Skip to main content

tv
Trump
Archive
  Impeachment Trial of Former President Trump  CSPAN  February 13, 2021 10:00am-2:01pm EST

10:00 am
president will present closing arguments with each site having up to two hours and senators will vote to convict or acquit the former president for inciting that insurrection on the us capital on january -- the us capitol on january 6th. live coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2.
10:01 am
the president pro tempore: the senate will convene as a court senate will convene as a court the senate will convene in impeachment barry black will lead us in prayer. order in the chapel he does. >> let us pray. lord our god, this chamber reverberated to expanding standing ovation of courage, officer eugene and funding
10:02 am
building. may our legislative jurors strive to emulate his courage in theirti defense of the united states constitution. lord, touch and move them to believe that the end does not justify the means. help them to remember that he and his parents and built in to the means. fill our senators with the spirit that combines common sense with commitment, and courage. we pray in your merciful name, amen.
10:03 am
>> please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america which the public one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> senators, please be seated. if there is no objection, the proceedings of the trial are approved today and ask the sgt. arms to make a proclamation. >> hear ye, hear ye, hear ye.
10:04 am
all persons are commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment filed the senate of the united states is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against donald john trump, former president of the united states. >> pursuant to the provision senate resolution 47, the senate is provided up to two hours of argument by the parties equally divided on the question of whether or not it shall be in order to consider and debate under impeachment rules, any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. our both parties ready to proceed? >> they are ready. >> they mayma proceed.
10:05 am
>> thank you, mr. president. good morning, senators. over the last several days, we've presented overwhelming evidence that establishes the charges and articles of impeachment, we show you how president trump created a match and continued incitement even as he failed to defend us from the ensuing violence. we've provided images, videos, affidavits, documents, tweets and other evidence leaving no doubt the senate should convict. we believe we've proven our case. last night congresswoman jamie butler of washington state issued a statement confirming in the middle of the insurrection, when house minority leader kevin mccarthy called the president tq beg for help, president trump responded, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election and you are. needless to say, this is an
10:06 am
additional critical piece of cooperating evidence for me confirming the evidence before you as well as willful duty and possession of duty as commander in chief of the united states. his further incitement of the insurrection january 6. for that reason, because this is the proper time to do so under the resolution of the senate adopted, the rules for the trial, we'd like the opportunity to subpoena congresswoman herrera regarding her communications with house minority leader kevin mccarthy and subpoena her contemporary notes that she made regarding what president trump told kevin mccarthy in the middle of the insurrection be prepared to proceed by assume of an hour or less.
10:07 am
congresswoman herrera butler is available and then proceed to the next phase of the trial including the introduction of that testimony shortly thereafter. congresswoman butler further stated she helps other witnesses to this part of the story, other patriots would come forward. if that happens,ha we seek opportunity to take the depositions via zoom for less than an hour or subpoena other relevant documents as well. >> thank you. senators, good morning good morning tood the american peopl. first thing i want to say on the issue of witnesses is that the house manager just got appear and describe the articles of impeachment and the charges. there is no plural here. that's wrong. there's one article of impeachment and there's one charge. that's incitement violence and
10:08 am
insurrection. what you will need to know and the american people need to know, as of late yesterday afternoon, there was a stipulation going around that there weren't going to be any witnesses. after what happened here in this chamber yesterday, the house managersve realize they did not investigate this case before bringing the impeachment, they did not give proper consideration and work, they didn't put the work in that was necessary to impeach the former president. but, if they want to have witnesses, i'm going to need at least over 100 depositions, not just one. the real issue is incitement. they put into the case, over 100 witnesses, people who have been
10:09 am
charged with crimes by the federal government and each one of those, they said that mr. trump was a co-conspirator with. that is not true. i have theth right to defend th. the only thing that i ask, if you vote for witnesses, do not handcuff me by limiting the number of witnesses i can have. i need to do a thorough investigation that they did not do. i need to do the 911 style investigation that nancy pelosi called for. it should have been done already. it's a dereliction of the house managers duty that they didn't.
10:10 am
now at the last minute after stipulation had apparently been worked out, they want to go back on that. i think that is inappropriate and improper. we should close this case out today. we have each prepared closing arguments. we have had days to get ready for this but we each have eight days equally together to prepare ourselves. the house managers need to live with the case they brought. if they don't, please in all fairness in all due process, do not limit my ability to discover, discover the truth. that would be another sham
10:11 am
president's position. mr. raskin. >> thank you, mr. president. first ofis all, this is the pror time aside to talk about witnesses, this is within the course of the rules, there's nothing remotely unusual about this. i think we have done exceedingly little job with all the evidence available last night, this was breaking news and responded directly to a question being raised by the president's defense counsel saying we had not sufficiently proven, although we have proven to satisfaction of the american people certainly at the president, after the breach and invasion took place, was not
10:12 am
working on the side of defending the capital but rather continuing to pursue political goals and the information that came out last night by congresswoman butler, apparently backed up by contemporaneous notes she had taken. it will put to rest any lingering doubts raised by the council who says he o wants to interview hundreds of people, there's only one person the president's counsel you to interview beth their own clients. c forward as suggested last week because a lot of this matters in his head, why did he not act to defend the country after w he learned of the attac? why was he continuing to press the political case? this evidence is relevant to that. >> finally, i was a little mystified by the articles of impeachment, which i referred to, theth dereliction of duty,
10:13 am
desertion of duty is built into incitement charges. if the president is out i inside violence insurrection, he's obviously not doing his job at the same time. just like a police officer bugging you, he's guilty of theft and armed robbery, whatever it might be but he's not doing his job as a police officer so as for the evidence of his intent and conduct. >> if i may. first of all, it's my understanding, it's been reported that mr. mccarthy disclaims rumors that have been the basis of this morning's antics but really the rumors that have been the basis of this entire proceeding. this entire proceeding is based on rumor, report innuendo. there's nothing to it and they
10:14 am
didn't do their work. just like what happened with mr. lee two or three nights ago, suppose a conversation that happened and had to withdraw that, they had to back off that because it was false. a false narrative. but it is one article of impeachment. yes, they through a lot of stuff in violation of rule 23. rule 23 says you cannot combine counts. it is a defect in the entire case, one of the four reasons why you can go to acquit in this case. jurisdiction, rule 23, due process and first amendment. they all apply in this case. let me take my own advice and called the temperature in the room a little bit.
10:15 am
it's about the incitement, it's not about what happened "afterwards". that is the irrelevant stuff. that's the irrelevant stuff. not the things said from the election to january 6, it is not relevant legal analysis of the issues before this body. it doesn't matter what happens after the surgeons into the capital building because that doesn't have to do with incitement.do incitement is the time, folks. it's a time when the words are spoken and the words say implicitly say, explicitly say commit acts of violence or lawlessness.
10:16 am
we don't have that here. for the house managers towe saye might need depositions about things that happened after, it is not true but, but if he does, depositions need to happen. nancy pelosi's deposition needs to be taken. vice president harris is deposition absolutely needs to be taken. not by zoom one of these depositions should be done by zoom. we didn't do this hearing by zoom. these depositions should be done in person, in my office, in philadelphia. that's where they should be .done. [laughter] i don't know how many civil lawyers are here with that is the way it works.
10:17 am
when you want somebody's deposition, you sent a notice of deposition and they appear at the place where the notice says. that's civil process. i don't know why you're laughing, it's civil process. that's the way lawyers do it. we send notices of deposition. >> i would remind everybody, wes will have order in the chamber during these proceedings. >> i haven't laughed at any of you and there's nothing laughable here. you mentioned my client coming in and testifying, that is not the way it g is done. if you have should have put the subpoena down. i'll slap subpoenas on a good number of people if witnesses are what are required get their
10:18 am
case back in order. which is failed miserably for four reasons, there is no jurisdiction here. there is no due process here, to have completely violated and ignored on the constitution, they have trampled on it that people have no respect for its. if this is about nothing else, it has to be about the respect of our country, our constitution and all the people that make it up. i asked when voting on this witness matter, and to be clear, this may be the time to do it but again, everybody needs to know, not so much into it all, the depth at it neither.
10:19 am
but there was a stipulation, they felt pretty good after day two until the case was tested on day three. now is the time to end this, now is the time to hear closing arguments. now is the time to vote your conscience. thank you. >> mr. raskin. >> we were involved in the discussions about the stipulation and i have no further comment. thank you.nt >> position on that.
10:20 am
>> i would remind everybody, as chief justice roberts noted january 21, 2020, the trial in 1905, all parties of the chamber must refrain from using language not consumed conducive to civil discourse. i visited chief justice roberts say that, i agreed with him and i thought for our colleagues i would repeat it as i did last night.
10:21 am
so the question we have before us, in order to consider debate under the rules of impeachment, motion to subpoena witnesses and documents. yeas and nays have been made, is there a sufficient second? it appears to be there is. will call the role. >> ms. baldwin. [roll call vote] [roll call]
10:22 am
[roll call] [roll call]
10:23 am
[roll call] mr. haggerty. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. looper. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll callvote]
10:24 am
[roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote]
10:25 am
[roll call vote] [roll call vote]
10:26 am
[roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote]
10:27 am
notable conversations. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
10:28 am
senators voting in the affirmative. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote]
10:29 am
senators voting in the negative. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> mr. president. i'd like to change my vote.
10:30 am
>> mr. graham. mr. graham. i. >> mr. president. >> mr. sullivan. >> just an inquiry, there's a little confusion, was that a vote on one witness? >> debate is not allowed during the vote. >> it's an inquiry on what we voted on. >> i advised that is not allowed during the vote. >> immediately beforehand -- [inaudible conversations]
10:31 am
[inaudible] >> debate not allowed during the vote as established senate procedure. [inaudible]
10:32 am
[inaudible] [inaudible]
10:33 am
[inaudible] >> i know. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
10:34 am
>> on the question of whether shelby in order to consider debate under impeachment in a motion to consider subpoenas or document, a book of 55 to 45. majority leader. >> i suggest the absence of quorum. >> clerk will call the role. [roll call vote] [roll call vote]
10:35 am
>> the senate is in a quorum call. you heard the majority leader say a vote of 55 to 45, call witnesses in a senate impeachment trial. we came in today by all recording that they would go to closing arguments and then there would be a final folks. after last night reporting by cnn jamie dangle the phone call between minority leader kevin mccarthy and the president, her statements by congresswoman herrera butler now put the proceedings of in the air as they have approved witnesses. you may have heard five republicans vote for calling witnesses including senators romney, collins, perkowski and
10:36 am
sask. lindsey graham at the end changing his vote to yes. he said in a tweet this morning before 10:00, if you want to delay, it will be a long one with many witnesses.
10:37 am
[inaudible] [inaudible]
10:38 am
[inaudible] [inaudible]
10:39 am
[inaudible] [inaudible]
10:40 am
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
10:41 am
[inaudible] [inaudible]
10:42 am
[inaudible] [inaudible]
10:43 am
[inaudible] [inaudible] >> u.s. senate in a quorum call right now after the senators
10:44 am
just approved on a vote of 55 to 45 to call witnesses in this trial. this is a turn of events after you have seen reported late last night. whether or not how many witnesses they can call up is a question put forth by one of the senators you heard at the end of that boat. what did we vote on? did we vote on one witness or more than that? sherman reports that the senate procedure is as follows, once when is his past, there will be a separate resolution on who to subpoena. that section 7b of the resolution governing this trial. continue to watch live coverage fear on c-span2. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
10:45 am
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
10:46 am
[inaudible] [inaudible]
10:47 am
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
10:48 am
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
10:49 am
[inaudible] [inaudible]
10:50 am
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
10:51 am
[inaudible]
10:52 am
[silence] >> again, the u.s. senate in a holding pattern. senator patrick leahy is in his seat. jamie raskin is also in his seat was unclear what is happening behind the scenes the senators voted 55-45 to call witnesses in his trial. dick sherman is reporting republican senators cornyn, then and portman are in his office. senate procedure is as follows, once witnesses pass, there will be a separate resolution on who can subpoena etc.. this is section 17 of the resolution governing this trial. the key question, you heard
10:53 am
from a senator at the end of this vote is how many witnesses will be called. we will continue to watch on c-span2.
10:54 am
[silence] >> once again the senate is in a courtroom call. that means there are negotiations, discussions happening behind the scenes as we wait to see what happens next. the senate voted 55-45 to call witnesses. paul kane at the washington post says re-upping this with a protocol witnesses. the likely path now would be to form a special trial committee of a small subset of senators to handle depositions any legal
10:55 am
challenges while the senate goes about the rest of its business. waiting to see what happens next, live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
10:56 am
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> while we wait for the senate
10:57 am
to come out of this quorum call we want to show you why they are in it in the first place. this morning, the house impeachment managers decided to call witnesses. we want to show you that the bay, how it all happened on c-span2 while they continue to wait in the quorum call for what happens next. >> over the last several days we presented overwhelming evidence that establishes the charges in the articles of impeachment, shown you how donald trump created a powder cake, lit a match and continued incitement even as he failed to defend us from ensuing violence. we see provided images, affidavits, leaving no doubt the senate should convict, we've proven our case. last night congresswoman jamie butler of washington state issued a statement confirming that in the middle of the
10:58 am
insurrection when house minority leader kevin mccarthy called the president to beg for help, president trump responded, quote, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election then you are. needless to say this is an additional critical piece of corroborating evidence further confirming charges before you as well as the president's willful dereliction of duty and desertion of duty as commander-in-chief of the united states, his state of mind further incitement of the insurrection on january 6th. for that reason and because this is the proper time to do so under resolution the senate adopted to set rules for the trial we would like the opportunity to subpoena congresswoman guerrera regarding her communications with kevin mccarthy and
10:59 am
subpoena contemporaneous notes regarding what president trump told kevin mccarthy in the middle of the insurrection. we will proceed by zoom deposition of an hour or less just as soon as congresswoman butler is there, including the introduction of that testimony shortly thereafter. congresswoman butler states she hopes other witnesses to this part of the story, other patriots would come forward and if that happens we would seek the opportunity to take their depositions via zoom for less than an hour or subpoena other documents as well. castor: good morning and good morning to the american people. the first thing i want to say on the issue of witnesses is the house manager just got up
11:00 am
here and described the articles of impeachment and the charges. there is no plural here. that is wrong. there is one article of impeachment and one charge and that is incitement of violence and insurrection. what you need to know in the american people need to know is late yesterday afternoon there was a stipulation going around that there weren't going to be any witnesses, but after what happened in his chamber yesterday the house managers realized they did not investigate this case before bringing the impeachment, they did not give the proper consideration and work, just put the work in that was necessary to impeach the former president.
11:01 am
but if they want to have witnesses, i am going to need at least over 100 depositions, not just one. the real issue is incitement. they put into their case over 100 witnesses, people who have been charged with crimes by the federal government and each one of those, they said mister trump was a co-conspirator with. that is not true. i have a right to defend that. if you vote for witnesses do not handcuff me by limiting the number of witnesses i can have. i need to do a thorough investigation that they did not do.
11:02 am
i need to do the 9/11 style investigation that nancy pelosi called for. should have been done already. it is a dereliction of house managers duty that they didn't and now at the last minute after a stipulation had been worked out they want to go back on that. i think that is inappropriate and improper. we should close this case out today. we have each prepared closing arguments, we had eight days to get ready for this thing but we each had those eight days equally together to prepare ourselves. the house managers need to live with the case they brought. but if they don't, please, in
11:03 am
all fairness and in all due process, do not limit my ability to discover, discover, discover the truth. that would be another sham and that is the president's position, my position. senator leahy: mister raskin. senator raskin: first of all, this is the proper time to talk about witnesses. this is completely within the course of the rules set forth by the senate. there is nothing remotely unusual about this. i think we have done an exceedingly thorough and comprehensive job at all the evidence available.
11:04 am
last night this was breaking news and it responded directly to a question raised by the president's defense counsel saying we had not sufficiently proven to their satisfaction although we have proven to the satisfaction of the american people certainly that the president, after the breach and invasion the took place was not working on the side of defending the capital but to pursue his political goals and the information that came out by congressman -- congresswoman butler backup by contemporaneous notes she had taken will put to rest any lingering doubts raised by the president's counsel who says he wants to interview hundreds of people. there's only one person the president's council needs to interview and that is their own client. bring him forward as we suggested last week because a lot of this, matters that are in his head, why did he not defend the country after he
11:05 am
learned of the attack. why was he continuing to press the political case? this piece of evidence is relevant to that. finally, i was a little mystified by the point about the articles of impeachment which i referred to. the dereliction of duty, desertion of duty is built into the incitement charge. of the president of the united states is citing and violent insurrection, that is not doing his job at the same time, if a police officer, he is guilty of theft. and not doing his job as a police officer so that is further evidence of his intense and his conduct. >> it is my understanding,
11:06 am
reported that that mister mccarthy disclaims rumors, and those who have been the basis of the entire proceeding. this entire proceeding is based on rumor, report, innuendo, they didn't do their work. just like what happened with mister lee, two or three nights ago, suppose a conversation that happened and they had to withdraw that, back off of that because it was a false narrative but it is one article of impeachment. they through a lot of stuff in it in violation of rule 23. rule 23 says you cannot combine count. it is a defect in their entire case. a reason to vote to acquit in this case, jurisdiction, rule
11:07 am
23, due process, the first amendment. they all apply in this case. let me take my own advice and cool the temperature in the room a little bit. and what happened "after words," that is the irrelevant stuff. that is the irrelevant stuff. it is not the things that were said from the election to january 6th. it is not relevant, it is legal analysis of the issues that are before the body. it doesn't matter what happened after the insurgents into the capital building. that doesn't have to do with incitement.
11:08 am
incitement, it is a point in time, folks. it is a point in time when the words are spoken in the words say implicitly say, explicitly say, commit acts of violence or lawlessness and we don't have that here. so for the house managers to say we may need depositions about things that happened after, is just not true. but if he does, there are a lot of depositions that happen, nancy pelosi's deposition needs to be taken, vice president harris's deposition absolutely needs to be taken and not by zoom. none of these depositions should be done by june -- zoom. we didn't hear this hearing by
11:09 am
zoom. these depositions should be done in person, in my office in philadelphia. that is where they should be done. [laughter] van der veen: i don't know how many civil lawyers there are here, when we want somebody's deposition to send a notice of deposition and they appear where the notice said, that is simple process. i don't know why you are laughing. it is civil process. that is the way lawyers do it. we send notices of deposition. >> i would remind everybody we will have order in the chamber. in these proceedings. van der veen: i haven't lasted any of you and there is nothing
11:10 am
laughable here. he mentioned my client coming in to testify. that's not the way it is done. if you wanted to talk to donald trump he should have put a subpoena down, like i will slap subpoenas on a good number of people if witnesses are required here for them to get their case back in order which has failed miserably for four reasons, there is no jurisdiction here. there has been no due process. they have completely violated and ignored and stepped on the constitution of the united states. they have traveled on it, like people who have no respect for it. if this is about nothing else it has to be about the respect of the country, our constitution and all of the people who make it up.
11:11 am
so i ask, when considering or voting on this with this matter and to be clear, this may be the time to do it. everybody needs to know, the back room politics. i'm not too adept at it, but there was a stipulation, they felt pretty comfortable after day 2 so their case was tested on day 3. now is the time to end this, to hear the closing arguments, now is the time to vote your conscience. thank you.
11:12 am
senator leahy: mister raskin? senator raskin: we were involved in the discussions about the stipulation and i have no further comment. senator leahy: - position on that. i would remind everybody as chief justice roberts noted on january 21st, 2020, citing the trial of charles swain, 1905, all parties of this chamber must refrain from using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. i listened to chief justice roberts say that. i agreed with him and i would repeat it as i did last night.
11:13 am
so the question we have before us is if it is in order to consider and debates under rules of impeachment a motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. the yeas and nays has been made, the clerk will call the roll. [rollcall >> debate earlier this morning whether to call witnesses. after that concluded a vote was taken and five republicans joined 50 democrats to approve
11:14 am
witnesses on a vote of 55-45. happening on the senate floor a lot of discussions in the well and behind-the-scenes as well. the senate is in a quorum call. the vote to approve witnesses has put these proceedings in limbo. there are lots of uncertainty on the floor, pockets of senators talking about what is next, joe manchin was on the senate floor and went to talk to one of the impeachment managers, senators were seen maskless, you can see the discussions happening on the senate floor, the minority leader mitch mcconnell talking to senators. we will sit and watch as we wait to see what happens next.
11:15 am
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
11:16 am
>> we are watching the senate call. as negotiations are underway to what happened next after witnesses have been approved for the senate impeachment trial against former president donald trump. when this vote took place, donna was inside the chamber, ron johnson, republican of wisconsin, turns to mitt romney and was upset with him, pointing at him, johnson was visibly upset.
11:17 am
mitt romney was one of five republican senators who voted to approve witnesses. happening on the senate floor, you see the minority leader at the bottom of the screen talking to republican senators as they wait to see what happens next. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
11:18 am
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
11:19 am
>> minority leader mitch mcconnell has left the floor in conversation with senators. negotiations happening behind-the-scenes as what happened next after witnesses have been called in this impeachment trial. johnson touchey reports those close to donald trump are floored by what happened,
11:20 am
quote, stunned, stupefied, digesting this, are the words that he and others are hearing from sources close to the president. we want to bring you back to the moment this morning when the senate resumed this impeachment trial in the house impeachment managers led by jamie raskin called for witnesses. senator raskin: over the last several days we presented overwhelming evidence that establishes the charges in the articles of impeachment, we have shown you how president trump created a powder k, lit a match and continued this incitement even as he failed to defend us from the ensuing violence. we supported our position with images, videos, affidavits, tweets and other evidence, leaving no doubt that the senate should convict. we believe we have proven our case but last night, congresswoman jamie herrera butler issued a statement confirming that in the middle
11:21 am
of the insurrection when house minority leader kevin mccarthy called the president to beg for help, president trump responded, quote, well, kevin, i just these people are more upset about the election than you are. needless to say, this is an additional critical piece of corroborating evidence further confirming the charges before you as well as the president's willful dereliction of duty and desertion of duty as commander in chief of the united states, his state of mind and further incitement of the insurrection on january 6th. for that reason, this is the proper time to do so under the resolution the senate adopted. we would like the opportunity to subpoena congresswoman jamie herrera butler about her relations with kevin mccarthy and to subpoena her
11:22 am
contemporaneous notes regarding what president trump told kevin mccarthy in the middle of the insurrection. we will be prepared to proceed by zoom deposition by an hour or less as soon as congresswoman jamie herrera butler is available for the next phase of the trial including the introduction of that testimony shortly thereafter. congresswoman butler stated she hopes other witnesses to this part of the story, other patriots, as she put it, would come forward and if that happens we would seek the opportunity to take their depositions via zoom or subpoena other documents as well. castor: good morning and good morning to the american people. the first thing i want to say
11:23 am
on the issue of witnesses is that the house manager just got up here and described the articles of impeachment and the charges. there is no plural here, that is wrong. there is one article of impeachment and there is one charge and that is incitement of violence and insurrection. what you all need to know in the american people need to know is as of late yesterday afternoon there was a stipulation going around that there weren't going to be any witnesses, but after what happened in this chamber yesterday the house managers realized they didn't investigate this case before bringing the impeachment, they did not give the proper consideration and work, they didn't put the work in that was necessary to impeach the former president.
11:24 am
but if they want to have witnesses, i am going to need at least over 100 depositions, not just one. the real issue is incitement. they put into their case over 100 witnesses, people who have been charged with crimes by the federal government, and each one of those, they said mister trump was a co-conspirator with. that's not true. but i have a right to defend that. the only thing i ask, if you vote for witnesses, do not handcuff me by limiting the number of witnesses that i can have. i need to do a thorough investigation that they did not do. i need to do the 9/11 style
11:25 am
investigation that nancy pelosi called for. it should have been done already. it is a dereliction of the house manager's duty that they didn't. now, at the last minute, after a stipulation had apparently been worked out, they want to go back on that. i think that is inappropriate and improper. we should close this case out today. we have each prepared closing arguments, we each had eight days to get ready for this thing, we each had those eight days equally together to prepare ourselves and the house managers need to live with the case they brought. but if they don't, please, in
11:26 am
all fairness and in all due process, do not limit my ability to discover, discover, discover the truth. that would be another sham, and that is the president's position, my position. senator leahy: mister raskin. senator raskin: thank you, mister president. first of all, this is the proper time to talk about witnesses. this is completely within the course of the rules set forth by the senate. there is nothing remotely unusual about this. i think we have done an exceedingly thorough and competent of job with all the
11:27 am
evidence available. last night this was breaking news and it responded directly to a question that was being raised by the president's defense counsel saying we had not sufficiently proven to their satisfaction, although we have proven to the satisfaction of the american people certainly, that the president, after the breach and invasion took place, was not working on the side of defending the capital -- capitol but his political goal and the information that came out last night by congresswoman butler, backed up by contemporaneous notes she had taken will put to rest lingering doubts by the president's counsel who now says he wants to interview hundreds of people. there is only one person the president's council really needs to interview and that is their own client. and bring him forward as we suggested last week because a lot of this is matters that were in his head. why did he not act to defend the country after he learned of
11:28 am
the attack. why was he continuing to press the political case but this piece of evidence is relevant to that. finally, i was a little mystified by the point about the articles of impeachment which i referred to. the dereliction of duty, desertion of duty is built into the incitement charge obviously. if the president of the united states is inciting a violent insurrection he is not doing his job at the same time, just like if a police officer is mugging you, he is guilty of theft and armed robbery or whatever it might be but he's also not doing his job as a police officer so it is further evidence of his intent and conduct. >> counsel? van der veen: it is reported
11:29 am
that mister mccarthy disclaims the rumors that have been the basis of this morning's antics but the rumors that have been the basis of this entire proceeding. this entire proceeding is based on rumor, report, innuendo. there is nothing to it and they didn't do their work. just like what happened with mister lee two or three nights ago, suppose it conversation that happened, they had to withdraw that, back off because it was false. it was a false narrative but it is one article of impeachment. they through a lot in it, rule 23 says you will not combine counts. it is a defect in their entire case. it is one of the four reasons you can vote to acquit in this case, jurisdiction, rule 23,
11:30 am
due process, the first amendment, they all apply in this case. let me take my own advice and cool the temperature in the room a little bit. it is about the incitement. it is not about what happened "after words". that is irrelevant stuff. from the election to january 6th, it is not relevant but a legal analysis of the issues before this body. it doesn't matter what happened after the insurgents into the capital building because that doesn't have to do with incitement. incitement is a point in time,
11:31 am
folks. it is a point in time when the words are spoken in the words say implicitly say, explicitly say, acts of violence or lawlessness and we don't have that here. so for the house managers to say we need depositions about things that happened after it is just not true, but, but if he does, there are a lot of depositions that need to happen. nancy pelosi's deposition needs to be taken. vice president harris's deposition absolutely needs to be taken and not by zoom. none of these depositions should be done by zoom. we didn't do this hearing by zoom.
11:32 am
these depositions should be done in person in my office in philadelphia. that is where they should be done. [laughter] van der veen: i don't know how many civil lawyers are here but that is the way it is. when you want somebody's deposition you send a notice of deposition and they appear at the place where the notice is sent. that is civil process. i don't know why you're laughing. it is civil process. that is the way lawyers do it. we send notices of deposition. senator leahy: i would remind everybody that we will have order. in the chamber. in these proceedings.
11:33 am
van der veen: i haven't laughed at any of you and there is nothing laughable here. he mentioned my client coming in to testify. that is not the way it is done. if you want to talk to donald trump, he should have put a subpoena down like i will slap subpoenas on a good number of people if witnesses are what is required here for them to try to get their case back in order which has failed miserably for four reasons. there is no jurisdiction here. there has been no due process here, they have completely violated and ignored and stepped on the constitution of the united states. they have trampled on it like people who have no respect for it and if this is about nothing else, it has to be about the respect of our country, the constitution and all of the people who make it up.
11:34 am
so i ask, considering or voting on this witness matter, and to be clear, this may be the time to do it. everybody needs to know, backroom politics, i am not too adept at it. but there was a stipulation. they felt pretty comfortable after day 2 until the case was tested on day 3. now is the time to end this. now is the time to hear the closing arguments, now is the time to vote your conscience. thank you. senator leahy: mister raskin? senator raskin: we were not
11:35 am
involved in discussions about stipulation and i have no comments, thank you. senator leahy: what is your position on that? i would remind, i would remind everybody, as chief justice roberts noted on january 21st, 2020, citing the trial of charles swain in 1905, all parties in this chamber must refrain from using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. i listen to chief justice roberts say that. i agree with him and to our colleagues i would repeat it as i did last night.
11:36 am
the question before us is whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the rules of impeachment and emotion to subpoena witnesses or documents. the yeas and nays has been made. is there sufficient second? it appears to be, there is. the clerk will call the roll. >> the presiding officer, senator patrick leahy calling for a vote on the question of whether or not to call witnesses. right now negotiations are happening.
11:37 am
look like on the floor, behind the scenes, what the senate does next. while we wait for the senate majority leader chuck schumer to come to the 4 and tell us what happens next we want to get your thoughts. should there be witnesses? who should be questions. republicans 202-748-8921, democrats 202-748-8920, all of this 202-748-8922. join us on twitter unseasonable go to facebook.com/c-span and post your comments there. we will go to bob in new hampshire. good morning. do you think witnesses should be called? >> caller: i don't. i think they should not be called. i don't think the house did their job, in a 2-hour debate, an hour for each side, no witnesses, no due process or anything like that.
11:38 am
i don't think they did their job and i only think the house wants witnesses now, which is the hearsay witness to be honest, they didn't do their job, they were losing and they want to change the rules once again, typically, is what they always do. it is unconstitutional in my eyes. >> host: what is hearsay witness? by what witness would it be hearsay? >> caller: i was under the impression it was from a report from cnn, the witness of a conversation that was had with senator mccarthy but through another person. >> host: let me explain it to you and others. cnn reported yesterday right after the senate gambled out for the day the story broke by
11:39 am
cnn that not just one republican but other sources, the republican lawmakers who heard from minority leader kevin mccarthy about phone conversations he had with president trump the day of the attack while the attack was happening. trump -- from cnn's reporting, from these lawmakers who heard from the minority leader about his phone conversation, quote, he told them the president said to him, quote, i guess these people are more upset about the elections then you are according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call "after words" by kevin mccarthy. this information according to congresswoman jamie herrera butler who is on the record saying she heard about this phone conversation is not new. she put out a statement last night saying since i publicly announced my decision to vote for impeachment i've heard these details and comes
11:40 am
conversations with constituents, colleagues and multiple times through the media and other public forums. i told this to the daily news on january 17th she said. i shared with local republican executives or members as well as other constituents who ask me to explain my vote, one of 10 house republicans who voted to impeach. i shouted it to thousands of residents on my telephone townhall on february 8th. the last part of the statement, she says this. the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening or even the former vice president, if you have something to add here, now would be the time. after hearing that, what do you think? >> caller: it should have been brought up before the closing of the trial yesterday. it should have been brought up before. i honestly think the house felt they were losing so they are grabbing for straws.
11:41 am
i think it is unconstitutional. it is hearsay. it is not from -- i think it is wrong. a lot of things that are going on are unconstitutional regarding the way laws were changed in certain states unconstitutionally and for the reports from news outlets saying there was no fraud, in my opinion i know there was fraud, you can shrink in windham, new hampshire, salem, new hampshire, they have done recounts and the votes were taken away from trump and given to biden. >> host: what about calling kevin mccarthy, if this is hearsay, what about calling the minority leader himself to talk about that phone conversation? >> caller: that is probably a good idea but had they done that before, had they known about it before they should have done their homework, they didn't do their homework. >> host: joshua in camp hill,
11:42 am
pennsylvania. what do you think? >> caller: all the question about who said this and whether to believe that happened or this person knew this at this time, just call the witnesses, put them under oath. this was too big an event in our country. if one side is right and the other side is wrong, it has huge implications either way and it feels iffy to not want to call witnesses. at the very least we need to look into what jamie herrera butler put a statement out about. really we should hear from house minority leader mccarthy at the bare minimum. ideally, honestly, if you ask
11:43 am
me, i think mike pence, i think donald trump -- >> host: let's go to the floor. senator leahy: majority leader. senator schumer:i asked if the she the quorum call. as i understand it there are discussions underway, i ask unanimous consent to recess until 12:30 p.m.. jamie herrera butler is their objection? hearing on we stand in recess until 12:30. [inaudible conversations] >> host: senate majority leader putting the senate in recess until 12:30 p.m. eastern time. the senators will leave the chamber and many of them exit
11:44 am
into this hallway on screen. this is right outside the senate chamber. we will watch to see who comes out those doors next, negotiations are underway. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
11:45 am
[inaudible conversations] >> host: reporters filling the hallways outside the senate chamber hoping to catch the senators as they are in recess until 12:30 p.m. eastern time. you heard the majority leader say conversations happening, what happens next? a new senator from arizona making his way back to his office, reporters trying to grab him for a comment. if we see any of these senators come to the microphones that set up outside the chamber, we will bring them live, their comments. in the meantime we are getting your thoughts on what happened this morning in the senate impeachment trial, conclusion has been delayed because
11:46 am
senators voted 55-45 to call witnesses. should there be witnesses and who should be questioned? that is a question for you this morning, george in california, go ahead. >> caller: i was looking for some clarification on the headline saying they voted to allow witnesses and everybody's headline, it sounds like they voted to debate whether there are going to be witnesses and i was curious if that is what they voted on or what everybody's headline is. >> host: let me read from marty quaion. senate floor, as we watch senator dianne feinstein and senator grassley make their way to the office, worked on the senate floor for 29 years for
11:47 am
four different leaders and advised them on parliamentary procedure. he tweeted out after watching what happened, they will suspend the trial while witnesses are being depots, see clinton trial for example. during that time the senate can act on the covid-19 relief reconciliation bill. he put this tweet out, a resolution probably offered by majority leader schumer will be called upon what witnesses are to be called and depots to off-site. what witnesses are to be called and depots off-site? senator graham or a white house lawyer can offer amendments to add other witnesses. speaker pelosi, etc.. others will be voted down. remember the democrats have the majority. what do you think after hearing that? >> caller: i think it is , they asked for clarification on what they voted on and it was debate, looking for clarification.
11:48 am
i'm looking for a report on what you voted on and what i am hearing, it is hard to hear it but doesn't sound like they voted to allow witnesses, they voted to allow debates on whether they will have witnesses. i am just curious if that is in fact what happened or not. what did they actually vote on? when somebody has to stand up after the fact and want to know what did we just vote on, to accept one witness? seems like they should know what they are voting on and it should be reported accurately, which i am just thinking the headline isn't accurate and i could be wrong but from what i was hearing, they voted to debate whether they were going to have witnesses. >> host: people anticipated
11:49 am
this would be the last day of the senate trial, there would be closing arguments and a final vote. it was the reporting by cnn in the evening yesterday about the phone call conversation that prompted house impeachment managers who want to call congresswoman jamie herrera butler, potentially others, and seek documents. he was elected to congress in 2010, she is a republican from washington state, and she told her local paper in january of 2017 about the phone call conversation between the minority leader and president trump and that is why she voted to impeach the president when the house voted on this. here is a quote from her. when i look at the picture of the capital police officer, with the crowd standing over him or someone being bludgeoned to death, i cannot express to you the feeling inside that says i will stand up to that
11:50 am
any day of the week and twice on sunday. she told the local paper about it. the headline from her local paper was jamie herrera butler worked hard to spread facts about january 6th, that her decision was personal, not political. what happens next? cnn since this tweet, there needs to be a vote on simple majority basis to step subpoena specific witnesses such as jamie herrera butler or anybody else, 2, if they vote to subpoena a witness trial will slowdown dramatically. they may need to recess and find time to depots her. after the deposition the chamber would need to set new guidelines on what to do with the senate testimony that derived from the witnesses. let's go to sophia in west virginia, republican. what do you think about calling witnesses? >> caller: i am going to tell
11:51 am
you i think it is a circus that happened there this morning. this country is in very very bad shape. we have people in need of help, covid-19, the stimulus at all of this and the democrats it seems to me, i am trying to be impartial as much as i can but seems the democrats have been out to get president trump since day one. it is a disgrace on this country. i will be 71 years old in a few days. i have never seen this country in the shape it is in today. it breaks my heart. i'm a vietnam veteran, served two tours in vietnam. i never would have dreamed i would ever see this country and is shape it is in. >> host: what did you think of the january 6th attack? what are your thoughts on what happened then?
11:52 am
>> caller: it broke my heart, the truth will come out after i am gone but i don't think trump supporters were doing all that. that was antifa, terrorists in this country that the government has let in here, and almost taken over and they will take over if this country don't get it together. >> host: what evidence do you have of that? >> caller: from what i have seen and what i have heard. i listen to the news every day. >> host: where do you go for your news? >> caller: fox news is the only one i was into. >> host: they are saying antifa is in the crowd? >> caller: yes. >> host: irene in milwaukee, go ahead. >> caller: i want to say hi to the same people i'm talking to on redit. i think that first of all
11:53 am
whatever that guy's name was, the whole antifa thing doesn't make any sense to me just because these people obviously had -- they said they were doing this. doesn't make any sense why they would say these people were known as anti-trump would be doing stuff like this and say they were doing it in the name of trump, it would waste too much energy and any way -- >> host: regarding witnesses. >> caller: when you do a trial you need to get as much information as possible and with the specific procedure -- >> host: let's listen to senator ted cruz who is coming to the microphone. >> senator cruz:
11:54 am
>> i don't think witnesses are necessary. it is a bizarre morning. chaos has played out. we were coming into this morning, the democratic senator agreed witnesses were not needed. everyone expected we would have closing arguments at a vote today and at the last minute the house managers changed their mind and decided they wanted to call witness senator raskin: -- jamie herrera beutler. they were upset they weren't calling witnesses. this is a political theater and the house managers were feeling heat on the left flank and decided to surprise schumer and the democrats by saying they wanted witnesses. at this point nobody knows what is going to happen. if we do call witnesses it is not going to be 1-sided. it is not going to be only the
11:55 am
house managers get witnesses and president trump doesn't get witnesses. of the house managers call representative jamie herrera beutler it is likely president trump's lawyers will call nancy pelosi. nancy pelosi is clearly a relevant witness to this matter. speaker pelosi can testify when she knew about the threats on the capital -- capitol and testify we heard the house sergeant at arms turned down national guard protection for the capitol on january 6th because of the optics. speaker pelosi can testify whether she made a decision based on optics, based on politics, not to have additional protection at the capitol to prevent a terrorist attack played out. my view is we don't need witnesses but i think if the democrats want to open this pandora's box i don't think it will work out well for them. >> what about witnesses?
11:56 am
why not? 's senator cruz:there is a tradition that any individual is not required to testify at their own trial. i don't think we should attempt to force the president to testify at his own impeachment trial. the house managers are the prosecutors. they have the burden of proof. they haven't proven their case. the reason you are seeing this hail mary is everybody knows the outcome of this proceeding which is president trump is going to be acquitted. you take 67 votes to convict. there aren't 67 votes. those on the extreme far left are angry right now and today is a reflection of that anger. >> can mind >> differences are called? 's senator cruz:we are likely 55 votes to convict.
11:57 am
i think all the democrats are going to vote to convict on day one. all of the democrats were going to vote to convict in 2017. many of these democrats went on record as trump was being sworn in as president saying they wanted to impeach him. on the democratic side it is purely political. on the republican side we have seen five republicans who voted with the democrats on a couple of procedural motions. there's a reason a possibility those five votes to convict, i would say 55 votes to convict plus or minus two. you can probably see a low of 53 and a high of 57. neither of those are remotely close to the 67 it takes to convict. >> what about a number of amendments? senator cruz:under the rules as i understand it it is a vote on each witness. schumer is dealing with chaos, doesn't know what to do because
11:58 am
they hadn't planned on this. this was supposed to be -- last night everyone went to bed being told this was going to be a unanimous consent that everybody agreed we wouldn't have witnesses and this morning, interrupting the chaos. i'm hearing from multiple senators that democratic senators don't want witnesses. if we go down the road of witnesses this impeachment trial could last all of february, all of march, all of april. i came to the republican cloakroom, a lot of republican senators saying if you want to drag this out every day we are in this trial is a day the democratic majorities are not destroying the country, not passing policies that are killing jobs, putting people out of work, keeping kids out of school. schumer is trying desperately to get out of this dead end into which they have driven themselves. >> essentially -- [inaudible question] senator cruz: impeachment is
11:59 am
supposed to set aside all other business pending before the senate. my view is i don't think joe biden wanted to go down the road of impeachment, schumer and most of the democratic beaches the senators did not want to do that. the hard left hates donald trump and the house democrats reflect that hard partisan left. they drove the impeachment, schumer felt he couldn't tell his base know, especially when he is afraid of being primary from the left in new york, but i think senate democrats just became chairman. they want to take of legislation moving nominees, senate democrats are frustrated right now. we may see a resolution. there are negotiations going on, we could see this resolved at the end of the day. on the republican side i think we are fine however it plays out. i will say this was the outcome
12:00 pm
the would not be acceptable is for senate democrats to say we are going to let house managers call witnesses but president trump's lawyers cannot call witnesses. to be clear it is unlikely that republicans would vote for only democratic witnesses and no witnesses for president trump. those who supported democrats on other procedural matters would not support them on a 1-sided biased trial which means if it is up your partyline vote 50/50 and they have to bring kamala harris into break the tie, the whole country would look at a wildly unfair and biased trial. there are many aspects of this trial that ignore even the faintest hint of due process and having a partyline vote that says only democrats get to
12:01 pm
call witnesses and the defendant in the proceeding doesn't get to call any witnesses i don't think that passes the last test. some democratic senators might say this is ridiculous if one side gets to call a witness, the other side does. i don't think we will go down that road because it is so obviously unfair but at this point it is pandemonium. [inaudible question] senator cruise:i have no idea. it is hearsay or double hearsay. i spent a lot of my career, you have a witness who gets up, begins her testimony with i don't know but i heard a guy who told me, that witness gets laughed out of court, it doesn't get all out in any ordinary circumstance. the entire house manager's cases based on hearsay and double hearsay, someone told someone, none of that is credible. i thought the president's
12:02 pm
defense lawyers did a very effective job with their montage of all times the house managers said this has been reported, that has been reported, with all due respect to our good folks in the press the fact that it gets reported in some story does not establish it as a fact that is considered proven in anything resembling court of law and at this point that is the entire basis of the manager's case, thank you, guys. .. until the house impeachment managers decided to call for witnesses in this trial, delaying the conclusion for how long?
12:03 pm
we don't know yet. the senate is in a recess. majority leader said discussions are underway find the scenes. they are returning 12:30 p.m. eastern time and we will bring you to the floor when that happens. cnn reports a resolution on witnesses could come to the floor soon, that is their reporting this morning as we wait to see what happens. ryan sent out this week, interesting points from the former senate parliamentarian alan truman on cnn. rule 11 allows senate to form impeachment committee to take testimony previously used in judicial impeachment, possible for this one. also, turner of abc up on capitol hill, she tweet this out, more and more hearing resolution on members, fully debatable, unlimited amendment could very well come back with zero witnesses being called.
12:04 pm
we will see what happens next when the senate resumes 12:30 p.m. as i told you, who advised democratic leaders on the senate floor, floor leaders over his 29 years about parliamentary seizure, he says they will suspend the trial while witnesses are being imposed, the clinton trial for example. the senate can act on covered relief reconciliation bill. while we wait, we are getting your thoughts on whether or not witnesses should be called. glenda and aurora, missouri. did you hear what ted cruz had to say? got to push the button. caller: little bit about me, which represent we the people. i used to vote straight metallic ticket. it was a family thing whether i believed in what they believed in or not. when mr. trump stepped into this, i thought my god, we've got a business man.
12:05 pm
finally, we got a business man. for years, we've witnessed things we've never seen before. when he shut down the government, we all witnessed that. we all witnessed it when nancy pelosi whipped up all those papers, when mr. trump refused to shake her hand for the impeachment trial. we have all seen mr. biden sign numerous 20 plus bills, first day in office. is he taking care of us? no. ms. pelosi doesn't want to do anything about the covid thing until mel march to get people's money, pay their front -- the fact that we witnessed her insider trade by tesla stock. >> what about this trial, witnesses? caller: he is a joke and they need to stop. they need to stop right now and learn from the example. need to take care of business
12:06 pm
right now. which is us. >> okay, got it. courtney in rochester, new york. democratic color. caller: i heard senator cruz speaking a little while ago and i want to note he's completely failed the oath sworn to be impartial juror in this. he's been talking to trump's defense lawyers and when it comes to calling witnesses, i want to make sure the listeners are very clear that this is, the format taking place, they make their arguments and this was the day they would decide whether to call witnesses. if i understand correctly, the votes that just happened, one caller was an understanding what the vote meant. i understand why there would be confusion because even the headlines don't exactly say what the vote was on. my understanding is that was,
12:07 pm
will they call witnesses? they voted yes, they will call witnesses. now they have to on both sides determine which witnesses they want to present those and vote on each witnesses. will they call this witness? yes oh no. decide which witnesses to call. then the depositions will happen. while all of that is happening, they can vote on other things. when this goes on, they can still vote on covered relief in the morning and other things, concerning cabinet nominees in the morning before noon, before the trial convenes. i think witnesses absolutely should be called. ben sasse was in the oval office with the president while this was happening. vanderveen keeps trying to suggest that incitement is a one time spontaneous thing and i think that is something the house managers need to present
12:08 pm
to these witnesses, incitement is not a one-time act. trump has been telling this lie and has many republicans in congress for months saying the election was stolen. it wasn't stolen. people can feel there was fraud but they have no proof or basis for that feeling, they just want to feel like it was stolen. they keep saying 75 million voters are being ignored by this election, but 81 million voted for biden and that's how an election works. >> explaining what happened on the senate floor. what happens now? there needs to be a vote on simple majority basis to subpoena specific witnesses such as herrera beutler or anyone else. if they vote to subpoena a witness, trials will slow down medically. you need to reset and find time. he says after the deposition, the chamber would need to set
12:09 pm
new guidelines on what to do with testimony that derives from the witness. let's go to andy in commerce city, colorado. good morning. good afternoon to you. what do you think about what just happened in the senate today? >> i and welcome to be called, i hope it's more than just the one witness -- [inaudible] [inaudible] trying to hide. hide what we have seen, is trump -- [inaudible] there was safety concerns and i would love to hear mccarthy being subpoenaed. i'd love to hear pelosi -- [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:10 pm
>> witnesses today. ryan nobles reports, it's so unbelievably rare for the actual floor of the senate in this way. no one saw this coming, there were hints but final call of witnesses being called was not known until it came out of jamie raskin's mouth. the lead house managers this morning. big sherman says trump's attorney says kevin mccarthy is the minority leader has disclaimed the rumors of the conversation with the president. he says we reported it more than a month ago. it is correct, he says. a reporter says this is big news, the senate allowed at least one witness in the impeachment trial and then you heard proposed one hour zoom deposition, presented of herrera beutler who corroborated with the phone call. will there be other witnesses?
12:11 pm
he question. we are asking your thoughts on this. should there be witnesses and who should be questioned? cheryl in missouri, republican. hi, cheryl. >> i do not believe there needs to be anymore witnesses because this could be a never ending story. most people who were concerned about the events happening that day were watching. we know there is good and evil amongst us every day people are going to play out their rolls in that. i just feel this is going to drag out and drag out. no, i do not believe there needs to be witnesses. we've seen what happened that day. i think that should be enough. >> cheryl, do you think the president has any responsibility and what happened that day? caller: i feel like we each
12:12 pm
individually, have a responsibility. >> what you mean by that? caller: well, life in general, i base everything on physical facts and say for instance, they talk about gun violence and make it guns are the issue. the guns are not the issue, but it's the person using the gun that is the issue. it is the hearts of the people, in my opinion. >> okay. republican in missouri. jim acosta said this morning, a source familiar with the work of the house managers says former vice president pence, chief of staff mark short has been contacted about providing information about the threat to pence. short has not responded according to sources. jesse in columbus, ohio. democratic caller. should there be witnesses?
12:13 pm
caller: without a doubt there should be witnesses. the fact that trumps legal team doesn't want there to be witnesses is suspect at best. if there's nothing to hide, why not have witnesses ask there definitely needs to be representatives herrera beutler as well as mccarthy and even nancy pelosi. >> you agree then with republicans that the speaker of the house should be called to witness? >> i don't see a problem with her testifying, actually. she acknowledged, i would assume, the rest of the house probably doesn't considering she's first in line up to the first vice president, so she's probably aware of things we may not even know yet. >> what you think of republican argument, you just heard from senator ted cruz that the president, former president should not testify. in normal court proceedings, the
12:14 pm
person who is on trial does not testify in their own proceedings. caller: well, i think he should, as the president. the leaders of our country are held to a higher standard than everyone else, primarily the president. they should have to account for his actions and if he has nothing to hide, why not? i find ted cruz to be hypocritical and calling out democrats and doing this in their ruling. he has been against this entire trial even long before it started. so the fact that he's supposed to be a juror, jurors are supposed to be impartial. but yet, he's calling them out by being biased themselves. >> aaron in indiana. republican.
12:15 pm
how are you? what did you think of what happened this morning? caller: i think it is insane. there's a lot of people wanting to call, you always have witnesses. they shouldn't change just because it's the president of the united states, based on something local, that shouldn't change. >> all right. aaron in indiana, republican. we're going to bring you back to earlier this morning when the house impeachment lead manager, jamie raskin, democrat of maryland called for witnesses. let's watch that debate. >> over the last several days, we presented overwhelming evidence that establishes the charges and articles of impeachment. we've shown you how president trump created a powder keg match and continued his incitement even as he failed on the ensuing
12:16 pm
violence. we've supported our position with images, videos, affidavits, documents, tweets and other evidence leaving no doubt the senate should convict. we believe we've proven our case but last night, commerce woman jaime herrera beutler of washington state issued a statement confirming in the middle of the insurrection when house minority leader kevin mccarthy called the president to beg for help, president trump responded, and i quote, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. needless to say, this is an additional critical piece of corroborating evidence, further confirming the charges before you as well as the president willful dereliction of duty and desertion of duty as commander in chief of the united states. his state of mind and further incitement of the insurrection
12:17 pm
january 6. for that reason and because this is the proper time to do so under resolution of the senate adopted to set the rules to the trial, we'd like the opportunity to subpoena congresswoman herrera regarding her communications with house minority leader kevin mccarthy and to subpoena her contemporaneous notes that she made regarding what president trump told kevin mccarthy in the middle of the insurrection we be prepared to proceed by zoom deposition of an hour or less just as soon as congresswoman herrera beutler is available and then receded to the next phase of the trial including insurrection of that testimony shortly thereafter. congresswoman beutler further stated she helps other witnesses to this part of the story, other patriots as she put it, would
12:18 pm
come forward. if that happens, we would seek opportunity to take their depositions via zoom also for less than an hour or subpoena other relevant documents as well. >> thank you. senators, good morning. good morning to the american people. the first thing i want to say on the issue of witnesses is that the house manager just got appear and describe the articles of impeachment and the charges. there is no plural here. that's wrong. there's one article of impeachment and there's one charge. that's incitement of violence and insurrection. what you all need to know, and the american people need to know as of late yesterday afternoon, there was a stipulation going around that there weren't going to be any witnesses. after what happened here in this chamber yesterday, the house managers realize they did not
12:19 pm
investigate this case before bringing the impeachment, they did not give the proper consideration and work. they didn't put the work in that was necessary to impeach the former president. but if they want to have witnesses, i'm going to need at least over 100 depositions, not just one. the real issue is incitement. they put into their case, over 100 witnesses, people who have been charged with crimes by the federal government and each one of those, they said that mr. trump was a co-conspirator with. that's not true. but i have the right to defend
12:20 pm
that. the only thing that i ask, if you vote for witnesses, do not handcuff me. by limiting the number of witnesses that i can have. i need to do a thorough investigation that they did not do. i need to do the 911 style investigation that nancy pelosi called for. it should have been done already it's a dereliction of the house managers duty. but they didn't. now at the last minute, after stipulation had apparently been worked out, they want to go back on that. i think that's inappropriate and improper. we should close this case out today. we have each prepared closing arguments. we each, i had to get ready for
12:21 pm
this, we each had those eight days equally together to prepare ourselves. the house managers need to live with the case that they brought. if they don't, please, in all fairness and in all due process, do not limit my ability to discover, discover, discover the truth. that would be another sham. and that's the president's position. my position. >> mr. raskin. >> thank you, mr. president. first of all, this is the proper
12:22 pm
time that we are assigned to talk about witnesses. this is completely within the course of the rules set forth by the senate, there's nothing remotely unusual about this. i think we've done an exceedingly thorough, with all evidence available. last night, this was breaking news and it responded to a question being raised by the president's defense counsel saying that we had not sufficiently proven to their satisfaction, although i think we have proven satisfaction of the american people, certainly, the president after reaching an invasion took place was not working on the side of defending the capital but rather continuing to pursue his political goals and the information that came out last night by congresswoman beutler, apparently backed up by contemporary notes that she had taken, i think will put to rest any lingering doubts raised by the president's counsel who now
12:23 pm
says he wants to interview hundreds of people, there's only one person the president's counsel needs to interview and that's their own client. bring him forward as we suggested last week because a lot of this matter is in his hand but why did he not act to defend the country after he learned of the attack? why was he continuing to press the political case? this piece of evidence is relevant. and finally, i was a little mystified by the articles of impeachment, which i referred to, the dereliction of duty, desertion of duty is built into the incitement charge, obviously. if the president of the united states is inciting violent insurrection, he's obviously not doing his job at the same time. just like if a police officer is bugging you, yes, he's guilty of theft and armed robbery,
12:24 pm
whatever it might be but he's also not doing his job as a police officer so it's further evidence of his intent and what his conduct is. >> first of all, it's my understanding, it's been reported that mr. mccarthy claims disclaims the rumors that have been the basis of this morning's antics but really the rumors that have been the basis of this entire proceeding. this entire proceeding is based on rumor, report, innuendo. there's nothing to it and they didn't do their work. just like what happened with mr. lee two or three nights ago, some suppose a conversation that happened and they had to withdraw that, they had to back off that because it was false. a false narrative. but it is one article of impeachment. they through a lot of stuff in it in violation of rule 23.
12:25 pm
rule 23 says you cannot combine counts. it's a defect in their entire case. it's one of the four reasons why you can vote to acquit in this case. jurisdiction, rule 23, due process and the first amendment. they all apply in this case. let me take my own advice and call the temperature in the room a little bit. it's about the incitement, it's not about what happened "afterwards". that's actually be irrelevant stuff. that's the irrelevant stuff. it's not things that were said the election january 6, it's not relevant to the legal analysis
12:26 pm
of the issues before this body. it doesn't matter happens after the insurgents into the capital building because that doesn't have to do with incitement. incitement, it is a point in time. when the words are spoken and the words say implicitly say, explicitly say, commit acts of violence or lawlessness. we don't have that here. so for the house managers to say we need depositions about things that happened after, it's not true. but, but if he does, there are a lot of depositions that need to be happened.
12:27 pm
nancy pelosi's deposition needs to be taken. vice president harris is deposition. absolutely needs to be taken. not by resume. none of these depositions should be done by resume. we didn't do this hearing by resume. zoom. these should be done in person, in my office, in philadelphia. that's where they should be done. [laughter] i don't know how many civil lawyers are here but that is the way it works, folks. when you want somebody's deposition to send a notice of deposition and they appear at the place where the list says, that's civil process. i don't know why you are laughing. it civil process that's the way lawyers do it. we send notices of deposition -- >> i would remind everybody, we
12:28 pm
will have order in the chamber during these proceedings. >> i didn't laugh at any of you and there's nothing laughable here. he mentioned my clients coming in to testify. that's not the way it's done. if he wanted to talk to donald trump, he should have put a subpoena down. i'm going to stop subpoenas on a good number of people. his witnesses are what's required here to try to get the case back in order, which has failed miserably for four reasons. there's no jurisdiction here. there has been no due process here. they have completely violated and ignored and stepped on the constitution of the united
12:29 pm
states they have trampled on it like people who had no respect for it. if this is about nothing else, it has to be about the respect of our country, our constitution and all the people that make it up. so i ask, when considering or voting on this witness matter, and to be clear, this may be the time to do it but again, everybody needs to know politics, i'm not so much into it all. but there was a stipulation they felt pretty comfortable after day to. the case was tested on day three.
12:30 pm
now is the time to end this, now is the time to hear closing arguments. now is the time to vote your conscience. thank you. >> mr. raskin. >> we were involved in no discussions about the stipulation and i have no further comment. thank you. >> position on that. >> i would remind everybody, as chief justice roberts noted january 21, 2020, citing wayne in 1905, all parties must refrain from using language not
12:31 pm
conducive to civil discourse. i listened to chief justice roberts say that. i agreed with him and i thought for our colleagues i would repeat it as i did last night. so the question we have before us, whether to be considering debate under the rules of impeachment, motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. >> yeas and nays have been, it
12:32 pm
appears to be there is. the clerk will call the role. >> from earlier this morning, after a vote was called, senators voted 55 to 45 to call witnesses a twist in the senate impeachment trial proceedings today, delaying the conclusion of them, for how long? we don't know. we are waiting for the senate to resume their proceedings. they are supposed to any minute now. when they do, we will bring you uninterrupted coverage of that. five republicans that voted with the 50 democrats to call witnesses to move forward on them were senators romney, collins -- senate is back. we'll go to the floor. [silence] [inaudible]
12:33 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:34 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] as you can see, the senate has resumed. we are waiting for the majority leader to come to the floor and announce what could happen next from cnn's data, she reports a
12:35 pm
short while ago, one of the bipartisan discussions going on now is to put herrera butler's statement, angle of cnn, her reporting in the record stipulating what she would say to avoid calling her, or anyone as a witness. that's something we could hear from the majority leader when he comes to the floor. let's watch. [silence] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:36 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> again, we are waiting for chuck schumer to come to the floor and announce what could happen next. from reporting on capitol hill, abc producer tweets out, senator ron, were hogan's are prepared
12:37 pm
to allow a news article about the mccarthy call based on an interview with herrera beutler into the record in exchange for dems dropping their request to depose her. the child would proceed to closing arguments and a final vote today. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:38 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:39 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:40 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:41 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] >> senate majority leader chuck schumer stand up, he was sitting in his chair. he's minority leader also. mitch mcconnell in the chamber so we expect to resume any minute and announce what happened next with witnesses. i want to share everett of political, he's reporting on what happened this morning and he says the witness vote, totally blinded senate dems who held a conference call at 9:00 a.m. and indicated they didn't think this would come up. house managers decided that before 10:00 a.m. to call that vote. let's watch and listen to the majority leader to see what happens next. none will. [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:42 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:43 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:44 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:45 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:46 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:47 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
12:48 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> the senate will be in order.
12:49 pm
>> mr. president. >> majority leader. without objection, so ordered. mr. castro, i'm sorry. you are recognized. >> senators, donald john trump, by his counsel, is prepared to stipulate that if representative herrera beutler, were to testify under oath as part of these proceedings, her testimony would be consistent with the statement she issued february 12, 2021 and the former president's council is agreeable to the admission of that public statement into evidence at this time.
12:50 pm
>> thank you mr. castor, mr. raskin. >> thank you, mr. president. managers are prepared to enter into agreement. i will now need the statement congresswoman jimmy herrera beutler february 12, 2021. in my january 12 statement in the articles of impeachment, i restaurants house minority leader kevin mccarthy related to me he had with president trump while the january 6 attack was ongoing. there are the details. when mccarthy finally reached the president january 6, asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the right, the president initially repeatedly falsehood that he was an antifa that breached. mccarthy refuted that and told the president that these were trump supporters. that's when, according to mccarthy, the president said
12:51 pm
well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. since i publicly announced my decision to vote for impeachment, i've shared these details and countless conversations with constituents and colleagues and multiple times to the media and other public forums. i told it to the daily news january 17, i shared it with local county republicans, executive board members as well as other constituents who asked me to explain my vote. i've shared it with thousands of residents on my telephone town hall february 8. mr. president, i now move that the senate admit the statement into evidence. >> without objection, the statement will be admitted into evidence. if either party would like to make further motions related to witnesses and documents at this time.
12:52 pm
>> mr. president, the president's counsel has no further motions. >> mr. president, we have no further motions. >> excuse me. the chair would note neither party wishes to make further motions under section six of senate resolution 47. therefore, the next question is on admission of the evidence submitted by both parties, pursuant to section eight of the resolution. the majority year is recognized. >> as we moved to another matter, i advised house managers have no objection to the admission of evidence proposed to be admitted by the former president's counsel under the provisions of section eight of senate resolution 47.
12:53 pm
that the president's counsel has no objections to the evidence proposed to be admitted into evidence by the house managers. pursuant to section eight of the resolution, as agreed to by leader mcconnell and myself a few days ago. both parties have made timely filing of this evidence with the secretary of the senate and provided copies to each other. i therefore ask unanimous consent the senate dispense with provisions of section eight a of senate resolution 47. that the materials submitted by both parties be admitted into evidence subject to provisions of section 8c of that solution which provides the admission of this evidence is not constitute a concession by either party as for the truth of the matters asserted by the other party and each senator shall decide for him or herself to wait to be given such evidence. this request has the approval of both parties and republican leader. >> without objection, so ordered. [silence]
12:54 pm
pursuant of the provisions of senate resolution 47. the senator provided for up to four hours of closing arguments, equally divided between the managers of the house of representatives and counsel for the former president. pursuant to rule 22, the rules of procedure to practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials, the argument shall be open and closed on the part of the house of representatives. chair recognizes mr. manager raskin to begin the presentation on the part of the house of representatives. mr. raskin, under rule 22, you may reserve time if you wish. >> thank you, mr. president. members of the senate, before i
12:55 pm
proceed, it was suggested by the council that donald trump's conduct during the attack as described in congresswoman beutler's statement is somehow not part of the constitutional offense for which former president trump has been charged. i want to reject that falsehood immediately. after he knew the violence what underway for capital, president trump took actions that further inside the insurgents to more inflamed and take even more extreme selected and focused action against vice president mike pence. former president trump also, as described by congressman's, congresswoman beutler's notes, publicly immediately forceful call off the right. when he was told the insurgents
12:56 pm
inside the capital were trump supporters, the president said quote, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. think about that for a second. this uncontradicted statement that was just steep related as part of the evidence for the record, the president said, well, kevin, i guess these people, meaning the insurrectionist are more upset about the election than you are. that conduct is obviously, and parcel of the constitutional offense that he was impeached for, namely incitement to insurrection. that's continuing incitement to the insurrection. the conduct described not only perpetuated his continuing offense but also provides to us, here today, further decisive
12:57 pm
evidence of his intent to incite the insurrection in the first place. when my opposing counsel said you should ignore the presidents action after the insurrection began, that is plainly wrong. of course, reflects the fact that they have no defense to his outrageous scandalous and unconstitutional conduct in the middle of a violent assault on the capital he incited. think about it for a second, say you light a fire in your charged with arson. the defense counsel says, everything i did after the fire started is irrelevant the court would reject that immediately and say it's not true. it is extremely relevant too whether or not you committed the crime. if you run over and put out the flames, you get lots of water and say help, there is a fire and call for help, a court will infer that, could infer you
12:58 pm
didn't intend for the fire to be late in the first place. they would accept your defense perhaps that it was an accident. accidents happen with fire but is on the other hand, when the fire erupts, you go poor more fuel on it, you stand by and watch it gleefully, any reasonable person would infer that you not only intended the fire to start but that once it got started and began to spread, you intended to continue to keep the fire going. that's exactly where we are, my friends. of course your conduct is ongoing is relevant to your culpability. both to the continuation of the offense but also directly relevant, directly illuminating to what your purpose was originally. what was your intent. in any court in the land would
12:59 pm
laugh out of court any criminal defendant who said what i did after i allegedly killed that person is irrelevant too whether or not intended to kill them. come on. donald trump's refusal not only to send help but also continue to further insight the insurgents against his own vice president, his own vice president provides further decisive evidence of both his intent to start the violent insurrection and continue incitement once the attack had begun to override. all right, senators, that was in response to this new evidence that came in. in my closing, thank you for your remarkable attention and seriousness of purpose. we've offered you overwhelming,
1:00 pm
and irrefutable certainly unrefuted evidence that former president trump incited this insurrection against us. to quote a statement representative liz cheney made in january. january 6, 2021, a violent mob attacked the u.s. capital to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. this insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our republic. she continues. representative cheney continues. much more will become clear in the coming days and weeks but what we know now is enough. ...
1:01 pm
betrayal by the president of the united states of his office and his oath to the constitution. i will vote to impeach the president. representative cheney was right. she based her vote on the facts, on the evidence in the constitution. the video, documentary, eyewitnesses, has only grown stronger and more detailed write up to today, up to ten minutes ago over the course of the senate trial and i have no doubt you will notice despite various propaganda reels and so on, president trump's lawyers have said almost nothing to contest or overcome the actual evidence of former president trump's conduct, much less have they brought their client forward to tell us his side of
1:02 pm
the story. we sent him a letter last week which they rejected out of hand. the former president of the united states refused to come and tell us, i ask any of you, if you were charged with inciting violent insurrection against our country and you were falsely accused, would you testify? i know i would. i would be there at 7:00 in the morning. i hope it is true of 100 senators in this room. the senate was lectured several times today about cancel culture, not even two weeks ago the president's most reliable supporters in the house -- the former president's most reliable supporters in the house tried to cancel out representative cheney because of her courageous and patriotic
1:03 pm
defense, they tried to strip her of her leading role as chair of the house republican conference but you know what? i hope everybody reflects on this, the conference rejected this plainly retaliatory and cowardly attempt to punish her for telling the truth to her constituents and her country in voting for impeachment. who says you can't stand up against boules? who says? in my mind. and resisting this retaliatory cancel culture that she was subjected to. she beat them on a vote of 145-61, more than 2 to 1. ben franklin, great champion,
1:04 pm
enemy of political fanaticism and cowardice, and another great philadelphian, once wrote this. i have observed that wrong is always growing more wrong until there is no bearing it anymore and that right, however opposed comes right at last, comes right at last. think about that. this is america, home of the brave, land of the free, for america ben franklin said it you make yourself a -- make yourself a sheep the wolves will eat you. the america of thomas jefferson, a little patience and we shall see the "the
1:05 pm
letter q: queer writers' notes to their younger selves" -- the reign of witches will restore -- restore government to its true principles. america of tom pain. he said the mind, once enlightened, cannot again become dark. we showed you hour after hour of real-time evidence demonstrating every step of donald trump's constitutional crime. we showed you how he indoctrinated the mob with his orwellian propaganda about how the election he lost by more than 7 million votes 306-232 in the electoral college which he described as a landslide when he won by the exact same margin in 2016, was a landslide victory for him being stolen a by a bipartisan conspiracy, fraud and corruption. we showed you how 61 court and
1:06 pm
88 judges, federal, state, local, trial, appellate, from the was court in the land to the united states supreme court across the street and eight federal judges he himself named to the bench all found no basis in fact or law for his outlandish and deranged inventions and concoctions about the election. in the meantime president trump tried to bully state level officials to commit a fraud on the public by literally finding votes. we examined the key study in georgia where he threatened republican brad raffensberger to find him 11,780 votes, that is all he wanted, 11,780 votes, don't we all? 11,780 votes. that is all he wanted to nullify biden's victory and win the election. raffensberger and up with average death threats telling him he deserved a firing squad.
1:07 pm
another election official urged the trump to cut it out or people would get hurt and killed. a prescient warning indeed. raffensberger said he and his family supported donald trump, gave him money and trump through us under the bus. we saw what happened in lansing, michigan with the extremist mob he cultivated which led to two shocking cs and a, the conspiracy by extremists to kidnap and assassinate governor witmer, against state legislatures to disavow and overthrow their property learn electoral results and replace them with trump elected, the process of summoning the mob, urging people to come to washington for a file time which celebrates presidents' day on monday. think, imagine. is there another president in our history who would urge supporters to come to washington for a wild time? you saw the embrace of violence
1:08 pm
extremist element like the proud boys were told in a nationally televised president of candidate of debate to stand back and stand by which became their official slogan as they convert on washington and competed to be the lead storm troopers of the attack on this building. use obviously of the mob on january 6th and how beautiful that angry mob was looked to donald trump as they appeared from the lectern with the seal of the president of the united states of america emblazoned on it. that crowd was filled with extremists in tactical gear, armed to the teeth and ready to fight and other brawling maga supporters chanting stop the steel right now. then he said he was going to march with them to the capital even though the permit for the rally specifically forbade a march but he said he would
1:09 pm
march with them giving them more comfort that what they were doing was legitimate. it was okay. of course he stayed back as he presumably didn't want to be too close to the action at the capital as he called it, not an insurrection, action. he didn't want to be too close to the action when all hell was about to break loose. incitement, as we discussed, requires an inherently fact based evidentiary inquiry and this is what we did. we gave you many hours of specific factual details, how the president summoned the mob, assembled the mob, sending them to the capital where they thought they had been invited by the president of the united states, and unleashed unparalleled violence against our overwhelmed and besieged but heroic police officers who
1:10 pm
you thoughtfully honored yesterday when the officers got in their way as they entered the capital at the behest -- into the capitol at the behest of the president of the united states. most senators must be convinced by this overwhelming detail because most americans are but say you have your doubts, you think the president really thought he was sending his followers to participate in a peaceful nonviolent rally. the kind that might have been organized by julia don whom i distinguished opposing counsel brought up, bob moses, relate beloved colleague john lewis, nonviolent coordinating committee. may be the president really thought this would be like the march on washington organized by doctor martin luther king who said nonviolence is the answer to the crucial moral and political questions of our time. they were floating with the idea that donald trump's
1:11 pm
conduct was totally appropriate as he proclaimed right off the bat and he's the innocent victim of a mass accident or catastrophe like a fire or flood as we were invited to frame it on our opening day by distinguished cocounsel. someone to blame for this nightmare and catastrophe, just looking for someone to blame. here is the key question in resolving your doubts if you are in that category. how did donald trump react when he learned of the violent storming of the capital and the threats to senators, members of the house and his own vice president as well as the images he saw on tv of the pummeling, beating, and harassment? did he spring into action to stop the violence and save us?
1:12 pm
did he wonder about his own security, and antigovernment mob could i cannot -- could come after him too? did he try to get in touch with or denounce the proud boys? the rally organizers? the save america rally organizers and everyone on the extreme right, tell them this was not what he had in mind, it was a big mistake, call it off? as representative gallagher begged him to do on national television? know. he delighted in it. he reveled in it. he exulted in it. he could not understand why the people around him did not share his delight. a long period of silence ensued while the mob beat the daylights out of police officers and invaded this building as you saw in the security the -- footage and proceeded to hunt down vice president mike pence as a traitor and denounce him and speaker pelosi, both of whom you heard mob members say they wanted to kill. they were both in real danger
1:13 pm
and our government could have been thrown into absolute turmoil without the heroism of our officers and the bravery and courage of a lot of people in this room. here is what representative anthony gonzalez of ohio said, former pro football player, we are imploring the president to help, to stand up, to help defend the united states capitol, the united states congress which is under attack, he was nowhere to be found. that dereliction of duty, that desertion of duty was central to his incitement of insurrection and inextricable from it. bound to gather it revealed his state of mind that day, what he was thinking as he provoked the mob to violence, and further
1:14 pm
violence, how he perpetuated the continuing offense on january 6th, the conduct in the articles of impeachment as he further incited the mob even as vice president mike pence himself, while failing to quell it in either his roles as commander in chief for his real role that day, insider --inciter in chief and the ex-president new violence was foreseeable and predictable and predicted, that day, since he was not surprised and not horrified, he was delighted and through his acts of omission and commission that day he abused his office by siding with the insurrectionist at almost every point rather than with the congress of the united states rather than with the constitution.
1:15 pm
my colleague will establish yesterday's explosive revelations about house minority leader kevin mccarthy's desperate call to trump and trump's truly astounding reaction, the trump was doing nothing to help the people in this room or this building. it is clear beyond doubt trump supported the actions of the mob and must be convicted. when he took the stage on january 6th he knew how combustible the situation was. many people in the crowd were ready to jump into action, to engage in violence at any signal that he needed them to fight like hell, stop the steel and that is what he told them to do and aimed them straight down pennsylvania avenue to the capital, told him the steel was occurring, counting the electoral college votes. we all know what happened next.
1:16 pm
they attacked the building, disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, entered and killed people, convinced that they were acting on his instructions and his approval and protection and he further incited them while failing to protect us. if that is not a high crime and misdemeanor against the united states of america then nothing is. president trump must be convicted for the safety and security of our democracy and our people. mister cicilline. cicilline:mister president, distinguished senators, as we demonstrated, there is
1:17 pm
overwhelming evidence that president trump incited the violence and new violence was foreseeable on january 6th. he knew many in the crowd were poised for violence at his urging, many in the sea of thousands were wearing body armor and helmets, holding sticks, not only provoked the very same crowd but aimed them at the capital dish capitol. he literally pointed at this building, at us during his speech, he pointed to where congress was going to certify the election, where he knew the vice president himself was presiding over the process. no one is suggesting president trump intended every detail of what happened but when he directed the sea of thousands before him who were reportedly ready to engage in real violence, told them to fight like hell he incited violence targeted at the capital and most certainly foresaw it.
1:18 pm
i will talk about what happened after that. there was a lot of discussion yesterday about what the president knew and when he knew it. certain things we do not know about what the president did that day because the president, former president trump remained silent about what he was doing during the bloodiest attack on our capitol since 1812. he has refused to come forward and tell his story. senator raskin said we would all do that. if i were accused of a grave and serious crime that i was innocent of i would demand the right to tell my side of the story, resident trump declined but there are certain facts that are undisputed. that we know to be true despite the president's refusal to
1:19 pm
testify, which counsel either ignored entirely and couldn't dispute. before i go to those facts let me touch on a few things. president trump and his counsel resorted to arguments, that the evidence was somehow manufactured or hidden from them. this is important. in terms of the timing of when they receive materials here defense counsel had access to all materials when they were entitled to have them through senate resolution 47 and they cannot and have not alleged otherwise. as to the claim that evidence is somehow manufactured, they've not alleged that one tweet from their client was inaccurate or can they? we got these tweets which are statements from the former president from a public archive, they are all correct. we know the president's claims
1:20 pm
about evidence being manipulated are untrue because he didn't object to the introduction of the evidence when they had the opportunity to do so. i hope we can set positions aside and turned to the facts of this case and set the record straight about the undisputed facts in this case about what the president knew that day and when he knew it. as you may recall, in direct response to a question yesterday president trump's counsel stated at no point was the president informed the vice president was in any danger. as we walk through these undisputed facts you will see quite clearly that is simply not true. as you can see from just after 12:00 pm to just before 2:00 pm president trump delivered his statement at the rally which incited an initial wave of protesters coming down to the
1:21 pm
capital and his speech was still ongoing and you saw the evidence people broadcasting on their phone, he finished his speech at 1:11, a larger wave surged toward us at the capital ripping down scaffolding and triggering calls for law enforcement. 30 minutes later at 1:4:09 pm as the violence intensified president trump tweeted a video of his remarks with the caption, quote, our country has had enough, we will not take it anymore and that is what this is all about. during the half hour following that tweet this situation drastically deteriorated, they breached the capital that is the capitol barriers and the complex itself. by 2:12 the insurrectionist mob had overwhelmed the police and started their violent attack on the capital.
1:22 pm
this -- capitol. this occurred on live television. every major network was showing it. we've shown you during the course of the trial side-by-side exactly what the president would have seen on tv, what he would have seen, images of vice president hence being rushed off the senate floor. i won't replay all of that. here is the footage reacting to vice president pence. >> looks like -- >> it seemed they took mike pence out quickly. >> that is exactly what happened. they moved him past, i thought emotions too. cicilline:defense counsel suggest the president was not aware of this, had no idea his vice president had been evacuated from the senate floor
1:23 pm
for his safety because violent rioters had broken into the capital -- capitol. this was on live television. defense counsel suggesting the president of the united states knew less about this than the american people. this is not possible. the secret service failed to mention the vice president was being rushed away for his own protection, nobody in the white house thought to alert him, none of our law enforcement agencies raised concern to the commander in chief that the vice president was being evacuated from the senate floor, a violent mob assaulted the capitol. it simply cannot be. with each passing minute of the timeline on january 6th it grows more and more inconceivable. let's continue forward in time,
1:24 pm
the senate recessed, nancy pelosi was ushered off the floor, the capital police -- the capitol police announced the breach and locked in and the insurrectionist mob began chanting hank mike pence. it was unfolding on live tv in front of the entire world. let me ask you does it strike you as credible that nobody, not a single person, informed the president but his vice president hitting evacuated or that he didn't glance at the television or his twitter account and learn about the events, having remembered this is the day of the electoral college. his up session with stopping the certification, just not credible. that he knew that he was in real danger.
1:25 pm
these facts, this timeline is undisputed. after riders breached the barriers after calls for assistance, riders storm the building, vice president pence was rushed from the senate floor and just before vice president pence was evacuated, president trump decided to attack his own vice president. the undisputed facts confirm not only must president trump have been aware of the vice president's danger but still sent out a tweet attacking him, further inciting the very mob that was in just a few feet of him in this very building. the vice president was there with his family, endanger for his life, they were chanting hank mike pence, erected a noose outside. we showed the reaction, the
1:26 pm
tweet was read aloud on a bullhorn, insurrectionist's began chanting again about mike pence, in those critical moments we see president trump engaging in their religion of duty by further inciting the mob in real time to target the vice president, acknowledged the insurrection was ongoing and that included in the conduct charge in the article of impeachment. the former president's counsel's objection is completely wrong. his further incitement is in the trouble conduct continued during the course of this assault, part of the constitutional crime that was entirely and completely and indefensible failure to protect the capitol. there has been confusion as to the phone call i referenced with senator lee.
1:27 pm
i want to be clear about certain facts. senator lee has confirmed the call occurred at 2:26 at 2:2:06 pm so i added that to the timeline. the vice president had just been evacuated on live television for his own safety and donald trump tweeted an attack on him which the insurgents read on a bullhorn and if units after donald trump's tweet he didn't reach out to check on the vice president's safety, he called the senators to ask about d laying the certification, the call was interrupted, senator tuberville has explained i looked at the phone and the white house was on it and i said hello, the president said a few words and i said they are taking the vice president out and they want me to get off the phone and i have got to go.
1:28 pm
that was his second evacuation that day. a minute later live feed documented the insurgents, mike pence is a traitor. somehow he missed it earlier. it is inconceivable the former president was unaware the vice president was in danger, was does the president do after hearing that? he rushed to secure the capital? to quell the mob? does he call the vice president to check on its -- his safety? we all know the answer to the question? there can be no dispute. he took none of those steps, not a single one. even after learning senators were being evacuated and vice president pence was evacuated
1:29 pm
he did nothing, and more evidence, over the following 30 minutes president trump spoke to kevin mccarthy and as jamie herrera beutler revealed, evidence that has been stipulated as part of the evidentiary every record in that conversation, kevin mccarthy is pleading with the former president to do something. he first tries to assign the blame to another group and these are your supporters, mister president. what does the president say in response? not him people -- sent people right away, and didn't realize you were in danger. well, kevin, i is these people are more upset about the election than you are.
1:30 pm
i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are, the president just said he conveyed in that tweet at 6:0 one was essentially saying you got what you deserve. let me say that again, the president is fully aware of the vice president's situation and the situation we are all in, he was asked to send to the capital after inciting this violence against his own vice president, president trump refused that request for assistance and he told us why. his singular focus, stopping the certification of the election. he incited the violence to stop the certification, he attacked the vice president and further incited the in certification,
1:31 pm
he called senator tuberville to stop the certification, refused to send help to congress. this congress and the vice president of the united states were in mortal danger because he wanted to stop the certification and he did these things, attacking the vice president, calling senator tuberville, refusing mccarthy's request with full knowledge of the violent attack that was underway at that point. he chose retaining his own power over the safety of americans which i can't imagine more damning evidence of his state of mind, the screaming match interrupted by violent writers breaking through the window of representative mccarthy's office. senators, the president knew this was happening and didn't do anything to help the vice president or any of you or any of the brave officers or other
1:32 pm
employees serving the american people that day. his sole focus was stealing the election for himself. and he apparently has still not -- according to more facts revealed last night, the vice president's team does not agree with the president's counsel's assessment, pence and his team does not agree with the trump lawyers assessment that trump was concerned about pence's safety. trump didn't call him that day or for 5 days after that. no one on trump's team called when pence was evacuated, the screaming mob nearby. >> objection, this is not in evidence. senator leahy: the council will sit down. chair has no way of knowing if
1:33 pm
this is an evidence or not. so -- to have a chance to speak, temperatures the chair will consider the issue. cicilline:remember as one of you said, they could have killed us all. staff, the officers protecting us, almost everyone. president trump not only incited it but continued inciting it as occurred, with attacks on his vice president and willfully refused to defend us, furthering his provocation and incitement by the mob, siding with the mob, siding with insurrectionist, criminals who injured and killed police officers, sworn to protect us, because they were, quote, more
1:34 pm
upset about the election than leader mccarthy. those facts are undisputed. president trump has not offered any evidence or argument that is proven, his lawyers almost entirely ignore these facts in their short presentation. we have only his counsel's false claim that no point was the president informed that the vice president was in any danger, a claim that is refuted not just by common sense but by the timeline you have seen and the vice president's legal team. there can be no doubt at the moment we knows needed a president to preserve, protect and defend us, president trump instead willfully be trade us. he violated his oath. he left all of us and officers like eugene goodman to our own devices against an attack he incited and he alone could stop. that is what why he must be convicted.
1:35 pm
i would like to conclude by making one final point from directly what i just discussed. our case, the article of impeachment before you absolutely includes president trump's dereliction of duty on january 6th, his failure as insider in chief to quell or call off the mob, failure of commander in chief to do everything in his power to secure the capital -- the capitol. there can be no doubt of that. the ongoing constitutional misconduct is like any continuing offense and the proof of that is overwhelming. most directly his direction of duty offers conclusive irrefutable evidence that he acted willfully as charged. wasn't furious or sad or shocked, like virtually everyone else in america. he was supported by those around him and delighted rather than rush to our aid or demand
1:36 pm
his mob retreat he watched the attack on tv and praised the mob, leader mccarthy as more loyal to him, more upset about the election. that was what mattered. his reaction is further evidence of his intent. he acted exactly the way a person would act if they had indeed incited the mob to violence to stop the steel. as i have shown, president trump's desertion of duty includes his decision to further insight the mob even as he failed to protect us. the mob hunted vice president pence in these very hard, attacked vice president pence, he spread the big lie, used by how his mob responded in real time. this further incitement was part of his dereliction of duty
1:37 pm
and course of conduct encouraging and provoking the mob to violence. president trump's direction of duty highlights how foreseeable the attack was. in his two just after 6:00 pm he said, quote, these are the things an events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who were so badly treated for so long. this is his endorsement of the attack. his failure to condemn it, desertion of duty but it also reveals his view, this is of course what would happen when congress refused his demand to reject the election and he continued to tell his supporters was stolen and he had won in a landslide and he wasn't surprised. he saw this is a predictable result of his repeated demand that his followers stop the
1:38 pm
steel by any means possible. this is all connected, dereliction of duty, desertion of duty was part and parcel of the crime charged in the impeachment and it is a basis on which to vote for conviction. if you believe he willfully refused to defend us and law enforcement officers fighting to save us and he was delighted by the attack and far it is a natural result of his call to stop the steel and he continued to insight and target violence as the attack unfolded i respectfully submit you must vote to convict and disqualify. the events of january 6th can never happen again in this country. >> i would like to call - >> i have a point of order. mister president, moments ago,
1:39 pm
house manager cicilline -- senator leahy: the senator will withhold, advised by the parliamentarian that debate is not in order. >> debate is not in order because this is not debate. he said something that is not true. senator leahy: corp. has been suggested and the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] senator leahy: is their objection? the objection is heard.
1:40 pm
[roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> >> they are in the middle of closing arguments here when you heard senator mike lee stand up and object to one of the arguments by mister cicilline about how characterization of a phone call president trump made, he was trying to reach tommy tuberville but he reached mike lee. we watch live coverage on c-span2. [roll call vote]
1:41 pm
[roll call vote] [roll call vote]
1:42 pm
[roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote]
1:43 pm
[roll call vote] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
1:44 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
1:45 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]]
1:46 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations].
1:47 pm
[inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations] . >> once again the senate impeachment trial, the
1:48 pm
conclusion has been delayed this afternoon. you see the huddles around the defense lawyers and defense impeachment managers to mike lee's objection. mike everett of political reporting senator mike lee has a point of order after david cicilline talked about the trump call, he was trying to reach senator tommy tuberville, said something that is not true is what mike lee said on the floor. we will watch and see what happens next, live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations].
1:49 pm
[inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations].
1:50 pm
[inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations] .
1:51 pm
[inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations].
1:52 pm
>> madam, mister president, i asked the koran be dispensed with. >> the senator from utah. >> withdraw. senator leahy: the chair would advise everybody the evidentiary record is closed, the scope of these things, not admitted into evidence. new evidence is not permitted in closing arguments, references to such new evidence will be stricken. the house managers have a
1:53 pm
quorum and wish to resume. house managers. >> mister president, esteemed senators, good afternoon. we are grateful for your attention as we engaged in a process formulated and put to paper by founders in my home city in philadelphia which is getting its fair share of attention this week. my colleague, mister cicilline talked about the religion of
1:54 pm
duty. i will talk about what we raise questions about. the defense suggest this is just one speech and one speech cannot insight insurrection. the defense suggested because the attack was preplanned by some insurrectionist's, donald trump is somehow not culpable. those things are plainly not true, nor are they what we allege. let's be clear. we are not suggesting donald trump's january 6th speech by itself incited the attack. we have shown that his conduct leading up to and including that speech incited the attack. the defense is correct that the insurrection was preplanned, that supports our point. we argue and the evidence overwhelmingly confirmed that donald trump's conduct over many months incited his
1:55 pm
supporters to believe, one, his big lie, that the only way he could lose is if the election was rigged. 2, that to ensure the election would not be stolen, to prevent the fraud, they had to stop the steel. and 3, they had to fight or they would not have a country anymore. this conduct took time and it culminated in donald trump's save the day, 18 days before the attack, telling his base exactly when, where and who to fight. while he was doing this, he spent $50 million from his legal defense fund to simultaneously broadcast his message to stop the steel over all major networks. donald trump invited them, he incited them and he directed them. here are a few clips that will bring that story to light.
1:56 pm
>> can you give a direct answer you will accept the election? >> i have to see. i'm not going to say yes. this will be the most rigged election in history. this is going to be the greatest election disaster in history and the only way they can take this election away from us is this is a rigged election. we are going to make this election. it is a rigged election. that is the only way we are going to lose. >> you promise a peaceful transfer of power? >> there won't be a transfer, there will be a continuation. the only way we are going to lose is if there is mischief, mischief on a big scale. this will be one of the most fraudulent elections ever. we are not going to let this election be taken away from us. that is the only way we are going to win.
1:57 pm
this is a fraud on the american public. this is an embarrassment to our country. we were getting ready to win this election, frankly we did win this election. we were winning and all the key locations by a lot actually and then our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secret and this is the case where they are trying to steal an election. they are trying to rig an election. we can't let that happen. you can't let another person steel that election from you. all over the country people are together after holding up signs, and if we don't root out the fraud, tremendous and horrible fraud in our 2020 election we don't have a country anymore. we cannot allow a completely
1:58 pm
fraudulent election to stand. we are going to fight like hell. if you don't fight to save your country with everything you have you are not going to have a country left. we will not bend, we will not break, we will not yield, we will never give in, we will never give up, we will never back down, we will never ever surrender. all of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen. we will never give up. we will never concede. it doesn't happen. you don't concede. to use a favorite term that all of you people came up with, we will stop the steel because you will never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength and have to be strong. make no mistake the this election was stolen from you, from me and from the country and we fight, fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell you are not going to have a country anymore.
1:59 pm
>> our point is this was not one speech, this was a deliberate purposeful effort by donald trump over many months that resulted in well-organized mom attack. .. >> and prove that donald trump knew every detail of what would and on january the sixth. raven held deadly the attack would become. but he did know. as he looked out in that sea of thousands in front of him, some wearing body armor and helmets. and others carrying weapons and the result would be violent. the evidence is overwhelming demonstrate this. a few points on this.
2:00 pm
donald trump knew the people he was inciting. leading up to january the sixth . and he saw the violence they were capable of. he had a pattern and practice of raising and encouraging supporters of violence . and never condemning it. it is not a coincidence that the same people, the proud boys, the organizer of the trump caravan and the supporters and speakers at the second million mega march. they all showed up on january the sixth. and donald trump the heavier was different. this was not just a comment by official or a politician fighting for a cost per unit this was months of cultivating invasive people who work violent and praising that violence and then leading them and that violence in that range straight to this congress where he knew his vice president was presiding. and donald trump had warnings about the crowd in front of him on