Impeachment Trial of Former President Trump Impeachment Trial CSPAN February 12, 2021 11:53am-2:35pm EST
and took an oath to vote or the constitution but constitution requires them to apply the criteria for impeachment which have not been met here in the criteria for jurisdiction namely a sitting president print madison said that in federalist 37 and the text of the constitution supports that and i think therefore the constitution mandates president trump's acquittal, notwithstanding that his speech was awful and should be condemnedta and has been widy condemned and i joined in that combination. >> host: alan dershowitz, author of the case of impeaching trump also the podcast host of the show that you can find wherever you got here podcast or thank you for your time. >> guest: thank you. >> you are watching c-span2, your unfiltered view of government. c-span2 was created by america's cable television companies and today we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span2 two viewers as a public service.
>> senate impeachment trial of former president donald trump will likely end sooner than originally anticipated house managers yesterday concluded the presentation of their case on the article of impeachment against president trump and they used just over 11 of the 16 hours allotted to them and donald trump's lawyers are up next starting in just minutes at noon eastern and by all indications they will use far less in their 16 hours, possibly as few as three or four hours. xes is reporting that the former presidents case will rest on the following arguments. impeachment is unconstitutional and that it violates mr. trump's process and his first amendment rights and that it won't unify the country paired once again, we start the program just outside the senate chamber in the ohio clock corridor as senators arrive for the friday, the last day of the week for the senate session but they will be
in session tomorrow and their schedule ahead we'll get to that in just a bit but the two attorneys we will hear from are the ones that began the trial earlier this week. bruce castor and david schoen and bruce castor is currently in private practice in the philadelphia area and was appointed as the first solicitor general in the state of pennsylvania in 2016 a montgomery county pennsylvania district attorney and david schoen who was also likely arguing today, david schoen is in private practice in atlanta and specializes in federal criminal defense and he notably represented roger stone in appealing roger stone's conviction in the robert mueller investigation. the two of them, david schoen and the headline here and politico on the upcoming arguments which again we mentioned could be as short as three or four hours by some reports. trump team to launch defense as trial barrels towards a close. they write in this piece of trump's lawyers have foreshadowed how they accept the democrats case about the
violence that they played on the loop with the senate this week but they will conclude that trump bears no culpability from unleashing it and that is a month-long campaign to delegitimize the election results and incendiary results the morning of the insurrection and are protected for his first amendment right to free speech and that is from politico for some of the senators have indicated how they feel and how they likely will vote as jurors in the senate impeachment trial of the former president with just a few mins ago this is senator ted cruz of texas who tweeted this comment per he says that the trump trial arguments don't meet the standard for incitement and another republican is james langford of oklahoma and no indication here of how he might vote but he treats this about the national guard who continues to guard the perimeter of the u.s. capitol and it was my highest honor to thank the oklahoma national guard who kept everyone safe during the inauguration and the family shared them with us to
will ask the witnesses it is widely expected they won't but in the meantime gop and democratic senators have been asked to submit their proposed questions to their respective leaders according to q&a could happen tonight. in bc, the house managers expect there to be a quote, distraction campaign from the trump team today. plus, substantive defense according to aids. alex bolton of the hill with further peace on this that he tweets about rebel begin senators agree with lisa murkowski that the damaging case laid out in detail this week makes him unelectable to the white house in 2024 and think it will help eventually distance the party from the former president. a couple of reactions so far to the case and a preview of what we might hear from attorneys coming up shortly on the senate floor. [background noises]
mighty god, unsurpassed in both power and understanding, we worship you. lord, when there is nowhere else to turn, we lift our eyes to you. as again this senate chamber becomes a a court, and our senators become jurors, guide these lawmakers with your wisdom, mercy, and grace. lord, infuse them with the spirit of nonpartisan patriotis patriotism. unite them in their efforts to do what is best for america. as they depend on your providence and power, may they
make choices that will be for your greater glory. we pray in your cyber name. amen. -- your sovereign name. >> please join in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> and senators, will you please be seated. and if there is no objection, the journal proceedings of the trial are approved to date, i
asked the sergeant at arms to make the proclamation. >> hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the senate of the united states is sitting for the trial of the article of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against donald john trump former president of the united states. >> mr. president? >> the majority leader is recognized. >> for the information of all senators with a plan to take short breaks approximately every two hours and a longer in her break around 5 p.m. >> pursuant to the provisions senate resolution 47 the counsel for the former president has 16 hours to make the presentation of their case, and the senate
will hear counsel now. >> -- to begin the presentation of the case for the former president. go ahead. >> good afternoon, senators. mr. president. the article of impeachment now before the senate is an unjust and blatantly unconstitutional act of political vengeance. this appalling abuse of the constitution only further divides our nation when we should be trying to come together around shared priorities. like every other politically
motivated witchhunt the left has engaged in over the past four years, this impeachment is completely divorced from the facts, the evidence, and interests of the american people. the senate should promptly and decisively vote to reject it. no thinking person could seriously believe that the president's january 6 speech on the ellipse was in any way and incitement to violence or insurrection. the suggestion is patently absurd on its face. nothing in the text could ever be construed as encouraging, condoning, or enticing unlawful activity of any kind. far from promoting insurrection against the united states, the president's remarks explicitly
encouraged those in attendance to exercise their rights peacefully and patriotically. peaceful and patriotic protests is the very antithesis of a violent assault on the nation's capitol. the house impeachment article slanders lee alleges that the president intended for the crowd at the ellipse to, quote, interfere with a joint session solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. this is manifestly disproven by the plain text of the remarks. the president devoted nearly his entire speech to an extended discussion of how legislators should vote on the question at hand. instead of expressing a desire that the joint session he prevented from conducting its business, the entire premise of
his remarks was that the democratic process would and should play out according to the letter of the law, including both the constitution and the electoral count act. in the conclusion of his remarks he then laid out a series of legislative steps that should be taken to improve democratic accountability going forward, such as passing universal voter id legislation, banning ballot harvesting, requiring proof of citizenship to vote, and turning out strong in the next primaries. not only presidents, these are not the words of someone in siding of violent insurrection. not only president trump's speech on january 6 but indeed his entire challenge to the election result was squarely
focused on how the proper civic process could address any concerns to the established legal and constitutional system. the president brought his case before state and federal courts, the u.s. supreme court, the state legislatures, the electoral college, and ultimately the u.s. congress. in the past, numerous other candidates for president have used many of the same processes to pursue their own election challenges. as recently as 2016, the clinton campaign brought multiple postelection court cases, demanded recounts, and ridiculously declared the election stolen by russia. many democrats even attempted to persuade the electoral college delegates to overturn the 2016
results. house manager raskin objected to the certification of president trump's victory four years ago,, along with many of his colleagues. you will remember it was joe biden who had to gavel him down. >> i have an objection because ten of the 29 electoral votes cast by florida were cast by electors lawfully certified. >> i object to the vote from the state of wisconsin which should not be -- >> mr. president i object to the certificate from the state of georgia on the grounds that electoral votes -- >> there's no debate, no debate. >> i object to the debate. >> i object. >> i object to the certificate from the state of alabama. the electors were not lawfully certified. >> is assigned by senator? >> yes. >> in that case the objection cannot be entertained. >> the objection cannot be
entertained. there is no debate in order. there is no debate. there is no debate, no debate. there is no debate. >> please come to order. rejection cannot be -- >> the russian -- >> prohibits debate in the joint session. >> i do not wish to debate. i wish to ask is a one united states senator who will join me in this letter -- >> there is no debate. there is no debate. the gentlewoman will suspend. >> in 2000, a dispute over the outcome was taken all the way to the supreme court which ultimately rendered a decision. to litigate questions of election integrity within the system is not incitement to resurrection. it is the democratic system working as the founders and
lawmakers have designed. to claim that the president in any way wished, desired, or encourage lawless or violent behavior is a preposterous and monstrous lie. in fact, the first two messages the president sent via twitter once the encouragement at the capitol begin is state peaceful and no violence because we are the party of law and order. the gathering on january 6 was supposed to be a peaceful event. make no mistake about that. and the overwhelming majority of those in attendance remained peaceful. as everyone knows the president had spoken at hundreds of large rallies across the country over the past five years. there had never been any mob like or riotous behaviors, , and the fact a significant portion of each event was devoted to
celebrating the rule of law. protecting our constitution, and honoring the men and women of law enforcement. contrast the president's repeated combinations of violence with the rhetoric from his opponents. >> i had her president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters. >> the vast majority of the protesters -- >> republicans stand for long order and we stand for justice. >> i just don't even know why there are not a pricing all over the country. >> my administration will always stand against violence, mayhem and disorder. >> and it's the unrest in the street for as long as there's unrest and allies. >> i stand with the heroes of law enforcement.
[inaudible] >> you tell them down not welcome anymore. >> we will never defund our police. together we will ensure that american is a nation of law and order. >> i think you need to go back and punch them in the face. >> i feel like punching them. >> we just what long order. everybody everybody wants that. >> i want to tell you, kavanaugh, you have released the world when and you will pay the price. >> we want long order, we have to of law and order. >> show it to gewirtz says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful? >> we believe in law and order. >> tragically, as we know now, the january, on january 6, a small group looking to engage in violent and menacing behavior
hijacked the event for their own purposes. according to publicly available reporting it is apparent that extremists of various different strifes and political persuasions preplanned and premeditated an attack on the capitol. one of the first people arrested was a leader of antifa. sadly, he was also among the first to be released. from the beginning, the president has been clear. the criminals who infiltrated the capitol must be punished to the full extent of the law. they should be in prison for his long as the law allows. the fact that the attacks were apparently premeditated, as alleged by the house managers, demonstrates the ludicrousness of the incitement allegation against the president.
you can't inside what was already going to happen. law enforcement officers at the scene conducted themselves aerobically and courageously, and our country owes them an eternal death. there must be a discussion of the decision by political leadership regarding force posture and security in advance of the event. as many will recall, last summer the white house was faced with violent rioters night after night. they repeatedly attacked secret service officers and at one point pierced a security wall culminating in the clinic of lafayette square. since that time there is been a sustained negative narrative in the media regarding the necessity of those security measures on that night, even
though they certainly prevented many calamities from occurring. in the wake of the capitol attack it must be investigated whether the proper force posture was not initiated due to the political pressures stemming from the events at lafayette square. consider this. on january 5 the mayor of the district of columbia explicitly discouraged the national guard and all authorities from doing more to protect the capitol saying, and i quote, the district of columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel. and discourages any additional deployment. this sham impeachment also poses a serious threat to freedom of speech for political leaders of both parties at every level of government.
the senate should be extremely careful about the president -- the precedent this case will set. consider the language that the house impeachment article alleges to constitute incitemen incitement. if you don't fight like hell, you are not going to have a country anymore. this is ordinary political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years. countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles. joe biden's campaign slogan was battle for the soul of america. no human being seriously believes that the use of such metaphorical terminology is incitement to political
violence. while the president did not engage in any language of incitement, there are numerous officials in washington who have indeed used profoundly reckless, dangerous and inflammatory rhetoric in recent years. the entire democratic party and national news media spent the last four years repeating without any evidence that the 2016 election had been hacked. and falsely and it certainly claimed the president of the united states was a russian spy -- and absurdly -- speaker pelosi herself said the 2016 election was hijacked and that congress has a a duty to prott our democracy. she also called the president an imposter and a traitor.
and recently referred to our colleagues in the house as the enemy within. moreover, many democrat politicians endorse and encourage the riots that destroyed vast swaths of american cities last summer. when violent left wing anarchists conducted a sustained assault on a federal courthouse in portland oregonian speaker pelosi did not call it an instruction. instead, she called the federal law enforcement officers protecting the building storm troopers. when violent mobs destroy public property she said, people will do what they do. the attorney general of the state of massachusetts stated, yes, america is burning, but
that's how force sprout. representative ayanna pressley declared there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives. the current vice president of united states, harris urged supporters to donate to a fund that bailed out violent rioters and arsonists out of jail. one of those was released and went out and committed another crime, assault. he beat the bejesus out of somebody. she said of violent demonstrations, everyone beware, they are not going to stop before election day in november and they are not going to stop after election day. they are not going to let up, and they should not.
such rhetoric continued even as hundreds of police officers across the nation were subjected to violent assault at the hands of angry mobs. a man claiming to be inspired by the junior senator from vermont came down here to washington, d.c. to watch a softball game and kill as many senators and congressmen as he could. it cannot be forgotten that president trump did not blame the junior senator. the senior senator from maine has had her house surrounded by angry mobs of protesters. when that happened it unnerved her. one of the house managers, i forget which one, pleated, cry me a river.
under the standards of the house impeachment article, each of these individuals should be retroactively censored, expelled, punished or impeached for inciting violence by their supporters. unlike the left, president trump has been entirely consistent in his opposition to mob violence. he imposes it in all forms, in all places. just as he has been consistent that the national guard should be deployed to protect american communities were ever protection is needed. for democrats, they have clearly demonstrated that the opposition to mobs and their view of using the national guard depends upon the mobs political views. not only is this impeachment case preposterously wrong on the facts, no matter how much heat
and emotion is injected by the political opposition, it is also plainly unconstitutional. in effect, congress would be claiming that the right to disqualify a private citizen no longer a government official for running for public office, this would transform the solid impeachment process into a mechanism asserting congressional control over which private citizens are and are not allowed to run for president. in short, this unprecedented effort is not about democrats opposing political violence. it is about democrats trying to disqualify their political opposition. it is constitutional cancel culture. history will record this
shameful effort as a deliberate attempt by the democrat party to smear, sensor, and cancel. not just president trump, but the 75 million americans who voted for him. now is not the time for such a campaign of retribution. it is the time for unity and healing and focusing on the interests of the nation as a whole. we should all be seeking to cool temperatures, calm passions, rise above partisan lines. the senate should reject this divisive and unconstitutional effort and allow the nation forward. over the next, over the course
of the next three hours or so you will hear next from mr. show who's going to talk about you process and a couple of other points you'll be interested to hear -- mr. show went -- i will return with an analysis of why the first amendment must be properly applied here. and then mr. castor will discuss the law as it applies to the speech of january 6 and then we will be pleased to answer your questions. thank you.
>> mr. president? >> mr. schoen. >> leaders, senators, throughout the course of today my colleagues and i will explain in some detail the simple fact that president trump did not inside the horrific terrible riots of january 6. we will demonstrate that to the contrary, the violence and looting goes against the law and order message he conveys to every citizen of the united states throughout his presidency, including on januar. first though we would like to discuss the hatred, the vitriol,
the political opportunism that has brought us here today. the hatred that the house managers and others on the left have for president trump has driven them to skip the basic element of due process and fairness, and to write an impeachment through the house claiming quote, urgency, close quotes. at the house waiter to deliver the articles to the senate for almost two weeks only after democrats had secured control over the senate. in fact, contrary to their claim that the only reason they held it was because senator mcconnell wouldn't accept the article. representative clyburn made clear that they considered holding the articles for over 100 days to provide president biden with a clear pathway to implement his agenda. our constitution and in the basic sense of fairness requires that every legal process with
significant consequences for a person's life, including impeachment, requires you process under the law, which includes fact-finding and the establishment of a legitimate evidentiary record within an appropriate foundation urich even last used impeachment followed committee hearings and months of examination and investigation by the house. here, president trump and his counsel were given no opportunity to review evidence or question its propriety. the rush to judgment for a snap impeachment in this case was just one example of the denial of due process. another perhaps even more vitally significant example was the denial of any opportunity ever to test the integrity of the evidence offered against donald j. trump in in a procg seeking to bar him from ever holding public office again, and
that seeks to disenfranchise some 75 million voters, american voters. on wednesday of this week countless news outlets repeated the democrat talking points about the power of never before seen footage. let me ask you this. why was this footage never seen before? shouldn't the subject of an impeachment trial, this impeachment trial, president trump have the right to see the so-called new evidence against him? more importantly, the riot and the attack on the story building was a major event that shot and impacted all americans. shouldn't the american people have seen this footage as soon as it was available? for what possible reason that the house managers withhold it from the american people and president trump's lawyers? for political gain. how did they get it? how were they the ones releasing at? it is evident in hundreds of
pending removal cases against the rioters. why was it not released through law enforcement or the department of justice? is it the result of the rushed snap impeachment for political gain without due process? house manager raskin told us all yesterday that your job as a jurors in this case is a fact intensive job. but, of course, as several of the house managers have told you, we still don't have the facts. speaker pelosi herself on february 2 called for a 9/11 style commission to investigate the event of january 6. speaker pelosi says that the commission is needed to determine the causes of the events. she says it herself. if an inquiry of that magnitude is needed to determine the causes of the riot, and it may very well be, then how can these
same democrats have the certainty needed to bring articles of impeachment and blame the riots on president trump? they don't. the house managers face a significant lack of evidence turn to press reports and rumors during these proceedings. claims that we never meet the evidentiary standards of any court. in fact, they even rely on the words of andrew feinberg, a reporter who recently worked for sputnik, the russian propaganda outlet. you saw it posted. by the way, the report they it was completely refuted. the frequency with which house managers relied on unproven media reports shocked me as i sat in this chamber and listened to this. there's a lot we don't know yet about what happened that day. according to those around him at the time, reportedly responded trump reportedly reports across all major media outlets.
>> major news networks including fox news reported -- >> reported. >> reported. >> reportedly not accidental. >> reporting. >> president trump was reportedly. >> reportedly spoke to the guard. >> it was widely reported. >> media reports, according to reports. >> reported. >> reportedly. >> at any trial lawyer will tell you, reportedly is a euphemism for i have no real evidence. reportedly, is not the standard any american city for which any semblance of due process is afforded an accused. reportedly isn't even here is an circumstantial evidence. it is exactly as reliable as i googled this for you. and if you are worried you might ever be tried based on this type of evidence, don't be, you get more due process when you fight
a parking ticket. one recent due process is so important with respect evidence offered against an accused is that it requires an opportunity to test the integrity, the credibility, the reliability of the evidence. here of course former president trump was completely denied any such opportunity. and it turns out there is significant reason to doubt the evidence the house managers have put before us. let me say this clearly. we have reason to believe the house managers manipulated evidence and selectively edited footage. if they did, and this were a court of law, they would face sanctions from the judge. i don't raise this issue lightly rather, it is a product of what we have found in just the limited time we have had all the evidence here with you this
week. we have reason to believe that the house managers created false representations of tweets and a lack of due process means there was no opportunity to review or verify the accuracy. consider these facts here the house managers, proud of the work in this snap impeachment, staged numerous photo shoots of their preparations. in one of those manager raskin is senior at his desk reviewing two tweets side-by-side. the image on his screen claims to show that president trump had we tweeted one of those tweets. now members of the senate, let's look closely at this screen because obviously manager raskin considered it important enough that he invited the "new york times" to watch him watching it. what's wrong with this image? actually there are three things very wrong with it. look at the date on the very
bottom of the screen on his computer screen when we zoom in to the picture. the date that appears is januar1 uruguay is that date wrong? because this is not a real screenshot he is working with. this is a re-creation of a tweet and you got the date wrong when you manufactured this graphic. you did not disclose this was a manufactured graphic and not a real screenshot of between. to be fair, house managers, despair before showing the image on the senate floor so you never saw it when it was presented to you. but that's not all. they didn't fix this one. look at the blue checkmark next to the twitter username of the account we tweeted why the president. it indicates this is a verified account given the blue checked by twitter to indicate it is run by a public figure. the problem, the users really
count is not verified and has no blue checkmark as you can see. were you trying to make her account seems more significant or were you just sloppy? if we had due process of law in this case, we would know the truth. but that's not all that is wrong with this one tweet. house manager showed you this tweet this week and he emphasized that this tweet reflected a call to arms. he told you repeatedly that this was a promise to call in the cavalry for january 6. he expressly led you to believe that president trump's supporters believe that the the president wanted armed supporters at the january 6 speech, paramilitary groups, the cavalry ready for physical combat. the problem is, the actual text is exactly the opposite. the tweeter promised to bring the calvary, public display of christ's crucifixion, a central symbol of our christian faith
with her to the president's speech, a symbol of faith, love and peace. they just never want to see to read the text and believe what the text means. you will see this reported in the media last evening also. words matter, they told you. but they selectively edited the president's words over and over again. they manipulated video timeshifting clips and made it appear the president's words were playing to a crowd when they were not. let's take a look. >> after this we are going to walk down, and i'll be there with you, we are going to walk down -- [cheers and applause] >> were going to walk down -- [shouting] walk down to the capitol. [cheers and applause] and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we will probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
because you will never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength and you have to be strong. we have come to demand that congress do the right thing, and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. i know that you when you will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and idiotically make your voices heard. >> and we're going to walk down to the capitol. they showed you that part. why are we walking to the capitol? well, they cut that off. to cheer on some members of congress and the others peacefully and patriotically. the supreme court ruled in brandenburg is a very clear standard for incitement. in short, two verifies whether the speech was to remote
limitless action and most likely do so. go to the capitol and she on some members of congress but not others. they know it doesn't meet the standard for incitement so they edited it down. we heard a lot this week about fight like hell, but they cut off the video before they showed you the president's optimistic patriotic words that followed immediately after. >> we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like yelp you are not going have country anymore. >> our exciting adventures and boldness endeavors have not yet begun. my fellow americans, for our movement, for our children and for our beloved country, and i say this, despite all that is happening, the best is yet to come. [cheers and applause] >> there's that famous quote like one of the house manager said, ally will travel halfway
around the world for the truth has a chance to put its shoes on. well, this my travel around the world a few times and made its way into the biden campaign talking points and ended up on the senate floor. the charlottesville why, very fine people on both sides, except that is in all he said and they knew it then and they know it now. watch this. >> but you also with people that were very fine people, of both sides. you what people in that group, excuse me excuse me. i saw the same pictures as you did. you have people in that group that were there to protest in taking down to them a very, very important statue and the renaming of the park from robert e. lee to another name. >> george washington was a slave owner. was george washington a slave owner? so will george washington now loses status? are they going to take down -- excuse me.
are we going to take down, of a going to take and statues of george washington? how about thomas jefferson, what do you think of thomas jefferson? do you like him? good. are we going to take down -- he was a major slaveowner. are going to take out his statue? so you know what, it's fine. you are changing history, changing culture and you have people and annette talking about the neo-nazis in the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally. but you at many people in that group other than neo-nazis and white nationalists, okay? and the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. now, the other group also you had some fine people but you also had troublemakers and you see then come with a black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. you've got a lot of bad, you got a lot of that people in the other group. >> you were saying the president treated white nationals unfairly? >> no. there were people in the valley
and a look the night, if you look they were people protesting very quietly. the taking down of the statue of robert e. lee. i'm sure in that group there was some bad ones. the following day look like to had some rough, bad people, neo-nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. but you had a lot of people in the group who were there to innocently protest and very legally protest because i don't know if you know they had a a permit. the other group didn't have a permit. so it only tell you this, , thee are two sides to a story. i thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country, a horrible moment. but there are two sides to the country. visiting when have a final -- you have -- >> this might be today the first time the news networks played those full remarks in the context. and how many times have you heard president trump is never
denounced white supremacists? now you in america know the truth. here's another example. one of the house managers make much of the president supposedly ominous words of you have to get your people to fight. but you knew what the president really met. he meant that the cratchit demand action from members of congress and support primary challenges to those who don't do what he considered to be right. support primary challenges, not violent action. i know what he meant because i watched the full video. and so did the house managers but they manipulated his words. you will see where they stop it and give it a very different meaning from the meaning it has in full context. let's watch. >> you have to get your people to fight. he told them. >> you have to get your people to fight, and if they don't fight have two primary the hell
out of the once you don't fight. you primary them. we are going to let you know who they are. >> i can already tell you, frankly. >> the people who need to fight our members of congress. why do we have to skip the necessary due diligence and due process of law that any legal proceeding should have? he couldn't of been the urgency trump office. house democrats held the articles until he is no longer president booting the case. hatred, animosity, division, political gain, and let's face it, for house democrats, president trump is the best enemy to attack. >> i want to say this for donald trump who i may well be voting to impeach. >> donald trump is only done a number of things which are generally raised the question of impeachment. >> i don't respect this president and i will fight every day until he is impeached.
>> that is grounds to start impeachment proceedings. >> those the grants to start impeachment proceedings your best i think that's grounds to start impeachment proceedings. >> i rise today, mr. speaker, to call for the impeachment of the president of the united states of america. >> i continue to say impeach him. impeach 45. impeach 45. >> we are calling upon house to begin impeachment hearings immediately. >> would you vote yes no? >> i would vote yes. >> i would vote to impeach. >> were going to go in there and see. >> by the fact is i introduce articles of impeachment in july of 2017. >> if we don't impeach this president he will get reelected. >> the house requires me to have an impeachment hearing. >> they should begin impeachment proceedings against this president. >> it is time to bring impeachment charges against him.
bring impeachment charges. >> my personal view is a desserts and patient. >> here at an appeasement rally and we are to impeach. >> we can impeachment evidence of the week for anything he does. >> that same hatred and anger has led house managers to ignore their own words and actions and set a dangerous double standard. the house managers spoke about rhetoric, , about a constant drumbeat of heated language. those i'm sure everyone watching expected, we need to show you some of their own words. >> i just don't even know why -- [inaudible] >> there needs to be unrest in the street fronts longus of unrest in our lives. >> we have to throw a punch. >> donald trump i need to we need to go back and thrown in the -- punch them in the face. >> i'd like to take him behind the the gym if we were in high
school. >> i would be the hell out of him. >> i can take him behind the gym. >> i will go and take trump out tonight. >> taking out now. >> when was the last time an actor ssa a president? >> they will still have to go out and put a bullet in donald trump. >> and you tell them they are not welcome. >> i have thought an awful lot about blowing up the white house. >> we get up in the space of congresspeople. >> people will do what they do. >> i want to tell you, i i wao tell you capitol, you have released the world wind and you will pay the price. >> we're going to go in and. [inaudible] >> this is just a warning to you trump. be careful. walk lightly. and for those of you who are
soldiers, make them pay. >> if you had to be stuck in an elevator with president trump, mike pence are jeff sessions, who would it be? >> there's more. >> i promise to fight every single day. >> one, i'm a fighter and i'm relentless but on the fighter and i relentless. >> i'm a fighter and i am relentless. >> the way i i see it now is t we pick ourselves up and we fight back. that's what i think it's all about. >> we stand up and we fight back. back. we do not back down. we do not compromise not today, not tomorrow, not ever. you can lie down, you can whimper comes you can roll up in a ball and decide to move to canada or you can stand your ground and fight back. and that's what it's about. we do fight back we are going to fight back. we are not turning this country
over to what donald trump has sold. we are just not. look, people are upset and the right to be set. >> we can whimper, we can whine or we can fight back. me, i'm here to fight back. [cheers and applause] i'm here to fight back because we will not forget. we do not want to forget. we would use that vision to make sure that we fight harder, we fight tougher, and we fight more passionately more than ever. >> we still have a fight on our hands. fight hard for the changes americans are demanding. >> fighting. >> every tool possible to fight for this change. we will fight. >> we will fight. >> fighting hard. there is about fighting. >> we have to get there and
fight asked. >> problems we call them out and we fight back. >> i and in this fight. >> i am fighting. i am fighting and and in this fight. >> get in this fight. >> and fighting, we all need to be in the fight. >> we all need to stay in the fight for we stay in this fight. >> we fought back. >> i am not afraid of a fight. >> i and in this fight all the way. >> you don't get what you don't fight for. >> our fight. >> our fight. >> we are in this fight for our lives. >> this is the fight of our lives. >> but we are going to make sure that this fight does not in tonight. >> this is a fight for our lives, allies of our friends and family members and neighbors.
it is a fight, it is a fight that we are going to to make sure continues. >> it's a fight. >> it is a fight. >> it is a fight and that's what this fight is for. >> i want to fight anyone who is not doing the job for us. i am jon tester and you are damn right i approve this message. >> and i will have lots of fights ahead of us and am ready to stand up in key fighting and to fight. >> were going to fight. >> we need to fight. >> we are going to fight. >> we have a few more fights. >> take the privilege of a few more fights and we have the biggest fight of all. i will never stop fighting. i will fight like hell, to fight back against anyone. >> we need to say about and clear that we are ready to fight. >> bare knuckles fight. >> now they're going to actually had to fight back against people. >> fight has to be conducted.
>> we need to fight. >> we have been fighting. >> i was fighting very hard. time is of the essence. >> i really believe we need to fight. >> we are simply not going to take this lying down. we're going to keep fighting. >> i'm challenging all my colleagues this is a fight of our life. >> who are you fighting for? >> we are both fighting. >> we will fight back. we will not take this lying down. >> what we have to do right now is fight as hard as we can. >> we have to rise up and fight back. >> we are going to fight and we're going to continue to fights or i'm going to be fighting, fight like hell. >> keep fighting fighting fighting. we're going to keep fighting. >> we have to be fighting every single day. >> we have to fight back and we have no choice but to do that. i think we're doing the right thing. >> i'm fighting. >> it's really important i'm going to keep fighting. >> i'm asking for the sport of people across the country to
fight back. >> you have to be fierce. >> fighting. >> i told president biden i will fight like mad. >> now more than ever we have two fight like hell. >> we have these battles on the floor of the senate or i'm going to go down in battle and anl be down on the floor fighting. >> we democrats are fighting as hard as again. >> democrats are fighting as hard as we can. >> what we've got to do is fight in congress, fight in the courts come fight in the streets come fight online, fight at the ballot box. >> continue to be brave and be strong and keep fighting. >> getting people engaged in the fight. >> we've got to keep fighting and keep focused, continue to fight. >> this will be a fight. >> we will challenge him in every way we can come in congress come in courts and in the streets. >> to continue fighting we each have an important role to play in fighting and this has been a fight, the american people are
going to have to fight. >> and about the importance of fighting. >> i will always fight. >> fighting. >> but we always must fight. >> joe biden has a deep, deep seeded commitment to fight. >> and about the importance of fighting. >> we always must fight the fight. >> as our willingness to fight continue the fight. >> it's about fighting. >> we will tell them about what we did but to i do believe we are in a fight. i i believe we are in a fight. >> i believe we are in a i. >> so there's a fight in front of us. >> i i fight for all of these things. >> we are prepared to fight. >> we know how to fight. >> we know how to fight. we like a good fight. we were born out of a fight.
this is what is our fight right now. >> there's a fight. >> there's the fight and then there's the fight to defend. >> our nation is to fight. that is the guiding purpose of house democrats, fighting. he has never forgotten who he is fighting for. >> we just have to fight. >> this is a fight for our country. >> hiding the health crisis. >> i led the fight and continue to fight. >> never, never, never give up this fight. i'm a citizen fighting for it. >> as a lawyer who fought for people his whole life. >> i'm proud to have came in the fight with me. above all the time for america to get back at and once again fight. >> we will fight when we must fight. >> what kind of america are we fighting for? we been fighting. >> we need to fight for an
american. >> i am going to wake up every day and fight hard. >> i been fighting. >> we are going to fight. >> we're going to fight. >> and i will fight. >> we are in the fight of our lives right now. >> we fight like hell. >> democrats are stand up to fight. >> we are in the fight in a serious way. >> we are eager to take on this fight. >> get in the site and will fight it out. >> as legislators in the halls of congress our job is to fight. >> who has led us in this fight. >> to fight for this. >> every day and in the united states senate i will fight. >> one of the things we do is should fight. >> my constituents in here each and every day to fight. >> we been fighting this fight and we need to be side-by-side so we can succeed as i hope you all join us in our fight. >> and if we fight. >> and as the next governor of georgia i will never stop
fighting. we can show the old guard something you and we can fight. >> to fight and administration. >> declaring that the fight and fight we will. >> in their fight. >> the fight is a fight and so when we fight the fight that we are in. >> when we are fighting this fight we fight this fight. >> the strength of who we are is we will fight and we will fight we will fight the fight. we are in a fight. >> the fight. >> fight. >> it is a fight. >> and it is a fight born out of patriotism. >> this is a fight fighting i say fight on, fight on, fight on. >> i iq to say one more time in public this is not a fight i wanted to take on the this is the fight in front of us now. >> every single one of you and everyone of you, that's okay. you didn't do anything wrong. it's a word people use but
please stop the hypocrisy. and did you tone down the rhetoric last summer when all this was happening? did you condemn the rioters or did you stand with nancy pelosi who said people are going to do what they're going to do? >> this is a movement, they are not going to stop. everyone beware because they are not going to stop. they are not going to stop before election day in november and they are not going to stop after. >> and please show me where it says the protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful. >> it was a violet night. they shot and killed david in cold blood. >> destroying property which can be displaced is not violence. >> this is an apartment complex on fire. >> the building just collapsed.
>> i don't know where to go now. >> this is just a snapshot of some of the damage people will be waking up to. >> i am proud of new york and proud of the protests. >> it looks like a war zone. >> heartwarming to see so many people turn out peacefully. >> they keep doing it day after day after day. our country is a nation of protest. the patriots were protesters. >> st. john's church is on fire. >> that is a myth. >> i hope someone burns down your whole precinct with all of you all inside.
>> you tell them they are not welcome. >> they are not going to let up and they should not. >> you claim it is wrong to object to the certification of election results. you are one were to in the media attempted to cancel and censure members of this chamber the voice concerns and objected to certification. .. >> is in writing mister president. >> is designed by a senator? in that case the object and cannot beentertained . >> object to the certificate
from the state of georgia on the grounds that the electoral -- [inaudible] there is no debate of the joint session. >> i am horrified by overwhelming evidence -- [inaudible] the united states prohibits debate. >> objected to the accounting ofthe electoral votes of the state of ohio . >> i object, the electors were not lawfully certified. >> 15 both from the state of carolina because of massive voter suppression inthe polling booth . >> thereis no debate. there is no debate . >> i have no objection to the electoral votes. >> the objection is inwriting and i don't care that it is not signed by a member of the senate . i do not wish to debate. iwish to ask is there one united states senator who
will join me in this letter ? >> there is no debate. >> the objection is signedby a member of the house but not yet a member of the senate . >> it is over. >> when house managers realized the president's actual words could not have incited the right as you alleged in the articles of impeachment attempted to pivot . you said raising the issue of electionsecurity and casting doubt on the propriety of our elections was dangerous . one of the house managers mister ciccoline told you this isnot about the words mister trump used in isolation . rather it is about the big lie. the claim that the election was stolen. the house managers told you that it's a big lie inside the riot and the big lie was president trumps claim that the election was not a fair election or the election was stolen. claiming an election was stolen you were told our words that are insightful to
the candidates followers and caused people to respond violently. claiming an election was stolen or not legitimate was something that the candidate should never do because he or she knows or should know that such a claim and such words can actually incite violent insurrection, you were told. it seems the house managers position must be actually a bit narrower thanthat. the house managers position really is that when republican candidates for office claim and election is stolen or the winner is illegitimate it constitutes inciting an insurrection and the candidate should know . but democratic party candidates for public elected office are perfectly entitled to claim the election was stolen for the winner is illegitimate or to make any other outrageous claim they can. it is their absolute right to do so and it is their absolute right to do so irrespective of whether there's any evidence to support the claim.
democratic candidates can claim an election was stolen because of russian collusion without any explanation at all is perfectly okay and is in no way inside of an insurrection and somehow when democratic candidates publicly decry an election is stolen or illegitimate it's never a big lie. you've been doing for years. but could you imagine telling your supporters that the only way you could possibly lose is if an american election was rigged and stolen from you. and ask yourself whether you've ever seen anyone at any level of government make the same claim about their own election. >> stacy abrams doesn'twin in georgia, they stole it. it's clear. i say that publicly, it's clear . you can run the best
campaign, you can even become the nominee and you can have the election stolen from you . he knows he's an illegitimate president . he knows that there were a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did. >> votes remain to be counted . there are voices that were waiting to be her . >> i respect where you're comingfrom and i respect the issues that you're raising, you're not answering the question . you're not using the word legitimate. >> there are still legitimate concerns over the integrity of our elections and of ensuring the principle of one person, one vote. >> i agree with tens of millions of americans are very worried that when they cast about on an electronic voting machine that there is no paper trail to record that vote. >> but constantly shifting vote tallies in ohio and now functioning electronic machines which may not have
paper receipts have led to additional loss of confidence by the public. this is the only opportunity to have this debate while the country is listening. it is appropriate to do so. >> house manager castro no longer have to try to imagine it. it didn't have to be this way. the democrats promised unity. they promised to deliver the very covid relief in the form of stimulus checks president from call for. they should have listened to their own words of the past . i leave you with the wise words congressman jerry nadler. >> the effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. we must not overturn an election and remove a president office except to defend our system of government or constitutional liberties against a direct threat and we must not do so without anoverwhelming consensus of the american
people . there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or impeachment supported why one of our major political parties and opposed by the other. such an impeachment will produce the divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions . the american people have are the allegations against the president and the overwhelmingly opposed impeaching him . they elected president clinton. they still support him. we have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the american people . mister speaker, the case against the president has not been made . there is far from sufficient evidence to support the allegations and the allegations, even if proven true, do not rise to the level ofimpeachable offenses . mister speaker, this is clearly a partisan railroad job. they tell us we must impeach the president for lying under oath, to reelect the speaker
who had admitted lying to congress in an official proceeding . the american people are watching and they will not forget. you may have the votes. you may have a muscle but you do not have the legitimacy of a national consensus or of a constitutional imperative . this partisan who will go down in infamy inthe history of this nation . mister speaker. ideal back the balance of my time . >>. >> good afternoon senators.
there are 2 fundamental questions for purposes of this free speech analysis. first, that the first amendment to the constitution apply in this chamber to these impeachmentproceedings . second, if it does, do the words spoken by mister trump on january 6 meet the definition of constitutional incitement so as to avoid the protections afforded by the first amendment? i will explain why the answers to both of these questions must be aresounding yes . the constitution and the first amendment must certainly apply to these impeachment proceedings at mister trumps speech deserves full protection under the first amendment . but before getting into the legal analysis, some
preliminary observations about the house managers case should be made.first, this case unfortunately is about political hatred. it has become very clear that the house democrats heat donald trump. this hyper political hatred has no place in our political institutions and certainly no place in the law. this hatred has led the house managers to manipulate and selectively edit mister trumps speech to make it falsely appear that he sought to incite the crowd to violently attack the capital. he didn't . and we will show you why. the hatred has also led the house managers to make them astounding legal arguments. they astoundingly urge you to disregard your oath by
ignoring the first amendment of the constitution. they also ignored landmark binding united states supreme courtcases . precedents would and bob. both of which unequivocally hold that elected officials have first amendment rights to engage in the exact type of political speech that mister trump engaged in.i was shocked the house managers not only spent a mere three pages on the first amendment analysis in their trial memo but yesterday, they spent a mere 10 minutes at the end of their case as a throwaway. what we have read and what we have heard is devoid of any constitutional analysis. for less than what i would expect from a first year law student. they left out landmark cases,
total intellectual dishonesty . and finally, hatred is at the heart of the house managers frivolous attempts to blame donald trump or the criminal acts of the rioters on double hearsay statements of fringe right-wing groups based on no real evidence other than rank speculation. hatred is a dangerous thing. we all have to work to overcome it. hatred should have no place in this chamber, in these proceedings. the second observation. the senate is presented with an extraordinary task sitting in judgment of a former president's words and speech that he gave at apolitical event . the house managers accused mister trump of using his words to incite the horrific
events at the capital on january 6 but yesterday they gave you a new and novel standard of incitements with an element of foreseeability. the negligence concept. they cite zero case law. they made it up. this task of applying a completely made up legal standard of incitements to an impeachment proceeding is truly an unprecedented task for the senate. and that is something the senatemust seriously consider when deciding the issue . do you want to create a precedent where the senate will be tasked with sitting in judgment as to the meaning and implied intent of a president's words? the words of any elected official?
will not allow and maybe encourage a majority party webinars the awesome power of impeachment against the minority suppress the pointof view ? will the senate then have to deal with constant articles of impeachment by a majority party accusing minority presidents or other elected officials of so-called insightful or false speeches ? you can see where this would lead . sadly, we have all seen the political rhetoric ratcheted up over the past few years . we've been witness to many incendiary words by our officials at political events , broadcast over the media internet. in each of those instances, will there now be senate impeachment hearings? one last observation. we agree with the house
managers, context does indeed matter. the inflammatory rhetoric from our elected officials must be considered as part of the larger context of mister trumps speech at theb& on january 6. the inflammatory language from both sides of the aisle has been alarming, frankly. but this political discourse must be considered as part of these proceedings to contextualize mister trumps words. we have some video to play that highlights some of what i'm talking about . i prefaced this video by noting i am not showing you this video as some excuse for mister trumps speech. this is not about, this is not whataboutism.
i'm showingyou this to make the point that all political speech must be protected . >> i don't even know why there are uprisings all over thecountry, maybe there needs to be . >> maybe i should just throw a punch. >> ,i think you need to go back and punch him inthe face . >> i thought he should have punched in the face. >> i like taking behind the gin school. >> i'd take him behind the gym. >> i will go and take trump out tonight, taking out now. >> when was the last timean actor assassinated president ? >> going to have to go out and put a bullet in donald. when was the last timeprotest was supposed to be peaceful ? >> you go and you tell them they're not welcome anymore anywhere . >> i have thought an awful lot about pulling up the whitehouse . >> please get up in the face of some congresspeople .
>> people will do what they do. >> i want to tell you kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price . >> this is just a warning to you trumpers be careful, walked lightly and for those of you who are soldiers, make them pay. >> if you had to be stuck in an elevator with donald trump, mike pence orjeff sessions who would it be ? >> does one of us have to come out alive? [laughter] >> again, i did not show you their robust speech to excuse or balance out the speech of my client or i need not. i showed you the video because in this political forum , all robust speech
should be protected and it should be protected evenly for all of us as a brief aside, we should all reflect and acknowledge the rhetoric has gotten to be too much and over the top. it is graded on the collective well-being of the bodypolitic . most would like it to stop. but the point is when you see speech such as this, you have to apply the first amendment evenly. blindly. she is blind, lady justice. question 1. does the first amendment apply to this paper and these proceedings. the house managers position
as stated in their trial brief is a quote, the first amendment does not apply at all to an impeachment proceeding. this is plainly wrong. the text of the first amendment expressly restricts congress from regulating speech. it says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the governmentfor a redress of grievances .to ignore the constitution would be contrary to the oath of office of a united states senator.
i do solemnly swear or affirm that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic and i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. you all know the rest. no, the senate cannot ignore the first amendment. the constitution itself limits the ability of the house to impeach items such as high crimes and misdemeanors. the position advanced by the house managers is essentially an unlimited impeachment standard without constitutional guardrails , on board from any specific legal test other than the unbridled expression of congress.
this is distinctly not the intent of the framers. the framers were aware of the dangers of any impeachment process that would make the president the mere creature of the legislature, a quote directly from the framers while debating the impeachment process on the floor, the constitutional convention. the framers were fearful of a process that gave congress a discussion on the standard for impeachment would constitute nothing less then a violation quote, a violation of the fundamental principle of good government. one founding father, james wilson wrote extensively on theimpeachment process .
mister wilson was a renowned legal scholar at the time, a law professor at the university of pennsylvania in the adelphia . he was a major force in drafting and adopting the constitution in 1787 . he served as one of the first supreme, one of the first six supreme court justices, 1789 to 1798. he was appointed by president george washington. in fact, wilson taught the first course on the new constitution to president washington and his cabinet. the first in the nation's history. in philadelphia. at the university of pennsylvania in 1789. wilson in his long lectures, the first of their kind under the constitution plainly states that the senate may not ignore the constitution in impeachment proceedings. he states that awful and
constitutional, may not be used as an impeachable offense. let me say that again. he states that lawful and constitutional conduct may not be used as animpeachable offense . read along with me. the doctrine of impeachment is of high importance in the constitution of free states. on one hand the most powerful magistrates should be amenable to the law. on the other hand elevating characters should not be sacrificed merely on account of theirelevation . no one should be secure while he violates the constitution andthe laws . everyone should be secure while he observed them.
to be clear, james wilson is saying that the constitution does indeed apply when judging whether toconvict an official by impeachment . if the complain of conduct is constitutional, it cannot be impeachable. are we to ignore the wordsand teachings of james wilson ? the house managers surely want to. the house managers have made several references to this letter. signed by 140 partisan law professors calling mister trump's first amendment defense legally frivolous. this is really an outrageous attempt to intimidate mister trump'slawyers . whenever a lawyer advances a truly frivolous argument, they may violate professional
ethical rules and could be subject to discipline. this letter is a direct threat to my law license, my career and my family's financial well-being. these law professors should be ashamed of themselves and so should the house managers. how dare you. do you really hate donald trump so much that you're willing to destroy good, hard-working people'slives ? people that are only doing their jobs and frankly as counsel accused of fulfilling a constitutional role? it'sastounding, really . i'm a citizen, not a politician. i know these first amendment arguments are not anywhere close to frivolous. they are completely meritorious. interestingly a lawprofessor letter was issued on february 5 .
three days before we even filed our legal brief in this matter and they ignored landmark, bedrock supreme court cases directly addressing this issue. in aubrey we have a direct quote from james wilson, the founding father supporting our position. the direct quote was documented in the founding fathers original legal papers . on the subject. it was the primary draft of the constitution that taught the new constitution to president washington . he says so long as elected officials like mister trump are constitutionally protected heshould not be impeached . we have landmark supreme court decisions and bonds which i will explain in detail supporting our position, all of this house managers and partisan law
professors completely and misleadingly ignore. frivolous? hardly. the letter is a bullying tactic and i think evidence is the house managers know they have a problem with the first amendment defense on the merits so they are resorting to such tactics. the house managers suggestion that the first amendment does not apply to this impeachment process is completely untenable. ignoring the first amendment would conflict with the senators both of office and also conflict with well-settled supreme court precedent and ignore the intent of the framers of the constitutionsuch as james wilson . above all else, ignoring the constitution would adopt a new raskin common sense
doctrine we heard yesterday , he wrote in hundreds of years of first amendment protection. we are here under the constitution. it is illogical what the house managers say. the constitution does apply to this constitutional impeachment process. it's doubletalk. nonsense. illogical. if the house managers that have their way they would ignore all the constitution . does that include the sixth amendment? the right to counsel? they would have mister trump sitting herewithout lawyers and who would be next ? it could be anyone. what about you or one of you? you must reject this invitation to ignore thefirst amendment . it is anti-american and would
set interest precedent forever. the laws developed over the years clearly establish elected officials have the right to engage in protected speech. mister trump is not just a guy on the street or a guy a bar or a fire chief or police officer. there were a few of them in there. all analogies given by the house managers. these sideways analogies are wrong. mister trump was an elected official and there's an entire body of law, supreme court landmark cases supporting the conclusion that mister trump actually has enhanced free-speech rights because he is an elected official. these cases are ignored by the house managers and law professors and that you is
total intellectual dishonesty . the supreme court has long held that the first amendments right to freedom of speech free-speech text elected officials. two important on point decisions from the supreme court, would versus georgia and bonds versus floyd expressly contradicts the house managers position. the house managers do not even cite those cases in your brief . they barely acknowledge them in their reply and they were mom on themyesterday . in wood versus georgia the investigation by a grand jury, and handled by a judge based on allegations of irregular block voting.
it was in the 60s. the sheriffs publicly in multiple plus releases: grand jury investigations racist. illegitimate and an attempt to intimidate voters. he even urged the grandeur on how to decide issues and not let its high office be a party toany political attempt to intimidate voters . fisher viewed the grand jury as challenging the legitimacy of his election. the sheriff even sent a letter to the grand jurors of these allegations which is an extraordinary step laws in most states includinggeorgia attempts to influence or intimidate jurors . the sheriff was charged and convicted of contempt of court and obstruction of the grand jury . but the supreme court in a decision written by justice
brennan reversed. the court held that the first amendment protected and elected public officials speech because the coding controversy directly affected the sheriff's political career. the petitioner was an elected official and had agreed with these, everybody.the petitioner was an elected official and had the right to enter the field of political controversy. particularly where his political life was at stake . the role elected officials play our society makes it all the more imperative that they be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance.
wood stands for a political opinion expressed in speech on april issue of the voting irregularity cannot be punishable where all that was done was to encourage investigation and peaceful political speech. just like mister trump has done here, the legal scholars call that directly on point. a second case, bonds versus floyd involved a state legislature punishing an elected official for protected political speech. bond is particularly instructive here to. in bond, the supreme court squarely addressed the question of and elected officials punishes by a legislature for statements alleged to have inside public violation of the law for burning draft cards. the court unequivocally rejected the idea advanced here by the house managers that elected official is entitled to no protection under thefirst amendment .
the supreme court held that the georgia house of representatives was in fact forbidden by the first amendment from punishing bond not seeing him. for advocating against the policy of the united states. there are three fundamental holdings in bond. 1, the manifest function of the first amendment and representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy. 2, just as erroneous statements must be protected to give freedom of expression , the breathing space it needs to survive. so statements criticizing public policy and the implementation of it must be similarly protected.
third holding. legislators have an obligation to take positions on controversial political questions so that their constituents can be fully informed by and be better able to assess their qualifications. please read along with me. their qualifications or office. also so they may be represented in governmental debates by the person to have elected to represent them. mister trump enjoys this same first amendment protection from congress. the first amendment's protections guaranteed free speech addressing the electoral integrity issues essential to his career that mister trump has consistently advocated. the house managers argue that the first amendment and i quote , does not shield a officials occupy sensitive
policymaking positions from adverse actions when their speech undermines important governmental interests. that is flatly wrong. they are in essence attempting to treat mister trump as theiremployee . this is not the law under wood and bond. mister trump was elected by the people. he is an elected official . the supreme court says elected officials must have the right to freely engage public speech. indeed, the supreme court expressly rejected the house managers arguments in wood versus georgia, wood vs. georgia holding fisher was not a civil servant but an elected official who had poor first amendment rights could not berespected . that's wood vs. georgia page
395, 21. the house managers do not mention wood or bond. in the trial brief or anywhere else. why? why not have to mark because it does not fit their narrative or their story. they want to punish mister trump for engaging in constitutionally protected free speech and they do not want you to consider the issue. but you must. question 2. does mister trump's speech deserve protection under the first amendment ? there is no doubt mister trump engaged in constitutionally protected political speech at the house as improperly characterized as insight of insurrection. the fatal flaw of the houses argument is that it seeks to
me out governmental punishment, impeachment based on first amendment political speech. speech for political purposes is the kind of activity to which the first amendment offers its strongest protection. these are bedrock principles recognized by our supreme court for decades. the court has stated in no uncertain terms the importance of these principles towards democratic principles . the general proposition that freedom of expression on public questions is secured by the first amendment has long been settled by our decisions . constitutional safeguards we have said was fashioned to ensure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing of political and social change
desired by thepeople . new york times versus sullivan. our first amendment decisions have created a rough hierarchy in the constitutional protection of speech. core political speeches occupy the highest, most protected positions. even political speech that may insight unlawful conduct is protected from the reach of government punishment. the court has said every idea is incitement and speech may be suppressed when it may inspire someone to act unlawfully and there is no limit to the states territorial power. the government may not prohibit speech it increases the chances of an unlawful act to be committed at some
indefinite time in the future . the house managers shows you a series of tweets going all the way back to 2015 and effort to prove insight. all that evidence is totally irrelevant under the constitutional definition of incitement . brandenburg versus ohio is really the landmark case on the issue of incitement speech, half of the case was mentioned yesterday and in the brandenburg versus ohio case another landmark. the court held the government may only suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law if such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to insight or
produce such action. the brandenburg holding has been interpreted as having three basic prongs to determine if speech meets the definition of incitement. the brandenburg test precludes speech from being sanctioned as insight to a riot unless the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged use of violence or lawless action. 2, the speaker intends that his speech will result in use of violence or lawless action three, the use of violence or lawless action is likely, the likely result of the speech. the house managers cannot get past the first prong of the brandenburg test.
they have not and cannot prove mister trump explicitly or implicitly encouraged use of violence or lawless action , period. brandenburg requires close examination of words themselves. the words are either important or they are not. the house managers admitted that he incitement issue is not about the words. why not? because on the face of it, mister trump's words are no different than the figurative speech used by everyone of the senators assembled here today. if it is not about the words about the big lie of a stolen election, then why is it
house manager raskin is guilty since he tried to overturn the 2016 election? the more the house managers speak, the more hypocrisy gets revealed. hypocrisy. even though they say it's not about the words, the law under brandenburg requires a close analysis ofthe words to determine incitement . so we need to look at those words. mister trump did the opposite of advocating the lawless action. the opposite area expressly advocated for peaceful action at the same amount america rally. he explicitly stated, these are the words. i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to
the capital to peacefully and patriotically make yourvoices heard . to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. that is how this president has spoken for years when he condemns violence, lawlessness of rioters. the house managers have played manipulated, selectively edited parts of mister trump's speech. they focus heavily on word fight. the president used the word fight 20 times in his speech. they picked only 2. why? why not the other 18? because they don't tell the story the way they want to
tell it. here are all of them. listen to the context. >> rudy, you did a great job. he's got guts. you know what, he's got guts unlike alot of people in the republican party . he's got guts, he finds . he bites and i'll tell you, thank you very much john. a fantastic job. that's a tough act to follow, those two. there's so many weak republicans and we have great ones, jim jordan and some of these guys out there, they're fighting but it's incredible. many of the republicans, i helped them get in. i helped them get elected. how do you say i want to get rid of americafirst ? if your going to do it, don't talk about. unbelievable what we have to go through. what we have to go through and you have to get your people to fight and don't fight we have to primary hell
out of the ones that don't fight. we primary them. going to let you know who they are, ican already tell you, frankly . republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. it's like a boxer and we want to be so nice. we want to be so respectful of everybody including their people and are going to have to fight much harder. and mike pence is going to have to come through for us and if he doesn't that will be a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our constitution. and the accountability says if we see somebody in there that doesn't treat our vets well or they steal , they bob , they do things badly they say joe, your fire, get out of here.
before you couldn't do that. so we're taking care of things. we've done things like nobody's ever thoughtpossible and that's part of the reason that many people don't like us , because we've done too much but we've done it quickly and we were going to sit home and watch a big victory and everybody had us down for a victory, it was going to be great now we're out therefighting . i said to somebody i was going to take a few days and relax after our big electoral victory. 10:00 it was over, the american people do not believe the corrupt fake news anymore. they have ruined their reputations. but you know, used to be and would argue with me, i fight, they fight, you believe me, you believe then and somebody comes out and they had their point of view, i had my point of view but you have an argument and now what they do is they go silent. it's called suppression and that's what happens in a communist country. that's what they do. they suppress.
you don't fight with them anymore. if they have a bad story about me though make it 10 times worse and it's a major headline hunter biden, they don't talk about him . where splinter? with your help over the last four years we built the greatest political movement in the history of our country and nobody even challenges that. i say that over and over i never get challenged by the fake news and they challenge almost everything we say against the big donors, big tech and others is just getting started. it's the greatest in history. there's never been a movement like that . our brightest days are before us.our greatest achievements still wait. one of our greatest achievements will be election security because nobody until i came along have any idea how corrupt our elections were and most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say i want to thank you very much. they go off to some other life but i said something's
wrong here, something's reallywrong . and we bite. we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore. our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. my fellow americans, for our children and for our beloved country and i say this despite all that happened, the best is yet to come. >> a boxer fighting with his hand tied behind his back west and mark members of congress? rudy being rudy? these are the metaphorical, rhetorical usesof the word . we all know that, right? suddenly the word fight is
off-limits ? the hypocrisy and full indignation. it's a term used over and over and over again by politicians on both sides of the eye. and of course, the democrat house managers know that the word fight has been used figuratively in political speech forever. but don't take it from me. it's best to listen to them. >> our job is to plant. >> we are in a fight. >> democrats are fighting as hard as we can. >> democrats are standing up to fight. >> we know how to fight. we love a fistfight. >> democrats are going to fight like hell. >> i will quite like hell. >>fight like hell . >> fight like hell. >> will quite like hell. >> i know many of the senators and members of the
house will fight like hell. >> we were going to fight like hell. we're going to fight like hell. >> we just have to fight. >> going to point, we're going to fight. >> a political revolution, that means millions. >> i've got to stand up and fight. >> and fight and flight. >> stand and fight back. >> continue to fight andonce again, like back . >> fight and administration. >> you don't get what you don't fight for. >> we will fighting and challenging in every way we can. >> fight in the streets,in the congress, in the courts . >> there's the fight to defend. >> we going to take on this point. >> the american people are going to have to fight . >> it in this. >> around-the-clock fighting. >> we got to keep focused.
>> we will fight when we must plant. >> we need to fight but we also need to fight . >> this is going to be a font . >> we always must plant. >> in for the fight of our lives. >> the fight of our lives. >> we are in this fight for our lives. >> we cannot ever give up fighting. >> hypocrisy. the reality is mister trump was not in any way shape or form instructing these people to fight or to use physical violence. he was instructing them to do was to challenge their opponents in primary elections to push for sweeping election reforms, to hold big tech responsible. all customary and legal ways
to petition your government for redress of grievances which of course is also protected constitutional speech . but the house managers don't want you to focus on those things again, it does not fit your story. in the end, i leave you with this quote from benjamin franklin. freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government. when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved and tyranny is directed on its ruins. thank you.
>> mister president. >> themajority leader. >> i asked consent the senate recess for a 15 minute break . >> the senate impeachment trial of former president donald trump is recessing for as we heard 15 minutes but as we've seen over the last couple of days those breaks often last 20 or 30 minutes though the first break here after nearly 2 hours of the presentation by the former president attorneys, then heard mostly from michael verdeveen and david schoen, their allegations by due
process and also that it violates his first amendment protections and that speech is protected, his speech is protected by the first amendment. we expect to hear more on the issue of unifying the country or a failure in their view of this proceeding to unify the country. we will get 15 brick and watched as the senators lee and possibly any other comments and stop by for senators at the stake out positions along the ohio border. what comes next is the president attorneys, former president attorneys have a total of eight hours. there are indications they will only use three or four of those hours today and it's possible that the attorneys will wrap up today and that will mean that tomorrow the questioning of the both sides will come from senators. the jurors in this case in the impeachment trial,
centered will get a total of four hours to question those attorneys on both sides. the house managers and former president attorney and then they will also be able to donate possibly on calling witnesses or subpoenaing different additional documents and we expect after that though vote on impeachment where two thirds of the senate, 67 senators areneeded to agree on the article of impeachment . for that question and answer period it's already gotten underway that senators are filing their questions already . covid-19 we did this for the q and a period of the senate impeachment trial which could happen as soon as today says just because the senators will fill out to submit their questions in writing and politico said mitt romney has already submitted questions for the dwelling impeachment legal teams and passes the
senate president pro tem will ask those questions. let's look at one of the senators, center blumenthal coming to the statehouse. >> they draw a false, dangerous and distorted equivalent. and i think it is extremely a distraction from donald trump's inciting mama to washington knowing it was armed. changing the route and the timing so as to incite them to march on the capital and then reveling without remorse , without doing anything to protect his own vice president and all of us. i think that the case is even more powerful after this very distorted and false argument . >> what they are cleanly
doing is trying to draw a false and dangerous equivalents to distract from donald trump's inviting and then inciting mama and feeling his oath of office to protect the capital and everybody in it. >> again we will keep our eye out for more senators talking to reporters there in the senate subway. they're in a break, they noted five minutes ago expect a longer break and 15 minutes that's been said in the past. they usually 120 or 30 minutes or so area the impeachment effort fails in the u.s. senate a story here in the hill, due gop senators suggest opening number two gop senators suggest he's open to censoring trump. this is a hell article that
says senator john indicated today he could be open to censoring former president trump depending how the resolution was framed. ask about censoring trump, the indicated proposals are floating around noted it would quote, need to be effective. i know there are couple of resolutions out there and i've seen a couple of resolutions at least that i think would attract some support. he was saying the resolutions get support from him the added yeah, senator tim kane writes a draft that would also include language from the 14th amendment that he hopes could be used to bar mister trump future office. read all of that at the hill.com. waiting for the senate to come back in the next 10, 15 minutes or so from their first recess again the former president attorneys have started their case. defending the former president in the impeachment trial. our capitol hill reserve craig kaplan to this video former house member jensen, the arkansas governor now we serve guest house impeachment
manager in 1999. the central trial of president clinton, met at the white house today with president biden and other democratic governors on relief, the president took the dog for a walk on the white house lawn today. he also spoke to reporters saying he was anxious to see if republicans had in the impeachment trial, a to bear from the hill area is what the president had to say. >> we will see what my republican friends do. >> are not planning to speak with any of them? >> i am not. >> thank you so much. >> president biden from earlier today, the briefing underway on our companion network . the presidential briefing from jen, the president and first lady heading up to camp david in the maryland mountainslater today . from jonathan martin of the new york times reminding folks of the national guard presence still underneaththat senate chamber . >> ..
february 12 as the birthday of abraham lincoln saying i will be thinking about president lincoln today as i return to the senate floor for the fourth day of this second impeachment trial of donald trump. i will strive, as i do every day, to honor his legacy and representing the land of lincoln and that is from senator dick durbin. the senate in a break here, recess and we will wait until possibly we see more senators come to the stakeout position in the halls of congress and in the ohio clock corridor and along the senate subway there. this is from x euros and they are live reporting of the trial as it is underway. their defense team focuses on arguments and they say that the
president lawyer donald shown played a 13 minute video selectively edited montage and media personalities using the word fight and similar phrases during speeches and commentary arguing that it is a standard political rhetoric protected by the first amendment. democrats in the chamber could also be seen visibly laughing at the clips. he also reports in the arguments that we have just seen trump lawyer michael van der veen kicked off the presentation by arguing that quote, no thinking person could conclude that trump incited the insurrection on january 6 calling the impeachment a unconstitutional act of quote, political vengeance and a quote political witchhunt. let's take you in a moment and show you some of the arguments from earlier today or two of the presidents, former president's attorney michael van der veen and from david schoen.
>> the article of impeachment now before the senate is an unjust and blatantly unconstitutional act of political vengeance. this appalling abuse of the constitution only further divides our nation when we should be trying to come together around shared priorities. like every other politically motivated witchhunt the left has engaged in over the past four years, this impeachment is completely divorced from the facts, the evidence and the interests of the american people. the senate should promptly and decisively vote to reject it. >> host: michael van der veen one of the former presidents attorneys from just a short while ago. again, former presidents attorneys have begun their arguments in the first couple of hours of the total of eight although reports indicate that they may not use all of that
time. they are in the first break here and if past is president it will be longer than the 15 minute majority leader indicated and they started about at about 1:5. just a reminder, we will continue to carry live coverage here on c-span2. if you missed any of the coverage today or yesterday and you want to find yesterday's coverage or earlier this week that is at c-span .org / impeachment and you can also get the free c-span radio app and check it out live anytime in the c-span radio app and we are streaming this as well at c-span .org. as we wait for members to return or senators to return, we will show you more of the opening arguments. >> the supreme court ruled in brandenburg but there's a very clear standard for incitement. in short, to paraphrase, whether the speech was intended to broke imminent lawless action and wasn't likely to do so.
go to the capital and cheer on some members of congress but not others. they know it doesn't mean standard for incitement so they edited it down. we heard a lot this week about fight like hell but they cut off the video before they showed you the presidents optimistic, patriotic words that followed immediately after. >> we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell you will not have a country anymore. our exciting adventures and endeavors have not yet begun. my fellow americans, for our vote and for our children and for our beloved country and i say this despite all that is happened, the best is yet to come. [cheering and applause] >> there is that famous quote like one of the house managers said, a lie will track what havel halfway around the world
before the truth has a chance to put its shoes on. well, this lie traveled around the world a few times and made his way into the biden campaign talking points and ended up on the senate floor. the charlottesville lie. very fine people on both sides but that isn't all he said and they knew it then and they know it now. watch this. >> but you also have people that were very fine people, on both sides, good people in the group crowd, excuse me. i thought the same pictures as you did. you had people in that group that were there to protest and taking down them a very important statue and renaming for robert e lee to another name. george washington was a slave owner. was george washington a slave owner? so will george washington now lose his status? will be takedown -- excuse me, will be takedown statues to george washington?
how about thomas jefferson? what you think about him? good. are we going to take down the statute because he was a major slaveowner. are we going to take down his statutes? it's mine. you are changing history and you are changing culture and you had people and i'm not talking about the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally but you had many people in that group other than neo nazis and white nationalists. the press absolutely unfairly did not cover them. in the other group also you had fine people but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats and you had a lot of bad people in the other group. >> you said you've treated white nationally unfairly? >> i looked at that rally the night before and if you look there were people protesting
very quietly. they were protesting the taking down of the statue of robert e lee. i'm sure in that group there were bad was on the following day and look like they had some rough, bad people. neo nazis, white nationalists or whatever you call them but you had a lot of people in the group there were there to innocently protest and very legally protest because i don't know if you know but they had a permit. the other group did not have a permit. i only tell you this. there are two sides to the story and i thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country. a horrible moment. there are two sides to the story. does anyone have a final -- does anyone have a -- >> this might be today the first time the news networks play those full remarks and their content. how many times have you heard the president trump has never
denounced white supremacists? now you in america know the truth. the supreme court ruled in brandenburg that there is a very clear standard for incitement. in short, to paraphrase, whether the speech was intended to provoke imminent lawless action and was likely to do so. go to the capital and cheer on some members of congress but not others. they know it doesn't meet the standard for incitement so they edited it down. we heard a lot this week about fight like hell but they cut off the video before they showed you the presidents optimistic patriotic words that followed immediately after. >> we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell you will not have a country anymore. our exciting adventures and bold endeavors have not yet begun. my fellow americans, for our children and for our 11 country and i say this, despite all that
has happened, the best is yet to come. [cheering and applause] >> there is that famous quote like one of the house manager said, a lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its shoes on. well, this lie traveled around the world a few times made its way into the biden campaign talking points and ended up on the senate floor. the charlottesville lie. very fine people on both sides except that isn't all he said. they knew would then and they know it now. watch this. >> but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. you had people in that group, excuse me, excuse me. i saw the same pictures as you did. you had people in that group that were there to protest and the taking down for them a very, very important statue and renaming of a park from robert e
lee to another name. george washington was a slave owner up it was george washington a slave owner? will george washington now lose his status? are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we now going to takedown statues to george washington? how about thomas jefferson? what you think of thomas jefferson? do you like him? >> i do like him. >> good. he was a major slave owner. are we going to take down his statue? you know what, it's fine. you are changing history and changing culture and you had people and i'm not talking about the neo nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally but you had many people in that group other than neo nazis and white nationalists. okay? the process treated them absolutely unfairly. the other group also you had some fine people but you also had trouble makers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with
the baseball bats and you had a lot of bad people in the other group. >> you are saying the press treated white nationalists unfairly. >> no, and that rally and i looked the night before if you look there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of robert e lee. i am sure in the group there were some bad ones because the following day look like they had some rough, bad people, neo nazis, white nationalists or whatever you want to call them but you had a lot of people in the group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest because i don't know if you know but they had a permit and the other group did not have a permit. so, i only tell you this. there are two sides to a story and i thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country. horrible moments. but there are two sides to the
story. does anyone have a final -- does anyone have a final -- >> this might be the first time the news networks play those full remarks in their content. how many times have you heard the president trump has never denounced white supremacists? now you in america know the truth. >> this sham impeachment also poses a serious threat to freedom of speech for political leaders of both parties at every level of government. the senate should be extremely careful about the president, the president this case will set. consider the language that the house impeachment article alleges to constitute incitement. if you don't fight like hell you are not going to have a country anymore.
this is ordinary political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years. countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles. joe biden's campaign slogan was battle for the soul of america. no human being seriously believes that the use of such metaphorical terminology is inciting to political violence. not only is this impeachment case preposterously wrong on the facts, no matter how much heat and emotion is injected by the political opposition but it is also plainly unconstitutional. in effect, congress would be claiming that the right to disqualify a private citizen no longer a government official
from running for public office and this would transform the solemn impeachment process into a mechanism for asserting congressional control over which private citizens are and are not allowed to run for president. in short, this unprecedented effort is not about democrats opposing political violence but it is about democrats trying to disqualify their political opposition and it is constitutional cancel culture and history will record this shameful effort as a deliberate attempt by the democratic party to smear, censor and cancel not just president trump but the 75 million americans who voted for him and now is not the time
for such a campaign of retribution and it is the time for unity and healing and focusing on the interests of the nation as a whole. we should all be seeking to cool temperatures, calm passions, rise above partisan lines and the senate should reject this divisive and unconstitutional effort and allow the nation to move forward. >> house manager's position really is that when republican candidates for office claim election is stolen or that the winners are religion when it constitutes inciting an insurrection in the candidates should know it. but democratic party candidates for public elected office are perfectly entitled to claim election was stolen or that the winner is illegitimate or to make any other outrageous claim they can and it is their
absolute right to do so and it is their absolute right to do so irrespective of whether there is evidence to support the claim and democratic candidates complained that election was stolen because of russian collusion without any explanation at all and that is perfectly okay and is in no way incitement to an insurrection. and somehow when the democratic candidates publicly decry election as stolen or illegitimate it is never a big lie and you been doing it for years. >> the impeachment trial of former president donald trump still in a recess and we see the minority leader mitch mcconnell returning down the corridor so they're probably ready to get underway here shortly.
[background noises] >> during the break senators appearing on other networks talking with reporters, tweeting their reaction and a couple of reaction so far but this is senator ron johnson of wisconsin who treats this about what he has seen so far, the president's lawyers blue house managers case out of the water. legally eviscerated them. lindsay from roll call on senator kramer or kevin kramer of north dakota but not planning to convict trump but convince the child may effectively disqualify him from future office in the public eye. quote, there are simple support that will never leave but i think that is the shaking population and probably shrinks a little bit after this week. jake sherman of politico reaction from lisa murkowski of alaska. she says we seen a quote, much stronger presentation from
defense today and she says they've been quote, very organized and what they have presented and how they have done it and scott wong of the hill saying that senator bill cassidy wants the defense to clarify the timeline about whether president trump knew that vice president pence was in danger when he sent the tweet attacking the vice president. also some reaction, political reaction from the chief political correspondent for the washington examiner. his analysis of what he is seen so far and again we gone for about two hours of presentations from the former president's legal team and byron, you were tweeting this. the trump lawyers attack on house managers for manipulating video was amazing given the heavily edited videos that the trump team was about to play and also the calvary thing did not work. he says but the big picture and this was a total trump defense with a little law, a bunch of blunt force argument and a lot of, dare i say it, fight. reinforce senate republicans to
acquit and that is from brian york. they been in a break for about 25 minutes or so and as we wait some more of the arguments presented by the president's team. >> there are two fundamental questions for purposes of this free-speech analysis. first, does the first amendment to the constitution apply in this chamber to these impeachment proceedings? second, if it does, do the words spoken by mr. trump on january 6 meet the definition of constitutional incitement so as to avoid the protections afforded by the first amendment? i will explain why the answers to both of these questions must be a resounding yes. the constitution and the first amendment must certainly apply to these impeachment proceedings and mr. trump's speech deserves full protection under the first
amendment. before getting into the legal analysis with some preliminary observations about the house managers case should be made. first, this case unfortunately is about political hatred. it has become very clear that the house democrats hate donald trump. this type of political hatred has no place in our political institutions and certainly no place in the law. this hatred has led the house managers to manipulate and selectively edit mr. trump's speech to make it falsely appear that he sought to incite the crowd to violently attack the capital and he didn't and we will show you why. the hatred is has also led the
house managers to make some astounding legal arguments and they astoundingly urged to disregard your oath by ignoring the first amendment of the constitution and they also ignore landmark binding united states supreme court cases precedents would in bond. both of which unequivocally hold that elected officials have core, first amendment rights to engage in the exact type of political speech with mr. trump engaged in. >> i don't think it's applicable. >> clarification on the timeline of when trump's learned about mike pence's life was in danger and if he had any sense. do you think we will get verification and is that something you're interested in?
>> i doubt they will speak to that. it seems to me unavoidable and how good the president of the united states not know what was going on knowing that they were in the chamber and he notified them to certify and [inaudible] just watching it unfold live on cnn, how could the president of the united states not know? it's his job to know about security and he had just spoken to the mob. >> any thoughts about how you can win in 2022? >> thank you, senator. >> that was delaware senator chris coons heading back into the u.s. senate as they are still on break but should be gatling back in shortly to resume the impeachment trial of
former president donald trump. we wait as well for that presumption and we will continue showing some of the argument so far. >> they spent a mere ten minutes at the end of their case as a throw away but what we have read and what we have heard is devoid of any constitutional analysis for less than what i would expect from a first year law student. they left out landmark cases total intellectual dishonesty and finally, hatred is at the heart of the house managers frivolous attempts to blame donald trump for the criminal acts of the rioters based on double hearsay statements of fringed right-wing groups based on no real evidence other than rank speculation.
hatred is a dangerous thing. we all have to work to overcome it. hatred should have no place in this chamber in these proceedings. the second observation. the senate is presented with an extraordinary task sitting in judgment of a former president words in a speech that he gave at a political event. the house managers accuse mr. trump of using his words to incite the horrific events at the capitol on january 6 but yesterday they gave you a new and novel standard of incitement with an element of foreseeability, a negligence concept and they cite zero case law and made it up in this task of applying a completely made up
legal standard of incitement to an impeachment proceeding is truly an unprecedented task for the senate and that is something the senate must seriously consider when deciding the issue. do you want to create a precedent where the senate will be tasked with sitting in judgment as to the meaning and applied intent of a president's words? or words of any elected official? will that allow and maybe encourage a majority party to weaponized the awesome power of impeachment against the minority to suppress a point of view? will the senate then have to deal with constant articles of impeachment by a majority party accusing minority presidents or other elected officials of so-called insightful or false speeches? you can see where this would
lead and sadly we have all seen the political rhetoric get ratcheted up over the last few years and we've all been witnesses to many incendiary words by our officials at political events broadcast over the media internet and each of those instances will there now be sent impeachment hearings? one last observation. we agree with house managers context does indeed matter. the inflammatory rhetoric from our elected officials must be considered as part of the larger context of mr. trump's speech at the ellipse on january 6 and the inflammatory language from both sides of the aisle has been alarming frankly but this political discourse must be
considered as part of these proceedings to contextualize mr. trump's words. we have some video to play that highlights some of what i am talking about and i preface this video by noting i am not showing you this video as some excuse for mr. trump's speech. this is not about, this is not what about -ism and i am showing you this to make the point that all political speech must be protected. >> i just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. >> there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives. >> throw a punch. >> donald trump needs to go back and punch him in the face. >> i thought he should've punched him in the face. >> it would be like punching him. >> i would like to take him behind the gym if i was in high school. >> if i was in high school i
would take in behind the gym and beat the hell out of him. >> i will go and take trump out tonight. >> take him out now. >> when was the last time we needed to assassinate a president? >> who said protesters were supposed to be polite and peaceful? >> tell them they are not welcome anymore or anywhere. >> i have thought an awful lot about blowing up the white house. please, get up in the face of congress people. >> people will do what they do. >> i want to tell you kavanaugh that you have released a whirlwind and you will pay. >> we will go in there and [bleep] >> this is just a warning to you trump people. be careful walk lightly and for those of you who are soldiers,
make them pay. >> if you're stuck in an elevator with president trump, mike pence or cap sessions who would it be? [laughter] >> again i did not show you their robust speech to excuse or balance out the speech of my client or i mean not but i showed you the video because in this political forum all robust speech should be protected and it should be protected evenly for all of us and is a brief aside we should all reflect and acknowledge the rhetoric has gotten to be too much and over the top and it is grading on the collective well-being of the body public and the citizens.
most would like it to stop but the point is when you see speech, such as this, you have to apply the first amendment evenly. blindly. she is blind, lady justice. question one. does the first amendment apply to this chamber in these proceedings? the house managers position as stated in their trial brief is and i quote, the first amendment does not apply at all to an impeachment proceeding and that is their position. this is plainly wrong. the text of the first amendment expressly restricts congressman from regulating speech and it says congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. to ignore the constitution would be contrary to the oath of office of a united states senator and i do solemnly swear or affirm that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic that i will bear to faith and allegiance to the same and you all know the rest.
no, the senate cannot ignore the first amendment. the constitution itself limits the ability of the house to impeach to limited items such as high crimes and misdemeanors. the position advanced by the house managers is essentially an unlimited impeachment standard without constitutional guardrails, on board to any specific legal test other than the unbridled, discretion of congress. this is distinctly not the intent of the framers. the framers were aware of the danger of any impeachment process that would make the president the mere creature of the legislator, a quote directly from the framers while debating the impeachment process on the floor of the constitutional convention of 1787.
the framers were fearful that any impeachment process that gave congress full discretion on the standard for impeachment would constitute nothing less then a violation quote, a violation of the fundamental principle of good government. one founding father, james wilson, wrote extensively on the impeachment process. mr. wilson was a renowned legal scholar at the time, a law professor at the university of pennsylvania in philadelphia. he was a major force in drafting and adopting the constitution in 1787. >> senators will take their seats.