tv U.S. Senate Impeachment Trial Closing Arguments CSPAN February 13, 2021 7:56pm-10:33pm EST
following a pause to consider an objection from senator lee, the house managers continued their closing arguments, followed by the former president defense team who summed up the case. the senate voted 57 -- 43 to acquit the former president with several hogan joining all democrats voting guilty. he fell short of the two thirds majority needed to convict. >> senate majority leader. >> i asked consent the quorum be dismissed. >> so ordered. >> the senator for utah. >> withdrawn. the chair would advise everybody, the evidentiary record is closed. scope of the things not admitted to evidence as those referenced in trial. new evidence is not permitted closing argument.
new evidence will be stricken. >> house managers have the floor if they wish to resume. >> house managers. >> mr. president. >> house manager. >> good afternoon. we are grateful for your attention this week as we engaged in a process formulated and put to paper by the founders in my home city of philadelphia
which is getting its fair share of attention this week. in 1787, 234 yearsrs ago, my colleague, mr. cicilline addressed the importance of the president dereliction of duty. i will focus on three specific aspects of this case, which the defense has raised questions about. first, the defense suggests this was just one speech and one speech cannot incite insurrection. the defensean suggested, because the attackh was preplanned by some insurrectionist, donald trump iss somehow not culpable. both of these things are plainly not true. nor are they what we allege. let's be clear. we are not suggesting that donald trump january 6 speech, by itself, inside the attack. we have shown his course of conduct leading up too and
including that speech insight is the exact. the defense is correct that the insurrection was preplanned. that supportss our point. we argued and the evidence overwhelmingly confirms that donald trump's conduct over many months inside his supporters too believe one, they lied, the only way he could lose was if the election was rigged. two, in short the election would not be stolen, to prevent the fraud, they had toio stop the steel. three, to stop the steel, or they would not have country anymore. this conduct took time culminated in donald trump's saving today december 19, 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 eagle
defense fund to simultaneously broadcast his message to stop the steel over all major networks. donald trump in battle invited them, incited them and directed them. here are a few clips to bring that story to life. >> can you give a direct answer? >> look, i have to see. not just going to say yes, this election is the most rigged elections in history. this is going to be the greatest election disaster in history and the only ways they can take ths election away from us is if this is a great selection. we are going to win this election. it's a rigged election. the only way we will lose. >> you commit to making sure there's peaceful transfer of a peaceful -- there won't be a transfer. there will be a t b continuatio.
>> is the only way we will lose, is if there's mischief and it will have to be on a big scale so be careful. >> this will be one of the greatest most fraudulent elections ever. >> we are not going to let this election be taken from us. that's the only waye they went. >> this is a fraud on the american public. this is an embarrassment for our country. we were getting ready to win this election, frankly, we did when this election. >> we were all winning in all key locations by ae lot, actuay and then numbers miraculously got whittled away in secret in this is the case where they try to steal an election. they are trying to break an election and we can't let that happen. >> you can't let another person steel the election from you. all over thehe country, people e together holding up signs, stop
this deal. if we don't root out the fraud, tremendous horrible fraud taking place in our 2020 election, we don't have a country anymore. we cannot allow a completely fraudulent election to stand. >> we are going to fight like hell, i'll tell you what. >> if you don't fight to save the country with everything you have, you're not going to have a country left. >> we will not bend, who will not break, we will not yield, who will never give in, we will never give up. we will never back down. we will never ever surrender.nt 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. [cheering] a favorite term all of you came up with, we will stop this deal. you will never take back our
country with weakness. you have to show strength and be strong. make no mistake about this election was stolen from you, me and from the country and we fight. we fight like hell. if you don't fight like hell, you're not going toel have a country anymore. >> our point is this, this was not one speech, it's a deliberate purposeful effort by donald trump over many months that resulted in a well organized model attack january 6. that brings me to my second point. the violence. defense counsel argues there's no way donald trump could have known what would happen. yet, we are not suggesting, nor is it necessary to prove that donald trump knew every detail of what would unfold january 6 or even how horrible and deadly the attack would become but he
did know. as he looked out on the sea of thousands in front of him, some wearing body armor and helmets, others carrying weapons, the result would be violent. the evidence is overwhelming, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates this. a few points on this. donald trump knew the people he was inciting, leading up to january 6. he saw the violence they were capable of, he had a pattern and practice of praising and encouraging supporters ofou violence, never condemning it. it's not a coincidence those . same people, the proud boys, the organizer of the trump caravan, supporters and speakers at the second mega march, all showed up january 6. donald trump's behavior was different. this was not just a comment by an official or politician
fighting c for a cause, this was months off cultivating a base of people who were violence, praising that violence and leading that violent, rage straight to congress with he knew his vice president was presiding. donald trump had warnings about the crowd in front of him january 6 there were detailed posts online of attack plans. law enforcement warned the post were real threats and even made arrests the days leading up to the attacks. credible reports that many would be armed and ready to attack the capitol. despite these credible warnings, serious dangerous threats to our capitol, when the crowd was standing in front of the president, ready to take orders and attack, he said we are going to the capitol and we fight, we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, he will not have a country anymore. here is a short clip.
>> what you want to call them? give me a name. >> white supremacists. proud boys. >> proud boys, stand back and stand by. ♪♪ >> kingdom. >> it is something. they were protecting them. [cheering] hundreds of cars, trucks and the american flag. you see trump and american flags. >> we promise the gop would not do everything in their power to destroy the gop yermak as we gather here in washington d.c. for a second march, we are done
making promises. it has to happen now. we are calling to destroy the gop. [cheering] [chanting] >> destroy the gop. [chanting] >> you will never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength and be stronges. [cheering] ♪♪ >> the violence january 6 was demonstrably foreseeable. trump even said himself, 6:01 p.m., the day of the attack. the last thing he said before he went to sleep, these are the things that happened. he foresaw this and admitted as much.
that brings me to my final part. the insurrectionist, defense counsel suggested these people came here on their own. the defense restates the insurrectionist did so for their own accord and their own reasons being criminally prosecuted. it's true some insurrectionist are being prosecuted but it's not true that they a did so of their own accord and for their own reasons. the evidence makes clear the exact opposite, they did this for donald trumppo is invitation at his direction, at his command. they said this before the attack. during the attack. they said after the attack. leading up to january 6 and post after post, the president supporters confirmed this was for donald trump, it was at his direction. one supporter wrote, if congress deleted illegally certified by then, trump would have absolutely no choice but demand is to storm the capitol until/beat them up for it.
they even say publicly, openly and proudly that president trump would help them commandeer the national guard so all they have to do is overwhelm 2000 capitol police officers. during his speech january 6, trumpru supporters chanted his words back to him and live tweeted his command. during the attack, insurrectionist at the capitol chanted donald trump's words from his tweet, rallies and the speech of the sixth. they held signs that said, and chanted fight for trump, stop this deal. they read his tweet over bullhorns, amplifying his demands. another writer, while live streaming the insurrectionist from the z-uppercase-letter, he'll be happy, we are fighting for trump.
more insurrectionist were not hiding, they believe they were followingec the orders from our commander in chief. they felt secure enough in the legitimacy of their actions to take selfies, post photos and videos on social media. after the attack, writer after writer confirmed this, general ryan later accused for her role in their insurrection said or thought i was following my president. i thought we were following what we were called to do. president trump requested we be in d.c. on the sixth but it became clear donald trump would not protect them, somet of this is supporters felt duped, tricked. listen to this evidence. >> even if they think for a second they are going to get away with it today. [cheering]
they got another think coming. [cheering] today is the day and today is just the beginning. they hadn't seen a resistance until i have seen a patriot fight for their country. [cheering] >> parties will withhold. parties will withhold. >> it's in the record. >> evidentiary record is closed. forty-seven describes those things admitted into evidence. new evidence not permitted in closing arguments. references to such new evidence will be stricken.
>> the statement was evidence, slide was not so we will withdraw the slide. they told you themselves, they were following president's orders and you will see something clearly, donald trump knew who these peoplee were. as the slide shows, people cultivated whose violence he praised her all their january 6. the proud boys who donald trump told to stand back and stand by september 2020, lee, organizer of the trump caravan that tried to drive the biden campaign bus off the road, katrina pierson, speaker of the second million mega march, they were all there.
[inaudible] >> may continue. >> thank you, mr. president, of all the trials i've ever been part of, this is certainly one of them. [laughter] also slides show, the people he cultivated, violence he praised for their january 6, proud boys who donald trump told to stand back and stand by in september, lee, organizer of the trump caravan that tried to drive the biden campaign bus off the road, katrinaa pierson, speaker of the second million megan mega march, they were all there. there's one final clip also submitted in the record.
[inaudible] >> some of the insurrectionist are facing criminal charges. donald trump was acting as our commander-in-chief, he was our president. he used his office in authority it commands to incite and talk and when congress and the constitution were under attack, he abandoned his duties, violated his oath failing to preserve, protect and defend. that's why we are here, the president of the united states, donald j trump incited and directed people to attack the legislative branch. he knew what his supporters were capable of. he sent them down pennsylvania avenue not on any old day for the day we were certifying the election results as they were
begging on our doors, he failed to defend us because it's what he wanted. he wanted to remain in power. for that crime, hee must be held accountable. the insurrectionist are still listening. i must admit until we were preparing for this trial, i didn't know the extent of many of these facts. i witnessed the horror but t i didn't know. i didn't know how deliberate the president's planning was, he invested in. how many times he incited his supporters with these lies. carefully and consistently incited them to violencese januy 6. while many of us may have tuned out his rallies, i e also did nt know the extent his followers were listening, hanging on his every word and i did not know how close the mob came to their environment and. steps away from all of us. the death toll could have been
much higher but for the bravery of men and women who protected us. but now we know. we know the bravery of people like officer goodman and all men and women can capitol police of the custodians, who with pride and sense of duty and their work cleaned up shattered glass, splintered wood and blood stained floors. we know sacrifice of life in limbs, we know what donald trump did, we know what he failed to do. so it's difficult to bear witness and face reality of what happened in these halls, what happens if we don't confront these facts? what happens if there's no accountability? for those who say we need to get past this, come together, we need to unify, if we don't set this right and call it what it was, the highest of constitutional crimes by the
president of the united states, the past will not be passed. the past will become our future. for my grandchildren and their children. senators, we are in a dialogue with history, a conversation with our past, a hope for our future. 234 years from now, it may be that know one person here among us is remembered and yet, what we do here, was being asked of each of us in this moment will be remembered. history has found us. i ask that you not look the other way. >> now we can bring up mr. neguse.
>> mr. president. distinguished senators. there is an old quote from henry clay. courtesies of small contributor character, they strike deepest and grateful appreciating heart. i want to say on behalf of all house managers, we areou gratefl for the courtesies. you've extended to us in president's counsel during the course of the trial. you've heard my colleagues, manager dean go throughde the overwhelming evidence that makes clear that president trump must be convicted and disqualified for his high crime. i'm not going to repeat that evidence. it speaks for itself.
earlier in this trial, you might recall that i mentioned my expectation that president trump's lawyers might do everything they could to avoid discussing the facts of this case. i can understand why. the evidence all of us presented that manager dean summarized, it is pretty devastating. rather than address it, the president has offered up distractions. excuses. anything but actually trying to defend against the facts.. they said things like president trump is now a private citizen so criminal justice is can deal with the more clear standards for incitement, they talked a lotd about due process and all politicians say words like fight.
i'd like to take a minute to explain why each of those distractions are precisely that, distractions. why they do not prevent, in any way, the senate from convicting president trump. number one. every president is one day a private citizen again. the argument that because president trump has left office, he shouldn't be impeached for conduct committed while in office doesn't make sense. why would the constitution include the impeachment power at all the criminal justice system serves as a suitable alternative. once the president leaves office. it wouldn't.e. impeachment is a remedy separate and apart from the criminal justice system and for good reason. the presidency comes with
special powers, extraordinary powers, not bestowed on ordinary citizens. if those powers are abused, they can cause great damage to our country and has to be dealt with a separate form. this form. it would be unwise to suggest going forward, the only appropriate but, constitutional offenses committed by ait president or criminal charges when the president returned to private life, that's not the kind of political system any of us want and it not the kind of constitutional system the framers intended. second, it is true, we have incited criminal statutes establishing elements of incitement because again, this isn't a criminal trial. it's not a criminal case.
president trump is charged with a constitutional offense. you are to ask, with determining whether orh not he committed tht high crime is understood by our framers. relevant a question, which president trump's lawyers ignore, would oures framers consider a president inciting a violent mob, to attack our government while seeking to stop the certification of our collections, with they have considered that impeachable offense? who among us, who among us really thinks the answer to that question is no? third, due process.
to be absolutely clear, thee house, with the sole power of impeachment determines what the process looks like in the house and the senate, does the same for the trial. during this trial, the. presidet has counsel. they've argued vigorously on his half. we had a full presentation of evidence, adversarial presentations, emotions, the president invited to testify and he declined. the president was invited to provide local terry evidence, he declined. you can't claim there's no due process when you participate in the process.ss we know this case isn't one that requires a complicated legal analysis you all lived it. the managers and i, we lived it. our country lived it. the president, in public view, right out in the open incited a
violent mob. a mob temporarily, at least, stopped us from certifying an election. if there were ever exigent circumstances, this is it. number four. we all know that president trump's defense, as we predicted, spent a lot of time comparing his conduct to other politicians using words like fight, you saw the hours of video. as i said thursday, we trust you to know the difference. because what you will not find in those video montages that they show you, any of those speeches, those remarks culminating in a violent insurrection on our nation'ss
capitol. that's the difference. the president spent months inflaming his supporters to believe the election had been stolen from him, from them which was not true. he summoned the mob, assembled the mob and when the violence erupted, he did nothing to stop it. ... i'm giving you a lot of distractions so they don't have to defend what happened here on that terrible day and they do that because they believe those
distractions are going to work. that you will ignore the misconduct instead of confronting it. i think they are wrong. some of you know this already, i'm the youngest member of our managers team by quite a few years, so perhaps, perhaps some of a bit naïve but i just don't believe that. i really don't. i don't believe their effort is why, to work and here is because i know what this body is capable of. i may not have witnessed it but i have read about it in the history books. i h have seen the c-span footag, archives for hours and yes i've actually done that in the history of our country and those
books and in those tapes, the history of this country has been defined right here on this floor. the 13th amendment, the r. abolishing slavery was passed in this very room, in this room, not figuratively, literally where you all sit and where i stand. in 1964, this body with the help of senators like john sherman cooper and so many others, this body secured passage of the civil rights act. we made the decision to enter world war ii from this chamber. we have certainly had our struggles but we have always risen to the occasion when it mattered the most. not by ignoring injustice or cowering to bullies and threats that by doing the right thing,
by trying to do the right thing and that's why so many nations around the world aspire to be like america. they stand up to dictators and autocrats and tyrants because america is a guiding light for them, a northstar. they do so, they look to us because we have been a guiding light, a northstar in these moments. it does the people who sat in your chairs when confronted with choices that defines us rose to the occasion. i want to offer one more example of a decision made in this room by this body that resonated with me. the first day i stood up in this trial i mentioned i was the son of immigrants as many of you in many senators graciously approach me after my presentation and asked me where my parents were from and i told those who asked that my folks were from east africa. in 1986, 1986 this body
considered a bill to override president reagan's veto of legislation imposing sanctions on south africa during apartheid. two senators who sit in this room, one democrat and one republican voted to override that veto. that vote was not about gaining political favor. in fact it was made despite potentially losing political favor and i have to imagine that vote was cast like people before because there are moments that transcend party politics and that require us to put country above our party because the consequences of not doing so are just too great. senators this is one of those moments.
many folks who are watching today's proceedings may not know this but house members like me and manager raskin and fellow managers we aren't allowed on the senate floor without express commission. no one is certainly the senators are where of that. this floor is sacred and. it's one of the reasons why i like so many of you were so offended to see it desecrated by that mob. to see those insurrectionists diminishing in devaluing and disrespecting the hollow it calls that i have held in such awe my whole life. because of those rules that i just mentioned this is the only time i have the privilege to stand before you like this. when the trial is over i will go back to being a non-impeachment manager and a house member.
the trial will and and we will resume our lives and our work. but for some there will be no and, no and to the pain of what happened on january 6. the officers who struggles to recover from injuries they sustained to protect us, they struggle to recover today. the families who continue to mourn those who they lost on that terrible tragic day. i was struck yesterday by defense counsel's continued references to hate. one of my favorite quotes by dr. martin luther king jr. is one that has sustained me at
times and i suspect it has sustained some of you that i have decided to stick with love. hate is too great a burden to bear. this trial is not born for me. far from it. it's born from love of country, our country, our desire to maintain it, our desire to see america at its best and in those moments that i spoke of, the civil rights act, so much more, we remember those moments because they helped to find and enshrine america at its best. i firmly believe that our certification of the electoral college votes in the early hours of january 7, refusal to lead the republic he threatened and taken d down by a violent mob wl
go down in history as one of those moments to. and i believe that this body can rise to the occasion once again today. by convicting president trump, defending our republic and the stakes, the stakes could not be higher because the cold, hard truth is that what happened on january 6 can happen again. i fear likee many of you do that the violence we saw on that terrible day may be just the beginning. we have shown you the ongoing risks, the extremist groups who
grow more emboldened every day. senators this cannot read the beginning. it can't be the new normal. it has to be the end. that decision is in your hands. >> mr. president. >> mr. raskin. >> senators my daughter anna said something to me last night that stopped me cold and brought me up short. the kids have been very moved by all the victims of the violence, the officers and their families but hanna told me last night she felt really sorry for the kids of the man who said goodbye to his children before he left home
to come and join the actions for their father told him that their dad might not be coming homeig again and they might never see him again. in other words he was expecting violence and he might die because of what these insurrectionists did. that shook me. hanna said how can the president put people's families in that situation and just run away from the whole thing? that shook me and i was filled with self-reproach because when i 1 saw the line about your father going to washington and you might not see him again, i thought about it well, like a manager, what evidence it is that people are expecting lethal violence in a protest called by the president of the united states and saying their final goodbyes to their kids but hanna
, my dear hanna thought of it like a human being. she thought of it, forgive me like a patriot. someone who just lost her brother and doesn't want to see any other kids in america go through that kind of agony and grief. senators when i say all three of my kids are better than me, you know that i am not engaged in idle flattery. maybe some of you feel the same way but your kids. they have got a lot of their mom in them and they are better than me. hanna saw through the legality of the situation. she saw through the politics of the situation all the way to the humanity of the situation, the morality of the situation. that was one of the most
packed -- patriotic things i've heard anybody say but the childrenhith of the insurrectionists, even the violent and dangerous ones, they are our children to. they are americans and we will take care of them and their future. we must recognize an exercise these crimes against our nation and then we must take care ofth our people and their children, their hearts and their minds. as tommy raskin is to say it's hard to be human. many of the capitol and metropolitan police officers and guards men and women were beaten up by the mob all had kids. remember the officer who had a heart attack after being tased and roughed up for hours by the mob and begged for his life telling the insurrectionists that he had fourctct daughters. that just about broke my heart all over again. we talked about this for a long time last night. mybo kids felt terrible that otr
kids fathers and mothers were pulled into this nightmare by a president of the united states. senators, we prove he betrayed his country. we proved he betrayed his constitution. we prove he betrayed his oath of office. the startling thing to recognize now is that he is even betraying the mob. he told them he would march with them and he didn't. they believed the president was right there with them somewhere in the crowd fighting. the fantasy conspiracy to steal the election in steal their country away from them. they thought they were one big team working together told them they are great time together was just beginning and now there are hundreds of criminal prosecutions going on all over the country, people getting set to say goodbye to members of
their families and the president who contacted them, solicited them lured them and fought them that president has suddenly gone quiet and dark. nowhere to be found, cannot be troubled to come here and tell us what happened and tell us why this was the patriotic in the constitutional thing to do. senators, this trial in the final analysis is not about donald trump. the country and the world know who donald trump is. this trial is about who we are, who we are. my friend dara williams said sometimes the truth is like a second chance. we have got a chance here with the truth.
president trump tried to sideliner run over every range of government thwart the will of the people at the state level usurped the people's choice for president. this case is about whether our country demands a peaceful nonviolent transfer of power to guarantee the sovereignty of the people. are we going to defend the people who defend us? not just on of them with medals that you rightfully did yesterday but actually back them up against savage, barbaric insurrectionary violence? will we restore the honor of our capitol and the people who work here? will we be a democratic nation that the world looks to for understanding democratic values and practices and constitutional government and the rights of
women and men? will the senate condone the president of the united states and citing a violent attack on our chamber, our offices, our staff and the officers who protected us? when you see the footage of officer hodges stuck in the doorway literally being tortured by the mob government did that. when you see that footage and he's shouting in agony for his dear life, when the vice president of the united states escaped the violent mob that entered this capitol building seeking to hang him and calling out traitor, traitor, traitor and the counting of the electoral votes, is this the future you imagine for our kids?
and is a totally appropriate as we've been told or his representative cheney said is that the greatest betrayal of the presidential oath of office in the history of our country? if we can't handle this together as a people, all of us, forgetting the lines of party and ideology and geography and all those things come if we can't handle this how are we wiever going to conquer the othr crises of our day? is this america? is this what we wanted to cleave to our children and our grandchildren and? i was never a great sunday school student. actually it was pretty true and most of the time but one line always stuck with me from the book of exodus that is both beautiful and haunting even if it hit after i asked what the words meant. thou shall not follow a multitude to do evil.
thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. the officer who got called the n word 16 times and spent hours with his colleagues battling insurrectionists who had no -- baseball bats hockey hockey sticks bears wearing confederate battle flags posts the right question for all of us, is this america? senators that is up to you now and whatever committees and subcommittees you are on whatever you came to washington to do, to work on and to agriculture to energy to aerospace to health care this is almost certainly how you will be remembered by history. that might not be fair. you really might not be fair but none of us can escape the demands of history and destiny right now. our reputations and their
legacies will be inextricably intertwined with what we do here. and with how you exercise your post to do impartial justice, impartial justice. i know in a trust you will do impartial justice driven by your meticulous attention to the overwhelming facts of the case and your love for our constitution which i know dwells in your heart. thomas payne and the namesake of my son, is this america? what kind of america will we be? is now literally in your hands. godspeed to the senate of the united states. we reserve any remaining time. >> the house has reserved 28
minutes. >> i proceed. >> i am talking and it will not be so long. and before i start my prepared closing i really want to bring up a few things from a mess that was the closing of the house managers. they do not want to ruin my unclosing because i think the ending is pretty good. what they didn't, they started off by misstating the law and they started off by misstating the intent of our stipulation. what we did today was stipulate
to an article that was published in the magazine. apparently they have had it for weeks according to the document they. >> today but for some reason this morning i popped up with it. the stipulation was that theyon can put that in. we did not stipulate to its contents or truthfulness and they tried to portray that in their closing stipulation to the stipulation was read into the wreck or did they to the proponents of that conversation the real ones have denied its content. it's voracity. with respect, i'm not going to talk much about the torture analysis that started off or the truly sideways analogies that were used with fires. what i do want to talk about though is the doctoring of evidence.
first of all they sent us their evidence on tuesday the ninth at 2:32 p.m. by e-mail. i was in this room when they sent their evidence to process. they used evidence that was flat wrong two or three nights ago withhr senator lee and had to withdraw it. they tried to use it again today. they tried to use evidence that they had never presented in the case in their closing argument. that is a very desperate attempt by a prosecuting team. by a prosecuting team that knew that their case had collapsed. they are closing did not mention
one piece of law. they didn't talk about the constitution once. they didn't talk about the first amendment and its application. they didn't talk about due process and how it applies to this proceeding for my client. the basic rule of any court is that when you close the case at the close on the facts that word knitted in the trial.n the basic fundamental principle of due processof and fairness.
that was violently breached today on multiple occasions. you have to ask yourself, why, why did they resort to those tactics at this moment in time. >> senators, good afternoon, mr. president. what took place here at the u.s. capitol on january 6 was a grave tragedy. over the course of this trial you have heard no one on either side of this debate argue that the infiltration of the capitol was anything less than a heinous act on the home of american democracy. all of the starting with my clients are deeply disturbed by the graphic videos at the capitol attack that have been
shown in recent days. the entire team have repeatedly condemned the violence and lawbreaking that occurred on january 6 in the strongest possible terms. we have advocated that if everybody be found, punished to the maximum extent of the law. yet the question before us is not whether there was a violent insurrection of the capitol. on thathe point everyone agrees. the stomachs with the text of the house impeachment article, this trial is about whether mr. trump will fully engaged in an incitement of violence and even insurrection against the united states, and that question they have posed in their article of impeachment has to be set up against the law of this country. no matter how much truly
horrifying footage we see of the conduct of the rioters and how much emotion has been injected into thiso trial, that does not change the fact that mr. trump is innocent of the charges against him. despite all of the video played, at no point in their presentation did you hear the house managers play a single example of mr. trump urging anyone to engage in violence of any kind. at no point did he care anything that could ever possibly be construed as mr. trump encouraging or sanctioning an insurrection. senators you did not hear those tapes because they do not exist, because the active incitement never happened. he engaged no language of
incitement whatsoever in january 6 or any other day following the election. no unbiased person honestly reviewing the transcript of mr. trump's speech on the ellipse could possibly believe that he was suggesting violence explicitly told the crowd he expected a protest outside the capitol to be peaceful and patriotic. they claimed that was not enough produce entire premise was that the proceedings of the joint session should continue spent yearly the entire speech talking about how he believes the senators and members of congress should vote on the matter. the supreme court ruled in brandenburg that there is a very clear standard for incitement. in short, you have to look at the words and so the words have to either explicitly or implicitly called for o the wor,
call w for lawlessness or violee whether the speech -- to determine whether the speech was intended to provoke lawlessness and whether the violence was the likely result of the word itself. they failed on all three prongs. the false and inflammatory claim that mr. trump gave a speech encouraging his supporters to go attack the capitol has been repeated so often, uncritically without any examination of the underlying facts that americans listening at home were probably surprised to learn that it's not true. furthermore some of the people in this s room follett mr. mr. trump statements and tweets in the weeks leading up to january 6 very closely. we know that he was not trying to foment an insurrection during that time because no one from the speaker of the house to theo mayor of washington d.c. paved
in the fashion consistent with the belief that violence would be activated. mr. trump did not spend the weeks prior to january 6 inciting violence. he spent those weeks pursuing his election challenge to the court system and other legal procedures exact way as the constitution and the congress prescribed. to believe based on the evidence you have seen that mr. trumpmp actually wanted and it be willfully incited an armed insurrection to overthrow thein u.s. government would be absurd. to gather ungenerous six was supposed to be an entirely peaceful event. thousands and thousands of people including mr. trump showed up that day with that intention. a small percentage, small fraction of those people then engaged in truly horrible behavior but as we now know
those actors were preplanned and premeditated and acted even before the speech was completed to which is the basis of the article of impeachment. there was preplanned and premeditated by french left and right groups that hijack the event for their own purposes. the house managers false narrative is appraisingly dishonest attempt to smear and cancel constitutional cancel culture, their number one enpolitical opponent taking neutral statements,, plays political rhetoric removing words and facts from context and describing to them the most sinister and malevolent intentions possible.
their story was based not on evidence but on the sheer personal and political animus. the flimsy theory of incitement you heard from the house managers couldho be used to impeach, indict or expel countless other political leaders. many leading figures and other parties have engaged in farth me incendiary and dangerous rhetoric. and we played some of them. i'm not going to replay it. i'm not going to replay the words. you all saw the evidence. i'm not going to replay a mob scene. i don't want to give those people another platform. plane in view to the american people of what they did. they should be canceled. democrat politicians spent months prior to january 6
attackingpr the very legitimacyf our nation's most cherished institutions and traditions. they didn't just question the integrity of one election. they challenge the integrity of our entire nation everything from our founding fathers, our constitution, declaration of independence, law enforcement officers and the united states military. they said that our society was rooted in hatred. they've been said america deserved and i will quote a reckoning. as you heard yesterday throughout the summer democrats and leaders including the current president and vice president repeatedly made comments that provided moral comfort to mobs attacking police officers. during that time many officers across the country were injured. as we all know to sheriff's deputies in los angeles were
ambushed and shot at point-blank range. members of this very body have been in danger. senators from maine to kentucky and most points in between have been harassed by mobs. last august a left-wing mob swarmed senator rand paul and his wife as they left the white house and they had to be rescued by police. for months or federal courthouse in portland was placed under siege by violent anarchists who attacked law enforcement officers daily and repeatedly and tried to set fire to the building. speaker pelosi did not call the violent siege of the federal building an an in insurrection. she s called the federal agents protecting the courthouse storm troopers.
the white house complex was besieged by a mob that threw bricks, rocks and bottles at secret service agents, said fire to a historic structure and breached the security fence infiltrate the treasury grounds. when my clients administration sent in the national guard to secure the nation's capital city admits the violent democrat leaders demanded that the forces be withdrawn. washington d.c. mayor said the presence of the national guard was an affront to the safety of the district. it must be fully investigated whether political leadership here in washington d.c. took an inadequate and are responsible for spots are on january 6 because of their commitment to the fault a narrative of what happened last june. hopefully we can all now agree
that the administration acted properly by taking action to stop a riotous mob, establishing an appropriate security parameter and prevent theec whie house from potentially being overrun. the house managers argued this week that an alleged reef delay in issuing a public statement from mr. trump on january 6 was somehow evidence that admitted incitement or supported the violence. yet for months last year joe biden and vice president harris and countless other democrats repeatedly refused to condemn the extremists as riots were occurring daily as businesses were being ran shackled -- ramshackle than his neighbors were being burned, his bombs were exploding. they repeatedly refused to tell their violent supporters to
standrt down. some even suggested that the mob's actions were justified. vice president harris literally urged her followers to donate money to a fund to bail out the violent extreme rioters so they could get out and do it again over and over again. she said later those folks were not going to let up and that they should not. i'll love this was far closer to the actual definition of incitement and anything president trump has ever said or done, nevermind what he said on the sixth. it's a hypocrisy, it's a hypocrisy that the house managers have laid at the feet
of this chamber. house managers suggested in this recent comment that this recent history is irrelevant to the current proceedings. but not only is democrats behavior surrounding last two years riots highly relevant as president and not only did it reveal the dishonesty and the insincerity of this entire endeavor, it also provides crucial context that should inform our understanding of the events that took place on january 6. many of the people infiltrated the capitol took pictures of themselves and posted them on social media. to some it seems they thought that was all a game. he apparently believed violent mobs, destruction of property, riding assaulting police and vandalizing historic treasures
was somehow v now acceptable in the united states. where might they have gotten that idea? i would suggest to you that it was not from mr. trump. it was not mr. trump, it was not anyone in the republican party that spent six months immediately prior to the capitol capitol assault giving rhetorical aid and comfort to mobs making excuses for rioters and explaining angry frustrated marginalized people were entitled to blow off steam like that. let me be very clear. there can be no excuse for the depraved actions of the rioters at the capitol or anywhere else across this country. 100% of those guilty of committing crimes deserve lengthy prison sentences for
their shameful and depraved conduct but this trial has raised the question about words, actions and consequences. as a nation we must ask ourselves how did we arrive at this placen where writing cohen pillaging would become commonplace? i submit to you that it wason month after month of political leaders and media personalities blood-thirsty for ratings glorifying civil unrest and condemning their reasonable law enforcement measures that are required to quell violent mobs. hopefully we can all leave this chamber in uniform agreement that all writing -- all rioting is bad.
that has been mr. trump's position from thee very beginning. the real question in this case is who was ultimately responsible for such acts of mayhemem and violence when they are committed? house democrats want to different standards, one for themselves and one for their political opposition. they have carried out a grossly and constitutional efforts to punish mr. trump for protected first amendment speech. it's an egregious violation of his constitutional rights. since he uttered not a single word encouraging violence this action can only be seen as an effort to censor disfavored political speech and discriminate against a disapproved viewpoint. it is an unprecedented action with the potential to do grave and lasting damage to both the presidency and the separation of powersge and the future of
democratic self-government. yesterday we played a video countless democratic members of the senate urging their supporters to fight. we showed you those videos not because we think he should be forcibly removed from office for saying those things but the cause we know he should not be forcibly removed from office for saying those things. but recognize the hypocrisy. yesterday in questioning house manager raskin admitted the democrats had invited -- and then an entirely new legal standard in effect they createdn a new legal theory. the raskin doctrine. the raskin doctrine is nothing more than determining protected speech based on the party label
next to your name. regardless of what you have heard or what you have seen from the house managers if you plug pay close attention you'll see that any speech made by democrat elected officials is protected speech while any speech made by republican elected officials is not protected. the creation of the raskin doctrine actually reveals the week is that the house managers case. elected officials when they repeat this in depth yesterday enters supreme court precedence and by the way of aunt didn't earn his draft card. actually he still had it but in bond and would, it was clear to know that elected officials hold the highest protections of speech, the highest protections
and i remind you why. becauseou you all need to be fre to have robust political discussion because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go. and that shouldn't be squelched by any political party on either side of the aisle no matter who is the majority party at the time. why would the house managers make up their own legal standard? i will tell you wide. because they know they cannot satisfy the existing constitutional standard set forth by the united states has existedt that for more than half a century. they argue mr. trump that an
elected official has no first amendment right. it's the complete opposite of the law. we have shown you without contradiction that is wrong. they also know that they cannot satisfy the three-part test of brandenburg as elucidated in the bible believers case. there was absolutely no evidence that mr. trump's words were directed to inciting imminent lawless actions. there was no evidence that mr. trump intended his words tos inside violence and the violence was preplanned ande premeditated by a group of lawless actors who must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law but it proves that his words were put set this into motion. what was the incitement? with no ability and no evidence
satisfy the existing constitutional standards, what are the house managers to do? they had to make up their own law. this is not only intellectually dishonest, folks it's downright scary. what type of precedent would be set up the senate did vote to convict? can congress now t ignore supree court precedent on the contours of protected free-speech? will congress be permitted to continually make up their own legal standards and apply those new standards to elected officials speech? this would allow congress to use the awesome impeachment power as a weapon to impeach their fellow colleagues in the opposing party. this is not a precedent that the
senate can set here today. if the senate endorses the house democrats absurd new theory it will set up precedent that will trouble leaders from both parties literally for centuries to come. but that will not be the only disgraceful precedent to come from this case. this is then perhaps the most unfair and flagrantly unconstitutional proceeding in the history of the united states senate. for the first time in history congress has asserted the right to try and punish a former president who was a private citizen. nowhere in the constitution is power and an illuminated door tonight. congress has no right or no business holding a trial that
says to trump let alone to deprive him of a civil right. itiv h was mentioned of the jany exception argument. the january exception argument is a creation of the house managers own conduct by delaying. they sat on the article. they could have tried the president while he was still in office if they really believed he was an eminent threat but they didn't. the january exception is a red herring, it's nonsense because federal state and local authorities can investigate. they are january exception always expires on january 20.
house democrats in this deeply unfair trial have shamefully trampled every tradition, norm and standard of due process. in a way i have never, never seen before. mr. trump was given no rights in holding this evidence against him at trial. he was given no opportunity to question his propriety. he was given no chance to engage in fact-finding. much of what was introduced by the house was unverified second or third hand reporting from a biased news media including stories based on anonymous sources whose entities aren't even known to them, nevermind might client. they manufactured and doctored evidence, so much so that they had to withdraw it.
we have the evidence after we started the trial. it went on for two days so in the evening i was able to go back and take a really close look at the stuff. myself and mr. tester and ms. bateman and mr. brandon, we all worked hard and looked at the evidence in four volumes of books and little tiny. and we literally took 12 to 14 hours a look at the evidence before we could go on and just in that short time of looking at theg evidence we saw them fabricating twitter accounts. resolved mass man sitting at his desk with "the new york times" there and whom it looks closely we found that the date was wrong, the check had been added. they fabricated evidence. they made it up.
they never address that in their closing. as though it were except double. as though it were all right. and so that's the way should be done here in the senate of the united states of america. fraud, flat out fraud. where i come from and the courts that i practice and, there are very harsh repercussions for what they. for what they have pulled in this trial. as we have shown the house
managers were caught creating falsee representations of tweets manipulating videos and introducing into the record completely discredited lies such as the fine people hoax as factual evidence. most about the house managers have said and shown you would be inadmissible in any respectable court of law. they were not trying to case. they were telling it political tale, a fable and the patently false one that. house democrats have denied due process and rush the impeachment because they know a fair trial would reveal mr. trump citizens of the charges against him. the more actual evidence that comes out the clearer it is that this was a preplanned and
premeditated attack which his language in no way incited. because their case is so weak the house managers have taken the kitchen sink approach to the supposedly single article of impeachment. they allege that mr. trump incited thert january 6 violenc. they alleged that he abused power by attempting t to pressue georgia secretary of state raffensperger to undermine the results of the 2020 election and they alleged that he gravely endangered the democratic system by interfering with the peacefue transition off power. at least three things there. under the senate rules each of these allegations must have been alleged in a separate article of impeachment. they need not remind this chamber that rule 23 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on
impeachment trials provides in pertinent part that an article of impeachment shall not be divisible thereon. why is that? because the article at issue here alleges multiple wrongs in the singular article. it would be impossible to know if two-thirds of the members of agreed on the entire article or just some parts of it. as the basis for a vote to convict. based on this alone the senate must vote to acquit mr. trump. you've got to at least obey your own rules if it's not the constitution you are going to obey. in short this impeachment has been a complete charade from beginning to end. bethe entire spectacle has been
nothing but the unhinged pursuit of a long-standing political vendetta against mr. trump by the opposition party. as we have shown democrats impeaching mr. trump from the very beginning of his term. the house democrats try to impeach him in his first year that they try to impeach him in his second year. they'd did impeach him in his third year and the impeached him again in his fourth year. and now they have conducted a phony impeachment show trial when he is a private citizen out of office. distastefully orchestrated and an constitutional circus as the house democrats final desperate attempt toal accomplish their excessive desire of the last five years. since the moment he stepped into the political arena my client as
my client step than they have been possessed by an overwhelming zeal to vanquish and independent minded outsider and diminish him to shame, demean, silence and demonize his supporters. in the desperate hope that they will never ever pose an electoral challenge. we heard one of the congressmen on the screen. if you don't impeach him he might be elected again. that is here. that is what is driving this impeachment. when you do liberate over your decision there are four does inked grounds under which you must acquit my client. first, his jurisdiction. there is no jurisdiction and if
you believe that you still get to say it. two, rule 23. it had to be divisible. each allegation had to be singularly set out in front of you so it could be voted on and to see if two-thirds if you think if they prove that case or not. they didn't do that. you've got to ask yourself why. they know the senate rules. that got them and so did i. why did they do it? because they had investigated first of alled but also what thy found out during all of this, they couldn't do it. they threw in as much as they could and made as many bald
allegations as they could and maybe two-thirds of you would fall for f it. that is why the rules don't allow it to go that way. due process, i've exhausted that subject. it's a really good reason for all of you, alll of you in this chamber to stop the politics, to read the constitution and apply it to this proceeding and it now adds that the black of due process, way over-the-top, shocking and you must not stand for it. and of course the first amendment, the actual facts of this case. there were no words of
incitement. for grounds, nobody gets to tell you what ground to pick a nobody tell you how many grounds to consider. senators, do not let house democrats take this maniacal crusade any further. the senate does not have it go down this dark path of anonymity and division. you do not have to indulge the impeachment lost, the dishonesty andhe hypocrisy. it is time to bring this unconstitutional political fear to an end. it is time to allow our nation to move forward. it is time to address the real business pressing this nation, the pandemic, our economy, racial inequality, economic and
social equality. these are the things that you need to be thinking and working on for all of us in america. all of us. with your vote you can defend the constitution. you can protect due process and you can allow america's healing to begin. i urge the senate to acquit and indicate the constitution of this great republic. thank you. >> who yields time? >> mr. president? senators i understand i'm told we have around 27 minutes but i will return all of that but
perhaps five back to you. there are few things that i need to address and so in an extraordinary and perhaps on precedent act of self-restraint on my part i will resist the opportunity to rebut every single false and illogical thing that you just heard and i'm going to be able to return to you in 22 or 23 minutes.te a few points. one, we have definitely made progress in the last few days that this a few days ago the presence team although i think it was perhaps a member of the opposite team lectured that this was not an insurrection. .. , council and closing statements that was a violent insurrection and he denounced it but i was certainly love to see president trump also call it a violent insurrection and denounce it to. i believe although i do not
have a verbatim text that counsel called for long sentences for the people who were involved pretty again i would love to hear that come from the president as well. the distinguished counsel complains that there is no precedent with the developed body of law the senate has for impeaching and convicting a president who incites violent insurrection against the congress and the government of the united states. well i suppose that is true because it never occurred to any other president of the united states from george washington to john adams to thomas jefferson to james mattis, to james monroe, to abraham lincoln, to ronald reagan, to george w. bush to barack obama to incite a violent insurrection against the union. you are right, we've got no precedent for that. and so they think that is somehow a mark in their favor. that is a score for them that
this senate has to be the first one to define incitement of violent insurrection against the union. and so, the gentleman puts it on me. he says inciting a president for committing incitement to violent insurrection against the union is a new raskin doctor bereaved tried to convince them that there are well-known principles and elements of incitement which we have talked to you about at nausea. and this is an intrinsically inherent stacked based judgment. but if that is the raskin doctrine that a president of the united states cannot incite violent insurrection against the union and the congress and i embrace it and i take it as an honor. most law professors never even get a doctor named after them. i will accept that. and finally, the council goes back julian bond's case.
think of the final the best argument is pathetically weak as it is is really about the first amendment. remember they keep talking about stifling president trump's speech. someone told me whenever speeches ever been stifled he says exactly what he wants whenever he wants. if and when you convicting for incitement, of insurrection he will continue to say whatever he wants. but on that day remember they before yesterday was interference with the delivery predicament absolutely bizarre everyone knows he will not spend one minute in prison or jail from conviction on these charges. it is a civil remedy to protect all of us. to protect the entire country, our children, our constitution, our future. that is what impeachment, trial, conviction are all about. are all about.
julian bond, you see julian bonds of forgiving. most people say don't even respond to this but i've got to respond to this. julian bond was a civil rights activist who decided to go into politics like the people in this room, like all of us who are in politics. and they tried to keep him out. he was a member of sncc the student nonviolent coordinating committee which really launched the voting rights movement in america. the great story that bob moses tells in his book called radical equations. he was a graduate student, mathematics at harvard pretty went down the mississippi. you know why? he saw picture the "new york times" of the black civil rights protesters, college students i think in north carolina he saw them on the cover of the "new york times" there sitting in at the lunch be looked at the picture and said they looked way that i
felt. they look the way i felt. he said he had to go south to mississippi. then the launch the voting rights movement that's where the phrase one person one vote comes from. is not invented by the supreme court for their go door-to-door to try to register people to vote. anyway, julian bond was part of that movement. the student nonviolent coordinating committee, non- violent. it was the end and it was the memes, not violence but he ran for the state legislature in georgia. a path other civil rights activists followed like our great late beloved colleague john lewis who is in our hearts today. and when he got elected they wanted to try to keep confirming sworn into the georgia legislature. and so they said the student nonviolent coordinating committee's a position against the vietnam war, we are not
going to admit you because you took a position against the vietnam war. and the supreme court in its wisdom said you cannot prevent someone from swearing an oath to become a member of a legislative body because of a position that they took our group they were part of took before they got sworn in, that's exact opposite of donald trump. he got elected to office. he swore an oath to the constitution to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. he served as president for four years right up until the end when he wanted to exercise his rights under the imaginary january exception. and he incited a violent mob and insurrection to come up here. we all know what happened. he is being impeached and convicted for violating his oath of office that he took. he is not been prevented from taking his oath in the first place. the first amendment is on our side. he tried to overturn the will of the people, the voice of
the people. he lost that election by more than 7 million votes. some people don't want to admit it, counsel for the president could not admit the election is over. in answer to the question from the distinguished from vermont he refused to answer that he said it was irrelevant. despite all the evidence you've heard about the big lie and how that set the stage for his >> the insurrection of the violence . first amendment, we e defending the bill of rights. we are defending the constitutional structure. we are defending the separation of power and we are defending the senate and the u.s. house. against a president elected no better than a member of the mob by inciting those people and in any ways he was worse. he named to date, the time, and he brought them here and now he must pay the price. thank you mr. president.
[inaudible]. >> incitement of insurrection. >> the senate will be in order. it. >> the constitution provides that the house of representatives you all have the sole power of impeachment per unit and the president shall be renewed removed from office and convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. further, section three of the 14th amendment to the constitution prohibits any 4tperson that is engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states from holding any office under the united states. and his conduct while president of the united states in violation of the constitutional, faithfully execute the and to
the best of his ability preserve intact and defend the constitution of the united states. and in violation of the i constitutional duties to take care to lawfully execute, donald john trump engaged in fight crimes of misdemeanors by inciting violence is a government of the united states and that ont january 6, 2021, pursuant to the in limit the constitution of the united states from the vice president of the united states of the house of representatives and the senate met at the united states capitol for joint session of to count the votes of the electoral college. in the months preceding joint session, president trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting the presidential election results with the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the american people or certified by the state or federal officials buried shortly before the joint session
commenced, president trump addressed a crowd at the washington dc building, reiterated false claims that wei will not are we won this election and we wanted by a landslide. he also willfully made statements that in context encouraging foreseeably resulted in action at the capitol such as if you do not fight like heck, you are notik going to have a country anymore. lesson cited by president trump, members of the crowd attempt to among other objectives interfere with the joint session following the constitutional duties to certify the result of the 2020 presidential election unlawfully reached and the delays the capitol . andal injured and kild law enforcement personnel. and members of congress and the vice president, and congressional personnel and engage in other violent deadly and seditious act. dipresident trump conduct on january the sixth of 2021, an
effort to obstruct the results of the 2020 presidential election . in prior efforts included on january 2, in 2021 during which president trump urged the secretary of state of georgia, to overturn the presidential results and threaten security if he failed to do so. and president trump greatly endangered the united states . this was with brad raffensperger . and he threaten integrity of the i system. interfered with peaceful transition of power and imperiled an equal branch of government . therefore, betrayed his trust as president to the manifest injury of the people of the united states. wherefore, donald john trump, by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security democracy in a constitution. if allowed to remain in office . and is acting in a manner skin
compatible with self-government the rule of law. , john trump of the impeachment trial, removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust were profit under the united states. and demand that you, the said donald john trump should be put to as set forth in this article and that such proceedings examination trials and judgments, might be thereupon as are agreeable for the law and the justice. >> page senator when his or her name is called, will stand in his or her place. and he will vote guilty or not guilty as required by rule 23 of the senate rules of impeachment. article one section three to the constitution the requiring for the connection are impeachment providing the quote no person
shall be convicted without concurrence of two thirds of the members present. and the question is on the articles of impeachment. senators, and respond that donald john trump is the guilty or not guilty. a roll call vote is required targeted and the clerk call the role. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call] [roll call vote].
and presiding officer directs judgments to be entered in accordance with the judgment of the senate has called . having tried it donald john trump, and the president of the united states on the articles of impeachment, exhibited against him on the house of representatives. and two thirds of the senators present, not having found it really charged f continued thern is therefore ordered that the said donald john trump is hereby acquainted to charge and said article. >> mr. president . >> the majority leaders recognize . >> mr. president i sent an order to the desk. >> in the carpool order. communicating is provided by the rule 23 of the procedure and practices in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials,
and also to the house of representatives of the judgment of the senate inn the case of donald john trump and transmit a certified of themi judgment to each buried. >> without objection, the order will be entered. >> mr. president, i moved to the senate sitting as a quartet for me impeachment on the article against donald john trump adjournment sine die. it. >> and the senate city as part of impeachment state has c endud adjournment sine die. may i have order placed the presiding office of the acting sergeant at arms will escort past managers out of the senate chamber. in order. [inaudible]. [silence]
>> without objection, so ordered argument. >> senator from new york, the majority leader. >> mr. president, the case of donald trump second impeachment trial was open and can we have order please. >> the senators is right, not an order . so it will be in order. >> the senate will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. >> thank you. the case of donald trump second impeachment trial, is
open and shut . president trump told lie, a big life. but the election was stolen and that he was the rightful winner. he laid the groundwork for the big light in the months before
the election. he told the big light on election night . and he repeated the big lien more than 100 times in the weeks afterwards. he some of his supporters in washington and put them into a frenzy and directed them at the capitol. and then he watched as the violence unfolded in the capitoe was breached buried in his own vice president click for hisnd life. then president trump did nothing. none of these facts were up for debate. we sought, we heard it, we lived it. this was the first presidential impeachment trial in history in which all senators were not only judges and jurors, but witnesses to the constitutional crime that was committed. the former president inspired it direction to propel the bob and prevent the peaceful transfer of
power. and illegally kept that president and power. there is nothing, nothing more un-american than that. , there is nothing, nothing more antithetical to our democracy. there isor nothing, nothing more insulting to the generations of american patriots who gave their lives to defend our form of government. this was the most egregious violation of the presidential oath of office in a textbook example. a classic example of an impeachable offense, worthy of the constitution most severe remedy. in response to the incontrovertible fact of donald trump's guilt, the senate was subject to a feeble and sometimes incomprehensible defense of the former president. unable to dispute the case. the former president counseled and tweeted out the partisan
victory, false equivalence and outright falsehoods . we heard him developed jurisdictional that he cannot try a formal official. the position that would bean the president could simply resign to avoid accountability from impeachable offense. a physician whicho in fact would render the senate powerless to ever enforce the disqualification with thehe constitution. essentially, the presence counsel to the senate that the constitution was unconstitutional. thankfully, the senate took a firm stand. and set a firm presidents the bipartisan vote . in favor of our power to try the formal officials for acts they committed while in office. we heard the preposterous claim that the former president and segments of violence was protected by the first f amendment. the first minute rights of free speech, protect americans from
jail. not presidents from impeachment. if the president has said during world war ii, that germany should attack the united states on long island. and lifted undefended, i suspect the congress would'vede consided that an impeachable offense. finally, the defense counsel said that president trump was not directly responsible for the violence at theib capitol. his words were merely a metaphor. his directions were merely suggestions theta violent mob ia spontaneous demonstration. wind the clock back and ask yourself, if any point donald trump did not do the things that he did, with the attack on the capitol what happened. there is only one answer to this question. of course not. have president trump had not told his supporters to march to the capitol, if he had not implored them to come to washington on january 6th in the first place. if he had not it repeatedly lied to them, the election was stolen
in the country was being taken from them. the attack would not have happened and could not have happened. january 6th, would not have happened but for the actions of donald trump. here's what the republican leader of the senate said. the mob have perpetrated the failed insurrection was on january 6, was provoked by president trump and that was a quote. you want another word for provoked . all that insight. yetbo still, the vast majority f the senate republican caucus, including the republican leader. voted to acquit former president trump and signing the names in the columns of history alongside his name for ever. january 6th, will live as the day of infamy in the history of the united states of america.
the failure to convict donald trump will live as a vote in history of the united states senate. five years ago, republican senators might become of their party of donald trump became tha presidential nominee. just look at what has happened. look at what republicans have been forced to defend. look at what republicans have chosen to forgive. the former president tried to overturn the results of the legitimate election and provoked an assault on our own government. in wellau over half the senate republicanan conference decidedo condone it. the most despicable act that any president has ever committed, and the majority of republicans cannot summon the courage or the morality to condemn it. this trial, was not about to the
country of hersi party, even knw if . this was about choosing country over donald trump. and 43 republican members chose trump. they chose trump. should be await on their conscious today. and it shall be await on their conscience in the future. as sad as that fact is and is condemn minimal as the decision was, it is still true in the final but in donald trump's conviction, was the largest and most bipartisan vote of any presidential impeachment trial in american history. i salute those republican patriots who did the right thing. it was not easy. we know that. let their votes be a message to the american people. because my fellow americans, if this nation is going to long
endure, we asth a people cannot sanction the former presidents congress. because of lying about the results of an election is acceptable, and is to getting a mob against the government is considered permissible. it's encouraging political violence becomes the norm, it will be open season on our democracy. and everything will be up for grabs by whoever have has the biggest clubs, the sharpestgg spears and most powerful guns. by not recognizing the heinous crimes that donald trump committed against the constitution, the republicans senators have not only risked but potentially invited the same danger that was just visited upon us. so let me say this. despite the results of the vote on donald trump's eviction in the court of t impeachment, he deserves to be convicted that. and i believe he will be
convicted in the court of public opinion. he deserves to be permanently discredited and i believe he has been discredited. in the eyes of the american people and in the judgment of history. even though republican senators prevented the senate from disqualifying donald trump for any office of honor trust or profit under these united states. there is no question donald trump has disqualified himself. i hope and i pray and i believe that the american people will make sure of that. and if donald trump evers dance for public office again and after everything that we have seen this week i hope and i pray and i believe that he will meet the unambiguous rejections by the american people. six hours after the attack on
january 6, after the mayhem was shown on every television screen in america president trump told hiss supporters to remember this day forever. that was a quote . and asked the american people to heed his words and remember that day forever. enough of the reasons the former president intended. remember the panic and the voices over the radio dispatch. the pounding of fists and flags, at the a chamber doors. remember the solitarymb gunshot. never the hateful and racist and confederate flags flying through the halls of our union. remember the screens of the blondie officer crushed between the undressing moment on his way to the capitol, his body trapped in the breach. remember, three capitol police officers who lost their lives.
those writers actually succeeded in delaying congress from certifying the election. remember how close our democracy came to rowan. my fellow americans, remember that day. january 6 forever. the final terrible legacy of the 45th president of the united states and undoubtedly our worst. let us live on in infamy, a stain on donald john trump, that can never, never be washed away. mr. president, on monday we will recognize president day. part of the commemoration in the senate will be the annual reading of washington's farewell address. aside from winning the revolutionary war, i considered his greatest contribution to
americans civil life. and i had nothing to do with the words he spoke. but the example he sets. washington's farewell address established for all time, the know and have the right to the office of the presidency. and it belongs to the people. what an amazing legacy. when an amazing gift to the future generations. the knowledge that this country will always be greater than any one person. even our most renowned party that is why members of both parties take turns leaning washington's address once a year into the record. to pledge common attachment to the selflessness at the core of our democratic system. this trial was about the final act of the presidency represents the very antithesis of our first
president. in such a place one man before the entire country himself. but the records show that for jaime herrera buetler god history and the solo that we swear to the constitution that there was only one correct verdict in this trial. guilty and i pray that while justice was not done in this trial, it
will be carried forward by the working people who above any of us in this chamber determine the destiny of our great nation. and i yield the floor.
>> mr. president. >> the republican leader. >> january 6th was a disgrace. american citizens attacked their own government. the is terrorism to try to stop us, specific piece of domestic business they did not like. in fellow americans bloodied and beat our own police. they started the senate floor. they tried to hunt down the speaker of the house. they built and chanted about murdering vice president. they did this because they have been fed wild falsehoods. by the most powerful man on earth.h. because he was angry that he lost an election. armor president trump's actions
proceeded the riots or a disgraceful dereliction of duty. the house accuse the former president off incitement. that is a specific term from the criminal law. the me that aside for a moment and reiterate something i said weeks ago. there is no question, done. that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking events of the day. there is no question about it. the people's storm building believed they were acting on malicious and instructions of the president. and having that belief, was a
foreseeablee consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements and conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept chatting into the largest megaphone on planet earth. "the issue is" not only the presidents and temperate language. on january 6, it is not just his endorsement the remarks in which an associate or trial by combat. it was also the entire manufacture atmosphere of looming catastrophe. increasingly wild myths. the battery first landslide election. them somehow being stolen.
some secret to buy are now president. and the. right to bring any complaint or legal system. the legal system spoke. and the electoral college spoke. as i stood up and said clearly at the time, the election was settled. it was over. that opened a new chapter of even wilder and more unfounded claims. the leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowed enforces are stealing our country and then remain surprised. when people believe him and do reckless things. sadly, any politicians sometimes
make overheated comments or usea metaphoricmetaphors. we saw that. and hinged listeners might take literally. but that was different. that was different fromt what we saw. this was an intensified chris endo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by outgoing president to determine to either overturn the decision or else torch our institutions on the wy out. the unconscionable behavior did not end when the ballot actually began. whatever our ex-president claims he thought might happen that da day, whatever reaction that he
said he meant to produce. by that afternoon, we know that he was watching the same live television and television as the rest of us. a mob was assaulting the capitol in his name. these criminals were carrying his banners. they were hanging his flags. in >> their loyalties to him. it was obvious. it was only president trump could end this. he was the only one. who could former aides publicly begged him to do so. loyal allies radically called theele administration.
the president did not act swiftly needed he did not do his job. he did not take steps of the federal law can be faithfully executed. in order restored. no. instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily. as the chaos unfolded. he kept pressing his steam to overturn the election. now even after it was clear that any reasonable observer the vice president mike pence was in serious danger, even as the mob carrying trump banners and beating cops and breaching the parameters.
the president send a further tweet attacking his own vice president. now predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as a further inspiration for lawlessness and balance not surprisingly. later, even when the president did halfheartedly begin calling for peace. he did not call right away for the rest to it. he did not tell the mob the gooo depart until he later and even then, with the police officers bleeding the broken glass covering the capitol floors, he
kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals. in recent weeks, our ex-president's associates have tried to use that 74 million americans who voted to reelect him, as a kind of human shieldga against criticism . using the 74 million who voted for him as a human shield against criticism. in his awful behavior accusing himself and any of the voters. that's an absurd deflection. 74 million americans should not invade the capitol. hundreds of rioters did.
a 74 million americans did not engineer the campaign of this information and rage that provoked it. one person dead. justst left. i have made my view of this episode very plain. but our system of government senate a specific task the constitution gives us a particular role. this body is not invited to act as the nation's overarching moral tribunal. we are not free to work backwards from whether the accused party i personally deserve some kind ofom punishme. justice joseph story, our nation's first great constitutional scholar as he explained nearly 200 years ago,
the process of impeachment and conviction is a narrow tool, a narrow tool for a narrow purpose. story explains this limited tool exists to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors. that was a quote. that is, to protect the country from government officers. if president trump were still in office, i would've carefully consider whether the house managers proved their specific charge. by the strict criminal standards, the president's speech probably was not incitement.
however, in the context of impeachment, the senate might have decided this was acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the riot. but in this case, the question is mood because former president trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction. now this is a close question. it is no doubt. donald trump was the president when house voted. though not when house chose to deliver the papers. scholars argue both sides of this jurisdictional question. the text is legitimately ambiguous. i respect my colleagues who have
reached either conclusion. but after intense reflection, i believe the best constitutional reading shows that article to, section four, exalts the set of persons who can legitimately be if each tried or convicted. it mr. president, the vice president, and civil officers. we have no power to convict and disqualify the former officeholder who is now a private citizen. here is article two section four. ". the q president, the vice president and all civil offices of the united states shall be removed from office onov impeachment for and conviction
of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". everyone basically agrees that the second half ofas that sentee exhaust legitimate grounds for conviction. it's around the constitutional framing makes that abundantly clear. congress cannot convict for reasons besides those. the example follows of the list of persons in that same sentence is also exhausted. there's no reason why one would list, why one would be a lot exhausted but the other would not. article two section four mustt limit both why the impeachment and conviction can afford and to whom.
if this remission does not limit impeachment and conviction power the new has no limits at all. the house has sole power of impeachment. tothe senate sole power trial of the impeachment would create an unlimited to circle logic empowering them to be in any private citizen from office. that's an incredible claim. but if the argument of the house managers it seems to be making. one said they have absolute unqualified jurisdictional power. it was a quote. that was very honest. because there is no limited principle the constitutional text that would empower the senate's former officers that would not also let them convict and disqualify any private citizens. an absurd end result to which no
one subscribes. a article two section four must have force. it tells us that the president, vice president and civil officers may be impeached and convicted. donald trump is no longer the president. likewise, the provision states that officers subject to impeachment and conviction shall be removed from office if convicted. they shall be removed from office if convicted. as justice story e explained, te senate upon conviction is bound in all cases to enter a judgment of removal from office. removal is mandatory upon
conviction. clearly, he explains that mandatory sentiment cannot appoint somebody who has left office. the entire process revolves around removal. if removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes insensible. and 19, certainly does a counterintuitive that it also it can elude the senate conviction. by resignation or expiration of term. an argument we heard from the managers. this underscores that impeachment was never met to be the final form for american justice. it never meant to be the final forum for american justice. impeachment, conviction, and removal.
they are a specific intra- governmental safety valve read is not the criminal justice system or individual accountability is the paramount goal read indeed, justice story specifically reminded us that former officials who have not eligible for impeachment were conviction, they were in this is extremely important, still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice. put another way, in the language of today, to president trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. as an ordinary citizen. unless the statute of limitation
this he is still liable while he is in office. he does not get away with anything, yet. yet. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation. and formerd presidents not immue from being accountable by either one. i believe the senate was not touched have power the constitution does not give us. avicenna was right not to intervene some sham process to try to outrun the loss of jurisdiction. took both sides more than a week just to produce their pretrial briefs. the speaker policies on scheduling decisions conceded what president biden publicly confirmed . before inauguration day was no thought. during this
time, the senate doesn't argue this. the framers dialogue held up again. on january the sixth, we returned to her post and be certified the election. we were not intimidated. they finished the job. and since then, we resisted the climate to defy our own constitutional guardrails. in hot pursuit of a particular outcome. we refused to continue the cycle of recklessness by straining our own constitutional boundaries in