U.S. Senate Impeachment Trial House Managers Conclude Arguments CSPAN February 11, 2021 7:01pm-8:42pm EST
our free c-span radio app. ♪ ♪ via care watching cspan2, the unfiltered view of government. cspan2 is created by america's cable television companies and today were brought to by these television companies who provide cspan2 to viewers as a public service. ♪ ♪ >> house managers took a final hour and 40 minutes to convey their argument for convicting former president trump of inciting insurrection at the u.s. capitol. trial managers focus on the first amendment concerns. c
thank you, mr. president. mr. castor when i returned to the harm visited upon america's national security by these events and the damage to our international reputation. spent my college discussed with you the many harms to our nation as a result of president trump contract. now i look to spend some time time at the harm during national security understanding in the world. on generally six and trump incited a mob to march the capitol, he led them to a building that houses of our nation's most sensitive information. and consider who was part of that mob. some of the individuals were on the fbi watchlist.
the past behavior of some individuals light hereby president trump, so alarmed investigators that their names thave been added to the national terrorist screening database. in at least one of the insurrectionist may have intended to steal information and give it to a foreign adversary. according to charging documents, riley williams legibly help still a laptop from speaker pelosi's office to quote send the computer device to a friend in russia who then plan to sell the device to svr, russians born intelligent service. while we can't be certain if how many spies infiltrated the crowd or at least coordinated with those who did, we can be sure that any enemy who wanted access to our secrets would have wanted to be part of that mob inside these halls. and the point is this, many of
the insurrectionist that president trump invited weren't dangerous for people in the fbile watchlist, violent extremists, white supremacist, and these insurrectionist cited by president trump threatened our national t security. stealing laptops again from speaker pelosi's office, taking documents from leader mcconnell's desk, snapping photographs as you saw in the videos earlier in sensitive areas, ransacking your offices, rifling through your desks. the president of the unitedst states, the commander-in-chief knew the risk of anyone breaching the capitol. he swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defended this country. and yet, he incited them here to break into the capitol.
senators, as you all know, we have spent trillions of dollars building the strongest military in the world. and of billions dollars on the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet. superb event the kind of attack that occurred at this capitol on january 6. and here is what the yinsurrectionist incited by president trump did. >> [inaudible] >> nancy policy perspective on mywe god we did this, we took this. [inaudible] [background noises] [inaudible] >> in many ways, this room is
sacred. and so are the traditions it represents. they have been carried on for secretaries. congress has declared war 11ar times on this floor. including entering world war ii. congress passed the civil rights act expanded the right to vote to ensure that no matter your race or your gender you have a voice in our nation. and this floor is where history has been made. and now, our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies have the burden to figure out exactly what was stolen, taken, ransacked and compromised michael sherwood explain, quote interiors were stolen and we have to identify what was done, mitigate that, and it could have potential national security equities.
these investigations are necessary now because of the actions of president trump. and it wasn't just the people he led here. the intelligence agencies have to look into comets also what they took, and what they gathered. and it was a very fact that this had building with so much sensitive information and some classified information, that this capitol was breached. think about it. every foreign adversary, considered attacking this building got to watch a dress rehearsal. and they saw that this capitol could be overtaken. as elizabeth newman a former trump administration official stated, quote you have terrorists who would love to destroy the capitol. they just saw how easy it was
to penetrate. we just exposed a huge vulnerability. and it's not just the capitol. this attack has implications for all government buildings. and senator rubio need this point well. stomach you are a terrorist right now and watching this you're saying to yourself hey it's not that hard to get into the capitol. maybe it's not hard to get into the white house or the supreme court building or somewhere else. select our government our intelligence agencies and our law enforcement have implemented additional safety measures since the attack on january s 6. we secure this physical space what message will we send the rest of the world. we already know that the message or adversaries tip from january 6, this is how some of them responded after the attack.
quotes for america's adversaries there is no greater proof of the malleability of western democracy than the sight of the u.s. capitol shrouded in smoke and besieged by a mob whipped up by their unwillingly outgoing president. and to make matters worse, our adversaries are using the events of january 6 not only to denigrate america but to justify their own antidemocratic behavior. calling america hypocritical. here's what the chinese government is saying. the spokes person for china's ministry of foreign affairs of the capitol riots should spark quotes, deep reflection among u.s. lawmakers regarding how they discuss the democracy movement in hong kong. suggesting that the u.s. is hypocritical in denouncing beijing's cracked out in the city while struggles with its own unrest at home. the global times comment
outlet affiliated with the chinese commonest party, even tweeted a series of side-by-side photos of two events, the siege of the u.s. capitol in a july 2019 incident in which pro-democracy protesters in hong kong broke into the cities legislative council building. think about that. president trump gave the chinese government and opening to create a false equivalency tween hong congersrs protesting and violet insurrectionist trying to overthrow it. as representative gallagher described ingh real time. >> and we don't think other countries around the world are watching this happen right now? we don't think the chinese commonest party sitting back and laughing that we arere deluding ourselves. so callnt it off mr. president. we need you to call this off.
medical russia has also seized on the violent attack against the government, decrying democracy is quote over. the chairman of the russian upper house, parliaments international affairs committee's", the celebration of democracy is over. this is alas, actually the bottom. i say this without a hint of gloating. america is longer charting the course and therefore has lost all its rights to set it. and especially to impose it on others. they are using president trump's incitement of an insurrection to declare the democracy is over. in iran, the supreme leaders using president trump's
incitement insurrection to mock america. this is my democracy these investors are being mocked by the whole world. even their friends are laughing at them. these statements are serious and pervasive. and according to a joint threat assessment bulletin from the department of homeland security, the fbi in eight other law enforcement entities q quotes, since the incident at the u.s. capitol on january 6, russian, ironic and chinese influence actors have seized the opportunity to amplify narratives for their policy entranced amid the presidential transition.
we cannot let them use what happened on january 6 to define, who we are and what we stand a for. we get to define ourselves by how we respond to the attack of january 6. some might be tempted to say and point out that our adversaries are always going to be critical of the united states. following the insurrection on january 6, even her allies are speaking up. canadian prime minister justin trudeau said quotes, what we witnessed was an assault on democracy by violent rioters, incited by the current president and other politicians. as shocking, deeply disturbing, and frankly saddening is that events remains, we've also seen this week the democracy is resilient in america. our closest ally in neighbor.
the german foreign minister said quote this closing of ranks begins with holding thoseol accountable who are responsible for such escalations. that includes a violent rioters. it also includes theirat instigators. the world is watching and wondering whether we are who we say we are. because what our other countries have known chaos, pour constitution has helped keep order in america. this is why we have a constitution. we must stand up for the rule of law because the rule of law does not just stand up by itself. after the insurrection ofct my colleagues the house foreign affairs committee, the t
chairman and the ranking member issued a bipartisan statement that said america has always been a beacon of freedom to the world. proof that free fair elections are achievable and the democracy works. but what happened at the capitol today has scarred our reputation and has damaged our standing in the world. today's violence inevitable result when leaders and positions of power misled the public will certainly empower dictators damaged struggling democracies. and that is true. for generations the united states has been a northstar in the world for freedom, democracy, and human rights. because america is not only a nation, for many it's also an idea. it is the life that gives hope to people struggling for democracy in autocratic
regimes. the light that inspires people fighting across the world for fundamental human rights. in the light that inspires us to believe in something larger than ourselves. when this trial is an opportunity to respond to send a message back to the world. i say this is somebody who loves my country, our country just as all of you do. there is a lot of courage in this room. a lot of courage that has demonstrated in the lives of people some folks have stood up for the civil rights of fellow americans and risked their careers and their reputations. their livelihood and their safety standing up for civil rights. many members of congress have
risked their lives in service to our country, in uniform. fighting in the jungles of vietnam, patrolling the mountains of guinness afghanistan, you've served our country because you are willing to sacrifice to defend our nation as we know it. and as the world knows it. and although most of you have traded in your uniform for public service, your country needs you one more time. the world watched president trump tell his big lie that world watched his supporters come to washington at his invitation. and the world watched as he told his supporters to march here, to the capitol.
and president trump, our commander-in-chief at the time, failed to take any action to defend us. as he utterly failed in his duty to preserve, protect, and defend. and now, the world watching us. wondering whether our constitutional republic is going to respond the way it should, the way it is supposed to. whether the rule of law will prevail mob rule. because the answer to that question has consequences far beyond our own borders. think of the consequences to sour diplomats and negotiators as they sit at tables around the world to enforce our agenda on trade, the economy and human rights. to fail to convict the president of the united states
who incited a deadly insurrectionns. who acted in concert with a violent mob, who interfered with the certification of the electoral college votes, who advocated his duty as commander-in-chief would be to forfeit the power of our p example is a northstar on freedom, democracy, and human rights, and most of all on the rule of law. and to convict donald trump would mean that america stands for the rule of law, no matter who violates it. let us show the world that january 6 was not america. and let us remind the world that we are truly their northstar. back will now address the
first amendment argument that is being offered by president trump's lawyers to try to excuse this insurrection. the neck [background sounds]. >> mr. president, distinguished hunters good afternoon. you have heard over the course of the last several days, overwhelming evidence the president trump incited an insurrection. but as we, as we prepare to close would be remiss if we did not briefly address apparently the principal defense that the president will offer to excuse his conduct. that is this notion that he can't be held accountable for what happened on generates
six. because his actions are somehow protected by the first amendment. now let's stop a moment and try to really understand the argument that they are making. according to president trump, everything he did, everything he shows you that he did, was perfectly okay for him to do. for a future president to do again. in the constitution apparently in their view for bids you from doing anything to stop it. that's can't be rights. that can't be. and it isn't. their argument is meant as a destruction. they are concerned not with the facts that actually
occurred, the facts that we f have proven, but with an alternative set of facts were president trump did nothing but deliver a controversial speech at a rally. of course that is not what we have charged in the article of impeachment. and not what happened. you will hear from my colleague lead manager raskin the many reasons why this argument they make is wrong on the law, completely. not just around the edges. they make a major fundamental mistakes of constitutional law. the time that lead manager raskin tells me would not cut it in his first year walk course. which of course you'd certainly know since he is taught the subject for s decade. and that explains why so many lawyers who have dedicated
their lives to protecting free speech for including many of the nation's most prominent conservative free-speech lawyersha have described president trump's first amendment claims as quote legally frivolous. it's another quote from am recent letter prominent free-speech lawyers that quote the first amendment is no bar to the senate convicting former president trump and disqualifying him from holding future office. their argument is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and would flip the constitution upside down. let's start with the facts. because as you will see, is free speech claim depends on he did, whyf what he is here that has no basis in the evidence.
he's just some guy at a rally expressing unpopular opinions. they would have you believe that this whole impeachment is because he said things that one may disagree with. really? and make no mistake, they will do anything to avoid talking about the facts of this case. that i can assure you. instead, we expect they will talk about a lot of other speeches including some given by democratic officials. they will insist with indignation first amendment protects all of this. as though it were exactly the same. we trust you to know the difference. because you have seen the evidence that we have seen. you have seen as we have proven over the last three days that his arguments
politely this described the reality of what happened on january 6. they leave out everything that matters about why we are here and what he did. because president trump wasn't just some guy with political opinions who showed up at a rally on january 6 and delivered controversial remarks. he was the president of the united states. and he had spent months, months using the unique power of that office. of his bully pulpit to spread that big lie that the election had been stolen, to convince his followers to stop the steel. to assemble them just blocks away from here on january 6 at the very moment we were meeting to count the looked oriole college votes. where he knew it had been
widely reported they were eprimed and eager and ready for violence at his signal. and then, standing in the middle of that explosive situation, and that powder keg that he had created over the course of months before a crowd filled with people who were poised for violence. at his signal. he struckai a match and he aimed straight at this building. at us. you have seen all of that evidence, there is no denying it. that is why the house impeached him. that is why he is on trial. no president, no matter t their politics orol the politics of their followers, conservative, liberal, or anything else. no president can do what
president trump did. because this isn't about politics. it is about his refusal to accept the outcome of the election in his decision to incite his insurrection for this no serious argument that the first amendment protects that. and it would bepr extraordinarily dangerous for the united states senate to conclude otherwise. to tell future presidents that they can do exactly what president trump did and get away with it. to set the precedent that this is acceptable, now a constitutionally protected way to respond to losing an election. and you'll notice something. certainly manager raskin i both noticed by by all accounts it doesn't appear president trump's lawyers disagree. they don't insist the facts
we've charged with the facts we have proven, the facts supported by overwhelming evidence are true. of course you now know they are. n canhere is nothing you do. they are not arguing it is okay for person to cite a mob to violence, is i don't think they are arguing that. instead, what they are doing is offering a radically different version of what happened thatd day. totally inconsistent with the evidence. and then they insist if that fictional version of events, that alternate reality wereon true, well then he may be protected by the first amendment, that is the y argument. but you are here toe adjudicate real evidence. real facts. not hypothetical ones. and for thatt reason alone, you
should reject their argument. because it has been advanced to defend a situation that there is no resemblance to the actual facts of this case. with that, i want to turn over to my colleague lead manager raskin to discuss the many legal flaws as i mentioned in president trump's position. >> just explained why president trump's first amendment argument has nothing to the actual facts of the case. he has been impeached for inciting violent insurrection against the government, incitement to violent insurrection is not protected by free speech. nthere's no first two impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. the idea is absurd. the whole first amendment smokescreen is completely irrelevant distraction from the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, governing a
president who is violent his oath of office. yet president trump we know has a good way of treating up is doubted wrong is right pre-try to pull off the biggest election fraud in american history by overturning the results of the 2020 election election even as he insisted his own fraud was in fact an effort to stop the steel. to stop a fraud. a vast conspiracy that he blamed on local and state officials of both political parties. the media, electionrt officials, the judiciary, federal, state, members of congress, anyone who did not go along with him as part of the conspiracy. he violated his own office by mob incitement by counting electoral college votes as we were assigned to by the 12th amendment andn the electoral act. even as he attacked vice president pence at a rally for violating his oath of office. : : :
democracy. now he argues the congress is violating his free speech rights when was donald trump who cited an attack against us. and not the speech and debate on the house on the floor of the senate during transfer of power constitutional order that protects freedom of speech on mental w rights. a matter of law. president trump brazen attempt to invoke the first amendment, low and behold anyway he completely ignores the fact he was the president, a public official. he swears an oath present nobody else wears and has greater power than anybody else in the
country. he or she promises to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the u.s. and our government institution and our people. as we all know, the power we entrust people in public government office, especially the president obligations to uphold the law and integrity of our public. but what about president publicly, on a daily basis advocated replacing the constitution with totalitarian form of government urged from the union, swore an oath of loyalty to a foreign leader or government as a private citizen, you can do anything about people using those words to advocate totalitarianism. the advocate from the union, swear to a foreign government,
you couldn't. it totally protected. if you prosecute somebody for that, you would lose but it's inconceivable, unthinkable that the president could do any of these things, get up and swear an oath to foreign governments or leaders to advocate totalitarianism and not be impeached for it. it is unlikable that that could happen with that violate the first amendment right? the opposite by president trump's counsel would leave the nation powerless to respond to a present use is unmatched coward, privilege and prestige of his or her office, the famous pulpit in ways that risk the ruin of divisions and corruption. everyone should be clear there's
nothing remotely exotic about what we are saying, it should be common sense to everybody about understanding first amendment also applies to public service, clubs, firefighters, everybody across the land. my daughter is in. teachers teach in the advocate totalitarianism entries him or what have you, you're not living up to the y duties of their offe as a teacher, they can because everybody knows that. it happens all the time including cops and firefighters and people on the front lines. it happened countless times to be both fired by president trump, by their statements or ideas about things including election fraud not long ago.
people in the government lost their jobs because the president didn't like what theyob said or wrote. as i mentioned yesterday, justice scalia got it right, he wrote about first amendment of people who take on public office, unemployment. he said you can't ride with the tops but root for the roberts. you can't ride with the cops but root for the robbers. when it comes to peaceful transfer of power, rules off law and election outcomes, president, whoever he or she is most choose the side of the constitution. not decide but the insurrection or coup or anybody out againstst them.
they choose the wrong side, there's nothing in the first amendment or anywhere else that can choose the pretrial of the oath of office. it's a free speech question. there's more. president trump is just a run-of-the-mill u.s. citizen, just another guy at the rally expressing a deeply unpopular opinion because we shouldn't overlook the fact while there were thousands in the violent mob, they represent a tiny part of less than 1% of the population, vast majority of the american people reject the mob violence we sell january 6 but let's say he's just another guy in the crowd. the bedrock principle nobody can
incite a riot. for some it doesn't protect it. there's no first amendment protection for speech to incite this action and produce such action. for all the reasons you heard based on bloom's comprehensive totally unrefuted and irrefutable, for all, that definition of prescriber will speech, fits his conduct perfectly. classic piece of incitement. you have to take my word for it, the 144 free-speech lawyers mentioned to include many of the nation's most dedicated, most uncompromising free speechpe advocate, unlike mr. trump but these people are great is a
powerful case conviction even if the president of the u.s. were to be treated like some guy in the crowd. first amendment is not the defense articles of impeachment against former president. i mentioned it not as a criminal file, there's no risk of jail time, the president doesn't go to p jail for one week, one dayr one hour or one minute based on conviction and disqualification from for theic office, absolutey nobody in america would be protected by the first amendment if they did all the things donald trump did. nobody made donald trump run for president in 2002 defend the constitution january 20, 2017 but when he did by virtual swearing the oath and entering
the high office, he took duty to affirmatively take care that our laws would be faithfully executed under his leadership. federal destruction of property, all laws. in everything he did, we expected him to protect and preserve and defend our constitutional system including separation of powers but instead, he betrayed us and he was the greatest betrayal of a presidential oath in the history of the u.s. the greatest. as i mentioned yesterday, president trump is notot even close to the proverbial citizen who falsely shot fire in a crowded theater. he's like that now proverbial municipal fire chief who incites a mob to set the theater on fire
and not only refuse to put out the fire encourages the mob to keep going as the blaze spreads. we would hold the fire chief accountable, forbid him from the job ever again and that's exactly what must happen here. there are hundreds of millions of citizens who commit president, donald trump has disqualified himself and you must disqualify him, to dislike the fire chief since the mob, president trump and his office. it's one reason why is free-speech rhetoric is so insidious, his conduct represented the most devastating dangers on our constitution including the first amendment. we wouldn't have free-speech or any other rights if we didn't
have peaceful transfer of power and democracy for the outcome of the election is accepted by the candidate who lost. we had up until 2020. first amendment are democrat and should be truth speaking the undermines, not advances in his course of conduct as we have demonstrated in this trial, the violent excitement speech, due process, free exercise, the right to vote people's production and other rights will treasure and cherish in the u.s. for some not create superpower immunity from impeachment for who attacks the constitution and rejecting
outcome of election he happened to lose. if anything, president trump's conduct was an assault on the first amendment and equal rights millions of americans exercise when they voted last year often under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. first amendment protecting the rights of the people speaking about the issues of our day. then to participate in politics/selecting the people who will be our leaders. in american democracy, those of us who aspire and obtain public office are nothing but the servant of the people. at the masters of the people, there are no kings here. the people. most important words of the constitution, we the people. all this means little if the president who dislikes election
results to inciteec violence and assert the will of the people as expressed, ignore the judicial branch of government and then run over the legislative range of government with a mob. his high crimes and t misdemeans sought to nullify the political right and sovereignty of the american people. our right as for people to still a great, form opinions, persuade each other to vote and decide who our president will be. the sovereignty of the people. that is an attack on the first, i would say. in addition, president trump's actions were a direct attack on our freedom of speech, members of congress sent here to speak for the constituents. that's why we have our own many free speech, speech and debate.
that's literally our job to represent the views about people. forcing members of congress to stop speaking and the lives of our staff and family. speech related to the power to claim free-speech intervals from exercising his constitutional powers to hold him and folks here said, in our punishment, i would present my site, president etrump says because i disagree with everything you say, i will overturn your popular election
and insight and selection since the government and we might take a moment to consider another insight which a teacher of mine told me, when was the beginning she said shean thinks it when he said anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit no merit to free-speech rhetoric, the attack of the first amendment is all aboutti e to the republicans. any present to do what he did vendors and there's no doubt president lacks any first amendment excuse or defense or
immunity, he incited a violent a insurrection against our government must be in the i'm going to call up why the house provided him with all impeachment. thank you for your time and attention. we all heard attorneys today and asked president trump's effort to avoid talking about his own conduct, avoid talking about anything related to his crime. we expect president trump will raise process objection. his due process claims are without merit under the
constitution, the house has the sole power of impeachment. that provision confirms house functions as a grand jury or prosecutor. the house decides whether to bringe charges. in other cases, the house has provided deliberative and procedural privileges to the presento impeached but it's exactly that, privileges. they are discretionary the house has the power to decide its own rule, how it wants to past articles of impeachment and in this case, the house related articles on a bipartisan vote. i am a that i've had the opportunity to decide this and when you c see a crime committed
and prosecutors have to spend months investigating this case, hundreds of people have been arrested and charged by prosecutors about january 6. there's no reason for the man at the top incited violence. i like to emphasize good reason to move quickly. this was exigent circumstances. it's not a case where there was hidden conduct or some conspiracy that required months to years investigation. this case is not raise consultative issues is on the responses from theco legislatur. particularly the president in office at the time have to of
the violence echoed around the country and must be no doubt that congress act who incites violence against us. that's why the house. president trump created that cannot claimed the house impeachment to quickly another process, earlier in this trial, president trump's attorneys suggested that house somehow deliberately delay transmission of this article of impeachment. when the house adopted this a article of impeachment, we were ready to begin file the senate
was not in inquire as to our options, officials told us clearly under the house to deliver articles of impeachment to the secretary of theve senate before the senate, the clerk of the house would have turned back as before. that's why the trial did not begin. another reason why objections are meritless. finally, let me conclude that you are all going to see and have seen full presentation of evidence by the house and you can hear full presentation by his attorneys, you can ask questions. the senate has the power to try all impeachment. president trump is receiving any and all process do right here in
just a moment, my colleague will return to show we've established with overwhelming evidence president trump engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. i'd like to emphasize uncontroversial points, key to understand if we have proven to you conduct we've alleged in this article, trump has committed high crime misdemeanor under the constitution. incitement of interaction under these is undoubtedly in the words of george mason from the constitutional convention, the great and dangerous offense against republic. a greater or more dangerous offense against the republic than this one.
to be precise, i hope we all can agree today that a president is in sight violent insurrection against the government, he can be impeached for it. i hope we can all agree that is a constitutional crime. another part, while president trump's lawyers may argue otherwise, the questioneis heres not whether president trump committed a crime under the federal code for d.c. law or law of any state, impeachment did not result in criminal penalties as we keep emphasizing. no one stands a day in jail, not even criminal or civil fines. in history, not to mention constitutional text, structure and original intent and understanding (james wilson, another framer who wrote
impeachment and offenses come not within the. , impeachment was created for purpose separate and distinct from criminal punishment, created to prevent and deter elected officials who swear oath to represent america but then commit dangerous offenses against our republic. senators, what greater offense could one commit then to insight violent insurrection our seat of the peaceful transfer of power? in circumstances where violence was foreseeable where crowd is poised for violent incense sticks and pulled and be law enforcement officers and debase
sacred walls and trash and keeping us from our own duties to uphold the concert are free and fair election and then sit back and watch and delight as insurrectionist attack is violating sacred oath and engaging in a profound desertion of duty, how can we measure commander-in-chief will defend us in our constitution if we don't uphold the president accountable in a circumstance like this? what is impeachable conduct if noton this? you ought to think about it. if you think it's not impeachable, whatt is? what would be? president trump's lawyers endorsed the assertion that his conduct and inciting these ovens was totally appropriate the
senate acquit donald trump in any president could incite and provoke insurrection and violence against us again. if you don't find this high crime misdemeanor today, you have set a new terrible standard for presidential misconduct in the united states of america. the only real question is the factual one. do we prove brought donald trump, while president incited insurrection against the united states? incitement of course intensive judgment which is why commend you all for your scrupulous attention for everything that took place. we believe we show you overwhelming evidence in this case that would convince anyone using common sense that this was indeed incitement. meaning that donald trump's conduct encouraged violence, acted willfully in the actions
that encouraged violence. we will take you to the evidence again, not the whole thing, we are almost done but we don't want it to be said, they never approved this or that because my managers have stated night after night afterm night to compile al factual evidence we put before you and for all of you in the public trial because we love our country that much. he will show you we proven our and that president trump committed this impeachable offense, that we impeached him for january and you should convict him, i will return and
explain why dangerous for us to ignore this and why you must convict and then we will arrest. >> mr. president and senators, as my colleague mentioned, i know it's been a long few days. thank you, we are very grateful for your patience, attention and the attention you have paid to every one of our managers that they have presented our case. as lead manager raskin mentioned, i hope, i trust we can all agree the president incites a violent insurrection
against our government, that is impeachable. what i would like to do as we close our case, locke you through why our evidence establishes that president trump committed that offense. as you consider that question, a question of whether the president, there are three questions come to mind. violent foreseeable did encourage violence? he acted willfully? going to show you why the answer to every one of those questions is yes. first,fi let's start, was it foreseeable that the island would erupt january 6 president
trump response? wasn't pretty proud save america rally was poised on a hairtrigger for violent that they would fight, literally provoked to do so? of course it was. when president trump stood up to the podium january 6, he knew that many in that crowd were inflamed, armed, ready for violence. it was an explosive situation and he knew it. we've shown you the evidence on this. you've seen it. the images, videos, articles and pattern which shows the violence on that terrible day was entirely foreseeable. we showed you how this all began with the big lie, the claim that
the election was rigged and president trump and his supporters were the victims of massive fraud, massive conspiracy to rip away their wevotes. we've showed you how president trump spread that lie and now over the course of months, with his support and, it inflamed part of this, resulting in death threats, real world violence and increasingly extreme calls to stop the steel. ... transfer of power. thirty tried everything that he could do to stop it. and you will recall the evidence on the screen.
him pressuring and threatening state election officials, attacking them to the point of literally calling him enemies of the state. threatening at least one of they threatened at least one with criminal penalties and then attacking senators, members of congress all across the media, pressuring the justice department, prompting outcries from assistant u.s. attorneys, not to mention his own attorney general reportedly telling him that the stolen election claims were quote, bs, not my phrase but his. and then as january 6 approached he moved on to attacking his own vice president. openly and savagelyte. we recounted throughout that entire time all the ways in which president trump inflamed his supporters with allies that the election was stolen and as
every single one of us knows, nothing in this country is more sacred, nothing. our voice and hear you have the president of the united states telling his supporters that their voice, that their rights as americans were being stolen from them. ripped away. that made them angry. angry enough to stop the steal and to fight like hell to stop the steal. we showed you this and you saw the endless tweets and the and the statements encouraging and spreading that big lie. you saw that he did this over and over again with the same message each time, you must
fight to win it back. you must never surrender, no matter what. remember each time that his supporters, along the way, showed violence he endorsed it, encouraged it, praised it, all part of that same demand to stop the steal and fight like hell. remember the video that manager plaskett showed you from texas? some of his supporters and circling a of campaign workers on a highway. people easily could have been killed, easily. what did he do? he tweeted it and made a joke about it at a rally. he called them patriots and held them out as an example of what
it means to stop the steal. when hee told his supporters to stop the steal they took up arms to literally intimidate officials to overturn the election results. you sawn the evidence and so did he and he welcomed it. when president trump attacked georgia secretary of state for certifying the results his supporters send death threats. you saw those in great detail from manager dean. what did he do? he attacked the election officials further. when supporters gather together to have a second million maga rally, the rally that manager plaskett showed you, a rally about the stolen election, he tweeted that the fight had just
begun. what happened next? it is not rocket science but fights broke out and stabbings, serious violence. now, if president trump, likehe all of us, saw what happened at that rally and saw all the violence, the brains, the chaos and how did he respond? he tweeted praise of the event and then you will see it on screen he bought $50 million worth of ads to further promote his message to those exact same people. he immediately joined forces with that very same group and he joined forces with the same people that had just erupted
into violence. was violence predictable? wasn't obvious that the crowd on january 6 was poised for violence? prepared for it? absolutely. this isn't just clear looking back at time but it was widely recognized at the time in the days leading up to january 6 and there were dozens, hundreds of warnings and he knew it. he knew the rally would explode if provoked. he knew all it would take the slight push. remember, you heard from manager plaskett the chatter on social media, websites that the trump administration monitored and were known to the trump operation. it showed that the people he invited to the january 6 rally
took this as a serious call to arms and that this was not just any attack but was to storm the capital if necessary. to stop the steal. it wasn't just clear on these websites that the trump administration was monitoring but the fbi issued reports about this as a credible threat, a threat to target us. law enforcement made six arrests that night before, six arrests. newspapers across the city warned of the risk of the violence. there can be no doubt that the risk of violence was foreseeable. what did he do in the days leading up to the rally? did he calm the situation? ask yourself. did he call for peace? no.
he did not do that. he spread his big light more in the most dangerous lie, as i mentioned, that americans votes were being stolen and that the hefinal act of theft would occur here in the capital. then he assembled all those supporters andor invited them to an organized event on a specific day at a specific time, matched perfectly to coincide with the joint session of congress to coincide with the steel that he had told them to stop by any and all means. again, he was told by law enforcement and all over the news that these people were armed and ready for real violence. he knew it. he knew it perfectly well that he had created this powder keg at his rally and he knew just
how combustible that situation was. he knew there were people before him who had prepared and armed and armored. he knew they would jump to violence at any signal, at any sign from him that he needed them to fight. and that he needed them to stop the steal. we all know what happened that day. second question, did he encourage the violence? standing in that powder keg did he light a match? everyone knows the answer to that question. the hours of video you all have watched leave no doubt. just remember what he said on january 6.
>> all of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen. there's never been anything like this. it's the greatest theft in american history. make no mistake. this election was stolen from you, for me and from the country. >> at the opening of -- >> we will never give up. we will never concede. it doesn't happen. you don't concede when there is theft involved. to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. we must stop the steal. we will not let them silence your voices. we will not let it happen. [cheering and applause] not going to let it happen.
you have to get your people to fight because you will never take back our country with weakness. ssyou have to show strength and you have to be strong and we fight, we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell you will not have a country anymore. >> ua may remember at the outset of the trial and i told you you hear three phrases over and over and over again.r the big lie that the election had been stolen, stop the steal and never concede and fight like hell to stop that steel. you heard those phrases throughout the course of this trial, video after video, statement after statement telling his supporters that they
should be patriots to fight hard to stop the steal. on that day, that day, where did he direct the crowds ire? he directed them here to congress and he quite literally one part of that speech pointed at us and he told them to fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell you will not have a country anymore. y here is the thing, that wasn't metaphorical. it wasn't rhetorical. he had already made it perfectly clear that when he's said fight he meant it and when followers in fact, fought and when they engaged in violencehe he praised and honored them as patriots.
he implied that it was okay to break the law because the election was being stolen and you heard it, you remember the clip that manager dean showedli you earlier in this trial in fact he told them that the quote isth on the screen. when you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules. remember how all of his supporters, some of his supporters, across social media were treating this as a war talking about bringing in the dicalvary? president trump made clear what those different rules were. he had been making it clear for months. >> so, let's have trial by combat. rudy, you did a great job. [cheering and applause]
he's got guts. he's got guts unlike a lot of people in the republican party. he's got guts and he fights. >> his message was crystal clear and it was understood immediately, instantly his followers and we don't have to guess and we don't have to guess as to how they reacted. we can look at how people reacted to what he said. you saw them. you saw the violence. it is pretty simple. he said it and they did it. and we know this because they told us.
they told us in real time during the attack. you saw the affidavits, the interviews on social media, on live tv and they were doing this for him because he asked them to and it wasn't just insurrectionist's who confirmed this but many, many people, including current and former officials immediately recognized that the president had incited the crowd and that he alone was capable of stopping the violence and that he did this and he had to call it off because he was the only one who could. let's see what representative mccarthy, representative gallagher, chris christie, representative can injure and representative had to say. >> i could not be sad or or more disappointed with the way our country looks at this very moment. people are getting hurt.
anyone involved in this if you are hearing me you are hearing the loud and clear. this is not the american way. l mr. president, you have got to stop this but you are the only person who can m call this off. call it off. >> pretty simple, the president caused this protest to occur and he is the only one who can make it stop what the president said is not good enough. the president has to come out and tell his supporters to leave the capitol grounds and to allow the congress to do their business peacefully and anything short of that isn't abrogation of his response abilities. >> a guy that knows how to treat very aggressively on twitter puts out one of the weakest statements in one of the saddest days of american history. >> the presidents is undeniable. both on social media ahead of january 6 and in his speech that
day. he deliberately promoted basis theories can grading a combustible environment of misinformation and disinformation for it to allow the united states to incite this attack without consequent his is a direct threat toir future of this democracy. >> to the president encourage violence? yes. no doubt that he did. final question. wdid the president acted willfully in his actions that encouraged violence? well, let's look at the facts. he stood before an armed, angry crowd known to be ready for violence at his provocation and what did he do? he provokes them and aim them here and told them to fight like hell and that is exactly what
they did. and his conduct throughout the rest of that terrible day really only confirms that he acted willfully and that he incited the crowd and then engaged in dereliction of duty while he continued inflaming the violence.io again, we don't have to guess what he thought because he told us. remember the video he released at 4:17 p.m., lead manager raskin showed that to you yesterday. the one where he said quote, we had an. election stolen from us. remember the tweet? it was just a couple hours later, six oh 1:00 p.m. you've seen it many times you can see it on the slide that these are the things that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away.
that is what he was focused on, spreading the big lie and praising the mob that attacked us and our government. you heard manager cicilline describe reports that president was delighted, enthusiastic and confused that others did not share his excitement as he watched the attack unfold on tv. he cared more about pressing his efforts to overturn the election that he did about saving lives, our lives. look at what president trump did that day after the rally. it is important and he did virtually nothing.
we have seen or manager castro mentioned this that when president trump wants to stop something he does so simply, easily, quickly but aside from four tweets and a short clip during the over five hour long attack he did nothing. on january 6 he did not condemn the attack and did not condemn the attackers and did not say that he would send help to defend us or defend law enforcement. he did not react to the violence with shock or horror or dismay as we did and he did not immediately rushed to twitter to demand and the clearest possible terms that the mob disperse and they stop it and they retreat
but instead he issued messages in the afternoon that sided with them. the insurrectionist's who had left police officersef battered and bloodied. he reacted exactly the way someone would react if they were delighted at exactly unlike how a person would react if they were angry at how their followers were acting. again, ask yourself how many lives would have been saved and how much pain and trauma would have been avoided if he had reacted the way that a president of the united states is supposed to act. there are two parts of president trump's failure here, dereliction ofha duty that i jut have to emphasize for one
moment. first, what he did to vice president mike pence. the vice president of the united states of america, his own vicei president was in this building with an armed mob shouting hang him. the samee armed mob that set up gallows outside. you saw those pictures. what did president trump do? he attacked him more and he singled him out by name. it is honestly hard to fathom. second, our law enforcement. the brave officers who are sacrificing their lives to defend us who cannot evacuate or seek cover because they were protecting us. i'm not going to go through again or my fellow managers
showed you yesterday but let me just say this, those officers serve us faithfully and dutifully and they followed their oath's. they deserve a president who upholds. his and who would not risk their lives and safety to retain power. a president who would preserve, protect and defend them but that is not what he did. when they, the police, still barricaded and being attacked with polls, he said in his video to the people attacking them we love you and your very special, what more could we possibly need to know about president trump's state of mind?
senators, the evidence is clear that we should do statements, videos, affidavits that prove president trump incited an insurrection, and insurrection that he alone had the power to stop. the fact that he did not stop it and the fact that he incited a lawless attack and abdicated his duty to defend us from it and the fact that he actually further inflame the mob, further inflamed that mob and attacking his m vice president while assassins were pursuing him in this capital more than requires conviction and disqualification. we humbly, humbly ask you to convict president trump for the crime for which he is
overwhelmingly guilty of. if you don't and if we pretend this did not happen or worse if we let it go unanswered who is to say it will not happen again. >> mr. president, members of the senate, first of all thank you for your close attention and seriousness of purpose that you have demonstrated over the last few days. thank you also for your courtesy to c the health managers as we have come over here, strangers in a strange land to make our case before this distinguished and augustine body.
we are about to close and i am proud that our managers have been so disciplined and soo focused that i think we are closing somewhere between five and sixx hours under of the time that you have allotted to us but we think we have been able to tell you everything we need to say and we will obviously have the opportunity to address your questions and then to do a final closing and when we get there i just want to leave you with a few thoughts and again, i'm not going to re- traumatize you by going to the evidence once again but i just wanted to leave you with a few thoughts to consider as you enter upon this very high and difficult duty that you have to render impartial justice in stthis case as you have all swon to do. i wanted to start simply by saying that in the history of humanity democracies is an extreme the rare and fragile and
precarious and transitory thing. abraham lincoln knew that when he spoke from the battlefield and vowed f that government of e people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth but was speaking not long after the republic was created and he was trying to prove that point that we would not allow it to perish from the earth. owfor most of history the norm s been dictators, autocrats, bullies, despots, tyrants and cowards who take over our government. for most of the history of the world and that is why america is such a miracle and we were founded on the extra near principles of the inalienable rights of the people and the consent of the governed and the
fundamental equality of all of us. you know, when lincoln said government of the people, by the people and t for the people and harken back to the decoration of independence when he said fourscore, seven years ago he knew that that wasn't how we .started. we started imperfectly and we started as a slave republic. lincoln knew that but he was struggling to make the country better and however flawed the founders were as men in their timehe they inscribed in the declaration of independence and in the constitution all the beautiful principles that we needed to open america up and two successive waves of political struggle and constitutional change and transformation in the country so we really would become something much more like lincoln's beautiful vision of government of the people, by the people and for the people, the world's
greatest, multiracial, multireligious, multiethnic constitutional democracy, the envy of the world and as tom paine said, in the silent for humanity were people would come. think about the preamble. those first three words such pregnant with such meaning. we, the people. and then all the purposes of our government put into that one action-packed sentence. we the people in order to form a more perfect union established justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty. and then, right after that first sentence the mission statement
for american in the constitution, what happens? article one, congress is created and allegedly to powers herein are reserved for the congress of the united states. do you see what happened? the sovereign power of the people to launch the country and create the constitution float right into congress and then you get an article one section eight, comprehensive vast powers that all of you know so well and the power to regulate commerce domestically and internationally and thehe power to declare war d the power to raise budgets and taxes and spend money and the power to govern the seat of government and on and on and then even article one section eight, clause 18 and all other powers necessary and proper to execution of the foregoing powers and that is all of us. then you get to article two, the president, for short paragraphs
in the fourth paragraph is all about what? impeachment and how you get rid of the president to commit high crimes and misdemeanors and what is the core job of the president? to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. our framers were so fearful of presidents becoming tyrants and wanting to become kings and desperate that they put the oath of office right into the constitution and inscribed it ointo the constitution, to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. we've got the power to impeach the president but the president does not have the power to impeach us. think about that. the popular branch of government has the power to engage the president but the president does not have the power to impeach us. as i said before, all of us who
aspire to attain public office are nothing but the servants of the people in the way the framers would have it is the moment that we no longer acted as servants of the people but as masters of the people and as violators of the people's rights and that was the time to impeach, remove, convict, disqualify and start all over again because the interest of the people are so much greater then the interest of one person. any one person, even the greatest person in the country and the interests of the people are what count. now, when we sit down and we close our distinguished counterparts, the defense counsel, who awaited very patiently and thank you, will standd up and seek to defend the tpresident's conduct on the fas and i think they will and it's already been decided by the senate on tuesday that the senate has constitutional jurisdiction over this
impeachment case brought to you by the united states house of representatives. we have put that jurisdictional, constitutional issue to fed and it is over. it is already been voted on. this is a trial on the facts of what happen and incitement, as we said, is a fact intensive investigation and judgment that each of you will have to make. we made our very best efforts to set forth every single relevant fact that we know in the most objective and honest light. we trust and hope that the defense will understand the constitutional gravity and solemnity of the trial by focusing like a laserbeam on the facts and not return to the constitutional argument that has already been decided by the senate.y just as a defense lawyer who loses a motion to dismiss on a constitutional basis in a criminal case must let that go
and then focus on the facts which are being presented by the prosecutors in dto they must let this constitutional jurisdiction argument go. not just because it's frivolous and wrong in nearly every expert scholar in america opined that because it's not relevant to the jury's consideration of the fact of the case so, our friends must work to answer all of the overwhelming, detailed, specific factual and documentary evidence that we have introduced of the presidents clear and overwhelming guilt in inciting violent insurrection against the union. donald trump last week turned down our invitation to come testify about his actions and therefore we've not been able to ask him any questions directly as of this point. therefore, during the course of their 16 hour allotted presentation we would pose these
pulmonary questions to his lawyers which i think are on everyone's minds right now in which we would have asked mr. trump himself if he had chosen to comment testify without his actions and inactions when we invited him last week. one, why did president trump not tell his supporters to stop the attack on the capital as soon as he learned of it? why did president trump do nothing to stop the attack for at least two hours after the attack began? as our constitutional commander-in-chief why did he do nothing to send help to our overwhelming and besieged law-enforcement officers for at least two hours ungenerous 16 after the attack began on january 6 why did president trump not, at any point that day condemned the violent
insurrection and the insurrectionist's. i will add a legal question that i hope his distinguished counsel will address. if the president did invite a violent insurrection against our government as,rn of course, we allege and think we have proven in this case but just in general, if the president incited a violent insurrection against our government would that be a high crimes and misdemeanors? can we all agree at least on that. senators, i have talked a lot about common sense in this trial because i think, i believe, that is all you need to arrive at the right answer here. you know, when tom paine wrote common sense the pamphlet that launched the american revolution he said that common sense really meant two different things paid one, common sense is the understanding that we all have without advanced learning and
education. common sense is accessible to everyone but common sense is also the sense that we all have in common as a community. senators, we need to exercise our common sense about what happened. lelet's not get caught up in a t of outlandish lawyers theories herere. exercise your common sense about what just took place in our country. tom paine wasn't an american, as you know, but came over to help us. in our great revolutionary struggle against the kings and the keep queens and the tyrants and in 1776 in the crisis he wrote these beautiful words and was a very tough time for the country. people did not know which way
things were going to go. would we win? against all hope because for most of the rest of human history it had been the kings and the queens and the tyrants and the nobles lording it over the common people. good political self-government work and america was the question. tom paine wrote this pamphlet called the crisis and in it he said these beautiful words and with your permission i will update the language a little bit pursuant to the suggestion of the speaker pelosi so as not to offend modern sensibilities. he said, these are the times that try men's and women's souls. these are the times that try the souls. the summer soldier s and the sunshine patriot will shrink at this moment in the service of their cause in country but everyone that stands with us now will win the love and the favor and affection of every man and every woman for all time, tyranny, like hell, is not
easily conquered but we had this state in consolation, the more difficult the struggle, the more glorious the end will be our victory. good luck in your deliberations. >> thank you. thank you. now, i have too -- we will do the adjournment resolution and a moment but i have two other things we have to do. they are quick. first, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to make several unanimous consent requests as if in legislative session. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i ask on friday fairbury 12 from 10:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. not standingbe adjournment they receive house managers and exec in matters in the committees be authorized to report legislative and executive matters and senators be allowed to summit
statements to the record introduce bills and resolutions and make cosponsor requests and where applicable, the secretary of the senate on behalf of the presiding officer be permitted to reverse to such matters. >> without objection, so ordered. >> a second request poignantly appropriate at this moment. i asknt unanimous consent that pursuant to order of therd senae of january 24, 1901 the traditional reading of washington's farewell address take place on monday, february 22 following the prayer and pledge further that senator portman be recognized to deliver the address. >> is their objection? not hearing an objection, so ordered. >> and finally, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourned until 12 noon tomorrow friday february 12 and
this also constitutes the adjournment of the senate? without objection, so ordered. senate is adjourned. >> this case was made so powerfully if my colleagues listen to their conscience and rise to the moment they will convict. i really believe if this vote were taken secret there would be a conviction and i think that the facts and the laws have been proven so far.