tv U.S. Senate Impeachment Trial House Managers Conclude Arguments CSPAN February 12, 2021 4:38am-6:18am EST
>> my colleagues discussed with you the many harms to our nation as a result of president trump's conduct. now, i would like to spend some time talking about the harm to our national security and our standing in the world and on january 6 when president trump incited a mob to march to the capital and he led them to a building that houses some of our nation's most sensitive information and consider who was part of that mob. some of the individuals were on the fbi watchlist and the past behavior of some individuals let hereby president trump so alarmed investigators that their names had been added to the national terrorist screening database. in at least one of the insurrectionist's may have intended to steal information and give it to a foreign
adversary. according to charging documents riley williams allegedly helped steal a laptop from speaker policies office to quote, send the computer device to a friend in russia who then planned to sell the device to russians foreign intelligence service. while we can be certain if or how many foreign spies infiltrated the crowd or at least coordinated with those who did we can be sure that any enemy who wanted access or secrets would have wanted to be a part of that mob inside these halls. the point is this, many of the insurrectionist's that president trump incited to invade this chamber were dangerous. people on the fbi watchlist, violent extremists, white supremacists and these insurrectionist's incited by
president trump threatens our national security. stealing laptops again from speaker policies office, taking documents from leader mcconnell's desk and snapping photographs, as you saw in the videos earlier and in sensitive areas ransacking your offices, rifling through your desk and the president of the united states and the commander-in-chief knew the risk of anyone preaching the capital and he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend this country and yet, he incited them here to break into the capital. senators, as you all know we have seen or spent trillions of dollars building the strongest military in the world and billions of dollars on the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet and to prevent the kind of attack that occurred at this
capital on january 6. here is how the insurrectionist's incited by president trump did. [background noises] >> let's take a seat, people. >> oh my god. we did this. [background noises] >> in many ways, this room is sacred and so are the traditions that it represents. they have been carried on for centuries. congress has declared war 11 times on this floor, including entering world war ii and congress passed the civil rights act and 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 lawn person agencies have the burden to figure out exactly what was stolen, taken, ransacked and compromised. as acting u.s. attorney explained quote, materials were stolen and we have to identify what was done to mitigate that and it could have potential national security equities. these investigations are necessary now because of the actions of president trump. it wasn't just the people that he led here in the intelligence agencies have to look into but it is also what they took and what they gathered and it was
the very fact that this building with so much sensitive information and some classified information that this capital was breached. think about it. every foreign adversary considering attacking this building got to watch a dress rehearsal and they saw that this capital could be overtaken. as elizabeth newman, former trump administration officials stated, quote, you have terrorists who would love to destroy the capital. they just saw how easy it was to penetrate and we just exposed a huge vulnerability. it is not just the capital but does attack his imprecations for all government buildings and senator rubio made this point well.
>> you are sitting out there watching this, you are saying it's not that hard to get into the capital and maybe it's not hard to get into the white house or somewhere else. >> our government, our intelligence agencies and our law enforcement have implemented additional safety measures since the attack on january 6 but all we secured this physical space what message will be sent the rest of the world and we already know that the message our adversaries took from january 6 and this is how some of them responded after the attack. quote, for america's adversaries there was no greater proof of the fallibility of western democracy then the site of the u.s. capital shrouded in smoke and besieged by a mob, whipped up by their unwillingly outgoing president. to make matters worse our adversaries are using the events
of generally six, not only to denigrate america but to justify their own antidemocratic behavior calling america hypocritical and here is what the chinese government is saying. the spokesperson for china's ministry of foreign affairs said the capital riots should spark quote, deep reflection among u.s. lawmakers regarding how they discussed the pro-democracy movement in hong kong suggesting that the u.s. is hypocritical in denouncing beijing's crackdown in the city while it struggles with its own unrest at home. in the global times and outlet affiliated with the chinese communist party even tweeted a series of side-by-side photos of two events, the seas of the u.s. capital and a july 2019 incident in which pro-democracy protesters in hong kong broke into the city's legislative council building.
think about that. president trump gave the chinese government and opening to create a false equivalency between hong kong protesting for democracy and violent insurrectionist's trying to overthrow it. as representative gallagher described in real time. >> if we don't think other countries on the world are watching this happen and we don't think the chinese, his party is sitting back and laughing then we are deluding ourselves. call it off, mr. president. we need you to call this off. >> russia has also seized on this violent attack against our government decrying that democracy is quote, over and the chairman of the russian upper house of parliament's international affairs committee said quote, the celebration of
democracy is over and this is alas, the bottom and i say this without a hint of gloating, america is no longer charting a course and therefore has lost all its rights to senate and especially to impose it on others. they are using president trump's incitement of an insurrection to declare that democracy is over. and iran the supreme leader is using president trump's incitement of insurrection to mock america. he said of the situation in the united states quote, this is their democracy and human rights. this is their election scandal. these are their values. these values 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 only in security the fbi and eight other law enforcement entities quote, since the incident at the u.s. capitol on january 6 russian iranian and chinese influence actors have seized the opportunity to amplify narratives and and further of their policy interests amid the presidential transition. we cannot let them use what happened on january 6 to define us, who we are and what we stand 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. but following the insurrection on january 6 anna even our allies are speaking up. canadian prime minister justin trudeau said quote, what we witnessed was an assault on democracy by violent writers incited by the current president and other politicians. as shocking, deeply disturbing and frankly, saddening as that event remains we have also seen this week the democracy's resiliency in america, our closest ally in neighbor. the german foreign minister said quote, this closing of ranks begins with holding those accountable who were are responsible for such escalations. that includes the violent writers and also includes their instigators.
the world is watching and wondering whether we are who we say we are. because what are other countries that have known chaos, our 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 doesn't just stand up by itself. after the insurrection of my colleagues on the house foreign affairs committee the chairman and the ranking member issued a bipartisan statement that said quote, america has always been a beacon of freedom to the world, proof that free and fair elections are achievable and the democracy works. but what happened at the capital today has scarred our reputation
and has damaged our standing in the world. today's violence and the inevitable result when leaders in positions of power misled the public will certainly empower dictators and damage 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 but for many it is also an idea. it is the life that gives hope for people struggling for democracy and autocratic regimes and the light that inspires people fighting across the world for fundamental human rights and the light that inspires us to believe in something larger than ourselves. this trial is an opportunity to respond and to send a message back to the world. ...
castro: they have stood up for the civil rights, of the fellow americans. and risk their careers and the reputations, their livelihoods and their safety. setting up for civil rights. any members of congress, have risked their lives in service for our country. in uniform. in fighting in the jungles of vietnam and controlling the mountains of afghanistan. you have 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. worldwatch it's supporters come to washington and his invitation. in the world watched as he told supporters to mark here at the capital. 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 is watching
us. and 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 over mob rule. because the answer to that question has consequences far beyond our own borders. think of the consequences for diplomats and negotiators as they sit at the tables around the world to enforce our agenda on trade, the economy, and human rights. two failed to convict the president of the united states who did and deadly insurrection enacted in concert with a violent mob, who interfered with the certification of the electoral college vote. who advocated his duty as commander-in-chief. would be to forfeit the power of our example is a north star on freedom, democracy, human rights and most of all, on the rule of
law. and to convict donald trump would mean that america stands 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 north star. >> we will now address the first amendment argument is being offered by president trump's lawyers to try to excuse his incitement to this and now we begin.
[background sounds]. >> mr. president, and senators, good afternoon. you have heard over the course of the last several days, overwhelming evidence that president trump incited eight insurrection. but as mentioned, as we prepared a close, we would be remiss if we didn't really address apparently the principal effects of the president will offer to excuse his conduct. and that is this notion that he cannot be held accountable. for what happened on january 6th because his actions are somehow protected by the first amendment. now let's stop a moment and try to really understand it the argument that they are making. according to president trump, everything he did and that we
showed you that he did was perfectly okay for him to do. and for a future president to do again. the constitution apparently in their view, forbids you from doing anything to stop it. that cannot be right. and it is not right. there argument is meant as a distraction. they are concerned not with the facts that actually occurred, the fact that we have proven but with an alternative set of facts were president trump did nothing but deliver a controversial speech generally. neguse: and of course that is not what we charged in the articles of impeachment. and that is not what happened. you will hear from my colleague
rep. raskin, the married of reasons that this argument they make is wrong. completely wrong. not just around the edges. make major fundamental mistakes of constitutional law, the kind that the lead manager rep. raskin would not cut it in his first year. which of course he would know since he has taught the subject for decades. and that explains why so any lower years who have dedicated their lives to protecting free speech including any of the nations most prominent conservative free-speech lawyers. have described president trump's first amendment claims as quote, legally frivolous. another quote from a recent letter the prominent free-speech
lawyers. they call the first amendment is no bar to the senate convicting former president trump and disqualifying him from holding future office. there argument is wrong on facts, rama the law, and flip the constitution upside down. let's start with the fact. because as you will see, his free speech claim depends on account of what he did and why we are here that has no basis in the evidence and hear his lawyers tell it, it was 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, it will do
anything to avoid talking about the fact of this case. that i can assure you. and instead, we expect maybe we will talk about a lot of other speeches including some given by democratic officials they will insist with indication that the first amendment protects all of this as though we were exactly the same. we trust you to know the difference. because you have seen the evidence that we have seen. yasin is the improvement of the last three days, and his arguments completely missed describe the reality of what is happened on january 6th. in about everything that matters about why we are here and what he did. because president trump, was not 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 unique power of that office. of his bully pulpit spread that big lie that the election had been stolen. to convince his followers to stop the steel and to assemble them, just blocks away from here on january 6th at the very moment that we were meeting to count the electoral vote, college votes. working new and it is been widely reported that they were primed and eager and ready for violence at his signal. and a man standing in the middle of the explosive situation, and that time that he had created over the course of months before a crowd filled with people who
are poised for violence. at his signal. he struck a match. any aimed at straight at this building. at us. you have seen that evidence and there's no denying it . that is why he is on trial. no resident, no matter the politics or the politics of their followers conservative, liberal or anything else, no president can do what president trump did. because this is not about politics. it is about his refusal to accept the outcome of the election in his decision to incite and insurrection. there is no serious argument that the first amendment protects that . and it would be extraordinarily dangerous for the united states senate to
conclude otherwise. until future presidents they can do exactly what president trump did and get away with this. to set the precedence that this is an acceptable, now constitutionally protected way to respond to losing an election. and you will notice something. by all accounts, and does not appear the president trump's lawyers is great. they do not insist that if the fact that we have charged, the fact that we approve, the facts supported by overwhelming evidence are true . and of course you now know, there. there is nothing you can do. and arguing that it's okay for person to incite a mob to
violence. at least i don't think there arguing that. instead what they are doing is offering a radically different versions of what has happened that day. totally inconsistent with the evidence. and then they insist that fictional version of events, that that alternate reality if it were true, will then he may be protected by the first amendment and that is there argument you are here to adjudicate real evidence. real facts. not not hypothetical ones. and for that reason alone, you should reject their arguments. because it's been advanced to defend a situation that there is no resemblance of the actual facts of this case. and with that i want to turn it over to mike colleague rep. raskin to discuss the legal laws of mr. president trump's
position. raskin: he just explained, rep. hasnothing to do with the actual arguments and he's been impeached or inciting violence against the government and it is not protected by free speech. there is no first amendment defense to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors . the idea is absurd. in the whole first amendment smoke screen is completely relevant distraction governing of a presidency was his oath of office. yes president trump as we know, a good way of upside down, and wrong is right and he tried to pull off the biggest election fraud in american history by over the results of the 2020 election even as he insisted that his own fraud was in fact an effort to stop the steel.
to stop a fraud. and he blames on local and state officials about political parties in the media. the election officials and the judiciary in federal members of congress anybody who will go along with them but the part of the conspiracy. he violated on the oath of office but preventing congress from counting the electoral college votes is very excited to buy this on the moments in the electoral count act. and even as he attacked vice president pence, and rally for violating his oath of office. in going along with an egregious democracy. now he argues the congress is violating his free speech rights when was donald trump who cited an attack against us. and note that the speech and debate on the floor of the house and the senate, during the peaceful transfer of power in
and imperiled the very constitutional order that protect freedom of speech in the first place along with all of our other fundamental rights. as matter of law, and logic. brazen attempt to invoke the first amendment. now it won't hold up in any way. it completely ignores the fact that he was the president of the united states, a public official. any source note and nobody aspires in exchange, is given greater power of anybody else in the country. any on earth. he or she promises to preserve and protect and defend the constitution of the united states. in our government institutions. and our people. as we all know, in public office government office and especially our president comes with special obligation to uphold the laws
and the integrity of our republic. and we all swear that oath. and what is the president publicly on a daily basis advocated replacing the constitution within totalitarian form of government. in sworn an oath of loyalty to a foreign leader or government. as a private citizen, you cannot do anything about people using those words . advocate totalitarianism. and to advocate succession from the union and swear an oath of personally loyalty to a foreign leader or government pressure. you cannot . this protective review try to prosecute somebody for that, you put closed. but it is simply inconceivable, unthinkable. then president could do any of these things. get up and swear the oath to the foreign governmental leaders to advocate totalitarianism.
and not be impeached for it. it's just unthinkable. that violates our first minute rights? the council would leave the nation powerless to respond to a president who uses the privilege and prestige of his or her office the famous bully pulpit in ways that has the ruin of the public . offer his or her own ambition. in the corruption. and lust for power. everyone should be clear that there's nothing remotely exotic about what we are saying. it should be common sense to everybody. common sense. about this understanding of the first amendment as it applies to public servant, firefighters, cops and teachers and everybody across the land. my daughter who i mentioned earlier, she is a teacher. in a public school.
in the course of said, teachers teach but if they go off script and they start advocating totalitarianism, treason or what have you. they're not living up to the duties of their office as a teacher. they can be fired. everybody knows that. it happens all of the time by the way read including two cops and firefighters and people on the frontlines . happens all the time. it it happens countless times by people fired by president trump further statements or ideas adopting things including on election fraud. not long ago. for people in the government who lost their jobs because the president did not like what they said with the wrote. now as i mentioned yesterday i can't help but to repeat it .
justice scalia run these cases about how the first amendment affects people could take on a public office. for employment prayed and descended up like this. he said, you cannot ride with the cops but root for the robbers. you cannot ride with cops but root for the robbers. that is when justice scalia said freighted and when it comes to the transfer power to the rule of law and respecting election outcomes, our president whoever he or she is, must choose the side of the constitution. they must. and not the side of the insurrection for the anybody coming against us. then he or she chooses the wrong side, i'm sorry. there is nothing the first amendment or anywhere else in the constitution that can excuse your betrayal of your oath of office. it is not a free speech question. but there is more. let's play make-believe and
pretend the president trump was just a run-of-the-mill private citizen is mike calling said . just another guy at the rally. who's just expressing a deeply unpopular opinion because we cannot overlook the fact while there were thousands of people there, they represent a tiny tiny part of less than 1 percent of the population and the vast majority of the market people who reject the kind of seditious mob violence that we saw on jerry six. but let's say he was just another night in the crowd that day. it is a bedrock principle that nobody can incite a riot. the first amendment does not protect them. brandon versus ohio. there's no first amendment protection for the free speech for producing imminent factions and likely to produce such action fighting for all of the reasons that you have heard, based on the voluminous
comprehensive totally unrefuted we think irrefutable. but were eager to hear from our colleagues. from all that you have heard in all the reasons that you have heard, that definition of proscribed will speech this president trump's conduct perfectly. this a classic case of incitement. and you don't have to take my word for it. the 144 free speech lawyers who include any of the nation's most dedicated and most uncompromising free speech advocates, unlike mr. trump of course but these people agree that there is a powerful case for conviction. even if the president of the united states were to be treated like some by the crowd. and they had the first amendment is no descent the articles of impeachment leveled against the former president. and i mentioned, because of the
pfizer because it does not. it is not a criminal trial, is an impeachment parted and there's no risk of jail time let's be clear about that. the president is not go to jail for even one minute. based on impeachment and conviction. and disqualification from for their office. rather i mention it to emphasize the absolute that nobody in america would be protected by the first amendment if they did all the things that donald trump did. nobody make him run for president and swear an oath to preserve and protect and defend the constitution on january 25, 2017 but when he did, by virtue of swearing that oath in entering this high office, he took upon himself, the duty to take care that our laws would be faithfully executed and executed under his leadership. all of the laws. the laws against federal destruction of property. all of the laws. we expected them and everything
that he said and did to protect and preserve and defend our constitutional system. including the separation of powers. but instead, he betrayed us and representative cheney said, it was the greatest betrayal of the presidential oath in the history of the united states of america. the greatest. as i mentioned yesterday, president trump is not even close to the proverbial citizen who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater. he's like now perverting breault municipal fire chief who inside the mob to go set the theater on fire not only refuses to put out the fire and encourages them mob to keep going. as the blaze spreads. we would hold that fire chief accountable and prevent him from that job ever again and that is exactly what must happen here. hundreds of millions of citizens
could be president . donald trump has disqualified himself. and you must disqualify him as well. just like the fire chief, since the mob, president trump reverted his office by attacking the very constitution that he was sworn to uphold. in fact, that is one reason why this free speech rhetoric at the trial so insidious. his conduct represented the most devastating and dangerous of soft by a government official on our constitution including the first amendment. we would not have free speech or any other rights if we do not have the rule of law. teachable transfer of power in a democracy where the outcome of the election is accepted the candidate who lost. we had it all of the way up until 2020. and the essential purposes of the first amendment are the democratic self-government and
civic truth teaching. two purposes the president trump undermines, not advanced in the course of his conduct as we have definitively demonstrated at this trial. the violence that he incited threatened all of our freedoms writing threatened the very constitutional order that protects free speech, due process, religious free exercise the rights of peoples protection the the any other fundamental rights that we all treasure and cherish as citizens of the united states. the first amendment does not create some superpower immunity from impeachment for president who attacked the constitution in word and deed while rejecting the outcome of an election and he happened to lose. if anything, president trump's conduct was an assault on the first amendment. and millions of americans exercise when they voted last year. often under extraordinary legal circumstances . and remember, the first amendment protects the
right of the people to talk about the great issues of our day. debated during the elections. and then to participate in politics by selecting the people who will be our leaders. remember in the american democracy, those of us who obtain the public office, are nothing but the servants to the people. nothing, not the masters of the people. we have no kings here. we have no czars. here the people governed . the people. the most important parts of the constitution, we the people. all of this means little for president who dislikes the election results to incite violence and to try to replace and insert the will of the people. he ignored it the branch of government and then it ran over the legislative branch of government with the mob. president trump high crimes and misdemeanors sought to nullify
the political right and sovereignty of the american people. right is a people to deliberate. to form opinions, to persuade others to vote and then to decide who our president will be. the sovereignty of the people. that's an attack on the first amendment that i would say. in addition, president trump's actions were a direct attack on our own freedom of speech and capital. members of congress were sent here to speak for their constituents. that's why we have our own little any free speech and debate clause. that is literally on top, we come here and represent the views of our people. he forced members of congress to stop speaking into literally flee from our lives in the lives of our staffs and families. the man and had demanded statements to halt the speed in
congress. speech related to peaceful transfer of power. it has no right, no right to claim a free speech . to prevent this body from exercising the constitutional powers to hold him accountable to his offense against us. famously it was said, and our founders knew it. i will defend with my life the right to say it. president trump says, because i disagree with everything you say, i will overturn your popular election. and incite insurrection against the government. we might take a moment to consider another insight. which high school teacher of mine told me when a student asked, when was the beginning of the enlightenment and she said i think it was when tara said, anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities. there's no mayor whatsoever the empty free speech rhetoric that you may hear from president trump's lawyers for you have the constitution first amendment and he betrayed his oath of office. he doesn't have any right to that. it is forbidden parties of the republic needs and people are far more important than that. he asked you to create which would allow any future president to do precisely what he did. that is dangerous. there can be no doubt, none at all that the president lacks any first amendment excuse defense community. he incited a violent insurrection against our government and he must be convicted. now i am going to call up representative dean who will explain why contrary to the presence claimed that the house
provided all the processes due to him in the impeachment process. i'm sorry, another will debate. >> thank you for your time and attention party to be all hard president trump's attorneys and as part of the efforts to avoid talking about his own conduct. and anything related to his countries we expect that he will raise. his claims are without merit under the constitution from the house has the sole power of impeachment. it confirms that the house functions as a prosecutor. the decide whether to bring charges. no another cases, house has
provided deliberative and procedural privileges to the person being impeached . with other privileges. they are discretionary. the house has the power to decide its own rules. i want to pass the article of impeachment and then this case the house debated the article of impeachment and passed it on a bipartisan vote. i am a former prosecutor and i just want to add that i can't decide whether to bring charges targeted and when you see a crime committed in plainview, prosecutors don't have to spend months investigating before they bring charges. i note that in this case, hundreds of people have been arrested and charged by prosecutors for the violence on january 6. there is no reason for the house
to wait to impeach the man with the very top and incited violence. the house had good reason to move quickly. this was in circumstances. not a case where there is hidden conduct some conspiracy that took months or years. this case was not raising complicated legal issues. the gravity of the presidents conduct demanded the clearest of responses from the legislature . politically given that the president must know enough as of the time the house approved it the article. and the rumors of further and further violence echoed around the country. and they still do. there must be no doubt that congress will act against the president incites violence against us. that is why the house moved quickly care. president trump created that
emergency, cannot be - another point on the due process question, earlier in this trial, president trump's attorneys suggested that the house deliberately delayed the transmission of this article of impeachment. that is simply not accurate. when house adopted this article of impeachment of the bipartisan boast, we were ready to begin trial. but the senate was not in session at the time. and when we inquired as to what our options were, the sons officials told us clearly in no uncertain terms, that is the clerk of the house, attempted to deliver the articles of impeachment to the secretary of the senate before the senate reconvened, that the clerk of the house would have been turned
back at the door. that's why the child did not begin then. that's another reason why the president of sections of the due process are meritless. and finally, let me just conclude that you all are going to see and have seen a full presentation of events by the house and you're going to hear a full presentation by the president's attorneys. we invite you to ask questions. and the senate has the power to try all impeachment. president trump any and all processes that you do right here in this chamber. he is receiving it. >> mr. president and senators, just a moment, my colleague will return to show that he has
overwhelmingly evidence. i would like to emphasize what should be a non- and point but is really key to understand that if we approve to you the conduct that we've alleged in this article, then president trump had indeed committed a high crime and misdemeanor under the constitution. incitement of insurrection is undoubtedly in the words of george mason and convention, a great and dangerous offense against the republic. indeed it is hard to think of a greater or a more dangerous offense against the republic in this one. to be precise, i hope we all can agree today that if a president doesn't cite a violent insurrection against the government, he can be impeached for it. i hope we can all agree that that is a constitutional crime.
another key point, while president trump's lawyers may be arguing otherwise, the question here is not whether president trump crew committed a crime under the federal code or dc law or the law of any state. impeachment did not result in criminal penalties. as we keep sizing. nobody spends a day until. there are not even criminal or civil fines. centuries, not to mention the original intent and understanding all confirmed the teaching of james wilson the framer wrote, that impeachment and offenses come not within the sphere of ordinary. similarly, impeachment was created for purpose of separate and distinct from criminal punishment. it was created to prevent and tour elected officials in a
sworn oath to represent america. but then commit dangerous offenses against our republic. the constitutional crime. and senators, what greater offense could one commit then to incite a violent selection or insurrection . in our receipt of government during peaceful transfer of power. in circumstances where violence is foreseeable were crowded his voice where violence, to provoke a mob of thousands to attack us, with weapons and sticks and polls to bludgeoned and beat our law enforcement officers and deface the sacred walls and trash the place and to do so while seeking to stop us from fulfilling our own oath started our own duties to uphold the constitution by counting the votes. from our free and fair elections. and then to sit back and watch and delight as insurrectionist attack us.
violating a secretive and engaging in a profound dereliction and desertion of duty. how can we assure that our commander-in-chief will protect preserve and defend us in our constitution if we do not hold the president accountable in a circumstance like this. what is impeachable conduct if not this. the challenge to all of you. if you think this is about a peaceful. if you don't think it is, what would be. it president trump's lawyers say that his conduct, inciting these events was totally appropriate. in the senate at say that any president could incite and provoke an insurrectionary violence. against us again. and if you don't find this a high cream entered crime and misdemeanor today. you have 70 new terrible standard for presidential misconduct in the united states
of america. do we prove that donald trump will president of the united states insight a crime against the government. incitement of courses and apparently fact-based in fact intensive judgment which is why we commend you all for your scrupulous attention to everything that took place. but we believe we have shown you overwhelming evidence in this case that would convince anyone using their common sense. that this was indeed incitement. meaning, that donald trump's conduct encouraged violence, the violence was foreseeable and he acted willfully in the actions that encouraged violence. and we will go through that evidence again . did not the whole thing. we are almost done. were almost done. but we do not want to be said they never proved this and that.
because my magnificent team of managers have stayed a night after night after night for weeks to compile all of the factual evidence and we have put before you and before all of you this public trial because we love our country. liver country that much. we will impeached him on januaru should convict him. and mr. neguse will show you. and when he finished, i will return and show you why it's dangerous for us to ignore it and why you must connect and then we will rest.
mr. neguse. neguse: mr. president, and senators good afternoon again. as my colleague rep. raskin mention. it's been long and i want to say thank you that we are very grateful for your patience, for your attention and the attention that you have paid to every 104 managers as they have presented our case. in his lead manager rep. raskin mention, i hope that we can agree that the president signs of violent insurrection against our government, that that is impeachable conduct. so what i would like to do is illegal is a case. his walking through flight are evidence overwhelmingly establishes that president trump committed that offense. now would you consider question,
the question of whether president and cited insurrection . there are three questions that reasonably come to mind. was violence perceivable and did he encourage violence. and defeat packed willfully. i'm going to show you why the answer to every one of those questions has to be yes. first, let's start with foreseeability. was the first day of both the violence would erupt on january 6th if president trump blitzing spark. is it predictable that the crowd at the same america rally was poised on a hairtrigger for violence. that they would fight, literally if provoked to do so. of course it was. and when president trump stood up to the podium on january 6,
he knew that any crowns were inflamed and armed. they were ready for violence. it was an explosive situation. and he knew it. we have shown you the evidence on this point. you have seen. the images, videos, the articles. and the pattern which show that the violence on that terrible day was entirely stable. we have showed you how this all began with the big lie of the claimant that the election was rigged. the president trump and his supporters were the victims of a massive fraud. a massive conspiracy and with aaa votes. we have shown you how president trump spread that flight. and help over the course of months with his support and encouragement and inflamed the
people. the resulting in death threats, real-world violence, and increasingly extreme calls to stop steel. we established that after he lost the election, the president was willing to do just about anything to prevent the peaceful 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 them with criminal penalties. and attacking senators, members of congress all across the media.
pressuring the justice department. he promptly asked christ from assistant u.s. attorneys not to mention his own attorney general. reportedly telling him that the stolen election claims will be vs .and then he moved on to attacking his own vice president after generally six, openly and savagely. we accounted throughout that entire. all of the way in which president trump inflamed supporters with light prayed that the election was stolen. and every single one of us knows that nothing in this country is more sacred nothing in a right to vote, our voice and here you have the president of the united states telling his supporters that their voice, their rights as americans were being stolen
from them. they were being ripped away. that made them angry. angry enough to stop the steal. to fight my cat to stop the steal. and we showed you this. you saw the endless tweets of the rallies and statements, encouraging and spreading that big lie or did you saw that he did this over and over again with that same message each time. you must fight to win it back. you must never surrender no matter what. and remember, each time that his supporters along the way shown violence. he endorsed it.
he encouraged it. he praised it. that was all part of that same demand to stop the steel and pipe macaque. and remember, remember the video, that is manager showed you, from texas . some of his supporters circling about some campaign workers on the highway. people easily could have been killed. easily. what did he do. he tweeted it. and he made a joke about it at a rally. he called them patriots. he held them out as an example. what it means to stop the steel. when he told his supporters to stop the steel, they took up arms to literally intimidate officials to overturn the election results . you saw the evidence. and so did he read and welcomed
it. and when president trump attacked georgia secretary of state, for certifying the results. his supporters sent death threats. you saw this in great detail. what did he do. he attacked the election officials. when his supporters gathered together to have a second alien mega valid . that is the rally that the manager showed you. the rally about the stolen election. he tweeted that the fight had just begun. what happened next. it is not rocket science. fights broke out. stabbing this. serious violence. he saw what happened at that
rally. he so all of the violence in the burnings in the chaos. how did he respond. he tweeted the event and then, he brought $50 million. he bought $50 million with the baddest. to further promote his message to those exact same people. he joined forces with that very same group. he joined forces with the same people that had just erupted into violence. with the violence . opal . they were poised for violence. and prepared for it. absolutely.
and this is not just claire looking back in time. it was widely recognized of the time. in the days leading up to january 6th. there were dozens, hundreds of warnings. and he knew it . he knew the rally would explode if provoked. he knew all it would take, a slight push. and remember, you heard from the manager. the chatter on social media. the websites of the trump administration monitored were known for the operations. showed it to the people invited to the january 6 rally took this is a serious call to arms. that this was not just any attack freed it was storm the capital if necessary. to stop the steal. it was not just claire on these websites. the trump administration was monitoring. the fbi issued route ports on
this is a credible threat. to target us. law enforcement made six arrests at night. newspapers across the city warned of the risk of the violence. there can be no doubt that the risk of violence was foreseeable. and what did he do the days leading up to the rally. did he calm the situation. ask yourself that . deep companies. no. he did not do that. he spread his big lie for. the most dangerous liza mission prayed that americans votes were being stolen. and at the final act of theft would occur here in the capital. in any assembled all of those supporters. he invited them to organized
event. on a specific date and specific time. matched perfectly to coincide with the joint session of congress to coincide with the steel that he had told them to stop. fight any and all means. he was told by law enforcement and old news in 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. he knew about combustible that situation was and that there were people before him had prepared and armed and armored. and he knew that they would jump to violence at any signal or sign from him. that he needed them to fight.
then he needed them to stop the steal. and we all know it happened next. the second question. did he encourage violence. setting the powder keg. do you like event . everyone knows the answer to that question. the hours of video the all have watched. just remember what he said january 6. trump: all of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen. there's never been anything like this. it is the biggest theft and it american history. nick make no mistake that this election was stolen from you, for me. and from the country.
and we will never give up our never conceived. it does not happen. and he is a favorite term that all of you people really came up with. we will stop this deal. we must stop the steal. we will not let them silence your voices. we will not let into happen. not going to let it happen. [inaudible]. trump: thank you. you have to get your people to fight. because you will never take back our country with weakness party yet to show strength and you have to be strong and we fight
for unit and we five macaque and if you do not fight like app, you will have a country anymore. neguse: you may remember the outset of this trial. you will hear three phrases over and over and over again. a big lie, that the election had been stolen, stop the steal and never conceived . and fight like to stop that steel. you heard video after video and statement after statement in telling his supporters that they should be patriots. to fight hard to stop the steal. and on the day did where did he direct the crowd this. he directed them here. to congress.
he quite literally in one part of the speech pointed. he pointed at us. he told them to fight like heck if you don't buy macaque, you will not have a country anymore. that was not metaphorical. it was not rhetorical. he already made it perfectly clear that when he said fight, he panted. and that when the followers fought, when they engaged in the violence, they honored them as patriots. he implied it was okay to break the law because the election was being stolen. you heard it. you remember the clip, earlier in this trial that you saw. he told them. the quote was on the screen. when you catch somebody in front, you are logical by very
different rules. and remember how all of his supporters, some of his supporters across the social media were treating this as were talking about bringing in the calvary. president trump made clear what those different rules work. he had been making it clear for months. trump: let's have trial by combat. and you did a great job. [inaudible]. he's got debts unlike a lot of people in the republican party. he fights. [inaudible]. did. neguse: this message was crystal clear. and it was understood
immediately. instantly. by his followers. and we do not have to guess. we do not have to guess as to how they reacted. we can look at how people reacted to what he said. you saw it. he saw the violence. it is . 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. he saw the affidavits read is on the interviews on social media. on live, they were doing this for him. because he asked them to. it was not just insurrectionist confirmed this. any any people including current
and former officials immediately recognized the president had incited the crowd that he alone was capable of stopping the violence that he could this be followed off because he was the only one it could. let's see what rep. mccarthy and gallagher, and others had to say. >> i could not be more disappointed with the way our country looks at this very minute. people getting hurt. anyone involved in this, if you are hearing me, hear me loud and clear, this is not the market way. >> mr. president, you've got to stop this, you are the only person who can call this off. it's . simple, the president
caused this protest to occur. he is the only one who can make a stop. the president has to come out and tell his supporters to leave the capital grounds. ... ... he deliberately promoted baseless theories creating an environment of misinformation and division. a lot of the president of the u.s. to incite the attack without consequences is a direct threat to the democracy. >> did the president encourage violence?
yes. no doubt that he did. final question, did the president act 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 in his provocation. what did he do? he provoked them. he aimed them here, told them to fight like hell [bleep] and that's exactly what they did. his conduct, throughout the rest of that terrible day only confirms he acted willfully, he incited the crowd and engaged in duty while he continued inflaming the violence.
again, we don't have to guess what he thought because he told us. remember the video he released at 4:17 p.m.? he showed that yesterday. the one where he said we had an election stolen from us. remember the tweet that he put out a couple of hours later, 6:01 p.m. january 6. you've seen it many times. you can see it on the slide. these are the things that happened for the victory is so unceremoniously and viciously shift away. that's what he was focused on. spreading the big lie and praising the mob that attack our government. you heard him describe reports.
as he watched the attack on hold on tv. he cared more about pressing his efforts to overturn the election than he did about saving lives, our lives. look at what president trump did that day after the rally. it is important. he did virtually nothing. when president trump wants something, he does so, easily, quickly but aside from for tweets and a short clip during the five hour long attack, he
did nothing. january 5, he didn't condemn the attack, or the attackers, he didn't say he would send help to defend us or defend law enforcement. he didn't react to the violence with shock or or or or dismay as we did, didn't immediately rush to twitter and demand in the clearest possible terms the mobs dispersed, stop, retreat. instead he issued messages in the afternoon that sided with them. the insurrectionist who left police officers battered and bloodied. he reacted exactly the way
someone would react if they were delighted and exactly unlike how a person would react if they angry at how their followers were acting. again, ask yourself how many lives would have been saved, how much pain and trauma would have been avoided if he reacted the way the president of the united states is supposed to act. there are two parts of president trump's failure here. i just have to emphasize for a moment. first, is what he did to vice president mike pence. the vice president of the united states of america, his own vice president was in this building with an armed mob shouting, hang him.
the same armed mob that set up galas outside. he saw the pictures. what did president trump do? he attacked him more. he singled him out by name. honestly hard to fathom. second, law enforcement. the brave officers sacrificing their lives to defend us would not evacuate or seek cover because they were protecting us. my fellow managers showed you yesterday, let me just say this. those officers serve us faithfully and dutifully and follow the old. they deserve a president who upholds is, who would not risk their lives and safety to
retain, 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. you are very special. what more could we possibly need to know about president trump's state of mind? senators, the evidence is clear. you showed your statements, videos, affidavits that prove president trump decided on
insurrection. insurrection that he alone had the power to stop. the fact that he did not stop it, the fact that he incited a lawless attack and advocated his duty to defend us, the fact that he further inflamed the mob, further inflamed the mob, attacking his vice president while assassins were pursuing him in his capital more than requires conviction and disqualification. we humbly ask you to convict president trump for the crime for which he is overwhelmingly guilty of because if you don't, if we pretend this didn't happen or worse, if we let it go unanswered, who's to say it
won't happen again? mr. president, members of the senate. first of all, thank you for your close attention and seriousness of purpose youth demonstrates over the last few days. thank you for your courtesy to the house managers as we have come over here, strangers in a strange land to make our case before this distinguished body, we are about to close and i am proud that our managers have been so disciplined and focused, i think we are closing five to six hours under the time you've a lot of to us but we think
we've been able to tell you everything we need to say. we will obviously have an opportunity to address questions and do a final closing when we get there. i wanted to leave you with a few thoughts not going to re- traumatize you going to the evidence again, i just wanted to leave you with a few thoughts to consider as you enter upon this theory high and difficult duty you have, surrender impartial justice, as you have all sworn to do i wanted to start by saying that in the history of humanity, democracy is extremely rare and fragile and transitory. abraham lincoln knew that when he spoke from the battlefield, the government of the people by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth, they were speaking not long after republic was created and he was
trying to prove that, that we would not allow it. for most of history, the norm has been dictators, autocrats, fully tyrant cowards to take over our government. most of the history of the world and that's why america is such a miracle. we were founded on principles of the rights of the people and consent of the governed and fundamental equality of all. when said for the people, by the people for the people the declaration of independence when he said four score and seven years ago, he knew that wasn't how we started.
we started imperfectly, safely. he knew that but he was struggling to make the country better and however flawed the founders were as men in their time, they inscribed in the declaration of independence and constitution we needed to open america up, waves of political struggle and constitutional change and transformation in the country so we would become something more like beautiful vision of the people, by the people and for the people, the world's greatest multiracial, mostly religious, mostly ethnic constitutional democracy, the envy of the world. tom paine said in a silent
community, people would come, think about the preamble, pregnant with such meaning, we the people and all of the purposes of our government put into the one action packed sentence. we the people, in order for a more perfect union to establish justice and tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general where there and preserved ourselves in prosperity, the blessings of liberty and then after that first sentence, the mission statement of the constitution, what happened? article one, congress created all legislative powers reserved to the congress of the united states. the sovereign power of the people to launch the country and create the constitution into
congress and then you get article one section eight, comprehensive powers to all of you know so well. the power to regulate commerce domestically and internationally. the power to declare war, the power to raise budgets and taxes spend money, the power to govern the seat of government on and on. article one section eight, all other powers necessary to all of us. then article two, the president, for short paragraphs the fourth paragraph is all about what? impeachment. how you get rid of a president who commits high crimes and misdemeanors but what is the core job of the president? take care that the laws are faithfully executed. our framers were so your will of presidents becoming tyrant
wanting to become kings that they put the oath of office to the constitution. they inscribed into the to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states is also powers the president of the power to impeach us popular government have the power to the president, the president does not have the power to impeach us as i said before, all of who by public up with him wake up when, we no longer of the people back to us filing for this is the time, remove, the qualifying for over
again because the interest of the people later of one any one person, even the greatest person in the country, the interest of the people are what count. when we sat down and closed, distinguished counterparts and counsel who have waited patiently, with stand up and seek to defend the president's conduct on the facts. i think they will. thirty decided to the senate tuesday, the senate constitutional jurisdiction over this impeachment case brought to you by the u.s. house of representatives so we've put that jurisdictional constitutional issue to bed. it's over. it's already been voted on. the trials of what happened and excitement, as we said is an
intensive investigation and judgment that each of you will have to make. we made our best effort set forth every relevant fact that we know in the most objective honest light. we trust and hope the defense will understand the gravity and calamities of this trial by focusing like a laser beam, fax and not return to the constitutional argument has already been decided by the senate. as a defense lawyer who used a motion to dismiss on constitutional basis criminal case let that go and focus on the facts which are being presented to the prosecutor's, they must let this jurisdictional argument go, not just because it privileged and wrong is now the other expert scholar in america because it's not relevant to the jury's consideration of the fact of the
case so our friends must work to answer the overwhelming detailed, specific documentary evidence we've introduced of the president clear and overwhelming guilt inciting violent direction against union. donald trump last week turned down to testify and therefore we have not been able to ask him questions directly. therefore, during the course of their 16 hour a lot of presentation, we would post primitive questions, jar on everyone's mind right now in which we would have asked mr. trump himself if he had chosen to testify action when he invited last week. why did president trump not tell his supporters to stop the
attack on the capital as soon and she 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 overwhelmed besieged law-enforcement officers for at least two hours january 16 after the attacks again? henry six, why did president trump not at any time that day, condemned the violent interaction and insurrectionist? i'll add a legal question that i hope the council object. if the president did invite the violent insurrection against our government, as we allege and think we have proven but in general, if the president cited violence against our government,
with that be a high crime misdemeanors? and we all agree on that? senators. i've talked a lot about common set and mistrial because i believe that's all she is alive the right answer. when tom paine wrote common sense, the pamphlet that launched the american revolution, said common sense two different things. one, common sense is the understanding that we all have without advanced learning and education. common sense is also the sense that we all have in common as a community. senators, america, we need to exercise our common sense about
what happened. let's not get caught up in outlandish lawyers there is your. exercise common sense. about what took place in our country. tom paine wasn't an american but he came to help us in our great trouble against the tyrants. 1776 and the crisis, he wrote these beautiful words, tough time for the country, people didn't know things would go will be going to win? against all hope because the rest of human history, it had been the kings and queens and tyrants and nobles lording it over the common people. could the self-government work in america the crisis and he
said these beautiful words. i'm going to update the language a little bit, speaker pelosi to not offend the modern sense. he said these are the times that men and women told. the summer soldier and sunshine patriot in the service in the country but everyone stands with us now will win the love and favor and affection of every man and every woman for all time. tierney is not easily conquered but we have this consolation, the more difficult the struggle, the more areas in the end will be our victory.
>> thank you. thank you. now we are going to do adjournment resolution in a moment. we have two other things we have to do they are quick. first, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to estimate several unanimous consent requests in a legislative session. >> objection ordered. >> on friday february 12, 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., the senate be able to receive messages and executive matters, committees authorized report legislative executive matters and be allowed to submit introduced bills and resolutions the request for affable, the senate on behalf of the presiding officer to defer such matters. >> without objection. >> a second request poignantly
appropriate at this moment, i ask unanimous consent that pursuant to the order of january 24, 1901, traditional reading washington farewell address takes place monday february 22 following prayer and pledge, further than senator portman recognized to deliver the address. >> is the objection? so ordered. >> finally, i ask unanimous consent to trial adjourn until 12 noon tomorrow friday the 12th constitutions adjournment of this. >> without objection, so ordered.