impeachment of a former federal official. good afternoon and welcome to our coverture on c-span2 of the impeachment trial, a ten minute break as you heard from the majority leader, chuck schumer. democrats, the house managers, using the first hour and a half or so of their opening arguments and they will get up to two hours total and the other side of president's attorneys will also get two hours and after those arguments are done the house will vote on the constitutionality of the proceedings and the actual case itself has not yet or will not be presented yet until tomorrow and on that side of the 16 hours on both sides as we look at members of the senate, a minority leader there leaving the floor for the ten minutes break here on the senate side of
things. we will be back here with live coverage of course, when they gaveled back in and in this break show you some of those opening constitutional arguments. jamie raskin from maryland, the lead democratic manager, also a constitutional law professor, former constitutional law professor at the law school and american university in the nation's capital and was joined by the youngest ever impeachment manager from colorado, one of the youngest numbers of congress at age 32. first elected to congress in 2018 and by the former mayor providence rhode island, david cicilline and presenting their constitutional arguments and rebutting some of what they expect to hear from the president's attorney. david castor, lead attorney for the president's team and they will, we understand, begin their presentation here after this ten minute break. we pointed this out earlier and we may want to alert you again that these arguments, these
briefs i should say, have been filed ahead of the impeachment trial and you can read those in our special section online, c-span .org / impeachment in both or all of those briefs have been filed there and of course, our coverture on c-span2 with a note about tomorrow's coverage at noon eastern. some of the early reporting here on the opening arguments by house managers are here is politico's headline, chopped trial with gripping footage of capital violence they say several senators were seen shaking their heads as scenes of the insurrection last month were played. "the washington post" and karen with her piece about that talking about several members on the floor or video of capital riots played, some gop senators turned away and writes that almost every senatorial eye of the chamber was glued to the screen as lead house manager jamie raskin played the 13
minute video depicting the events of january 620 dues the impeachment case against trump with a few notable exceptions and you can read more on that piece at washington post .com. by way, that video and all of our coverage today, that video used by house managers was really a compilation of videos from all sorts of places, including from the c-span video library. you can find that in more on the impeachment at our website and c-span .org. then we show you the opening arguments, opening arguments was delivered by the lead manager, jamie raskin of maryland. here is some of what he had to say on the constitutional question. >> the convention debates instead confirm this interpretation, there while discussing impeachment to the framers repeatedly returned to this threat of presidential corruption aimed directly at elections, heart of self-government.
almost perfectly anticipating president trump, william devi of north carolina, explained impeachment was for president who spared quote, no effort or means whatever to get himself reelected. hamilton and federalist one said the greatest danger to republics in the liberty of the people comes from political opportunists who begin as demagogues and end as tyrants. and the people who are encouraged to follow them. president trump may not know a lot about the framers but they certainly knew a lot about him. given the framers intense focus on danger to elections and the peaceful transfer of power it is inconceivable that they design impeachment to be a dead letter and the president's final days in office when opportunities to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power would be most tempting and most dangerous as
we just saw. that is a matter of history and original understanding and there is no merit that president trump's claim that he can insight and insurrection and insist weeks later that the senate lacks the power to even hear evidence that of a trial and to even hold a trial. the true rule was stated by former president john quincy adams when he categorically declared, i hold myself, so long as i have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by the house for everything i did during the time i held any public office. >> that is jamie raskin, lead house manager, democrat from maryland in the impeachment trial of former president donald trump that some of his opening arguments there. shortly after 1:00 o'clock p.m. eastern the senate, moments ago, taking a break of what we expect up to ten minutes and they will be back in what we expect to
hear is the presentation by the president's lawyers led by david castor and the response to the argument on constitutionality and this is the headline from the washington times this afternoon for trump's lawyers warn of republican retaliation impeachment as a political weapon. jamie raskin came back at the end of the presentation and talked about more of a personal side of the day on january 6 in the attack on the p-uppercase-letter here is a tweet from scott long who, he himself, without the capital that day. scott wong tweeting this -- says that raskin was separated from his daughter tabitha and her fiancé that day and he thought he might lose another child when he was reunited he apologized to her and said it won't be like this for her next visit and she replied quote, dad i don't want to come back to the capital. the u.s. capital itself still ringed by perimeter fencing and still guarded by certainly thousands or hundreds, if not
thousands of national guard troops on duty and we understand at least until through march the process ahead we expect a couple of hours of presentation on the constitutionality of the impeachment question in the impeachment trial and this being the first ever impeachment of a former president but not the first impeachment of a former federal official so the president attorney will speak next. tomorrow is when we expect -- but, by the way, that will end with vote later today and a simple majority needed to move forward in that vote. by the way, we also expect, we also expect that tomorrow that the arguments will begin in earnest. sixteen hours each site. follow-up questions from senators so our coverage tomorrow beginning at noon eastern and the rest of the week we will see continued arguments, questions from senators and then closing certainly bite the
weekend and a vote early next week. still waiting for the senate to return from the short ten minute break. one of the other managers on the democratic side to present the case on constitutionality was joe neguse of colorado and here's what he said about the removal provision in the constitution, specifically relating to impeachment. >> there is another provision worth mentioning here because there's been confusion about it. i will try to clear this up. this is the provision on removal and disqualification. now, we all know the senate imposes a judgment only when it convicts. up on the screen was the article one, section three, clause seven. with that in mind the language set that the senate convicts the judgment shall not extend further than removal and disqualification. that is it. the meaning is clear. the senate has the power to impose removal which only applies to current officials and separately it has the power to
impose disqualification, which obviously applies to both current and former officers but it doesn't have the power to go further than that. now, as i understand president trump's argument, they believed this language somehow says that disqualification can only follow removal of a current officer. but, it doesn't. that interpretation essentially rewrites the constitution and adds words that aren't there. i mean, after all the constitution does not say removal from office and then this qualification. it doesn't say removal from office followed by disqualification. it simply says the senate can't do more than two possible sentences. removal and disqualification. this, by the way, is not the first time that this direct question has been debated in this chamber.
146 years ago, during the belknap trial, senator norge edmonds of vermont -- one of the most prestigious republican senators of his time and sat right where senator grassley sits today, he zeroed in on this exact point during the belknap trial. this is his quote, a prohibition against doing more than two things cannot be turned into a command to do both or neither. just imagine the consequences of such an absurd interpellation of the constitution but if president trump were right about that language that officials could commit the most extraordinary, destructive offenses against the american people, high crimes and misdemeanors. they would have total control over well whether they could be impeached and, if they are, whether the senate can try the case. if they want to escape any public inquiry into their misconduct or the risk of
disqualification from future office then it's pretty simple and they could just resign, one minute before the house in peaches or even one minute before the senate trial with a good resign during the senate trial. it's not looking so well. that would effectively erase disqualification from the constitution. it would put wrongdoers in charge of whether the senate can try them. >> joe neguse one of the nine democratic managers, house managers for impeachment led by jamie raskin, lead manager of colorado, david cicilline who we also heard from. castor from texas, eric swallow from california, ed lu from california in the first ever delegate to be part of a management team in impeachment, stacy of the virgin islands, madeleine dena pennsylvania and as we mentioned joe neguse. the senate is in a brief ten minute break and they should be gobbling back in shortly and resuming the senate impeachment trial of former president donald
trump, one of the new senators taking part is roger marshall who used to be a member of the house and participated in last year's impeachment events and then president trump. marshall just treating this same this impeachment is unconstitutional and keeps us from doing important work in getting the covid-19 vaccine into the arms of everyone who wants and needs it boosting job recovery and opening businesses and our economy back to the historic levels we saw before the pandemic. newsweek is out with a new poll on impeachment in their headline, more americans in favor of convicting jump then first. they write that 6% more americans say they are in favor of their senators voting to convict former president donald trump during the senate impeachment trial then in his previous trial according to a new poll. in the poll gallup conducted by gallup 52% of americans said they were in favor of convicting trump while 45% say they are in
favor of senators voting against conviction. in comparison gallup poll conducted before trump's first senate impeachment trial found 46% of americans said they were in favor of conviction while 51% said the opposite. the pull from gallup reported by, reported there by newsweek. senate gobbling back in shortly but we wanted to show you the comments briefly here by the majority leader. senator schumer earlier today on potential new evidence to be presented in the trial. here is what he had to say. >> the senate has a solemn responsibility to try and hold donald trump accountable for a most serious charges ever, ever levied against a president and those who say let's move on and that brings unity are false. when you had such a serious invasion of the capital incited
by a president who we know urge people and told people these election was false and urge people to come to washington and urge people to march on the capital in the senate has to find him guilty of inciting the violence ensued but when you have such a serious charge sweeping it under the rug will not bring unity but keep those sore open and the wounds open. you need truth and accountability. i believe the managers will present a very strong case and the evidence will be powerful and the evidence, some of it, will be new and i urge all my colleagues to take -- pay careful attention to the evidence but i particularly urge my republican colleagues, despite the pressure on them, to pay very real attention to the
evidence here because it's very, very serious. every senator, democrat and republican, has to approach this trial with the gravity it deserves and that is really important for the future of this country. a mob of white supremacists and insurrectionist's and musick terrorists falsely believe the election was stolen and try to overthrow the government and as i said, the trial is about, whether the president should remain chiefly responsible for feeding the mob with the lies that motivated their behavior and who told them to come to dc, directed them at the capital is guilty of inciting the violence. >> the majority leader talking a good deal about the evidence but keep in mind none of the evidence has yet been presented. we the phase, day one, of the start of the trial of former president trump is the argument over the constitutional nature of this proceeding.
is it constitutional or not and that the president's lawyers will argue momentarily that it is not constitutional. the senate will decide that and there will be a vote later on today with a simple majority vote is what they will have and assuming they approve the resolution moving forward we will see 16 hours on each side of evidence and arguments in the case against former president donald trump. the majority leader in the part of that news conference talked about the schedule because he's been asked a number of times about how he can maintain or how the senate will maintain running a senate trial, proving and confirming the nominees of the biden administration and working on a covid relief package. the headline here from the hill, schumer vows democrats will dual track rotavirus bills with impeachment trial and they say the majority leader vowed today that democrats move forward with crafting a sweeping coronavirus relief bill, even as the chamber
conducts a historic impeachment trial with former president trump. schumer speaking at a press conference with roughly one dozen members of his caucus warned that democrats would not let the child quote, throw a wrench into the plan to pass a coronavirus relief by mid-march when federal employment benefits are set to expire. of course, we mentioned the schedule from here on out and the remainder of the day today all taken up by the senate trial. the senate in for the trial with the trial resuming tomorrow with live coverage here on c-span2 starting at noon eastern. we will keep an eye on the legislative or potential legislative schedule for the senate as well in the upcoming days. our capitol hill producer is up in the gallery and keeping an eye over the capital on members as they present the case and as they come in and out of the chamber but he treats this -- face masks worn by senators during the impeachment trial are either light blue disposable or not n-95 while a few senators
are showing support for their home states including gop senator cassidy who is wearing a new orleans saints mask as he comes in. as we have seen before members coming in and out of the senate through the area known as the ohio clock core door and we should start to see members coming in shortly. ... >> is a way for the senate to come back in, we will show you some of our conversations this morning with the head of the national constitution. we will see what we can but they
will gavel back in momentarily . >> welcome to the big constitutional issues that plague. there are two. what is does the senate have the jurisdiction under the constitution to try a former president and the second is president trump guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors inciting insurrection. on the first question, the people of question jurisdiction by senator rand paul. saying that you cannot try a former president. because the penalty for impeachment his removal from office and disqualification holds future office and he cannot be removed - [silence]. >> the senate will come to order.
you have two hours. and another has 33 minutes. [background noises]. >> mr. president, and members of the united states senate. thank you for taking the time to hear from me. my name is bruce castor. i am the lead prosecutor, lead counsel for the 45th president of the united states targeted i was assistant d.a. for a long time, i keep saying prosecutor. but i do understand the difference. before i begin, i want to
comment on the outstanding presentation from our opponents. and the emotion that certainly willed up in congress present about his family during that terrible day. and you love your any member of the team representing former president trump, say anything but in the strongest possible way, denounce the violence of the rioters and those that breached the capital. the center of our democracy. it literally the symbol that flashes on television whenever you're trying to explain that were talking about the united states instant symbol to have an attack is repugnant in every sense of the word. the loss of life is horrific.
i spent any long years prosecuting homicides cases and catching criminals recommended murders. i'm quite an extensive experience in dealing with the aftermath of those things. and certainly is an fop member and member of any police organizations myself, we mourn the loss of the capital police officer who i understand is i not too far away from here. and any of you in this room over your careers before they reached the summit here, in the senate would have had times where you represented your local communities as assistant district attorney. an assistant state attorneys.
and you know this to be true that when a horrific event occurred in york county, in your jurisdiction. you know that there was a terrible outcry in a public immediate treatment reacts with a desire that someone pay because something really bad happened. and that is a natural reaction of human beings. the natural reaction of human beings because we are generally a social people. we enjoy being around one another. even in dc. we recognize that people all the world over and especially americans sure that special bond with one another, of the freedoms that this country gives us. and we all feel that if somebody is unsafe when they're walking down the street that the next
person dozens it could be you or your spouse or one of the children or some other person who 11 love personally. see will never hear anybody representing for president trump, say anything at all other than what is happened on januarg reaching of the capital, should be denounced in the most vigorous terms. nor those persons responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent that our laws allow and indeed i have followed some of those cases in prosecutions and seems to me that we're doing a . good job of identifying and prosecuting those persons who committed those offenses. i can believe that the fbi the district of columbia police and other agencies have been
working. it is natural to recoil. it is an immediate thing. comes over you without your ability to stop it, the d desire for retribution. because this awful thing and how do we make them pay. we recognize into law and i know any of you are lawyers. probably some of you, some have been longer as an attorney the meat. any longer than me of 35 years. and we know that we have a specific body of law that deals with passion and rage, blinding logic and reason. thus the difference between manslaughter and murder. manslaughter is the killing of a human being upon sudden intense provocation. but murder is done with cold
blood and reflective thought. castor: we are some understanding of the concept that people's mind is can be overpowered with emotion or logic does not immediately kick in. that we have recognized examples that otherwise would be hearsay and said that when you are driving down the street and you look over at your wife. and you say, that guy is about to drive through the red light and kill a person. your wife and testify to what you said because even though it's technically hearsay, an exception because of the event living through the person. why. no opportunities reflective thought. there's all sorts of examples. we recognize into law as to why people immediately desire retribution. and immediately and recognize
into law the people can be overcome by events. and you know, senators of the united states, they are not ordinary people. there are extraordinary people in the technical sense, extraordinary people. when i was growing up in philadelphia, my parents were big fans of senator dirksen of illinois. and he recorded a series of lectures that my parents had on a record. we still know what records are right . things that you put the needle down on in the place.
and here's little bruce, eight or nine or ten years old, listening back in the late 60s. that would be listening to that voice. if you ever heard his voice, is the most commanding gravelly voice that uses belief and sincerity. and a phenomenal united states senator as well. he does not talk about ordinary people as we do in the law. if we apply the ordinary person's standard. he talks about extraordinary people. he talks about gallant men, that is the name of the album. and now of course, gallant men and women for the side of times. i would watch and senator byrd and goldwater or senator
mansfield, gold and i would be fascinated by these great men. everybody's parents say this when they are growing up. you could grow up to be the united states senator. you could do that. they are just men and women like you are. well then dirksen tells us that they are not needed there gallant. gallant men and women that do extraordinary things when the country needs them to do it. the united states senators really are. and i have been around the united states senators before. two of them them in this room from pennsylvania and i would like to think are friendly towards me or at least friends of mine when we are not politically adverse. and i have been around their predecessors.
and one thing that i have discovered, the democrats or the republicans, the united states senators are patriots first. patriots first. they love their country. they love their families. they love the states that they represent read there is not a member in this room who has not used the term, i represent the great state of and fill in the blank. why. because they are all great. yes, you think yours is greater than others because these are your people. these are the people that said you hear to do their work. they trusted you. and trent with the responsibility of rep. government. i feel proud to know my
senators. senator casey here in the back. and senator toomey over to the left. it is funny, this aside. it is funny, do you ever notice how when you are talking are you hear others talking about you when your home in your state. they will say, you know i talked to my senator or talk with somebody on the step of my senator. it is always my senator. why is it that we say it is my senator. we say that because the people you represent are proud of their senators. they absolutely feel that connection of pride. because that is not just toomey of pennsylvania. that is my senator from pennsylvania. her bob casey stratton. that is my senator.
and you like that. people like that. the people back home really do read in the united states senators have a reputation and is deserved. for cool headedness in the men and women that we'd sent from back home to dc to look up to our interest. we feel a sense of ownership and pride in our senators. there's plenty of times i've been around in political gatherings. and i hear there is no way that senator toomey will allow that. i mean, to say that but the way that senator casey will allow that. because we feel pride in
something that is potentially in the wind. and we expect our united states senators do not react to popular will and not react to popular emotions. we expect, to do what is right. not withstanding what is immediately an expedient that the media tells us is the topic of the day. so the senators are patriots. there gallant men and women in their fierce advocates for the great state in which they represent. and somewhere far down that list of attributes, way below patriots and way below love of family and country and way below fierce advocates for their states. far down at least that is what i thought. and i still think that.
somewhere far down that list, the senators have some obligation to be, to represent a group of police that are similar to beliefs shared by others united states senators. i understand that and in fact i have no problem with that. it helps us to be to decide what is best for america. , the robust debate of different points of view. and i daresay, that senator schumer and mcconnell represent those things in this body make sure that everything is knocked out and robustly debated in this room before the united states senators make a decision of extreme importance. and the people they represent. i know you're not allowed to talk but i don't see either one of them jumping up at the sand and i'm okay with that. i think it is what happens. i think the united states
senators try to listen to each other's views. i think the united states senators tried to do what is right for the country. and far down, is partisanship. in our system of government, and the federalist papers, we were very fortunate because the federalist papers were authored as an explanation for why it is the states, the original states should adopt the constitution. these were persuasive documents about why the constitution is a good thing. because of the individual legislatures did not adopt the constitution, we would not have it. so mr. jay and mr. madison and mr. hamilton, they thought it an incentive to explain what they were thinking when they wrote it. because they are explained to other people who represent individual states why it is they feel that this is the right
thing to do. and in fact, as any of you well know, madison had to promise there would be a bill of rights immediately upon adoption or we do not have a constitution. even then, there was a horse trading going on in the legislative body of the united states. the other day when i was down here in washington, i came down earlier in the week to try to figure out how to find my way around. i work in this building 40 years ago. i got lost then and i still do. but in studying the constitution, and all of the years i was a prosecutor where so any things depend on interpretations of phrasing in the constitution. i learned that this body which
one of my worthy colleagues said is the greatest body in the entire world and i agree. that particular aspect of our government was intentionally created if you read the federalist papers. the last time a body such as the united states senate sounded the pinnacle of government, with the responsibility that it has today, it was happening in rome and other places. the republicanism, the form of government throughout history has always and without exception fallen because of fights from within. because of partisanship within. because of bickering from
within. and in each one of those examples that i mentioned and there certainly others, probably bettersmaller countries that lasted for less time. they don't know off off the top of my head. each one of them once there was the vacuum created that the greatest deliberative bodies, the senate of greece and athens and rome. the moment they fell into such partisanship, it is not as though they cease to exist. this is to exist as representatives of democracy. both replace bike totalitarianism. paraphrasing the famous quote from benjamin franklin was a philadelphia income i feel as though i can do that because my
founding father as well. he who would trade liberty for some to very security deserves neither liberty or or, if week restricted to sick obtain security, we will lose both. if we try the constitution, the concept of liberty and we think are critical, the very concept of liberty the drove us to separate from great britain. and i believe these fellows are recording what happened to the revolution as though that is somehow a value to us. we left the british system. if we are really going to use . revolutionary history in great britain, then the question is, we have a parliament and we have a king. his that's what we are headed
for. it is not an accident that the very first liberty, if you grant me that our liberties are enumerated in the bill of rights. and is not an accident the very first liberty in the first article of the bill of rights is the first amendment which says congress shall make no law abridging praise of the speech. congress shall make no law. the very first one. the most important one. the ability to have free and robust debate. free and robust political speech. something that mr. raskin and his team product is that
somehow, a suggestion from former president trump's team that when various public officials were not denouncing the violence and we saw over the summer. that was somehow former president equating that speech to his own. not at all. exactly backwards. i saw headline rep. so-and-so seeks to walk back comments about, i can forget when was it was something about her. i was devastated when i saw that she thought it was necessary to go on television yesterday or the day before and say that she needs to walk back her comments. she should be able to comment as much as she wants. and she should be able to say exactly as she feels. she feels that the supporters of that president trump then, are
not worthy of having their ideas considered. she should be permitted to say that. and anybody who agrees should be permitted to say the agree. that is what we broke away from great britain in order to be able to do. to be able to say what we thought the most robust political debate. my colleague, is going to give you a recitation of the first movement law of the united states. i commended to your attention, the analysis that he is going to give you. i do not expect and i don't believe former president expect anybody to walk back any of the language. if that is how they feel about the way things transparent over the last couple of years in his country, they should be allowed to say that. and i will go to court and defend them if anything happens to them as a result. if the government takes action against that state rep. or u.s.
rep. who wants to walk back her comments. the government takes action against her. i have no problem going into court and defending the rights to say the things. even though i do not agree with them. this trial is not about training liberty for security. it is about training and suggesting that it is a good idea that we give up those liberties that we have so long fought for. we have sent armies to other parts of the world to convince those governments to implement the freedoms that we enjoy. this trial is about training liberty for the security from
the mob. honestly, no. it can't speak. we cannot be thinking about that. we cannot possibly be suggesting that we punish people for political speech in this country. people go and commit lawless acts as a result of their beliefs. in the cross the line. they should be locked up. and in fact, i have seen a quite a number of the complaints that were filed against the people who reach the capital. some charged with conspiracy and not a single one is charged with conspiracy with the 45th president of the united states. probably because prosecutors have a unethical requirement that they are not allowed to charge people with criminal offenses without probable cause. if you might consider that.
and if we go down the road and my very worthy adversary here, mr. raskin, ask you to go down. the flood gates will open. i was going to say, it will instead of floodgates i was going to say originally. it will release the whirlwind which is a political or a physical reps rent and reference. but i subsequently learned since i got here that particular phrase has already been taken. so i figured a better change it to floodgates. but the political pendulum will shift. one day will. this chamber and the chamber across the way will change one day.
and partisan impeachments will become commonplace. until the impeachment of bill clinton, no one alive had ever lived through a presidential impeachment. nonetheless some of you are 150 years old. not a single person alive and then through a presidential impeachment. now most of us have lived through three of them. this is supposed to be the ultimate safety valve. the last thing that happens. the most rare treatment. in a session where this body is sitting as impeachment among the most rare things it does. so the slippery slope principal will have taken hold if we continue to go forward with what is happening today and schedule to happen later this week.
and after we are long done here, and after there has been a shift in the political winds and after there is a change in the makeup of the united states house of representatives. and maybe the change in the makeup of the united states senate. the pressure on those folks back home especially for members of the house, is going to be tremendous. remember, the founders recognized that the argument that i started with, political pressures is driven by the need for immediate action because something under contemporary immunity standards really horrific happened.
and the people represented by the members of the united states house of representatives become - and what do you do as a federal issue. come back to suburban philadelphia and something happens makes people who live there instanced . and you call your congressman. in your congressman elected every two years with their pulse on the people of their districts, 750,000 people. they respond. and boy do they respond. the commerce been called to back, sanford calls you back. you get all of the information they have on the issue. sometimes you get invited to submit language that would improve whenever "the issue is". and when the pendulum swings, perhaps the next person gets impeached, and they consider during the fast and furious. the attorney general of the united states. or any part of the person that
the other party considers to be a political danger to them down the road because of their abilities and being articulate and having resonated that shows they are capable for unit and take eric simply because i think is a tremendous career. he might be somebody that some republicans might be worried about. so maybe, the next person go after his eric. and the republicans, they might regain the house in two years. history does ted to suggest the party out of power at the white house does well in the midterm elections. certainly, the 2020 elections of the house majority narrative.
so the members of the house, they have to worry about these consequences because they do not react, to whatever the problem of the day is, somebody in that jurisdiction there, somebody is going to say if you make me the congressman. i will react to that. and that means the city member has to worry about it because the returns are short. that is not just the members of the house of representatives with their short terms. i saw on television in the last couple of days the honorable gentleman from prescott. i saw the face backlash back home because of the vote he made some weeks ago. the political party was complaining about decision he
made as a united states senator. it is interesting because i do not want to sell a thunder from the other lawyers but nebraska you will hear is quite a judicial thinking place. and just maybe the senator is onto something. and you will there about what it is that the nebraska courts have to say about the issue you all are deciding this week. should be some . smart jurors there and i can't believe united states senator does not know that. the senator like the gentleman from nebraska, the supreme court history is ever present in his mind. and rightfully so. he faces the whirlwind. even though he knows what the judiciary in his state thanks.
people back home will demand their house members continue the cycle is political fortunes rise and fall. the only entity that stands between the vendor and fighting for lead to the downfall of the greek republic and the roman republic and the american republic is the senate of the united states. shall the business of the senate and thus the nation come to a halt, not just for the current week's while new president is trying to fill out his administration but out of the business of the senate and the nation come to a halt because impeachment becomes the rule rather than the rare exception i know you can see this is a possibility because not a single one of you ever thought you
would be doing a second impeachment inside of 13 months. the pressure will be enormous to respond in time. to quote eric dirksen, the gallant men and women of the senate will not allow that to happen. and this republic will endure. because, the top responsibility of the united states senator and top characteristic that you all have in common, and boy this is a diverse group. there is not a single one of you who does not consider yourself a treat of the united states. and secondly, there's not a single one of you who does not consider the other 99 to be patriots of the united states.
and that is why this attack on the constitution will not be. the document that is before you is flawed. the role of the senate concerning impeachment documents articles of impeachment rule 23 says that documents cannot be divided. you might've seen that we wrote that in the answer. it might have been a little legalistic for the newspapers to opine on very much but there is some significance. the house managers, the clever fellows that they are, they passed and trent cast a broad net. they need to get 67 of you to agree that they are right. this a good strategy. i would use the same strategy
except there's a rule that says you can't use that strategy. you see, rule 23 says that the article impeachment indivisible, the reason why that is significant, is that you have to agree that every single aspect of the entire document worth impeachment because it is an all or nothing document. you cannot cut out parts that you agree with parts that agree with it or don't. because it is not divisible. find out says in the senate rules, is not invincible. in previous impeachment, by president clinton, said the president shall be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors for engaging in one or more of the following. so all he had to do is when one . they did not do that here. it has to be all or nothing.
and some of these things that you are asked to consider might be close calls in your mind. but one of them is not. the argument about the 14th amendment. it is absolutely ridiculous. the house managers tell you that the president should be impeached because he violated the 14th amendment. as of the 14th amendment says. no person shall be a senator or rep. in congress or elector of president or vice president or uphold any office civil or military under the united states or any other state who having previously taken an oath as a member of congress or as an officer of the united states or a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any state
to support the constitution and shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same. or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. and congress may vote by two thirds of the house to remove such . it does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that is written for people who fought for the confederacy with previous military officers in the confederacy. it does not take scholar to require they be convicted first. in court with due process of law. so the question can never be right of those things have happened. now if you agree with those arguments, then i know you all get constitutions out and you'll read it. if you agree with those arguments, the suggestion of the 14th amendment applies here, is ridiculous. if you come to that conclusion, then because the managers have
not separated out the counts within the articles of impeachment, the whole thing falls. i did not write that . they are married to that. it i wrote it out as an individual responses because i did it know how to respond to the cast the wide net effort. fortunately, senators sometimes in the past realized you can do that because the festival this is the cannot do that. so that is why it is flawed. spotted other ways to invite colleagues will explain that. i was struck. i thought the house managers who spoke earlier were brilliant speakers. and i made notes and they will hear about when i think about the some of the things that they said about later.
when i was closing the case, that they were brilliant speakers i loved listening to them. their smart fellows. why aren't the house managers afraid and why is the majority of the house of representatives afraid of the american people. let's understand why we are really here. we are really here because the majority of the house of representatives does not want to face donald trump is a political rival in the future. that is the real reason we are here and that's why they have to get over the jurisdiction kernel which they cannot get over. that's why they have to get up in order to get to the part of the constitution that allows removal. so nobody says that it plainly for even a partial personally i have a way of speaking that way. and the reason that i am having trouble with the argument is the american people just spoke.
and they just changed administrations. so in the light most favorable to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here, their system works. the people are smart enough and they are smart to pick a new administration if they do not like an old one and they just did. and on pennsylvania avenue now, probably wondering how come none of my stuff is happening up at the capital. why do the members of the house of representatives, the majority of the house of representatives, why are they afraid of the very people that set them to do this job. the people they had hoped will continue to send them back here. why are they afraid that those same people who were smart
enough to pick them as a congressman, are not smart enough to pick somebody who is a candidate for president of the united states. why fear that the people will all of a sudden forget how to choose an administration in the next few years. and in fact, this happens all the time when there are changes in administrations from one term president to others. well next and was sort of a one and a half terms but nixon to ford. and ford to harder and harder dragon. it happens. the people get hired of an administration and they don't want to know how to change it. and adjusted. so i think that they won't know how to do it in 2024.
if they want to. or is that what the fear is. the fear that the people in 2024 in fact, will want to change and will want to go back to donald trump. and not the current occupant of the white house, president invited party to because all of these other times, the people were smart enough to do it . to choose the president should be. all of these other times, the respondent to choose the members of congress were targeted by the way, choose you all as well. but they're not smart enough to know how to change the administration. especially since they just did. so seems evident to me that they do know how. it has worked 100 percent of the time read 100 percent of the time in the united states when the people had been fed up and
had enough of the occupant of the white house. they changed it the occupant of the white house. i know that one of the strengths of this body is this deliberative action. and i saw senator manchin on the tv the other night talking about the filibuster. and the main point was that senator manchin was explained to those who don't operate here all the time this body has an obligation to try to reach consensus across the aisle, to legitimize the decisions he makes. and obviously is capable of making his own pronouncements. that's when he came across on
the television and i thank you so a good way of saying why the senate of the united states is different than other places. the constitution the document designed to protect the rights of the minority. not the majority. congress shall make no law abridging all these things is because those were the things that were of concern. at the time. and it's easy to be in favor of liberty and equality and free speech when is popular. i think that i want to give my colleague an opportunity to explain to all of us, the legal analysis on jurisdiction.
i'll be quite frank with you, we changed what we were going to do on account that we thought the house managers presentation was well done. and i wanted you to know that we have responses to those things. i thought that with the first part of the case was, the equivalent of a motion to dismiss was going to be about jurisdiction alone. and one of the fellows who spoke for the house managers formal kernel defense attorney seem to suggest there is something nefarious that we were discussing jurisdiction and trying to get the case dismissed. but this is where it happens in the case because jurisdictions the first thing that has to be found. we have a counter argument to everything they raised. and you will hear them later on in the case from vanderveen and from myself. but on the issue of
jurisdiction, the scholarly issue of jurisdiction, i believe you with this before i invite david to come up and give you the area of explanation. some of this was shown on the screen but article one and section three, says that judgments in cases of impeachment shall not extend further and to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust profit in the united states. and then it says, but the party convicted should nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment punishment according to the law. so this idea of a january amnesty is nonsense. if my colleagues on the side of
the chamber actually think that president trump admitted criminal offense. a high crime is a felony and misdemeanor is a misdemeanor predivorce about change that much of the times. and after he's out of office, you going to arrest him. so there is no opportunity where the president of the united states can be run rampant in january at the end of his term and just go away scott free. the department of justice doesn't know what to do with such people. and so far, i've not seen any activity in the direction. not only that, the people who started this building, and breached at work not accused of conspiring with the president. but the section that i read, judgment in other words, the bad thing that can happen, the judgment case of impeachment, i.e., what we are doing shall not extend further than removal
from office. what is so hard about that. which of those words are unclear. it shall not extend further than removal from office. president trump no longer is in office. the object of the constitution has been achieved. he was removed by the voters. are you ready? now that i've taken all of his time. david: thank you. [background noises].
[silence]. david: mr. president, leaders, a quick assessment. i stand before you of what i voice thought the ground of democracy. in this room, american lives have been changed so dramatically, and just my lifetime. and so any of your legislative initiatives from the civil rights act and i was a child, through most recently, lawson have provided major opportunities for americans to move forward and upwards to more fully enjoy all of the attributes of what is been the greatest nation on earth.
seeing the changes that of these laws i made for my clients everyday. for the past 36 years. these laws enabled me to fight for their enjoyment in our american project. i stand before a group of united states senators who have chosen to serve your country. from all corners of this great nation. giving up all sorts of professions, time with family, and perhaps other more lucrative opportunities to serve our country. mr. president, you are a man who so honorably served this nation as a senate and in public service before your tenure. and it's an honor to be in this historical a democracy yet today, that honor is tempered by an overriding feeling of grave concern. grave concerns of the dangers of the institution of the presidency that i believe even conveniently pre- seemingly indicates that the joy i believe i would still favor of the
privilege of appearing before this body is replaced by sadness and pain. my overriding emotion is frankly wanting to cry for what i believe these proceedings will do to our great so long enduring sacred constitution. and to the market people on both sides of the great divide. and now characterizes our nation. esteemed members of the senate, going forward that this impeachment trial of a former president of the united states is unconstitutional. for reasons we have said. some of which we will focus on here and as a matter of policy, it is wrong. as wrong can be for all of us as a nation. we are told by those who favor having these proceedings that we have to do it for accountability. but anyone truly interested in real accountability of what happened at the capital on july
january 6, would insist on waiting for a full investigation to be completed. indeed one underway and in earnest already. intent on getting to the bottom of what happened. anyone interested in ensuring is truly the one or one responsible for the accountability is sought, would more than willingly wait for the actual evidence. especially, as new evidence coming in every day about preplanning about those who were involved in about their agenda. a very no relationship to the claims made here. they say you need this trial before the nation can heal. but the nation cannot deal without it. it i say, our nation cannot possibly heal with it. with this trial, you've opened up new and bigger wounds across the nation for a great any americans see this process for exactly what it is. a chance by a group of partisan politicians seeking to eliminate
donald trump from the american political scene and seeking to disenfranchise 74 million plus american voters and those who dare to share the political beliefs and vision for america. they hated the results of the 2016 election . and they want to use this impeachment process to further their political agenda. these have been for four years and called their fellow americans who believe in their country in the constitution, deplorable the latest is that they need to deprogram those who supported donald trump in the grand old party. but at the end of the day, this is not just about donald trump. or an individual. this is better constitution and abusing the impeachment power for political gain.
they tell us we have to have this impeachment trial such as cindy is to bring about unity. but they do not want unity. and they know the so-called trial will tear the country and half . leaving tens of millions of americans feeling left out of the nation's agenda. and dictated by one political party and now holds a power white house and our national legislature. the front americans. the quick to get back up and get down. and they'll take it from another party. this trial will tear this country apart and perhaps like we've only seen once before in our history. and to help the nation heal, we now learn that house managers in their wisdom have hired a movie company in a large law firm to create manufacture and place for you, designed by experts to chill and harp are you in our fellow americans. they want to put you through a
16 hour presentation over two days focusing on this as if it were some side of blood force into wedding. for healing . for unity. for accountability. not for any of those. for they surely they are much better ways to achieve each targeted it is again for pr and raw misguided partisanship and makes them that her worst instincts somehow is good. they do not need to show you movies to show you that the riot happened here. we will stipulated happened and you know all about it. this is a process you will irresponsibly by hatred by these house managers and those who gave them their charge and they're willing to sacrifice our national character to advance her hatred and fear that one day they might not be the party in power. they have a very different view of democracy and freedom.
he once wrote, the freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. it would be a mere shadow of freedom. the test of his substance is the right to differ as the things that touch at the heart of the existing order. they have a very different view of democracy. and freedom. this is nothing less than the political weaponization of the impeachment process. pr and raw, fueled by the misguided idea of party over country when in fact both will surely suffer. i can promise you that if these proceedings go forward everyone look bad. you will see and hear any members of our congress thing doing the things they must surely will regrets but perhaps far more worse in a moment of personal shame, in a world in which history passes from our memories in a moment. our great country, a model for
all of the world will be far more divided and standing around the world will be badly broken. in our arch enemies and pray each and everyday for our downfall will watch with glee. glowing in the moment as they see you at your worst in our country and internal divided . must be clear. if you vote to proceed for this impeachment trial, peter senators recognize that you bought into a radical constitutional theory that departs clearly from the constitution itself. and holds and this is in their brief that any civil officer whoever dares to serve his or her country, must know they will be subject to impeachment long after this service in office is ended. subject only to the political and cultural landscape of the day and an operation and any future time. this is exactly the position taken by the house managers that
took 65 of their briefs. unprecedented radical positions. they say so. imagine the potential consequences for civil offices that you know and who you believe served so honorably. in future congress might one day be deemed to be impeachment worthy. imagine now, because your imagination is the only limitations. ... ... if you endorse it by going forward this impeachment trial, this is a terrible combination that literally puts the institution of the presidency
directly at risk. nothing less does much more. under the unsupported theory tortured meaning of the text, every civil officer to impeachment if any group of besides was thought to be important to the country when the server deserves to be canceled. they've made clear in public statements what they want to accomplish your in the name of the constitution is to bar donald trump from ever no matter who they target today. it means nothing less the denial of the right to vote an independent right elected political office guaranteed by the first and 14th amendments of the u.s. constitution under the guise of impeachment as a tool at this happened the
situation was in your show is english lawyer who served as ambassador newborn president obama, he describes himself as a lifelong idea in these instances deciding tens of millions of american voters cannot cast their vote ever again is unthinkable and it should be i will discuss several reasons this should not and must not proceed, to conduct the trial of a former president, president no longer in office a citizen, any reason in our memorandum i want to start with the discussion from the fundamental due process lacking the start. it would last two the end if this goes forward because it's this flawed process and it's a
dangerous impeachment that brings us here send a message to the future all regret in his body, which up until now our founding fathers believed were uniquely suited, the most difficult, and impeachment trial 65. i know apology for demanding, in the name of the constitution that the right of due process guaranteed under the constitution adhered to process our national lives. process in this case starting with the house of representatives and is unprecedented impeachment process, house of representatives denies every attribute of fundamental constitutional due process
americans believe is part of what makes this country so great. how and why? is a function of the insatiable lust for impeachment in the house the past four years. consider this, i want to say this to donald trump i may well be voting to impeach. >> donald trump has done a number of things which raise the question of impeachment. >> i will fight every day. [cheering] >> that grounds to start impeachment those are grounds to start impeachment. yes, that's grounds for starting impeachment.
[silence] >> the fact is, i introduced articles of impeachment in july 2017. >> we don't impeach him, he will be reelected. >> and impeachment hearing on his chest. >> impeachment proceedings against this president. >> it time for impeachment charges against him. >> my personal view is he deserves impeachment. >> we are rallying to impeach. [cheering] >> the house reveals judgment. the days following the january 6 rise, leadership political opportunity to score points and
then president trump and speaker demanded vice president pence invoked the 25th woman, threatening immediate impeachment for the present which mr. pence did not comply with the extraordinary extraordinary what wrong demand. four days later january 11, 2021, the articles of impeachment introduced in the house. speaker pelosi gave vice president another ultimatum, threatening to begin impeachment proceedings within 24 hours if he did not comply. president pence rejected the demand, adherence to the constitution against over a politically motivated but. january 12, speaker pelosi announced january 13, 2021 days after holding a press conference to announce an inquiry most of us about the articles of impeachment completing impeachment, the passes in
history no due process model according to president trump strong opposition in large part in the lack of due process. to say there was a rush of injustice is a great underestimate they were not warned about the dangers to the institution of the presidency system of due process warned not to take this process denied here. consider one's by one member during house or his position and do process the constitution demands. only one week to go in this storm, the majority of the they
do so knowing full well even the resolution, the senate will not be able to consider these charges until after president trump term ends. i can think of no action house and take us more likely to further divide the american people action contemplating today. motions emotions decisions have been no more parent than in my lifetime. on the floor emphasizing what's taken with respect, consideration of articles of impeachment and concerns by founding fathers on this subject. federal number 65, constitute the trial of impeachment is an object not more to be desired and difficult obtained in the government fully elected. prosecution for this reason will seldom fail to educate will community and divide into parties more or less friendly to
the accused cases, it would connect to pre-existing actions and list all animosities, partiality, influence and interest on one side or the other. in such cases, there's always the greatest danger the decision will be regulated more by the strength of parties and by the real demonstrations of innocent for guilt. by mr. hamilton. what i say to you is proof of the need for due process based on the critically serious nature of the singular role impeachment process has in our government. mr. hamilton characterized the consideration of impeachment in these terms, the delicacy and magnitude of trust so deeply concerned the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in administration of public affairs for themselves. back to the house now, warnings
against the judgment in this case. the circle of oklahoma, in the name of healing people so desperately need, he warned that the house is moving forward with the process that does not come forward with modern practice and give numbers no time to contemplate the serious nature before us and he emphasized to his colleagues, the care must be taken in consideration of the article of impeachment in order to ensure the american people have confidence in procedures house following and because the presidency itself demands process in the impeachment proceedings. unfortunately, this is a quote, the majority has chosen to raise to the floor with new articles of impeachment for going any investigation, any committee process for any chance to fully contemplate this course of action before proceeding.
he complained the majority is failing to provide the house opportunity to review, still coming to light, to discuss all of its examined witnesses and consider president. this is not a robust process we've followed every modern impeachment and the failure to do so does a great disservice is institutions in this country complained on the house floor rather than following the appropriate processes he said have used every modern impeachment majority tripping all over themselves in the rush to impeach the president a second time. mr. coles words, it was doing so. he warned this approach will cause division of the country looks ahead to the start of a
new administration and he said, matter as consequential as impeachment, shouldn't we follow the same process used in every modern impeachment rather than rushing to the floor on behalf of generations of americans to come need to clearly the consequences of our action today and he reached across the aisle, sandra mansion. similar sentiments, how ill advised rush process was, suggesting the underlying event were a matter for the judicial system to investigate, not one for a rest political process. finally, admonished his fellow cast members telling him we need to recognize that we are following a flawed process. let us consider the process in
the house that actually was due. house managers and memorandum, the house serves as a grand jury and prosecutor under the constitution they told me that again today. if that's accurate, they highly the failure to adhere to due process. one should not diminish the significance of impeachment in all aspects more particularly as they relate to the formalities of the criminal justice process, a hybrid of the political illegal, a political process moderated by legal formalities. here is a quote. the u.s. constitution provides that no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. at its core, due process is about what we all want and have the right to demand. fundamental fairness.
one scholar wrote that the impeachment process should and does include the basic safeguards of the accused observed in the process justice fairness, due process, presumption of innocence and proportionality. basic american values and we know the supreme court is recognized the due process section and congressional investigation while congress is empowered to make it rules of proceedings, it may not make rules that ignore constitution restraints and the and violate fundamental rights. while the case law is limited in terms of spelling out what due process looks like in impeachment hearings, and in the nixon case, we know there's a great deal of leeway afforded to congress with respect to impeachment rules. it's clear the principles that underlie understanding of what
due process must always look like apply. d.c. court case in different grounds, they address the matter including the due process for impeachment proceedings and imposes an independent constitutional constraint on how the senate exercises sole power to try all impeachment under article one section three clause six. impeachment is an extraordinary remedy, essential element to constitutional system of checks and balances, impeachment must be invoked and carried out with respect and scrupulous attention and fairness fairness and due process must be the watch guard the u.s. government conducting a trial whether a criminal case, civil case or case of impeachment. 1974, department of justice suggested the same view, whether
or not capable of judicial enforcement, due process standards seem to be relevant in a manner of conducting impeachment proceedings. more specifically, key principles lying at the heart of our constitutional democracy. again, fairness. supreme court established a general rule that individuals must receive notice and opportunity to be heard before the government surprises them the constitutional protected interest. it's also true any proceedings that may leave deprivation of protected interest that requires their procedures with the interests at stake. impeachment proceedings involving deprivation of property and liberty interests, protected by the due process clause. the house surely speaks to strip donald trump of his highly cherished constitutional rights including the right to be eligible to hold public office
again should he choose. due process must apply at a minimum, due process and impeachment process must include, evidence disclosed to the accused and accused must be permitted an opportunity to test and confront the evidence. particularly through the cross-examine witnesses, long recognized of due process. in a most every setting on questions of fact, due process requires opportunity to confront and cross-examine. it's unfathomable that the framers in the history of prudence would create a system that would allow chief executive commander in chief of the armed forces to impeach based on a process to develop evidence without providing any elements in procedures the common law developed over centuries for ensuring proper testing of evidence in an adversarial
process. current members of the house and family put themselves on record, confirming due process requirements, congressman nadler and in the context of house impeachment investigation, due process includes the right to be informed of the law, the charges against you to call your own witnesses and have the assistance of counsel, then president trump was not given any semblance of due process congressman nadler clearly believes he deserves based on the congressman's description of due process that must be afforded to in impeachment proceedings as reflected in a statement he made relating to another impeachment in 1998. no reason for the apparent change in the congress' view in respect to the two objects of impeachment issue.
these attributes of due process honored in modern impeachment, protocols and 1870. not seriously debatable, nor should it be any american legislature. in spite of all this, house leadership fight all norms and divide denied his constitutional protected rights. then president donald trump, house impeachment teacher, like any semblance of due process simply cannot be credibly argued in the country and we do not make special rules for different targets. it's the integrity of the institution and that's with the house leadership has knowingly caused. review, going straight to the floor for a two hour debate without the ability for amendment. the house reflects no committee hearing minor weaknesses or presentations and no opportunity for the accused to respond or have counsel present to object.
as the new york times reported, there's no witness interviews, no hearings, no committee debate and no real additional fact-finding. house managers have it so urgent that they had to rush proceedings with no time to spare for a thorough investigation or really any investigation at all but that claim is what happened or didn't happen next. waited another 12 days to deliver articles to the senate to begin the trial process. house leadership spends more time holding the article and it did on the whole process leading up to the adoption of the article. that delay designed to avoid, having a child again while mr. trump was the president and led to another reaches denial of due process.
article one, section three clause six in the constitution provides that the senate has sole power to try all impeachment when sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation nor the president of the u.s., chief justice present. while waiting for his term of office to expire before delivering articles of impeachment to the senate to initiate trial proceedings, speaker pelosi then president trump of the express constitutional rights and in the own will to have the chief justice of the united states preside over his trial a considerable power provided for in the rules of procedure and practice in the senate while sitting on impeachment trials. that power includes under rule five, presiding officers an exclusive right to make all orders under rule seven to make evident years orders objected by
the members of the senate. we say this intentional delay speaker pelosi, in the intervening period, president trump became private mr. trump, a waiver jurisdiction here, mr. trump no longer is the president described as impeachment in article one section three and article two section four. there's no jurisdiction and assumption of the due process violation by speaker pelosi. with all due respect, then president trump suffered tangible detriment speaker pelosi's which violated not only his right for due process of law but also his express constitutional right to have the chief justice design. that includes loss of the right to conflict free impartial presiding officer with all due respect, their purpose behind requiring chief justice to
preside over the president impeachment trial along with the other benefits to having two branches. judiciary and senate for the impeachment trial of the resident reflected. arthel: . one reason chief justice was chosen for that. mr. trump faces a situation in which the presenting officer will serve as most both judge and rules and juror for the vote. beyond that, presiding officer, although enjoying a lifelong honorable reputation has been mr. tom's vocal and adamant opponent throughout the trump administration and in the matter on trial, the presiding officer respectfully, already publicly announced you before hearing any argument or evidence. mr. trump must be convicted on articles of impeachment before the senate members in both parties have been picked as
well. nowhere in this great country what every american and certainly not this honorable presiding officer consider this scenario to be insistent with any stretch of the american concept of due process and fair trial and certainly not give the experience of either. by no stretch of the imagination would any fair-minded american be confident a trial conducted would or could be a fair trial promised as a leader. while most aspects of the senate impeachment trial may be political questions, this is not an excuse to ignore law and president clearly wires. present situation presents a violation of the constitution articles mentioned above that requires chief justice to preside when the president is on trial or a clear denial of due process and fair trial rights for private citizen trump to
base impeachment trials so conducted by the senate impeachment articles should be treated as a nullity dismissed on total lack of due process in the house. it should be dismissed because of speaker pelosi's intentional abandonment jurisdiction. if the should be dismissed because the trial in the senate is not permitted let alone was the conflict described intent with this proceeding on the subject of due process, i say the following. this is our nation's sacred constitution. it served as well since it was written and it's been amended only through a careful process, a document unique in all the world, a foundational part of what makes the united states at beacon of light among the other
nations of the world. it not only has room for tremendous variety of perspectives on the philosophical political direction our country should take, it encourages the advocacy of our differences but we have long held fundamental health and well being and therefore hours, as a nation, due process for every citizen, the emphasis on the right to due process long ago was recognized as a primary eternal liability as our political national grading light. we all know there are many systems and other countries around the world that do not offer any semblance of safeguard our constitutional concept of due process provides. some have chosen their own handbook which directs citizen conduct on penalty of death if this is one.
there can be no room for due process in a system as is the system would be lost. they are required in a system like this to maintain power for one political philosophy over all others in those systems. but we as a nation have rejected those systems and snap decisions they demand to maintain control of the one party for one you and impose way of life. we chose to live trees really under a constitution that guarantees our freedom. seek to ensure adherence party line involved political spiritual and others and ensure the product line imposes no system no place for due process. snap decisions that remove political speakers maintaining the system depend on it. that's not our place in america never must be future in america
in the amendment and due process document demand for every citizen among us, by putting it out there on the statement made in this matter to impeach the president of the u.s. without semblance of due process every step along the way most the office of the president of the united states at risk every single day. it is too dangerous and you must try sending the message now that this proceeding, flocking due process, students start to finish must end now to conduct impeachment trial will former president, his current office expired and is now private citizen. the one reason you must send the message now is because of the lack of due process. god for bid, we should ever
lower our vigilance to the principal of due process. impeachment trial as a private citizen trump held before the senate, nothing more nor less in the trial of a private citizen by a legislative body. violating article one section nine, it provides none shall be passed. it prohibits congress from enacting a law legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision for production of judicial trial. the legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial, a judicial
trial. distinguishing characteristics is a substitution of a legislative determination of guilt and legislative punishment, judicial. this clause in separation of powers respect concern that trial by a legislature lacks the safeguards necessary to prevent the abuse of power. as the supreme court explained in the u.s. versus ground, the best available evidence or writings in the architects of our constitutional system making clause was intended not as a narrow technical and therefore soon to be outvoted position but rather an implementation separation of powers, general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial functions. more simply, trial by legislature. the coder politically
independent. when undertakes a private citizen, a clearly understanding to be the case here, supported by the fact that chief justice is not providing mr. trump is not present anymore, acting as judge and jury rather than legislative bodies and this is the type of situation the bill of attainder constitutional provision is meant to preclude. it's clear his qualification from holding future office, punishment for house managers seeking here is a kind of punishment subject to the constitutional prohibition against the passage of changes under which designation bills obtained and penalties are included. supreme court three times struck down provisions that precluded support of the south of communism and holding certain jobs in violation of this prohibition.
the impeachment of a private citizen to disqualify them from holding office is an unconstitutional act, constituting a bill of the changer. this is the exact situation which the fear would be great. some members of the senate might be susceptible to acting in the haste the house accident when rushing the articles of impeachment in less than 48 hours. acting simply to appease the popular clamor of the political base. the very kind of concern expressed by mr. hamilton and 65. moreover, chief justice marshall warned, it's not to be despised the framers of the constitution viewed with some apprehension, it might grow out of the moment and the people of the u.s. in adopting the instrument manifested determination to shield themselves and their property from the effects of the sudden and strong passions to
which men and women are exposed restrictions on the legislative power the state are obviously bounded into the constitution of the u.s. contains what may be the bill of rights the people, no space shall pass bill of attender in the form. the power of the legislature over the individuals that express restraint so now turn to the text of the constitution. turning to the text of the constitution, the most appropriate and important starting place, constitution based question. there are passages of the u.s. constitution and the federal impeachment process. the analysis the name implies
begins with that word and the legislative history or history itself, if the meaning of the text is not playing. as the supreme court emphasized, statutory interpretation begins with the text and interpreting the text, guided by the principle of the constitution was written by the order. his words and phrases used in normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meeting and we must enforce plane on ambiguous statutory language according to its terms. the president is impeached, text of the constitution demands the chief justice of the u.s. shall preside as discussed earlier. chief justice is not interested in nonpartisan. in this case, chief justice clearly is not presented and the conflict of interest wouldn't necessarily justify the cost tuition for the vice president.
and the prejudgment will be discussed. in this case, chief justice clearly is not residing. the senate pro tempest is provided. joined by other senators, permitted by the constitution because the subject of the trial is unknown president. as such, it's conceited, as it must be, for constitutional purposes of the trial, the accused is unknown president. the role of the senate decides whether or not to convict and thereby trigger application of article two section four, the president, vice president and all civil officers of the u.s. shall be removed from office and impeachment for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors for which office shall in on president removed if convicted. non- president doesn't hold office and therefore cannot be
impeached under this clause that provides the removal from office of the person under the impeachment attack. ask managers contend that the fact that chief justice is not providing does not impact the constitution of this trial. they devote only single paragraph of the trial memorandum to develop so significant that multiple senators declared the entire proceeding suspect with one going so far to say it crystallized the unconstitutional nature of this proceeding and tingle paragraph house managers in the issue, entirely unpersuasive. ignoring statutory interpretation, well established that a term of interpretation, a term appearing in several places in the statutory text is generally in a sustained way each time it appears. this is at its most vigorous when the term is repeated.
in one instance, is referred established canon. similar language contained within the section of the statute, it's inconsistent. i know it's a lot to was into at once but words make our constitution and the interpretation of the constitution as you well know, a product of words. if the text, president of the united states is a constitutional provision requiring the chief justice preside refer only to the city president and not, president, sexual identification of the president contained in article two section four which makes president impeachable in the first place includes anyone other than the sitting president. in full, that provides of the president, vice president and all civil u.s. should be removed from office on conviction of
impeachment or other high crimes and misdemeanors. the conviction and removal power in the senate and contains a clear jurisdictional limitation. house managers understand what the work president means for the purpose of other provisions so they should understand this as well, only a sitting president is referred to as a president of the u.s. in the constitution and only a sitting president may be impeached, convicted and removed upon trial in the senate. the president in article two section four and the president in article one section three identifies the same person. if the accused is not the president, he is not a president in the other. no sound textual interpretation. i emphasize textual. no sound interpretation principle permits the reading in the words of the supreme court,
it's a normal rule in identical words, different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning. unwillingly as it may be, senate democrats and senator leahy designing have taken a position on this matter. the accused is not the president. the u.s. constitution does not have the senate, the power to try him and remove him. he can't be removed disqualify him, as if he were the president. house managers contend that jurisdiction over impeachment because despite the fact that he's no longer president, the conduct of the former president is charged occurring while still in office. the constitution cleared textual identification the president house managers justify their argument by noting the constitution's impeachment provisions properly understood, i reference this overarching
constitutional plan but with that justification in mind, the argument fails again in impeachment, it's the accused that permits the impeachment. ceasing to hold office terminates the possibility and purpose of impeachment. private person may not be impeached in america so they ask you to look back at the british model. the constitution does not make it subject to impeachment. the founders rejected the british model and allowed parliament to impeach anyone except the king. a limited impeachment to serve elected officials including the president in our country. the primary, only required is removal. article two section four whenever a civil officer is impeached and convicted for high crimes and misdemeanors, they shall be removed. it's undeniable it's removed and
every possible regard. illegal and impossible but the impeachment itself, he calls for removal. it's one reason impeachment proceedings are different ordinary trials in the constitution separates the two. in ordinary criminal, a person convicted of time while he or she an office may still be punished even though they no longer hold that office. not so with impeachment. the senate impeachment trial conviction means and requires removal and conviction without removal is no conviction at all. only upon solid conviction and forcible removal and the additional judgment of disqualification to be entertained. presidents are impeachable, presidents are removable. former president are not because they cannot removed. the constitution is clear. trial by the senate is reserved
for the president of the united states, not a private citizen or used to be president, just as clear, judgment required upon conviction is removal from office and former president no longer can be removed from office the purpose of text and structure constitution impeachment causes confirm the common sense understanding, former church in the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit and indeed, there are state decisions that analyze this same language and conclude impeachment can only be entertained against an existing officer subject to removal. the state versus hill from nebraska and smith versus gridley, 1981 decision from the florida supreme court. this is the first time the u.s. senate has ever been asked to apply the constitution textual
identification of the present. impeachment to anyone other than the sitting president of the united states and most significant from the textual approach, the term used is the president, not a president, there can only be one president. relying on the special meeting, former president cannot be impeached more convicted consider the alternative as far, if mr. trump can be convicted as the president, the language the constitution uses, why is he not still the president under commander in chief because they are joined by professor alan dershowitz and mr. epstein the focus and inclusion. they show the dangers of the approach deviating from the focus of the text. at the temporal limitation,
that's what they suggest. you can go back in time and impeach any civil officer who ever served for anything that occurred during the course of the service. with the house managers position, includes all former executive officers and judges including impeachment now of jimmy carter. that is their argument without any hesitation. further, why not the reading of other terms? the experts on this, why not encounter the other broad reading? high crimes and misdemeanors. exclusively the only conduct intended as impeachable. they conclude these experts by writing a long textual impeachment power would undermine constitution effort make the president independent of congress a goal of the founding fathers.
he continued analysis under non- textual analysis, reliance on a presentation of history, suggesting if one presentation of history were to control would permit conduct contrary to the expressed language leading to clearly unintended results. i've spoken to the judge at length about this, it is something he feels very strongly about the i also happen to be from the with chuck cooper who happens to be a person who is against president trump, cooper is a fine lawyer and a fine person as i am sure our friends from alabama no. as we have already discussed in the institution of the presidency any past officers limited by imagination. the house managers case further demonstrated by reliance by the
assertion of president trump is not impeached, future officers impeached, removal and resigning for senate trial. they contend citing various law professors that any official who betrayed public trust impeach could avoid accountability, simply by resigning one minute and the senate conviction boat. this argument is complete. the constitution expressly provides article one section three clause seven that a convicted party following impeachment shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment trial, judgment and punishment according to law after removal. clearly a former civil officer was not impeached subject to the same. we have a judicial process in this country, and investigative process in this country to which no former office holder immune.
that is the process that should be running it course. the appropriate one for investigation prosecution and punishment with all attributes, we are missing it by two articles. article three provides, they provide appropriate adjudication. that is accountability. appropriate mechanisms are in place for accountability, not through the legislature which does not and cannot offer the safeguards of judicial system which every private it is in constitutionally is entitled to. their argument does nothing to empower the different regions of the constitution plaintext one that leads the president in one provision to include former president or read the president and the other provision, only the sitting president. second, also failed because the
former president did not resign, even if you do so. as a result, the senate may not decide whether it possesses power or jurisdiction to try and convict a former president who resigned or how it may best proceed in such a case. that is not the case. the constitution's text, consistently applied should govern whether the u.s. senate is vested by the constitution with the power to convict private citizen of the united states. it is not. manage the memorandum, despite the fact that the primary and necessary remedy of conviction, removal impeachment trial appropriate because the other secondary optional remedy of the senate is not even required to consider which only takes effect on a separate boat disqualification from future office and can still
theoretically be applied of former president managers contend articles to, section four of will, whenever civil officer is impeached is demeanor, they shall be removed. nothing about this rule implies, that alone requires officials for disqualification immune from impeachment and conviction. so the argument goes, the president no longer holding office does not have remedies according to impeachment but it lies in the face of the plain meaning of the text and statutory interpretation. simply choose to ignore the text, even in the managers, the word shall does, to put it mildly, imply a requirement imperative appeasement removal would be impossible, it is invalid. the supreme court made clear
when a statute uses the word shall, congress imposed mandatory duty upon the subject of command, shall be moved. the mandatory shall normally create an obligation impervious to judicial discretion. and wherever the constitution demands, discretion terminate. shall means mandatory and shall be removed is not possible for an officer no longer in office here is the and argument. this is another, textual scholars have written about this. managers in article one section three clause seven, it states that judgment in cases of impeachment shall not be further to remove from office and disqualification -- from office, and disqualification to hold and
enjoy office of honor trust, under the u.s. ordinarily, everyday wish, constructive and list needs all requirements must be satisfied while or only one listed requirement needs to be satisfied. and understand the comment to brian provide further support. michael recently argued the constitutional impeachment remedies disqualification from future office was a remedy of removal from the office currently occupied. the former remedy does not apply in situations where the latter is unavailable. intertwined if removing no longer is impossible, neither is impeachment. it's a story and the same as commentary from the constitution
and analyzing impeachment is in the position and removal of primary remedy of impeachment process authorizes is no longer necessary. a story noted that he's not coming to a firm on this, this is his thought process. and impeachment is receding purely of political nature, it's not designed to punish an offender, it's to secure the site against misdemeanors and touches neither his person or property and invest in the political capacity. i have to say this, we heard earlier today, distinguished professor at columbia university who, along with charles black wrote the handbook on impeachment used for many years, he is a constitutional expert on
impeachment. he has written that there is little discussion historical records surrounding precise questions of whether a person no longer civil office can be impeached. in light of clarity of the text, it's hardly surprising. professor bobbitt, a rich family history in the democratic party, lbj, also asserted the following as recently as january 27, 2021 arguing against holding this trial, he said there's no authority granted to congress to impeach and convict persons not civil officers of the united states. it is as simple as that the simplicity doesn't mean on important. limiting congress and powers is crucial element in the central idea of the u.s. constitution, putting the state under law. professor bobbitt and former stanford professor has remarked
about the principal purpose is the 66 points made clear is to check the executive, trial by jury, rules of evidence and put aside the rights because of the need to protect and publish the public from further abuse of office. similarly yesterday, professor eugene wrote, the constitution provides impeachment process to be used to remove all civil officers of the u.s. people holding a government position and in the case of mr. trump, the house read the constitution as if it says the process applies to all u.s. and people who are not civil officers but were. but once were.
i'd like to draw your attention to page 37. this is misrepresentation. it reflects the very different view of democracy. page 37, they wrote the framers, i am paraphrasing. the framers would not have hesitated, their worldview shaped by a study of classical history as well as lived expanse of resolution, they were aware of the dangers posed by mobs of violence for political gain. they drafted the constitution to avoid such recovery, which is associated with the threat of civil disorder early assumption of power by a dictator. the citation is 178, ideological articles of american resolution. professor, when he gave this description of the threat of
civil disorder in early assumption by power by a dictator recovery was referring to in early colonists view toward democracy. they feared democracy. democracy, elitist political view. we don't hear democracy, we embrace it. summing up, let's be crystal clear on where we stand and why we are here. the singular goal of cost leadership in pursuing impeachment projection of novelty trump using these proceedings, disenfranchise 74 million americans for whom they disagree and to ensure neither they nor any other americans ever again cast a vote of donald trump. if they convince you to go forward, the ultimate hope this will be a shot across the bow of any other candidate in public office who would dare to take up a political message is very different from their own political view as the direction
in which they wish to take our country. under our constitution, this body in the impeachment process would never be permitted to westernize a partisan political purpose. the article impeachment must be the missed for lack of jurisdiction based on what we have discussed today and was in our brief. institution of the president is at risk and a strong message was sent by the dismissal of articles of impeachment. i want to leave you with two thoughts. one expressed by abraham lincoln. our nation is now divided, we must learn from this time. he had a simple but important message about the importance of doing what is right. mr. lincoln said stand with anybody who stands right, stand with him when he's right to part with him when he goes wrong and in both cases, you are right. in both cases, you impose dangerous extremes and stand on moral ground and hold the ship level and study national and nothing less. the second message, mr. lincoln's favorite poet who
wrote in 1849, at risk with even more. a call for hope and unity, special meeting today. salesforce, salesforce through wind. not the size of fear, a gentle loving and trusting way safe from all adversity and my comings and goings for gentleness and love and trust, prevail or angry place and gusts, something in moral still survives. sale on a ship, zero eight. sale on. the hopes of future years and hanging on my face, we know what workmen of steel, who make each
task fail, what hammers deep and shaped the anchors. fear not, found in shock, of the wave and not the rock, the flapping of the sale and not made by the gale. in spite of the roar, and spite. life on the shore, sale on, our hearts, our hope are all with feet. our hearts, our hope, our prayers, our tears, our triumphant over our fears are all with fee. our all with the.
[silence] ... we thank the centers for their careful attention to the legal arguments in your courtesy to the managers into the lawyers here. this has been the most bipartisan impeachment in american history and we hope we will continue to be so in the days ahead. nothing could be more bipartisan than the desire to recess, so the only issue before the senate today of course is whether
donald trump is subject to the court of impeachment that the senate has convened. we see no need to make further argument and this body has the power to convict and to disqualify president trump for his breathtaking constitutional crime of inciting a violent insurrection against our government pray tomorrow we will exact -- inspect the amazing array of issues by the presentations of our colleagues including the first amendment, due process, partisanship under our constitution to retain her claws and many more but in the meantime we wave all further arguments. we wave our 33 minutes of rebuttal and we give those three minutes gratefully back to the senate. >> all time has been yielded
back. the question is whether donald john trump is subject to the jurisdiction of the court of impeachment for acts committed while president of united states notwithstanding the expiration of his term in that office. is there sufficient second? there is a sufficient second in the clerks will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] mr. blumenthal, aye. mr. blunt, mr. blunt, no. mr. breaux aye. [roll call]
senate having voted in the affirmative on the foregoing question, the senate shall proceed with the trial under the provisions of that resolution. >> mr. president i ask unanimous consent the trial adjourned until 12 noon tomorrow, wednesday february 10 and disorder constitutes the adjournment of the senate. >> without objection we will be in adjournment until noon tomorrow. >> the first day of the trial of former president, the impeachment trial of former president donald trump's over. 3.5 hours of legal arguments on the constitutionality of trying the former president and the senate deciding in a 56-54 the donald trump's subject to the jurisdiction of this court, this court of impeachment the u.s.
senate as it has convened today for the rest of this week as the impeachment trial will continue as of noon tomorrow. welcome to our coverage on c-span2. we will continue our coverage tomorrow at noon eastern and we want to hear from you and your thoughts on the impeachment process so far. the legal arguments on the constitutionality of the proceedings are done and they will begin 16 hours on each side beginning tomorrow presenting their case in favor of an peach mint and opposed to impeachment. here are the phone phone lines if you'd like to weigh in with your thoughts (202)748-8920 for democrats (202)748-8921 for republicans and all others 2-027-488-9202 and we will show you some of the arguments presented by the house managers who are trying the case for the u.s. house and the impeachment court and the lawyers for presiden