tv Second Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump MSNBC February 13, 2021 9:00am-1:00pm PST
i'm hallie jackson in washington with stephanie ruhle and katy tur in washington. we thought this would be donald trump's impeachment trial but a surprise vote a few hours ago, the senate voted to call witnesses. >> right now the senate is in recess and expected to be back about 12:30. that is about 30 minutes from now. that is when we can potentially get some answers about what happens next. we know conversations are happening at this moment about
next steps, about just how to call someone to testify, who to call and when exactly to do it. >> this is a huge wrench in the plans that all started shortly after the senate gaveled in at 10:00 a.m. this morning. that's when lead impeachment manager, congressman jamie raskin, came to the well of the senate to say he wanted to subpoena congresswoman jamie herrera beutler of washington. she's in the spotlight after saying overnight that house gop leader kevin mccarthy told her that then president donald trump sided with the rioters who stormed the capitol on january 6th. >> that call for the subpoena came from the lead house manager, prompted a vote then by the full senate on whether to call witnesses. you saw five republicans join all 50 democrats in agreeing to that. those republicans, susan collins, lisa murkowski, mitt romney, ben sasse and lindsey graham for a different reason. this move will probably extend the trial for at least a week, if not more. although there are a lot of questions about the timeline now. to answer some, let's bring in
kasie hunt, msnbc congressional correspondent on capitol hill and jessica alba, from florida where president trump is this morning. kasie, what do we know and where do we go? >> i'm with you in knowing we have more questions than answers this hour. we are digesting all of this as our viewers back home. you pointed out when we sat down we were heading for a final vote this afternoon or evening likely to acquit former president donald trump of incitement of insurrection. but we know now senators are negotiating furiously behind the scenes to figure out a new plan and that's because of the information highlighted -- it's not brand-new information but it was highlighted in a very specific way last night. and it's from a congresswoman who voted to impeach donald trump in the house. there were ten of them.
her name jamie herrera beutler from washington state. she put out a statement that's somewhat unusual, all of you guys get thousands of statements, but the last line of this statement said if there's anyone who has more information about this phone call between kevin mccarthy and donald trump on the day of the riot, now is the time to come forward and actually say it. it was a very clear signal, it seems, both to other republicans in the house and public signal to the house impeachment manager there is more information out there that may be relevant to the case that they are making. so that is how we got here. jamie raskin, house lead manager, went down to the floor and said i want to call a witness. there's a lot of technical process involved in this. it's all pretty arcane. the vote they took was a vote on opening debate on witnesses. so they basically retreated to
their offices and leaders are hovering to get a plan that everyone can get behind to figure out how to proceed. the republican side of this, and i know hallie has been doing a ton of reporting on this over the last week, they had one of their members watch out with a list he wanted to call. he walked out with a list clearly trying to make a statement about the reality of what they wanted to do. but they seem unprepared for this moment in the trial. there are so many questions here and raskin seemed to suggest it could go quickly, they could do an hour-long zoom deposition and finish the weekend but i have heard a few senators suggest they can put the trial on hold one week or multiple weeks while they worked on current president biden's covid relief plan to try
to move that forward. so a lot of questions about what's going on with the white house, coordination to move forward here and what else democrats might want to do if in fact the witness list gets to be longer than one on each side, guys. >> i'm curious about two republicans in particular. what are you hearing from kevin mccarthy today? what are you hearing from mitch mcconnell after all of this, anything at all? >> the answer to your question first is we are hearing nothing at all from kevin mccarthy, which is pretty interesting and there are obvious reasons here. let's walk through a little timeline. he's becoming a central figure in this drama. while i haven't spoken to him today, he's at a place he does not want to be. on january 6th he was here at the capitol along with all of these other members of congress as the rioters overran the
building. we know and we have known that he called president trump to urgently say that it was his people who were overrunning the building and that he should do something about it. we know that because there were leaks out, stories written. but now there are much more details about what are much more explicit about what the president knew and said to kevin mccarthy on that call about how he felt about the rioters and what he was willing to do about it. that's the information that came out from herrera beutler. she mentioned this before in a town hall but it was highlighted in a cnn story last night and set off this chain of events. mccarthy then went down to the house floor as they impeached president trump there and while he didn't vote to impeach the president, he did say in a speech that former president trump had some responsibility
for what happened here january 6th and that was a remarkable statement from somebody who had really embraced president trump when he was in office. he, of course, had been referred to as my kevin but you can tell kevin mccarthy was shaken by january 6th but felt the politics were going to dramatically shift around president trump. but as the weeks passed, that seemed to stage. there was a lot of blowback from republicans, a lot of criticism and mccarthy ultimately went down to mar-a-lago and met with trump. they put out a video of the two of them standing next to each other, publicly making it up. mccarthy stopped criticizing trump in ubl p. so there was a swing back against former president trump about concerns about finances and money and questions about whether if corporate america would reject the republican party in the weight of the
attack, they still need small-dollar donations so they need to embrace former president trump for all of that. now mccarthy has essentially tried to keep his head down and stay out of the fray on all of this. he's tried to manage very carefully the fight within his party, trying to defend liz cheney on the one hand, who the conference wants to throw out of her role -- or some in the conference wants to throw out of her role as she voted to impeach trump and manage this crisis with marjorie taylor greene, who was said to have engaged in numerous conspiracy theories and other things and embraced former president trump wholeheartedly in the wake of january 6th. it's been a huge mess for him. and now for him to be dragged back into the center of this, i have spent so much time on this because i think he's an incredibly important figure and he's never shown he's interested in doing the thing that's not the right political thing. he's very careful about the
political wins. if in fact democrats were to call him, i can't imagine there wouldn't be a fight to get him here. >> kasie, stand by for a second, i want to bring in former senator claire mccaskill. i understand you're in touch working your own sources and may have developments for us. what's up? >> yes, negotiations are intense but it does appear -- don't told me to this because this stuff can change quickly as we've seen today -- but it does appear they may be reaching a stipulation to enter the congresswoman's testimony into the record with a written way in an affidavit that would then become part of the trial record and then they would move on to closing arguments and a vote on whether or not to convict or acquit donald j. trump of the charges in the impeachment article. it may be they have avoided all of the consternation about how long it would take and how many
votes would there have to be on witnesses by just entering her words into the trial record, which, of course, would allow them to argue it. >> just a written statement and just from congresswoman but ler, that's what you're hearing is the parameters of this right now? >> that's what i'm hearing, that is the parameters. now, it may be that falls apart -- let me point out something else interesting to everyone. when they adjourned, you noticed chuck schumer left the floor. you know the attorneys for trump that are senators that have been assisting the trump team, immediately ran in to confer with the trump lawyers. who stayed on the floor? mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell did not go with the trump lawyers. the i think it has been said by many of us this morning, i think garrett mentioned it a couple of times, mcconnell said he was going to acquit this morning but the way he said it, he was
sending a signal that i'm not on team trump on this deal. i may not be willing to convict him and he's not trying to quote/unquote help the trump lawyers turn this into a circus. i think he might be willing to try to help deliver votes for a stipulation to just do written testimony of the congresswoman and then move on. >> claire, couldn't those senators who are rushing to trump's defense team's aid, couldn't this be an act of self-preservation, whether it's lindsey graham tangled in this investigation in georgia or it's cruz or josh hawley, they all have links whether it was what happened on the 6th in terms of certifying the vote are being at events or some sort of ties to these rioters. is it as much about standing with the president or protecting themselves? >> i think it's a combination. you basically have three buckets of people that are republicans in the senate right now.
you have a bucket of people who want to beat trump and move in his position and gather up all of his really intense base of sue supporters. you have those who thought trump did something terrible and trying to step up accordingly. then you have the people who are trying to hide and just hope this will blow over, politically they will never be struck with the moniker that they were defending trump's behavior and never be struck with the a moniker that they in fact were against donald trump. those are the three buckets. the ones in with trump are busy trying to help the defense lawyers who clearly need it. mcconnell is in the category saying i'm not going to play but i'm not going to vote to convict him so i can try to knit this caucus back together in the coming weeks as trump, i
believe, will continue to fade. >> there was a call between the president and mccarthy where the he said the rioters care more about winning this election than you do, siding with the rioters. and kevin mccarthy has so far not come out and denied this. does that change any minds in the republican conference? >> no, i don't think it does. as i said this morning, i think the inferences are so strong and the evidence is so strong. everybody knows all that man did was watch tv. he was watching tv. he saw what was happening in the capitol. but i think they thought it was important enough because it goes right to the heart of this, did the president violate his oath to protect the country including one of the branches of government, because i think they thought it was so important. by the way, i have it on very high authority this house
management team had complete autonomy. they did not have to get sign off from anyone for what what they did today. nancy pelosi said to them, you do whatever you think was best and i think they thought it was best to be sure this republican congresswoman's testimony be part of the permanent record of the impeachment trial. >> kasie, let me go to you on this. in about 15 minutes we expect to hear more from senate majority leader chuck schumer presumably. i wonder if what you're hearing from sources tracks with what senator mccaskill is hearing. and i wonder we have not heard everything from congresswoman herrera beutler. has it been radio silence from her office so far? >> hallie, i apologize, i had a conversation and missed the back half of your question. but i think you were asking if we heard anything from
congresswoman herrera beutler at this point in time, and the answer is no, she's stayed silent. we reached out to her team but it was clear we were talking earlier that this was a definitive signal. and as for kevin mccarthy, we're dialing some of the same phone numbers and claire mccaskill is talking directly with some of her former colleagues here. now i think the question is to do anything functionally, they have to get an agreement, otherwise it's very difficult for one person to gum up the works or cause a problem. so this has to be coordinated between republicans and democrats and chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell at the various corners of each conference and conference. so i'm interested to see if they magiced to resolve this for the 12:30 restart of this trial. and if they were in fact going
to take the path senator mccaskill is suggesting, that will take the point of dragging out this trail. the flip side is are republicans going to go along with that? do senate republicans want to wrap this up they're going to put additional information in the record without demanding anything on their side, hallie. >> let's bring monica alba back in. you shared with us a little bit ago about former president trump's defense team. but let's get right down to it, mike van der veen put on a show president trump enjoyed watching today. but when you get down to it, how outmanned, outgunned are these republicans? michael van der veen isn't even an impeachment lawyer. his law firm, i just listened to one of their radio advertisements in philadelphia, they specialize in car accidents and slip and falls, where people get large multimillion dollar
settlements. >> that's exactly right, steph. he's someone brought on board about a week ago. that shows you this is a former president who has gone through so many different types of legal teams just for the second impeachment trial. originally the group that was going to defend him was so uncomfortable with his approach said we can't work with you anymore. then he brought other people into the fold who came to an agreement apparently that they were not going to centralize their case on the issue of unsubstantiated voter fraud claims, although we know that is something former president trump still has a desire for because he believes somehow this election which was completely free and fair was in his words rigged. but this is why this team going into today this morning, i was talking to people close with them, they thought this was going to be completely wrapped up by 3:00 p.m. they were ready to leave
washington. because there had been so many disagreements about how to handle things, what order to speak, and that's because donald trump was so upset with their initial showing on tuesday. so they did make tweets. you saw a different bit of a speaking order yesterday because bruce castor was viewed as the most problematic member of the team. but look at today, david schoen, somebody mr. trump was more pleased with yesterday, can't be there because of the sabbath. this is a team who thought they would be done and not have more headaches but now they have to go back to the drawing board. but i have to tell you, there are not members lining up to join this team. you have a hard time getting people together. >> you don't want a legal team trying to book their tickets out. >> isn't that amazing? >> it's incredible, personal
injury attorneys. if you're watching the commercial, and everybody has a personal injury commercial in their local town, it's like saleenio and barnes if you were here in new york. >> if you were an attorney, wouldn't it be the ultimate assignment of all times? let's bring in daniel goldman and ask you that, isn't it stunning the president wouldn't be able to pull together an all-star team? isn't this a dream opportunity for an impeachment lawyer? >> representing the president has long ago ceased to be a dream opportunity if the president is donald trump. he's notoriously a terrible client who doesn't pay. but also just doesn't listen to his lawyers. i think part of the reason the presentation was so bad is because donald trump put prohibitions on types of arguments that would have been more effective if they were allowed to use it but it's odd
you elevate a personal injury attorney such as van der veen and demote bruce castor, who really has done very little, answered almost no questions and did not speak today. van der veen has clearly become the lead lawyer. but i do think that those questions yesterday probably influenced the house managers a little bit. in particular senator cassidy's question whether he really honed in on what donald trump knew about mike pence and when he issued that tweet at 2:24 bashing pence, and then when you have jamie herrera beutler issuing a statement about a phone call trump had after that with mccarthy where he was so disdainful of the senators and congressmen under attack and was taking the side of the protesters, i am guessing that they did not intend to call any
witnesses but the combination of the emphasis by senators including republican senators on trump's complete -- almost soesh pathic lack of empathy for what was going on to other republican and democratic officials on the capitol in combination of the issues about that issue the very night ultimately changed their minds. that's why the request was so narrow by jamie raskin, to have a one-our deposition to put her statement on record under oath and to give a little bit more time, as she pointed out and kasie hunt has said, to give a little more time for other, quotes, patriots unquote, in jamie herrera beutler's words and i don't think that was unintentional, to come forward and to perhaps provide another perspective on the phone call
mccarthy had with trump or other phone calls with trump officials by other congressmen or senators. i do think this was a surprise to all and i think are probably figuring out how to do this as expeditiously as possible and i wouldn't be at all surprised, as claire pointed out -- >> i was going to say, i know you have been working the phones or assume you have been, go on. i think you're about to get there. >> it i wouldn't be surprised at all and i don't know this from any other source but just sort of reading the tea leaves, i think it requires unanimous concept to get out of the impeachment trial and to do other business and i wouldn't be surprised if mitch mcconnell is holding that over the democrats. the republicans want this over with as quickly as possible. there's nothing good coming at all. democrats don't mind prolonging
it as long as they can do their other business and that is i'm guessing the big hammer the republicans hold over the democrats to get this done quickly. >> let's bring back donna edwards. donna, can you help us understand who's responsible for what? we keep hearing from republicans we want to bring nancy pelosi in. on january 6th she was speaker of the house. mitch mcconnell senate majority leader. neither are involved in any chain of command as far as amount of troops, security. on what grounds can you call nancy pelosi and not mitch mcconnell? >> actually stephanie on none and it would be a really bad idea for the trump team to call in nancy pelosi. first of all, she would run rings around them but she doesn't really have anything relevant to contribute. if anything at all, the house heard through its committee process from the secretary of the army, for example, who has a clear picture of the timeline
and calls made to the white house and the president trump, former president not willing to intervene. so i just don't really know what good it would do. if anything, it would shed light on the fact that the members of congress were purveying and others purveying on the former president to intervene and he simply refused. i also think it's really important that i'm glad maybe they will come to a resolution but i would be interested, quite frankly, in hearing directly from jamie herrera beutler because i know her and she's very compelling. i think there is a difference between an affidavit and live witness testimony. and she's a very compelling witness so however they get her statement on the record i think is good but it would be great to hear from her. i also don't think there are any other witnesses the trump team
can call that would be to their i wouldn't be afraid of that if i were democrats. i think they have ample testimony on the record, evidence on the record and jamie herrera beutler adds another piece to that stack. >> and, garrett, we were just talking to claire mccaskill a moment ago and she was saying according to her sources, senators presumably, this was potentially still going to wrap up today. they will just enter in a statement from ha jairia butler into the record. i'm wondering if you're getting any word it will be more than just a statement, will it potentially be any votes that she may have taken? there's also reporting out there that house managers were looking for phone records who might have gotten a call from the president on the day of the insurrection. what are you hearing?
may have a personal senator in the works. because i heard the same thing. the idea of hearing just a statement from congressman herrera beutler is gaining traction but nothing is decided left. and this is very much an activation now to figure out what will satisfy the managers who want to hear more information and to no small degree, republican senators who might be leaning towards conviction but don't want to see this go on and on. i think those are all things that have to be considered here. i can tell you the idea of calling at least this specific witness was not something that was run by chuck schumer at at least to the 9:00 a.m. call with the senate democrats. he said on that call they would defer to the managers to call
witnesses. that tells me it wasn't abject but a decision made at the time. just using basic logic here, this is not something they were prepared to handle. the flip side of entering a statement from herrera beutler, i touched on earlier, it would be a retreat by managers who want to vote to call witnesses who decide not to do so. remember, once again, this is not a normal criminal trial. this is not something to put into the record to be considered by jurors. these members all read the same sources we do. they all watch cable television. they were just as aware of this story as they would be if it gets put in the record. doing that said something about the desire of having that sentiment reflected for history or to perhaps not intentionally inflame, perhaps, jurors who may be leaning in the direction managers want them leaning in already with drawing this process out further.
>> let me bring in jake from punchbowl news. there you are. what are you hearing from folks you have talked to? >> i don't know why anybody would agree to enter a statement into the record. it makes no sense. the statement is out there. the impeachment rules are you can use public information that's out in the ethernet to make your decisions. so i'm not sure people are talking about that gaining steam. it doesn't make any sense. but the relevance to nancy pelosi to this is she might not be relevant but if you get into a situation where you're negotiating on witnesses and putting a resolution together to get witnesses, republicans are going to go tit for tat here. this isn't a court of law. this is a political process and it's going to happen. >> he said in a statement
earlier today kevin mccarthy pulled his statement back, which we know he hasn't. >> he has not. >> if this is on the record, he can no longer say that. >> yeah, mccarthy's not pulled this back. we reported this conversation january 8th, two days after the insurrection. >> trump's lawyer loves to say those are just fake media reports, not the real thing. if the congresswoman says it on the record, he les that ability. >> yes, he does. and the ultimate question is is this diz poztive for a result? and probably not. unless there's damning information that comes out, a lot of senators believe it's just a delay and further elongates a trial they want to put in the rearview mirror. jamie raskin, who just won a
vote to have witnesses, for him to back off and just put something in the record is a big loss and big misstep i would say by the managers. >> can i read you what one of our colleagues heard from senator mike brawn, republican obviously. he said according to our team republicans are ready to let this article about the statement we're talking about into the record and suggests then the trial would proceed to closing arguments and the final vote could happen today. give us a gut check here, we thought when we came on the air this may be the last day of the trial. then thought no, that's not going to happen. are we back to see the potential as final vote possibly tonight? >> let's put this in context, hallie, putting this into the record does not mean anything. it's already out there in the ether, right? people already have this information at hand. so i don't really know what that would do. i don't know what that would do. if they decide to do that, they
could proceed to a final vote today. i don't know why anyone would decide to do that. it doesn't make any sense. >> let's try to figure this out. claire mccaskill, you were the one who first reported this they were entering this record into the statement. is it just that? there there be more to it? why bother if as we've been talking about, jamie raskin already won a vote to call witnesses? >> hey, i don't disagree this call has been out there and i don't disagree that there's not a requirement that the written record of the call be admitted before them to argue it. but i do think the house managers had complete autonomy here. they decided to do this. i think they now probably have had discussions with schumers and others and decided the written words going into the record would be sufficient. and stephanie's right, there's one thing to be reported of this
and that, they could diminish that, trump's lawyer u.s. it's another thing if there's a sworn affidavit in the record from a republican congresswoman that donald trump in fine call while a riot was going on was more important about protecting the rioters than members of congress. that's a big deal to go into the record for history. i'm not saying any of this will change any votes. it probably won't. but i think jamie raskin wants the record to be fulsome. he wants it to be complete. he wants the record to show how overpowering this evidence was, and the written report from this congresswoman accomplishes that without the delay and numerous votes on what witnesses are going to be deposed. and i will add this as an aside, it's very interesting to me all of the republicans want to talk about is what nancy pelosi knew that day about protecting the
capitol. why isn't anybody asking what mitch mcconnell knew that day in terms of protecting the capitol? he was in charge of the senate. he was in charge -- he could have easily asked for more resources just as nancy pelosi could. so why is this nancy pelosi's fault that somehow they didn't have enough backup at the right time? mitch mcconnell and, frankly, i'm kind of surprised mitch mcconnell has avoided that kind of scrutiny over his actions that afternoon. what did he know and when did he know it >>. >> why are you surprised he avoided that scrutiny, from whom, democrats? >> i think scrutiny should have come from both sides but frankly, i'm kind of going to answer my own question here, they're just using pelosi as a political tool. so somehow nancy pelosi is the bad guy when they all know the bad guy was down in the white house watching his tv while his mob desecrated and caused death
in the capitol. >> you know they did that in 2018 to use her as the reason why the democrats shouldn't retake the house. >> and there was an assassination attempt on her life. >> it's been pelosi, pelosi for years. >> right. >> claire, are you hearing anything about senator li being asked for his phone records? >> i have not heard anything about that. really what i'm recording on here is the sense that senators have of what's going to happen. and that can always change. might have been on the floor when i thought we were going down this road and we went down a different road so that could all change. but the sense is there's been agreement and it was just confirmed that braun said republicans are going along with it to allow the sworn words of a republican congresswoman that donald trump had a conversation with kevin mccarthy. by the way, all of this about kevin mccarthy's conversation
when kevin mccarthy said who the f do you think you're talking to to the president, i don't think that was kevin mccarthy saying don't you understand how important i am. i think that was kevin mccarthy saying to the president, hey, i'm the one that's delivering for you. get off my back here. i'm the one -- >> yeah. >> i heard it was in the context i'm not one of the -- and a source said -- the brown noser. senator, let me put you on hold a second. i want to make sure people understand what's on the left side of their screen there. this is the senate coming back into the chamber. we've seen mitt romney and others come in the room. they're in a quorum call. it's a tee up. we're waiting to see senator chuck schumer at this point. we heard he wanted to come back at 12:30. that was five minutes ago.
there could be action soon or potentially an announcement of the thing we've been talking here around our tables and studios of an essential agreement as senator mccaskill has been reporting as we are hearing rumbling about from senators as this move forward. i want to bring in andrew weissmann, former impeachment leader and msnbc analyst. andrew, give us your opinion where we stand now. >> listening to the debate about statement versus testimony, basically, everybody is right there's no question having the actual testimony of the witness is better. and if this was a court of law, the law is the party doesn't have to agree to a stipulation. they could actually have a witness called. i think if you're doing this for the american public, if that's the jury you're playing to, it actually is better to have a live witness so that people can
actually see that. and then also cable news and regular news can all sort of report on it in a very different way than a cold, written affidavit. as somebody who was involved in the written mueller report, i'm well aware of the downsides of just putting something in writing without having a visual attached to it. however a signed sworn statement is better than just newspaper articles, as stephanie said, it does give more comfort to the republican senators who claire correctly said are in the bucket of people who are patriots, who are really going to do the right thing. they have something to lean on they can use to say this is beyond the pale, what he did to the vice president and said to kevin mccarthy, it shows it pictures clearly violates his oath of office. it shows a complete depravity of people who have been local to him and it shows what his intent
was because that's not -- those are not the actions or the statements of what you would expect from the former president if you really didn't support what was happening january 6th. the final point is this nancy pelosi point. it is such a red herring on that. i was thinking this was an example of really horrendous domestic terrorism that happened january 6th. if you go back to foreign terrorism that happened on this soil on 9/11, this is like an argument saying we should have done more to harden our target and that may be true but what on god's green earth does that have to do with making the terrorists on 9/11 more or less guilty? what donald trump did or did not do is the question. it's not the question of what mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi should have done to harden the target over what he was inciting
domestic terrorists to do. >> it andrew, let's go back to the point you were making about what the american public sees and the mueller investigation. many, many americans who read the full report, who watched it day in and day out, they saw all of the wrongdoing in it. because republicans were able to get by with a two-page summary, nothing done here, so many were able to say this is over and done with and the american people never saw what was really in there. do you believe democrats have learned their lesson from that experience and why they're trying to nail down so many of these crucial facts so republicans can't escape, conservative media can't wave it off, they have to cover it? >> i think the one place i will disagree, stephanie, i think conservative media will wave it off no matter what because facts do not matter. but there will be people who want to see what the evidence
is, conservatives and liberals and people in between. i think it's going to be a tradeoff. i think jamie raskin was correct to try to get this in a zoom media deposition to be played live and that is the way people consume information. it is no longer the case people just read. so i think that really is, if you're trying to speak to the american public, i think that's a better way to go. >> claire, what's going on right now? >> well, now i'm hearing that it is a 50/50 proposition. it will either be a two-week delay in witnesses or written testimonies. i've got just as many senators telling me two-week delay as i have senators who say it's a done deal and going to be written testimony submitted and they're going to close the trial out today. now we can all be on the edge of our seats to see what chuck schumer's going to say when they gavel in, in a few minutes.
>> let me go to garrett haake. it's my understanding joe manchin may be giving insight into this. what's up? >> hallie, this is a show your work moment here. i'm trying to get something reportable here and it's a little process based on what i'm hearing. joe manchin is telling reporters he heard there was an agreement. that is not something i would take to the bank but something that matches with what i heard from other sources, which is that among democratic senators, there's an agreement that's been essentially hammered out and is seen run around the room in a way to make sure nobody objects to it. this is the kind of thing done when leaders think they have an agreement but it's not going to be done by surprise and everybody is in fact on the same page. i believe it's all the same thing joe manchin is referring to but i want to be totally straightforward with the audience it seems like it's in flux here a little bit. >> i don't mean to make you do math live on television, you know, political math. steve kornacki can do it but my friend, this is why we're
journalists. can i ask you something about katy brought up regarding senator mike lee and reporting on that. and i'm putting you on the spot because i don't know if nbc has this yet. >> yes, give me a second here. this is something discussed earlier today. >> it's fine. >> lee, we remember earlier in the trial, took some issues about reporting some of the phone calls he made early on in the trial and what he's now done, this involved a press secretary who no longer works for mike lee and essentially in an effort to clear up any confusion, he handed over time stamped information about the phone logs. i'm not sure this is germane to any of the arguments anyone is considering but an effort at housekeeping by mike lee and effort that goes to what we are talking about in the largest context of getting everything straightened up for the record, which is of great interest to a number of folks here. >> daniel goldman, you give us
insight into what you're hear egg and what you think should happen given all of the confusion over the past few hours. >> as i'm looking at the senate floor, it does appear that they are passing out some draft resolution to review, it looks like barry burke, the chief impeachment counsel is speaking with jamie raskin and chuck schumer has the document in his hand as well. it would be a little surprising i think for the impeachment managers to make this request of witnesses to get the witness. frankly, i don't think it's a surprise they got the witnesses. i think going into this, it was very clear that the democrats were going to vote for witnesses if the managers wanted them and there would be anywhere from one to five republican votes in favor of witnesses. so they had a sense, i'm sure, if they wanted a witness, they were going to get it.
it was not up in the air as to whether or not they were going to get witnesses. the real question is whether they wanted to get witnesses. and i think that is not -- that is not a purely prosecutorial question. these are all democrats in the house, they're well aware of the political situation right now, which is that the democrats have the presidency, the house majority and senate majority. and they're all well aware of what happened in 2009 where there was a general feeling that when barack obama was in that situation, he didn't move quickly enough on his agenda and didn't get as much done with all three entities as they could. so i think they would want witnesses, frankly and if the two georgia senators had not won january 5th, we would be in a
much different situation right now. but the question is how much to delay this because it does take up too much oxygen in the room. so i'm not entirely surprised they could be considering an agreement to enter an affidavit, i'm sure it would be an affidavit, not just her statement because i'm sure they want a little bit of a fulsome explanation going back to her notes and basically getting her to put on paper everything that she knows about that call, which is of some value. but that would be the only reason to do this, to get on and move on with covid relief and the agenda. but now more and more people are coming out and upset about this so i think it's an entire bluff there will be any trump witnesses they want, as donna said, nancy pelosi is a total bluff and claire makes a very good point, of course, about how mitch mcconnell had as much say in the matter as nancy pelosi. there are no witnesses i can
think of that would be helpful to donald trump. so i think they're willing to essentially do anything to avoid having witnesses, even giving the democrats an affidavit of some sort. >> andrew, what do you think here? for mere civilians the optics of just hours ago democrats saying it's time for witnesses, which may result in just a sworn affidavit, how does that appear? >> well, you have to remember i don't think the republicans and donald trump's team gets to claim any sort of victory. the affidavit is going to be very one-sided. normally if you're on the other side and someone says we're calling a witness, you're sitting there thinking, i want to cross-examine that person and bring out the facts i think are useful. in this situation, you can be pretty darn sure there aren't going to be those facts. so to me this is sort of raising a white flag saying, you know
what, in order to move on and what they're thinking is get our acquittal, we are willing to actually just put in the record this is what she would say and we're not really challenging the voracity. that's really what i think everybody in that room will understand that it's going to be very hard for the republicans to say we shouldn't believe her, having decided they don't actually need to have a live deposition with cross-examination. so i think in the room i think it will play time in terms of saying, look, they basically have to concede those facts but i do think to the except the american public, there's a hit to the democratic republic that it's not convincing about exactly what happened because you will not have a republican congresswoman saying under oath, and in a way you can see her,
this is what happened and i'm willing to stand up and say it, that would be very powerful. >> to give folks a sense of what we are seeing on the left side of the screen, you're looking at the senate chamber. it's filled up. we know there are a number of senators in the room. we understand senator mcconnell, i think you might be able to see him on screen seated, senator schumer as well. we were supposed to hear likely about the trial restarting about, what, 28 minutes ago or so, 18 minutes ago and that has not happened yet. we expect at some point to get a sense of whether there is this deal or not, whether or not there is some kind of agreement to get this written statement from congresswoman butler into the record or to do something else. that is what we are waiting for here. the trial has been effectively recessed until it's called back in and the second that happens, we're going to bring it to you live. senator mccaskill, let me go to you here. you heard andrew call it i think he said white flag, if, in fact,
house impeachment managers -- i think they're just gaveling in. hold that thought. we will listen in and see what's going on. >> majority leader. >> without objection. mr. van der veen -- >> mr. castor. >> mr. castor, i'm sorry. yes, you are recognized. >> senators, done@john trump by his counsel is prepared to stipulate if representative herrera beutler were to testify under oath as part of these proceedings, her testimony would be consistent with the statement she issued on february 12th, 2021 and the former president's counsel is agreeable to the admission of that public statement into evidence at this
time. >> thank you, mr. castor. mr. raskin? >> thank you, mr. president. the managers are prepared to enter into agreement. i will now read the statement, this is a statement congresswoman jamie herrera beutler, february 12th, 2021. in my january 12th statement in support of the article of impeachment, i referenced a conversation house minority leader kevin mccarthy relayed to me he had with president trump while the january 6th attack was ongoing. here are the details. when mccarthy finally reached the president on january 6th and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the capitol. mccarthy refuted that and told the president that these were trump supporters. that's when, according to mccarthy, the president said, "well, kevin, i guess these
people are more upset about the election than you are." since i publicly announced my decision to vote for impeachment, i have shared these details in countless conversations with constituents and colleagues and multiple times through the media and other public forums. i told it to "the daily news" of long view january 17th. i have shared it with local republican board members as well as other constituents who asked me to explain my vote and thousands of residents in my telephone town hall on february 8th. mr. president, i now move the senate admit the statement into evidence. >> objection? without objection, the statement will be admitted into evidence. does either party which to make any further motions related to witnesses or documents at this
time? >> mr. president, the president's counsel have no further motions. >> mr. president, we have no further motions either. >> then the chair would note neither party wishes to make further motions under section 6 of senate resolution 47. therefore, the next question is on admission of the evidence submitted by both parties, pursuant to section 8 of the resolution. the majority leader is recognized. >> now as we move to another matter, i'm advised the house managers have no objection to the admission of evidence proposed to be admitted by the former president's counsel under the provisions of section 8 under senate resolution 47 and that the president's counsel have no objections to the evidence proposed to be admitted into evidence by the house
managers, pursuant to section 8 of the resolution as agreed to by leader mcconnell and myself a few days ago, both parties have made timely filings of this evidence with the secretary of the senate and provided copies to each other. i therefore ask unanimous concept the senate dispense with the provisions of section 8-a of senate resolution 47 and the materials submitted by both parties be admitted into evidence subject to the provisions of section 8-c of that resolution which provides that the submission of this evidence does not constitute a concession by either party as to the truth of the matters asserted by the other party. and that each senator shall decide for him or herself the weight to be given such evidence. this request has the approval of both parties and republican leader. >> without objection is so ordered.
pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 47, the senate has provided for up to four hours of closing arguments. they will be equally divided between the managers on the part of the house of representatives and the counsel for the former president. in pursuant to rule 22 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate, when sitting on an impeachment trial, the argument should be opened and closed on the part of the house of representatives. so the chair recognizes mr. manager raskin to begin the presentation on the part of the house of representatives. mr. raskin, under rules 22, you may reserve time if you wish. >> thank you, mr. president. members of the senate, before i
proceeded it was suggested by defense counsel that donald trump's conduct during the attack as described in congresswoman herrera beutler's statement is somehow not part of the constitutional defense for which president trump has been charged. i want to reject that falsehood and that falsity immediately. after he knew violence was under way at the capitol, president trump took actions that further incited the insurgents to be more inflamed and to take even more extreme, selective and vocal active against former vice president mike pence. former trump also has described by congressman herrera beutler's notes refused requests to immediately forcefully call off
the riots. when he was told the insurgents inside the capitol where trump supporters the pred said, quote, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. think about that for a second, this uncontradicted statement that has just been stipulated as part of the evidentiary record, the president said, well, kevin, i guess these people, meaning the mobsters, insurrectionists, are more unset about the election than you are. that conduct is obviously part and parcel of the constitutional offense that he was impeached for, mainly incitement to insurrection, that is continuing incitement to the insurrection. the conduct described not only perpetuated his continuing offense but also provides to us
here today further decisive evidence of his intense to incite the insurrection in the first place. when my opposing counsel says that you should ignore the president's actions after the insurrection began, that is plainly wrong. and it, of course, reflects the fact they have no defense to the outrageous, scandalous and unconstitutional conduct in the middle of a violent assault on the capitol that he incited. senators, think about it for a second. say you light a fire and you're charged with arson, and the defense counsel says, everything that i did after the fire started is irrelevant, and the court would reject that immediately and say that's not true at all. it's extremely relevant to whether or not you committed the crime. if you run over and try to put out the flames, if you get lots of water and say help, help, there's a fire, i call for help, a court will infer -- could
infer you didn't intent for the fire to be lit in the first place. they would accept your defense perhaps it was an accident, accidents happen with fire. if on the other hand the fire erupts you go and you pour more fuel on it, you stand by and you watch it gleefully, any reasonable person will infer you not only intended the fire to start but once it got started and began to spread, you intended to continue to keep the fire going. and that's exactly where we are, my friends. of course your conduct while the crime is ongoing is relevant to your culpability. both to the continuation of the offense but also directly relevant, directly illuminating to what your purpose was originally, what was the intent.
and any court in the land would laugh out of court any criminal defendant who said what i did after i allegedly killed that person is irrelevant to whether or not i intended to kill them. come on, donald trump's refusal not only to send help but continue to further incite the insurgents against his own vice president vice president, his own vice president, invites further violence to start the insurrection and continue incitement once the attack began to overrun the capitol. all right, senators, that was in response to this new evidentiary article that came in. but in my closing i want to thank you for your remarkable attention and your seriousness of purpose befitting your office.
we offered you overwhelming and irrefutable and certainly unrefuted evidence former president trump incited this insurrection. to quote liz cheney in january, quote, on january 6th, 2021, a violent mob attacked the united states capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stopped the counting of presidential electoral votes. this insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our republic. she continued, representative cheney continued, much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, be but what we know now is enough. the president of the united states summoned this mob, assembled this mob and lit the flame of this attack. everything that followed was his doing. none of this would have happened without the president. the president could have immediately and forcefully
intervened to stop the violence. he did not. there's never been a greater betrayal by the president of the united states of his office and his oath to the constitution. i will vote to impeach the president. representative cheney was right, she based her vote on the facts, on the evidence, and on the constitution. in evidence the video documentary, eyewitnesses has only grown stronger and stronger and more detailed right up until today, right up to ten minutes ago. over the course of this senate trial. i have no doubt that you all noticed despite the various propaganda reels and so on, president trump's lawyers have said almost nothing to contest or overcome the actual of former president trump's conduct that we presented, much less have they brought their client forward to tell us his side of the story.
we sent him a letter last week which they rejected out of hand. the former president of the united states refused to come and tell us -- and i ask any of you, if you were charged with inciting violent insurrection against our country, and you're falsely accused, would you come and testify? i know i would. i would be there at 7:00 in the morning waiting for the doors to open. i'm sure that's true of 100 senators in this room. i hope it's true of 100 senators in this room. the senate was lectured several times yesterday about cancer culture. not even two weeks ago the president's most reliable supporters in the house -- i'm sorry, not the president, the former president's most reliable supporters of the house tried to
cancel out representative cheney because of the truth and they tried to strip her of her leading role as chair of the house republican conference. you know what, i hope everyone takes a second to reflect on this, the conference rejected this plainly retaliatory and cowardly attempt to punish her for telling the truth to her constituents and her country and voting for impeachment. who says you can't stand up against bullies? who says? in my mind, liz cheney is a hero for standing up for the truth and resisting this retaliatory cancer culture she was subjected to. but she beat them on a vote 145-61, more than 2-1 vote. ben franklin, great champion of enlightenment and enemy of political fanaticism and
cowardice and, of course, another great philadelphian, once wrote this, i have observed that wrong is always growing more wrong until there is no bearing it anymore and that right however opposed comes right at last. comes right at last. think about that. this is america, home of the brave, land of the free. the america of ben franklin said said, if you make yourselves a sheep, the wolves will eat you. don't make yourselves a sheep, the wolves will eat you. the america of thomas jefferson, who said at another difficult moment, a little patience and we shall see the rain of witches pass over their spirits dissolve and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. america of tom payne who said, the mind once enlightened cannot again become dark. we showed you hour after hour of realtime evidence with every step of donald trump's crime. how the election he lost by more than 7 million votes 306-232 in the electoral college, which he described as a land slide when he won by the exact same margin in 2016, was actually a land slide victory for him being stolen away by a bipartisan conspiracy. and fraud and corruption. we showed you how 61 courts and 88 judges, federal, state, local, trial, appellate, from the lowest courts in the landed
to the united states supreme court across the street and eight federal judges he himself named to the bench, all found no basis in fact or law from his outlandish and deranged inventions and concoctions about the election. in the meantime president trump tried to bully state-level officials to commit a fraud on the public by literally finding votes. we examined the case study of georgia, where he called to threaten republican brad raf ensberger to find him 11,780 votes. that's all he wanted, he said, 11,780 votes. don't we all. that's all he wants to nullify biden's victory and to win the election. raffensperger ended up with
violent death threats against his family. a prescient warning indeed. raffensperger and his family said he supported donald trump, gave him money, and now trump threw us under the bus. we saw what happened in lansing, michigan, with extremist mob he cultivated which led to two shocking capitol sieges and criminal conspiracy by extremists to kidnap and likely assassinate government whitmer. we saw him try to get state legislatures to disavow and overthrow their popular election results and replace them with trump electors. we showed you the process of summoning the mob, reaching out, urging people to come to washington for a wild time, as we celebrate presidents' day on and mod, think, imagine, is there another president in our history who would urge supporters in washington to come to washington for a wild time? you saw how he embraced violent extremist elements like the proud boys, who were told in a nationally presidential candidate debate to stand back
and stand by, which became their official slogan as they converged on washington with other extremists and seditious groups and competed to be the lead stormtroopers in the attack on this building. you saw the assembly of the mob january 6 and how beautiful that angry mob must have looked to donald trump as he peered down from the lectern with the seal of the president of the united states of america emblazoned on it. that crowd was filmed with extremists in tactical gear, armed to the teeth, and ready to fight and other brawling maga supporters, all of them saying stop the steal right now. and he said he would march with them to the capitol, even though the permit for the rally specifically was for beta march but he said he would march with them giving them more comfort what they were doing was legitimate, it was okay.
but, of course, he stayed back as he presumably didn't want to be too close to the "action" at the capitol as the lawyers called it. not an insurrection they urged us yesterday, it was action. he didn't want to be too close to the action when all hell was about to break loose. now incitement as we discussed requires an inherently fact-based evidentiary inquiry. and this is what we did. we gave you money hours of specific factual details about, to use congressman's words, the president incited the mob, lit the match, sending them off to the capitol where they thought as they yelled out they have been invited by the president of the united states. ing and then unleashed unparl alegaled violence against our overwhelmed but besieged and heroic police officers who you
thoughtfully honored yesterday when the officers got in their way, as they entered the capitol at the behest of the president of the united states to stop the steal. i'm convinced most senators must be convinced by this overwhelming and specific detail because most americans are but say you still have your doubts. do you think the president really thought he was sending his followers to participate in a peaceful, nonviolent rally? the kind that might have been organized by julia bond, who my distinguished opposing counsel brought up, ella baker, bob moses, our late beloved colleague john lewis, for the student, nonviolent coordinating committee. maybe the president really thought this would be like the march on washington organized by dr. martin luther king who said nonviolence is the answer to the political and moral questions of our time. let's say you're still flirting with the idea donald trump's conduct was totally appropriate as he proclaimed right off the
bat and he's the innocent victim of a mass accident or catastrophe like a fire or a flood as we were invited to frame it on our opening day by distinguished co-counsel or opposing counsel. you think maybe we're just looking for somebody to blame for this nightmare and catastrophe that has befallen the republican or just looking for someone to blame. here's the clear question in resolving your doubts if you're in that category, how did donald trump react when he learned of the violent storming of the capitol and threat to senators, members of the house and his own vice president as well as the images he saw on tv with the pummeling and beating and harassment of our police officers? did he spring into action to stop the violence and save us? did he even wonder about his own security since an out-of-control
anti-government mob could come after him too? did he quickly try to get in touch with or denounce the proud boys, the oath keepers, the rally organizers, to save -- to save the america organizers and everything else him this is a big mistake, call it off, call it off, as representative gallagher begged him to do on national television? no, he delighted in it. he reveled in it. he exalted in it. he could not understand why the people around him did not share his delight. and then a long period of silence ensued while the mob beat daylights out of officers as you saw on this tape, and hunt down vice president pence and speaker pelosi as you heard mob members say they wanted to kill. they were both in real danger
and our government could have begun thrown into absolute turmoil without the heroism of our officers and bravery and courage of a lot of people in this room. here's what republican representative anthony gonzalez of ohio said. he's a former pro football player, we're imploring the president to help stand up, to help defend the united states capitol and congress, which is under attack. we're begging essentially and he was nowhere to be found. nowhere to be found. as i emphasized this morning, that dereliction of duty, that decertification of duty, was essential for his incitement of insurrection and inextricable from it, inextricable, bound together. it reveals his state of mind that day, what he was thinking as he provoked the mob to violence, and further violence, it shows how he perpetuated his continuing offense january 6th,
his course of conduct charged in the article of impeachment, as he further incited the mob during the attack, aiming it at vice president mike pence himself, while failing to quell it in either of his roles as commander in chief, or his real role that day, inciter in chief. and it powerfully demonstrates the ex-president knew, of course, that violence was foreseeable, that it was predictable and predicted, that day since he was not surprised and not horrified, no, he was delighted and through his acts of omission and commission that day, he abused his office by siding with the insurrectionists at almost any point rather than with the congress of the united states, rather than with the constitution. in just a moment my colleague mr. cicilline will address president trump's conduct and actions and inactions, culpable
state of mind during the attack, as he will establish yesterday's explosive revelations about house minority leader kevin mccarthy's desperate call to trump and trump's truly astounding reaction confirmed trump was doing nothing to help the people in this room or building, it's now clear beyond doubt trump supported the actions of the mob so he must be convicted, it's that simple. when he took the stage january 6th, he knew exactly how combustible the situation was. he knew many in the crowd were willing to jump into action to engage in violence at any signal he needed them to fight like hell to stop the sale and that's exactly what he told them to do. and then he aimed them straight here right down at the pennsylvania capitol, where he stole them the steal was occurring, the counting of the electoral votes and we all know what happened next. they attacked this building, disrupted the peaceful transition of power, injured and
killed people, convinced they were acting on his instructions and his approval and protection. while that happen, he further incited him by failing to defend us. if that's not a high crime and misdemeanor against the republic of the united states of america, then nothing is. president trump must be convicted for safety and security of our democracy and our people. mr. cicilline? >> mr. president, distinguished senators, as we demonstrated there's overwhelming evidence that president trump incited the violence and knew violence was foreseeable on january 6th. he knew many in the crowd were
posed for violence at his urging, and in fact, many in the sea of thousands in the crowd were wearing body armor and helmets and holding sticks and flagpoles. then he not only provoked that very same crowd but aimed at the at the capitol, he literally pointed them at this building, at us, during his speech. he pointed them to the building where congress was going to certify the election results and where he knew the vice president himself was providing over the process. no one is suggesting that president trump intended every detail of what happened january 6th, but when he directed the sea of thousands before him who were reportedly ready to engage in real violence, when he told that crowd to fight like hell, he incited violence targeted at the capitol and he most certain flower saw it. my colleague will stand up after me and walk you through the overwhelming evidence that
supports those claims. i want to start though by talking about what happened after that. there was a lot of discuss yesterday about what the president knew and when he knew it. there were certain things is that we do not know about what the president did that day because the president, that is former president trump, remained sliept about what he was doing during one of the bloodiest attacks on our capitol since 1812. despite a full and fair opportunity to come forward, he's refused to come and tell his story. as manager raskin said, we would all do that. in fact, i would insist on it. if i were accused of a grave and serious crime that i was innocent of, i would demand the right to tell my side of the story. president trump declined. but there are certainly facts undisputed, that we know to be true despite the president's refusal to testify, which were
ignored entirely or couldn't and didn't dispute. before i go to those facts, let me touch on a few things. fist, president trump and his counsel resorted to arguments that the evidence presented was somehow manufactured or hidden from them. i want to be clear about this because this is important. in terms of timing when they received materials here, defense counsel had access to all materials when they were entitled to have them under senate resolution 47. and they cannot and have not alleged otherwise. as to their desperate claim that evidence was somehow managed, they have not alleged one tweet from their client was actually inaccurate, or can they? we got these tweets, statements from the president, from a public archive and they're all correct. and we also know the president's claims about evidence being
manipulated also are untrue because they didn't even object to the introduction of the evidence when he had the opportunity to do so. so i hope we can now set those issues aside and turn to the facts of this case and really set the record straight about the undisputed facts in this case about what the president knew that day and when he knew it. at the outset, let me say this, as you may recall in direct response to a question yesterday, president trump's counsel stated and i quote, "at no point was the president informed the vice president was in any danger." as we walk through these undisputed facts you will see quite clearly that is simply not true. as you can see here from just after 12:00 p.m. to just before 2:00 p.m., president trump delivered his statements at the rally, which incited an initial wave of riot protesters coming down to the capitol. his speech was still ongoing and
you saw the evidence of people broadcasting that on their phones. he finished his speech at about 1:11 p.m., at which point a much larger wave surged towards us here at the capitol, ripping down scaffolding and triggering calls for law enforcement assistance. 30 minutes later at 1:49 p.m., as the violence intensified, president trump tweeted a video of his remarks at the rally with the caption, quote, our country has had enough. we will not take it anymore. and that's what this is all about, end quote. during the half hour following that tweet, the situation here drastically deteriorated. insurrectionists breached the capitol barriers and then the steps and then the complex itself. by 2:12, the insurrectionist mob had overwhelmed the police and started their violent attack on the capitol. as you all know, this attack occurred and played out on live
television. every major network was showing it. we've shown you during the course of this trial side by side, exactly what the president would have seen on tv or his twitter account. we've also shown you he would have seen around 2:12 p.m. images of vice president pence being rushed off the senate floor. i will not replay all of that for you but for timing purposes, here's the footage reacting to vice president pence leaving the floor. >> no audio. they just cut out -- >> it feels like they just ushered out mike pence out quickly. >> yes, they did. that's exactly what happened there. they ushered mike pence out and moved him fast. i saw the motions too. >> defense counsel seems to suggest somehow the president of the united states was not aware of this. the president of the united states had no idea his vice president had been evacuated from the senate floor for his safety because violent rioters
had broken into the capitol with thousands more coming. and with the capitol police completely overwhelmed. this was on live television. so defense counsel is suggesting that the president of the united states knew less about this than the american people. this is just not possible. that the secret service failed to mention his vice president was being rushed away for his own protection, that no one alerted him that none of our law enforcement agencies raised a concern to the united states that the vice president was being evacuated from the senate floor as a violent mob assaulted the capitol. that simply cannot be. with each passing minute on the timeline of events january 6th, it grows more and more inconceivable. let's continue forward in time. between 2:12 and 2:24, the
senate recessed, speaker pelosi was ushered off the floor, the capitol police announced a breach and lockdown and insurrectionist mob began chanting "hang mike pence." and it was unfolding on live tv in front of the entire world. so, again, let me ask you, does it strike you as incredible that nobody, not a single person, informed the president that his vice president had been evacuated or the president didn't glance at the television or his twitter account and learn about the events, remember this was the day of the electoral college. remember his obsession with stopping the certification. it's just not credible that the president at no point knew his vice president was in this build egg and was in real danger. senators i submit to you these
facts, this timeline is undisputed. after 2:24 p.m. and rioters breached the barriers, after calls for assistance, after rioters stormed the building, after vice president pence was rushed from the senate floor and just before vice president pence was further evacuated for his safety, president trump decided to attack his own vice president on twitter. the undisputed facts confirm not only must have president trump been aware of the vice president's danger but he still sent out a tweet attacking him, further inciting the very mob that was in just a few feet of him inside of this very building. the vice president was there with his family. he was in danger for his life. they were chanting, "hang mike pence" and had erected a noose outside. and as we showed the mob responded instantly. the tweet was read aloud on a
bull horn, if you remember that video. insurrectionists began chanting again about mike pence. in those critical moments we see president trump engaging in a dereliction of his duty by further inciting the mob in realtime to target the vice president with knowledge that the insurrection was ongoing and that's, of course, included in the conduct charged in this article of impeachment. former president's counsel's suggestion otherwise is completely wrong. his further incitement is impeachable conduct that continue during the course of this assault itself and it's part of the constitution crime and was entirely and completely part of his indefensible failure to protect the congress. there has been some confusion as to the phone call i referenced with senator lee. so i want to be clear about certain facts not in dispute.
first, senator lee confirmed the call occurred at 2:26 p.m. so i have added that to the timeline above. remember by this phone call, the vice president has just been evacuated on live television for his own safety. and donald trump had after that tweeted an attack on him, which the insurgents read on a bullhorn. and a few minutes after donald trump's tweet, he didn't reach out to check on the vice president's safety. he called a senator to ask about delaying the certification. capitol was interrupted. the senator tuberville has since explained, and i quote, i looked at the phone and it said the white house on it. the president said a few words. i said mr. president, they're taking the vice president out and they want me to get off the phone and i've got to go, end quote. that was his second evacuation
that day. a minute later live feeds documented the insurgents chanting mike pence is a traitor. at this point even though somehow he missed it earlier, even if he somehow missed it earlier, it's inconceivable the former president was unaware the vice president was in danger. what does the president do after hearing that? does he rush to secure the capitol? does he do anything to quell the mob? does he call his vice president to check on his safety? we all know the answer to those questions too. there can be no dispute. he took none of those steps, not a single one. even after learning senators were being evacuated and vice president pence had also been evacuated, he did nothing to
help the vice president. and here's more evidence that we have since learned, at some point over the following 30 minutes president trump spoke to minority leader kevin mccarthy and as representative jamie herrera beutler revealed, evidence that now has been stipulated as part of the evidentiary record, in that conversation kevin mccarthy is pleading with the former president to do something. he first tries to assign the blame to another group and leader mccarthy says no, these are your supporters, mr. president. what does the president say in response 1234 not, i didn't realize you were in danger. and i quote, "well, kevin, guess these people are more upset about the election than you are." i guess these people are more upset about the election than
you are. the president just said in his tweet at 6:01 was essentially saying, you got what you deserve of the let me say that again. not only was the president fully aware of the vice president's situation in the situation we were all in, when he was asked for help, when he was asked to ascend on the capitol less than 30 minutes after inciting his own vice president, president trump refused that request for assistance and he told us why. his singular focus, stopping the certification of the election of his opponent. he incited the violence to stop the certification. he attacked the vice president in further pressure to stop the version. he called senator tuberville to stop the certification and he
refused to send help to congress. and this congress and the vice president of the united states were in mortal danger because he wanted to stop the certification. and he did these things attacking the vice president, calling senator tuberville, refusing representative mccarthy's request with full knowledge of the violent attack that was under way at that point. he chose retaining his own power over the safety of americans. i can't imagine more damning evidence of his state of mind. and the call ended with a screaming match interrupted by violent rioters breaking through the windows of representative mccarthy's office. senators, the president knew this was happening. and he didn't do anything to help his vice president or any of you or any of the brave officers and other employees serving the american people that day. his sole focus was stealing the
election for himself. and he apparently still has not thought of anyone else. according to more new facts revealed last night, the vice president's team does not agree with the president's counsel or the president's counsel assessment either. the report, and i quote, says "pence's team does not agree with the trump lawyers' assessment trump was concerned about pence's safety. trump didn't call him that day or for five days after that. no one else on trump's team called as pence was evacuated from one room to another with a screaming mob nearby." >> objection, this is not in evidence. objection, this is not in evidence. if you wanted to stipulate to this -- >> counsel will sit down. >> senators, remember -- >> the chair has no way of knowing what material is in evidence or not.
the counsel for the president will have a chance to speak. and the chair will consider the issue. senators, remember as you have heard said during this attack, they could have killed us all, the staff, everyone. the president not only incited it but continued inciting it as it occurred with attacks on his vice president and then willfully refused to defend us, furthering his provocation and incitement by the mob, siding with the mob, citing with the violent insurrectionist, criminals who killed and injured police officers sworn to protect us because they were, quote, more upset about the election than leader mccarthy. those facts are undisputed.
president trump has not offered any evidence or any argument to disprove them. his lawyers almost entirely ignored these facts in their short presentation. we have only his counsel's false claim yesterday that that, quote, at no point was the president informed the vice president was in any danger, end quote. a refrain not just refuted by common sense but the timeline by the president's own team. so there could be no doubt when we most needed a president to preserve and protect us, president trump instead willfully betrayed us, he violated his oath. he left all of us and officers like eugene goodman to our own devices against an attack he incited and he alone could stop. that is why he must be convicted. i would like to conclude by making one final point that
follows directly from what i just discussed, our case and the article of impeachment before you absolutely includes president trump's dereliction of duty on january 6th. his failure as inciter in chief to immediately quell or call off the mob, his failure as commander in chief to immediately do everything in his power to secure the capitol, that is a further basis on which to convict and they're giving no doubt of that. the conduct is unlike any traditional defense and the proof is overwhelming. most importantly his dereliction of duty offers conclusive, irrefutable evidence that he acted willfully as we charge. he wasn't furious or sad or shocked virtually like everyone else in america. he was reported by those around him as delighted. rather than rush to our aid or
demand the mob retreat, he watched the attack on tv and praised the mob to leader mccarthy as more loyal to him. more upset about the election, and that was all that mattered. his reaction is also further evidence of his intent. he acted exactly the way a person would act if they had indeed incited the mob with violence to stop the steal. moreover as i have shown president trump's dereliction and dereliction of duty includes his further incitement of the mob, even though as he failed to protect us. while the mob hunted vice president pence in these very halls, he attacked vice president pence. while he tried to stop the steal, he spread the big lie. we all saw how his mob responded in realtime. this further incitement was part of his dereliction of duty, was also part of his course of conduct, encouraging and
provoking the mob to violence. president trump's dereliction of duty also highlights how foreseeable the attack was to him. in his tweet just after 6:00 p.m. he said, and i quote, these are the things and events that happened when sacred land slide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots badly and unfairly treated for so long. this tweet continued the endorsement of the attack, his failure to condemn it, his discertification of duty. but it also reveals his view this is, of course, what would happen when congress refused his demand to reject the election he continued to tell his supporters what stolen and he actually won in a land slide. again, he wasn't surprised. he saw this as a predictable result of his repeated demands that his followers stop the steal by any means possible. this was all connected, his
dereliction of duty, his decertification of duty, it was part and parcel of the crime charged in the impeachment. and it's certainly a basis on which to vote for conviction. if you believe he willfully refused to defend us and law enforcement officers fighting to save us and he was delighted by the attack and saw it as a natural result of his call to stop the steal and he continued to incite and target violence as the attack unfolded, we respectfully submit you must vote to convict and disqualify so the events on january 6th can never happen again in this country. >> mr. president -- >> i would like to call up -- >> mr. president, i have a point of order. mr. president, moments ago house
manager cicilline -- >> the senator with withhold to be advised by the parliamentarian that debate is not in order. >> i must appeal to the chair that debate is in order because there is something clearly not true. >> and i ask for decorum and the clerk will call the roll. >> miss baldwin. >> there's a consent to suspend the roll call. >> is there an objection? objection is heard. >> mr. barrasso.
through what we think we are seeing now, senator. >> this is mike lee trying to sirnt his side of the argument. it's always a good sign when you're trying to make your case that the other side is making objections they don't have the right to make. it tells you you're making points, scoring points of the mike lee is just disrupting this. he has no ability under the rules to disrupt the argument like this. there's no place for argument here. the senators are deemed to have the ability to reject and accept that which they wish during an impeachment trial. so i would be very surprised if anything came of this other than chuck schumer quickly calling a lack of decorum so there can be a scrum rather than there being shouting going on by mike lee and maybe some of the other rabid trump caucus. >> claire, if our viewers weren't paying close attention to what was going on, can you walk us through what mike lee is objecting to, is it the same thing he objected to the other
day regarding the call from president trump? >> i think he was objecting to the conversation about mike pence's team saying the defense lawyers are lying about whether or not the president was reaching out or trying to take care of him. remember in the trial when the defense lawyers actually said, oh, mike pence and the president get along well and, of course, it's not true he wasn't trying to protect mike pence, well, we had a report last night that somebody on the pence team reached out to someone in the media and said, he's lying. they didn't contact us. they didn't care about us that day. and the house manager included that report in his argument. i believe that's what mike lee was referring to, trying to contrast the now-stipulated by
the defense testimony about the trump call to mike mccarthy versus the report from the pence team that has not been stipulated to and not formally entered into evidence. >> senator, as you alluded to, what people should understand watching this, we are now in the closing arguments. there were some fireworks earlier today that we were reporting on and can revisit as we go, but from where we are at this moment, this is supposed to be the he most straightforward thing in any trial, whether it's senate impeachment trial or episode of "law & order," closing arguments, sumation from both sides in which the jurors have their final vote. and from your experience, and we remind viewers you had key roles in impeachment trials of lesser officers. in your experience, how fair is it for one side to try to assert themselves into closing arguments? >> you know, the trial i was in charge of for the judge, there was no reason for anybody to insert themselves because it
wasn't a political trial. people weren't trying to score political points. this is about scoring political points. the memory that comes to mind more is when i was a prosecutor and closing a case in the courtroom, a criminal case, and defense lawyer would jump up and say, your honor, i object. the prosecution is arguing facts not in evidence. invariably the judge would say the jury will remember what the evidence is and isn't and then i would go on. was it disruptive to my argument? of course it was. internally i was going, ye howdy, i must be making progress here because they're so nervous they felt the need to interrupt me even though they knew it wasn't going to come to anything. >> senator claire mccaskill, i believe if i'm not mistaken, senator, you at one point were gifted and nicknamed scoop mccaskill ill earlier today. i don't know if we will be doing
that indefinitely or not. >> no, that is for katy and kasie. >> okay. well, we're going to go back to the hill. >> what i suspect is this seems to be about the phone call and this time frame about when the president accidently called senator mike lee's phone. it seems like an manager today updated the time frame. a couple days ago in their presentation they said it was around 2:12, 2:14 in the afternoon on january 6th. mike lee objected at that point. he was not specific a couple days ago about what was actually inaccurate, whether it was the phone call, if it was the time, if it was a characterization of what he said athat moment when he handed the phone to senator tuberville, who was the intended recipient of the call. but today after senator lee's
office has said that in fact they checked the call records and the timeframe of the call from the president was 2:26, not around 2:14. so that was reflected in the manager's slide and closing arguments today. but still mike lee stood to object. so what we were trying to figure out is what specifically mike lee is now objecting to since there seems to be updated information, more correct information in the managers' presentation today. i have reached out to senator lee's office multiple times over the past few days to find out specifically what the problem was and i received zero response. so they're not being very clear about what specifically it is. but mike lee apparently has some objection. and it's also important to note, of course, senator lee has also been huddling with the president's defense team over the past couple of days. so he seemed to have already
made his choice, chosen his side on where he stands here wanting to help the president in this acquittal. so they're still convening on the senate floor and they haven't broken up this quorum call yet, which means they haven't figured out where exactly it is going and how to move on from here. >> lea caldwell, thank you for giving us the additional context and trying to reach directly senator lee's office. our special coverage continues. i have my colleague katy tur with me. katy, i also want to give viewers an update what we're living through. it was an unusually and unexpectedly busy morning in the senate the past few hours and then we went right back into closing arguments. right now we have the pause for the senator lee objection. it's our job to be clear of what we're looking at here, the senate is clearly deliberating on the floor. it's a fine line in washington between controversy and non-traversy but senator lee has
been moving towards the non-traversy, and as senator mccaskill said, it's rare to have an objection during a closing argument. and i want to reflect on the other big news takeaway, democrats won a vote to have witnesses and then went into this break, many people following that breathlessly, came back out and surrendered. i want everybody to understand this was striking for a few hours at the start of the day there was a prospect of a much longer trial with real, live witnesses in their own words, be that through a video deposition, which was done in the clinton precedent or marched into senate, whether that would be the capitol police officer or congress reporting about the disturbing information to a call to kevin mccarthy. what we saw were the democrats really back down here. >> listen, what's going on on the house floor, we're still
trying to figure it out but there seems to be a disagreement about what the president was doing as the vice president was evacuated from the chamber, whether or not he cared. and that seems to be of great significance to the republicans within the senate because vice president pence is such a beloved figure among a large bloc of their constituency, which is evangelical, that's what i'm hearing from a demme source. so there's discussion about whether or not i guess getting on the record what time donald trump knew that pence was evacuated from the chamber, that all supposes donald trump wasn't informed. by secret service or anyone at the white house that nicolle said you were aware, where the most important people in your government are when there is an issue or even not an issue. this would be one of those scenarios that would be something you would discuss.
into disarray, but let's go to chuck. >> without objection, sohu ordered. president, the senator from utah. >> i withdraw my appeal. >> the appeal withdrawn. the chair would advise everybody, the evidentiary recorder is closed. 47 described the scope of those things not admitted into evidence as those referenced in trial. new evidence is not permitted in closing argument. references to such new evidence will be stricken. >> the house managers have the floor if they wish to resume. >> how much time do they have?
>> house managers. >> mr. president. >> house manager. >> esteemed senators, good afternoon. we are grateful for your kind attention this week as we engaged in a process formulated and put to paper by the founders in my home city of philadelphia which is getting its fair share of attention this week. in 1787, 234 years ago, my colleague, mr. ciccilline addressed the president's dereliction of duty. ire will focus on issues the defense raised questions about.
the defensens suggests this was just one speech andde one speec cannot incite insurrection. and the defense suggested, because the attack was preplanned by some insurrectionists, donald trump is somehow not culpable. both of these things are plainly not true. nor are they what we allege. so, let's be clear. we are not suggesting that donald trump's january 6th speech by itself incited the attack. we have shown that his course of conduct leading up to and including that speech incited the attack. the defense is correct that the insurrection was preplanned. that supports our point. we argued, and the evidence overwhelmingly confirms, that donald trump'srm conduct over my months incited his supporters to believe, one, his big lie, that the only way he could lose was if the election was rigged.
two, that to ensure the election would not be stolen, to prevent the fraud, they had to stop the steal. and three, they had to fight to stop the steal or they would not have a country anymore. this conduct took time, and it culminated in donald trump sending a save the date on december 19th, 18 days before the attack, telling his base exactly when, where, and who to fight. and while he was doing this, he spent $50 million from his legal defense fund to simultaneously broadcast his message to stop the steal over all major networks. donald trump invited them. he incited them. then he directed them. here are a few clips that will help bring that story to light. >> can you give a direct answer?
you will accept the election? >> i have to see. look, you -- i have to see. no, i'm not going to just say yes. this election will be the most rigged election in history. this is going to be the greatest election disaster in history.in and the only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election. we're going win this election.s it's a rigged election. it's the only way we're going to lose. >> do you commit to making sure that there's a peaceful transfer of power? >> we want to get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very peaceful -- there won't be a transfer, frankly. there will be a continuation. >> it's the only way we're going to -- it's the only way we're going to lose is if there's mischief. mischief. and it will have to be on a big scale. so, be careful. but this will be one of the greatest fraudulent and most fraudulent elections ever. we're not going to let this election be takene away from u. that's the only way they're going to win it. this is a fraud on the american public. this is an embarrassment to our country.
we were getting ready to win this election, frankly, we did win this election. we were winning in all the key locations by a lot, actually. and then our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secretng and this is a case where they're trying to steal anca election, they're trying to rig an anelection, an we can't let that happen. yout can't let another person steal that election from you. all over the country, people are together in holding up signs, stop the steal. if we don't root out the fraud, the tremendous and horrible fraud that's taken place in our 2020 election, we don't have a country anymore. we cannot allow a completely fraudulent election to stand. we're going to fight like hell, i'll tell you right now. if you don't fight to save your country, with everything you have, you're not going to have a
country left. we will not bend. we will not break. we will not yield. we will never give in. we will never give up. we will never back down. we will never, ever surrender. all of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen. we will never give up. we will never concede. it doesn't happen. you don't concede when there's theft involved. and to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. because you'll never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. make no mistake.ma this election was stolen from you, from me, and from the country. and we fight. we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.d >> our point is this. this was not one speech.
this was a deliberate, purposefulel effort by donald trump over many months that resulted t in the well-organize mob's attack on january 6th. that brings me to my second point. the violence. defense counsel argues that there is noar way that donald trump could have known what would happen. yet, we are not suggesting, nor is it necessary for us to prove that donald trump knew every detail of what would unfold on january 6th.p kn or even how horrible and deadly the attack would become. but he did know. as he looked out on that sea of thousands in front of him, some wearing body armor and helmets, others carrying weapons, that the result would be violence. the evidence is overwhelming -- the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates this. a few points on this.
donald trump knew the people he was inciting leading up to january 6th. he saw the violence they were capable of. he had a pattern and practice of praising and encouraging supporters of violence, never condemning it. it is not a coincidence that those same people, the proud boys, the organizer of the trump caravan, the supporters and speakers at the second million maga march all showed up on january 6th. and donald trump's behavior was different. this was b not just an -- a comment by an official or a politician, fighting for a cause. this was months of cultivating a base of people who were violent, praising that violence, and then leading them, leading that violence, that rage straight to a joint session of congress where he knew his vice president was presiding. and donald trump had warnings about the crowd in front of him on january 6th. there were detailed posts online
of attack plans. law enforcement warned that these posts were real threats, and even made r arrests in the days leading up to the attack. there were credible reports that many would be armed and ready to attack the capitol. despite these credible warnings serious, dangerous threats to our capitol, when the crowd was standing in front of the president, ready to take orders and attack, he said, we're going to the capitol, and we fight. we fight like hell,d and if yo don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. here's a short clip. >> what do you want to call him? give me a name. >> white supremacists. >> who would you like me to condemn? >> proud boys. >> proudnd boys, stand back and stand by. >> welcome to the great kingdom. ♪♪o >> it is something.
do you see the way our people, they, you know, they were protecting his bus yesterday. so his bus -- they had hundreds of cars, trump, trump. trump and the american flag. that's -- you see trump and the american flag.d and the first million maga march, we promised that if the gop would not do everything in their power to keep trump in office, then we would destroy the gop. >> yeah. >> and as we gather here in washington, d.c., for a second million maga march, we're done making promises. it has to happen now. we are going to destroy the gop. >> let's go. >> destroy the gop, destroy the gop, destroy the gop. >> because you'll never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength.ke and you have to be strong.
>> senators, the violence on januarye 6th was demonstrably foreseeable. trump eventr said so himself at 6:01 p.m. the day of the attack. theof last thing he said beforee went to sleep, quote, these are the things that happened -- that happen, endpp quote. he foresaw this, and he admitted as much. that brings me to my final point. the insurrectionists. defense counsel has suggested these people came here on their own. the defense brief states that the insurrectionists, quote, did so for their own accord and for their own reasons and are being criminally prosecuted. it is true that some insurrectionists are being prosecuted but it is not true that they did so of their own accord and for their own reasons. the evidence makes clear the
exact opposite, that they did this for donald trump, at his invitation, at his direction, at his command. they said this before the attack. during the attack. they said it aftere the attack. leading up to january 6th, in post after post, the president's supporters confirmed this was for donald trump. it was at his direction. one supporter wrote, and i quote, if congress illegally certifies biden, trump would have absolutely no choice but to demand us to storm the capitol and kill/beat them up for it. they even say publicly, openly, and proudly, that president trump would help them commandeer the national guard, so all they have to do is overwhelm 2,000 capitol police officers. during his speech on january 6th, trump supporters chanted his words back to him. they even live tweeted his
commands as ms. degette showed you. during the attack, the insurrectionists at the capitol chanted donald trump's words from his tweets, rallies, and from the speech of theli 6th. they held signs that said and chanted, fight for trump. stop the steal. they read his tweets over bull horns, amplifying his demands. another rioter, while livestreaming the insurrection from the amcapitol, said, quote he'll be happy. we're fighting for trump.e, what's more, the insurrectionists were not hiding. they believed they were following the orders from our commander in chief. they felt secure enough in the legitimacy ofh their actions t take selfies, to post photos and videos on social media. after the attack, rioter after rioter confirmed this too. jenna ryan, who was later accused for her role in the insurrection, said,r quote, i thought i was following my
president. i thought we were following what we were called to do. and president trump requested that we be in d.c. on the 6th. when it became clear that donald trump would not protect them, some of his supporters said they felt duped. they felt tricked. listen to some of this evidence. >> and even if they think for a second that they're going to get away witht it today, they got another thing coming. because today is just a day, and today is just the beginning. they haven't seene a resistanc until they have seen a patriot fight for their country. >> if you die today -- >> parties -- parties will
withhold. >> this is crooked. >> the parties will withhold. >> it is in the record.>> >> the evidentiary record is closed. 47 described the scope of those things admitted into evidence as those referenced in trial. new i evidence is not permittedn closing argument. references to such new evidence will be stricken. t who yields time? >> mr. president, the statement was in evidence, the slide was not. we will withdraw the slide. but the statement was in evidence. >> no, it wasn't.li no, it wasn't. >> they told you themselves they were following the president's orders, and you'll see something
clearly. donald trump knew who these people were. as the slide shows, the people he cultivated, whose violence he praised, were all there on january 6th. the proud boys, who donald trump told to stand back and stand by in september 2020. keith lee, organizer of the trump caravan that tried to drive the biden campaign bus off the road. katrina pierson, the speaker at the second million maga march. they were all there.
>> the video you're about to see is in the record. >> oh, correction. the record did include, appropriately, the last video, so we will keep that in the record and i will keep it in my closing remarks. >> never saw it. >> can we play the next video? >> in the record. >> it was not played. they don't even know what they put in. >> we're going to have them show us what's in the record. g
>> you're watching the closing arguments in the senate impeachment trialen of donald j trump and we have another pause. this is arian melber, anchoring i'm joined by katie turn and we have our panel of experts with us. plodding set what of i interruptions. the best way to understand the impetus here is most of these interruptions ares coming from the trump side, either trump's defense lawyers or, as we saw previously, a move by a senator who's allied with donald trump, mike lee. so what we've seen repeatedly are efforts to sort of disrupt or pause the process, procedurally, senator leahy did say, and we heard this moments ago, as he views most of these as largely out of order, evidence is closed, but there are ways,and we're living throughnd them, that the proceedings can be cut up this way. it is abeis somewhat abnormal approach to closing arguments, but under the rules, these are some of the sand that can be pua into the gears. i believe senator mccaskill is
with us. claire? >> yes. yeah. this is going to once again turn out to be much ado about nothing. they are arguing about what is in evidence and what isn't in evidence. and you know, the senators are going to remember the evidence, and frankly, with this kind of trial, they're going to remember the evidence they want to and forget the evidence they don't want to.ev but they're trying to find technical ways to slow down the powerful arguments being made by the house managers. it really is something to hear when they summarize like this, because it's so clear, and it's got to make them very uncomfortable, as advocates, to have to defend the timeline that the house managers have laid out. so, when you don't have a case to argue, then you try to use procedures to muck up the works, and that's what they're doing here. >> yeah, and we have daniel goldman, we're going to dip in as soon as this begins, but daniel, your thoughts, having managed this process at a previous trial.
>> yeah, my guess is that given how recently the trump's attorneys were hired that they actually don't know what evidence is in the record and what isn't. and they're basing this entirely on what they've seen in the senate chamber during the trial. oftentimes, you will put in evidence, and we put a ton of evidence in last time around that we never showed on the senate floor, but it was still in the record. so, they're just making ad hoc objections as claire said to gum up the proceedings. >> senators willup take their seats. >> that may not have any real basis in -- >> let's listen in. >> representative may continue. >> thank you, mr. president. i have to y say that of all the trials i have ever been a part of, this is certainly one of them.
as the slides show, the people he cultivated, whose violence he praised, were all there on january 6th. the proud boys, who donald trump told to stand back and stand by in september of 2020, keith lee, the organizer of the trump caravan that tried to drive the biden campaign bus off the road, katrina pierson, the speaker at the second million maga march. they were all there. a here is one final clip, also submitted in the record. >> that's what we need to have 30,000 guns. >> senator, some of the insurrectionists are facing criminal charges. donald trump was acting as our commander in chief. he was our president. he used his office and the authority it commands to incite an attack. and when congress and the
constitution were under attack, heta abandoned his duties, violated his oath, failing to preserve, protect, and defend. that is why we are here, because the president of the united states, donald j. trump, incited and directed thousands t of peoe to attack the legislative branch. he knew what his supporters were capable of. he inflamed them, sent them down pennsylvania avenue. not on any old day, but on the day we were, certifying the election results as they were banging on ourts doors, he fail to defend us because this is what he wanted. he wanted to remain in power. for that crime against the republic, he must be held accountable. senators, the insurrectionists are still listening. and i must admit, until we were preparing for this trial, i didn't know the extent of many of these facts. i witnessed the horror, but i didn't know. i didn't know how deliberate the president's planning was.
how he had invested in it, how many times he incited his supporters with these lies. how carefully and consistently he incited them to violence on january 6th. while many of us may have tuned out his rallies, i also did not know the extent that his followers were listening. were hanging on his every word. and honestly, i did not know how close the mob actually came to theirb violent ends. that they were just steps away from all of us, that the death toll could have been much higher but for the bravery of men and women who protected us. but now we know. we know the brave of people like officer goodman and all the men and women of the capitol police. of the custodians who, with pride and a sense of duty in their work, cleaned up shattered glass, splintered wood, and blood-stained floors.
we know the sacrifice of life and limb. we know what donald trump did. we know what he failed to do. though it is difficult to bear witness and face the reality of what happened in these halls, what happens if we don't confront these facts? what happens if there is no accountability? for those who say we need to get past this, we need to come together, we need to unify, if we don'tfy set this right, and call it what it was, the highest of constitutional crimes by the president of the united states, the pastof will not be past. the past will become our future. for my grandchildren and for their children. senators, we are in a dialogue with history. a conversation with our past with a hope for our future. 234 years from now, it may be
thatit no one person here amongs is remembered, and yet, what we do here, what is being asked of each of us here in this moment will be remembered. history has found us. i ask that you not look the other way. >> i'd now like to bring up mr. neguse. >> mr. president. >> mr. neguse. >> distinguished senators, there's an old quote from henry clay, the son of kentucky, that
courtesies of aen small and trivial character are the ones thatia strike deepest in the grateful and appreciating heart. i want to say on behalf of all the house managers, we are very grateful for thema courtesies tt you have extended to us and to president's counsel during the course of this trial. you have heard my colleague, manager dean, go through the overwhelming evidence that makes clear that president trump must be convicted and disqualified for his high crime. i'm not going to repeat that evidence. it speaks for itself. earlier in the trial, you might recall a few days ago that i mentioned my expectation that president trump's lawyers might dos everything they could to avoid discussing the facts of this case. and i can understand why. i mean, the evidence that all of us presented, that manager dean
just summarized is pretty devastating. and so rather than address it, the president has offered up distractions, excuses, anything but actually trying to defend against the facts. they said things like, president trump is now a private citizen, so the criminal justice system can deal with him. or that we haven't set a clear standard for incitement. they talked s a lot about due process and that all politicians say words like "fight."d i'd like to take a minute to explain why each of those distractions are precisely that. distractions. and why they do not prevent in any way the senate from convicting president trump. number one, every president is one day a private citizen again.
so, i mean, the argument that because president trump has left office, he shouldn't be impeached for conduct committed while he was in office doesn't make sense. i mean, why would the constitution include the impeachment power at all if the criminal justice system serves as a suitable alternative once a president leaves office? it wouldn't. impeachment is a remedy separate and apart from the criminal justice system. and for good reason. the presidency, i mean, it comes with special powers, extraordinary powers, not bestowed on ordinary citizens, and if those powers are abused, they can cause great damage to our country, and they have to be dealt with in a separate forum. this forum. and it would be unwise to
suggest that going forward, the only appropriate response to constitutional offenses committed by a president are criminal charges when the president returns to private life. that's not the kind of political system any of us want. and it's not the kind of constitutional system the framers intended. second, it is true we have incited criminal statutes establishing elements of incitement because, again, this isn't a criminal trial. it's not a criminal case. president trump is charged with a constitutional offense, and you are tasked with determining whether or not he committed that high crime as understood by our framers. so, the relevant question, which president trump's lawyers would have you ignore, is, would our framers have considered a
president inciting a violent mob to attack our government while seeking to stop the certification of our elections, would they have considered that an impeachable offense? who among us -- who among us really thinks the answer to that question is no?am third, due process. so, just to be absolutely clear, the house with the sole power of impeachment determines what the process looks like in the house and the senate does the same for the trial. during this trial, the president has counsel. they've argued very vigorously on his behalf. we had a full presentation of evidence, adversarial presentations, motions.
the president was invited to testify. he declined. president was invited to provide exculpatory evidence. he declined. you can't claim there's no due process when you won't participate in the process. and we know this case isn't one that requires a complicated legal analysis. you all -- you lived it. the managers and i, we lived it. our country lived it. the president, in public view, right out in the open, incited a violent mob. a mob that temporarily, at least, stopped us from certifying an election. if there were ever an exigent circumstance, this is it. number four, we all know that president trump's defense, as we
predicted, spent a lot of time, a whole lot of time, comparing his conduct to other politicians using words like "fight" and of course you saw the hours of video. as i said on thursday, we trust you to know the difference. because what you will not find in those video montages that they showed you is any of those speeches, those remarks culminating in a violent insurrection on our nation's capitol. that's the difference. the president spent months inflaming his supporters to believe that the election had been stolen from him, from them, which was not true. he summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and when the violence erupted, he did nothing to stop
it. instead, inciting it further. senators, all of these arguments offered by the president have onere fundamental thing in comm. one. they have nothing to do with whether or not, factually, whether or not the president incited this attack. they've given you a lot of distractions so they don't have to defend what happened here on that terrible day, and they do that because they believe those distractions are going to work. that you'll ignore the president's conduct instead of confronting it. i think they're wrong. some of you know this already. i'm the youngest member of our manager team by quite a few
years, so perhaps -- perhaps i'm a bit naive, but i just don't believe that. i really don't. i don't believe their effort is going toef work, and here is wh because i know what this body is capable of.ha i may not have witnessed it, but i've read about it in the history books. i've seen the c-span footage, archives, sometimes watched them for hours, and yes, i've actually done that, and the history of our country in those books o and in those tapes, the history of this country has been defined right here on this floor. the 13th amendment, the amendment abolishing slavery, was passed in this very room. in this room. not figuratively. lately. where youly all sit and where i stand.
in 1964, this body, with the help of senators like john sherman cooper and so many others,ny this body secured passage of the civil rights act. we made the decision to enter world war ii from this chamber.i we've certainly had our struggles, but we've always risen to the occasion when it mattered the most. not by ignoring injustice or cowering to bullies and threats but by doing the right thing, by trying to do the right thing, and that's why so many nations around the world aspire to be like america.o they stand up to dictators and autocrats andto tyrants because america is a guiding light for them. a north star. they do so, they look to us because we have been a guiding light, a north star in these moments.
because the people who sat in your chairs when confronted with choices that define us, rose to the occasion. i want to offer one more example of a decision made in this room by this body that resonated with me. the first day i stood up in this trial, i mentioned that i was the son of immigrants like many of you and many senators graciously approached me after my presentation and asked me where my parents were from. and i told those who asked that my folks were from east africa. in 1986, 1986, this body considered a bill to override president reagan's veto of legislation imposing sanctions on south africa during apartheid. two senators who sit in this room, one democrat and one
republican, voted to override that veto. that vote was not about gaining political favor. and in fact, it was made despite potentially losing political favor. and i have to imagine that that vote was cast like the decisions before it because there are momentsus that transcend party politics, and that require us to put country above our party because the consequences of not doing so are just too great. senators, this is one of those moments. many folks who are watching today's proceedings may not know this, but house members like me and lead manager raskin, fellow managers, we're not allowed on thet senate floor without exprs permission. no onere is. certainly the senators are aware of that. the floor is sacred. it's one of the reasons why i,
like so many of you, was so offended to see it desecrated by that mob. to see those insurrectionists diminishing and devaluing and disrespecting thesean hallowed halls that may whole life i have held in such awe. because of those rules that i just mentioned, this will with b the onlyl time i have the privilege to stand before you like this. when the trial is over, i'll go back to being a nonimpeachment manager but back to being just a house member. the trialju will end. and we'll resume our lives and our work. but for some, there will be no end. no end to the pain of what happened on january 6th. the officers who struggle to recover from the injuriestr the sustained to protect us.
they struggle to recover today. the families who continue to mourn those who they lost on that terrible, tragic day. i was -- i was struck yesterday by defense counsel's continued references to hate. one of my favorite quotes of dr. martin luther king jr., it's one that has j sustained me durg times of adversity, i suspect it's sustained some of you. i've decided to stick with love. hate is too great a burden to bear. this trial is not born from hatred. far from it. it's born from love of country. our country. our desire to maintain it.
our desire to see america at its best. and in those moments that i spoke of, civil rights act, so much more, we remember those moments because they helped define and enshrine america at its best. i firmly believe that our certification of the electoral college votes in the early hours ofvo january 7th, our refusal t let our republic be threatened and taken down by a violent mob, will go down in history as one of those moments too. and i believe that this body can rise to the occasion once again today. by convicting president trump, defending our republic, and the
stakes -- the stakes could not be higher. because the cold, hard truth is that what happened onrd january 6th can happen again. i fear, like many of you do, that the violence we saw on that terrible day may be just the beginning. we've shown you the ongoing risks, the extremist groups who grow more emboldened every day. senators, this cannot be the beginning. it can't be the new normal. it has to be the end. and that decision is in your hands.
>> mr. president. >> mr. raskin. >> senators, my daughter, hannah, said something to me last night that stopped me cold and brought me up short. her kids have been very moved by all the victims of the violence, the officers and their families, but hannah told me last night she felt really sorry for the kidt of a man who said good-by to his children before he left home to come and join trump's actions. their father had told them that their dad might not be coming home again and they might never see him again. in other words, he was expecting violence. he might die. this insurrectionist did. and that shook me.
hannah said, how can the president put childrenow and people's families in that situation and then just run away from the whole thing? that shook me. and i was filled with self-reproach because w when i first saw the line about, you know, yourfi father going to washington, and you might not see him again, i just thought about it, well, like, a prosecutor, like a , manager. iec thought, what damning evidee that is. that people were expecting lethal violence at a protest called by the president of the united states and saying their final good-byes to their kids. but hannah, my dear hannah, thought of it like a human ke being. she thought of it, if you'll forgive me, like a patriot. someone who just lost her brother and doesn't want to see any other kids in america go through that kind ofds agony an grief.
senators, when i say all three of t my kids are better than me you know that i am not engaged in idle flattery. many some of you feel the same way about your kids. they're literally better people than me. they've got a lot of their mom, sarah bloom raskin, and they're better than me. hannah saw through the legality of theaw situation. she saw through the politics of the situation. all the way to the humanity of the situation. the morality of the situation. that was one of the most patriotic things i ever heard anybody say. the children of the insurrectionists, even the violent andrr dangerous ones, they're our children too. they are americans, and we must take care of them and their future. we must recognize and exercise these crimes against our nation
and then we must take care of our people and our children, their hearts and their minds, as tommy raskin used to say, it's hard to be human. many of the capitol and metropolitan police officers and guardsmen and women who were beaten up by the mob also have kids. you remember officer finone, who had a heart attack after being tased andar roughed up for hour by the mob and then begged for his life, telling the insurrectionists that he had four daughters. and that just about broke my heart all over again. we talked about this for a long time last night. my kids felt terrible that other kids' fathers and mothers were pulled into this nightmare by a president of the united states. senators, we proved he betrayed his country. we proved he betrayed his constitution. we proved he betrayed his oath of office. the startling thing to recognize
now is that he is even betraying the mob. he told them he would march with them, and he didn't. they believed the president was rightve there with them somewhe in the crowd, fighting the fantasy conspiracy, to steal the election and steal their country awayel from them. they thought they were one big team working together. he told them their great journey together was just beginning, and now there are hundreds of criminal prosecutions getting going all over the country. people getting set to say good-bye to members of their family, and the president, who contacted them, solicited them, lured them, invited them, incited d them, that president s suddenly gone quiet and dark. nowhere to be found. he can not be troubled to come here to tell us what happened. and tell us why this was the
patriotic and the constitutional thing toe do. senators, this trial in the final analysis is not about donald trump. the country and the world know whoun donald trump is. this trial is about who we are, who we are. my friend dora williams says that sometimes the truth is like a second chance. we've got a chance here with the truth. i still believe in the separation of powers. president trump tried to sideline or run over every other branch of government, thwart the will of the people at the state level, usurp the people's choice for president. this case is about whether our countryur demands a peaceful, nonviolent transfer of power to guarantee the sovereignty of the
people. are we going to defend the people whong defend us? not just honor them with medals, as youth rightfully did yesterd, but actually back them up against savage, barbaric insurrectionary violence. will we restore the honor of our capitol and the people who work here? will we be a democratic nation that the world looks to for understanding democratic values and practices and constitutional government and the rights of womenco and men? will the senate condone the president of the united states inciting aid violent attack on r chambers, our offices, our staff and the officers who protect us? when you see the footage of officer hodges stuck in the doorway, literally being tortured by the mob, government
did that to you, that would be torture, and when you see that footage and she's shouting in agony for his dear life, it's almost unwatchable. when the vice president of the united states escapes a violent mob that's entered this capitol building seeking to hang him and calling out, traitor, traitor, traitor, and when they shut down the counting of the electoral college votes,ti is this the future you imagine for our kids? is it totally appropriate, as we've been told? or as representative cheney said, is it the greatest betrayal of the presidential oath of office in the history of our country?t and if we can't handle this, together, as a people, all of us, forgetting the lines of party and ideology and geography and all of those things, if we can't handle this, how are we
ever going to conquer the other crises of our day? is this america? is this what we want to bequeath to our children and our grandchildren? i was never a great sunday school student. actually, i was pretty truant most of the time. but one line always stuck with me from the book of exodus as both beautiful and haunting. even as a kid after i asked what the words meant. thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. the officer who got called the n-word 15 times and spent hours with his colleagues battling insurrectionists, who had metal poles and baseball bats and hockey sticks, bear spray, and confederate battle flags posed the right question to the senate
and to all of us. is this america?an dear senators, that's going to be up to you now and whatever committees and sub committees you're on, whatever you came to washington toca do, to work on, from defense to agriculture to energy to aerospace to healthcare,e this is almost certainly how you will be remembered by history. that might not be fair. it really might not be fair, but nonebe of us can escape the demands of history and destiny right now. our reputations and our legacy will be inextricably intertwined with what we do here. and with how you exercise your oath to do impartial justice. impartialti justice. i know and i trust you will do impartial justice, driven by your meticulous attention to the overwhelming facts of the case
and your love for our constitution, which i know dwells in your heart. the times have found us, said tom paine. the times have found us. is this america? what kinds. of america will we ? it's now literally in your hands. godspeed to the senate of the united states. we reserve any remaining time. >> the house has reserved 28 minutes. >> proceed. >> i'll be the only one talking,
and it will not be so long. and before i start my prepared closing, irt really want to cle up a few things from the mess that was the closing of the house managers. i do not want to ruin my closing because i think the ending's pretty good. what they didn't -- they started off by misstating the law, and they started off by misstating the intent of our stipulation. what we did today was stipulate to an article that was published in a magazine. apparently they've had it for weeks, according to the documents they produced today, but for some reason, this morning, popped up with it. the stipulation was that they can put that in. we did not stipulate to its contents for truthfulness. and they tried to portray that
in their closing as the stipulation. the stipulation was read into the record. the proponents of that conversation, the real ones, have denied its content, its veracity. with respect to -- and i'm not going to talk much about the tortured analysis of our arson loerz that started off or the truly sideways analogies that were used with fires. what i do want to talk about, though, is the doctoring of evidence. first of all, they sent us their evidence on tuesday, the 9th, at 2:32 p.m. by email. i was p in this room trying the case already when they sent their evidence. due process.dy they used evidence that was flat
wrong two or three nights ago with senator lee and had to withdraw it. they tried to use it again today. they tried to use evidence that they had never presented in the case in their closing argument. that is aos very desperate attet by aes prosecuting team, nine o them. by aof prosecuting team that kn that their case has collapsed. their closing did not mention one piece of law. they didn't talk about the constitution once. they didn't talk about the first amendment and its application. they didn't talk about due process and how it applies to this proceeding for my client.
basic rule of any court is that when you close a case out, you close on the facts that were admitted in theha trial. it's a basic fundamental principle of due process and fairness. and that was violently breached today on multiple occasions. and you have to ask yourself, why? why did they resort to those tactics at this moment in time?
senators, good afternoon. mr. president. what took place here at the u.s. capitol on january 6th was a grave tragedy. over the course of this trial, you have heard no one on either side of this debate argue that the infiltration of the capitol was anything less than a heinous act on the home of american democracy. all of us, starting with my client, are deeply disturbed by the graphic videos of the capitol attack that have been shown in recent days. the entire team condemned and have repeatedly condemned the violence and law breaking that occurred on january 6th in the strongest possible terms. we have advocated that everybody be found, punished to the maximum extent of the law. yet, the question before us is
not whether there was a violent insurrection of the capitol. on that point, everyone agrees. based on the explicit text of the house impeachment article, this trial is about whether mr. trump willfully engaged in incitement of violence and even insurrection against the united states, and that question they have posed in their article of impeachment has to be set up against the law of this country. no matter how much truly horrifying footage we see of the conduct of the rioters and how much emotion has been injected into this trial, that does not change the fact that mr. trump is innocent of the charges against him. despite all of the video played,
at no point in their presentation did you hear the house managers play a single example of mr. trump urging anyone to engage in violence of any kind. at no point did you hear anything that could ever possibly be construed as mr. trump encouraging or sanctioning an insurrection. senators, you did not hear those tapes because they do not exist. because the act of incitement nevernc happened. he engaged in no language of incitement whatsoever on january 6th or any other day following the election. no unbiased person honestly reviewing the transcript of mr. trump's speech on the ellipse could possibly believe that he was suggesting violence. he explicitly told the crowd that he expected the protest outside the capitol to be peaceful and patriotic. they claim that's not enough.
his entire premise was that the proceedings of the joint session should continue. he spent nearly the entire speech talking about how he believes the senators and members of congress should vote on the matter. it's the words, the supreme court ruled in brandenburg that there is a very clear standard for incitement. in short, you have to look at the words themselves. the words have to either explicitly or implicitly call for theit -- the words call for lawlessness or violence. whether the speech -- you have to determine whether the speech was w intended to provoke the lawlessness and whether the violence was the likely result of the word itself. they fail on all three prongs. the faults and defamatory claim that mr. trump gave a speech
encouraging his supporters to go attack the capitol has been repeated so often, uncritically, without any examination of the underlying facts that the american -- the americans listening ate home were probab surprised to learn it's not true. h furthermore, some of the people in this room followed mr. trump's statements and tweets in the weeks leading up to january 6th very closely. we know that he was not trying to foment an insurrection during the time because no one from the speaker of the house to the mayor of washington, d.c., behaved in a fashion consistent with the belief that violence was being advocated for. mr. trump did not spend the weeks prior to january 6th inciting violence. he spent those weeks pursuing his election challenge through the court system and other legal procedures, exactly as the constitution and the congress prescribe.
to believe based on the evidence you have seen that mr. trump actually wanted and indeed willfully incited an armed insurrection to overthrow the u.s. government would be absurd. the gathering on january 6th was supposed to be an entirely peaceful event. thousands and thousands of people, including mr. trump, showed up that day with that intention. a small percentage -- a small fraction of those people then engaged in truly horrible behavior, but as we now know, thoseno actors were pre-planned and premeditated and acted even before the speech was completed to which is the basis of the article of impeachment. it was preplanned and premeditated by fringe left and
right groups. they hijacked the event for their own purposes. the house managers' false narrative is a brazenly dishonest attempt to smear, to cancel constitutional cancel culture, their number one political opponent taking neutral t statements, common ple political rhetoric, removing words and facts from context, and ascribing to them the most sinister and malevolent intentions possible. their story was based not on evidence but on the sheer personal and political animus. the flimsy theory of incitement you heard from the house managers could be used to impeach, indict or expel countless other political leaders.
many leading figures in other parties havee engaged in far moe incendiary and dangerous rhetoric, and we played some of that. i'm not going toet replay it. i'm not going to replay the words. you all saw the evidence. i'm not going to replay mob scenes. i don't want to give those people another platform, any more view from the american people as to what they did. they should be canceled. democrat politicians spent months prior to january 6th attacking the very legitimacy of our nation's most cherished institutions and traditions. they didn't just question the integrity of one election. they challenged the integrity of our entire nation. everything from our founding fathers, our constitution, declaration ofur independence, w enforcement officers, and united
states military. they said that our society was rooted in hatred. they even said that america deserved, and i'll quote, a reckoning. as you heard yesterday, throughout the summer, democrat leaders,me including the curren president and vice president, repeatedly made comments that provided moral comfort to mobs attacking police officers. during that time, many officers across the country were injured. as we all know, two sheriff's deputies in los angeles were ambushed and shot at point-blank range. members of this very body have been in danger. senators from maine to kentucky and mostin points in between ha been harassed by mobs. menacing left-wing mob swarmed senator rand paul and his wife
as theynd left the white house, and they had to be rescued by police.he for months, our federal courthouse in portland was placed under siege by violent anarchists who attacked law enforcement officers daily and repeatedly and tried to set fire to the building. speaker pelosi did not call the violent siege of the federal building an insurrection. she called the federal agents protecting the courthouse storm troopers. the white house complex was besieged by mobs that threw bricks, rocks, and bottles at secret service agents, set fire to an historic structure, and breached a security fence to infiltrate the treasury grounds. when my client's administration sent in the national guard to secure the nation's capitol,
city amidst the violence, democrat leaders demanded that the forcesol be withdrawn. the washington, d.c., mayor said the presence of the national guard was an affront to the safety of the district. it must be fully investigated whether political leadership herer in washington, d.c., too an inadequate and irresponsible forced posture on january 6th because of their commitment to theh false narrative of what happened last june. hopefully we can all now agree that the administration acted properly by taking action to stop a riotous mob, establishing an appropriate security perimeter and prevent a the whi house from potentially being overrun. the house managers argued this week that an alleged brief delay ineg issuing a public statement
from mr. trump on january 6th was somehow evidence that he committed incitement or supported the violence. yet for months last year, joe biden, vice president harris, andid countless other democrats repeatedlyat refused to condemn the extreme as riots were occurring daily as businesses were being ramshackled. as neighborhoods were being burned, asei bombs were explodi. they repeatedly refused to tell their violent supporters to stand down. some even suggested that the mob's actions were justified. vice president harris literally urged her followers to donate money to a fund to bail out the violent extreme rioters so that they could get out and continue to do it over and over again.
she later said that those folks wereth not going to let up and that they should not. all of this was far closer to the actual definition of incitement than anything president trump has ever said or done, never mind what he said on the 6th. it's a hypocrisy. it's a hypocrisy that the house managers have laid at the feet of this chamber. the house managers suggested in this recent -- that this recent history is irrelevant to the current proceedings. but not only is democrats' behavior surrounding last year's riots highly relevant, as precedent, and not only does it
reveal the dishonesty and insincerity of this entire endeavor, it also provides crucial context that should inform our understanding of the events that took place on january 6th. many of the people who infiltrated the capitol took pictures of themselves and posted themf on social media. to some, it seems they thought that it was all a game. they apparently believed that violent mobs, destruction of property, rioting, assaulting police and vandalizing historic treasures was somehow now acceptable in the united states where might they have gotten that idea? i would suggest to you that it was not from mr. trump. it was not mr. trump. it was not anyone in the republican party that spent the six months immediately prior to
the capitol assault giving rhetorical aid and comfort to mobs, making excuses for rioters, celebrating radicalism, and explaining that angry, frustrated, and marginalized people were entitled to blow off steam like that. let me be very clear. there can be no excuse for the depraved actions of the rioters here at the capitol or anywhere else across this country. 100% of those guilty of committing crimes deserve lengthy prison sentences for their shameful and depraved conduct. but this trial has raised the question about words, actions, and consequences. as a nation, we must ask ourselves, how did we arrive at this placeid where rioting and pillaging would become common place? i submit to you that it was
month after month of political leaders and media personalities, bloodthirsty forpe ratings, glorifying civil unrest and condemning the reasonable law enforcement measures that were required to quell violent mobs. hopefully, we can all leave this chamber in uniform agreement that all rioting, all rioting is badl and that law enforcement deserves our respect and support. that has been mr. trump's position from the very beginning. the real question in this case is, who is ultimately responsible for such acts of mayhem and violence when they are committed? the house democrats want two different standards, one for themselves and one for their political opposition. they have carried out a grossly
unconstitutional effort to g punish mr. trumpun for protecte first amendment speech. it's an egregious violation of his constitutional rights.gi since he uttered not a single word encouraging violence, this action can only be seen as an effort to censor disfavored political speech and discriminate against a disapproved viewpoint. it is an unprecedented action with a potential to do grave and lasting damage to both the presidency and the separation of powers and the future of democratic self-government. yesterday, we played you a video of countless democrat members of the senate urging their supporters to fight. we showed you those videos not because we think you should be forcibly removed from office saying those things, but because we know you should not be
forcibly removed from office for saying those things. but recognize the hypocrisy. yesterday, in questioning house manager raskin admitted that the house democrats had invented an entirely new legal standard. in fact, they've created a new legal theory, the raskin doctrine. the raskin doctrine is based on nothing more than determining protected speech based on the party label next to your name. regardless of what you have heard or what you have seen from the house managers, if you pay close attention, you will see that any speech made by democrat electedma officials is protecte speech, while any speech made by republican elected officials is not protected. the creation of the raskin
doctrine actually reveals the weakness of the house managers' case. elected officials, and we reviewed this in depth yesterday, under supreme court precedent, wood and bond -- and by the way, bond didn't burn his draft card. he actually still had it. defense.rt of his but in bond and in wood, the court clearly directed all to know that elected officials hold the highest protections of speech, the highest protections, and i remind you why. because you all need to be free to have robust political discussion, because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go. and that shouldn't be squelched
by any political party on either side of the aisle, no matter who's the majority party at the time.aisl why would the house managers make up their own legal standard? i'll tell you why. because they know they cannot satisfy the existing constitutional standard set forth by the united states supreme court that has existed for more than half a century. they argue mr. trump as an elected official has no first amendment rights. it's the complete opposite of the law. we have shown you without contradiction that is wrong. theyth also know that they cann satisfy the three-part test of brandenburg as elucidated in the bible believers case.
there was absolutely no evidence that mr. trump's words were directed to inciting imminent lawless action. there was no evidence that mr. trump intended his words to incite violence. and the violence was preplanned and premeditated by a group of lawless actors who must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but it proves that his words weren't what set this into motion. what was the incitement? with no ability and no evidence to satisfy the existing constitutional standards, what are the house managers to do? they had to make up their own law. this is not only intellectually dishonest, folks, it's downright scary. what type of precedent would be set if the senate did vote to
convict? can congress now ignore supreme court i precedent on the contou of protected free speech? will congress be permitted to continually make up their own legal standards and apply those new standards to elected officials' speech? this would allow congress to use the awesome impeachment power as a weapon to impeach their fellow colleagues in the opposing party. this is not a precedent that this senate can set here today. if the senate endorses the house democrats' absurd new theory, you will set a precedent that will trouble leaders from both parties, literally for centuries to come.
but that will not be the only disgraceful precedent to come from this case. this has been perhaps thefr mos unfair andst flagrantly unconstitutional proceeding in the history of the united states senate.ti for the first time in history, congress has asserted the right to try and punish a former president who is a private citizen. nowhere in the constitution is the power enumerated or implied. congress has no authority, no right, and no business holding a trial of citizen trump, let alone a trial to deprive him of fundamental civil rights. there was mention of a january exception argument. the january exception argument is a creation of the house managers' own conduct by delaying. they sat on the article.
they could have tried the president while he was still in office if they really believed he was an imminent threat. they didn't. the january exception is a red herring. it's nonsense. because federal, state, and local authorities can investigate. their january exception always expires on january 20th. house democrats and this deeply unfair trial have shamefully every tradition, norm, and standard of due process. in a way, i've never, ever seen before. mr. trump was given no right to review the so-called evidence against him at trial. he wasri given no opportunity t
question its propriety. he was given no chance to engage in fact-finding. much of what was introduced by the house was unverified second or third hand reporting cribbed from ahi biased news media, including stories based on anonymous sources whose identities aren't even known to them, never mind my client.t they manufactured and doctored evidence, so much so that they had to withdraw it. we only had -- we had the evidence after we started the trial. they went on for two days, so in the evening, i was able to go back and w take a really close look at this stuff. myself and mr. castor and ms. bateman and mr. brennan, we all worked hard and looked at the evidence, four volumes of
books and little tiny print. and we started -- i mean, literally, had me out, 12, 14 hours to really look at the evidence before we had tos go . and just in that short time of looking at the evidence, we saw them fabricating twitter accounts. we saw the masked man sitting at his desk with a "new york times" there, and when we looked closely, we found that the date was wrong, the check had been added. they fabricated evidence. they made it up. they never addressed that in their closing. as though it were acceptable. as though it were all right. as though that's the way it should t be done here in the senate of the united states of
america. fraud. flatout. fraud. where i come from in the courts that i practice in, they're very harsh repercussions for what they pulled in this trial. as we've shown the house managers were caught creating false representations of tweets. manipulating videos and introducing into the record completely oddiscredited lies sh as the fine people hoax as factual evidence. most of what the house managers
have said and shown you would be inadmissible in any respectable court of law. they were not trying a case. they were telling a political tale. a a fable. and a patently false one at that. house democrats have denied due process and rushed the impeachment because they know that a fair trial would reveal mr. trump's innocence of the charges against him. the more actual evidence that comes out,l the clearer it is that this was a preplanned and premeditated attack which his language in no way incited.tt because their case is so weak, the house managers have taken a kitchen sink approach to the supposedly single articlenk of impeachment. they allege that mr. trump incited the january 6th violence. they allege that he abused power by attempting to pressure georgia's secretary of state
raffensberger to undermine the results of the 2020 election and they allege they gravely endangered the democratic system. that's at least three things there. under the senate rules, each of these allegations must have been alleged in a separate article of impeachment. i need not remind this chamber that rule 23 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachmentsi trials provides, pertinent part, that an article of impeachment shall not be divisible thereon.ll why is that? because the article at issue here alleges multiple wrongs in the single article, it would be impossible to know if two-thirds
of the members agreed on the entire article.th or just on parts of it. as the basis for a vote to convict. based on this alone, the senate must vote to acquit mr. trump. you got to at least obey your own rules if it's not the constitution you're going to obey. in short, this impeachment has been a complete charade from beginning to end. the entire spectacle has been nothing but the unhinged pursuit of a longstanding political vendetta against mr. trump by the opposition party.li as we have shown, democrats were obsessed with impeaching mr. trump from the very beginning of his term. the house democrats tried to impeach him in his first year. they tried to impeach him in his second year. y they did impeach him in his
third year and they up impeached him again in his fourth year. and now, they have conducted a phony impeachment show trial when he isy a private citizen t of office. this hastily orchestrated and unconstitutional circus is the house democrats' final desperate attempt to accomplish their obsessive desire of the last five years. since the moment he stepped into the political arena, my client, since my client stepped in, they have been possessed by an overwhelming zeal to vanquish an independent-minded outsider from the midst and to shame, demean, silence, and demonize his supporters in the desperate hope that they will never, ever pose an electoral challenge.
we heard one of the congressmen on the screen. if you don't impeach him, he might beea elected again. that's the fear.mi that's what's driving this impeachment. when you deliberate over your decision, there are four distinct grounds under which you must acquit my client. first is jurisdiction. there is no jurisdiction, and if you believe that, you still get to say it. two, rule 23. it had to be divisible. each allegation had to be singularly set out in front of you so it could be voted on and to see if two-thirds of you
think that they proved that case or not. they didn't do that. you got to ask yourself why. they know the senate rules. they got them and so did i. why'd they do it? because they hadn't investigated, first of all, but also the -- what they found out as they were preparing all of this, they couldn't do it. so, if they threw as much in as they could, and made as many bold, bald allegations as they could, then maybe two-thirds of you would fall for it. that's why the rules don't allow it to go that way. due process. i've exhausted that subject. it's a really good reason for all of you, all of you in this
chamber, to stop the politics, to read the constitution, and apply it to this proceeding. and acknowledge that the lack of due process way over the top. shocking. and you must not stand for it. and of course, the first amendment. the actual facts of this case. there were no words of incitement for grounds. nobody gets to tell you which ground to pick, and nobody gets to tell you how many grounds to consider. senators, do not let house democrats take this maniacal crusade any further.
the senate does not have to go down this dark path of division. you do not have to indulge the impeachment lust, the dishonesty and the hypocrisy. it is time to bring this unconstitutional political theater to an end. it is time to allow our nation to move forward. it is time to address the real business pressing this nation. the pandemic. our economy. racial inequality. economic and social inequality. these are the things that you need to be thinking and working on for all of us in america. all of us. with your vote, you can defend the constitution. you can protect due process, and you can allow america's healing to begin.
i urge the senate to acquit and vindicate the constitution of this great republic. thank you. who yields time? >> mr. president. >> mr. raskin. >> senators, i understand i'm told we have around 27 minutes, but i will return all of that but perhaps five back to you. there are just a few things that i need to address and so in an extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented act of self-restraint on my part, i will resist the opportunity to respond to every false and illogical thing that you just heard and i'm going to be able to return to you 22, 23 minutes. few points. one, we have definitely made
some d progress in the last few days, because a few days ago, the president's team, although i think it was perhaps a member who has since left the team, lectured us that this was not an insurrection and said that the impeachment managers were outrageous in using the word "insurrection." today, counsel in his closing statement said it was a violent insurrection and he denounced it and i would certainly love to see president trump also call it a violent insurrection and denounce it too, and i believe, although i don't have a verbatim text, that counsel called for longal sentences for the people who were involved. again, i would love to hear that come from the president as wellh the distinguished counsel complains that there's no precedent with a developed body of law that the senate has for impeaching and convicting a president who incites violent insurrection against the
congress and the government of the unitedng states. well, i suppose that's true, because it never occurred to any other president of the united states from george washington to john adams to thomas jefferson to james madison to james monroe to abraham lincoln to ronald reagan to george w. bush, to barack obama, to incite a violent insurrection against the union. you're right, we've got no precedent for that. and so they think that that somehow is a mark in their favor. that's a score for them. that this senate has to be the first one to define incitement of violent insurrection against the v union. and so, the gentleman puts it on me. he says, inciting a president for committing incitement to violent insurrection against the union is the new raskin doctrine. we've tried to convince them
that there are well-known principles and elements of incitement, which we have talked to you about ad nauseam, and that this is an intrinsically, inherentlyn fact-based judgmen but if that is the raskin doctrine, that a president of the united statesri cannot inci violent insurrection against the union and the incongress, then embrace it and i take it as an honor.ngre most law professors never even get a doctrine named after them, so i will accept that. and finally, the counsel goes back to julian bond's case because i think in the final analysis, their best argument, asr pathetically weak as it is is really about the first amendment. but remember, they keep talking about stifling president trump's speech. someone tell me when his speech has ever been stifled. he says exactly what he wants whenever he wants. if and when you convict him for incitement of insurrection, he will continue to say whatever he
wants on that day. remember, they referred yesterday to interference with his liberty, which i found absolutely bizarre because everybody knows that he will not spend one minute in prison or jail from conviction on these charges. it is a civil remedy to protect all of us, to protect the entire country, our children, our ld constitution, our future. that's what impeachment trial, conviction are all about. are all about. julian bond, see, i knew julian bond, so forgive me, most people say, don't even respond to this stuff.sa i got t to respond to this, oka? julian bond was a civil rights activist who decided to go into politics like the people in this room, like all of us who are in politics. and they tried to keep him out. he wasep a member of the studen nonviolent coordinating
committee, which really launched the voting rights movement in america. it's a great story that bob moses tells in his book called "radical equations accounts aboutra he was a gradue student, mathematics at harvard and he went down to mississippi because he saw a picture in "the new york times" of black civil rightsiche protesters, college students, i think p in north carolina, at&t, and he saw a picture of them on the cover of thehe "new york times" and they weref sitting in at a lunch counter, and he looked at the picture, and he lsaid, they lookedth the way that i felt. theyhe looked the way that i fe, and he said he had to go down south to mississippi, and they launched the voting rights movement. that's where the phrase one person, one vote comes from. it was not invented by the supreme court. they would go door to door to try to register people to vote. but anyway, julian bond was part of that movement. the student nonviolent
coordinating committee. nonviolence. it was the end and it was the means, nonviolence. and he ran for the state legislature in georgia. a path that other civil rights activists followed like our great,ll late, beloved colleagu john lewis, who's in our hearts today. and when he got elected, they wanted to try to keep him from being sworn into the georgia legislature, and so they said, the student nonviolent coordinating committee has taken a position against theom vietna war, you're a memberin of sncc, we're not going to admit you because you took a position against the vietnam war and the supreme court,vi in its wisdom said,sd you cannot prevent somee from swearing an oath to become a member of a legislative body because of a position that they took or a group they were a part of, took before they got sworn in. that's the exact opposite of donald trump. he got elected to office, he
swore an oath to the constitution to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. he served as president for four years right up until the end when he wanted to exercise his rights under the imaginary january exception, and he incited a violent mob and insurrection to come up here and we all know what happened. he is being impeached and convicted for violating his oath of office that he took. he's not beingat prevented from taking his oath in the first place. the first amendment's on our side. he tried to overturn the will of the people, the voice of the people. he lost that election by more than 7 million votes. some people don't want to admit it. counsel for the president could not bring themselves to admit that the election's over in answer to the question from the distinguished gentleman from vermont. he refused to answer that. he said it was irrelevant, despite all the evidence you heard about the big lie and how that set the stage for his incitement of the insurrectionary violence against us.
first amendment is on our side. we are defending the bill of rights. we are defending the constitutional structure. we are defending the separation of powers. we're defending the u.s. senate and the u.s. house. against a president who acted no better than a marauder and a member of that mob by inciting those people to come here and in many ways, he was worse. he named the date. he named the time. and he brought them here and now he must pay the price. thank you, mr. president. >> thank you, mr. raskin. >> mr. president. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> mr. president, the senate is now ready to vote on the article of impeachment, and after that is done, we will adjourn the court of impeachment.r
sole h power of impeachment and that the president shall be im removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. further, section 3 of the 14th amendment to the constitution prohibits any person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states from holding any office under the united states. in his conduct, while president of the united states, and in violation of his constitutional oath, faithfully to execute the office of the president of the united states and to theof bestf his ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, donald john trump engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting violence against the government of the united states in that on january 6th, 2021, pursuant to the 12th amendment
to the constitution of the united states, the vice president of the united states, the house of representatives, and the senate met at the united states capitol for a joint session of congress to count the votes of the electoral college. in the months preceding the joint session, president trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the american people or certified by state or federal officials. shortly before the joint session commenced, president trump addressed a crowd at the ellipse in washington, d.c. there, he reiterated false claims that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. he also willfully made statements that in context encouraged and foreseeably resulted in lawless action at the capitol such as, if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
thus incited by president trump, members of the crowd he had addressed inme an attempt to amg other objectives interfere with the joint session's solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced members of congress, the vice president, and congressional personnel and engaged in other violent deadly destructive and seditious acts. president trump's conduct on january 6th, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election. those prior efforts included a phone call on january 2, 2021, during which president trump urged the secretary of state of georgia, brad raffensperger, and
threatened raffensperger if he failed to do so. he threatened the integrity of the democratic system. interfered with the peaceful transition of power and imperilled a co-equal branch of government. he therefore betrayed his trust as president to the manifest injury of the people of the united states wherefore donald john trump by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a h threat to national security democracy, and the constitution, if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-government and the rule of law. a donald john trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold a and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states. and demand that you, the said donald john trump, should be put to answer the accusations as set forth in this article and that such proceedings, examinations,
trialsro and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law and justice. >> each senator, when his or her name is called, will stand in his or her place, and they'll vote guilty or not guilty as required by rule 23 of the senate rules of impeachment. article 1, section 3, clause 6 of the constitution regarding the vote required for conviction on impeachment provides that, quote, no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present, close quote. the question is on the article of impeachment. senators, how say you? is the respondent, donald john trump,po guilty or not guilty? a roll call vote is required, and the clerk will call the roll.
ms. stabenow, guilty. mr. sullivan, not guilty. mr. tester, guilty. mr. thune, not guilty. mr. tillis, not guilty. mr. toomey, guilty. mr. tuberville, not guilty. mr. van hollen, guilty. mr. warner, guilty. mr. warnock, guilty. ms. warren, guilty. mr. whitehouse, guilty. mr. wicker, not guilty. mr. wyden, guilty.
>> the yeas were 57, and the nays were 43. >> the yeas are 57. the nays are 43. two-thirds of the senators present not having voted guilty, the senate judges that the respondent, donald john trump, former president of the united states, is not guilty as charged in the article of impeachment. presiding officer directs judgment to be entered in accordance with the judgment of the senate as follows. the senate, having tried donald john trump,vi former president the united states, by one article of impeachment, exhibited against him by the house of representatives and two-thirds of the senators present not having found him guilty of the charge contained therein, it is therefore ordered
and adjudged that the said donald john trump be and he is herebytr acquitted of the charg in said article. >> mr. president. >> majority leader is recognized. >> mr. president, i send an order to the desk. >> and the clerk will report. >> ordered, that the secretary be directed to communicate to thete secretary of state as provided by rule 23 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials and also to the house of representatives the judgment of there senate in the case of donald john trump and transmit a certified copy of the judgment to each. >> without objection, the order will be entered. >> mr. president. >> majority leader. >> mr. president, i move that the senate, sitting as a court of impeachment on the article against donald john trump,
adjourn. >> and without objection, the motion is agreed w to. the senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, state is adjourned. and could i have order, please? the presiding -- the acting sergeant-at-arms will escort the house managers out of the senate chamber. >> and after all that, it is over. brian williams here with you, along with nicole wallace. you're n looking at the united states senate chamber.
their lives were threatened. the chamber was looted and desecrated. many of their desks were ransackedwe and yet, at the endf this process, they have not found in sufficient numbers that donald trump incited that mob that showed up at the capitol. many of them wearing tactical gear, replacing american flags witham trump flags. earlier today, the democrats had a chance to introduce a new front,ne a new chapter, and extd this trial with depositions and the like. they chose notde to press the issue. in the end, the democrats took a pass, and in the end, as you saw, no minds were changed. the vote was 57-43, the bloc of 7 republicans that came forward during the test vote held together. no numbers were added to their ranks. nicole wallace? >> you know, hot takes are so
dangerous and so plentiful, and i resisted all week long pushing this weekee and this process through a political frame. i'll continue to do that today. at the end of the day, the record will reflect irrefutable evidence that donald trump did what liz cheney said he did, that he gathered a mob, he incited a mob, he sent the mob to march on the capitol, and when it was under way, when his own vice president's life was in danger, he incited it further. donald trump doesn't disagree with those facts. donald trump's lawyers didn't really dispute those facts, so the defense of donald trump was around his right to say the things that incited the riot. there was no defense of his conduct during the siege. and i think that our kids, our grandkids will have access to all of this evidence put in the record. i think america got to know one of theic most extraordinary pubc servants in our country, jamie raskin, who lost his own son. let's listen to chuck schumer.
>> of these facts were up for debate. we saw it. we heard it. we lived it. this was the first presidential impeachment trial in history in which all senators were not only judges and jurors but witnesses to the constitutional crime that was committed. the former president inspired, directed and propelled a mob to violentlyob prevent the peacefu transfer of power, subvert the will of the people, and illegally keep that president in power. there is nothing, nothing more un-american than that. there is nothing, nothing more antithetical to our democracy. there is nothing, nothing more insulting to the generations of american patriots who gave their lives to defend our form of government.ir
this was the most egregious violation of the presidential oath of office and a textbook example, a classic example of an impeachable offense, worthy of the constitution's most severe remedy. in response to the incontrovertible fact of donald trump's dguilt, the senate was subject to a feeble and sometimes incomprehensible defense of the former president. unable to dispute the case on the merits, the former president's counsel treated us to partisan vitriol, false equivalence, andse outright falsehoods. we heard theri roundly debunked jurisdictional argument that the senate cannot try a d former official, a position that would mean that any president could simply resign to avoid accountability for an impeachable offense, a position which ine, effect would render e senate powerless to ever enforce
the disqualification clause in the constitution. essentially, the president's counsel told the senate that the constitution was unconstitutional. thankfully, the senate took a firm stance, set a firm precedent with a bipartisan vote in favor of our power to try former officials for acts they committed while in office. we heard the preposterous claim that the former president's incitement to violence was protected byci the first amendment. the first amendment right to free speech protects americans from jail, not presidents from impeachment. if the president had said during world war ii duthat, quote, germany shouldha attack the unid states on long island, we've left it undefended, i suspect congress would have considered that an impeachable offense. finally, the defense counsel said that president trump was not directly responsible for the violence at the capitol. quote, his words were merely a
metaphor, his directions were merely suggestions, and the violent mob was just a spontaneous demonstration. but wind the clock back and ask yourself, if at any point donald trump did not do the things he did with the attack on the capitol have happened? there's only one answer to this question. of course not. o if president trump hadn't told his supporters to march to the capitol, if he hadn't implored them to come to washington on january 6th in the first place, if he hadn't repeatedly lied to them that the election was stolen, their country was being taken from them, the attack would not have happened, could not have happened. january 6th would not have happened but for the actions of donald trump. here's what the republican leader of the senate said. the mob that perpetrated the, quote, failed insurrection, unquote, was on january 6th was,
quote, provoked by president trump. you want another word for provoke? how about incite? yet still, still, the vast majority of the senate republican caucus, including the republican leader, voted to acquit former president trump, signing their names in the columns of history alongside his name forever.ry january 6th will live as a day of infamy in the history of the united states of america. the failure to convict donald trump will live as a vote of infamy in the history of the united states senate. five years ago, republican senators lamented what might become of their party if donald trump became their presidential nominee and standard bearer. just look at what has happened.a look at what republicans have been forced to defend.
look at what republicans have chosen to forgive. the former president tried to overturn the t results of a legitimate election and provoked ann assault on our own governmt and well over half the senate republican conference decided to condone it. the most despicable act that any president has ever committed and the majority of republicans cannot summon the courage or the morality to condemn it. this trial wasn't about choosing country over party, even not that. this was about choosing country over donald trump. and 43 republican members chose trump. they chose trump. it should be a weight on their conscience today. and it shall be a weight on their conscience in the future.