tv Second Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump MSNBC February 11, 2021 9:00am-3:00pm PST
take it on ourselves, and those words, those haunting words, what those officers said, wtf? is this america? i'm sick of this you know what. and that's where we're left. >> michael steele, thank you. as everyone can see, they have cranked on the camera in the senate chamber. pat leahy, who presides as senior most democrat, president pro tem of the senate, that also makes him third in line to the u.s. presidency behind vice president and speaker of the house. he's waiting for the high sign to take the chair, which he's doing now. we've been watching senators come out of the democratic cloak room and there's our gavel. >> dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer.
>> let us pray. almighty god, our shelter from the storms, give our senate jurors discernment that will rescue our nation from ruin. illuminate their minds with your truth as you speak through the whispers of conscience. remind them that the seeds they plant now will bring a harvest. may the choices they make bring blessings, healing, and prosperity to our land. we pray in your merciful name, amen.
>> please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> please be seated. if there's no objection, the general proceedings of the trial are proved to date and i'd ask the sergeant at arms to make the proclamation. >> hear yeah, hear yeah, all persons are commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment while the senate of the united states is sitting for the trial of the article of impeachment exhibited by the house of
representatives against donald john trump, former president of the united states. >> so it will be in order. and the majority leader is recognized. >> it's my understanding the schedule today will be similar to yesterday's proceedings. we'll plan to take a short break every two, three hours, and we'll accommodate a 30-minute recess for dinner, assuming it is needed. >> and pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 47, the managers for house of representatives have eight hours remaining to make the presentation of their, case. the senate will now hear you, and the presiding officer recognizes mr. manager raskin to continue the presentation of the case for the house of representatives. >> mr. president, thank you,
distinguished senators, representative degette of colorado will now show how the insurrectionists themselves believed that they were following president trump's marching orders. >> my friends and colleagues, yesterday was an emotionally wrenching day. as i watched the footage of the violence in the capitol building, my own experience flooded back to me. i was one of the unlucky members who was stuck in the house gallery along with congresswoman dean. as the house floor was cleared beneath us of members and staff,
we could see the mob pounding on the door to the house chamber. we could see the capitol police officers inside the chamber pull their guns and point them at the intruders. then we heard gunshots on the other side, and we flung ourselves down on the floor and removed our member pins. en this we heard pounding on the very flimsy gallery doors right up above us. finally, after that situation for some time, we are told to run out of a door at the end of the gallery. as we ran through a line of police towards a staircase, this is what i saw. the s.w.a.t. team pointing automatic weapons at marauders on the floor. looking at these people makes you wonder, who sent them here? in the next few minutes, i want to step back from the horrors of the attack itself and look at
january 6th from a totally different perspective, the perspective of the insurrectionists themselves. their own statements before, during, and after the attack made clear the attack was done for donald trump, at his instructions, and to fulfill his wishes. donald trump had sent them there. they truly believed that the whole intrusion was at the president's orders, and we know that because they said so. many of them actually posed for pictures bragging about it on social media, and they tagged mr. trump in tweets. folks, this was not a hidden crime. the president told them to be there, and so they actually believed they would face no punishment. the defense argued in their briefs, and they argued again here on tuesday, that the
insurrectionists were acting on their own, that they were not incited by president trump or acting at his direction. this is in their brief -- "they did so of their own accord and for their own reasons and are being criminally prosecuted." but that's just not the case. it's not what the insurrectionists actually said. they said they came here because the president instructed them to do so. leading up to the attack, the insurrectionists said they were coming to d.c. for president trump. he invited them with clear instructions for a specific time and place and with clear orders -- stop the fight -- fight to stop the certification in congress by any means necessary. the crowd at donald trump's speech echoed and chanted his words, and when people in the
crowd followed his direction and marched to the capitol, they chanted the same words as they breached this building. now, let's return to the speech for a moment. during the rally, president trump led the crowd in a "stop the steal" chant. here's what that chant sounded like from the crowd's perspective. >> all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. >> yeah! >> yeah! >> stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! >> soon after, the president basked as the crowd chanted "fight for trump." and when he incited the crowd to show strength, people responded, storm the capitol, invade the capitol. here are both of those moments
but from the crowd's perspective. >> fight for trump! fight for trump! fight for trump! fight for trump! fight for trump! fight for trump! fight for trump! >> thank you. >> you have to show strength. >> yes. >> yeah! >> invade the capitol building. >> we also have another perspective from this moment, onlime extremist chatter. at the same time as the people in the crowd shouted "take the capitol building," as president trump said "show strength," a person posted to parlor saying, "time to fight. civil war is upon us." another user said, "we are going to have a civil war.
get ready." an analysis found that members of civil war quadrupled on parlor in the hour after donald trump said "show strength." when the insurrectionists got to the capitol, they continued those rally cries. insurrectionists holding confederate flags and brandishing weapons cheered the president's very words. >> come on, man! >> stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! stop the steal! >> you heard them chanting "stop the steal." and as the crowd channelled at the rally, the crowd at the
capitol made clear who they were doing this for. they also chanted "fight for trump." >> fight for trump! fight for trump! fight for trump! fight for trump! fight for trump! >> and it wasn't just that they were doing this for mr. trump. they were following his instructions. they said he had invited them, and, in fact, as we heard, he had invited them. as one man explained on a live stream he taped from inside the capitol, "our president wants us here. we wait and take orders from our president." footage from inside the capitol shows when the insurrectionists first got into the building and confronted police, the mob screamed at the officers that they were listening to president
trump. >> we are listening to trump. >> the insurrectionists argued with law enforcement that they shouldn't even be fighting them because they believed that the commander in chief was ordering this. this was the person's understanding. when president-elect biden went on television that day to demand an end to the siege, one woman asked this. >> does he not realize president trump called us to siege the place? >> the examples of these types of comments are endless. don't worry, i won't play all of them. but it wasn't just the words of the insurrectionists that prove that they did this in response to orders from their commander in chief.
we can see this in the fact that they were not hiding. one rioter in a live stream at the capitol said, "he'll be happy. we're fighting for trump." >> let's go, trump, yes! dude! dude! let's show trump. he'd be, like, no, just say we love him. we love you, bro. he'll be happy. what do you mean? we're fighting for trump. >> and again, this was not an isolated incident. the individuals in this slide posted photos of themselves committing these crimes, trump supporters who had broken into the capitol were taking selfies, streaming live videos, and posing. in fact, they wanted the president to know this is me. in fact, you can see the person wrote on his own posting, "this
is me." and if there were any remaining doubt, after hours, when president trump finally told the insurrectionists to go home, only then did some of them begin to listen. as you previously saw, at 4:17 p.m., mr. trump released a prerecorded video saying to the mob, go home, we love you, you're very special. shortly after he tweeted this video, a few of the insurrectionists who had seen it could be claiming victory -- could be heard claiming victory and telling people to go home because of donald trump's message and instructions. you saw earlier the insurrectionist jacob chance lee, who told someone, "we won the day." a little before that video of chanceley, he said the same thing to the crowd through a bull horn and instructed them to
go home because of the video that president trump had tweeted. let's watch. >> even after the attack, the insurrectionists made clear to law enforcement that they were just following president trump's orders. they didn't shy away from their crimes because they thought they were following orders from the commander in chief, and so they would not be punished. they were wrong. after the attack, there were dozens of arrests. these were federal offenses, including assaulting the police. when law enforcement interviewed
the people who were at the capitol on january 6th, they once again said it was because the president told them to be there. robert sanford was seen in this widely circulated video throwing a fire extinguisher that struck a capitol police officer outside the building. a witness told the fbi that sanford said he had travelled to washington, d.c., on a bus with a group of people. the group had gone to the white house and listened to donald j. trump's speech and then had followed the president's instructions and gone to the capitol. folks, the insurrectionists didn't just make this up. as sanford's lawyer explained,
"you're being told you've got to fight like hell. does fight like hell mean you throw things at people? maybe." the lawyer added that his client "wouldn't have been there if it weren't for the president." now, sanford wasn't the exception. he was the rule. in their statements after the attack, insurrectionists routinely echoed what they had said before and during the attack -- they were there because the president told them to be. now, look, the lawyers who are saying that their clients were told to commit these acts by mr. trump, well, they know that putting the blame on the president doesn't exonerate their clients. they're just saying it, frankly, because that's exactly what happened. another trump supporter who ease been federally charged is texas
real estate agent jennifer ryan. now, ms. ryan has given mtv interviews in which she said she was only doing what the president asked her and others to do. she also recorded video before the rally talking about the mob's plans for violence. and here's what she said. >> personally, i do not feel a sense of shame or guilt from my heart from what i was doing. i thought i was following my president. i thought i was following what we were called to do. he asked us to fly there. he asked us to be there. so i was doing what he asked us to do. >> ultimately, yes, we were going in solidarity with president trump. president trump requested that we be in d.c. on the 6th. so this was our way of going and stopping the steal. if it comes down to war, guess what? i'm going to be there. we're all going to be up here. we're going to break in those
windows. >> yet another trump supporter who was arrested after breaching the capitol, douglas sweet, explained in a media intervie why he did it. referring to mr. trump, mr. sweet said, "he said, hey, i need my digital soldiers to show up on january 6th, and we all did." some of these individuals who joined in the attack on our capitol did so as part of violent, racist groups, which had been officially condemned by our government. daniel goodwin is a self-proclaimed member of the proud boys. he was one of many. on november 7th, goodwin tweeted a picture showing the proud boys logo surrounded by "stand back and stand by" and the quote, again, "stand back and stand by." and await orders from our commander in chief. look closely at this slide. you are looking at an image of
goodwin's own tweet. he was such a loyal follower of president trump that he used the president's photo as his own profile picture on twitter. now, remember, president trump told them to stand back and stand by at the debate. they took it as a call to arms. and when he called them to arms, they were all ready to act. they were waiting for their orders, which they got on january 6th. and goodwin followed those orders. he stood ready as others broke into the windows at the capitol and climbed inside. here he is on another of the insurrectionist live stream in one of the first-floor hallways of the building. when it became clear that donald
trump was not going to save these folks from prosecution, when it became clear that the commander in chief had given false commands that went against this country, some of his supporters expressed reget, and they said they felt duped. here's jacob chansley again, who we saw in a video claiming victory after the president told the rioters to go home. earlier in the afternoon, as you'll recall, chansley carried a spear as he breached the capitol, entered the senate through the gallery, and went right here, on to the senate floor. chansley left a threatening note for vice president pence right there on the senate dais. it read, "it's only a matter of time. justice is coming." on january 7th, chansley spoke to the fbi, and he said that he came as part of a group effort
with other patriots from arizona at the request of the president, that all patriots come to d.c. on january 6th, 2021. on january 14th, chansley's lawyer gave an interview to chris cuomo in which he said that chansley was there, quote, at the invitation of our president, who said he would walk down pennsylvania avenue with him. in fact, chansley's lawyer now says that chansley felt duped by the president and he regrets what the president brought him to do. this man, who ran through our halls, who ran into this chamber, sat right there on the dais, and who wrote a note for vice president pence that he was coming for him, he and those
with him declared they would remove us from office if we went against donald trump. now he's saying he would not have done any of that if mr. trump had told him not to. chansley is not alone in his posts of confession that he was following the directions of donald trump. as more and more of these people have been charged, the confession and the regret simply cascades. more and more insurrectionists are admitting that they came at trump's direction. when riley june williams, known for allegedly helping steal a laptop from speaker pelosi's office, appeared in court on january 21st, her lawyer said to the judge, "it is regrettable that ms. williams took the president's bait and went inside the capitol." troy smocks, who was in the
capitol riot on january 6th, posted online that day, "the president today -- president trump toll us to fight like hell. ." he also posted that the president "said that our case was a matter of national security." samuel fisher was charged with disorderly conduct and illegally being in the capitol on january 6th. that day, before the attack on this building, he wrote on his website, "trump just needs to fire the bat signal" and "then the pain comes." the lawyer for a leader of the proud boys who was the first person to break inside the capitol said that president trump effectively told his client and others, "people of the country, come on down. let people know what you think. logical thinking was, he invited
us down." his lawyer went on. these were people acting in a way they've never acted before. and it begs the question -- who lit the fuse? on january 6th, we know who lit the fuse. donald trump told these insurrectionists to come to the capitol and stop the steal. and they did come to the capitol. and they tried to stop the certification. they came because he told them to. and they did stop our proceedings but only temporarily, because he told them to. have you noticed throughout this presentation the uncanny similarity over and over and over again of what all these people are saying? they said what donald trump said and they echoed each other.
stand back and stand by. stop the steal. fight like hell. trump sent us. we are listening to trump. the riots that day left at least seven people dead, more than 150 people injured, members, senators and our staffs, all traumatized to this day, damage and pain to our capitol, damage and pain to americans, damage to our police force, and damage to other nations who have always seen us as a bastion of democracy. all of these people who have been arrested and charged, they're being accountable -- held accountable for their actions. their leader, the man who incited them, must be held accountable as well. but as i said earlier, you don't
have to take my world for it that the insurrectionists acted at donald trump's direction. they said so. they were invited here. they were invited by the president of the united states. >> we were invited here! we were invited! we were invited here! we were invited by the president of the united states!
>> a little bit of a delay here. manager raskin -- don't tell me this is all over a aptop charger, but of course, this being real life, it might be. the manager's staff is huddling there on the left. >> senators, representative degette just showed how the insurrectionists believed and understood themselves to be following president trump's marching orders. she explained in chilling detail how they were acting in perfect alignment with his political instructions and his explicit strategy to retain power.
they did what he told them to do. this pro-trump insurrection did not spring into life out of thin air. we saw how trump spent months cultivating america's most dangerous extremist groups. we saw how he riled them up with corrosive lies and violent rhetoric, so much so that they were ready and eager for their most dangerous mission invalidating the will of the people to keep donald trump in office. but we must remember that this was not the first time donald trump had enflamed and incited a mob. trump knew his incitement would result in violence not only because of the thousands of violent messages that were posted all over the forums and the widespread news of preparations for violence among extremist groups and his communications on twitter with the insurrectionists themselves, he knew it also because he'd seen many of the exact same
groups he was mobiliing participate in extremist violence before. moreover, he'd seen clearly how his own incitement to violence and praise after the violence took place galvanized, encouraged, and electrified these extremist followers. these tactics were road tested. january 6th was a culmination of the president's actions, not an aberration from them. the insurrection was the most violent and dangerous episode so far in donald trump's continuing pattern and practice of inciting violence. but i emphasize so far, earlier congresswoman plaskett showed several episodes of trump's incitement that took place during the presiden election, but his encouragement of
violence against other public official who is he thought had crossed him long predates the 2020 campaign. the incitement of violence is always dangerous, but it's uniquely intolerable when done by the president of the united states of america. but that became the norm. on president trump's watch, white supremacists and extremist groups have spread like wildfire across the land, his department of homeland security called home-grown terrorism the number-one threat facing americans today, but no matter how many people inside and outside government begged him to condemn extreme elements, promoting violence, and indeed civil war in america, and race war in america, he just wouldn't do it. and that's because he wanted to incite and provoke their violence for his own political gain and for his own strategic
objectives. every since he became president, trump revealed what he thought of political violence for his side. he praised it and he encouraged it. right now i'm going to play for you just a few clips from over the years when the president's words successfully incited his supporters into assaulting his opponents. >> usa! usa! usa! >> see, the first group, i was nice, oh, take your time. the second group i was pretty nice. the third group i'll be a little more violent, and the fourth group i'll say get the hell out of here! you get him the hell out of here, would you, please? get him out of here.
throw him out. i got a little notice in case you're seeing the security guys, we have wonderful security guys, they said, mr. trump, there may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. so if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? seriously. okay. just knock the hell -- i promise you, i will pay for the legal fees. i promise. i promise. >> well, we've seen these clips and many like them before. but think about the brutal power and effectiveness of his words with his followers. you heard him. told his supporters to be a little more violent, and they responded to his command by literally dragging a protester across the floor at one of his campaign rallies. he cried, "get him the hell out of here."
supporters punched and kicked him. he told supporters to knock the hell out of him and promised to pay the legal fees. time after time he encouraged violence. supporters listened and got the message. it wasn't just trump's encouragement of violence that conditioned his supporters to participate in this insurrection on january 6th. it was also his explicit sanctioning of the violence after it took place. let's watch some of those incidents, beginning with trump praising supporters who had assaulted a black protester. >> oh! >> we've had a couple that were really violent, and a particular one when i said i'd like to bang them, that was a very -- you know, it was a guy who was swinging, very loud, and started swinging at the audience. and you know what, the audience swung back and i thought it was very, very appropriate.
he was swinging. he was hitting people. and the audience hit back. and that's what we need a little bit more of. >> let me talk to you about that later. >> there's not going to be time. >> sick and tired of you guys! last time you did the same thing. get the hell out of here! get the hell out of here! you did the same thing. >> you just body slammed me and broke my glasses. >> greg is smart. and by the way, never wrestle him. do you understand that? no. any guy that can do a body slam, he's my guy.
>> jews will not replace us! jews will not replace us! >> what the -- >> i'm not saying we're not violent. we did not initiate. we're not nonviolent. we'll -- kill these people if we have to. >> i think there's blame on both sides. you look at both sides, i think there's blame on both sides. and you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. >> so just in case you didn't catch all of that, the president praised a republican candidate who assaulted a journalist as "my kind of guy." he said there were "very fine people on both sides" when the
neonazis, the klansmen and proud boys invaded the city, the great city of charlottesville and killed heather heyer. he said an attack on a black person at one of his rallies was very, very appropriate. does that sound familiar? listen to how president trump responded when asked about his own conduct on january the 6th. >> your personal responsibility. >> if you read my speech, and many people have done it, it's been analyzed and people thought that what i said was totally appropriate. >> so there the pattern is. staring us in the face. very, very appropriate he said after a man was asalted at one of his rallies, totally appropriate was how he characterized his incitement on january 6th, meaning that of course if given the chance he would gladly do it again, because why would he not engage
in totally appropriate conduct? an examination of his past statements makes it clear that when donald trump tells a crowd, as he did on january 6th, fight like hell or you won't with a country anymore, he meant for them to fight like hell. on january 6th, that became clear to all of america. now, let's consider the events, senators, that took place last year in michigan, where president demonstrated his willingness and his ability to incite violence against government officials who he thought were getting in his way. when responding to extremist plots in michigan, trump showed he knew how to use the power of a mob to advance his political objectives. beginning in march, trump leveled attacks on grempen whitmer for the coronavirus policies in her state. on march 17th, the day after whitmer pressed the federal government to better sup sport the states, trump criticized her handling of the pandemic,
tweeting, "failing michigan governor must be more proactive. i stand with michigan." march 27th -- "i lovemy m. one of the reasons we're doing such a great job for them during this horrible pandemic, yet your governor,gretchen half whit-mer." by frill, his attacks and name-calling turned to calls for mass mobilization of his supporters. this was a sign of things to come. on april 17th, 2020, he tweeted, "liberate michigan." not even two weeks later on april 30th, his supporters marched on the michigan state capitol in lansing. they stormed the building. trump's marching orders were followed by aggressive action on the ground.
>> we have the right! let us in. >> let us in! let us in! >> let us in! >> let us in! >> let us in! >> heil hitler! you betrayed us! you betrayed the people! >> lock her up! lock her up! lock her up! lock her up! lock her up! >> this video shows these militant protesters showed up ready to take a violent stand. they came armed and tightly packed themselves into the building with no regard, of course, for social distancing. this trump-inspired mob may indeed look familiar to you. confederate battle flags.
maga hats. weapons. cammo army gear. just like the insurrectionists who showed up and invaded this chamber on january 6th. the siege of the michigan state house was effectively a state-level dressler sal for the siege of the u.s. capitol that trump incited on january 6th. it was a preview of the coming insurrection. president trump's response to these two events was strikingly similar. following the armed siege in lansing, president trump refused to condemn the attacks on the michigan capitol or denounce the violent lawbreakers. instead, he did just the opposite. he upheld the righteousness of his violent follow eers' cause, and he put pressure on the victim of the attack to listen to his supporters. the day after the mob attack in lansing, trump told governor
whittmer to negotiate with the extremists, tweeting that the governor should just "give a little" to the violent men who stormed the capitol, threatening not only the stability of the michigan government but her own life. as you can see, he tweeted, "the governor of michigan should give a little and put out the fire. these are very good people, but they are angry. they want their lives back again safely. see them, talk to them, make a deal." the president says heavily armed extremists carrying confederate battle flags and pushing past police to overtake the michigan state house chamber are very good people and just negotiate with them. it's clear he doesn't think that they're at fault in any way at all. but april 30th wasn't the only time trump supporters stormed the michigan capitol. emboldened by his praise and his encouragement and support, they
escalated again. governor whitmer refused to capitulate to the president's demand to negotiate with them. two weeks later, on may 14th, trump's mob again stormed the state capitol. this time, as you can see here, one man brought a doll with a noose around the neck foreshadowing the appearance of the large gallows erected outside of this building down stairs from here on january 6th as the crowd channelled, and i can still they're words in my ear, "hang mike pence, hang mike pence, hang mike pence." over the coming months, even after a crowd threatening governor whitmer stormed the capitol, trump continued to assail her in public. at a rally in michigan on september 10th, trump whipped up the crowd against whitmer saying she doesn't have a clue about reopening her state's own economy. the crowd cheered. on october 8th, the precise consequences of the president's incitement to violence were
revealed to the whole world. look at this. 13 men were arrested by the fbi for plotting to storm the michigan state capitol building, launch a civil war, kidnap governor whitmer, transport her to wisconsin, and then try and execute her. this was an assassination conspiracy, a kidnapping conspiracy. look at the language that they used. in the charging document the fbi reported that one of the conspirators said he needed "200 men to storm the capitol building and take political hostages including the governor." the suspect called it a snatch-and-grab, man. grab the f'ing governor. one of those men has pled guilty to this conspiracy. the plot was well organized, just like the one that was coming on january 6th. the men in michigan even considered building molotov cocktails to disarm police vehicles and attempted to construct their own ieds,
something that actually happened here on january 6th. police authorities arrested extremists who had weapons and materials to build explosive devices including one man found with an assault rifle and enough materials to make 11 molotov cocktails. on september 17th, 2020, one of the michigan continue spir cysts posted, "when the time comes there will be no need to strike fear through presence. the fear will be manifested through bullets." and what did donald trump do as president of the united states to defend one of our nation's governors against a plotted kidnapping by violent insurrectionists? did he publicly condemn violent domestic extremists who hoped and planned to launch a civil war in america? no, not at all. he further enflamed them by continuing to attack the governor, who was the object of
their hatred in this kidnapping conspiracy. the very night this conspiracy became public and that governor whitmer learned that there were 13 men who were planning to kidnap and likely kill her, trump did not condemn the violence, he did not criticize the extremists, he didn't even check on governor whitmer's safety. he chose to vilify governor whittmer again and then amazingly took credit for foiling the plot against her, demanding her gratitude. and then he quickly, of course, changed the subject to antifa. he tweeted, "governor whitmer has done a terrible job." he demanded that she thank him for the law enforcement operation that had foiled the kidnapping conspiracy that had been encouraged by his rhetoric. on october 17th, a little over a week after these people were
arrested for preparing to kidnap gretchen whitmer, trump riled up a boisterous crowd in muskeegan with more slashing personal attacks on whitmer, driving the crowd to chant "lock her up, lock her up." he had now seen that some of his followers were prepared to engage in criminal violence with orchestrated attacks, deadly weapons, and willing bodies to storm a state capitol building to attack his perceived political enemies. and so as the crowd chanted "lock her up," he pivoted to his next goal. he told them they couldn't trust the governor to administer fair elections in michigan. he used the crowd that he knew would readily engage in violence to prepare his followers for his next and of course his paramount political objective, claiming the election was stolen and inciting insurrectionary action. he did it again on object 27th
during a preelection rally speech in lansing, michigan. e, where the capitol had been stormed. trump openly joked with the crowd about critics saying his words had provoked the violent plot against governor whitmer. check it out. it's telling. >> we got to get her -- i don't think she likes me too much. >> lock her up! lock her up! lock her up! lock her up! lock her up! lock her up! lock her up! lock her up! lock her up! lock her up! >> see, i don't comment on that because every time, if i make just even a little bit of a nod, they say the president led them -- i don't have to lead you on. even a little nod, they say the president said your governor, at the urging of her husband, who as abused our system very badly, the only man allowed in the state of michigan, the only man
allowed to go sailing is her husband. no. your governor, i don't think she likes me too much. hey, hey, hey. i'm the one. it was our people that helped her out with her problem. my people, our people that helped her out. >> so president trump offered them a little winking inside joke about his constant incitement of the mob, and how much can actually be communicated by him with just a little nod, just a little nod. he presided over another pounding rhythmic rendition of his trade mark chant lock her up, lock her up. then referring to the fbi's foiling of the kidnapping conspiracy, which was deadly
serious, he said that he helped her out with a problem. maybe it wasn't a problem, maybe it was. the president of the united states of america. he could not bring himself to publicly oppose a kidnapping and potential assassination conspiracy plot against a sitting governor of one of our 50 states? inviting the january 6th mob. exactly. he had just seen how easily his words and actions inspired violence in michigan. he sent a clear message to his supporters. he encouraged planning and conspiracies to take over capitol buildings and threaten public officials who refused to bow down to his political will. is there any chance donald trump was surprised by the results of his own incitement?
let's do what tom hane told us to do, use our common sense, the sense we have in common as citizens. if we don't draw line here, what's next? what makes you think that donald trump and his violent making mobs is over? if we let him get away it, and then it comes to your state capitol or it comes back here again what are we going to say? these prior acts of incitement cast a harsh light on trump's obvious intent, obvious intent. his unavoidable knowledge of the consequences of his incitement. the unavoidable knowledge of the consequences of his incitement, and the clear foreseeability of the violent harm that he unleashed on our people and our republic. january 6th was not some unexpected radical break from his normal law abiding and peaceful disposition.
this was his state of mind. this was his essential m.o. he knew that egged on by his tweets, his lies and his promise of a wild time in washington to guarantee his grip on power, his most extreme followers would show up bright and early, ready to attack, ready to engage in violence, ready to fight like hell for their hero. just like they'd answered his call in michigan. president trump has said over and over his supporters are loyal. in his own words his supporters are the most loyal that we've seen in our country's history. and he knew that his most hard core supporters were willing to direct violence at elected officials, indeed to attack and lay siege to a capitol building and he knew they would be ready to heed his call on january 6th to stop the steal by using violence to block the peaceful
transfer of power in the united states. he knew they were coming. he brought them here. and he welcomed them with open arms. we hear you and love you from the oval office. my dear colleagues, is there any political leader in this room who believes that if he's ever allowed by the senate to get back into the oval office, donald trump would stop inciting violence? to get his way? would you bet the lives of more police officers on that? would you bet the safety of your family on that? would you bet the future of your democracy on that? president trump declared his conduct totally appropriate. so if he gets back into office and it happens again we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
>> mr. lieu will return now to tell you about president trump's total lack of remorse after the insurrection. >> good afternoon. my colleagues walked you through president trump's actions leading up to january 6th and then the horrific events on january 6th. and we saw both during their attack as well as in the days after their attack that this was a president who showed no remorse and took no accountability. in fact, quite the opposite. as representative raskin showed you, president trump claimed that his actions were, quote,
totally appropriate. their assertion that everyone thought donald trump's actions were totally appropriate, including people in this room, is, of course, untrue. it is also dangerous. and that's why members of congress and u.s. senators, former, current administration officials, state and local officials, all unequivocally confirm what we witnessed with our own eyes that donald trump's conduct was wrong, it was destructive, dishonorable and un-american. president trump's lack of remorse and refusal to take accountability during the attack shows his state of mind. it shows that he intended the events of january 6th to happen and when it did he delighted in it. president trump's lack of remorse, and refusal to take accountability after the attack poses its own unique and
continuing danger. it sends the message that it is acceptable to incite a violent insurrection to overthrow the will of the people, and that a president of the united states can do that and get away with it. that is why we have to hold president trump accountable, to send a message that it is never patriotic to incite a violent attack against our nation's capitol. and that future presidents will know that they cannot follow in donald trump's footsteps and get away with it. so let's start with the day of the attack. on insurrection day, january 6th, president trump did not once condemn the attack, not even once. even when he finally asked the violent extremists to go home, which was three hours after
attack began, he sends this video and he ends it with you're very special. we love you. that was his message to people who portrayed this violent gruesome attack. we love you. two hours later he tweets, "remember this day forever." this is not a man who showed remorse. but it's worse than that. after that tweet it took him another full day to even condemn the attack itself. the very next day president trump was eerily silent. and then at 7:01 p.m. he releases a pre-recorded video. and there president trump for the first time, nearly 30 hours after the attack began acknowledges and condemns the
violence and mayhem that occurred. he said the demonstrators defiled the seat of american democracy. he said that these demonstrators didn't represent this country and if they broke the law they would pay. but even in that video he says more lies. he says in that very same video that he immediately deployed the national guard. that, again, is not true. the national guard was not deployed until over two hours after the attack began at around 3:00 p.m. because of this late deployment the national guard did not arrive until after 5:00 p.m. and when the guard was deployed the pentagon had released a statement that showed the list of people, and you saw that list, of folks that were consulted before deploying the national guard. several people were on that list, including the vice
president. president trump was not on that list. and, you know, as a veteran i find it deeply dishonorable that our commander in chief did not protect us, and then later he tries to take credit for something he failed to do. shameful. also in that video you should note what it did not say. absent from that entire video was any actual acceptance or responsibility for his actions. absent from that video was a call to his most fervent supporters to never do this again. and here was his final message in that so-called condemnation of attack video. here's what he actually said. >> and to all of my wonderful supporters, i know you are disappointed, but i also want you to know that our incredible journey is only just beginning.
>> president trump not only failed to show remorse or take accountability. he made clear he is just beginning. for days he did not address the nation after this attack. we needed our commander in chief to lead, to unite a grieving country, to comfort us. but what did president trump do? nothing. silence. we're all aware that a violent mob murdered a police officer. it took president trump three days before he lowered the flag of the united states of america. three days. and president trump, who was commander in chief at the time did not attend and pay respects to the officer who lay in state in the very building that he died defending.
now, some people have argued that president trump made a mistake. that he gets a mulligan. but we know president trump didn't make a mistake. because you see when you or i make a mistake, and something very bad happens, we would show remorse. we would accept responsibility. president trump didn't do any of that. why not? because he intended what happened on january 6th. and how do we know that? he told us. on january 12th, as president trump was boarding air force one to head to texas, and you saw this video before, and i'm going to show it again. he was asked by a reporter, "what is your role in what happened at the capitol? what is your personal responsibility?" and this was his response. >> my speech and my words and my
final paragraph, my final sentence, and everybody to the tee thought it totally appropriate. >> on january 12th president trump had seen the violent attack on the capitol. he knew the people that died and his message to all of us was that his conduct was totally appropriate. i'm a former prosecutor. and we're trained to recognize lack of remorse, but it doesn't take a prosecutor to understand that president trump was not showing remorse. he was showing defiance. he was telling us that he would do this again. that he could do this again. that he and future presidents can run for national election, lose an election, inflame the supporters for months, and then incite an insurrection, and that that would be totally
appropriate. one week after the attack, on january 13th, president trump, in response to continuing bipartisan criticism, releases another video. here's part of what he said. i want to be very clear, i unequivocally condemn the violence that we saw last week, violence and vandalism have absolutely no place in our country, and no place in our movement. president trump, of course, had to make that statement. he needed to unequivocally condemn the attack. but he also needed to mean those words. you saw donald trump tweet endless attacks, sometimes 108 tweets in a day. and in public speeches and across rallies, repeating words of fight and stop the steal, and never surrender, you know what it looks like when president trump wants to convey a message? forcefully, loudly and repeatedly he does that. this video sent after a week of the attack was not that. and we know this because in this
video he again does not show remorse, does not take responsibility. he, again, does not acknowledge his role in the insurrection. he does not say in that video, for example, everything i said in the months prior went too far. and he does not say the one sentence that matters. he does not say the one sentence that would stop future political violence, the election was not stolen. he still hasn't said that sentence. that is why national guard troops in full body armor still patrol outside. reports from the white house also confirm that president trump believed he was "forced by the bipartisan furor after the insurrection to acknowledge the new administration," we know he did not stand behind his belated
condemnation because those around him confirmed it. and behind closed doors sources confirm that president trump still refused to directly acknowledge his election loss to joe biden. he refused to even attend the peaceful transition of power, the first president in modern history. president trump even reportedly, while watching the impeachment vote, quote, focused his ire on the republicans who voted for his impeachment, peppering aides with questions about what he could do to exact revenge. president trump has made clear that if he is not held accountable he will not be accountable. he will not stop. now president trump would have his base and the world believe that his conduct was totally appropriate. it is important to impeach that falsehood, to make clear to his
supporters and everyone watching that what donald trump did was not acceptable. in fact, quite the opposite. people in his own party, state officials, former officials, current officials, members of congress, have all unambiguously and passionately said that what donald trump did was "disgraceful." shameful. and they have called his behavior existential and wrong. and they said that his actions gave rise to one of the darkest chapters in united states history. let's hear what some of these officials had to say. here governor spencer cox, charlie baker, mike dewine, larry hogan and phil scott. >> people have to be held accountable and yes, that includes the president. >> it's important to remember
that they were the culmination of months of president trump repeating over and over again that the american electoral system is a fraud. after he stoked the flames of outrage for weeks, leading up to the events of yesterday, he refused to adequately prepare the u.s. capitol for the possibility of violence and left it nearly defenseless. his remarks during the and after the travesty of the attack on the capitol were disgraceful. >> president trump's continued refusal to accept the election results without producing credible evidence of a rigged election have started a fire that's threatened to burn down our democracy. this incendiary speech yesterday, one he gave preceding the march, that he gave to the protesters, served only to fan those flames. >> i proudly stood by my
father's side at age 12 on the floor of the house chamber as we both took the oath of office, an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states. it's clear to me that president trump has abandoned this sacred oath. >> seeing our capitol, a symbol of democracy around the world, stormed by an angry mob was heartbreaking. and let me be clear, these actions were not patriotic, and these people are not patriots. the fact that these flames of hate and insurrection were lit by the president of the united states will be remembered as one of the darkest chapters in our nation's history. >> one of the darkest chapters in our nation's history.
former members of the trump administration, long standing republicans, also made clear that president trump incited this insurrection, and it went against our democracy. the president's former secretary of defense james mattis declared that "today's violent assault on our capitol, an effort to subjugate american democracy by mob rule, was fomented by mr. trump." former white house chief of staff john kelly also spoke on this as well, and i'd like to play an audio clip of what he said. >> what happened on capitol hill yesterday is a direct result of his poisoning the minds of people with the lies and the frauds. >> if you couldn't hear that what john kelly said about president trump was that what happened on capitol hill was a direct result of him poisoning the minds of people with the
lies and the fraud. former speaker of the house john boehner declared that "the invasion of our capitol by a mob incited by lies in some entrusted with power is a disgrace with all who sacrifice to build our republic." this was echoed by former trump official after former trump official. heroes is what former national security adviser john bolton, and h.r. mcmaster, former white house communications director alyssa ferra, and former chief of staff mick mulvaney said. >> let me just ask you, do you think president trump has blood on his hands? >> i think he does. look, i agree with bill barr. i think he did incite this mob with the clear intention of having them disrupt the electoral college certification and delay it to give him more time. i don't think there's any question about it. >> there are many reasons for this assault on the capitol, but
foremost among them was the president's exhortations, was expect's sustained disinformation. we've seen a president stoking fears amidst these crises. >> first and foremost i want to say that what happened at the capitol was unacceptable, un-american, undemocratic. >> i think everybody recognizes that what happened on wednesday is different. you can go down the long litany of things that people complained about with donald trump and i can probably defend almost all of them. many of them were policy differences, many of them were stylistic differences. but wednesday was different. wednesday was existential. wednesday is one of those things that struck to the very heart of what it means to be an american and it was wrong. >> mick mulvaney, president trump's former chief of staff is clearly saying what we all felt, that january 6th was different. it was existential, it was
wrong, it was un-american. and this sentiment was echoed not just from people outside the administration, but from people inside the trump administration. perhaps most telling was the flood of resignations from people inside president trump's administration with firsthand access to president trump. his own officials felt so betrayed by his conduct that numerous officials resigned in protest days before the end of president trump's term. 16 officials resigned in protest. 16. they all took this dramatic action of resigning because they saw the clear link between president trump's conduct and the violent insurrection. here is some of what they said. secretary devos, who was in the
administration the entire term told president trump in her resignation letter that "there's no mistaking the impact your rhetoric had on the situation, and it is an inflection point for me." secretary chao, who was in the administration the entire term explained "yesterday our country experienced a traumatic and entirely avoidable event, as supporters of the president stormed the capitol building following a rally he addressed. as i'm sure is the case with many of you it has deeply troubled me in a way i simply cannot set aside." deputy costello told his associates the attack was his "breaking point, and he hoped a wake-up call." these rebukes and resignations from president trump's own administration make clear that president trump's conduct was anything but totally
appropriate. they also remind us that this can and must be a wake-up call. as representative fred upton so eloquently put it "president trump expressed no regrets for last week's violence insurrection at the u.s. capitol. this sends exactly the wrong signal to those of us who support the very core of our democratic principles and took a solemn oath to the constitution. it is time to say enough is enough." now, no one is saying here that president trump cannot contest the election. of course he can. but what president trump did, as his former chief of staff explained, was different. it was dishonorable. it was un-american. and it resulted in fatalities. president trump spent months inflaming his supporters, spread lies to incite a violent attack
on the capitol, on our law enforcement and on all of us and then he lied again to his base to tell them that this was all okay, that this was all acceptable. and that is why president trump is so dangerous. because he would have all of us, all americans believe that any president who comes after him can do exactly the same thing. that's why lack of remorse is an important factor in impeachment. because impeachment, conviction, and disqualification is not just about the past, it's about the future, it's making sure that no future official, no future president, does the same exact thing president trump does. president trump's lack of remorse shows that he will undoubtedly cause future harm if allowed because he still refuses to account for his previous high
grave crime against our government. you know, i'm not afraid of donald trump running again in four years. i'm afraid he's going to run again and lose because he can do this again. we're in an unusual situation because despite president trump's claim that everyone thinks what he did was fine, so many have come out and spoken so strongly and passionately about what happened here. i'd like to highlight a statement by representative anthony gonzales. he said the vice president in both chambers of congress had their lives put in danger as a result of the president's actions and the events leading up to and on january 6th. during the attack itself the president abandoned his post, while many members asked for help, thus further endangering all present. these are fundamental threats, not just to people's lives, but to the very foundation of our
republic. and now i'd like to show what members of congress said, leading up to the most bipartisan impeachment vote in u.s. history. because i do want everyone watching, especially president trump's supporters, to see firsthand what i believe we all feel, that what president trump did was not appropriate, that it was not american, and that it absolutely cannot stand. >> what he has done and what he has caused here, is something that we've never seen before in our history. >> all indications are that the president has become unmoored, not just from his duty, or even his oath, but from reality itself. >> the president's role in this insurrection is undeniable, both on social media after january 6th and in his speech that day. he deliberately promoted
baseless theories, creating misinformation and division. to allow the president of the united states to incite this attack without consequences is a direct threat of the future of this democracy. >> after this trial i hope you'll come together and cast your vote and make absolutely clear how we as a congress and as a nation feel about what donald trump did by convicting him. and prevent this from being only the beginning as president trump said, and to deter future presidents who did not like the outcome of a national election from believing they can follow in president trump's footsteps. it is what our constitutional requires, it is what our country deserves. >> representative deget will return to show how the
extremists for emboldened and planned to attack the inauguration. #. my colleagues have showed you the overwhelming evidence of how president trump's conduct assembled, incited and inflamed the mob. we showed how and why this attack, this violence was not only foreseeable, but preventable. we showed that president trump knew his conduct could and would result in violence, and that when the attack occurred he did not fulfill his duty as commander in chief, and defend us. instead he was delighted.
donald trump incited a violent insurrection. and he failed to defend our nation, our capitol, this congress, and our law enforcement from the attack he incited. now i want to turn to the impact, the long-term harm of this conduct. my colleagues and i will walk through the breadth and gravity of this harm. i'd like to start with the effect president trump's conduct had on our domestic security. we saw firsthand how donald trump's conduct emboldened and escalated domestic violence extremists. these folks are known in the law enforcement community as dves. these threats were and are made worse by president trump's refusal to take accountability, and his refusal to forcibly
denounce what his own fbi identified as some of the most dangerous elements of our country. even as the attack was under way, he tweeted words of support to his violent supporters. and then in the aftermath on january 7th president trump made it clear, this was only the beginning. >> and to all of my wonderful supporters i know you are disappointed but i also want you to know that our incredible journey is only just beginning. >> and he was right. unless we take action, the violence is only just beginning. in the aftermath of the attack we saw a huge rise in threats to our -- from domestic violent extremists, including specific threats to the inauguration in d.c., and also to all 50 state
capitols. our intelligence agencies confirmed that in addition to these specific threats, president trump's conduct emboldened the very same violent groups who initiated the attack, and sparked new violent coalitions. these groups believe that they're following his orders. they believe that their acts of insurrection and violence are patriotic. violence is never patriotic. and it's never american. it's not the democratic way and it's not the republican way. after the attack the nation's top defense and law enforcement agencies reported an increase in credible threats to the inauguration from donald trump's supporters. on january 13th, 2021 a joint intelligence bulletin issued by the department of homeland security, the fbi, and the
national counterterrorism center found "since the 6th january event violent online rhetoric regarding the 20 january presidential inauguration has increased with some calling for unspecified justice for the 6th january fatal shooting by law enforcement of a participant who had illegally entered the capitol building," and another posting that "many armed individuals would return on 19 january." the agencies also made clear why these threats were escalating, especially regarding the inauguration. the report explained that a primary motivating factor was "the shared false narrative of a stolen election, an opposition to the change in control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government may lead some
individuals to adopt the belief that there is no political solution to address their grievances and that violent action is necessary. in other words, president trump spreading of inflammatory disinformation about the election incited the insurrection on january 6th. and may lead to further violence. online, just as they did prior to january 6th attack, trump supporters took to the internet to organize and document their desire and plans for future violence at president biden's inauguration. and indeed, in the days shortly after the attack, several posters on extremist social media websites made further plans for violence. they posted "many of us will return on january 19, 2021 carrying our weapons in support
of our nation's resolve to which the world will never forget. we will come in numbers no standing army or police agency can match. we took the building once and we can take it again." other users, eager to participate in additional attacks, confirmed that they were waiting on president trump's instructions about what to do next. referring to a future planned attack, a user on the online platform known as gab posted "i'd like to come do this but want to know, does our president want us there? awaiting instructions." in fact, in the days leading up to the inauguration multiple individuals, many potentially an attempt to carry out the plots that i just previewed, were arrested in washington, d.c., including on serious weapons charges. one of those men was coy
griffin, the founder of cowboys for trump, who took part in the capitol attack and was also arrested on january 17th. here's what he said about his plans for violence. >> you know, you want to say that that was a mob. you want to say that was a violence. no, sir. no, ma'am. no, we could have a second amendment rally on the same steps that we had that rally yesterday. you know, and if we do, then it's going to be a sad day because there's going to be blood running out of that building. but at the end of the day you mark my word we will plant our flag on the deaths of nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. >> blood running out of the building, this building, the capitol, where all of us are right now. now, the name cuoy griffin may sound familiar because he previously faced controversy for a may 2020 video where he said
"the only good democrat is a dead democrat." hear it from him yourself. >> where i've come to the conclusion the only good democrat is a dead democrat. >> now, when he said this president trump actually retweeted griffin and thanked him for that sentiment. when donald trump retweeted this he was no stranger to griffin. in fact, in march 2019 over a year earlier griffin and trump had spoken on the phone for nearly 30 minutes. president trump's conduct without a doubt made it clear that he supported griffin. in fact, griffin even said so himself. as griffin later said about president trump retweeting his
inflammatory comment about the dead democrats. "it really means a lot to me because i know the president of the united states has my back." remember, this is a man who was here on january 6th, who was arrested after threatening to come back here to make blood come running out of this building. threats like griffin's have triggered a deployment of forces the likes of which we have never seen. there were approximately 25,000 national guard troops brought in from around the country to protect d.c. leading up to and on inauguration day. as you know many of those troops are still here. take a look at that. these were scenes that played out all over the country. five days following the siege on
the capitol on january 11, 2021 the fbi warned that "armed protests are being planned in all 50 state capitols from 16 january through at least 20 january, and at the u.s. capitol from 17 january through 20 january. as a result at least 21 states activated their national guards in preparation for potential attacks. president trump's incitement has reverberated around the country prompts massive law enforcement mobilization in several state capitols, including washington, illinois, michigan and georgia. look at these photos. this is what donald trump has done to america. this massive deployment of law enforcement has cost the taxpayers dearly. the national guard deployment to
d.c. alone is expected to cost at least $480 million. the bills are already -- also racking up in the states. north carolina, south carolina, pennsylvania, utah and wisconsin have each spent about a half a million dollars to safeguard their capitols in the run-up to the inauguration. ohio spent $1.2 million over the same two-week period. and remember, this is at a time when state budgets are already suffering under the weight of the pandemic. our brave service members showed up, thanks to their dedication and their vigilance, the inauguration in the days leading up to it mercifully proceeded without incident. in fact, after news broke of law enforcement's preparedness for further attacks leaders of the proud boys, the three percenters
militia, the organizers of the million maga march they all now told their followers to avoid protests up to or leading up to the inauguration for fear that law enforcement would crush them and arrest rioters who showed up. thank god there wasn't an insurrection sequel here on january 20th. but look at the price we've paid. the price that we're still paying. it's not just dollars and cents. this capitol has become a fortress as state capitols have all across the country. our constituents no longer have access to the elected representatives. every democrat and republican, including people who came here on january 6th peacefully is paying the price. and it's not just a loss of access. it's a dimming of their freedom. it's a dimming of all of our freedom. we must uphold our oaths as the
tens of thousands of law enforcement officers have done in the wake of january 6th. because if we do not, president trump's mob stands ready for more attacks. now, this should be no surprise, having a commander in chief who incites violence has given life to the existing violent groups he spent years cultivating, and has inspired new coalitions among extremist groups who actually view january as a success. according to the fbi president trump's assemblage of his mob was particularly dangerous was "in person engagement between dves of differing ideological goals during the capitol breach likely served to foster connections which may increase dve's willingness, capability and motivation to attack and undermine a government they view as illegitimate."
in other words, they all got to talking to each other. this bulletin, by our own intelligence committee, was also confirmed by concrete evidence. rioters celebrated their roles in the january 6th attack on social media. they boasted about their success in breaching the capitol and forcing members of congress and the vice president to evacuate. take, for example, right wing provocateur nick fuentes. the day before the capitol insurrection fuentes said this on his internet show. >> what can you and i do to a state legislator, besides kill them? we should not do that. i'm not advising that. but what else can you do, right? >> fuentes was at the capitol on january 6th, and praised the insurrection on a live stream as glorious, and awe inspiring. he later said, "we forced a joint session of congress and
the vice president to evacuate because trump's supporters were banging down and then successfully burst through the doors" fuentes was not the only provocateur to revel in the violence. according to mike dunn, a member of the boogaloo boys, an anti-government movement whose adherence helped to lead multiple groups in storming the capitol, they will be "working overtime to capitalize on the january 6th riots and hope it will lead to more action" they said "just know there's more to come." proud boys members were bragging about the attack on the capitol. one post on the proud boys telegram channel said "people saw what we can do. they know what we're up to. they know and they want in." the leader of the proud boys himself sent the same message, enrique tario said the proud boys would be active during biden's presidency, tario stated
you're definitely going to see more of us. extremist groups are also boasting that the attack on our capitol is a boon for their recruitment efforts. three percent security force leader chris hill says he's been contacted by several people interested in joining since the insurrection. and as one expert who focuses on domestic extremism jared holt explained by all measurable effects this was a far right extremist, one of the most successful attacks they've ever launched. they're talking about this as the first stab in a greater revolution. and as indicated by mr. holt, their perceived success has given them encouragement to continue and to escalate attacks. intelligence agencies have also noted that these extremist groups will unfortunately be targeting vulnerable minority
communities in the u.s. a january 27, 2021 dhs bulletin warned "long standing racial and ethnic tension of the sort that led to a man killing 23 people at an el paso walmart will continue to grow and motivate further attacks." the january 13 joined intelligence bulletin reported stated that "in addition to the other types of violence listed dves may be incited to carry out more violence." including violence against racial, ethnic and religious minorities, and associated institutions, journalists, members of the lgbtq plus community and other targets common among some dves, these prejudiced elements could be seen visibly in the attack -- in the crowd that attacked the capitol. pictured here is robert packer. robert packer is an avowed white
supremacist and holocaust denier who proudly wore that sweatshirt which states "camp auschwitz," these prejudiced elements could also be heard from the crowds. as you've heard, the insurrectionists that attacked the capitol on january 6th hurled racial insults, including at one black officer. one officer explained what he experienced "i'm a black officer, there was a lot of racism that day. i was called racial slurs and in the moment i didn't process this as traumatic. i was just trying to survive. i just wanted to get home to see my daughter again. i couldn't show weakness. i finally reached a safe place, surrounded by officers. i was able to cry, to let it out, to attempt to process it."
these extremist groups were emboldened because president trump told them repeatedly that their insurrectionist activities were the pinnacle of patriotism. well, let today be the day that we reclaim the definition of patriotism. impeachment is not to punish, but to prevent. we are not here to punish donald trump. we are here to prevent the seeds of hatred that he planted from bearing anymore fruit. as my colleagues showed this was not the first time that president trump inspired violence. but it must be the last time that he's given a platform to do so. this must be our wake-up call. we must condemn it. because the threat is not over.
president trump refused to condemn this type of violence. instead, over and over again he's encouraged it. our response must be different this time. we simply cannot sweep this under the rug. we must take a united stand, all of us, that this is not american. think back to august 2017, when a young woman was murdered during a white supremacist rally in charlottesville, west virginia. her name was heather hyer, her mother's name is susan brou, she's been a steadfast advocate for her daughter's memory. in a 2018 interview she expressed concern that people rushed too quickly to reconciliation, without accountability. >> if you rush to heal, if you
rush to -- everybody grab each other and sing kumbayah, we've accomplished nothing and we'll be right back here in a few years. >> we will be right back here in a few years. those were her words in 2018. three years ago. her daughter's murder, he was held to account. but our nation did not impose any meaningful accountability on a president who at the time said that there was -- were very fine people on both sides. and now where are we three years later? i'd argue we're not just back where we were. i would argue things are worse. in 2017 it was unfathomable to most of us to think that charlottesville could happen. just as it was unfathomable to most of us that the capitol could have been breached on january 6th.
frankly, what unfathomable horrors await us if we do not stand up now and say no, this is not america. and we will not just express condolences and denunciations, we won't just close the book and try to move on. we will act to make sure this never happens again. >> representative cicilline and lieu will now come to show the damage done to our democratic process. mr. cicilline.
>> mr. president, distinguished senators, you just heard from my colleague manager degette how the conduct of donald trump dramatically increased the threats to our security and emboldened violent domestic extremists. i'd like to now turn to the harm that was caused here inside these walls as a result of the conduct on january 6th. the harm to us, to congress, to those who serve our country, and to the constitutional processes as the trump mob tried to stop the election certification process. the attack on january 6th was one of the bloodiest intrusions in the capitol since the british invaded in the war of 1812 and burned it to the ground. and you've heard in pain staking
detail that the president's mob posed an immediate and serious threat to the continuity and constitutional succession of the united states government as the first, second and third in line to the presidency, the vice president, the speaker of the house, the president pro tem were all together and faced a common threat in the same location. and we've seen the first and the second were purposely targeted by these attackers. these weren't idle threats. the mob, as you have heard, chanted hang mike pence. [ chanting ] >> the charging documents show that the rioters said they would have killed vice president pence and speaker pelosi had they found them. don bancroft -- two of the rioters charged in the attack were caught on tape discussing the brutal violence that they hoped to inflict on speaker
pelosi had she not been rushed out to safety. they said "we broke into the capitol, we got inside, we did our part, and we were looking for nancy to shoot her in the freaking brain, but we didn't find her." senators, simply put, this mob was trying to overthrow our government and they came perilously close to reaching the first three people in line to the presidency. it wasn't just the vice president and the speaker, rioters were prepared to attack any member of congress they found. thomas edward caldwell, donovan ray kroll and jessica maria mat kins were also charged. they discussed trapping us inside the underground tunnels. the indictment called social media chatter with caldwell quote all members are in the tunnel under capitol, seal them in. turn on gas.
all legislators are down in the tunnels, three floors down, do like we had to do when i was in the corps and start tearing out floors, go from top to bottom, end quote. never did any of us imagine that we our or colleagues would face mortal peril by a mob riled up by the president of the united states, the leader of the free world. but we did. all because donald trump could not accept his election defeat. trump chose himself above the people, above our institutions, above our democracy, above all of you. you know, we've heard trump espouse for years now this america first policy. but his true north star isn't america's well-being, it's not country first, like our dear
departed colleague john mccain. no, his directive is trump first. no matter the cost. no matter the threat to our democracy. but each and every one of us in this room must agree on one thing, we can never allow the kind of violent attack that occurred on january 6th to ever happen again in this country. in the immediate aftermath we heard really disturbing accounts from many members of congress about what they experienced that day. here's some of those reactions. following the attack representative dusty johnson expressed concerns
that we had gotten to the point where so many of us had sown the seeds of anger and division. >> we were barricaded and there was some fear, to be sure, but overwhelmingly the emotion that i experienced was one of anger. i just could not believe that
this was happening. i could not believe that we had gotten to this point where so many of us had sown these seeds of anger and of division. and we had built this powder keg. and really, we were starting to see this powder keg light up and it was frankly -- i was furious. >> representative jason crow compared the events of this day to his time in afghanistan as an army ranger something senator reed knows something about. >> what i felt in the capitol behind us is something that i haven't felt since i was in afghanistan as an army ranger. to think that as
a member of congress in 2021, in the u.s. capitol, on the house floor, that i was preparing to fight my way out of the people's house against a mob is just beyond troubling. >> representative pat fallon was humbled by his experience on january 6th and described the events as surreal as they unfolded here in the capitol.
>> it was something that i just never thought -- i just never thought i'd see this in our nation's capitol, and particularly in the house chamber. it was surreal when it was unfolding. >> you know, and -- what was interesting was the bravery and the courage of some of my fellow members when we got to a point where the mob was banging on the doors, and all that kept them from breaching the chamber itself was the doors and then some furniture that we had moved and some capitol police and they needed to be augmented. and so tony gonzales, a new freshman rep from texas, and rodney jackson, and troy nells and mark wayne mullen stepped in and we broke off furniture, some of the hand sanitizer stations on the big giant poles, the wooden poles, and we turned them upside down and we were ready to actually have to street fight in the house chamber. it was unbelievable. >> many members that day
wondered if they would ever see their families again. as the rioters breached the capitol and they were outnumbered and trapped inside. they were calling loved ones to say good-bye. representative dan killy was one of them. listen tokildee was one of them. >> i was laying on the floor, trying to, you know, protect myself behind this little wall, and we all wanted to be able to identify ourselves as members of congress. i called my wife. it wasn't until i heard her voice that i thought wow, this is one of those calls. one that you hear about. >> while most coverage is focused on the extreme danger
posed to members of the capitol police that were targets of the attack, there was lots of other peoples working there as well. cleaning staff, food service workers, and you can't forget all of the people that were in harm's way that day. these employees experienced trauma, a coward hiding in places that are just feet away from a rabid crowd. many were just kids, 20-somethings that they came into work because they believed in their country and working to make it better. others were food and service workers that work incredibly hard to make sure we can come here and do our jobs. these workers are the life blood of the legislative branch. they deserved better. you heard from speaker pelosi staff that was hiding under the
conference table, cowering in the dark. i would like to share what some others went through. listen as two recall what they experienced that day. >> the building had been breached. the building is breached is two words that i had never heard. >> that was particularly stressful, being in a room, close to where things are happening and not really knowing what was happening and seeing it come in live and getting texts from people asking if you're okay. truthfully i didn't know what was happening. i heard shots fired, shots fired, show me your hands. then i did not know if they were
right outside, if they were lots of people with weapons, if it was one shooter, i didn't know what it looked like. i knew there was shots fired outside of the house chamber. >> according to reports one republican senate staff whose office was not far from the floor "took a steel rod and barricaded his door as they banged on the door trying to break in." the new york times reports a senior black staffer was on lock down for six hours. she was so disturbed about the events she quit her job. another staffer on the floor of the house that day described what happened on january 6th still echos in his mind. listen to him describe the moments just before this
indelible image. >> i heard glass break. i could see the window panes on the main door start to pop. and i figured that obviously i knew they were at the door and they figured out a way to break the glass. the last thing i remember is several police officers had drawn their guns and had it trained on the door. clearly i didn't think there was anything else i could do and i didn't want to be there for whatever was about to occur. i got to the top of the stairs, the stairway was packed, and then a police officer said they're right behind us, run. the thing for me that i keep thinking about, and there isn't a day that has not gone by that i have not at some point gone back and picked at some little thing, but the sound of those window panes popping.
you know, i won't forget that sound. i won't forget that sound. how long will the sound of window panes breaking haunt this staffer? and he isn't alone. there are countless people living with the trauma of what happened that day. this includes another group of people with us in the capitol that day which is the press. they were in danger particularly after years of being derided by president trump as fake news. one reporter recently tweeted about her experience. she says i have 14 people on my team. we were scattered everywhere, two of them were on crutches and could not have run if they had to. they had to anyway. one was trapped in the house chamber and had to crawl out to hide. every bang on the door of them trying to come through i can still hear in my head.
the janitorial and custodial staff of the capitol, that day after day tend to our home away from home were also traumatized. but we don't talk about them and the harm they suffered. one janitorial worker was so scared he had to hide in a closet during the attack. he said i was all by myself and i didn't know what was going on. another employee, a mother of three, says it shattered all of my sense of security at work. and one employee of the capitol said "i hope nothing else happens because these people were talking about killing us. killing federal employees, killing police." another who was afraid to work inauguration day said i honestly fear for my life, i have two children at home. for many black and brown staff the trauma was worse by the
painful symbols of hate that were on full display that day. insurrectionist had confederate flags and slung slurs at dedicated capitol workers. after all of that, the same workers, many people of color, were forced to clean up the mess left by mobs of white nationalists. one member of the staff talked about how terrible he felt when he had to clean up feces on the wall, blood from someone that died. he said i felt bad. i felt degraded. let's also not forget that this violent attack happened in the middle of a global pandemic. social distancing was impossible as we were hiding for our lives in cramped quarters for long periods of time.
since january 6th, seven members that hid with other members have tested positive for covid-19. at least 8 capitol police officers have been exposed or tested positive, and nearly 200 national guard troops have tested positive. the capitol police and the national guard came here to keep us safe, to serve, and it put their lives in danger. they deserved better than this, we all did. that brings me to the next time. all of us in this room made it out alive. but not everyone was so lucky. three law enforcement officers tragically lost their lives as a result of the riot on january 6th. these officers, capitol police officer brian siknik and police officer jeffrey smith served to
honorably protect and defend. we told you about officer sifnik. on january 6th he fought a mob of rioters as they streamed in and lost his life ultimately from protecting us. another officer, whose father served as an officer here, he served for 12 years with the metropolitan police department. he heeded the call of duty by coming to stand the capitol police to help secure our democracy. earlier my colleague and manager showed you terrible videos of the police being physically abused and injured. you remember what happened to officer finone and officer
hodges, but there are scores more we don't know about. it includes concussions, irritated lungs, serious injuries caused by repeated blows by batting, poles, and clubs. they also sustained injuries that will be with them for the rest of their lives. one officer lost the tip of a right index finger. in a statement issued on january 7th, the chairman said, and i quote "i have officers this that were not issued helmets and are sustaining brain injuries, one broke a rib, one lost an eye, and another was stabbed with a metal take." 81 members of the capitol police
and 65 metropolitan police were injured. it was described as violent unlike anything he had seen in his 30 year career in law enforcement. one officer was beaten and injured with a stun gun and said "i talked to officers that did two tours in iraq that said this was scary to them compared to their time in combat." of course the physical violence is not the only thing that will be a lasting effect on our brave sworn officers. trump's mob verbally denigrated their patriotism, questioned their loyalty, and yelled racial slurs. they called them traitors, nazis, and un-american for protecting us. a rioter wearing a hunting jacket accosts a police officer.
they called law enforcement officers traitors. you have to wonder who these rioters were sworn to. who do they think the police owe their loyalty? to a people? a constitution? a democracy? or to donald trump. even those not out wardly injuries, the mental toll has been there. one officer turned in her gun because she was afraid of what happened. they were also met with racist vitrial. he experienced that day he says tears are streaming down my face
and i said what the f, man, is this america? is this america? what is your answer to that question? is this okay? if not what are we going to do about it. these people matter. these people risked their lives for us. so i want you to think about that when you cast your vote. these people are in deep pain, serving the american people, serving their government, and to serve all of us. and i ask each of you when you cast your vote to remember them, honor them, and act in service of them as they deserve. these people were led here by
the words and actions by a individual that made them believe they were patriots. the loss of human life is, of course, the most consequential. but that was not the only damage brought that day. the trump mob also damaged this building. they defiled some of the most sacred places. statuary hall, the rotunda, supreme court justices, civil rights heros, and others honored after their death. trump's violent mob had little respect for this place. this video shows the wreckage left in the senate parlimentarians office.
the wall was smeared with blood, an empty photo frame with it's contents gone. one got a scroll from the wall and ripped it up. a sign paying tribute to john louis was destroyed and a broken peace of the memorial was found on the ground next to a trash can, the photo of mr. lewis was gone. the damage done to the building is a attack on our democracy.
in newspapers across america the day after they declared democracy has prevailed, president biden said that in his inauguration speech this is not just an attack on the capitol building and the dedicated people inside. it's an attack on what we were elected to preserve, our democracy. this attack on the election of the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next didn't even happen during the civil war. but it happened because of the
cold, calculated, and conspiratorial acts of our former president, donald trump. they were deliberate, they came looking for vice president pence and speaker pelosi ready to kill. and president trump incited a lawless mob to attack our process. he was attacking our democracy. he was trying to become king and rule over us against the will of the people and a valid result of the election. for the first time ever in our history a sitting president actively instigated supporters to does rupt the process to provide for a peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next. think about that for a moment. what if president trump had been successful? what if he succeeded in overturning the will of the people in our constitutional processes?
who among us is willing to risk that outcome by letting trump's constitutional crimes go unanswered? the founders included impeachment not as a punishment, but to prevent. we have to prevent every president today, tomorrow, or any time of the future from believing that this conduct is acceptable. today we have to stand up for our democracy and ensure that we remain a country governed by the people. for the people. by telling donald trump and people all across this country and all across the world that his crimes will not and cannot stand.
>> we will stand in recess for 15 minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent that we stand in recess for 15 minutes. >> without objection the senate will stand in recess. >> you heard the slight chortle there when chuck schumer ask that the house stand in recess corrected by path leheay. either way we have a 15 minute break after witnessing more strong arguments, combination of audio and video. recitation of the danger out there. recitation on how close we came on the 6th of january. the groups that responded to the call, frothed up, having been lied to. came to washington they believe because they were summoned by
their president as they heard over and over and over. nicole wallace, some of the color reporting says that senators graham, rubio, and cruz watched the videos but left during the presentation of ted lu. >> that doesn't surprise me. that was lack of shame and lack of remorse. what they did today was in some waying more harrowing, more frightening, and more dangerous to the country moving forward. if the judgment is about the appropriate sanction, the outcome was made perfectly clear it was determined just how much we seek as a government to address the clear and present danger today, tomorrow, and every day ahead of us from trump's supporters who stormed
the capitol that day. i thought some of the most artful linkage was between the two dress rehearsals. the same groups were present in charlottesville and michigan. and all of donald trump's tweets in advance of that plot being foiled were on the side of liberating michigan. attacks on her not just her policies, but her personal conduct. and charlottes vil, showing the horror and the groups that were present, and there are now repeat characters coming out and they're not democrats, they're governors able to say on tv with cameras rolling what republican senators, en masse, seem incapable of saying. i want to bring in, though,
experts on this topic, daniel goldman, who served as house impeachment inquiry majority counsellor. also donna edwards, a former maryland congresswoman. dan, take me through what you thought the importance was of what they presented this afternoon. >> i thought there was a couple things that were very important. one you just mentioned, the through line of trump's endorsement of violence. and the pattern and the practice that is a technical legal term. but the notion is that his supporters have seen trump endorse violence for many years. and they saw it more recently around the election, but it goes back to michigan and charlottesville and they understand that he believes in violence and they get his language. and how do we know that?
because that is exactly what they told social media. that's what they said themselves, which was another very important aspect of this case. particularly when we know they are doing this on their own, is there so many videos and text messages, or facebook posts, where they're talking about how they are doing this at the direction of trump? the other thing i noticed is as it wore on particularly in the harm to congress and the capitol, it diverged from the purely non-partisan case, and it
became a little more political speech today. and that -- that was probably less to do with trying to focus on the senators and more to do with explaining to the american people what actually happened to congress and what it was like for the congress people and the senators to endure the attack. but i did notice we got a little away from more down the middle presentation that we had yesterday. >> i'm curious for your thoughts on that. i thought that what they might have been trying to give voice to is that really unprecedented letter urging a consequence, urging conviction. that is in dispute. >> yeah, there is a few things
going on here. that is that there are two audiences here. one of course is the senators and i think that the impeachment managers and certainly many of us have concluded that it is probably unlikely that we're going to get to 67 senators, but it is important to speak to the american people and have them understand. i thought we saw that, to help people understand that the threat is not gone and by doing nothing we open the door to a continuation of what happening on january 6th. i also thought it was important to connect trump's language to what the insurrectionist understood. some of them, he reposed and retweeted. others that said they were taking direction directly from trump.
and i think that was important because the managers have recognized that they need to draw a link the link between trump's language, his behavior before, during, and after, and what happened on january 6th. >> nicole, our friend and colleague katy tur did the us the service of come biling some of the arguments that we witnessed with the understanding that not everyone has the luxury of being seated, dialled in, and listening all of the time. katie is standing by with that, katie? >> let's go through it and give it some context. they argued that trump's words matters and he knew he would be inspiring -- >> let's call trump, yes!
let's tell him what's up. >> he will be very upset. just say we love you, bro. he will be happy what do you mean? we're fighting for trump. >> their argument is backed up in federal charging documents as well. many of them saying trump made me do it. one said he was merely following the directions of then president trump the country's chief law enforcement officer. another called him a de facto co-conspirator. now there is new information coming out about jessica watkins who said she was awaiting directions from president trump as the inauguration drew near. watkins texted in early november "unless the potus himself activates us, it is not legitimate." he has the right to activate units, too. if he asks me to come, i will.
that she planned to go to washington on jan 6th because trump wants all able bodied patriots to come in. here is video, we have seen, of the oath keepers wearing helmets, bullet proof vests, and using radios to coordinate marching up the steps of the capitol. they trained and plotted for the riot. they say that watkins told recruits that basic trains was mandatory because they needed to be fights fit and that over radio on january 6th, someone told her to get it, jess, do your f-ing thing, everything that we f-ing trained for. people like jessica watkins
believed they were following the orders of trump and they tried to blunt the defense saying that at the time he was being held accountable for those very words. >> people have to be held accountable including the president. >> he refused to adequately prepare the u.s. capitol for the possibility of violence and left it nearly defenseless. his remarks after the travesty was disgraceful. >> his refusal to accept the election results they have threaten today burn down our democracy. >> i stood by my father's side at age 12 on the floor of the house chamber as we both took the oath of office.
an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states. it's clear to me that president trump abandoned this oath. >> they went back to show that trump knew that his words matters, that he knew his supporters would listen. that he told people to punch protestors and he would pay their legal bills, and that if he runs again and loses this could all happen again. >> indeed. thank you for that recitation. i service for everyone that doesn't have the luxury of being able to watch these dense presentations all morning and afternoon. we're happy to be joined by chris koons.
i was going to ask you what you thought of the job the house managers have done so far. but i think i know the answer. do you feel any republican votes coming to your side. let me ask you instead, what do we do about what is broke snn what snapped within our society? the people able to assign their grievances to this gathering, the threat that there could be more, and the terms being pushed around. they are in need of deprogramming. >> brian, it is important that we hold president trump accountable. that federal law enforcement and state law enforcement continue to investigate and prosecute those that committed crimes in the capitol, but it is important that we figure out paths forward to respect each other and listen
to each other. as we heard today in compelling repeated comments by republican governors, former and current members of president trump's staff. there is a very wide range of people, republicans and democrats, who recognize just how awful this was. we need to tell the truth to the american people. president trump and trump supporters need to recognize the legitimacy of president biden's election and we need to show we can come together and deliver real results that will help address people's needs. frankly this was a very strong and very powerful day. there was two moments that stand out to me, one was all of the evidence that the assault on the michigan state capitol and the near deadly plot to kidnap and
kill michigan's governor was a dress rehearsal. and the particularly powerful retelling of a black custodian that works here felt so degraded having to sweep up and clean up smeared feces, broken glass, and blood left behind by rioters. if this doesn't compel you to vote to convict president trump then i'm struggling to see how we move forward together. >> i'm guessing that the fact that some of the hardest hitting evidence linking donald trump to the conduct of the insurrectionist are being delivered in the voices of people like chris christie. republican governors in good standing. is that a good strategy and is it working? >> i think it is important that my republican colleagues hear forceful statements from liz
cheney, the number three house republican member. folks that have been both former leaders like speaker john boehner, and frankly none of this should be necessary. the direct threat to vice president mike pence that we all witnessed and that we're being reminded of and the forceful actions by majority leader mcconnell insisting that this election was legitimately won by joe biden and then president trump refusing to act or show any remorse. that should be enough. i'm struggling to understand how my colleagues can watch this evidence and not see the very real and present danger that donald trump poses to the future of our democracy. i think part of why this happened is there was no accountability when we had him
impeached and on trial a year before. he was allowed to behave in your unconventional and dangerous ways. that is not the last time that he will incite his supporters. we must affect. >> we will go into the afternoon session. senator, two things. number one, and they will probably loom large, and the republican and defense rebuttal, if fox news is any guide, i think we'll see a lot of urban unrest from these past summer months. we're going to see a lot of the black lives matter protests that unfolded in states and cities across the country.
there is that. but let me start with you where i started with senator koons. what do we do about what has come loose in our country. what is so deeply broken that we can go through all of these groups out there. millions of people that politically want to burn it all down and could try to do so again? you know just a few moments ago, you were showing a tape of the office that was broken into and trashed. i'm in that office right now. it's my little hide away. it just makes it so real about "i could have been in this office while they were breaking in to look for members of congress to kill. they -- so much conversation about taking down nancy pelosi, about getting the vice president, the gallows strung up outside. there has been a deliberate
cultivation of division and hate since trump started running for office. we need to look to our leaders to have a very different philosophy and approach. one that says we're americans together. we fought world war ii together. we fought poverty and the great depression together. we have to reject leaders that pray on the easy target of divisions between people and that pour gasoline on the fires of hate and bigotry. if we do not do that we'll see much, much more of what has been cultivated by president trump. we have to put an end to that. >> in the video it is clear that everyone moved with the same speed. it is clear that everyone felt the same threat i wonder if you have been able to diagnose
exactly why. why is this such a partisan process? >> well, as you were referring to, we were all threatened in the same manner but we had a large number of republicans that said "he is not in office any more so it is not really constitutional to go ahead with this impeachment trial. the fact is we had the experts, none of that was rebutted. but essentially as an easy gate out. and why did so many need this escape hatch? because their base has been listened to what president trump called trump media. that media bubble in which they hear on the radio with far right radio talk shows. they hear it reinforced in their social media feeds.
they think they're getting a full spectrum opinion. it is so disconnected from reality. their base, their voters, it may only be 35% of america, but it is more than half of the republican elector rate. i think of it this way, a mob has been incited and now they're afraid to stand in front of them, so they continue to coddle them and defer to them. it's not a position of conviction or courage and the times call for conviction and courage. >> indeed. >> i'm looking at your colleagues passing by the ohio clock, and your schedule is your business but they appear to be going back in for the afternoon session. thank you for joining us from your once ransacked hide away
office. garrett haake, how are they reacting and behaving during the presentations. >> i they they're starting to get worn down. a lot of folks in and out of their seats. some are watching closely like mitt romney who seamed very pained by what he was seeing. some leaving the chamber all bogt. i gunshot wounded 44 empty sets. i was just in the room a few
moments ago, and the people who are watching, that seem engaged, the two people that i'm watching sit in the back row on the republican side. and it's two republican senators that seem incredibly engaged. cassidy as a very expressive way about him. he and seth both seem very disturbed. during the conversation on law enforcement. i think earlier in the day they found a way to link what seemed like theoretical danger of trump running again to actual human cost of that. here is what they said and why i think it matters. >> thank you so much for all of your reporting on this. >> no raskin, okay. >> we didn't have that sound,
we'll work on it for the next break. i want to go back to our conversation with ari spds spds -- melbur. i think we saw the building of the larger context of all of this. i think we all experienced how graphic, detailed, and vivid it was. i think the managrs were trying to understoodcore that this is not a buy fair. this is security threat that's are real, the inaugural situation, the siege like protection of washington dc that it is about an argument of and a party to a maga riot and insurrection organized by donald trump. the people summoned as trump
fans. we saw that moving in post january 6th in a way. i don't they is the most critical evidence. it is trying to address to the senators in the country why this is an ongoing security issue and not just a question of what happened on a particular day. >> and they had that bulletin from the fbi, the department of homeland security warning it would come from political extremists that believed the big lie. >> that's right, we all had our thought experiments, but if these were foreign terrorists, i saw you saw it with them. the implication there being that donald trump had some problems standing up to some foreign attacks, foreign threats, but if you pick whatever example you
want from recent history, the senators doubling back with their guards having their guns drawn, five dead, more in danger, documents pilfered, and more. if you just watch and and say what would be done after that, do any of these statements track? do any min myizations stand up in the light of day? and you think because it had political sympathies, does it get lighter treatment? none of our security experts who are non-partisan, no one that does their job seriously or in the military would say just give it a pass because it happened to be domestic terror. >> thank you, dan gold man remains of council to our
coverage. let me ask a question that melds politics and laws. all of the republican senators have democrats and moderates, and they all have all kinds of people so when they go home on their next break they're probably going to get questions. those that vote to acquit, how could you get to an acquittal? we saw the same evidence. a lot of them will argue that the standard of insightment was not met. how strict is that? how tough of a hill is that to climb for the managers? >> well, they could have simply charged direction of duty.
and they went ahead with a more aggressive charge of incitement of an insurrection. they didn't go with the most aggressive charge which would, of course, be a conspiracy to engage on an insurrection. so it is somewhere in the middle, but i will say this. they -- the republicans -- any that votes against a conviction here will be looking for the off ramp. one avenue would be the constitutional basis which is no longer a valid basis because the senate makes it's own rules and it rule thad it is ruled it is constitutional to go forward with it. this time you don't have that. it is clear that if donald trump did what he is alleged today have done, it is a high crime
and misdemeanor. so the wiggle room on right-wing media and radio is that "oh, it doesn't rise to the level of insurrection which means to encourage an imminent unlawful act with the intent to do so. that's the lel definition in -- legal definition in a criminal court. it is part political, part legal, i think the evidence is pretty convincingly showing that it does meet that standard, right? and trump knows it, knows what will happen, and shows that the intent was for them to interveer violently, if necessary, for them with the certification process but that will be the hook that this is not meeting the definition of incitement.
no person at the grocery store or the hardware store will understand the legal definition of incitement. it is a good hook because it is a conversation ender. you can say that and people can nod their head and they don't really understand if it is right or wrong. and so therefore that is an off ramp to avoid actually having to make a determination as to whether or not trump violated his oath of office, which is really why we're here into this is another off ramp and i think we will hear that but i expect that we'll hear a lot about that from the managers this afternoon as well. >> dan, it strikes me listening to you talk that this is like the case you prosecuted is again about our national security.
and you think about that oath of office, it is to protect america from enemies foreign and domestic. it would appear that trump became the domestic enemy. and i wonder what you make of, again, the refusal to stare the evidence down. the refusal to deal with the process. the 44 republicans voting against the constitutional scholarly record and opinion that there was, indeed, an explicit constitutional space provided for impeaching and convicting a former office hold er. >> yeah, this is why these impeachment trials are so unsatisfying and unfulfilling. you need 67 senators to convict. there is very few things you need 67 senators to do at all. one of the reasons we have so
few constitutional amendments is for that reason. it's really set up to fail. particularly if you have hardened partisanship in a relatively split country as we do. the ukraine matter was a little different for many americans. we went to great pains to try to make it real, tangible, and talk about democracy. here a lot of the people who these republicans in particular, the 44 or so, are concerned about are people who broadly speaking are trump supporters, and they don't look in the mirror and say "i'm a threat to national security.
so it falls on deaf areas to people who believe what they're doing and don't believe they, themselves, are the problem. so we're in a quandary and i think it will take many years to work itself out. people who tried to really emerge with the old guard of the republican party. the two people that have been clear about keeping their mind up have been mitch mcconnell and john thune, the number one and number two republicans. i don't think this is over by any stretch. we focus a lot on the people that make a lot of public comments whether or not it is lindsey graham or otherwise, but they say they're keeping an open mind. i don't expect there to be a
62-38 type of vote here. i think if there is a vote to convict it will be at the 70 range. it will be an all or nothing thing. what is going on behind the seens with them talking to their colleagues to see if there are 20 republicans interested in getting rid of donald trump. >> if but have to cut you off, i apoll guides in advance. what dan goldman described, an unwillingness to hold a president accountable for an incitement of violence i worked for a republican president and justifiably they had no problem. it is not being a trump support near impedes them from carrying out their duties. it is something else it is
membership to a cult but it is a constitutional duty. >> there is a level of fear. i don't really understand it and i can't explain it, but clearly it is there. and i think it is a sad state of affairs when you have republicans try to figure out how can i dodge this bullet here? either hanging on a constitutional argument or is it due process or this is not a constitutional proceeding or any number of other reasons that they will use as an excuse to acquit. and only they will be able to define themselves for history. we don't understand, he brought the mob to washington. he cheered them on, and he continues in that way.
i know we're getting started. >> thank you. >> america's national security by these events in the damage to our international reputation. >> my colleagues discussed with with you as a result of president trump's conduct. now i would like to spend some time talking about the harm to our national security and our standing in the world. he lead to a building that lead to some of the most sensitive information. consider who was part of that mob. some of the individuals were on the fbi watch list.
the past behavior. they may have stolen information to give it to a foreign adversary. according to charging documents, riley williams helped steal a laptop to send the computer device to a friend in russia that planned to sell the device to russia's foreign intelligence service. wile we can't be certain how many infiltrated the crowd or coordinated with those that did, we could be sure that any enemy that wanted access to our secrets would have want today be part of that mob inside these halls.
and the point is this. many of the insurrectionists they incited in this chamber were dangerous. people on the fbi watch list, violent extremists, white supremacists. and they threatened our national security. stealing laptops. taking documents from leader mcconnell's desk. snapping paragraphs as you saw in the videos earlier in sensitive areas. ransacking offices, rifling through your desks. they knew the risk of anyone breaching the capitol. he swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend this country. and yet he incited them here to break into the capitol.
senators, as you all know, we have spent trillions of dollars building the strongest military in the world. to prevent the kind of attack that occurred at this capitol on january 6th. and here is what the insurrectionists did. >> let's take a seat, people. let's take a seat. >> oh my god, we did it. we took it. >> in many ways, this room is sacred. and so are the tradition that's
it represents. they have been carried on for centuries. congress declared war 11 times on this floor. including entering and congress passed the civil rights act and expanded the right to vote to ensure that no matter your race or your gender, you have a voice in our nation. this floor is where history has been made. and now our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies have the burden to figure out exactly what was stolen, taken, ransacked and compromised. as acting u.s. attorney, michael sherwin explained, materials were stolen and we have to identify what was done, mitigate that, and it could have potential national security
equities. these investigations are necessary now because of the actions of president trump. and it wasn't just the people that he led here, the intelligence agencies have to look into. it is also what they took and what they gathered. and it was the very fact that this building with. so sensitive information and some classified information, that this capitol was breached. think about it. every foreign adversary considering attacking this building got to watch a dress rehearsal and they saw that this capitol could be overtaken. as elizabeth newman, a former trump administration official stated, quote, you have terrorists who would love to destroy the capitol. they just saw how easy it was to penetrate. we just exposed a huge
vulnerability. and it is not just the capitol. this attack has implications for all government buildings and senator rubio made this point well. >> if you're a terrorist right now sitting out there watching this, you're saying, hey, it's not that hard to get into the capitol. maybe it's not that hard to get into the white house or the supreme court building or where else. >> our government, our intelligence agencies, our law enforcement have implemented additional safety measures since the attack on january 6th. while we secure this physical space, what message will we send the rest of the world? we already know that the message our adversaries took from january 6. this is how some of them responded after the attack. quote, for america's
adversaries, there was no greater proof of the fallibility of western democracy than the sight of the u.s. capitol shrouded in smoke and besieged by a mob whipped up by their unwillingly outgoing president. to make matters worse, our adversaries are even using the events of january 6, not only to denigrate america but to justify their own anti-democratic behavior, calling america hypocritical. here's what the chinese government is saying. the spokesperson for china's ministry of foreign affairs said the capitol riot should spark, quote, deep reflection among u.s. lawmakers regarding how they discuss the pro democracy movement in hong kong, suggesting that the u.s. is hypocritical in denouncing beijing's crackdown in the city while it struggles with its own unrest at home.
in the global times, affiliated with the communist chinese party, even tweeted side by side photos of two events. the siege of the u.s. capitol and a july 2019 incident in which pro democracy protesters in hong kong broke into the city's legislative council building. think about that. president trump gave the chinese government an opening to create a false equivalency between hong konger's protesting for democracy and violent insurrectionists trying to overthrow it. as representative gallagher described in real-time -- >> we don't think other countries around the world are watching this happen right now. we don't think the chinese communist party is sitting back and laughing, we're deluding ourselves. so call it off, mr. president. we need you to call this off.
>> russia has also seized on this violent attack against our government decrying that democracy is, quote, over. the chairman of the russian upper house of parliament's international affairs committee said, quote, the celebration of democracy is over. this is, alas, actually the bottom. i say this without a hint of gloating. america is no longer charting the course and therefore has lost all its rights to set it. and especially to impose it on others. they're using president trump's incitement of an insurrection to declare that democracy is over. in iran, the supreme leader is using president trump's incitement of insurrection to
mock america. he said of the situation in the united states, quote, this is their democracy and human rights. this is their election scandal. these are their values. these values are being mocked by the whole world. even their friends are laughing at them. these statements are serious and pervasive. according to a joint threat assessment bulletin from the department of homeland security, the fbi, and eight other law enforcement entities, quote, since the incident at the u.s. capitol on january 6, russian, iranian and chinese influence actors have seized the opportunity to amplify narratives in furtherance of their policy interests amid the presidential transition. we cannot let them use what happened on january 6 to define
us, who we are, and what we stand for. we get to define ourselves by how we respond to the attack of january 6. some might be tempted to say and point out, that our adversaries will always be critical of the united states. but following the insurrection on january 6, even our allies are speaking up. canadian prime minister justin trudeau that, quote, what we witnessed was an assault on democracy by violent rioters, incited by the current president and other politicians. as shocking, deeply disturbing, and frankly saddening as that event remains, we have also seen this week that democracy is resilient in america. our closest ally and neighbor.
the german foreign minister said, quote, this closing of ranks begins withholding those accountable who are responsible for such escalations. that includes the violent rioters and it also includes their instigators. the world is watching and wondering whether we are who we say we are. because what our other countries have known chaos, our constitution has helped keep order in america. this is why we have a constitution. we must stand up for the rule of law because the rule of law doesn't just stand up by itself. after the insurrection, my colleagues on the house foreign affairs committee, the chairman and ranking member issued a
bipartisan statement. that said, quote, america has always been a beacon of freedom to the world. proof that free and fair elections are achievable and that democracy works. but what happened at the capitol today has scarred our reputation and has damaged our standing in the world. today's violence, an inevitable result when leaders in positions of power misled the public, will certainly empower dictators and damage struggling democracies. and that's true. for generations, the united states has been a north star in the world for freedom, democracy and human rights because america is not only a nation. for many, it is also an idea. it is the light that gives hope to people struggling for democracy in autocratic regimes.
the light that inspires people fighting across the world for fundamental human rights and the light that inspires us to believe in something larger than ourselves. and this trial is an opportunity to respond and to send a message back to the world. i say this as somebody who loves my country, our country. just as all of you do. there is a lot of courage in this room. a lot of courage that has been demonstrated in the lives of the people in this room. some folks have stood up for the civil rights of fellow americans and risked their careers and their reputations, their livelihoods, and their safety, standing up for civil rights. many members of congress have
risked their lives in service to our country in uniform. fighting in the jungles of vietnam, patrolling the mountains of afghanistan. you served our country because you were willing to sacrifice to defend our nation as we know it. and as the world knows it. and although most of you have traded in your uniform for public service, your country needs you one more time. the world watched president trump tell his big lie. the world watched as supporters come to washington at his invitation. and the world watched as he told his supporters to march here to the capitol. and president trump, our
commander in chief at the time, failed to take any action to defend us. as he utterly failed in his duty to preserve, protect, and defend. and now the world is watching us. wondering whether our constitutional republic is going to respond the way it should. the way it is supposed to. whether the rule of law will prevail over mob rule. because the answer to that question has consequences far beyond our own borders. think of the consequences to our diplomats and negotiators as they sit at tables around the world to enforce our agenda on trade, the economy, and human rights. to fail to convict a president of the united states who incited a deadly insurrection, who acted
in concert with a violent mob, who interfered with the certification of the electoral college votes, who abdicated his duty as commander in chief, would be to forfeit the power of our example as the north star on freedom, democracy, human rights, and most of all, on the rule of law. and to convict donald trump would mean that america stands for the rule of law no matter who violates it. let us show the world that january 6th was not america. and let us remind the world that we are truly their north star. >> representative neguse and i will now address the first
amendment argument that is being offered by president trump's lawyers to try to excuse his incitement to this insurrection. mr. neguse will begin. >> mr. president, distinguished senators, good afternoon. you have heard over the course of the last several days overwhelming evidence that president trump incited an insurrection. but as lead manager raskin mentioned, as we prepare to close, we would be remiss if we didn't just briefly address apparently the principal defense that the president will offer to excuse his conduct, and that is this notion that he can't be held accountable for what
happened on january 6th because his actions are somehow protected by the first amendment. now, let's stop a moment and try to really understand the argument that they are making. according to president trump, everything he did, everything we showed you that he did, was perfectly okay for him to do. and for a future president to do again. and the constitution apparently in their view for bids you from doing anything to stop it. that can't be right. it can't be. and it isn't right. their argument is meant as a distraction. they are concerned not with the facts that actually occurred,
the facts we've proven, but with an alternative set of facts where president trump did nothing but deliver a controversial speech at a rally. of course, that's not what we've charged in the article of impeachment. and it is not what happened. you will hear from my colleague, lead manager raskin, the many myriad reasons why this argument that they make is wrong on the law, completely. not just around the edges. major fundamental mistakes of constitutional law. the kind that lead manager raskin tells me wouldn't cut it in his first year law course, which of course, he certainly would know, since he has taught this subject for decades. and that explains why so many lawyers who have dedicated their
lives to protecting free speech, including many of the nation's most prominent conservative free speech lawyers, have described president trump's first amendment claims as, quote, legally frivolous. another quote from a recent letter, prominent free speech lawyers. that quote, the first amendment is no bar to the senate convicting former president trump and disqualifying him from holding future office. their argument is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and would flip the constitution upside down. let's start with the facts. because as you'll see, his free speech claim depends on an account of what he did. of why we're here, that has no basis in the evidence. to hear his lawyers tell it, he
was just some guy at a rally expressing unpopular opinions. they would have you believe that this whole impeachment is because he said things that one may disagree with. really? and make no mistake, they will do anything to avoid talking about the facts of this case. that i can assure you. instead, we expect they will talk about a lot of other speeches, including some given by democratic officials. and they will insist with indignation that first amendment protects all of this as though it were exactly the same. we trust you to know the difference. because you've seen the evidence that we've seen. you've seen as we've proven over the last three days, that his arguments completely misdescribe
the reality of what happened on january 6th. they leave out everything that matters about why we're here and what he did. because president trump wasn't just some guy with political opinions who showed up at a rally on january 6th and delivered controversial remarks. he was the president of the united states. and he had spent months, months using the unique power of that power, of his bully pulpit to spread the big lie that the election had been stolen to convince his followers to stop the steal. to assemble them just blocks away from here on january 6th at the very moment that we were meeting to count the electoral vote, college votes. where he knew it had been widely
reported that they were primed and eager and ready for violence at his signal. and then standing in the middle of that explosive situation in that powder keg that he had created over the course of months, before a crowd filled with people that were poised for violence at his signal. he struck a match. and he aimed it straight at this building. at us. you've seen all that evidence. there is no denying it. that's why the house impeached him. that's why he is on trial. no president, no matter their politics or the politics of their follower, conservative, liberal or anything else. no president can do what president trump did.
because this isn't about politics. it is about his refusal to accept the outcome of the election and his decision to incite an insurrection. and there is no serious argument that the first amendment protects that. and it would be extraordinarily dangerous for the united states senate to conclude otherwise. to tell future presidents that they can do exactly what president trump did and get away with it. to set the precedent that this is an acceptable, now a constitutionally protected way to respond to losing an election. and you'll notice something, certainly something we noticed, by all accounts, it doesn't appear that president trump's lawyers disagree. they don't insist that if the
facts we've charged, the facts that we have proven, the facts supported by overwhelming evidence are true, as of course you now know they are, that there is nothing you can do. they're not arguing that it is okay for a person who incite a mob to violence. at least, i don't think they're arguing that. instead, what they are doing is offering erratically different version of what happened that day. totally inconsistent with the evidence, and then they insist if that fictional version of events, if that alternate reality were true, then he may be protected by the first amendment. but you are here to adjudicate real evidence. real facts. not hypothetical ones. and for that reason alone, you should reject their argument.
because it has been advanced to defend a situation that bears no resemblance to the actual facts of this case. with that, i want to turn it over to my colleague to address the many legal flaws as i mentioned in president trump's position. >> so mr. neguse just explained why president trump's last ditch first amendment arguments have nothing to do with the actual facts of the case. he's been impeached for inciting insurrection against the government, incitement is not protected by free speech. there is no first amendment defense to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. the idea itself is absurd. and the whole first amendment smoke screen is a completely irrelevant distraction from the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors governing a president who has violated his
oath of office. yet, president trump, we know, has a good way of treating up is down and wrong is right. he tried to pull off the biggest election fraud in american history by overturning the results of the 2020 election, even as he insisted that his own fraud was in fact after effort to stop the steal. to stop a fraud. a vast conspiracy that he blamed on local and state officials of both political parties, the media, election officials, the judiciary, federal, state, members of congress, anybody who wouldn't go along with him was part of the conspiracy. he violated his own oath of office by inciting mob violence. the electoral count act even as he attacked vice president pence at a rally for violating his oath of office. and going along with an
egregious assault on democracy. now, he argues that the congress is violating his free speech rights when it was donald trump who incited an insurrectionist attack against us that halted speech and debate on the floor of the house and the senate during the peaceful transfer of power, and that imperilled the very constitutional order that protects freedom of speech in the first place, along with all of our other fundamental rights. as a matter of law, as a matter of logic, president trump's brazen attempt to invoke the first amendment now won't hold up in any way. the base is that it completely ignores the fact that he was president of the united states. a public official. he swears an oath as president that nobody else swears in exchange he is given greater powers than anybody else in the entire country. maybe on earth.
he or she promises to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states and our government institutions and our people. as we all know, the power we entrust to people in government office, especially our presidents, comes with special obligations to uphold the laws and the integrity of our republic. and we all swear that oath. what about a president publicly, say on a daily basis, advocated replacing the constitution with the totalitarian form of government and urged states to secede from the union, and urged loyalty to a foreign leader or a foreign governmentful as a private citizen, you couldn't do anything about people using those words to advocate totalitarianism, to advocate secession from the union, to urge loyalty to a foreign leader or government or country.
you couldn't. it is totally protected. if you tried to prosecute somebody for that, you would lose. but it is simply inconceivable, unthinkable, that a president could do any of these things. get up and swear an oath to foreign governments or leaders, advocate totalitarianism and not be impeached for it. it is unthinkable that that could happen. would that violate their first amendment rights? the opposite view pressed here by president trump's counsel would leave the nation powerless to respond to a president who uses the unmatched power, privilege, and prestige of his or her office, the famous bully pulpit, in ways that risk the ruin of the republic. offer his or her own ambition and corruption. and lust for power. everyone should be clear, there is nothing remotely exotic about
what we're saying. it should be common sense to everybody. common sense. about this understanding of the first amendment as it applies to public servants, cops, firefighters, teachers, everybody across the land. my daughter who i mentioned earlier in the trial. she's a teacher in a public school. the courts have said, teachers teach. but if they go off script and start advocating totalitarianism, treason or what have you, they're not living up to the duties of their office as teacher. they can be fired. everybody knows that. and it happens all the time, by the way. including to cops and firefighters and people on the front lines. it happens all the time. in fact it happened countless times with people who were fired by president trump for their ideas, including on election fraud. not long ago.
there were people in the government who lost their jobs because the president didn't like what they said or what they wrote. now, as i mentioned yesterday, and i can't help but repeat it. justice scalia got it exactly right on this. he wrote on these cases about how the first amendment takes effect on people who take on public office or public employment. he summed it up like this. he said you can't ride with the comes but root for the robbers. you can't ride with the cops but root for the robbers. that's what justice scalia said. when it comes with power to the rule of law, to almosting election outcomes, our president whoever he or she is, must choose the side of the constitution. must. and not the side of the insurrection or the coup or anybody who is coming against us. if he or she chooses the wrong
side, i'm sorry. there's nothing in the first amendment or anywhere else in the constitution that can excuse your betrayal of your oath of office. it's not a free speech question. but there is more. let's play make believe and pretend president trump were a run-of-the-mill private citizen, as my colleague mr. neguse said. just another guy at the rally, who is just expressing a deeply unpopular opinion. because we shouldn't overlook the fact that while there were thousands of people in that violent mob, they represent a tiny, tiny, tiny part, less than 1% of the population and the vast majority of the american people reject the kind of seditious mob violence that we saw january 6th. but let's say that you're just another guy in the crowd that day. it is a bed rock principle that nobody, nobody can incite a
riot. first amendment doesn't protect it. key case, brandonburg versus ohio. there is no first amendment protection for speech directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action. and for all the reasons you've heard, based on the voluminous comprehensive, totally unrefuted, and we think irrefutable but we're eager to hear our colleagues, for all the reasons you've heard, that definition of prodescribable speech fits president trump's conduct perfectly. this is a classic case of incitement. and you don't have to take my word for it. the 144 free speech lawyers mr. neguse mentioned, who include many of the nation's most dedicated, most uncompromising free speech advocates, these people agree that there is a
powerful case for conviction under the brandenburg standard, even if the president of the united states were just to be treated like some guy in the crowd. and they add, the first amendment is no defense to the article of impeachment levelled against a former president. and i mentioned the brandenburg standard, of course this doesn't apply because it is an impeachment. not a criminal trial and there is no risk of jail time. let's be clear about that. the president doesn't go to jail for one week, one day, one hour or one minute, based on conviction and disqualifying from further office. rather, i mentioned it to emphasize that nobody in america would be protected by the first amendment if they did all the things that donald trump did. nobody made donald trump run for president and swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution on january 20th, 2017. but when he did, by virtue of swearing that oath and entering this high office, he took upon
himself a duty to affirmatively take care that our laws would be faithfully executed under his leadership. all of the laws. the laws against federal destruction of property. all the laws. we expected him in everything em, everything he did to protect and deserve and defend our constitutional system including the separation of powers. but instead, he betrayed us and as representative cheney said, it was the greatest betrayal of a presidential oath in the history of the united states of america. the greatest. as i mentioned yesterday, president trump is not even close to the proverbial citizen who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater. he is like the now proverbial municipal fire chief who incites a mob to go set the theater on fire and not only refuses to put
out the fire but encourages the mob to keep going as the blaze spreads. we would hold that fire chief accountable. we would forbid him from that job ever again. and that's exactly what must happen here. there are hundreds of millions of citizens who can be president. donald trump has disqualified himself. and you must disqualify him, too. just like the fire chief who sends the mob, president trump perverted his office by attacking the very constitution he was sworn to uphold. in fact, that's one reason why this free speech rhetoric of this trial is so insidious. his conduct represented the most devastating and dangerous assault by a government official on our constitution, including the first amendment in living memory. we wouldn't have free speech or any other rights if we didn't have the rule of law, peaceful
transfer of power, and a democracy where the outcome of the election is accepted by the candidate who lost. we had it all the way until 2020. an essential purpose of the first amendment are democratic self-government and civic truth seeking. two purposes that president trump sought to undermine. not advance, in the course of his conduct as we have definitively demonstrated in this trial. the violence he incited threatened all of our freedoms. it threatened the very constitutional order that protects free speech, due process, religious free exercise, the right to vote, equal protection and the many other fundamental rights that we all treasure and cherish as citizens of the united states. the first amendment does be create a super power immunity from impeachment for a president who attacks the constitution in word and deed while rejecting
the outcome of an election he happened to lose. if anything, president trump's conduct was an assault on the first amendment and equal protection rights that millions of americans exercise when they voted last year. often under extraordinarily difficult and arduous circumstances. remember, the first amendment protects the right of the people to speak about the great issues of our day. to debate during elections. and then to participate in politics by selecting the people who will be our leaders. and remember, in american democracy, those of us who aspire and attain to public office are nothing but the servants of the people. nothing. not the masters of the people. we have no kings here. we have no czars. here the people govern, president ford said. the people. most important words of the constitution are the first three. we the people. but all of this, all this means little if a president who
dislikes election results can incite violence to try to replace and usurp the will of the people. as expressed in the states. ignore the judicial branch of government and then run over the legislative branch of government with a mob. president trump's high crimes and misdemeanors sought to nullify the political rights and sovereignty of the american people. our right as a people to deliberate, to form opinions, to persuade each other to vote, and then to decide who our president will be. the sovereignty of the people. that's an attack on the first amendment, i would say. in addition, president trump's actions were a direct attack on our own freedom of speech in the capitol. members of congress are sent here to speak for their constituents. that's why we have our own little mini free speech clause.
the debate clause. that's literally our job. we come here to represent the views of our people. the attack that president trump incited forced members of congress to stop speaking and literally flee for our lives. it halted speech in congress, speech related to the peaceful transfer of power, has no right. no right to claim that free speech principles prevent this body from exercising its constitutional powers to hold him accountable for his offense against us. voltier said famously, in our founders knew it, i may disagree with everything you say but i will defend with my life your right to say it. president trump says, because i disagree with everything you say, i will overturn your popular election and incite
insurrection against the government. and we might take a moment in consider another insight which a high school teacher of mine told me when a student asked. when was the beginning of the enlightenment? and she said i think it was when em, anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. there's no merit whatsoever to any of the free speech rhetoric, the empty free speech rhetoric you may hear from president trump's lawyers. he attacked the first amendment, he attacked the constitution, he betrayed his oath of office. presidents don't have any rights to do that. it is forbidden so that the republic may survive. the people are far more important than that. the precedent he asks to you create which would allow any future president to do everything he did is self-evidently dangerous. there can be no doubt, none at all, the president lacks any first amendment excuse or defense or immunity. he incited a violent
insurrection against our government. he must be convicted. now i'm going to call up representative dean who will explain why. the house provided him with -- i'm sorry, mr. lieu will debate. all right. >> thank you for your time and your attention. we all heard president trump's attorneys on tuesday, and as part of president trump's efforts to avoid talking about his own conduct, to avoid talking about anything related to his constitutional crime, we expect that president trump will raise process objections. his due process claims are without merit.
under the constitution, the house has, quote, the sole power of impeachment. that provision confirms that a house functions as a grand jury or a prosecutor. the house decides whether to bring charges. now, in other impeachment cases, the house has provided certain deliberative and procedural privileges to the person being impeached. but those are exactly that. privileges. they are discretionary. the house has the power to decide its own rules. how it wants to pass the article of impeachment and in this case, the house debated the article of impeachment and passed it on a bipartisan vote. i'm a former prosecutor. i want to add that i've had the opportunity to decide whether to bring charges. and when you see a crime committed in plain view,
prosecutors don't have to spent months investigating before they bring charges. i note that in this case, in fact, hundreds of people have been arrested and charged by prosecutors for the violence on january 6. there is no reason for the house to wait to impeach the man at the very top that incited the violence. i would like to emphasize the house had good reason to move quickly. this was an exigent circumstance. this was not a case where there was a hidden conduct that requires months or maybe years of investigation. this case does not raise very complicated legal issues. the gravity of the president's conduct demanded the clearest of responses from the legislature. particularly given that the president was still in office at the time the house approved this article. and rumors of further violence
echoed around the country. they still do. there must be absolutely no doubt that congress will act decisively against a president that incites violence against us. that is why the house moved quickly here. and president trump who created that emergency cannot be heard to complain that the house impeached him too quickly for the emergency he caused. another point on the due process question. earlier in this trial, president trump's attorneys suggested that the house somehow deliberately delayed the transmission of this article of impeachment. that is simply not accurate. when the house adopted this article of impeachment on a bipartisan vote, we were ready to begin trial. but the senate was not in session at the time. and when we inquired as to our
options, senate officials told us clearly and in no uncertain terms that if the clerk of the house attempted to deliver the article of impeachment to the secretary of the senate before the senate reconvened, that the clerk of the house would have been turned back at the door. that's why the trial did not begin then. it is another reason why the president's objections of due process are meritless. finally, let me just conclude that you all are going to see and have seen a full presentation of evidence by the house and you're going to hear a full presentation by the president's attorneys. you'll be able to ask questions. the senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. president trump is receiving any and all process that he is due right here in this chamber.
in just a moment, my colleague mr. neguse will show that we've established with overwhelming evidence that president trump engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. before mr. neguse comes up, i would like to emphasize what should be an uncontroversial point but is really key to understand. if we have proven to you the conduct that we've alleged in this article, then president trump has indeed committed a high crime and misdemeanor under the constitution. incitement of insurrection under these circumstances is undoubtedly from the constitutional convention, a great and dangerous offense against the republic. indeed, it is hard to think of a greater or more dangerous offense against the republic than this one. so to be very precise about
this, i hope we all can agree today that if a president does incite a violent insurrection against the government, he can be impeached for it. i hope we all can agree that that is a constitutional crime. another key point. while president trump's lawyers may be arguing otherwise, the question is not whether president trump committed a crime under the federal code or d.c. law or the law of any state. impeachment does not result in criminal penalties. as we keep emphasizing. no one spends a day in jail. there are not even criminal or civil fines. centuries of history, not to mention the constitutional text, structure, and original intent and understanding all confirm the teefg of james wilson,
another frame here wrote that impeachments and offenses come not within the sphere of ordinary jurisprudence. it was created for a purpose separate and distinct from criminal punishment. it was created to prevent and deter elected officials who swear an oath to represent america, but then commit dangerous offenses against our republic. that's a constitutional crime. senators, what greater offense could one commit than to incite a violent insurrection at our seat of government? during the peaceful transfer of power? in circumstances where violence is foreseeable, where a crowd is poised for violence, to provoke a mob of thousands to attack us with weapons and sticks and poles, to bludgeon and beat our law enforcement officers and to deface the sacred walls, to
trash the place, to do so while seeking to stop us from fulfilling our own oaths, our own duties to upheld to constitution by counting the votes from our free and fair elections, and then to sit back and watch in delight as insurrectionists attack us, violating a sacred oath and engaging in a pro found dereliction and desertion of duty. how can we be sure he will protect and defend us and our constitution if we don't hold a president accountable in a circumstance like this? what is impeachable conduct if not this? i challenge you to think about it. if you think this is not impeachable, what is? what would be? if president trump's lawyers endorse his breath taking assertion that his conduct inciting these events was totally appropriate, and the
senate acquits donald trump, then any president can incite and provoke violence against us again. if you don't find this a high crime and misdemeanor today, you have set a new terrible standard for presidential misconduct in the united states of america. the only real question is the factual one. did we prove that donald trump while president of the united states incited a violent insurrection against the government? incitement, of course, is an inherently fact based and fact intensive judgment. which is why we commend you all for your scrupulous attention to everything that took place. but we believe that we have shown you overwhelming evidence in this case that would convince anyone using their common sense that this was indeed incitement. meaning donald trump's conduct encouraged violence, the violence was foreseeable, and he acted willfully in the actions
that encouraged violence. mr. neguse will take you through that evidence again. not the whole thing. we're almost done. we're almost done. but we don't want it to be said, they never proved this or they never proved that. because my magnificent team of managers has stayed up night after night after night, through weeks, to compile all the factual evidence and we have put it before you and we have put it before all of you in this public trial because we love our country. that much. mr. neguse will show that you we've proven our case and that president trump committed this impeachable offense that we impeached him for on january 13th. that you should convict him.
when he's finished, i will return and explain why it is dangerous for us to ignore this and why you must convict and then we will rest. mr. neguse. >> mr. president, distinguished senators, good afternoon again. as my colleague mentioned, i know it has been a long few days and i want to say that we're very grateful for your patience, for your attention, and the attention that you have paid to every one of our manager as they have presented our case. as lead manager raskin mentioned, i hope, i trust that we can all agree that if a president incites a violent
insurrection against our government, that that is impeachable conduct. what i would like to do as we close our case is just walk you through why our evidence overwhelmingly establishes that president trump committed that offense. as you consider that question, that question of whether the president incited insurrection, there are three questions that reasonably come to mind. was violence foreseeable? did he encourage violence? and did he act willfully? and i'm going to show you why the answer to every one of those questions has to be yes. first, let's start with foreseeability. was it foreseeable that the violence would erupt on january 6th if president trump lit a
spark? was it predictable that the crowd at the save america rally was poised on a hair trigger for violence? that they would fight literally if provoked to do so. of course it was. when president trump stood up to that podium on january 6th, he knew that many. in crowd were inflamed, were armed, were ready for violence. it was an explosive situation. and he knew it. we've shown you the evidence on this point. you've seen it. the images, the videos, the articles, and the pattern which show that the violence on that terrible day was entirely foreseeable. we've showed you how this all began with the big lie, the claim that the election was rigged. and that president trump and his
supporters were the victims of a massive fraud. a massive conspiracy to rim away their votes. we've showed you how president trump spread that lie and how over the course of months, with his support and encouragement, it inflamed part of his base, resulting in death threats, real world violence, and increasingly extreme calls to stop the steal. we established that after he lost the election, the president was willing to do just about anything to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. that he tried everything he could do to stop it. you'll recall the evidence on the screen. him pressuring and threatening
state election officials, attacking them to the point of literally calling them enemies of the state. threatening at least one of them with criminal penalties. then attacking senators, members of congress all across the media, pressuring the justice department, prompting outcries from assistant u.s. attorneys, not to mention his own attorney general, reportedly telling him that the stolen election claims were, quote, bs. not my phrase. his. and then as january 6th approached, he moved on to attacking his own vice president. openly and savagely. we recounted throughout that entire period all the ways in which president trump inflamed his supporters with lies that the election was stolen. and as every single one of us
knows, nothing in this country is more sacred. nothing than our right to vote. our voice. and here you have the president of the united states telling his supporters that their voice, their rights as americans, were being stolen from them. ripped away. that made them angry. angry enough to stop the steal. to fight like hell to stop the steal. and we showed you this. you saw the endless tweets. the rallies. the statements encouraging and spreading that big lie. you saw that he did this over and over again with the same message each time. you must fight to win it back.
you must never surrender no matter what. and remember, each time that his supporters along the way showed violence, he endorsed it. encouraged it. praised it. all part of that same demand. to stop the steal and fight like hell. remember the video that manager plaskett showed you from texas? a bus of campaign work orders a highway? people easily could have been killed. easily. what did he do? he tweeted it and made a joke about it at a rally. called them patriots. held them out as an example of
what it means to stop the steal. when he told his supporters to stop the steal, they took up arms to literally intimidate officials to overturn the election results. you saw the evidence. and so did he. and he welcomed it. and when president trump attacked georgia's secretary of state for certifying the results, his supporters sent death threats. you saw those in great detail from manager dean. what did he do? he attacked the election officials further. when his supporters gathered together to have a second million maga rally, that's the rally that manager plaskett showed you. a rally about the stolen election. he tweeted that the fight had
just begun. what happened next? it's not rocket science. fights broke out. stabbings, serious violence. now, president trump like all of us, he saw what happened at that rally. he saw all the violence, the burnings, the chaos. how did he respond? he tweeted praise of the event. and then, you see it on the screen. he bought $50 million, $50 million worth of ads to further promote his message to those exact same people. he immediately joined forces with that very same group. he joined forces with the same people that had just erupted
into violence. was violence predictable? was it obvious that the crowd on january 6th was poised for violence? prepared for it? absolutely. and this isn't just clear, looking back in time. it was widely recognized at the time, in the days leading up to january 6th, there were dozens -- hundreds of warnings. he knew it. he knew the rally would explode if provoked. he knew all it would take was a slight push. remember, you heard from manager plaskett the chatter on social media. the web sites that the trump
people monitored. he took this as a serious call to arms. it was not -- it was to storm the capitol, if necessary, to stopple steal. it wasn't just clear on these web sites that the trump administration was monitoring. i mean, the fbi issued reports about this as a credible threat, a threat to target us. law enforcement made six arrests that night before, six arrests. newspapers across the city warned of the risks of the violence there can be no doubt that the risk of violence was foreseeable. what did he do in the days leading up to the rally? did he calm the situation? ask yourself. did he call for peace? no. he didn't do that.
he spread his big lie more, the most dangerous lie, as i mentioned, that americans' votes were being stolen. the final act of theft would occur here in the capitol. then he assembled all of those supporters. he invited them to an organized event on a specific day at a specific time, matched perfectly to coincide with the joint session of congress, to coincide with the steal he had told them to stop by any and all means he was told by law enforcement that these people were armed. he knew he created this
powderkeg at this rally. he knew how combustible this situation was. he knew there were people before him who were prepared, who were armed and armored. he knew they would jump to violence at any signal, any sign from him that he needed them to fight, that he needed them to stop the steal. we all know what happened next. second question -- did he encourage the violence? standing in that powder keg, did he light a match? everyone knows the answer to that question. the hours of video you all have watched leave no doubt. just remember what he said on
january 6th. >> all of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen. there's never been a thing like this. it's a pure theft in american history. everybody knows it. make no mistake this election was stolen from you, from me, from the country. >> we will never give up, we will never concede. to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up, we will stop the steal. we must stop the steal. we will not let them silence your voices. we're not going to let it happen. not going to let it happen. [ chanting ]
>> thank you. you have to get your people to fight, because you'll never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength and you have to be strong. we fight. we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. you may remember at the outset of this trial, and i told you you would hear three phrases over and over and over again -- the big lie that the election had been stolen, stop the steal and never concede, and fight lie hell. you heard that statement after statement, telling his supporters that they should be
patriots, to fight hard to stop the steal. and on that day, that day, where did he direct the crowd's ire? he directed them here, to congress he quite literally at one part in that speech pointed at us. he told them to fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. here's the thing. that wasn't metaphorical. it wasn't rhetorical. he had already made it perfectly clear, when he said "fight," he meant it. when in fact followers fought, and when they engaged in violence, he praised and honored them as patriots.
he implied it was okay to break the law, because the election was being stolen. you heard it. you remember the clip that manager dean showed you earlier. he told them -- the quote is on the screen -- when you catch somebody by fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules. remember how all of his supporters -- some of his supporters across social media were treating this as a war, talking about bringing in the cavalry? he. >> so let's have trial by
combat. he's got guts. he fights. >> his message was crystal clear, and it was understood immediately. instantly, by his followers. we don't have to guess. we don't have to guess as to how they reacted. we can look at how people reacted to what he said. you saw them you saw the violence. it's pretty -- he said it and they did it. we know this, because they told us, they told us in real time
during the attack. you saw the affidavits, the interviews on live tv. they were doing this for him, because he asked them to. it wasn't just nextists who confirmed this. many, many people, including current and former officials, immediately recognized the president incited the crowd, that he alone was capable of stopping the violence. he did this, and he to to call it off, because he was the only one who could. let's see what representative mccarthy, representative gallagher, chris christie, representative kinzinger had to say -- >> i could not be sadder or more disappointed at the way this
country is at the moment. anyone involved in this, hear me, loud and clear -- this is not the american way. >> mr. president, you have got to stop this. you are the only person who can call this off. call it off. >> pretty simple, um, the president, um, caused this protest to occur. he's the only one that can make it stop. what the president says is not good enough. the president has to come out and tell his supporters to leave the capitol grounds and allow the congress to do their business peacefully. anything short of that is an abrogation of his responsibility. >> a guy that knows how to tweet very aggressively on twitter puts out one of the weakest statements on one of the saddest days in american history. >> the insurrection is undeniable, and in his speech that day. he deliberately promoted
baseless theories, creating a combustible environment of misinformation and division. to allow the president of the united states to incite this attack without consequences is a direction threat to the future of this democracy. >> did the president encourage, yes, no do you he did. final question -- did the president act wellfully in his actions that encouraged violence. well? let's look at the facts. he stood before an armed, angry crowd, known to be ready for violence at his provocation, and what did he do? he provoked them. he aimed them here. told them to fight like hell. that's exactly what they did.
his conduct throughout the rest of that terrible day really only confirming that he acted willfully, that he incited the crowd and engaged in dereliction of duty, while he continued inflaming the violence. again, we don't have to guess what he thought. he told us remember the video he released at 4:17 p.m., lead manager raskin showed you that yesterday, where he said, we had an election that was stolen from us. remember the tweet that he put out just a couple hours later, 6:01 p.m., you've seen it many times. you can see it on the slide, that these are the things that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously
stripped away. that is what he was focused on. spreading the big lie and praising the mob that attacked us you heard managers describe the reports that the president was delighted, enthusiastic, confused that others did share hi excitement as he watched the attack unfold. he cared more about pressing his efforts to overturn the election than he did about saving lives. our lives. look at what president trump did that day after the rally. it's important. he did virtually nothing.
we've seen -- manager castro mentioned this, that when president trump wants to stop something, he does so simply, easily, quickly. but aside from four tweets and a short clip over the five-hour-long attack, he did nothing. on january 6th, he didn't condemn the attack, didn't condemn the attackers, didn't say that he would send help to defend us or defend law enforcement. he didn't react to the violence with shock or horror or dismay, as we did. he didn't immediately rush to twitter and demand in the clearest possible terms that the mob disperse, that they stop it, that they retreat.
instead he issues messages in the afternoon that sided with them, the insurrectionists, who had left police officers battered and bloodied. he reacted exactly the way someone would react if they were delighted and exactly unlike how a person would react if they were angry at how their followers were acting. again, ask yourself how many lives would have been saved, how many pain and trauma would have been avoided if he had reacted 9 way that a president of the united states is supposed to act. there are two parts of president trump's failure here, his dereliction of duty that i just have to emphasize for a moment.
first is what he did to vice president mike pence. the vice president of the united states of america, his own vice president was in this building with an armed mob shouting hang him, the same armed mob that set up gallows outside. you saw those pictures. what did president trump do? he attacked him more. he singled him out by name. it's honestly hard to fathom. second, our law enforcement. the brave officers who were sacrificing their lives to defend us, who could not evacuate or seek cover, because they were protecting us. i'm not going to go through again what my fellow managers
showed you yesterday, but let me just say this. those officers serve us faithfully and dutifully, and they follow their oaths. they deserved a president who upholds his, who would not risk their lives and safe to retain power, a president who would preserve, protect and defend them. but that's not what he did. when they, the police, still barricaded, still being attacked with poles, he said in his video to the people attacking them, we love you. you're very special. what more could we possibly need to know about president trump's state of mind?
senators, the evidence is clear, we showed up statements, videos, affidavits that prove president trump incited an insurrection, an insurrection that he alone had the power to stop. and the fact that he didn't stop it, the fact that he incited a lawless attack and abdicated his duty to defend us from it, the fact that he actually further inflamed the mob, further inflamed that mob, attacking his vice president white assassins were pursuing him in this capitol -- more than requires conviction and disqualification. we humbly, humbling ask you to convict president trump for the prime for which he is
overwhelmingly guilty of. if you don't, if we pretend this didn't happen, or worse, if we let it go unanswered, who's to say it won't happen again. mr. president, members of the senate, first of all, thank you for your close attention and seriousness of purpose that you have demonstrated over the last few days. thank you also for your courtesy to the house managers, as we have come over here, strangers in a strange land to make our case before this distinguished and august body. we are about to close, and i am
proud that our managers have been so disciplined and so focused, i think we are closing between between five and six hours under the time that you have allotted to us. we think we have been to tell you everything we need to say. we will obviously have the opportunity to address your questions, and then to do a final closing when we get there. i just wanted to leave you with a few thoughts, and again i'm not going to retraumatize you by the evidence once again, i just wanted to leave you with a few thoughts to consider as you enter upon this very high and difficult duty that you have to render impartial justice in this case, as you have all sworn to do. i wanted to start simply by saying that, in the history of humanity, democracy is an
extremely rare, fragile, transitory thing. abraham lincoln knew that when he spoke from the battlefield and vowed that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth, but he was speaking not long after the republic was created and he was trying to prove that point, that we would not allow it to perish from the earth. for most of history, the norm has been dictators, autocrats, bullies despots, tyrants, cowards, who take over our governments for most of the history of the world. that's why america is such a miracle. we were founded on the extraordinary principles of the inalienable rights of the people and consent of the governed, and the fundamental equality of all
of us. you know, when lincoln said, government of the people by the people and for the people and harkened backed to the declaration and said four score and seven years ago, he knew that wasn't how we started. we started imperfectly. we started as a slave republic. lincoln knew that, but he was struggling to make the country better. however flawed the founders were as men in their times, they enscribed in the declaration of independence and the constitution, all the beautiful principles we needed to open america up to the waves of struggle and constitutional change and transformation in the country so we really would become something more like lincoln's beautiful vision of the government of the people, by the people and for the people,
the world's greatest multiracial, multireligious, multiethnic constitutional democracy, the envy of the world. as tom payne said, an asylum for humanity where people would come. think about the preamble. those first three words pregnant with such means "we the people." and then all of the purposes of our government put into that one action-packed sentence -- we the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provided for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves in our posterity the blessings of liberty. and then right after that first sense, the mission statement for
america and the constitution, what happens? article i, congress is created, all legislative powers are reserved to the congress of the united states. you see what happened? the sovereign power of the people, to launch the country and create the constitution flowed right into congress. and then you get an article i, section 8, comprehensive vast powers that all of you know so well. the power to regulate commerce domestically and enter nationally. the power to declare war, the power to raise budgets and taxes, and to spend money. the power to govern the seat of government, and on and on and so. and even in clause 18, all poutser in excuse of the foregoing powers. then you get to article ii, the
president, four short paragraphs. the fourth is all about what? impeachment, how you get rid of a president who commits high crimes and misdemeanors. what is the core job of the president? to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. our framers were so fearful of presidents becoming tyrants and wanting to become kings and dispots, they put the oath of office right into the constitution. they inscribed it into the constitution, to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. we've got the power to impeach the president. the president doesn't have the power to impeach us. think about that. the popular branch of government has the power to impeach the president. the president does not have the power to impeach us. as i said before, all of us who
aspire and obtain a public office are not but the servants of the people, and when we act as masters of the people as violators of the people's rights, that was the time to impeach, remove, convict, disqualify, start all over again, because the interests of the people are so much greater than the interests of one person, any one person, even the greatest person in the country, the interests of the people are what count. now, when we sit down and we close, our distinguish counterparts, the defense counsel, who have waited very patiently, and thank you, will stand up and seek to defend the president's conduct on the facts. it's already been decided by the senate on tuesday that the senate has constitutional
jurisdiction over this impeachment case brought to you by the united states house of representatives. so we have put that jurisdictional constitutional issue to bed. it is over. it's already been voted on. this is a trial on the facts of what happened. and incitement as we said is a fact-intensive investigation and judgment that each of you will have to make. we've made our very best effort to set forth every single relevant fact we know in the most objective and honest light. we trust and we hope that the defense will understand the constitutional gravities and solemnity of this trial by focusing like a laser beam on the facts and not return to the constitutional argument that's already been decided by the senate. just as a defense lawyer who loses a motion to dismiss on a constitutional basis in a criminal case must let that go
and then focus on the facts which are being presented by the prosecutors in detail, they must let this constitutional jurisdictional argument go. not because it's frivolous and wrong as nearly every expert scholar in america opined, but that it's not relevant to the jury's consideration of the facts of the case. so our friends must work to answer all of the overwhelming detail, specific factual and documentary evidence we have produced of the president's clear and overwhelming guilt in inciting violent insurrection against the union. when donald trump last week turned down our invitation to come testify about his actions, and therefore we have not been able to ask him any questions directly as of this point. therefore, during the course of their 16-hour allotted presentation, we would pose these preliminary questions for
his lawyers, which i think are on everyone's minds right now, and which we would have asked mr. trump himself if he had chosen to come and testified about his actions and inactions. one -- why did president trump not tell his supporters to stop the attack on the capitol as soon as he learned of it? why did president trump do nothing to stop the attack for at least two hours after the attack began? as our constitutional commander in chief, why did he do nothing to send help to our overwhelmed and besieged law enforcement officers for at least two hours on january 16th after the attack began? on january 6th, why did president trump not at any point that day condemn the violent insurrection and the insurrectionists?
and i'll add a legal question that i hope his distinguished counsel will address -- if a president did invite a violent insurrection against our government, as of course we allege and think we have proven, but just in general, if a president incited a violent insurrection against our government, would that be a high crime and misdemeanor? can we all agree at least on that? senators, i have talked a lot about common sense in this trial, because i think i believe that is all you need to arrive at the right answer here. you know, when tom payne wrote common sense, the pamphlet that launched the american revolution, he said that common sense really meant two different things. one, common sense is the understanding that we all have
without advanced learning and education. common sense is the sense accessible to everybody, but common sense is also the sense that we all have in common as a community. senators, america, we need to exercise our common sense about what happened. let's not get caught up in a lot of outlandish lawyers' theories here. exercise your common sense about what just took place in our country. tom payne wasn't an american, as you know, but he came over to help us. in our great revolutionary struggles against the kings and queens and the tyrants. in 1776 in the crisis, he wrote these beautiful words. it was a very tough time for the country. people didn't know which way things were going to go.
were we going to win against all hope? because for most of the rest of human history, it had been the kings, the queens, the tyrants, nobles, lording it over the common people. could political self-government work was the question. payne wrote the question called "in the crisis." i'm going to update the language a bit, pursuant to the suggestion of speaker pelosi, so as not to offend sensibilities. these are the times that try men and women souls. the summer soldier and sunshine patriot will shrink at this moment from the service of their country, and every stands today will earn the affects of every man and woman of all time. tyranny like hell is not easily
congered, but we have this saving consolation, the more difficult the struggle, the more glorious in the end will be our victory. good luck in your deliberations. thank you. thank you. now, i have two -- we're going to adjournment resolution in a moment. i have two other things we have to do. they're quick. first, mr. president, i ask you unanimous consent that it be in order to make several unanimous consent requests as if in legislative order. >> ordered. from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m., the senate be able to receive house messages and executive matters, commit cleese be authorized to report legislative and executive matters and senator be allowed to submit statements for the records,
introduces bills and resolution, make co-sponsor requests, and where applicable, the secretary of the senate on behalf of the presiding officer be permitted to refer such matters. >> without objection, so ordered. >> a second request, poignantly appropriate at this moment. i ask unanimous consent that pursuant to the order of the senate of january 24th, 1901, the traditional reading of washington's farewell address take place on monday, february 22nd, following the prayer and pledge, further that senator portman be recognized to deliver the address. >> is there objection? not hearing an objection, so ordered. finally, mr. president, i ask you unanimous consent the trial adjourn until 12:00 noon tomorrow, friday, february 12th, and this constitute the
adjournment of the senate. >> hearing no objection, without objection, so ordered. the senate is adjourned. with that, the prosecution rests in the impeachment trial of donald j. trump. lead manager jamie raskin falling on our better angels as they close an argument crafted in large parts with the words and testimony, all public, from republicans, as the violence on january 6th unfolded, and presents those words as evidence that donald trump knowingly incited an insurrection, and he declined to stop it, and only he had the power to do so. congressman ted lieu saying this is about the future, warning that it happened before and it will happen again, the it being trump inciting an insurrection to overturn an election.
we also have been listening to a pre-buttal, an attempt to blunt of defense of donald trump. the claim from the democrats tomorrow we will hear a distortion of the facts we have seen for two straight days, an attempt to disassociate donald trump from the violence that folded, and free speech argument, which according to democrats, has already been discredited by most of the conservative scholars in the law. lead manager said this, quote doctor donald trump's conduct encountried the violence, the violence was foreseeable and he acted willfully in actions that encouraged the violence. brian, jamie raskin is just riveting. you can tell he's been a professor. you can tell that he is on a mission to make all of his knowledge accessible to everyone
listening, and he certainly did seem to be reaching for everyone's sense of history and common sense. you don't have to be an elected official. you don't have to be a lawyer. you don't have to be anything to understand what happened. that's what they seemed to land on -- use your common sense. >> there was always a kid in class who could quote tom payne like that. >> it wasn't me. >> i'm going to use the wrong term as a noun lawyer. if it was possible for the preemptive questions to draw blood, they drew blood. that bangs around the heads of jurors. that was obviously his intent. we have two terrific lawyers standing by, claire mccaskill from the great state of missouri, and dan goldman, who was house manager during the
last impeachment effort. >> senator, i will start with you. i saw your mention earlier today, your fear that the democrats were getting repetitive. they did go over a lot of already plowed ground to reemphasize their points. do you think the finish was strong? >> i think the finish was terrific. i mean, raskin and neguse are really, really good. they have done a great jock, as nicolle referenced, making it very digestible, very understandable for anybody watching. i think they really honed in on the president's failure to stop it. and buried in that, brian, is this powerful notion that he was only the one who could stop it, because he is the one who started it. so by proving he could have stopped it -- and, by the way, everybody in that room knows
that, that he could have stopped it in a moment if he would have wanted to. and we learned that 80 police officers were injured, and one was murdered. the question is, how many of those police officers would not have been injured had the president spoken up when the violence broke out, instead of waiting? i guarantee that all those republican senators believe that trump thought it was okay what was going on, that he was reveling in it. and his own people, that was powerful. coming in second behind his own people, his chiefs of staff, his secretary of defense, maybe pointing out what this has done to us on this the world stage and what this has done to the national security. i thought overall it was a good day. it did drag in some places, but they finished strong. >> indeed.
the news media pullout quotes concerning china, russia, overseas reaction were strong. claire while you were talking, we just watched officer goodman, who was in the frame a bit. he, as a guest of the senate, has been able to sit in the gallery and listen to all these oral arguments by the democrats. dan goldman, we are probably in for several hours of a republican defense attorney argument that is going to feature things like the burning down of a police precinct in minneapolis, minnesota and attempts to build offramps for republicans who will do anything to avoid voting for conviction, to help get them to acquittal. is that correct? >> absolutely. i think at this point we will not see a fullsome event.
i they we'll see a lot of small efforts to chip away at part of the case. there is really no defense to the full case. so what the goal is to provide some ammunition for the senators to cling onto, to get less than 67 votes for conviction. but that's why the old trial lawyer trick of asks the questions at the end is so effective. they typical done by defense lawyers, because in federal court the government goes first and last in their closing arguments. here the managers don't have an opportunity to respond, except in closing arguments, which we do expect to have. what jamie raskin did, and i thought so effectively, honed in on the ability of donald trump d. or his reaction on the day of. that is so telling in so many different ways, and on so many
different levels. it goes to what his state of mind was. it goes to his dereliction of duty. it goes to his lack of empathy and remorse and his singular focus and ultimate goal at any costs. hi questions focus so much on that. why didn't he condemn the actions of the insurrectionists? why didn't he call them off? why didn't he send in the national guard? why all of these things who anyone who truly believed it was intended to be a peaceful protest would of course have done, and there is no good answer to those questions. that's the reason why they asked them. the thing that ultimately really resonates with me is what chris christie said on television the day of. i'll quote it. he said the president caused this, and he's the only one that can call it off. that is the case. the president caused the
protest, and i think they proved that, even though they don't have to show that he caused the whole thing. it could simply be he incited a plan that already was premedicated. he can cite an existing plan and incite the execution of it. that's sufficient. he caused this. he's the only one that can call it off, because those were his followers working at his direction. i don't think chris christie was intending to summarize the case, but he inadvertently did an effective job. >> dan goldman, since we've been on the air we learned more about the people that donald trump called great patriots and professed hi love for. federal prosecutors have charged five people associated with the proud boys, and we now know all of their names. i wonder if you think it was effective this week on the
democrats' part to widen the lens on that, of this long association, courtship on donald trump's part of the proud boys, basically enlisting them in a forced way, having them stand by, and calling them to action on december 6th. i think it was ted lieu, or a few of them played their words, over and over again they are fighting for trump, and trying to get trump on the phone, he'll love this, man, he'll love this. these were his people and he was their leader, so said each party. >> to my mind, the one open question we had entering this trial is the degree to which donald trump knew about what the plans were and understood what his followers were going to do on the say of. even though it's not the most sexy part of the evidence, i thought perhaps the most
effective presentations related to the degree to which donald trump was retweeting and endorsing the views and the violent actions of his follower, and to that degree the followers and the organizers of the january 6th riot or protest were repeat players. that it almost feels like right now, you take a look back. they all knew each other. the same players. trump was retweeting them. he knew what was going on. he knew what the plan was. he was following them, even though he notoriously has very few followers on twitter himself. so he was retweeting repeat players. so you come our this recognizing this was not just donald trump operating in a vacuum, whereas
his supporters, the proud boys or otherwise, are operating on their own. this was, dare i say, some degree of a conspiracy, and that donald trump was very well aware of what the plans were, of what the violent actions that they had taken before. he had endorsed those actions. he had -- you know, whether it's the texas bus or something else, he clearly confirmed that he wanted them to do that, and so -- and then he understood how they were going to react to his words, because of the pattern and practice that the managers set up so well. on the flip side, the insurrectionists understood what he meant, and how do we know that? because we have so much evidence of their own beliefs, their own interpretation of what
donald trump was saying on that say. so you got it from both sides. you got it from trump's angle, and you walk away from this feeling like everybody knew what was going to happen that day, and trump, when he sent them to the capitol and told them to fight like hell, he knew what he was going to to do. and much like any good mob boss that knows he's being recorded, you butt in exculpatories, just go peacefully. i'll say it once so i can point to it down the road, but we all know what i mean, and we know they know what he means, because they said it. >> you know, we have all, claire mccaskill, been told what an impeachment is no. it's not a criminal trial, but should it be? around donald trump's role in
inciting insurrection against the government? >> i honestly think there will be people who look at donald trump's conduct in various ways, but i do not think that a jury is going to be comfortable doing what the united states senate, the victims of the crime are unwilling to do. so that is one thing to think about here. they're not -- i thought they did a good job today, pointing out, donald trump will not spend one day in jail over this. hes is not going to pay a fine. he is not going to lose his right to vote. he's not going to be taken away from his family. he is just going to be convicted on this impeachment and would certain be barred from holding office again. you know, really, that's so hard for these guys to do? it is astounding when you think
about it, nicolle. how does he believe he could hold on to the office on just he personality, without any evidence? we want to bring in -- >> to your point, claire, we saw how deranged he was with the call with raraffensperger, all had left was mike pen, and why the indifference to whether he lived or died? >> maybe that was why he didn't high pressure he said, wink wink/nod nod, stand back and stand by.
we'll tell when you to go, and january 6th is when he told them to go. i just want to bring in another guest in our conversation. that is veteran california democratic congresswoman jackie speier. i want to start with a personal question, if you don't mind. hakim jeffries told me last night members of the house who were there, are still because of the video evidence being submitted, still to this day learning exactly how close you all came. i don't know the number of members of congress with bullet wounds in their lives. i imagine most of them are veterans. i know you have. for members of the audience, who may not know, you were shot several times as part of the jones town massacre and thankfully survived. i can't imagine revisiting this kind of trauma in year life. are you indeed still learning
how close you all came? >> you know, you're right. we, i think, are recovering, all of us in the gallery that day, but watching the video over the last couple days is bone-chilling. i think we all appreciate that our sense of security being in that capitol, with the capitol police, is not as strong as it once was because of what we have now seen. we came so very close, and i think the fact that so many people now have witnessed this, have seen this, and give much credit to our impeachment managers for doing such as outstanding job of having the senators look at this over and over again, because it was -- we were at the brink. we were at the brink of having
this democracy crumble. for what claire said earlier, i would point out, even after this happened, two thirds of the house of representatives voted to overturn the elections in arizona and georgia. so the president then had control over the congress in ways that we still can't even understand today. >> the house democrats have gone through the panoply of groups who have turned to violence, violent talk, talk of insurrection, to aggress their anger and grievances. as you look out over your country, referencing the number of republicans you just repeated who, after the insurrection, voted the way they did, what's your prescription for fixing what's deeply busted in our society?
>> i have grave concerns. i think that the groups, whether they're proud boys or the oath keepers or militias, they're still there. they're still angry. they're still interested no frankly anarchy, and they want to promote a white supremacist agenda, which is not what america is about. it was donald trump that gave them the license to think that they could continue to act in that way. they were amplified by donald trump, and donald trump recognized that they were his ticket to maybe getting a second term. so it was a toxic relationship, and we were all the victims of it. >> congresswoman, just to pick up on your comment there, "new york times" congressional reporter luke broadwater did remarkable reporting on the ties
between those groups and half a dozen members of congress. it's not just trump legitimizing them, but there's ties
between matt gaetz, mr. gosar and others. >> nicolle, i don't have an answer for you. i think many of us are stunned by what we are witnessing from our house. hoe can you watch the proceedings and not recognize this was the ultimate grounds for impeachment. there are members being elected associated with qanon. there was members who sympathize with many of these groups. they see them as their ticket to remain in office. this is all about self-preservation in the senate right now. >> congresswoman jack write
-- jackie speier from california, thank you very much. katy tur remains, if you will you, curating parts of the closing arguments,
the parts of the presentation of evidence that we're urging members of our audience to fog cows in on, katy? >> the house managers wrapped up their case by answering three central questioning -- was the violence foreseeable? did donald trump encourage the violence? and did he act willfully? they say the answer though all three of those questions is a resounding question. the close summary was tweets about the big lie, massive voter fraud, a rigged election. messages from the president endorsing violent threats being made by his supporters. then they say he bought $50 million in ads to promote that
january 6th rally, promising supporters it would be, quote, wild. he knew the rally would explode with just a slight push from him, the impeachment managers argued. his supporters call it as a ser call to arms to stop the final act of theft at the capitol. then, they say, donald trump lit the match. >> all of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen. there's never been a thing like this. it's a pure theft in american history. everybody knows it. make no mistake, this election was stolen from you, from me, from the country. >> and then they showed how his followers reacted to what he was saying. president trump is calling us to fight. the how manager showed gop lawmakers rushing to tv cameras during the insurrection, during all the violence, to plead with
donald trump to call them off. >> i could not be sadder or more disappointed with the way our country looks at this moment. people are getting hurt. anyone involved in this, if you're hearing me, hear me loud and clear, this is not the american way. >> mr. president, you have got to stop this. you are the only person who can call this off? call it off. >> pretty simple. the president, um, caused this protest to occur. he's the only one who can make it stop. what the president says is not good enough. the president has to come out and tell his supporters to leave the capitol grounds. to allow the congress to do their business peacefully. anything short of that is an abrogation of his responsibility. >> you know, a guy who knows how to tweet very aggressively on
twitter, you know, puts out one of the weakest statements in one of the saddest days in american history. >> the president's role was undeniable, both on social media and in his speech that day. he deliberately promoted baseless thoirs creating a combustible environment. to allow the president of the united states to incite this attack without consequences is a direct threat to the future of this democracy. instead of calling them off, impeachment managers say donald trump did not condemn the attack, did not condemn the attackers, never sent help, and then he attacked his own vice president as an armed mob chanted "hang mike pence." he continued to attack pence on twitter minutes after pence was evacuated from the senate chamber, and after senator tommy tuberville reportedly told him
about it, after donald trump reportedly knew pence was evacuated, and in danger. still he tweeted -- mike pence didn't have the courage to do what he should have done. when he finally released a video message that day, he told the mob, we love you. you're very special. house managers said donald trump alone incited an insurrection that he alone could stop, and instead he shot to inflame the mob, and that, they say, shows he's overwhelmingly guilty. congressman neguse concludes his remarks with, if you don't vote to convict, who is to say it won't happen again? jamie raskin concluded by calling on senators to exercise their common sense about what just happened to our country. he quoted thomas payne, ending with this -- these are the times
that try mens and women's soul. tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, butted harder the conflict, the more glorious >> that was a remarkable way to end the week of that case being made. thank you so much, katy, for all of that. brings it back into focus. let's bring into our conversation now former rnc chairman michael steele and former u.s. attorney and msnbc contributor chuck rosenberg. chuck rosenberg, i didn't know that one of the features of the case that was made today was going to be what ted lieu presented, and that was the remorselessness. you have thoughts. >> i do have thoughts, nicole. i have a bunch of thoughts. you know, i was a prosecutor for a long time. it's incredibly rare in federal criminal court, in federal criminal investigations to see
somebody without remorse, somebody without compassion, somebody without a soul. there's a word for those type of people. they're sociopaths. where do you see a sociopath? you don't see them in real life. where do you see them? they tend to be the villains in bond movies, sociopaths and psychopaths, people who function without any semblance of compassion or humanity. i guess you see them in "harry potter" movies too. guy called voldemort. >> indeed. >> this president has no soul. he has no compassion. he has no remorse. you know, when we talk about the things he didn't do, condemn the attackers, tell them to stop, to this day, it's because i don't think he understands that part of the role of being a president, the part that he could never fulfill, was to express compassion, to rise to the occasion, to be presidential. it seems to me, and i'm not a
doctor and i'm not going to diagnose anyone, that the biggest fundamental flaw in this president is that he behaves like a sociopath and it's not just this thing that we're hearing so much about. it's throwing paper towels at hurricane victims. it's standing in front of the memorial wall at the cia on his second day in office and never acknowledging that the stars behind him stood for men and women who died in the line of duty for their country. he fundamentally misunderstood what it is to be a president or in this case the presidential candidate when he mocked a disabled reporter or a gold star family. it's this complete lack of empathy that turns into this thing that we are now calling a dereliction of duty. the man fundamentally does not understand what duty is, so it's not clear to me that he can even be derelict. in order to be derelict, you have to know what the duty is and then refuse to do it, and so
i'll leave it to others to diagnose the man. i'm not a doctor. i'm barely a lawyer. but i think he is behaving like a sociopath, and that is the fundamental problem here. >> i'm only smiling at your self-deprecation. michael steele, it's really the most plausible explanation for the conduct during the insurrection, during an attack that threatened the life of the vice president and his family, that included, we only saw men, but there were men and women in the insurrection. but men hunting nancy pelosi and wanting to put a, quote, bullet in her brain. only -- it is -- and i wonder if we're letting him off the hook too easy, to put it on a mental state. to this day, he has not taken to the microphones to address the injuries and suffering of the capitol police. to this day, i think he thinks he's a law and order president and i'm sure that tomorrow, the day after today, some case will
be made about how the law and order president was outraged by disorder and lawlessness in american cities. it's totally detached from the reality of his presidency. he was the one who was lawless, and he is the one, as chuck rosenberg argues very effectively and convincingly, that reacted as only a sociopath would, without any empathy or concern or any way in to the fear that all those members must have experienced. >> yeah. that -- i think chuck, you don't have the md, but you've got close with that one, my friend. that diagnosis, that legal diagnosis, if you will, it was spot on, because it is, to your point, nicole, a lot about trump and the fact that right now, we're not really talking about him. we're talking so much about his actions and what he failed to do, his leadership, the level of harm that was caused the
country. the big takeaway from today for me, and i love the way chuck put it in terms of the sociopathic kind of pathology of this president, was really kind of summed up with a big "i told you so." i could not help but think at various times back to what adam schiff, the then lead manager of the first impeachment, in his final concluding remarks said to us. if you don't deal with this now, you will have to deal with it again. you will -- this doesn't -- if you don't deal with trump right now, trust me, we're going to be back here again, and sure enough, sure enough, here we are. there's so many i told you so moments that were sort of played out so effectively through the video tapes, the audiotapes, the sound bytes, not just of people
who, you know, may have had a disagreement with the president but people who worked with him, people who were supporters of his saying, in that critical moment, mr. president, this is on you. you did this. and only you can undo it. and the pathology of this man, the ego of this man, the sort of depravity of -- because of a lack of empathy said, no. he basically said, no. i like this. and i like them. and so, i think when you're looking at how this thing ends up the way jamie raskin's sort of concluded it, he made that plea at the end, quoting thomas paine and putting it all in perspective of what we have to do, but the problem, nicole, is that they're falling on deaf ears. the men and women who are
sitting in that senate on the republican side have already made their minds up. they made it up days ago, weeks ago, months ago, years ago. that donald trump can do no harm because he can do no wrong. and therefore, if that's the standard, they're clones. you're talking to a room of clones who don't know, don't care because they now suffer from that same pathology that donald trump is suffering from. the empathy is gone. the consideration for other is gone. and now, here we are. >> listened with great interest to your comments, though i have no medical degree, no law degree, or, come to think of it, any other kind of degree, what you seem to be describing appears to be the nexus between narcissism and nihilism, and where that bumps up against the
law is the oath our presidents take. it's that notion of being our protector, being the custodial role of the president, which clearly was not fulfilled when the world crumbled and our capitol was straight-up taken on 6 january. >> so, brian, let me ask you this. what does the oath mean when you don't believe the words? that's the reality here. and the same is true for all of those senators. what does the oath mean? i mean, they swore an oath to sit in this trial as jurors. they swore it the last time. and we saw them outright flaunt it the last time. you know, lindsey graham, beating his chest, bragging that i've already made up my mind, i don't need to do this. josh hawley showing his disdain and contempt, not just for the process but for the american
people, by sitting up in the gallery, separate and apart, you know, with his feet up, you know, doing something else that was clearly much more important. so, if the oath is nothing but words that you don't believe in, what expectation do we have as citizens when we have individuals like that representing us? yeah, you're from missouri, but you still represent me in the united states senate. right? because this is us. this is the united states. and that's our frustration right now as a country. it's that, how do we hold these people who don't give a damn accountable? >> i mean, that's what brian keeps asking. >> throw another -- >> how do we fix what's broken, right? i was just going to come back to the question you started the day with. how do we fix what's broken? >> yeah, i was just going to say, another name is on the pile while we've been covering today, senator john boosman, republican, arkansas, announced he's seen enough. he's going to vote to acquit.
says the whole thing is unconstitutional. >> what a waste of time. that was just a waste of a staff putting that out. i think, i mean, come on. >> i know. i've said that isn't the suspense i'm watching this week. this is the point in the day when i get to thank all of you, michael steele, chuck rosenberg, thank you for being along with us today. brian, thank you. you're doing a double today. we'll be watching you at 11:00 tonight. thanks for being along all day. it's 5:00 in new york. house impeachment managers concluding two days of thorough and riveting and powerful arguments against donald j. trump for his role in inciting the insurrection at the united states capitol on january 6th. a stark message delivered by the house impeachment managers today that the threat posed by the former president has not gone away, drawing a direct line from trump's pattern of endorsing and celebrating violence to the riot
we all saw unfold on leave tv and making the case that without accountability, without justice, the threat posed by trump and his big lie about election security, about election fraud, will endure. here's congressman ted lieu. >> that is why president trump is so dangerous. because he would have all of us, all americans, believe that any president who comes after him can do exactly the same thing. that's why lack of remorse is an important factor in impeachment. because impeachment, conviction, and disqualification is not just about the past. it's about the future. it's making sure that no future official, no future president does the exact thing president trump does. president trump's lack of remorse shows that he will undoubtedly cause future harm if
allowed, because he still refuses to account for his previous high grave crime against our government. you know, i'm not afraid of donald trump running again in four years. i'm afraid he's going to run again and lose, because he can do this again. >> makes you think. to democrats, though, that is the crux of their case, the threat donald trump poses to our democracy and to our national security. if he is ever allowed to hold public office again. and to bar him from ever doing so, the managers argue, the senate must convict him. the managers ending their remarks with appeals, as we said, to our humanity and better angels. >> he reacted exactly the way someone would react if they were delighted and exactly unlike how a person would react if they were angry. at how their followers were acting.
again, ask yourself how many lives would have been saved, how much pain and trauma would have been avoided if he had reacted the way that a president of the united states is supposed to act? >> everyone who stands with us now will win the love and the favor and the affection of every man and every woman for all time. tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered but we have this saving consolation. the more difficult the struggle, the more glorious in the end will be our victory. >> on that note, let's bring into our conversation nbc news capitol hill correspondent, our friend, garrett haake. garrett, i am so riveted by their use of not just republicans, not squishy never-trump republicans like myself, but hard core trump allies until the big lie he perpetrated, and they played, two times, both days, this tape from chris christie, as the insurrection was under way. chris christie saying, quote, what the president said is not good enough.
the president has to tell -- has to tell his people to leave the capitol now. president never did that. >> reporter: no, he never did, and in fact, while much of the riot was still going on, he was still encouraging or at least, you know, sitting on his hands, and i think that's a really important part of this, especially the final presentation from congressman neguse today. you know, there was less of the dramatic new video, new evidence today, but the presentation towards the end there about the lack of involvement from the president is the kind of thing that could actually make a difference in some of these senators' votes on whether or not to convict. i know that because that's what happened in the house. now, we've talked about this a couple times, but there were a number of house republicans who said that their vote to impeach former president trump wasn't based on the lead-up to january 6th. it was based on what was happening right then and there when they were in the chambers, when they were being evacuated, and the president wasn't doing anything except continuing to
attack his vice president on twitter, and congressman neguse made that a central part of his closing argument, that the two twin failures he saw from president trump at the time, the attack on pence and the failure to protect law enforcement, something that his party has made a big part of their platform, and i'll be very curious to see if either of those things stick. i got to tell you, there was a whole lot of republican senators who came out of the chamber in the last hour with apparently a newfound desire to stay impartial, at least for the moment. several republican senators told me and my colleagues, they're not going to talk about what they heard until they hear from the defense. it's like they don't want to have to defend anything based on the information they have now, given how damning some of these arguments were. >> they also sought to get ahead of what we're expected to hear tomorrow from trump's -- i believe i counted seven legal teams. this is his seventh legal team. and jamie raskin said this. free speech does not equal
advocating treason and overthrowing democracy. and a lot of allusions to our common understanding to the limits of the first amendment, that you're not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, very illustrative language to describe donald trump as an arsonist who lit the fire and then inflamed it as it burned. >> reporter: well, and that's why the context leading up to january 6th is so important to this case. i had a long conversation today with ted cruz about this. his point has been, you know, incitement is a really high legal bar to clear. you almost have to walk up and say, person x, i need you to do something bad to person y right now for it to qualify as incitement in a legal sense. you know, and i'm not an attorney, but i'm listening to folks, trying to listen to everybody's arguments on this. and that's why all the contextual statements leading up to january 6th about the surrounding of the bus in texas and the president, then candidate trump, encouraging violence against protesters back
in 2015, why all of that stuff matters because it provides the lens through which we can see how the former president did encourage violence at different times. it's almost like michael cohen said during his congressional testimony, the man speaks in code. it's never directly, go do this. it's, wouldn't it be great if this happens, and this is kind of the way he talks about violence, and so the build-up over these last two days to put that language in the right context, i think, is really important to the managers' arguments and the other thing they were trying to get ahead of there at the very end on just sort of a legal basis is the constitutionality question. and you heard raskin say, whatever you think about this, the senate's voted. the senate decided, as a body, with 56 votes, that this is constitutional. so, just like in a court of law, when something's ruled inadmissible, stop arguing about that. that's out of play for right now. something tells me the trump defense team will not take his advice but it will be interesting to see if that sinks in with any of these potentially
swing votes as well. >> i can't have you talking about ted cruz citing the law. ted cruz is at odds with, i think, chuck cooper was his lawyer, his personal lawyer, and one of his counselors when he ran for president. chuck cooper has a very different understanding of what the constitution says about the legitimacy of the trial. so it's interesting to see these republicans picking and choosing or maybe it's on thursdays, we care about the law and the constitution day. who knows? garrett haake on capitol hill for us. no one better. thank you, my friend. joining our conversation now, some of our most favorite reporters and friends, john heilemann is here, nbc news and msnbc national affairs analyst, host and executive producer of showtime's "the circus" and host of "the hell and high water" podcast. no, he doesn't sleep. also joining us, former congresswoman donna edwards is back and jason johnson, journalism and politics professor at morgan state university and a contributor to the grio is here and of course tim miller is back, contributor to the bulwark.
john heilemann, i start with you, my friend. >> hi, nicole. do you have a question? you just want me to talk? >> as always, we were texting, and just pick up on what garrett and i were talking about. they are now contorting themselves, which if you work on campaigns, once people are contorting themselves to not so brutally be hypocritical as in contradicting a position they had 12 hours ago, you know that the democratic house impeachment managers have left a mark. >> yeah, i think that they've obviously left a mark, nicole, and i think, you know, the -- the -- last night, after the first day of the trial, of the prosecution case, i was up on capitol hill and talking to some people, including a democratic senator who is someone who has worked with republicans a lot over the years, and this person said to me that the big revelation to him of the day --
the two big revelations. the first was something that you were talking about with jackie speier before. even a month later the senator said he did not realize how close he came to being in harm's way and that had shaken him and was -- he was, you know, like a lot of senators yesterday, was kind of out of sorts emotionally. but the second thing was, he said i never really doubted there was an insurrection or that donald trump incited it. but what i realize now is that this insurrection is still ongoing. the insurrection didn't end on january 6th. not only -- the case that the prosecution has made, which is that, you know, the insurrection started earlier than january 6th, this senator was saying, we are still watching donald trump enact an insurrection. he is still exerting his power over my republican colleagues. he's still -- they are still cowering before him. they are -- he has still not accepted joe biden as the legitimate president of the united states, and that with that, the gross kind of
complicity we're seeing between donald trump and his long-time enablers, active or passive, those republican senators who are not seeing, not willing to acknowledge the reality of what they're being presented with here, the insurrection is still ongoing, and that goes directly to the arguments that were being made today about the ongoing threat of donald trump. if the insurrection is still here, and still with us, and not a one-day thing, it speaks directly to what the stakes are in this trial, and it struck me all day listening to the prosecution today, how important it is to understand that. >> well, and to your point, i mean, donna edwards, today, i saw a poll that had 66% of republicans today, whatever we're in, february 10th, 9th, 30th -- i know there aren't 30 days in february, i've just been here a long time -- but we still have 66% of all republicans in this country, that represents millions of americans, who believe the big lie. so, regardless of what
republicans do this week, in terms of voting to convict and bar from future office donald trump, they have not done anything with very few exceptions to beat back the big lie that is the belief of the violent extremists who threaten us, at least through the end of april. >> well, i mean, nicole, and i think that if they don't acquit, which we expect that they will not, that that means that they will continue to sign on to that lie, and you know, donald trump really has -- one, he's never acknowledged that joe biden has won the presidency, and he continues to perpetrate that lie, but if you look at what the impeachment managers did today, i thought it was really important for them to demonstrate that the threat is ongoing. that it's a national security threat, that it's ongoing, and that is the reason that we have
to remove not only to have the option, the opportunity to say to this president, you can never serve in public office again, because otherwise to ted lieu's point, he will do it again, and the fear is that he will lose again and he will do this exact same thing. so, today was a really important day to thread that needle. >> well, and jason johnson, that part of the case was made by diana degette, and she had the bulletin from the fbi and the department of homeland security and the joint terrorism task force, and then she had the statements, which were just chilling, of the extremists themselves in their own words, saying out loud exactly the kind of things that led them to the capitol, and then you have the direct line. you have all the statements from the president. it seems that the linkage has been proven over and over and over again. >> yeah, nicole, i actually --
in addition to sort of watching today's hearings on my own, i had my class watch, because i was like, all right, let me show this to a bunch of 19 to 22-year-olds and get their feedback. my students, you know, they're college kids, they're not necessarily informed. and i was drawing the sort of linkages between not just what trump has said but the proximity of what he said to what people did, and that's what i think was actually the most crucial thing about today. donald trump has said crazy things for years. there have been extremists supporting him for years. but you cannot disentangle the fact that he said these things on this specific day at this specific time and as common neguse said at the end, he knew what he was saying. he knew what people were likely to do. and he had every reason to believe that they would respond to what he was saying with violence. and so, the way i look at it is not only was today a good summation but today was the most
critical of all for showing you cannot separate this and say, hey, he's always been this crazy guy from what happens. and i literally said to my class, like, look, if i was talking about a discriminatory business and i was like, hey, we should shut that business down and i have been saying that for ten years, it doesn't matter. but if at 10:00 at night, i say, that business closes at 10:00 tomorrow, we should light them up and tomorrow that business is burned, you can catch me for incitement and i think that's what was really made clear today with the conclusions with neguse and raskin. >> and tim, there's no question, because we rolled the type, of what donald trump envisioned. he told them to fight. he said he would go with them. there's no question anymore. it's been proven, as they said, over and over again what the insurrectionists heard and there's no question that every republican ally of donald trump that was watching in realtime knew that donald trump caused it and donald trump could stop it. let me show you how the house impeachment managers used that republican sound.
>> pretty simple. the president caused this protest to occur. he's the only one who can make it stop. >> what the president said is not good enough. the president has to come out and tell his supporters to leave the capitol grounds and to allow the congress to do their business peacefully. and anything short of that is an abrogation of his responsibility. >> mr. president, you have got to stop this. you are the only person who can call this off. call it off. >> i mean, this is insane. i mean, i've -- i've not seen anything like this since i deployed to iraq in 2007 and 2008. i mean, this is america. and this is what's happening right now. we need -- the president needs to call it off. like, call it off. call it off. >> didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to
protect our country and our constitution. giving states a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. u.s. demands the truth. >> tim, obviously, that last clip is an insurrectionist reading donald trump's tweet, which he tweeted after learning that the vice president's life was in danger and he was rushed out of the capitol. we now know from the video presentations that the insurrectionists were nearing him and were probably minutes away from where he was taking shelter that day. >> yeah, i got to say, nicole, watching that now for the third time, my blood pressure is spiking, and it just fills me with rage, and it fills me with rage that it happened in our capitol, but the reason that i'm so angry today is because this is such a clear open and shut case. if donald trump had just done what every president before him who had lost an election had
done and acknowledged his successor's victory, brian sicknick would be alive today. all these republicans know it. to sit there and watch chris christie and mike gallagher admit that it was only donald trump that could have called off these perpetrators, meanwhile, donald trump is egging on the perpetrators that killed the police officer and injured others and yet has chris christie made a clear statement about convicting donald trump? not that i have seen. maybe. i know for a fact that mike gallagher didn't vote to impeach him. you know why? because mike gallagher wants to run for senate or run for governor in wisconsin and he's worried about a primary. so, mike gallagher, who admitted on january 6th that it was only donald trump that could stop these perpetrators from killing police officers and sieging the capitol, still decided that in the end, he's okay with it as long as it allows his political career to move forward. it's just -- it's so maddening.
neguse and raskin did such a fantastic job. it is such an open and shut case. there's no nuance. there's nothing worth debating. i doubt that the president's team will even try to debate on the merits tomorrow, and yet it's frustrating because we know that justice isn't going to be done. >> you know, john heilemann, i'm going to let tim channel my rage, and i just want to ask this as a cold political calculation. so, the republicans are all in with insurrectionists. i mean, they've taken on so much water in servitude to donald trump and there are only two things, they either are okay with it or they agree with it. and in light of the reporting in "the new york times" that half a dozen house members have ties to the right-wing militia groups that are getting charged in bucketsful by the day, there are new charges coming in from the d.c. u.s. attorney's office, what is this republican party if they are not for holding accountable he who incites an insurrection against them? >> well, i think they are some
of both that you just described, nicole, and i think some of them are not just okay with it but approve of it. i think that's the smaller portion, but maybe there are a lot more of them than we would like to think and there's a whole bunch of the rest who are, as you put it, okay with it, which is really just a way of saying, they'll tolerate it, they'll accept it, they'll endorse it because they're too cowardly to do anything else or they're too calculating and ambitious, to tim's point, about what they're trying to preserve. they care only about their political futures and how they perceive it. but i'll tell you what else they are in addition to being cowardly or being actual autocrats on the side of the insurrection, in addition to that, they're idiots because the reality is, what they learned nothing else from -- if they learn nothing else from yesterday, is that loyalty to donald trump is of no use to you whatsoever. what happened yesterday, as we saw vividly, and i think this is
another thing that many of the senators clocked yesterday, watching how close they came to mike pence in this video, is that there has never been a human being on earth more loyal to donald trump than mike pence. >> yep. >> and what he got in repayment for being that loyal to donald trump for four-plus years was donald trump tried to feed him to the lions. he sat there on that day when he could see clearly he's on the phone with tommy tuberville, tommer tuberville saying they just rushed the vice president out of here with his family and donald trump put out a tweet further inciting the rioters. he was happy, perfectly content to see his vice president, his devoted, pathetic totally loyal vice president killed on that day. he is the textbook definition of a monster. i mean, a monster. if you think about that, through that prism, it makes -- degree of donald trump's monstrousness and moral depravity but it also
makes clear that all these republicans who will now try to be loyal to donald trump because they think that's the way their political futures will go, because they think what donald trump's going to repay them, how? donald trump would throw any of them to the mob if he thought it was in his interest. he would let any of them be killed. i mean, literally, if he would let mike pence be killed. and in fact, not just let it happen, but stoke it, encourage it. the killing of his vice president. who of these republicans is ever going to get repaid by donald trump in any way politically that they can count on in the future? so they are craven and they are morally bankrupt. they are zombies at this point. they exist as a party, but they have no moral, ideological, political conviction whatsoever. they're all that, but they're also morons, every single one of them. >> i only laugh because you called them idiots, things that i wish i could say and can't. i don't want to gloss over this point, though, so just bear with me. what you're saying, john heilemann, was entered into evidence by stacey plaskett yesterday in what was for all of
these impeachment managers, they were the precision, the toggling between emotion and cold, hard facts, the video evidence, but when she -- and we'll look for it. i didn't request this ahead of time, but when she made the point you just made, that the mob was trying to assassinate the vice president, and then showed that video -- can we put it up again? i worked for a president. i traveled with the president and secret service. it's incredible to see secret service rushing a president or vice president to safety. you never see that. they go ahead of him. they're rushing him. he's snapping to rush them down the stairs. the vice president is there, talking into his sleeve is another agent with his hand on his back. his family went ahead of him. we were never evacuated from any site, frankly, and that's traveling overseas as well, but i cannot imagine being evacuated because a person i worked for's life was put in danger by their
boss. the vice president, this whole scene, this evacuation is because of donald trump. and i think if you look at this case, and it is as tim miller says, open and shut. incitement was the point. if you ask donald trump, and he didn't know he was going to get impeached for it, did you intend to incite a riot, he would have said, damn right i did. i mean, heilemann, what are they standing on if donald trump is ever interviewed and asked, did you intend for this scene at the capitol? he would absolutely say, of course i did. >> well, you know, i don't know, nicole, what he would say because he's a pathological liar, i don't know what would come out of his mouth, and do i know for a fact that donald trump, you know, wanted to see a cop killed? i can't -- >> not the death. but he wanted -- he wanted them there. he wanted the vote stopped. >> 100%. 100%. 100%. they made the argument today, and you know, our friend, joe
scarborough made a very, i thought, a brilliantly concise point this morning on "morning joe," drawing on his legal expertise, and he pulled this thing out of torts, which is called the but for test. the but for test is a test that basically says, it's used on negligence cases, and it says, you know, if you take somebody out of a story, would the thing happen? and if you take the person out, and the thing wouldn't happen, then that person is responsible for it, right? so the but for test applied to trump is, take trump out of this picture, and try to imagine, would any of this have happened without trump? tim talked about the big lie. i'm talking about the whole of it. if donald trump didn't exist, he's the car who causes the six-car pile-up. you take that car out of the picture, the pile-up doesn't happen, that car is responsible. in this case, anybody, just using common sense, thinks about this, if donald trump didn't exist, none of this would have happened. all of this was contingent totally on donald trump and i think there's absolutely no question, given the history, and i'm talking about a history of
violence and encouraging violence, which i saw at trump rallies in 2016 and 2015, the number -- that goes back further than that. it goes back to trying to execute the members of the central park five. donald trump has been -- has had blood lust for his entire public career, and he's gotten away with it for years and years. and he knows exactly what his fans were liable to do, and you look at the history of the tweets they laid out and the public statements in these last couple months, he was a thousand percent conscious of wants to get his supporters to rabidly arrive in washington, d.c., on the 6th and go to the capitol to disrupt those proceedings. there's no -- zero doubt about it. and the evidence -- this is one of the things the house managers made so clear. you look at the wealth of the evidence and then you look at the common sense understanding of the whole thing, the but for test on both cases and the detail and from 30,000 feet, the guy is guilty, as guilty as could be. it's not an open and shut case.
you shouldn't even bother to have to open this case. it's been shut from the very first day. >> and to the point of what he wanted, that was such a heavy emphasis at the impeachment managers, that conduct, that before the trial, we really only saw described in news accounts, "the washington post," ashley parker writing that he was riveted like he was watching television. it was hard to get him to take calls from his allies who were calling, people like lindsey graham. so, my only point is, he wanted it. he was entertained by it when it happened. and the only thing he said after the fact, upon questions from reporters, was, everyone thought all my words were really good, really appropriate. we're going to keep this going, but we have to sneak in a quick break. no one is going anywhere. when our special coverage continues, we're going to add to our group here. we're going to get to talk to a member of the united states senate about what he thought about the house managers' case that they made over the last two days and whether any of his colleagues on the republican
side were listening. that's next. side were listening. that's next. moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer ♪ ♪ yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin, ♪ ♪ yeah, that's all me ♪ ♪ nothing and me ♪ ♪ go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin, that's my new plan ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ woman: keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs or if you plan to, or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ♪ woman: now is the time to ask your dermatologist about skyrizi.
♪♪ this is what community looks like. ♪♪ caring for each other, ♪♪ protecting each other. ♪♪ and as the covid vaccine rolls out, we'll be ready to administer it. ♪♪ ♪ ♪ we'll be ready to (quiet piano music) (loud music & noises) ♪ ♪ (quiet piano music) comfort in the extreme. the lincoln family of luxury suvs.
when you switch to xfinity mobile, you're choosing to get connected to the most reliable network nationwide, now with 5g included. discover how to save up to $300 a year with shared data starting at $15 a month, or get the lowest price for one line of unlimited. come into your local xfinity store to make the most of your mobile experience. you can shop the latest phones, bring your own device, or trade in for extra savings. stop in or book an appointment to shop safely with peace of mind at your local xfinity store.
let's listen in. this is senator cassidy before a microphone. >> before the police officers as on the timeline, you hear the police officers say, we're outflanked, let's go back and you hear from, i think, officer 50 in a panic stricken voice, they're using weapons on us, they're using bear spray. and the president was calling to
try and get more senators to decertify the election. now, presumably, since we were, at that point, being evacuated, and i think he was told that, there was some awareness of the events, and so what i hope the defense does is explain that. if one of the charges is that you should have called out people and you didn't, even though it was clear that the police officers were under assault, please explain that. i think the other thing that i want to hear the defense speak to, because the house managers made much of this, is that the president continued to say the election was stolen. i still have people back home who swear that the dominion machines were rigged, even though -- even though different news outlets have printed retractions, apologies, and otherwise dissociated themselves from that story.
but obviously, the president repeated it over and over. that clearly had an impact. so, when the point was made, people felt as if they had no recourse because their vote was being stolen. well, the president built that story. so, how do you defend that? how do you describe that? because again, people will still be telling me that dominion rigged the machines. >> is there any question in your mind that donald trump was responsible for the riot here on january 6th? >> ask me after i hear the defense arguments. there's a proverb, your mind is persuaded but you should hear the other side. somewhere in proverbs chapter 10 but i don't remember the exact version. i need langford by that. >> your mind is persuaded but you need to hear the other side? >> you don't make a decision as a juror until you hear both sides, period, end of story. and so, that's why if you asked me the questions i wish to have addressed, i would like to have those addressed. but i don't make a decision until i've heard the other side.
>> we noticed that you've been taking very extensive notes, really thinking this through. what is your review process like? how difficult is this decision? >> ask me after i hear the defense. everybody wants to know what you're going to vote before you know how you're going to vote. i got to go. thank you. >> do you wish people spoke up in your party earlier to raise concerns about the president's actions? >> that's republican senator bill cassidy, who's made some news this week for being a republican interested in hearing the facts before he decides how he's going to vote. interestingly, he also criticized the president for perpetuating a big lie, said he has constituents who still believe that some of these voting machines were rigged. pointed out that some news organizations, i think he's talking about right-wing news organizations like newsmax and fox and oan, have retracted untrue stories about those
dominion voting machines. we're lucky to bring into our conversation now senator chris van hollen of maryland. are there a lot of bill cassidys in the senate or are there more josh hawleys on the republican side? >> well, nicole, it's good to be with you. i'm afraid, and i hope to be proven wrong, that there are more josh hawleys, and remember that the overwhelming number of senate republicans voted to begin with not to hear this evidence. they wanted to close their eyes. they wanted to plug their ears. they wanted to dismiss the case. now they've been confronted in great detail with the culpability of this president inciting this riot for the purpose of overturning the election, but based on some of the tweets i have seen today, they clearly just want to put their head in the sand, and the fundamental question which the house managers asked was, if this conduct is not a crime
against the constitution, what is? and i don't think republicans have any answer to that. bill cassidy asked a number of important questions. i don't think the defense is going to be able to answer them in any reasonable way. but to answer your question, nicole, i hope against hope that republicans will actually open their minds to what has been in plain view for the country about what the president did. >> to your knowledge, were there any republicans that maybe weren't captured in video who were not running for their lives or following direction from capitol police to flee the insurrectionists to safety? i guess what i'm getting at is, i'm trying to diagnose when this became partisan, when this became about loyalty to trump, because in all the footage that was released yesterday that i had never seen before, and i understand many of you hadn't either, everyone's running at the same pace.
everybody is listening to capitol police. the only thing that's different is the response. >> well, that's exactly right. i mean, everybody was in the middle of this storm, and everybody has seen, of course, the capitol police now being beaten, being spat upon, and this is the consequence of donald trump's action. i saw a tweet from lindsey graham in the middle of this trial today, i think, saying that the republicans were offended by the presentation by the house managers. how about being offended by the fact that the united states unleashed this violent mob that killed people, including a capitol police officer all for the purpose of clinging on to power? how about that being offensive? and he tweeted that this was an
absurd case. i can't imagine what's absurd about bringing the case against the president of the united states for these kinds of crimes against the constitution. so, i am worried that there are more people right now along with lindsey graham and josh hawley than senator cassidy, but i hope to be proven wrong. >> the brutality inflicted on law enforcement at the hands of donald trump's supporters, and we're learning many of them are members of white supremacist groups like the proud boys, the three percenters, and the oathkeepers, has been central to this case. jamie raskin described it as torture, the beating with a flag pole that still had an american flag on the other end of it. we also saw very graphic video of clear suffering and pain. we've heard about, i think, close to 130 injuries suffered by the capitol police. how is it to be taken as anything other than indifference
to those injuries to not want to hold accountable the people who incited the violence? >> well, i think there is no good answer to that other than indifference, both to that suffering and also the indifference done to -- damage done to our constitution and democracy, which will live with us for a very long time, perhaps forever. if we fail to convict on these serious charges. and you know, for republicans to contest the facts here about what president trump intended and what he unleashed, so desperately flies in the facts -- in the face of the facts, but as senator cassidy asked, even if you somehow conjure up a fiction that donald trump did not know what he was doing when he started the big
lie, got everybody angry that the election had been stolen, directed people down to the capitol, there is no explanation for why, in the face of repeated calls from republicans and democrats to the president of the united states to stop the violence, the president refused to do so. and how he later in the day talked about how these were patriots, these were good people. >> yeah. >> and that this day will go down in history. there's just -- there's no defense to that, and so, that's why i worry for our country. >> me too. and in fact, in that same tweet, he says, this is what happens. the "this" being the deadly insurrection. senator van hollen, thank you so much for spending some time with us about what you're watch. we will call on you again. thank you. i want to come back to you, donna edwards, on this notion that there is no disputing the fact. alan durshowitz was just on
newsmax saying, he didn't incite, he invited. there is no denying the facts. there is no alternate set of video presentations that the defense can air tomorrow of donald trump running around the west wing trying to save mike pence. there isn't an alternate set of videos of donald trump running around filming those videos we all became familiar with after his covid case where he's calling on them to go home, that just didn't air. there is no -- to borrow a kelleyanne conway term, there is no alternative reality. there is no alternative set of facts. the facts are the facts and they show a president who clearly intended to incite this violence. >> well, and that's why i agree with my former colleague, chris van hollen, that it's hard to know what republicans are looking at, because you know, i think it is the reason that they are trying to rely on these
dubious constitutional arguments that jamie raskin and joe neguse very clearly dismissed. it is the reason that they'll be looking to equate this false equivalence of black lives matter protests over the summer, largely peaceful protests, with what happened on january 6th. and it just doesn't fly. and in my mother's words, two wrongs don't make a right, even if you agree with that, so it doesn't explain how the president of the united states invited, like the impeachment managers demonstrated, he invited them to come to washington. he riled them up and told them to go to the capitol and they knew exactly in their own words, in their own facebook posts, in their own tweets, they knew exactly what the president expected of them, and he didn't stop it. >> and at the end, he praised it. he said, this is what happens. we love you. good patriots. tim, i want to get you on the
record of what we just heard from republican senator bill cassidy. he took on or expressed, i don't know, remains to be seen if he takes it on, expressed his discontent with donald trump furthering the big lie about voting fraud. this was the most secure election in our country's history. but by republicans giving trump space to perpetuate a lie, and file 60 frivolous lawsuits, he lost every single one of them, bill cassidy now has constituents in louisiana who believe that the dominion voting machines were rigged. >> yeah, bill cassidy probably has hundreds of thousands of constituents that think that, to be honest. i mean, look, if 60%, 60%, 70% of the republicans, that's tens of millions throughout the country, a lot in louisiana, who do still believe this or, you know, maybe not the specifics about dominion but something like that. i have to say, i mean, bill cassidy has been a loyal trump ally so i'm loath to compliment
him but it is refreshing to hear something that is not gaslighting you on the republican side, who's just saying, i'm listening to what was said. >> we're like, oh, he says up is up and down is down. yay, good republican. >> it's like, whoo. >> i'll take it. >> man, holy cow, he listened to the arguments by the democrats. they made good arguments, and now he'd like to hear from the republicans. i mean, this is obviously the lowest bar. so, i'm hopeful that cassidy will do the same thing that he did. that's still, you know, on the constitutionality question. that still leaves 11 more so i'm not that hopeful that we'll find that 11, but that is encouraging. i just want to say one other thing on this topic that's been discussed. i know about looking at the future, and at the republican party. you know, ted lieu said he's not worried about donald trump winning again. he's worried about donald trump losing again. i'm worried about donald trump winning again. i mean, i do think it's important for everybody to remember, he only lost by about 70,000 votes in the electoral college, right? it was 7 million in the whole country, but in the electoral college, had 70,000 votes
switched, he would have won re-election. who knows what happens in the next four years? memories are short. you know, it was way too close for comfort, and so, you know, i think a lot of these republicans like karl rove were like, we don't have to convict him, he's -- his career is over. i feel like i'm taking crazy pills. we did all this in 2015. i did it where i said he has no chance to win, don't worry about it, hillary will beat him. i told heilemann that on one of his shows that goes -- that clip goes around sometimes. so, what we need to learn our lesson here. he could win again. he needs to be convicted. we can never let a person that incited a riot that killed a cop to try to end our democracy back in the oval office. period. >> jason johnson. >> yeah, i disagree with you on this, tim. i don't think he's got much of a chance of being re-elected unless we let him and i don't just mean we, the american people. i mean, i don't think the press is going to do it again. i don't think -- i mean, the terrible things that donald trump has done, the only way he
was able to do what he was able to do in 2016 is he had years of being mainstream, he had a popular tv show, he had twitter. he's not going to have those things. the next three and a half years, he's going to spend fighting lawsuits, right? he's going to be associated with a terrorist attack that didn't just hit the capitol but i suspect we will have other attacks over the next couple years. i don't think donald trump is a threat to run again. i think donald trump is a threat to activate and incite other violence across the country. and i think what's really sort of important as far as the future, thinking about the future, is not just what trump will do but how the american people and how the democratic party chooses to look at the republicans from now on. if i'm jaime harrison, i'm looking at every single senator right now and saying, who's running in 2022? who's running in congress in 2022? i'm trying to get rid of them. if there's a capitol hill police officer who can retire and go home to his hometown in missouri right now, give him a million bucks to run against josh hawley
as a republican. like, that's what the democrats should be thinking about in the future, because we may know what's going to happen in this impeachment trial, but unless they demonstrate that the republican party is no longer a party of ideas, that tomorrow all they're going to do, they're going to give the chewbacca defense, the shaggy it wasn't trump defense, it's going to be garbage, but unless the democratic party exercises its power, they will be opening up the door for a smarter, more sophisticated version of trump in 2024. >> we see that happening before our very eyes. thank you all so much for spending some time with me today. another quick break for us. when we return, the house managers made the case today that donald trump poses a significant national security threat that's only going to get worse. our coverage continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. ontinues aftea quick break. don't go anywhere. >> it doesn't take a prosecutor to understand that president trump was not showing remorse. he was showing defiance.
he was telling us that he would do this again. that he could do this again. that hcoe uld do this again. ugh, there's that cute guy from 12c. -go talk to him. -yeah, no. plus it's not even like he'd be into me or whatever. ♪♪ ♪ this could be ♪ hi. you just moved in, right? i would love to tell you about all the great savings you can get for bundling your renter's and car insurance with progressive. -oh, i was just -- -oh, tammy. i found your retainer in the dryer. psoriatic arthritis, made my joints stiff, swollen, painful. tremfya® is approved to help reduce joint symptoms in adults
with active psoriatic arthritis. some patients even felt less fatigued. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tremfya®. emerge tremfyant™. janssen can help you explore cost support options.
see, the first group, i was nice. take your time. the second group, i was pretty nice. the third group, i'll be a little more violent. and the fourth group, i'll say get the hell out of here! >> mr. trump, there may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. so if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, seriously. i will pay for the legal fees. >> that was a very -- you know, a guy who is swinging, very loud and then started swinging at the audience. and you know what? the audience swung back, and i thought it was very, very appropriate. >> jews will not replace us! jews will not replace us! >> i think there is blame on both sides. you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.
>> an example of a exhibit the house managers showed today going back to 2015, showing donald trump's affinity for violence and illustrating that donald trump knew, must have known around january 6 the impact of his violent rhetoric like many examples of trump over the years, in his own words cheering on the violent once. let's bring in msnbc national security finalist frank figliuzzi, author of the book "the fbi way." also joining us, elizabeth newman, former assistant secretary of counterterrorism and threat prevention at the department of homeland security, now director of the republican accountability project. i believe you were quoted today in one of the exhibits. elizabeth, we'll start with you. >> well, i think the impeachment managers did a remarkable job of helping the senators and the american public remember what we have endured the last four
years. and i studied this, right? i lived it firsthand and watched his words lead to violence, lead to people pointing back to him as a reason why they felt it was okay for them to commit these crimes and acts of violence. i'm not just talking january 6. this is a four-year increase in hate crimes and hate attacks tied to his language, so was pleased that they showed the pattern and practice and the fact that after four years, you have two choices as senators. you either see that he is incompetent and doesn't seem to connect the dot that his words lead to violence, in which case you should be impeached because you couldn't do the job. you should never be aloud back because your incompetence led to this violence, or you see it for what it is, which is it's
willful. he knows what he is doing. he know his words were going to lead to violence on january 6 and eventually led to death. he needs to be held accountable. there really is no other choice for anybody of reason and integrity. so i don't have much hope for the republicans. they seem to have lost all character, courage and integrity, but the world is watching. the world is watching and asking are the american people serious? and i'm sad that it looks like we might answer back to the world that no, no, we're not. we will play politics and not take death and terrorism seriously. >> that was part of the case made today by the house managers, frank. they put off that fbi bulletin. it fell to congressman degette to go through the bulletin and show the specific threats we face, all of us face because people who have been radicalized by donald trump's big lie.
>> yeah, i want to say there are layers and layers of national security repercussions emanating from the trump administration generally, but specifically because of the insurrection. and what really resonated with me today was congressman joaquin castro and his reference to how our adversaries and our allies are looking at this insurrection. so one telephone most sensitive things you can do as an intelligence officer is recruit a foreign intelligence officer to betray his or her nation and work for team america. and you and i, nicole, have talked often about how hard this president trump -- former president trump has made the job of law enforcement, but let's now talk about the job of how hard he has made the mission of intelligence officers representing the united states. imagine going against a russian or a chinese or an iranian intelligence officer and convincing them that america has the better way of life. and understand that in their training schools right now in
the kremlin or in beijing or in tehran, videotapes are being played in classes for new intelligence officers, and the videotape being played is the insurrection. and what they're being told is any time some american tries to recruit you, understand that this is what happens in democracy. this is where they live. they don't have a better system. trump is responsible for that, and that will be felt for years within our intelligence community. >> frank, i also want to ask you about all the evidence that points to the suffering, the loss of life, the two suicides and the heinous injuries suffered by law enforcement. that really wasn't known in full in its totality. and i wonder what you think the stakes are in terms of what we say of how we value those who protect us. >> boy, we've been through a rough time with law enforcement the past several months, the
past year and of course the past few weeks. i think what americans should know coming out of this is law enforcement can't be painted with a broad brush. any time you try to say cops are like this or cops are like that, you've probably got it wrong. every day men and women get out of bed at the county, state, city, local and federal level simply trying to do the right thing, simply trying to get it right and protect us. and many heroes played that out on january 6. we should be thankful for them and what they do. and moving forward, we've got to have a program in place that makes their job easier so that they can truly protect democracy the way we want them to. >> you know, elizabeth, i'm so haunted by how different our response is to this attack. this was an attack on the capitol the same way 9/11 was an attack on our democracy on the pentagon, on twin towers, and then the tragic plane crash in
shanksville. and i'm haunted by some of the same things you're haunted by, that it hasn't snapped us out of anything, any of the broken paralyzed politics that seem at this point pretty hopeless. >> it does feel rather hopeless. and i tend to be the optimist. >> in our relationship, that's true. >> but i have to say like i watched -- i watched it today, and -- everything they said is true. and yet we've seen time and time again that the truth does not matter for so many in this country. and i'm just -- i'm struggling where we go. in particular, even in future elections and future election cycles we have different leaders who choose not to act the way trump did, our adversaries now know that disinformation works really well. it does not cost them that much money to do what happened in the
2020 election, create a whole different set of fax. and we're going to be wrestling with this for a very long time, even if it's not coming from inside the house like it did this last election. >> elizabeth neumann, frank figliuzzi, thank you so much for spending some time with us today. and thank all of you for joining us for day three of donald trump's second impeachment trial. ari melber continues our coverage now on "the beat." hi, ari. >> hi, nicolle. thank you so much for another day of long anchors. we'll see you soon. >> thanks, ari. >> i want to wish everyone a good evening. i am ari melber. our special coverage of this trial continues right now. house impeachment managers have formally rested their case. if yesterday was about the tape, the damning and clearly disturbing evidence of the maga insurrection, today, well, the managers made it about the ringleader, showing evidence that donald trump was in on the attack before, during, and after. let me repeat that, because if you don't remember anything else from today, remember that. they showed t